Seems that I might have been wrong, at least about adulterers, they are only to be killed if they are serial offenders; like most of the young blokes that I know.

Casual fornicators are to be given 100 lashes, only moderate lashes but 100 none the less.

So do you pair of apologists think that 100 is OK?

I note that only 50 welts of the lash is to be given to erring wives who were captives or to slave women who have a bit of illicit sex.

Hardly an example of equal pay for equal work.

Luciferase and Kactuz

Luciferase,

The webpage did not permit this post earlier.

Your wrath on my
"There is nothing wrong with the Muslims, like other nations in the post-colonial era, to aim for controlling their own resources."

has disappointed me.

Do I have to inform you that a nation’s right to control its own resources is a universally acknowledged principle of this age?

My statement that infuriated you cannot conceivably have a single objection if it is presented in a forum like the United Nations, and for that matter, in any other forum attended by sensible people.

Now you tell me, why should a nation (even a Muslim nation) should not aim to control its own resources?. This is my Question no.1 to you.

Who should control its resources, if not the nation itself?- Question 2

Do I see the colonial impulse bothering you in this day and age?

And then you top up your rage with:

<<Go The Muslim nation, Islamic State, The Caliphate! Go you good thing!>>

How did you see “The Caliphate!” etc in the universally recognised principle I was referring to? – Question 3

I notice that you have already been confronted for your less than intelligent comment.

And in defence you bring up religion owned resource. What??

You see religion owned resource nowhere in the statement that has enraged you.

The statement clearly refers to ALL “nations in the post-colonial era”, including of course the non-Muslim nations.

So, Luciferase, please cut the red herring. Answer my above three questions in clear terms.

Your answers, I am sure, will make an already obvious fact conclusively obvious, i.e.

“WHO bared his teeth fully”

Kactuz,

Good to see that you have sense of humour as well (your post 13th).

Will see how long my pleasant surprise lasts.

I can’t think of the loss of your life (or others’), don’t mind you living another 75 years. Will be good if you do that researching facts before drawing conclusions, overpowering hatred and recognising that:

“We inhabit a universe that is characterized by diversity.”, your wise co-religionist, Desmond Tutu.

NC,

All nations should control their own resources.

Islam is not a nation. Islam has no seat in the United Nations.

Which nations do not control their own resources? You may refer to any dictatorship, theocracy or secular democracy you like. If they don't control their resources, who does? Support your answer.

You refer to Tutu as a coreligionist of kactuz? How so? Does disagreement with Islamic ideology necessarily make one a Christian?

You are so imbued with your religion that you are incapable of separating church from state. I have consistently attacked that in you and McAdam here. Neither of you have rejected secular democracy with sensible reasoning, only with a call to faith, one faith, your faith, Islam.

Luciferase,

"... McAdam here. Neither of you have rejected secular democracy with sensible reasoning, only with a call to faith, one faith, your faith, Islam."

You blame me of " rejection of democracy and call to faith, one faith, Islam. ( I have never done it, I plead not guilty)

It is you, who is pedaling the secular democracy, as the sole cure. Isn't it?
Is every one satisfied with the system of western democracy? Its critics, find the system serving the rich and powerful, who "buy" the politicians right in elections and later use them to guard their interests.

This is also true, that democracy, in spite of shortcomings, is by far the best system of governance. But pedaling it as the sole system and cure for all societies, irrespective of their peculiarities, is fraught with pitfalls. Do you remember, the experiment of imposition of this system in Afghanistan, by USA? What happened? The looser of the election, refused to concede. The hodgepodge solution arrived at, with the US intervention has been that the winner and looser join to form a government. As you can see, this has hardly been a representative specimen of Western Democracy.

Lesson learnt is, that it is unwise to impose One System on all, with out regard to local peculiarities. Haste to impose your system on others results in Libya or Iraq like situations. There are more than one ways of doing a thing correctly and who decides the system for a people? People themselves. Others aught to show patience, to let the system mature for each country. That is the lesson of diversity, that the world needs to live with.

And where have you got that notion from; one faith, your faith; Islam. See the translation of Quran 2:62 ": Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve."(Pickthall)

McAdam,

"There are more than one ways of doing a thing correctly and who decides the system for a people? People themselves."

Where dictatorship or theocracy rule, dissent is crushed. So much for the choice of the People.

Look at the Arab Spring, where the People nearly had a win. In Egypt, at the election following the uprise against Murabak's dictatorship, even Christians voted for the Islamic Brotherhood based on their stated platform, which immediately began to spiral towards repression and imposition of Islam over other religions after the election. The People rose up and now dictatorship rules again.

You have a point, secular democracy has no chance while Islam is so immature. If there is ever a new election allowed, the Brotherhood will not fair so well, and its ideology will forever be pitched against the resulting secular democracy, leading to more carnage.

Beneath the peace and love you and NC have dredged from the Quran lies its true heart, and your heart. All peace, all love, all fraternity and equality can only be arrived at through the words of The Prophet, and that's what's at issue here. Too bad about liberty.

Secular democracy can succeed in the Middle-east only if Islam ever passes through an enlightenment, an age of reason. The world can't hold its breath until then and security measures must be taken everywhere, some of which Muslim minorities living in Western democracies may oppose. Even a significant section of the majority opposes a compromise of privacy necessary to enhance security. Parliaments in our secular democracies will determine any degree of this.

Meanwhile the adulterers are still getting 100 (medium) lashes, is that right?