reply to post by oozyism
It is good that you at least gained some form of satisfaction our of this thread, I like it when people are entertained, I'm the
amusement.
No. The entertaining part was the back and forth between you two. My post wasn't meant to mock you or My2commoncentsworth personally, so if it caused
offense, it was unintended.
That being said, I have clearly made my points, everyone seems to make the same arguments which has already been answered throughout 40
pages.
I'm not so sure that you clearly made your point, Oozyism. What I got from your thread was that you have an abstract idea of Islam, based on your
interpretation of the Koran, that is not reflected by Islamic countries throughout the world. When these are pointed out as examples of oppressive,
even barbaric theocracies, your comeback is that their leaders have infected Islam with Culture and that they are not 'true' Muslims.
So, your conception of a pure implementation of the Koran doesn't seem to exist in the real world.
I'm going out of my way to try to visualise what you envisage as an Islamic democracy even though the cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. I
imagine a place full of people with a similar outlook to my Muslim friends: relaxed about their religion, private, quiet and peaceful, never
discussing their religious beliefs with non-Muslims unless expressely invited to do so. They would be going about their daily lives carrying their own
grasp of the Koran inside their hearts, outwardly similar to non-Muslims in every way.
And this is where I'm stuck.
No matter how carefully I read your words, I didn't get any clear picture of what you mean by Islamic Law. You didn't put down a list of laws to be
followed by your citizens; you certainly didn't convince me that your female citizens would have the same rights to assume positions of leadership as
their male counterparts and that all these positions would be open to them, with no exception.
You speak about choice, but I didn't see you address anywhere the choice your women would have to not submit to being treated like dogs or children
by their husbands. I'm referring to that verse in the Koran about the measures to be taken against willful, disobedient wives.
Why should minority live under the rule of majority? When everyone can choose?
So, each citizen would have this set of rules based on the Koran and they could choose to obey each one or not.
Your solution for disobeying any of these laws (by exercising your right to do so) is to strip you of your Islamic citizenship or to be meted out some
punishment as decreed by the Koran if you want to remain a citizen. Okay, I get that you are drawing parallels to the Western model but where is the
difference? How is your model better?
Yet again, your citizens choose to abide by rules not determined by them on the outset and to suffer the consequences, also not determined by them, if
they break the law.
Now, tell me, how would the gentle Muslims similar to my friends I described at the start be better off under your system than they are now?
And one last question, Oozyism, my friend. If Islam is the religion of peace, why are you so angry all the time?
Classic. 
