As I said I cannot argue to an who cannot see or deny reasoning
I am not denying any reasoning, I am denying a false basis for said reasoning. If the basis was true and unbiased, I'd gladly accept the reasoning.
I am against those mideval practices of all religion
And so am I, the point I disagree on that Sharia is medieval and can not be adapted to the modern world - it can be, quite easily.
As for being sharia fair, a woman has half as weightage than a male witness.
No, the circumstances for that are very specific. Women are biologically different (Scientifically proven and agreed upon fact), thus they have different responsibilities and abilities, which is what accounts for the difference between men and women in Islamic Law - one can not argue that men and women are
equal, because they are not physically or biologically
the same as men. However, they have equal rights based on their responsibilities. It's a bit complicated but it is very logical if you study it.
Now, one can argue that a woman's
biological differences do not impede her ability to be a witness,(presumably you're saying the same) which is an argument that
I recognize, understand and believe is perfectly valid.
Equality and
justice are two very different things. Islamic law aims for Justice more than equality.
I can quote few authentic Islamic pages for my argument but that's not allowed in pdf.
Name them so I can have a look myself.
f I put some authentic Islamic scholar's reference then you will tell me that you dont agree to that and ask me to not consider that truth and everything should be taken as stated by quran.
Scholars are humans and can make mistakes (and are prone to politics and lying for the sake of said politics), which is why they should give references from the authentic sources, Quran and Sahih Hadith.
f I post passage of quran that's available on net for my defense then you will ask me to read quran in Arabic as the true meaning comes out in that language.
No, I wouldn't. You're assuming too much, and assuming wrong. I would, however, ask for context - but that shouldn't be a problem because it is easily available on the internet,
The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم
I know the tactics of islamists.
You don't know anything about Islam, you just think you do because of all those anti-Islam websites. Guess what, I know the tactics of Anti-Islamists.
As anjem chaudhary staying in UK but demand sharia citing weird reason, you also doing the same.
Anjem Chaudhry is a nutcase, and no, I am not
demanding Sharia in the
UK. Read my reply to
@Norwegian, post #135
I said:
I agree that it won't be practical to try and implement it..
I'm perfectly happy with a Democracy....
in our own countries at least.....
You are assuming too much and arguing too less.
As for losing the debate that doesn't happen to logical people like me who thrive on science and humanity.
That means it either happens or you're not being logical enough. Oh, science, I suppose you'd also oppose the germ theory if there were no microscopes or the heliocentric model if there were no telescopes. Science can not prove everything, yet. Nothing wrong in people speculating or holding beliefs that are not proven by current science - after all, that is how science started in the first place, with a
hypothesis.
What you're displaying here is not 'logic' or 'science', it's close-mindedness.
no thanks on your sharia implementation
Do you intend on moving to Pakistan soon? If not, then what are you even talking about? Because I'm saying:
in our own countries.....
how you think there will be any better interpretation
There's already a better interpretation, that's how. As for implementing it, I don't (think it'll happen). I'm not counting on it, which is why I've written paragraphs detailing why I'm not counting on it.