[mariachi]

(Original post by Cattty)

muslims who are 2nd and 3rd generation have never lived by sheriah law, they are indocrinated into thinking it is good and it is what allah wants, but in reality they couldnt cope with it either.

it's a question of identity

especially frustrated youngsters will pick up any cause which gives them an identity, a sense of pride and purpose

once it was communism or nationalism, now it's "Islamism" and Shariah

so, these young people may say they want "shariah" : but they would be the first to run away from any "shariah-implementing" country

[Cattty]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
But you don't get it do you, I'm proving my point the fact that they are run in such a way, how can you say that they are following Sharia when they already go against the basic principle of running an Islamic state. A Islamic state is one which is run by an elected Caliphate which none are.

They aren't "strict" if they were a proper Islamic state they wouldn't have a royal family, nor dictatorships at all.
Have you ever looked at the Medina constitution or how Islam's prophet Muhammad pbuh ran the state when he was alive.
Their were nor religious police, people were free to do as they please, free to practice their faith..............really? thats so much crap, give me a link to that, also adultery is applied to both men and women, and adultery is having sex with someone other than your spouse when married.

Lets look at these nations which were rioting, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia all pretty much secular run countries under a dictatorship, Bahrain and KSA both Monarchy systems which aren't allowed in Islam............. on top of that the ones which have been toppled are electing religious parties into power.

yeh? so muhammad ran the state well did he? have a look at this- http://www.exmuslim.org/genocide%20o...20qurayza.html

heres another link which explains how shariah is in violation of the un convention of human rights- http://www.exmuslim.org/islam%20and%...%20rights.html

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Cattty)
yeh? so muhammad ran the state well did he? have a look at this- http://www.exmuslim.org/genocide%20o...20qurayza.html

heres another link which explains how shariah is in violation of the un convention of human rights- http://www.exmuslim.org/islam%20and%...%20rights.html

Wow did you even bother reading what I wrote, oh wait you got proven wrong so you automatically change the subject typical

"The leaders of Banu Qurayza were gathered and were asked by the Auws what the punishment is for a traitor in their own religion. They bowed their heads and stated according to the Torah the punishment is death."
Well done, they were punished by their own laws for being traitors.

Also well done again on that convention which was created by foreign ministers and no scholars again well done.
everything you have given really makes sense especially getting it from a site with "ex-Muslims" who will undoubtly try anything to prove they were right

[im so academic]

(Original post by NuckingFut)
Some people are very ignorant as to what shariah actually is, it seems.

Please, O wise one, tell us what Shariah law entails.

It should never, ever be implemented in Britain or in any other Western country.

[im so academic]

(Original post by boba)
I think the system in some places in the UK where there are shariah "courts" that people can choose to go to if they want to have a dispute settled under those rules is fine. but it being implemented as actual binding law no.

These should be closed down. It gives the impression you can choose which laws to follow.

[boba]

(Original post by im so academic)
These should be closed down. It gives the impression you can choose which laws to follow.

well no it doesn't you can't choose to go to a shariah court over something that has to be a legal matter only over civil things that you aren't obligated to get the law involved in anyway...

and everyone can choose whether to get the law involved in things like that..

if from the existence of these things someone gets the impression that they can choose which laws to follow it says more about the person being an idiot that it does about the system.

[Alimbo95]

Sorry, but any Muslim that says it belongs in the UK is out of their ****ing mind. Both my parents are Muslims (albeit liberal ones), but it pisses me off. It shouldn't extend to anywhere else but the Muslim countries that want it. Period.

[GrazzleDazzle]

I don't believe Shariah law has a place in the U.K. It's impractical to implement and also shariah law conflicts with U.K law. I beleive the U.K is better off with it's current farce of a system than shariah law which is even worse in my opinion.

[Cattty]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Wow did you even bother reading what I wrote, oh wait you got proven wrong so you automatically change the subject typical

"The leaders of Banu Qurayza were gathered and were asked by the Auws what the punishment is for a traitor in their own religion. They bowed their heads and stated according to the Torah the punishment is death."
Well done, they were punished by their own laws for being traitors.

Also well done again on that convention which was created by foreign ministers and no scholars again well done.
everything you have given really makes sense especially getting it from a site with "ex-Muslims" who will undoubtly try anything to prove they were right

well theres no point in trying to talk sense to a brainwashed person, the people who made that site clearly realised that their religion is based on hatred and lies and is only still around because people are heavily indocrinated from a young age- why else would people follow a paedophile from the dark ages. sadly u clearly havent- enjoy your ignorance

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Cattty)
well theres no point in trying to talk sense to a brainwashed person, the people who made that site clearly realised that their religion is based on hatred and lies and is only still around because people are heavily indocrinated from a young age- why else would people follow a paedophile from the dark ages. sadly u clearly havent- enjoy your ignorance

How am I a brainwashed person, when I have perfectly counteracted on your claims with valid proof.
Nor is that true, that is a very very small minority of people who are ex-Muslims, as with many other faiths, just cos such a minority believe that doesn't make the faith wrong.
Yes I'm indoctrinated despite the fact I follow it cos I want to.
Sadly your the ignorant one, always comparing modern day expectations with the past when expectations were different, and not looking at the facts.

[sophia_]

Shariah law has a place in countries where Islam is the most followed religion for lack of a better term.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Wow did you even bother reading what I wrote, oh wait you got proven wrong so you automatically change the subject typical

"The leaders of Banu Qurayza were gathered and were asked by the Auws what the punishment is for a traitor in their own religion. They bowed their heads and stated according to the Torah the punishment is death."
Well done, they were punished by their own laws for being traitors.

this makes no sense at all

executing war prisoners (and especially non-combatants) is a hateful act. Executing the entire male tribe (starting from pubescent boys) is hateful : how could, say, 12 year- old boys be considered as responsible for "treason" ? and, was "treason" specifically proved for each individual executed ?

as to the fact that the Muslims implemented a Jewish law, this is irrelevant : the responsibility for law and order was in the hands of the leader of the Muslims (in this case, Muhammad), and the ultimate responsibility for what happened was his.

So, the ultimate responsibility for this despicable war crime was his .

This episode reminds me of what happened in Srebrenica, where all post-pubescent male Muslims, captured by the Serbs, were killed (but, at least, those over 60 were spared) - probably all "traitors", also .....

best

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by mariachi)
this makes no sense at all

executing war prisoners (and especially non-combatants) is a hateful act. Executing the entire male tribe (starting from pubescent boys) is hateful : how could, say, 12 year- old boys be considered as responsible for "treason" ? and, was "treason" specifically proved for each individual executed ?

as to the fact that the Muslims implemented a Jewish law, this is irrelevant : the responsibility for law and order was in the hands of the leader of the Muslims (in this case, Muhammad), and the ultimate responsibility for what happened was his.

So, the ultimate responsibility for this despicable war crime was his .

This episode reminds me of what happened in Srebrenica, where all post-pubescent male Muslims, captured by the Serbs, were killed (but, at least, those over 60 were spared) - probably all "traitors", also .....

best

Does make sense.

If you recall, the Medina constitution enforces each individual tribes own laws, which they agreed to,another thing is that the act was carried out by the Auws another tribe within Medina.

Executing war prisoners, you can't compare today's war views with that of a world a 1000+ years ago where it was perfectly acceptable and make sense, considering the other option was to let them leave the fort, which would lead them to join forces with the enemies, back than it's tactical sense.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Does make sense.

If you recall, the Medina constitution enforces each individual tribes own laws, which they agreed to,another thing is that the act was carried out by the Auws another tribe within Medina.

Executing war prisoners, you can't compare today's war views with that of a world a 1000+ years ago where it was perfectly acceptable and make sense, considering the other option was to let them leave the fort, which would lead them to join forces with the enemies, back than it's tactical sense.

it's not about tactics, it's about morals

Muhammad was in overall charge of the Muslim army, and fully informed of what was happening (according to Ibn Ishaq's Rasulallah), so the ultimate responsibility was his

so, Muhammad's behaviour was a terrible example for today's armies : why, the Serbs at Srebrenica were more generous than him, since at least they didn't execute the old men above 60 (contrary to what happened to the Banu Qurayza)

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by mariachi)
it's not about tactics, it's about morals

Muhammad was in overall charge of the Muslim army, and fully informed of what was happening (according to Ibn Ishaq's Rasulallah), so the ultimate responsibility was his

so, Muhammad's behaviour was a terrible example for today's armies : why, the Serbs at Srebrenica were more generous than him, since at least they didn't execute the old men above 60 (contrary to what happened to the Banu Qurayza)

You are referring modern morals as a standard to the past which doesn't equate when morals where much much different.

Muhammad pbuh duty was to uphold to the law, each religious group were held accountable to their own laws.

At the time it's a perfect example for leaders stuck in those positions...................... why would armies today use Jewish law or would ever be in this circumstance
plus why the comparison when they are completely different time periods of morale expectations and situations....

[Cattty]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
How am I a brainwashed person, when I have perfectly counteracted on your claims with valid proof.
Nor is that true, that is a very very small minority of people who are ex-Muslims, as with many other faiths, just cos such a minority believe that doesn't make the faith wrong.
Yes I'm indoctrinated despite the fact I follow it cos I want to.
Sadly your the ignorant one, always comparing modern day expectations with the past when expectations were different, and not looking at the facts.

yeh people dont usually know their indoctrinated- or they wouldnt be. valid proof? haha seriously? ive not seen any of that yet.

oh so your gona do the whole 'muhammad wasnt a paedo cos aisha was legally old enough for him to **** in those days...'? the fact is, a 9 year old still has a childs body, which muhammad was attracted do (dirty bastard)- the definition of a paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to a child. aisha would have still looked like a child so whatever was culturally acceptable at the time is irrelevant- muhammad still fits that definition- which makes him a paedo, case closed.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
You are referring modern morals as a standard to the past which doesn't equate when morals where much much different.

Muhammad pbuh duty was to uphold to the law, each religious group were held accountable to their own laws.

At the time it's a perfect example for leaders stuck in those positions...................... why would armies today use Jewish law or would ever be in this circumstance
plus why the comparison when they are completely different time periods of morale expectations and situations....

Muhammad is supposed to be an example valid for all times and all places

so, yes, I am applying modern standards to Muhammad's behaviour : which was, in this circumstance, simply appalling.

So much for an exemplary behaviour

Best

[mariachi]

(Original post by Cattty)
yeh people dont usually know their indoctrinated- or they wouldnt be. valid proof? haha seriously? ive not seen any of that yet.

oh so your gona do the whole 'muhammad wasnt a paedo cos aisha was legally old enough for him to **** in those days...'? the fact is, a 9 year old still has a childs body, which muhammad was attracted do (dirty bastard)- the definition of a paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to a child. aisha would have still looked like a child so whatever was culturally acceptable at the time is irrelevant- muhammad still fits that definition- which makes him a paedo, case closed.

the problem is this : either Muhammad's "Sunnah" is an example valid for all times and all places (and then having sex with a (9-year old should still be considered acceptable), or we recognize that Muhammad's example has to be "historicized" and put in context

in other words, his behaviour cannot be considered as exemplary anymore.

It's either/or.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by Cattty)
yeh people dont usually know their indoctrinated- or they wouldnt be. valid proof? haha seriously? ive not seen any of that yet.

oh so your gona do the whole 'muhammad wasnt a paedo cos aisha was legally old enough for him to **** in those days...'? the fact is, a 9 year old still has a childs body, which muhammad was attracted do (dirty bastard)- the definition of a paedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to a child. aisha would have still looked like a child so whatever was culturally acceptable at the time is irrelevant- muhammad still fits that definition- which makes him a paedo, case closed.

Really I think it would be obvious, I choose to follow my faith, because I want to, not because others tell me to.
That's cos your unwilling to listen.

Once again you are comparing modern day with the past, which was completely different, especially in the middle east and at a time when life expectancy was much lower, so people matured sexually and physically much younger which also as a result of the time, mentality would be that of an adult if you compared that by todays standards. Once again, if you look into history, he married her not for attraction but for political unity Abu Bakr, not to forget that her age is also disputed. So that isn't case closed.

(Original post by mariachi)
Muhammad is supposed to be an example valid for all times and all places

so, yes, I am applying modern standards to Muhammad's behaviour : which was, in this circumstance, simply appalling.

So much for an exemplary behaviour

Best

Muhammad is an example for all time, in todays time, do we have groups of people following Jewish laws? If there was a proper war and someone asked they would say their own laws which wouldn't warrant death but imprisonment. So it does work, at that time it was perfectly acceptable as he followed it by the rules, even if they were followed today it would still be acceptable, as laws today in all reasons in treason is imprisonment.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Muhammad is an example for all time, in todays time, do we have groups of people following Jewish laws? If there was a proper war and someone asked they would say their own laws which wouldn't warrant death but imprisonment. So it does work, at that time it was perfectly acceptable as he followed it by the rules, even if they were followed today it would still be acceptable, as laws today in all reasons in treason is imprisonment.

this is absolute nonsense

you cannot justify a crime by saying to the victim "I am applying your own laws"

you are responsible for what you do, and the Muslims (allegedly, the "best of peoples") are supposed to be better than those alleged "sons of apes and pigs" (the Jews)

Muhammad is supposed to be an example for all times and all places, and he was responsible for this horrible massacre, since he was overall in charge for the Muslim army, who proceeded to the execution. Once again, read Ibn Ishaq

In this episode, there is nothing to be proud about, and most surely Muhammad did not act as an example to be followed in our days.

This sorry excuse ("he only implemented their laws") is a worthless and embarrassed justification.

Best