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.

 

How Shariah, an Intended Compass for Peace, Became a Tool of Oppression

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



If you don't mind, I have downloaded a copy of Sharia law, called Ftiq, it is jurisprudence of Islamic law and will use that to quote from on my posts. People don't want to do this, but it is necessary to know what they are thinking.

We can compare side by side if we wish, it might be beneficial to do so.

That is a FANTASTIC suggestion. I look forward to it. As much as I've spent the last year trying to learn more about Islam, I still have lots of questions about it. You are a very well-credentialed teacher, Indy.. Thank you for lending your wisdom and accumulated knowledge to us. That's the thing that keeps me here - learning, sharing, and growing.



It will be very hard to take an objective view of Sharia. And the first thing to understand is that Sharia intends to displace the Constitution. This is something as an American, that I cannot allow.

People need to understand that Islam is a political ideology, then it is a religion. The first thing Mohammed did was politically maneuver himself into killing his opponents to establish Islam. He killed an old man poet, he killed a woman that was breastfeeding her child, he killed people that disagreed with him. But it was to establish himself politically, by creating a religion. That's the difference in why it is not religion based.

He was eventually killed by poison that a Jewish woman, that he had raped after killing her husband and father, and she tested him on his prophethood by saying "If you are a true prophet, then you won't be killed". He was killed. This is recorded in the Hadiths.




posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Here are some Sharia laws from the former Reliance of the Traveler, which has been now called Imam Shafi Jurisprudence

How Islam is a political ideology


13-8.17 Those fighting for Allah: The seventh category is “those fighting for Allah”, meaning, people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster, such people being volunteers for jihad without remuneration.


This does not mention countries or fighting in the military of countries, this is those who engage in military operations in the name of Allah. Therefore, the US government is correct in saying they don't have geopolitical boundaries. And those who do partake in Islamic military actions, do so for Islam and not a flag or nationality. So therefore, we are at war with an ideology with no political boundaries.

BTW, this section deals with Zakat, obligatory taxes.

Islam as indoctrination of children and abusive toward children

14.1.2 Age at which prayer becomes obligatory When a child is able to discriminate and has reached the age of seven he is to be ordered to perform the prayer. When he reaches the age of ten and neglects the prayer he is to be slapped, but not too harshly, in order to discipline him, but no more than three times.


It is interesting to note here, that little girls are not placed in this because little girls do not go to prayers in the mosque. Little girls are treated more harshly than little boys.

And follows is how little boys are to pray with the men


14.3.6 Words of the call to prayer and the call to commence: The words of the call to prayer and call to commence are well known. The translation of the words for the call to prayer are: "Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. I bear witness that there is no god except Allah. I bear witness that there is no god except Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Come to the prayer. Come to the prayer. Come to success. Come to success.”


That is Alluha Akbar. Then continues with the Shahada. That sounds a lot different than "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep".

Places where they may not pray

14.4.14 Places in which it is offensive to pray: It is offensive to pray:
1. in a bathhouse or its outer room where clothes are removed;
2. in the middle of a path;
3. at a rubbish dump;
4. at a slaughterhouse;
5. in a church;
6. in places where taxes (dis: 10.32) are gathered or taken;
7. in places likely to be contaminated by wine;
8. on top of the Ka’ba;
9. or towards a tomb(dis:w-21).


As you can see, these are anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. But I have to ask, how does one decide to pray on top of the Ka'aba? But the reason this is anti-Jewish is that they mention slaughterhouses, because Jewish rabbis bless the slaughtered animal before slaughter and to keep it kosher, only one man has been approved as the official slaughterer. The rabbi in blessing the animal basically gives thanks for the animal provided for food.

But you may not pray in a graveyard or have a religious service for a funeral.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


And they are permitted to kill someone who disrupts their prayers


If someone tries to pass between oneself and the barrier, it is recommended to gently push him back, and one may push him back as hard as necessary, as one would an attacker (07.3). If the person accidentally dies as a result, one would not be subject to retaliation (03) or have to pay an indemnity (04) to his kin. [If the praying person’s chest ever loses Kaba’s direction, his prayer is annulled at once]


Aisha narrates in the Hadiths that Mohammed beat her several times for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He beat her legs, bruising them and he beat her chest, and she was about 14 years-old at this time.

As they believe and say Mohammed is the "One to be emulated" then they will do what Mohammed did.

Christians may pray anytime and anywhere they so choose, it does not limit where and when. Jewish prayers are the same, it does not matter, but under Islam it is obligatory in not only dress, but where, what manner and in what direction. I cannot imagine a Christian killing anyone for someone getting in their way. Already there are divergent views between the three.

And no Christian may lawfully use the excuse that they killed someone who got in the way. And I have yet to see a Catholic priest kill someone during giving the Eucharist. Maybe in the Middle-Ages, but I think most Catholics would be shocked if a priest attacks and kills someone for getting in the way during prayers. I don't think I have ever heard that this was permissible for Jewish rabbis. So in making the comparisons of the three, Islam is permissible to killing others.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


The contrived animosity that is going on now is astounding.


If you focused on nothing but that line and that line alone - you might get somewhere

Only problem is - everyone thinks God is on their side and they're not contriving anything

Was the Viet Nam war a political war, an ideological war - or a religious war?

Was it a necessary war?

How about Afghanistan or Iraq?

Seems to me it's pretty easy to contrive ourselves into anything we want or need



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





Again, have I presented that mentality? Or did you see "Christian" and apply that to all Christians? That's called "false analogy"

A: WarminIndy is a Christian
B: Christians are killers

Therefore

C: WarminIndy is a killer


This ^^ is Aristotlean logic. I don't follow or align myself with that kind of thinking.

This kind of logic can easily get you here;

"Windword is pro-choice
All pro-choice people are pro-abortion and satanic baby killers
Therefore, Windword is a satanic baby killer"

Following your logic, is this what you think of me? I know many Christians on these boards have accused me of that very thing.

Again, you are taking this too personally and confusing religion with your personal brand of faith. Religion is NOT designed to promote world peace. There are, however, many "Christians" who are using their position to promote the implimentation of their own religious laws and guidelines into secular law in the US. This is what I'm arguing against. You seem to think that I'm attacking you personally. I'm not, unless you are one of those seeking to impliment your brand of religion, forcibly, over others through the enactment of laws.


reply to post by WarminIndy
 




But did you know that Deerborn, Michigan is now Sharia law based? Sharia has been adopted above the Constitution in Deerborn and you can go there in the middle of the day and have to hear the imam's call to prayer sounding over the city streets. But one is expected to stop and pray. You don't have to stop and pray when you hear the church bells ringing.



Dearborn Michigan is NOT under Sharia Law!


Contrary to what's claimed in an article published yesterday on NationalReport.net, the Dearborn, Michigan City Council did not vote to implement Sharia law there over the weekend.

A list of the Council's scheduled meeting dates shows that members last met on Oct. 24 and meet meet next on Oct. 29. There was no City Council meeting this past weekend.

To remind everyone yet again, National Report is a satire website. Nothing they publish is true. See more examples of their handiwork below.

Update: The City of Dearborn issued a press release on Oct. 30 labeling the National Report article "false" and "phony." Dearborn mayor Jack O'Reilly was quoted as follows: "Dearborn has never been, nor ever will be, under sharia law. We are governed by the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Michigan and the City of Dearborn Charter."
urbanlegends.about.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by wildtimes
 


The contrived animosity that is going on now is astounding.


If you focused on nothing but that line and that line alone - you might get somewhere

Only problem is - everyone thinks God is on their side and they're not contriving anything

Was the Viet Nam war a political war, an ideological war - or a religious war?

Was it a necessary war?

How about Afghanistan or Iraq?

Seems to me it's pretty easy to contrive ourselves into anything we want or need


Politics and religion are ideologies. Vietnam was therefore an ideological wars. Religion had nothing to do with Vietnam, except the anti-religion ideology of Communist China led to invasion of Vietnam. Communism is an ideology in the political realm. As Communist China wasn't exactly very religious minded, and Vietnam was very Buddhist, then does it get down to Buddhist vs. Buddhist, or did it get down to Communism vs. the political ideology of Vietnam?

As it was not about Buddhist vs. Buddhist, neither was it Buddhist vs. Christianity, then it can only be political. And there was no Buddhist rhetoric on either side. There was Communist rhetoric on each side. Therefore we must only say it was political.

Afghan and Iraq are different as they are making Islamic rhetoric on their side to justify killing not only each other, but everyone who is not Muslim. And Muslims do not believe within the framework of Islam that they can have nationalization ideology. Otherwise, they would permit Zoroastrians to be equal, but Zoroastrians are a minority and many of their religious sites are being destroyed and many are forced into Islam. I would think as a humanist, you might find some compassion for the rights of Zoroastrians to practice their religion in peace, but they are persecuted as well, under the banner on non-nationalized Islam.

Sunnis and Shi'ites have been at war with each other since Ali and Aisha tried to prove Ali was the rightful successor of Mohammed. And this is the justification for the mass slaughter of Khurds with mustard gas, and I would think humanists would be concerned with that.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 




Religion had nothing to do with Vietnam, except the anti-religion ideology of Communist China led to invasion of Vietnam.



:-)

I'd say more - but I'm out the door



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Then I suggest you visit Dearborn, Michigan and say something against Mohammed and see what happens to you. Do you think you are being stoned by Dearborn, Michigan laws or protected by them, or will they stone you regardless of Dearborn, Michigan laws? If they throw stones at you because Sharia says so, then Dearborn is under Sharia, because you aren't protected by Dearborn city law.

So, it is under Sharia law, because Muslims are allowed to stone people there who do disagree with Islam and Mohammed. It might not be written for them there in Dearborn, but it certainly is in practice.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





So, it is under Sharia law, because Muslims are allowed to stone people there who do disagree with Islam and Mohammed. It might not be written for them there in Dearborn, but it certainly is in practice.


Do you have any proof the back this claim?

I don't believe you can. Dearborn Michigan is still part of the United States where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are still the law of the land.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by windword
 




Religion had nothing to do with Vietnam, except the anti-religion ideology of Communist China led to invasion of Vietnam.



:-)

I'd say more - but I'm out the door


Have a good day. It seem to be warm outside a little bit.

But would you care to show me the Buddhist temples bombed by American soldiers in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? That's right, it didn't happen.

Can you then tell me about the destruction of religious places, sites, temples, places of worship and churches in Islamic countries? Oh it happens every day.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





So, it is under Sharia law, because Muslims are allowed to stone people there who do disagree with Islam and Mohammed. It might not be written for them there in Dearborn, but it certainly is in practice.


Do you have any proof the back this claim?

I don't believe you can. Dearborn Michigan is still part of the United States where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are still the law of the land.


Christians Stoned in Dearborn

On American soil. So what is it about Sharia that you are having trouble understanding? Sharia is not about nationalism, it it not about respecting the laws of the land of the country they are in.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

WarminIndy

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





So, it is under Sharia law, because Muslims are allowed to stone people there who do disagree with Islam and Mohammed. It might not be written for them there in Dearborn, but it certainly is in practice.


Do you have any proof the back this claim?

I don't believe you can. Dearborn Michigan is still part of the United States where freedom of speech and freedom of religion are still the law of the land.


Christians Stoned in Dearborn

On American soil. So what is it about Sharia that you are having trouble understanding? Sharia is not about nationalism, it it not about respecting the laws of the land of the country they are in.



And here is another case in Pennsylvania of Sharia being enforced by a Muslim judge disregarding American law...
Pennsylvania Judge

And Rafiqua Berry of Ohio was eventually returned home after running away from her Muslim parents because of fear for being killed under Sharia. It is happening on American soil and people need to understand exactly what Sharia is.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


This video is NOT proof of the enactment or of the enforcement of Sharia Law. What it is evidence of is Christians inciting a riot and refusing police orders to desist and their offer to escort them away from the Muslin Festival that they invaded with their protests, bull horns and offensive signs.

This is a clear case of Christians acting badly.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


This video is NOT proof of the enactment or of the enforcement of Sharia Law. What it is evidence of is Christians inciting a riot and refusing police orders to desist and their offer to escort them away from the Muslin Festival that they invaded with their protests, bull horns and offensive signs.

This is a clear case of Christians acting badly.


Christians were not permitted into the actual grounds of the Muslim festival. I don't think you really understand that Sharia isn't something you always go to court for.

Inciting a riot? Are you taking the Muslims side on this?

Sharia isn't bound to a court of law as it is presented as being above courts of law. But that gives justification for Muslims stoning, as dictated under Sharia?

Again, what part of Sharia not nationalistic are you having problems understanding? If the Westboro Baptists were to stone people, citing the Bible to do so, would they not be arrested? Pull yourself a little from your bias against Christianity and see what Sharia is really about and how Christians are standing up for your right to not believe in Christianity.

Christians are fighting this for you, but I think you would prefer to be a dhimmi under Islam. If Sharia succeeds, then that will be what will happen to you. And as a dhimmi, you can't even speak against Islam. So what do you prefer to happen? And should Christians no longer defend your Constitutional rights? Who is going to defend them against the socio-political quasi-religion?

BTW, in the Pennsylvania case, it was an atheist who was attacked by a Muslim, the judge was Muslim and referred back to Sharia. So why are you having problems understanding that your Constitutional rights are on the line?

That atheist had a right of free speech to dress as a Zombie Mohammed, but the Muslim and judge didn't think so. So please, can you explain what part you are having problems understanding?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


There are laws against Hate speech and inciting violence!

There are plenty of rulings in which we may disagree with a seemingly biased judge. There is always appeal and other recourse.

This judge's ruling in no way provides proof of Sharia Law enforcment in the US.

Kids are getting suspended from school for having images of guns on their t-shirts, a pop-tart biten into the shape of a gun, and a piece of paper shaped like a gun! Yet, freedom of expression and bearing arms is a constitutional right! Go figure!



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Just for reference, and only that: The flood story appears in The Epic of Gilgamesh, but the character in question is Utnapishtim, not Gilgamesh. Give it a read, it's fascinating



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


There are laws against Hate speech and inciting violence!

There are plenty of rulings in which we may disagree with a seemingly biased judge. There is always appeal and other recourse.

This judge's ruling in no way provides proof of Sharia Law enforcment in the US.

Kids are getting suspended from school for having images of guns on their t-shirts, a pop-tart biten into the shape of a gun, and a piece of paper shaped like a gun! Yet, freedom of expression and bearing arms is a constitutional right! Go figure!





What do you classify as hate speech? Doesn't it happen on ATS? I could reasonably assume you are breaking that very law you just referred to. Every Christian on here has said that same thing, hate speech is against us on here.

But since I am a fair person and would like to discuss why Sharia is dangerous, then it is only fair for you to look at what Sharia is, then see if Christians are the same.

But no Christian is permitted to say the same things against atheists and agnostics, then we are accused of hate speech. But Christians are permitted to stay within their views of themselves, without being permitted to be critical of anything else. So can you see how it is reduced to a defensive position from us?

And not only that, anti-Semitism against Jews is very rampant on ATS. How many threads do you see about "Zionist conspiracies", "Jewish conspiracies" and "Jews caused 9/11"? Don't you think that also qualifies as hate speech?

As people proclaim to be humanist, then I would think they would be able to not only present criticisms, but also allow dialogue and discussion about those other systems. But to make the statements against one without the allowance of dialogue is hate speech. But as a Christian and American, I have to make the choice of whether or not I will speak against a system that is dangerous. And if it means that as a Christian that is American, knowing that as a good citizen, it means that I must defend the rights of all religions and people under the Constitution, then I have to make that choice of which is greater, to defend the rights of Muslims to practice Islam, or oppose Sharia?

There are many Americans converted to Islam all the time. That's their right and choice, but when their right and choice then says they are no longer respectful to the laws and the Constitution, then is it hate speech to oppose it? Under Sharia, it is no longer permissible to speak against it.

Which do you prefer?

Wildtimes and I are on the same page as opposing what is dangerous and what removes rights, and yet she and I are two different faith systems. If we have managed to look past the differences, then that is the only way we can make a stand against what is dangerous. Is wildtimes justified in her criticisms? Yes, because she points to particulars she has has issues with. I think she would not mind Christianity if it weren't for some Christians.

But should wildtimes and I give up because we might think the differences are too great to bridge? We are taking the pro-American stance and the humanist approach in that others should be respected.

And this is the fight among Christians, do we have a right to do dangerous and harmful things in the name of Christianity? Absolutely we do not. Are Christians required to support another Christian simply because that person is a Christian? Absolutely not. I have a right in Christianity to not only disagree with another Christian, but to stop them.

That right is not under Sharia, and which I am trying very hard to defend your right of freedom of speech to hate on my faith system. At what point should I stop defending your rights? Should I say "God, they wont believe anyway so let Sharia take them over". Would that be more proper to do as a Christian?

Yes, if a Muslim were standing in front of me who proclaimed Sharia, then I have no choice but to accept being beheaded, because it is in defense of rights of individuals, yours included, and if I am beheaded, how does that help anyone? And the sad part is that I would have died to defend that Muslim's right to practice Islam. How ironic would that be?

So where do I stop defending your rights? Sharia is dangerous and intended to take your rights away. And yet you can't see past your blinders.

I am proposing to defend your right to not believe even unto my death. What are you offering for my right to exercise my right to freedom religious expression?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

skalla
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Just for reference, and only that: The flood story appears in The Epic of Gilgamesh, but the character in question is Utnapishtim, not Gilgamesh. Give it a read, it's fascinating


Yes, I thought that after I went to bed....


I said "wasn't it Utnapishtim?"

ETA: Yes I have read it. And even the Ugaritic texts, and the Sumerian texts. That Tiamat was really something else. Talk about the Devil wearing Prada.
edit on 11/8/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I am not, and nowhere have I defended Sharia Law. Also, I am not attacking your faith or Christianity. I am merely pointing out that there are Christians too, who have an agenda of implimenting their ideas and their relgious dogma onto secular America.

My point, that I continue to assert, is that religion has not and is not promoting world peace. And, along those lines, Christians are awaiting their prophecy of world destruction to come to pass, many of them feverently so.

The fact that I'm not a Christian, and find many faults in Christian thinking, should have no bearing on your faith and is not an attack against you or your faith personally. I don't care what you do or what you belive, as long as you don't try to force me, by law, to follow your religious laws. The same goes for Muslims and any other religoin.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I am not, and nowhere have I defended Sharia Law. Also, I am not attacking your faith or Christianity. I am merely pointing out that there are Christians too, who have an agenda of implimenting their ideas and their relgious dogma onto secular America.

My point, that I continue to assert, is that religion has not and is not promoting world peace. And, along those lines, Christians are awaiting their prophecy of world destruction to come to pass, many of them feverently so.

The fact that I'm not a Christian, and find many faults in Christian thinking, should have no bearing on your faith and is not an attack against you or your faith personally. I don't care what you do or what you belive, as long as you don't try to force me, by law, to follow your religious laws. The same goes for Muslims and any other religoin.



Then we have reached a middle ground here.

I do not promote forcing people by law to follow my religious laws, any more than Jews are trying to force people to be kosher.

But can you tell me in what point in history has there ever been world peace? There has never been a time ever of world peace, to think it will ever happen soon is just wishful thinking.

What we can do is bring peace to our homes and maybe our towns. Maybe the world would work this way if we were separated by religious political boundaries? Wait, that's what we already have. But then would we not have to rescue little girls forcibly married to old men? That's under Shariah.

But as people with compassion, we need to do something for them. But we can't allow it to take over where freedom is now.

I would love to see a world at peace, but it isn't going to happen soon and it isn't going to happen when there are so many worldviews that are in conflict with each other.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join