tbaba1234:

An Islamic state is a state where every muslim is a citizen; That is the definition of an Islamic state: I can not go to any of these countries and claim citizen rights based on the fact that i am muslim.

Therefore, they are not Islamic states. Our history shows that we were mainly one state before colonisation. After that nationalism and tribalism divided the muslims.

Besides none of these nation states practise the sharia fully, they take parts of the laws and ignore the rest.



Again, the basis of state laws is Islam....

If it was based on a secular ideology and you do acts against the state constitution; You will be charged with treason. During the cold war, defectors from each side were seen as traitors and faced the maximum penalty.

Monarchies are alien to Islam, there were instituted by the colonialists, The rest are mainly secular dictatorships... Which government exactly practises Islam? Which is an Islamic state? Saudi Arabia is the closest you will come and i have already shown why they are not an Islamic state.

Applying a few laws of the sharia does not make you an Islamic state.



That is not true, Non-muslim can hold political positions in an Islamic state, they can rule a region of the state but they can't be the caliph(overall leader)....

acts against the constitution?? Like burning it?? Or disobeying its laws?? No! Those don't amount to treason. Treason is any act aimed at overwhelming and overpowering/overthrow the govt. To claim an average man in Pakistan who has doubts about his religion and shares it with his family and friends is committing treason is ridiculous!

Islamic states were effectively despotic, no formal constitution or check and balances or democracy. The Ottoman empire was ruled by a Sultan with succession to his children. For all intents and purposes, that's a monarch.

The Ottoman empire is responsible for the genocide in Armenia, muslims turned on their second class citizens and butchered them.

An atheist couldn't rule why because he is a second class citizen too?? What if the US constitution forbade muslims from being involved in the governance over themselves, would that be just and fair?

tbaba1234:

Up till the 1920s: we still had a functioning Islamic state (Ottoman empire). The colonialists tore up the Muslim state in bits after the collapse of the ottomans

There are movements to reunite the muslims under Islam again... And it will happen, it is just a matter of time.

The punishment for apostacy in an Islamic state is death.... This is however a very simplistic explanation: It comes with caveats..

There are certain conditions where conversion is accompanied with acts that could be considered treasonable by the state. The punishment for treason is death.

The act of just conversion is not punishable in most cases, however if that conversion is accompanied by an attempt to discredit Islam or propagate another religion within the islamic state, It is considered treasonable.

This law is not applicable to new muslims so they get a free ride.

The apostacy law came about during the time of the prophet;

In order to discredit Islam, some Jews in medina would accept islam in the day and leave by sunset; They continued to do so until the law was put in place.

Guess how many people did so the next day? None..

Now if one is considered an apostate, a number of steps must be taken:

He speaks to the scholars about his doubts and is provided evidences about the divinity of the Quran so as to convince him, if that fails, he is threatened basically to shut him up from proselytizing disbelief in an Islamic state. If he relents, he is let go and can continue in his disbelief and live his normal life.

isn't that a tyrannical law?? Execute a man for religious differences?? Constant conversion of religion and beliefs is the fault and at the discretion of a man, the State can't justly prescribe thoughts and beliefs for a man.

Although Islam is propagated with public expense, yet other religions aren't given a chance to speak, is that a fair and open society??

Kay 17: acts against the constitution?? Like burning it?? Or disobeying its laws?? No! Those don't amount to treason. Treason is any act aimed at overwhelming and overpowering/overthrow the govt. To claim an average man in Pakistan who has doubts about his religion and shares it with his family and friends is committing treason is ridiculous!

Islamic states were effectively despotic, no formal constitution or check and balances or democracy. The Ottoman empire was ruled by a Sultan with succession to his children. For all intents and purposes, that's a monarch.

The Ottoman empire is responsible for the genocide in Armenia, muslims turned on their second class citizens and butchered them.

An atheist couldn't rule why because he is a second class citizen too?? What if the US constitution forbade muslims from being involved in the governance over themselves, would that be just and fair?

There is no inherited rule under Islamic law first of all, The leader must get the alleigance of all the region/tribes to rule. Were there inherited leadership in Islamic empires? yes but that is not the rule...

Stop talking as if you know the first thing about an Islamic system:: There are no checks and balances?? really?? Why does the leader have to get approval from all the regions and tribes then??

During the cold war, the communist who defected to the other side was deemed treasonable.... Why do you think that was? Was he overthrowing the state? If he started to promote an idea other than communism in the state, what do you think will happen to him? They would not think twice about executing him..


Let me give you a brief explanation of the Islamic system

The leader or the Head of State under the Islamic system of government is the Mujtahid who satisfies all the criteria required, (in the case of there being a single Mujtahid.)

These powers may only be “in the hands” of the Head of State if the majority of the public agrees to this and provided that such measures are taken as to ensure that there is no likelihood of this eventually leading to a system of dictatorship. It is of utmost importance to establish a system of party-political
pluralism in the country.

Legislation is made by consultation: Islam teaches us to run a government, to make legislation and decisions by the process of Shura. Shura means "to take decisions by consultation and participation" (3:159, 42:38). This is an important part of the Islamic political system. There is no scope for despotism in Islam. The Qur’an and the Sunnah will be the basis of legislation in Islam.

So there is a shura council>> So he has no arbitrary powers:: Does that sound like a Monarchy?

Independence of judiciary.

In the Islamic political system, the Judiciary is independent of the Executive. The head of the state or any government minister could be called to the court if necessary. They would be treated no differently from other citizens. The Qur’an has many injunctions about justice. One of the main functions of the Islamic state is to ensure justice to all citizens (4:58, 4:135, 5:. The ruler and the government has no right to interfere in the system of justice.

(check : http://imamshirazi.com/the%20islamic%20system.pdf, http://www.angelfire.com/bc3/johnsonuk/eng/dawa/politic.html for more)

An Islamic state is based on the model of Prophet Muhammad’s (phuh) state in Madinah while a Muslim state is one which has a majority Muslim population and some Islamic features.

The basic islamic system is NOT like a monarchy.

The Islamic system does not expressly forbid non-muslims from ruling but i doubt a non-muslim can get the allegiance of a majority muslim population. It does not forbid them from political participation. Infact it goes a step further.. It allows them to make a decision on the laws that govern them in the muslim state.

In the Islamic state, the jewish and christian communities adhere to their own laws and have their own courts with full autonomy . you don't get that in the US for religious groups.

The armenian genocide has nothing to do with Islam, it wasn't always like that.... The empire was already in decline; they committed atrocities, they were corrupt... This led to an internal revolt that destroyed it.

You just need to go further in time to see how Jewish and christian groups thrived under Islamic rule... The final (and decaying) years of the Ottoman empire is not a fair assessment of Islamic rule. The Ottoman existed for 700 years....

Kay 17: isn't that a tyrannical law?? Execute a man for religious differences?? Constant conversion of religion and beliefs is the fault and at the discretion of a man, the State can't justly prescribe thoughts and beliefs for a man.

Although Islam is propagated with public expense, yet other religions aren't given a chance to speak, is that a fair and open society??

In the early years when Baghdad was the capital of the muslim empire, There were open debates by different religious groups;;;; The jews, the christians and even those with no faith...

What do you mean by having no right to speak?

The state does not prescribe a man's faith;; you can believe what you want:

tbaba1234:

There is no inherited rule under Islamic law first of all, The leader must get the alleigance of all the region/tribes to rule. Were there inherited leadership in Islamic empires? yes but that is not the rule...

Stop talking as if you know the first thing about an Islamic system:: There are no checks and balances?? really?? Why does the leader have to get approval from all the regions and tribes then??

During the cold war, the communist who defected to the other side was deemed treasonable.... Why do you think that was? Was he overthrowing the state? If he started to promote an idea other than communism in the state, what do you think will happen to him? They would not think twice about executing him..


Let me give you a brief explanation of the Islamic system

The leader or the Head of State under the Islamic system of government is the Mujtahid who satisfies all the criteria required, (in the case of there being a single Mujtahid.)

These powers may only be “in the hands” of the Head of State if the majority of the public agrees to this and provided that such measures are taken as to ensure that there is no likelihood of this eventually leading to a system of dictatorship. It is of utmost importance to establish a system of party-political
pluralism in the country.

Legislation is made by consultation: Islam teaches us to run a government, to make legislation and decisions by the process of Shura. Shura means "to take decisions by consultation and participation" (3:159, 42:38). This is an important part of the Islamic political system. There is no scope for despotism in Islam. The Qur’an and the Sunnah will be the basis of legislation in Islam.

So there is a shura council>> So he has no arbitrary powers:: Does that sound like a Monarchy?

Independence of judiciary.

In the Islamic political system, the Judiciary is independent of the Executive. The head of the state or any government minister could be called to the court if necessary. They would be treated no differently from other citizens. The Qur’an has many injunctions about justice. One of the main functions of the Islamic state is to ensure justice to all citizens (4:58, 4:135, 5:. The ruler and the government has no right to interfere in the system of justice.

(check : http://imamshirazi.com/the%20islamic%20system.pdf, http://www.angelfire.com/bc3/johnsonuk/eng/dawa/politic.html for more)

An Islamic state is based on the model of Prophet Muhammad’s (phuh) state in Madinah while a Muslim state is one which has a majority Muslim population and some Islamic features.

The basic islamic system is NOT like a monarchy.

The Islamic system does not expressly forbid non-muslims from ruling but i doubt a non-muslim can get the allegiance of a majority muslim population. It does not forbid them from political participation. Infact it goes a step further.. It allows them to make a decision on the laws that govern them in the muslim state.

In the Islamic state, the jewish and christian communities adhere to their own laws and have their own courts with full autonomy . you don't get that in the US for religious groups.

The armenian genocide has nothing to do with Islam, it wasn't always like that.... The empire was already in decline; they committed atrocities, they were corrupt... This led to an internal revolt that destroyed it.

You just need to go further in time to see how Jewish and christian groups thrived under Islamic rule... The final (and decaying) years of the Ottoman empire is not a fair assessment of Islamic rule. The Ottoman existed for 700 years....

Tbaba, I was once offered a job in finace to an islamic country. I can only imagine now if I went there and converted my muslim girlfriend to an atheist, she could have been killed under the apostasy law.

Do you really expect non-muslims to give islam a chance once they get to know about such a law?

logicboy:

Tbaba, I was once offered a job in finace to an islamic country. I can only imagine now if I went there and converted my muslim girlfriend to an atheist, she could have been killed under the apostasy law.

Do you really expect non-muslims to give islam a chance once they get to know about such a law?

That is not true!! No one will be killed.. These states you have now are not Islamic states...

Your GF will not be a citizen, I suspect you are just going about your normal lives... Her atheism will go unnoticed...

I hope she is smarter than that though...

The problem is that you guys do not have a fair assessment of the law and oversimplify it...

Islam is not based on its penal codes.... It is defined by the principle of worship of one God with no partners....

tbaba1234:

In the early years when Baghdad was the capital of the muslim empire, There were open debates by different religious groups;;;; The jews, the christians and even those with no faith...

What do you mean by having no right to speak?

The state does not prescribe a man's faith;; you can believe what you want:

This is contrary from what you have been saying. Propagation of beliefs and thoughts was not permissible IF it wasn't the State prescribed ideology.

tbaba1234:

There is no inherited rule under Islamic law first of all, The leader must get the alleigance of all the region/tribes to rule. Were there inherited leadership in Islamic empires? yes but that is not the rule...

Stop talking as if you know the first thing about an Islamic system:: There are no checks and balances?? really?? Why does the leader have to get approval from all the regions and tribes then??

During the cold war, the communist who defected to the other side was deemed treasonable.... Why do you think that was? Was he overthrowing the state? If he started to promote an idea other than communism in the state, what do you think will happen to him? They would not think twice about executing him..


Let me give you a brief explanation of the Islamic system

The leader or the Head of State under the Islamic system of government is the Mujtahid who satisfies all the criteria required, (in the case of there being a single Mujtahid.)

These powers may only be “in the hands” of the Head of State if the majority of the public agrees to this and provided that such measures are taken as to ensure that there is no likelihood of this eventually leading to a system of dictatorship. It is of utmost importance to establish a system of party-political
pluralism in the country.

Legislation is made by consultation: Islam teaches us to run a government, to make legislation and decisions by the process of Shura. Shura means "to take decisions by consultation and participation" (3:159, 42:38). This is an important part of the Islamic political system. There is no scope for despotism in Islam. The Qur’an and the Sunnah will be the basis of legislation in Islam.

So there is a shura council>> So he has no arbitrary powers:: Does that sound like a Monarchy?

Independence of judiciary.

In the Islamic political system, the Judiciary is independent of the Executive. The head of the state or any government minister could be called to the court if necessary. They would be treated no differently from other citizens. The Qur’an has many injunctions about justice. One of the main functions of the Islamic state is to ensure justice to all citizens (4:58, 4:135, 5:. The ruler and the government has no right to interfere in the system of justice.

(check : http://imamshirazi.com/the%20islamic%20system.pdf, http://www.angelfire.com/bc3/johnsonuk/eng/dawa/politic.html for more)

An Islamic state is based on the model of Prophet Muhammad’s (phuh) state in Madinah while a Muslim state is one which has a majority Muslim population and some Islamic features.

The basic islamic system is NOT like a monarchy.

The Islamic system does not expressly forbid non-muslims from ruling but i doubt a non-muslim can get the allegiance of a majority muslim population. It does not forbid them from political participation. Infact it goes a step further.. It allows them to make a decision on the laws that govern them in the muslim state.

In the Islamic state, the jewish and christian communities adhere to their own laws and have their own courts with full autonomy . you don't get that in the US for religious groups.

The armenian genocide has nothing to do with Islam, it wasn't always like that.... The empire was already in decline; they committed atrocities, they were corrupt... This led to an internal revolt that destroyed it.

You just need to go further in time to see how Jewish and christian groups thrived under Islamic rule... The final (and decaying) years of the Ottoman empire is not a fair assessment of Islamic rule. The Ottoman existed for 700 years....

You brought up a fact that the Ottoman empire was an Islamic state. As a matter of history, the so called checks were not sufficient, neither was the state equitable and fair to all its subjects, it became despotic and warlike and at frequent conflicts with its neighbours over expansionist policies.

The idea that the empire was crumbling and corrupt could be owed to the inadequacies and greviances caused by the Islamic system of governance.

Defection and illegal immgration are entirely different. Soviet citizens regularly migrated to other countries (capitalist) and they weren't labelled defectors same with Ayn Rand.

Defectors were either key members of the govt or individuals in possession of vital info that compromises the security of the State or its image.

Kay 17:
This is contrary from what you have been saying. Propagation of beliefs and thoughts was not permissible IF it wasn't the State prescribed ideology.

We are taught to engage the people of the book in the best of ways:: that includes courteous debates::

You brought up a fact that the Ottoman empire was an Islamic state. As a matter of history, the so called checks were not sufficient, neither was the state equitable and fair to all its subjects, it became despotic and warlike and at frequent conflicts with its neighbours over expansionist policies.

The idea that the empire was crumbling and corrupt could be owed to the inadequacies and greviances caused by the Islamic system of governance.

How many empires survive for almost 700 years??

The ottomans fell because they became corrupt and were moving away from Islam not the other way around... Its longevity was because of the Justice in its lands:

A jewish rabbi wrote this about the muslims land in 1453 under the ottomans. He was inviting all jews to come to the muslim lands

Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame as is the case in Germany where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kind of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect all your forces and come to us.(Philip Mandel, Constantinople: City of the World's Desire 1453-1924, Ch. 1 (London, 1995). )

Defection and illegal immgration are entirely different. Soviet citizens regularly migrated to other countries (capitalist) and they weren't labelled defectors same with Ayn Rand.

Defectors were either key members of the govt or individuals in possession of vital info that compromises the security of the State or its image.

A defector during the cold war will not even be given a trial... He will be assasinated by the CIA or the KGB.. If you had capitalist ideas in the communist state as an ordinary person and try to propagate it... How far will you go??

Tbaba, dont you realise that you're equating your religion to a communist regime? Is that not wrong?

I try my best not to bash your religion because you're one of the few guys that patiently tries to answer my questions. However, you have too see that apostasy laws and balsphemy laws are ridiculous and unfair.

logicboy: Tbaba, dont you realise that you're equating your religion to a communist regime? Is that not wrong?

I try my best not to bash your religion because you're one of the few guys that patiently tries to answer my questions. However, you have too see that apostasy laws and balsphemy laws are ridiculous and unfair.

My analogy was not only peculiar to the communist regime even the Americans were guilty.

People try to play: Apostasy law is so terrible even when given the full context when just a few years ago (cold war), the CIA (the home of the free) will assassinate the president of another country because he didn't agree with their ideology .....

What is ridiculous? It is an Islamic state not a secular state... We see what secular states do and they do not even give people the benefit of a trial..

Once the historical context, the conditions and the full understanding of the apostacy, it does makes sense...

If you do not proselytize your disbelief, no one will disturb you...

tbaba1234:

My analogy was not only peculiar to the communist regime even the Americans were guilty.

People try to play: Apostasy law is so terrible even when given the full context when just a few years ago (cold war), the CIA (the home of the free) will assassinate the president of another country because he didn't agree with their ideology .....

What is ridiculous? It is an Islamic state not a secular state... We see what secular states do and they do not even give people the benefit of a trial..

Once the historical context, the conditions and the full understanding of the apostacy, it does makes sense...

If you do not proselytize your disbelief, no one will disturb you...

You're equating islam to a corrupt capitalist country (USA) or a brutal communist country (soviet russia)



"If you do not proselytize your disbelief, no one will disturb you... "

Wrong....this is 2012 in the 21st century, freedom of religion is a human right. Even in the Koran- let there be no compulsion in religion

Kay 17:
This is contrary from what you have been saying. Propagation of beliefs and thoughts was not permissible IF it wasn't the State prescribed ideology.

I believe the word for it is Tyranny.


Furthermore, what does it say of a religion if it excuses itself by comparing itself and pointing to similarities with despotic secular regimes.

logicboy:
You're equating islam to a corrupt capitalist country (USA) or a brutal communist country (soviet russia)

"If you do not proselytize your disbelief, no one will disturb you... "

Wrong....this is 2012 in the 21st century, freedom of religion is a human right. Even in the Koran- let there be no compulsion in religion

I am not equating anything; i am just showing the hypocrisy of people...

You are free to practice your faith or lack of it; No one is compelling you....Jews and christians are given their own legal structure in the state, so they are not bound by the sharia penal system... How many countries today give religious groups that much autonomy?

However, you must recognize that this is a theocratic state, the laws are based on the faith: Attempts to discredit the religion is treasonable... so leaving the faith is one thing; going around to tell people how 'wrong' Islam is, is another... when the two meet, you have a charge:: otherwise, you continue with your life..

Even then , there is no sentence:: the person charged is given the opportunity to clear doubts by speaking to knowledgeable people, he has an opportunity to relent even if he does not believe:: go home and continue with his disbelief jeje..

No secular system offers that::

It is simple really: I would rather talk about the oneness of God because penal codes are not what Islam is about;;;

Pastor AIO:

I believe the word for it is Tyranny.

Furthermore, what does it say of a religion if it excuses itself by comparing itself and pointing to similarities with despotic secular regimes.

I am comparing with the standards of secular free countries... to expose hypocrisy...

The christian apostasy laws are far more brutal and there were practiced for centuries so you have no moral ground to stand here...

tbaba1234:

I am not equating anything; i am just showing the hypocrisy of people...

You are free to practice your faith or lack of it; No one is compelling you....Jews and christians are given their own legal structure in the state, so they are not bound by the sharia penal system... How many countries today give religious groups that much autonomy?

However, you must recognize that this is a theocratic state, the laws are based on the faith: Attempts to discredit the religion is treasonable... so leaving the faith is one thing; going around to tell people how 'wrong' Islam is, is another... when the two meet, you have a charge:: otherwise, you continue with your life..

Even then , there is no sentence:: the person charged is given the opportunity to clear doubts by speaking to knowledgeable people, he has an opportunity to relent even if he does not believe:: go home and continue with his disbelief jeje..

No secular system offers that::

It is simple really: I would rather talk about the oneness of God because penal codes are not what Islam is about;;;

Secular countries of today (European and America) have two things better than any sharia law accepting country

1) Separation of church and state

2) Freedom of religion and associaition. No Islamic country offers that. Would any islamic state accept my marriage to muslim girlfriend? Woulld any islamic state allow me to gather a group of mulims to explain why atheism is better? I can do all these things in a secular state but not an islamic state, yet you say islam is freedom? Islam means to submit- there is no freedom.

logicboy:

Secular countries of today (European and America) have two things better than any sharia law accepting country

1) Separation of church and state

2) Freedom of religion and associaition. No Islamic country offers that. Would any islamic state accept my marriage to muslim girlfriend? Woulld any islamic state allow me to gather a group of mulims to explain why atheism is better? I can do all these things in a secular state but not an islamic state, yet you say islam is freedom? Islam means to submit- there is no freedom.

1.) First of all, you have to look at history... The reason there was a separation of church and state was the failure of the church to rule in the west.... Muslims have a far different history; Muslims were at their best when Islam was properly practised and began to decline when the system became corrupt and Islam was taken away.. The dark ages in Europe under christian rule were the golden ages of Islam....

So a muslim would not accept that it is better because Islam worked for us better before colonialism and the secularization of muslim states.

2.) I am sure you can have your debate in an Islamic states: In the early centuries; the muslims used to have debates with Jews and Christians but i suspect, you will probably become muslim after the debate.

You as a non-muslim man can not guarantee your muslim wives' rights:: No matter how much you say you will ... You have no religious obligation to..

Islam is about Justice to everyone... There are limits to freedoms but it is for your own good...

tbaba1234:

You as a non-muslim man can not guarantee your muslim wives' rights:: No matter how much you say you will ... You have no religious obligation to..

Islam is about Justice to everyone... There are limits to freedoms but it is for your own good...

This is one of the most abnormal post I've ever seen. I have been to Oman and UAE. In oman, I visited the main university they have there namely Sultan Qaaboos University. In their classrooms, the girls sit at the extreme back corner of the class while the guys sit in front of the class. The girls and guys dont talk in the public campus. When a guy is coming along a walk way, any girl on that walk way must stop and wait for the guys to pass before they continue their movement. This is not something I was told I experience it because I was there. Women have no right they are properties to the men.
What about Saudi Arabia where a women must have a guardian to go anywhere and where they are not allow to drive or be actively involved in politics? Europe is more of a secular society with no obligation to religion and alot of women have achieved the highest thing any human can aspire for. Can same be said about the middle east or in the core Nigerian Islamic North. How many prominent female politician is from the core Islamic Noethern part of Nigerian? the Christians are even better when it comes to women right but Islam, Thats a no no..

tbaba1234:

1.) First of all, you have to look at history... The reason there was a separation of church and state was the failure of the church to rule in the west.... Muslims have a far different history; Muslims were at their best when Islam was properly practised and began to decline when the system became corrupt and Islam was taken away.. The dark ages in Europe under christian rule were the golden ages of Islam....

So a muslim would not accept that it is better because Islam worked for us better before colonialism and the secularization of muslim states.

2.) I am sure you can have your debate in an Islamic states: In the early centuries; the muslims used to have debates with Jews and Christians but i suspect, you will probably become muslim after the debate.

You as a non-muslim man can not guarantee your muslim wives' rights:: No matter how much you say you will ... You have no religious obligation to..

Islam is about Justice to everyone... There are limits to freedoms but it is for your own good...

Haha, do you seriously believe that I will ever become a muslim? If most muslims were like you, yes Islam would be an option. Unfortunately it is not so.

"You as a non-muslim man can not guarantee your muslim wives' rights:: No matter how much you say you will ... You have no religious obligation to..
"

What do you mean by the above statement?


Furthermore, I want to make it clear that I do not support everything the West is doing. I might be espousing liberal ideas but I am not a one trick pony. I know where freedom ends.

tbaba1234:

We are taught to engage the people of the book in the best of ways:: that includes courteous debates::



How many empires survive for almost 700 years??

The ottomans fell because they became corrupt and were moving away from Islam not the other way around... Its longevity was because of the Justice in its lands:

A jewish rabbi wrote this about the muslims land in 1453 under the ottomans. He was inviting all jews to come to the muslim lands

Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame as is the case in Germany where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kind of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect all your forces and come to us.(Philip Mandel, Constantinople: City of the World's Desire 1453-1924, Ch. 1 (London, 1995). )



A defector during the cold war will not even be given a trial... He will be assasinated by the CIA or the KGB.. If you had capitalist ideas in the communist state as an ordinary person and try to propagate it... How far will you go??

that's convenient for you.

A simple man who finds fault in his religion or finds a refreshing view on divinity or believes he is the way to a new faith iS not the same defection! Its merely rumbling conscience

tbaba1234:

I am comparing with the standards of secular free countries... to expose hypocrisy...

The christian apostasy laws are far more brutal and there were practiced for centuries so you have no moral ground to stand here...

Okay, I buy your point. About hypocrisy. About christian apostasy I don't cos the definition of a christian and 'christian law' is too murky.

Secularism removes all unnecessary laws, its creates marketplaces for ideas, places as paramount human rights: the French Declaration; embraces multiculturalism and most important changes progressively.

In the US, there slavery and with popular movements abolished it, next civil rights for blacks and women. Judicial precedents had earlier raised the status of a woman in a marriage from servant/serf/infant to a partner. Now homosexual rights, expansive women rights ie abortion. Most importantly discussing this issues.

But states that have Islamic influence are mostly despotic with archaic rules. Nonexistent/outdated women rights. Blasphemy laws which lack a rationale other a fanatical fervour.

2good:
This is one of the most abnormal post I've ever seen. I have been to Oman and UAE. In oman, I visited the main university they have there namely Sultan Qaaboos University. In their classrooms, the girls sit at the extreme back corner of the class while the guys sit in front of the class. The girls and guys dont talk in the public campus. When a guy is coming along a walk way, any girl on that walk way must stop and wait for the guys to pass before they continue their movement. This is not something I was told I experience it because I was there. Women have no right they are properties to the men.

What about Saudi Arabia where a women must have a guardian to go anywhere and where they are not allow to drive or be actively involved in politics? Europe is more of a secular society with no obligation to religion and alot of women have achieved the highest thing any human can aspire for. Can same be said about the middle east or in the core Nigerian Islamic North. How many prominent female politician is from the core Islamic Noethern part of Nigerian? the Christians are even better when it comes to women right but Islam, Thats a no no..

1. There is no free mixing between the sexes, It is not because of any form of oppression... It is simple!... It leads to all kinds of things:: It is done to protect both the male and the female from getting into illicit affairs, fornication and the likes.. It is not done to oppress anyone...

You obviously have no idea of the rights of the muslim woman: Do you know that a muslim woman keeps her family name after marriage? at least she is not compelled to change it... Does that sound like a property to you?

Do you also know that whatever she earns as salary belongs to her ALONE? She does not have any obligation to share her wages with anyone?

Did you know that inheritance rights that western women only came in force a century ago and muslim women had this for over 1400 years?

In Medieval times, Christian scholars criticized Islam for giving Women too much freedom - now they say Islam doesn't give them enough. The West has made their own culture (no matter what it believes) the criteria of Rationality! Excuse me for leaving flock of sheep, but I'll stick to demanding intellectual justification before I am persuaded.

"At a time when feudal Europe was riddled with hierarchy, Islam was presented as an anarchic religion that gave too much respect and freedom to menials, such as slaves and women" Karen Armstrong - Historian

"the Muslims were horrified to see the way Western Christians treated their women in the Crusader states, and Christian scholars denounced Islam for giving too much power to menials like slaves and women" Karen Armstrong - Historian

2. The law of women not driving in saudi is not an Islamic law: women rode camels and fought wars during the time of the prophet... No other muslim nation places that kind of restriction... It will be lifted with time..

Some of the greatest scholars of Islam were women... This was at a time when the west were still debating whether the woman had a soul. Have you heard of Fatimah Sa`d al Khayr? She was one of the greatest muslim scholars of her time and people travelled, men and women to seek knowledge from her. She left a legacy just like the over 8000 women scholars of hadith we have had in our history...

The wife of the prophet Aisha, was a scholar in her own right and gave advice to the leaders of the time on leading the muslim nation. Women literacy in the gulf is one of the highest, globally. and there have been more women in muslim parliaments than in so called secular countries.

Lets talk facts now. The islamic party Al nadha won the election in Tunisia.... The percentage of women in their parliament is greater than the USA... 26% of their parliament are women... The USA boasts of just 17% and france 22%.. Afganistan has 27%..

Now there are still low numbers in muslim countries, but we can't draw a blanket and say muslims give their women no rights....

Kay 17: Secularism removes all unnecessary laws, its creates marketplaces for ideas, places as paramount human rights: the French Declaration; embraces multiculturalism and most important changes progressively.

In the US, there slavery and with popular movements abolished it, next civil rights for blacks and women. Judicial precedents had earlier raised the status of a woman in a marriage from servant/serf/infant to a partner. Now homosexual rights, expansive women rights ie abortion. Most importantly discussing this issues.

But states that have Islamic influence are mostly despotic with archaic rules. Nonexistent/outdated women rights. Blasphemy laws which lack a rationale other a fanatical fervour.

You see, you are just stating your biases...

What makes expansive abortion rights a good thing? What makes the homosexual marriage a good thing? It is your social construct that makes that a good thing in your mind, in 20 years they might not be so great....

What outdated women rights? Muslim women had rights that many western women just started to enjoy a century ago... Now they tell us, our women have no rights. what irony?

Is it not the same secular laws that ban muslim women from hijabs in schools in france?
Is it not the same secular laws that ban the women who wear the burkas?

Where are the rights for them to dress as they please?
A women wearing a bikini will not be arrested but a muslim woman wearing a burka will..

Religion is banned in secular China... Religion was banned in the secular soviet union:: So much about secular freedoms..

We s-exualize everything about the woman, on billboards, in sports, on TV.... We have whole industries built on the s-exuality of the woman. What great secular freedoms...

We do not tolerate insult to God or our prophets on our lands. At least, you can respect the law of the land.

logicboy:
Haha, do you seriously believe that I will ever become a muslim? If most muslims were like you, yes Islam would be an option. Unfortunately it is not so.

Islam is not what the people do. What does the evidence (Quran and sunnah) say?

Never say never!!

tbaba1234:

Islam is not what the people do. What does the evidence (Quran and sunnah) say?

Never say never!!

I'm already learning Japanese which is difficult. I dont think that I can be bothered to learn Arabic which is another difficult language

logicboy:
I'm already learning Japanese which is difficult. I dont think that I can be bothered to learn Arabic which is another difficult language

Actually, it is not that hard if you put your mind to it:: Most muslims are not arabs anyway::

Like the Quran says

"And We [i.e. Allaah] have certainly made the Quran easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?" [Quran 54:17]

I believe the creator, so it is easy

tbaba1234:

Actually, it is not that hard if you put your mind to it:: Most muslims are not arabs anyway::

Like the Quran says

"And We [i.e. Allaah] have certainly made the Quran easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?" [Quran 54:17]

I believe the creator, so it is easy

I want to believe bro, but Islam robbed me of the girl I loved. I had to lie to her family that I was muslim.

tbaba1234:

Actually, it is not that hard if you put your mind to it:: Most muslims are not arabs anyway::

Like the Quran says

"And We [i.e. Allaah] have certainly made the Quran easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?" [Quran 54:17]

I believe the creator, so it is easy

na wa o.
this is wrong on so many levels

tell me dear muslim, how sweet are nine year olds?
allah is great.

tbaba1234:

You see, you are just stating your biases...

What makes expansive abortion rights a good thing? What makes the homosexual marriage a good thing? It is your social construct that makes that a good thing in your mind, in 20 years they might not be so great....

What outdated women rights? Muslim women had rights that many western women just started to enjoy a century ago... Now they tell us, our women have no rights. what irony?

Is it not the same secular laws that ban muslim women from hijabs in schools in france?
Is it not the same secular laws that ban the women who wear the burkas?

Where are the rights for them to dress as they please?
A women wearing a bikini will not be arrested but a muslim woman wearing a burka will..

Religion is banned in secular China... Religion was banned in the secular soviet union:: So much about secular freedoms..

We s-exualize everything about the woman, on billboards, in sports, on TV.... We have whole industries built on the s-exuality of the woman. What great secular freedoms...

We do not tolerate insult to God or our prophets on our lands. At least, you can respect the law of the land.

Women rights had been recognized long before that time in several societies, Islam is not the first to give women any form of rights. In Africa matriachal societies had been set up, with women having equal rights with men. Columbus discovered arawurks, a godless society which had women as free as men, unbound by marriage or gender bias.

Besides, women are not seen as equal to men and that reflects in their laws. Treating women like property.

It is UNFAIR!

Also if young people want to fornicate, whose business? That totalitarianism, dictate every activity of an individual, wiped out personal freedom.

I'm against the ban of burqas, but in every progressive society, acts that flow against its spirit are restricted. A man can't sell himself into slavery. In France the burqa has come to represent oppression, gender inequality and slavery. An unwillingness to relate with society.

But the ban is not detrimental to islamic faith, is it?

Kay 17:
Women rights had been recognized long before that time in several societies, Islam is not the first to give women any form of rights. In Africa matriachal societies had been set up, with women having equal rights with men. Columbus discovered arawurks, a godless society which had women as free as men, unbound by marriage or gender bias.

Besides, women are not seen as equal to men and that reflects in their laws. Treating women like property.

It is UNFAIR!

Also if young people want to fornicate, whose business? That totalitarianism, dictate every activity of an individual, wiped out personal freedom.

I'm against the ban of burqas, but in every progressive society, acts that flow against its spirit are restricted. A man can't sell himself into slavery. In France the burqa has come to represent oppression, gender inequality and slavery. An unwillingness to relate with society.

But the ban is not detrimental to islamic faith, is it?

Treating women like property?? What are you talking about?

Virtually all other major civilizations did not begin to address these issues or change their negative attitudes towards until the 19th and 20th centuries: Islam started 1400 years ago, in an Arab society where female kids were buried alive..

It is funny because years ago, we were acuused of giving women too much freedom::

"At a time when feudal Europe was riddled with hierarchy, Islam was presented as an anarchic religion that gave too much respect and freedom to menials, such as slaves and women" Karen Armstrong - Historian

"the Muslims were horrified to see the way Western Christians treated their women in the Crusader states, and Christian scholars denounced Islam for giving too much power to menials like slaves and women" Karen Armstrong - Historian

At a time when the rest of the world, from Greece and Rome to India and China, considered women as no better than children or even slaves, with no rights whatsoever, Islam acknowledged women's equality with men in a great many respects. The Quran states:

"And among His signs is this: that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest and peace of mind in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy. Certainly, herein indeed are signs for people who reflect." [Noble Quran 30:21]

Prophet Muhammad said:

"The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best in manners and kindest to his wife." [Source: “Sunnan” of Abu Dawu[/i]d]

With regard to education, both women and men have the same rights and obligations. This is clear in Prophet Muhammad's saying:

[i]"Seeking knowledge is mandatory for every believer." [Hadith (saying of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) collected by Ibn Majah] This implies men and women.

The prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered his companions never to mistreat their wives. He scolded them and admonished them, saying "How could you treat them like animals in the day and then want to be intimate with them at night."

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said it all in a simple sentence, "The best of you are the best to their wives; and I am the best to my wives."

Islam gave them the choice to choose who they wanted to marry; They cannot just be married off: Another act ahead of its time

"A non-virgin woman may not be married without her command, and a virgin may not be married without her permission; and enough permission for her is to remain silent (because of her natural shyness)." [Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and others]


I would prefer you show me evidence how the woman is treated as property is Islam... All this emotional garbage has to stop...

A bikini is a sign of liberation then

Why does the Quran ask the woman to cover??

"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed..." [Noble Quran 33:59]

It is a mark of identity; They are not forced to wear it... Majority wear it because they want to.... I do not where oppression comes in..

The ban is oppressive to the women who want to wear it and are not troubling anyone...

I didn't want to reply this because it is incredibly shallow... Learn about women rights in Islam before talking about property....