Islamic Sharia law arrives in Libya! Yay for the "Arab Spring".

[Lemon law]

People change in 20-30 years. Gaddaffi of the 80s is not the same Gaddaffi of the last decade. I don't care that they democratically vote for Islamist things, that's great, more power to them. The fact remains, in Libya, the rebels are not a majority, they have been led by Islamist groups since the beginning and they were enemies of our Ally in the region Gaddaffi. That is until the "Arab Spring" and Western powers got nervous over their oil supply. Helping in Tunisia, Syria or Egypt would have been much more in line with American values and what truly are peoples revolutions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you out of your mind bfdd? Gaddafi of the 1980's was the same crazed madman in 2012.
The only thing that really changed was that Libya descended into a bloody civil war by late 2011. And as Gaddafi lost the support of the majority of his army, he hired and imported foreign mercenaries as he spent his stashed money looted from the Libyan people to keep in power. Meanwhile Libyan oil Europe needed went off world markets as the Libyan civil war would have likely gone on semi-forever. As IMHO, Gaddafi proved the greater turd because he used military force to murder his own people.

So rightly or wrongly, First Europe and later Obama intervened on the side of the rebels, and if nothing else limited Gaddafi's ability to murder his own people. And now the Libyan civil war is over, the rebels have won, oil revenues again now can finance the people of Libya, and now bfdd cries tears of outrage that the new government of Libya has not reached his standard's of instant perfection immediately. And worse yet. the Libyan government is still going to be based on Sharia law.

But when we come down to it, Sharia law and anglo saxon law are very similar codes of human conduct. In their original forms, both versions were extremely male biased, and over time both versions have evolved differently in different countries. There are extreme forms of each in some Christian countries and quite workable and modern versions in other Muslim and Christian countries.

But still the spirit of the Arab spring continues to effect the mid-east, as one old line dictator after another gets the ole heave ho for failing to to work in the best interests of their own people. As the ideas are heavily influenced by young and Western educated youth. Sadly IMHO, in Egypt, those same set of young people failed to politically organize, or run for office and as a result the Muslim brotherhood won. But still the MB, are infinitely better than the extremist salfists opposition, so the new Egyptian and Libyan governments will be evolving works in progress.

And its way too early to predict final results.

 

[Double Trouble]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ls-fall-out-over-al-Qaedas-jihad-in-Mali.html


And the fallout continues. We just never learn.

I don't know if it's really a matter of learning. Anywhere islam rears its ugly head, this kind of crap will follow.

 

[Oric]

Does the west now have full access to Libyan economy and resources ?

Yes, so problem is solved. How Libya is governed, by Sharia, by a dictator or sth else is -zero- importance to your governments. Which is normal and natural, but only wastes your precious time to discuss the outcomes, not the real strategy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ls-fall-out-over-al-Qaedas-jihad-in-Mali.html


And the fallout continues. We just never learn.

It could be far worse. They might have someone reading a bible outside of a DOT.

 

[Joepublic2]

Who cares what the cutoff between the industrialized world and the rest is? On what judgment do you consider 90% to be 'low'?

I'd consider any literacy rate below 100% (or everybody old/intelligent enough to) to be low; people that can't read are basically locked out of huge parts of modern society.

 

[Dzigg]

As a muslim I'm really sad about the state of islam as a religion in almost every islamic country.

In my point of view, Islam is about the Qur'an,which I believe is as the true word of the Lord, that's it.. all other bullshit is just man-made with their own agenda whether it's politics, or power, or whatever their own self interest is.

The sharia law, is just man-fabricated laws that is mostly based on hadith (words / teachings of Prophet Muhammad) that I personally argue, is not what Muhammad wanted in the first place. In fact, hadith was made 200 years after he passed away, so the legitimacy in my view, is low.

So in the islamic world, people have been using this sharia law to get away what they wanted. It's the same as the right wingers in america that is using religion as a political tools. So in the end, it's not about the religion itself, it's just about greedy douchebags that wants more power and wealth and [insert your own self-interest here]..

 

[rchiu]

As a muslim I'm really sad about the state of islam as a religion in almost every islamic country.

In my point of view, Islam is about the Qur'an,which I believe is as the true word of the Lord, that's it.. all other bullshit is just man-made with their own agenda whether it's politics, or power, or whatever their own self interest is.

The sharia law, is just man-fabricated laws that is mostly based on hadith (words / teachings of Prophet Muhammad) that I personally argue, is not what Muhammad wanted in the first place. In fact, hadith was made 200 years after he passed away, so the legitimacy in my view, is low.

So in the islamic world, people have been using this sharia law to get away what they wanted. It's the same as the right wingers in america that is using religion as a political tools. So in the end, it's not about the religion itself, it's just about greedy douchebags that wants more power and wealth and [insert your own self-interest here]..

Yeap, Muslim nations are in a Dark Age right now where religion interferes with government, and people's everyday life so much it prohibits free thinking and good government.

The West has gone through the same few hundreds years back, and thankfully people learned the hard way that too much power to religious group, Muslim or otherwise, is not a good thing. People noticed that just because you have god in your every sentence, it doesn't make you a better governor, better scientist, better city manager. In fact, extreme focus in religion take away time could have been invested in professional study, experience building.

Anyways, hope Islam nations grow out of this phase and join the rest of modern world with separate state and church (mosque for Islam I guess)

 

[Dzigg]

Yeap, Muslim nations are in a Dark Age right now where religion interferes with government, and people's everyday life so much it prohibits free thinking and good government.

The West has gone through the same few hundreds years back, and thankfully people learned the hard way that too much power to religious group, Muslim or otherwise, is not a good thing. People noticed that just because you have god in your every sentence, it doesn't make you a better governor, better scientist, better city manager. In fact, extreme focus in religion take away time could have been invested in professional study, experience building.

Anyways, hope Islam nations grow out of this phase and join the rest of modern world with separate state and church (mosque for Islam I guess)

Yeah, in my point of view, Islam in the Quran never talks about politics and power. It always talks to you as an individual, and how to always do good to others, be kind, responsible, honest etc.

So it baffled me how anyone that reads Quran can hurt others, or oppress other people in the name of God. Islam is not complex or hard, it's astonishingly simple, yet people tends to ignore its value in exchange for worldly happiness (which ironically is already stated in the Quran)..

Anyways, not really want to sound like a preacher.. just want to state my frustration to the current Islamic condition, which is unfortunately the majority right now :\

 

[cave_dweller]

Yeah, in my point of view, Islam in the Quran never talks about politics and power. It always talks to you as an individual, and how to always do good to others, be kind, responsible, honest etc.

So it baffled me how anyone that reads Quran can hurt others, or oppress other people in the name of God. Islam is not complex or hard, it's astonishingly simple, yet people tends to ignore its value in exchange for worldly happiness (which ironically is already stated in the Quran)..

Anyways, not really want to sound like a preacher.. just want to state my frustration to the current Islamic condition, which is unfortunately the majority right now :\

Because you want to look at a thing without understanding it. Listen up for those who do not know Islam or runs and think a passage quoted from it says evil like lots of sites do.

Islam is defined by the words of Allah in the Koran, and the words and actions of Mohammed, called the Sunna. The Sunna is found in two collections of texts—the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith. The Koran says 91 times that his words and actions are considered to be the divine pattern for humanity.

A hadith, or tradition, is a brief story about what Mohammed did or said. A collection of hadiths is called a Hadith. There are many collections of hadiths, but the most authoritative are those by Bukhari and Abu Muslim.

So the Trilogy is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, but it is only about 14% of the total textual doctrine. The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.

No one text of the Trilogy can stand by itself; it is impossible to understand any one of the texts without the other supporting texts. The Koran, Sira, and Hadith are a seamless whole and speak with one voice. If it is in the Trilogy it is Islam. It is on the Hadith that Islamic law (Sharia) is based.

Because some of the books are weak they can use it to influence others. Those weak books are the one used for Islamic law. Not the Quaran.

There are three points of view in dealing with Islam. The point of view you have depends upon how you feel about Mohammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don’t, you are a Kafir.

The third viewpoint is that of a dhimmi, a Kafir who is an apologist for Islam. Dhimmis do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they never say anything that would displease a Muslim. Dhimmis never offend Islam and condemn any analysis that is critical of Islam as being biased.

Here is a example of the three points of view.

In Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword. Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah.

Muslims view these deaths as necessary because denying Mohammed’s prophet-hood was an offense against Islam, and beheading is the accepted method of punishment, sanctioned by Allah. Kafirs look at this event as proof of the jihadic violence of Islam and as an evil act. They call it ethnic cleansing. Apologists (dhimmis) say that this was a historic event, that all cultures have violence in their past, and that no judgment should be passed.

They ignore the Islamic belief that the Sunna, Mohammed’s words and deeds in the past, is the perfect model for today and tomorrow and forever. They ignore the fact that this past event of the beheading of 800 Jewish men continues to be acceptable in the present and the future, thus the fate of Daniel Pearl (a reporter who was beheaded on camera).

According to the different points of view, killing the 800 Jews was either evil, a perfect godly act or only another historical event, take your pick. This book is written from the Kafir point of view and is therefore, Kafir-centric. Everything in the book views Islam from how it affects Kafirs, non-Muslims then. This also means that the religion is of little importance.

Only a Muslim cares about the religion of Islam, but all Kafirs are affected by Islam’s political views. Notice that there is no right and wrong here, merely different points of view that cannot be reconciled. There is no possible resolution between the view of the Kafir and the Muslim. The apologist tries to bring about a bridge building compromise, but it is not logically possible.

 

[cybrsage]

So the Trilogy is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, but it is only about 14% of the total textual doctrine. The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.

This is correct. Another problem is the Doctrine of Naskh, or Abrogation.

Between sources
Abrogation is applicable to both sources of Islamic law: the Qur'ān and the Prophetic Sunna. A Qur'ānic verse may abrogate another Qur'ānic verse, and a Prophetic Sunna may likewise abrogate another Prophetic Sunna. The possibility of abrogation between these two sources, though, was a more contentious issue precipitated by the absence within a source of the appropriate abrogating (nāsikh) or abrogated (mansūkh) material necessary to bring concordance between it and the Fiqh.[11]

Later scholars, writing when the juridicial legitimacy of the Sunna could be taken for granted (thanks largely to Shāfi'ī's efforts!), were less inclined to adopt his inflexible stance. To their minds the reality of this sort of inter-source abrogation was proven by several "indisputable" instances: the changing of the qibla towards Mecca and away from Jerusalem, and the introduction of the penalty of stoning for adultery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

The problem is that what you read in the Quran and Hadiths may not actually be true, as they may have been replaced by later writings in one or the other. Unless you have a well annotized copy which shows the verses that are no longer any good (as they have been replaced), you are left in the dark.

Frequently cited examples of intra-Qur'ānic abrogation are:

• Verse: Q.8:65
  • Abrogator (nāsikh): The immediately succeeding Q.8:66, which lightens the ratio of enemies the Muslims are expected to vanquish from 10:1 to 2:1 .

• Verse: Q.2:180
  • Abrogator: Q.4:10–11, which provides specific allotments for a deceased's relatives. These verses constitute a perfect example of what later exegetes would claim to be takhsīs (specification).

• Verse: 2.219
  • Abrogator: Q.4:43, whose more explicit disapproval of drunkenness is in turn abrogated by Q.5:90, which institutes a complete ban on the consumption of alcohol:

• Verse: Q.9:5 (āyat al-sayf, the "sword verse")
  • Abrogatee (mansūkh): Literally dozens of verses enjoining the umma's peacable conduct towards outside groups: Hibat Allāh and al-Nahhās cite 124 and 130 verses, respectively.[7] Ibn al Jawzī and Mustafā Zayd count 140 verses[50] and Ibn Kathir says in his Tafsir that 9.5 abgrogated "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term."

• Verse: Q.9:29
  • Abrogatee: "Nahhās considers 9:29 to have abrogated virtually all verses calling for patience or forgiveness toward Scriptuaries".[51] (bolding mine - Scriptuaries are also called "People of the Book" and refer to Jews and Christians)

Examples of inter-Qur'ānic abrogation, where one of the rulings comes from the Sunna, are:

• Verse: Q.2:150
  • Abrogatee: The Sunna which established Jerusalem as the direction of prayer (qibla).

• Verse: Q.24:2
  • Abrogator: For those unwilling to countenance the existence of a "lost" āyat al-rajm (e.g. Qurtubī, Al-Ghazālī), the Prophetic Sunna which establishes stoning to death as the penalty for adultery.

 

[cave_dweller]

This is correct. Another problem is the Doctrine of Naskh, or Abrogation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

The problem is that what you read in the Quran and Hadiths may not actually be true, as they may have been replaced by later writings in one or the other. Unless you have a well annotized copy which shows the verses that are no longer any good (as they have been replaced), you are left in the dark.

Let me add this. Islam is primarily a political ideology. No action or statement by Islam can be understood without understanding its origins in the Trilogy. Any analysis, statement, or opinion about Islam is incomplete without a reference to the Trilogy. The Trilogy is the source and basis of all Islamic politics, diplomacy, history, philosophy, religion, and culture. the reference system

This book is unusual in that it does two things at once. It is the simplest book you can read to learn about the real Mohammed. At the same time it is an authoritative biography because of the use of reference numbers. Not to worry about the numbers. If you ignore them it doesn’t make any difference. They are there in case you want to confirm what you have read or want to know more. The number allows you look it up in the source text. It is similar to a chapter/verse.

Heres a example

I125 Mohammed made a decision that would have pleased Solomon. He...

The I in “I 125” tells you that it comes from Ishaq, the most authoritative writer of the Sira. The 125 is a reference number printed in the margin of the Sira. (The Life of Muhammad, A. Guillaume)

 

[Dzigg]

the Sira and the Hadith. Most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, but it is only about 14% of the total textual doctrine. The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.

First and foremost, we have to agree to disagree on a couple of things. The most crucial point is that you said that :

So the Trilogy is the Koran the Sira and the Hadith. Most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, but it is only about 14% of the total textual doctrine. The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.

In Quran itself God has proclaimed that Koran in its entity is enough for mankind. So the trilogy is just a man-made claim as far as I'm concern. And when you say 'hadith', there are approximately 600.000 hadith found, and only 6000 or so deemed as 'soheh' or legitimate by Bukhari. That is in the Sunni world. In the Shia world, there are different 600.000 hadith found also.. So, where does it end? We keep fighting over hadith, that is man-made (you agree with this right?), and worse, it is being used as a tool for people with agenda to get their way.

The logical way of thinking is that, if Muhammad deemed his life is that much importance in the message he was carrying, surely he would told people to write it so no misconception will arise later to his follower? But no, I even read some history that he told people specifically not to.

Quran is not a 'doctrine', it is a word from God, whether you believe it or not is what truly important. It is not science or history either that we can analyze only just from scientific point of view. Other things like current islamic teachings, doctrine, difference in opinion is not relevant for me. I encourage people to just read it yourself, It's an individual journey that one must take. You believe because YOU BELIEVE IT,not because someone else's told you to, or the current 'teachings'.

I'm sorry, I do not feel that I'm 'well equipped' enough with knowledge about this but this is what I know, and what I believe, and I feel the need to tell it as much as I can.

I do agree that there are different point of view about things that happened in the islam history. Which is why I think we have to 'come back' to Quran itself, the true word from God.

 

[cave_dweller]

First and foremost, we have to agree to disagree on a couple of things. The most crucial point is that you said that :



In Quran itself God has proclaimed that Koran in its entity is enough for mankind. So the trilogy is just a man-made claim as far as I'm concern. And when you say 'hadith', there are approximately 600.000 hadith found, and only 6000 or so deemed as 'soheh' or legitimate by Bukhari. That is in the Sunni world. In the Shia world, there are different 600.000 hadith found also.. So, where does it end? We keep fighting over hadith, that is man-made (you agree with this right?), and worse, it is being used as a tool for people with agenda to get their way.

The logical way of thinking is that, if Muhammad deemed his life is that much importance in the message he was carrying, surely he would told people to write it so no misconception will arise later to his follower? But no, I even read some history that he told people specifically not to.

Quran is not a 'doctrine', it is a word from God, whether you believe it or not is what truly important. It is not science or history either that we can analyze only just from scientific point of view. Other things like current islamic teachings, doctrine, difference in opinion is not relevant for me. I encourage people to just read it yourself, It's an individual journey that one must take. You believe because YOU BELIEVE IT,not because someone else's told you to, or the current 'teachings'.

I'm sorry, I do not feel that I'm 'well equipped' enough with knowledge about this but this is what I know, and what I believe, and I feel the need to tell it as much as I can.

I do agree that there are different point of view about things that happened in the islam history. Which is why I think we have to 'come back' to Quran itself, the true word from God.

What is Islamic law based on? The Quran only contains what is presented as the literal words of Allah - as relayed by Muhammad. The Hadith is a collection of anecdotes and historical snippets of Muhammad's life based on the relayed narrations of those who lived with him. But the most dependable compilers are agreed by Muslims scholars to be Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, followed by Abu Dawud. It is on the Hadith that Islamic law (Sharia) is based. The Sira is the biography of Muhammad's life. So In fact, the Muslim counterpart to the Bible is the Quran, Hadith and Sira combined.