If it seems that way I apologise. In all honesty I have often taken your responses as 'having a go/dig' , for which i again apologise. I will try and be more straight forward
"The whole point is that shias are not Islamic according to shariah. What they call themselves doesnt make them so" Fan, is that not like your opinion. I f I asked a Shia, would he give me a different answer?
thats not answering the question at all. I have told you that they dont use shariah, you say there are interpretations, i say give me 2 the basis of their law is not quran, sunnah, sahabah. if it was it would be shariah
You put the emphasis in the wrong place. TFWNN: You Have no idea what I would implement. Were you suggesting that you were personally going to implement a legal system in the UK? If not, then why would you believe that's what I thought? It must be your fantasy, as it's totally irrelevant to the question in hand. I've answered the point that you were trying to get to by using that strange metaphor, so why would you want me to answer the question itself? They claim to use Sharia. You say that they don't. That's two examples of differing interpretations of it.
yes the shia probably would This is the crux of my argument with PNP. My starting point is shariah and what it defines as being Islamic. Hence the examples I gave. You see its quite simple to me, to be a muslim there are certain things 'set in stone' so you MUST believe in God, the prophets Muhammad being the last, the books That is the most basic of 'must haves' as defined by the quran, sunnah (sayings/actions of Muhammad) and the Sahabah which is basically the companions of Muhammad especially the first for Caliphs. So lets look at saudi arabia for a second. Its constitution starts of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital the bold bit being 'Islamic' then it goes on to say a) The system of government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is that of a monarchy. (b) Rule passes to the sons of the founding King, Abd al-Aziz Bin Abd al-Rahman al-Faysal Al Sa'ud, and to their children's children. The most upright among them is to receive allegiance in accordance with the principles of the Holy Koran and the Tradition of the Venerable Prophet. (c) The King chooses the Heir Apparent and relieves him of his duties by Royal order. (d) The Heir Apparent is to devote his time to his duties as an Heir Apparent and to whatever missions the King entrusts him with. (e) The Heir Apparent takes over the powers of the King on the latter's death until the act of allegiance has been carried out. This is bad enough as Islam doesn t recognise monarchy and heirs. but then this is the killer The King shall be the point of reference for all these authorities. now its definately not shariah
Their constitutions say they dont, as explained. If you had ANY knowledge of shariah you would know this
To which you replied: You Have no idea what I would implement. Unless you actually intended to implement a system yourself, then you clearly understood what I meant. What baseless assertion did I make there, then? Merely claiming it to be so doesn't make it true. You're attempting to compare biology to theology, yet it should still give you the correct answer, bizarrely. A man who completes a sex-change operation would be called a woman by some, but not by others. It's open to interpretation! That's your interpretation of it. They don't share it, obviously. The Muslims that you claim aren't actually Muslims don't agree with you, either.
I understand it well and give various examples. You merely make claims and think that your own opinion is fact.
You know I knew you were going to cite wikki. sharia law is founded on the words of Allah as revealed in the Quran, and traditions gathered from the life of the Prophet Muhammad so as I said quran sunnah sahabah so if it differs its not shariah right?
If those are in their constitution, then it does act aginst the basis of Sharia. Just to add, as I know it, People have the power to remove the leader if they do not rule by Sharia or break the important tenents of Islam. You can correct me if I am wrong on this. In the Saudi constitution this would obviously be against the law. This makes it a principle that works against Sharia. Making the laws of the land on the basis of the rulers (The King in this case) and not the Quran, Sunnah and Sahabah. Can you enlighten us to what the Iranian constitution says?
Yes you are correct regarding the removal and this kind of answers your Iran bit tbh Iran has a 12-member Council of Guardians which is the most powerful, unelected institutions. Appointed by the Supreme Leader They decide who runs for president and what to hold referendums on etc. They hold the power to interpret the constitution and judiciary etc There is also this little gem The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'fari school [in usual al-Din and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable.
Tell it to the hundreds of millions of Muslims that disagree with you. From what you are saying, all of these Muslims should know that they're not really Muslims. That sounds extremely unlikely, doesn't it?
obviously to someone such as yourself who has such a hatred for religion it now comes down to arguing for the sake of arguing so as not to admit, dare I say, 'defeat'. As evidenced to above to someone who was genuinely interested it is quite clear, even with your wikki source, that the 2 countries you have continuosly gone on about have constitutions that are against shariah Any muslim that agrees with that is wrong, whether it constitutes them being outside the fold of Islam is based on other factors. As for being unlikely even the constitutions say the bit about Quran sunnah and sahabah as does YOUR wikki source. They then go on to declare other sources as being the decision makers making them non shariah by their own standards. This reminds me of the alcohol content argument that is in circulation by drinks companies. They argue that 0.002% alcohol is the same as NO alcohol so they dont label it on certain drinks. Some so called muslims say that too. However if there was 0.002% urine/**** in a drink how many would drink it? so far the ones I have asked who agree with the alcohol bit have said they wouldnt with the latter
I don't have a hatred for religion. I just think that it's all unproven and largely bullshit. Regardless of your claims, there are clearly Muslims that disagree with you. Hundreds of millions of them, in fact. You are disagreeing with about 10-15% of the Islamic population with the world, aren't you? I'd say that suggests that it's not as clear cut as you're making out.
certainly comes across as hatred, I would venture specifically Islam. Although it is clearly something you know little about even factoring in your wikki sources. Since you have such little knowledge its put hat you believe in terms of unproven etc into bullshit I have never said there are not muslims who disagree, what I have said in this topic is that in terms of shariah if they disagree with what are the fundamnetals then they are wrong and the source I use is shariah itself. I would also suggest that in terms of world population I am disagreeing with a lot more than 10-15%. In fact that is probably closer t the percentage that AGREE with me maybe they are even less. But that is no suprise as for me the prophet actually said that those on the correct path will at times be the minority As for clear cut, you can argue this untill your blue in the face. Fact is its wrong based on the evidences highlighted. Unless I have made the constitutions up? As I have said shariah being the basis no country currently in the world Islamic. NONE Shariah is clear cut, if its isnt quran sunnah sahabah then its NOT shariah. Iran and Saudi say that yet dont follow. Even your wikki source says that Anyhoo I have to run for now, might be back on later tonight
Not getting into the specifics but I think it's a bit unfair to call PnP anti islamic to be honest. I've always thought he has a fairly level contempt for pretty much eevry religion that's discussed on here - don't think his veiws on islam are any more strident than his views on christianity in any case.
You perceive it as hatred because you're a religious lunatic who can't bear to see anyone disagree with him or hold an alternative view, even other Muslims. How dare you talk this way about my hat! Seriously, what the **** was that supposed to say? And others disagree with you, so it's clearly open to interpretation. I'm glad that you've finally come around to my way of thinking. I meant in terms of the Islamic population of the world, not the slice of the overall population, but it doesn't really matter. As for the bit about being in a minority, that's just a common theme of the Abrahamic faiths, isn't it? They disagree with you. Sorry. Scientology's probably the worst one, for me. It's just a scam. At least the others actually think that they're true.
