They won't admit it in Stockholm, but Donald Trump is right about immigration in Swed

You're both spinning your wheels. What you need to explain is the real relationship between the text of the Quran and life as lived by over a billion Muslims today. The right wing of this argument claims that the text is all that matters, particularly their interpretation of it.

Obviously the right-wing is looking for any and every way to denigrate Islam and Muslims.

But your evasions here are not getting you anywhere. There IS a tension between Islam and liberalism, and it won't disappear easily.

 

This is not "right wing". This is extreme right wing, quoting from stormfront like hate sites. Muslims in Saudi Arabia live strictly according to the Quran without choice. That is a well known fact. They have got the death penalty if you raped somebody there. You can look it up that this is indeed true. So it's totally impossible that the Quran supports rape, when they are going to kill you if you rape. That is my argument. It goes unopposed.

I'm not evading this point. I'm stonewalling it until it's acknowledged that the stormfront like hate sites are wrong. And so far Freedomseeker is not denying or affirming what I say is right. Instead of that, he's just trolled on about other subjects where he demands I need to comment on first,... that is evading.

 

It's not a very good argument. Many Sharia scholars interpret rape as "adultery without consent." Obviously this excludes marital rape from the punishment of rape writ large.

Just one example of the complications present here.

 

Seriously....
Rape is a crime with a death penalty. That is how it is lived by in Saudi Arabia who follow the Quran to the letter.

It is absolutely nuts to claim that Sharia law is not followed correctly in Saudi Arabia.

 

I'm bumping this post because I want to remind our readers that jews have a leading role in the promulgation of multicultural propaganda in Sweden. Most of the country's major newspapers are owned by one jewish family, Bonnier, and this family hires jewish journalists and editors for their anti-Swedish rags.

 

That. Was. My. Point.

So yes, seriously.

It is absolutely nuts to pretend that Sharia law is a single doctrine with a single authoritative body.

"Follow the Quran to the letter." Hah! Islamic jurisprudence is a long tradition of change and revision. There isn't some simple formula to follow.

 

That has been my point all along. You're just not understanding it.

it pretty much is in the Shia world on one side, the Sunni on the other and Imbadi on the 3rd side. There simply are 3 main flavors. They all agree the ISIL way is wrong.

 

Good. Great!

No, it really, really isn't that simple at all. What is "the Shia world?" Are Alawites Shia? For how long have they been Shia? Forever, or only since political leaders in Iran declared them to be for political and geopolitical reasons? You have Fivers, Twelvers, and Isma'ilis. Within the Sunni world there is an extreme tension between groups like Wahhabis or Salafis and groups like the Sufis, which itself is a kaleidoscopic array of beliefs and practices. In Oman the Ibadis have a few ways of interpreting Islamic doctrine, and you would get entirely different senses of Islam were you to discuss Islam in Muscat than if you were to discuss it in the arid interior.

This doesn't even begin to touch the historical dynamism of "orthodox" Sunni Islam, if you even wanted to try to define such a thing.

Islam is not Catholicism (which, itself, is not simple and static). It's a lot more like Protestantism, with more historical depth and legalistic complications.

 

wiki:
The Alawis, also rendered as Alawites (Arabic: علوية‎‎ Alawīyyah), are a syncretic sect of the Twelver branch of Shia Islam

 

It must be nice for all the complications of the real world to be washed away by a single sentence from Wikipedia.

Islam cannot be boiled down to a simple formula, and neither can Sharia law. There is no "authoritative" version of Sharia law that countries like Saudi Arabia follow. Indeed, interpretations of Sharia law have changed substantially in Saudi Arabia over the last few generations.

 

It was a simple question with a simple answer. It seemed to show how wrong you are.

If you read up on that page about them. You would read they see themselves as Shia just like Iran does.
And you must live in a real complicated world here, when you deny the actual reality and claim your opinion is what matters.

Saudi Arabia got a grand mufti and his opinion is like the opinion of the Pope for Catholics. He is the authoritative version of Sharia law. And even though Islam is indeed more complicated than just 3 main branches,... it just does boil down to this.... as I shown with the Alawites.

They got a plan, vision 2030, in that vision they still are not planning to give women the right to drive a car.

 

Not at all, you're just willing to cling to simple interpretations of the world.

Shia? Not Shia? Let's see what Wikipedia says.

Some Iranians. There are, of course, some hardliners within the Shia religious establishment who view Alawites as heretics, even pagans.

I don't think you even know what my opinion is.

So, so wrong. I don't know how you deign to speak so authoritatively on this matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab

Each of these schools sees change generation by generation, and there are always tensions within each.

 

Some Iranians... like the freaking Iranian Ayatollah himself! lol
It's just your own relentless stupid stubbornness that in the way of reality.

Nope. I am right.

And this comes down to post 407 "That has been my point all along. You're just not understanding it."

Each of those school belong to either Shia, Sunni, Ibadi and Ambadi ... the last 2 are not making even 1% combined.
And that is according to YOUR OWN SOURCE! So it is exactly how I said it was.

 

I'll condemn sites that give false information, but not ones that give legitimate quotes from barbaric religious texts in an effort to get people to leave said barbaric religions.

 

You say this because, again, you couldn't condemn Allah/Mohammad no matter WHAT HYPOTHETICAL I'd propose!! This clearly shows the brain-washing that critics of religion believe takes place in religions.
Let me prove that: notme, hypothetically speaking, what is the least bad thing that Allah/Mohammad would have had to do (again, hypothetically here - we're trying to find out how ethical of a person YOU are here) for you to condemn that act?

To a Modern Secular Humanist the answer is likely "well, for example, I'd condemn Allah/Mohammad if they actually committed or advocated most any act that we consider a FELONY (in today's enlightened times.)"
Can we agree that if, repeat if, Allah/Mohammad committed or advocated most any act that we consider a FELONY (in today's enlightened times) that you'd condemn them - now that I'm asking you point-blank to do that? Can we agree, notme? Surely you believe you deserve better than those who would (hypothetically, again) advocate or commit FELONIES, no!?

 

I wrote: "Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if Q4:34 had not existed?" [it says to BEAT wives.[
Your reply: "I'm not going to comment one bit on your islamophobic hate sites when they claim the opposite of reality."

I wrote: "You can't condemn the Saudis for following the Sharia provision to punish people who leave Islam, can you?"
Your reply:
"Hang on. Lets get back to your hate sites first. Lets see you condemn your islamophobic hate site for raping the truth."

CLEARLY YOU CAN'T CONDEMN ANYTHING THE SAUDIS DO THAT IS IN THE ISLAMIC TEXTS!! CLEARLY!! CLEARLY YOU CAN'T CONDEMN ANY BARBARITY (NOT EVEN WIFE-BEATING!!) THAT IS IN THE QUR'AN!! I'VE JUST PROVEN THAT.
FOLKS, RELIGION IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE WORLD TODAY!

 

Saudi Arabia uses quotes from those religious text and they put every last word of it into law. And their law is that rape is a crime you can get killed for if convicted. You know it is. You're just completely ignoring the real world, so you can go on and vent your racist filth here.

 

A bigger problem than some obscure web site allegedly misquoting the all-knowing/all-powerful "Allah" would be if the all-knowing/all-powerful "Allah" had barbaric and inhuman instructions in his #1 instruction manual for life (the Qur'an), such as wife-beating (Q4:34 Shakir)! That would be one of the biggest crimes (promoting wife-beating to the world) of all time. A web site that allegedly mis-understands that barbaric command would be the least of our problems.....can we agree on that?

 

Is it "hate" to point out how evil the Nazis were?

 

And you can't bring yourself to condemn their punishment of apostasy because you yourself, apparently, AGREE with Allah/Mohammad/Islamic texts that apostasy should indeed be punished. Or can you here and now condemn Allah/Mohammad for having a penalty for apostasy, notme?

 

What "race" is Islam?
If Islam is not a race, then you'll want to admit that your claim about me is wrong.

Speaking of racism, can you condemn Mohammad for taking black slaves (Mohammad himself was not black)? I can, because I'm more ethical than Mohammad was.

 

If it's from the all-knowing, perfect, all-powerful creator of the entire universe (Allah) like Islam of course claims, and from the #1 perfect role model for all time (Mohammad, like the Islamic texts claim) then the TEXTS WOULD matter, big time! If Muslims choose to not follow said texts then it shows that said texts are likely NOT from the all-knowing, perfect, all-powerful creator of the entire universe, and also that they don't actually feel that the Islamic texts are correct when they say that Mohammad is the perfect role model for all time.

 

Mohammad took sex-slaves from CAPTIVES in war....can you condemn Mohammad for doing that - or at least admit that that was not the right thing to do by today's higher more ethical moral standards, notme?

 

They know that if they follow Islam as written, as practiced by Mohammad, as intended by Allah, such as allowing slavery, that they would be kicked out of the international community - THAT'S the main reason that they would choose to not follow Islam as written. If Islam grows, and takes over (say in the year 2150), then you'll see the Saudis and other Islamic governments follow Mohammad's example more closely - such as only giving women a mere HALF the inheritance of the (apparently) twice-as-good Muslim male.

 

Alright, let's simplify our agreement. Can you give me a single source with the authoritative version of Sharia law?

You have no understanding of how complicated Islam is. But please, give it a shot.