lol, its you coming up with the jokes.
Naww!
Back to you.
That thread (Teensie problem with sharia) demonstrated that you have no understanding of Shariah law, that you are a bigot, Islamophobe, scaremonger and a liar. You twist people’s words and misrepresent events and views intentionally. The thread also demonstrated that your Anti-Islam base is essentially made up of loony rightwing, neocon, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim blogs. Oh, and you also have loads of bookmarks on Tariq Ramadhan and you're obsessed with Inayat Bunglawala. (God knows why you kept bringing him into the thread). You keep going off topic (excuse me this time), after my first reply which was a classic, casual refutation of your incoherent mumbo jumbo, you replied with 'stuff' on Tariq Ramadan and more mumbo jumbo.
Well, given your latest rant, I fail to be surprised that you don't understand my replies to you and categorize them as "mumbo jumbo". It is said that wit appears as magic to he who has none.
Anyway, from your comments, I do conclude that you in fact support sharia, which makes you a few points below an eggplant, and a few points above a Nazi, given the ludicrous array of examples of why sharia doesn't work.
However, you have created quite a little task for yourself. You must now:
i) define an islamophobe, islamophobia and illustrate why I represent either,
ii) illustrate where my "base" is made up of right-wing, anti-islam blogs. You must also prove the "anti-muslim" charge.
iii) prove that my bookmarks are full of information on either the slippery Ramadan or his equally thick brother, or that I have heavily bookmarked Bunglawala, who appears from the site you referred me to to be some kind of anti-semitic goon (BTW: you brought up the MCB as a paragon of tolerance; I merely illustrated that it wasn't really so tolerant),
iv) illustrate where I have lied to you,
v) illustrate my "scaremongering",
vi) illustrate where I intentionally misrepresent anything,
vii) illustrate examples of my supposed bigotry,
viii) come up with some actual arguments instead of
ad hominem.
You also exposed yourself as a Muslim hater, you let your mask slip, you made your prejudice clear to me. You apparently grieve for innocent Muslims that Shariah law ‘subjugates’, at the same time you have no thoughts for innocent people when it involves American or Israeli bombs.
Well, I'm afraid a charge like that requires proof, Ghost, which you do not give.
The US threatening to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age 'not terribly surprising'. An outrageous, illegal, immoral act that would have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children, you don’t fool me.
Apparently, I have. I did not specify any support for it. I did not support it. I do not support it. So, more fool you then, I guess. Similarly, the genocide of 6 million Jews was perhaps "not terribly surprising"; I imagine you can understand that I don't support that either.
Or I hope you can.
I have dealt with people like you before, I wish you were a public figure so you could be held accountable for your extreme views
Ah - no debate allowed in Ghost's view, then. Also not surprising.
[For the record, I should probably state that by saying 'not surprising', this does not in any way connotate support for Ghost's apparent position against free debate. Just thought I'd cover my bases here.]
I have made my stand against extremism, I speak against extremism and take action, my own brother just missed the 7/7 bombings (as you know)
Good: or so you say, anyway. Why would I believe you? You don't take my prima facies; why should I take yours as evidence of anything? You invoked the MCB to defend your preposterous attempt at the high ground; I illustrated that your 'high ground' was riddled with crevasses. Not my fault, really.
I know the reality of terrorism and I will play my part in defeating it
You know the reality of it? Well, your implication to me has always been that you can't know anything until you experience it, so how could you possibly know anything about terrorism? Why don't we relegate all criticism to the ether and be done with it, then?
You just carry on posting on the net, post links from your ‘popular’ websites, those that call for the mass deportation of European/Western Muslims, you do your thing GeoffP and I’ll do mine.
They do? Pray tell, where? The
newspapers? Surely not. Do you have evidence of this claim?
Ghost, you’re a fraud.
lol. Being attracted to members of the same sex doesn’t take one out of Islam
What, precisely, does this argument have to do with punishment for being gay? Being out of islam and being gay are not inherently coincidental, and I have never made this argument.
it doesn’t make that person a sinner, even if a ‘gay’ Muslim were to fantasise about having sex with another man but doesn't actually carried it out, there is no sin. Desiring things that are haram will have a negative effect on the person (will hurt his/her faith etc.) but those thoughts are not sinful as they are not carried out. Sins come from actions not intentions.
Well that certainly is a fine hair to split. Why exactly are we talking about intentions? I was referring to practice. It's kind of like sharia in that way. Lots of people say they have good
intentions about sharia (and that, therefore, everyone else practicing it is wrong), but there seems to be no successful humanitarian examples of its
practice.
In Islam, any sexual relationship outside of marriage is forbidden and those involved are liable for punishment (as long as there are witnesses). The reality is, punishment is only handed out if 4 witnesses actually saw the sexual act and testify against it, the chances of that happening are unbelievably low. If a person were to make an accusation against a gay couple and not have the required witnesses, then that person would be punished for making a false claim. There is a proper procedure, now GeoffP, you show me where Shariah allows people to go around killing people that are 'gay'? Go on.
Actually, you just did that for me: this was the precise synthesis of my argument. Sharia law condemns sex outside of marriage. Does sharia law allow gay marriage? No. Ergo, all gay relationships are illegal, since they all have sex, much as any other relationship does.
The fact of you trying to argue about this with me is preposterous in its own right, of course, since three of the four islamic schools of jurisprudence call for the death of homosexuals. (I don't lower myself to say "
practicing homosexuals", since no system of religious or secular law is currently in the habit of prosecuting people for "thoughtcrime", and so would be wholly impotent, if I may use the word, at persecuting people merely thinking about homosexuality.)
Sexual relations between men is a sin in Islam, however should we all assume that there are no homosexuals having sex in Muslim countries? Of course not. If some gays want to have a relationship, then they would be able to do so easily, they could have as much sex as they wanted, it would be no ones business, and it does happen.
In the same way, I might be able to get away with all kinds of hidden larceny, with neither consequence nor restraint, so long as I was never caught. However, were I caught, I would be subject to whatever punishment the state thought fit to apply. The same is true, then of homosexuals in the
ummah: being illegal, their sexual relations are liable to punishment on their person up to and including death. It makes no nevermind that they aren't caught. If they were caught, they could be killed, and that's the problem.
I fail to understand your lack of comprehension on this most basic of points, and I honestly find myself wondering whether it's possible for you to logically debate this issue with me, especially regarding the legal aspects, as you do not appear to understand the difference between the existence of a felony, and its detection. It doesn't appear hopeful.
As long as such activities are hidden away and done in private then its no ones business, Islam has laws on sexual relations however they are guidelines for society, what an individual does in the privacy of his/her own bedroom is no ones business.
Until it
becomes their business, in which case it may be time for a very close haircut.
Geoff
