Originally posted by Ducaqabe: With all due respect my friend, your knowledge of Sharia is limited. I know. But I'm judging it based on the results from where it was implemented by more learned ppl then me. The term Sharia means Islamic law, the law of Allah. That is close to blasphemy. 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, do you disagree with that? Are Hadiths words of Allah? Men leaving 1000 years ago didn’t write sharia. Then who wrote it and when? Believe me sxb the laws of Allah are applicable in every situation, every place and every time. Only if rightly interpreted. It’s us; humans that neglect to learn and apply the laws of Allah. The Quran is not a legal document...only small portions of it deal with legal matters. Most of it is the define words of Allah covering many subjects. Therefore, from common sense perspective, not every legal dispute today can be settled by refering to the Quran alone. This is already a fact as we use Hadiths and other Islamic sources to settle legal matters. The trouble with the Muslim countries isn’t the Sharia itself, as some want us to believe. The problem is the way it’s applied. I disagree. If the sharia is applicable, then it should be applicable where implemented. No excuses. If it is humans that are incapable of implementing it properly, then it is useless law as no rightly can put it into practice. Either way it calls for changes to the fundamental tenents of the law. Most of the Muslim countries accept Sharia in certain areas and refuse to follow it in other aspects of life. They allow courts to use Sharia laws when dealing with marriage but the government maintains a secular system in dealing with other important issues. This dual system isn’t gonna work. And why is that? The Qur’an itself criticizes those that take parts of Qur’an and leaving other parts. What earthly being has the authority to say who has picked and chose parts of the Quran and who didn't? Same thing with Ahadith. One can’t simply pick and choose what Ahadith to take and what to drop. Of course you can. They are not the word of Allah, thus not biding. Only authentic hadiths can be taken as a source. Figuring it out which hadith is authentic and which is fabricated is a study of its own. Keep in mind that even authentic hadith is not necessarily true. Sahih hadith means it is only authentic. You’ll see corruption in your local school, library, city hall and cinema if you will. Almost every country in the world sees some type of corruption. It does not happened because of Islam or Sharia. It happens because of lack of morals and values. Comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare man made laws and Allah's laws. Man made laws can be rescinded, altered for the better or worse. They are product of humans, thus interpretable and enforcable by other humans. Allah's laws are his words and are for all times-- not changable. No one has right of passage when it comes to intrepreting them or enforcing them. Not even closely comparable.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Now before I accuse you (it would seem so, any way, even if I don’t mean one) of what the Muslim scholars term compounded ignorance , would you furnish us what definition of Sharia law you had in mind? I don't have a definition of Sharia law and it doesn't matter what is the definition of Sharia law. What practical use is it to have a definition of Sharia law? You can have any law on paper, with stipulation sounding sweat music to the ears but at the end of the day it is how practical and helpful that law is once implemented on the ground that is true a indicator of its usefulness. Can we say today that Sharia law has helped muslim societies where implemented? No. And about accusing me of being "compounded ignorance", frankly I don't give a hoot. I don't recognise the authority of supposed Imaams and their flaccid terms they coined to hide their incompetence and ineptness at solving problems of ppl they lead. I have not much faith at 'islamic scholars'. The title is a joke now days with every egomaniac dunce calling himself a one. priceless advice; get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please what facts?

Originally posted by Warrior of Light: There are somethings which can never change with Sharia Law,for example the Quranic decrees. I agree, never said otherwise. The so called Muslim nations though I prefer calling them Arab/middle eastern nations dont follow the shariah instead follow what they desire. But THEY say they follow the Sharia. It's not upto us to decide who follows the Sharia and who doesn't. You mentioned an example of stealing the shariah court will first listen to the case. See if the crime was hideous as claimed and above the set 'fixed monetary amount (the minimum wage) ' then the sentencing. And who will oversee the sharia court judges? Should we just trut them and let them judge ppl according to Allah's laws? The problem is not with laws of Allah but ppl who sit on judges seats passing verdicts of guilty and innocence...they are fallable beings. They're not perfect. There must be a system that overlooks them so that we (the governed) will feel confident in these judges that they are actually doing what they suppose to do and nothing else. The fault isnt with the LAW. Nay, but with the people who are implementing it. Does the law need to be changed No. Can't you see the logical error in what you say above. If the law as it is now can't filter out the good in positions of power from the bad, then it obviously needs to change. Theft is a behavioural disorder which needs to be addressed. Nonesense! That is blanket statement. Some ppl steal to stay alive. What should be done with them? As they had the knowledge and they feared Allah. They're still human beings trying to implement Allah's laws...I'm not comfortable with that. The problem we are facing is we lack people knowledgable in Islamic Jurispundence and the correct work ethics. We need more than that...we need ppl to overlook those enforcing laws...and overlookers of the overlookers. Basically we need a system where everyone is being watched...that is the only way to eliminate abuse of power. A case which has been conclusive in the shariah law can still be readdressed if the person beleives it wasnt fair. And also family intervention is allowed as the family know better the condition of the person questioned. Mercy can be shown. Those who are favourable can help the weak. But this presupposes humans are altruistic which they aren't. We are selfish and self-serving.

Originally posted by liibaan: If the wife,or anyone,is only worried about what the community thinks of them and not what Allah SWT thinks of them,they should go to kufaar court,anyway. Who decides what Allah thinks...you?

Originally posted by liibaan: Socod Badne,I have only skimmed through your various posts about this issue,but the things that stood out were that you said Shariah law is not obligatory for Muslims,that those laws only serve the rich,and that the laws in Canada are perfect. Sharia law is NOT obligatory. Give me Quranic verse saying so. Sharia law does favour the privalaged. Go to any sharia law run country and you'll see what I mean. I NEVER said Canadian laws are perfect. Nothing is perfect. please don't spout bullsh*t because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. What is it that I said is wrong?

Originally posted by Bakar: SB, Good to see u, saxib. I enjoy reading your views despite the fact that you and i stand two opposite end. Like wise I failed to comprehend why a Muslims use theories or some diestic belief advanced by European as a yardstick in measuring human development, while shari` is perceived as inconsequential. If the Qur’an is merely words of Allah and plays no roll in human betterment, then why do we claim to be Muslims? We look to the West because the West got it right and we haven't. I'm not saying we should shun our religion and culture for Western ones but that we take from them what has helped them go from being poor, uneducated, uncivilised, barbaric civilisation of the Medieval times to what they are today. There is nothing wrong from learning from other civilisations. Human history is littered with one civilisation learning the trades and tools of another. There would be no advancement if this wasn't the case. Our own religion is perfection of those that preceded it. I find this irrational negative reaction to any mention of looking to the West for solution to our problems as the biggest impediment to the alleviation of our (muslim) problems. Your statement resonate deism belief--God as being discovered through nature and reason, rejecting revealed religion and its authority over humanity. Hence, can we claim to be be a Muslim whilst distancing the decree of his/her creator? Diests believe in God but not any of his prophets or revealed texts. I believe in the Quran. Since I believe in Allah and his texts, I believe what Allah has decreed. But can any earthly person claim to know what that is? I think not...that is why I believe Islam should be private. State and religion should be separate. It is immensely crucial to understand the principle behind the notion of religion being separate from state! It arose because common sense ppl got fed up with self-professed God's representatives on earth (preists, popes...) abusing the power entrusted upon them by the faithful masses. This is my biggest support for the separation of state and religion...cuz no matter how perfect religion is (which Islam is), ppl at the top enforcing God's laws are fallable human beings who are likely to err. Too many ppl have used the cover of religion to hide their heinous crimes.

Originally posted by Ducaqabe: I don’t understand what you mean by Sharia is outdated & unfair? It's outdated because it doesn't provide practical solution to modern problems. Hence, why Sharia Law where practiced has been a failure. Remember the Sharia law was written by man living over 1000 years. Why can't learned muslims of today update it not to change the word of Allah but make it more applicable present issues. I find it unfair principally for not providing mechanisms for how to deal with corrupt leaders. It's well known that in Sharia Law run countries that Wadaads and government officials get away with all sorts of crimes because they are above everyone. Who's to overlook the overseers? Where did you get the 60% figure? It's relatively accurate figure but don't remember where I read it...just remember reading that somewhere. Most of the Quran doesn't deal with how to run Islamic society...the Quran tells the history of the world, human race, history of the prophets, how the earth was created, jennah, aakhiro, judgement day...if you read the quran you should know this. Further, its open knowledge to any muslim that the primary source of the Sharia Law is the Sahih Hadiths and not the Quran. I know alot of the hadiths are inspired by the Quran but still they are not the words of Allah. Care to elaborate more or give the sources you based on your conclusion? If I can yes...what do you need sources for? Do you follow Quran as well as the Sunnah of the prophet scw? I follow the Quran as commanded by Allah. I pick and choose what to follow of the Sunnah...mainly decide based on what is more in line with the teachings of the Quran and what is not. I hope you don’t think the corruption & the mischief of Muslims countries (including ours) is due to the adherence of Sharia? There are many reasons contributing to the problems in the muslim world but the Sharia Law is not the solution. It had many chances and failed...thus time for new approach.

Originally posted by Baashi: SB, Question: one of the basic assumption of Biology regarding to the origins of life is that the whole thing started as an accident. No? Yes, scientists prefer spontaneous as suppose to accident though. But don't confuse that with Evolution Theory. The only assumption Evolution Theory makes is the existance of first living organism. How that organism came about or why is not areas Evolution Theory explores. In the beginning there was no plan no design nothing, Darwinists say. Actually that is not what Evolutionists say. Evolution theory is silent on the subject of the 'beginning'. Its beginning is the first living organism (or organisms). The tale as I called is that Big Bang happaned, elements, essential elemnts, in a chain reaction formed molecules and all this happened by chance. Roughly yes. From there the single cell formed again by accident OR by chance. There is huge time gap between the very beginning of the universe and when it came possible for first living organism to arise on earth. It took billions of years after the Big Bang for the planets to form. The creation of the earth its self took billions of years. Life became only possible after the surface of the earth cooled and the atmosphere stabilised. The cell evolved over time. Formation of mulitcell organism followed, complex biological processes take shape by accident and so on untill sophisticated organs appeared by chance. Is this familiar or my axyaa and the tadhawur I was taught in high school is worthless? Yep, you got the gist of it right.

Looooooooooool!!!! Laughed as hard this time as I did first time I read this story.

black and white. :cool:

Originally posted by MR O: USA for instance and the whole of the west for that matter.Their constitution is The Bible Huh? The constitution of the US is not the Bible. You know that, so why are lying? They enforce on those muslims that live there their way of life i.e you must ASSIMILATE,You must accept homesexuality as being normal,drinking as normal,co-habiting as normal,no parental control as normal,force them to give their children consent to have sex at a young age without marriage. But we came to their lands, they didn't come to our lands and force their way of life on us. If that was the case, then I would agree with you. If you find the US way of life offensive, then leave to Sharia law run paradise. Show some integrity and decency. A man welcomed you into his land and in a less then a generation you want to change his way of life that he shed blood to get it. How do you think he will feel about all of this? Now, what the hell are babbling about being forced to accept homosexuality :confused: I live in Canada and no one is forced to accept homosexuality. What are you on? The only thing that is forced other then the law is tolerance towards toward those of differing religion, race, political bent and sexual preference. But hey, that works goes both ways. It also protects me as a muslim from all the bigots and haters. Do you want to do away with that and replace it with selective prejudice-- ie homophobia? How long do you think muslims will be spared? The separation of state and religion, the rule of law, tolerance are concepts that muslims in the west should totally support. They are our shield and spear that we need to protect and fight against injustices.

Originally posted by TRUTH_BE_TOLD: I still stand my point they should be seperation of state and religion.Every country has so many different religion followers and you don't want enforce others on something they don't believe in.if muslims want want rule by sheria let the form a nation for the muslims and we will see what happens.I still stand the canandian muslims shouldn't be given special favour than other religions.let us start sheriah in somalia which claims 99.9% muslim and see how it works. Hear hear We as muslims burn and destroy our countries. Come to another man's land, perfectly run by its non-Sharia law laws and we want to change them. Why? What will sharia law do for you that Canadian laws don't? The proponents of the Sharia law in Cananda are ppl with hiden agenda. They hoodwink muslims, who sorry to say are the most unquestioning ppl, into thinking that Sharia law is good for them. How so? What reasons are there to believe that sharia law will be good for muslims. Where it was instituted, in the muslim majority lands, it was a failure and much to the disappointment of the muslims.

Originally posted by ilaaliye1: Islam is a way of life which includes all values, behaviors, and details of living and separation of religion and state is not an option for us [true Muslim] for it means to exclude the law of Allah and calls for us to desert Allah's decree for that of a man. What laws of Allah say we can't separate religion and state? As far as I know, the Quran which contain the words of Allah, is not a book for modern governments or modern economies or modern medicine or modern militaries...we are FORCED to use laws of modern states to run out countries. In fact this is the reality of all the muslim majority countries.

Originally posted by Warrior of Light: I pray it wont deter the Muslims and Islamic arbitration will be allowed. Its unfortunate to see that fellow Muslims are the enemies in the forefront. Consider me one of those 'muslim enemies' as I'm dead set against it. Sharia Law is outdated, unfair (chop the hands of one who steals few gallons of water but give manicures to rulers who steals nations entire wealth), and accessory to Islamic living. All one needs to follow the path of Allah is the quran and the teachings of the prophet (scw). Since much of the Sharia law (like 60%) is based on Hadiths, it is not compulsary for muslims to follow it. Further, it is set of laws based on the INTERPRETATION by men of their time and NOT the words of God (most of it). Even those parts that are from the Quran are open to interpretation. Remember there is no single voice for muslims, there is no equivalent of Vatican or the Pope. This is why where Sharia is practiced today, it varies among differing cultures and ppls. Since there is so many variation of Sharia Law today, there is a good chance there was a variation of opinion of it back when it was written. And it's total BS to say that Sharia Law, when instituted, is not obligatory. While that technically is true, the reality is different. We, muslims and somalis, know very well of the public and community pressure that mold and guide how we behave towards each other. This is important part of our way of life. No one likes to be seen as community outcast, especially when it comes to religion. If a wife refuses to go to Sharia Law court to settle a marriage problem, what will her community think of her? I can bet my life on it that she will be singled out as weak muslim or a bad muslim. Then what becomes of her?

Originally posted by Mutakalim: Ultimately, all variation in living organisms is due to chance. ] Sorry, but there is no 'chance' involved in the 'variation' of living organisms. My understanding of 'chance' is something that happens while not in agreement with dictates of invariant natural laws. According to science everything in our world is subject to invariant set of natural laws. If you mean 'chance' something other than what I stated then state what that is. Because from my unerstanding, according to you, we should envision without much skepticism the 'chance' of a fish developing body feature characteristic only of terresterial mammals. What are the chance of observing that? Chance requires regularity. How can that be possible? If something happens with regularity, that means before the event takes place you can be fairly confident that it will happen like it did last time. But if it always happens by chance, then you have no confidence to say whether it will or will not happen since the outcome is based on chance. Chance and regularity seem antipathic, don't you think? The "substance" or "stuff" of our universe (I am avoiding words like "matter" or "particles") is arranged so that what we call "hydrogen" can combine with what we call "oxygen" in a proportion of 2:1 to create what we call "water". Why? "Because it is so" , is the answer of science. But could it be otherwise? Science does not know, and probably cannot ever know- in principle. Science KNOWS why two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen form water...it is based on the intrinsic molecular properties of Hydrogen and Oxygen. We know 'why' this happens so well that we can apply it to artificially make water from sea water.

For me: 1. chelsea 2. Mourinho 3. abramovich 4. chelsea 5. mourinho

Originally posted by Bakar: Read these paragraphs and provide scientific evidence stating erronousness of his logical conclusion. Ok. Yahya says: The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. . He is wrong here. Entropy is NOT always disorder. This is a point often not well understood. Even I had alot of difficulty fully understanding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The truth is entropy can sometimes correlate with disorder. As entropy of closed system increases, disorder increases. However, in other occasions order of closed system increases as entropy increases. Infact, entropy can be used to increase order of a system. Lastly, 2nd Law allows increase in order in one place to be offset by decrease in another place within the system. The creationists notion that order can not come about as it contradicts second law is bogus. There many things in this world that don't conform with second law and seem to contradict it. But if understood in their proper context, they wouldn't seem to contradict 2nd law. I'm writting words now, condensing disorderly words into structured sentences ensembling order. How is this possible given what the 2nd Law says? The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts And how does this show evolution is not possible :confused: I am yet to see any proof or refutation in direct relation to this topic. On the contrary, the whole discussion resorted to discrediting intellectual figures such Yahya, who invested all his time in refuting and explaining logical shallowness and distortion of claiming that all life evolves from simple structure. Yahya (not his real name btw) is not a scientist. That is not my biggest problem with him. It's that he is disingenuous and uses dishonesty to make his case. He purposefully twists other ppl's words to agree with his claims. He sputters scientific theories/principles he doesn't fully understand. With regard to not refuting what he said, I disagree. I believe I have. I explained why the second law doesn't discredit evolution being a fact of life. I wrote more in this post about the subject. Hope that explains things better. Again I am asking you: How can a scientist believe aformentioned process takes place without any relation to the Law of Universe? But scientists DON'T believe in processes that don't conform with universal laws. They wouldn't becuz such process is not demonstrable or agreeable with observed facts.

Originally posted by juba: quote:Originally posted by Socod_badne: ]Evolution is a FACT as supported by experimental data and evidences collected. However, evolution is not certainty. . how can it be a fact but at the same time an uncertainty? that sounds a little contradictive to me. Uncertain was poor choice of a word, I meant to say not provable. It is a fact because we can demonstrate it in labs. It is a fact because we see it taking place in nature. But we can't say that Evolution Theory is 100% right since all science theories are provisional. Tomorrow may surface new evidence that will either correct or stregnthen old theories. This is the way science works. Science is progressive and self-correcting.

1. Are the private parts (sexual organs) of quedruped animals (like cats, dogs, wolfs) halal. Asians seem to eat them. They also dry them, crush them into smaller pieces and sprinkle on favourite dishes. 2. Is there such thing as halal pork :confused: 3. Or halal wine?

Bakar, I have been to Harun Yahya's site few times in the past. I've read several of his critiques of evolution theory. I walked away with the conviction that not only is he deliberatly presenting false information but he is also a charlatan. He is enjoying being in the spotlight where he considered a respectable learned man. In the mean time, he hoodwincks muslims about the falsity of Evolution Theory not with factual evidence/s but with outright lies. Any erudite analysis of his work will yield this conclusion. Its clear that he has very little scientific knowledge, or doesn't care for it at all. My hunch is the latter. My feeling from reading his other works was even when presented with erroneous facts he presented in his works, he still insisted on keeping them rather correcting where he was shown to be wrong. Not an indication of a credible scholar. We see this lack of scientific knowledge evinced in this proposterous claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution theory. He failed to mention in his article that the 2nd Law applies ONLY under specific condition -- closed systems. As the 2n Law states: the entropy or disorder in a CLOSED system will increase. However, the Earth, where evolution took place, is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun. But what is more damaging is not the refution of his claim and therefore being revealed as intellectally incompetent but also insight into his mindset. One would expect for a someone like Yahya, who assumes a position of authority entrusted to give advice to others about crucial scientific matters, demonstrates at the bare minimum fundamental understanding of what he spouses before he starts orating. However, here in this article we see he simply has no grasp of what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really says. Had he known, he wouldn't have even thought of raising this claim. This is because IF what he said was true, mainly that 2nd Law contradicts evolution, it would mean the earth is closed system, hence doesn't get any energy from the sun. No energy from the sun means no life is possible on earth. This fact doesn't support the existance of any life on earth. The debate between Evolution and Creation theory becomes trivial one. Some have a nack of reducing serious matters into trivialities.

Jackal. Ok, I only wish

Did you see a Doc about it? It could be a sign of the onset of some neurological disease or some other illness. You never know. That is why its prudent to let your family Doc know about anything unusual you notice about your body.

Originally posted by Baashi: As a scientific theory it has its shortcomings (fatal) especially on the fossil, genetics, and missing and unexplained "gabs". There are no unexplained gaps. The fossil record is very strong. Whatever shortcomes may exist in Evolution Theory, it is still very well supported theory compared to many other science theories. Its remarkable that a theory that is well supported can be the most criticised and scrutinized theory. Nevertheless, the gabs that existed in fossil records are hard to explain away. Not in the light of the geogological and geographical problems presented by nature. Remember we're talking about millions and billions of years in which the earth underwent numerous climate changes and experienced a number of mass extinctions. However, there are good explanations for the percieved 'gaps' in the fossil record. Moreover, the fossile record is very comprehensive and complete for all major transitional evolutions. Most of the noted gaps are in the evolution of one species to another. I have yet to see coherent explanation or empirical evidences that convinces me that Darwin and the neo-Darwinists know how man evolved from single organism. There is an explanation AND evidence. According to Darwin we descended from a single common ancestor via descent with modification. The most convincing evidence is we all share the same information transfering molecule -- the DNA. There are plenty of tales of how man might have originated based on extrapolation from the "creative" powers of the mutation and selection. Without leap of faith, there is no way one can demonstrate its validity using selective mechanism. Yes, we can. You should take a look the 'speciation', based selective mechanisms, of Drosophila in labs back in the eighties. We also have also demonstrated speciation in labs with bacteria and yeasts. You guys might have soft spot to uncritical acceptance in anything that bears "Scientific" label but I don't and so far my inquisitive hunger have not been quenched on this one. Maybe you haven't considered all the facts and explanations available. The other contested issue is the metaphysical aspect of the theory and its adamant or rather active campaign to dismiss the existence of Super Being employing bilogical processes that give shape the living organism. Evolution Theory is silent about the nature of Allah.

Originally posted by Mutakalim: Salaamun Lakum Nomads, What is it that Natural selection explains that other theories of evolution failed to explain? Natural selection is part of Evolution theory. In a nutshell, it simply postulates that Nature 'selects' individuals best fit (reproductive fitness) to pass on their genes more favourably then those less fit in the population of species. Where do the terms mutation and chance fit in this soi-disant theory of science. Some mutations occur unpredictably. Most mutations are harmless. Others are useless, about 1/4. The reason you and I and every living human soul is different from each other is due to mutation. This kind of mutation is called point mutations and its harmless. Its primary purpose is to add to the genetic diversity of species. It is THIS genetic diversity that Natural selection acts on by favouring the mutants with best genes. What is it that the theory of evolution seeks to establish? How humans evolved, how other living organisms evolved, where we came from and questions of similar theme. How does Darwin dissolve some of the objections to his theory? You mean modern evolution thoery? Darwin is dead. Browse throught this thread, the answers are mostly there. But if you bring up a particular issue, I'll be happy to discuss it. The ID argument is a metaphysical argument, and not a scientific one, but what does this mean? Is this where the philosophy of science comes in? And therein lies the problem in debate such as this. On one side is science relying on facts and demonstrable facts and on the other you have faith based believe theory that can not be tested or verified any way or form. That is why I think debates like this are only good for educational purposes but never for reaching meaningful conclusions.

Looool!!! Guys, of course I meant full bottle of jack daniels. The original cool sipping taste of Tennessee's finest whisky. My best friend in hard times and helper in down times. Some days its my breakfast, lunck and diner. In other days I prefer it to the company of friends. I turn down invitations to parties just to be with Jack Daniel. Oh..jack daniels so indispensible to my life at the moment. I also suscribe to Jack Daniels philosophy. But the motivational power of Jack Daniels is only 1/10th that of beautiful young woman. That is why finding a beautiful girl that loves you should be a top priority of every man. Zeph, the rot sets in :confused: