CAIR Director: Muslims Are Above The Law [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : CAIR Director: Muslims Are Above The Law

Jeff

07-29-2013, 08:03 PM

aboutime

07-29-2013, 08:28 PM

Jeff. Never pay attention to anyone who says such things in America. Unless, as usual. It happens to be either Obama, or someone from his administration. They say, and do it...all the time.

TURDS normally speak like their mouth is full.

tailfins

07-29-2013, 08:45 PM

I will sometimes give someone the benefit of the doubt just for being from the Muslim religion. CAIR is another matter all together. They are militantly anti-Christian and should be rigorously opposed.

Marcus Aurelius

07-29-2013, 08:55 PM

Jahil will say/do one of the following...

A... He isn't 'really' Muslim.
B... We 'are' above the law.
C... He will ignore the thread.

Jeff

07-29-2013, 09:14 PM

Jahil will say/do one of the following...

A... He isn't 'really' Muslim.
B... We 'are' above the law.
C... He will ignore the thread.

I knew I could count on ya Marcus :laugh:

AT I hear ya but with this administration in place who knows what might happen , anyway the guy in the article was for real

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

07-29-2013, 09:57 PM

Who knows what else CAIR can get by with? They got by with being proven unindicted co-conspirators in an FBI Islamic terrorist INVESTIGATION !! They are a terrorist organization being allowed to exist and operate within our borders. A fact!! I'll stand face to face with any man alive and say that if they call me a liar I'll stomp their GD ass or die trying!!!!! Here is what I see happening in the future . The Muslims will push until they start a war here and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL THEN JOIN THEIR SIDE TO SHOOT DOWN THE AMERICAN PATRIOTS THAT ARE FIGHTING THEM. Of course they will try to do it by infiltration into our government but after pushing too hard the Americans will finally say--ENOUGH AND MEAN IT! When that happens the Muslims will start shooting and bombing, and the government will aid them not us!!! In fact , they plan just that ..... So does our government. The big question is will it be a unification of the blacks(NBPP) and Muslims when they start the war? Or the Muslims and La Raza ? THE MUSLIMS HERE HAVE THEIR GUNS AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING THEIRS AWAY!?? Hell, we had better check to see if the GD bambastard has a secret program arming them now as we post.. All that is as likely to happen as anything else and IMHO MORE LIKELY THAN MOST OTHER POSSIBILITIES. CAIR should be utterly destroyed but our government has already SOLD OUT TO THEM. IF NOT WHY WERE THEY ALLOWED TO BE AN UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR IN AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST INVESTIGATION??? Think about that.. -TYR

jafar00

07-30-2013, 12:13 AM

I wonder how people feel about this myself if you live here you go by the law period but I am sure some will say it is there religion

According to the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/cair-director-hermanmustafa-carroll-muslims-are-above-american-law/#ixzz2aUDh1bQY

If this opinion piece is to be believed the CAIR guy needs to read the Qur'aan.

Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end. (4:59)

There are also hadiths (I can't quote them without a search) where Muslims are tasked with obeying the law of where they reside unless the law requires them to sin. I might search for it later if it makes any difference.

Jeff

07-30-2013, 12:17 AM

If this opinion piece is to be believed the CAIR guy needs to read the Qur'aan.

Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end. (4:59)

There are also hadiths (I can't quote them without a search) where Muslims are tasked with obeying the law of where they reside unless the law requires them to sin. I might search for it later if it makes any difference.

Sounds similar to the bible live by the law of the land ?

jafar00

07-30-2013, 04:39 AM

Sounds similar to the bible live by the law of the land ?

Could be. Live by the law of the land unless the law causes you to sin?

Missileman

07-30-2013, 06:09 AM

Could be. Live by the law of the land unless the law causes you to sin?

Do you think that's license for Muslims to disobey the law or should it be an indication they need to move?

Drummond

07-30-2013, 06:29 AM

Anjem Choudary (I've posted at length about him before, so I'm taking it that I don't need to reintroduce his material in detail ?) has been VERY clear about the Muslim position.

It is that Muslims consider it nothing less than a religious duty to spread Sharia Law everywhere.

Sharia Law is said (certainly by Choudary) to be 'divine' law, which means that it is 'above any man-made law'. This means what it says, meaning that in any conflict between a man made law and Sharia, it's Sharia that should be followed, and the man made law ignored.

Or, as Choudary has ALSO made plain, he wants other laws dispensed with .. with only Sharia Law governing the rights and the conduct of Mankind.

So - and despite the sanitisation attempt in the article - the name of the game, folks, is to advance that very agenda.

Ask yourselves whether, for the sake of some Leftie-inspired 'political correctness' initiative, you will stand for inroads being made against your Constitution, and ultimately, your very identity as Americans.

Drummond

07-30-2013, 06:32 AM

Could be. Live by the law of the land unless the law causes you to sin?

'Sin' ... meaning, if a law exists lacking compatability with Sharia Law, Muslims can / are required to ignore such a law ?

See what I've just previously posted.

Marcus Aurelius

07-30-2013, 06:43 AM

If this opinion piece is to be believed the CAIR guy needs to read the Qur'aan.

Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end. (4:59)

There are also hadiths (I can't quote them without a search) where Muslims are tasked with obeying the law of where they reside unless the law requires them to sin. I might search for it later if it makes any difference.

As I said...

Jahil will say/do one of the following...

A... He isn't 'really' Muslim.
B... We 'are' above the law.
C... He will ignore the thread.

Jeff

07-30-2013, 07:06 AM

Do you think that's license for Muslims to disobey the law or should it be an indication they need to move?

No matter what your Bible or Koran or anything else says while hear on earth it is my belief ( and the belief of God ) that you must obey the law of the land, the bible doesnt tell you to change the laws , as for the Koran I am not sure

Larrymc

07-30-2013, 07:33 AM

I wonder how people feel about this myself if you live here you go by the law period but I am sure some will say it is there religion

According to the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/cair-director-hermanmustafa-carroll-muslims-are-above-american-law/#ixzz2aUDh1bQY

"Oh Hell No" this is to close to home, This guy should be labeled a Terrorist, or at least a Terrorist sympathizer and Kicked out, this may seem small and an innocent attempt to exercise his faith, But People need to focus on one thing he said, and that is he thinks his faith is above the laws that every other American has to follow, count me in with the others here who have been sounding the alarm about Islam.

Larrymc

07-30-2013, 07:40 AM

If this opinion piece is to be believed the CAIR guy needs to read the Qur'aan.

Believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority; and then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end. (4:59)

There are also hadiths (I can't quote them without a search) where Muslims are tasked with obeying the law of where they reside unless the law requires them to sin. I might search for it later if it makes any difference.

Ok so your saying this is yet another Phony Islamist, who has once again hijacked a peaceful religion, and that may be true, but if so you are one of apparently very few who know, or believe that.

jafar00

07-30-2013, 08:02 PM

Do you think that's license for Muslims to disobey the law or should it be an indication they need to move?

Yes, if the law requires them to sin, it is time to move.

I found the hadith I mentioned before. From Bukhari.

<tbody>
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203 :

Narrated by Ibn 'Umar

The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."

</tbody>
As far as I know, no lawmaker in the US has made it compulsory to have sex out of wedlock, eat bacon for breakfast every day or start praying to Hindu deities so there is no reason for any Muslim to disobey US law.

Anjem Choudary (I've posted at length about him before, so I'm taking it that I don't need to reintroduce his material in detail ?) has been VERY clear about the Muslim position.

It is that Muslims consider it nothing less than a religious duty to spread Sharia Law everywhere.

Sharia Law is said (certainly by Choudary) to be 'divine' law, which means that it is 'above any man-made law'. This means what it says, meaning that in any conflict between a man made law and Sharia, it's Sharia that should be followed, and the man made law ignored.

Or, as Choudary has ALSO made plain, he wants other laws dispensed with .. with only Sharia Law governing the rights and the conduct of Mankind.

So - and despite the sanitisation attempt in the article - the name of the game, folks, is to advance that very agenda.

Ask yourselves whether, for the sake of some Leftie-inspired 'political correctness' initiative, you will stand for inroads being made against your Constitution, and ultimately, your very identity as Americans.

Choudary is a SELF PROCLAIMED "scholar". His opinions are his own, not those of Islam.

'Sin' ... meaning, if a law exists lacking compatability with Sharia Law, Muslims can / are required to ignore such a law ?

See what I've just previously posted.

Name one law in your country that is incompatible with Islam. Just one.

No matter what your Bible or Koran or anything else says while hear on earth it is my belief ( and the belief of God ) that you must obey the law of the land, the bible doesnt tell you to change the laws , as for the Koran I am not sure

The Qur'aan just tells us to obey God and his Messenger (Mohamed (saw)) and as the hadith posted above says, we are to obey the ruler unless the ruler imposes on us a law that would require us to sin.

"Oh Hell No" this is to close to home, This guy should be labeled a Terrorist, or at least a Terrorist sympathizer and Kicked out, this may seem small and an innocent attempt to exercise his faith, But People need to focus on one thing he said, and that is he thinks his faith is above the laws that every other American has to follow, count me in with the others here who have been sounding the alarm about Islam.

What alarm? The guy is wrong. Simple.

Ok so your saying this is yet another Phony Islamist, who has once again hijacked a peaceful religion, and that may be true, but if so you are one of apparently very few who know, or believe that.

He was either misquoted and out of context (more likely considering the source blog), or he was just plain mistaken. I'm going with the former.

Don't take it from me. I'm only a Muslim who has studied his religion, not a scholar.

This Mufti can back me up :p The part bolded is most relevant if you can't be bothered reading.

Obeying the Law of the Land in the West
<QUESTION>
Some Muslim youth in the West do not believe it is important to avoid breaking the law in countries that are not the Khilafah.
Is there any evidence that Muslims must "obey the laws of the land" they live in - be that us living the West or those in Muslim countries (in the absence of Khilafah)?

<ANSWER>
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.
Some Muslims are under the impression that it is permissible to violate the laws of countries that are not an Islamic state (al-Khilafa), which is totally incorrect. Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi)
The above Hadith is general, in that it does not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim lands, although the understanding of the scholars is that it generally applies to Muslim lands.
Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)
Those who are of the view that it is not necessary to obey the laws of the land unless it is ruled by a proper Islamic governance system, usually say that these laws are non-Islamic and man made, and one is only obliged to abide by the laws of Allah!
In reality, this is a very immature understanding of Islam, for even an Islamic Khilafa government would implement laws that are the creation of their own minds and Ijtihad. If an Islamic government sees the need to implement a certain law, then it has the full jurisdiction to do so, even if it is not found in the Qur’an and Sunnah.
All the scholars unanimously agree that, if an Islamic government decides to implement a law for the benefit of the country and its citizens, then there is nothing wrong in doing so, as long as it does not contradict Shariah, and this law will be binding upon every citizen of that country, even if it was not made obligatory by Shariah initially. Therefore, the laws which an Islamic Khilafa government will set down will also be “man made”, and binding upon all the citizens.
Then the case here is not between “Allah’s laws” and “man made laws” rather one must understand and deal with the issue more rationally and deeply.
When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country. This, according to Shariah, is considered to be a covenant, agreement and trust. One is obliged to fulfil the trust regardless of whether it is contracted with a friend, enemy, Muslim, non-Muslim or a government. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) always stood by their word and did not breach any trust or agreement, as it is clear from the books of Sunnah and history. Thus, to break a promise or breach a trust of even a non-Muslim is absolutely unlawful and considered a sign of being a hypocrite (munafiq).
Allah Most High states:
“And fulfil (every) engagement (ahd), for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning).” (Surah al-Isra, v. 34)
Similarly, Allah Most High states:
Allah does command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people that you judge with justice.” (Surah al-Nisa, v. 58)
And regarding the one who breaks an agreement and is guilty of treachery, Allah Almighty says:
“Allah loves not the treacherous.” (Surah al-Anfal, v. 58)
Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The signs of a hypocrite are three: When he speaks he leis, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he is given a trust he breaches it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 33)
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Amr (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Four traits, if found in an individual, then he will be a complete hypocrite (munafiq), and if an individual possesses one of these four, he will have one portion of nifaq: When he is given a trust he breaches it, when he speaks he leis, when he makes an agreement (ahd) he is guilty of treachery and disloyalty (gadar), and when he disputes he is fouled mouth.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 34)
The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) clearly gave guidance as how to one’s behaviour should be towards a person with whom one has an agreement or a covenant.
Safwan ibn Sulaym narrates from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah be pleased with them all) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Beware, if anyone oppresses (or wrongs) the one with whom one has a agreement (mu’ahid), or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 3047)
The above Hadith is quite clear, in that a Muslim is obliged to fulfil the covenant or agreement of even a non-Muslim. If such an agreement (ahd) takes place, then one will be considered to have safeguarded his life, wealth and property. It will be unlawful (haram), as mentioned quite clearly in the Hadith, to take any wealth of the one with whom there is an agreement without his consent. This categorically rules out the notion of some who consider taking of government wealth even by unlawful means to be permissible.
The practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) also clearly illustrates the importance of fulfilling a covenant, and the unlawfulness of treachery.
During the battle of Khaybar which took place between the Muslims and Jews, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) besieged the fort of Khaybar wherein the Jews were residing. A poor Shepard who was working for his Jewish master had already heard about the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and upon seeing the Muslim army, thought that it was a good opportunity to inquire about Islam. He came out of the fort with the goats and sheep he was looking after and asked the whereabouts of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). Upon being directed towards the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), he inquired about the basic teachings of Islam, and then said: “What will my status be if I accept Islam?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) replied: “I will embrace you, you will become my brother and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims.” He said: “I am very poor and in a bad state. I am totally black and have bad odour coming from my body and cloths. How will you embrace me if I am in such a condition?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) replied: “I shall embrace you, for all of Allah’s servants are equal in His sight.” He said: “If I embrace Islam, what will my fate be?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “I bear witness that if you accept Islam, Allah will change the darkness of your body to light, and the bad odour to good fragrance.” These words of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had their effect on his heart, thus he embraced Islam.
After entering into the fold of Islam, he asked the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) what he was obliged to do? The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said that they were at the moment in the midst of war, thus the obligation at this moment and time was to participate in Jihad. However, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to him: “The first and foremost thing you need to do is return these animals to its Jewish owner and then engage in Jihad.”
As mentioned earlier, these animals belonged to a Jew who was in the opposing army, but the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) ordered him to go back and return them. The reason being, that he had taken these goats and sheep on a trust, and it is necessary by Shariah to return the belongings taken on trust back to its owner.
Thereafter, he participated in the holy battle (jihad) and was amongst the martyrs. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) recognised his body, thus addressed his Companions that I see with my own eyes that he has been given a bath in the sacred water of paradise, and Allah has changed his darkness to shining white and his bad foul smell to refreshing fragrance.
The above is an amazing example of fulfilling a trust of even an enemy. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was in the midst of war with the Jews of Khaybar, yet he ordered the herdsman to go back and return the animals.
It is true that, a Muslim army is allowed to seize the wealth and belongings of the opposing army during the state of war, but because the Shepard had taken these animals under a contract before the war, he was ordered to fulfil the contract, thus return them to its rightful owner sound and safe.
Those who claim that one may rob and loot the wealth of the western governments in any way possible, should ponder over the abovementioned incident with due diligence. If the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) orders the belongings of a Jew (who is in the opposing army) to be returned to him, then how can one substantiate the permissibility of taking the wealth of the government unlawfully!
In conclusion, it is necessary by Shariah to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as it does not contradict Shariah. However, if the law demands something that is against Islam & Shariah, then it will be necessary to abstain from adhering to it, for the famous Hadith states:
“There is no obedience of the creation wherein there is disobedience to the Creator.” (Musnad Ahmad).
And Allah Knows Best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

http://www.daruliftaa.com/node/5852

So according to this, it is in fact a sin to disobey the law of the land in which you reside.

Marcus Aurelius

07-30-2013, 08:53 PM

...

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.
Some Muslims are under the impression that it is permissible to violate the laws of countries that are not an Islamic state (al-Khilafa), which is totally incorrect. Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.
Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.”

http://www.daruliftaa.com/node/5852

So according to this, it is in fact a sin to disobey the law of the land in which you reside.

Three times your source says the local law need not be obeyed if it causes you to 'sin', yet you claim your source says it is a sin not to obey the local law.

Are you high?

Drummond

07-30-2013, 08:56 PM

Choudary is a SELF PROCLAIMED "scholar". His opinions are his own, not those of Islam.

Just his OWN opinions ? He doesn't represent Islam ? Then how did he ever manage to become a Sharia Court judge ??

You make it sound like he's totally alone, having no Muslim followers or supporters. In that case, how - for example - did he ever manage to run 'Islam4uk' .. ? Do you want to tell me that it had a membership of ONE ?

Name one law in your country that is incompatible with Islam. Just one.

HAH ! The age of consent springs immediately to mind. The paedophile Mohammed definitely wouldn't have liked that aspect of British law at all ...

But - here's a better reply:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/23/religion-islam

The House of Lords today drew stark attention to the conflict between sharia and UK law, calling the Islamic legal code "wholly incompatible" with human rights legislation.

The remarks came as the Lords considered the case of a woman who, if she was sent back to Lebanon, would be obliged under sharia law to hand over custody of her 12-year-old son to a man who beat her, threw her off a balcony and, on one occasion, attempted to strangle her.

The woman was seeking asylum in the UK to avoid the provisions of sharia law that give fathers or other male family members the exclusive custody of children over seven.

In the most high-profile UK criticism of the family law provisions of sharia law so far, the Lords stated that these provisions breached the mother's rights to family life and the right against discrimination and were severely disruptive to the child.

The comments followed months of debate over the appropriateness of incorporating sharia courts into the UK's legal system.

Such a move has been advocated by figures including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and Lord Phillips, the new senior law lord.

The minister for community cohesion, Sadiq Khan, a Muslim, said recently that sharia courts risked entrenching unequal bargaining power between the sexes.

Sharia courts have been delivering judgments in the UK since last year, and currently operate in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry and Manchester, with plans to expand into Scotland.

Formally classified as arbitration tribunals, their decisions are legally binding and can be enforced by county courts and high courts provided that both sides in a case agree to have the matter decided under the sharia system.

One of the most controversial areas in which the network of sharia courts is already operating is family law, including divorce and domestic violence.

Ruling that the woman should not be returned to Lebanon, Lord Hope said "the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company is a fundamental element of family life".

"The fact is, however, that sharia law as it is applied in Lebanon was created by and for men in a male-dominated society," he added.

"The place of the mother in the life of a child under that system is quite different under that law from that which is guaranteed [by the European convention on human rights] ... it is discriminatory, too, because it denies women custody of their children after they have reached the age of custodial transfer simply because they are women."

Lord Bingham, a former senior law lord, added that, as a result of the provisions, "women are often constrained to remain in abusive marriages for fear of losing their children".

He criticised the provisions of sharia law for automatically giving custody to "a father who has inflicted physical violence and psychological injury on the mother".

An easy answer to your challenge, Jafar, would've been to say that Sharia marriages, therefore Sharia divorces, have no legal recognition in UK law. Such marriages are outside of UK law entirely.

So tell me .. do Sharia courts say 'Oh well, this is Britain, so we'll respect British law and neither allow nor advise Muslims to enter into that form of marriage, because it conflicts with the law of the land', OR, do they CATER FOR IT, REGARDLESS ???

I trust that all of this amply answers you, Jafar.

Larrymc

07-30-2013, 09:15 PM

Yes, if the law requires them to sin, it is time to move.

I found the hadith I mentioned before. From Bukhari.

<tbody>
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203 :

Narrated by Ibn 'Umar

The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."

</tbody>
As far as I know, no lawmaker in the US has made it compulsory to have sex out of wedlock, eat bacon for breakfast every day or start praying to Hindu deities so there is no reason for any Muslim to disobey US law.

Choudary is a SELF PROCLAIMED "scholar". His opinions are his own, not those of Islam.

Name one law in your country that is incompatible with Islam. Just one.

The Qur'aan just tells us to obey God and his Messenger (Mohamed (saw)) and as the hadith posted above says, we are to obey the ruler unless the ruler imposes on us a law that would require us to sin.

What alarm? The guy is wrong. Simple.

He was either misquoted and out of context (more likely considering the source blog), or he was just plain mistaken. I'm going with the former.

Don't take it from me. I'm only a Muslim who has studied his religion, not a scholar.

This Mufti can back me up :p The part bolded is most relevant if you can't be bothered reading.

http://www.daruliftaa.com/node/5852

So according to this, it is in fact a sin to disobey the law of the land in which you reside.And if its a foreign country reside peacefully until your numbers or enough to change the law.:laugh: Sorry dude i believe this, now they may not be true Muslims, as you say but from what i can see they are the great majority.

jafar00

07-30-2013, 10:28 PM

Just his OWN opinions ? He doesn't represent Islam ? Then how did he ever manage to become a Sharia Court judge ??

You make it sound like he's totally alone, having no Muslim followers or supporters. In that case, how - for example - did he ever manage to run 'Islam4uk' .. ? Do you want to tell me that it had a membership of ONE ?

What can I say. He doesn't have ijaza (permission to make judgements based on Sharia or act as a community leader) from any Islamic Authority let alone a recognised one.

He's a lone wolf. If people were stupid enough to follow him, it isn't the fault of other Muslims.

HAH ! The age of consent springs immediately to mind. The paedophile Mohammed definitely wouldn't have liked that aspect of British law at all ...

There is no age of consent in Sharia so the local laws are to be followed. So in effect, British age of consent is Sharia in Britain. BTW, insult ignored :p

But - here's a better reply:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/23/religion-islam

An easy answer to your challenge, Jafar, would've been to say that Sharia marriages, therefore Sharia divorces, have no legal recognition in UK law. Such marriages are outside of UK law entirely.

So tell me .. do Sharia courts say 'Oh well, this is Britain, so we'll respect British law and neither allow nor advise Muslims to enter into that form of marriage, because it conflicts with the law of the land', OR, do they CATER FOR IT, REGARDLESS ???

I trust that all of this amply answers you, Jafar.

The story doesn't mention anything apart from

Although the court, which ruled 5-1 that the woman and her son should be allowed to remain in the UK, said the case was "exceptional"

I don't see how this supports your argument that Sharia is incompatible with UK law since these "arbitration tribunals" cannot make rulings that break UK law am I right?

Besides, the article you linked to makes hypothetical assumptions that the husband would automatically have custody rights. That is not the case. Custody goes to the mother before the "age of decision" which is puberty. After which the father has the right to custody. You must understand that custody decisions for either parent must take into account their suitability to best serve the needs of the child and that the one taking custody must be of sound mind and character. From what the story said, the father was abusive and threw her off a balcony. That would be enough for any court, let alone a Sharia one to rule in favour of the mother.

Also, I assume that in addition to a Sharia marriage, a couple must also have a UK registry marriage in order for the marriage to be officially recognised in the UK? Much the same as my former marriage to a French national required 2 marriages to be performed. BTW, we are still fighting the French legal system for more than 3 years to grant the divorce which is on mutual grounds.

And if its a foreign country reside peacefully until your numbers or enough to change the law.:laugh: Sorry dude i believe this, now they may not be true Muslims, as you say but from what i can see they are the great majority.

You can believe the conspiracy if you like. However I can confide in you that neither I, nor any Muslim I know is conspiring to take over any country surreptitiously. Perhaps those living near you just like living there?

Larrymc

07-31-2013, 05:55 AM

fj1200

07-31-2013, 06:45 AM

Three times your source says the local law need not be obeyed if it causes you to 'sin', yet you claim your source says it is a sin not to obey the local law.

How is that not true of any religion?

jafar00

07-31-2013, 02:30 PM

What I believe is Revelation that talks about the beheading of the Christians in the end times, That sounds rather old fashion and barbaric, until you realize that its still the preferred way to kill an infidel.

I am not aware of this revelation.

In the Qur'aan there are two mentions of "smiting of necks",

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (8:12)

This verse is SPECIFICALLY about the "Battle of Badr" which occurred in the year 624AD

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. (47:4)

This is also about the Battle of Badr. The people recognised those who were killed by Angels by the marks on their heads, necks and fingertips. This battle is famous among Muslims as they were outnumbered 3 to 1 yet they routed the enemy with the help from Angels sent by God.

See also Tafsir concerning this verse. So you can't say it is for all time :p
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=47&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Allah then encouraged the believers to fight, saying: (Now when ye meet in battle) on the Day of Badr (those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks) they smite their necks (until, when ye have routed them) and taken them prisoners, (then making fast of bonds) keep the prisoners in captivity; (and afterward either grace) either release the prisoners without asking for a ransom (or ransom) or the prisoner ransoms himself (till the war lay down its burdens) until the disbelievers lay down their arms; it is also said that this means: until the disbelievers give up. (That (is the ordinance)) to punish whoever disbelieves in Allah. (And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you)) if Allah willed He could have punished the disbelievers of Mecca through the angels; it is also said that this means: if Allah willed He could have punished the disbelievers of Mecca without you having to fight them, (but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others) but it is thus that He may test the believers with the disbelievers and the relative with his relative. (And those who are slain in the way of Allah) and those who are killed in obedience of Allah on the Day of Badr, referring here to the prophetic Companions, (He rendereth not their actions vain) Allah will not thwart their good deeds which were performed during jihad.

Marcus Aurelius

07-31-2013, 02:45 PM

fj1200

07-31-2013, 02:50 PM

Please.. show me in the Bible where it says 'If the local laws would cause you to sin, you do not have to follow it'.

I don't know if it's in there or not, I expect not, but what is the moral basis for sinning even though it's a law?

Larrymc

07-31-2013, 03:01 PM

I am not aware of this revelation.

In the Qur'aan there are two mentions of "smiting of necks",

When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. (8:12)

This verse is SPECIFICALLY about the "Battle of Badr" which occurred in the year 624AD

So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. (47:4)

This is also about the Battle of Badr. The people recognised those who were killed by Angels by the marks on their heads, necks and fingertips. This battle is famous among Muslims as they were outnumbered 3 to 1 yet they routed the enemy with the help from Angels sent by God.

See also Tafsir concerning this verse. So you can't say it is for all time :p
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=47&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2Revalations is the last book of the Bible, i have never heard of the battle you speak of unless its called something else in the Bible

Missileman

07-31-2013, 04:11 PM

Drummond

07-31-2013, 09:27 PM

What can I say. He doesn't have ijaza (permission to make judgements based on Sharia or act as a community leader) from any Islamic Authority let alone a recognised one.

He's a lone wolf. If people were stupid enough to follow him, it isn't the fault of other Muslims.

You're DENYING, then, that Choudary is, or ever has been, a Sharia Court judge ?

I'm sure I can dig out other evidence. For right now, however ..

http://federation-pro-europa-christiana.org/wordpress/islamic-sharia-law-court-opens-in-belgium/

Sharia4Belgium is linked to Anjem Choudary, a Sharia court judge based in London. Choudary, who was the leader of a group called Islam4UK before it was banned by British anti-terrorism authorities, believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths and has long campaigned for Islamic law to be implemented in all of Britain.

At least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain ...

... you were saying, Jafar .. ??

There is no age of consent in Sharia so the local laws are to be followed. So in effect, British age of consent is Sharia in Britain. BTW, insult ignored :p

You heard it here, folks .. NO AGE OF CONSENT IN SHARIA. Mohammed would've been delighted ..

And .. your statement about Sharia courts respecting British law on this matter is simply FALSE.

Here's some proof for you -

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/child-marriages-and-sharia-courts-it-must-end-now/

Dear Friend,

We are writing to you today to ask for your urgent and immediate support.

As you may have seen in the papers recently, there is growing evidence that young children – some as young at 5 years old – are being “married” to older men in Sharia courts across Britain. This is increasingly being sanctioned by the Islamists who run Britain’s network of Sharia courts, and there is evidence that this practice is growing.

A recent undercover investigation by the Sunday Times found imams in Britain willing to “marry” young girls, provided this was carried out in secret. The imams had been approached by an undercover reporter posing as a father who said he wanted his 12 year old daughter married, to prevent her from being tempted in to a “western lifestyle”.

Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, sanctioned the marriage, but stressed the need for total secrecy. He stated: “I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better. Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband. The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).”

Abdul Haque, who officiates at weddings at the Shoreditch mosque, east London agreed to carry out the formalities of the wedding.

Fact: Sharia Law DEFIES local law when it chooses to.

I don't see how this supports your argument that Sharia is incompatible with UK law since these "arbitration tribunals" cannot make rulings that break UK law am I right?

The way the tribunals work is that all parties agree to be bound by UK law. It is this agreement which removes the possibility of incompatability. BUT .. as in the example above, Sharia courts are willing to work outside of that boundary in certain circumstances.

Besides, the article you linked to makes hypothetical assumptions that the husband would automatically have custody rights. That is not the case. Custody goes to the mother before the "age of decision" which is puberty. After which the father has the right to custody. You must understand that custody decisions for either parent must take into account their suitability to best serve the needs of the child and that the one taking custody must be of sound mind and character. From what the story said, the father was abusive and threw her off a balcony. That would be enough for any court, let alone a Sharia one to rule in favour of the mother.

.. and aren't you the one making an assumption here ? The POINT is that UK law, in this case, gave a measure of protection which Sharia Law was thought to not properly provide.

Also, I assume that in addition to a Sharia marriage, a couple must also have a UK registry marriage in order for the marriage to be officially recognised in the UK? Much the same as my former marriage to a French national required 2 marriages to be performed. BTW, we are still fighting the French legal system for more than 3 years to grant the divorce which is on mutual grounds.

Correct, legally speaking. HOWEVER, Sharia courts often completely fail to advise of the illegality of Sharia marriages on their own. Consequently, Muslims considering themselves to be under their jurisdiction think only in terms of getting 'married' under Sharia Law, and are not advised of its lack of legal standing in the UK.

A BBC 'Panorama' programme exposing what those Courts were getting up to, made this abundantly clear.

jafar00

07-31-2013, 10:06 PM

Revalations is the last book of the Bible, i have never heard of the battle you speak of unless its called something else in the Bible

I understand now. Muslims don't follow the bible, so why did you mention it?

You're DENYING, then, that Choudary is, or ever has been, a Sharia Court judge ?

If I show you a blog post saying I'm a doctor, would you let me do some brain surgery on you despite the fact that I have no formal qualifications?

Choudary has no formal qualifications therefore he is no judge.

Missileman

08-01-2013, 05:10 AM

I understand now. Muslims don't follow the bible, so why did you mention it?

If I show you a blog post saying I'm a doctor, would you let me do some brain surgery on you despite the fact that I have no formal qualifications?

Choudary has no formal qualifications therefore he is no judge.

I'm curious to see your answer to post #28.

jafar00

08-01-2013, 06:13 AM

There's a contradiction in your argument. You say there is guidance to follow local law unless it results in sin. If this is true, there would be no need whatsoever to establish Sharia courts to enforce Sharia law in foreign countries. You yourself admitted there are no sinful laws in the US that would prohibit a Muslim from living their life following US law. Why then the continuous effort to bring Sharia into the equation?

Muslims in the UK don't have to follow these tribunals. UK law should suffice. From what I have heard about them, they seem to be taliban run organisations so do not have much legitimacy. When I was in the UK, nobody I knew went to any so called "courts" of sharia. We always asked our Imam on matters of fiq who just happened to be former Mufti of Kenya.

Drummond

08-01-2013, 12:47 PM

If I show you a blog post saying I'm a doctor, would you let me do some brain surgery on you despite the fact that I have no formal qualifications?

Choudary has no formal qualifications therefore he is no judge.

Here's a short YouTube clip of a Muslim introducing Choudary as a guest speaker at their meeting. He seems convinced that Choudary IS a Sharia judge ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeVf1klsUwY

RT News thinks he's one. See ...

http://rt.com/news/sharia-court-uk-islam/

A recent study by think tank Civitas concluded there are around 85 Sharia courts currently operating in Britain, of which merely a dozen work within the British legal system.

While Muslim activists want to triple the number of courts by the end of the year, British human rights campaigners say Sharia justice is brutal.

“We are free-of-charge to the Muslim community as a reference point in marriage, divorce, in partnership and company disputes, in inheritance matters, and for people who want to become Muslim, and general advice and rulings,” says Anjem Choudary, judge of the Sharia court of the UK.

As an example of the court’s decision, Choudary offers the following: “If someone lost a finger because he was hit by somebody unnecessarily, then he deserves the equivalent of 10 camels [compensation], or whatever that may be in sterling.”

Choudary wants to establish an Islamic state in Britain, and institute fully-fledged Sharia law throughout. That would mean cutting off people’s hands for stealing, and stoning women for adultery. But in the absence of a state to support that, for now he can only judge civil matters.

The men who study under Choudary at the London School of Sharia have all had dealings with his court.

Did RT News just invent all of this, Jafar ?

Try:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846570/posts

The two leaders of this organization are identified as Sheikh Anjem Choudary and Sheikh Omar Muhammad Bakri. On the contact page of the website, these two names are published prominently: Sheikh Anjem Choudary, Judge of the UK Sharia Court, and Sheikh Omar Muhammad Bakri, who is identified as "Expert on Islamic Groups Worldwide." Bakri's phone number is given as 00961 70957759 – 961 being the country code for Lebanon. Choudary's phone number is given as 0044 7956 600 569.

-- Anyone care to make a phone call ?

Drummond

08-01-2013, 01:01 PM

Marcus Aurelius

08-01-2013, 01:25 PM

Muslims in the UK don't have to follow these tribunals. UK law should suffice. From what I have heard about them, they seem to be taliban run organisations so do not have much legitimacy. When I was in the UK, nobody I knew went to any so called "courts" of sharia. We always asked our Imam on matters of fiq who just happened to be former Mufti of Kenya.

You are so full of shit. Now the UK sharia courts don't really exist?

Tell these guys that...

http://www.shariahcouncil.org/

About the Muslim Law (Shariah) Council UK The Muslim Law (Shariah) Council UK was established in October 1985 at a conference held on 19th- 20th October 1985 attended by more than 250 Imams, Muslim Scholars and representatives of Mosques and Muslim Organizations. The Council was formed to resolve a variety of disputes and issues faced by the Muslim Community. Issues include:

<tbody>

Marriage

Divorce

Mediation

Judicial Deliberation and Conciliation

</tbody>
The Muslim Law (Shariah) Council primarily provides services to the Muslim Community in Great Britain. The Council receives many enquiries regarding social, family and matrimonial issues and gives Islamic opinion and guidelines on the basis of discussions and consultations made in this respect at its meetings. We have twenty-one Ulema, Imams, Muslim Scholars, and Barristers on the Council representing various schools of Fiqh in Great Britain.
The Council is also approached by institutions, organizations and individuals from diverse spectrum of ethnicity and faiths seeking expert opinions in accordance to Islamic Law on social, theological, cultural, political and academic issues. Solicitors and other legal bodies and authorities also approach the Council for guidelines on cases relating to Muslim families.
Since its establishment, the Council has successfully developed a structured mechanism as a complimentary body offering services for dispute resolutions. The Council, up until now, has received over 3,000 cases of dispute among Muslim families. These cases were investigated, deliberated and then adjudicated successfully.
The Council receives enquiries which are inadvertently answered in accordance to the Shari’ah. Some of the queries are referred to the Council from other European countries where no such Islamic Council is available to help the Muslim Community.
The Council also helps the community by offering its services of Mediation and Arbitration in their disputes.

Nothing Taliban related on their site, dumb ass.

aboutime

08-01-2013, 01:36 PM

You are so full of shit. Now the UK sharia courts don't really exist?

Tell these guys that...

http://www.shariahcouncil.org/

Nothing Taliban related on their site, dumb ass.

Marcus. It is very, very apparent. 'jafar' really is sick, and unable to logically reason, or even come close to using common sense.
That appears to be the result of massive, life-long, brain-washing that people like jafer are honestly convinced...is their form of truth.

Drummond

08-01-2013, 07:51 PM

You are so full of shit. Now the UK sharia courts don't really exist?

Tell these guys that...

http://www.shariahcouncil.org/

Nothing Taliban related on their site, dumb ass.:clap::clap:

Thanks for that, Marcus.

'Poor Jafar'. He knows how bad a press these courts have had, and he knows the evidence of their disgusting conduct is damning. So, he goes into typical 'deny' mode ...

jafar00

08-01-2013, 09:27 PM

Here's a short YouTube clip of a Muslim introducing Choudary as a guest speaker at their meeting. He seems convinced that Choudary IS a Sharia judge ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeVf1klsUwY

RT News thinks he's one. See ...

http://rt.com/news/sharia-court-uk-islam/

Did RT News just invent all of this, Jafar ?

Try:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2846570/posts

-- Anyone care to make a phone call ?

You can quote people till you are blue in the face. It doesn't make him an actual scholar or a judge. With no formal training nor permission from any Islamic authority he has no right to make fatwa or judgements on Islamic fiq or law.

Since you like this stuff, here is Choudary getting pwned. The guy doesn't know Arabic. You cannot be a scholar of Islam without knowing Arabic for a start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDHSx0AWND8

Sallahu alayhi wassalam means May Allah bring honour him and give him peace. Choudary derped.

He and his followers are like the Wesboro Baptist Church of Islam in the UK. A small band of nutcases on the fringe. Why are you giving people like this so much TV coverage.

It is widely believed that Choudary is an MI5 agent portraying Islam in a bad way for whatever purpose. I am beginning to believe it.

aboutime

08-02-2013, 08:53 PM

Marcus Aurelius

08-02-2013, 08:57 PM

jafar. If that video was Toilet Paper, I would proudly use it to wipe my butt, over, and over, and over again.

Using a video is far more entertaining than Being Like You, and using your Bare, Left Hand to replace the CHARMIN.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eAON0kVLT7A/S-h4JYISllI/AAAAAAAAADM/j27R4bGYDcQ/s1600/muhammad_toilet_paper.JPG

jafar00

08-02-2013, 10:20 PM

jafar. If that video was Toilet Paper, I would proudly use it to wipe my butt, over, and over, and over again.

Using a video is far more entertaining than Being Like You, and using your Bare, Left Hand to replace the CHARMIN.

Bah, I use water to wash my behind. What's cleaner? Water or smearing with paper?

Drummond

08-02-2013, 11:15 PM

You can quote people till you are blue in the face. It doesn't make him an actual scholar or a judge. With no formal training nor permission from any Islamic authority he has no right to make fatwa or judgements on Islamic fiq or law.

.... AND YET, HE DOES !

So here we have it. No matter how many links I post which acknowledge him to be a Sharia judge, or teacher of Islam, you'll still 'refuse' to believe any of it.

Yes, well, we've seen your 'denial' mode on these threads time and again. One of your most recent was to deny the Islamic standing of UK Sharia councils ... you called them 'Taliban', without having the slightest justification for dredging up such a label for them. But ... here's the point. Anything, anyone, giving Islam a bad press, you'll distance yourself from, EVEN THOUGH THEY PROPERLY REPRESENT THAT CREED.

Sanitising Islam is everything to you. If that means standing the truth on its head, you'll do that again and again.

Since you like this stuff, here is Choudary getting pwned. The guy doesn't know Arabic. You cannot be a scholar of Islam without knowing Arabic for a start.

Oh, that old chestnut. Translations are no good, EVER, NO MATTER HOW THOROUGH OR ACCURATE (... which locks out any non-Arabic speaker from understanding the Koran properly ... how very convenient ....).

He and his followers are like the Wesboro Baptist Church of Islam in the UK. A small band of nutcases on the fringe. Why are you giving people like this so much TV coverage.

I am not. The BBC does. CNN does. Even Fox News does, on occasion (Hannity interviewing him was brilliant to watch). For a 'nutcase', how come, if that's all he is, that he gets so much coverage, anyway, UNLESS HE'S KNOWN TO BE AN HONEST, PLAIN SPEAKER ABOUT ISLAM ?

It is widely believed that Choudary is an MI5 agent portraying Islam in a bad way for whatever purpose. I am beginning to believe it.

Now it's my turn to put the suggestion of transfer to the 'conspiracy' corner. How ridiculous is THIS ? I mean, really, Jafar, are you THAT desperate in your efforts to disown Choudary .. is he that much of an embarrassment to your efforts to sanitise Islam ?:laugh::laugh:

Drummond

08-02-2013, 11:21 PM

Bah, I use water to wash my behind. What's cleaner? Water or smearing with paper?

Unbelievable !:poop::mooning:

Drummond

08-02-2013, 11:55 PM

jafar00

08-03-2013, 01:51 AM

By the way, Jafar, see this video. It shows Choudary lapsing again and again into Arabic during his propaganda speech.

So tell me, does he have a phenomenal memory, OR, is he the Arabic speaker - and scholar - you need to convince us that he's NOT ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpCPZaCBgCE

-- Enjoy --

Well, I can say "A'udhu billahi minash shaitanir rajim. Bissmilahi Rahmani Rahim. Ashadu an la illahu wahdahu la sharika la, wa ashadu ana muhamadun abduhu wa rasoolullah. Wal Asr. Inna alinsaana lafee khusrin. Illa allatheena amanoo wa aamiloo salihaati wa tawasaw bil haqqi wa tawasaw bis sabr" before making a speech. It's something fairly simple Arabic from the Qur'aan that any Muslim should know. Even non arabic speaking. I sometimes throw in "insh'Allah", "MashAllah", and "subhanAllah" in sentences now and then.

Does that mean I am a scholar of Arabic?

Drummond

08-03-2013, 02:47 AM

Well, I can say "A'udhu billahi minash shaitanir rajim. Bissmilahi Rahmani Rahim. Ashadu an la illahu wahdahu la sharika la, wa ashadu ana muhamadun abduhu wa rasoolullah. Wal Asr. Inna alinsaana lafee khusrin. Illa allatheena amanoo wa aamiloo salihaati wa tawasaw bil haqqi wa tawasaw bis sabr" before making a speech. It's something fairly simple Arabic from the Qur'aan that any Muslim should know. Even non arabic speaking. I sometimes throw in "insh'Allah", "MashAllah", and "subhanAllah" in sentences now and then.

Does that mean I am a scholar of Arabic?

How many people (including myself) on this forum are at all likely to be anything as much of a scholar of Arabic as you've just demonstrated yourself to be ?

But really, is that the point, when you get down to it ?

Choudary either IS, or IS NOT, a scholar of ISLAM. As a Sharia Court judge (which reputable news sources agree he IS, even if you're desperate to convince us he's not), this is surely what counts.

logroller

08-03-2013, 04:02 AM

You are so full of shit. Now the UK sharia courts don't really exist?
The only shit I see is calling them courts.
They're a form of alternative dispute resolution and while their rulings may be legally binding, meaning it can be enforced by the real courts, so too are they subject to the real courts' appeals process. They lack the power to enforce their findings/rulings/judgements etc; so they're not "courts" really, despite what people prefer to call them. Furthermore, they don't handle criminal matters; mostly property disputes and such; they're more like the people's court or divorce court on tv. Do you consider those "courts" to be an affront to the legal process?

Tell these guys that...

http://www.shariahcouncil.org/
Curiously, i didn't see the term "court" used.

jafar00

08-03-2013, 05:39 AM

How many people (including myself) on this forum are at all likely to be anything as much of a scholar of Arabic as you've just demonstrated yourself to be ?

But really, is that the point, when you get down to it ?

Choudary either IS, or IS NOT, a scholar of ISLAM. As a Sharia Court judge (which reputable news sources agree he IS, even if you're desperate to convince us he's not), this is surely what counts.

The point is that Choudary has no formal qualifications to act as a so called scholar. He is self appointed. Being able to speak a little Arabic doesn't make one a scholar. He couldn't even translate salallahu alayhi wassalim. I can read Arabic. I can read the Qur'aan in Arabic. I can even hold a conversation in the Egyptian Arabic dialect. I've taken courses in classical Arabic grammar, Hanafi Fiq and Islamic Finance. I don't call myself a scholar though. A Muslim well educated about his faith, but not a scholar.

And you have to ask yourself, is Choudary working for the benefit of Muslims? Or is he just making people hate us by being a complete twonk in public?

The only shit I see is calling them courts.
They're a form of alternative dispute resolution and while their rulings may be legally binding, meaning it can be enforced by the real courts, so too are they subject to the real courts' appeals process. They lack the power to enforce their findings/rulings/judgements etc; so they're not "courts" really, despite what people prefer to call them. Furthermore, they don't handle criminal matters; mostly property disputes and such; they're more like the people's court or divorce court on tv. Do you consider those "courts" to be an affront to the legal process?

Curiously, i didn't see the term "court" used.

Good point. The UK officially recognises them as "tribunals".

Missileman

08-03-2013, 07:54 AM

The point is that Choudary has no formal qualifications to act as a so called scholar. He is self appointed. Being able to speak a little Arabic doesn't make one a scholar. He couldn't even translate salallahu alayhi wassalim. I can read Arabic. I can read the Qur'aan in Arabic. I can even hold a conversation in the Egyptian Arabic dialect. I've taken courses in classical Arabic grammar, Hanafi Fiq and Islamic Finance. I don't call myself a scholar though. A Muslim well educated about his faith, but not a scholar.

And you have to ask yourself, is Choudary working for the benefit of Muslims? Or is he just making people hate us by being a complete twonk in public?

Good point. The UK officially recognises them as "tribunals".

So since there must be some UK laws that result in Muslim sin, otherwise as directed they would live by UK law, maybe you can list a few of them for us.

Marcus Aurelius

08-03-2013, 09:54 AM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by logroller http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=655870#post655870)

The only shit I see is calling them courts.
They're a form of alternative dispute resolution and while their rulings may be legally binding, meaning it can be enforced by the real courts, so too are they subject to the real courts' appeals process. They lack the power to enforce their findings/rulings/judgements etc; so they're not "courts" really, despite what people prefer to call them. Furthermore, they don't handle criminal matters; mostly property disputes and such; they're more like the people's court or divorce court on tv. Do you consider those "courts" to be an affront to the legal process?

Curiously, i didn't see the term "court" used.

Good point. The UK officially recognises them as "tribunals".

Definition of tribunal...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tribunals

1. Law a. A seat or court of justice.

b. The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.

2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.
3. Something that has the power to determine or judge: the tribunal of public opinion.

Thank you for admitting they are considered courts by the UK.

aboutime

08-03-2013, 01:28 PM

Bah, I use water to wash my behind. What's cleaner? Water or smearing with paper?

jafar. Defending yourself on this topic is nothing short of laughable. I guess you drag a tank full of water behind you, everywhere you go, huh? Or, only visit public places with BIDET's ?

Bet you pick your nose with your left hand, to keep all the smell's close by too!

jafar00

08-03-2013, 01:48 PM

So since there must be some UK laws that result in Muslim sin, otherwise as directed they would live by UK law, maybe you can list a few of them for us.

jafar. Defending yourself on this topic is nothing short of laughable. I guess you drag a tank full of water behind you, everywhere you go, huh? Or, only visit public places with BIDET's ?

Nope

http://glamdollteaston.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/water.jpg+http://www.lusanbidets.com.au/product/images/2611/Solo_teal.png?96,96,2210305716 = Travel ablution

My hands don't smell either. I wash them after going to the toilet. Don't you? The fact remains that washing with water cleans better than smearing with paper. It's your ass that stinks.

jimnyc

08-03-2013, 01:57 PM

The only shit I see is calling them courts.
They're a form of alternative dispute resolution and while their rulings may be legally binding, meaning it can be enforced by the real courts, so too are they subject to the real courts' appeals process. They lack the power to enforce their findings/rulings/judgements etc; so they're not "courts" really, despite what people prefer to call them. Furthermore, they don't handle criminal matters; mostly property disputes and such; they're more like the people's court or divorce court on tv. Do you consider those "courts" to be an affront to the legal process?

Curiously, i didn't see the term "court" used.

Good point. The UK officially recognises them as "tribunals".

I saw this as worthy of quoting:

Definition of tribunal...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tribunals

1. Law a. A seat or court of justice.

b. The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.

2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.
3. Something that has the power to determine or judge: the tribunal of public opinion.

tailfins

08-03-2013, 02:16 PM

The point is that Choudary has no formal qualifications to act as a so called scholar. He is self appointed. Being able to speak a little Arabic doesn't make one a scholar. He couldn't even translate salallahu alayhi wassalim. I can read Arabic. I can read the Qur'aan in Arabic. I can even hold a conversation in the Egyptian Arabic dialect. I've taken courses in classical Arabic grammar, Hanafi Fiq and Islamic Finance. I don't call myself a scholar though. A Muslim well educated about his faith, but not a scholar.

And you have to ask yourself, is Choudary working for the benefit of Muslims? Or is he just making people hate us by being a complete twonk in public?

Good point. The UK officially recognises them as "tribunals".

Sharia rules could easily and legally be implemented in the US. Many corporations have binding arbitration clauses in their contracts as a condition of doing business with them where THEY choose the arbitrator. A Muslim owned corporation could easily designate an Islamic arbitration company. I'm not singling Islam out here. An Islamic arbitration company might even be more fair than the one chosen by Bubba's Used Car Lot.

aboutime

08-03-2013, 02:18 PM

Nope

http://glamdollteaston.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/water.jpg+http://www.lusanbidets.com.au/product/images/2611/Solo_teal.png?96,96,2210305716 = Travel ablution

My hands don't smell either. I wash them after going to the toilet. Don't you? The fact remains that washing with water cleans better than smearing with paper. It's your ass that stinks.

Sure thing jafar. Look at how far you went to further DEFEND, the Undefendable.

logroller

08-03-2013, 03:42 PM

Definition of tribunal...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tribunals

Thank you for admitting they are considered courts by the UK.
Sure thing. just like judge Judy is a court. Which is to say, it isn't really.

jimnyc

08-03-2013, 04:04 PM

Sure thing. just like judge Judy is a court. Which is to say, it isn't really.

I doubt Muslims see the tribunals as entertainment, and I'm willing to bet everything that they see any decisions rendered as 100% legally binding. And Judge Judy also follows the law of the land.

Missileman

08-03-2013, 04:40 PM

Nope

http://glamdollteaston.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/water.jpg+http://www.lusanbidets.com.au/product/images/2611/Solo_teal.png?96,96,2210305716 = Travel ablution

My hands don't smell either. I wash them after going to the toilet. Don't you? The fact remains that washing with water cleans better than smearing with paper. It's your ass that stinks.

I noticed you quoted my question and then answered aboutime's.

Marcus Aurelius

08-03-2013, 05:47 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=655915#post655915)
Definition of tribunal...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tribunals

tri·bu·nal (trhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/imacr.gif-byhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oomacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl, trhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-)n.1. Law a. A seat or court of justice.

Thank you for admitting they are considered courts by the UK.

Sure thing. just like judge Judy is a court. Which is to say, it isn't really.

That is an asinine comparison. Judge Judy is no more a tribunal that you are an elf.

The dictionary definition of tribunal is a seat or court of justice... universally. So, if the UK calls the 'Islamic Courts' 'tribunals', they are calling them courts.

It's really that simple.

logroller

08-03-2013, 08:21 PM

I doubt Muslims see the tribunals as entertainment, and I'm willing to bet everything that they see any decisions rendered as 100% legally binding. And Judge Judy also follows the law of the land.
My mother in law and sister in law were codefendants to my other sister in law and her then boyfriend as plaintiffs on Judge Judy; and while airing family drama may be entertaining to some (myself included), to them it was anything but and they took it very seriously. And legally binding it is. So far as the law of the land, since when is a $500 appearance fee and having any judgement rendered paid by the producers the "law of be land"? Hollywoodland maybe. ;)
I've been to court a few times, and it didn't work like that.

fj1200

08-03-2013, 08:47 PM

Definition of tribunal...

Thank you for admitting they are considered courts by the UK.

This isn't exactly how I would define a court, even in the UK.

The Islamic Sharia Council is a London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London)-based, quasi-Islamic court that provides legal rulings and advice to Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims) in accordance with Islamic Sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) based on the fourSunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam) schools of thought. It primarily handles cases of marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) and divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce) and, to a lesser extent business and finance.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council#cite_note-Bell-1) According to BBC News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News), thousands of Muslims have turned to the Council to resolve family and financial issues. According to the Council, it deals with 200-300 cases monthly.[2]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council#cite_note-Talwar-2)The council has no legal authority or jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction) in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council#cite_note-Bell-1) and can not impose any penalties. Muslims voluntarily accept the rulings it makes.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council#cite_note-Talwar-2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council

tailfins

08-03-2013, 09:05 PM

My mother in law and sister in law were codefendants to my other sister in law and her then boyfriend as plaintiffs on Judge Judy; and while airing family drama may be entertaining to some (myself included), to them it was anything but and they took it very seriously. And legally binding it is. So far as the law of the land, since when is a $500 appearance fee and having any judgement rendered paid by the producers the "law of be land"? Hollywoodland maybe. ;)
I've been to court a few times, and it didn't work like that.

Have any of your relatives had their disputes aired on Jerry Springer? Inquiring minds want to know.

SassyLady

08-04-2013, 12:04 AM

Jeff

08-04-2013, 12:24 AM

what about vigilante law?

Sassy I am afraid that is where this all is heading, with Obama threatening if he don't get his way racism will be worse to Muslims feeling they should have there own courts, I truly feel a form of vigilante law is coming anyway, this Country may be full of bleeding heart liberals that will cave hell they will even march with those causing trouble but when all hell breaks loose ( and it is coming ) they are going to find out no one cares if they are liberal or not they will be the first to be pounced on and then the rest will have no choice but to have a sort of Vigilante law

logroller

08-04-2013, 01:26 AM

That is an asinine comparison. Judge Judy is no more a tribunal that you are an elf.
You makin fun of my ears? There are both forms of arbitration-- not litigation.

logroller

08-04-2013, 01:30 AM

Have any of your relatives had their disputes aired on Jerry Springer? Inquiring minds want to know.
Not aired. :laugh2:

jimnyc

08-04-2013, 07:31 AM

My mother in law and sister in law were codefendants to my other sister in law and her then boyfriend as plaintiffs on Judge Judy; and while airing family drama may be entertaining to some (myself included), to them it was anything but and they took it very seriously. And legally binding it is. So far as the law of the land, since when is a $500 appearance fee and having any judgement rendered paid by the producers the "law of be land"? Hollywoodland maybe. ;)
I've been to court a few times, and it didn't work like that.

I believe you misread the majority of my post. I think it was you who compared the tribunals to Judy, while I pointed out that she was for entertainment value, whereas I'm confident that the Muslims don't look at the Sharia courts as such.

jimnyc

08-04-2013, 07:33 AM

This isn't exactly how I would define a court, even in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Sharia_Council

Even your link refers to it as a form of court. :)

Women are very often shit upon via courts in various matters in Islam ('cept for what Jafar would tell you). And with that said, such matters, even involving money, should be based on what local law is, not Sharia law. Even here in the States, you follow state law, not other states or other countries or some kangaroo religious law.

logroller

08-04-2013, 12:40 PM

I believe you misread the majority of my post. I think it was you who compared the tribunals to Judy, while I pointed out that she was for entertainment value, whereas I'm confident that the Muslims don't look at the Sharia courts as such.
I understood what you meant. I'm saying that, to the parties involved in either forum, its not entertainment. Civil disputes are serious to those involved, despite the idiocy of their circumstances. The primary difference between them is that one chooses to air their dispute publicly, the other doesn't. But both voluntarily accept the ruling--which differs greatly from court litigation.

Drummond

08-04-2013, 02:41 PM

Drummond

08-04-2013, 02:50 PM

I doubt Muslims see the tribunals as entertainment, and I'm willing to bet everything that they see any decisions rendered as 100% legally binding. And Judge Judy also follows the law of the land.

The BBC's 'Panorama' programme in the UK which studied the behaviour of Sharia Courts found a mixture of Muslims who were unaware that Sharia Courts could, or did, make any rulings that contravened State law, along with Muslims who considered it their duty to obey Sharia whether it was, or not.

Choudary is correct when he says that Muslims consider Sharia, as religious law, to be above 'man made law'.

And I can assure you that there were Muslims in that programme who not only failed to see anything 'entertaining' about tribunals, but whose lives were being blighted by them.

logroller

08-04-2013, 03:22 PM

Even your link refers to it as a form of court. :)

Women are very often shit upon via courts in various matters in Islam ('cept for what Jafar would tell you). And with that said, such matters, even involving money, should be based on what local law is, not Sharia law. Even here in the States, you follow state law, not other states or other countries or some kangaroo religious law.
Family courts often shit upon men. Would you consider the court of public opinion a court?
As to the bold, in courts, you are correct; hence why I do not consider them to be courts.
Youre a catholic right? Do you believe that the church has an authority to resolve its own internal matters? I'm not talking about criminal matters but, rather, civil issues between its members? Is it not church doctrine to seek counsel from priests? Should the priest simply say, "that's a legal issue: sue him in court", or should priests become experts in state law? It the former, I wonder the extent to which guidance offers by priests should be outlawed then, even in contravention to the Gospel?
“If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault, but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. If he does not listen, summon another so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. If he ignores them, refer it to the church.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

jimnyc

08-04-2013, 04:09 PM

Family courts often shit upon men. Would you consider the court of public opinion a court?
As to the bold, in courts, you are correct; hence why I do not consider them to be courts.
Youre a catholic right? Do you believe that the church has an authority to resolve its own internal matters? I'm not talking about criminal matters but, rather, civil issues between its members? Is it not church doctrine to seek counsel from priests? Should the priest simply say, "that's a legal issue: sue him in court", or should priests become experts in state law? It the former, I wonder the extent to which guidance offers by priests should be outlawed then, even in contravention to the Gospel?
“If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault, but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. If he does not listen, summon another so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. If he ignores them, refer it to the church.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

The Church should have no authority whatsoever for anything that law already covers, such as the things covered by the tribunals, or ANY legal matter for that fact, even civil matters. Seeking counsel from a priest is not a legal matter.

logroller

08-04-2013, 04:25 PM

The Church should have no authority whatsoever for anything that law already covers, such as the things covered by the tribunals, or ANY legal matter for that fact, even civil matters. Seeking counsel from a priest is not a legal matter.
It could be. Take marriage-- indubitably, covered by civil law-- therefore, your position is that the church shouldnt involve itself, even when the couple wish it to be.

jimnyc

08-04-2013, 04:41 PM

It could be. Take marriage-- indubitably, covered by civil law-- therefore, your position is that the church shouldnt involve itself, even when the couple wish it to be.

Absolutely not. You start bypassing the law of the land and that's how things start to decay. I can also see people doing an end around to making things more advantageous to themselves. No religious organization should be dictating or superseding law in any manner, IMO. I can see a priest or similar giving counsel like you said, or support and such, but in no way at all should they have any legal authority whatsoever. It's bad enough to see how that crap is slowly creeping into the UK - but look at the destruction that is caused by allowing religion to be the law of the land in the Islamic world. I wouldn't live in a place like that if you made me an instant trillionaire.

logroller

08-04-2013, 05:51 PM

Absolutely not. You start bypassing the law of the land and that's how things start to decay. I can also see people doing an end around to making things more advantageous to themselves. No religious organization should be dictating or superseding law in any manner, IMO. I can see a priest or similar giving counsel like you said, or support and such, but in no way at all should they have any legal authority whatsoever. It's bad enough to see how that crap is slowly creeping into the UK - but look at the destruction that is caused by allowing religion to be the law of the land in the Islamic world. I wouldn't live in a place like that if you made me an instant trillionaire.
As officiants, priests have the legal authority to marry people; signing legal documents to the fact.has this led to a decay of marriage? I see it as quite the opposite; that the state's involvement in marriage, among many facets of our personal lives, has led to its decay.

Married people go through arbitration frequently to resolve their issues; litigated divorces represent something like 5% of divorce settlements, leaving the remainder settled through alternative means-- including arbitration-- and just like sharia tribunals, such settlements are voluntarily agreed to, unlike litigated settlements. I've said it before that the hazard is that the parties may not be aware of the alternatives and their respective pros and cons. Introducing a law that requires the disclosure of such alternatives would certainly be warranted to avoid such perils; but forcing every person to pursue litigation to resolve every dispute, in iieu of alternatives that may better serve the parties, is to toss aside personal freedom under the auspices of equal justice...which it may be, in that we're equally screwed by the state. so far as becoming wealthy under such circumstances, one need only be admitted to the bar.

jimnyc

08-04-2013, 05:57 PM

As officiants, priests have the legal authority to marry people; signing legal documents to the fact.has this led to a decay of marriage? I see it as quite the opposite; that the state's involvement in marriage, among many facets of our personal lives, has led to its decay.

Married people go through arbitration frequently to resolve their issues; litigated divorces represent something like 5% of divorce settlements, leaving the remainder settled through alternative means-- including arbitration-- and just like sharia tribunals, such settlements are voluntarily agreed to, unlike litigated settlements. I've said it before that the hazard is that the parties may not be aware of the alternatives and their respective pros and cons. Introducing a law that requires the disclosure of such alternatives would certainly be warranted to avoid such perils; but forcing every person to pursue litigation to resolve every dispute, in iieu of alternatives that may better serve the parties, is to toss aside personal freedom under the auspices of equal justice...which it may be, in that we're equally screwed by the state. so far as becoming wealthy under such circumstances, one need only be admitted to the bar.

Priests only have authority to marry, as per the state and under conditions set forth by the state. It's not like they developed their own law and are marrying under religious law outside of state law.

I went through a divorce arbitration before, and yes, while it's something agreed upon by both parties, state law trumps all. Even in a regular divorce court, couples are more than welcome to come to agreements and a judge simply needs to agree to it. Even if a couple agrees to something outside the purview of a court, the court can still have a final say and ultimately overturn any agreement, should one of the participants change their mind and take it to court.

logroller

08-04-2013, 08:54 PM

Priests only have authority to marry, as per the state and under conditions set forth by the state. It's not like they developed their own law and are marrying under religious law outside of state law.
And the tribunals have authority to arbitrate, per the govt and under conditions set forth by the govt.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents

A catholic getting married by a priest is also a function of canonical law, having been developed by the church without regard to state law.
But what do you mean by "outside of state law"? If what you mean is repugnant to, in violation of, then I agree-- heres a word for that-- illegal. But if you mean it isnt what the state would do under similar circumstances, that's not necessarily illegal.

I went through a divorce arbitration before, and yes, while it's something agreed upon by both parties, state law trumps all. Even in a regular divorce court, couples are more than welcome to come to agreements and a judge simply needs to agree to it. Even if a couple agrees to something outside the purview of a court, the court can still have a final say and ultimately overturn any agreement, should one of the participants change their mind and take it to court.
as arbitration agreements have been repulsed by the court as well. These tribunal agreements are no less subject to the court's scrutiny.

I'm curious though, were you married in a catholic ceremony both times?
I believe there are canon laws about that. that while state law allows marriage after divorce, Catholic canons proscribe it unless dispensation is granted by the Church. Isn't this outside of state law? Of course, you're free to be legally married elsewhere and the only thing the church can do is refuse you membership. Fwiw, these tribunals have little more than such persuasive power.

jafar00

08-05-2013, 06:43 AM

So since there must be some UK laws that result in Muslim sin, otherwise as directed they would live by UK law, maybe you can list a few of them for us.

I don't know if any UK laws that result in sin if followed. Gay marriage laws perhaps but gay sex is sinful in the first place.

I noticed you quoted my question and then answered aboutime's.

Oops. Busy day :)

Missileman

08-05-2013, 07:29 AM

I don't know if any UK laws that result in sin if followed. Gay marriage laws perhaps but gay sex is sinful in the first place.

Oops. Busy day :)

So are you now arguing that if even one UK law results in sin, Muslims are free to throw out the baby with the bath water and follow only Sharia law?

fj1200

08-05-2013, 08:58 AM

fj1200

08-05-2013, 09:04 AM

So are you now arguing that if even one UK law results in sin, Muslims are free to throw out the baby with the bath water and follow only Sharia law?

Can you think of a possible example?

jimnyc

08-05-2013, 09:09 AM

Not all "courts" are created equal. Placing two parties with a disagreement in front of a referee doesn't make it a State sanctioned court. There is plenty of arbitration and mediation that occurs in this country where things are decided that don't necessarily need to be done in court. There is no reason that two parties can create a legal, according to the laws of the State, document that has Sharia clauses and be decided according to a moderator/arbitrator IMO.

I have no issue with it so long as it is in alignment with local law, and of course the manner of "arbitration" is legal in itself. A lot of the Sharia presented thus far rotates around financial issues, and the studying I have done on it leads me to believe it's far from local law (although I'm no expert in UK matters). If the same were here, no way it aligns itself with local law.

And most Muslims that want Sharia law are just for 3-4 financial related issues, they would prefer their lives be governed by Sharia law, otherwise what is the point. Take a good look at how they would handle criminal issues and you'll find better treatment in North Korea or Siberia.

jimnyc

08-05-2013, 09:16 AM

jimnyc

08-05-2013, 09:20 AM

A few other things worth noting, regarding Sharia and women, things that likely are contrary to the civilized world's laws:

Domestic violence

Many scholars[144][145] claim Shari'a law encourages domestic violence against women, when a husband suspects nushuz (disobedience, disloyalty, rebellion, ill conduct) in his wife.[146] Other scholars claim wife beating, for nashizah, is not consistent with modern perspectives of Qur'an.[147]

One of the verses of Qur'an relating to permissibility of domestic violence is Surah 4:34.[148][149] In deference to Surah 4:34, many nations with Shari'a law have refused to consider or prosecute cases of domestic abuse.[150][151][152][153] Shari'a has been criticized for ignoring women's right in domestic abuse cases.[154][155][156][157] Musawah/CEDAW, KAFA and other organizations have proposed ways to modify Shari'a-inspired laws to improve women's rights in Islamic nations, including women's rights in domestic abuse cases.[158][159][160][161]

Personal status laws and child marriage

Shari'a is the basis for personal status laws in most Islamic majority nations. These personal status laws determine rights of women in matters of marriage, divorce and child custody. A 2011 UNICEF report concludes that Shari'a law provisions are discriminatory against women from a human rights perspective. In legal proceedings under Shari'a law, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s before a court.[162]

Except for Iran, Lebanon and Bahrain which allow child marriages, the civil code in Islamic majority countries do not allow child marriage of girls. However, with Shari'a personal status laws, Shari'a courts in all these nations have the power to override the civil code. The religious courts permit girls less than 18 years old to marry. As of 2011, child marriages are common in Middle East, accounting for 1 in 6 all marriages in Egypt and 1 in 3 marriages in Yemen. Rape is considered a crime in all countries, but Shari'a courts in Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia in some cases allow a rapist to escape punishment by marrying his victim, while in other cases the victim who complains is often prosecuted with the Sharia crime of Zina (adultery).[162][163][164]

Women's role in clergy

There are no priests or clergy needed in order to perform rites and sacraments in Islam. The leader of prayer is known as an imam. Men can lead both men and women in prayer, but women do not traditionally lead men in prayer, and usually lead other women in prayer.[165] In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women, however in the early days of Islam, female scholars were much more common.[166] Islam does not prohibit women from working in a servile, secondary state to men, as it says, "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."[167]

Women's right to property

Islam unequivocally allows both single and married women to own property in their own right.[168] Islam grants women the right to inherit property from other family members, and these rights are detailed in the Quran. A woman's inheritance is different from a man's, both in quantity and attached obligations.[Quran 4:12] For instance, a daughter's inheritance is usually half that of her brother's.[Quran 4:11]

Up until the 20th century, Islamic law granted women certain legal rights that Western legal systems did not grant women.[169][170] Since the 20th century, Western legal systems have been thought to allow more women's rights than Islamic law, by allowing women to hold equal positions in society, with regards to employment, positions in government, and societal independence as in within familial settings.[171]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Women

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-05-2013, 09:37 AM

Marriage issues were on of the topics listed as part of the Sharia Council in the UK.

Should men be allowed to marry across faith, while Muslim women forbidden? Should Muslim men be allowed multiple wives while women forbidden from multiple husbands? Should marriage be allowed so long as the woman has reached "sexual and mental maturity" or should it be like the rest of the civilized world, by age? Arranged marriages? Jim, Sharia law is so in opposition to our Constitution that it's truly an enemy of this nation. There can be no co-existence with anything that swears to utterly and completely destroy us. Those here defending Sharia law are as lost as a fish in a desert. Sharia law was designed to fully support just one religion== Islam! It was also designed to discriminate against ALL other religions! I read these comments defending Sharia law by those that have so little knowledge of it and obviously do not care to learn. I still do not get why people will defend something they know so damn little about! Yet speak as if they are supreme experts. Only thing I can come up with on that is this promotion of appeasement as the enlightened way to deal with Islamists. Isn't it just a damn shame we didn't discover that back when facing the Nazi's? We could have saved all those lives back then , right? :rolleyes: .-----------------------One can not appease those sworn to completely destroy us by any means possible. Its truly insanity to even attempt it. Yet we have those crying it's the only way! Then we have those preaching how benign it is to placate the muslims and just give them what they ask for. We stand firmly against such enemies or else we will be utterly destroyed, history teaches us that! --Tyr

fj1200

08-05-2013, 09:42 AM

I have no issue with it so long as it is in alignment with local law, and of course the manner of "arbitration" is legal in itself. A lot of the Sharia presented thus far rotates around financial issues, and the studying I have done on it leads me to believe it's far from local law (although I'm no expert in UK matters). If the same were here, no way it aligns itself with local law.

And most Muslims that want Sharia law are just for 3-4 financial related issues, they would prefer their lives be governed by Sharia law, otherwise what is the point. Take a good look at how they would handle criminal issues and you'll find better treatment in North Korea or Siberia.

I don't think anyone has stated that criminal law should be based on Sharia but there is more to Sharia than just that. I don't understand your statement, "it's far from local law." We have Sharia based mortgages available in this country for example.

jimnyc

08-05-2013, 09:47 AM

I don't think anyone has stated that criminal law should be based on Sharia but there is more to Sharia than just that. I don't understand your statement, "it's far from local law." We have Sharia based mortgages available in this country for example.

Read about ALL of Sharia financial based issues, and the majority goes against local law, or is discriminatory.

jimnyc

08-05-2013, 09:50 AM

I don't think anyone has stated that criminal law should be based on Sharia but there is more to Sharia than just that. I don't understand your statement, "it's far from local law." We have Sharia based mortgages available in this country for example.

Maybe non-Muslims haven't - but I've yet to meet a single Muslim who wants Sharia, who only desires a portion of it to be legitimate.

As stated:

Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam)—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh)).

Even Jafar has stated his desire here for punishment based on simple insults, and harsher punishments for things like Blasphemy and such. Don't even get me started on Sharia punishments for stealing!

fj1200

08-05-2013, 09:59 AM

Read about ALL of Sharia financial based issues, and the majority goes against local law, or is discriminatory.

I have read some and don't recall what would go against local law.

Maybe non-Muslims haven't - but I've yet to meet a single Muslim who wants Sharia, who only desires a portion of it to be legitimate.

As stated:

Even Jafar has stated his desire here for punishment based on simple insults, and harsher punishments for things like Blasphemy and such. Don't even get me started on Sharia punishments for stealing!

I was referring to the non-Muslims here but I understand what you're saying and that is why we don't, and won't, have Sharia for all in the US. They are free to eat halal, wear their traditional dress, etc.

Missileman

08-05-2013, 10:29 AM

Can you think of a possible example?

Gay marriage was Jafaar's example. My question was based on that.

fj1200

08-05-2013, 11:03 AM

Gay marriage was Jafaar's example. My question was based on that.

OK. But that isn't a compulsory law, it doesn't require you to engage in a particular activity. He also said at this point there were no laws requiring the consumption of bacon so he didn't see any conflict between UK law and Sharia at this point. I could only come up with the example of the draft into combat requiring deadly action; not a Sharia example but one that could conceivably require a pacifist to "sin."

Missileman

08-05-2013, 12:10 PM

OK. But that isn't a compulsory law, it doesn't require you to engage in a particular activity. He also said at this point there were no laws requiring the consumption of bacon so he didn't see any conflict between UK law and Sharia at this point. I could only come up with the example of the draft into combat requiring deadly action; not a Sharia example but one that could conceivably require a pacifist to "sin."

I'm trying to get Jafaar to reconcile the difference between what he says Muslim guidance is, to follow local law unless it leads to sin, and what the reality is, Muslims engaged in efforts to establish Sharia law where it isn't the local law.

jafar00

08-06-2013, 08:15 PM

So are you now arguing that if even one UK law results in sin, Muslims are free to throw out the baby with the bath water and follow only Sharia law?

Muslims are not forced into gay marriage so I don't see a problem.

Should men be allowed to marry across faith, while Muslim women forbidden?
Woman cannot marry non Muslims because the faith comes from the father.
BTW, the Bible and the Talmud don't allow interfaith marriage for BOTH men and women so don't single out Islam there.

Should Muslim men be allowed multiple wives while women forbidden from multiple husbands?
Multiple wives are allowed only in certain circumstances and when the ayah was revealed to allow up to 4

If you fear that you might not treat the orphans justly, then marry the women that seem good to you: two, or three, or four. If you fear that you will not be able to treat them justly, then marry (only) one, or marry from among those whom your right hands possess. This will make it more likely that you will avoid injustice. (4:3)

Remember at the time, Arab society allowed men to marry 10, 15 even 20 wives. This was a decree to cut that back to 4 and only if you can treat them equitably, and only for good reason and importantly with the consent of your other wife or wives.

BTW, I don't know of a single Arab with more than one wife and I have met quite a few.

Should marriage be allowed so long as the woman has reached "sexual and mental maturity" or should it be like the rest of the civilized world, by age?
What is civilised to you?
There is no "legal age" in Islam therefore, the laws and customs of the country where you reside should be followed. 1400 years ago, people got married at puberty in all societies. In some "civilised" countries the legal age is still not far off. A legal age as old as 16 is a relatively new concept btw.

Arranged marriages?
There is no such thing as an arranged marriage in Islam

I have read some and don't recall what would go against local law.
I was referring to the non-Muslims here but I understand what you're saying and that is why we don't, and won't, have Sharia for all in the US. They are free to eat halal, wear their traditional dress, etc.

And for that I'm sure most Muslims are thankful. The freedom to worship in an Islamic way is important. There are also blessings for going out of your way to get halal meat rather than opting for the easier and often cheaper non Halal alternatives. I have to travel 2.5 hours to a Halal butcher and 2.5 hours back to get my meat.

I'm trying to get Jafaar to reconcile the difference between what he says Muslim guidance is, to follow local law unless it leads to sin, and what the reality is, Muslims engaged in efforts to establish Sharia law where it isn't the local law.

Muslims should not be engaged in establishing Sharia. They should be engaged in presenting themselves with the good manners and examples of the Prophet Mohamed (saw) and his companions. If the majority of a country becomes Muslim they can start to change over to a more Sharia based system but forcing it on people, especially non Muslims is counterproductive to bringing them the message of Islam in a way that is easy to understand and easy to follow.

You have to agree. Committing heinous crimes like chopping somebody's head off while yelling "Allahu Akbar" is not the best advertisement for Islam is it? Actually that kind of thing is a violation of Islam and Sharia but it will be and often is PERCEIVED to be Islamic by non Muslims.

Missileman

08-06-2013, 08:27 PM

You have to agree. Committing heinous crimes like chopping somebody's head off while yelling "Allahu Akbar" is not the best advertisement for Islam is it? Actually that kind of thing is a violation of Islam and Sharia but it will be and often is PERCEIVED to be Islamic by non Muslims.

The abhorrent treatment of women, honor killings, persecution of non-Muslims, killing homosexuals, etc aren't good advertisements either.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-06-2013, 08:41 PM

Muslims are not forced into gay marriage so I don't see a problem.

Woman cannot marry non Muslims because the faith comes from the father.
BTW, the Bible and the Talmud don't allow interfaith marriage for BOTH men and women so don't single out Islam there. Are you crazy? The bible does not forbid interfaith marriages. Christian men and women marry people of other faiths quite often. Cite your proof of that ...-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-06-2013, 08:45 PM

OK. But that isn't a compulsory law, it doesn't require you to engage in a particular activity. He also said at this point there were no laws requiring the consumption of bacon so he didn't see any conflict between UK law and Sharia at this point. I could only come up with the example of the draft into combat requiring deadly action; not a Sharia example but one that could conceivably require a pacifist to "sin."

How is that relevant fj? Muslims are not pacifists! And Sharia law often commands killing so your comment makes no sense IMHO.. Care to explain?? -Tyr

fj1200

08-06-2013, 08:57 PM

How is that relevant fj? Muslims are not pacifists! And Sharia law often commands killing so your comment makes no sense IMHO.. Care to explain?? -Tyr

I'm questioning the relevance of the kerfuffle that arose by Jafar stating he wouldn't follow local law if it required a sin by inquiring how is that not true of any religion. I wasn't stating anything about Muslims in the example merely positing that a pacifist being required to fight in the army would be committing a sin as required by law.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

08-06-2013, 09:10 PM

I'm questioning the relevance of the kerfuffle that arose by Jafar stating he wouldn't follow local law if it required a sin by inquiring how is that not true of any religion. I wasn't stating anything about Muslims in the example merely positing that a pacifist being required to fight in the army would be committing a sin as required by law. Ok, in that context I see where it applies. Just that in the previous sentence in that reply you mentioned bacon and the Muslim taboo about eating it. Clarification was all that was needed. -Tyr

SassyLady

08-07-2013, 03:23 AM

Haven't read the entire thread but I don't think law should be based on religion.

red states rule

08-07-2013, 03:25 AM

Haven't read the entire thread but I don't think law should be based on religion.

Who said Islam was a religion? It reminds more of the Muslim version of the Mafia

Do as you are told or you assume room temp

jimnyc

08-07-2013, 06:07 AM

Woman cannot marry non Muslims because the faith comes from the father.
BTW, the Bible and the Talmud don't allow interfaith marriage for BOTH men and women so don't single out Islam there.

First, no longer applied today, and secondly, at least the women weren't discriminated against.

Multiple wives are allowed only in certain circumstances and when the ayah was revealed to allow up to 4

I'm glad only some are allowed to be scumbags.

What is civilised to you?
There is no "legal age" in Islam therefore, the laws and customs of the country where you reside should be followed. 1400 years ago, people got married at puberty in all societies. In some "civilised" countries the legal age is still not far off. A legal age as old as 16 is a relatively new concept btw.

Most civilized countries have civilized laws - in Islamic countries it's so long as the little girl has reached "sexual and mental maturity"

There is no such thing as an arranged marriage in Islam

And yet it happens every single day.

An engagement may be arranged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage) between families for their children, but Islamic requirements for a legal marriage include the requirement that both parties are able to give informed legal consent (ijab-o-qubul). A marriage without this consent of the bride or performed under coercion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage) is legal according to Islamic law, if the guardian of the bride is a wali mujbir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wali_mujbir). This concept however is highly controversial because Hadith indicates that even a virgin requires her permission to be married off and fathers cannot force their daughters into wedlock[ Al Bukhari:6455]. Also citable here is the example of the hadith narrated by Burayda Ibn Al Hasib where a woman wanted to know from the prophet Muhammad if the marriage forced upon her by her father to her cousin could be nullified or revoked. The prophet replied in the affirmative. But the woman said she was happy with her marriage but only wanted for girls to know what a father can and cannot do to his daughter [Ibn Majah:1874;verified as Sahih by Al Buwaysiri].

As for what is "wali mujbir":

Wali mujbir is a technical term of Islamic law which denotes the guardian of a bride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride), who has the right to force into marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage). In most schools of Islamic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_law), only the father or the paternal grandfather of the bride can be wali mujbir.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wali_mujbir#cite_note-1)
The contract of an Islamic marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_marriage) is concluded between the guardian (wali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wali)) of the bride and bridegroom, not between bridegroom and bride. The wali of the bride is normally a male relative of the bride, preferable her father. If the bride is an virgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin), which is supposed for the first marriage, the wali can force the bride into the marriage even against her proclaimed will, if the wali is her father or her paternal grandfather. Guardian (wali) of the bride can only be a free Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim).

jafar00

08-07-2013, 05:18 PM

The abhorrent treatment of women, honor killings, persecution of non-Muslims, killing homosexuals, etc aren't good advertisements either.

These are not Islamic things either.

Are you crazy? The bible does not forbid interfaith marriages. Christian men and women marry people of other faiths quite often. Cite your proof of that ...-Tyr

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,
Deuteronomy 7:3

I'm questioning the relevance of the kerfuffle that arose by Jafar stating he wouldn't follow local law if it required a sin by inquiring how is that not true of any religion. I wasn't stating anything about Muslims in the example merely positing that a pacifist being required to fight in the army would be committing a sin as required by law.

If there was a draft to go and fight Muslims, I would end up in jail as a conscientious objector.

First, no longer applied today, and secondly, at least the women weren't discriminated against.

Yes, I know Christians only cherry pick and follow the bits they like today.

Most civilized countries have civilized laws - in Islamic countries it's so long as the little girl has reached "sexual and mental maturity"

There are only 4 countries with no minimum marriage age for women.

Gambia, Maldives, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. All other Islamic countries have a minimum age ranging from 15 in Bahrain to 21 in Libya! Your claim is bogus.

Incidentally the country with the lowest specified legal age of 12 years is Equatorial Guinea which is a Christian country.

Source (http://chartsbin.com/view/sr6)

And yet it happens every single day.

As for what is "wali mujbir":

Wali mujbir is a technical term of Islamic law which denotes the guardian of a bride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride), who has the right to force into marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_marriage). In most schools of Islamic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_law), only the father or the paternal grandfather of the bride can be wali mujbir.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wali_mujbir#cite_note-1)
The contract of an Islamic marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_marriage) is concluded between the guardian (wali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wali)) of the bride and bridegroom, not between bridegroom and bride. The wali of the bride is normally a male relative of the bride, preferable her father. If the bride is an virgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin), which is supposed for the first marriage, the wali can force the bride into the marriage even against her proclaimed will, if the wali is her father or her paternal grandfather. Guardian (wali) of the bride can only be a free Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim).

Wikipedia is not the most reliable source.

The Qur'aan says,

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good. (4:19)

Hadiths say (Sunan Abu Dawud - Kitab al Nikah (book of marriage))

Narrated Abu Hurairah:

The Prophet () said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. The full information rest with the tradition narrated by Yazid.
Abu Dawud said: This tradition has also been transmitted in a similar way by Abu Khalid Sulaiman b. Hayyan and Mu'adh b. Mu'adh on the authority of Muhammad b. 'Amr.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

A virgin came to the Prophet () and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet () allowed her to exercise her choice.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet () said: A guardian has no concern with a woman previously married and has no husband, and an orphan girl (i.e. virgin) must be consulted, her silence being her acceptance.

I rest my case :)

jimnyc

08-07-2013, 05:36 PM

The Qur'aan says,

Rest your case? That's hilarious! So I assume the 'ol "holy book" allows for Hamas to be a terror organization, murder people, drag corpses around town... Oh, it doesn't? Odd that you still support the "non-Muslims" then. You continually fall back on verses and continually ignore reality and what actually transpires in the Muslim world. Then when these instances are pointed out to you - you'll claim "Oh, they aren't real Muslims then". And then of course claim sources are biased, and unreliable, even when they are Muslim scholars, or former deans of the most prestigious Muslim school in the world. And you have the gonads to talk about cherry picking? :laugh:

aboutime

08-07-2013, 05:41 PM

Rest your case? That's hilarious! So I assume the 'ol "holy book" allows for Hamas to be a terror organization, murder people, drag corpses around town... Oh, it doesn't? Odd that you still support the "non-Muslims" then. You continually fall back on verses and continually ignore reality and what actually transpires in the Muslim world. Then when these instances are pointed out to you - you'll claim "Oh, they aren't real Muslims then". And then of course claim sources are biased, and unreliable, even when they are Muslim scholars, or former deans of the most prestigious Muslim school in the world. And you have the gonads to talk about cherry picking? :laugh:

jafar. Since you now claim to REST YOUR CASE. You should be finished. Even Done here.

You have performed your duty, and violated your own Holy Book by associating, responding, talking, writing to we Enemies of Your Beloved Peaceful Religion.
If you are true to your word. Just SAY GOODBYE. And LEAVE.

jafar00

08-08-2013, 02:09 AM

Rest your case? That's hilarious! So I assume the 'ol "holy book" allows for Hamas to be a terror organization, murder people, drag corpses around town... Oh, it doesn't? Odd that you still support the "non-Muslims" then. You continually fall back on verses and continually ignore reality and what actually transpires in the Muslim world. Then when these instances are pointed out to you - you'll claim "Oh, they aren't real Muslims then". And then of course claim sources are biased, and unreliable, even when they are Muslim scholars, or former deans of the most prestigious Muslim school in the world. And you have the gonads to talk about cherry picking? :laugh:

So show me where the Qur'aan allows terrorism or dragging corpses in the street. I admit, Hamas has gone beyond just resisting Israeli occupation forces and that corpse dragging thing horrified all Muslims. It is illegal according to Sharia to do such a thing. Corpse mutilation, even of your enemies is totally haram! (forbidden).

red states rule

08-08-2013, 02:36 AM

So show me where the Qur'aan allows terrorism or dragging corpses in the street. I admit, Hamas has gone beyond just resisting Israeli occupation forces and that corpse dragging thing horrified all Muslims. It is illegal according to Sharia to do such a thing. Corpse mutilation, even of your enemies is totally haram! (forbidden).

Oh brother

You remind me of Germans in Europe after WWII

Nobody was a Nazi. Nobody knew what was going on in the camps. Oh people were killed but someone else did it. Oh I was just obeying orders from others.

You are guilty as those that murder innocent people Jafar, via your damn never ending support and excuse making., Which is why your bullshit posts will never be taken seriously

jimnyc

08-08-2013, 06:37 AM

So show me where the Qur'aan allows terrorism or dragging corpses in the street. I admit, Hamas has gone beyond just resisting Israeli occupation forces and that corpse dragging thing horrified all Muslims. It is illegal according to Sharia to do such a thing. Corpse mutilation, even of your enemies is totally haram! (forbidden).

So fully condemn them as a group, as an organization, and declare them non-Muslims as you do when we point out other people who perform savage acts that are Muslims, or not Muslims to you. Why won't you condemn them as a whole?

aboutime

08-08-2013, 04:08 PM

So fully condemn them as a group, as an organization, and declare them non-Muslims as you do when we point out other people who perform savage acts that are Muslims, or not Muslims to you. Why won't you condemn them as a whole?

jim. Jafar can't, and won't do as you ask. He would be violating his supreme, unspoken, supposedly hidden intent of Allah's words in the Quran. The mere fact he comes here, pretending to be friendly to many of us who are not followers, or prisoners of his religious beliefs...is, and he knows it....against all of the teachings he espouses to all of us here.
When I see jafar has posted. I am reminded of an expression: "Beware of Greeks, bearing gifts". But, in this case.
jafar is the one bearing the phony gifts of friendship. So. I would change the word Greek to either Muslim, or Enemy.

Once again. Jafar WILL NOT, and CANNOT do as you, or anyone else asks here.
His defense of terrorists, no matter where they may be. Cannot become a betrayal by jafar of his true intent.

red states rule

08-08-2013, 04:09 PM

jim. Jafar can't, and won't do as you ask. He would be violating his supreme, unspoken, supposedly hidden intent of Allah's words in the Quran. The mere fact he comes here, pretending to be friendly to many of us who are not followers, or prisoners of his religious beliefs...is, and he knows it....against all of the teachings he espouses to all of us here.
When I see jafar has posted. I am reminded of an expression: "Beware of Greeks, bearing gifts". But, in this case.
jafar is the one bearing the phony gifts of friendship. So. I would change the word Greek to either Muslim, or Enemy.

Once again. Jafar WILL NOT, and CANNOT do as you, or anyone else asks here.
His defense of terrorists, no matter where they may be. Cannot become a betrayal by jafar of his true intent.

Jafar's idea of showing you kindness and friendship is to behead you last at the mass execution

jafar00

08-08-2013, 05:53 PM

So fully condemn them as a group, as an organization, and declare them non-Muslims as you do when we point out other people who perform savage acts that are Muslims, or not Muslims to you. Why won't you condemn them as a whole?

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said : Any person who calls his brother: O Unbeliever! (then the truth of this label) would return to one of them. If it is true, (then it is) as he asserted, (but if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is an Unbeliever). [Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0117:]

I will not condemn them as Kafir for the above reason. However are they ignorant of a great many things? Yes, they are. Their downfall is politics, not religion.

aboutime

08-08-2013, 06:13 PM

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said : Any person who calls his brother: O Unbeliever! (then the truth of this label) would return to one of them. If it is true, (then it is) as he asserted, (but if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is an Unbeliever). [Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0117:]

I will not condemn them as Kafir for the above reason. However are they ignorant of a great many things? Yes, they are. Their downfall is politics, not religion.

Jafar. Really? Another excuse from the depths of your bottomless pit of lies?

You just can't understand, or see how we see through your endless FALSE PROPHETEERING...do you?

You can post all the script from whatever book you like. But your problem is. Few of us are fooled by your tactics. No matter how much you quote, write, or preach.
Liars, no matter how convinced they are otherwise. Just never end finding excuses to cover previous lies.
And you are sadly mistaken if you think WE are as dumb as those who follow you.

red states rule

08-09-2013, 02:13 AM