[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

For everyone who claims that it's the secularisms who are against freedom and islamists in favour of it, answer this.

Would islamic law allow the freedom to appear in public without a hijab (let alone universities or government buildings)?
Would islamic law allow people to drink alcohol (responsibly or irresponsibly)?
Would islamic law allow people to have sex outside marriage (responsibly or irresponsibly)?
Would islamic law allow men and women to mix freely?
Would islamic law criminalise homosexuality?
Would islamic law allow the freedom to not believe in parts of islam or be an atheist?

And so on. You can claim what you like about islamic law, but there's no way you can pretend that islamists are in "favour" of freedom and secularists against it. Sharia law is against freedom....that's the whole purpose of it.

Shariah law applies to Muslims only. So if non-Muslims want to practice that sort of freedom, they're welcome to do so.

In Islam, there's no such thing as drinking or having illicit relationships "responsibly".

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Would islamic law allow the freedom to not believe in parts of islam or be an atheist?

You've got two questions there. Regarding being an atheist, like Arabesque mentioned, of course people are free to believe whatever they like - most Sharia doesn't apply to non-Muslims.

Regarding believing in parts of Islam and not others: in order to be Muslim you have to believe in the whole of Islam. If you only believe in parts of Islam, then that's not being a Muslim. That's that person's own made-up religion. What you could have is that you believe in the whole of Islam, but that you break the rules, i.e. drink, steal, cheat, etc. That's called being a fasiq (or rebel). It's not a desireable state to be in, but you're still a Muslim (albeit a naughty one).

[Songbird]

In Jamroll's rather long-winded way, he's saying that Islam is not a menu one picks and chooses from.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Songbird

In Jamroll's rather long-winded way, he's saying that Islam is not a menu one picks and chooses from.

I object to you referring to my wind as being long. My wind is medium actually.

[Arabesque]

I want to add, fasiq has a stronger meaning in Arabic. "Rebel" does not accurately describe the ugliness of the word. And indeed, it's not something anyone would want to be.

[Songbird]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

I object to you referring to my wind as being long. My wind is medium actually.

It's not always about size.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

I want to add, fasiq has a stronger meaning in Arabic. "Rebel" does not accurately describe the ugliness of the word. And indeed, it's not something anyone would want to be.

Well, in the context, "rebel" is the closest English word I could think of, (i.e. rebelling against Allah's commands) but I know what you mean.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Well, in the context, "rebel" is the closest English word I could think of, (i.e. rebelling against Allah's commands) but I know what you mean.

I'm sure you know. I just wanted to explain it further so that Aryan would understand the intensity of it.

We all value our freedoms, and I don't think Islam or Shariah limits the freedoms of Muslims.

[Songbird]

Actually I think it [as in Shariah] *does*, but we need these limits because as we all know, sometimes our Nafs get the better of us, and often what feels good at a particular moment, doesn't feel so good afterwards.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Songbird

Actually I think it [as in Shariah] *does*, but we need these limits because as we all know, sometimes our Nafs get the better of us, and often what feels good at a particular moment, doesn't feel so good afterwards.

I think the few limits that Shariah imposes don't really restrict Muslims from exercising their freedoms.

Even secular states have "limits" set by the law. The only difference is whether you choose to only respect the limits or hudood set by these states and put them ahead in importance to hudood Allah (swt).

[Jamroll]

You hate our freedoms and our way of life!

[Arabesque]

Which is why we've come here to convert you

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

I object to you referring to my wind as being long. My wind is medium actually.

Long or short your wind was loud and smelly. I can smell it all the way across the pond!

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

Long or short your wind was loud and smelly. I can smell it all the way across the pond!

Hey don't blame it on me. Blame it on... err... the boogie?

[GOTFIVEONIT]

i think what aryan brough up is shariah implemenation within the context of the law itself. And i dont agree with many people who believe that the Shariah should be implemented as the law of the land, because it violates the core belief of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion. Not only that, only your creator can stand in judgement over you, not other men. So the morality laws cannot be enforced according to Islam because only your creator can pass judgement over you in the after life. When the government step's in and starts interpretating Islam for everyone else, and then decides that we will implement shariah in the way that we intreprete it is not only wrong but its also dangerous. I firmly believe that the crooked politicians, and crooked governments should stay out of the business of religion altogether and the government should stay out of the mosques altogether. If they want to fund building a mosque thats fine, just stay out of its affairs period. I think the recent attack by Gen Mushy on the Lal Masjid is a prime example of that.

While im no supporter or believer of thier views or their sect, i still believe that they have a right to peacefully practice thier faith without government interference.

Although from the video i have seen on ptv, the people holed up in the lal masjid were armed to the teeth with grenades, rocket launchers and machine guns.

Just because a politician screams Islam, doesnt mean he has the interests of muslims or Islam at heart. and the last thing we want is a politician issuing fatwa's on what is halal and what is haram. Let people practice Islam on how they feel, and the govt should stay out of it altogether. Otherwise, look at Egypt, they decide who get's to become the head Imam of Al-Azhar. In Saudi Arabia, the govt decides who is the head Imam at the Haram Al Sharif, and this is wrong, the people who attend these institutions should decide on who leads thier prayers, and who they seek for guidance, not the government.

If Muslim's are truley worried about morality in society, then education is the key. Dont rely on the govt to help you with that, dont rely on the govt to teach your kids morality, only you can do that.