Spain passes law of return for Sephardic Jews that were expelled in 1492! LOL!

[airmarshal]

Muslims were expelled in the same period. Then began the darkest period in Spain history called Inquisition. People were killed for even a hint of help to Moors. Systematic obliteration of Muslim culture began and Muslim were persecuted such that those remained changed their names and practice.

Moorish Spain was the period of enlightenment like no other. Cordoba and Granada were the cities of civilization. All this when Europe was in Dark Ages. The rivers of Seine and Thames were nothing but streams of putrid water and the cities of Paris and London were dumps of garbage and plague.

It was the period of Spain which attracted foreign students and it was the education of Moorish Spain that started re awakening of Europe called Renaissance.

The pimps and apologists of Israel must watch 4 part Al-jazeera serial call Nakba

Al-Nakba - Al Jazeera English

It gives a perspective different from typical western zionist controlled media.

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

What about millions of Moors that were also expelled and settled in North Africa ? I read a book on Spain history where Moorish 600 year rule was in only one small paragraph. They want to deny golden Moorish rule in Hispania.

 

[TankMan]

LOL I never said Jews purchased ALL the land. Before the war, they built settlements on purchased land. After the war, they built settlements wherever it suited them as they now had a sovereign country.

Their sovereign country doesn't give them the right to expand beyond its borders.

Entirely not true. Early Jewish settlements were built on land they purchased from Arabs and others during the Ottoman-era. Here is how Tel Aviv, Israel's most important city to this date was founded:
Ahuzat Bayit and the Founding of Tel Aviv in 1909 | SUL

All original documents regarding the purchase of land by the Jews in Tel Aviv is given in that above link. So your claim that Jews stole all the land are utterly false

I never claimed that the Jews stole all the land. I said most of it was taken by force.

You are the one that started saying original partition of Palestine was "unfair" while the Partition of India was "fair".

The word I used was proportionate - the Muslims were not given more land than the population they made up.

I rejected your claims that partition of India was fair as there are now almost as many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan. So tell me how that partition was "fair" in terms of land distribution

That is fair in terms of land distribution because the Muslims in India haven't declared their own state in there. They live as a minority. The Government of India still controls that land. That's perfectly fair in terms of land distribution.

Both partition of Palestine and India in 1947 was unfair for the Muslims. For Indian Muslims because of Two-Nation theory

Two-nation theory collapsed

Pakistan exists. It's a second nation. The Two-Nation Theory lives.

Yes, I believe Two-Nation theory was false

Well then, I believe you are wrong.

LOL So now you somehow equate Allied-coalition of many countries invading Iraq with Arab-coalition of 5 countries attacking recently formed Jewish State.

Why, does the coalition have to have an overwhelming majority of white people to be legitimate?
The rationale behind the whole Allied coalition in Iraq was for ''international legitimacy'', as per you. Then in the same way, the Arab coalition was for legitimacy among Arabs.

No, the land purchases began in the Ottoman-era. British only furthered continuation of old practices. They were not allowing anything new if its that you believe :

I never said they allowed something new. I said they allowed it. Now how about you address my main point that it was he evil Jew hating Palestinians who sold their land to the Jews in the first place.

Cut this BS already! If Jews wanted to expel ALL Palestinian Arabs from the occupied territories, they would have done so quite easily with ethnic cleansing since 6-day war. The very fact that Palestinian Arab population has actually GROWN over the years despite the military presence of Israeli Defense Forces for decades disproves any of your hypothetical scenarios of mass expulsion:

Since 2005, Palestinian Arab population numbers the same as Israeli Jewish population So much for ethnic cleansing and mass expulsion of eternal refugees by evil Jews

You need to look up the meaning of hypothetical.

I am not justifying Zionism in anyway in this thread. No political, religious ideology can be "justified" as it always goes against somebody else. Two-nation theory went against one Indian national identity. Zionism went against one Palestinian identity. So what? If you can somehow justify two-nation theory, because it suits your Muslim identity, then Jews have similar right to justify their identity with Zionism, rather Arab nationalism in Palestine


I am not comparing Zionism with Islamism or Takfirism with Nazism. All ideologies have their pros and cons for some groups of people. No ideology is PERFECTLY justified for ALL PEOPLE. If you know of a such an ideology, be my guest

So you've finally admitted Zionism is unfair. I must ask you then: why do you claim to be, in your own words, a ''Muslim Zionist''? If Zionism is unfair and so is ''Arab Nationalism'' or ''Islamism'' or whatever you want to label the Palestinians' struggle, why do you not take a neutral position on this? When both sides are unfair, why align yourself with one?

Is it intellectual dishonesty or are you just confused?

Two-nation theory went against one Indian national identity.

No, it just meant that the Muslims didn't want to be part of this Indian national Identity. If the Indians want a national identity, they can have one. We just don't want to be a part of it. If it's unfair on them, too bad. The partition already happened.

This comparison is flawed anyway.

I do not see Islam as a socio-political religion. Sure Islamic teachings give us some ideas about how politics, economy and social life should be. But still Islam remains a religion just like Judaism, Christianity or other Abrahamic religions. The very fact some Muslims insist they cannot distinguish between Islam's religious teachings with its socio-political teachings is the reason why Islamists are born.

Its quite easy if you wish to draw a thin line between and Islam and Islamism. As long Islam is confined to the 4 corners of your mosque, your home, your religious ceremonies, it remains a religion. At once you take out Islam and start implementing its teachings in your national constitution, in your civil laws, in your social fabric of life, it's no longer a religion. Islam then becomes a socio-political force that defines each and every moment of your life. Its when an Islamic State based on Shariah is born

Firstly, you don't even follow your own definition. You called @Akheilos an ''Islamist'' just arguing in favour of the Palestinians. Do you take that back or is everyone liable to be labelled an ''Islamist'' if they speak against Israel's policies?

The religion of Islam can not be confined to any four corners. Either you don't realize how flawed your definition or ''thin line'' is, or you have absolutely no idea of what Islamic principles constitute.

I'll start with a simple question: how do you confine the belief in God to four corners? Do we have to believe in God inside our homes but stop believing when we leave them?

Similarly, is fasting considered ''Islamism'', since it isn't confined to our homes or mosques? The ban on alcohol and pork is practiced outside homes and mosques. Is refusing to eat pork when we're outside our homes ''Islamism''? The concept of modesty and shame is practiced outside homes and mosques. Are women who wear Hijabs ''Islamists''?

What you've described is not Islam, it's hypocrisy. You can not claim to practice Islam if you confine it to your home or mosque and throw all the Islamic principles away when you leave these places.

The personal ethical and moral values of Islam are to be practiced everywhere. The socio-political ones are to be practiced in Muslim-majority nations. At the very least, they need to serve as a guideline when it comes to deciding who to vote for or support. Simple economic principles, like the ban on interest, are also to be followed

Sharia is a part of Islam and there is no denying that. The only issues we have are when deciding what constitutes Sharia. You can not practice selective Islam and remove Sharia from the equation.

An Islamic State based on Sharia would be perfect for Muslims while still being fair for non-Muslims living there.
Here's what Sharia is:

Justice. Non-discriminatory criminal justice which entails proportionate punishments for crimes. This also includes freedom for non-Muslims to be judged based on their own principles if they commit a crime e.g Jewish criminals could choose to be judged based on the Torah instead of Islamic Law. Economic justice and distribution of wealth through Zakat. Fairness in trade.

The following is not Sharia:
Death for Apostasy, Blasphemy Laws, Burkas, ''Four male witnesses for rape'', ''no worldly education'' and so on.

Those are the opinions of ''scholars'' based on their own ideas.

The ideologies being spread nowadays are simply the tools of people who just use them for political gains. They are absolutely irrelevant to Sharia or Islam. (Read this part carefully. I am not denying the misuse of Islam by terrorists and extremists. I am denying the legitimacy of their claims about Islam.) Most terrorist leaders don't actually believe in their ideologies. Those are just convenient tools.

When you equate Sharia with extremism, you're essentially saying that all Muslims need to either be extremist or abandon a key element of Islam. Extremely flawed approach. You're basically giving Sharia to the extremists; ''here, take it and do whatever you want with it, I'm just going to reject it and call it barbaric''. The problem is that the many people who rightly believe Sharia to be a key part of Islam will then be put in a very difficult position.

No, none of this means or suggests ''let's impose Sharia on everyone''. That's actually impossible, since freedom of choice is one of the basic tenets of it- you can not impose Islamic Law on anyone because that would be a violation of said law.

Now you can call me an Islamist mullah or whatever, but that's what Islam is. If you still want to reject it and call it barbaric, essentially following selective Islam, all I can say is la ikraha fiddeen.

This idea of completely toning-down Islam to reduce it to a set of rituals and considering the complete form of Islam to be barbaric is something Imran Khan spoke of in his article. You should read through it.

No different from the Pakistani Army or Indian Army then
Are you such a knucklehead that you cannot distinguish between various Islamic militant factions from official defense forces of a sovereign nation such as Israel?
If you believe IDF to be a terrorist organisation on the same level as Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, then you should consult your nearest psychologist immediately!

A textbook case of intellectual dishonesty and strawmen. Where did I mention ISIS or Hezbollah? My comparison was that of the PLO and Hamas with the IDF. Fateh and Hamas are a militant group and so were the Jewish organizations like Haganah. If one can be accepted as an official defense force, why not the other?

I never distanced myself from Muslims.

You did so multiple times throughout your posts, saying things like ''You lost'' and ''You Islamists''. I'm supposing this means those comments were not meant to be serious.

That is right. Islamist thinks everything he does is part of his religion.
We Muslims do not drink alcohol or eat pork. Its against our religious teachings. Westerners respect that and do not force these substances down our throat. They give us freedom of choice.
But Islamists do not think it that way. They believe such prohibitions are for each and every member of their multi-religious society. Ergo, they do not believe in choice. In UK, where you live, Islamists patrol in the streets and prohibit people from consuming alcohol. What the heck? If you still cannot understand this basic difference what can I do?

So within one post you've added an additional criterion to the definition of Islamist, ''someone who imposes beliefs on others'' . So I'll take it that these two are requirements to be an Islamist - you must believe that everything you do is part of religion (which in itself is illogical or a strawman since no Muslim, however extremist, has ever claimed that using the toilet or walking or driving cars/camels is part of religion), and also try to impose it on others.

I'll reiterate: there is no way to impose Islamic Law on someone since giving people the freedom of choice is part of Islamic Law. What they impose is their own ideas, not Islam.

I wouldn't call them extremists. Because it's not an extreme thing to wear Sikh turban (Dastar) throughout your life as it's part of their religious customs. Such an imposition is clearly not extremism. But when you are starting to impose such even when it's against dress code of your local job or national service, only then it can be classified as religiously extreme and Islamist in nature

So wearing a Sikh turban when it's against the dress code of ''your local job or national service'' is ''Islamist in nature''?

What would you say about people not wanting to work in places where they can't practice what they want to freely? Extremism?

Of course there is no inherent flaw in Muslims. I never said that. What I meant was that Jews used their brains more effectively and progressively than Muslims. Its not a FLAW, rather a different way of using your brains. I said I didn't know the reason of this. It could be because of their culture of learning, their children's upbringing etc etc.
Jewish Parenting - Judaism and Raising Kids - How to Raise Children / Lawrence Kelemen

Now, its worth mentioning that not all Jews turn out to be wealthy or successful. There are plenty of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who are just poor and ordinary like everybody else. But again, relatively as a people, they are more successful than Muslims which is an undeniable fact. And there is nothing wrong in stating that fact

Very well, so we've agreed that there's no inherent flaw in Muslims.

The Jews assimilated within other cultures etc very well but were organized and united enough to forward their community's interest without antagonizing the people they were living with. Their diplomacy was outstanding. Muslims, not so much. Again, a ''culture of learning'' exists within Islam too. It's just that the majority Muslims don't care about it.

Maybe it's numbers that have worked to the disadvantage of Muslims - for every one Muslim trying to promote unity, or learning, or forwarding the community's interests, there are a few hundred doing the exact opposite.

I never denied that Trans-Jordan was excluded from the original Palestine Mandate.

Then why did you quote the part of my post that said this and say I was wrong?

And I blamed British Mandate authorities for this. Their role as Mandate authorities was to establish Jewish National Home in Palestine, not diving that Mandate in two and barring Jews from settling there. It was against the rules as setup by League of Nations when they gave Britain that responsibility. Sure Britain many wartime promises to both Jews and Arabs and double-crossed both of them by signing another secret treaty with France. It doesn't make Jews alone responsible for the eventual outcome at the end of British Palestine Mandate.
What I meant was a clear hypocrisy by the Arab leaders, that they didn't even care when original Palestine Mandate from 1920 was divided in two in 1922 to form Transjordan, rather they only started crying when Jews were allocated a small territory as recommended by Peel Commission in 1937. So as long Arabs are allocated huge chunks of land by the Mandate authorities, its fine, but as soon Jews are allocated a lot less land, its cry me the crocodile tears all over again

Double-crossing, clear hypocrisy, false promises and tears. Welcome to geopolitics.

Right on. I am not defending Zionism. I never defended any ideology to this date as ALL man-made ideologies are inherently flawed. They are all good for some groups of people and bad for others. That's why I hate all kinds of 'isms'. Capitalism is good only for the capital owners. Socialism is good only for the non-capitalist class. I have yet to find an ideology that has no flaws and can be deemed good for all people without distinction.

But you are saying that Zionism is better than ''Arab nationalism'' or whatever label you attach to the Palestinians - that counts as a form of defense.

At least you now you admit that 9/11 was the reason Afghanistan was invaded. 19 jihadi terrorists, all hailing from Arab countries, blowing up two Americans buildings with planes, resulting in allied invasion of third-world Muslim countries. This is all about dealing with the consequences of your actions which these terrorists have no abilities to comprehend

If their leaders knew that disproportionate response to these seemingly "harmless" terrorist actions will result in US flattening two entire countries along with the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocent people, they probably would not have carried them out in the first place!!! So I stand vindicated again: These Muslim terrorists and their leaders have no brains

9/11 was the main and official reason for the invasion of Afghanistan. Not Iraq.

Again, there is no such thing as Muslim Ummah

Facts would disagree:

It's not united but it exists.

Total BS and clear lack of historical understanding is indicating from your words. While Haganah, the official mitia of Jews in Palestine was clearly defensive in nature, its opposite Irgun was not. Jews at Haganah did not form Irgun to carry out the said organized massacres of Arabs, but it was formed after a political split because Jews in Irgun were right-wingers who opposed restraint and defensive strategy of Haganah. Here is a poster of Irgun which claimed Transjordan as the future land of Israel:

So you see not ALL Jews were expansionist but a certain group of them. As history tells us, Israel never attacked Transjordan but was rather invaded by it in 1948. West Bank remained under Jordanian occupation until 6-day war.
Jordanian occupation of the West Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the massacres by Arabs against Jews were not isolated events. Many massacres actually spread throughout many Palestinian cities and villages:
1929 Palestine riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is your main point:

Again, there is no such thing as Muslim Ummah

This is a strawman.

I never said ALL Jews were expansionist. I even said that anti-expansionism Jews existed.

''All Jews were expansionist'' was never my argument. Your response is irrelevant.

But all your "arguments" against Zionism indicates that you believe Jews alone were at fault.

Even the one where I said that the Arabs made big mistakes and were wrong in their approach in multiple cases?

Are you sure you're not talking about someone elses' arguments? Is that someone else your friend the Strawman?

You don't just oppose Zionism, you hate it. Big difference. In your view, Zionism is unjust, flawed against the Palestinians.

According to yourself, Zionism is unjust. So by your own definition, you ''hate'' it too. Welcome to the club

But you never care about the fact that Zionism actually helped Jews achieve their own homeland in just 50 years after more than 2000 years of exile? You never care about the ground reality that Zionist Israel actually give its minorities same civil, religious, political rights as non-Jews

Both points are irrelevant to the fact that what they did with the Palestinians was wrong. 2000 years of exile by the Romans doesn't justify punishing the completely unrelated Palestinians.

You are one-sided anti-Zionist, and sometimes anti-Jewish who only see the conflict from Palestinian perspective. While I see them from both

No, you only see the Israeli perspective, as evidenced by your statements below:

So, 7 years ago, an Israeli left-wing leader OFFERED as much as 93 percent of the West Bank to Palestinians for peace. They rejected the offer and never came back to the negotiating table ever since. Meanwhile new successor right-wing government established many more settlements in the same territories because Palestinians refused to talk or even reply to previous offers for peace by Israel. Buhuu... These evil Jews are always at fault. Palestinians never did anything wrong. Buuhuu

You talk about me being one sided but you conveniently forgot to mention why the Palestinians refused the offer. From your own link:
Revealed: Olmert's 2008 peace offer to Palestinians - Diplomacy & Politics - Jerusalem Post

When asked why Abbas did not return to the negotiating table with him, Olmert says that the Palestinians took into account that former US president George W. Bush was at the end of his term and they were hoping for a more favorable leader in Washington and they also believed that Olmert himself was finished politically.

But Olmert also lays the blame for the breakdown in negotiations at the feet of then foreign minister Tzipi Livni and then defense minister Ehud Barak. Olmert cites former US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s book No Higher Honor in which she says that Livni came to her and Abbas separately asking them that they not “enshrine” Olmert’s peace proposal. Olmert also said to Sof Hashavua that Barak sent representatives to Abbas to tell the Palestinian leader not to accept his proposal.

They didn't just reject it because they hate Jews. They rejected it for legitimate reasons. You may argue they were wrong, but the way you portrayed them in your post was exceedingly one-sided.

They are neither bullying or coercing them into anything. Actually they are waiting for Palestinian leaders to meet on the negotiating table from which they ran away from years ago

Yeah, definitely.

I said that in relation with Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and other terrorist groups.

No, you said that as a comment to an article where a few Palestinians looted greenhouses. Absolutely nothing about Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS.
From post #67.

Looters strip Gaza greenhouses - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

Animals remain animals no matter how much you love them

There was no mention of Hezbollah or ISIS.

They had historical opportunities to establish Israel from river Nile to the Euphrates in their many wars but failed to act. Why? What happened to their greedy part?

They failed to act, that's what happened.

Pakistan's army is a national army. It fight it the name of Pakistan and NOT in the name of Islam. Using religious slogans during war is common, even in an army as secular as Israel's. Its obvious from your posts that you know the difference between fighting for Islam and fighting with Islam but you deliberately come with such ad hoc statements for whatever reason

So it's only brainwashing when you talk about fighting for Islam. What about fighting for an Islamic republic?
I know the differences, I don't know what your opinion is. You shouldn't mind answering questions about your own views when you post them on a forum.

 

[Norwegian]

It gives a perspective different from typical western zionist controlled media.

Giving a different perspective on any issue won't change its basic facts however

Their sovereign country doesn't give them the right to expand beyond its borders.

Final borders must be "settled" on the negotiating table after the war. Jordan and Egypt have settled their borders with Israel by recognizing the country decades ago. The rest are still fighting to bring down Israel claiming Israeli expansion

I never claimed that the Jews stole all the land. I said most of it was taken by force.

Of course. How else would they instead defend their communities from 5 Arab armies? Locking yourself in your home never helped anyone as a line of defence

Pakistan exists. It's a second nation. The Two-Nation Theory lives.

Pakistan still exists as a federation of several ethnic provinces, while still being dominated by Punjabis after 67 years of two-nation BS

Why, does the coalition have to have an overwhelming majority of white people to be legitimate?

Who brought racists in the discussion? Certainly not me

The rationale behind the whole Allied coalition in Iraq was for ''international legitimacy'', as per you. Then in the same way, the Arab coalition was for legitimacy among Arabs.

Well they tried to establish that legitimacy by brute force. They failed

So you've finally admitted Zionism is unfair. I must ask you then: why do you claim to be, in your own words, a ''Muslim Zionist''? If Zionism is unfair and so is ''Arab Nationalism'' or ''Islamism'' or whatever you want to label the Palestinians' struggle, why do you not take a neutral position on this? When both sides are unfair, why align yourself with one?

Both Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism are fair and unfair. Zionism is fair for Jews, unfair for Palestinians. Palestinian Nationalism / Islamism is unfair for Jews, but fair for Palestinians

Firstly, you don't even follow your own definition. You called @Akheilos an ''Islamist'' just arguing in favour of the Palestinians. Do you take that back or is everyone liable to be labelled an ''Islamist'' if they speak against Israel's policies?

I am against Israeli government's certain policies. It does not however make me an Islamist as I also do not support Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO

The religion of Islam can not be confined to any four corners. Either you don't realize how flawed your definition or ''thin line'' is, or you have absolutely no idea of what Islamic principles constitute.

Islamic principles are secularist in nature. Its Mullahs who say the otherwise

I'll start with a simple question: how do you confine the belief in God to four corners? Do we have to believe in God inside our homes but stop believing when we leave them?

No, you believe in God wherever you are. Just do not bring your religious BS everywhere you travel in the world

Similarly, is fasting considered ''Islamism'', since it isn't confined to our homes or mosques? The ban on alcohol and pork is practiced outside homes and mosques. Is refusing to eat pork when we're outside our homes ''Islamism''? The concept of modesty and shame is practiced outside homes and mosques. Are women who wear Hijabs ''Islamists''?

Yes, if you are in a civil or military service that requires your stomach to be full 24/7, you should not fast. If you still fast violating the rules of your service, you are an Islamist.
Same rule applies for pork and alcohol. You should not work at where you are required to deal with alcohol / pork. I laugh on those whining Muslims who first gracefully apply for grocery store jobs, get the opportunity to work there and then whine about being "forced" to sell alcohol / pork??? Hypocrites! Its not the responsibility of your workplace to mold its economic model on your religious teachings. Go get yourself another job instead!
Regarding Hijab: Its complete nonsense to take it on 24/7. Unless you are praying or doing other religious work, it makes no sense taking on Hijab just to hide your face from evil Muslim men

What you've described is not Islam, it's hypocrisy. You can not claim to practice Islam if you confine it to your home or mosque and throw all the Islamic principles away when you leave these places.

LOL Lying, Cheating, Defrauding, Tax Evasion, Corruption etc etc are all Islamic principles too that are practiced by most Muslims outside mosques?
You have such a distorted view of Islamic principles vs Islamic traditions Islamic principles can be practised 24/7 anywhere. Islamic traditions, not so

The personal ethical and moral values of Islam are to be practiced everywhere. The socio-political ones are to be practiced in Muslim-majority nations. At the very least, they need to serve as a guideline when it comes to deciding who to vote for or support. Simple economic principles, like the ban on interest, are also to be followed

BS. Ethical and Moral values can sure be practised anywhere. But traditional Islamic norms such as Hijab cannot be practised everywhere. There is a reason why Hijab is banned in public places in France
Regarding interest: Today's economy is nothing but debt which can only be issued on interest. So once again your gullible mind cannot differentiate between Islamic values and Islamic traditions

Sharia is a part of Islam and there is no denying that. The only issues we have are when deciding what constitutes Sharia. You can not practice selective Islam and remove Sharia from the equation.

Sharia is nothing but Islamic guidelines that were codified hundreds of years AFTER Holy Prophet's death. There was no Sharia in the first Muslim State: Rashidun Caliphate. And it worked just fine as an Islamic Welfare State

An Islamic State based on Sharia would be perfect for Muslims while still being fair for non-Muslims living there.

BS. TOTAL crap and NON-SENSE. Today, Saudis, Iranians and ISIS are practicing 900 CE Shariah to the letter. Its only producing massive injustices, corruption and violence in their societies. Shariah is doomed until its reformed to present day challenges

Justice. Non-discriminatory criminal justice which entails proportionate punishments for crimes. This also includes freedom for non-Muslims to be judged based on their own principles if they commit a crime e.g Jewish criminals could choose to be judged based on the Torah instead of Islamic Law. Economic justice and distribution of wealth through Zakat. Fairness in trade.

More BS. In today's world where there are hundreds of nationalities living in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society, how would you decide punishments based on the perpetrators religion? What if the perpetrator is not religious at all? What then?
And regarding Zakat; its nothing but a replacement of various taxes that we already pay to fund our government

The following is not Sharia:
Death for Apostasy, Blasphemy Laws, Burkas, ''Four male witnesses for rape'', ''no worldly education'' and so on.

Sure it is. You have been sleeping lately . You can pick and chose if you are serious about implementing 9th century Sharia Law in the 21st century

When you equate Sharia with extremism, you're essentially saying that all Muslims need to either be extremist or abandon a key element of Islam. Extremely flawed approach. You're basically giving Sharia to the extremists; ''here, take it and do whatever you want with it, I'm just going to reject it and call it barbaric''. The problem is that the many people who rightly believe Sharia to be a key part of Islam will then be put in a very difficult position.

I am not saying Shariah is bad in very self. What I am saying is that IT IS BAD in its present form. Get some good reformers (Mujtahids) who take the responsibility of reforming this centuries old Muslim Law, and then we can talk about its implementation

No, none of this means or suggests ''let's impose Sharia on everyone''. That's actually impossible, since freedom of choice is one of the basic tenets of it- you can not impose Islamic Law on anyone because that would be a violation of said law.

You can either have imposition of Civil Law / Common Law through elected legislators or you can have imposition of Shariah Law through elected body of learned Muslim scholars. There are no more options. All nation states can impose their own laws on its citizens

Now you can call me an Islamist mullah or whatever, but that's what Islam is. If you still want to reject it and call it barbaric, essentially following selective Islam, all I can say is la ikraha fiddeen.

No, this is not Islam. You cannot have a religion without freedom of choice. What Shariah does is that it takes freedoms of choice away and put them in hands of Muslim clerics who mostly follow fundamentalist and radical interpretations of Islam.

This idea of completely toning-down Islam to reduce it to a set of rituals and considering the complete form of Islam to be barbaric is something Imran Khan spoke of in his article. You should read through it.

Again, you are completely wrong. Islam is not just about regular rituals. Its more than that. Still it must not GOVERN our lives as totalitarian Mullahs want us to do. We should have inalienable freedoms to enjoy Music, Arts, Benefits of new Technologies, without some cleric telling us that this is Haram and this is not. Islamic traditions must not DOMINATE all fields and walks of life. Though core Islamic values should still be practiced everywhere.

A textbook case of intellectual dishonesty and strawmen. Where did I mention ISIS or Hezbollah? My comparison was that of the PLO and Hamas with the IDF. Fateh and Hamas are a militant group and so were the Jewish organizations like Haganah. If one can be accepted as an official defense force, why not the other?

Because unlike Haganah which formed an umbrella organisation of all smaller Jewish militant splinter groups, no similar central command exists for the Palestinian Defense Forces. They are all just a bunch of independent Jihadis who rarely cooperate with each other. I have repeatedly seen how they continuously violate ceasefires without consequences as they lack central command like Jews had

I'll reiterate: there is no way to impose Islamic Law on someone since giving people the freedom of choice is part of Islamic Law. What they impose is their own ideas, not Islam.

Finally we agree on something.

So wearing a Sikh turban when it's against the dress code of ''your local job or national service'' is ''Islamist in nature''?

No, that would be Sikh Extremist, not Islamist

What would you say about people not wanting to work in places where they can't practice what they want to freely? Extremism?

Yepp! If you are willing to put your religion above your work, its completely fine. But once you have taken a job that requires dealing with pork / alcohol or which requires a dress code that doesn't involve Hijab, then you can't put the blame on your employer. Its not the employer's job to make sure your workplace is following Islamic way of life

Again, a ''culture of learning'' exists within Islam too. It's just that the majority Muslims don't care about it.

Apart from a "few" Muslim nations such as Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, I have yet to find a Muslim place where culture of true learning without bias and prejudice still exist?

But you are saying that Zionism is better than ''Arab nationalism'' or whatever label you attach to the Palestinians - that counts as a form of defense.

No, I didn't say if one ideology was "better" or "worse". Both are unjust toward another group of people. At least Zionist Israel gave similar civil rights to its non-Jews as Jews. Something I have yet to witness in so many Arab Nationalist States

It's not united but it exists.

Its not Muslim Ummah but 57 or more independent sovereign states without any authorised Caliph or central authority on religion

According to yourself, Zionism is unjust. So by your own definition, you ''hate'' it too. Welcome to the club

Yes, I hate Zionism from Palestinian perspective, but love it from Jewish perspective

Both points are irrelevant to the fact that what they did with the Palestinians was wrong. 2000 years of exile by the Romans doesn't justify punishing the completely unrelated Palestinians.

Not really. What Jews did to Palestinians was nothing compared with what Hitler alone did to European Jews during WW2!

No, you only see the Israeli perspective, as evidenced by your statements below:

Not really. I also see things from Palestinian perspective. I know all about depopulated Palestinian villages and towns that were later settled by Jewish immigrants. Jews are humans too. They have a right to make mistakes and do wrongs. This right is not reserved by Muslims alone

You talk about me being one sided but you conveniently forgot to mention why the Palestinians refused the offer. From your own link:

Palestinian leaders have consistently refusing valid peace offers from Israel thinking they were get MORE later on. While the fact remains, later on they will receive even less because of new Jewish settlements

They didn't just reject it because they hate Jews. They rejected it for legitimate reasons. You may argue they were wrong, but the way you portrayed them in your post was exceedingly one-sided.

No, they rejected it because they want all of Israel, and not just West Bank and Gaza. In the 70's they even tried to take over Jordan, but were forcibly expelled. See Black September:

The term Black September (Arabic: أيلول الأسود‎; aylūl al-aswad) refers to the Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971. The conflict was fought between the two major components of the Jordanian population, the Palestinians, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, and the native Jordanians, represented by the Jordanian Armed Forces under the leadership of King Hussein.[5] At its core the civil war sought to determine if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite Monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon.

Black September in Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see now why these eternal refugees can't be trusted? Even their own Arab brethren know their history very well than Western friends of Palestine

One-sided anti-Israel BS
Israel never ran away from negotiations. Palestinian leaders did . Israelis are still waiting for them to return

No, you said that as a comment to an article where a few Palestinians looted greenhouses. Absolutely nothing about Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS.

Only savages would loot something that was purchased by foreign "enemy" (see Jewish) donors for their own well being

They failed to act, that's what happened.

Hahaha. If they could ACT freely in Egypt in 1956, freely in Jordan in 1967, freely in Syria in 1973 and freely in Lebanon in 1982, what makes you think they cannot do it again as the region is even more messier today than it was back in good old days

So it's only brainwashing when you talk about fighting for Islam. What about fighting for an Islamic republic?

Islamic Republic is STILL a National State. And its nothing wrong in fighting for your national home

 

[TankMan]

Final borders must be "settled" on the negotiating table after the war. Jordan and Egypt have settled their borders with Israel by recognizing the country decades ago. The rest are still fighting to bring down Israel claiming Israeli expansion

The PA accepted the pre-1967 borders. Israel continues to expand beyond them. The reality is that it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do, the Israelis will expand wherever they want to.

Of course. How else would they instead defend their communities from 5 Arab armies? Locking yourself in your home never helped anyone as a line of defence

That would make sense had they not forcefully taken that land long before any attack by five Arab armies.

Pakistan still exists as a federation of several ethnic provinces, while still being dominated by Punjabis after 67 years of two-nation BS

Pakistan exists as a nation - a nation made up of multiple ethnicities.
Punjabis make up the majority which is why they ''dominate'' - if anything, it's a flaw in the democratic system. But did they really dominate for 67 years? No, not at all.
Ayub Khan was a Pakthun who ruled for 11 years. Pervez Musharraf is a Mohajir who ruled for almost a decade. Zulfikar Bhutto was a Sindhi who ruled for 6 years. Zardari is a Karachiite of Balochi descent who ruled for five years. Benazir was a Sindhi who ruled for about five years.
Adding them together, about 37 out of 67 years were ruled by non-Punjabis. If you consider that Punjabis make up around half of the population, it's perfectly normal and logical that around half of the leaders would be Punjabi.

What's the problem? Would you rather see Punjab excluded from Pakistan or do you oppose the idea of us having a nation at all? If so, you really should change one of those flags.

By the way, such an imbalance is not just in Pakistan. In the UK, for example, the English tend to ''dominate'' a lot.

Well they tried to establish that legitimacy by brute force.

And the American coalition in Iraq did what, exactly?

They failed

No disagreements there. They failed.

Both Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism are fair and unfair. Zionism is fair for Jews, unfair for Palestinians. Palestinian Nationalism / Islamism is unfair for Jews, but fair for Palestinians

So you'd support whichever side dominates.

I am against Israeli government's certain policies. It does not however make me an Islamist as I also do not support Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO

@Akheilos did not express support for Hamas or Hezbollah - yet you applied the ''Islamist'' label. And why do you keep including the PLO in that list, when they are as legitimate as the Israeli government?

Islamic principles are secularist in nature. Its Mullahs who say the otherwise

Give one example of an Islamic principle that is secularist in nature.

No, you believe in God wherever you are. Just do not bring your religious BS everywhere you travel in the world

So you mean you shouldn't pray when you travel in the world? Does saying '', Assalam-o-alaikum, alhamdullilah, Mashallah'' etc constitute ''religious BS''?

Yes, if you are in a civil or military service that requires your stomach to be full 24/7, you should not fast. If you still fast violating the rules of your service, you are an Islamist.

I have never seen a civil or military field that requires your stomach to be full 24/7. But my question was not about a civil or military post. It was about someone fasting in general.

I laugh on those whining Muslims who first gracefully apply for grocery store jobs, get the opportunity to work there and then whine about being "forced" to sell alcohol / pork??? Hypocrites! Its not the responsibility of your workplace to mold its economic model on your religious teachings. Go get yourself another job instead!

What about those who don't have any option but to work there? What if they simply express their dislike of their job? Doing something they don't agree with out of necessity. Are they still hypocrites?

Regarding Hijab: Its complete nonsense to take it on 24/7. Unless you are praying or doing other religious work, it makes no sense taking on Hijab just to hide your face from evil Muslim men

Islam demands that women wear the Hijab infront of men who are not their husband, sons, brothers or father. It makes perfect sense and is undeniably a part of Islam. If you disagree with it and go so far as to call it nonsense, you need to leave the faith since one can not pick and choose or strip religion to a set of rituals and disregard its principles.

LOL Lying, Cheating, Defrauding, Tax Evasion, Corruption etc etc are all Islamic principles too that are practiced by most Muslims outside mosques?
You have such a distorted view of Islamic principles vs Islamic traditions Islamic principles can be practised 24/7 anywhere. Islamic traditions, not so

What a load of Bullshit. You clearly are not interested in a serious discussion. Do not respond to something unless you have something serious to say.

But since you've mentioned it, what is the difference between an Islamic principle and an Islamic tradition? A principle is a basic concept or idea, a tradition is merely a way to implement that idea. For example, one such principle is modesty, and one such tradition is the wearing of a Hijab. But that does not discredit a tradition in any way.

BS. Ethical and Moral values can sure be practised anywhere. But traditional Islamic norms such as Hijab cannot be practised everywhere.

Why not? What is wrong with taking practical steps to express or implement those ethical and moral values?

There is a reason why Hijab is banned in public places in France

Yes. That reason being that France is full of pseudo-liberals that try to control what women wear to cover themselves but encourage ''freedom'' when women want to expose themselves. Nothing more than hypocrisy. Actual liberal secularism would be to see a Hijab as nothing more than a scarf and let women wear it wherever they want to.

Regarding interest: Today's economy is nothing but debt which can only be issued on interest. So once again your gullible mind cannot differentiate between Islamic values and Islamic traditions

That does not mean we need to start implementing interest wherever possible. We should be reducing it. Interest is the taking of money for nothing - it goes against Islamic principles. There is no tradition here. Gullible mind my arse, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Sharia is nothing but Islamic guidelines that were codified hundreds of years AFTER Holy Prophet's death. There was no Sharia in the first Muslim State: Rashidun Caliphate. And it worked just fine as an Islamic Welfare State

The level of ignorance here is astounding.
What you're talking about is Fiqh. Sharia was what the Rashidun Caliphs followed. There was only Sharia in those times. Fiqh developed after the Rashidun Caliphate, when scholars began deciding things based on Islamic sources.

What has happened since then is a confusion of Fiqhi rulings with Sharia, with people claiming that scholars' opinions were part of Sharia.

BS. TOTAL crap and NON-SENSE. Today, Saudis, Iranians and ISIS are practicing 900 CE Shariah to the letter. Its only producing massive injustices, corruption and violence in their societies. Shariah is doomed until its reformed to present day challenges

Since when did ''900 CE Sharia'' start to mean anything?

Sharia is not doomed. The people who attempt to implement it without understanding the difference between Sharia and Fiqh are. As for reformation, it depends on what you mean by it. If reformation means a removal of scholars' opinions and made-up laws like the Blasphemy law, I'm all for it. If this reformation means ''legalize interest, alcohol, etc, and get rid of every ruling that is not ''liberal'' enough'' , no thank you.

More BS. In today's world where there are hundreds of nationalities living in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society, how would you decide punishments based on the perpetrators religion? What if the perpetrator is not religious at all? What then?

''more BS'', so you disagree that the cornerstone of Islamic Law is justice.

As for your question, firstly I wasn't talking about implementing it in a multicultural multinational and multireligious society. I was talking about its basic principles based on the way it was during the Rashidun Caliphate. It's simple: if they're not Muslims, they're not subject to any of the Islamic laws and are to be prosecuted by a secular court. End of story.

I am not saying Shariah is bad in very self. What I am saying is that IT IS BAD in its present form. Get some good reformers (Mujtahids) who take the responsibility of reforming this centuries old Muslim Law, and then we can talk about its implementation

There is no ''present form'' of Sharia. What is being peddled as Sharia is simply not Sharia at all. We firstly need to define it properly, and separate ijtihad and fiqh from Shariat.

Sharia is essentially rulings that are direct commands from God that are applicable to Muslims of all times. These are to be derived from the Quran and Sahih Hadith. The issue nowadays is that there is no definition of what constitutes Sharia - situational commands recorded in Hadith and Fiqh and scholars' opinions are being mixed with Sharia. One example of a situational command would be that of the niqab - it was specifically for the Prophets' wives during the time when his opponents were trying to slander and malign him. Yet some believe it is part of Sharia.

When a basic list of what constitutes Sharia and what constitutes Islamic principles is made, it can be expanded further through ijtihad to deal with modern issues. Then we can talk of implementation. Not a simple task.

Again, you are completely wrong. Islam is not just about regular rituals. Its more than that. Still it must not GOVERN our lives as totalitarian Mullahs want us to do. We should have inalienable freedoms to enjoy Music, Arts, Benefits of new Technologies, without some cleric telling us that this is Haram and this is not. Islamic traditions must not DOMINATE all fields and walks of life. Though core Islamic values should still be practiced everywhere.

Here's where you're wrong. You fail to separate mullahs' opinions from Islam or ''Islamic traditions''. A ban on music is just opinion; it is not a core part of Islam. Practicing core Islamic values means making them govern our lives. Clerics have a right to voice their opinions, however, and they can tell us what they think is Haram. But we don't have to agree with them.

I agree with your basic idea - that we need to separate core elements of Islam from the peripheral ones, and give more importance to the former. But you are completely wrong in your perception of what Islam is, or what ''Islamic traditions'' and ''Islamic principles'' are. What's even the point of making so many distinctions? Keep it simple. There are core elements, which include a belief in God and accountability for your actions, a belief in honesty and morality, and a belief in the five pillars. Then there are peripheral elements which include optional rituals, trivial matters like beards, political guidelines, dress code and so on. And then there are scholars' opinions, which include things like ''Music is Haram''. The first category is the most important and the last one is the least.

No, this is not Islam. You cannot have a religion without freedom of choice. What Shariah does is that it takes freedoms of choice away and put them in hands of Muslim clerics who mostly follow fundamentalist and radical interpretations of Islam.

Freedom of choice is a fundamental part of Sharia.

No, I didn't say if one ideology was "better" or "worse". Both are unjust toward another group of people. At least Zionist Israel gave similar civil rights to its non-Jews as Jews. Something I have yet to witness in so many Arab Nationalist States

So essentially you are saying that Zionism outweighs its opposition because they give rights to people. The Palestinians being deprived of their rights would disagree.

Its not Muslim Ummah but 57 or more independent sovereign states without any authorised Caliph or central authority on religion

Ummah = community. Like I said, it exists but is not united.

Not really. What Jews did to Palestinians was nothing compared with what Hitler alone did to European Jews during WW2!

Still irrelevant to what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians and still doesn't justify it.

Sure it is. You have been sleeping lately . You can pick and chose if you are serious about implementing 9th century Sharia Law in the 21st century

It is not. You disagree with the mullahs but believe them when they tell you their ideas are Sharia, i.e divine law. That is irrational. They are wrong about what Sharia is. Sharia is not wrong and is not something that can be changed by what mullahs think.

Apart from a "few" Muslim nations such as Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, I have yet to find a Muslim place where culture of true learning without bias and prejudice still exist?

It used to be a lot more prominent in the days of the Islamic Golden Age. That's why I said the majority of Muslims have stopped caring about their culture of learning.

Palestinian leaders have consistently refusing valid peace offers from Israel thinking they were get MORE later on.

Not in the case I quoted.

No, they rejected it because they want all of Israel, and not just West Bank and Gaza. In the 70's they even tried to take over Jordan, but were forcibly expelled. See Black September:
Black September in Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see now why these eternal refugees can't be trusted? Even their own Arab brethren know their history very well than Western friends of Palestine

Again, Strawman. I was talking about one extremely specific case which you quoted.

Only savages would loot something that was purchased by foreign "enemy" (see Jewish) donors for their own well being

Or maybe just desperate human beings.

Hahaha. If they could ACT freely in Egypt in 1956, freely in Jordan in 1967, freely in Syria in 1973 and freely in Lebanon in 1982, what makes you think they cannot do it again as the region is even more messier today than it was back in good old days

Yet another strawman. I never said they can not do it again. I've actually been arguing the opposite - that they can, and possibly will do so again and try to expand further.

 

[Norwegian]

The PA accepted the pre-1967 borders. Israel continues to expand beyond them. The reality is that it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do, the Israelis will expand wherever they want to.

LOL . PA did accept pre-1967 borders during infamous Oslo Accords of the 90's with one pre-condition for Israel: Palestinian Right of Return. Basically they demanded Israel to absorb millions of Palestinian refugees, no matter where they are living presently. This is something Jews would never allow, and something terrorist Hamas would never accept

Hometown return
In November 2012, Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas repeated his stance that the claim of return was not to his original hometown, but to a Palestinian state that would be established at the 1967 border line. Hamas denounced this adjustment.[52][53]

Abbas later clarified (for the Arab media) that this was his own personal opinion and not a policy of giving up the right of return. Israeli politicians denounced the clarification.[54]

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it is clearly a political and militant deadlock here. Even if Israel completely retreated to pre-1967 lines, Palestinian right of return would still be unresolved. Even if an independent State of Palestine is established, millions of Palestinian refugees would still be living as stateless people looking to "return" back to Israel

That would make sense had they not forcefully taken that land long before any attack by five Arab armies.

LOL . Jews didn't start the war. All they did was that they announced independence by the time British were already leaving the Palestine Mandate. The very next day of British departure, 5 Arab Armies Invaded newly established Jewish State. They had no need to intervene in the civil war between Arabs and Jews in the first place. Since they CHOSE to intervene on the Arab side and actually LOST the war, they have nothing but themselves to blame for the unexpected outcome!

Adding them together, about 37 out of 67 years were ruled by non-Punjabis. If you consider that Punjabis make up around half of the population, it's perfectly normal and logical that around half of the leaders would be Punjabi.

LOL . When I said Punjabis were ruling Pakistan, I didn't mean in terms of their political or military leaders. I was referring to the HUGE gap between relocation of resources, financial funding from the Federal government that Punjab gets vs the other provinces. Such gross injustices inflicted on Bengalis were the main reason why East Pakistan violently left us in the first place

What's the problem? Would you rather see Punjab excluded from Pakistan or do you oppose the idea of us having a nation at all? If so, you really should change one of those flags.

I am against all kinds and forms of injustices between the provinces. I have nothing against existence of Pakistan whatsoever I was born and raised in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, remember?

By the way, such an imbalance is not just in Pakistan. In the UK, for example, the English tend to ''dominate'' a lot.

But in UK, you guys still have equal relocation of government resources, taxes, funding etc unlike that we have in Pakistan where Punjab has been dominating for decades, while Balochis are neglected and people of Sindh interior are starving to death because of lack of water!!!

And the American coalition in Iraq did what, exactly?

The same. Only they succeeded in toppling Saddam regime, unlike Arabs against Israel

No disagreements there. They failed.

So you'd support whichever side dominates.

Of course. We both know Capitalism and Communism are inherently flawed economic theories. But since Capitalism is dominating where Communism failed, it makes Capitalism more legitimate despite its many flaws and problems

And why do you keep including the PLO in that list, when they are as legitimate as the Israeli government?

PLO/Fatah was and still is a terror group bent on Israel's destruction. Just because they "promised" to give up armed struggle against Israel during Oslo Peace Accords doesn't mean they held that promise to the letter:
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These days, Fatah is busy maligning Israel politically at the international arena since they no longer can do armed struggle against Israel at the presence of IDF troops in the West Bank

Give one example of an Islamic principle that is secularist in nature.

One? LOL . All Islamic principles are basically secularists in nature. Koran declares Islam to be 'Din-Al-Fitrah', meaning faith/religion of human's divine nature. If you remember being a child, or see other children growing up, you would find their immense curiosity annoying. They keep asking silly questions and demand 'reason' for everything we tell them to do. This extreme quest for 'reason' to justify everything 'logically' and 'rationally' is inbred in human mind from birth, thus it makes the core of our 'Fitrah'. It also means that unless an Islamic teaching, commandment, law is reasonably justified for the real world situations, it cannot be taken seriously for implementation.
During the first few centuries of Islam, scores of Muslim scholars, philosophers, scientists and inventors followed this universal approach to logic, rationality and science, thus 'arriving' at truth for the reasons behind Islamic principles. They didn't behave like today's Muslims who gullibly just "believe" and act after whatever their so-called authoritative Mullahs tell them to do without even asking for the justification of the said commandment or ruling. As you already know, the last rationalist philosopher in Islam was Averroes who was completely ignored in the Muslim world, while his teachings were adopted in the Western world:

Following Aristotle, Ibn Rushd gives priority to demonstrative proof (burhan), the highest form of certainty, over dialectic and rhetoric. Wisdom is inquiry into things in accordance with the rules of demonstration, he asserts. While philosophers apply demonstration, theologians use dialectical and rhetorical arguments. The principles guiding "men of demonstration" are rational and logical. Demonstration determines that we know things by their causes, and that is true knowledge. The condition for true knowledge is that conclusions necessarily follow from necessary premises or propositions, which are neither impossible nor variable. Among the theologians who deny or belittle the role of reason, al-Ghazali and the Ash'arites receive the most devastating critique by Ibn Rushd, and their arguments are dismissed as mere sophistry and contrary to human nature.(37)
Iraqi insists that only through reason and the rational method can Muslims address properly issues like enlightenment, religious extremism, heritage and modernity. He maintains that Europe progressed because it adopted Ibn Rushd as a model. In contrast, the Arabs have regressed because they followed traditional thinkers, like al-Al-Ghazali, the Ash'arites and Ibn Taymiyya, whose thought and teachings augur backwardness and descent into the abyss. Had the Arabs taken Ibn Rushd's call to science and its reasons to heart, they would have achieved greater progress in thought and culture. Unfortunately, "we are still talking about mythical and legendary beings, and things that elude the imagination." Muslims tend to mix science with religion, and, according to Iraqi, there is no relationship between philosophy (science) and Islam; all attempts to reconcile the two have failed drastically. "Woe to the Arab nation when it seeks to derive scientific theories from Quranic verses. Such an attempt is totally wrong and would cause harm to both religion and science."(38)

The Public Square: The debate on Islam and secularism in Egypt- Averroes

So you mean you shouldn't pray when you travel in the world? Does saying '', Assalam-o-alaikum, alhamdullilah, Mashallah'' etc constitute ''religious BS''?

You can of course greet each other in whatever language you wish. Prayer is universally accepted in any part of this world as well, unless there are certain policies against it at some places:

Muslims booted from Empire State Building for praying: suit

Muslims booted from Empire State Building for praying: suit | New York Post

It was about someone fasting in general.

I have nothing against fasting as long its observance is not hindering or effecting your normal day to day activities

What about those who don't have any option but to work there? What if they simply express their dislike of their job? Doing something they don't agree with out of necessity. Are they still hypocrites?

Dislike a job? Quit it! No one can force upon you a job you don't like. Also it doesn't make any sense working somewhere your religious feelings gets hurt 24/7. Unless you are putting your economy before your faith, I see no reason why someone would work at a place his religion forbid to in the first place?

Islam demands that women wear the Hijab infront of men who are not their husband, sons, brothers or father. It makes perfect sense and is undeniably a part of Islam.

No, it doesn't make it any sense at all unless Muslim women voluntarily and out of their own free will decide to take on Hijab, Niqab or Burka. Blindly imitating Islamic commandments like apes and monkeys would get you nowhere.
I have met many ethnically Norwegian women who had recently converted to Islam. Some of them had started taking Hijab as an experiment. They could not feel comfortable with it, having it above their heads 24/7, so they just let go off it. Understanding the nature of ethnic Norwegian men, they don't give a damn if a woman is wearing Hijab or not. They are not Desi perverts anyway
So again use of Hijab becomes a matter of cultural variation. Not all Muslim women are comfortable with Hijab while others love to have it on as a fashion as well

What a load of Bullshit. You clearly are not interested in a serious discussion. Do not respond to something unless you have something serious to say.

Okay, so first you call my post BS. Then you actually respond to it down under. Funny you!

But since you've mentioned it, what is the difference between an Islamic principle and an Islamic tradition? A principle is a basic concept or idea, a tradition is merely a way to implement that idea. For example, one such principle is modesty, and one such tradition is the wearing of a Hijab. But that does not discredit a tradition in any way.

Yes, modesty is a principle and it can be applied anywhere in various forms and ways. One of them being wearing of Hijab, thus it becomes a tradition. Now Islam asks Momineen to follow principles of modesty, it doesn't give them detailed instructions on how they should apply it, given Islam is not only practiced in Arabian sand dunes. Surely forms of clothing to preserve modesty will vary from culture to climate of different regions of the world

Why not? What is wrong with taking practical steps to express or implement those ethical and moral values?

Aren't you forgetting something? Today's liberal West already practiced modesty for centuries until things started to change from the 70's onwards, thanks to various feminist movements. Have a look at this historical photo below:

This photo was taken in 1916, in Vienna.

Now some Islamists started claiming see even in Europe, women used to wear Burka. That is not entirely true. Such clothing was quite unusual and was only used during certain ceremonies like the death ceremony of a king as pictured above.

Yes. That reason being that France is full of pseudo-liberals that try to control what women wear to cover themselves but encourage ''freedom'' when women want to expose themselves. Nothing more than hypocrisy. Actual liberal secularism would be to see a Hijab as nothing more than a scarf and let women wear it wherever they want to.

Nonsense BS. That law wasn't just against Hijabs but against use of all religious symbols in public places. Also it was carefully researched by a government commission on the issue of secularisms in schools:

The Stasi Commission published its report on 11 December 2003, considering that ostentatious displays of religion violated the secular rules of the French school system. The report recommended a law against pupils wearing "conspicuous" signs of belonging to a religion, meaning any visible symbol meant to be easily noticed by others. Prohibited items would include headscarves for Muslim girls, yarmulkesfor Jewish boys, and turbans for Sikh boys. The Commission recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.

French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While another law banned the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances:
French ban on face covering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither of the laws targeted Muslims specifically, and were both general laws that affected religious people as much as those who were secular.

That does not mean we need to start implementing interest wherever possible. We should be reducing it. Interest is the taking of money for nothing - it goes against Islamic principles. There is no tradition here. Gullible mind my arse, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you insane? Modern monetary system of currency and credit is based on debt issuance which can only work in an interest based banking system. In short; no debt = no credit = no money and thus no interest on the currency issued. The only practical way to get rid of interest is to end modern banking altogether. For more info, read this book:
The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics: Michael Rowbotham: 9781897766408: Amazon.com: Books

The level of ignorance here is astounding.
What you're talking about is Fiqh. Sharia was what the Rashidun Caliphs followed. There was only Sharia in those times. Fiqh developed after the Rashidun Caliphate, when scholars began deciding things based on Islamic sources.

During Rashidun Caliphate, there was no such thing as codified Sharia Law, as the first Muslim State was still under development and the first Shabah of Islam had to arrive at new laws for the rapidly expanding Arab empire:

Sharia underwent fundamental development, beginning with the reigns ofcaliphs Abu Bakr (632–34) and Umar (634–44) for Sunni Muslims, and Imam Ali for Shia Muslims, during which time many questions were brought to the attention of Muhammad's closest comrades for consultation.[27] During the reign of Muawiya b. Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, ca. 662 CE, Islam undertook an urban transformation, raising questions not originally covered by Islamic law.[27] Since then, changes in Islamic society have played an ongoing role in developing sharia, which branches out into fiqh and Qanun respectively.

A number of legal concepts and institutions were developed by Islamic jurists during the classical period of Islam, known as the Islamic Golden Age, dated from the 7th to 13th centuries. These shaped different versions of sharia in different schools of Islamic jurisprudence, calledfiqhs.[32][33][34]

Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you can see that current Shariah Law wasn't codified until many centuries after the death of Holy Prophet. Since then, its been in a state of timeless limbo with no new Mujtahids arriving to reform it as they used to do back in the good old Rashidun Days

What has happened since then is a confusion of Fiqhi rulings with Sharia, with people claiming that scholars' opinions were part of Sharia.

Well, you CANNOT make new laws with the changing environment unless you take opinions of the religious scholars into consideration, can you?

Since when did ''900 CE Sharia'' start to mean anything?

Since it was during that time that the Sharia Law was codified as timeless piece of junk

Around the beginning of the 900s, most Sunni jurists argued that all major matters of religious law had been settled, allowing for taqlid, "the established legal precedents and traditions," to take priority over ijtihad.

Ijtihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why the heck would these dumb retards agree on closing the doors of ijtihad ("independent reasoning") by 900s?

Sharia is not doomed. The people who attempt to implement it without understanding the difference between Sharia and Fiqh are. As for reformation, it depends on what you mean by it. If reformation means a removal of scholars' opinions and made-up laws like the Blasphemy law, I'm all for it. If this reformation means ''legalize interest, alcohol, etc, and get rid of every ruling that is not ''liberal'' enough'' , no thank you.

Scholars opinions are part of ijtihad or independent reasoning. Without it you cannot reform Sharia Laws. And exactly why would Shariah law legalize interest, alcohol and pork? Are you crazy?

''more BS'', so you disagree that the cornerstone of Islamic Law is justice.

There is no ''present form'' of Sharia. What is being peddled as Sharia is simply not Sharia at all. We firstly need to define it properly, and separate ijtihad and fiqh from Shariat.

You cannot have Shariah without ijtihad. Its impossible to blindly follow Taqlid since it doesn't contain rulings suited for modern day human activities.

Sharia is essentially rulings that are direct commands from God that are applicable to Muslims of all times. These are to be derived from the Quran and Sahih Hadith.

Koran and Hadith alone are not enough to arrive at new Sharia Laws. Assume in the near future, Muslims travel to other worlds. How the heck would they follow known Islamic rulings for prayers while being in space or while staying on another planet?
We had big problems solving fasting and prayer times, we who live near the poles. There is no hadith or quranic verse on the issue that solves such unusual religious problems. So gullible Muslims resort to mad Mullahs as usual, who give them the worst possible advice as possible

When a basic list of what constitutes Sharia and what constitutes Islamic principles is made, it can be expanded further through ijtihad to deal with modern issues. Then we can talk of implementation. Not a simple task.

Good, finally we agree

So essentially you are saying that Zionism outweighs its opposition because they give rights to people. The Palestinians being deprived of their rights would disagree.

Zionism outweighs its opposition because it succeeded while its opposite Palestinian Nationalism failed time and again

Sharia is not wrong and is not something that can be changed by what mullahs think.

Exactly. Divine law can only be wrong once humans start codifying it with their own errored interpretations

Or maybe just desperate human beings.

LOL

The disproportionate dispensation of international aid to the Palestinians is discriminatory and biased. The Palestinians receive considerably more aid per capita than the economic aid offered to African states; and international aid to the Palestinians indirectly abets Palestinian Islamist terrorism.

Aid to the Palestinians: A Case of Flagrant Discrimination | Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies

I've actually been arguing the opposite - that they can, and possibly will do so again and try to expand further.

No, they won't do it again. They had years to intervene in Syrian civil war, and now the ISIS terrorists have reached Israel's borders, yet they are not intervening

 

[TankMan]

So it is clearly a political and militant deadlock here.

Yes. There is a deadlock.

Jews didn't start the war.

They did. They formed a state over Palestinian land despite Palestinian resistance.

When I said Punjabis were ruling Pakistan, I didn't mean in terms of their political or military leaders. I was referring to the HUGE gap between relocation of resources, financial funding from the Federal government that Punjab gets vs the other provinces.

Punjab contains the majority of the population. Of course there will be a gap in the allocation of resources. Otherwise, as I have proven, people from other provinces had many chances in power to change this ''unjust'' allocation. Why didn't they?

But in UK, you guys still have equal relocation of government resources, taxes, funding etc unlike that we have in Pakistan where Punjab has been dominating for decades, while Balochis are neglected and people of Sindh interior are starving to death because of lack of water!!!

In the UK, Scotland wanted to be separate because they thought they had unequal distribution of resources. The referendum decided against it. The same would happen in Pakistan. Sindh contains Karachi, Pakistan's financial capital. The issues they face are caused by incompetent and corrupt politicians like Zardari. Their CM sleeps while they starve, yet the people continue to vote for that corrupt party milking the Bhutto name. Or maybe not, and maybe the weaknesses of the current electoral system are what result in them getting elected.

The same. Only they succeeded in toppling Saddam regime, unlike Arabs against Israel

Had the Arabs succeeded against Israel, would you support them?

PLO/Fatah was and still is a terror group bent on Israel's destruction. Just because they "promised" to give up armed struggle against Israel during Oslo Peace Accords doesn't mean they held that promise to the letter:
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These days, Fatah is busy maligning Israel politically at the international arena since they no longer can do armed struggle against Israel at the presence of IDF troops in the West Bank

Fatah is ''maligning'' Israel? Israel does a good enough job of that themselves. But since you mentioned maligning, freedom of speech, remember.

One? LOL . All Islamic principles are basically secularists in nature. Koran declares Islam to be 'Din-Al-Fitrah', meaning faith/religion of human's divine nature. If you remember being a child, or see other children growing up, you would find their immense curiosity annoying. They keep asking silly questions and demand 'reason' for everything we tell them to do. This extreme quest for 'reason' to justify everything 'logically' and 'rationally' is inbred in human mind from birth, thus it makes the core of our 'Fitrah'. It also means that unless an Islamic teaching, commandment, law is reasonably justified for the real world situations, it cannot be taken seriously for implementation.
During the first few centuries of Islam, scores of Muslim scholars, philosophers, scientists and inventors followed this universal approach to logic, rationality and science, thus 'arriving' at truth for the reasons behind Islamic principles. They didn't behave like today's Muslims who gullibly just "believe" and act after whatever their so-called authoritative Mullahs tell them to do without even asking for the justification of the said commandment or ruling. As you already know, the last rationalist philosopher in Islam was Averroes who was completely ignored in the Muslim world, while his teachings were adopted in the Western world:

You dodged the question. Name ONE Islamic principle that is ''secularist'' in nature. You can not. Because Islam requires that its principles be upheld at all times.

The reason Muslim scholars and scientists were so successful is not because of secularism. It was because Islamic principles themselves encourage rational thought and inquiry. Seeking knowledge is encouraged in Islam.

You do not need to ''secularize'' anything or ''get Islam out of the way'' to be able to have successful scientists and scholars. Islam itself allows for that.

Ibne Rushd never advocated ''secularism''. He was an Islamic scholar himself and established the importance of Islamic principles. What he argued was that Religion is compatible with philosophy and science, and that Islam encourages rational thought. Not that religion needs to be removed to make place for rational thought.

You've taken his ideas and presented the very antithesis of them as ''Averroes' secular thoughts''.

Dislike a job? Quit it! No one can force upon you a job you don't like. Also it doesn't make any sense working somewhere your religious feelings gets hurt 24/7. Unless you are putting your economy before your faith, I see no reason why someone would work at a place his religion forbid to in the first place?

How about the lack of other job options. If someone has to work at a place he doesn't want to out of necessity yet complains about it, what's the problem? I've never seen anyone demand that his job change to suit Islamic principles. What I have seen is people complain about having to do jobs they don't want to do, Islam or no Islam. To malign, condemn, berate and denounce them is nothing more than Liberal Fascism.

No, it doesn't make it any sense at all unless Muslim women voluntarily and out of their own free will decide to take on Hijab, Niqab or Burka. Blindly imitating Islamic commandments like apes and monkeys would get you nowhere.

''Imitating'' Islamic commandments? You mean following them. So you mean ''following Islam will get you nowhere, abandon the religion and become a Western Liberal''. No need to sugarcoat it.

Aren't you forgetting something? Today's liberal West already practiced modesty for centuries until things started to change from the 70's onwards, thanks to various feminist movements.

So essentially you mean the west has abandoned their concept of modesty so we should abandon it too, ''thanks to various feminist movements''.

Nonsense BS. That law wasn't just against Hijabs but against use of all religious symbols in public places. Also it was carefully researched by a government commission on the issue of secularisms in schools:

You know what's ''nonsense BS''? Declaring a headscarf a ''religious symbol''. It isn't. It's an article of clothing.

Are you insane?

So you can't answer properly, and are frustrated by my argument and will now resort to a personal attack to make it look like your argument holds any weight.

So you can see that current Shariah Law wasn't codified until many centuries after the death of Holy Prophet. Since then, its been in a state of timeless limbo with no new Mujtahids arriving to reform it as they used to do back in the good old Rashidun Days

You have no idea what you're talking about. There was no ''reformation'' in the ''good old Rashidun days''. That was the purest form of Islamic law.

Get something in your head: no amount of ''reformation'' will make Islam the same as Western Culture. Stop sugarcoating it and say that you do not agree with Islam itself, because that is essentially what you are saying. You want to strip Islam down to a set of rituals and sayings that hold no meaning.

No human can make lawful what God has declared unlawful.

During Rashidun Caliphate, there was no such thing as codified Sharia Law, as the first Muslim State was still under development and the first Shabah of Islam had to arrive at new laws for the rapidly expanding Arab empire:

Their laws were Sharia. Arguing whether or not it was ''codified'' is nothing more than semantics. You quoting Wikipedia articles says a lot about your understanding of Islam.

Modern monetary system of currency and credit is based on debt issuance which can only work in an interest based banking system. In short; no debt = no credit = no money and thus no interest on the currency issued. The only practical way to get rid of interest is to end modern banking altogether.

Firstly, do you realize how insanely idiotic the idea of Interest being essential to debt issuance is? You have no idea how economics works either. Interest is essentially system of charging money for nothing material in return, usually time. Removing interest from the equation doesn't mean removing debt or credit.

Islamic banking exists.

Well, you CANNOT make new laws with the changing environment unless you take opinions of the religious scholars into consideration, can you?

You can make new laws with the changing environment without mixing these new laws with the core principles of Islam and declaring them divine.

Since it was during that time that the Sharia Law was codified as timeless piece of junk
Ijtihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Around the beginning of the 900s, most Sunni jurists argued that all major matters of religious law had been settled, allowing for taqlid, "the established legal precedents and traditions," to take priority over ijtihad.

Why the heck would these dumb retards agree on closing the doors of ijtihad ("independent reasoning") by 900s?

Don't ask me about Taqleed since I am a ghair-muqallid which means I do not practice taqleed and do agree with ijtihad based on Islamic principles derived directly from the Quran and Hadith. But short-sighted people, Liberals and conservative Muslims alike, would immediately declare any ghair-muqallid a ''Wahabi'' or something similar, if only to discredit them. The issue with people like me is that we're conservative enough to make ultra-liberals cry, and liberal enough to make mullahs cry. The very definition of the middle path - upset both extremes.

The work of great scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, Imam Maliki and Imam Ibn Hanbal, holds weight but can not be adhered to strictly or regarded as the word of God because it isn't - it's the opinions of scholars who themselves admitted their opinion can be wrong.

Yet people have decided to make ''taqlid'' farz and declare anyone who doesn't practice taqlid a 'Wahabi Kafir'. That is actually what I meant when I said the mixing of scholars' opinions with divine law (sharia) was a problem.

Scholars opinions are part of ijtihad or independent reasoning. Without it you cannot reform Sharia Laws. And exactly why would Shariah law legalize interest, alcohol and pork?

The same issue remains: you refuse to understand what Sharia Laws are. Sharia is divine law. By calling something Sharia you are saying it can't be reformed.

In actuality Sharia doesn't need to be reformed, our understanding of it does. Mixing ''independent reasoning'' with ''divine law'' is what got us into problems in the first place.

Its impossible to blindly follow Taqlid since it doesn't contain rulings suited for modern day human activities.

That is precisely why I am a ghair-muqallid.

Koran and Hadith alone are not enough to arrive at new Sharia Laws. Assume in the near future, Muslims travel to other worlds. How the heck would they follow known Islamic rulings for prayers while being in space or while staying on another planet?
We had big problems solving fasting and prayer times, we who live near the poles. There is no hadith or quranic verse on the issue that solves such unusual religious problems. So gullible Muslims resort to mad Mullahs as usual, who give them the worst possible advice as possible

I never said Quran and Hadith alone. I said reasoning based on the the Quran and Hadith.

Like I've said before, the first step would be to decide on a set of basic principles derived from the Quran and Hadith, the core elements. Then we can talk about ijtihad or reforming it. So, for example, the principles behind Salah are to perform it a set amount of times on specific times to maintain a level of discipline and punctuality. Those purposes would be fulfilled if you just decided on timings.

There is no such thing as ''new Sharia Laws''. The very definition of Sharia Law is that it is divine and can not be changed. You are actually peddling the mullah narrative by believing that what they say is Sharia. Talk about being gullible.

Exactly. Divine law can only be wrong once humans start codifying it with their own errored interpretations

So at the end of the day we agree and you had resorted to name-calling as a mere reactionary measure to what you thought was me being a mullah. Interesting how that worked out.

Zionism outweighs its opposition because it succeeded while its opposite Palestinian Nationalism failed time and again

Would you say the same about Palestinian Nationalism if the roles were reversed?

LOL
Aid to the Palestinians: A Case of Flagrant Discrimination | Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies

US military aid to Israel violates domestic, international law | The Electronic Intifada
If the Begin-Sadat Center is a reliable source, so is the Electronic Intifada.

From the Begin-Sadat Center's official website: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies advances a realist, conservative and Zionist agenda in the search for security and peace for Israel.

They admit they advance a Zionist agenda and are therefore one-sided. Yet you quote them. And then you say Muslims are gullible.

No, they won't do it again. They had years to intervene in Syrian civil war, and now the ISIS terrorists have reached Israel's borders, yet they are not intervening

Who's talking about intervention? I am saying they may try to expand. Not just 'intervene'.

 

[Norwegian]

They did. They formed a state over Palestinian land despite Palestinian resistance.

Jews didn't that war that ended with them being in control of most the previous Palestinian Arab lands. 5 Arab armies INVADED newly formed Jewish State. Jews defended themselves and drove out the invaders successfully. Same thing happened in 1967 when Egyptian troops amassed on Israel's borders and Jordanians started unprovoked attacks in West Jerusalem from East Jerusalem that was still under Jordanian control. After Israel fought back, it again gained more land it held before. So just because Jews WON all the wars and gained land as a result, it didn't mean it was THEY who started those wars

Why didn't they?

Sindh and Punjab had its chance. Maybe its time for a tribal Talibani Imran Khan to take over?

Their CM sleeps while they starve, yet the people continue to vote for that corrupt party milking the Bhutto name. Or maybe not, and maybe the weaknesses of the current electoral system are what result in them getting elected.

Corrupt electoral system is part of the problem and not any solution as IK had hoped for bringing change in the country.

Had the Arabs succeeded against Israel, would you support them?

Of course if they had actually carried out the pre-war "promises" of driving the Jews into the sea and unleashing the blood-bath since the times of Mongol invasions

The reason Muslim scholars and scientists were so successful is not because of secularism. It was because Islamic principles themselves encourage rational thought and inquiry. Seeking knowledge is encouraged in Islam.

So what went wrong? Why did this quest for seeking new knowledge abruptly end in the Muslim world? Some blame it on Mongol invasions, but hey these invasions didn't last for ever, and they never robbed us of our Islamic principles. Ironically enough, most of these foreign invaders themselves later on converted to Islam

Just as there is no simple explanation for the success of Arabic science, there is no simple explanation for its gradual — not sudden, as al-Afghani claims — demise. The most significant factor was physical and geopolitical. As early as the tenth or eleventh century, the Abbasid empire began to factionalize and fragment due to increased provincial autonomy and frequent uprisings. By 1258, the little that was left of the Abbasid state was swept away by the Mongol invasion. And in Spain, Christians reconquered Córdoba in 1236 and Seville in 1248. But the Islamic turn away from scholarship actually preceded the civilization’s geopolitical decline — it can be traced back to the rise of the anti-philosophical Ash’arism school among Sunni Muslims, who comprise the vast majority of the Muslim world.

To understand this anti-rationalist movement, we once again turn our gaze back to the time of the Abbasid caliph al-Mamun. Al-Mamun picked up the pro-science torch lit by the second caliph, al-Mansur, and ran with it. He responded to a crisis of legitimacy by attempting to undermine traditionalist religious scholars while actively sponsoring a doctrine called Mu’tazilism that was deeply influenced by Greek rationalism, particularly Aristotelianism. To this end, he imposed an inquisition, under which those who refused to profess their allegiance to Mu’tazilism were punished by flogging, imprisonment, or beheading. But the caliphs who followed al-Mamun upheld the doctrine with less fervor, and within a few decades, adherence to it became a punishable offense. The backlash against Mu’tazilism was tremendously successful: by 885, a half century after al-Mamun’s death, it even became a crime to copy books of philosophy. The beginning of the de-Hellenization of Arabic high culture was underway. By the twelfth or thirteenth century, the influence of Mu’tazilism was nearly completely marginalized.

In its place arose the anti-rationalist Ash’ari school whose increasing dominance is linked to the decline of Arabic science. With the rise of the Ash’arites, the ethos in the Islamic world was increasingly opposed to original scholarship and any scientific inquiry that did not directly aid in religious regulation of private and public life. While the Mu’tazilites had contended that the Koran was created and so God’s purpose for man must be interpreted through reason, the Ash’arites believed the Koran to be coeval with God — and therefore unchallengeable. At the heart of Ash’ari metaphysics is the idea of occasionalism, a doctrine that denies natural causality. Put simply, it suggests natural necessity cannot exist because God’s will is completely free. Ash’arites believed that God is the only cause, so that the world is a series of discrete physical events each willed by God.

As Maimonides described it in The Guide for the Perplexed, this view sees natural things that appear to be permanent as merely following habit. Heat follows fire and hunger follows lack of food as a matter of habit, not necessity, “just as the king generally rides on horseback through the streets of the city, and is never found departing from this habit; but reason does not find it impossible that he should walk on foot through the place.” According to the occasionalist view, tomorrow coldness might follow fire, and satiety might follow lack of food. God wills every single atomic event and God’s will is not bound up with reason. This amounts to a denial of the coherence and comprehensibility of the natural world. In his controversial 2006 University of Regensburg address, Pope Benedict XVIdescribed this idea by quoting the philosopher Ibn Hazm (died 1064) as saying, “Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.” It is not difficult to see how this doctrine could lead to dogma and eventually to the end of free inquiry in science and philosophy.

Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science - The New Atlantis
What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East: Bernard Lewis: 9780060516055: Amazon.com: Books

You do not need to ''secularize'' anything or ''get Islam out of the way'' to be able to have successful scientists and scholars. Islam itself allows for that.

We are not talking about getting Islam "out" of scientific inquiry. Rather its anti-rationalist Ash’ari theories. Unless this dogmatic school of Ash’arites is replaced with more rationalist Mu’tazilis or something similar, there is not much hope for the rebirth of Muslim Science

Ibne Rushd never advocated ''secularism''. He was an Islamic scholar himself and established the importance of Islamic principles. What he argued was that Religion is compatible with philosophy and science, and that Islam encourages rational thought. Not that religion needs to be removed to make place for rational thought.

Again, I never said anything about "removing" religion. Rather it must be rationally justified at each and every moment of your life. How would you justify fasting in space? Or worse on another planet that has no moon at all in the future? We already have huge problems fasting near the world's northern poles. And Muslims who are living there have started "violating" the core Islamic teachings of Roza from sunrise to sunset. Why? Not because they don't want to follow them, but because it's "impossible" to follow them unless these centuries old teachings are "reformed" with present day conditions!!!

You've taken his ideas and presented the very antithesis of them as ''Averroes' secular thoughts''.

Averroes original thoughts were rational and logical. I see no such logic in your thoughts, however

''Imitating'' Islamic commandments? You mean following them. So you mean ''following Islam will get you nowhere, abandon the religion and become a Western Liberal''. No need to sugarcoat it.

I have already told you above that it's impossible (geographically) to fast in Ramadan here in northern regions of the world as Koran and Hadith (Shariah) command us to do. If it's sugarcoating to you, be my guest

So essentially you mean the west has abandoned their concept of modesty so we should abandon it too, ''thanks to various feminist movements''.

No, I never said that. On the contrary, I said that the Western women themselves dressed pretty modestly until the late 70's. This started to change when feminism and sexual revolution began to take hold on here:

By the mid-1970s and through the 1980s, newly won sexual freedoms were being exploited by big businesses looking to capitalize on an increasingly permissive society, with the advent of public and hardcore pornography.[7] Historian David Allyn argues that the sexual revolution was a time of "coming-out": about premarital sex, masturbation, erotic fantasies, pornography use, and sexuality.[1]

Sexual revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since, none of the above social movements happened in any part of our Muslim world, it makes no SENSE why we Muslims should be "following" it.

You know what's ''nonsense BS''? Declaring a headscarf a ''religious symbol''. It isn't. It's an article of clothing.

The French are pretty good in making BS laws that take years of amendments to "fix". Surely, this law too will be amended many times before it become somewhat useable

You have no idea what you're talking about. There was no ''reformation'' in the ''good old Rashidun days''. That was the purest form of Islamic law.

Sure there were reformations. During Rashidun Caliphate, large parts of non-Muslim lands became part of a growing Arab Caliphate. In order to accommodate and integrate these new non-Muslim subjects into the empire, Muslim jurists had to "MAKE" new laws and amend the old ones with the changing environment. No such ijtehad is happening today, and it's the root cause of why Shariah Laws in their present form are NOT working

Get something in your head: no amount of ''reformation'' will make Islam the same as Western Culture. Stop sugarcoating it and say that you do not agree with Islam itself, because that is essentially what you are saying. You want to strip Islam down to a set of rituals and sayings that hold no meaning.

To be honest, I HATE popular Western culture. I do not drink, smoke or eat pork as rest of my Norwegian countrymen. I do not dance, do parties on weekends as my work colleagues. So your BS claims that I somehow wanna replace Islamic culture with Western one is nothing but useless attempts of a straw man.
I am all for reforming 6th - 9th centuries codified Islamic laws so that they become more easily adjustable and thus actually implementable in today's modern world, where we do not live alone but with people of hundreds of different faiths and religions, including those who have no religion at all

No human can make lawful what God has declared unlawful.

And what has God Almighty declared unlawful? I am not making consumption of pork, alcohol and taking interest on loans "lawful" whatsoever!

Their laws were Sharia. Arguing whether or not it was ''codified'' is nothing more than semantics. You quoting Wikipedia articles says a lot about your understanding of Islam.

Yes, their laws were Shariah. Where have I denied that? But they CHANGED implementation of these laws under different conditions. For example its widely known that during a time of widespread famine, a boy stole something to eat. He was caught. Per Shariah Law, his hands had to be cut-off, right? But Caliph Hadhrat Omar (RA) intervened and spared him, thus VIOLATING Shariah Law. Why? Because he did not steal in normal conditions, and only did so out of his necessity to survive.

Now, today's Shariah Law followers cannot make these exceptions. For them, punishment for stealing is amputation, no matter why the crime was committed. And then we face similar problems when a victim of rape files a lawsuit against her rapist. The Islamic Judge, per Shariah law, DEMANDS 4 witnesses??? What the heck? Why would anybody rape with 4 witnesses present, unless we are talking about a gang-rape? Do such Islamic Laws even make sense in today's world?
Hudood Ordinances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can tell you a funny story from 2 years ago. A norwegian woman on a work tour in Dubai was raped by her colleague. She went to the police naturally, as she would do here in Norway. Unexpectedly for her, and expectedly for the Sharia lovers, the victim herself was arrested for extra-marital affair with that man and sentenced for 16 months in jail! . As news broke out, it became a national scandal and the Emir of Dubai himself had to intervene in that particular case, so that she could return home What a mockery of Shariah Law these so-called progressive Emirates have made!!!

A young Norwegian woman has been sentenced to 16 months in jail after she reported a rape in Dubai.
The 25-year-old was in the United Arab Emirates on a business trip when she was raped and reported the assault to the local police.
Dubai police did not believe her, and instead took her passport and jailed her on suspicion of having had sex outside marriage.

Norwegian woman who reported being raped in Dubai is jailed for 16 months | Daily Mail Online

Islamic banking exists.

There is no such thing as Islamic banking that doesn't charge interest in one way or another. Surely they have packaged their schemes that look like they are interest free, when in fact they do take interest in other forms

You can make new laws with the changing environment without mixing these new laws with the core principles of Islam and declaring them divine.

Spot on!

The same issue remains: you refuse to understand what Sharia Laws are. Sharia is divine law. By calling something Sharia you are saying it can't be reformed.

I know what Sharia Laws are. Hudood Laws in Pakistan were based on original Shariah Laws. They never worked as they were thought to work. Pakistan was much better off without them, than with them

In actuality Sharia doesn't need to be reformed, our understanding of it does. Mixing ''independent reasoning'' with ''divine law'' is what got us into problems in the first place.

Tell me, why would you still need 4 male witnesses to confirm authenticity of a rape per Shariah Law when there are dozens if not hundreds of new scientific techniques developed to confirm this more accurately?

There is no such thing as ''new Sharia Laws''. The very definition of Sharia Law is that it is divine and can not be changed. You are actually peddling the mullah narrative by believing that what they say is Sharia. Talk about being gullible.

Fasting in the holy month of Ramadan from sunrise to sunset is a DIVINE commandment. Now it doesn't say what to do in regions that do not have "normal" sunrises and sunsets? Such issues are left for the modern day scholars to debate on and then arrive on new "fatwas" that determine what Muslims should do in these extreme conditions
This is what I MEAN with reforming Shariah.
I am not inventing a new divine commandment of my own "liberal" choosing, rather only adding a paragraph that says what to do in case we do not have sunrise and sunset in a 24 hour day/night cycle

So at the end of the day we agree and you had resorted to name-calling as a mere reactionary measure to what you thought was me being a mullah. Interesting how that worked out.

Would you say the same about Palestinian Nationalism if the roles were reversed?

If Palestinian nationalism had succeeded in Jordan during Black September events, I could agree with you. Majority of Jordanian population to this day is still of Arab Palestinian origin . In fact in recent times, some have even argued for merging Palestine with Jordan:
A Palestinian-Jordanian confederation - Opinion - Jerusalem Post

US military aid to Israel violates domestic, international law | The Electronic Intifada
If the Begin-Sadat Center is a reliable source, so is the Electronic Intifada.

US military aid to Israel is no different than the aid Egyptian military receives yearly since peace treaty with Israel in 1979
Egypt–United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the Begin-Sadat Center's official website: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies advances a realist, conservative and Zionist agenda in the search for security and peace for Israel.

Yeah so what?

They admit they advance a Zionist agenda and are therefore one-sided. Yet you quote them. And then you say Muslims are gullible.

Yes, I know that. I gave you a link from a Zionist website. If you believe they are lying regarding Palestinian aid per capita, prove it

Who's talking about intervention? I am saying they may try to expand. Not just 'intervene'.

They will expand, not for their lust of more free land but because of security concerns

 

[TankMan]

Jews didn't that war that ended with them being in control of most the previous Palestinian Arab lands. 5 Arab armies INVADED newly formed Jewish State. Jews defended themselves and drove out the invaders successfully. Same thing happened in 1967 when Egyptian troops amassed on Israel's borders and Jordanians started unprovoked attacks in West Jerusalem from East Jerusalem that was still under Jordanian control. After Israel fought back, it again gained more land it held before. So just because Jews WON all the wars and gained land as a result, it didn't mean it was THEY who started those wars

Going in circles now are we? We're back to five Arab armies invading the ''newly formed Jewish State'' again. At this point I'm just going to copy and paste my previous responses.

That is false. Five Arab armies intervened in Palestine when a Zionist militia invaded it. The natives didn't accept the newly founded 'State of Israel'.

Sindh and Punjab had its chance. Maybe its time for a tribal Talibani Imran Khan to take over?

He has my support.

Corrupt electoral system is part of the problem and not any solution as IK had hoped for bringing change in the country.

The solution would be to reform the electoral system.

We are not talking about getting Islam "out" of scientific inquiry. Rather its anti-rationalist Ash’ari theories. Unless this dogmatic school of Ash’arites is replaced with more rationalist Mu’tazilis or something similar, there is not much hope for the rebirth of Muslim Science

So now that you've read one article, ''Ash'ari theories'' and the ''dogmatic school of Ash'arites'' is the root of all evil. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. There is nothing wrong with Ash'ari ideas. Some of the greatest scientists, including Al Biruni were followers of this school of thought. The problem is with dogma and extremism. It doesn't matter which ideology, theology or school of thought is used, if someone decides to corrupt it with dogma and extremism, it will become dogmatic, extreme, and restrictive.

Pointing fingers ''oh it's the Muqallids who are the root of all evil, it's the Asharis who are the root of all evil, it's the Salafis that are the root of all evil'' is exactly what mullahs do. That's what leads to takfir and sectarianism.

It's very interesting how similar the basic attitudes of both extremes are.

Averroes original thoughts were rational and logical. I see no such logic in your thoughts, however

You choose not to see it.

I have already told you above that it's impossible (geographically) to fast in Ramadan here in northern regions of the world as Koran and Hadith (Shariah) command us to do.

How is it impossible to fast? It is simple: set times according to some place on Earth and fast for that set amount of time.

No, I never said that. On the contrary, I said that the Western women themselves dressed pretty modestly until the late 70's. This started to change when feminism and sexual revolution began to take hold on here:
Sexual revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since, none of the above social movements happened in any part of our Muslim world, it makes no SENSE why we Muslims should be "following" it.

Exactly. Then why is it that our female athletes must wear nothing on their legs while all male athletes wear trousers?

To be honest, I HATE popular Western culture. I do not drink, smoke or eat pork as rest of my Norwegian countrymen. I do not dance, do parties on weekends as my work colleagues. So your BS claims that I somehow wanna replace Islamic culture with Western one is nothing but useless attempts of a straw man.

Did you not ridicule and condemn Islamic modesty and defend the western culture of exposure instead? A strawman is when you argue against something that the other side hasn't said. In this case, you did express your support for Western culture and disdain for Islamic culture. That is not a strawman, that is an observation.

If you've changed your opinion, just say so.

And what has God Almighty declared unlawful? I am not making consumption of pork, alcohol and taking interest on loans "lawful" whatsoever!

Exposing unnecessary amounts of skin, for one. I could list several more, but let's stick to a few for now.

Yes, their laws were Shariah. Where have I denied that? But they CHANGED implementation of these laws under different conditions. For example its widely known that during a time of widespread famine, a boy stole something to eat. He was caught. Per Shariah Law, his hands had to be cut-off, right? But Caliph Hadhrat Omar (RA) intervened and spared him, thus VIOLATING Shariah Law. Why? Because he did not steal in normal conditions, and only did so out of his necessity to survive.

No, Hazrat Umar (RA) did not violate Sharia law, and neither did he change any interpretations. Sharia itself requires justice and Sharia itself allows for reasonable exceptions. If anything, he followed it properly.

It is today's scholars that have inclined towards irrational rigidity.

Now, today's Shariah Law followers cannot make these exceptions. For them, punishment for stealing is amputation, no matter why the crime was committed. And then we face similar problems when a victim of rape files a lawsuit against her rapist. The Islamic Judge, per Shariah law, DEMANDS 4 witnesses??? What the heck? Why would anybody rape with 4 witnesses present, unless we are talking about a gang-rape? Do such Islamic Laws even make sense in today's world?
Hudood Ordinances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can tell you a funny story from 2 years ago. A norwegian woman on a work tour in Dubai was raped by her colleague. She went to the police naturally, as she would do here in Norway. Unexpectedly for her, and expectedly for the Sharia lovers, the victim herself was arrested for extra-marital affair with that man and sentenced for 16 months in jail! . As news broke out, it became a national scandal and the Emir of Dubai himself had to intervene in that particular case, so that she could return home What a mockery of Shariah Law these so-called progressive Emirates have made!!!

Such laws are not Islamic at all.They are a complete and utter mistake. The Islamic ruling requiring four witnesses is to prove an extra-marital affair, like the one that Norwegian woman was sentenced for. Not for rape. If someone was to accuse someone else of Zina, they would have to provide four witnesses. A woman who was raped would not face this.
The Woman and the Islamic Law (Part 1/2) - Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
Shorter version: Your Questions Answered - Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
And with modern developments and the possibility of DNA tests to prove rape, the process becomes even simpler. And yes, that is allowed and perfectly Islamic.

There is no such thing as Islamic banking that doesn't charge interest in one way or another. Surely they have packaged their schemes that look like they are interest free, when in fact they do take interest in other forms

Do you have any evidence or reasoning or do I just have to take your word for it?

Tell me, why would you still need 4 male witnesses to confirm authenticity of a rape per Shariah Law

You wouldn't. The four witnesses ruling was never to confirm the authenticity of a rape. Four witnesses are only required if someone is accused of voluntary fornication. That is to prevent issues like people trying to slander or malign others by accusing them of fornication.

Fasting in the holy month of Ramadan from sunrise to sunset is a DIVINE commandment. Now it doesn't say what to do in regions that do not have "normal" sunrises and sunsets?

What the Quran and Hadith say is: be reasonable and do not be extreme or rigid. Now based on that, it would be reasonable to keep your fasts according to the times in Makkah if you were in a region that has sunrises and sunsets that make it impractical to use the traditional methods.

This is what I MEAN with reforming Shariah.

Islam already has provisions and guidelines - it's simple: be reasonable and do not be extreme. All we need to do is convince the Mullahs of it. Or get rid of them.

If Palestinian nationalism had succeeded in Jordan during Black September events, I could agree with you. Majority of Jordanian population to this day is still of Arab Palestinian origin

So you don't particularly care about the morality of ideologies as long as they 'succeed'. Interesting.

US military aid to Israel is no different than the aid Egyptian military receives yearly since peace treaty with Israel in 1979

Then the aid Palestine receives is no different to the aid Rwanda receives. What's the problem with them receiving aid?

Yeah so what?

Yes, I know that. I gave you a link from a Zionist website. If you believe they are lying regarding Palestinian aid per capita, prove it

I won't go through the trouble of proving that they are lying because them lying is not the basis of my argument, even if they are lying. The basis of my argument is that there is nothing wrong with them receiving aid. Begin-Sadat's argument that it is ''discriminatory'' is absolutely idiotic since Israel itself receives several orders of magnitude more aid than the Palestinians. Therefore Palestinian aid is in no way discriminatory.

 

[Hindustani78]

Ancient Spanish village scraps ‘Kill Jews’ name - The Hindu
The tiny Spanish village of Castrillo Matajudios which means "Camp Kill Jews" on Monday
The tiny Spanish village of Castrillo Matajudios which means “Camp Kill Jews” on Monday officially changed its name back to Castrillo Mota de Judios (“Jews’ Hill Camp”) following a referendum and regional government approval.

The village, with about 50 inhabitants, voted to change the name in 2014 after the mayor argued that the term was offensive and that the village should honour its Jewish origins.

Documents show the villages’ original name was “Jews’ Hill Camp” and that the “Kill Jews” name dates from 1627, after a 1492 Spanish edict ordering Jews to become Catholics or flee the country. Those who remained faced the Spanish inquisition, with many burned at the stake.

The name change was approved by the regional government of Castilla y Leon and published in the region’s official gazette.

Although Jews were killed in the area, researchers believe the village got its recent name from Jewish residents who converted to Catholicism and wanted to reinforce their repudiation of Judaism to convince Spanish authorities of their loyalty.

Others suspect the change may have come from a slip of the pen.

Although no Jews live in the village today, many residents have ancient Jewish roots and the town’s official shield includes the Star of David.

Spain’s lower house of Parliament this month approved a law setting a citizenship path for the descendants of Jews who were forced to flee the country centuries ago.

Spain also has an ancient south-eastern town called Valle de Matamoros, which translate as “Kill Muslims Valley.” The town has said it has no plans to change its name. Matamoros is also a surname in Spain.

 

[xenon54 out]

They are our Jews now, they even represented us in Eurovision.