Pat gets mad

[fr0d0]

Hey Rayaan. I'm simply pointing out that full dress is common in some places, and where numbers provide safety net.

you didn't really prove to me how they are correct.

I'm not saying that their interpretation is right and yours wrong. I just see zero information to conclude this. As far as authorities on the subject will state (according to TV documentaries), both POV are valid. Please provide evidence that this is otherwise, as currently you've merely asserted it without evidence.

Do you think that the Christians who interpret the creation story in the Bible literally are correct?

I don't think that they are correct but then it matters not to their salvation/ membership of the group. I still consider them to be siblings in Christ.

So, in the same way that believe that their interpretations are not correct or justified, I too, believe that there are certain interpretations of Muslims which are not justified according to the Quran.

But you do not accept them as siblings in Allah?

That's a non-sequitur because the fact that I'm a westerner doesn't mean that my interpretations are influenced by western secularism as opposed to being influenced by own careful study of the Quran.

You can't help but be influenced. Your personal journey is in conflict with that society, and you must reconcile your beliefs against it. If you deny the influence, you're belief means little.
Your position on morality is shaped by your surroundings. Non westerners have a completely different perspective. Islam operating in a violent and oppressive Islamic regime is nothing like Islam operating in a civilized society.

---

Again, the reason why Muslims killed the pagans is not because they didn't convert to Islam, but rather, it's because the pagans (who were a group of people amongst the Quraysh) waged a war against Muhammad and his followers and thus broke the peace treaty as mentioned in verse 9:01 in the Quran. After that, Allah gave the Muslims permission to fight and kill the pagans who started a war against them so that they are able to defend themselves and to defend their freedom of religion.

In the same chapter, concerning the pagans, the Quran says, "If any amongst the Pagans ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God, and then escort him to a place of safety" (9:06). This means that if any of the pagans asked for an asylum, then accordingly, the Muslims had to take them to a safe place and even protect them (hence the words "grant it to him") even if they do not convert to Islam. And if they did convert to Islam, then again, we cannot harm them either.

---

The text PRECISELY STATES that Muslims should kill the pagans if they didn't convert to Islam. Sure, Mohammed took a peaceful course of action in his last offensive, where his sheer numbers meant that opposition was futile, and he understood from preceeding examples that peaceful take over was politically the strongest course of action. Of course you only refer to that last action. That's not what happenned earlier on though: There is a time and place for killing the opposition for not converting to Islam.

I don't really care how many Shariah courts there. I don't even think it is something important in the UK because Muslims can still fulfill the fundamentals of Islam with or without the Shariah.

However, know that non-Muslims would not be expected to live according to the demands of the Shariah.

Wrong.

That's how it applies now. UK Muslims are pressing for Islamic courts and accept what you're suggesting as the best that can be achieved as a minority. When Islam becomes a majority Shariah law courts will have the power to force people to subit to that law, just as now happens in Islamic countries, and as now effectively applies to Muslims that have to live as part of the Muslim community.

I've only known the Taliban to force a dress code on women, and even ban them from working, but I never heard the Shariah doing this in any country.

Well you are again misinformed. It's happenning in the UK now.

It is not permissible to kill me if I become an atheist. According to my knowledge, the death penalty was imposed in Muhammad's time only when apostasy was combined with hostility and treason, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against a Muslim state (after leaving Islam) and thus endangering the safety of the Muslim citizens. In other words, the rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.

But that's precisely what that text allows for, which is my point. Pagans are 'hostile' towards Islam if they talk about their beliefs. 'Treason' is saying anything anti Islam. Look at the aggressive protests for these crimes where Islam is in the minority in Europe. Are you saying that this is incorrect and an Islamic state would let this happen WITHOUT opposition? I find it incredible that you would conclude that if you do.