Is sharia totalitarian or does it actually promotes true tolerance and pluralism?

[Hamza913]

Hmmmm I do have a better system actually.
It's called NOT SHARIA aka any other law where you are aren't screwed if youre not a Sunni male.

"Freedom" won't stop as long as it's hurting or breaching your rights. Public nudity isn't allowed because it's a breach of public decency. Homos marrying will not suddenly give you AIDS or something and doesn't concern you at all (of course this discussion is another one on its own but this is just your example). Paedophilia involves preying on KIDS that are not old enough to give consent (btw marrying of underage girls is allowed in the Sharia). People in most of the world aren't allowed to own guns because handing them over to untrained individuals will endanger the lives of others.

Anything else ?

Your argument for nudity doesn't work. One could easily argue homosexuals kissing in public is indecent, heck one could argue straight couples kissing in public is indecent. You have no objective standard because your rules are made up based on what is considered the social norm.

Homosexuality does significantly increase your risk of contracting diseases, including AIDS, with no objective benefit. Hence why any rational individual would ban it. Not to mention it has many social consequences, such as completely messing up the family unit and opening the doorway for other perverted sexual acts to become common place, such as paedophilia.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...-in-homosexual-men-center-for-disease-control

No, marriage of underage girls is not allowed under Sharia. The fact that you stated this is laughable, and shows how shallow your understanding of Sharia is. Sharia states that the age of maturity varies from time to time and from society to society, therefore, you should only be allowed to get married and have sexual intercourse once the society deems you are old enough and you have reached puberty. Those are the two requirements that must be met.

You mentioned that underage children can't give consent, do you have any objective reason? A child can make many other decisions quite rationally, what makes this one so different? The fact is, you have no reason other than that it feels wrong, which is a by-product of your society and most certainly not objective. I actually have an objective reason, which is that Allah says it's wrong.

If that's your reason to not give people the right to bear arms, why not just limit it to trained and mentally sound people only? Why not just limit what kind of guns can be carried? Not to mention this can still be considered a breach of an individuals freedom, as some people consider the right to bear arms as the right to defend themselves. Freedom is very subjective.

 

[Sh@msu]

Your argument for nudity doesn't work. One could easily argue homosexuals kissing in public is indecent, heck one could argue straight couples kissing in public is indecent. You have no objective standard because your rules are made up based on what is considered the social norm.

Homosexuality does significantly increase your risk of contracting diseases, including AIDS, with no objective benefit. Hence why any rational individual would ban it. Not to mention it has many social consequences, such as completely messing up the family unit and opening the doorway for other perverted sexual acts to become common place, such as paedophilia.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...-in-homosexual-men-center-for-disease-control

No, marriage of underage girls is not allowed under Sharia. The fact that you stated this is laughable, and shows how shallow your understanding of Sharia is. Sharia states that the age of maturity varies from time to time and from society to society, therefore, you should only be allowed to get married and have sexual intercourse once the society deems you are old enough and you have reached puberty. Those are the two requirements that must be met.

You mentioned that underage children can't give consent, do you have any objective reason? A child can make many other decisions quite rationally, what makes this one so different? The fact is, you have no reason other than that it feels wrong, which is a by-product of your society and most certainly not objective. I actually have an objective reason, which is that Allah says it's wrong.

If that's your reason to not give people the right to bear arms, why not just limit it to trained and mentally sound people only? Why not just limit what kind of guns can be carried? Not to mention this can still be considered a breach of an individuals freedom, as some people consider the right to bear arms as the right to defend themselves. Freedom is very subjective.

You are being defensive and playing by his rules.
As an ex-atheist let me tell you a secret,when ever an atheist argues with you,he thinks he starts from a higher ground and will always try to make you play in back foot.You take that out and he is hapless
You need to go toe to toe,attack his ideology and and go offensive if required.

What is an atheist?

A simple victim of soft-power claiming to think critically lacking simple simultaneous problem compiling skills due to in-sufficient access to critical input infos specifically designed and programmed by X (someone) to engage you in your ideological front with sole intention to diverse your attention from main functions by that X.

His signature should give you an opening.
All the best

Regards.

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

Your argument for nudity doesn't work. One could easily argue homosexuals kissing in public is indecent, heck one could argue straight couples kissing in public is indecent. You have no objective standard because your rules are made up based on what is considered the social norm.

Homosexuality does significantly increase your risk of contracting diseases, including AIDS, with no objective benefit. Hence why any rational individual would ban it. Not to mention it has many social consequences, such as completely messing up the family unit and opening the doorway for other perverted sexual acts to become common place, such as paedophilia.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...-in-homosexual-men-center-for-disease-control

No, marriage of underage girls is not allowed under Sharia. The fact that you stated this is laughable, and shows how shallow your understanding of Sharia is. Sharia states that the age of maturity varies from time to time and from society to society, therefore, you should only be allowed to get married and have sexual intercourse once the society deems you are old enough and you have reached puberty. Those are the two requirements that must be met.

You mentioned that underage children can't give consent, do you have any objective reason? A child can make many other decisions quite rationally, what makes this one so different? The fact is, you have no reason other than that it feels wrong, which is a by-product of your society and most certainly not objective. I actually have an objective reason, which is that Allah says it's wrong.

If that's your reason to not give people the right to bear arms, why not just limit it to trained and mentally sound people only? Why not just limit what kind of guns can be carried? Not to mention this can still be considered a breach of an individuals freedom, as some people consider the right to bear arms as the right to defend themselves. Freedom is very subjective.

Of course my arguement is based upon social norms as that is how it should be.as long as no one else's rights are breached. (I guess following norms from the 8th century makes more sense).

I mentioned AIDS by purpose because I knew you were going to try to catch up on it and like I said YOU will not get AIDS (unless you're into that sort of thing, don't worry I won't stone you for it). The Shariah states that a girl can be married as soon as she can bear a child (aka reach puberty) which in most girls is around 13. And are you defending pedophilia wtf lol. My objective reasoning is that they are literally children and do not understand the consequences nor do they have a fully developed moral compass.

Also did you know that Sharia also allows the concept of slavery ? But guess what, it's been outlawed by all Muslim countries (including Saudi Arab Iran). Do you know why ? Because they understand that we cannot live according to a thousand year old norms. My objective reasoning is that they are literally children and do not understand the consequences nor do they have a fully developed moral compass. And yes by all means hand over guns to people who are mentally sane and have no previous mental record.

You are being defensive and playing by his rules.
As an ex-atheist let me tell you a secret,when ever an atheist argues with you,he thinks he starts from a higher ground and will always try to make you play in back foot.You take that out and he is hapless
You need to go toe to toe,attack his ideology and and go offensive if required.

What is an atheist?

A simple victim of soft-power claiming to think critically lacking simple simultaneous problem compiling skills due to in-sufficient access to critical input infos specifically designed and programmed by X (someone) to engage you in your ideological front with sole intention to diverse your attention from main functions by that X.

His signature should give you an opening.
All the best

Regards.

Exactly. I can't believe my signature is extremely offensive and can be targeted pretty easily. Equality and Accountability are dangerous concepts after all. Also nice of you to assume I'm an Atheist because I'm against a thousand year old law system that is not compatible with the modern world, you truly went toe to toe with Einstein's level of intelligence right there.

 

[Hamza913]

You are being defensive and playing by his rules.
As an ex-atheist let me tell you a secret,when ever an atheist argues with you,he thinks he starts from a higher ground and will always try to make you play in back foot.You take that out and he is hapless
You need to go toe to toe,attack his ideology and and go offensive if required.

What is an atheist?

A simple victim of soft-power claiming to think critically lacking simple simultaneous problem compiling skills due to in-sufficient access to critical input infos specifically designed and programmed by X (someone) to engage you in your ideological front with sole intention to diverse your attention from main functions by that X.

His signature should give you an opening.
All the best

Regards.

Asalamu Alaikum

I know, I was an atheist too for quite a while, I'm familiar with their games.

I wasn't being on the defensive, I posed objections and he has not been able to provide an adequate response by any means.

 

[Sh@msu]

Of course my arguement is based upon social norms as that is how it should be.as long as no one else's rights are breached. (I guess following norms from the 8th century makes more sense).

I mentioned AIDS by purpose because I knew you were going to try to catch up on it and like I said YOU will not get AIDS (unless you're into that sort of thing, don't worry I won't stone you for it). The Shariah states that a girl can be married as soon as she can bear a child (aka reach puberty) which in most girls is around 13. And are you defending pedophilia wtf lol. My objective reasoning is that they are literally children and do not understand the consequences nor do they have a fully developed moral compass.

Also did you know that Sharia also allows the concept of slavery ? But guess what, it's been outlawed by all Muslim countries (including Saudi Arab Iran). Do you know why ? Because they understand that we cannot live according to a thousand year old norms. My objective reasoning is that they are literally children and do not understand the consequences nor do they have a fully developed moral compass. And yes by all means hand over guns to people who are mentally sane and have no previous mental record.



Exactly. I can't believe my signature is extremely offensive and can be targeted pretty easily. Equality and Accountability are dangerous concepts after all. Also nice of you to assume I'm an Atheist because I'm against a thousand year old law system that is not compatible with the modern world, you truly went toe to toe with Einstein's level of intelligence right there.

As i said,so predictable,human behavior.A simple computer pattern is more complex to design. How come you people are becoming so predictable day by day?
When did i say anything about your signature being extremely offensive? You have said that. What i said was it should give him an opening if he understands it.
Why i always have to answer this childish question?

You are atheist because you are against a thousand year old law that is not compatible with the modern world

Let's not get into that much deep huh?Let's start with simple things first.
The sentence you have written,the primary key here is the word compatible.
Please define compatibility and give a logical implementation level explanation of it in real time environment.
And please give implementation level difference between comparability execution vs ill-will execution

o please,you are being to generous,if i am einstein level surely you are (E^10)*E where E=Einstein level intelligence

i mean you are the only one who have mentioned something in advance no one have said .That's a very complex level algorithm let me tell you

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

As i said,so predictable,human behavior.A simple computer pattern is more complex to design. How come you people are becoming so predictable day by day?
When did i say anything about your signature being extremely offensive? You have said that. What i said was it should give him an opening if he understands it.
Why i always have to answer this childish question?

You are atheist because you are against a thousand year old law that is not compatible with the modern world

Let's not get into that much deep huh?Let's start with simple things first.
The sentence you have written,the primary key here is the word compatible.
Please define compatibility and give a logical implementation level explanation of it in real time environment.
And please give implementation level difference between comparability execution vs ill-will execution

o please,you are being to generous,if i am einstein level surely you are (E^10)*E where E=Einstein level intelligence

i mean you are the only one who have mentioned something in advance no one have said .That's a very complex level algorithm let me tell you

Your emojis and colours are giving me cancer please stop that.

Oh you want compatible ? Hmm let see....
You're right let's not get in too deep. I think 2 questions are enough to seal the deal.

Are all human equal and do they all deserve equal rights ?
Does the system at hand give everyone equal rights ?

 

[24 Hours]

Well at least he's not linking IslamQ&A anymore.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Hamza913]

Of course my arguement is based upon social norms as that is how it should be.as long as no one else's rights are breached. (I guess following norms from the 8th century makes more sense).

I mentioned AIDS by purpose because I knew you were going to try to catch up on it and like I said YOU will not get AIDS (unless you're into that sort of thing, don't worry I won't stone you for it). The Shariah states that a girl can be married as soon as she can bear a child (aka reach puberty) which in most girls is around 13. And are you defending pedophilia wtf lol. My objective reasoning is that they are literally children and do not understand the consequences nor do they have a fully developed moral compass.

Also did you know that Sharia also allows the concept of slavery ? But guess what, it's been outlawed by all Muslim countries (including Saudi Arab Iran). Do you know why ? Because they understand that we cannot live according to a thousand year old norms. My objective reasoning is that they are literally children and do not understand the consequences nor do they have a fully developed moral compass. And yes by all means hand over guns to people who are mentally sane and have no previous mental record.

You don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. If your morals are based on the current whims of society, then how are they moral at all? You have no objective measurement, I do. My objective measure is that Allah gave me my morals, and since he is the creator of the universe, he would obviously know what is best. You don't have that. Therefore, you are in no position to criticise Sharia for any laws it may have that you deem to be backward, nor are you in a position to claim your system is better than mine. By your definition, they are both equally as moral.

No, Sharia says a girl can get married and have sexual intercourse once she hits puberty AND is considered mature by the society. Both requirements must be fulfilled.

I am aware that Sharia allows slavery. What you are most probably unaware of is the rights a slave has under Sharia. They are to be fed well, clothed well, given adequate living space, cannot be beaten and should generally be treated like family. Freeing slaves is also promoted in Sharia significantly, and you can only capture slaves from those who you are at war with.

Slavery would work very well for poor countries, they would be able to build up their countries without having to pay wages, this can be very beneficial for economic growth.

Your reasoning about children isn't objective, the age at which a child matures varies from society to society as well as time to time. A key example is the contrast between 7th century Arabia and 21st century America. Also, you still have the problem that your morals don't come from an objective source.

 

[Sh@msu]

Your emojis and colours are giving me cancer please stop that.

Not impressed man,not impressed.I thought you support "freedom of expression".
Don't you think you are demanding me to be "free" in the way you want me to be free?

Are all human equal and do they all deserve equal rights ?

peeeeeeeep,invalid query,can't execute rofl

Does the system at hand give everyone equal rights ?

peeeeeeeeeep,invalid query,can't execute. rofl



This is what happened when you get high reading some science paper online when you never had any practical with them

Define the sign (=){for let any two set A & B}

Hint : The sign is a mathematical expression only exist in writing has no real time implementation or real time existence.


I thought you would come up with some critical ,you own brain produced productive question?If you are gonna ask me these than i am sorry brah,but i am not interested in this class-1 level question.
Seriously man,you can't even make logical question by yourself?that's an embarrassment

 

[litman]

dont have time to read the entire thread but i am sure there will be many commenting about sharia who dont even have a clue about sharia.

 

[TheLahoriGuy]

You don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. If your morals are based on the current whims of society, then how are they moral at all? You have no objective measurement, I do. My objective measure is that Allah gave me my morals, and since he is the creator of the universe, he would obviously know what is best. You don't have that. Therefore, you are in no position to criticise Sharia for any laws it may have that you deem to be backward, nor are you in a position to claim your system is better than mine. By your definition, they are both equally as moral.

No, Sharia says a girl can get married and have sexual intercourse once she hits puberty AND is considered mature by the society. Both requirements must be fulfilled.

I am aware that Sharia allows slavery. What you are most probably unaware of is the rights a slave has under Sharia. They are to be fed well, clothed well, given adequate living space, cannot be beaten and should generally be treated like family. Freeing slaves is also promoted in Sharia significantly, and you can only capture slaves from those who you are at war with.

Slavery would work very well for poor countries, they would be able to build up their countries without having to pay wages, this can be very beneficial for economic growth.

Your reasoning about children isn't objective, the age at which a child matures varies from society to society as well as time to time. A key example is the contrast between 7th century Arabia and 21st century America. Also, you still have the problem that your morals don't come from an objective source.

What objective source do you want ? It's about the application of laws that matters. It's not like I have labelled Sharia as complete incompatible some aspects of it are still very compatible for today's time. For example, the punishment for first degree murder is very justified as it doesn't make sense to keep a murderer alive in tax payer money. Even criminalising of blasphemy makes a lot of sense because religious sentiments exist on both you and I, the punishment however is extremely overstated. Even unequal distribution of wealth makes sense as by default in our society men are charged with the responsibility to put food on the table (there should of course be an option to change this distribution).

The problem arises when these laws are derived from thousand year old norms and customs. For example child brides were a norm at the time because there was no formal education or any other purpose of women. Slavery was considered a norm because it existed all around the Arab world at the time. Such laws need to be banished completely because they are not compatible with the modern world. Your head would be on the stone table because declaring apostasy is to be punished with death.

Not impressed man,not impressed.I thought you support "freedom of expression".
Don't you think you are demanding me to be "free" in the way you want me to be free?



peeeeeeeep,invalid query,can't execute rofl



peeeeeeeeeep,invalid query,can't execute. rofl



This is what happened when you get high reading some science paper online when you never had any practical with them

Define the sign (=){for let any two set A & B}

Hint : The sign is a mathematical expression only exist in writing has no real time implementation or real time existence.


I thought you would come up with some critical ,you own brain produced productive question?If you are gonna ask me these than i am sorry brah,but i am not interested in this class-1 level question.
Seriously man,you can't even make logical question by yourself?that's an embarrassment

Awww seems like the little Einstein has had his circuits fried and could even answer a single question. Now that's real embarrassment. Please answer them otherwise I see no purpose to further debate.

 

[Hamza913]

What objective source do you want ? It's about the application of laws that matters. It's not like I have labelled Sharia as complete incompatible some aspects of it are still very compatible for today's time. For example, the punishment for first degree murder is very justified as it doesn't make sense to keep a murderer alive in tax payer money. Even criminalising of blasphemy makes a lot of sense because religious sentiments exist on both you and I, the punishment however is extremely overstated. Even unequal distribution of wealth makes sense as by default in our society men are charged with the responsibility to put food on the table (there should of course be an option to change this distribution).

The problem arises when these laws are derived from thousand year old norms and customs. For example child brides were a norm at the time because there was no formal education or any other purpose of women. Slavery was considered a norm because it existed all around the Arab world at the time. Such laws need to be banished completely because they are not compatible with the modern world. Your head would be on the stone table because declaring apostasy is to be punished with death.

If you personally disagree with the laws, no issue, but to call them backwards or inferior is strange considering they are as objective as yours (assuming Islam is made up of course, something I will vehemently deny).

The real question is whether or not the religion has any proof for its claims, and if they are sufficient. If it does have sufficient proof, then it would make perfect sense to obey these laws since the creator of the universe would obviously have more sense than you and I.

 

[MiG-35-BD]

Depends on whose interpretation of Sharia you are talking about. Muhammad Asad, the second founding ideologue of Pakistan and put in charge of implementing Islam by Jinnah, has a very short booklet on how to solve the shariah problem.

One read of it, and everything became crystal clear for me on how we screwed up sharia and made it into "depends on who you ask":

http://muhammad-asad.com/Asad-This-Law-of-Ours.pdf

 

[Sh@msu]

Awww seems like the little Einstein has had his circuits fried and could even answer a single question. Now that's real embarrassment. Please answer them otherwise I see no purpose to further debate.

That's so cute. Ii expected a bit more fight
Of course there can be no further debate until you give the definition of the major functions you want to use as middle ground(like the function equal)
It's very unlikely you have any kind of logical or mathematical background,even if you have you have done anything other than passing exam.
Asking copy paste question won't do any good. You are caught red handed my critical thinking big Einstein friend
You doesn't know a simple implementation level of the mathematical expression (=) and trying to execute your la la level delusional wishful thinking in state processor.

This is what we can expect from a zero input critical level thinking Einstein pro-claimer
Next time when you ask these make sure you are the most educated guy in the room,unfortunately PDF is not that area.
Don't do so much critical thinking,first train the brain in normal thinking process .Otherwise your already half baked brain circuits will totally bust up.
Good night pal

 

[WaLeEdK2]

sharia is only supposed to be used for the Muslims. before in Muslim ruled lands Christians were put under christian laws and Jews were put under Jewish laws etc.

Medina was a perfect example of this. the Jews tested the prophet (pbuh) by bringing in a women that did adultery and they asked what they should do. he said to do whatever the Torah says for the punishment of adultery which was stoning to death (funny enough the Jews weren't even following this law).

the problem some Muslims have is the concept of legalization without consent from the Quran. Islam says that God is sovereign however once u can legalize without addressing the holy book then things like homosexuality occur and then at this point the state is now sovereign. Europes main goal of colonization was planting seeds of their secular system on mankind in order to rule but not be there physically. in this case the IMF/WB can have muslims engaging in it.

secularism reminds me of communism how everyone must be the same. the ussr is a perfect example. banned everything from the start.