[madders94]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
remind me not to do that

Remember not to do that.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by lucaf)
but really it depends on how much support there is for these laws. if it is the case that the government is enforcing this against the will of the majority, then intervention seems justified. if the majority support it however, intervention would mean enforcing our morals on the populace, which while arguably justifiable would be incredibly impractical. we don't want another iraq on our hands

Don't honestly think military intervention would be required in some cases, Indonesia for example has an economy that relies pretty heavily on the developed world especially in regards to exports and they also receive a large amount of aid from the developed world for agricultural and conservation projects. If we, along with the majority of the developed world, applied sanctions we could cause their their economy to go downhill and it's no secret that no matter how much a government tries to blame its problems on other countries inevitably the Indonesian population will blame their government and as a result the government will either be forced to come back to the table and be a lot more willing to accept the terms we give them or be forced out and replaced with a government that was elected because of their promises to improve the economic situation and we would be their first port of call. Truth is it would probably hurt us slightly as well but no where near as much as them.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by madders94)
Remember not to do that.

cheers

[lucaf]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
Don't honestly think military intervention would be required in some cases, Indonesia for example has an economy that relies pretty heavily on the developed world especially in regards to exports and they also receive a large amount of aid from the developed world for agricultural and conservation projects. If we, along with the majority of the developed world, applied sanctions we could cause their their economy to go downhill and it's no secret that no matter how much a government tries to blame its problems on other countries inevitably the Indonesian population will blame their government and as a result the government will either be forced to come back to the table and be a lot more willing to accept the terms we give them or be forced out and replaced with a government that was elected because of their promises to improve the economic situation and we would be their first port of call. Truth is it would probably hurt us slightly as well but no where near as much as them.

that still relies on the public being against the government. how do you think the british public would react if the rest of the world placed sanctions on us unless we instated sharia law? I doubt we would turn on our government, thats for sure. if the public support sharia law, then unfortunately that would be incredibly hard to overcome

[tehforum]

(Original post by Martyn*)
... on Facebook.

http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/...long-jail.html

I just can't take you seriously when the quote from the signature has no authenticity - except from postings on Neo-Nazi forums such as Stormfront anf other such vile websites.

[K the Failure]

Buddhism is atheistic by nature.

Mind****?

[eggnchips]

Surely the court has to prove he does exist then............waits patiently.






Hahaha religion about as real as harry potter

[Martyn*]

(Original post by tehforum)
I just can't take you seriously when the quote from the signature has no authenticity - except from postings on Neo-Nazi forums such as Stormfront anf other such vile websites.

Keep burying your head in the sand.

http://www.archive.org/stream/TheJew...d/JSI_djvu.txt

[tehforum]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Keep burying your head in the sand.

http://www.archive.org/stream/TheJew...d/JSI_djvu.txt

Yes, a pamphlet issued by an anti-Jewish guy.

So?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by tehforum)
Yes, a pamphlet issued by an anti-Jewish guy.

So?

So? I never got my source from Stormfront. Okay, the writer is anti-jewish, but Sokolow's words appeared in the New York Times in 1922. It appears on page 81 of Webster and Kerlen's book :

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8...ations&f=false

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by mortaz786)
Nope not trolling.... He deserves to be locked up, this is a Muslim country which follows sharia law. He's not abiding so lock him up.

Better justice system that the farces who run this country *cough" cameron+clegg *cough*

So the law is automatically morally sound? So the murder of Jews was morally acceptable in Nazi Germany because it was made legal?

[prog2djent]

This is what Islam does, people are calling for his beheading, and he has been beaten up/death threats, even if the "majority" of Muslims are peaceful (depite having many anti-liberal and phobic thoughts), it still creates these people. Every country Christianity and Islam have entered, they have ruined, except the latter still hasn't gone through an enlightenment period.

[Perseveranze]

I have my doubts, I wreckon he did alot more than what the news article is saying. I'll see if there's any Indonesian sources that can shed some light.

(Original post by mortaz786)
Nope not trolling.... He deserves to be locked up, this is a Muslim country which follows sharia law. He's not abiding so lock him up.

Better justice system that the farces who run this country *cough" cameron+clegg *cough*

Indonesia don't follow Shariah. Where did you get that from?

Law of Indonesia is based on a civil law system, intermixed with customary law and the Roman Dutch law.

Bunch of hypocrites.

And even in an Islamic state, you wouldn't be jailed for saying "God doesn't exist", many people in history have said it. Even the people at the time of the Prophet(pbuh) said it and the Qur'an replied;

"Were they created out of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they have no certainty!" [Quran 53:33]

There's actually no issues if your saying it as a means to challenge others in a debate to prove God's existence. For example, in the early days of Islam;

Once Imam Abu Hanifa was called to a debate with some freethinkers and atheists and there was a time set for this debate.

When the time of the debate was about to start, the freethinkers were in a particular place before an assembly of people. Imam Abu Hanifa was very late from the agreed upon time. The attendees awaited him until they ere unable to stand or bear more and the freethinkers started to boast amongst themselves of their claims of rejecting the existence of Allah (Exalted and Dignified be He). They took from the absence of Imam Abu Hanifa from the agreed time, as a proof of his inability to prove what he claimed.

While the boasting of the atheists was about to reach its climax and the annoyance of the attendees from the late of the Imam was about to reach its peak, Imam Abu Hanifa arrived. He immediately begged the attendees to excuse him, claiming that he was supposed to attend in time, saying ‘I was on the opposite bank of the Tigris river and I did not find a boat to bring me across the river. So I was obliged to await more time but I did not find any boat. When I was despondent about finding a boat to transfer me to the opposite bank of the river I was about to return to my house. But from a far distance, I saw some wooden boards coming towards me on their own (without any sailor). When these boards came near me, they began to organize themselves until they form a beautiful boat so I mounted it, crossed the river and came to you.

Therefore, all freethinkers said, do you mock us O Abu Hanifa?! Is it not logical that the wooden boards can come to you on their own as you have descried and form themselves a boat?! He said, this is what you have gathered to argue with me. If you do not accept that the boards can make themselves into a boat, so, how do you claim that this well-knitted and marvelous world, with heaven, earth, Man and animal, created itself and its creation happed haphazardly without a creator?!. Therefore, the freethinkers were unable to pronounce any word or give any proclaim their (return) to Islam at the hands of Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) - Afif Abdel-Fatih Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam.

However if you kept going around, patronizing people that their God doesn't exist, and so on, then you'll probably get in trouble then.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
x

I was hoping you could answer a question. If you aren't a Muslim in a county that's adopted sharia are you subject to the Islamic law?

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
I was hoping you could answer a question. If you aren't a Muslim in a county that's adopted sharia are you subject to the Islamic law?

It's different to Democracy, in the sense that the rule of the majority does not apply to everyone.

The only time Shariah is allowed to get involved is;

1. If it involves a Muslim. Like a Muslim or a Non-Muslim did something to one another.

2. If the Non-Muslim themselves want to use a Shariah court.

3. If you started to cause public disorder. This is like going on the street and being all drunk/drinking. You can usually drink either in a pub which would be for Non-Muslim only or in your own privacy or other designated area's. For Muslims we're not allowed to drink Alcohol and would be punished for it (although technically people could in privacy, as that's the one place no one can interfere in, however it's still a sin, just not subject to punishment).

Usually personal matters and such for a Non-Muslim are handled by a Non-Muslim court and for Muslims it would always be Shariah. The punishments and laws would vary. For example, adultery is punishable in Shariah but it may not be in a Non-Muslim court.

Can watch this to get a better understanding; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNG3kiWnCzs

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
I was hoping you could answer a question. If you aren't a Muslim in a county that's adopted sharia are you subject to the Islamic law?

From western Academia on Jews and their courts based on earliest sources;

Cases concerning Jews cover a very wide spectrum of topics. If we bear in mind that the Jews of Jerusalem had their own separate courts, the number of cases brought to Muslim court (which actually meant putting themselves at the mercy of a judge outside the pale of their communal and religious identity) is quite impressive…The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…The Jews went to court to resolve much more than their conflicts with Muslim or Christian neighbours. They turned to Shari’a authorities to seek redress with respect to internal differences, and even in matters within their immediate family (intimate relations between husband and wife, nafaqa maintenance payments to divorcees, support of infants etc.)

Their possessions were protected, although they might have had to pay for extra protection at night for their houses and commercial properties. Their title deeds and other official documents indicating their rights were honoured when presented to the court, being treated like those of their Muslim neighbours1…The picture emerging from the sijill documents is baffling. On the one hand we encounter recurring Sultanic decrees sent to Jerusalem – in response to pleas of the Jews – to the effect that “nothing should be done to stop them from applying their own law” regarding a variety of matters. There are also many explicit references to the overriding importance of applying Shari’a law to them only if they so choose.

- Amnon Cohen, A World Within: Jewish Life as Reflected in Muslim Court Documents from the Sijill of Jerusalem (XVIth Century). Part One, 1994, Pennsylvania, p. 8.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Perseveranze)

1.I have my doubts

2. did alot more than what the news article is saying. I'll see if there's any Indonesian sources that can shed some light.

3. And even in an Islamic state, you wouldn't be jailed for saying "God doesn't exist",

4. many people in history have said it.

5. in the early days of Islam;

6. However if you kept going around, patronizing people that their God doesn't exist, and so on, then you'll probably get in trouble then.

1. Of course you do, burying you're head in the sand is part of you're debating tactic.

2. Since I doubt you speak the language there is no points looking. Have this https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbm=...w=1280&bih=619, a nice variety of sources, OMG, look even the Guardian being on the atheist side of the team! Various human rights groups, Indionesian atheists, credible sources etc etc

3. Saudi Arabia?

4. Deflecting from the issue, we aren't talking about history, this is 2012.

5. Again. Its become quite a standard "argument" amongst the apologists and appeasers, it is applied most to situations such as Christian imperialism, when people say that many Muslim nations are brutal, practace nationalism, are/have been imperialistic, had their own crucades, killed millions, and some of that goes on today, lots of suffering, intolerance and oppression etc etc, other people will say "well' look at christianity in the past, the crucades for exa ......", its a very, very poor argument, we aren't talking about millenia ago, this is today. Its serves as a comfort zone for their pre-set ideology and pre-existing perceptions though. Its clung onto.

6. So what if you partonise people, nobody, NOBODY should be harmed or threatened with having their freedoms taken away, suffer social, physical, and emotional violence against them, for criticism, scrutinising or mocking something. Guess what, that's the sort of thing that happened in Europe throughout 1000-1700 DC, pre-enlightenment, people were killed and tourtured for free speach, opinion and expression, look at gallilao, look at what the cathloic chrurch did. We have moved on. Islam Hasn't.

[Perseveranze]

(Original post by prog2djent)
1. Of course you do, burying you're head in the sand is part of you're debating tactic.

Unfortunatly, unlike *some people* I like to verify my sources before simply accepting them.

(Original post by prog2djent)
2. Since I doubt you speak the language there is no points looking. Have this https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbm=...w=1280&bih=619, a nice variety of sources, OMG, look even the Guardian being on the atheist side of the team! Various human rights groups, Indionesian atheists, credible sources etc etc

I know Indonesians, I'll ask them myself based on what their newspapers are reporting.

This is how I immediatly knew that the whole "necrophilia law" in Egypt was a facade. I'm pretty sure you did not.

(Original post by prog2djent)
3. Saudi Arabia?

Not an Islamic state. Learn the difference.

(Original post by prog2djent)
4. Deflecting from the issue, we aren't talking about history, this is 2012.

Then why are some ignorant people trying to blame Islam, when it's to do with the actions of a nation that doesn't even apply Shariah?

(Original post by prog2djent)
5. Again. Its become quite a standard "argument" amongst the apologists and appeasers, it is applied most to situations such as Christian imperialism, when people say that many Muslim nations are brutal, practace nationalism, are/have been imperialistic, had their own crucades, killed millions, and some of that goes on today, lots of suffering, intolerance and oppression etc etc, other people will say "well' look at christianity in the past, the crucades for exa ......", its a very, very poor argument, we aren't talking about millenia ago, this is today. Its serves as a comfort zone for their pre-set ideology and pre-existing perceptions though. Its clung onto.

Well, for Muslims, we like to look at things based on the teachings of our faith. Not what someone or "some nation" does or doesn't do today.

(Original post by prog2djent)
6. So what if you partonise people, nobody, NOBODY should be harmed or threatened with having their freedoms taken away, suffer social, physical, and emotional violence against them, for criticism, scrutinising or mocking something. Guess what, that's the sort of thing that happened in Europe throughout 1000-1700 DC, pre-enlightenment, people were killed and tourtured for free speach, opinion and expression, look at gallilao, look at what the cathloic chrurch did. We have moved on. Islam Hasn't.

Again, ignorantly blaming Islam.

If you keep patronising people, then all you want to do is annoy them, for no reason or no cause. You are not interested in having a civil discussion or a debate, you have no intentions of achieving anything progressive.

Islam clearly is not in support of the above. If however, you would like to debate, challenge, and have a progressive discussion about the existence of God (irrespective of your beliefs) then this is completely fine and has happened in the past in abundance.

I would refer you to read this.

ps. gallilao would not have been "persecuted" in an Islamic state for his scientific studies and beliefs, he wouldn't be extradited for saying the Earth is round.

[killa78]

(Original post by mortaz786)
lock him up and throw away the key

Lmfao.

Preach on! Ahaha

[f1mad]

Totally absurd.