From: flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Islam
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:50:00 GMT
	<nabeel.724198000@oracle.sce.carleton.ca>
	<1992Dec13.163424.7558@das.harvard.edu>
	<nabeel.724288533@oracle.sce.carleton.ca>
	<1992Dec14.123633@frej.teknikum.uu.se> <nabeel.724444611@orac
Organization: Dept. Of Control, Teknikum, Uppsala
NNTP-Posting-Host: frej.teknikum.uu.se
In-reply-to: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca's message of Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:21:18 GMT

In article <nabeel.725048478@oracle.sce.carleton.ca> nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Rosignolo) writes:

      The sharia is roughly the system of rules and precepts that is based upon
   Koran and Hadith.

Which one should be used for the legal system? According to you, that is?

   " Which, is exactly why it is a good idea to separate the two.
   " Most religious leaders have acknowledged this.

      My point is they should not contradict, if they do, then at least one or the
   other must be wrong and thus should be casted off.

Ok, given a choice, which of the two should be cast off then?

   " So, is this one ruleset without contradictions then? Or is it just the 
   " interpretations that contradict? 

      Only the interpretations may contradict, but the original rules if seem to
   contradict, then often the most recent abrogates the others or they are
   applies in different circumstances.

I'm sure Goedel would've loved to hear that.. Seriously though, why are you
mixing 'original' and 'more recent'? Are you accepting that there are more
recent rules added, even if one of them changes an original?

   " Oh, that's nice. Even if I kill someone innocent by mistake, it does not 
   " matter..
   " I like the sound of that. Must be reassuring being a Moslem..

      I thought you are not that naive; I told you that you are only required to 
   do your best OK? But if you fail to do that, then it is less fun than you 
   think. Now soldiers who kill others in friendly fire, are they executed or
   something?

Yes, but to send a person out in life with the belief that its ok if he/she
kills somebody 'by mistake' is to me the equivalent of firing a missile
into a crowd. Soldiers who kill others in 'friendly' fire are _prosecuted_
and it is _not ok_ to do that. Irrelevant example if you ask me. Also, many 
soldiers have a hard time dealing with the killings they've done, even if it's
'enemies'. That is one of the really hard tasks for priests; to help an 
individual deal with the assumed guilt in such a situation.

   " |>    I meant physically. Of course, if religions do not discriminate at all
   " |> among people then they implicitly imply that they are immaterial, so why
   " |> should anyone follow any faith?

   " Ah. So when _all_ people belong to Islam, the religion becomes immaterial, so
   " we have to give it up. All become infidels, and we can start all over?
   " Nice interpretation.. 

      Nice understanding, smart one! The above paragraph of mine means: Religions
   definitely discriminate in one way or the other between their followers and
   others, otherwise, then people will have no reason to follow those religions.
   Why would you follow a religion which does not care whether you follow it or
   not and you will be considered the same?

Hm, yes, as you say, if _i_ follow it. But why, pray tell, should I care any
what my neighbour believes, as long as he is not disturbing my life?
Any reason I should ask him to pay any more taxes than me?
I'm curious..

   " But I thought that the mob was convinced they were right.. Was it a sin then?
   " We have more than 4 witnesses to the beating. You should be able to settle
   " this question..

   Beating the wife is permitted in very limited situations and to a very limited
   degree, not half way to death and back or so. The law must be carried by a
   government not by you or me, so only a proper government can ivestigate the
   problem and rule about it, which is not available now. There is nothing I can
   do about it.

Thanks, that's _one_ of the points I've been trying to get across. Laws _have_
to be carried out by a government. Nice that we can agree on atleast one 
point... Now all I have to do is argue my case on separating the government
and the religion. :-)

   " But why would islam have to deal with that island, if there are no moslems on

      To give them, their children and the residents their the opportunity to
   voluntarily embrace Islam and make sure that no persecution is made to prevent
   people from doing so.

To me, waging war on a people to have them 'voluntarily' do something carries
an inherent contradiction..

   " it? What if you found out that they claim they are moslems, only that they 
   " have been separated so long from the rest of the world, that they follow
   " _very_ old rules, that clash with with the modern interpretations of the

      The interpretations must not clash unless someone is wrong, otherwise, there
   are options in some issues that can be followed according to personal
   preference or convincing. However, there must be only one Islamic country and
   that island must be a dependency of that country.

What would you do if 'your' version is proved wrong? (Let's assume they have
in their possesion the diaries of a close relative to the Prophet, or an
artefact of equal (or greater) importance.) Would you accept that?

   " scriptures? Are they an obstruction then too? Should they pay tax in that 
   " case?

      If they are Muslims they do not pay tax, they join the country like all
   other Muslims districts. But if their rules contradict Islam such as having
   new prophets or suspending some Islamic rules, they are fought until they
   follow properly, no tax option in this case.

This is _Real_ _Nice_ (tm).. Can you spot the inconsistency between the
last two paragraphs you wrote???



		_
    |\_________(@)= |CENSORED|    The above is fiction. I hope you enjoyed it!
      \_\  --/ _/                      
	\=====/       "wa lI qalamon  fI 'onmolI  'in hazaztohO            
	   ||            famA  .duRunI   'aLA  'ahoZa   lmohaNadA
	   ~~          'i_thA .sUla fawqa .Tirsi waq^o .sarIrihI
			fa'iNa  .sulIla  lmashrafiYi  lahO  .sudA" 
					      -- ibn Sana' Al-Mulk
--

--------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Flygare, 		+ Wherever you go, there you are
V{ktargatan 32 F:621	+
754 22 Uppsala, Sweden	+
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:24297 talk.politics.soviet:10050 soc.culture.greek:11935 soc.culture.europe:10872 soc.history:10423 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10295