Iraqi Idol

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I'd like to see you simply explain how strict interpretation of Islamic Law is not outdated in today's modern time. How is death through stoning due to adultery not barbaric today? Are you seriously saying that bashing someone's head in with a rock is not barbaric? How is death due to apostasy not wrong? Do you really support this in the modern time? What about different taxes (even if it's in name) for people of different religions? Do you actually support all of this crap in the context of modern times? Please, just answer the questions.

These questions have already been answered ad nauseum. Since you already maintain a position with respect to the answers to the above questions, attempting to provide the answers again is an exercise in futility.

Stop being so egotistical. I already know that you support numerous barbaric acts. I was specifically asking another poster.

Sheesh, big ego!

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sultan

This is incorrect. Some Islamic Laws are held for all times. Others are left open to interpretation and are subjected to current times. Therefore, Islamic Law by definition is comprised of four sources: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (scholarly opinion) and Qiyas (analogy). Muslim scholars issue fatwas - good fatwas relating to social issues, not jihad fatwas - all the time in the Islamic world to deal with a social issue which is not completely dealt by the Quran and Sunnah. Hence, Islam in essence is a progressive religion and its laws are not 'stuck' in the 7th Century.

A person who no longer believes in Islam and practices another religion/no religion in private is not subject to any punishment. In an Islamic state, if he declares himself to be a non-Muslim, that is analogous to treason, and is therefore liable for punishment. Since many countries in the world subscribe to the death penalty for treason, you cant honestly say this is a barbaric punishment. The subject whether the death penalty itself is barbaric is another issue.

I dont know where you got the grandpa to have sex with children bit. Hazrat Mohammad (S.A) was indeed illiterate, but his marriage to Hazrat Aisha (R.A) is far from him wanting sexual pleasure. Hazrat Aisha (R.A) was known for her maturity; she provides the largest amount of hadith and sunnah (sayings and teachings of the Prophet) and her intellect was renowned. The issue of marriage between the Prophet and Aisha (R.A) has been raised time and time again, and explainations have been provided by scholars, but those who want to keep a closed mind will continue to do so.

Sorry, but basing things off of a book written by people in the 7th century means you're stuck in the 7th century.

Not believing in Islam and deserving execution is barbaric. Having an Islamic state is barbaric. You are advocating genocide. Treason is not saying you do not support the US or you are not Muslim. Treason is an actual meaningful act, not a spiritual one or opinion. A system is obviously weak if it cannot stand up to criticism.

I got it from you when you said that you would not mind having sex with a 9 year old because it was acceptable in the 7th century. I don't think that you understand the argument. The issue isn't the marriage between Mo and his wife. The issue is whether people such as yourself think it's ok to have sex with a 9 year old because someone did it in the 7th century.

 

[RabidMongoose]

A person who no longer believes in Islam and practices another religion/no religion in private is not subject to any punishment. In an Islamic state, if he declares himself to be a non-Muslim, that is analogous to treason, and is therefore liable for punishment. Since many countries in the world subscribe to the death penalty for treason, you cant honestly say this is a barbaric punishment. The subject whether the death penalty itself is barbaric is another issue.

LOL - how is declaring yourself to be a non-Muslim analogous to treason? How barbaric - this is what I was talking about in regards to apostasy.

I suppose you must enslave the people to keep them as sheep, otherwise the flaws of the system would be revealed.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

This is incorrect. Some Islamic Laws are held for all times. Others are left open to interpretation and are subjected to current times. Therefore, Islamic Law by definition is comprised of four sources: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (scholarly opinion) and Qiyas (analogy). Muslim scholars issue fatwas - good fatwas relating to social issues, not jihad fatwas - all the time in the Islamic world to deal with a social issue which is not completely dealt by the Quran and Sunnah. Hence, Islam in essence is a progressive religion and its laws are not 'stuck' in the 7th Century.

A person who no longer believes in Islam and practices another religion/no religion in private is not subject to any punishment. In an Islamic state, if he declares himself to be a non-Muslim, that is analogous to treason, and is therefore liable for punishment. Since many countries in the world subscribe to the death penalty for treason, you cant honestly say this is a barbaric punishment. The subject whether the death penalty itself is barbaric is another issue.

I dont know where you got the grandpa to have sex with children bit. Hazrat Mohammad (S.A) was indeed illiterate, but his marriage to Hazrat Aisha (R.A) is far from him wanting sexual pleasure. Hazrat Aisha (R.A) was known for her maturity; she provides the largest amount of hadith and sunnah (sayings and teachings of the Prophet) and her intellect was renowned. The issue of marriage between the Prophet and Aisha (R.A) has been raised time and time again, and explainations have been provided by scholars, but those who want to keep a closed mind will continue to do so.

Sorry, but basing things off of a book written by people in the 7th century means you're stuck in the 7th century.

Not believing in Islam and deserving execution is barbaric. Having an Islamic state is barbaric. You are advocating genocide. Treason is not saying you do not support the US or you are not Muslim. Treason is an actual meaningful act, not a spiritual one or opinion. A system is obviously weak if it cannot stand up to criticism.

I got it from you when you said that you would not mind having sex with a 9 year old because it was acceptable in the 7th century. I don't think that you understand the argument. The issue isn't the marriage between Mo and his wife. The issue is whether people such as yourself think it's ok to have sex with a 9 year old because someone did it in the 7th century.

You did not read the entire post. I will state again:

This is incorrect. Some Islamic Laws are held for all times. Others are left open to interpretation and are subjected to current times. Therefore, Islamic Law by definition is comprised of four sources: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (scholarly opinion) and Qiyas (analogy). Muslim scholars issue fatwas - good fatwas relating to social issues, not jihad fatwas - all the time in the Islamic world to deal with a social issue which is not completely dealt by the Quran and Sunnah. Hence, Islam in essence is a progressive religion and its laws are not 'stuck' in the 7th Century.

A person who no longer believes in Islam and practices another religion/no religion in private is not subject to any punishment. In an Islamic state, if he declares himself to be a non-Muslim, that is analogous to treason, and is therefore liable for punishment. Since many countries in the world subscribe to the death penalty for treason, you cant honestly say this is a barbaric punishment. The subject whether the death penalty itself is barbaric is another issue.

Hence, you dont find Muslims marrying 9 years old. Marrying a 9 year old is not part of Islamic Law. Where do your weird arguments? Do you see every Muslim marrying a 9 year old or a 40 year old (as in Hazrat Khadija's marriage to the Prophet (S.A))?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
My opinion is Islamic Law, and since 99.9% of the people on this forum are non-Muslims, I am not surprised by your statistic.

At least you finally realize that if you try to play any sort of numbers game, you'll always lose.

Not as long as over a billion people are Muslims, and it is one of the fastest growing religion.

A punishment of an adulteror is not equal to murder. Idiot.

Death for having sex is barbarism. But this probably explains why you're so cranky all of the time. :laugh:

On the contrary, fornication and adultery is barbaric and should be punishable by whips/death.

You're crossing the line with your next comment. You're no judge on the maturity - physical, mental or emotion - of a 9 year old. You yourself are pretty immature at your age.

I'm crossing the line for saying that old men shouldn't have sex with little 9 year old girls? You have got to be kidding me! This is absolutely disgusting.

You're no judge on the maturity - physical, mental or emotion - of a 9 year old

Your wrongs are not the wrongs of others. I think you're wrong. That doesnt make me universally right. Your wrong is not equal to the wrongs of over a billion Muslims.

I've already said that 'wrong' is subjective. Saying 'slavery is wrong' is subjective. Saying 'it's not right not bash a child's head in with a rock' is subjective. Saying '50 year old men shouldn't have sex with 9 year old girls is subjective'. They're all subjective to a certain extent.

Therefore, whatever you consider 'wrong' is not necessarily wrong.

Further immaturity is evident by your suggestion of a few posts as a contest. Grow up kid.

I'd rather be immature than support whatever barbaric acts that you support.

Good. Stay immature.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Not as long as over a billion people are Muslims, and it is one of the fastest growing religion.

That doesn't matter - those 1 billion are dwarfed by the rest of the entire world population.

On the contrary, fornication and adultery is barbaric and should be punishable by whips/death.

It's obvious that you support that since we have already established that you support 7th century barbarism. But it does explain a lot about your personality and why you're so cranky and bloodthirsty. I would be, too, if I was so pent up in sexual frustration.

You're no judge on the maturity - physical, mental or emotion - of a 9 year old

LOL - you're trying to justify old men having sex with little 9 year old girls! My god, how disgusting and monstrous. I think everyone is enough of an authority to understand that little 9 year old children having sex with 50-60 year old men is wrong and disgusting. What kind of pedophile would support such an act?

Your justification for pedophilia is so disgusting that it almost warrants me changing my sig to reflect your new views.

Therefore, whatever you consider 'wrong' is not necessarily wrong.

It's wrong in my view and in the view of any civilized person.

'Wrong' is subjective. Your argument is one to use justification of slavery, rape, and genocide..and pedophilia.

Good. Stay immature.

At least I'm not immature and barbaric. And pent up with sexual frustration. That sure explains a lot.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sultan

You did not read the entire post. I will state again:

This is incorrect. Some Islamic Laws are held for all times. Others are left open to interpretation and are subjected to current times. Therefore, Islamic Law by definition is comprised of four sources: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (scholarly opinion) and Qiyas (analogy). Muslim scholars issue fatwas - good fatwas relating to social issues, not jihad fatwas - all the time in the Islamic world to deal with a social issue which is not completely dealt by the Quran and Sunnah. Hence, Islam in essence is a progressive religion and its laws are not 'stuck' in the 7th Century.

A person who no longer believes in Islam and practices another religion/no religion in private is not subject to any punishment. In an Islamic state, if he declares himself to be a non-Muslim, that is analogous to treason, and is therefore liable for punishment. Since many countries in the world subscribe to the death penalty for treason, you cant honestly say this is a barbaric punishment. The subject whether the death penalty itself is barbaric is another issue.

Hence, you dont find Muslims marrying 9 years old. Marrying a 9 year old is not part of Islamic Law. Where do your weird arguments? Do you see every Muslim marrying a 9 year old or a 40 year old (as in Hazrat Khadija's marriage to the Prophet (S.A))?

I don't think that you read my post. Here it is again:

Sorry, but basing things off of a book written by people in the 7th century means you're stuck in the 7th century.

Not believing in Islam and deserving execution is barbaric. Having an Islamic state is barbaric. You are advocating genocide. Treason is not saying you do not support the US or you are not Muslim. Treason is an actual meaningful act, not a spiritual one or opinion. A system is obviously weak if it cannot stand up to criticism.

I got it from you when you said that you would not mind having sex with a 9 year old because it was acceptable in the 7th century. I don't think that you understand the argument. The issue isn't the marriage between Mo and his wife. The issue is whether people such as yourself think it's ok to have sex with a 9 year old because someone did it in the 7th century. This is not about Islamic law or not but whether because someone did it in the 7th century it's ok now.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Sultan

You did not read the entire post. I will state again:

This is incorrect. Some Islamic Laws are held for all times. Others are left open to interpretation and are subjected to current times. Therefore, Islamic Law by definition is comprised of four sources: Quran, Sunnah, Ijma (scholarly opinion) and Qiyas (analogy). Muslim scholars issue fatwas - good fatwas relating to social issues, not jihad fatwas - all the time in the Islamic world to deal with a social issue which is not completely dealt by the Quran and Sunnah. Hence, Islam in essence is a progressive religion and its laws are not 'stuck' in the 7th Century.

A person who no longer believes in Islam and practices another religion/no religion in private is not subject to any punishment. In an Islamic state, if he declares himself to be a non-Muslim, that is analogous to treason, and is therefore liable for punishment. Since many countries in the world subscribe to the death penalty for treason, you cant honestly say this is a barbaric punishment. The subject whether the death penalty itself is barbaric is another issue.

Hence, you dont find Muslims marrying 9 years old. Marrying a 9 year old is not part of Islamic Law. Where do your weird arguments? Do you see every Muslim marrying a 9 year old or a 40 year old (as in Hazrat Khadija's marriage to the Prophet (S.A))?

I don't think that you read my post. Here it is again:

Sorry, but basing things off of a book written by people in the 7th century means you're stuck in the 7th century.

Not believing in Islam and deserving execution is barbaric. Having an Islamic state is barbaric. You are advocating genocide. Treason is not saying you do not support the US or you are not Muslim. Treason is an actual meaningful act, not a spiritual one or opinion. A system is obviously weak if it cannot stand up to criticism.

I got it from you when you said that you would not mind having sex with a 9 year old because it was acceptable in the 7th century. I don't think that you understand the argument. The issue isn't the marriage between Mo and his wife. The issue is whether people such as yourself think it's ok to have sex with a 9 year old because someone did it in the 7th century. This is not about Islamic law or not but whether because someone did it in the 7th century it's ok now.

Treason by definition

Your post is the extreme contradiction of everything I stated. Perhaps you should reread.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Sultan
Not as long as over a billion people are Muslims, and it is one of the fastest growing religion.

That doesn't matter - those 1 billion are dwarfed by the rest of the entire world population.

On the contrary, fornication and adultery is barbaric and should be punishable by whips/death.

It's obvious that you support that since we have already established that you support 7th century barbarism. But it does explain a lot about your personality and why you're so cranky and bloodthirsty. I would be, too, if I was so pent up in sexual frustration.

You're no judge on the maturity - physical, mental or emotion - of a 9 year old

LOL - you're trying to justify old men having sex with little 9 year old girls! My god, how disgusting and monstrous. I think everyone is enough of an authority to understand that little 9 year old children having sex with 50-60 year old men is wrong and disgusting. What kind of pedophile would support such an act?

Your justification for pedophilia is so disgusting that it almost warrants me changing my sig to reflect your new views.

Therefore, whatever you consider 'wrong' is not necessarily wrong.

It's wrong in my view and in the view of any civilized person.

'Wrong' is subjective. Your argument is one to use justification of slavery, rape, and genocide..and pedophilia.

Good. Stay immature.

At least I'm not immature and barbaric. And pent up with sexual frustration. That sure explains a lot.

Your entire post has no valid argument to warrant a reply. You sure waste a lot of time on useless banter on a 'discussion' forum.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You've got to keep the sheep in line or else they'll finally learn the truth. If they think on their own - murder them!

Any system that cannot withstand any amount of scrutiny and criticism is inherently flawed and inferior.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Treason by definition

Your post is the extreme contradiction of everything I stated. Perhaps you should reread.

Barbaric by definition

Perhaps you should look up archaic, too

 

[CanOWorms]

dp

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Treason by definition

Your post is the extreme contradiction of everything I stated. Perhaps you should reread.

I'm going to jump in here, too.

That means little since first you must prove that current civilized governments define treason as you do. For some reason, I think governments define it as the first definition, not the second where if someone says 'The US sucks!' then it's treason.