Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muffinz)
    "It's 12:15 in the big brother house. Jessica and Lucy are in the garden. Jessica has removed her headscarf, and is summoned to the diary room, where she is promptly stoned by members of Islam4UK."
    Lool, I shouldn't even be laughing at that because I am a Muslim but generalisations and stereotypes are funny at times.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    What you've written here is absolute nonsense. Religious beliefs are not founded on anything other than dogma. It is arbitrary, and therefore to peddle it as truth is to peddle misinformation. The information that I peddle can either be proven or heavily evidenced. If you are a creationist, then yes, you might consider my information to be misinformation, but since you have no rational basis for that belief, and since I have a wealth of evidence for mine, then you are peddling misinformation, and I am not. It's as simple as that.



    A society in which a group of men allow a healthy man to set himself alight in the middle of a busy street, and then stop emergency services from saving him is a terribly misguided and immoral society. Can you not see that?



    If they have supernatural parts, then they have parts for which there is no evidence or basis, and therefore to spread those parts as if they were truth is to deceive and indoctrinate without good reason for doing so.

    And what one man considers to be 'spiritually bettering' themselves can be, and often is, detrimental to the rest of society. Some people think that flying an aircraft into a sky scraper and killing thousands of people in mass terrorist attacks brings them to a place of spiritual enlightenment. We cannot tolerate people's arbitrary beliefs because, unless they have a rational basis, they are unpredictable and unsafe. It would be insane to entertain such an idea, ESPECIALLY since there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S SUCH A THING AS A SOUL IN THE FIRST PLACE.



    Religion is not thinking because it relies on faith, i.e. arbitrary selection of dogma, rather than intellectual inquiry.

    There is more to religion than believing in God, but all religion is built on things for which there is no evidence or rational basis, and therefore, it is built on nothing that should be tolerated.

    I've read the Bible in its entirety, and I can definitely say that I would not recommend reading it to other people because it is full of:

    1) Arbitrary nonsense.
    2) Unfounded statements.
    3) Encouragement and justification of racism, sexism, oppression, persecutation, etc.
    4) Misinformation.

    Reading the Bible offers nothing to the intellectual mind.
    You have done nothing but spout subjective opinion and nothing more. Any evidence you have against a God existing is as flawed as the reasons for a God not existing. Otherwise noone would believe in God you fool.

    No I can't see how this is in any way immoral. It was his decision, it affected no-one else in a negative way. It is only misguided in your opinion, which is unfortunately for you, completely powerless. In my opinion, it seems crazy to someone living over here, but it was as a protest to the violence of the vietnam war. And in that context, it doesn't seem very crazy at all. Misguided would be a matter of opinion. In no way is it remotely immoral. I don't know what you think morals are mister...

    Your attitude towards the bible shows how only the depth of your ignorance. I am almost sure you have not read it, merely read atheist propaganda. Anyone who has read the bible would easily pick out parts which are complete rubbish, and dated etc. However any sensible person would also be able to see that it holds great wisdom, as does every holy book.

    Your last sentence well, I'm not even going to get started. You are very proud of atheism, and that pride will or has turned against you. It will only create more anger inside you. But you will not listen for some time yet...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Lool, I shouldn't even be laughing at that because I am a Muslim but generalisations and stereotypes are funny at times.
    There really is no reason why you shouldn't laugh at someone poking fun of your religion. Everyone bigs racism up as a huge issue, when it just isn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    Dude, Islam allows people to marry people from the book. I think it refers to christianity and jews, but it has been extended by different schloars. Some cultures do not like people marrying other people. For example, I can gurantee that I pakistinai family would not let their son to marry a Inidain women becuase of religon rather ethnic tensions and past history.



    Every religon is man-made. I mean men are more of a religous figure. Islam has done alot for women, while are beloved prophet muhamed was alive. For example they had:
    [LIST][*]Rights such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. We were the first people to give women such rights. [*]I mean we were also the first people to abolish female infanticide[*]We also made education more attainable for women[*] "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43) from hadith which comes from Prophet Mohamed’s teachings.

    Now I know this new Muslim society are very corrupt that’s why personally any Muslim will know that there is know court that can fully identify them as a 'real sharia court'. Just because a few Arabs decided not to follow something’s doesn't mean they could justify it through Islam, I mean heck most women in Arab countries would of loved to live in prophet society as for they were generally more accepted.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    How can anyone justify Islam's treatment of women, when it imprisons Afghans under blue shuttlecock burqas and makes Pakistani girls marry strangers against their will?

    How can you respect a religion that forces women into polygamous marriages, mutilates their genitals, forbids them to drive cars and subjects them to the humiliation of "instant" divorce? In fact, none of these practices are Islamic at all.

    Anyone wishing to understand Islam must first separate the religion from the cultural norms and style of a society. Female genital mutilation is still practised in certain pockets of Africa and Egypt, but viewed as an inconceivable horror by the vast majority of Muslims. Forced marriages may still take place in certain Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, but would be anathema to Muslim women from other backgrounds.




    How 'dumb' can you be to not know that a different country has different laws, I mean most Muslims come here because of their own countries crazy laws. I mean I wouldn't go to Somalia because of Al-shaabab who is some crazy ass people. I wouldn't expect a nice government to hold me in welcoming hands; rather I would expect a group of Islamic extremist persuading me to join them in their deluded opinion of a 'justified jihad'.
    1) The Qu'ran contains the statement that you can beat your wife mildly without leaving marks.

    2) Don't cite the Hadith to persuade me of your progressive interpretation of Islam, because the Hadith is full of far more violent and offensive verses than the Qu'ran and if you take it as evidence there is far more to harm your interpretation than help it.

    3) Some practices are cultural and are justified by imams as Islamic in those countries where they are practiced - yes that is true, but does not invalidate what I have said. I am speaking of how Muslims behave and what they justify according to their religious beliefs; the reality of how Islam is, not how we would like it to be. If you have a different interpretation that is more progressive, good for you, but you should be arguing with more regressive Muslims and Islamists rather than writing them out of your depiction of Islam and arguing with me as if such regressive interpretations do not exist.

    4) If Islam was progressive for 6th century pagan Arab tribal societies, then good for them, but less good for Muslim women since as unless it continued to progress (and many Islamic scholars have not) it was bound to and has become a regressive force fixing gender relations in the past. This is true of all religions to varying extents, but some have proved to be better at continuing to allow for female progression towards equality. Most interpretations of sharia advocate the stoning of adulteresses, as the old Jewish law did, but Jews no longer apply it and Jesus overturned this saying 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

    5) You obviously haven't understood my point about man made law. As I don't follow Islam I obviously think Muhammad made it all up (plagiarizing substantially from Judaism and Christianity in the process). But there I was speaking in Islamic theological terms. Obviously most Muslims believe that the Qu'ran is the direct word of God, my point was that within this Islamic framework of understanding the Sharia schools developed after the death of Muhammad and after he had said the revelation of God was complete, so clearly Muslims should recognise that the Sharia are man-made interpretations based upon what they believe to be the divine source - the Qu'ran. The reason for saying this is that Islamists use the argument in favour of Sharia that it is God-made law and thus unalterable and valid for all time, while other laws they say are flawed, changeable and man-made and thus they argue should be rejected. Even from an Islamic perspective I am saying that this is nonsense, clearly as the Sharia was not dictated to Muhammad by God as Muslims believe the Qu'ran was, but rather codified after his death, it must be seen by Muslims as purely man-made even when it draws upon the supposedly divine Qu'ran for inspiration.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    There really is no reason why you shouldn't laugh at someone poking fun of your religion. Everyone bigs racism up as a huge issue, when it just isn't.
    No, because if you ask someone who they are, they might refer to themselves based on their ethnicity and religion. Racism is a 'biggie' because it has been associated with lots of negativity and outbreak in the past.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    No, because if you ask someone who they are, they might refer to themselves based on their ethnicity and religion. Racism is a 'biggie' because it has been associated with lots of negativity and outbreak in the past.
    yes, by the media. In reality it is not a biggie. People take it far too seriously. No-one would get so angry if they didn't have a feel that they were somehow better than "non believers" anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    1) The Qu'ran contains the statement that you can beat your wife mildly without leaving marks.

    2) Don't cite the Hadith to persuade me of your progressive interpretation of Islam, because the Hadith is full of far more violent and offensive verses than the Qu'ran and if you take it as evidence there is far more to harm your interpretation than help it.

    3) Some practices are cultural and are justified by imams as Islamic in those countries where they are practiced - yes that is true, but does not invalidate what I have said. I am speaking of how Muslims behave and what they justify according to their religious beliefs; the reality of how Islam is, not how we would like it to be. If you have a different interpretation that is more progressive, good for you, but you should be arguing with more regressive Muslims and Islamists rather than writing them out of your depiction of Islam and arguing with me as if such regressive interpretations do not exist.

    4) If Islam was progressive for 6th century pagan Arab tribal societies, then good for them, but less good for Muslim women since as unless it continued to progress (and many Islamic scholars have not) it was bound to and has become a regressive force fixing gender relations in the past. This is true of all religions to varying extents, but some have proved to be better at continuing to allow for female progression towards equality. Most interpretations of sharia advocate the stoning of adulteresses, as the old Jewish law did, but Jews no longer apply it and Jesus overturned this saying 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

    5) You obviously haven't understood my point about man made law. As I don't follow Islam I obviously think Muhammad made it all up (plagiarizing substantially from Judaism and Christianity in the process). But there I was speaking in Islamic theological terms. Obviously most Muslims believe that the Qu'ran is the direct word of God, my point was that within this Islamic framework of understanding the Sharia schools developed after the death of Muhammad and after he had said the revelation of God was complete, so clearly Muslims should recognise that the Sharia are man-made interpretations based upon what they believe to be the divine source - the Qu'ran. The reason for saying this is that Islamists use the argument in favour of Sharia that it is God-made law and thus unalterable and valid for all time, while other laws they say are flawed, changeable and man-made and thus they argue should be rejected. Even from an Islamic perspective I am saying that this is nonsense, clearly as the Sharia was not dictated to Muhammad by God as Muslims believe the Qu'ran was, but rather codified after his death, it must be seen by Muslims as purely man-made even when it draws upon the supposedly divine Qu'ran for inspiration.
    To be honest your right to an extent, there is some ambiguity and this can lead to people exploiting and taking verses out of context to jusitify their desires. For exmaple (no anti-semitism intended) the jewish communties have been heavily cristied also becuase of wife beating. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life...Violence.shtml Many jews would argue that their verses were taken out of context or show other rabbis that disagre with it. Basically this is my view :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqOpkcQwgvE
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    I have asked the question, clearly, twice. I will ask it a third time. Where else would a country so inspired by religion get an idea like stoning for rape from? In british and western history, such a thing has never ever happened, which is saying something as the death penalty has been in place since law began.
    No you didn't you moron show me those 3 posts before you edit them. Sharia law prescribes the death penalty for the rapist NOT the rape victim. Now present me the evidence whereby Sharia law allows for the stoning of rape victims otherwise be quiet.

    And you don't think people were stoned in British history? what are you a retard? Additionally, I already told, don't send me your biased news articles who on a whole contradict simple logic and Islamic law so in essence as yourself, they're garbage.

    This is exactly the thing. I think freedom of speech is a form of extremism in itself. It should never ever be granted to such individuals and muslims who are intolerant of this country's values and law.
    Whatever.

    When did I say they carry out criminal punishments? Moron, again, learn how to argue.
    Well then why are you bringing it up then you fool.

    It had everything to do with what we're discussing. Which is sharia law in courts. The problem I have with this is intolerance. I provided some thoughts on that intolerance. So you fail. Again.
    You've provided no thoughts, you've embarrassingly tried to weasel yourself out when you got completely demolished :rofl:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So long as they're a voluntary method of Alternative Dispute Resolution I don't see what the problem is...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonjon123)
    To be honest your right to an extent, there is some ambiguity and this can lead to people exploiting and taking verses out of context to jusitify their desires. For exmaple (no anti-semitism intended) the jewish communties have been heavily cristied also becuase of wife beating. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life...Violence.shtml Many jews would argue that their verses were taken out of context or show other rabbis that disagre with it. Basically this is my view :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqOpkcQwgvE
    He is trying to make it more palatable by using the word spank rather than beat and suggesting it refers to men punishing women including fathers punishing daughters. He knows that the word spank has more posative connotations to a western audience than beat. Spanking your children is often highly frowned on in the west, but it is not comparable to wife beating. This is somewhat arbitrary in some respects. But violence against women by men is generally regarded as a bad thing in the west. I think that the verse does primarily refer to husbands and wives because of the mention of not sharing a bed as a precursor to such physical punishment, this surely does not apply to a father and daughter. It used to be ok to hit your wife in the west, the term rule of thumb refers to the old English law that you could beat your wife with a stick no thicker than your thumb. Society has moved on since, I have no doubt that in the 7th century beating your wife was acceptable and common in most of the world, and I think that the verse was written to actually mean that you could hit your wife but not severely (you shouldn't leave a mark). Now if you regard women as being like children and men as being in charge of them, and the hitting (a more neutral term than the negative connotations of beat and the posative of spank) is a punishment for their own good - then your ability to do so makes perfect sense. Its perfectly possible to love and look after and protect someone and physically punish them at the same time without doing permanent harm. However, we have decided that it is abusive to hit your wife in any way shape or form so now the practice inspires revulsion in the west, many have also decided that it is abusive or counterproductive to physically punish a child - but as there is still some debate over this it is seen as an entirely different thing to hitting your wife. Hitting someone with a feather or toothbrush is a symbolic act, I don't think it was the purpose of such verses when they were written, it is a progressive reformulated interpretation to bring the text in line with more modern values and sensibilities - and that is no doubt a posative and necessary process, but we should recognise it for what it is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dream Weaver)
    This IS Britain, and therefore they should be judged under British law. No one should have the choice of which courts to use, they live in this country and so should use this country's courts.
    (Original post by Democracy)
    ...
    But its British law to allow people to sort out civil and family disputes between themselves. Its one of the freedoms and liberties offered to people.

    There isn't even an obligation to take it to court and all these so called courts are arbitration sessions that use Islamic principles, which are more than just chopping peoples hands off. Private companies do it all the time (when there is a dispute on a contract), Jews have their own court(but funnily enough nobody within the Daily Mail has a problem with that).

    I quote Democracy, because you make some intelligent posts on this site, but then you try to take a shot at Islam at every oppurtunity it seems and you seem to have double standards. You are always advocating democracy and freedom etc. but it doesn't seem to apply to religious folk and Muslims in particular.

    There are some seriously thick people on here too.. making wild assumptions, forming their opinion soley from what they read in the papers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    No you didn't you moron show me those 3 posts before you edit them. Sharia law prescribes the death penalty for the rapist NOT the rape victim. Now present me the evidence whereby Sharia law allows for the stoning of rape victims otherwise be quiet.
    What they are referring to is the requirement of witnesses to rape, as a woman is required to prove she was raped. If she has by an accusation of rape effectively admitted that sex took place this is seen as an admission of adultery or pre-marital sex (if she fails to provide witnesses or rape) and so in countries which practice Sharia rape victims are sometimes stoned for adultery under the Sharia or imprisoned if the harsher elements of the system are mollified by the judiciary or laws of the state. You may not think this ought to be the case, but in practice it happens under the Sharia in some Muslim countries.

    The idea of requiring witnesses to rape is ridiculous, if someone witnesses a rape they ought to intervene to stop it unless the rapist is wielding a gun or something. Rapists usually try to carry out their crime in private, so there aren't even likely to be witnesses. But what kind of person just hangs around and watches a rape take place without intervening or calling the police?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuppie20)
    This is Britain, it is a free country but is not exempt from British Law.
    Sharia law obviously infringes British law, and they are evidently not compatible.

    As opposed to outrage that "British citizens" are not required to follow British Law?

    IMO this is just one more very subtle step to an Islamic state.
    These courts will continue to grow in number, until they are in a position to challenge.
    Probably one of the stupidest posts I've read on TSR, shame is you actually seem serious.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    What they are referring to is the requirement of witnesses to rape, as a woman is required to prove she was raped. If she has by an accusation of rape effectively admitted that sex took place this is seen as an admission of adultery or pre-marital sex (if she fails to provide witnesses or rape) and so in countries which practice Sharia rape victims are sometimes stoned for adultery under the Sharia or imprisoned if the harsher elements of the system are mollified by the judiciary or laws of the state. You may not think this ought to be the case, but in practice it happens under the Sharia in some Muslim countries.

    The idea of requiring witnesses to rape is ridiculous, if someone witnesses a rape they ought to intervene to stop it unless the rapist is wielding a gun or something. Rapists usually try to carry out their crime in private, so there aren't even likely to be witnesses. But what kind of person just hangs around and watches a rape take place without intervening or calling the police?
    Most people have sex without witnesses too you know, even when its with consent. Rape is no different.

    UK law has a lot of requirements in regards to Rape as well. The latest changes which have supposedly made it easier for victims only came about in 2003 (Sexual Offences Act 2003).

    I also find it really strange that we measure the effectiveness of a law by its conviction rate, which kinda goes completely against our very English/modern/liberal belief of 'innocent until proven guilty'. This principle has been slowly eroded from our legal system over the years by ever more authoritarian gov'ts. You should worry more about that than the perfectly legal Sharia based arbitration tribunals.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    5) You obviously haven't understood my point about man made law. As I don't follow Islam I obviously think Muhammad made it all up (plagiarizing substantially from Judaism and Christianity in the process). But there I was speaking in Islamic theological terms. Obviously most Muslims believe that the Qu'ran is the direct word of God, my point was that within this Islamic framework of understanding the Sharia schools developed after the death of Muhammad and after he had said the revelation of God was complete, so clearly Muslims should recognise that the Sharia are man-made interpretations based upon what they believe to be the divine source - the Qu'ran. The reason for saying this is that Islamists use the argument in favour of Sharia that it is God-made law and thus unalterable and valid for all time, while other laws they say are flawed, changeable and man-made and thus they argue should be rejected. Even from an Islamic perspective I am saying that this is nonsense, clearly as the Sharia was not dictated to Muhammad by God as Muslims believe the Qu'ran was, but rather codified after his death, it must be seen by Muslims as purely man-made even when it draws upon the supposedly divine Qu'ran for inspiration.
    I skimmed through your post, it made some other questionable comments, but this got me laughing.

    Plagarism from a shepherd (maybe wrong?), 1400 years ago, who can't read or write, living in a pagan country, nobody following christianity or judaism anywhere near by (except Jerusalem).

    At the same time he got many things correct about scientific things relating to the Earth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    What they are referring to is the requirement of witnesses to rape, as a woman is required to prove she was raped.
    Yes just like every Western woman, they have to present explicit evidence to indict someone.

    If she has by an accusation of rape effectively admitted that sex took place this is seen as an admission of adultery or pre-marital sex (if she fails to provide witnesses or rape) and so in countries which practice Sharia rape victims are sometimes stoned for adultery under the Sharia or imprisoned if the harsher elements of the system are mollified by the judiciary or laws of the state.
    Utter nonsense

    "When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

    She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.

    He (the Prophet) said to the woman: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. And about the man who had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366)"


    Now lets us compare that with your bible

    "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)

    The idea of requiring witnesses to rape is ridiculous, if someone witnesses a rape they ought to intervene to stop it unless the rapist is wielding a gun or something.
    Yes I would presume logic would dictate wouldn't it.

    Rapists usually try to carry out their crime in private, so there aren't even likely to be witnesses. But what kind of person just hangs around and watches a rape take place without intervening or calling the police?
    Again the 4 witnesses is not the be all end all especially at a crime of such abhorrence as this. At an age whereby there were no DNA testing at hand, if you are to take a life of someone, you will need to have weighty evidence. As the Hadith stated, the Prophet accepted the allegations made the woman and those whom she fled for help to and they were later corroborated by the rapist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    I skimmed through your post, it made some other questionable comments, but this got me laughing.

    Plagarism from a shepherd (maybe wrong?), 1400 years ago, who can't read or write, living in a pagan country, nobody following christianity or judaism anywhere near by (except Jerusalem).

    At the same time he got many things correct about scientific things relating to the Earth.
    Prophet Mohammad was an illiterate shepherd and merchant who came from a tribe of ardent polytheists and pagans. He had no prior understanding of either Christianity or Judaism let alone science. To suggest he made up something, and the Quran with it magnitude for that is outright moronic.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz)
    Shut up. Just the Arabic meaning for non believer, if a Christian called me a non believer I would take no offence.
    Wikipedia tells me that kafir (of which kuffar is the plural) means "rejecter" or "ingrate", both relatively pejorative.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    Probably one of the stupidest posts I've read on TSR, shame is you actually seem serious.
    Your reputation speaks for you
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    I skimmed through your post, it made some other questionable comments, but this got me laughing.

    Plagarism from a shepherd (maybe wrong?), 1400 years ago, who can't read or write, living in a pagan country, nobody following christianity or judaism anywhere near by (except Jerusalem).

    At the same time he got many things correct about scientific things relating to the Earth.
    Didn't Muhammed live in, or at least travel to Syria with his first wife (the trader - I forget her name)?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.