Muslim who needs answers???

[cathopologist]

You don’t need sharia couyrt for anything. If a women who is not married showed up pregnant one day , it is very much enough to say she was raped.

she will be regarded as victim

the police will investigate the crime and prosecute the attacker.

In many cases, the pregnant woman would be accused of having pre-marital sex. She would then be given the chance to ‘repent’ in prison and after giving birth and breast-feeding her child until of age, she will be executed by hanging or stoning. In some cases, even the police cannot interfere. Of course, if the woman was in a secular country, she would be let free but shunned by the Muslim community, her family and friends for life.

This is what Islam teaches , if some idiot in some backward place acts otherwise this si not the fault of Islam.

I beg to differ. These ‘idiots’ are always the first ones to justify their acts “because the Qu’ran said so”.

 

[Xiaahmad]

for topic starter:

for robert spencer u can watch his whole book review chapter by chapter on which channel

www.youtube.com/ozzycda

 

[cathopologist]

Robert Spencer is not an expert on Islam, even though he served in many advisory boards. His works should be taken with a pinch of salt, but never too seriously. He instigates paranoia and that is never healthy.

 

[inJESUS]

I think there is something strange, either muslim posters forgot to mention it, or failed to explain. How can a case of rape be determined by the woman’s testimony only? what if she is lying to cover up something else?

 

[R_not]

Robert Spencer is not an expert on Islam, even though he served in many advisory boards. His works should be taken with a pinch of salt, but never too seriously. He instigates paranoia and that is never healthy.

Usually the article is posted and yes, Mr. Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald (main commenters) make some comments. But, if you are afraid of the news - I don’t know how this can be taken as paranoia. You don’t have to take the comments seriously, but the articles are referenced and accurate reproductions.

But, I have heard this before from (mostly) muslims and their apologists. I am just surprised that you can’t handle the daily news of what is going on in the world concerning islam.

You can log in and post a comment, or even send him a note. Now, he does not control those posts - except for language and violent types of posts. There are rules for posting.

I have seen him with muslims and to be quite frank, Mr Spencer has never treated or talked to them poorly while I cannot say the same for the muslim’s behavior and speech. I have seen poor behavior in colleges (not only with Mr. Spencer, but anyone who doesn’t agree with some of the left wingers, and muslims, are treated poorly - free speech is only meant for them, they think).

Mr. Spencer has tried to bring to light the plight of women in islam in muslim countries and the groups that should be behind him behave poorly too. I am astounded by it all. It seems our left is only for the abused guy if it is politically correct for that day. If their agenda of hatred outstrips the abused people - they don’t give a whip. An example are the muslim women living in muslim countries. YOu would think ALL women would be up in arms about their poor treatment and instead the opposite is true.

 

[swariffin]

Yes, I know that the conclusion came after, before I had no plausible meaning they just read and don’t real grasp the full sense and that is the main point about this scientific miracle. It has now full meaning and even astonishing because now it makes sense at 100%.

In this case, I believe that the sky is expanding has nothing to do with the Quran verse you quoted. From Mars observation it is clear that with naked eye observation you might get into the expanding sky. It is no miracle and indeed logical. The Arab people was supposed to be good in Astronomy, though. (In Astronomy you get the terminology of Zenith and Nadir, which are rooted from the Arabic language.

So, the ancient Arab at that time got the “right” conclusion from the wrong observation of the expanding sky. The Surrah you brought up, I believe is some sort of a coincidence, but no miracle/prophecy in this case. The Ancient Indian of Aztec or Maya in central America also good in Astronomy. Should they have a written bible and mentioned their observation there, and conformed by 21st century Astronomy, will anybody call it a miracle?

 

[swariffin]

** I feel that it is necessary to cut a hand of the thief. If some one has a better punishment in mind then that should be told to us. Stealing something is a big crime. It upsets the society. If stealing is allowed, soon the robbers will follow with their robbery.

The robbers awill also need to be accommodated.**

So, after the robber pay for his crime by having his hand cut, how can he continue to make a living?

 

[swariffin]

But here is my logic, just so you can see it:

If you believe in a Creator, if you believe in God, in Allah…

And Allah came down manifest and told you that women should get half the inheritance of men… what would you say? No? That you know better than Allah?

So, if Allah order you to face to the direction where Allah is not there (when you are praying), you believe it is logical?

 

[sedonaman]

So, if Allah order you to face to the direction where Allah is not there (when you are praying), you believe it is logical?

This is a mistake that Westerners make about Islam. Western thought is based on the logic of contradiction; that is, if two statements contradict each other, at least one of them is false. This is not true with Islam. Islamic “logic” is dualistic; two contradictory statements can both be true. Their ethics are also dualistic; Muslims are treated one way and non-believers another. Consequently, there is no Golden Rule under Islam. The West practices unitary ethics: everyone at some level is equal before the law. Since there is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics, there is no compromise with Islam. Any solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict, for example, must necessarily involve compromise of some sort; but, there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. Therefore, there is no solution to that conflict short of driving all the Jews into the sea and ending the state of Israel.

frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769

 

[swariffin]

This is a mistake that Westerners make about Islam. Western thought is based on the logic of contradiction; that is, if two statements contradict each other, at least one of them is false. This is not true with Islam. Islamic “logic” is dualistic; two contradictory statements can both be true. Their ethics are also dualistic; Muslims are treated one way and non-believers another. Consequently, there is no Golden Rule under Islam. The West practices unitary ethics: everyone at some level is equal before the law. Since there is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics, there is no compromise with Islam. Any solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict, for example, must necessarily involve compromise of some sort; but, there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. Therefore, there is no solution to that conflict short of driving all the Jews into the sea and ending the state of Israel.

frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769

I don’t get that conclusion from any Western country, my dear friend. I got that conclusion from the Muslim themselves. You said that Islam believes in dualism such as two statements contradict each other can both be true. How come they don’t understand Jesus is 100% fully God and 100% fully man. Those statements are even non contradictory since God can become man but man cannot become God.

 

[sedonaman]

Usually the article is posted and yes, Mr. Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald (main commenters) make some comments. But, if you are afraid of the news - I don’t know how this can be taken as paranoia. You don’t have to take the comments seriously, but the articles are referenced and accurate reproductions.

If it weren’t for people like Robert Spencer, we would never know anything about Islam except what Leftist Big Media [LBM] wants us to know, namely that which fits their multiculture ideology. That’s why we must take what LBM says with a BAG of salt. Just as important, if not more so, is what LBM doesn’t report. [The Leftist doesn’t reject ideology when it conflicts with truth; he rejects truth when it conflicts with ideology.]

Mr. Spencer has tried to bring to light the plight of women in islam in muslim countries and the groups that should be behind him behave poorly too. I am astounded by it all. It seems our left is only for the abused guy if it is politically correct for that day.

If he is not “abused”, they will invent an abuse.

If their agenda of hatred outstrips the abused people - they don’t give a whip. An example are the muslim women living in muslim countries. YOu would think ALL women would be up in arms about their poor treatment and instead the opposite is true.

That’s because the women want to go on living. My theory on why women are treated poorly under Islam is that a man needs civilizing, and it is the woman who civilizes him. Islam is all about conquest, war, and subjugation of other peoples until it rules the world. Since women civilize men, equality for women under Islam would mean the severe curtailing of jihad, and hence an end of Islam. After all, we can’t have women going around having a negative influence on the manly art of war.

 

[sedonaman]

How come they don’t understand Jesus is 100% fully God and 100% fully man.

Because they believe that saying God is three persons is like saying there are three Gods, which is heresy to them.

 

[R_not]

This is a mistake that Westerners make about Islam. Western thought is based on the logic of contradiction; that is, if two statements contradict each other, at least one of them is false. This is not true with Islam. Islamic “logic” is dualistic; two contradictory statements can both be true. Their ethics are also dualistic; Muslims are treated one way and non-believers another. Consequently, there is no Golden Rule under Islam. The West practices unitary ethics: everyone at some level is equal before the law. Since there is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics, there is no compromise with Islam. Any solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict, for example, must necessarily involve compromise of some sort; but, there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. Therefore, there is no solution to that conflict short of driving all the Jews into the sea and ending the state of Israel.

frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769

that is an unacceptable solution.

I have read about that dualistic nature - but I think it is more along the lines of… “unless you agree with us and become a muslim then we will afford you all the benefits, if you do not you will be treated worse than donkey dung. And if we are in the process of da’wa we will use the surahs and verses that we think you want to hear and confuse many of you who do not want to take the time out to find out the truth that those peaceful surahs were abrogated by the more violent ones. And it is so convenient that the koran is so kludgy because you can’t tell just by reading it what surahs were abrogate!..”

Yeah, I agree with you saying there is no compromise with them not only concerning Israel - but anything. If they get beat today, they pick up the fight for another day. That is why islam is ‘eternal war’. Most sane people get tired of fighting and that is why peace treaties (compromise) while in islam peace treaties is just a pause in fighting. And our ignoramous leaders haven’t figured that out yet.

 

[R_not]

Because they believe that saying God is three persons is like saying there are three Gods, which is heresy to them.

We have gone over the Trinity with most of the muslims on these threads in previous threads and so many posts that I cannot count them. So many different people have tried to explain it and what I have figured out is if they do accept it then they cannot label us ‘polytheists’ and go after us in their killing sprees, or in the case of these so called ‘peaceful’ ones they won’t be able to support the other jihadists who do the killing of Christians.

right now, the killing of Christians far out numbers the killing of Jews, hindus, etc. But, notice the lack of coverage of that - or the nitwit sending our troops in to help muslims slaughter more Christians as in the case in Bosnia/Kosovo! The lack of any history about such peoples as the Armenians, and other mass slaughters of Christians by muslims. Oh, we hear about the Jews - as we should!! but even there we don’t hear that there were also many Christians killed in the holocaust. We have to remind ourselves or else it is lost.

 

[R_not]

If it weren’t for people like Robert Spencer, we would never know anything about Islam except what Leftist Big Media [LBM] wants us to know, namely that which fits their multiculture ideology. That’s why we must take what LBM says with a BAG of salt. Just as important, if not more so, is what LBM doesn’t report. [The Leftist doesn’t reject ideology when it conflicts with truth; he rejects truth when it conflicts with ideology.]

If he is not “abused”, they will invent an abuse.

That’s because the women want to go on living. My theory on why women are treated poorly under Islam is that a man needs civilizing, and it is the woman who civilizes him. Islam is all about conquest, war, and subjugation of other peoples until it rules the world. Since women civilize men, equality for women under Islam would mean the severe curtailing of jihad, and hence an end of Islam. After all, we can’t have women going around having a negative influence on the manly art of war.

I like your post!

 

[Walid]

Thanks for the explanation. As I said when I welcome bro Walid, I would also like to learn through the questions he asked.

Though I may not agree with Islam in principle and in many things about it, I thought I would be enriched if I know what it is as explained by a Muslim. Therefore your explanation helps.

If you would not mind but do not feel oblige, I like to pose further questions for some clarification.

If the cutting of a hand of a thief is from Islamic teaching, then how could there be better punishment? Sorry, I am quite confused by your statement.

My question is what is Islam’s position of a handicap in a society? I suppose a handicap due to the punishment he/she received, must be very humiliated as he/she advertises her crime by the sign (the missing limb) she/he carries with her for the rest of her life. What does Islam say about this?

I asked the same question in an Islamic forum with the same reasoning the anwser was that when the Sharia or Islamic law was applied the cases of theft were very rare, eg in four centuries when Islam was in it’s “Golden era” less than 10 people had their hand cut, since the zaket or Islamic charity( giving the money to poor people was an obligation) made poverty non-existant, further Muslims were helpful to each other .

I may develop this point of view further:

==> Like the way American generals in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when
hundred of thousands died and more suffered, but in return maybe more saved lives even if most of them were innocent civilans. So they stopped the whole war and they saved lives but surely a lot of money.

So if we draw a parallel to the act of cutting the hand==> the image may become clearer and plausible because the society will not have the need of heightened security which will cost a lot like the million of cameras(+ their operators ) in London and as matter of fact it will flourish quicker.

To sum up I think that the same rational may be applicable to the rest of the points.

A French proverb says in cases like that “a necessary evil”
And you do not apply it may become worse.

 

[Walid]

Thanks for the explanation. As I said when I welcome bro Walid, I would also like to learn through the questions he asked.

Though I may not agree with Islam in principle and in many things about it, I thought I would be enriched if I know what it is as explained by a Muslim. Therefore your explanation helps.

If you would not mind but do not feel oblige, I like to pose further questions for some clarification.

If the cutting of a hand of a thief is from Islamic teaching, then how could there be better punishment? Sorry, I am quite confused by your statement.

My question is what is Islam’s position of a handicap in a society? I suppose a handicap due to the punishment he/she received, must be very humiliated as he/she advertises her crime by the sign (the missing limb) she/he carries with her for the rest of her life. What does Islam say about this?

I asked the same question in an Islamic forum with the same reasoning the anwser was that when the Sharia or Islamic law was applied the cases of theft were very rare, eg in four centuries when Islam was in it’s “Golden era” less than 10 people had their hand cut, since the zaket or Islamic charity( giving the money to poor people was an obligation) made poverty non-existant, further Muslims were helpful to each other .

I may develop this point of view further:

==> Like the way American generals in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when
hundred of thousands died and more suffered, but in return maybe more saved lives even if most of them were innocent civilans. So they stopped the whole war and they saved lives but surely a lot of money.

So if we draw a parallel to the act of cutting the hand==> the image may become clearer and plausible because the society will not have the need of heightened security which will cost a lot like the million of cameras(+ their operators ) in London and as matter of fact it will flourish quicker.

To sum up I think that the same rational may be applicable to the rest of the points.

A French proverb says in cases like that “a necessary evil”

 

[Walid]

I also think you bring up a good point about taking a guy’s hand off if he steals. This basically marks a person forever and he can never be totally forgiven for a deed that might have happened if he was starving, or when he was young and foolish. Yes, there are some who steal pathologically, but our laws take care of the varying degrees of theft and we allow for redemption/forgiveness.

I asked the same question in an Islamic forum with the same reasoning the anwser was that when the Sharia or Islamic law was applied the cases of theft were very rare, eg in four centuries when Islam was in it’s “Golden era” less than 10 people had their hand cut, since the zaket or Islamic charity( giving the money to poor people was an obligation) made poverty non-existant, further Muslims were helpful to each other .

I may develop this point of view further:

==> Like the way American generals in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when
hundred of thousands died and more suffered, but in return maybe more saved lives even if most of them were innocent civilans. So they stopped the whole war and they saved lives but surely a lot of money.

So if we draw a parallel to the act of cutting the hand==> the image may become clearer and plausible because the society will not have the need of heightened security which will cost a lot like the million of cameras(+ their operators ) in London and as matter of fact it will flourish quicker.

To sum up I think that the same rational may be applicable to the rest of the points.

A French proverb says in cases like that “a necessary evil”

 

[R_not]

I asked the same question in an Islamic forum with the same reasoning the anwser was that when the Sharia or Islamic law was applied the cases of theft were very rare, eg in four centuries when Islam was in it’s “Golden era” less than 10 people had their hand cut, since the zaket or Islamic charity( giving the money to poor people was an obligation) made poverty non-existant, further Muslims were helpful to each other .

I may develop this point of view further:

==> Like the way American generals in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when
hundred of thousands died and more suffered, but in return maybe more saved lives even if most of them were innocent civilans. So they stopped the whole war and they saved lives but surely a lot of money.

So if we draw a parallel to the act of cutting the hand==> the image may become clearer and plausible because the society will not have the need of heightened security which will cost a lot like the million of cameras(+ their operators ) in London and as matter of fact it will flourish quicker.

To sum up I think that the same rational may be applicable to the rest of the points.

A French proverb says in cases like that “a necessary evil”

the society has a heightened need of additinoal security when some don’t want to steal an article, but want to blow things up for allah.

There is more to these cameras than just stealing.

 

[Walid]

the society has a heightened need of additinoal security when some don’t want to steal an article, but want to blow things up for allah.

There is more to these cameras than just stealing.

Sorry but what you said is very concise and not clear so please if you develop it further.