You made three statements, one of which was questioning how Islamic she or her country were, then said that she was wrong on at least 3 levels. http://www.not606.com/showthread.ph...-women-drive?p=1804410&viewfull=1#post1804410 If the three levels weren't the three statements that you made, then you should've been clearer. They clearly do disagree. Are you claiming that Iran or Saudi Arabia, for example, don't think that they're ruled Islamically? Iran's full title is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Saudi's motto is The Shahada. They clearly don't agree with your interpretation, whether you believe they're correct or not.
I see 2 statements that were a direct response to a post, Its clear enough from where I am standing, not my fault you cant understand it The person I responded to directly hasnt come back so nae bother. If you wnat something clarifying ask, dont make things up As I said if a man eats beef and chicken he may call himself a vegetarian doesnt make him one As i also said shariah is the topic, that is what I am basing it on. If you can show 1 country that is Islamic under shariah, name it PS Nation of islam call themselves muslim too, and?
The question is whether they are ruled by Shariah, or not, right? PNP do you know what Shariah is? Fan, do you? There is no point argueing for or against something from when you are ignorant of said thing. I personally do not believe either are Sharia as their rulers seem to be unaccountable. But that is my opinion and I don't know everything about Sharia, only a little.
It's clearly three. You even put 'firstly' before the first one and then say that she's wrong on three counts after three separate lines. But there are different interpretations of what makes somebody a vegetarian, just as you've got a different interpretation of what constitutes sharia to the Saudis. Is someone a vegetarian if they eat animal dairy products, fish or gelatin, for example? Some would say yes, some would say no. That's the thing though, Sycorez. There's no consensus on what Sharia is, exactly. The Sunni and Shi'a disagree, for a start. As with most thing concerning faith and religion, it's open to interpretation.
all that is, is a stupid excuse not to allow woman to drive (too over protective over woman). surely they would be safer in their car going home rather then on the bus on walking ??
No it isnt unless you can give specific examples? I hope you can as you seem to avoid any of these questions, yet demand answers
I am quite well versed in what shariah is and what constitutes it. PNP is just anti Islam which clouds his judgement/responses. I have explained the process for shariah, he never answers that. The criteria is simple Quran, Sunnah, Sahabah As I am at pains to point out just because someon says they are X Y or Z doesnt mean it is so
unfortunately you are wrong once again What you are doing is judging A based on B. So because saudi arabia oppress women you automatically assume its Islam Thats like saying all jews are criminals because Israel has committed crimes against humanity as per UN rules/laws
You list a firstly on one line. You then list a secondly on the next. You follow up with a third line, then say that she was wrong on at least 3 counts. If you can't see how that would lead to anyone thinking that the third part of the list was another example, then you need your head read, frankly. I haven't given any examples? What are Saudi Arabia and Iran, then? What a ridiculous claim! You've even quoted me saying it! So there aren't differing views of what constitutes sharia? Rubbish. The Sunni and Shi'a don't even agree on it, for a start.
as I said No it isnt unless you can give specific examples? I hope you can as you seem to avoid any of these questions, yet demand answers
(*Bold added.) Perhaps you should go back and read what you wrote? You've obviously forgotten. Are you just pretending to understand what I've written with the rest of it? Perhaps you've just lost track of the thread completely? You seem to be totally confused by extremely straightforward and easy to follow statements.
and so it begins I knew this was where we would end up once you couldnt answer/argue with what was being said The THEN is why its 2 any chance of answering the questions posed to you? or do you only ASK questions, but have no answers?
I've answered your questions. You've either deliberately ignored my answers or got confused, somehow. Which questions do you believe that I haven't answered?
ok some things never change so can you give any examples to any of the things you assert? I can ask again if you want? they are however in previous posts PS is that why you stopped addressing point by point as you usually do?
So there aren't differing views of what constitutes sharia? Rubbish. The Sunni and Shi'a don't even agree on it, for a start. as I said No it isnt unless you can give specific examples? I hope you can as you seem to avoid any of these questions, yet demand answers That's the thing though, Sycorez. There's no consensus on what Sharia is, exactly. Maybe you can provide examples of this? See also the meat eating 'vegetarian' example. Also the Butto example etc. You seem to be ignoring what doesnt suit as per usual The Sunni and Shi'a disagree, for a start. Thats just wrong and ignorant. I have explained the shia situation once before. See also the nation of Islam bit which you failed to address As with most thing concerning faith and religion, it's open to interpretation. No it isnt unless you can give specific examples? I hope you can as you seem to avoid any of these questions, yet demand answers your bits are in bold
It isn't what? Are you saying that there aren't different views or interpretations of Sharia? There clearly are. You don't believe that Iran or Saudi operate under Sharia, whereas they do, for a start. I already have. You're saying that people interpret the sharia incorrectly and then claiming that there aren't differing interpretations of the sharia. That makes absolutely no sense. I've not mentioned Pakistan, so why would Bhutto have anything to do with it? She was purely talking about her own country, wasn't she? When have you explained the Shia situation and why is what I've said either wrong or ignorant? You're making statements with no substance, as usual. The Nation of Islam is a sect of Islam. What about it? Sharia isn't open to interpretation? This is just complete rubbish. Why have fiqh, then? How do you have Ulema that don't share the same opinions on some matters? As I've already stated, your own interpretation isn't shared by either the Saudis nor the Iranians and they don't agree with each other on various applications of the law, either. You all believe that you understand the sharia, yet all come to different conclusions. Are they not examples?
