7 abusive paragraphs out of 14. You are getting much better and some of the abusive paragraphs were mixed up with partial or full facts. 5 facts and a few partial facts-an approvement on none.

Keep trying you are getting there but watch out for generalisations (ie all moslems) and bigotry (blaiming moslems for it-if others do it too) and your habit of hijacking and strawmanning, ie pretending you're answering what other people are saying when you're actually making up what they say and then answering it yourself. If you want to say something new that's fine just don't pretend it answers someone else. But keep trying-you can do it. Now you are beating numbat he's much worse than you :)

You did argue what's official law when others are arguing about how a persons private preference can fit with the law. As pointed out in other posts Moslems or anyone else, can choose to live their life under a set of rules that submit to our laws but not identical to them. There's a lot of room for choice in our legal system. christians do it. Roman Catholicism doesn't recognise divorce, abortion or contraception which is all legal under Australian Law.

Fide, your not answering my post to you--so why blame FH for not? I was genuine about wanting a new Bible. I think it a great idea.

GZTan second post-on's enough-okay?.

Philo-Christianity has some really beautiful laws, sayings, passages,etc.-but they're mixed up with others that are downright abusive, fear-mongering and cruel.

I've learnt from this list that many of Christians:

-attack Moslem scripture insisting all moslems follow it precisely (even confusing Shia and Sunni scripture) and then when faults are pointed out in their scripture insist they don't follow it.

-emphasise the beautiful passages in their own scripture and ignore the ugly, then emphasise the ugly passages in Islamic scripture and ignore the beautiful.

-use the word love a lot but are the most abusive, hateful and paranoid towards others.

-like having an enemy to attack and don't acknowledge common ground.

Coach,

Ok, so the there is nothing in the Bible that compares to the Quran (Chapter4) on women rights & inheritance. So please put the paper sword down and accept me as I am.

“No compulsion in religion’ is an eternal directive given to the Prophet Mohamed when a Christian man (with two children) chose to become Muslim and asked the prophet about the two boys. The Quran came clear and the two children remained on the Christian faith. Christians 1400 years ago lived and still live in Muslim countries until today so the verse couldn’t possibly be abrogated it. Sounds you don’t think much anyway.

Philo,

Being devout means you practice your religion and respect others including the law of the land. If a Muslim marries two women in Australia he simply broke the law and Australian laws apply. System rorts is illegal and unethical for anyone. Clear and simple.

Numbat,

Islam bashers on these forums who claim to be Jesus followers tend to use the Quran as a reference and why it is not ‘as good as the bible’. Having studied both, I am simply asking them to prove their claim when they do claim so. I never initiate comparisons but I only respond to attacks from the “Jihad Jesus” members on this forum.

As a Muslim I can’t bash Judaism, Jews, Christianity, Mosaic laws or Jesus followers as its all part of my faith

Hi Scout,

As mentioned to JimmyJ, Australian Muslims only know of a Melbourne based Imam with a 100 audience who is interested in applying Shariah laws on Muslims. I don’t know or haven’t seen anything on Australian Muslims website, blogs or mosques. It’s a puzzle that only Peter Costello can answer.

GZ Tan,

You picked a Jihadist site using 8th century literal interpretation and what do you expect?

Your comment is a bad joke like this one: a man caught his wife cheating him on a sopha, so he wrote a letter to the president to ban sophas! Maybe according to you the man is an ‘intellect’.

Aziliz,

Always good refreshing insights..

Scout: If I may try to answer your question (I am interested in F_H's response as well).

What most people do not seem to be doing, is seeing "shariah" as what it actually is - a corpus of legal principles and legal pronouncements made by scholars throught the ages on various issues. Instead, it is demonized as a rigid and unchanging tradition, of which it is actually the exact opposite.

Personally, I do not see why all this "shariah" stuff is getting so much press. I know of no one who keeps harping on about it - apart from islamophobes and worse - my Shaykhs and teachers do not even harp on about it as much! A few imams with handfuls of followers like to shout and rant, but they are sidelined by everyone else who thinks they are complete bonkers.

When shariah is mentioned by most everyday Muslims, it is in terms of a universal and almost utopiac reference to receiving justice and rights - for everyone. Most likely though, it is in reference to the 5 pillars of Islam. If justice and rights are available here, then why do Muslims need to worry about anything else? We have freedom to practise the major pillars of our religion, and most of the minor ones too - who can complain? If other groups have certain aspects of personal law that can be from their tradition, why not ours too? It is this issue, I think, which confuses many.

It is not about domination, but about seeking justice and giving rights to those who do not have them. Right now, I would much rather a secular/humanist government than any type of "Islamic" alternative. I am sure many other Muslims agree with me. You guys just hear the shouts of a few, but we have to deal with their points of view internally. They make a loud, incomprehensible racket, divorced from the heritage mentioned above, making everyday Muslims like us and specialists in the Islamic tradition sick.

Aziliz
I commend you for many astute observations on "Christians" behavior and attitude. Quite a few are spot on.

But, back to our shared 'bone' :)

I cannot commend you though, for your stubborn clinging to 'black/white' understanding of the position of young widows in the Church.
You are also guilty of 'strawman-ing' :)

Please keep in mind that the 'list' of those for whom the Church was to take responsibility in the CONTEXT was a very specific list for particular people of Godly life and lengthy service. It is equivalent to our own mission retirement home where former misho's can be looked after if they don't have other resources.

Young widows were not eligable for THAT list, this does NOT mean they were to be viewed with disdain or neglected or whatever in the normal course of church life. You not seeing the real situation here. Paul is not saying 'don't look after them in any way' So, I have addressed that point.

I did address point 3 "Condemnation" I countered "What kind of condemnation" and expect you to research this further urself.
Using the 'compare scripture with scripture' method to flesh it out.
Your claim of Paul being hypocritical is more a comment on your own desire to impose an understanding of your own choice. *Think*...'If' they were 'condemned' in they way YOU are suggesting, they would not be in Church, but they are, so clearly Paul had a different kind of 'condemnation' in mind than you are seeking to PUT there :)

Didn't you see the 'Keep Out' sign on Pauls forehead ?

Keep up the good posts, while they may be aggressivly critical, they are also valuable.

Fellow_Human,

U wrote: "You picked a Jihadist site using 8th century literal interpretation and what do you expect?"

1... 8th century?? It's Muslims in modern secular societies in our 21th century that have lost touch with Mohammed's era. The Talibans are the TRUE Muslims. Not you 'common-sense' Muslims. That Jihadist web site is probably more contemporary than any of your favourite Islamic web sites.

2... Literal Interpretation?? Precisely and consistently what is required in Islam. You 'common-sense' Muslims will be judged as 'idol-worshippers' for misinterpretation and distortion of verses in Quran.

3... Expectation?? I expect truth and dangers to be revealed: On one-side 'common-sense' Muslims present a soft and harmless image of Islam. On the other side, their Jihadist counterparts (the TRUE Muslims) are sharpening their knives, lay in waiting to destroy our freedom and democracy.
.

dawood,

U wrote: "I would much rather a secular/humanist government than any type of Islamic alternative..."

Whether Muslims can live with us under secular laws is NOT a true test of Islam moderation and tolerance.

One of the true tests of Islam moderation and tolerance is: Can an Islamic state ever organically become a secular state?

The answer is an emphatic NO.

An Islamic state CANNOT and will NEVER turn into a secular state. It is impossible.

Therefore, while there is still time, please teach Muslims to have less children and have only one wife. Otherwise, more Islamic babies will turn this place into an Islamic state in future. You do not want that for your descendants, do you?
.

Aziliz,
Thanks for your critique. You're not your usual ranting self. What's wrong with you? :)

Dawood,

Well articulated.

Hi Scout,

Shariah is based on two elements a) prevention before correction and b) Punishment equates the offence (or of the same nature) for safer & better society. When I studied Shariah law along with French commercial laws at Egyptian university at uni back in 1989, we were given a case where a guy arrested for repeat graffiti offences was sentenced by a judge to ‘3 years of cleaning others graffiti’.

Islamic history shows Caliph Omar (3rd Leader after the prophet) suspended Shariah laws during the time of drought & famine for the fear of punishing a thief who could be stealing to eat or feed his kids. It tells you a lot about common sense in interpretation.

A recent example showed most Australians surveyed on msn website after the death penalty given to a drug smuggler actually supported the sentence. Even though the majority of voter can’t be Muslims, what they perceived as ‘fair & just’ sentence is exactly what a Shariah judge would apply.

Legal systems are on conceptual spectrum from extreme right to extreme left and hence the possibility of a conflict is practically inexistent. Societies tend to bounce from hard to soft to hard over time. Some prefer to live in a legally soft environment and adapt to high crime and social problems while others would prefer stricter social and criminal justice laws.

To summarise:

- Shariah laws are actually concepts & ideology of preventive criminal & social justice system.
- It cannot be in conflict with any laws because it the end of the spectrum of existing laws.
- It is opened for any society to implement (including non-Muslims). Similar to my example above, if an Aussie judge decided to punish a graffiti offender by sentencing him to clean graffiti, he already applied Shariah law.

GZ Tan,

Many and majority of Muslims practice moderate Islam as I happen to live in Muslim countries for 29 years. Modern and moderate Islamic thinkers are in fact a majority but the backward hateful ones usually have more press.

Peace