Fellow_Human,

(1)...You wrote: "...Caliph Omar...suspended Shariah laws during...drought & famine.....common sense..."

What common-sense?

Make no mistake, it is WRONG, CRUEL and EVIL to cut off hand(s) of any person.

1...Caliph Omar was not showing common-sense mercy. He was FORCED to suspend the laws during a crisis.
2...Common-sense means: He should NEVER had chopped off hands of thieves IN THE FIRST PLACE.
3...That drought & famine proved that Sharia laws were unjust, foolish, evil and not practical.
4...Those whose hands had been cut off, how could they feed their children, especially when a drought came?
5...Shariah laws... Allah... are most....CRUEL and STUPID.

(2)...You wrote: "...Australians surveyed on msn website...death penalty...to a drug smuggler....perceived as fair & just;...exactly what a Shariah judge would apply."

1...I do not believe in death penalty for drug smuggling. It's UNJUST and EVIL.
2...A majority support DOES NOT mean it is fair and just. It simply means more people agree with it. That's all.
3...A Shariah judge would DEFINITELY apply a death penalty. Hence another proof that Shariah laws are not common-sense laws and they are inherently unjust and evil.

(3)...You wrote: "Some prefer....legally soft environment...others would prefer stricter social and criminal justice laws."

What common-sense is this? If I live in an Islamic state which practises Shariah laws, do you think I have a democratic choice, or even a choice?

(4)...You wrote: "...majority of Muslims practice moderate Islam...."

NOT TRUE. Most people live a simple life, they work, do the chore, try staying out of troubles if possible. Muslims ordinariness does NOT mean they are PRACTISING moderate Islam.

In fact many ordinary Muslims, 'moderate' Muslims are quite prepared to show solidarity with extremists. Who do you think are those violent anti-cartoon protestors on the streets? Many of them are just ordinary 'moderate' Muslims.

If the entire population of a country is Muslims, believe me, there would be NO freedom and democracy, EVEN IF all the Muslims are moderates.

The bottomline: When it comes to safeguarding freedom and democracy, we cannot trust a Muslim, not a single one.

In Islam there is no common-sense, only twisted minds.

GZ Tan,

“The Talibans are the TRUE Muslims. Not you 'common-sense' Muslims”

There are only two people I met who can make this statement.
- Radical Islamists who chose to ignore the context and spirituality of Islamic teachings and replaced it with literalism, AH GAzali and abboragtions.
- Christian Taliban drumming for Armageddon and take it as a self fulfilling prophecy: war is eminent ‘tell me when to realese the nukes Jesus’…if its not communism its Muslims, then Jews, then Chinese, then turn on each other…A sincere bunch of sick puppies.

Even though both are as bad, I found it much easier to knock sense into an Islamist radical than into your mob.

PS: the cartoons happened last year and I saw them in Cairo on the news last year. The recent riots are politically motivated. Mainstream Muslims like me cannot possibly hold the Danes responsible for an action of arrogance and stupidity committed by few. And no I was not the least offended I believe who insults God or one of his prophet will be judged fairly so its not really my ‘earthly’ problem.

Here are a bunch of examples of ‘existing’ Shariah laws (Islamic finance) in Australia:
- Commbank ‘equity mate’ is an Islamic housing concept. Go sue them!
- The cheque (Sakk in Arabic) is Islamic finance and so is the debt writing contracts with witnessing process is also Islamic (Quran part 2). Go sue P Costello as well! Its great there was no patents at the time otherwise you will be paying a fee to Muslims for every cheque or contract you write.

Peace,

BD-I say again: I'm not arguing about Paul/the christians having a list helping a narrow range of people (see I agree with you here and always have).

But "Paul could have said-I'm sorry we can't afford to support all widows and we hope the unfortunate young widows find solace in remarrying."-third time. If you prefer "we are reserving our support for only special cases" without bagging young widow.

I can't find in your posts your question "What kind of condemnation?"-please find it for me. It's not there.

You did address 'condemnation':

BD"Paul is speaking about condemnation due to 'promiscuous' behavior"

In other words you agree totally with me that it's condemnation.

The word 'condemnation' wasn't my word it was Paul's(well the English Translation)-if you want to argue he meant a kind, caring sort of condemnation then go right ahead-but it was his word. He applied his condemnation to widows remarrying. He also abused young widows for being wanton and idle gossipers as well (which is a form of condemning too). That's quite enough for me.

I didn't say Paul said they were being being condemned for all eternity(ie going to hell):

BD"the kind of 'condemnation' he speaks of is not the eternal kind"

I didn't say nor suggest he said they couldn't be in the Church as you say:

BD"'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"

You're pretending I suggested that(strawman).

He impuned their good character, said they didn't deserve support *because of it* and then says they 'have condemnation' for doing what he then instructs them to do. FULL STOP. That's enough for me.

If I was strawmanning then be more specific-where?

Strawman "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted". That's what you're doing. This is a sham argument because you pretend I say things that I don't so you can easily refute it and then you ignore what I really say.

Not my usual ranting self? Gee GZ-I'm trying-how about my go at BD-was that ranty enough? ;)

Your posts are improving-the cut and paste of quotes to make sure you are addressing the other persons post is a good idea-you are eliminating the strawmanning. There are still some unneccessary digs in the earlier post-you would look more rational and less inflammatory if you didn't say them and you would still be getting your point across-but getting much better... the most recent one better still-although it broke down in the last few lines. You make some strong statements without backing them up. If you are going to define what a true muslim is then you need to explain why that is justified and if you are going to say fundamental muslims are the majority you need to say where your statistics come from.

Rather than making milder, more moderate interpretations of inflammatory passages in either the Koran or the Bible I would rewrite the originals-even write a whole new book. There's always a danger someone will take the obviously violent/bigotted passages literally or not notice the nuances more moderate people see in other passages.

But lets forget the dead books for a moment and look at what people and governments are really doing today:

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking Rumsfeld et al to court to sue him for torture and abuse-Rumsfeld is claiming that government officials are immune from prosecution. ACLU would have also gone after Bush but he is definitely immune from prosecution as a President.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/23379res20060306.html

They had Karpinski and two of the US guards from abu ghraib on Dateline last night, more pieces in the jigsaw puzzle damning the people up the chain of command.

Now how many Abu Ghraib type POW prisons do the Moslems have in the western Allied countries, torturing WASPs? And how many muslim countries have invaded and occupied Western Countries recently

Dawood & Fellow Human

Many thanks for your considered responses. I need to reflect upon what you have written and do some more research myself. I don't see why there needs to be any conflict so long as there is separation of church and state.

For example, FH you stated that Shariah was seen to be done when the death penalty was applied to Aussie drug smuggler. Well I am one of the many Australians who oppose the death penalty under any circumstances. It is not a deterrent and is regressive. Would rather the worst criminals receive life sentences where they have no other options than to reflect upon their misdeeds.

Australia doesn't have the death penalty and I hope that we never reintroduce it - is this a problem for you? How does that comply with Shariah law?

Also I understand that, as with some Christian groups, many Muslims do not believe in abortion. Like many other Australians, I believe in women having sovereignty over their bodies; their fertility. In Australia women can access legal and safe abortion. How does this fit with Shariah law? Many Christians get very aggressive and abusive on this topic. Would Muslims be the same?

I am sure there are many other areas where there is incompatability, but does any of it need to be the huge problem the media & certain pollies are making it out to be? If Australia remains tolerant of all its citizens to practise their beliefs on the proviso that these beliefs do not interfere with the freedom and rights of others, then what is the problem?

I am confused with the sharia. From a debate in Europe to try and describe the reason for [their words]"A moslem rape epidemic is sweeping over Europe and over many other nations hosts to immigrants from the islamic world."
Quote by Dudrun Eussner, a journalist specialising, among others, in Iranian philology and has worked in moslem nations: "The high percentage of gang-raping is due to the cowardliness of the young moslem men, in France named 'les jeunes'- the youngsters. As their religion is never appreciating the individuum, as such but only as part of the ummah, the 'les jeunes' are not strong enough on their own so they are acting as representatives of the ummah - fighting unbelievers, disobedient and unveiled women. [my words: by gang raping them]
This is consented to by the families. You said in mentioning your friend the retired Police Chief: parents of the rapists children don't understand why their children were arrested. This is showing their close attachment to islamic law, the sharia. In the midst of our western society they are living according to their law" end of quote.
This sharia is a lot broader than our moslems have let on - but of course "al-taqiyya" or lie and placate the stupid gullible unbeliever.
article from <frontPageMag.com> Numbat