• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Islam require that Muslims create an Islamic society??

Does Islam require that Muslims create an Islamic society??

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • No

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • Other (Specify)

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18
More:

Several of the countries with the largest Muslim populations, including Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan,

Those are some of the newer Muslim states, and they have long histories of diversified religions living within one country, but there are large segments of the population within those countries who would love to convert the state to Sharia yesterday if they could and they are slowly but surely doing just that:

First Sharia court for Aceh


Indonesia's troubled Aceh province is to establish the country's first criminal court based on Sharia law, an official said on Wednesday.
BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | First Sharia court for Aceh

have largely secular constitutions and laws,

Ya and how long do you think it will take for those secular regimes and Constitutions to be overthrown and toppled under the weight of a large radical segment backed by those who seek to die for that specific cause? I mean look at Pakistan they were just a short while ago a part of India and bam like that half of India is gone and is not set to topple under the weight of the Islamist threat.

with only a few Islamic provisions in family law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Contemporary_practice_of_Sharia_law

That's several Muslim countries now shown to have legal system not based at all on Sharia or Islamic law.

Completely in contrast to TOT's claim that all Muslim nations (save Turkey and Syria) have Sharia Islamic law, again demonstrating the depth of his knowledge about Muslim culture and society.

I asked which ones was I missing? And those countries are ones that have a long tradition of Hinduism and Buddhism anyways and none of which are located in the Middle East where the roots of the Islamist movement are much deeper; furthermore, that atleast in the case of Indonesia and Pakistan they were long controlled by Colonial Powers which is where they got their Democratic roots, not to mention that all of these nations have large radicalized segments of the population who would love to have Sharia be the law. Furthermore; they are hardly the types of states that one could consider free:

Indonesia

Political Rights Score: 3
Civil Liberties Score: 4
Status: Partly Free

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2005&country=6755

Pakistan

Political Rights Score: 6
Civil Liberties Score: 5
Status: Not Free

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6807

Bangladesh

Political Rights Score: 4
Civil Liberties Score: 4
Status: Partly Free

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6692

Furthermore; even with these moderate Democratically elected yet significantly authoritarian (necessary to maintain a secular muslim majority nation) systems of government they are all allies with the U.S. and are currently at war with Islamist terrorists seeking to overthrow the current governments and impose Sharia.
 
It is law if the society deems it so. If you are Christian apparently you follow a complex set of rules which basically says the rules are law if the conservative Christians say so otherwise they are not.

The Christians already had law, Christianity wasn't so much a takeover of Rome by Christianity more than it was a Roman takeover of Christianity, Jesus didn't raise armies, Mohammad on the other hand did, he even had Islamic laws for warfare, like I said Islam embraces every aspect of society. Wherever Christianity spread rather than force its dogma upon the masses it blended with the pre-existing civilizations I mean look at all the Pagan holidays from Rome which still exist today.

Right. None have a system based on purely Islamic laws

Umm wrong we have quite a few systems based on purely Islamic laws, first up Saudi Arabia, second up Iran, then we got Kuwait, Jordan, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Yep and let's see the legal doctrine based on this Christian dogma.

You know she will never give this up. You have made a very solid case here TOT. Her argument is based in her loathing of what is probably best described as the Christian Right and therefore her argument, by it's very nature, requires her to stretch reality and extrapolate to extremes in order to make her point within the context of your current sidebar. Many of the passages she cited were not contextually applicable here, but whatever floats her boat.

That being said, I believe the answer to the poll, at this point in history, is no. Ask this question 200 years ago and the answer would be yes. Religion is defined ultimately by the practices of the follower. The question is somewhat loaded in my opinion because you cannot compare a modernist Muslim to a Wahabbist or Qutbist. It's apples to oranges. Regardless of what the Quran may dictate, it's just a book. The current interpretation by the majority of Islam is probably closer to how the majority of Christians interpret the Bible. It's a book or suggestions and guidelines, rarely if ever taken literally. I do believe most Muslims are pay more attention to traditional practices within Islam, much like most Catholics pay attention to their traditional practices (confession, communion, etc.) and both probably truly believe their books are the "true word of God" but that doesn't mean they go out and "live by it" literally. Long ago there was and currently within certain groups on both sides today there is a much more fundamental interpretation, but they are the minority...the difference being that the Muslim minority have a much higher percentage of violent believers who are willing to kill in the name of their interpretation of Islam.
 
Last edited:
Then please consider this.

Prophet of Doom - Islam Commentary - The 9-11 Commission Report - Exposure and Commentary

Now, aside from what the vast majority of Muslims do or want to do, we are talking about what the Prophet did and what the Koran instructs and the example given to believers to follow.

Just as Christians look to Christ as an example of how to live their lives and in how to make decisions, (WWJD = What Would Jesus Do?) aren't Muslims also supposed to follow the example of the Prophet?

And look at what the Prophet did!

The Prophet conquered.

What you have to understand is that Mohammed was just that. A prophet. A man. The Quran states that there are many paths to Allah. Violence for the sake of violence is not one of them. The best I can do to prove my point is this :

Does the Qur’an Teach Violence? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

(Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190-194)

While I will not deny that Islam has an eye for an eye mentality in some cases. The Qu'ran makes it very clear that killing for the sake of killing is not allowed. Using Allah's name to commit injustices is a sin. Not only that but this part of the quote is something that is often ommited when dealing with muslims :

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.

Ussually the only part of the quote that is shown is this one :

And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter;

- What one must keep in mind is that Allah does not forgive those who hurt innocents(trangress limits). Those who use Allah as an excuse to murder are sinning.

If you'd like to learn more about Islam(instead of reading neo-con propaganda such as The Prophet of Doom) I suggest you go on Islam online. They have answers to the questions only those who aren't interested in seeking the truth would ignore.

Adding here are some of the best questions :

War in Islam: A Solution to Problems? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam
Forgiving Terrorism: The Prophet and the Men of `Uraynah - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam
A Time to Define Terrorism - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam
An Eye for an Eye? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam
Tolerance Between Islam and the Muslims - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

Hope you enjoy reading them. A lof of the questions people post in this forum are answered on that website.
 
I love what he says when asked, “Do Muslims hate non Muslims?”

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...nglish-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar

It must be stressed that Muslims never hate non-Muslims just for the sake that they happen to be non-Muslims. On the contrary, we are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they don't show enmity towards Islam and Muslims. Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people and we should deal even with enemies with justice and fairness.
I guess he didn’t get the memo.

005.080
YUSUFALI: Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.
PICKTHAL: Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide.
SHAKIR: You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
 
I love what he says when asked, “Do Muslims hate non Muslims?”

Do Muslims Hate non-Muslims? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar


I guess he didn’t get the memo.

005.080
YUSUFALI: Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the Unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah's wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.
PICKTHAL: Thou seest many of them making friends with those who disbelieve. Surely ill for them is that which they themselves send on before them: that Allah will be wroth with them and in the doom they will abide.
SHAKIR: You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

I respect you Cherokee. But why you have such disdain for Muslims is behond me. Quoting one verse of the Qu'ran while ignoring all the other verses pertinent to the issue in question is weak reasoning at best.

*{(Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.)* (An-Nahl 16:125)

*{And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whosoever wants let him believe and whosoever wants let him deny."}* (An-Nahl 16:29)

Here are verses that are often ignored when dealing with how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims. Mostly by the neo-con crowd.

Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God. (The Noble Quran, 4:139)”

“O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) To people on whom Is the Wrath of Allah. Of the Hereafter they are Already in despair, just as The Unbelievers are In despair about those (Buried) in graves. (The Noble Quran, 60:13)”

Does Islam Forbid Befriending Non-Muslims? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

The author does make a point about the ignorant signaling out 1 verse from the Qu'ran and using it as evidence to back up such heinous accusations as "Muslims hate non Muslims". What they do not know is that this is the equivalent of a weak attack. I shows very little knowledge of the Qu'ran.

Question said:
A Greek Christian friend of mine came to me and said that he wanted a book that guides him to the way a man should live. I handed him a copy of the Qur'an. He took deep interest in reading it until he came across the following verse: [O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.] (Al-Ma’dah 5: 51)

Reading the verse, he asked "why is that so?" Why is your book telling you that we can't be your friends? Does that mean I can't be your friend? And at his request I am seeking help from you to throw some light on it. I am too confused by this. And if that is so then why does Islam allow us to marry Christian and Jewish girls (despite the fact they might not want to change their religion.) Please reply soon.

Answer said:
<snip>

In the Qur'an this word is used for God, such as [Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) of those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…] (Al- Baqarah 2: 257)

There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as [And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin "wali" the authority (to seek judgement or punishment in this case)…] (Al-‘Isra' 17 :33)

The correct translation of the verse in Surat Al-Ma’idah is: [O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.] (Al-Ma'dah 5: 51)

<snip>

It is obvious that Jews patronize the Jews and Christians patronize the Christians, so why not Muslims patronize Muslims and support their own people. This verse is not telling us to be against Jews or Christians, but it is telling us that we should take care of our own people and we must support each other.

In his Tafsir, (Qur’an exegesis) Imam Ibn Kathir has mentioned that some scholars say that this verse (i.e. the one you referred to) was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. (See Ibn Kathir, Al-Tafsir, vol. 2, p. 68)

Muslims are allowed to have non-Muslims as friends as long as they keep their own faith and commitment to Islam pure and strong. You are correct in pointing out that a Muslim man is also allowed to marry a Jewish or Christian woman. It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman? It is the duty of Muslims to patronize Muslims. They should not patronize any one who is against their faith or who fights their faith, even if they were their fathers and brothers. Allah says: [O you who believe! Take not for protectors (awliya') your fathers and your brothers if they love unbelief above faith. If any of you do so, they are indeed wrong-doers.] (Al-Tawbah 9: 23)

Hope this answers it for you.
 
The question itself is a 'trap' question because of the word 'require' and falls under the complex question logical fallacy. It's a setup. Remember, folks, there is a difference between principle and practice. What the Koran states is irrelevant; what is done is relevant. In the world, today, we see many Muslims living, quite happily, in secular societies. We also see many Muslims living in religious societies. These co-existing facts show that the word 'require' is meaningless to what is being presented. What is being presented is a loaded question with an agenda.
 
It is obvious that one marries someone for love and friendship. If friendship between Muslims and Jews or Christians was forbidden, then why would Islam allow a Muslim man to marry a Jew or Christian woman?
Because the male is considered the head of the household and any offspring would be raised as Muslim. Ergo, the ummah is increased. On the other hand, many Islamic nations forbid a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim. If I remember correctly, a Saudi princess was executed for this offense.
 
Because the male is considered the head of the household and any offspring would be raised as Muslim. Ergo, the ummah is increased. On the other hand, many Islamic nations forbid a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim. If I remember correctly, a Saudi princess was executed for this offense.

And the punishment for these children raised Muslim converting later on? Why death of course.
 
The question itself is a 'trap' question because of the word 'require' and falls under the complex question logical fallacy. It's a setup. Remember, folks, there is a difference between principle and practice. What the Koran states is irrelevant; what is done is relevant. In the world, today, we see many Muslims living, quite happily, in secular societies. We also see many Muslims living in religious societies. These co-existing facts show that the word 'require' is meaningless to what is being presented. What is being presented is a loaded question with an agenda.

It's not intended as a trap. But it IS meant to help ferret out the beliefs of the posters here. Your belief appears to be that there is something that some Muslim posters are not disclosing.

What would be uncharacteristically refreshing is if someone would just come out and say something like:

Yes, the Koran commands that Muslims create an Islamic society but I don't give it a thought, at all. However, for every 1,000 Muslims like me there are maybe a few guys who are working to make America an Islamic society. And even though I'm not working toward it I also won't be upset when it happens, although that won't be for several generations.
 
And the punishment for these children raised Muslim converting later on? Why death of course.

I read that they would be allowed to switch to another religion 'of the Book', but never go unpunished for leaving faith altogether. As long as Western societies ignore this fact and instead support the building of more mosques and faith schools, they are tolerating an unacceptable and outspoken threat to a minority of their citizens, thus encouraging discrimination.
 
....
Umm wrong we have quite a few systems based on purely Islamic laws, first up Saudi Arabia, second up Iran, then we got Kuwait, Jordan, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, etc etc.

LMAO! Never let fact dissuade your prejudiced beliefs!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/637731-post37.html

That's why I automatically discount any factual assertions you make. Even presented with clear objective evidence directly contrary to your statement, you continue to just make **** up to support your bigotted views.
 
Because the male is considered the head of the household and any offspring would be raised as Muslim. Ergo, the ummah is increased. On the other hand, many Islamic nations forbid a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim. If I remember correctly, a Saudi princess was executed for this offense.

The best answer I can do to answer this is providing some of the questions pertinent to womens role in Islam.

<snip>

{Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded …} (An-Nisaa' 4:34)

In the above verse the word "maintainer" is the translation of the Arabic word qawamun, which is also sometimes translated as "protectors." The confusion happens when sometimes the word qawamun is translated to "superior," which is totally erroneous because it makes it sound as if the obligation on wives to obey their husbands stems from the fact that they spend on the sustenance of their wives, and that the husbands are the ones with the ultimate responsibility for leading the family.
There is no single verse in the Qur'an that categorically states that men are superior to women. Also, there is no evidence from the Prophetic Tradition that such a sentiment was expressed by Prophet Muhammad.

This confusion in the minds of some people about the meaning of this verse is because of incorrect translations and mistaken interpretations of those translations, about why this position of protector has been given to men.

The Qur'an explains the situation when it says that men are protectors over women because God has [made some of them to excel over others of them]. Some people thought that them refers exclusively to men and others exclusively to women, but there are two pieces of evidence that show that this assumption is wrong:

<snip>

Women in Islam: Hell-Bound? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

Men… One Degree above Women? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

*{And they [the women] have [rights] like [the obligations] they are under with beneficence, and men have a degree above them, and Allah is Ever-Mighty, Ever-Wise}* (Al-Baqarah 2:228).

Careful reading of the verse in Arabic, and in the context of other verses, does not imply inequality. Rather, *{And they [the women] have [rights] like [the obligations] they are under with beneficence}* , as well as other verses, emphasizes the equality of man and woman in rights and obligations, in nature and mental characteristics, in responsibility and accountability towards Allah and His Message. For example, the Qur’an says what means:

The Status of Women - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

In Islam there is absolutely no difference between men and women as far as their relationship to God is concerned, as both are promised the same reward for good conduct and the same punishment for evil conduct.

The Qur'an, in addressing the believers, often uses the expression 'believing men and women' to emphasize the equality of men and women in regard to their respective duties, rights, virtues and merits.

It says:

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.

Hopefully this gives you some kind of response. The fact that Muslim nations forbid muslims from marrying non-muslims DOES NOT mean that Islam forbids it. Women and Men in Islam are equal. However extremists have taken the Qu'ran and done what people who have no desire to understand it do. They pick and choose the verses they like and ignore those they do not.
 
The best answer I can do to answer this is providing some of the questions pertinent to womens role in Islam.



Women in Islam: Hell-Bound? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

Men… One Degree above Women? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam



The Status of Women - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam



Hopefully this gives you some kind of response. The fact that Muslim nations forbid muslims from marrying non-muslims DOES NOT mean that Islam forbids it. Women and Men in Islam are equal. However extremists have taken the Qu'ran and done what people who have no desire to understand it do. They pick and choose the verses they like and ignore those they do not.

Thanks for responding to Tashah's post. Very interesting stuff!

Please let's get back to the thread topic.
 
Thanks for responding to Tashah's post. Very interesting stuff!

Please let's get back to the thread topic.

I found something that may help you out.

The Islamic State: A Reality or an Illusion? - Reading Islam.com

The Relevance of the Caliphate in Islam - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

Democracy in Islam - Reading Islam.com

I don't understand what your question is though. There is no question that there are Muslim societies. As far as being required to have one by Islam? I don't believe so. I think is like in Christianity. There ARE Christian societies. However does Christianity require you to have one? Even if it did it's something that is not really all that important seeing as how these societies have members of all religions in them.
 
I respect you Cherokee. But why you have such disdain for Muslims is behond me. Quoting one verse of the Qu'ran while ignoring all the other verses pertinent to the issue in question is weak reasoning at best.



Here are verses that are often ignored when dealing with how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims. Mostly by the neo-con crowd.



Does Islam Forbid Befriending Non-Muslims? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

The author does make a point about the ignorant signaling out 1 verse from the Qu'ran and using it as evidence to back up such heinous accusations as "Muslims hate non Muslims". What they do not know is that this is the equivalent of a weak attack. I shows very little knowledge of the Qu'ran.





Hope this answers it for you.

I respect you as well and I respect your right to worship any religion as you see fit.
But to say that its only one verse is something of a stretch isn’t it? It would appear that for every quote you find that says to treat non-Muslims with respect I could find the opposite. This leads to the question of how do you as a Muslim determine which verse of the Koran to follow and which to ignore.
009.028
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

dhimmis?
 
I respect you as well and I respect your right to worship any religion as you see fit.
But to say that its only one verse is something of a stretch isn’t it? It would appear that for every quote you find that says to treat non-Muslims with respect I could find the opposite. This leads to the question of how do you as a Muslim determine which verse of the Koran to follow and which to ignore.


dhimmis?

Once again. You're ignoring all the over verses pertinent to this issue and ignoring the CONTEXT of these verses. You're basically doing what that neo-con author of the "Prophet of Doom" did with his book. He picked verses like they were on a grocery list. While ignoring the verses related to those and the context the verses were written in.

Was the Prophet Unjust to the Jews? - Reading Islam.com

Does the Qur'an Hate People of the Book? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam

It seems as if there is a misunderstanding here about the message of the Qur’an. Please note that the Hadiths are no more than just elaborations of the Qur’anic message done by the Prophet for practical purposes.

If you read the Qur’an with a free mind, you can see that it does NOT criticize all Jews and Christians. It is critical only of some among them. And for that matter, the Qur’an does not spare the declared followers of Muhammad, too, when they deviate from truth and justice. Indeed, a considerable number of verses in the Qur’an are directed against the hypocrites among the “followers” of Muhammad himself (peace be on him). This was true of the followers of all prophets, including Moses and Jesus.

If we read the Books of the Old Testament, we find the prophets (and through them God) making very scathing attacks on the people who defied or ignored the teachings of the earlier prophets. For example, we find these verses rebuking the transgressions of the Children of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah 3:8–10:

That is the best I can do right now. I'm still trying to answer some of my own questions.
 
LMAO! Never let fact dissuade your prejudiced beliefs!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/637731-post37.html

That's why I automatically discount any factual assertions you make. Even presented with clear objective evidence directly contrary to your statement, you continue to just make **** up to support your bigotted views.

Yep never let facts dissuade you:

According to the 1980 amendment of the Constitution, Islamic Law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules.

Constitution of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Once again. You're ignoring all the over verses pertinent to this issue and ignoring the CONTEXT of these verses. You're basically doing what that neo-con author of the "Prophet of Doom" did with his book. He picked verses like they were on a grocery list. While ignoring the verses related to those and the context the verses were written in.

Was the Prophet Unjust to the Jews? - Reading Islam.com

Does the Qur'an Hate People of the Book? - Reading Islam.com - Ask About Islam



That is the best I can do right now. I'm still trying to answer some of my own questions.

No I didn’t
I gave you the first and second passages in their order.
Would you like to see the entire Chapter 9 ? It switches back and forth from being nice to non-believers to ill treatment and death. But yet you accuse me of picking verses like they were on a grocery list.
Sorry bud but I don’t need an Imam of North London Central Mosque in the UK to interpret the meaning of “Slay them”
 
It's not intended as a trap. But it IS meant to help ferret out the beliefs of the posters here. Your belief appears to be that there is something that some Muslim posters are not disclosing.

No, my belief is exactly what I said it was. This is a trap thread with a loaded question. The word 'require' is the word that tries to steer the answer. Require is irrelevant when actual action is considered. Free will trumps require.
 
No I didn’t
I gave you the first and second passages in their order.
Would you like to see the entire Chapter 9 ? It switches back and forth from being nice to non-believers to ill treatment and death. But yet you accuse me of picking verses like they were on a grocery list.
Sorry bud but I don’t need an Imam of North London Central Mosque in the UK to interpret the meaning of “Slay them”

...You do need somebody to help you if you think that picking one verse of the Koran while ignoring every verse pertinent to the issue in question means that you're making a point about how the Koran tells it's followers to hate non believers. Thats like saying that because I have a criminal part in my life, my entire life has been criminal and am therefor a menace to society today that therefor should not be trusted.
 
...You do need somebody to help you if you think that picking one verse of the Koran while ignoring every verse pertinent to the issue in question means that you're making a point about how the Koran tells it's followers to hate non believers. Thats like saying that because I have a criminal part in my life, my entire life has been criminal and am therefor a menace to society today that therefor should not be trusted.

So then are you telling me I should ignore the passages that tells its followers to dislike a certain people and only pay attention to passages that preach understanding?

Even in chapter 5 (The Table, The Table Spread) we have the same problem.
We go from what to eat to, how to wash, the Christians and Jewish have a covenant with Allah but they must follow our laws, Christians and Jewish broke their covenant with Allah and he cursed them.
Charles Manson preached love to his flock but to hate the blacks should I give him a second chance? Should I give a priest who has helped thousands of people a break when he’s caught molesting a child? I think not.

If what you say is true then are you and the millions of other Muslims not following Allah’s teaching by accepting all parts of the Koran? Does Islam have a book like the New Testament?
 
So then are you telling me I should ignore the passages that tells its followers to dislike a certain people and only pay attention to passages that preach understanding?

No. What I am telling you to do is to at least make an effort to research the verse, its context and the verses that are pertinent to the issue.

Even in chapter 5 (The Table, The Table Spread) we have the same problem.
We go from what to eat to, how to wash, the Christians and Jewish have a covenant with Allah but they must follow our laws, Christians and Jewish broke their covenant with Allah and he cursed them.

As opposed to Christians and Jews who believe they are the righteous ones and everybody else is a heathen or a sinner who's turned their back on God? What about Jews who think they're the "chosen" people and anybody who even dares to criticize Israel is an antisemite?

Charles Manson preached love to his flock but to hate the blacks should I give him a second chance? Should I give a priest who has helped thousands of people a break when he’s caught molesting a child? I think not.

...It's not about second chances. It's about at the very least making an effort to understand a religion before going off on it like everything in it is evil.

If what you say is true then are you and the millions of other Muslims not following Allah’s teaching by accepting all parts of the Koran? Does Islam have a book like the New Testament?

Never said so. I've read most of the big religious books. The Bible, The Torah and the Koran. I accept all parts in them. Do I look at them objectively and criticize those parts which I believe have not connection or any place in todays world? Are they subject to different forms of interpretation? You're damn right. If they weren't. You wouldn't have religious sects and groups. All religious groups are is people who have interpreted the same religion in different ways. The Religious books(regardless of what religious Dogma tells you) were written BY MEN. They are full of errors and most of all open to interpretation. However when one dishonestly interprets the information in them for the sole purpose of portraying this religion as "evil" then there is a problem.
 
Yep never let facts dissuade you:

Interesting how you always fail to present the fair picture:

The tradition of Egyptian constitutions have been secular in nature since the first modern constitution was founded in 1923. However, an amendment that differs from this tradition was passed in 1980. According to the 1980 amendment of the Constitution, Islamic Law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules. Such wording simply implies that any new law that is being enacted or considered for enactment should not be in contravention of any prevailing principles of Islamic Law (Sharia).

It is worth noting that laws regulating personal status issues (Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance,..etc) are derived from Islamic norms, penal law rules as codified in the Penal Code are entirely western non-religious oriented rules, whether they were ratified before or after the 1980 amendment.
Egypt has also enacted a number of new statutes to respond to contemporary standards of global economic and business reform including: Investment Law, Anti-Money Laundering Law, Intellectual Property Rights Law, Competition Law, Consumer Protection Law, Electronic Signatures Law, Banking Law, Taxation Law,... etc.[1]

and as my Wiki cite pointed out, their civil code is derived from French law, in which Islamic law is only considered after other sources are not determinative. Maybe

In mixed religious-secular systems, such as in Egypt,sharia personal law courts are integrated into a Western-based legal system, and a secular supreme court has the final say, Brown says.

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

Seems the Sharia reference is more form over substance. Egypt is not by any measure a "systems based on purely Islamic laws".
 
Interesting how you always fail to present the fair picture:

The tradition of Egyptian constitutions have been secular in nature since the first modern constitution was founded in 1923. However, an amendment that differs from this tradition was passed in 1980. According to the 1980 amendment of the Constitution, Islamic Law (Sharia) became the principal source of legislative rules. Such wording simply implies that any new law that is being enacted or considered for enactment should not be in contravention of any prevailing principles of Islamic Law (Sharia).

It is worth noting that laws regulating personal status issues (Marriage, Divorce, Inheritance,..etc) are derived from Islamic norms, penal law rules as codified in the Penal Code are entirely western non-religious oriented rules, whether they were ratified before or after the 1980 amendment.
Egypt has also enacted a number of new statutes to respond to contemporary standards of global economic and business reform including: Investment Law, Anti-Money Laundering Law, Intellectual Property Rights Law, Competition Law, Consumer Protection Law, Electronic Signatures Law, Banking Law, Taxation Law,... etc.[1]

and as my Wiki cite pointed out, their civil code is derived from French law, in which Islamic law is only considered after other sources are not determinative. Maybe

In mixed religious-secular systems, such as in Egypt,sharia personal law courts are integrated into a Western-based legal system, and a secular supreme court has the final say, Brown says.

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

Seems the Sharia reference is more form over substance. Egypt is not by any measure a "systems based on purely Islamic laws".

Sorry but now Sharia is the principle source of legislation and it is becoming worse as the Muslim Brotherhood is now a legal party and gaining more membership in Parliament.
 
Back
Top Bottom