quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
. . . peoples' fear of shariah is valid given all the edicts that comes from 'people of authority' from Saudi Arabia all the way to Muslims in the west.

The reality is that shariah in essence is not in conflict with any law currently in effect in the west.

So, WHO distills this essence for the rest of us . . .??

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
. . . peoples' fear of shariah is valid given all the edicts that comes from 'people of authority' from Saudi Arabia all the way to Muslims in the west.

The reality is that shariah in essence is not in conflict with any law currently in effect in the west.

So, WHO distills this essence for the rest of us . . .??

There is no 'rest of us'. We are all part of the human race as well as part of the society.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
The "rest of us" refers to those outside the ummah.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Address the question . . . stop playing stupid word games!

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Address the question . . . stop playing stupid word games!

I choose when I waste time on stupid questions.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
. . . peoples' fear of shariah is valid given all the edicts that comes from 'people of authority' from Saudi Arabia all the way to Muslims in the west.

The reality is that shariah in essence is not in conflict with any law currently in effect in the west.

So, WHO distills this essence for the rest of us . . .??

There is no 'rest of us'. We are all part of the human race as well as part of the society.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
uh huh . . . THINK before U post next time.

quote:

Originally posted by Ramakant_p:
Why are you wasting your time with that Jack.ass?

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
uh huh . . . THINK before U post next time.

I think before I do almost everything.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
uh huh . . . THINK before U post next time.

I think before I do almost everything.

Apparrently not before you posted THIS gem:

Kzazma: ". . . peoples' fear of shariah is valid given all the edicts that comes from 'people of authority' from Saudi Arabia all the way to Muslims in the west.

The reality is that shariah in essence is not in conflict with any law currently in effect in the west."

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
uh huh . . . THINK before U post next time.

I think before I do almost everything.

Apparrently not before you posted THIS gem:

Kzazma: ". . . peoples' fear of shariah is valid given all the edicts that comes from 'people of authority' from Saudi Arabia all the way to Muslims in the west.

The reality is that shariah in essence is not in conflict with any law currently in effect in the west."

Actually I did think otherwise I would not have included a condition in the statement. Don't make me think you were not bright enough to recognize it.

quote:

NY TIMES

MORE than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law.

Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”

This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.

The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)

Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.

The German philosopher Bruno Bauer offered Jews a bargain: renounce Jewish law and be granted full legal rights. He insisted that, otherwise, laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath made it impossible for Jews to be true citizens. (Bauer conveniently ignored the fact that many fully observant Jews violated the Sabbath to fight in the Prussian wars against Napoleon.)

During that era, Christianity was seen as either a universally valid basis of the state or a faith that harmoniously coexisted with the secular law of the land. Conversely, Judaism was seen as a competing legal system — making Jews at best an unassimilable minority, at worst a fifth column. It was not until the late 19th century that all Jews were granted full citizenship in Western Europe (and even then it was short lived).

Most Americans today would be appalled if Muslims suffered from legally sanctioned discrimination as Jews once did in Europe. Still, there are signs that many Americans view Muslims in this country as disloyal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 56 percent of Protestants think that Muslims are loyal Americans.

This suspicion and mistrust is no doubt fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe. But American Muslims are a different story. They are natural candidates for assimilation. They are demographically the youngest religious group in America, and most of their parents don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia). A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Muslim Americans exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups, expressing greater degrees of tolerance toward people of other faiths than do Protestants, Catholics or Jews.

Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values.

America’s exceptionalism has always been its ability to transform itself — economically, culturally and religiously. In the 20th century, we thrived by promoting a Judeo-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life.

Anti-Shariah legislation fosters a hostile environment that will stymie the growth of America’s tolerant strand of Islam. The continuation of America’s pluralistic religious tradition depends on the ability to distinguish between punishing groups that support terror and blaming terrorist activities on a faith that represents roughly a quarter of the world’s population.

Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, is the author of the forthcoming “The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism.”

quote:

Originally posted by TI:
Tell him to go drink rum in Times Square and tell the authories he objects to this NY Sharia law.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Calling for "honest debate" is NOT a "condition" . . . Sir

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
The "rest of us" refers to those outside the ummah.

If you think that there is a 'rest of us' then you are no different than those in the ummah who feel that way. Fortunately you and them are the minority in the society of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Look, the concept of the "ummah" originated in Islam . . . I didn't make it up.

Now, If the ummah exists . . . LOGIC demands that there is the "rest of us"!

Simple . . . No?

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Look, the concept of the "ummah" originated in Islam . . . I didn't make it up.

Now, If the ummah exists . . . LOGIC demands that there is the "rest of us"!

Simple . . . No?

No. Shariah does not have 'rest of us'. Now if you think it does, point out a Qur'anic statement and we will discuss it.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Look, the concept of the "ummah" originated in Islam . . . I didn't make it up.

Now, If the ummah exists . . . LOGIC demands that there is the "rest of us"!

Simple . . . No?

No. Shariah does not have 'rest of us'. Now if you think it does, point out a Qur'anic statement and we will discuss it.

Who's arguing that?!

What I said is: "The concept of the ummah originated in Islam" . . . we can debate that if you disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Look, the concept of the "ummah" originated in Islam . . . I didn't make it up.

Now, If the ummah exists . . . LOGIC demands that there is the "rest of us"!

Simple . . . No?

No. Shariah does not have 'rest of us'. Now if you think it does, point out a Qur'anic statement and we will discuss it.

Who's arguing that?!

What I said is: "The concept of the ummah originated in Islam" . . . we can debate that if you disagree.

Of course Captain Obvious. However, ummah is just an Arabic word meaning community.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
(it's religious form is conceptualized in the Qur'an as the community of believers).

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
So, knowing this, why did you make this cowardly effort to construct a straw man . . . ?

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
(it's religious form is conceptualized in the Qur'an as the community of believers).

It is not.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:
Let me be clear, denying that these people by name and by deed is appealing to sharia while driving home their point by violence will not win the day. That is what they do. That they are wrong has little to do with sharia but to generalized wrong headedness of fundamentalism.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
I leave it to the Islamic scholars on the BB to determine the veracity of my statement.

Your 'opinion' as a liar and a fraud does not count.

Be certain . . . when you are a bit further out on that limb, I will promptly cut it off!

BTW, wanna apologize now about the straw man thing . . .?

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
I leave it to the Islamic scholars on the BB to determine the veracity of my statement.

Your 'opinion' as a liar and a fraud does not count.

Be certain . . . when you are a bit further out on that limb, I will promptly cut it off!

BTW, wanna apologize now about the straw man thing . . .?

Firstly, deal with me who made the comment not any who did not. Secondly, I couldn't care any less if you think I am a liar or a fraud. Thirdly, I am never on a limb. Lastly, I see nothing in my statement that requires an apology.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Oh, you are so very much out on a limb . . . Sir!

I notice that you are ketching sense and seem to be, oh so subtly, dialing back . . .

Now, quietly dismantling your little strawman does not mean you didn't build it . . . re-review the thread.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:
kaz is a guy!

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Oh, you are so very much out on a limb . . . Sir!

I notice that you are ketching sense and seem to be, oh so subtly, dialing back . . .

Now, quietly dismantling your little strawman does not mean you didn't build it . . . re-review the thread.

Hopefully by now you have sobered up from your NYE champagne binge.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Sober this! . . . [see] Qu'ran 3:110 and 2:143 and get back to me

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Sober this! . . . [see] Qu'ran 3:110 and 2:143 and get back to me

They spoke of a situation that existed at a particular time. Go back and review the world at the time those verses were revealed and consider the other verse that spoke of if these same people (Muslims) were to diviate from enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, that God will replace them with another people who will do. No different than has happened throughout history. So try getting a bit more sober.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Your first question is silly and is not worthy of me wasting my time to answer it.

No question is silly when you cant even begin to provide an answer.

If you were to give the proper answer, then the rest of you hogwash will become irrelevant.

How about this question; what is your point? Knowing Sharia is not the necessary condition here. A group claiming they know what it is and given to violence sees it as necessary. Could it be that they hope to educate the rest of the world of its meaning by the necessity for violence when Sharia is not the basis for the law!

If you read, it will do wonders for you.

I didn't bring sharia into the discussion, so go ask the person who did, he still cannot explain.

To the contrary, I read constantly and that is self evident in the broad scope of my analogies. You need to diversify your reading repertoire so you do not come off as a stunted fundamentalist who cannot get your head out of that stilted reality. Note There is hardly anything in Sharia that is not detailed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is not Sharia but a matter of accepting the plurality of religions to be accommodated in the world.

You hinged your answer on questioning Andre as to his knowledge of what it is and asking whether Sharia is the cause of the bombing. The reality is that some folks claiming all other conception of the world is haram per their conception of the law was the philosophical orientation of those behind the bombing. Indirectly, Sharia as they conceive it to be is their driving force.


BTW, I dont have to pretend I am bright. I am and I am arrogantly so when it comes to idiots and pretentious fools like you using, stilted facts, stupid emotional appeals and baseless ad hominem attacks and in general hapless argumentation to beg a point. Let me be clear, denying that these people by name and by deed is appealing to sharia while driving home their point by violence will not win the day. That is what they do. That they are wrong has little to do with sharia but to generalized wrong headedness of fundamentalism.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
We're not interested in your 'interpretations' Mr quick foot!

I made THIS statement:
"[the Ummah] it's religious form is conceptualized in the Qur'an as the community of believers" . . . and your idiot retort was "It it not"!!

Now, confronted with the FACTS, you're dancing away from your stupidity with [irrelevant] Koranic exegesis . . . what a loser!

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
We're not interested in your 'interpretations' Mr quick foot!

I made THIS statement:
"[the Ummah] it's religious form is conceptualized in the Qur'an as the community of believers" . . . and your idiot retort was "It it not"!!

Now, confronted with the FACTS, you're dancing away from your stupidity with [irrelevant] Koranic exegesis . . . what a loser!

It may come as a surprise to you but I am far less interested in explaining anything Islamic to you than you could ever be in asking. You are still wrong in your assumptions. The Qur'an does not deal with only matters of religious import but how could you possibly know that?Funny that you would label me a loser when you are the one who keeps changing your comments as you go along. Go back and see how many times you change your original comment. Then stick to what you know something about whatever that may be.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
You have been exposed as an IDIOT poser . . . why would I be interested in you explaining ANYTHING Islamic to me?!

Carry on with the fake conversations in your head . . .

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
You have been exposed as an IDIOT poser . . . why would I be interested in you explaining ANYTHING Islamic to me?!

Carry on with the fake conversations in your head . . .

And you are too silly to realize that you have just indicted yourself for asking in the first place.

Seems like you relish a good ass kicking.

quote:

Originally posted by redux:
Poor, hapless you (like RamaKanta the drunk) . . . still fantasizing about kicking my ass!

Pick up a book on logic & argument, study hard . . . and THEN, maybe, I will be forced to use my good arm [stole that line from the Jameson Whiskey ads] LOL