Islam and punishment

[VCheng]

What I said was: have honest dialogue, decide what you have in common, and discuss the differences. Islam is practical enough to be implemented and used as a unifying force if there is honest dialogue and actual initiative to do so.

Secularism will not solve problems, it will simply absolve governments of the responsibility to solve them. It is therefore not a solution.

What you have said is pie-in-sky thinking. If this has not been possible to do this for two thirds of a century, what makes you think it can happen now? Besides, you intentionally obfuscate matters regarding secularism as being against religion, when it is not. Why does a State have the responsibility to enforce a religion to begin with? The first step to move the country forward should be to absolve the governments of this forced responsibility in a matter which belongs in the personal domain. That is the crux of the matter.

=========================

Edit: Read this post from 2006 by PDF's Admin at that time:

It's a miracle what people will do with Islam. Now its against the law to not observe your prayers or even sell food to somebody during a prayer.

The Quran I read stated in Surah Baqarah "There is no compulsion in religion". Why compel Pakistanis to these religious things then? What next? Forcible head-shaving of guys with stylish long hair? No congregation of men and women in Public? Women should wear headscarf? Women can't drive, women can't vote? Women can't work?

Let's remember Quaid's words here:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State

For the love of God, respect the wisdom of the founder of the nation if you don't want to respect the freedoms originally granted to Muslims within the Quran. I bow my Pakistani head in shame today, for we are allowing criminals to hijack our faith and abuse the freedoms of our fellow Pakistanis of NWFP.

 

[TankMan]

If this has not been possible to do this for two thirds of a century, what makes you think it can happen now?

All my previous posts detail what makes me think it can happen now.

It was ''not possible'' to implement Democracy in Europe for an entire millennia after the Ancient Greeks - what made the Europeans think it could've been implemented in the 1700s if the last time they saw it was in the BC era?

Besides, you intentional obfuscate matters regarding secularism as being against religion, when it is not.

Yet another strawman. I never obfuscated anything. Secularism is not against religion itself but it is against the wishes of religious people who make up the majority in Muslim countries like Pakistan and want their state to be governed according to their religion.

Why does a State have the responsibility to enforce a religion to begin with?

Because that is how its people wish to be governed.

The first step to move the country forward should be to absolve the governments of this forced responsibility in a matter which belongs in the personal domain.

It is your opinion that this matter belongs in the personal domain. The majority of Muslims in Muslim countries disagree with that opinion, and so does the fact that this matter influences entire societies and international politics.

Even if we were to go against that majority opinion and forcefully deprive citizens of their right to be governed the way they want to be, secularism wouldn't solve any of the problems.

Please respond to my previous arguments instead of repeating those of your own which I have already countered. Otherwise we will continue to go in circles and this will remain a waste of time.

 

[VCheng]

All my previous posts detail what makes me think it can happen now.

It was ''not possible'' to implement Democracy in Europe for an entire millennia after the Ancient Greeks - what made the Europeans think it could've been implemented in the 1700s if the last time they saw it was in the BC era?

Yet another strawman. I never obfuscated anything. Secularism is not against religion itself but it is against the wishes of religious people who make up the majority in Muslim countries like Pakistan and want their state to be governed according to their religion.

Because that is how its people wish to be governed.

It is your opinion that this matter belongs in the personal domain. The majority of Muslims in Muslim countries disagree with that opinion, and so does the fact that this matter influences entire societies and international politics.

Even if we were to go against that majority opinion and forcefully deprive citizens of their right to be governed the way they want to be, secularism wouldn't solve any of the problems.

Please respond to my previous arguments instead of repeating those of your own which I have already countered. Otherwise we will continue to go in circles and this will remain a waste of time.

Your hopes that it can happen now are simply not supported by the evidence, further your words clearly mean that the religious majority wants to impose its will on everyone they can, hence the demands for a state enforced religion. Claims of "this is how people wish to be governed" are not supported by facts either. Separating religion from state is not depriving people in any way, except the religious radical of their claimed authority to deprive others of their rights, since it has already been shown above that it is possible to be a good Muslim without such enforcement.

You are right that separating religion from state will not solve any problems by itself, but it will indeed lay the groundwork for removing all the unnecessary complications cause by such needless intertwining, including the irresistible urge for the right to impose its will on all others, and for governments to use religion as a political tool for their own purposes, as the OP article argued. Both are important steps to be taken, and this is not just my personal opinion, it is supported by the evidence.

BTW, did you read the post by an ex-Admin that I quoted above?

 

[TankMan]

Your hopes that it can happen now are simply not supported by the evidence,

Which evidence? There is no 'evidence' present when we are discussing possibilities, proposals, solutions and ideas. Simply because something hasn't happened for a period of time doesn't mean it never will.

further your words clearly mean that the religious majority wants to impose its will on everyone they can,

''Impose its will'' is a very loose term. By your definition, the majority voting for a particular candidate in an election would also be ''imposing its will'' onto those who do not wish to be governed by the policies of that particular candidate.

If that's the case, you've just come up with an interesting critique of the very concept of Democracy and the idea of the majority choosing how it wishes to be governed.

hence the demands for a state enforced religion.

There are no demands for a 'state-enforced religion'. The demands are for the state law to be based on religion. There's a difference. The former implies that everyone in the state will have to adhere to the religion itself, while that is simply not the case with the latter.

Claims of "this is how people wish to be governed" are not supported by facts either.

They are.
Most Muslims want Sharia law, split on interpretation: study - The Express Tribune

Separating religion from state is not depriving people in any way

It is depriving people from the right of governing their state the way they want to.

You are right that separating religion from state will not solve any problems by itself, but it will indeed lay the groundwork for removing all the unnecessary complication cause by such needless intertwining, including the irresistible urge for the right to impose its will on all others, and for governments to use religion as a political tool for their own purposes, as the OP article argued.

It will lay no groundwork at all. Non-state groups will remain, political mullahs will remain and will grow stronger because there won't be a state narrative to counter them, disagreements and disunity will remain, political and sectarian conflicts will remain - the only result of secularism will be that the state will be unable to solve these problems.

BTW, did you read the post by an ex-Admin that I quoted above?

I did and I agree with it a hundred percent.

I am not arguing that 'not praying' should be illegal. I am not arguing that religion should be compulsory.

That is nothing more than a deliberate attempt by you to misrepresent my argument.

What I am arguing is that the state should be governed according to religious principles. That means that things forbidden by religion will be illegal in a Muslim state. For example, alcohol, adultery, nudity, etc.

Muslims do not want those things in their countries. Why must we be forced to accept them? Why can we not just decide to ban those things in our countries?

 

[Norwegian]

It is the citizens' right to be governed the way they want to, is it not? Then, if the majority of citizens want to be governed according to their religion, what's the problem? Why do they not have that right? As long as the religion they are being governed according to provides sufficient rights to minorities, which Islam does, there is no problem.

It's true but the crux of the problem is that majority of Muslims DO NOT wish to be government by State Shariah. They would rather want to be governed with Sharia as their personal loving sect preaches. How difficult it is to understand that? You think Shiite and Sunnis will sit together on one table to solve out their differences today when they haven't figured them out for the past 1400 years?
Most Muslims want Sharia law, split on interpretation: study - The Express Tribune

The state failing to provide basic facilities and rights has nothing to do with it being governed by religion. If it is failing now, it will continue to fail in a secular system unless basic issues with governance are addressed.

Failure of governance has nothing to do with it being secular or religious. You are just mixing up things here.

Tell me, if someone like Zardari was to govern a secular state, would its condition be any different than that of a religious state?

No, of course not.

The fallacy of the secularism argument is that it assumes that the state being governed by religion is somehow a problem. It isn't.

Sure it is a problem as religious minorities are always oppressed in any state that is run on religious grounds. Qadianis in Pakistan, Baha'is in Iran, Shias in Saudi Arabia, Christians in Egypt etc.

When did I ever say its the state's concern what citizens do in private? It isn't. There's no argument here.

You are confused. Raping, molesting a child in private is as much a crime as if it was done in public. Western Law recognize it as such. Yet, having consensual sex between two adults be it heterosexual or homosexual in private or public is none of their concern. Yet, it is a BIG concern in Islamic legal system. I get you understand what I mean. That's why a religious govern state and a secular state is always at crossroads with each other and can never be united.

But that's not the point. Nobody is looking for absolute agreement. The scholars don't have to agree on each and every thing. They just have to agree to discuss their disagreements in a civilized manner. That would solve most of the problems we Muslims are facing.

Well, if they all agreed on the basics in a civilized manner, there was no need for so many brands of Islam fighting violently with each other in the first place! My christian friends have no problem visiting churches of other brands of christianity. Yet, I read the other day that you refused to pray in a mosque dedicated for another sect of Islam. What unity?

It was truly unfortunate that they happened to born to Muslim parents and I am sure they regretted that miserable moment, but they are more than welcome to leave Islam.

Leaving Islam was never an option. Even in good old days of Aslaf, some radical Muslims were accused of apostasy and were known as Kharijites to this day. Yet they never disowned Islam to their death.
The crux of the problem is that Muslims are inherently intolerant towards those who disagree with the majority view. Have a look at Qadianis and Baha'is who have come out of traditional Islamic majority sects. Yet, they haven't been accepted to this day by the Ummah at large.
Anyone criticizing shortcomings in traditional Islam is branded as an ex-Muslim, a Kafir. If something similar was happening in Christian Europe, they would still be living in Dark Ages. @Slav Defence

 

[VCheng]

@TankMan I second @Norwegian 's response above to your post. Well said.

 

[TankMan]

It's true but the crux of the problem is that majority of Muslims DO NOT wish to be government by State Shariah. They would rather want to be governed with Sharia as their personal loving sect preaches. How difficult it is to understand that? You think Shiite and Sunnis will sit together on one table to solve out their differences today when they haven't figured them out for the past 1400 years?
Most Muslims want Sharia law, split on interpretation: study - The Express Tribune

No need for the taunts. I have understood, discussed, dissected, and proposed solutions to, this issue in my previous posts.
They wish to be governed by Sharia but are confused as to what exactly it entails. It's simple: sit down and discuss what it is, with the help of religious texts and sources, and then implement it.

Humans hadn't been able to fly for millennia before the first hot air balloons were invented. We now have airplanes.

This argument that ''it hasn't happened since the Ottoman Empire/Rashidun Caliphate/7th century or whatever time period so it's impossible now'' holds no weight.

Failure of governance has nothing to do with it being secular or religious. You are just mixing up things here.

No, I am clarifying things here. The part in your post in bold is exactly what I said.
''The state failing to provide basic facilities and rights has nothing to do with it being governed by religion.''

Sure it is a problem as religious minorities are always oppressed in any state that is run on religious grounds. Qadianis in Pakistan, Baha'is in Iran, Shias in Saudi Arabia, Christians in Egypt etc.

Always? They weren't oppressed in the Rashidun Caliphate. Islam allows for the complete protection of minorities in a state governed by Islam. If there is intolerance, it needs to be countered with religion, not blamed on it.

You are confused.

Not at all.

Raping, molesting a child in private is as much a crime as if it was done in public. Western Law recognize it as such. Yet, having consensual sex between two adults be it heterosexual or homosexual in private or public is none of their concern. Yet, it is a BIG concern in Islamic legal system. I get you understand what I mean. That's why a religious govern state and a secular state is always at crossroads with each other and can never be united.

I should've said ''it isn't the state's concern what citizens do in private as long as it's not harmful to the citizens, other citizens or the state'', because that is what I meant.

It is a concern in the Islamic Legal system because it is damaging to society. It should be a concern. Yet an Islamic State would not constantly watch people to ensure they aren't having intercourse. In Islamic Law, it only becomes a problem if it is witnessed by four people. That, essentially, is in public.

Yes, it can never be unified because a secular state seeks to tolerate and even encourage many societal evils while an Islamic one would discourage them.

Well, if they all agreed on the basics in a civilized manner, there was no need for so many brands of Islam fighting violently with each other in the first place!

Exactly. Now if only they all did agree to discuss the issues in a civilized manner. Like I said, it'll solve most of the Muslim world's problems.

. Yet, I read the other day that you refused to pray in a mosque dedicated for another sect of Islam.

I never refused to pray in a mosque dedicated for another sect of Islam. You misunderstood what I said. In one of the threads I said it was a common problem among Muslims that they refuse to pray behind someone, for example, that they deem to be ''Wahabis'' because of some minor disagreement, as is the case with the ever-common Barelvi-Deobandi divide, and that I am against that mentality of not praying behind people over small disagreements.

If you mean the one where I said I wouldn't pray with Qadiyanis, that's because I don't consider them to be a sect of Islam in the first place. That's another argument.

You see, here's where the basics come in. The entire Barelvi-Deobandi divide is based on mostly trivial matters, even though they are supposed to be from the same school of thought, the Hanafis. These trivial matters were inflated and politicized so much that people began confusing them for the very basics of Islam, which then leads to massive division.

Anyone criticizing shortcomings in traditional Islam is branded as an ex-Muslim, a Kafir.

What do you mean by ''traditional Islam''. You can argue over interpretations, but if by ''traditional Islam'' you mean the Quran and Hadith themselves, someone trying to criticize or change them is in violation of the basics of Islam. There are no 'shortcomings' in Islam, there are shortcomings in our interpretation and implementation of it.

''Kafir'' means something else entirely.

 

[Norwegian]

Always? They weren't oppressed in the Rashidun Caliphate.

Sure they were.

Persecution of Persian Zoroastrians:
The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their
Homeland | CAIS©

Persecution of Jews:
What Happened to the Jews of Arabia?

During Hadhrat Omar's rule, the remaining Jews and Christians in Arabia were expelled:
Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab - Umar as Caliph | Alim.org

It is a concern in the Islamic Legal system because it is damaging to society. It should be a concern. Yet an Islamic State would not constantly watch people to ensure they aren't having intercourse. In Islamic Law, it only becomes a problem if it is witnessed by four people. That, essentially, is in public.

Well, that aggravates the problem entirely. Something that is evil, bad in secret is also bad publicly. This 4 witness thing is just strange and it is one of the main reasons why the conviction rate for rapists in Pakistan is next to none. As the burden of PROOF for rape is put on the victim itself:
Zero-conviction rate for rape: Senator proposes constitutional changes - The Express Tribune

Yes, it can never be unified because a secular state seeks to tolerate and even encourage many societal evils while an Islamic one would discourage them.

This is just BS. I live in modern liberal democracy with relaxed laws for homosexuality since the 90's, yet the number of LGBT people haven't grown over the years. In fact LGBT marriages have decreased and there are more divorces among them. No one, yes I tell you again, no one "encourages" such practices here. We are only taught since kindergarten that it's just how things are. One cannot "cure" one's natural sexual orientation anyway...
If you are heterosexual, its fine. If you turn out to be homo, then its fine as well. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I am not sure its encouragement, rather its equal treatment between groups of people with different sexual orientations.
But in a religious governed state, I don't need to tell what happens if you are found to be LGBT, be it Christian or even Jewish law governed state. In Israel the conservative Jews spit on LGBT people, despite the secular state protecting them. In Iran, gays are hanged through cranes. Get the idea why a religious state is bad?

If you mean the one where I said I wouldn't pray with Qadiyanis, that's because I don't consider them to be a sect of Islam in the first place. That's another argument.

That's another major problem. Many sects of Islam consider each other heretics, blasphemers, infidels. I am not sure they would ever agree on the basics when they have big problem agreeing fasting and eid days?

What do you mean by ''traditional Islam''.

Mainstream Islam as it has evolved for the past 1400 years...

 

[Slav Defence]

Gentlemen,
Islam proposes a different system which has dual approach ie it has set of laws for both individual level as well as collective level.From a citizen to minister.From banking system to foreign policy.For everything,Islam has it's own set of law.Be it criminal law or even social moral.It is complete code of life.However,we don't deserve it because:

1)We simply lack intelligence.

For example,during Hazrat Umer Farooq's era ameer ul mominin analyze the situation of city and erased punishment of stealing that is hand amputation, because people were very poor.(why not imprisonment because today you imprison a small thief,tomorrow he will come out of jail,becoming up a bigger thief,lol,)Those criminals mostly caught were poor and their families were dying of hunger.So,he used common sense which we sadly don't have and assured implementation of zakat system,proper taxation collection etc.Once,he came to know that now subject is too rich to steal gold due to poverty,then he reintroduced punishment of stealing so that people don't do it for greed,for thrill etc.
In Pakistan and other countries,there is so much poverty and we don't have wisdom like Hazrat Umer Farooq(R.A).

2)Lashed for adultery:

If we come to talk about this crime then well in recent era,our ministers are at the top of the list.I personally like this concept of lashing those corrupted men and women who have relations either illegally or who cheat up their spouses.If such people will be lashed in public,both men and women then,tomorrow no men or women will dare to sneak at each others houses.Punishment for adultery will reduce rapes most prominently as their NAFS will acknowledge that one can't have relations with girlfriend,forceful attempts ARE FAR THINGS.
However,our top brass and we as well are not even proper muslims-we seek bahanay in everything,we are worse than hypocrites,so well....

3)Banking system:

Since,I am not economist...therefore I reserve my comments for now and will make after careful research.I like Islamic interest free banking system,however.

Hence,we lack intelligence,wisdom and pious individuals in civil government.From minister to simple fruit seller,everyone here is mischievous,corrupted,alcoholic,weak and seek argument with almost every verse.
Regards

 

[VCheng]

Hence,we lack intelligence,wisdom and pious individuals in civil government.From minister to simple fruit seller,everyone here is mischievous,corrupted,alcoholic,weak and seek argument with almost every verse.
Regards

Therefore, it is also futile to expect that a group of religious scholars will be able to get together and agree upon a common core any time soon as @TankMan hoped for above.

 

[Slav Defence]

Therefore, it is also futile to expect that a group of religious scholars will be able to get together and agree upon a common core any time soon as @TankMan hoped for above.

Syed Sir,
I am totally unaware about debate going on between you and tankman but...

Listen,
Another tragedy,which might work in this case: no muslim country is just a muslim country,they are sect dominating.For example,Pakistan is sunni dominating,Iran can be considered as shia ruling and so on...therefore,the alims of only that sect will apply their interpreted sharia laws....but...

......Aisay guts walay tu lao...aisaee intelligence walay tu laao?hai koi?haui koi?hai koi?


Regards

 

[Norwegian]

Since,I am not economist...therefore I reserve my comments for now and will make after careful research.I like Islamic interest free banking system,however.

It is the most crucial part. Very little research has been done in practically implementing full reserve hard currency banking as it was practised 1400 years ago. All those Shariah compliant banks and financial institutions should introspect why are they fooling the entire Ummah with their nonsense.
There is no such thing as Islamic Banking as all currency in circulation is issued through debt with interest. Now some will argue that there is a difference between interest and usury - it is not. In both terms you make money out of nothing which is strictly forbidden in Islam.
All the current financial problems the world is facing is due to currency being issued with debt on interest that can never be paid back. Unless this basic problem is solved, bye bye to all implementation of any Shariah!

 

[Slav Defence]

It is the most crucial part. Very little research has been done in practically implementing full reserve hard currency banking as it was practised 1400 years ago. All those Shariah compliant banks and financial institutions should introspect why are they fooling the entire Ummah with their nonsense.
There is no such thing as Islamic Banking as all currency in circulation is issued through debt with interest. Now some will argue that there is a difference between interest and usury - it is not. In both terms you make money out of nothing which is strictly forbidden in Islam.
All the current financial problems the world is facing is due to currency being issued with debt on interest that can never be paid back. Unless this basic problem is solved, bye bye to all implementation of any Shariah!

Norwegian,
I seriously am reserving my comment in this regard since all I know about Islamic banking system is interest free banking system.
Besides,it is a popular saying that is, to apply your system,you need to dominate,and we fall in the other side and relying too much on their new world order.So,we need to stop relying and build and support each other,but it is another daylight dream.

Regards

 

[TankMan]

Sure they were.

Persecution of Persian Zoroastrians:
The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their
Homeland | CAIS©

Persecution of Jews:
What Happened to the Jews of Arabia?

During Hadhrat Omar's rule, the remaining Jews and Christians in Arabia were expelled:
Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab - Umar as Caliph | Alim.org

Most of these sources are Anti-Islam propaganda. How do you expect me to take a source that repeatedly says ''murderous Mohammed'' seriously? How can you, as a Muslim accept that as truth?

If you believe them, you are arguing that Islam itself is violent and oppressive - in which case there can be no agreement here and you should stop arguing, since, firstly, it goes against Islamic texts and secondly because I will never accept that what groups like ISIS preach is actually Islam.

As for the actual rights of non-Muslims under Islam and the Rashidun Caliphs:
Muslims Together : On Religious Tolerance - Hazrat Umar RA
Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam

Well, that aggravates the problem entirely. Something that is evil, bad in secret is also bad publicly.

No, it doesn't. It prevents it from being abused by people accusing others for nefarious purposes. Obviously, Islam maintains that the act is evil.

This 4 witness thing is just strange

It isn't, at all. It is perfectly logical.

it is one of the main reasons why the conviction rate for rapists in Pakistan is next to none. As the burden of PROOF for rape is put on the victim itself:
Zero-conviction rate for rape: Senator proposes constitutional changes - The Express Tribune

Not this again. I have refuted this constantly parroted point multiple times.

The four witnesses requirement exists only when someone is accused of zina, i.e fornication. It does not apply to rape cases when a person is claiming that he/she was forced to have intercourse.

It is based on this verse:
‘’ Those that defame honorable women and cannot produce four witnesses shall be given eighty lashes. And do not accept their testimony ever after, for they are great transgressors’’ (Al-Noor-24:4).

As you can see, it was clearly intended to protect women from slander and accusations of adultery.
For a detailed argument: The Woman and the Islamic Law (Part 2/2) - Javed Ahmad Ghamidi

Now, if Pakistan's molvis don't have the brain to realize that, that's their fault, not Islam's.

This is just BS.

Is it 'BS' that secular states allow alcohol and fornication? No, it isn't.

I live in modern liberal democracy with relaxed laws for homosexuality since the 90's, yet the number of LGBT people haven't grown over the years.

Can the same be said about the number of alcoholics, the number of children born outside wedlock, the number of teenage pregnancies, or the number of numerous other such things? This argument isn't about LGBTs.

No one, yes I tell you again, no one "encourages" such practices here.

Are you saying that nobody in Western secular countries encourages practices like drinking alcohol and having intercourse outside wedlock?

If you are heterosexual, its fine. If you turn out to be homo, then its fine as well. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I am not sure its encouragement, rather its equal treatment between groups of people with different sexual orientations.
But in a religious governed state, I don't need to tell what happens if you are found to be LGBT, be it Christian or even Jewish law governed state. In Israel the conservative Jews spit on LGBT people, despite the secular state protecting them. In Iran, gays are hanged through cranes. Get the idea why a religious state is bad?

Like I said, this isn't an argument about LGBTs, so let's not make it one.

But i'll give you the Islamic perspective anyways: two people of the same gender can not get married. Therefore, they can not have homosexual intercourse because it would be classed as fornication. But obviously if two homosexuals do decide to have intercourse, anyone accusing them of that would have to provide four witnesses.

And it commands no penalty, other than that for fornication, provided that they actually commit the act.

Mainstream Islam as it has evolved for the past 1400 years...

You mean the interpretations of mainstream scholars. Fine, that's fine - you can criticize and challenge them, and anyone labeling you anything for doing so is wrong according to Islam because Takfir is Haram.

That's another major problem. Many sects of Islam consider each other heretics, blasphemers, infidels. I am not sure they would ever agree on the basics when they have big problem agreeing fasting and eid days?

All of them have something in common, all that is required is honest discussion.

The fasting and Eid days argument has nothing to do with this. That is about the methodology of determining whether it is Eid or not when the moon isn't visible. It is an unnecessary complication, and it is creating division among Muslims, but if you were to examine the different sects' opinions on that, you'd see that it has less to do with sects.

The methodology, or a system of methodologies that caters to all Muslims in all locations, can be decided through discussion.

Therefore, it is also futile to expect that a group of religious scholars will be able to get together and agree upon a common core any time soon as @TankMan hoped for above.

I provided a proposal for a solution. Obviously it is futile to just sit on it and hope it'll happen. By that logic I could say that secularism is impractical because we can't expect Pakistani politicians to just suddenly decide to implement it.

Initiative is needed. Just like you would need an initiative to implement secularism, you also need an initiative to make religious scholars get together and agree on a common core.

But it is perfectly possible and practical.

Saying it is ''futile to expect it'' is a very fallacious way of dismissing a perfectly valid solution.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

l
I certaintly find contradiction in many concepts. Let me tell you

Secular countries allow freedom to two adult Muslims to involve in pre-martial or extra martial sex
Quran suggest punishment for pre-martial or extra martial affairs whether we like it or hate it

Secular countries care for material benefits or political interest even if they have to do wrong things to gain these benefits
Quran suggest to fear God and do the right thing even if it bring no material benefits

Islam may allow you to keep two wives within certain conditions
seculars laws don't allow you this

Secular countries allow gambling, homosexuality, p orn and pubs/wine, interests
Quran or Islam again oppose these things and consider them immoral so again restriction on freedom

similarly laws of divorce, marriage, adoption, abortion etc are different

Thanks for being honest. Which brings me to very simple question. Why do you continue to live in a de facto secular state when it contradicts Islamic precepts?

@TankMan These people are not even living in Pakistan or any so-called Muslim majority country, why they just cant leave Muslims and Islam alone?

May I ask how is this relevant? Did you know the name that you just used "PAKISTAN" was coined by a Rehmat Ali in 1933 while living in UK. His living in UK certainly did not disqualify his contribution. For the last time I am going to tell you stop trying to gag those of us who live abroad. My father's land is in Pakistan. I have a share in it. That belonged to his dad. Which belonged to his dad. It is my birthright. I would be prepared to spill blood over it and I don't need some migrant in Malaysia continously trying muffle me from what I want to say on the grounds of being ex-pat.

It was truly unfortunate that they happened to born to Muslim parents and I am sure they regretted that miserable moment,

I notice you bring this up often. I am sure of who my dad is and I consider that as a honour. Are you sure about yourself because you seem to have complex about this? Something we need to know here? DNa results were not quite what was expected? Is that what all this is about?

If you have doubts about yourself please do not questions other's birth.

but they are more than welcome to leave Islam.

So now you have gone from just a mortal migrant in Malaysia to Allah's gatekeeper? Well done on your divine promotion.

Islam will not die if certain Islamophobes leave it, for that way, they ll do favor both to themselves and Islam.

Well it certainly will survive long after you have left this earth. Your self appointed protector status is not needed for Islam's preservation.

There is simply no point debating shariah and its implantation with those who have NEVER practiced shariah in their entire pathetic and miserable lives.

You sound like person who has not even lived a life. I can't think of anything more pathetic then that.

I am a doctor and it would be plain stupid, in fact downright rediculous to discuss medicine with a rikshaw driver.

Are you really? Then you would have to be a certified idiot to even contemplate such a proposition. With your powers of deductive logic I fear for your patients. Please don't dish out anything stronger than Aspirin that way some of your patients might at least by default have their headaches cured after seeing you.