Originally posted by ALexus.: Love? Doesn't exist. Obsession, that's more like it. Love exists. Don't you feel love for your Mom and dad? Love exists...finding it is another matter.

[ October 05, 2005, 08:07: Message edited by: Rahima ]

Originally posted by Nazra: Girls break their virginity by riding horses and doing extreme physical activity. Looooooooooooool! Is this a joke?

Originally posted by Shams-ud-Din: In the name of Allah, Most Merciful, Most Gracious Brothers and sisters, This article is not about the “belief†of atheism itself, but about the position of Islam on arguing with atheistic criminals (yep! It’s a crime) regarding the existence of our Creator. :eek: Atheists are criminals? Is this mean, if it was up to you, you would incarcerate them like criminals :confused: What makes them criminals? Who have they wronged? This is news to me, I thought atheist were disbelievers in God and nothing more. If there is more to atheism then that let me know.

None.

ramadaan kariim everyone

There is no doubt the planet is warming but there is very little evidence that says any preventative actions we take will slow down or reverse the effects of global warming. At this stage, the causes and possible solutions to global warming is speculative.

male jigalow

As chelsea fan, I'm satisfied with the draw. Although I was hoping for a victory. Real Betis victory makes things a little bit more interesting. We'll see what happens in the coming matches.

Only if she kneels down and brings him flowers.

Why should any1 vote for you and what are running for :confused:

Originally posted by NGONGE: Can you speak Arabic? Do you understand the miracle that is the Quran and why it is considered a miracle? What you read in English, brother, are not the Quran but rather a simple translation of the words. It does not have the same impact and the meanings are not as sharp. Where does it say in the Quran you have to speak to arabic to understand it? What I read in English is EXACTLY what the Quran says. The Quran contains Allah's messages intended to be understood by all ppl. Most muslims don't speak arabic. If Allah intended the Quran to be understood ONLY in arabic then he failed in his mission of conveying his message to all of humanity. I don't believe Allah fails. There is absolutely no reason to think that the Quran can not or should not be translated into other languages. Some languages maybe but certainly not all languages. I’ll briefly return to your preference to read in English and your outrageous claim that English has far more vocabulary than Arabic! Who says? You? It is not outrageous claim but a fact. English has more than twice the vocabulary of any language in existance today. This is because english is the amalgamation of various languages from germanic langs., old english, viking or Norse langs., the Normans or old french...the vocabulary of all these languages was added to old english. That is why alot of english words have germanic or norman roots. The vocabulary of English is estimated to be around a million...that is twice its closest rival German. Here are some links you can read about: http://www.danshort.com/ie/timeline.htm http://www.ielanguages.com/enghist.html

Allah has said in the Quran that the ONLY duty of the prophet was to convey his message contained in the Quran. Those who insist he had additional duty ordained by Allah are clearly in didagreement with Allah. The relevent verse is 29:18 and this is what it says: 029.018 YUSUFALI: "And if ye reject (the Message), so did generations before you: and the duty of the messenger is only to preach publicly (and clearly)." Some of the Sahih hadiths many muslims use can not possibly be from Mohammed (scw). If the hadiths were truely from Mohammed, then they should always agree with the Quran. This often is not the case. In many cases the hadiths contradict the Quran, the true word of Allah. In those instances the Quran is chosen over the hadiths. But why would a hadith, which purpoted to be from the prophet's mouth -- an infallible being -- contradict Allah's Quran? Since Mohammed (pbuh) was the sole deliverer of Allah's messages, he should be most knowledgeable and therefore not make errors. What can be concluded from this? Tow things. One, Mohammed was fallible man and that explains why what he said in Hadiths contradict what Allah said in the Quran. Two, the hadiths are fabricated documents. Either case, in my view, the hadiths are unreliable. I have yet to come across any documentations partaining to the Sunnah of the prophet (pbuh) in the first 100 years or so of Islam. Muslims back then did fine without the hadiths. So you could be a practicing muslim and not follow the hadiths. If someone has any material on this subject let me know, I'd like to read them. Allah also said in the quran that it explains everything in 'detail', in other words everything is explained IN the quran. No where does it say you need hadiths to understand the Quran or practice Islam or you need learned scholars to read it for you. 006.114 YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. 016.089 YUSUFALI: One day We shall raise from all Peoples a witness against them, from amongst themselves: and We shall bring thee as a witness against these (thy people): and We have sent down to thee the Book explaining all things, a Guide, a Mercy, and Glad Tidings to Muslims.

Originally posted by liibaan: I give up on this thread.I thought I could maybe show people why we need Sharia law and why it is necessary in a Muslim society.Instead,I see people asking s*t*u*p*i*d questions like "Oh,so you're saying Muhammad is God?"Subxaanallaah!!What the hell is wrong with you,Socod?Muhammad SCW was a prophet sent by God,he made absolutely NO mistakes.It matters not if he is infallible or not.But you're on the losing side of the debate,I know,but you can come up with better arguments than that,can't you?If not,then give up. How do you know if the prophet (scw) didn't make any 'mistakes'? He had a life you know, before he was chosen by Allah to convey his message. Infallible being must be God. So it is not ****** question to ask if you consider the prophet as a God.

Originally posted by Bakar: If you are not following his saying, then how else would you follow? Hadiths are his actions and hence it is the actions of the prophet (PBUH) we have to at least emulate. Remember! There is verse that say, I am paraphrasing, our prophet never spoke from his desire. Then, can we deny his infallibility? Since he was a messenger of Allah, what other rule or source of information did he convey? Was he not Rahmata Lil Calimeen? He never had lower motives, and that makes him infallible. Bakar, The prophet (pbuh) was someone worth emulating, no debate from me on that. But so was Abraham, moses, adam, nuux, and all the prophet sent by Allah. Do you emulate them too? If not, why not? They were all divinly inspired like Mohammed (Scw). The prophet's words were divinely inspired, his ways examplary but at the end of the day he was a human being -- fallible man, not God. I'm simply saying you shouldn't make the error of assuming the prophet's words are equal to Allah's words. Allah said his words are found in the Quran and in the Quran ONLY. If it is not in the Quran, then it is not from Allah. Hence, the hadiths (whether they are true or not) are the words of Mohammed (scw). Those who say to be a muslim you must accept the Sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh) are living in fanstasy world. For starters, muslims on the whole don't accept the Sunnah. Some accept the Sunnah in its totality, others pick and choose, while others reject it all together. All consider themselves muslims.

Originally posted by NGONGE: He believes that Sharia law is outdated, yet, as he demonstrated in this argument with you, he does not understand the definition of Sharia law, nor does he acknowledge the authenticity of its sources! Where did I say I do not understand the definition of Sharia law? You're putting words into my mouth. The prophet, he claims, is a fallible man. We can argue till the cows come home whether he was fallible man or not, the question is: is what is alleged to be his words equal to Allah's words? I contend not. He admits that he knows nothing about Sharia law but still urges us to get rid of it! Once again you are attributing things I haven't said. Where did I say I know NOTHING about Sharia law. If I knew NOTHING of sharia law, how would I know the hadiths are one of its source? So far I sense that you think I and other detractors of Sharia are prejudiced or ignorant of it. But the reality is far from that. My rejection is postjudice as suppose to prejudice and not from ignorance but knowing the results of sharia law at practice both in the past and the present. A person doesn't need to know what Nazism is to know it's evil and impractical. Is that opinion based on prejudice or ignorance? No. Nazism has history, therefore no possibility of prejudiced opinion. Further, Nazism history informs one of its impracticality. Therefore, one is fully with in right to reject Nazism without possessing deep understanding of Nazism philosophy. Is it the Quran that people question? Is it possible to do so and remain Muslim? Personally I don't question the Quran. But I respect other muslim's right to question the Quran. I don't judge others since I can't ascertain truthfully their true intentions. is it possible to question authentic ahadeeth? Why not? Authentic hadith only legitimacy its established chain of narration. That is not the same thing as them being true. How will it be understood and interpreted? The Quran requires no extreneous sources to understand it or interpret it. This is what Allah said in the Quran. I will post the relevant ayas in the future insha'allah. Will each individual have his/her own way of reading it? I hope so. But muslims should reach consus based on the time, needs, environment with the help of the quran. How will it be Islam? No one knows the answer to that question. It is a meaningless question and totally irrevelant. Socod Badane believes in the Pillars of Islam but does not believe in the Hadeeth! How does he suggest Muslims should pray? How Zakat should be paid? Will knowing the details of Ramadan be necessary? I've already said I don't reject the hadiths in their totality. There is a big difference between hadiths explaining how the five pillars of Islam should be performed and others which ban music or order death by stoning for adulterers. I reject all hadiths other then those commenting on how to perform the five pillars. Without the guidance of the hadeeth, what criteria does he propose? The quran, common sense and your conscience. What skills should one have to interpret the Quran? No skills. The quran is self explanatory and easily understandable to all as said in the Quran itself. Will provide the verse soon. If you disagree, note you're arguement then is with Allah and not me. Would you need to be able to read Arabic or does a simple translation sound ok? Isn't the Quran for all humanity or is it for arab speakers only? The arguement the quran can only be understood fully by arabic speakers only, is complete red herring not to mention its contradiction to Allah in the Quran. The Quran can adequetly be translated into many languages. My favourite being English since it has far greater vocabulary then arabic. This makes one wonder if he understands the ‘science’ of Hadeeth! He cites the rejection of some weak ahadeeth as evidence of his argument. Being student of science, I wouldn't call the authentication method of hadiths 'science' exactly. From my readings the hadiths are authenticated through what is called Isnad, where scholars try to established an unbroken chain of narration going all the way back to the person who heard from the prophet. If such unbroken chain exists, the hadith is authentic. However, authentic hadith are only authentic not true. That is why the distinction is made of calling them authentic and not true. For it is true that anyone of the ppl in the established chain of narration could have passed on a different hadith then when alleged from the prophet (scw). Imaam Bukhari when he was compiling Sahih Bukhari hadiths disgarded more than 85% (some sources say even greater) of all the hadiths he collected as unreliable and unauthentic. Despite the stringent critieria he used to compile sahih hadiths, the uncertainty of narrator's version being identical to the prophet's is unresolved. There was a lot more scrutinising than the simple ‘I don’t like the look of this hadeeth’ methodology that Socod is using. More lies about what I said. This is the third time you claimed I said what I didn't. You making this a habit. Even if one refuses, one will still have to come up with a better alternative. No problem. The alternative should be man made laws -- by muslims. Surely, a reasonable, logical and just alternative is not likely to be refused by the scholars (and if it is, they’ll have a very good reason for doing so). Who are these scholars? What school of Islamic thinking do they belong to? Taliban? Wahabism? Shia? The Islamic world is fractured into God knows how many sects and schools of thoughts, the idea there is objective 'scholars' that command the allegience of muslims is a fantasy. Could the critics of Sharia law go against common sense? Isn’t that what they’re after in the first place? What is considered 'common sense' changes with time and environment. It seems to me that two of those sources are articles of faith that no person claiming to be a Muslim can deny and remain (at least in the traditional sense) a Muslim. Many muslims deny totally or partialy sahih hadiths, they still consider themselves muslims(who doesn't take pictures, listen to music or indulge in clan hatred and violence?). For someone who rejects most of the hadiths, I don't consider ppl who follow them even when disagreeing with Allah's commands in the Quran as being nonmuslims or disobeying Allah. Leave the judgement of who is a muslim and who is not to Allah. One can speculate as to the reasons for such assaults on Sharia laws. One can point the finger at conspiracy theories, hidden enemies and weak Muslims. [qb] No conspiracies or hidden agendas. The rejection of the Sharia by me is based on its impracticality, its claim to being Allah laws when its not, contradicting Allah's commands in the quran and being impractical, unfair and outdated. As long as Sharia Inc. proponents don't push for the sharia law in the West where I live and stop making it biding law in Islamic states, you won't hear from me. If some muslims find the sharia law acceptable, fine be me. Just don't tell me it is Allah law and I must follow it. [qb]Many of us find Socod Badane’s ignorant (don’t get too upset, Socod. It was by your own admittance) rejection of the hadeeth irritating, annoying and very offensive. Offensive? What is so offensive about the truth? The boy clearly demonstrates that he’s not a charlatan. The Boy? I'm a man in his early 20s, hardly a 'boy' by any standard. Kindly, don't call me a boy again.

Originally posted by Baashi: However, our prophet’s sayings and conducts are infallible because Mohamed’s actions (pbuh) have been informed and guided by Allah’s divine directives. But they weren't Allah's messages. Whatever is purported to have been said by the prophet (scw) in the hadiths were his words. Allah repeatedly said this in the Quran. I will provide the verses later. Therefore, the prophet’s recorded and validated sayings are a source of law. Then Allah must have lied in the Quran when he said the only biding law for muslims is that found ONLY in the Quran. Either the Hadiths are right (written 250 years after the prophet's scw death based on hearsays) or the Quran is wrong. I believe the Quran is the unchanged, true words of Allah and Hadiths are unreliable, secondry source. I'm not suggesting we should get rid off of the Hadiths, they are needed source for practicing Islamic faith. Without them, one can't fully practice Islam. The problem I have with them is when some elevate them to the status of Allah's laws which aren't as Allah said this in the Quran. The Hadiths disagree with the Quran many times, how is that possible if hadiths are words of Allah? The punishment of adultry in the Quran is 100 lashes while hadiths say it should be death by stoning. Yet, the Sharia Law (which claims to be Allah's law), disregards what Allah ordered in the Quran and goes with Hadith punishment for adultry. The Sharia law is evidently man made law once you see through its thinly layered veneer of its alleged divinity. Most of the Sharia law stipulations are from the Hadith which are not words of Allah, changing/updating Sharia law is not only needed but imperative. Now if I understood you correctly you are not saying that Muslims are not obligated to heed the prophet’s narrations and approvals! Yes, muslims as is written in the Quran by Allah are to obliged to follow only his words found in the Quran. However, a muslim can follow the prophet's narrations if one desires. There is nothing against that to the best of my knowledge. I mean I can understand if one questions the authenticity of a particular Hadith (need validation) when in doubt but to argue that Muslims are free to reject the Sharicah because it rests its authority on the Qur’an in conjunction with Hadithis is akin of challenging the authority of the prophet himself. The Sharia law is mockery of TRUE sharia law-- the one found in the Quran. To say the Sharia law is Allah's law is to disobey Allah. Allah said there is no law other then Quranic Law. No Mohammed's (scw) sunnah according to the quran, the only sunnah is Allah'w sunnah found in the quran. The current Sharia law is based on alleged prophet's (Scw) sayings, the ulema consus in addition to the quran. It is obviously not only word of Allah but that of fallible man as well. Do this and you are challenging, by logical extension, the Qur’an (the very basis of Islam) itself for it reached us through the prophet Mohamed. What will then become of your conviction in Islam being the true religion worthy of practice? I don't see the logical extension you're implying. The prophet (scw) was a mere messanger, like all the other prophets before him. His duty was transfer the words of Allah told to him by angel Gabrial to us. Would I listen and follow the prophet more then anyone else on Islamic matters? Of course I would. But would I follow what is alleged to be his words when they contradict Allah's words? No. My guess is that you are confusing Hadiths with Fiq . I’m not a learned fella (and I stand corrected if I err here) but Hadiths are recorded and validated sayings of prophet Mohamed pbuh whereas fiq is opinions of the classical jurists. The latter can be challenged by knowledgeable and enlightened culima . I'm aware that the opinion of the Ulema on particular issues is part of the Sharia law. This only strengthens my case in that it shows that the Sharia law is not only Allah's law, not even alleged prophet's sayings, but opinions of fallible man. How can you have man made laws next to Allah's laws and call it a biding Allah's laws for all muslims? FYI there is an ayah in the Qur’an that commands the faithful to obey whatever the prophet asks them to do and vice versa. I'm not aware of what that verse says EXACTLY. But there are many ayas that say follow ONLY words of Allah and no one else.

Originally posted by Roob: Socod badane with all due respect how can you expect a debate when you don’t even acknowledge the basic tenets of Islam? What basic tenets of Islam? You mean the five pillars? I accept them fully without any reservations. I also accept the Quran to be the final word. But what those words mean should be my right and the right of every muslim to decide. I don't think anyone is closer to Allah then the rest of us, we are all equal. Living in the west is not a rosy and lofty as make it seem to be. Actually it is. It is helluva better then any Islamic country. The West and Westerners have in general treated me better then muslims have (somali muslims are so nice to each other, aren't they? )...I have no reason to dislike the West and its way of life. They let me live my life as I choose and allow me to practice my religion as I choose (which I won't be able to do in Sharia law run Islamic country where some men designate themselves as Allah's spokesperson). On top of that they give me oppurtunities in life I would not get in any Islamic in the forseable future. You can’t separate the state from the religion it is like asking the head to be separated from the body! Comparing apples and oranges. Religion and state are two different subject for many reasons with one reason above all being that to run state and to progress, you have to innovate and be dogmatic. You can't innovate or change the word of Allah. How do you run Islamic state where EVERYONE has to pray five times a day and be able to run modern services like hospitals, police and fire stations with disruption to vital services? You simply can't. In your ignorance you were encouraging Muslim people to set rivals with the One GOD. [/qu] How so? Last I checked it wasn't me who was saying let's worship the prophet's (scw) like Allah's words, was I? [qb]ALLAAH Knows better than you how to govern His subjects. And you know what Allah knows better then me and others. Right? There are select group of ppl, ppl blessed with extra perceptive senses, that tell the rest of, the dumb and deaf, what Allah's wants. Man made laws are responsible for the misery of today’s world. That is not entirely true. I live in Canada, there is no misery here. There is prosperity and productivity. Don't make blanket statement without facts to back up. The problem is not whether Allah's laws are perfect or not, they are, but implementing them. The rich are getting richer and the poorer even more poor as each year passes. The Sharia law will not get rid off poverity. Poverity will be with us till the end of the world. You say the west have become more successful at whose expense may I ask? Who cares? What difference does it make if a few people live in luxury at the expense of the vast majority of mankind? Last I checke the Sharia law was for muslims and not for 'mankind'. How can the sharia law be of any use to ppl who aren't muslims? How can you be considered successful if you are drinking someone’s water, eating someone’s food, enjoying someone’s sweat and tears while you watch that person starve in front of you? Again, mischaracterization of the West to make cheap points. Canada doesn't steal anyone's water, they export water sometimes. They also are net food exporter, guess to who? Africa, as part of Canada's aid program. Arrogant as ever the few chosen elite have made laws devoid of any reason and justice! Where is the justice in cutting the hand of man who stole a loaf of bread and doing the same to a man who stole a billion dollars? There is no justice in my opinion but that is what the Sharia law says should be done to both men as both are guilty of the acting of stealing. People can be arrested for no reason and prosecuted, tortured, and executed without the need of evidence! What coutries do this? I would say some muslims, actually alot of muslims countries. And very few western countries. I know for sure ppl don't get arrested for NO reason here in Canada. Torture is not permitted and Canada has no capital punishment. Water, food, medicine has become privatised so only people with money can drink, eat and treat themselves! Land and natural resources also have become monopolised leaving many homeless, destitute and in despair. The trade system only benefits one side. One side only sells and the other buys at an unreasonable price. The list can go on and on. My point is man made laws are capricious and only serve certain people. Sure, man made laws can be capricious but the can also be very practical and meat the legal demands of the society. It is not black and white. The Interest (riba) has impoverished many a nation and indebted them for ever. Logically and morally, I see nothing wrong with interests. If you pay rent for an apartment or a car, why not pay rent for money, which is what interest is? Is interest outlawed in Quran or Hadiths? Hardly anyone is spared from debts today! Then don't take loans. When you take loans, you agree to pay the money back and to rent it while still using it. You pay interests which is your rental charge and at the end of your loan period, you return the money borrowed. War is fought to subjugate, to test chemical arsenals on people and animals and mostly to bring profit. Where are you getting all of this? Chemicals are being tested on ppl to make money? Where? War sells! And sex. War makes money. No one likes war except those that are to benefit the most. Mind you these are the very people born and raised in the “successful†west. Of course, BECUZ they live in the West and not Islamic countries. How many muslims protest for the plight African's with AIDS? Islam gives you a direction and guidance to solve these ever increasing problems. Is that why somalis, 100% muslims, hate and kill each other? To say Islam will solve your problems is simplistic and lazy out of things. Islam alone is not, it wasn't enough for us Somalis. It is what values muslims TRUELY hold dear and not what they claim to do. Too many ppl hide behind Islam. We need GOD To take us through this road full of thorns after all we belong to Him and soon we shall return to Him. We need GOD. We need GOD. We need GOD. Yes, we do need God.

Originally posted by Ducaqabe: SB, I really don’t know what we’re debating here. I think I lost track of the discussion. Let me see. Your initial argument was that Sharia law is outdated, unfair, and accessory to Islamic living. You went ahead and brushed off the importance of the meaning of the term. For two reasons. First, who has the authority to define what the Sharia law means? Can you point me to anyone other then perhaps a prophet of Allah or a person Allah has chosen and given extra perception and insight, who can say I can define for you this law, some of it based on the word's of Allah? I don't think there is such person. Anyone can come up with with a definition of Sharia law. Second, and more importanlty, it is irrelevant in deciding whether sharia law is: A) Fair B) Outdated C) supplementary to Islamic living I fail to see the logic behind the instances that mere definition of the Sharia law will somehow redeem it and answer all criticisms leveled against it. Definitions are useful if the debate was about the theoretical bases of the Sharia. But we are attempting to see if it is practical or not. Definitions are words, words on paper are useless in telling us whether a particular law is useful/practical or not. Only events in the real world, once the law is put into practice, that determines whether it is useful, outdated, fair/unfair etc. In this regard, facts of history are on my side. Surprisingly enough, you still claim Sharia is a man made law, contrary to modern day society. But the sharia law IS written by men. Alot of hadiths are rejected as non-sahih, are you saying that we rejected Allah's words? The sharia law is based largely on hadiths. How can one debate about a subject that’s he/she has no knowledge of? Do you need to study communism to know it is not practical system? Likewise, I could not engage a debate with Fidel about communism for I’m ignorant about the subject. Such debate would be useless for Fidel, you might agree. It depends on the nature of the debate. If it is about whether communism can be put into practice as intended, then just about anyone can he have debate with Fidel cause all one needs to do is point out the long list of contingent historical facts that show communism has been a failure in that regard. Fact: Quran is the word of Allah, addresses all aspects of life, including the past, present, & the future. It deals with legal issues, gives solutions for day-to-day problems, ife after death, etc. It ain’t only about praying and doing charity work. It’s beyond that. The Quran doesn't answer every daily question. Not every legal issue. It talks alot about legal, day to day issues but not everything...we figure that out on our own. What does the Quran say about flying, space travel, the internet...nothing. Don't be so rigid and simplistic about Quran...it is a source of inspiration/guidance. It’s impossible to take one and leave the other. Except when they disagree...then we take the Quran's word. The hadiths, prophets words, action & things were done in his presence that he approved of, are all revelation from Allah. I don't agree for the simple reason that this assertion elevates the prophet (scw) to the status of Allah, is that what you're saying? How can everything he said be revelation of Allah? That would mean he had insight into Allah's mind? Allah and the prophet (scw) like the christian's concept of trinity. It doesn't make any sense. Expand on what you mean cause I don't get it. Quran calls us to take whatsoever the prophet (read: sunnah) gave us. It goes beyond that and commands us to follow the prophet (read: sunnah) if we love Allah. Commanding us to follow the prophet (scw) is not the same thing as doing everything he said and did, is it? I can name things the prophet asked muslims to do that you don't. Why? I'm talking about what he commanded muslims to do in sahih hadiths. If what he said is so diving, why did the muslims throw away so much hadiths as non-sahih? And I hope you do know that sahih hadith is only AUTHENTIC, it doesn't mean it is true. You probably disagree but any Sharia law that is not in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah can be challenged. That seems to be the history of muslims cause no two countries practice the Sharia law the same way. Everyone practices it their own way...once again reinforcing my point that religion and state should be separated. Let everyone decide for themselves what is islamic and proper and what is not. Would you deny Quran and Hadith come to us through the prophet scw? Why take one and reject the other? [qb] Because the Quran is the direct words of Allah, the hadiths are the purpoted words of the prophet (scw). Find me where in the Quran Allah said we should follow the hadiths we have TODAY and I'll accept them without any reservation. [qb]Is it not safe to say Allah spoke to us through the tongue of the prophet scw? If not, why not deny the Quran also? No, he didn't. The angel gabrial passed Allah's messages to the prophet who passed them to us. By the way, there’s a group that negates the Ahadith of the prophet scw at all. It is understandable why some would reject the hadiths because they are so unreliable. Its hearsays based on someone said who heard it from someone else who hear it from someone else. That is why so many of them have been dismissed as non-sahih. But I aint of them, cause I accept some hadiths. I listen to music and think it IS islamic since no where did Allah say its haram. You may play with words, but the prophet was MACSUUM. Then if you REALLY believe that, then you should do everything he said and suggested you should do, right? Would you?

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Though the prophet was, as a human, capable of making mistakes He was not, good Castro, erroneous in his divine reports. His 'divine reports' were direct messages from Allah to pass it on to us. No one is suggesting he failed in that duty tasked upon him by Allah. But as you said he was a simple human being, capable of making mistakes in direct contradiction of your earlier statement that he was infallible. His (Axaadiith) were not a mere collection of mortal rants; they were, as the Qur’an affirms, another form of revelation What is the purpose of another 'form' of revelation when we already have all of Allah's revelations in the Quran? And where does it say in the Quran we have to follow the 'hadiths'. I know it says we have to follow and obey the prophet (scw) but that is not the same thing as obey and follow the hadiths, is it? The reason I’ve withdrawn from this thread is not because Socod-badane is misinformed about the basics of the subject he chose to debate rather it is because he sounds to me a charlatan of sort. And I don’t deem wise to engage a virtual dual with imposters, saaxiib. You are better served by showing all reading this thread why you think I'm a charlatan/impostor then merely calling me one. For you to come out for the rescue of this sinking soul Sinking soul? So now you're Allah? What does it mean to assert that the words of the prophet are the interpretations of fallible man? Exactly what it says. Show how the prophet (scw) was not a fallible human being. What does it imply in the context of his argument? That the hadiths don't have the legitimacy and the authority the Quran has becuz it merely the words of a human being.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: ^^ Waa kaa haray. Adeer anigu cid walba lama doodo. Ok. Muslims believe that their Prophet is not a fallible man! Huh? :eek: If the prophet was not fallible then he was infallible. Are you saying he was God?

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: quote:Originally posted by Socod_badne: I don't have a definition of Sharia law and it doesn't matter what is the definition of Sharia law. .............The Sharia law is NOT Allah's laws. Only parts of it but not ALL. Most of the Sharia law is man made, how can you say its Allah's laws? Most of the Sharia law is based on Hadiths.. ^^ Look how you contradict yourself, Socod-badane . I don't contradict myself at all. I stated in my opening statement that I don't have a definition of Sharia law. But more crucially, I also said it doesn't matter what the definition of Sharia law. Whatever definition of Sharia law may exist is of no aid in deciding whether or not its useful/practical law or not. However, stating the fact that Sharia law is not Allah's law is in no way contradictory to my earlier statement of me not having my own definition of Sharia law. I was simply correcting a factual error. If you don’t know (don’t have) the definition of Sharia Law then how have you arrived these definitive conclusions? Why do you need to have A definition of Sharia law to know that its main source is not the Quran? Where in the Quran does it say music is haram? But if you’re resolved to be evasive about where you get these astonishing assertions I must assume that you’re not interested in a serious debate. You have not shown any of my assertions to be factually wrong...not yet. So how can say I'm not interested in a serious debate or am evasive? I have simply stated the facts along with my opinions. What am I evading? It is one thing to question and address the pervasive and the persisting legal corruptions in the Islamic world but it is, all together, another to indict divine legal system and negate its validity. I haven't negated the validity of Sharia law, reality did. I was simply pointing that out! To dispute, as you proudly did, the source of the Sharia Law I'm curious, what is the source of the sharia law according to you? you are really impeaching the integrity of your character by sounding naively simplistic. Or honest. Compounded-ignorance is not the invention of Muslim scholars whose authority you don’t respect, much less recognize, rather it is telling description of those who think they know some thing when in fact they are in darkness of it. But YOU said it was a term used by Islamic scholars. I replied that it is consistant with what Islamic scholars do when asked questions that they can't answer. So far you have not shown any of what I said to be wrong, have you? Also keep in mind that my premise is the practicality of Sharia law, I'm not concerned with theological aspects of it as it is irrelevant. I'm opposed to Sharia law because it is not practical in today's world not because it's theological unsound! That the sound Xadiith is the primary source to interpret the Qur’an is a fact. The two are intertwined. Sharia Law, hence, is the combinations of the two. Few things. First, the hadiths are NOT the word of Allah but words and interpetations of fallable man. Since the Hadiths are not Allah's words, they are changeable, redefinable with intention of making them more practical and harmonious with today's world and its needs. The Hadithsa are not untouchable, only the Quran. 1- Definition of the Sharia Law 2- Definition with some key terms of the Sharia Law And how does this tell us whether the Sharia law is practical or not? But the Islamic code is applicable to day as it had been before. No, it isn't. Facts say so, no I. Find me Islamic code that is applicabe today at practice any where in the world. I don’t honestly know any modern Muslim country that implements Sharia Law. But it is some thing I yearn for and I would like to see implemented. You'll have to wait ur whole life time cause since the death of Prophet (scw), it's been difficult if not impossible to fully implement Sharia law.

Ayaan Hirsi shouldn't be in hiding for fear of her life ( :mad: ) nor should the films director have been murdered. Not only because these kinds of actions by muslim tare our religion as intolerant of criticism (regardless of its nature) but they are counterproductive. You think killing Van Goh will stop others from making films that some percieve insult Islam? You think threatening those who bad mouth islami like A. Hersi will prevent future ones. Islamic bashers have been around since the creation of Islam and will be around till the end. You can be certain of that. And if killing them was to set an example to to others thinking alike, then 1500 years of Islamic history says it has not worked. Time for a new approach...peaceful one. Violence is the easiest solution to every problem. Kill those you disagree with. Killing Van Goh was easier then exposing his lies. After all exposing his lies entailed doing work, investing energy and time. It is the cowardly thing to do too, killing unarmed and unsuspecting civilian man.

Originally posted by Bakar: As Muslim, my definition of success is utterly different from those which you have ascribed to western nations. I don't buy the arguement there are different definitions of seccess. I except slight variations and mostly the standards are very similar. We all are humans whether muslims or not. We all have dreams of living in better circumstances be it financially, spiritually, socially...these are the standards everyone uses. Now, as muslims I know we have our way of life set out for us by Allah but that doesn't mean we don't have fears, nightmares, dreams, hopes, hate etc. like nonmuslims. Its doesn't mean nonmuslims don't like to better their situation just like us. Let us not lie to ourselves...we envy the West, their secuss and in some cases their lifestyle. That is why we come to thier lands by the hordes every year. Some even risk death to get to the West. The conditions which we [Muslims] find ourselves today are the end result of Muslims emulating life style oriented to the blasphemous rather than the sacred. Not true at all. If the Western way of life was so bad, evil and the cause for our dire situation, then why is the West doing so much better then us muslims? I have my reasons for the problems facing muslims today but I know for certain it has nothing to do with emulating anyone let alone Westerners. That is arguement I heard for one to often from unqualified Imams at mosques. To understand the phenomenon of these crises one will make a gross error for dismissing the history of colonization and of plantation, and the economic incentives that associated with them. Everyone has history of colonism...but that hasn't stopped them from progressing. Muslims are no different. This is just another convenient excuse that only delays dealing with real problems. It's with popular trend of blame others instead of honest intropective analysis of US which is what we need so bad. It is true that many peopple use our religion for their personal gain (prestige, power, and egoisim). It is inevitable fact that human use system or religion for evil cause. And that is my reason for supporting the separation of state and religion.

Originally posted by liibaan: these "laws" are absolutely horrid.For first-degree murder,the maximum sentence is "life",which is actually 25 yrs,and there is also the "faint-hope" clause,in which a murderer can get parole after only 15 yrs.There is no death penalty in Canada.Tell me where the justice is in that kind of "sentence". Where is the justice in Sharia law where a murderer can be free if he pays blood money and of course the victims relatives accept it...while a theif can not do the same by returning the stolen goods to its owner? Anyone can take a cheap shot against percieved shortcomings of any law. It doesn't help you win your arguement in least bit. I'm not saying Canadian law is perfect, only that you don't see Canada in chaos as result of the inherent flaws of its laws, do you? The entire judicial mechinary of Canada is doing fine as it is regardless of some its short comings. Therefore, there is no need to change them. Moreover, muslims have no right to ask for special rights like having their own laws subservient to Canadian laws. That is undermining the sovereignty of the host nation. Allah SWT decides every matter in this world,whether you think so or if you like it or not,please don't twist my words around,I simply stated that if you don't fear Allah,but you fear the people,then why bother even being a Muslim? With all due respect, we need honesty in this debate. Allah is not here himself, he gave us his words and left them to us follow. It is US humans, laden with imperfection and prejudices, that have to intrepret and implement Allah's words. Since we humans disagree on the intrepetations and meanings on just about every subject, it's given that we'll disagree with proper meanings of Allah's laws too. Therefore, it is a bit self-righteous and arrogant for some to claim they KNOW Allah's laws better then others. How so...did Allah tell in your dreams that he chose you to be his translator/interpretor on earth? That's why we have Allah in the first place.Almost everyone in the world has something they are hiding,remember no one's perfect,and Allah will reveal that which they concealed on the Day of Judgement.If they knowingly gave a wrong verdict because of the accused's status or received money for it,they will be very,very sorry on that Day. Huh? You seem to have fallen the same trap that most muslims fall into when debating this issue. You bring up Allah for no reason then to cover up for your incompetency. You can't defend your contention, so you run to Allah as if the mere mentioning of his role will make your arguement more truer. It doesn't. We all know that Allah is gonna punish everyone guilty of breaking his laws but we are debating what should be done while we here on planet earth to those who do break his laws. You suggest we look the other way with judges knowing full well they are breaking Allah's laws and punishing the innocent all because Allah will punish them in Judgement day. You are basically saying we shouldn't punish those breaking Allah's laws, since these judges punishing the innocent are obviously breaking Allah's laws, because they would get their day with Allah. Aren't we all? Why not then do away with Sharia laws and have free for all to do whatever they like...Allah will punish them eventually, right? Worry about yourself and where you will be on the Last Day,there is no need to complain about the other people when you need to keep yourself in good standing ith Allah first. I am worried about myself, that is why I don't others to be telling me what Allah wants of me. I tell them all to kindly **** off.