The civility I am referring to came after the secularization of Europe from the horrors of religion in general and the Church in particular. This civility arrived during the enlightenment when reason was adopted as the source for authority. This civility then evolved from then onwards to what it is today. This evolution would not have been possible if the Church was still in control of politics and was the authority overseeing the land.

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: LOL! Ok, ? If you dont beleive they're inadequate, why are you againt Islamic states? Second, what's with this emotions you keep reffering to? Are you saying, religious people are emotional? Yes, I am saying that religious people are emotional because of the attachment to their religion. They refuse to step out of religion for a second and see if their actions are reasonable. Instead they close down and would rather obey what God has supposedly decreed. Try to grasp what I'm trying to say here... let me illustrate with an example: Everyday millions of Muslims rise up for the Fajr and spend their days in pious observance of their religion, they make an individual, conscious decision to involve religion into their personal lives and make decisions for themselves based on their religion <-- this is a private matter which I have absolutely no problem with. Within Islam there are conflicts between different schools of thought and between Shias, Sunnis and Sufis, there are varying interpretations from the Wahhabis to the more liberal Muslims. Some Muslims are more passionate about their religion than others and use it as a weapon to demonize others for not being as passionate as they are. If you have a system of government that runs on this then you are taking this private matter and imposing it on everyone that lives in the land, whether they be Muslims, Christians, Hindus, blah, blah... and I do not think is fair. Whereas a secular system treats all these people as equals under one system of law that protects all religions without preferring one over the other. Period. I'm glad you didnt fall of the chair and harm yourself. Let me slow it down for you: The Sharia laws are written in the Qur'an and the Qur'an is God's words precisely. So if you criticize or disagree with the Qur'an, you're disagreeing with God. I hope I'm clear enough. There are several people that literally interpret these words of God. A classic example being religious fundamentalists. Rather than it being a personal choice of whether or not to take a particular verse literally you're making a grand imposition on citizenry to comply with something they may or may not think is right. Again, I'm confused. How are you seperating Allah from his religion? And no, criticizing man-made laws and goverments isnt the same as critiquing Almight God, OK? Let's take the verse 4:34 that is often quoted. It gives right for a husband to hit his wife "if it makes the situation better". Now, I don't see how hitting a person would make any situation better, but it being God's literal word, it can become law in a Shariah country and thus legalizes domestic violence. It all depends on the husband and what he thinks since men are the 'maintainers of women', so you have a serious problem if you have a temperamental man. Yes! Once you accept they're God's laws and you cant question God, we can talk about corruption, human errors, checks and balances within Islamic states, interpertations of laws and who is in power. That's interesting. The Quran is vague on many things. A secular system avoids this problem of vagueness and although misinterpretations do occur, they would not be at the level of religious ones. If you're questioning God's laws (by the way do you believe they're God's or someone's opinion?) you're certainly questioning the competance of such laws, God. I mean you dont exactly believe they're just right? Let's just say that I believe religion was laid down to 'civilize' people, but has always been corrupted and used as a means of oppression by the powerful. Take a look at what happened during the Christian inquisition or Islamic inquisition under caliph al-Mahdi. What if a person chooses to leave Islam in a Shariah country, s/he doesn't have the freedom to do that for fear of being put to death. So, you're not exactly sure if the Qur'an is from God but you "believe"(I put this in quotations because to believe means to accept blindly the unknown) in Islam? Hm.... haha ... like I said, it's a whole other can of worms.

Originally posted by Mist: Interesting. But think over this, religious people have a motive for being 'good', their morality is based on faith/religious laws. For examples Muslims (majority) will not steal because of the fear of hell or even God. The whole reward and punish system keeps them on a straigth line. Whereas a non-believer will not do something 'bad' like steal because they geninuely believe its wrong using their own personal rational. This difference always intersted me. I like your thinking. Religion was introduced (some say invented by humans) as a means to make people conform to certain sets of regulations aimed to make society function better. Often these regulations are enforced through fear. However, if a person believes in concepts of basic human civility then is there a need for religion? For example, if atheist parents bring up their child to be a good moral citizen, to not steal, not lie, not cheat... etc etc etc... and that child grows up to be a genuinely "good" human being, then how is s/he different from the ideal Muslim apart from not believing that God exists? Originally posted by Norfsky:People with religion are more likely to be good citizens. People with no religion are more likely to be criminals and/or drug addicts. Sadly these are generalizations rooted in opinions. I can switch them around: People with religion are more likely to be criminals and/or drug addicts. People with no religion are more likely to be good citizens.

I suppose that you, Ibtisam, as a person have no problem over your husband towering over you and being the head and commander of the household. I suppose you don't have a problem with having an uneven balance of authority in the home and being happy to stay inside all the time and not want a fair, equal and balanced relationship. But please don't suppose or expect other Muslim women to be as submissive and as unquestioning as you are. And by the way Ibti, I apologize for resorting to a personal attack in my last post. I didn't mean to and it's certainly not the way to have a healthy discussion regarding sensitive topics. So, I'm sorry.

Originally posted by GDwonder: Firstly Ailamos, I liked how and what you said at the Somali vs Burnai thread, but I am troubled flowing you in here, what the two ladies discussing is really not worthy mentioning. This saying from our prophet keeps coming to mind: "Islam started strange and will get back to be strange" a very poor translation, I apologize (Bada' alislamu ghariiba wa sayacuudu ghariiba) Keep Allah in your heart even if you're wearing a bikini! GDwonder, I think Ibti and I have quite divergent views on the ability of Islam to "evolve" along with the times so I think we'll drop the matter because we won't be reaching an amicable position. "Keep Allah in your heart even if you're wearing a bikini!" - Amin to that!

I think you are confused brother, the ayah you refer to is: "O you who believe! Do not go into the Prophet's rooms except after being given permission to come and eat, not waiting for the food to be prepared, However, when you are called, then go in and when you have eaten, then disperse, and do not remain wanting to chat together. If you do that, it causes injury to the Prophet though he is too reticent to tell you. But Allah is not reticent with the truth. When you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a screen (33-53) Notice I did not quote that Ayah above for Lazyie- so I don't get what you are asking me, nor is your argument by extension about covering correct, since you picked on the wrong Ayah. Hold on a second here, you're accusing me of confusion because I am quoting what's in the Quran? Tell me you dispute the historical facts of ayah 33:53? If you do then I would love to hear your argument. 1) It does what matter what you cover your bosoms with so long as it covers. 2) I don't believe you don't see cleavage all day every day. (1) It does matter eh? where does it say that? The no ayah explicitly says "cover your breasts with a chador" does it? (2) I did not understand this point. That is true, but what is your point, while it would be nice if society contained men who did not molest or harass women, clearly this is not the case and this was ordained so that Muslim women can single that they were unavailable or not fair game. This remains the same; The less clothes you wear, the more likely men will approach or harass you. I cannot believe you are going there Ibti... are you saying that the societies where Muslims live in this day women are harassed left and right? This is too easy to debate Ibti because your argument is clearly centers along the lines of "if a woman is raped, then it is her own fault for showing skin, the man is only a human who cannot control his urges"... This was "ordained" as you out it because it was common practice to sexually molest women on the street. Besides, when you tell a person you are not available then they usually just leave. Expressing interest in a woman is not wrong whether or not they have a blanket on them. By extension, and since there will be no new prophet or revelation, current Muslim women are subject to the same, and the characteristics are expanded on in the hadith (which I believe in) "By extension" you say? and is that fact? if so please furnish me your proof... please. My dear the Quran makes it IMPOSSIBLE to prove a woman guilty of lewdness, as it requires FOUR reliable witnesses to prove that she actually committed a sin by having illegal sex. And yes if I lived in a sharia compliant society and I WAS or my daughters were guilty, testified by ME or four reliable witness would expect and want the punishment carried out. I am amused at the "impossibility" which you allude to. Tell me, what would stop a group of 4 men of falsely testifying against a woman? I have not words to say to you about your choice of giving your own daughters this severe punishment... I just feel sad for them and for you. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it, while it uses the term "beating" and only applicable in extreme cases and ONLY if one is sure it would improve the situation, if it only worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then no he can't. Furthermore, the prophet expanded on this as "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark" and not on the face. So if my husband was practising Muslim in all aspects and I was in the wrong, then a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush is the least of my worries. And Yes I have no problem with he man being the head of the Family and in charge of ME and his family, while I was living with my parents/family then it is them who are in charge of me. How does this verse not permit violence? and why are you contradicting yourself by stating that it "does not permit violence" and then say that it's "only applicable in extreme cases". And how does violence improve the situation? Are you out of your mind? Violence never improves situations, it only makes them worse. Also, either you are ignorant of the Arabic language or you have no understanding of the meaning of the word "mubarrih", it does not mean "a light tap", as you try to cushion it but rather that does not leave a mark and do you know what? A lot of internal injuries do not show marks on the body... for example a severe punch to the stomach. I suppose that you, Ibtisam, as a person have no problem over your husband towering over you and being the head and commander of the household. I suppose you don't have a problem with having an uneven balance of authority in the home and being happy to stay inside all the time and not want a fair, equal and balanced relationship. But please don't suppose or expect other Muslim women to be as submissive and as unquestioning as you are. Read the tasfir, you misunderstood, the verse is relation to the husband has to abstain from having sex with his wife during menstrual bleeding not about interacting with your wife. If that's the case then I stand corrected. But this doesn't mean that other "observant" Muslims don't think of the menstrual cycle as a disease that shouldn't be approached with a 10-foot pole. Fine, but it seems your issue is with a lot of things and while I would love to help you out, I don't think the way to getting all your answers is by posting on a forum all the issues you have with Islam. Lastly I cannot debate with you on issues within in Islam without knowing where you are coming from or your objections. From what get of the thread above you are following the lines of accept the quran BUT as relevant to the society and context/ conditions it was revealed under and arguing that things are different NOW, so its applicability is not the same, and Hadith is doubtful. I don’t agree with this and believe that it was revealed for everyone in any time period because Allah was aware that things change and with his wisdom accounted for this. I certainly don’t think our common sense and basic human intelligence can do better. If that is the case Ibti and if what you truly believe is that "Islam must not change with time", then I don't think we should be debating this issue because we'll be going around in circles.

A female Muslim scholar once said “protecting women from change by veiling them and shutting them out of the world has echoes of closing the community to protect it from the West.” The word hijab in essence has a double meaning. The much quoted verse 33:53 was revealed in the 5th year of the Hijra because of the Prophet's concern for his own privacy and the privacy of his wives (particularly Zainab bint Jahsh) from the then visitor Anas ibn Malik. I think there is no need for outlandish interpretations that it means a hijab over the body. About verse 24:31, let me just say that in this day and age women cover their bosoms anyway, whether it's with a sweater or a shirt or a blouse. So, there is no need to over-emphasize it by adding a thick garment on top. That verse was revealed in order to make the believing women at the time of Prophet cover their bosoms, and I think there is no need for it since we don't see bare-breasted women walking around. It amazes me that you take the words of the Quran literally without analyzing the historical reasons of the verses. Verse 33:59 was revealed at a time when the Prophet was having problems with the people of Medina. These people (obviously men) had a habit (or tradition) of harassing slave-girls in Medina... even when some slave-girls had converted to Islam they continued to be molested along with other women including the wivs of the Prophet. So, it was imperative at that time to protect the wives of the Prophet and the believing women from these acts. In conclusion, the Muslim women of that time were ordered to wear such clothing in order to be distinguishable as believing women. Additionally, the type or form of clothing is not mentioned in the verse. But hang on... since you're an ardent, unquestioning follower of what the Quran says, what do you think of this verse: "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way." 4:16 Would you kill your daughters because of such lewdness, a word that can have multiple interpretations and which I think why in some Muslim societies husbands, fathers and sons kill women. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." 4:34 Would you allow your husband to beat you should you disobey or disagree with him? You must since it's in the Quran no? And because it says in the Quran that he is in charge of you? They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.” 2:222 But the above verse somewhat contradicts what one of the Prophet's wives, Maymuna, had said “it happened that the Prophet recited the Quran with his head on the knee of one of us while she was having her period. It also happened that one of us brought his prayer rug to the mosque and laid it down while she was having her period”. I have many more sources and quotes so I will be awaiting your explanations.

I like the fact that the conversation is flowing, that was what I was hoping for. C&H, Cicero and Blessed thank you for your comments, please let's keep at this level

By the way, I am not asking that you agree with me, so (again) please don't get defensive, no one's attacking Islam here. I see your point(s) and all I'm asking is that people see my point, think about it and understand it. That is the basis of a healthy discussion with the aim of moving forward isn't it?

Happy you're back in the discussion C&H So you so... Originally posted by chocolate & honey: I didnt say you're an atheist. I merely meant if you want to take this discussion on the "Islamic Laws are inadequate and cannot deal with today's problems" route. I didn't say Islamic laws are completely inadequate, many Muslims lead pious lives by following them. The problem arises with the "ease" with which emotions come into play when formulating laws. See, you can't criticize God (Islam) period! You can criticize how Muslims act, what they practice and their interpration. I almost fell off the chair with this one. Islam is God's religion is it not? Islam is the straight path to God is it not? Islam is not God. One can criticize Islam while keeping one's faith just like one can criticize a government for ill-doing while one's keeps his/her citizenship. But that inst possible in a Sharia country because the laws are God's laws and one cannot question them. This is a very easy path to unaccountable power. I didnt say you're not Muslim because you call for secular goverment. But you're tredging on dangerous waters here when, as you put it, "Step out of your religion" and by the way, what is looking at things objectively mean? Objectively means not being swept up in religious emotions. If you're questioning God's laws (by the way do you believe they're God's or someone's opinion?) you're certainly questioning the competance of such laws, God. I mean you dont exactly believe they're just right? No, I do not exactly believe that "they're just right", nothing is "just right", unless we're talking about cloth sizes And I don't want to answer the question of "the laws being God's or someone's opinion" because that's going to open a whole new can of worms which is whether or not the Quran is the literal word of God or if it contains human elements.

So far I've seen an amazing perpetuation of the "Us vs. Them" ideology in this post.

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: BTW, I assumed that you were after a genuine discussion on these issues but the fact that you agreed with Raamsade (who denounces anything Islam)tells me that my efforts were wasted. If you want to go that route, please visit the thread about Atheism. Have a lovely day sis. I almost missed this one. Why do you assume I'm an Athiest? Just because I raise questions? Because I criticize Islam? Why? Because I am for secular governance? This is exactly the problem... just because one steps out of his/her religious emotions and tries to look at things objectively doesn't signify a loss of faith. Does it? I am not questioning the existence of God, neither am I questioning Islam as a religion. What I am questioning (and I am getting tired of saying this over and over) is the control of governance by religion.

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: No it doesnt. Personal experiences are irrelavant to this discussion. BTW, I assumed that you were after a genuine discussion on these issues but the fact that you agreed with Raamsade(who denounces anything Islam)tells me that my efforts were wasted. If you want to go that route, please visit the thread about Atheism. Have a lovely day sis. Don't get upset. If you read what our Mexican contributor wrote "I suggest you ask questions and learn more before jumping to conclusions". See, he said "learn more"... I think talking to people in those countries and knowing about the attitudes, beliefs etc. is good first step isn't it? Not to mention reading reading a few books here and there

Originally posted by ElPunto: The punishments and the Malaysians are not enough to allow you to discard an entire system of governance and thought. I suggest you ask questions and learn more before jumping to conclusions. My conclusions are based on observations. The Malaysian case and the punishments, which I think (from your post) you concede that they do bring some shame to the "perfect system", were merely examples. I think living in the UAE, having relatives in Saudi, and traveling to Yemen gives me enough knowledge don't you think?

Originally posted by Dhagax-Tuur: ^Huuno, you got your knickers in a twist, not literally. It is 'waajib' that muslims learn about Islam rather than just follow. You seem to be meddling things here. The Sharia has nothing to do with the flawed current crop of Muslims today, or mostly. The Sharia is efficient system that can withstand any test of whatever kind, but it is a case of people not keeping abreast with the system. People, mostly, are sub standard. The beauty of Sharia can be seen when all is functioning perfectly. While I greatly appreciate your input, it seems to me that you're a tad bit blindfolded and a bit of an idealist. "The Shariah is an efficient system..." you say, show me proof (in this day and age, not a thousand years ago) and I will believe you and drop this matter altogether. You talk about "Waajib" and although I think you're spot on, I see that you didn't understand the little story I narrated. Do people fulfill this "Waajib"? The simple answer is "No". I mentioned several countries at the beginning of this post that have Shariah as the primary system of dispensing justice, we can take any of them as an example if you so wish. You say that "beauty of Sharia can be seen when all is functioning perfectly" well isn't that a rather simplistic statement that can be applied to everything including Nazism. Muslims of today are donkey carrying a load of diamond, what does this animal know about the value of the cargo it is carrying? Nothing. In other words, fine, sound minds are sleep. It is not the system that is failing the people, people are failing the system hence the chaos that we have today. No argument there. So, please do not spoonfeed us the garbage that is Secularism/Capitalism. It's all BS and based on robbery (the strong, in this case, the West, robbing everyone else that is weaker and corrupting them and then pointing the finger), worldly satisfaction, race superiority etc. Don't be easily fooled. I will not stop spoonfeeding because apparently you don't want to eat your vegetables (a secular society) because you are ignorant that they are good for you. When you grow up and see that the junkfood (gripping religion too tightly) you cherish so much will one day give you diabetes. You just don't know it yet. I am amazed that you brought up Capitalism when there was no mention of it. I am no fan of that system either so please stop making falsely equating Secularism with Capitalism. In retrospect, I do understand what you mean by "the West, robbing everyone else that is weaker and corrupting them and then pointing the finger", I really do. 50 years after the fall of colonialism the former colonial powers and the US exert tremendous influence and control over the former colonies, no disagreement there, but this is not the point of this post. This hatred of the West is causing you to grip your Quran ever so tightly and refuse to see that their system of governance works. Why do you keep equating a secular system with a total lack of religious values. A country can be overwhelmingly Chrisitian (e.g. Austria) or Muslim (e.g. Turkey) and have a secular system of governance to order to prevent intense religious emotions mixing with lawmaking. Let's look at the Swiss referendum on banning minarets as a classic example. The conservative party stirred up the religious emotions of the population by created a non-existent threat from Islam... The supreme court in Switzerland, a country that has 6% Muslims (out of which less than 13% are practicing), will probably overturn the ban because it's secular country. This is what happens when you mix religion with politics and viceversa. - Yes, it is because, it is made by a flawed human whose entire wisdom is based on the moment hence why we say 'a hindsight is a 20:20 vision' which tells you that the human mind is really limited. Look at the Iraq war and all the actions taken in the past which humanity regrets. If you keep putting yourself down and limiting your intellectual though process then that is your problem. If you would rather just listen and obey instead of think and act then that is your problem. If you would rather just sit in the Masjid and recite Du'a all day asking for peace in our homeland instead of thinking about it with a free and independent mind then that is your matter. I personally would rather critically think of how we can get our people out of this misery. You mention the Iraq War, which is proof that a secular system of governance comes with flaws just like any other system and the flaw in this case has religious roots. Don't make me go into the details, we all know it. However, the 'Ilm Laah' is totally free from such impurities, which I know you wouldn't agree. But is true if you closely look at it and with sound mind. I know this requires a beleiving mind or super fine mind to grasp, no insult intended and if you take it as such, I couldn't care less. However, my point is, would you rather believe in a system made by the Creator of this wonderful Universe or few shitt!ng, eating and sleeping beings like you who're as useless as you can be and needs updating all the while? What would you rather take? No insult taken here, so don't worry, however, there is no need to point fingers (e.g. "like you"), we're trying to have an intelligent conversation here so if you can't handle it and start with these kind of wordings then I don't think there is any point in talking to you. Try, just try, to have an open-minded critical view of your religion, believe me you won't be a heretic just because people say so, ultimately God is the judge, isn't He? Islam needs deep reflection and thought... an enlightenment of sorts, to purge out the "donkeys" as you put it. Gripping the Quran and vehemently "defending" the religion at the outset of any criticism is exactly why I do not want religion hardwired in the lawmaking. Period.

They can try and try to bring him down but I feel that if Mario stands firm and continues to do what he does best, score goals, then they will eventually see beyond color. I lived in Europe for a while and seen this first hand, especially in Italy and Spain, the one way to combat this as a very close friend of mine said, is to continue to lead a regular life because once it gets to you then you are giving them the victory.

From Côte d'Ivoire From Angola

I think I went off the topic of a secular Somali state with that story but I hope people can understand the bottom line here...

Because of the secularization of Europe, I think the Vatican would be a "tiny bit" more open to reasonable dialogue and discussion than Saudi clerics... don't you think?

Originally posted by Peacenow: What you fail to understand is that at the moment what we are dealing with is a political movement. It cannot be separated. Though I'm a secularist at heart. My main concern is economic development. I want Somalia to be as efficient as Singapore or Finland. I want overflowing highways, shopping malls, and Starbuck coffee bars. To live with this in one own's country. One can be secure and not be looked down upon by Europeans when you walk in their streets. I think these are the best two paragraphs I've read in this form thus far. Peacenow, you completely opened up my mind and saw what's inside. As the people down-under say "good on ya mate!" I just hope there are more Somalis that think like you and don't bother with neither religion nor qabiil.

I think we're on the same wavelength here Raamsade, I've seen firsthand in Pakistan, India, UAE and Saudi how religion can make people fail to act in a manner of basic human decency towards one another. I do consider myself a Muslim and although I've been accused of being a "Murtad", a word which I associate with other pejoratives such as Nigger, Raghead and Kaffir that Muslims have adopted to describe anyone who does not believe with the mainstream, close-minded imitation akin to Parrots spewing words they don't understand or rather refuse to understand as it would be heresy to question and critically think about religion. It certainly incenses me to see that this is how low we have stooped. Let me tell you a story. I was in the bus on my way to work one morning and as I sat down I spotted a South Asian looking woman across the aisle from me reading a chapter of Surat Al-Yasin. I got curious, so when we got off at the Port Authority in NYC, I asked her if she understands Arabic. She replied "not really, only a little bit". So, I asked her if she understood the words in the Quran... she got a little agitated and started with "Well..." I then asked her politely to calm down and that I meant no disrespect, but just concern as a fellow Muslim, so I advised her to get a copy of The Book in English or in her native language in order to really understand what Islam says about life and how to live it. Otherwise, I said, you will be accepting at face-value what others have interpreted, along with their personal opinions on the matter, both being mutually indistinguishable from one other. She gave me a warm smile and said 'thank you for your concern' and walked away. I felt as though I did my part.

Interesting. There certainly is a need for dialogue and open-minded discussion regarding these sensitive topics. Thanks for posting!

Amazing story, it certainly made my day. It does put Muslim immigrants in a good light, I just hope the media focuses on such incidents rather than and perpetuating the "us vs. them" mentality. More positive publicity: http://www.twincities.com/ci_14162572?nclick_check=1

I totally messed up the reply, sorry I'm still learning how the quotes and emphasis are used on this forum, here's the modified version: Originally posted by ailamos: [QB]Originally posted by chocolate & honey: [qb]You're right it would be discrimination and outright wrong to deny a practicing person a government position, and I wasn't specific as to what I meant. Let's try again... By religious authority I meant a hardwiring of religion into government decision-making. Shoot! I thought we settled this issue when you agreed if and shoud the masses vote on Sharia Law, then it's their choice, no? What do goverments do by the way? They serve the needs of its citizens and protects its interests, right? So if a certain society decides they want to follow the Sharia and elect leaders whom they trust, who is to say they're wrong? Choice, Choice. Agreed Yes, some are indeed ignorant. But it is changing now. The days where people followed clerics blindly are over with. And enlighten me on whats happening in the world today? In what area are you guiding to take a closer look? You say those days are over with? Is that a fact C&H? come on you know better than to make statements like those without backing them up If what you're saying is true then let me call my aunt in Saudi and see if she can get a driving licence next week pstt... I will continue to ignore the videos as they have no merit. More like opinions. And I can afford to do that because I know my religion and I have commonsense. For the last time the videos are examples, I'm not basing my points on them.. but I feel you are rather reluctant to see them because it would start to change your mind and question things, but hey if you say that you know your religion very well then I guess I have to take your word for it. The simple solution to this probmlem is to educate the masses and to elect people who are not set on their ways. And in Islamic goverements, why are you assuming there are no checks and balances? One example is Iran. Take a closer look at their constitution, preferably from non-Western source. I'll take a closer look at the Iranian constitution but I don't think it's a good example judging from how repressive the regime is.

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: quote: You're right it would be discrimination and outright wrong to deny a practicing person a government position, and I wasn't specific as to what I meant. Let's try again... By religious authority I meant a hardwiring of religion into government decision-making. Shoot! I thought we settled this issue when you agreed if and shoud the masses vote on Sharia Law, then it's their choice, no? What do goverments do by the way? They serve the needs of its citizens and protects its interests, right? So if a certain society decides they want to follow the Sharia and elect leaders whom they trust, who is to say they're wrong? Choice, Choice. Agreed Yes, some are indeed ignorant. But it is changing now. The days where people followed clerics blindly are over with. And enlighten me on whats happening in the world today? In what area are you guiding to take a closer look? You say those days are over with? Is that a fact C&H? come on you know better than to make statements like those without backing them up If what you're saying is true then let me call my aunt in Saudi and see if she can get a driving licence next week pstt... I will continue to ignore the videos as they have no merit. More like opinions. And I can afford to do that because I know my religion and I have commonsense. For the last time the videos are examples, I'm not basing my points on them.. but I feel you are rather reluctant to see them because it would start to change your mind and question things, but hey if you say that you know your religion very well then I guess I have to take your word for it. The simple solution to this probmlem is to educate the masses and to elect people who are not set on their ways. And in Islamic goverements, why are you assuming there are no checks and balances? One example is Iran. Take a closer look at their constitution, preferably from non-Western source. I'll take a closer look at the Iranian constitution but I don't think it's a good example judging from how repressive the regime is.