How many sciforums muslims support the spread of sharia upon unwanting people?

[quadraphonics]

Which then necessitates having things like the minaret ban, the burqa ban, the headscraf ban, sharia ban etc.

Most of that stuff is in places that do not have separation between church and state (Switzerland, Sweden, etc.). Those are instances of certain churches using the state to beat up on other churches - which is emphatically the opposite of separation of church and state. France is something of an outlier here.

In most places where we have real separation between church and state (like the USA), there are no such bans.

Nevertheless if the "once upon a time" Christian people can only feel safe and secure among people who are "like themselves" then surely, they have a right to that society.

No they don't. They might have the power to erect and maintain such a society, but that isn't a matter of "rights."

 

[quadraphonics]

Maybe people from western countries should think of sharia as a drone and the resulting Islamisation of their society as liberation.

You're likening sharia to a remote-controlled killer robot, and "Islamisation" to imperialism aimed at (putatively) profiting via the systematic oppression and destruction of millions?

Okay.

Seems like the people you're supposedly addressing with this stuff already think that way, though. Isn't that the whole reason that you have this ongoing beef with them?

 

[iceaura]

The concept of God leads to bad religion. Always.
”
If that were true, the godless would lead by example.

They do - or at least provide the examples, with reasonable frequency.

The US Constitution and Founding, say. Or some of the several and variously enlightening aboriginal cultures of North America, possibly (dunno, personally) other places.

One catch with leadership by example is that following by example often requires the very wisdom whose lack created the need for examples. Hence the difficulty among the godded, in being led by example - if they could be, they wouldn't need to be.

It's difficult enough getting the godded to avoid following the bad examples - the well trodden and clearly mapped paths to disaster seem to draw them like moths to the flame. Witness Israel.

Everyone knows Muslims are always better off under the rule of non-Muslims.
”
For example?

Almost any First World civilization with a Muslim population, measured by almost any demographic standard available.

 

[786]

All must watch this CNN interview with a radical muslim terrorist to converse intellectually in this thread:

The video.

The question of this topic is as so: how many sciforums muslims agree with the spirit of this muslim radical? He dreams of subjugating the entire world and imposing sharia law upon all. He also believes that all humans (even those who are not muslims or who reject all religions) should be ruled over by the sovereignty of his lord. He opposes Barack Obama because Obama believes that "supremacy and sovereignty belong to man" instead of God.

To muslims of sciforums: do you dream of seeing sharia imposed upon people who are adverse to changing?

Thinking about it a little I agree with the guy- but I don't support terrorism as a means to accomplish this.

So 'shaykh Osama' is not something I support. Although the position on Osama is a bit murky because I would support legitimate resistance like that of Palestine- but at the same time I don't accept terrorism is legitimate resistance.

As specific to Shariah- the Shariah has many 'democratic' based laws while others are not- Its more like a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution can not be changed- it doesn't leave out the 'people'.

The concept of 'mushwara' is stated specifically in the Quran.

Lastly one creates laws for the betterment of society- if you believe that this is better for the society because it is determined to be as such by God. Then it is almost immediately logical that such a law be universally applied. Anyone who refuses to accept this law- would be a logical idiot who doesn't understand why laws are created for in the first place.

With whatever little I understand about Shariah, I would vehemently oppose a universal application of a codified Shariah- simply because I know that Shariah accomodates (through democratic process) different societies depending on their needs. There is no such thing as a 'universal Shariah' because all places are not the same thus there is no one 'law'. This is why I hate the Federal government. They create laws and then that one-fits all policies will work. Shariah is determined by local needs (thus similar to 'state-governments') but the constitutional Shariah, things which absolutely don't change would be the 'federal Shariah'.

Anyways why the hell are Human Rights group so pissed if they don't want 'their' 'laws' to be implemented in other peoples lands.

The West has some basic laws which they want to have implemented everywhere. Whether you accept it or not.

If you believe something is immoral then you try to correct those things. This goes both ways whether you are a theist or an atheist. So one law is always 'forced'. Here is where the Imam is correct- there are two camps.

If Pakistani congress elected to adopt Shariah there would be hell around the world to try to change their laws. It doesn't even matter if majority of the people are Muslim.

You think if I created a country where 100% were from some weird cult that killed 1 woman a day because its like their coffee, that the rest of the world would stay quiet? Even though 100% of the people voted to have such laws... Democracy is only good which is acceptable. Democracy as a concept is worthless. Just look at how the West reacted to the election of Hamas.

This is a complex issue.

Just like how America works: Governments are smarter and people are idiots so you force on them Healthcare System when almost half the people don't want it. You're still forcing laws on 'unwanting people'. Oh yeah Republicans are just dumbasses who are manipulated by corps, right? The concept the Imam is suggesting is that you take the idiocy of humans out the door and force the laws on them like you do anyways. Simply put. Its not any different, except who the head is who is deciding this all (man or God).

Peace be unto you