soha
a splendid one to behold
id vote
yaaay
yaaay
How good is Wasim though.tempco said:it's Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Yeh, i agree.Z_Nizzle said:How good is Wasim though.
yes, he's great with the media and such. and he says it how it is - without being afraid of offending certain people.Z_Nizzle said:How good is Wasim though.
I find it contradictory with their anti Zionism, yet they wont to do the same thing.SabtheLab said:m personally trying to understand why global governments feel the need to ban hizb-ut-tahrir. their aim is legitimate- to set up an Islamic state somewhere in the world through intellectual efforts and peaceful means. they are NOT incitng terrorism( hence use of the term'peaceful organisation'). Nor do they want to overtake the world and turn it into an islamic empire. they simply want to establish a state where they, and im sure hundreds of millions of other muslims, are able to practise their beliefs in full without disturbing the rest of the world. and we have every right to that.
SabtheLab said:m personally trying to understand why global governments feel the need to ban hizb-ut-tahrir. their aim is legitimate- to set up an Islamic state somewhere in the world through intellectual efforts and peaceful means. they are NOT incitng terrorism( hence use of the term'peaceful organisation'). Nor do they want to overtake the world and turn it into an islamic empire. they simply want to establish a state where they, and im sure hundreds of millions of other muslims, are able to practise their beliefs in full without disturbing the rest of the world. and we have every right to that.
how can you say that? the methods the two groups use are on completely different scales. on one side, you have murder, and on the other, you have intellectual debate.Comrade nathan said:I find it contradictory with their anti Zionism, yet they wont to do the same thing.
Islamic states are just illegitimate with Zionist states.
I agree with tempco, why?Comrade nathan said:I find it contradictory with their anti Zionism, yet they wont to do the same thing.
Islamic states are just illegitimate with Zionist states.
Yes.tempco said:and why are either states illegitimate? because both are non-secular?
No. It is because they attempt to create states that are false, that never existed. For instance there is no Israel, saying that you are a member of country due to religious connections is not make it legimate claim. The Jews have no homeland, they are nothing but a religious entity.and why are either states illegitimate? because both are non-secular?
MoonlightSonata said:Yes.
State and religion should always be separated, for obvious reasons.
There are good (and obvious) reasons for separating religion and state, regardless of anyone's context or religion.SabtheLab said:Moonlight, don't generalise. ur speaking from a Judeo-Christian point of view. considering both Judaism and Christianity were never intended, even by their founders, to be anything more thna a spiritual guide to life, i can see where ur coming from. ur a product of your context- a furiously anti-religious society burned by the inadequacies of church-run state. the churches never ruled according to the Bible anyway. God did not command them to go on Crusades, nor did he order them to burn the pagans. thus, since christianity never originally purported to express a complete way of life, any attempts to make it as such would be catatstrophic. hence the separation between CHURCH and state.
but one of the very definitions of Islam is ' way of life'. there is no such thing as separation of church and state in Islam simply because we can't. it doesn't work. we cant be practsiing Islam in it's entirety if we are not also living under Islamic rule
1) not everyone here in Australia is a capitalist. in the past when i can pin point where islamic law was practiced fully; a lot of people in the islamic lands were not muslims- look at the coptics who asked the muslims to rule over them. Or the Muslims in spain who ruled over people of three religions- they didnt complain- because there is a difference between public and private law- public law applies to anyone in the state. Private law is usually between a person and God (if they believed in Him).MoonlightSonata said:There are good (and obvious) reasons for separating religion and state, regardless of anyone's context or religion.
1. Not all people believe the religion.
2. Religions promote faith, not reason. They are dangerous institutions to found anything on because one cannot question ideas as critically.
3. The state is more likely to conflict with other states because of entrenched differences in religion.
4. The dominance and (express or subtle) codification of one religion means other religions have a lack of liberty and individuals have a lack of religious freedom.
5. In my respectful opinion, the foundation of religious belief is usually not justified and either is, or is is likely to be, false.
6. In my respectful opinion, religion can and often does lead to dogma and in that sense can take society backwards.
elaborate?malkin86 said:Does anyone know what mainstream Islam's views on rape are?
It's never the woman's fault! But, she should have covered up. But, I must stress, it wasn't her fault! Still, she could have taken the proper precautions. However, in no way was she at fault! Etc. (well, that's the impression that I get, anyway).malkin86 said:Does anyone know what mainstream Islam's views on rape are?