bigboyjames
Banned
WTF?nottu said:
lolnottu said:
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Man ordered to be blinded with acid - sharia does it again (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter nottu
- Start date
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
It's not all that technical really. It's pretty much just common sense. The concept of a true Islamic state died over a century ago, or just under a century ago if you wish to include the Ottoman Empire, which is entirely illegitimate.nottu said:
The point being there is no Islamic state, therefore, there is no Sharia.
You see that's the thing, it doesn't work both ways with Sharia. It's not supposed to impose such rulings on non-muslims, and a true Islamic state would allow for people to come and go more freely. It's like the coversion issue, if you were to rule the same way on all parties in an Islamic state, a Christian converting to Islam would be convicted of apostasy. Ofcourse that is contrary to what would happen in an Islamic state, and thus the same would apply to non-muslims. Who in an Islamic state would be allowed to follow their personal beliefs. The law in Iran for instance imposes the same dress code on muslims as it does non-muslims - both of which are harsh and work contrary to Islamic jurisprudence, and Islamic Sharia.
The point being I'm not getting all technical. I'm explaining that Sharia is not like communism or capitalism or democracy. It can't be imported from state to state, and operate with minor differences to meet each states own person needs. There can only be one Sharia, one Islamic state and one caliphate. Or there can be none. At the present time there is none. So lets not confuse these things.
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Just to summarise:
When you say there is sharia, you suggest an Islamic state exists.
When you suggest an Islamic state exists, you suggest there is a caliphate.
When you suggest there is a caliphate, you suggest the muslim people are united under an ummah or brotherhood.
But if that were the case, would muslims be killing one another? or watching other muslims die and not act on it? Seriously. Suggesting any of these things is an insult to Islam.
When you say there is sharia, you suggest an Islamic state exists.
When you suggest an Islamic state exists, you suggest there is a caliphate.
When you suggest there is a caliphate, you suggest the muslim people are united under an ummah or brotherhood.
But if that were the case, would muslims be killing one another? or watching other muslims die and not act on it? Seriously. Suggesting any of these things is an insult to Islam.
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
Like every other religion, Islam can be reinterpreted, shaped, reshaped, etc as much as one wants. Eg what you're doing right now.sam04u said:
Modern understanding of religious prescriptive norms blows your notion of a 'true Islamic state' out of the water.
I believe Turkish religious scholars are currently working on a reformed version of the Koran and Hadiths to strip away the manipulation and falsehoods that have built up over time, as well as bring it in line with modern society.PwarYuex said:
But don't worry - the Turks aren't 'true' Muslims.
Sam, can you provide some sources to back up your views about sharia only existing in a state of unified Muslim peoples? Does it say it in the Koran?
As far as I knew, any laws or rules derived mainly from the Koran, and to a lesser extent, the Hadith. Now if this is true, then Sharia exists for every muslim.
Also, because celiphates are rulers of sunni muslims, (Imamahs for Shiites), how can you conclude that if one were to suggest that an Islamic state existed, then it would follow that a celiphate existed also? Is it not a logical flaw? If one suggested that an Islamic state existed, then this would suppose that Sunnis and Shiites would be united (doesn't look like this is going to happen anytime soon but thinking hypothetically)... Maybe I'm playing semantics here, and perhaps you've used the religious leader of such an islamic state interchangeably, but I would've thought that there'd be marked interest between the roles of these theoretical spearheads of the two religious denominations.
Also, in what way would saying that sharia (and all that follows, according to you) existed for Muslims be insulting to Islam? If Sharia stands for not killing innocent civilians or your Muslim brothers and sisters, and we've got good evidence from the Koran for that, then this should serve as a testament to Islam shouldn't it? To suggest that Sharia existed does not mean that you are placing terrorism under the proverbial auspices of Sharia; just because some nutjobs are killing innocent people does not mean that Islam condones such behaviour. I would like to bring up the example of adultery. If a Christian man commits adultery, and people still call him Christian, does this mean that the Bible accepts infidelity? That's the point - the actions of individuals who affiliate themselves with certain religions (like the terrorists proclaiming allegiance to Allah and holy war against non-believers) does not mean that the religion itself approves of such behaviour. And in this way, I do not believe that saying that Sharia existed would be insulting to Islam.
Correct me.
As far as I knew, any laws or rules derived mainly from the Koran, and to a lesser extent, the Hadith. Now if this is true, then Sharia exists for every muslim.
Also, because celiphates are rulers of sunni muslims, (Imamahs for Shiites), how can you conclude that if one were to suggest that an Islamic state existed, then it would follow that a celiphate existed also? Is it not a logical flaw? If one suggested that an Islamic state existed, then this would suppose that Sunnis and Shiites would be united (doesn't look like this is going to happen anytime soon but thinking hypothetically)... Maybe I'm playing semantics here, and perhaps you've used the religious leader of such an islamic state interchangeably, but I would've thought that there'd be marked interest between the roles of these theoretical spearheads of the two religious denominations.
Also, in what way would saying that sharia (and all that follows, according to you) existed for Muslims be insulting to Islam? If Sharia stands for not killing innocent civilians or your Muslim brothers and sisters, and we've got good evidence from the Koran for that, then this should serve as a testament to Islam shouldn't it? To suggest that Sharia existed does not mean that you are placing terrorism under the proverbial auspices of Sharia; just because some nutjobs are killing innocent people does not mean that Islam condones such behaviour. I would like to bring up the example of adultery. If a Christian man commits adultery, and people still call him Christian, does this mean that the Bible accepts infidelity? That's the point - the actions of individuals who affiliate themselves with certain religions (like the terrorists proclaiming allegiance to Allah and holy war against non-believers) does not mean that the religion itself approves of such behaviour. And in this way, I do not believe that saying that Sharia existed would be insulting to Islam.
Correct me.
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
No, seriously PwarYuex. Do some reading. Because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.PwarYuex said:
Seriously, don't be a wikipedia expert, I'll make the same suggestion I made to PwarYuex. Do some reading if you would like to debate on this topic.
You do realise PwarYuex has a degree basically on Middle Eastern culture and history, right?sam04u said:
Let's see... an idealistic and uninformed Muslim kid on an Internet message board telling a history graduate to "do some reading".
Nope, nothing ironic about that.
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I do know he's an educated person, however this obviously is not his area of expertise. As such, I would expect a concession of that from him, however he's persistant in arguing what are truthfully arguments not worth making in fields where he is obviously not very knowledgeable.Trefoil said:
Zephyrio, I called you a wikipedia expert for a reason. This is not a topic you learn overnight. Islamic law does not merely derive from the Qu'ran or Hadith. The problem which exists is Islamic law can only be derived from the consensus of muslims, in accordance with the Qu'ran and Hadith. Do you see where the fault in your argument occurs? A consensus amongst muslims can not exist where there is no Islamic state, and an Islamic state can not exist where the muslim peoples are not united.Zephryio said:
Do you think historically the shi'a muslims lived under a different celiphate (sic)?Zephyrio said:
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
I said one thing, in an area where I obviously have what is more than an elementary level of understanding, and you as a person with very limited knowledge on this topic sought to contradict my claims. I think in attempting to make that contradiction, and in you asking me to "correct" you, we are now having a debate.Zephyrio said:
sam04u
Comrades, Comrades!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,867
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
Because the Qur'an doesn't tell you minor things such as which way to wipe after using the toilet (from top to bottom, or vice versa) and the wahhabists think that Islam should dictate their lives via doctrine, rather than to exist through the spirit of Islam.John Oliver said:
What happens then is they seek answers in the hadith, sometimes even where they would be contextually wrong, for what would invariably be miniscule things which do not effect whether or not one is actually a practicising muslim.
Still, the majority of muslims are good people.
chicky_pie
POTATO HEAD ROXON
Umm he did it to the woman, he's getting the same punishment that the woman was subject to. Fair share, wished this happened in Australia. Court orders; Lebanese gangs raping Aussie girls = Aussie men in return raping the Lebanese gangs in jail cells.
I didn't seek to contradict your viewpoints; perhaps "correct me" seemed more rude than curious. I wanted you to clarify my claims, as I knew they were flawed. So I wanted evidence, from the Koran or something, that supported your perspective as any intellectually astute being would ask for in being educated about something he or she would have limited knowledge about. You didn't really expect me to take what you were saying as gospel, did you?
But you just took the "I know this subject better than everyone else" approach, including over someone who will graduate with a uni degree on this matter and this n00b trying to understand Islam. Good, we weren't having a debate then if you'd already decided that you'd won. (Not that I wished for there to be a 'winner' - you mentioned debate yourself.)
But you just took the "I know this subject better than everyone else" approach, including over someone who will graduate with a uni degree on this matter and this n00b trying to understand Islam. Good, we weren't having a debate then if you'd already decided that you'd won. (Not that I wished for there to be a 'winner' - you mentioned debate yourself.)
chicky_pie
POTATO HEAD ROXON
boris said:
Are you basing this on a movie starring Cate Blanchett?
Tully B.
Green = procrastinating
It's wierd; going by my moral convictions, this is an inherently wrong thing to do, however upon reading it, I feel no incredible outrage. Still, I stand by my convictions and say that it is wrong; an archaic and ignorant form of justice.
Last edited:
chicky_pie
POTATO HEAD ROXON
lolboris said: