[de_monies]

I find it ironic that those that want Sharia law don't realise that you can't impose the law on a majority non Muslim country....

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Fungii)
Because Bin Laden is the figure head of Islam?

Islam is no less tolerant of any other religion, than any other religion today. I can give you examples of intolerant people within any of these religions. Go ask any right wing American what they think of Islam. You cannot help people who are hardened ignorants from any group of people.

Bin laden represented (still represents) a mindset of islam that is both numerous and wdespread - and has resulted in hundreds of separate terrorist attacks accross the globe. What has the average right wing american done to anyone else outside of his neighbourhood , apart from have some backward opinions.

You tar the 'christian west' of the past' with the intollerant brush, i dont see why you have such of a problem with it being applied to islam too

[f1mad]

The day sharia law is implemented in the UK, is the day this world will end.

Too bad these extremists seem to spoil it for the majority.

[Fungii]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
Bin laden represented (still represents) a mindset of islam that is both numerous and wdespread - and has resulted in hundreds of separate terrorist attacks accross the globe. What has the average right wing american done to anyone else outside of his neighbourhood , apart from have some backward opinions.

You tar the 'christian west' of the past' with the intollerant brush, i dont see why you have such of a problem with it being applied to islam too

The Muslim extremists do not rule countries, they are rogue groups with their own hidden agenda. An agenda that sure as hell doesn't benefit Islam as viewed by non-Muslims in the slightest. It isn't surprising that most of these rogue groups were in alliance with the capitalist, power hungry western rulers (not including the innocent civilians of these countries).

I'm not going to condone any of these rogue groups, but the west dropping bombs in a country killing innocent people in the process only creates more recruits for these rogue groups. Even the people who were once against these groups end up siding with the "lesser evil" to seek revenge for the death in cold blood of their loved ones.

But anyway, you cannot compare these mafia groups with whole nations.

[A level Az]

(Original post by ieatcheeseyo)
No, read the first few sentences...

He was talking about devout Muslims that want Sharia Law imposed... not referring to all Muslims.

Why does the thread title say "calling upon all muslims" then?

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by Fungii)
The Muslim extremists do not rule countries, they are rogue groups with their own hidden agenda. An agenda that sure as hell doesn't benefit Islam as viewed by non-Muslims in the slightest. It isn't surprising that most of these rogue groups were in alliance with the capitalist, power hungry western rulers (not including the innocent civilians of these countries).

I'm not going to condone any of these rogue groups, but the west dropping bombs in a country killing innocent people in the process only creates more recruits for these rogue groups. Even the people who were once against these groups end up siding with the "lesser evil" to seek revenge for the death in cold blood of their loved ones.

But anyway, you cannot compare these mafia groups with whole nations.

the taleban were the rulers of afganistan And they allowed/encouraged bin laden to carry out his crimes. They were both a mafia group and a nation (leaders of) same can be said of iran. the taleban only came to the attention of the us becuase their support for terrorism.

And regardless of that - the orignal point stated was christian west wouldnt have maintianed tolerance if they had defeated the saracens - as if all the chritian west had the same aims or way of thinking ( i think the point you were trying to make)
based on the same assumption - if bin laden had defeated the US, then freedoms and democracies of all sorts would have been destroyed with him spreading islam.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by King-Panther)
Suicide: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...ide-rate-males

Rape: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...pes-per-capita

Depression: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mo...ssive-disorder

And what do these statistics show? Do they support your claim. It's funny that you posted them, since the answer is no.

Try again

[Awesome_Sauce]

(Original post by Goku101)
Never have i thought there would be a day in which i would also fall blindly to the trap of creating a Muslim related thread.

Anyway, i want to ask you devout Muslims (forgive the title) that really want sharia law in the UK or anywhere around the world where they live, why don't you just go to countries that do have it? like those in the middle east? wouldn't you feel right a home? you come to the west to live a better life, but you have to follow the laws laid out here that have made the west the better and dominant place in the world and respect it.

sure, the middle east is a bad place to live, but at least they have the laws right? ever thought it might be bad because they implement the laws however small?

Why the negs bro? you know its true

There are only a few countries that have Sharia law. Which is a small percentage if you compare that to the number of countries with Muslim majority. If countries that have Muslim majority not enforcing sharia law, then why do you think that all of a sudden the UK with have sharia law where there is a minority of Muslims living there?

I just think people are getting hyped. First, people were like Jews want to take over the world and control everyone, now it's Muslims. Who's going to be next? Buddhists?!

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Yes, and America was wrong 100 years ago, and Mohammad was wrong 1400 years ago. It really is that simple

This is such a poor reply, if you stepped in a live debate you'd embarass yourself. On top of that, you quote mined me, leaving out the most important parts of my post.

No, I took out the important bit and didn't bother with the garbage.

I don't think you're in a position to talk about others embarrassing themselves in debates given your history. But if it makes you feel better to project your own inadequacies onto others, then I guess you're just going to keep on doing it.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Not a single respected historian, who studied Muhammad(pbuh)'s life said ; "wow he married a 9 year old? This is so wrong!".

Erm, what do "respected historians" have to do with ethics? Scholarly historians provide an accurate narrative of events from the past using a variety of sources taking into account the sources' reliability. Not even you, in your deep state of denial, would deny that Mohammad had sex with 9 year old child, because it is there, black and white, in the so called "authentic" and "reliable" Hadith. It is not the place of a scholarly historian to ascribe moral value and judgement to the past's events, that is for ethicists to do and for individuals to decide. So why are you talking about the need for a historian to say "he married a 9 year old? this is so wrong", when you know it is the case that he married a 9 year old (which historians agree on), and it is up to you to decide whether it was wrong or not.

On a side note and not really relevant, how does a historian become "respected"? I guess in your eyes, a respected historian is one who says things that are pleasing to your ears.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Some homework for you, go find out why then tell me the answer. And don't let your hate stupidify you any further.

The answer is that Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old child. Sex with children is wrong. It was wrong when Mohammad did it 1400 years ago, and it was wrong when some Americans did it 100 years ago. Like I said, it really is that simple. If you can defend the action of a 40 year old man pushing his penis inside a 9 year old child, then by all means bring on your defence.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
But surely it's better than the West? In the relative sense that is.

In its morality yes. Those who use some aspect of shariah, have have less drugs, less prostitution, less abortions, less gambling addicts, less alchol related deaths, less suicides, less crime/thefts, and the list goes on.

But even that pales compared to an Islamic state as far as morality and justice go.

Also there's too much oppression and corruption.

But surely it's still better than the West from you point of view? Are we agreed on that?

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
You mentioned on a previous thread that you wanted to emigrate from the UK. Which country would you emigrate to if you had a free choice?

Depending on how the Arab spring ends and the opportunity arising, I'm sure many Muslims would migrate.

I am not talking about "many Muslims", I am talking about you. Where are you thinking of emigrating to specifically?

(Original post by Perseveranze)

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
I think you're clutching at straws if you raise the issue of a "country" which is about 650m by 650m.

There's nothing "strawman" about this if you actually read the context of my original post.

The whole point of my post was to show that it's not Christianity that let Muslims build mosques, it was secularism (though it's still pretty difficult in some countries today).

True

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Whereas it was the Islamic Shariah that let Christians live and build Chruches in the Muslim land 1400 years ago.

No it was secularism also

(Original post by Perseveranze)
There are many examples of this -

This is the protection which the servant of Allah, Umar ibn Al Khattab, the commander of the faithful extends to them (non-Muslims):'The safeguarding of their lives, property, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches are not to be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will not be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be harmed. None of the Jews will live with them in Illiya' (Jersusalem). (Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 3, p. 609)

Nice secular situation

(Original post by Perseveranze)

"It is agreed that all the churches of Cairo were established after the coming of Islam." (See Islam and Dhimmis by Dr. Ali H. Al-Kharbotaly, p. 139)

Total bull. The Coptic Church was the dominant religion in Egypt prior to the invasion, occupation and colonialism by Arab imperialists. Maybe the present churches of Cairo date from after this invasion, but that is a very different situation to your false assumption that this means that there were no churches in Cairo prior to the date.

It's fascinating how your mind is so receptive to propaganda and deceptive arguments.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

At the time of the Umayyad caliphate, the people of the covenant, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Sabians, all enjoyed degree of tolerance that we do not find even today in Christian countries. They were free to practice the rituals of their religion and their churches and temples were preserved. They enjoyed autonomy in that they were subject to the religious laws of the scholars and judges. (Will Durant, The Story Of Civilization, Volume 13. p. 131-132)

Nice secular period, though I think the claim that they had greater tolerance then compared to what modern day "Christian countries" is a bit stretched.

(Original post by Perseveranze)

One of the Muslims caliphs, Abdul-Malik, took the Church of John from the Christians and made it part of a mosque. When Umar bin Abdulaziz succeeded him as the new Caliph, the Christians complained to him about what his predecessor had done to their church. Umar wrote to the governor that the portion of the mosque that was rightfully theirs be returned to them if they were unable to agree with the governor on a monetary settlement that would satisfy them. (Yusuf Qaradawi, 'Ghayr al-Muslimeen fil-Mujtama' al-Islami,' p. 32)

I don't know which "Church of John" you are talking about, but I presume it is the one in Damascus. Funny how it's still a mosque to this day. Not sure what the relevance of this story is beyond cheap and shallow PR. So the church was stolen, a statement was made that it was to be returned, but it never was. This sounds a bit like the way Israel negotiates. Offers back things that do not belong to it anyway and acts like it is doing the kind and benevolent act.

Again, you suggestable mind is very revealing, no wonder you swallowed the Hizb ut-Tahrir ideology so easily.

(Original post by Perseveranze)
In Christian lands, forget building mosques, if they find you, they'll burn you.

How many times have you been burnt then?

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Before he tries to argue; "but Muslim countries don't report rapes!", should show this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4452962.stm

So you agree that it isn't possible then to compare rape rates then?

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
And what do these statistics show? Do they support your claim. It's funny that you posted them, since the answer is no.

Try again

My claim was that those rates were higher in the west and those stats do prove my claim.

Read again.

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by King-Panther)
My claim was that those rates were higher in the west and those stats do prove my claim.

Read again.

Except the studies are looking at almost exclusively Western countries. The suicide stats included just one Muslim country (Turkey), the depression states included just one country (Egypt), and the rape stats included just 9 (and were distributed throughout the range). So you didn't actually bring forward any evidence to support you claim, and we didn't even start on whether the data is actually reliable.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Rat_Bag)
Except the studies are looking at almost exclusively Western countries. The suicide stats included just one Muslim country (Turkey), the depression states included just one country (Egypt), and the rape stats included just 9 (and were distributed throughout the range). So you didn't actually bring forward any evidence to support you claim, and we didn't even start on whether the data is actually reliable.

No, they include the whole world, thats my point, the highest is in western countries. As for the rapes, there were only 5 muslim country.

[ieatcheeseyo]

(Original post by A level Az)
Why does the thread title say "calling upon all muslims" then?

He's asking forctheir opinion?

[A level Az]

(Original post by ieatcheeseyo)
He's asking forctheir opinion?

That contradicts what you said before

[ieatcheeseyo]

(Original post by A level Az)
That contradicts what you said before

He's asking ALLL Muslims to comment about the people that do want sharia law imposed...
He even says NOT ALL Muslims when referring to the Law...

[Goku101]

(Original post by rm22)
'HERE me out' ? Damn you must've failed English...

no i didnt just hated it boring as hell so i dont bother trying to get puncuation, grammer correct. i see no point if you can understand me. i do aerospace engineering, thats intersting.

[Goku101]

why are there so many quotes from quran/scriptures? this isnt a converting thread

[Rat_Bag]

(Original post by King-Panther)
No, they include the whole world, thats my point, the highest is in western countries.

WHAT?! The Depression index includes only 18 countries. Are you aware that there are more than 18 countries in the whole world? And the sole Muslim country, Egypt, was in the upper half of the cohort? I mean, according to the data it had higher rates than UK.

Do you realise you are making a bit of a fool of yourself?

(Original post by King-Panther)
As for the rapes, there were only 5 muslim country.

Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Oman, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Maldives, Guinea, Azerbaijan, Egypt. Do you expect to be taken seriously with regarding to commenting on statistics, when you cannot even count?

[LiterallyInsane]

(Original post by Goku101)
Never have i thought there would be a day in which i would also fall blindly to the trap of creating a Muslim related thread.

Anyway, i want to ask you devout Muslims (forgive the title) that really want sharia law in the UK or anywhere around the world where they live, why don't you just go to countries that do have it? like those in the middle east? wouldn't you feel right a home? you come to the west to live a better life, but you have to follow the laws laid out here that have made the west the better and dominant place in the world and respect it.

sure, the middle east is a bad place to live, but at least they have the laws right? ever thought it might be bad because they implement the laws however small?

Why the negs bro? you know its true

i bet your only neging me because your angry at me pointing out something you dont want pointing out do you?

What middle east countries has Shariah Law, even Saudi Arabia is not fully Shariah implemented. Also may I say majority of Muslims like living here, you can practice your religion freely majority of the time. So why should we pack up and leave. We have build our livelihoods here, this is our home and no one can tell us to leave.