No worse than laws based on the bible.
Any laws based on religion are "bad". Religion has no place in the formation of a state in my opinion. And I think everybody in this thread got trolled hard by somarin.
Any law that is supposed to be justified by religion is a bad law.
Thanks. Once again you've stated what someone else has already said. Really people. Come on. And also you cannot say that all laws justified by religion are bad laws. There could be one by any religion that could work in today's time period so please take your indirect religion bashing somewhere if you are not going to add a useful thought to the debate.
There are further issues with the claim that I can go into if needed. It is important to realize that the methodology is what is important in the claim.
Some see Islam as a male dominated society, and at the same time, some see the Western system as a burden on women. Gender roles still is a discussed topic nowadays you know.
If willing people want to follow Sharia law and it is not part of the state or forced on the unwilling (as true Sharia law is) then they can do whatever they want.
"Taking out of context herr derr" card is getting old.
I think we are having relative problems.
Muslim=follower of Islam
follower of Islam= enforcer of Sharia law
Sharia law= moral code and religious laws of Islam written in the Quran and passed down from the prophet Muhammad for Muslims to follow and for them to enforce.
Muslim who doesn't follow Sharia law=Not really a true believer and follower of Islam
Its like nitpicking at a religion on what parts you'll follow and which parts you won't. It doesn't really work like that and their credibility on how the religion works cannot be sustained because of their ignorance or ineptitude to teach themselves more of their own belief in a religion.
I feel like we might have a slight imbalance of knowledge on the issue and we should draw directly from the Quran or other unbiased pieces for our sources. My sources came from all over the internet by simply typing "Quran", "Sharia", or "Islam". Of course I used some of Wikipedia which I think is actually a very reliable source at some times.
More debating, less arguing please.
In before someone pulls the "out of context, it's just war" card again.
Well, the Quran is a hard book to understand. There are many conflicting points in the Quran where one half is completely peaceful and the other half says "fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them." Surah (9:5) which is to say that Muslims would fight against non-Muslims. Now there are two different kind of Muslims. Ones that follow it completely in chronological order and ones that follow it historically as to not follow parts that were only beheld extremely in that time period. Ones that follow it completely are going to be more extreme and follow all that the Quran says and only use the first half as their cover of peace and sharing of beliefs. The other kind of Muslims will read the whole thing and delve into why certain say violent things. It is a breaking apart of Islam to discard violence from their beliefs and only keep the peace. The Quran is a very violent book and there is a large amount of Muslims who will only follow the peace while others who follow the latest writings from their prophet Muhammad to incorporate control and power for their religion. Sharia law is for those kinds of Muslims, not the peaceful ones.
IMO if a religion wants to continue being a religion in this day and age, all of the violent and hostile aspects need to be totally stripped out of it, because it's totally retarded that people still think it's okay for them to be there, and to be taken in any regard, I don't care if it's 'a story' or 'not to be taken literally' because people still will, regardless of how logical you assume they are.
You don't get biologists killing people and saying 'oh well, we're all going to die, biologically, so it makes no difference if I kill you now' even though it's technically correct.
There will always be exceptions, namely people who believe something and coincidentally their belief is reinforced, then they take it to the next level (which is great for healing when you understand it, not so great when you have lunatics thinking that it's okay to kill people because they predicted the sun would come out..)
yer its bad lol
So woe to those who pray 107:4
Dimwits like you would take this literally and then cry on forums on how Islam is weird by making prayer an obligation and then slamming their followers for it. When you take stuff out of context and literally, you'll find the quran full of apparent contradictions and mistakes.
Also wife beat up part is bull shit. Once again, you cant interpret the quran according to your liking of your local anti-islamic arab who knows jack shit about the religion. This I feel is the major problem in the misunderstandings. I could go on, but no matter what you say, I still think that what an islamic authority has to say about their book/religion is more right that what an anti-islamic site/bigot wants to portray.
Source : http://www.islamawareness.net/Wife/beating1.html
There is also this source (http://www.sublimequran.org/) which is encouraging the use of the word separate instead of beat. Could copy pasta here but cant be bothered. I think the above wall of text proves the point pretty well.
Source : http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/0...49825920100702
This is coming from a Sikh (who btw consider Muslims their enemies - one of their supposed rituals is washing their hair in blood of a killed Muslim). The article actually mentions that the Sikh and Hindus were better off under the Taliban than Karzai's regime.
Tell me, why these fundamentalists Taliban, who didnt give a damn what the world thought about bamiyan buddhas, just go ahead and wipe out the entire non-muslim communities under their rule?
Why is it that when their Prophet conquered Mecca, he offered amnesty to the pagans, instead of wiping them out? Or the Coptics of Egypt were never wiped out? Or the Hindus of India under their rule? The Jews under Ottomans? The Christians in Syria? The list goes on and on.
GL spreading misinformation and hate. Hate mongerers like you are the problem in this world.
Sura 4:34 says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)
65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)
Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)
Sura 4:11 says:
The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)
And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).
And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)
a 4:129 says:
It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)
Islam itself is violent, I got no word for Muslims themselves.
And it's funny the word "hate mongerers" is coming from you. I am trying to stop a violent discriminative hate cult, and I am a hateful person for that?
gg would read again
People thinking that Islam is more violent than any other religion because they find lines from holy texts and pull them out to bolster their argument. Can you get more bigoted in your explanations?
C57 please don't pull what I say out of context. Muslims agree it is a violent book, but most Muslims make it out to be a peaceful religion where its usage is pertained to the events that are happening and if to works during their time period. They actually do comprehensions of everything in the Quran whereas the "extremists" take everything as it is. Pure followers of the Quran will take everything literally in it which will make them violent while most of the other Muslims have to comprehend it. Also as I have stated pure followers of the Quran are violent because they follow the second half of the Quran containing all the new suras written by their prophet Muhammad after they immigrated to Medina form Mecca and they were much more violent than peaceful ones he wrote in Mecca so that means any conflicts the Medina suras would overwrite the Meccan suras.
All in all the Quran is a violent book and Muslims agree, but it doesn't mean that all of them use everything they listen to in the Quran due to the reasoning of why their prophet Muhammad wrote them.
Also CabooseRvB it can be a very violent religion due to the fact the Quran (Islam's book) is violent as well not just because there's some little scribble in some book, but thanks for your daft addition to our debate.
How can you tell if an Arab just had sex?
His eyes are all red from the mace.
(User was banned for this post ("racism" - GunFox))
IMO all beliefs are distractions to make the delusion of living more manageable.
No one wants to have nothing, religions etc are there to 'soften the blow'.
Going seriously out of your way to cause distress or hurt for other people who are in the same boat as you seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Shariah law is a corrupted code of rules to suppress and govern those under any 'Muslim' state.
They entail to fabrication and rhetoric of which Islam is the only path to justice and righteousness and that all other religions and beliefs are to never be tollerated.
That women and said others are to be lower in society and are expendable to the kingdoms and sovereignties in the name of God (Though that would sound like it's against his will).
Shariah law translates to;
"Be a Muslim slave to Islam or else."
Any law essentially translates to 'be a slave to this law or else'.
The law as it stands in the UK at the moment is fine; if you disagree, or wish to abide by other laws, move to a country where those laws are in effect.
View 1: As explained above (which you obviously didnt read) The word "daraba" which implies desert/seperate (ie send them back to their families) or divorce. This makes more sense because it goes with the Prophets teachings that the wife should not be beaten.
View 2: This is a view of a companion of the Prophet who said it means to hit the wife with a stick smaller than the size of an index finger and it should induce no pain. This obviously holds less ground because what the Prophet said is > than what his companion thinks.
In either case, you loose trying to prove Islam allows brutal/savage behavior of the husband towards the wife.
So yeah, your an bigot. Repeating stuff like a broken record, without even bothering to research on the topic.
Oh wait, your scholarly input of "indirect" means you must be right >.>
Islam is violent towards those who commit what it considers acts of a wrong-doing. I already accept that and its just their take on how to treat criminals. They are entitled to their methods.
While it is true that certain verses are Meccan and Median whatever, I have a feeling its not as simple a case like you mention. I have to google more on that.
Please try to be neutral. The "muslims" you talk about are misfits of Islam, a few who keep repeating BS like sonerin trying to get some support and sympathy from the west. I agree the Quran is a violent book, but I also believe it is a peaceful book, ie there is a balanced amount of violent+peace verses. It needs to be violent against aggressors, and peaceful towards those who dont seek to destroy islam and want to be in peace as well.
Makes sense to me.
C57. I keep trying to tell you about the two sides of Islam. It's not a speculation. You can look it up. Muslims who take into account the violence of the Quran and put out reasons of why it's in there and why it is no longer viable for modern day living to following such a law. It is not a peaceful book. If you follow it exactly as it says you will not be peaceful to non-Muslims, but if you follow it in a way where you research and comprehend the Quran you can really take out the peace in the book. The contradictions usually end up giving towards a violent ruling in the Quran because of the later writings, but there was reason behind its writings and it is no longer viable in today's society. I am being as neutral as I can on a subject where I was very willing to put aside all opinions to learn exactly how things are for the religion Islam instead of listening to the media. It is a very interesting learning experience for me on how there can be peaceful Muslims since before I thought it just wasn't possible.
The non-muslims under islamic rule have rights, rights to their own courts, rights to their own religious places of worship, rights to security (whether it is harm from non-muslims of muslims), rights to charity. But they dont have rights to propagate their religion. How is that being a slave to a muslim?
Once again, as a whole it is balanced. You have to live amongst Muslims to know their point of view, CNN/BCC/ABC are all BS and hardly neutral.
The contradictions are usually explained through some level of research, something nobody bothers doing nowadays.