Sharia Law

[Delf]

Execution of a 16-year old girl in Iran for crimes against chastity. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5217424.stm)


Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.

Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.

When she returned to her home town, she told those close to her that lashes were not the only things she had to endure in prison. She described abuse by the moral police guards.


When Atefah realised her case was hopeless, she shouted back at the judge and threw off her veil in protest. It was a fatal outburst. She was sentenced to execution by hanging, while Darabi got just 95 lashes.



Delf.

[Sayyoh]

yep, let's now go and bomb the hell out of all iranians. let's just close our eyes on what's China doing

In terms of the number of people executed by the state in 2004, Iran is estimated to be second only to China.


oh, it's a different case - it's a POLITICAL ideology there, altho aint got a huge difference between the RELIGIOUS ideology - both are seducive IDEOLOGIES, cuz we - duh-mock-rats - say so!

yes, let's just not talk about amreekan soldiers raping and abusing women in Iroq.

let's not talk about "isroil" throwing tons (!) of bombs on the lebanese ON THEIR VERY home soil. (www.fromisraeltolebanon.info (http://www.fromisraeltolebanon.info))

yes, let's now try to deviate the attention from our atrocities we are committing in the name of democracy in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

yes, let's try to discredit the arrogant and impudent ahmadinejad. let's form an opinion among the amreekan tax-payers that if they don't say "yes" to a war OUTSIDE the US, that very war will come TO the US. Oh, my! What does that mean?! That means I can no longer enjoy my SUV. That means I am no longer able to watch my large flat screen TV with a Bud in my hands.

... I am disgusted at you, Delf... Qanaqa odamsan, a?! Nahot, ki shu Lubnonda bo'layotgan narsalarni ko'rib turib ham hech bo'lmasa ODAMGARCHILIKdan kelib chiqib ozgina (!) 'qisib' turmapsanda!..

E, suf-e! Boshlaysizlarda shu Eronga qarshi urushniyam. Sen wa sendaqa neo-conlar balkim yetarsizlar ham niyatlaringizga... lekin faqat bu dunyoda...

Delf, prosto odammas ekansan... Bu post bln nima, "mana qaralaring, Shariat degani kichkina qizlarni osdirish bilangina shug'ullanadi" demoqchimisan? Ey, maxluq, aynan shu Shariyatni o'zi o'sha ahlul kitob - agar Muslimlar boshqarmasini tan olsa - joniyu qoni ila QO"RIQSHLGA buyurganini bilasanmi?! Umar roziyallohu anhu "men shu cherkowga kirib namoz o'qisam, odamlarim mendan keyinoq uni masjidga aylantirishadi, shuning uchun tashqarida o'qiy wa shu cherkow cherkowligicha qolsin" deganini wa aynan shunday qilganini ham bilasanmi?

E, suf-e! Sadqai odam ket!

Aynan shu Shariat o'sha qizchani zo'rlanmasligiga olib kelmagan bo'lishini bilasanmi? Nima, bu maqolang bilan o'sha zo'rlagan Darabi Shariat bo'yicha ish tutgan demoqchimisan?

E-, suf-e! Sadqai odam ket!

[Delf]

What does war between Israel and Lebanon now and a girl being executed in Iran in 2004 has to do with each other???

We are here discussing Sharia Law, not Israel's or USA's foreign policy.

Please respect at least yourself, if you don't respect me.

Sayyoh, you seem to be heavily influenced by radical groups and you are unable to think outside of Israel-Palestine issue and everthing you say is based on that issue. Just read again what you wrote and you will understand how blind you are...



Delf.
P.S. if you want to discuss Israel-Palestine issue, please read my posts here: http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?p=471786

[lost]

What does war between Israel and Lebanon now and a girl being executed in Iran in 2004 has to do with each other???

We are here discussing Sharia Law, not Israel's or USA's foreign policy.

Please respect at least yourself, if you don't respect me.

Sayyoh, you seem to be heavily influenced by radical groups and you are unable to think outside of Israel-Palestine issue and everthing you say is based on that issue. Just read again what you wrote and you will understand how blind you are...



Delf.
P.S. if you want to discuss Israel-Palestine issue, please read my posts here: http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?p=471786


If someone defends islam he is "heavily influenced by radical groups", and if someone attacts islam he is defender of democracy, free speech...

u guys all made me sick...

on topic: did not even tried to read from ****en democratic source.
Know true sharia law --->find unjudgements---> discuss them here. (if you can)

[Black]

Sayyoh Bro, this is called double standards, as I often mention in my discussion with Delf, this is his (Delf's) second name.

Delf what you want to tell? What do you know about Sharia to discuss it?? I again and again wonder of your eagerness to discuss something which you have no idea of, and yet get offended when it is reminded to you that you have very little knowledge on the issue.

I did not read the article you brought and I am not willing to read it, it is just another crap I believe like this one. (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=31346)

If you want to discuss the Sharia law, then let's discuss it, but from Sharia books and references, not from crap articles from the net. You don't learn mathematics from biology books, don't you? So it as stupid as this to discuss Sharia with the articles from the sources whose authors' intenion is to discredit Islam while they have no idea of what Sharia is. Like you discuss mathematics with mathematician(s) not with geologist(s).

Though your intention is clear-to discredit Sharia and Islam before the eyes of people - tell us what issue(s) do you want to "discuss". We try to answer as much as we can (though I am busy nowadays, may be other brothers and sisters can do it) or at least we can direct you to source. I still hope you'll find out truth sometime in the future.
You like to talk from the name of science and scientists, then at least try to behave like real scientists who do not use false data (especially from biased sources) in their researchs. Research Delf, research.

[Black]

I almost forgot, do not bring articles about Iran. Iran is far from what real Islamic state should be. Just make a bit of search (at least from weakypedia, I hope they have enough information so that you could understand what shias are and what their beliefs are, and what kind of laws they do follow) the difference between Ahli Sunnah wal Jamaah and Shias.

[Joha]

Execution of a 16-year old girl in Iran for crimes against chastity. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5217424.stm)

Do you mean 16 year old WOMAN? Anyway that is not main point. The man point here is that you have either LIED or tried to PROVOCATE forum users. If you dare to say that you DID NOT LIE or trying to PROVOCATE than

PLEASE PROOVE TO US THAT THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT IS BY SHARIA LAW!!!

If you say that you are not claiming the above case being of sharia law and mereley quoting a link to BBC NEWS than you have broken the Rules of the FORUM and created a THREAD in WRONG SECTION and the THREAD should be in NEWS etc section as Thread Title should be changed as there is NO PROOF above judgement being of Sharia Law.

[anatoliydaev]

I want to know if sharia law is against this kind of punishment. Vielen Dank!

[~Atirgul~]

Интересно же видеть такую картину когда в Ираке или в Авганестане или в другом каком-то Исламском государстве бомбят и убивают миллионами жителей то телевиденье и пресса обращает ноль внимания на всё это, а когда в Исламском государстве плетьми ударят прелюбодейку то сразуже находятся критики "защитники прав человека" которые кричат во всё горло как несправедлив Ислам к прелюбодейке или к алкоголику или к гомосексуалисту. В то время как на Западе или в Европе или в России или тому подобной стране где не соблюдается требования Аллаха, гибнут миллионами проститутки, наркоманы, алкоголики от несложившейся жизни, от всяких венерических и других вирусных болезней, когда детдома наполнены некому ненужными детьми и т.д. и т.п. :(

[XXL]

Интересно же видеть такую картину когда в Ираке или в Авганестане или в другом каком-то Исламском государстве бомбят и убивают миллионами жителей то телевиденье и пресса обращает ноль внимания на всё это, а когда в Исламском государстве плетьми ударят прелюбодейку то сразуже находятся критики "защитники прав человека" которые кричат во всё горло как несправедлив Ислам к прелюбодейке или к алкоголику или к гомосексуалисту. В то время как на Западе или в Европе или в России или тому подобной стране где не соблюдается требования Аллаха, гибнут миллионами проститутки, наркоманы, алкоголики от несложившейся жизни, от всяких венерических и других вирусных болезней, когда детдома наполнены некому ненужными детьми и т.д. и т.п. :(
nu im je nado podkopatsa k chemu to.



brevno v svoyom glazu ne vidyat( ili zakrivayut glaza), a v stoge


sena igolku naydut.

[Masanori]

a gde delf? deeeelllfff....auuuuu....

[Delf]

First of all, I posted the BBC article in order to raise a few questions. As for credibility of this BBC article - I am pretty sure it is accurate, so it is not "some crap article from the net". So, Joha, it is NOT a lie, it is a true story of a girl executed at age 16 for "crimes against chastity" by the order of Sharia judge. Also, Joha, a girl of 16 years is a girl, not a woman, she is not an adult at least till 18, maybe even till 20-21. Also, the girl in question was sentences to 100 lashes when she was 13 years old and had to deal with prison guards at that age. Also, Joha, why do you think that critisizing Sharia law is provocative? Does any critisizm of what you beleive in is a provocation? You seem to have narrowed your mind quite successfully if you think so...

Now, before I go ahead and ask my question, I would like to ask all religious devouts out there not to go offtop, as first reply straightforwardly did. Yes, I want to discuss Sharia law on this topic, not Palestine, Israel, Somalia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Pakistan, Nazi Germany or genocide of Armenians or Turks.

Now, I understand that this case flies on the face of those who advocate Sharia law and let me go ahead and raise a few questions. See, you guys call it best justice system in the world, but even when country is completely theocratic and law is exclusively applied by Sharia judges we see such horrendous injustices. Please correct me if I am somehow wrong thinking that hanging 16-year old girl for "crimes against chastity" is bad.

Now my questions:

1. To what extend is death penalty is applied under Sharia law? As far as I know death penalty is widely applied in Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as it was widely used in Afghanistan under taliban (althought it is difficult to gather statistics on the last case, I guess). I think most of the people know that death penalty is denounced in most of the western world, US excluded: http://www.answers.com/topic/use-of-death-penalty-worldwide

I strongly beleive that death penalty should be abolshed and I have very good reasons for that. I would like to hear opinions of those who advocate Sharia on this issue. Also, will the application of death penalty under Sharia ever change? Or Sharia is eternally correct and will continue applying hangings and public beheadings into eternity?

2. Minors. In most western countries minors do not get harsh punishment, it is usually parents who are responsible for acts of their children till they reach adulthood. No lashes for 13-year old kids for improper behavior. Although in many countries there are juvenile detention centers (kid prisons) which I think is a very bad institution. How does Sharia law treat children breaking law? Also, is it correct that one raping 9-year old girl will only get 100 lashes whereas two gays having consensual sex will be sentenced to death penalty? I think it is not something theoretical, it is a way of life under Sharia.

Again, if someone wants to discuss Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Armenian genocide, Chechnya and other topics - there are other topics on the board where I have left my opinion, you can go ahead and discuss it there.

For those who think that it is me who discredits Sharia law - has it ever occured to you that it is cases when 16-year old girls are hanged - that is what discredits Sharia law.


Delf.

[Black]

I'll be short.
1. Under the Sharia law death penalty is apllied in few cases.
1) For the murdering of the innocent person.
2) For the adultry (if a person is married, if not he/she gets lashes).
3) For the changing religion (Islam). (There were much discussion on this issue: why and how and etc., I do not want to discuss it any more.)
4) AFAIK a person can be sentsed into death for rape as well.
5) And for other very dangerious crimes. For example betraying country or muslims and etc. cases.
6) Death penalty in no way is applied for someone for having illegal sexual intercourse if he/she is not married, whatever the age is.

In all of the abovementioned cases very strict and reliable witnesses and proofs are required to make a death sentence. For example, If a man caughts his wife having sex with someone else he is required to bring at least 4 (four) relaible men witnesses or confession from the wife that she commited adultry. Otherwise she can not be sentenced into death. Seeing woman lying in the same bed with a man does not count for a proof. A witness should see clearly how male sexual organ enters into woman's sexual organ. In fact it is almost impossible to find four witnesses who saw it.
Application under the Sharia law will not be changed (should not be changed at least), if it is changed, it is not Sharia law any more then. Islam is completed 14 centuries ago, and its rules can not be changed. Full stop.
2) I don't know much about the minors under Sharia law and what is the limit age for minors.
I repeat, for raping 9 year old girl a guilty gets death penalty nor lashes.

For discredition of Sharia. Has it ever occured to you to think that if someone (in this cases supposedly Iranian shia "Sharia judge") does not apply properly the rules of a perfect law (Sharia) that does not the perfect law (Sharia) imperfect anyway? I.e. It is at least stupid to blame the traffic (road) laws because someone made an accident (avariya) by not following properly those laws.
Allah says in Qur'an: We made signs in this world for those who understand it.
Again your overgeneralizaton the issue and ignoring the fact that Iranian shiit (not shit) system is not Sharia law at all means that, at least, you have nothing else to bring.

Correct me if I am wrong guys.
O Allah, forgive me if I am wrong.

I tried to be short, but I failed : )

[Delf]

Black, first of all, thank you for your elaborate reply.

Could you please tell more about 5) And for other very dangerious crimes. For example betraying country or muslims and etc. cases. The etc etc can be quite a long list...

Application under the Sharia law will not be changed (should not be changed at least), if it is changed, it is not Sharia law any more then. Islam is completed 14 centuries ago, and its rules can not be changed. Full stop.
How about new laws required for new things, like Internet? How do you apply Sharia law for governing Internet? Or for regulating wireless communications? Who issues those laws in absence of parliament?

For discredition of Sharia. Has it ever occured to you to think that if someone (in this cases supposedly Iranian shia "Sharia judge") does not apply properly the rules of a perfect law (Sharia) that does not the perfect law (Sharia) imperfect anyway?

So, the important question rises whether that judge applied law properly. Did he or did he not? I presumed (though I could be wrong) that he applied it properly, since he seems to be an important judge. Now, in case he did not, what would be a punishment for him for the death of a 16-year old girl?

Delf.

[Alouddin]

братья Мусульмане,

я Вас что-то не понимаю. Ведь Дельф ясно и четко дает знать и никогда не отрицает, что он НЕ-Мусульманин, так? т.е. он отрицает основополагающие моменты как Мусульманская акида. Так почему же Вы тут тратите время попусту и пытаетесь убедить в каких-то деталях Шариата. Человек не имеет желания (по-крайней мере мне так кажеться) узнать чего-либо и задает эти вопросы НЕ имея желания чему-либо научиться и об этом много раз говорил Блак.

Ну вот смотрите, запостил Дельф статейку с ВВС об экзекуции 16 летней девушки и сказал, ну разумеется ссылаясь на свой достоверный источник, что сие есть Шариат. А мы тут бросились зашищаться и утверждать, что это не есть по Шариату. (А Дельф даже не посмотрел в своей вики-педии что думает об "Исламской легитимности" Ирана остальной Исламский мир). А у Дельфа возникли дальнейшие вопросы по Шариату после ответа Блака... и пошло

Слушайте, братья, не хочет Дельф принимать и признавать Ислам - так ради Бога! Ведь постья такую статью и называя ее "Исламским подходом к делу" (чущь собачья), Дельфу никоим образом не удается дискредитировать Ислам...

Дельф ёзаверади, карвон кетаберади

[The Reaper]

Seeing woman lying in the same bed with a man does not count for a proof. A witness should see clearly how male sexual organ enters into woman's sexual organ. In fact it is almost impossible to find four witnesses who saw it.


LMAO

I wonder how would that look.
Husband: "Hey Abbas, don't you dare pull it out!!!"
Then he goes to the street: "Hey guys my wife is having sex with Abbas, I need a witness!!"
Then he comes back with four witnesses carrying a lupe and a video camera just to be sure! :rofl:

Oh man, Sharia is hilarious.

TR

[Black]

LMAO

I wonder how would that look.
Husband: "Hey Abbas, don't you dare pull it out!!!"
Then he goes to the street: "Hey guys my wife is having sex with Abbas, I need a witness!!"
Then he comes back with four witnesses carrying a lupe and a video camera just to be sure! :rofl:

Oh man, Sharia is hilarious.

TR
No man, Sharia is not hillarious. But I wonder why do you behave like a stupid person who can not understand what is written clearly, you had not behaved in such a way before, you used to respect yourself, but not any more I think.
If I am wrong try to read my post again-read between the lines!

Delf I wanted to reply to you, but after reading Alouddin's post I thought: what is the point? Tell me Delf what is the point of our discussion if you anyway are not going to change your mind?! Wasting our time?!

[The Reaper]

No man, Sharia is not hillarious. But I wonder why do you behave like a stupid person who can not understand what is written clearly, you had not behaved in such a way before, you used to respect yourself, but not any more I think.
If I am wrong try to read my post again-read between the lines!


I understand what is written clearly.
You clearly wrote:
Seeing woman lying in the same bed with a man does not count for a proof. A witness should see clearly how male sexual organ enters into woman's sexual organ. In fact it is almost impossible to find four witnesses who saw it.

I clearly understood, and clearly imagined a scenario.
Since you wrote it all clearly, I'm sure there is no need to read between the lines, is there? If you think there's nothing wrong with the part I boldened, then you're clearly wrong.

TR

[Black]

OK Reaper, let's stop this useless talk then. You stay in your opinion, I stay in mine.

[anatoliydaev]

Странно, все набросились на Дельфа и на статью. А ведь никто толком не может дать ответ на вопрос "В действительности ли законы Шариата допускают применение подобных мер наказания в отношении 16 летних девушек?"

[~Atirgul~]

Странно, все набросились на Дельфа и на статью. А ведь никто толком не может дать ответ на вопрос "В действительности ли законы Шариата допускают применение подобных мер наказания в отношении 16 летних девушек?"


Сура 24. Свет
2. И прелюбодейку и прелюбодея - каждого из них секите сотней плетей. Пусть не охватывает вас жалость к ним во имя веры Аллаха, если вы веруете в Аллаха и в Судный день. А при наказании их пусть свидетелями будут некоторое число верующих.
3. Прелюбодей может жениться только на прелюбодейке или же многобожнице. На прелюбодейке может жениться только прелюбодей или многобожник. А верующим это запрещено.
4. Тех, которые возведут навет на целомудренных женщин, но при этом не приведут четырех свидетелей, секите восьмьюдесятью [ударами] плети и никогда не берите их в качестве свидетелей, ибо они -преступающие закон,

anatoliy обрати внимание на то что нужно предявить четырёх свидетелей, и обрати внимание на то как женьщина так и мужчина несут одинаковые наказания !!! И если свидетели дали ложное показание то они тоже подвергаются наказанию.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Execution of a 16-year old girl in Iran for crimes against chastity. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5217424.stm)







Delf.

Delf-I ve got this good news, a challenge for you...An intellectual Debate!!!

Delf vs. Akhee-Abdullah

I love throwing punches, tackling my opponents on the mat...but to be honest, i cannot do it with you...not that I mind driving couple hours from my place...it is just that feeling I wanna challenge you intellectually...

Though..debating is not my favorite tackling method...with you it feels like, I should finish this for good!!! So that you never open your mouth on Islaam except for good and you will shut up for life.

You will insha'Allah have two options at the end of the debate to take, "SHAHADA" or SHUT UP and knowing that Islaam as a Civilization should not insulted and mocked at!!!

Let me know if you want to take this?

It would be only you and I. We will send each other emails, so that we do not get interrupted by the side remarks of any one. We will debate. The debate will have one condition only, RESPECT the opponent's view, that's We both agree to disagree, no insulting remarks at each other's personality and points!!!


I will pick the 1st topic, it is related to Democracy and Islaam. We will debate head on. Once we are done and refuting each other.

We will post all the email replies in this board, and lock it up for edits...so that people can read and vote who had kicked whose butt?!!


My email adress is mr_debate_de @ yahoo . com

If you take this challenge please email to that account. It might take a couple weeks until we are done debating.

Regardz,

Akhee-Abdullah

[Sayyoh]

aint this gettin' serious... Akhee, plz promise that you WILL post the debates here on the board. or maybe create a yahoo (msn, google) online group for posting messages of your debate... mmmm...!

:salam:

[kipchak]

РЕбята, все таки не надо так поддаваться эмоциям и делать выпады и оскорбления. В конце концов вы же Ислам представляете, и каждый хочет сделать это в лучшем свете, хотел предложить просто вспомнить как убеждали наш Пророк (с.а.в) и Халифы (р.а). Человек хочет узнать, поэтому воспользуйтесь этим шансом и объясните ему от сердца, а нет злобы и раздражения.

Мир вам.

[Joha]

First of all, I posted the BBC article in order to raise a few questions. As for credibility of this BBC article - I am pretty sure it is accurate, so it is not "some crap article from the net". So, Joha, it is NOT a lie, it is a true story of a girl executed at age 16 for "crimes against chastity" by the order of Sharia judge.

Let me rephrase myself: What proofs do you have that the above Punishment is done according to Shariah Law. The simple answer that Punishment was ordained by Shariah Judge of some Shia beleif person would not be taken as proof. The same way Punishments are ordained in Uzb and other countries according to Countries' Democratic and Consitutional Laws would not mean the Punishment being correct under Democratic views. I would expect proofs from Hadeeth and Quran regarding the above punishment belonging to Sharia Laws. The media, including BBC is not qualified to make judments and classification of Laws belonging to Shariah Law or Not. Accordingly if media informs of Shia's celebration of Ashura by cutting and beating themselves according to Islam, does not mean that the above celebration belongs to Islam. it is the same as Cowboy heard from neighbour that Surgeons cut people and trying to accuse Surgeons of manslaughter. It is advisable to learn what is "Surgery" and its application before making any judgment. It would be beneficial to learn about Islam before putting forward any acusitions.


Also, Joha, a girl of 16 years is a girl, not a woman, she is not an adult at least till 18, maybe even till 20-21. Also, the girl in question was sentences to 100 lashes when she was 13 years old and had to deal with prison guards at that age.

You are welcome to review the age of consent in many countries in the world and I am sure you will find the majority of them being 16 including EC and even less than 16 in some EC countries. If you consider the age when Alcohol allowed you may find that several European countries have age restriction of 16 and even NO RESRTICTION.

Also, Joha, why do you think that critisizing Sharia law is provocative? Does any critisizm of what you beleive in is a provocation? You seem to have narrowed your mind quite successfully if you think so...

Again let me rephrase myself as I had no intention of offending anyone: It is provocative to give and Apple to people and claim that you gave Pear. The thread has nothing to do with Shariah Law and yet still it is titled Shariah Law.


Now my questions:

1. To what extend is death penalty is applied under Sharia law? As far as I know death penalty is widely applied in Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as it was widely used in Afghanistan under taliban (althought it is difficult to gather statistics on the last case, I guess). I think most of the people know that death penalty is denounced in most of the western world, US excluded: http://www.answers.com/topic/use-of-death-penalty-worldwide

I strongly beleive that death penalty should be abolshed and I have very good reasons for that. I would like to hear opinions of those who advocate Sharia on this issue. Also, will the application of death penalty under Sharia ever change? Or Sharia is eternally correct and will continue applying hangings and public beheadings into eternity?

2. Minors. In most western countries minors do not get harsh punishment, it is usually parents who are responsible for acts of their children till they reach adulthood. No lashes for 13-year old kids for improper behavior. Although in many countries there are juvenile detention centers (kid prisons) which I think is a very bad institution. How does Sharia law treat children breaking law? Also, is it correct that one raping 9-year old girl will only get 100 lashes whereas two gays having consensual sex will be sentenced to death penalty? I think it is not something theoretical, it is a way of life under Sharia.

Again, if someone wants to discuss Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Armenian genocide, Chechnya and other topics - there are other topics on the board where I have left my opinion, you can go ahead and discuss it there.

For those who think that it is me who discredits Sharia law - has it ever occured to you that it is cases when 16-year old girls are hanged - that is what discredits Sharia law.

I dont know anyone on this FORUM, including myself who is allowed to give answers to the questions above. Some forum users might have tried to answer but they should have obstained unless they have such knowledge which allowes them to issue Fatwas.

This thread will lead nowhere except to more insults like of REAPER who is always fast to react : ) Unless people who asking this kind of questions are ready to start learning and/or familirising themselvs with Beleif and Jurisprudence in Islam.

It is useless to explain about writing a code of a Shopping Script in PHP to a person who has no clue about Computers and never applied Computers or used them in her/his life.

PS. I dont see any point in further participation and discussion in this thread, therefore I will obstain from further quotes in this thread.

[Aziz]

Delf...I really think that you have a BIG PROBLEM with Islamic Sharia.
I don't blame you, actually the media is trying its best to do whatever it takes to get any possible information about how abusive the Islamic Sharia is.
Anyway, if you really want to find about Islamic Sharia I think you should go back to Muslim's books, not to any other source. You have to go to the pure fountain that Muslims take out their laws, although I think neither me nor you should discuss this because Shria degree takes 5 years of studying to be earned.
I will list here some examples of what is our Sharia is about:

1- When Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) conqured Makkah, he ordered Ali (his cousin) to get the keys of the Holy Ka'abah from its keepers, the family of Bani Shaibah, and he did so. After a while a reveleation came down to the Prophet himself ordering him to give the keys back to the family of Bani Shaibah. The keys still with the same family since that time.
"Allah doth command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between people, that ye judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things." (4:58)

2- Abu Bakr ,the first Muslim Ruler after the Prophet (pbuh) used to get out at night and check out his subjects. He used to go to an old, blind woman's house and make dinner for her and clean up her house. The Islamic Sharia is the reason why he did this.

3-Omar bin Al-Khattab, the second Kalif and the ruler of what is now more than 10 states, used to get out to check his subjects at night. One night he heared the crying of children. He knocked the door and entered the house, he asked their mother about why are they crying?? she told him that they are crying because of hunger. He went out to the storage house and carried a bag of flour and cooked a meal for the children and made sure that they are sleeping well. Islamic Sharia lead him to do that.

4-Ali,the fourth Kalif and the cousin of the Prophet, goes to the court along with a Jewish citizen. The Judge calls him with his nick name, Abo Al-Hasan, and calls the Jewish with his own name. Ali says to the Judge: I am asking you justice for the Jewish. The Judge wonders because he did not issue the sentnce yet. Ali explains that he should've called both of them with their own names. Ali , and according to Sharia, believes that the Judge has havored him over the Jewish because he called him with his nick name.

Read about Islamic ethics of war, when the prophet asks his soldiers not to cut trees, not to mension humans.

I am not writing in this thread more than that.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Delf...I really think that you have a BIG PROBLEM with Islamic Sharia.
I don't blame you, actually the media is trying its best to do whatever it takes to get any possible information about how abusive the Islamic Sharia is.
Anyway, if you really want to find about Islamic Sharia I think you should go back to Muslim's books, not to any other source. You have to go to the pure fountain that Muslims take out their laws, although I think neither me nor you should discuss this because Shria degree takes 5 years of studying to be earned.
I will list here some examples of what is our Sharia is about:

1- When Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) conqured Makkah, he ordered Ali (his cousin) to get the keys of the Holy Ka'abah from its keepers, the family of Bani Shaibah, and he did so. After a while a reveleation came down to the Prophet himself ordering him to give the keys back to the family of Bani Shaibah. The keys still with the same family since that time.
"Allah doth command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due; And when ye judge between people, that ye judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! For Allah is He Who heareth and seeth all things." (4:58)

2- Abu Bakr ,the first Muslim Ruler after the Prophet (pbuh) used to get out at night and check out his subjects. He used to go to an old, blind woman's house and make dinner for her and clean up her house. The Islamic Sharia is the reason why he did this.

3-Omar bin Al-Khattab, the second Kalif and the ruler of what is now more than 10 states, used to get out to check his subjects at night. One night he heared the crying of children. He knocked the door and entered the house, he asked their mother about why are they crying?? she told him that they are crying because of hunger. He went out to the storage house and carried a bag of flour and cooked a meal for the children and made sure that they are sleeping well. Islamic Sharia lead him to do that.

4-Ali,the fourth Kalif and the cousin of the Prophet, goes to the court along with a Jewish citizen. The Judge calls him with his nick name, Abo Al-Hasan, and calls the Jewish with his own name. Ali says to the Judge: I am asking you justice for the Jewish. The Judge wonders because he did not issue the sentnce yet. Ali explains that he should've called both of them with their own names. Ali , and according to Sharia, believes that the Judge has havored him over the Jewish because he called him with his nick name.

Read about Islamic ethics of war, when the prophet asks his soldiers not to cut trees, not to mension humans.

I am not writing in this thread more than that.

Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Akhee, please post more of these if possible.

Jazakumallah.

[Masanori]

a Delf opyat propal...auuuu!


Alloh bandasining kuzini kur, quloqlarini kar, qalbini berk qilib quysa, befoyda ekande.
Munofiqlar zulmidan dinimizga omonliktilang, dustlar!

[munisa]

:bismillah



Alloh bandasining kuzini kur, quloqlarini kar, qalbini berk qilib quysa, befoyda ekande.

Munofiqlar zulmidan dinimizga omonliktilang, dustlar!
_____________________

Sura - "Baqara / The Cow"

002.018

Sumyun, Bukmun, Umyun, Fahum La Yarjiu'n

Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).

______________________

:salam: / :astag:

[Ismoil]

Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

[Ismoil]

USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

[Abdug'ofur]

Zinoda ayblanayotgan odamning aybdor deb topilishi, ya'ni toshbo'ron qilinishi uchun ikki guvoh bo'lishi kerak. Agar guvoh topilmasa, uni zinokorlikda ayblagan odamning o'zi darra bilan jazolanadi.

[Demir Kağan]

Here are the surahs about killing (http://www.kurandaara.com/?act=ara&keyword=kill&meal=14&sure_no=&go.x=16&go.y=3)

Iran is a psycho state. Allah is the only one who will judge people for their actions. We can only judge and make decision about killing another one, stealing, raping and such bad things those are directly attack to another person's rights.

[PainKiller]

I have another question. I heard, correct me if I am wrong, that by Shariah Law, a girl who says was raped, has to bring four eye witnesses to the Shariah Court to prove that she really was raped and to bring the offenders to justice. Now, since most sexual assaults take place in rather isolated from people's sight places, what is the chance of the prosecution winning the case over?
Another question:Is it true, correct me on this one as well if I am wrong, since I do not have extensive data on Shariah Law and how it works, that in Shariah Court room, that one testimony of a male equals to two testimonies of females? Why is that? Means, Two guys saying one thing will overpower what three women are saying in the courtroom?
I will try to do my research and will post here later on if I come up with something from Islamic sources.

[Demir Kağan]

I have another question. I heard, correct me if I am wrong, that by Shariah Law, a girl who says was raped, has to bring four eye witnesses to the Shariah Court to prove that she really was raped and to bring the offenders to justice. Now, since most sexual assaults take place in rather isolated from people's sight places, what is the chance of the prosecution winning the case over?
I don't know about raping as I have never heard about it in sharia law but to prove that two people had sex without marriage (zino qilodiganlarida) they want 4 people to prove.

Another question:Is it true, correct me on this one as well if I am wrong, since I do not have extensive data on Shariah Law and how it works, that in Shariah Court room, that one testimony of a male equals to two testimonies of females? Why is that? Means, Two guys saying one thing will overpower what three women are saying in the courtroom?
I will try to do my research and will post here later on if I come up with something from Islamic sources.
Yes, a male is equal to two females. Sayyid Kutub explained this like that: "Woman can decide with her feelings so, to see what a woman as truth, its needed for a second woman to agree on what the other woman said."

[PainKiller]

I don't know about raping as I have never heard about it in sharia law but to prove that two people had sex without marriage (zino qilodiganlarida) they want 4 people to prove.


Yes, a male is equal to two females. Sayyid Kutub explained this like that: "Woman can decide with her feelings so, to see what a woman as truth, its needed for a second woman to agree on what the other woman said."
can you elaborate on this one?

[Demir Kağan]

can you elaborate on this one?

Sorry, there is a word missing.

Woman can say anything by accident, can talk with her feelings or can forget anything, so to see what a woman said as truth, its needed a second woman to agree on what the first woman said."

[SAMARKANDI!]

I have another question. I heard, correct me if I am wrong, that by Shariah Law, a girl who says was raped, has to bring four eye witnesses to the Shariah Court to prove that she really was raped and to bring the offenders to justice. Now, since most sexual assaults take place in rather isolated from people's sight places, what is the chance of the prosecution winning the case over?
Another question:Is it true, correct me on this one as well if I am wrong, since I do not have extensive data on Shariah Law and how it works, that in Shariah Court room, that one testimony of a male equals to two testimonies of females? Why is that? Means, Two guys saying one thing will overpower what three women are saying in the courtroom?
I will try to do my research and will post here later on if I come up with something from Islamic sources.


Concerning Shariah, some things u can try to understand, some things u may ignore to understand, some things u may agree, some things u may disagree, perhaps u can disagree with everything and simply luagh and make fun or feel sad or even get angry or may be pretend or think that you should know better or u can argue and fight. But in the end all that doesnt make any difference to the law of All-Mighty, It is Holy, It will be always there. His laws should be followed, respected, if not clearly understood, then accepted as a truce between the created and The Creator, for noone but Him is worthy of trust.

[Observer]

Samarqandi, good point. At the end of the day, what counts is not our "human" arguments or conclusions, it is ALLAH's prescriptions for us that matter most. Who is a human being, who does not even know what will happen to him tomorrow, to dispute his creator's ruling?

The Shi'a way of implementing sharia law can never be representative of the whole Islamic world. Look at what real Islam teaches, not what its individual representatives practise.

As for Mr Delf's persona, he is very much being his natural self - this is not the first thread he has introduced in this forum to demonize sharia and Islam. People like him must simply be ignored.

[corsair]

YouTube - Iranian women fight for freedom

[corsair]

YouTube - FIGHT FOR FREEDOM IN IRAN

[Abdug'ofur]

I have another question. I heard, correct me if I am wrong, that by Shariah Law, a girl who says was raped, has to bring four eye witnesses to the Shariah Court to prove that she really was raped and to bring the offenders to justice. Now, since most sexual assaults take place in rather isolated from people's sight places, what is the chance of the prosecution winning the case over?
Another question:Is it true, correct me on this one as well if I am wrong, since I do not have extensive data on Shariah Law and how it works, that in Shariah Court room, that one testimony of a male equals to two testimonies of females? Why is that? Means, Two guys saying one thing will overpower what three women are saying in the courtroom?
I will try to do my research and will post here later on if I come up with something from Islamic sources.

EQUALITY OF WITNESSES

Question:
Why are two witnesses who are women, equivalent to only one witness who is a man ?
Answer:
It is not true that two female witnesses are always considered as equal to only one male witness. It is true only in certain cases. There are about five verses in the Qur’an that mention witnesses, without specifying male or female. There is only one verse in the Qur’an, that says two female witnesses are equal to one male witness. This verse is Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 282. This is the longest verse in the Qur’an and deals with financial transactions. It says:
"Oh! ye who believe!
When ye deal with each other,
in transactions involving future obligation
in a fixed period of time
reduce them to writing and get two witnesses
out of your own men and if there are not two men,
then a man and two women, such as ye choose,
for witnesses so that if one of them errs
the other can remind her."
[Al-Qur’an 2:282]
This verse of the Qur’an deals only with financial transactions. In such cases, it is advised to make an agreement in writing between the parties and take two witnesses, preferably both of which should be men only. In case you cannot find two men, then one man and two women would suffice.
For instance, suppose a person wants to undergo an operation for a particular ailment. To confirm the treatment, he would prefer taking references from two qualified surgeons. In case he is unable to find two surgeons, his second option would be one surgeon and two general practitioners who are plain MBBS doctors.
Similarly in financial transactions, two men are preferred. Islam expects men to be the breadwinners of their families. Since financial responsibility is shouldered by men, they are expected to be well versed in financial transactions as compared to women. As a second option, the witness can be one man and two women, so that if one of the women errs the other can remind her. The Arabic word used in the Qur’an is ‘Tazil’ which means ‘confused’ or ‘to err’. Many have wrongly translated this word as ‘to forget’. Thus financial transactions constitute the only case in which two female witnesses are equal to one male witness.
However, some scholars are of the opinion that the feminine attitude can also have an effect on the witness in a murder case. In such circumstances a woman is more terrified as compared to a man. Due to her emotional condition she can get confused. Therefore, according to some jurists, even in cases of murder, two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness. In all other cases, one female witness is equivalent to one male witness. There are about five verses in the Qur’an which speak about witnesses without specifying man or woman.
While making a will of inheritance, two just persons are required as witnesses. In Surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 106, the Glorious Qur’an says:
"Oh you who believe!
When death approaches any of you,
(take) witnesses among yourself when making bequests."
[Al-Qur’an 5:106]
two just persons of your own (brotherhood)
or other from outside if you are journeying
through the earth and the chance of death befalls you."
[Al-Qur’an 65:2]
Two persons endued with justice in case of talaq.

"Four witnesses are required
in case of charge against chaste women,
[Al-Qur’an 24:4]
There are some scholars who are of the opinion that the rule of two female witnesses equal to one male witness should be applied to all the cases. This cannot be agreed upon because one particular verse of the Qur’an from Surah Noor chapter 24, verse 6 clearly equates one female witness and one male witness:
"And those who launch a charge
against their spouses, and have (in support)
no evidence but their own -
their solitary evidence can be received."
[Al-Qur’an 24:6]
Hazrat Ayesha (RA) hadith narrated of one witness
Many jurists agree that even one witness of a woman is sufficient for the sighting of the crescent of the moon. Imagine one woman witness is sufficient for one of the pillars of Islam, i.e. fasting and the whole Muslim community of men and women agree and accept her witness! Some jurists say that one witness is required at the beginning of Ramadaan and two witnesses at the end of Ramadaan. It makes no difference whether the witnesses are men or women.
Some incidents require only female witness and that of a male cannot be accepted. For instance, in dealing with the problems of women, while giving the burial bath i.e. ‘ghusl’ to a woman, the witness has to be a woman.
The seeming inequality of male and female witnesses in financial transactions is not due to any inequality of the sexes in Islam. It is only due to the different natures and roles of men and women in society as envisaged by Islam.


http://www.irf.net

[Abdug'ofur]

INHERITANCE
Question:
Under Islamic law, why is a woman’s share of the inherited wealth only half that of a man?
Answer:
The Glorious Qur’an contains specific and detailed guidance regarding the division of the inherited wealth, among the rightful beneficiaries.
The Qur’anic verses that contain guidance regarding inheritance are:
* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 180
* Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 240
* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 7-9
* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 19
* Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 33 and
* Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 106-108
There are three verses in the Qur’an that broadly describe the share of close relatives i.e. Surah Nisah chapter 4 verses 11, 12 and 176. The translation of these verses are as follows:
"Allah (swt) (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females, if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; If only one, her share is a half.
For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; If no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
In what your wives leave, your share is half. If they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eight; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to anyone). Thus it is ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing Most Forbearing"
[Al-Qur’an 4:11-12]
"They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (them) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have two thirds of the inheritance (between them). If there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah (swt) makes clear to you (His knowledge of all things).
[Al-Qur’an 4:176]
In most of the cases, a woman inherits half of what her male counterpart inherits. However, this is not always the case. In case the deceased has left no ascendant or descendent but has left the uterine brother and sister, each of the two inherit one sixth. If the deceased has left children, both the parents that is mother and father get an equal share and inherit one sixth each. In certain cases, a woman can also inherit a share that is double that of the male. If the deceased is a woman who has left no children, brothers or sisters and is survived only by her husband, mother and father, the husband inherits half the property while the mother inherits one third and the father the remaining one sixth. In this particular case, the mother inherits a share that is double that of the father. It is true that as a general rule, in most cases, the female inherits a share that is half that of the male. For instance in the following cases:
1. daughter inherits half of what the son inherits,
2. wife inherits 1/8th and husband 1/4th if the deceased has no children.
3. Wife inherits 1/4th and husband 1/2 if the deceased has children
4. If the deceased has no ascendant or descendent, the sister inherits a share that is half that of the brother.
In Islam a woman has no financial obligation and the economical responsibility lies on the shoulders of the man. Before a woman is married it is the duty of the father or brother to look after the lodging, boarding, clothing and other financial requirements of the woman. After she is married it is the duty of the husband or the son. Islam holds the man financially responsible for fulfilling the needs of his family. In order to do be able to fulfill the responsibility the men get double the share of the inheritance. For example, if a man dies leaving about Rs. One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, for the children (i.e one son and one daughter) the son inherits One Hundred Thousand rupees and the daughter only Fifty Thousand rupees. Out of the one hundred thousand which the son inherits, as his duty towards his family, he may have to spend on them almost the entire amount or say about eighty thousand and thus he has a small percentage of inheritance, say about twenty thousand, left for himself. On the other hand, the daughter, who inherits fifty thousand is not bound to spend a single penny on anybody. She can keep the entire amount for herself. Would you prefer inheriting one hundred thousand rupees and spending eighty thousand from it, or inheriting fifty thousand rupees and having the entire amount to yourself?


http://www.irf.net

[Aziz]

I have another question. I heard, correct me if I am wrong, that by Shariah Law, a girl who says was raped, has to bring four eye witnesses to the Shariah Court to prove that she really was raped and to bring the offenders to justice. Now, since most sexual assaults take place in rather isolated from people's sight places, what is the chance of the prosecution winning the case over?

If it was proved that she was raped, that's enough. Four witnesses as Demir said is for Zino.



Another question:Is it true, correct me on this one as well if I am wrong, since I do not have extensive data on Shariah Law and how it works, that in Shariah Court room, that one testimony of a male equals to two testimonies of females? Why is that? Means, Two guys saying one thing will overpower what three women are saying in the courtroom?
I will try to do my research and will post here later on if I come up with something from Islamic sources.

The only thing I know that requires two women against one man is in the case of being a witness on a document concerning debt. But in the case of questioning her as a witness on some crime she is equal to the man.

"[282] O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties; let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear his Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If the party liable is mentally deficient, or weak or unable himself to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully. And get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (for evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, more suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witnesses whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; for it is Allah that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things."

[Delf]

As for Mr Delf's persona, he is very much being his natural self - this is not the first thread he has introduced in this forum to demonize sharia and Islam. People like him must simply be ignored.

Maybe you meant "any just criticism of Islam/Sharia/Koran should be ignored"?

You may say all you want, but that girl is in trouble exactly because of the attitudes like yours.

Delf.

[SAMARKANDI!]

Maybe you meant "any just criticism of Islam/Sharia/Koran should be ignored"?

You may say all you want, but that girl is in trouble exactly because of the attitudes like yours.

Delf.

Yours or that of the west is Not Criticism it is intentional Cynicism on Islam and its elements. And yours is definitely so.

You and the like pick some individual cases (which perhaps was indeed handled wrongly by some negligent or misled practitioners) out of the whole stream of life and death issues in Islamic world and try to make one WHOLE WORLD out of it, trying to propagate it in black to the full extent while the Sharia law in its face makes perfect sense and advocated/advocates rules that are only now understood by modern world and yet to be understood.

Why dont you take the big picture here and ponder what system, in fact, right now, is doing the biggest damage to the peace of the people around the world. Isn’t it mostly (directly or indirectly) western countries under democratic systems? Why dont you give some good thought to the greater, bigger, more serious issues that are left purposefully unaccounted that’s taking lives in millions, girls like the one u mention in thousands without giving any valid reason (though no reason would anyway justify it) to why it’s happening by Western Democratic systems. Dont you feel that there must be a BIG flow/s somewhere in the system that allowed/allowing such atrocities to happen around the world.

So the point is that u may pick one or two or ten cases like this (which is probably either misrepresented or lied or practiced NOT according to true Shariah rules) and try to make your "black" case against Islam but it would still look much much much "whiter" in front of the unspeakable, worst crimes against humanity inflicted by West/North and its governing systems which is democracy (or some type of it).

[Observer]

Maybe you meant "any just criticism of Islam/Sharia/Koran should be ignored"?

You may say all you want, but that girl is in trouble exactly because of the attitudes like yours.

Delf.
As Samarqandi rightly pointed out, this particular case might have fallen victim to mishandling, just like the many death penalty verdicts in the "civilized" world that were implemented but later proven wrong.

You know, Mr Delf, there is one thing I'm happy about your questioning habit: Many of those who eventually came to accept Islam had started out as its fierce critics, like yourself. Inshallah, if you really care so much about justice and the truth, Allah will guide you to HIS beautiful religion. You never know. No, seriously, Masha and Sergey did't know it either.

http://www.islam.ru/pressclub/gost/masha_islam/
http://www.islam.ru/newmuslim/timuhin/

[melo]

Concerning Shariah, some things u can try to understand, some things u may ignore to understand, some things u may agree, some things u may disagree, perhaps u can disagree with everything and simply luagh and make fun or feel sad or even get angry or may be pretend or think that you should know better or u can argue and fight. But in the end all that doesnt make any difference to the law of All-Mighty, It is Holy, It will be always there. His laws should be followed, respected, if not clearly understood, then accepted as a truce between the created and The Creator, for noone but Him is worthy of trust.

You make it sound so easy. Unfortunatley we need imperfect humans to carry out these rules So no matter what you believe it can never be perfect. The only true judegment can come at death I believe.

[Delf]

Noone is perfect. So whenever you want a (legal) system in place, it must account to the fact that humans are not perfect. Having a failed system and then whining that "humans are not" perfect is not a solution.

Delf.

[SAMARKANDI!]

You make it sound so easy. Unfortunatley we need imperfect humans to carry out these rules So no matter what you believe it can never be perfect. The only true judegment can come at death I believe.

By what I have said, I dont mean Shariah would bring pure perfection in our lives. It is about relative peace and justice that these systems can provide us. There is simple difference between people who are in authority driven by Power, Fame, Support....and those who come there with true faith, whose actions and reactions arent triggered by above mentioned human desires but by ultimate faith in God and His rules which dictate Justice in all the meanings of the word. Meaning people with true faith in God will not want any harm to others no matter how much fame or power or support it would bring them. However it is true that "some" who claim to be true believers are in fact driven by the similar desires which again lead to injustice. As we are humans, there will be always bad apples around us. But still it is better than having everyone run after power and fame.

Another thing I truly believe is better in Shariah is the supremacy of the Law that noone can amend or override. Whereas in all other systems, laws can me changed. It is a matter of time that failed government will come to power to change the laws to benefit its purpose. If u look around its happening all the time all over and even corrupted mostly muslim populated governments. Thats why we can not argue that "Muslim" countries are as much or even more corrupt as the countries without Shariah law, because Muslims arent given a chance to practice their real law in their countries. They are under constant oppression by western powers. And if they fight back they are seen as terrorists. Its hard to raise children when u are surrounded by violent, dangerous, murderous neighborhood.

Thats in short, what I mean relative peace and justice i.e. relatively better but not perfect since no system is perfect when as u said element of imperfection is involved which is human being.

Noone is perfect. So whenever you want a (legal) system in place, it must account to the fact that humans are not perfect. Having a failed system and then whining that "humans are not" perfect is not a solution.

Delf.

Can u pls tell us how ur system is accounting for this fact?

[Delf]

In my opinion a legal (government) system should be based on certain core principles:

1. Freedom of speech.
2. Accountability of every government official (that requires transparency).
3. All rights belong to people, government only has limited rights to serve the people (for this to work, check and balances are required to keep government in control).
4. Limited terms for all serving officials.
5. The real power comes from people (elections).

These are a few basic core principles and every known Sharia state violates them all:

1. One may not speak ill of Islam. Islam is categorically against freedom of speech.
2. There is always an authoritarian despotic leader who is not accountable to anyone (Khalif, Ayatolla, King etc)
3. Government always trumps people's rights in the name of greater good (divine, Allah etc)
4. Under all known Sharia regimes all rulers stayed in power until dead or violently overthrown.
5. There are never real elections to real positions of power, people do not rule through their representatives, only a select group does through dirty political games.


Delf.

[Ziyoli]

Bu gaplardan odamlar qanchalik charchaganini va aynan shu gaplar robotdek hammaga programmalashtirilganini o'zingiz juda yaxhsi bilasizu Delf janoblari? Keling bir mulohaza qilamiz.

1. Ha rbir tannidingizda "every known sharia state" debsiz. Aytingchi, "every known modern democratic state" da ahvol o'zgachami? Amerikada Kennedy oilalari, Bush oilalari va hokazo oilalar va nimagadir doim badavlat kishilar boshqaruvda bo'ladi. Huddi hsu narsa UKda yoki Frantsiyada va hokazo ham kuzatiladi. Buni qanday qilib izohlaysiz?
2. Freedom of speach debsiz. Aytingchi, hozirgi kunda yahudiylarga qarshi gapirganlar nimaga ta'qib ostida qolishadi? Nima uchun shar'iy hokimiyat tarafdori o'z fikrini aytsa darrav uni "terrorchi"ga chiqarishadi? Amerika va yevroppada hatto qonunlar bor "inciting terror, keeping terrorist literature" va hokazo degan. Undan tashqari joriy "demokratiya"ni tanqidlaganlar ham, uni buni qo'yavering, iroqdagi urushni tanqidlaganlar ham aynan shunday ta'qiblar ostida qolmoqdalar. Buning dalillari son mingta.
3. Haqiqiy kuch odamlardan keladi, debsiz. UKda saylovlar paytida ovoz berganlar butun saylovchi aholisining 30%idan kam bo'ladi. Yani 30% inson 70% insonning taqdirini hal qiladi. Bu siz aytgan "real power"mi? Nimaga "demokrat" xalq, yani yevroppa va amerikaliklar umuman ishi ham yo'q boshlig'i kimligidan? Undan tashqari hammaga ayonki boshqaruv yevroppa va amerikada avval ham aytganimdek ma'lum tabaqa odamlardan keladi. Yani sizga ikkita kandidat qo'yishadi oldizga, ikalasi bir biridan battar va "bittasini tanla" deyishadi. Mana bush/kerry mavzuoti, Sarkozy/royal, blair/howard va hokazo. Hammasi bir biridan battar ekanligini hamma biladi. Nimaga shu "demokratik" davlatlarda siyosatchilar so'ziga umuman ishonilmaydi? Endi keling, sizning gaplaringizga nazar tashlaylik:



These are a few basic core principles and every known Sharia state violates them all: bu yerda adashdingiz. Kunimizda shariat davlatining o'zi yo'q. E'ron, saudiya deyishingiz mumkin, lekin ular faqatgina shariat qonuni bo'yicha boshqarilmaydi. You cannot assosiate the term "republic" or "kingdom" with "sharia" (eg. islamic republic of Iran, kingdom of saudi arabia)

1. One may not speak ill of Islam. Islam is categorically against freedom of speech.

Bu yerda sal so'z o'yini qilgansiz. Shariatda islomni HAQORATLASH ta'qiqlangan. Bu kabi qonunlar hatto yevroppada ham mavjud. Halifalik darvida halifa qaramog'ida yahudiy, nasoro, majusiy va dinsizlar ham bo'lgan. Ular bilan "open debate"lar bo'lgan. Debatda albatta u yoki bu qarash tanqid qilinadi. Lekin bunga qaramay qarshi taraf ta'qibga uchramagan va uchramaydi ham. Islomda qurolli qo'zg'olon qilish mumkin emas, ki bu sekulyar davlatlarda ham bir hil hukmga ega.

Demokratik davlatlarda esa yahudiylarni, holocoustni tanqid qilish umuman mumkin emas, bunga javobingiz nima buladi?
2. There is always an authoritarian despotic leader who is not accountable to anyone (Khalif, Ayatolla, King etc)

Bu yerda ham adashtingiz. Har bir boshliq odamlar tarafidan javobgardir. Qur'on va hadisga, shariat qonunlariga bo'ysunishi shart. Agar bo'ysunmasa, demak u davlat shar'iy davlat emas, aksincha qonunsiz va qonunbuzarlikka to'la davlat bo'ladi.
3. Government always trumps people's rights in the name of greater good (divine, Allah etc)

Bu gapingizni umuman tuhsunmadim. Lekin hozirgi kunda undan battari "in the name of national security" deb g'arbda nimalar qilinmayapti? Nechta begunoh odam qamoqlarda chirib yotipti, nechtasini ko'chada otib ketishayapti?
4. Under all known Sharia regimes all rulers stayed in power until dead or violently overthrown.

Bu hech narsani bildirmaydi va hech narsani o'zgartirmaydi. Agar sulton yaxshi bo'lsa, nimaga ohirigacha turmasin? Agar sulton yomon bo'lsa, men oldin aytganimdek, shariatga ko'ra (yani islom qonunchiligiga ko'ra) u sulton ketishi shart bo'ladi. Ketmadimi, demak u davlatda qonun ustuvorligi yo'q. Demak u davlat shar'iy davlat emas.
5. There are never real elections to real positions of power, people do not rule through their representatives, only a select group does through dirty political games.

Bu gapingiz bilan kunimizdagi demokratiyani nima farqi bor? Ko'zingizni oching, ko'chadagilar bilan gaplashing (o'sha amerikaning o'zida). Qaysi odam "men deputatlar, senatorlar, kongresmenlar orqali davlatni boshqarayapman" deb o'ylaydi? Hammasi "all politicians are the same" deydi. Odamlar boshqarayotgan bo'lsa edi London ko'chalarida 2 million odam iroq urushiga qarshi namoishga chiqqanida Angliya iroqqa qo'shin yubormas edi. Odamlar boshqarayotgan bo'lsa edi, bushning "approval rate"i 30%g tushganida u istefoga chiqishi kerak edi.

Shar'iy davlatda esa boshqaruvchining boshqaruvchi bo'lishi uchun uning siffatlari va shartlari mavjud. Dirty political games degan joingizga esa o'rin yo'q. Agar rahbar o'z nafsi uchun yolg'on gapirdimi, birovning haqqini yedimi, shariat qonuniga ko'ra u javobgarlikka tortiladi.

Endi sizga savol. Avvom, xalq ko'pchiligi adashishi mumkinmi?
2 jahon urushi arafasidagi Germaniyani eslang. Aksariyat gitlerni tanlagandi. Aksariyat diktaturani tanlagan edi. Bu demokratiya bo'ladimi? Ular to'g'ri yo'l tanlashganmidi o'sha paytda yo noto'g'ri yo'l tanlashganmidi?

Va nimagadir "freedom of speach" deganingizda matbuot omillarining xalq ongini manipulyatsiya qilishi haqida gap ochmadingiz.

Hullas bu mavzuda hali ancha bahslashsa, tortishsa bo'ladi. Siz Delf janoblari shariat haqida faqatgina "bosh kesar ekan, qo'l kesar ekan, toshbo'ron qilar ekan" degan "out of context" gaplarni eshitib, butun shariat haqidagi bilimingiz hsu bilan chegaralangan. Sizga tavsiyam, shariatni o'rganib chiqing. Ihyou ulumiddin kabi shariatning anchagina hukmini qamrab olgan kitoblarni o'qib chiqing. Qolaversa qur'onni va hadislarni o'qib chiqing, shunda sal ongingiz ochilar.

Mayli gapiraman desa gap ko'p. Omon bo'ling.

Delf.[/QUOTE]

[Aziz]

These are a few basic core principles and every known Sharia state violates them all:

1. One may not speak ill of Islam. Islam is categorically against freedom of speech.
2. There is always an authoritarian despotic leader who is not accountable to anyone (Khalif, Ayatolla, King etc)
3. Government always trumps people's rights in the name of greater good (divine, Allah etc)
4. Under all known Sharia regimes all rulers stayed in power until dead or violently overthrown.
5. There are never real elections to real positions of power, people do not rule through their representatives, only a select group does through dirty political games.


Delf.


My usual request...
Evidence from Quran and Sunnah that these things are from Sharia laws.

[SAMARKANDI!]

1. One may not speak ill of Islam. Islam is categorically against freedom of speech.
2. There is always an authoritarian despotic leader who is not accountable to anyone (Khalif, Ayatolla, King etc)
3. Government always trumps people's rights in the name of greater good (divine, Allah etc)
4. Under all known Sharia regimes all rulers stayed in power until dead or violently overthrown.
5. There are never real elections to real positions of power, people do not rule through their representatives, only a select group does through dirty political games.


Delf.

I just wonder how a person can stay so arrogantly against something that he has no idea of. If you have ever looked at Quran at all, what kind of Quran it was, I wonder.

Don’t you feel that you are trying to argue against smth that u dont have enough knowledge of and your claims are simply based on the activities of authoritarian states that simply use Islam to control people because its coming handy for Western states who seek one or another form of governing system to keep client states under control? Dont you know that any governing system, including Shariah, may transform into oppressive regime if heavily influenced by oppressive powers to be mishandled and misused.

Dont you think that by apparently not having enough or unbiased knowledge on Islam you are simply motivated by your personal prejudiced attitude towards the religion or may be by the move to fit in with the like-minded people around you.

Aziz, first of all, the argument was that Sharia is "a perfect legal system"....

I dont think anyone is claiming it is perfect system. pls do not adjust the argument to make your point. From the beginning of your statement u r misleading the readers and being dishonest.

p.s. the rest is baseless claims

[Delf]

Aziz, first of all, the argument was that Sharia is "a perfect legal system" (complete wash in my opinion) and that since "humans are imperfect" we see all those injustices in Afghanistan and KSA along with collapse of the Khalifat after short existence in middle ages and deterioration of situation of countries that had Sharia legal system (most of the Muslim world before 20th century).

I argued that people are not perfect, so if you want to have a legal (government) system, it should address this fact. Also it should account to the fact that people pursue their personal and their family's interests first and only then public interest. Bear in mind that this includes public officials too. Since Sharia does not account to this fact, it is therefore easy to exploit and abuse, making it a good ground for a authoritarian state where interests of a certain closed group of people trumps interests of the general public. Being from KSA you probably know this better than anyone else here. This in turn leads to stagnation and degeneration you see throughout Muslim world for past several centuries.

Then Samarkandi asked what system I propose, for which I gave an answer. And I explained why Sharia cannot be a fair system, because it violates basic principles necessary for operation of a fair legal (government) system.

Those violations are clear without much discussions:
1. There cannot a freedom of speech when main source of legal system stipulates that whoever questions it will be doomed to be burned for eternity. There are plenty of suras in Koran related to that. It also encourages violence against people who question (this relates to our another discussion regarding degeneration of science in Muslim countries).

2. Accountability of the government. This can only be achieved when state functions are fragmented and power flows from bottom to top (fair contested elections). Any Sharia system is going to end up in authoritarian despotic government because it does not have a system of checks and balance, let alone a robust mechanism for people to express their will.

3. Rights belong to people. I believe government is formed "in the name of the people" not "in the name of God". Since government is created and exists in the name of the people, nobody has right to manage it but for those who are elected via fair and open contested elections. In Sharia state someone usually claims that he is the ultimate interpreter of the "words of God" and since "divine revelations" trump human discourse, whoever gets to be in power has a great deal freedom for abuse, silencing legitimate criticism being the first and foremost abuse.

4. Term limits. I don't think you will ever find term limits in any Sharia state (be that Khalif, Ayatolla or King). Neither will you find in Sharia system explanation why it is important to have term limits.

5. Sharia does not have a mechanism for fair and open elections. Absence of freedom of speech pretty much bars it. If you cannot openly criticize government and provide alternative policies, this effectively kills any dissent and political opposition (you end up with illegal opposition: secret groups etc, and when things go really bad - whole thing turns violent).

Delf.

BTW, Ziyoli, for a list of most democratic states, please take a look at this article: http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438

[Warrior]

делф, я знаю, что тебя уже невозможно переубедить, т.к. целью данного топика является демонизация ислама и законов шариата. но все таки я решил ответить, чтобы у других людей не было ложных представлений:

пока буду рассматривать только уголовное право:
1. законы шариата и законы светского государства в общем не слишком отличаются друг от друга в том плане, что и там - и там пропагандируются одинаковые ценности (быть нравственным, не воровать, не убивать итд.).
2. есть законы шариата, которые не совсем правильны с точки зрения "сильно демократических стран", как например борьба против гомосексуализма итд. но эти явления ведут к разрушению общества и большинство людей даже развитых стран осуждают такие вещи.
3. что отличается, это мера пересечения и наказания. мера наказания согласно законам шариата намного жёстче, но есть светские государства, где меры наказания такие же жесткие или еще более жестче (напр. китай).
4. во главе исполнительной власти всегда стоят люди и поэтому и там и там есть человеческий фактор. и в светском государстве и в исламском могут быть случаи, где судьи не так растолковывают закон или не соблюдают какие-то законы, в результате чего имеет место несправедливость.
5. законы шариата не могут быть использованы в светском государстве.

вот основные тезисы которые спонтанно пришли в голову. чтобы исключить осечки правосудия, то нужно реформировать судебную систему. можно создать в исламских странах многоуровневую судебную систему (может у них уже есть, а мы не зная спорим), где если вы не согласны с решением, можно обращаться в более высокую инстанцию. в спорных случаях, где данный случай никогда не возникал раньше и по корану и хадисам невозможно найти ответ, также как и в светских государствах совет из ученных должен издать новые законы согласно шариату итд.

даже находясь в таких странах, такие атеисты как вы можете запросто ходить и заниматься законными делами. никто вас не будет заставлять молиться или казнить за то, что вы атеист.

просто на сегодняшний день такие люди как вы стараются искажать факты, раздувать какие-то события, пытаются освещать их в ином свете и вам не хватает объективности. постепенно светский мир идет к краху и отказывается где надо от свободы слова, своих принципов итд. если посмотреть назад, лет 40-50 назад мало кто говорил о вреде курения, алкаголя. но сегодня уже запрещают курить, пропагандировать табак и алкоголь. завтра, бог знает, может уже в развитых странах запретить и гомосексуализм, когда данная проблема станет угрозой для человечества. то есть, если рассуждать объективно, опять возвращаемся к тем же "старым" правилам шариата, которые являются самыми правильными, универсальными для человечества.

худо хаммамизни хидоят сари йулласин!

[mujreem]

...


Цитируя известного классика:
Мне нравится ход ваших мыслей. :cool:

мжрм.

[Aziz]

Aziz, first of all, the argument was that Sharia is "a perfect legal system" (complete wash in my opinion) and that since "humans are imperfect" we see all those injustices in Afghanistan and KSA along with collapse of the Khalifat after short existence in middle ages and deterioration of situation of countries that had Sharia legal system (most of the Muslim world before 20th century).



You are right...we are saying that Sharia is a completely perfect system, but you are wrong saying that Sharia supposing people are perfect. Muhammed son on Abdullah "our Prophet PBUH" said: All humans make sins, and the best of sinners those who repent. And in this way we talk about Sharia, Quran says and Prophet says...other claims will be insignificant for us as Muslims.

Injustice in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan exists, and I admit that the justice system here in KSA is corrupted so badly. But I don't agree with you in putting all Muslims empires on one side. Which Khalifate are you talking about? First four? Umayyads? Abbasids? Andalusians? Timurids? Mughals? Ottomans? Please specify so we can proceed in our arguments clearly. And one more thing...When was the first President elected democratically? The Islamic Empires were no different than the other empires at that time. Inheriting the leadership of an empire was something very normal at that time. You cannot stick that to Sharia claiming that it's a part of it. What I'm trying to say is electing a government democratically does not conflict with Sharia, the monarch system we're living in is just another reason why we're still in 3rd world.


I argued that people are not perfect, so if you want to have a legal (government) system, it should address this fact. Also it should account to the fact that people pursue their personal and their family's interests first and only then public interest. Bear in mind that this includes public officials too. Since Sharia does not account to this fact, it is therefore easy to exploit and abuse, making it a good ground for a authoritarian state where interests of a certain closed group of people trumps interests of the general public. Being from KSA you probably know this better than anyone else here. This in turn leads to stagnation and degeneration you see throughout Muslim world for past several centuries.

I agree with you here, but I don't see where does Sharia exactly fit? Can you provide us with some texts from our Holy Books?

[~Atirgul~]

просто на сегодняшний день такие люди как вы стараются искажать факты, раздувать какие-то события, пытаются освещать их в ином свете и вам не хватает объективности. постепенно светский мир идет к краху и отказывается где надо от свободы слова, своих принципов итд. если посмотреть назад, лет 40-50 назад мало кто говорил о вреде курения, алкаголя. но сегодня уже запрещают курить, пропагандировать табак и алкоголь. завтра, бог знает, может уже в развитых странах запретить и гомосексуализм, когда данная проблема станет угрозой для человечества. то есть, если рассуждать объективно, опять возвращаемся к тем же "старым" правилам шариата, которые являются самыми правильными, универсальными для человечества.

худо хаммамизни хидоят сари йулласин!
Может мой пример будет очень женским, но я всё равно хочу его добавить.
Сейчас во всём мире врачи советуют кормить дитя грудным молоком до 2 лет и даже больше если можно, исследования показали что дети чем дольше кормятся грудным молоком, тем лучше они развиваются и меньше болеют. НО всего лишь несколько лет назад к грудному молоку во всём мире относились не серьёзно, даже говорили если ребенок кормится долго грудным молоком то он вырастит неуверенным, и как ребенок станет кушать взрослую пищу его надо резко отлучать от груди и т.д. Все эти байки придумывали чтобы Женьшина поскорей выходила из декрета и играла роль в общественной жизни как рабочая сила. В Исламе же кормить грудным молоком до 2 лет это обязаность родителей, если мать по каким-то причинам не может или не хочет кормить грудью, то муж обязан найти другую кормилицу и платить ей деньги за кормление. Этим примером я просто хочу сказать что возможно что то мы непонимаем на сегодняшний день, считаем это не важным, и через насколько столетий найдем свою ошибку, но Аллах знает лучше нас, потому что Он мудрый.

[Delf]

Aziz, what I am saying is that if you want a fair government system, it must be accountable to general public. The power must flow from the general public to the people on top through a mechanism of open, fair and contested elections. The power of the people on top should be limited and fragmented. This especially applies to executive that most often abuses given power.

There must be a freedom of speech.

My argument is that the above things and a fair system can only be achieved when certain criteria are met. Sharia does not meet these criteria, therefore cannot serve as a base for a fair government.

And the problem goes all the way to Koran. Theocratic states are not best models of governance. They claim to be, but they are flawed and lead to degradation and suffering. There are forms of government that are much better to serve public interest.

Europe has battled with Catholic Church for centuries to liberate itself from corrupt religious influence. And with Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason came successes in all spheres of society: economics, politics, science, culture, technology, military.

Look into what are the best countries to live in (UN development index) and see what types of governance they have, look into their history and see how they evolved into prosperous countries where justice prevails.


Delf.

P.S. concepts of Democracy and Republic have been first proposed and tried in Ancient Greece and Rome. They have been pretty much non-existent from that time on and monarchy and theocracy (in one form or another) have ruled the world throughout most part of past 2 thousand years. Only with US Constitution did ideals of Democracy and Republic came to life again. And throughout 20th century those ideals took over Europe and spread to other continents.

[Shahnoz]

Guys, why can you not have a calm discussion? That's sad, how every thread with any religious content becomes a battle field, dripping with moral abuses of one another.

Delf initially has not said anything at all about his views on topic, he gave facts. You assumed he's against your religion, and decided to stone him to death.

Not defending. Being objective.


3) For the changing religion (Islam). (There were much discussion on this issue: why and how and etc., I do not want to discuss it any more.)


I found that point quite interesting... No freedom of choice, eh? Once trapped, trapped forever.

Tell me Delf what is the point of our discussion if you anyway are not going to change your mind?! Wasting our time?!

Is it important to have an absolute change as a result of a discussion? Can one not enjoy the exchange of views in order to initiate new thoughts and conclusions? C'mon..

I have a question... or, hm, a set of questions.

What happens to the girl (not a woman at the age of 16) after her physical death? Does she go to hell? Or does all the torturing count as ridding of the sins?

Who does the lashes? Is he considered to be a true muslim eventhough he can torture a helpless child (since under the age of 18)? Does he go to heaven, regardless of the fact that so many lives were taken by him, or so many souls have been tortured?


And, I do not understand why people always try to compare Islamic "dark side" to the rest of wrong deeds in the world (such as rape statistics of USA). Why while explaining something, or proving something right, you have to prove something else wrong? I think that if you have enough support for your opinion, you'd be secure enough to not make comparisons... :rolleyes:

PainKiller has made a point, I haven't quite found the answer in the thread... So, practically, if a girl is raped, she has no way of proving it? And by admitting that she has been sexually abused, she just spoils the rest of her life by making it known. And, she has no chance of being happy anyway, since being a virgin is big there, isn't it... Mmm.. any comments?

I am not trying to mock you (the muslims), I am asking questions to clarify everything I might have misunderstood.

[SAMARKANDI!]

Guys, why can you not have a calm discussion? That's sad, how every thread with any religious content becomes a battle field, dripping with moral abuses of one another.

Cuz every time when it comes to the Religion of islam, some people can't help insulting it and when it happens, it is, believe me, hard to sit and read that someone is pouring dirt on smth you consider the HOLIEST.


Delf initially has not said anything at all about his views on topic, he gave facts. You assumed he's against your religion, and decided to stone him to death.



One of his "Facts" was our religion is a medieval fairy tale. Now if you think it is a fact indeed, then I feel really sorry for you. I would advice you to just stay away from this.


I am not trying to mock you (the muslims), I am asking questions to clarify everything I might have misunderstood.

What are you going to do once u clarify your misunderstanding?

[Shahnoz]

Cuz every time when it comes to the Religion of islam, some people can't help insulting it and when it happens, it is, believe me, hard to sit and read that someone is pouring dirt on smth you consider the HOLIEST.

I'm doing my best to not be one of them.

One of his "Facts" was our religion is a medieval fairy tale. Now if you think it is a fact indeed, then I feel really sorry for you. I would advice you to just stay away from this.

I was talking about this thread in particular. His initial quotation had no insult in it..

I'm sorry if I had said anything that hurt you as deep.

[SAMARKANDI!]

I'm doing my best to not be one of them.



I was talking about this thread in particular. His initial quotation had no insult in it..

I'm sorry if I had said anything that hurt you as deep.

Thank you for consideration. I just wanted to tell that Islam for some of us is extremely holly, some people take it so seriously that even seeing someone saying there is no God (Allah kechirsin) is sort of insulting, even though person has a right to express himself/herself.

Personally I have hard time talking to people when they, on top of denying the existence of Superior being, use implied language.

For every question u asked there is a reasonable answer in Islam. I think, firstly you have to understand that there are different divisions within Islam. Although majority of muslims deny some extreme sects, these sects still call themselves muslims/Islamic. And such sects in many cases catch the public eye, especially western mass media. Secondly Islam like many other modern governing systems has a justice system. If you look deeply, in detail, at any other justice system, it will have things that you would question or may even consider very inhumane. Its cuz some crimes are very serious and if not addressed seriously, the end results could be catastrophic to the society. Depending on your understanding of how society should operate, you set your rules and regulations. Islam puts morality on its highest levels of social justice. Because it held on to its morals firmly since its foundation it didn’t change its views and rules just because humans started to ask more and more freedom to express their whims and lusts. This is kina very generally explanation. but to really understand Islam and if u indeed seek answers, you should read Quran and its interpretations and check some hadith and ask Questions from “scholars” or read their books on such issues.

p.s. In my opinion though, present Islam is not the same as it was at the time of our Prophet or right after him. As I have understood. Our present scholars are heavily influenced with man only interpretation of Islam. I think we lack female input. I strongly believe that Islam was not like this, I believe Islam was very soft, very appealing and open for male and female equally. I think during some periods of Islamic history, especially after late Arab, mogul and Turkic domination, it has transformed into something that it shouldn’t have. I believe it has been corrupted badly.



I was talking about this thread in particular. His initial quotation had no insult in it..
.

He used it in this thread and deleted it later as I see now, which is like spitting and taking it back.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Execution of a 16-year old girl in Iran for crimes against chastity. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5217424.stm)







Delf.

Your honor,

The Noble Man,

Iranian Judicial system although called Islaamic in actuality is not representative of Islaamic Legal system...for many different reasons, which I do not want to get into...Bottom line, I consider it not Islaamic, thus not representative of Islaamic legal system, it is similar to the case of bunch Texan Rednecks Lynching a Black person, and claiming they are carrying out a Sharia law.

Ironic thing is that...I do not see you posting about how US marines killed a young Iraqi girl after rapin her, and murdering her entire family which ended with setting fire on corpses...

Different forms of abuse happened and happen on a daily basis by US Soldiers in Iraq, Zionist dogs in Falastin, and Slavic Skinheads in Shishan...on a daily basis!!!

But yet, you got the guts, and face to come here and trash the religion of your father, mother, grandmother, grandfather, your own sister, who you acknowledged in this forum veils herself (May Allah make her steadfast)!!! I did not mean to get personal...but I am forced...I am sorry if I offended your feelings...But you know it very well, what you saying is a blasphemy against the very values that make up our nation, heritage, glory...and etc...It is equal to wiping your a$$ on the tombs of your loved ones!!!

Where does this hypocricy end? I mean if you are just and objective, you should be posting about all!!! I do not see you posting about recent school shooting, the result of a moral bankruptcy in this corrupt society...One does not even feel safe to go to UNIVERSITY FOR EDUCATION anymore!!! But your jaw does not get tired of bashing Muslims and Islaam!!!

If you wanted to criticize Islaamic penal system, you DO have a freedom of speech! However, it has to be an objective and intellectual query...not a biased, on sided attitude...!

This is all i got to say!!!

[Aziz]

Aziz, what I am saying is that if you want a fair government system, it must be accountable to general public. The power must flow from the general public to the people on top through a mechanism of open, fair and contested elections. The power of the people on top should be limited and fragmented. This especially applies to executive that most often abuses given power.

There must be a freedom of speech.

My argument is that the above things and a fair system can only be achieved when certain criteria are met. Sharia does not meet these criteria, therefore cannot serve as a base for a fair government.

And the problem goes all the way to Koran. Theocratic states are not best models of governance. They claim to be, but they are flawed and lead to degradation and suffering. There are forms of government that are much better to serve public interest.

Europe has battled with Catholic Church for centuries to liberate itself from corrupt religious influence. And with Age of Enlightenment and Age of Reason came successes in all spheres of society: economics, politics, science, culture, technology, military.

Look into what are the best countries to live in (UN development index) and see what types of governance they have, look into their history and see how they evolved into prosperous countries where justice prevails.


Delf.

P.S. concepts of Democracy and Republic have been first proposed and tried in Ancient Greece and Rome. They have been pretty much non-existent from that time on and monarchy and theocracy (in one form or another) have ruled the world throughout most part of past 2 thousand years. Only with US Constitution did ideals of Democracy and Republic came to life again. And throughout 20th century those ideals took over Europe and spread to other continents.


All what is said above is worth nothing to me. You are claiming things that exists in our world today in Muslims countries and you are saying that this is the Sharia Law. You always talk about scientific method and using it to conclude facts, but you are not applying it when it comes to what you don't want to. If you were in some mathematical scientific conference and you had the chance to talk about the equation of the parabola for example, you have to know what is a parabola and what is the equation of the parabola and what is the purpose of using the parabola. Simply you have to show us some work, tell us who are the people who worked to develop this equation, what do you think about it, what supports your opinion. You haven't quoted a single word from any of our Holy Books.

Then what do you know about the history of Sharia? What do you know about Arabic language which students of Sharia study for so many years so they can understand the texts. What do you know about "nasikh and mansookh" in the Qur'an? What do you know about the degrees of Hadith? What do you know about "Ilm Alosool" or the "science of fundamentalisation" of fiqh? You are talking about things that you know just a little about...and guess what? all what you know is wrong. You don't know what's the difference in Sharia between what are the basics that we can't change and what are the things that are left to people to decide for themselves. Don't think that since you were born in a Muslims country you have full command of Sharia...the place you were born was also ruled by atheists who fought Islam with all they had.

So unless you are really ready to argue in a scientific way, go and play somewhere else. And please...don't go away saying that I got angry and pissed off...not at all, I'm right here writing with normal blood pressure and normal heart beat rate. Just waiting for your response.

[AL-Midwest]

A lot of people ask me about Islam and some rules in Muslim Sharia law. And honestly speaking I can't answer some of the questions since I don't have a deep knowledge about it. Based on that I have no right to say that certain laws of sharia are wrong. Millions of people live by those rule and we have to respect their views. As for me I was born muslim and proud of it every single way. Again it's not up to us to judge rules that were tested for ages, sometimes some things needs to stay the way it is.
cheers

[Shahnoz]

For every question u asked .... or read their books on such issues.

Thank you. It doesn't quite answer my questions though... Does that mean that there are no answers to them? I understand. We're all human.. :-)

p.s. In my opinion though, present Islam is not the same as it was at the time of our Prophet or right after him. As I have understood. Our present scholars are heavily influenced with man only interpretation of Islam. I think we lack female input. I strongly believe that Islam was not like this, I believe Islam was very soft, very appealing and open for male and female equally. I think during some periods of Islamic history, especially after late Arab, mogul and Turkic domination, it has transformed into something that it shouldn’t have. I believe it has been corrupted badly..

GOod point. I like the way you believe. :-)

Islam does lack female input and female presence as a whole... or, so I think.

He used it in this thread and deleted it later as I see now, which is like spitting and taking it back.

I'm sorry. Didn't know that..

What are you going to do once u clarify your misunderstanding?

I will have a better understanding of what you consider the holliest. :-)

[Delf]

Your honor,
The Noble Man,
Iranian Judicial system although called Islaamic in actuality is not representative of Islaamic Legal system...for many different reasons, which I do not want to get into...Bottom line, I consider it not Islaamic, thus not representative of Islaamic legal system, it is similar to the case of bunch Texan Rednecks Lynching a Black person, and claiming they are carrying out a Sharia law.


I think 65 million Iranians beg to differ. They have the modeal Sharia State in their own interpretation. You know, this Sharia system can be interpreted thousands different ways and I don't think you or anyone else has a monopoly on interpretation of it. If you think there is a basic criteria which a state should satisfy in order to be a Sharia state, you are welcome to lay out those criteria here. If you think that muslim population around the world agrees on this criteria, then we would have come kind of consensus by which you can judge how this or that state corresponds to a model of a Sharia state.

If you saw my previous post, The Economist did such a research with democratic states and published a list: http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438, For full report in PDF: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
And I think people will agree with the definition of the democratic state the research has provided.

If there is no consensus on basic criteria what Sharia state is, then the entire concept is pretty much up to imagination of anyone.


Ironic thing is that...I do not see you posting about how US marines killed a young Iraqi girl after rapin her, and murdering her entire family which ended with setting fire on corpses...

Different forms of abuse happened and happen on a daily basis by US Soldiers in Iraq, Zionist dogs in Falastin, and Slavic Skinheads in Shishan...on a daily basis!!!

But yet, you got the guts, and face to come here and trash the religion of your father, mother, grandmother, grandfather, your own sister, who you acknowledged in this forum veils herself (May Allah make her steadfast)!!! I did not mean to get personal...but I am forced...I am sorry if I offended your feelings...But you know it very well, what you saying is a blasphemy against the very values that make up our nation, heritage, glory...and etc...It is equal to wiping your a$$ on the tombs of your loved ones!!!

Where does this hypocricy end? I mean if you are just and objective, you should be posting about all!!! I do not see you posting about recent school shooting, the result of a moral bankruptcy in this corrupt society...One does not even feel safe to go to UNIVERSITY FOR EDUCATION anymore!!! But your jaw does not get tired of bashing Muslims and Islaam!!!

If you wanted to criticize Islaamic penal system, you DO have a freedom of speech! However, it has to be an objective and intellectual query...not a biased, on sided attitude...!

This is all i got to say!!!


First of all, calm down. You don't have to shout here. Otherwise you look like someone who needs to see a psychiatrist.

Secondly, yes, there is an abuse, and yes, it is against the international laws. Therefore you see calls to impeach US president by US congressmen. Also, take a look at top 15 democratic states from the above list and tell me please what kind of abuses they are doing.

Thirdly, part of the fault for the misery of Palestinian people is on the conscience of people who advocate violence and intolerance (or in your words, it would be jihad and purity of Islam). If not for psychos like you (and same kind of psychos from fundamental judaic side) Palestine and Israel would come to peace terms long time ago.

Fourthly, laws and government in democratic countries is a lot more just than in any Muslim country. You may say all you want, but this is a fact.
Otherwise you wouldn't see all Muslim countries living in misery while democracies prosper. And this is despite the fact that Muslim countries in middle east sit on enormous natural deposits of oil.
And btw, oil-rich countries should thank developed industrial countries: without billions of dollars given to them for their oil, they would still be riding camels.

[Delf]

Then what do you know about the history of Sharia? What do you know about Arabic language which students of Sharia study for so many years so they can understand the texts. What do you know about "nasikh and mansookh" in the Qur'an? What do you know about the degrees of Hadith? What do you know about "Ilm Alosool" or the "science of fundamentalisation" of fiqh? You are talking about things that you know just a little about...and guess what?

Aziz, you don't have to read 50 volumes of Lenin's works in order to understand that Marxism-Leninnism is a failed system of governance. Same way, you don't have to read all Sharia laws and Hadiths in order to understand that it is a failed system of governance.

You can discuss the fundamental principles the system is based on and come to conclusion that it is flawed.


Delf.

[Delf]

I am not trying to mock you (the muslims), I am asking questions to clarify everything I might have misunderstood.

Shahnoz, the very fact you are asking question will be interpreted as an attack on people's faith and an insult of Islam. This has been a growing tendency among religious fanatics on the forum.

Delf.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Thirdly, part of the fault for the misery of Palestinian people is on the conscience of people who advocate violence and intolerance (or in your words, it would be jihad and purity of Islam). If not for psychos like you (and same kind of psychos from fundamental judaic side) Palestine and Israel would come to peace terms long time ago.

Listen buddy!

Psychos like me, have been talking about the evils of suicide bombing, terror, killings of innocent in numerous instances, and numerous places, however, you do not have the common sense to admit the reality of our call and message. Was it not the likes of me, who wanted our moderator Ulughbek to be removed from religion board, for approving suicide bombings in Palestine? And was it not the likes of you who reinstated him back to the moderator role? Does your claim hold any water?

Where did I ever call for terrorism or approved of such methodologies? And when did I advocate violence against the innocent folks?

Who posted all these, if not akhee-abdullah?

Inside the Mind of a Muslim Terrorist (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=43010)

Jihad Misconceptions cleared (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=17589)

No Compulsion in Religion (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=42371)

Тяжкие последствия актов самоубйства и взрывов (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=38844)

Muslims unite to combat Terrorism (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=36050)

O Muslims Fear Allah and do not sympathise with Zarqawi (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=31327)

Suicide bombing forbidden in Islaam (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=30281)

This is how Islaam fights Terrorism (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=26524)

Condemning London Bombings (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=23043)

The Cancer of Terrorism (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=18863)

Palestine-Jihad? (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=18798)

Suicide Bombing issue clarified (http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=18579)

But I know that I will stay in your brain as a terrorist, psycho, jihadist, unless and until Allah opens your heart or stop and abandon La Ilaha Il Allah, Muhammadur Rasul'Allah!!!

I expect and await the credit from Allah azza wa jal. However, I am asking you to stop being biased and bashing Muslims left and right!!!

You are obsessed with faulting Muslims and Islaam. May be you should scrutinize your psychic, may be it is you who needs attention!!!

This is not an objective attitude, rather, you have already made up your mind, and you are not inquiring to uncover the truth, but rather, wasting people's time to only provoke them.

Listen buddy,

Keep barking...and we will show the greatest patience, time will come, you will deeply regret, for all of these!!! Your regret will avail you not even a bit!

And warn them (O Muhammad SAW) of the Day of grief and regrets, when the case has been decided, while (now) they are in a state of carelessness, and they believe not. (Maryam 19:39)

(Allah) said: "In a little while, they are sure to be regretful." (Al-Mu'minun 23:40)

And on the Day when the Hour will be established, the Mujrimun (disbelievers, sinners, criminals, polytheists, etc.) will be plunged into destruction with deep regrets, sorrows, and despair. (Ar-Rum 30:12)

[Demir Kağan]

Hmm.. What is bad about being a jihadist? :rolleyes:

By the way Akhee, as a muslim, I do not agree on the way you talk.

[Akhee-Abdullah]

Hmm.. What is bad about being a jihadist? :rolleyes:

By the way Akhee, as a muslim, I do not agree on the way you talk.

You are right I have forked tongue...I should change it to swordy!

Jihadists...

-declared most of the Muslims upon kufr due to Major sins. According to them one has to renew his Shahadah he committed a major sin, thus he is no longer Muslim, unless repents.

-approved prohibited means to achieve their objectives, 9/11 is an example. They have and do carry out deadly suicide bombings around the world.

-they have killed many of the companions of Rasul'Allah sal'Allahu alayhiwassalam. They have declared takfir upon Ali radiallahu anhu after he made pact of truce with Muawiah radiallahu anhu...

Bottomline check these out http://forum.arbuz.com/showthread.php?t=43010...to, http://www.salafiaudio.com/audio/SA129_1A.mp3 to get an insight into their evils. The second link is a great one!!!

[Demir Kağan]

I do not have anything against jihad.

Anyways, I didn't want to participate in this thread but I have things to say..

Before everything, we are creatures, we have been created. I am not trying to prove this to atheists as I am not trying to impoze anything, just talking from my view.

God has sent us 3 holy book and 3 holy religion, the latest is Islam. If someone believes in a religion or in a system, he follows it and he does his actions according to that system or religion. Anyone oppositing this can read psychology books.

Islam never orders killing except jihads. Shedding blood exists from the first murderer, Kabil and it will exist untill the last human die. Muslims never touch to innocents because this is an order. God only orders to fight with non-muslims those don't stop bothering muslims and killing muslims. Please understand that point, the order is not killing non-muslims but killing those don't stop bothering muslims and killing muslims. Because in our belief, it says, "Someone save a person, he saves the whole world." We can basically understand "Someone kills a person, he kills the whole world." from that.

According to Islam, there will be a judgement after Kiyamat. All of the actions will be punished or awarded. So, we must do whatever is written in the book.

Hatm qilmoq uchun Kur'angi 6 marta Arabchasidan va 1 marta Turkchasidan oqigan edim. Islam is not against the human rights and the democracy. If you are telling it is, then simply prove it. But your proof cannot be the actions because there are many comments of the ayets, so your proof must be from Kur'an as an ayet.

1. One may not speak ill of Islam. Islam is categorically against freedom of speech.
2. There is always an authoritarian despotic leader who is not accountable to anyone (Khalif, Ayatolla, King etc)
3. Government always trumps people's rights in the name of greater good (divine, Allah etc)