It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would you Submit to the Sharia Law regarding Al-Ribā?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Sri Oracle
 


You chose the topic, made your opening posts and ignored my posts about banking practices. In America you pay the interest before you pay the principle of the loan. In riba you pay the profits (interest) before you pay the principle of the loan. I really don't care what religion you practice just as long as it does not practice human sacrifice. Well, there is that pedophile thing also.




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Let's all pause for a moment, and critically analyse the OP's intentions.

There is no evidence that he is pushing for Sharia law upon communities. He only showed one aspect of such laws laid down centuries ago, even times before Islam.

There is a purpose of his OP, and it is to show how it may perhaps solve our current banking woes ruled by banksters.

The secondary purpose, unfortunately reveals how a number of posters here will totally disregard an idea for discussion that may be possible for adoption for the sake of common good, just because it came from a 'hated side'.

It only shows and proves how retarded a mankind had regressed, just because a good idea from another community is tossed aside simply because out of hatred for their beliefs.

What have we done but supporting those whose intentions were to keep us all divided by blind and ignorant hatred and superiority?

We must wake up now, if not for the sake of ourselves, do think of the next generations to come, and spare them the misery and sufferings we had to endure today - brother killing brother without even knowing the TRUE reasons.....



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Let's all pause for a moment, and critically analyse the OP's intentions.

There is no evidence that he is pushing for Sharia law upon communities. He only showed one aspect of such laws laid down centuries ago, even times before Islam.

There is a purpose of his OP, and it is to show how it may perhaps solve our current banking woes ruled by banksters.

The secondary purpose, unfortunately reveals how a number of posters here will totally disregard an idea for discussion that may be possible for adoption for the sake of common good, just because it came from a 'hated side'.

It only shows and proves how retarded a mankind had regressed, just because a good idea from another community is tossed aside simply because out of hatred for their beliefs.

What have we done but supporting those whose intentions were to keep us all divided by blind and ignorant hatred and superiority?

We must wake up now, if not for the sake of ourselves, do think of the next generations to come, and spare them the misery and sufferings we had to endure today - brother killing brother without even knowing the TRUE reasons.....


Yeah... I noticed the word "SUBMIT" in the title. And "SHARIA" which has earned a place of loathing to the civilized.

That is enough for me.



[edit on 31-7-2010 by infolurker]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Islam is a defunct legal entity so how people feel about parts of its legal code is a moot issue.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 



Me
Main Entry: in·sid·i·ous
Pronunciation: \in-ˈsi-dē-əs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin insidiosus, from insidiae ambush, from insidēre to sit in, sit on, from in- + sedēre to sit — more at sit
Date: 1545
1 a : awaiting a chance to entrap : treacherous b : harmful but enticing : seductive
2 a : having a gradual and cumulative effect : subtle b of a disease : developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent

— in·sid·i·ous·ly adverb

— in·sid·i·ous·ness noun
rriam-Webster online dictionary defines insidious thusly......I find it to also defines the nature of Islam and the means by which it propagates itself, Islam is a nation of lawyers (used insultingly) that seek to dominate everyone with YOUR LAWS.. It will never happen here because that is a path to war.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
But why not bring up the idea of the good parts about the banking ideas...and leave out the religious ties to the idea?

Its like some people cant take a idea and find truth or good in it and not call it their own truth then.

We can take good things from other places, and make it our own. Just because its a part of a religious law doesnt mean that we cant have the same banking system outside the the religious law.

I find truth in the saying...love your enemies....love is not jealous....and the kingdom is within. But do I have to call these things 'christian truths'? Can I not come forth to others and say....'look, I find the things here to be wise advice and I think the world would be a better place if we all can bring these 3 things into our lives'? Am I labeled a 'religion' due to what I found to be wise things...due to that those things came from a book that a religion uses?

Why not make a thread a say here is the basics for a banking system I think would work and would like to be a part of? Why include the religion with it? Especially...if your going to cherry pick on part of the law and not discuss the others...why then even call it the 'sharia law' at all?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


I dont hate the religion or their beliefs...but I also dont support a whole religious law either way...no matter what religion it is.

Laws should be created by many kinds of people....religious, non believers, agnostic...all kinds of people should be involved in creating laws.

You have a religion that has an agenda...to bring their system of law to the world. This I do not support and this has nothing to do with any sort of hatred.

Too many here are jumping on the band wagon calling others haters because the dont support religions running the world.

I also dont hate religions. Like I said, this has nothing to do with hate and its a quick response from others that take those not supporting such ideas to call them 'haters' ect.




What have we done but supporting those whose intentions were to keep us all divided by blind and ignorant hatred and superiority? We must wake up now, if not for the sake of ourselves, do think of the next generations to come, and spare them the misery and sufferings we had to endure today - brother killing brother without even knowing the TRUE reasons.....


Honestly seeker...religions have kept mankind more divided then many other things. Religions are full of pride of 'their way'....and your asking those that dont support a religious law to 'wake up'?

[edit on 31-7-2010 by LeoVirgo]



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Just stopped by to point out that usury (interest) is not only against Islam, but also Christianity and Judaism. The texts of all three prohibit the collection of interest, reaping what you do not sow, receiving payment for no work, etc.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
The problem with most have with what is questioned is that it opens a door that should never be opened or allowed to open. It may seem harmless, and helpful, but the reality is that once it is open, it is way to easy for it to move into other parts of life and society to where it slowly and gradually moves to control all of society. But the other part that does not set well, is that it is based off of religious law and ultimately the judges of that case would have to be an imman and thus it crosses the boundrie of seperation of church and state.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


This thread is based on a claim that Islam has a better banking system, it doesn't. It claims the Islamic banks don't charge interest, that also is untrue. They call their interest "charges" and "profits" but regardless of the names they call it, they will not lend you money without you paying it. There is no free ride with money-lenders anywhere. This thread is designed to get you to compare our United States Constitution on an equal basis with their islamic sharia laws. A really large step-up for them and a major step down for us.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 


If I dont have money and need a loan, I dont mind showing some sort of gratitue in some way.

I have been very thankful at Christmas times and hard times to be able to walk into my bank and get a loan and the interests dont bother me much. Now some of the rates of interests do bother me.

But again, I dont think its 'against religions' that people dont support such ideas....its the idea the religions get involved, when using a 'good idea' from their paths.

I have even borrowed money from family members and gave them a extra 20 or 50 or 100 (depending on the loan amount) when I re-payed them....to show them my thanks.

My family members worked for that money they loaned me....I show gratitude in how ever I can.

I dont think that we need to call this a 'religion thing' in the idea that we should not have to pay interests. I think if people see this as a good idea...we dont need to tie religions to it. Just call it a 'good idea' and leave it at that.

Can we say that everyone that believes in the law of 'do not kill' is a follower or supporter of religions or their laws...surely not. We can say, yes that is a good idea...and leave the religion out of it.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by muftanan
 


Wow submitting to Shariah Law outright. I'm impressed. Wait until my own religion comes about! Now that I know "the, more restrictive and barbaric the better" is actually the case with some people, I'm going to have a field day with my new cult.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by debris765nju
 


Thanks for your reply debris...and I agree, it would be a huge step down for us.

I am really confused about the support of a religious law in a country such as America. Find it shocking really...



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
But why not bring up the idea of the good parts about the banking ideas...and leave out the religious ties to the idea?

Its like some people cant take a idea and find truth or good in it and not call it their own truth then.

We can take good things from other places, and make it our own. Just because its a part of a religious law doesnt mean that we cant have the same banking system outside the the religious law.

I find truth in the saying...love your enemies....love is not jealous....and the kingdom is within. But do I have to call these things 'christian truths'? Can I not come forth to others and say....'look, I find the things here to be wise advice and I think the world would be a better place if we all can bring these 3 things into our lives'? Am I labeled a 'religion' due to what I found to be wise things...due to that those things came from a book that a religion uses?

Why not make a thread a say here is the basics for a banking system I think would work and would like to be a part of? Why include the religion with it? Especially...if your going to cherry pick on part of the law and not discuss the others...why then even call it the 'sharia law' at all?


Why do often credit others for using their qoutations if we find it relevant in supporting our belief systems, such as perhaps Hemmingway, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc, but when it comes to religion, we become hesitant to outright refusal to give credit where credit is due?

Even science and palentology taught us that our ancestors lived in caves and trees of not too distant a time compared to the formation of our planet. Did our ancestors' enlightenment came from trial and error, or was there divine guidance that taught us what we know today?

Rather than to presumed that it was experiences that we evolved from, why be hesitant to look into historical records that may provide answers to our evolution?

While the argument persist that it could have been man who wrote such records and interpretated or misinpretated them, but still it does not deny EVENTS of profound natures had taken place in our history of civilisation.

Why such fears to confront and seek the truth of such events?

The OP may had made an intentional or unintentional error in a call for submission to the Sharia law. But still, no one is forced to 'submit' here, more so stupidly without debate and discussion.

He talks of one aspect of the law which may benefit mankind, and most probably of an honestly proud adherent of its faith, a system of belief, comfort and solace that works for him.

Unknown or ignored by him, such a law actually predates Islam itself. The fact and main point of contention is - why the fear, if not hatred ( a word some feel excessive) just because of a concept and origin that had not came from our cavemen ancestors but is only logical and rational once fine tuned for our daily lives, and give credit where credit is due?



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





Rather than to presumed that it was experiences that we evolved from, why be hesitant to look into historical records that may provide answers to our evolution? While the argument persist that it could have been man who wrote such records and interpreted or misinterpreted them, but still it does not deny EVENTS of profound natures had taken place in our history of civilisation. Why such fears to confront and seek the truth of such events?


What are you talking about? Why make assumptions that those who dont support what is being talked about in this thread because it is tied to a religious law system that these people have not studied our historical records and evolution.

The most I have gotten from our history, is that our 'beliefs' have always divided us. Lets take what we KNOW and can FIGURE and can LEARN from our past ways...and take a leap in our age. Some religions are based on Holy Land and a family feud that has been ongoing for thousands of years. We can learn much from the past but letting the 'beliefs' divide us is not a step ahead for us.

I believe that all things that have happened are exactly what man was in need of in that time. I believe that all the books and religions have purpose. To find the paths that work...we will walk many paths that are not.

There is nothing wrong about learning about the past...but there is something wrong if we cant also learn from it.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


I can understand that, but you of your choice decided to display gratitude for the generosity of others.

Religions tend to get involved, in everything, because the faith is supposed to a complete path for life and while Moses, Jesus Christ, or Muhammed may not have given a detailed guideline for say internet usage, the need or desire to borrow currency has been in existence for as long as humans started trading shiny rocks
.

That being said those that have lent money (professionally) have been trying to find ways to increase their profits. At times, they get a little out of control and some form of regulation is put into effect until the times arises when the new system is again worked and need further modification.

I have recently weaned myself off of the credit system, and hopefully can maintain it. It had nothing to do with my religion, which is one of the ones that prohibits usury, but not for that reason. It was just unsustainable for me, the amount I spent on interest payments per month was just under what it costs for me to maintain my life. It was disgusting and being rid of loans, lines of credit, etc was objective number one, you can never get ahead while paying off dinners from a year ago.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by searching4truth
 





At times, they get a little out of control and some form of regulation is put into effect until the times arises when the new system is again worked and need further modification.


And I totally agree. We learn as we go...and hopefully one day we will learn as a 'world' and not this separate species we are.

I agree with trying to find a life style that you dont have to depend on things like credit. I owned one credit card at the age of 21, took me about 1 year before I didnt want it anymore. Ive been in the positions where I have had to get loans...and was thankful I had good standings to be able to do so. Recently had to purchase a new air unit in my home (5000 bucks) and there was not way I could pay out of pocket right now. Thankfully I can pay monthly, through a loan. I dont like the interests Ill pay, but it was something I needed. While I go to school, I take out small student loans to help me continue to stay in school. I agree its great to keep working towards things that will help us be more stable on our own then needed to borrow money and waste money on interests, most defiantly.

But still being, we must learn from our past, beliefs, cultures, ways, thinking process's, and grow from them. Not letting the walls keep standing in between of the many different histories (cultures, beliefs, rituals, practices, changes) we are now learning from.

I think that people do have a reason to have some fear about a religion that hopes to have their law be the law of the world one day. I dont fear it, but its something I would fight against.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
# THE CHRISTIANS & THE JEWS
If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (Exodus, 22:25[23])
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

THE MUSLIMS
Al-Nisa 4:161 And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution.

THE HINDUS & BUDDHIST
Hindu Sutra (700-100 BC) as well as in the Buddhist Jatakas (600-400 BC) there are many references to the payment of interest, along with expressions of disdain for the practice.

THE ATHEIST
I Want The Earth Plus 5%l

THE ANCIENTS
Plato (Laws, v. 742) and Aristotle (Politics, I, x, xi) considered interest as contrary to the nature of things; Aristophanes expressed his disapproval of it, in the "Clouds" (1283 sqq.); Cato condemned it (see Cicero, "De officiis, II, xxv), comparing it to homicide, as also did Seneca (De beneficiis, VII, x) and Plutarch in his treatise against incurring debts.


If interest is bad thing, why we still love it ? - Greed



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RainCloud
# THE CHRISTIANS & THE JEWS
If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (Exodus, 22:25[23])
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

Just an FYI as I saw someone tie Christian and Jewish law together before in this thread I suppose I'll comment about that. Those are Jewish laws made by Jewish Priests. Typically, scholars point to Mosaic Law as the 'Law' that the Sermon on the Mound refers to teaching and following, which would be the Ten Commandments, not the laws created by the Levites et al.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaxxon

Originally posted by RainCloud
Typically, scholars point to Mosaic Law as the 'Law' that the Sermon on the Mound refers to teaching and following, which would be the Ten Commandments, not the laws created by the Levites et al.


Yes, you are a correct, but I do have problem finding a clear excerpts from New Tes. regarding "interest/usurp" except from Old Testament where its clearly stated.
Sorry if I'm mistaken somewhere and do correct me. Thanks

[edit on 1-8-2010 by RainCloud]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join