Almost 100 organizations around the globe will protest

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Bakar:

As Muslim, my definition of success is utterly different from those which you have ascribed to western nations.

I don't buy the arguement there are different definitions of seccess. I except slight variations and mostly the standards are very similar.

 

We all are humans whether muslims or not. We all have dreams of living in better circumstances be it financially, spiritually, socially...these are the standards everyone uses. Now, as muslims I know we have our way of life set out for us by Allah but that doesn't mean we don't have fears, nightmares, dreams, hopes, hate etc. like nonmuslims. Its doesn't mean nonmuslims don't like to better their situation just like us.

 

Let us not lie to ourselves...we envy the West, their secuss and in some cases their lifestyle. That is why we come to thier lands by the hordes every year. Some even risk death to get to the West.

 

The conditions which we [Muslims] find ourselves today are the end result of Muslims emulating life style oriented to the blasphemous rather than the sacred.

 

Not true at all. If the Western way of life was so bad, evil and the cause for our dire situation, then why is the West doing so much better then us muslims? I have my reasons for the problems facing muslims today but I know for certain it has nothing to do with emulating anyone let alone Westerners. That is arguement I heard for one to often from unqualified Imams at mosques.

 

 

To understand the phenomenon of these crises one will make a gross error for dismissing the history of colonization and of plantation, and the economic incentives that associated with them.

 

Everyone has history of colonism...but that hasn't stopped them from progressing. Muslims are no different. This is just another convenient excuse that only delays dealing with real problems. It's with popular trend of blame others instead of honest intropective analysis of US which is what we need so bad.

 

 

It is true that many peopple use our religion for their personal gain (prestige, power, and egoisim). It is inevitable fact that human use system or religion for evil cause.

And that is my reason for supporting the separation of state and religion.

[xiinfaniin]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

I don't have a definition of Sharia law and it doesn't matter what is the definition of Sharia law.

.............The Sharia law is NOT Allah's laws. Only parts of it but not ALL. Most of the Sharia law is man made, how can you say its Allah's laws?

 

Most of the Sharia law is based on Hadiths..

 

^^Look how you contradict yourself, Socod-badane.

 

If you don’t know (don’t have) the definition of Sharia Law then how have you arrived these definitive conclusions? You see, good Socod-badane, facts are stubborn and no one is entitled to them. But if you’re resolved to be evasive about where you get these astonishing assertions I must assume that you’re not interested in a serious debate. Nevertheless, I will, with good intent, try to engage you and show how you got those allegations, embarrassingly, wrong.

 

To begin, you need to know one of the worst mistakes one makes is to misrepresent and twist facts to advance trivial agendas. It is one thing to question and address the pervasive and the persisting legal corruptions in the Islamic world but it is, all together, another to indict divine legal system and negate its validity. To dispute, as you proudly did, the source of the Sharia Law, thought hopeless and futile effort in nature, requires more than mere sophistry, saaxiib. Socod-badane, you are really impeaching the integrity of your character by sounding naively simplistic. Compounded-ignorance is not the invention of Muslim scholars whose authority you don’t respect, much less recognize, rather it is telling description of those who think they know some thing when in fact they are in darkness of it. It is much like Mark Twain’s (another Twain as I have a hunch that you would recognize his literary authority!) famous quote; it ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. Marka ha ka caroon saaxiib.

 

Now, to say that Qur’an is the main source of Sharia Law is understatement. That the sound Xadiith is the primary source to interpret the Qur’an is a fact. The two are intertwined. Sharia Law, hence, is the combinations of the two. Here are couple useful definitions of it (It really, mid you, matters what the Sharia Law is).

 

1- Definition of the Sharia Law

 

2-Definition with some key terms of the Sharia Law

 

Granted there are contentions issues in the Islamic code as any other legal code. But the Islamic code is applicable to day as it had been before. It encompasses all aspects of life (both secular and religious if you can make that distinction, that is). The objective of Sharia مقاصد الشريعة (of Islam for that matter) is to safeguard five things: religion, property (and other possessions), life, relationships (like marriage), and Sobriety of Muslim. Of course each one of these could have infinite issues that require specific clauses to address it. But you get the general idea. I don’t honestly know any modern Muslim country that implements Sharia Law. But it is some thing I yearn for and I would like to see implemented. As a Muslim I believe it will have positive impact on my life. From finance, inheritance, to the concept of proof in the courts, Sharia Law will have consequential impact and a positive one at that.

 

I hope you change your paradigm from which you based your argument. Make no mistake I am not defending the way Saudi Royal courts implement it nor have I satisfied with the way Taliban abused it. What I am contending is your reckless allegations. It really borders blasphemy, saaxiib.

 

As to this topic and recognizing Sharia Law in the west, though partially, I like it. I think it is a good idea. It would help.

[Maxamed Caday]

Originally posted by TRUTH_BE_TOLD:

quote:Originally posted by Muhammad Howell - Niinka Cadaan:

wow. That's six down, only four to go!

Are you the man at the gate who tells people who is in or out of the religion?can you let me in please?

I am not making takfir, I am only pointing out that our miskeen fellow Muslim nomad is methodically making statements that fall into accordance with the previously stated "ten things that nullify your Islam", compiled from Sahih al-Bukhari.

 

Mind you, I myself am a jahil ajnabi who just converted to Islam, and could not even be honestly called a talib ad-deen, let alone carry the authority or knowledge it requires to pronounce takfir upon another Muslim. That is a right that belongs only to the People of Knowledge (who have knowledge of Islam), the major scholars, our kibar al-ulema. Takfir is for the Ulema alone. If you make takfir on someone, and you are wrong, you just took your SELF out of the religion! It is a very dangerous matter indeed.

 

It's good that you are concerned for your friend, but don't worry. They are not under attack from me. I was merely trying to raise our miskeen friend's awareness of what they were stating about Islam, and how it contrasts with what we find in the books of knowledge.. I love Muslims, and I wouldn't kick a Muslim who is down.

 

By the way, think about WHY I would want to cause somebody to reconsider their statements on The Religion, which I have done by providing contrasting statements from the books of knowledge, and by thereafter pointing out the example indirectly..

 

I don't want bad for that person. Can't you see I care enough to try and do something? I hate to see another Muslim disparaged about the religion.

 

It's like this: I see a person who's been blindfolded, and they are walking very close to a cliff which they may inadvertently fall off of, and I am trying to tell them about the cliff so they don't fall off, however I realize if I am not careful, I might make them nervous and they will panic and run the wrong direction...

 

And then you come along and demand to know why I am pushing people off of cliffs.. I am telling you, be careful now, because our friend is standing on the edge of a very dangerous precipice.. Don't make them think that I am going to try and push them off!

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

quote:Originally posted by Socod_badne:

I don't have a definition of Sharia law and it doesn't matter what is the definition of Sharia law.

.............The Sharia law is NOT Allah's laws. Only parts of it but not ALL. Most of the Sharia law is man made, how can you say its Allah's laws?

 

Most of the Sharia law is based on Hadiths..

 

^^

Look how you contradict yourself,

Socod-badane

.

I don't contradict myself at all. I stated in my opening statement that I don't have a definition of Sharia law. But more crucially, I also said it doesn't matter what the definition of Sharia law. Whatever definition of Sharia law may exist is of no aid in deciding whether or not its useful/practical law or not.

 

However, stating the fact that Sharia law is not Allah's law is in no way contradictory to my earlier statement of me not having my own definition of Sharia law. I was simply correcting a factual error.

 

If you don’t know (don’t have) the definition of Sharia Law then how have you arrived these definitive conclusions?

Why do you need to have A definition of Sharia law to know that its main source is not the Quran? Where in the Quran does it say music is haram?

 

But if you’re resolved to be evasive about where you get these astonishing assertions I must assume that you’re not interested in a serious debate.

 

You have not shown any of my assertions to be factually wrong...not yet. So how can say I'm not interested in a serious debate or am evasive? I have simply stated the facts along with my opinions. What am I evading?

 

It is one thing to question and address the pervasive and the persisting legal corruptions in the Islamic world but it is, all together, another to indict divine legal system and negate its validity.

 

I haven't negated the validity of Sharia law, reality did. I was simply pointing that out!

 

To dispute, as you proudly did, the source of the Sharia Law

I'm curious, what is the source of the sharia law according to you?

 

you are really impeaching the integrity of your character by sounding naively simplistic.

Or honest.

 

Compounded-ignorance

is not the invention of Muslim scholars whose authority you don’t respect, much less recognize, rather it is telling description of those who think they know some thing when in fact they are in darkness of it.

But YOU said it was a term used by Islamic scholars. I replied that it is consistant with what Islamic scholars do when asked questions that they can't answer. So far you have not shown any of what I said to be wrong, have you? Also keep in mind that my premise is the practicality of Sharia law, I'm not concerned with theological aspects of it as it is irrelevant. I'm opposed to Sharia law because it is not practical in today's world not because it's theological unsound!

 

That the sound

Xadiith

is the primary source to interpret the

Qur’an

is a fact. The two are intertwined. Sharia Law, hence, is the combinations of the two.

 

Few things. First, the hadiths are NOT the word of Allah but words and interpetations of fallable man. Since the Hadiths are not Allah's words, they are changeable, redefinable with intention of making them more practical and harmonious with today's world and its needs. The Hadithsa are not untouchable, only the Quran.

 

1-

Definition of the Sharia Law

 

2-

Definition with some key terms of the Sharia Law

 

And how does this tell us whether the Sharia law is practical or not?

 

But the Islamic code is applicable to day as it had been before.

 

No, it isn't. Facts say so, no I. Find me Islamic code that is applicabe today at practice any where in the world.

 

I don’t honestly know any modern Muslim country that implements Sharia Law. But it is some thing I yearn for and I would like to see implemented.

 

You'll have to wait ur whole life time cause since the death of Prophet (scw), it's been difficult if not impossible to fully implement Sharia law.

[xiinfaniin]

^^ Waa kaa haray. Adeer anigu cid walba lama doodo.

 

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

 

Few things. First, the hadiths are NOT the word of Allah but words and interpetations of fallable man. Since the Hadiths are not Allah's words, they are changeable, redefinable with intention of making them more practical and harmonious with today's world and its needs. The Hadithsa are not untouchable, only the Quran

.

Muslims believe that their Prophet is not a fallible man!

[Castro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Muslims believe that their Prophet is not a fallible man!

While a prophet is under divine moral guidance, he is fallible. Infallibilty is akin to divinity. Prophets are human who do not capitulate to intentionally commiting sin but they are fallible.

[xiinfaniin]

^^And here you go again.

 

Though the prophet was, as a human, capable of making mistakes He was not, good Castro, erroneous in his divine reports. His (Axaadiith) were not a mere collection of mortal rants; they were, as the Qur’an affirms, another form of revelation, saaxiib.

 

The reason I’ve withdrawn from this thread is not because Socod-badane is misinformed about the basics of the subject he chose to debate rather it is because he sounds to me a charlatan of sort. And I don’t deem wise to engage a virtual dual with imposters, saaxiib.

 

For you to come out for the rescue of this sinking soul, as hastily as you did, by playing with the words while avoiding the gist of his broken argument is a telling sign. Engage me, if you will, but be brave enough not to camouflage with semantics, saaxiib.

 

What does it mean to assert that the words of the prophet are the interpretations of fallible man? What does it imply in the context of his argument?

[Castro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Though the prophet was, as a human, capable of making mistakes He was not, good Castro, erroneous in his divine reports.

Dude, there is no rescue op here. Is he or is he not fallible? He can't be both. What does it mean to be fallible? Infallability has no exceptions. That's all I was pointing out.

 

Carry on. I insist.

[xiinfaniin]

^^^The Prophet was ‘incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals’. So yes he was not fallible.

[NGONGE]

Ah! So much for expecting a real debate to materialise out of this! I was almost sure that Socod Badane was not a lesbian or Salman Rushdie in disguise. It turns out, according to old Xiinfiin, that he’s a charlatan. Game, set and match.

 

Did I hear the word evasive?

[xiinfaniin]

^^^As the old the saying goes, you can’t clap with a one-hand saaxiib. I was lured by what seemed to be a genuine debate. An empty loom it has become. That much for lament over this failed crop.

 

 

As for your intermittent bared-teeth, I donnu what to make of it. Perhaps I could do the same .

[NGONGE]

^^^ If he’s a charlatan or fraud, others reading this are not. Rather than bow out, you should have played to the gallery, saaxib.

 

Give me a few hours and I shall, Insha Allah, demonstrate (for I’ve given up on anyone here volunteering it).

[Castro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

As for your intermittent bared-teeth, I donnu what to make of it. Perhaps I could do the same

.

Good Xiin, not that an Operation Rescue Ngonge is ever necessary but his grin likely spotlights your calling Socod_badne a charlatan and an imposter (English for liar, cheater, fraudulent, even kaafir). Even if his soul was sinking and arguments were broken, it behooves you not to use such terms. For if you were "winning the debate" you would not have had to resort to such basic jiving tactic.

 

That's all.

[Jacpher]

SB, I really don’t know what we’re debating here. I think I lost track of the discussion. Let me see. Your initial argument was that Sharia law is outdated, unfair, and accessory to Islamic living. You went ahead and brushed off the importance of the meaning of the term. Surprisingly enough, you still claim Sharia is a man made law, contrary to modern day society. How can one debate about a subject that’s he/she has no knowledge of? Can someone with no science education dismiss the value of teaching Biology in schools? Worst yet, does not know the term Biology. Likewise, I could not engage a debate with Fidel about communism for I’m ignorant about the subject. Such debate would be useless for Fidel, you might agree.

 

It’s said that a Quadratic equation formula won’t do any good for a student that can’t do a simple multiplication, so let get back to the basics.

 

Fact: Quran is the word of Allah, addresses all aspects of life, including the past, present, & the future. It deals with legal issues, gives solutions for day-to-day problems, ife after death, etc. It ain’t only about praying and doing charity work. It’s beyond that.

 

Fact: Quran and hadith are inter-connected. It’s impossible to take one and leave the other. Qur’an does not show us the method to pray and give Zakat or Hajj, thus we rely on hadith. Qur’an directs [us] to obey and follow the prophet. It states the prophet does not speak of his own desire. The hadiths, prophets words, action & things were done in his presence that he approved of, are all revelation from Allah. Quran calls us to take whatsoever the prophet (read: sunnah) gave us. It goes beyond that and commands us to follow the prophet (read: sunnah) if we love Allah. Some hadiths are the words of Allah. They’re called Hadiisul Quds.

 

You probably disagree but any Sharia law that is not in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah can be challenged. If I remember correctly, Imam Shaafici once said, if my words are contrary to the Kitab (Quran) sunnah, throw them into the wall. Hadiths are the words of the prophet. They are also a revelation from Allah. Hadith are almost as sacred as the Quran. Would you deny Quran and Hadith come to us through the prophet scw? Why take one and reject the other? Is it not safe to say Allah spoke to us through the tongue of the prophet scw? If not, why not deny the Quran also?

 

By the way, there’s a group that negates the Ahadith of the prophet scw at all. This group is considered to be out of the fold of Islam. Perhaps you happen to agree or belong to them. And please don’t reply in quote. It distracts the direction of the discussion.

 

You may play with words, but the prophet was MACSUUM.

[xiinfaniin]

Castro , Look at you; yours is very interesting character to say the least.

 

I stand with the charlatan charge. A man who has no respect for the articles of my faith will never find a reliable shelter from my sharp tongue. Actually I haven’t called in my heavy artillery yet. So be afraid. Respect is mutual, so keep that in mind.

 

For now though, forget about Socod-badane and his blasphemy (that is what it was) for a minute, and tell us where you stand on the issue at hand. If you want to debate make an argument, explain it and back it with supportable facts. Don’t trail behind, saaxiib.

 

Here is the argument I tried to challenge:

1-Sharia Law is outdated, unfair, and dispensable.

2- Mohamed (the prophet of God) is fallible (not macsuum) man whose words are not final.

3- When discussing about the above points, definitions don’t matter.

I realize you at least agreed with argument # 2. Come out of your closet and tell us more. Care to furnish us how you believe in the words from a man (the prophet that is) who could err like we do? Is it not that the height of ignorance? This is a little challenge for you, I suppose.

 

As Ducaqabe eluded, you can’t just choose and debate (serious debate that is) about any subject if you lack the basics of it. Is it not fundamental to your faith that you accept and comply with Allah’s laws? Is it not basic that you accept and respect the Cismah (infallibility) of your prophet? What calls? Or the mere fact that Xiin is the other side of the argument is enough for you to drink from the bog?

 

 

NGONGE, is this the reform you had in mind saaxiib? I guess the pre-labor is over for you and it is high time to deliver . Count on me on this, I will be there for you .