Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
Sameeh, you are overlooking a few facts.
Firstly, it is not necessary to have full shariah law for a state to be a muslim state. It is merely necessary for the constitution to say that the koran is the legal authority for the countries laws. If you look at the constitutions of most muslim-majority states, they have articles (usually right near the beginning) that specifically make islam and the koran the foundation of their law. Just like the US starts with the right to free expression, and the right to bear arms, and the separation of church and state, non-secular Islamic states start with the fact that the koran is the basis of the law - i.e. they are states governed by that particular established religion. That makes them muslim states - whether they are dictatorships, theocracies, or democracies.
Ghost, To start with, I said states with Muslim majority, and not Muslim states for such implication might give the impression that such states adhere to Islam. Your argument for a Muslim state (Not a state with Muslim majority) to adhere to Sharia laws is valid. As for the Arab states to have articles that make Islam and the Quran the foundation of their law, I do not know which constitutions have you been reading! With the exception of Saudi Arabia and Sudan (I am only discussing Arab states), non, I repeate, non mention or rely on any religious articles. They are all, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Sudan, use Civil Constitution while other apply Monarchy laws. These civil constitutions get amended with different flavours that serve the regime of these countries. I am not trying to brag but the only one that was voted on and accepted by the PNC was the Palestinian one. Now, as it is customary, these constitutions, start with "Besm Allah Al Rahman Al Raheem", which translates to "In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". This in itself is by no mean translates to a Sharia law. A small example to back my argument is the criminal Sharia law. Had any of these Arab states applied the Sharia law, you would've seen stoning for adultery, limb amputation for theft and whipping for other crimes, instead, the laws which apply to these crimes are identical to those adopted by the US. Another point are the so called "Elected" representatives to parliaments. In a normal and healthy environment, these representatives should reach the parliament champers through elections, according to the constitution of the vast majority of the Arab states. They don't because of the fraud that is applied in these elections. Also, the term president, Head of ministers, and other terms throughout the Arab world does not adhere to the Sharia laws. In Sharia laws, there are no elected representatives, there are only nominated members to "Majles al Shoura" by Amir al Mo'ameneen, who, after his passing, Majles al Shura Nominates another Amir.
Muslim states (many of these still have limited shariah courts, by the way):
with all due respect Ghost but this is BS! I do not know which states are you looking at! The only Islamic courts are those that govern marriages, divorces and inheritance. Having me saying that, the only way for your Islamic certificate to be approved is for it to be registered by civil services ministry. In the case of inheritance, if the deceased had a will, such will trumps the Islamic inheritance law. Do not believe me, there are millions of independent resources and resources to back my argument.
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Malaysia, Several states in Nigeria, Syria, Qatar, UAE, Malaysia, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Kuwait
(add any I missed)
You missed a lot and by far. You missed in your above erroneous statement! I do not know about Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Nigeria, Somalia and Afghanistan for they are not Arab and I do not have that much knowledge about them. As for the rest, I challenge you to show me one example of these countries carrying Sharia laws. Please read above.
We see this not just in the explicitly islamic constitutions of those countries, but in the real-world application of that law. Two good tests are punishment for apostasy, and the right of muslim women to marry non-mulims.
Very good points! First of all, let us take apostasy. None, I repeat, none, of these countries' constitutions, aside from Saudi Arabia and Sudan, include any mention of punishment of apostasy. I challenge anyone to bring me a paragraph in any of the constitutions of the Arab states I have mentioned that apply punishment for apostasy. In Palestine, I know of two families whereby half of them Are Christians and the other half are Muslims. Abu Rahmeh Family is a Christian one whereby a branch broke off and became Muslim and Al Shehab Family is Muslim whereby a branch broke off and became Christian and another branch became Druz.
That Islam-Bashing old British Guy Delivers Again!
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
Egypt does not punish it directly but does so, de facto, via laws against 'insulting Islam'.
Oh my god! Man Ghost, please man, do me a favour and plan a trip to Egypt. Better yet, why wait until then! Ask Rearden if he has ever encountered a people who are more blasphemous than Arab. The swear term "Yelan Rabak" and "Yelan Deenak" are on the tip of the tongue of every Arab. If what you are claiming is the case, 80% of our population would be executed.
Malaysia merely flogs apostates, rather than killing them.
Again, you are intentionally mixing Arabs with other Islamic states in an attempt to mix the most radical with us and present us as mad people.
This is not a theoretical unapplied law, like the commandment of residents of some English towns to do archery practise once a month. People have actually been executed for it.
The population of the Arab world is 320 Million, spread between 22 Arab states, aside from Saudi Arabia and Sudan, find me one example...ONE example of someone who was flogged or executed for apostacy. One example and I will shut my mouth forever.
Death for apostasy is not a human right violation that is the result of dictators. It has been the accepted orthodox position of islam for 1400 years. Democratic islamic states also have this law on the books. Any islamic state that has this law is simply following the accepted tenets of islam.
I have another challenge for you, show me one Arab constitution that applies such law for apostasy and I will shut my mouth forever. You want to make a claim, you better back it, otherwise it is a cheap attempt to simply smear. Honestly man.
I do not know the position of Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other allegedly 'progressive' islamic movements on the death penalty or punishment for apostasy, however my working assumption is that they are for it. Even if they were against it, the facts are that if they oppose it, then they are going directly against the hadiths and accepted interpretations the koran, as decided by a consensus of islamic scholars from islamic countries throughout the entire history of the religion.
This is where you are confused. By enacting a constitution, these Arab states are not following the Hadith and the Sharia, they are following civil laws...Do you see what i am saying?
Regarding marriage, almost all muslim states that I listed above are clear - muslim women are committing a criminal offence by marrying outside the religion. They go to jail if they do it.
This is a very valid point, but then again, you are misinformed! These women are not committing criminal offences, they are committing "Cultural" offences. It is a big shame in our tribal societies for any woman to marry from outside of her religion, be it, listen to this, Muslim OR Christian. Many Christian and Muslim women were killed by their own families for doing so. The family member who committed such a crime is prosecuted by the "Civil Law". Now, if a woman decided to go against the trend, she has the option of a civil marriage and please tell me you know that we have civil marriages in the Arab world.
[/B]
In some of those countries there is also gender inequality in the right to take multiple spouses.
This I agree with you! But in Tunisia, for Example, multiple spouses is illegal...Please tell me you knew that.
The facts are very simple. Islam mandates death or severe punishment for apostasy. This is inherently inconsistent with human rights and civilised society. Islam prohibits freedom to choose a husband for its women. That is also incompatible with basic human rights for women.There is no getting around that fact, because virtually every muslim scholar agrees on these two issues, and they have been core tenets of Islam for 1 1/2 millenia.
Again, I do not know if you are intentionally doing it or by accident. You started by making the wrong assumption about the Arab states, followed that up with mixing them with other none Arab states, put it in a blender and finally added the final touch of sprinkling some Islam to the mix and presented as a Muslim cake.
Again, Islam does! Arab states, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Sudan DON'T!
If any political movement in the muslim countries removes these restrictions and punishments, then that will be great.
How can they remove something that is not there!
But that will only be possible by REJECTING core tenets of islam as commanded in the koran and hadiths.
It is only by becoming to some extent anti-islamic that reform can occur.
Frankly Ghost, you are not the judge of that, we are, correct? Secondly, you could be a Muslim and living in a civil society as in the vast majority of Muslims in the Arab world. There are a fringe group that does not like that but they are dealt with severely. As for us taking dictations from others on how to reform, I wish them good luck. When you clean your state from Pat Robertson who wants to Nuke Iran because it is the devil and who implies that the people of New Orleans deserve what they got because of their partying, and from your top ranking Army General who stated "My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." you will have the right to breach reform.
And that is why non-racist non-muslims, who have actually lived in muslim societies, and interacted and had relationships with muslims, still ardently oppose islam on moral grounds. It is because certain core tenets of the religion are fundamentally barbaric, uncivilised, and totally inconsistent with liberty and human rights. No amount of finger-waving by apologists like yourself alters those facts.
I think you came to the wrong thread Ghost! We were talking about a man who had similar poor attempt as yours in presenting Arabs as backward Muslims. My argument was about such attempt. I did not argue in defence of Islam if you have noticed, I argued about the Arab states that had a Muslim majority. You are swinging aimlessly in hope of presenting an argument that has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese.
Oh my god! Man Ghost, please man, do me a favour and plan a trip to Egypt. Better yet, why wait until then! Ask Rearden if he has ever encountered a people who are more blasphemous than Arab. The swear term "Yelan Rabak" and "Yelan Deenak" are on the tip of the tongue of every Arab. If what you are claiming is the case, 80% of our population would be executed.
Malaysia merely flogs apostates, rather than killing them.
Again, you are intentionally mixing Arabs with other Islamic states in an attempt to mix the most radical with us and present us as mad people.
This is not a theoretical unapplied law, like the commandment of residents of some English towns to do archery practise once a month. People have actually been executed for it.
The population of the Arab world is 320 Million, spread between 22 Arab states, aside from Saudi Arabia and Sudan, find me one example...ONE example of someone who was flogged or executed for apostacy. One example and I will shut my mouth forever.
Death for apostasy is not a human right violation that is the result of dictators. It has been the accepted orthodox position of islam for 1400 years. Democratic islamic states also have this law on the books. Any islamic state that has this law is simply following the accepted tenets of islam.
I have another challenge for you, show me one Arab constitution that applies such law for apostasy and I will shut my mouth forever. You want to make a claim, you better back it, otherwise it is a cheap attempt to simply smear. Honestly man.
I do not know the position of Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other allegedly 'progressive' islamic movements on the death penalty or punishment for apostasy, however my working assumption is that they are for it. Even if they were against it, the facts are that if they oppose it, then they are going directly against the hadiths and accepted interpretations the koran, as decided by a consensus of islamic scholars from islamic countries throughout the entire history of the religion.
This is where you are confused. By enacting a constitution, these Arab states are not following the Hadith and the Sharia, they are following civil laws...Do you see what i am saying?
Regarding marriage, almost all muslim states that I listed above are clear - muslim women are committing a criminal offence by marrying outside the religion. They go to jail if they do it.
This is a very valid point, but then again, you are misinformed! These women are not committing criminal offences, they are committing "Cultural" offences. It is a big shame in our tribal societies for any woman to marry from outside of her religion, be it, listen to this, Muslim OR Christian. Many Christian and Muslim women were killed by their own families for doing so. The family member who committed such a crime is prosecuted by the "Civil Law". Now, if a woman decided to go against the trend, she has the option of a civil marriage and please tell me you know that we have civil marriages in the Arab world.
[/B]
In some of those countries there is also gender inequality in the right to take multiple spouses.
This I agree with you! But in Tunisia, for Example, multiple spouses is illegal...Please tell me you knew that.
The facts are very simple. Islam mandates death or severe punishment for apostasy. This is inherently inconsistent with human rights and civilised society. Islam prohibits freedom to choose a husband for its women. That is also incompatible with basic human rights for women.There is no getting around that fact, because virtually every muslim scholar agrees on these two issues, and they have been core tenets of Islam for 1 1/2 millenia.
Again, I do not know if you are intentionally doing it or by accident. You started by making the wrong assumption about the Arab states, followed that up with mixing them with other none Arab states, put it in a blender and finally added the final touch of sprinkling some Islam to the mix and presented as a Muslim cake.
Again, Islam does! Arab states, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and Sudan DON'T!
If any political movement in the muslim countries removes these restrictions and punishments, then that will be great.
How can they remove something that is not there!
But that will only be possible by REJECTING core tenets of islam as commanded in the koran and hadiths.
It is only by becoming to some extent anti-islamic that reform can occur.
Frankly Ghost, you are not the judge of that, we are, correct? Secondly, you could be a Muslim and living in a civil society as in the vast majority of Muslims in the Arab world. There are a fringe group that does not like that but they are dealt with severely. As for us taking dictations from others on how to reform, I wish them good luck. When you clean your state from Pat Robertson who wants to Nuke Iran because it is the devil and who implies that the people of New Orleans deserve what they got because of their partying, and from your top ranking Army General who stated "My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." you will have the right to breach reform.
And that is why non-racist non-muslims, who have actually lived in muslim societies, and interacted and had relationships with muslims, still ardently oppose islam on moral grounds. It is because certain core tenets of the religion are fundamentally barbaric, uncivilised, and totally inconsistent with liberty and human rights. No amount of finger-waving by apologists like yourself alters those facts.
I think you came to the wrong thread Ghost! We were talking about a man who had similar poor attempt as yours in presenting Arabs as backward Muslims. My argument was about such attempt. I did not argue in defence of Islam if you have noticed, I argued about the Arab states that had a Muslim majority. You are swinging aimlessly in hope of presenting an argument that has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese.