"I want my country back." Quote NOT by a TeaBagger.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

It was a native American Indian, one of the millions killed by racist's who stole their country and treated them like crap for centuries.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

It was a native American Indian, one of the millions killed by racist's who stole their country and treated them like crap for centuries.

Originally Posted by Camp David

The Indians stole the country from some other group and treated them like crap; they earned our wrath...

Originally Posted by segovius

So when the Muzzlims take over and install SHARIA LAW you should be ok with getting stoned (in the not nice way) and being relegated to a footnote of history.

You earned the wrath of the Muzzlims. They are coming to get you mwahahahah

Good to know you accept things how they are.....

Originally Posted by gerald apple

This law will never happen in the US This is a sick and perverted law which that is what you are dealing with obsessed people who know no better in life.

Originally Posted by segovius

Actually there is no such thing as Shari'a law.

Originally Posted by segovius

There is no over-riding corpus and nor does it derive solely from the Qur'an (hardly at all in fact) but is constantly updated by many different authorities, many of whom do not agree with each other, are in contradiction and belong to differing sects and groups.

Originally Posted by segovius

So it does not in effect exist. For example, there is SAUDI STATE LAW which they (and Western Islamophobes and other uninformed groups) claim is Shari'a but it is not accepted by other Muslims. Nor is it Qur'anic in any form.

Originally Posted by segovius

Also much Western law is derived en toto from the Islamic Legal aspects of what such people call Shari;a which I always find hilarious. Western law is based on Shari'a !!!

Originally Posted by Camp David

You're wrong!

FACT =>
http://www.trosch.org/moh/sharia-law.html

You're wrong again!

FACT =>
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries.

"There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily,"

Consistently wrong here too...

FACT =>
http://www.stopshariahnow.org/

Wrong but laughably so...

FACT =>
http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and...and-government

Another remarkable resemblance with Islamic law is that judges when rendering decisions look at case precedents. This is similar to the methodology of legal precedent and reasoning by analogy (Qiyas) that was described by early Islamic legal scholars.

Some important and core features of modern English contract law that were studied in class were the concept of rescission, frustration of purpose and force majeure. These concepts are relatively recent introductions into the Law of England and can be traced back to Islamic roots.

Early Islamic jurists formulated contract laws that introduced formal rationality, legal logic and analogical reasoning in the use of contracts. In fact, Islamic jurists were the first to introduce the concepts of rescission (Iqalah), frustration of purpose (istihalah al-tanfidh or "impossibility of performance"), Act of God (afat samawiyah or "Misfortune from Heaven") and force majeure in the law of contracts.

Curious to find out more about the connection between Islamic Shariah law and common law, I started to do more research on the subject. I came across recent studies that have looked at the possibility that certain principles of early English common law are rooted in Islamic law through contact with the multicultural kingdoms of Sicily and Jerusalem. Several scholars, most notably Professor John Makdisi in the United States and barrister Omar Faruk in the United Kingdom suggest a connection between the two systems of law.

Originally Posted by segovius

This is STATE LAW.

Originally Posted by Camp David

And that is the problem with Sharia Law...Islamic Nations base their legal understanding on Sharia Law at the exclusion of what the west finds most dear: freedom.

The facts of this discussion are that you don't have any! You clearly misunderstand Sharia Law and you don't understand its threat to the west. The fact that Islamic Nations forbid religious freedom... not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention... the permanent oppression of women in the nations you mention... and you're out front with your apologia of Sharia Law makes what you post both sad and laughable...

Come back here when you have facts... not Islamic propaganda...

Originally Posted by Camp David

And that is the problem with Sharia Law...Islamic Nations base their legal understanding on Sharia Law at the exclusion of what the west finds most dear: freedom.

The facts of this discussion are that you don't have any! You clearly misunderstand Sharia Law and you don't understand its threat to the west. The fact that Islamic Nations forbid religious freedom... not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention... the permanent oppression of women in the nations you mention... and you're out front with your apologia of Sharia Law makes what you post both sad and laughable...

Come back here when you have facts... not Islamic propaganda...

The Indonesian Christian Church (in short: GKI, originally: Gereja Kristen Indonesia) is a shape and continuation of Indonesian Christian Church in West Jawa, Central Java and East Java. These churches were originally an individual church respectively. As the outcomes of mission undertaken by local and foreign missionaries, in East Java on February 22, 1934 existed a church which later in its progress named as the Indonesian Christian Church East Java; in West Java on March 24, 1940 existed a church which later in its progress named as the Indonesian Christian Church West Java; and in Central Java on August 8, 1945 existed a church which later in its progress named as the Indonesian Christian Churches Central Java. The three churches since March 27, 1962 in the form of the General Synod (Sinode Am) has initiated its common efforts focusing to one goal, to form a uniting of the Indonesian Christian Church.

GKI West Java and GKI East Java affiliated to the Dutch Hervormd mission, whereas GKI Central Java affiliated to the Dutch Gereformeerd mission. Comprises in GKI West Java a number of congregations which formed one presbytery, which is affiliated to local and foreign Chinese Evangelical mission. Differs the forms and processes of other church unity, all the congregation from the three previous GKIs, without exception, merged altogether in GKI’s uniting.

Today, “descendants of Iraqi Jews who came to Indonesia more than a century ago to trade spices still live and practice in Surabaya in the eastern half of the densely populated (and almost exclusively Muslim) island of Java. Their Jewish traditions are primarily ancient in origin (the Sabbath before Yom Kippur, for example, the community leader slaughters a chicken and swings it around the synagogue courtyard to dispel the community’s sins), though Dutch Jewish traders from the 18th and 19th centuries introduced them to some European Rabbinical teachings” (The Jews of Africa).

In Surabaya, the Jewish community preserves the last synagogue in Indonesia without a rabbi. The synagogue was purchased in the 1950s, and is in a traditional Orthodox, Sephardic style; men and women are separated by a mechiza and the pulpit and congregation face the simple, plain wood ark. The ark has been empty since its two Torah scrolls were relocated to the Jewish congregation in Singapore. There are a small number of individual Jews living in Jakarta, but most are not very religious. Essentially, the Jewish community in Indonesia is continuing to decline because of immigration sparked by a recent rise in anti-Semitism. Today, only about 20 Jews livie in Indonesia.

Christianity in Iran has had a long history, dating back to the very early years of the faith. It has always been a minority religion, overshadowed by the majority state religions — Zoroastrianism in the past, and Shia Islam today — though it had a much larger representation in the past than it does today. Christians of Iran have played a significant part in the history of Christian mission.

Today, there are at least 600 churches in Iran.

Kenisa-ye Bozorg (Mirakhor's kenisa) (Isfahan)
Abdollah Zadeh Synagogue (Tehran)
Abrishami Synagogue (Tehran)
Bagh Saba Synagogue (Tehran)
Del Rahim Synagogue (Shiraz)
Ettefagh Synagogue (Tehran)
Ettehad Synagogue (Tehran)
Haim Synagogue (Tehran)
Fakhrabad Synagogue (Tehran)
Kenisa-ye Bozorg (Hamadan)
Kenisa-ye Bozorg (Sanandaj)
Kenisa-ye Bozorg (Shiraz)
Kenisa-ye Kamal (Yazd)
Kenisa-ye Keter David (Isfahan)
Kenisa-ye Kohanim (Shiraz)
Kenisa-ye Molla (Shiraz)
Kenisa-ye Molla Mishi (Shiraz)
Kenisa-ye Molla Owram (Shiraz)
Kenisa-ye Molla Rabbi (Isfahan)
Kenisa-ye Rabbizadeh (Shiraz)
Kenisa-ye Sang-bast (Isfahan)
Kenisa-ye Shokr (Shiraz)
Khorassaniha Synagogue (Shiraz)
Kohan Synagogue (Tehran)
Kourosh Synagogue (Tehran)
Lubian Synagogue (Tehran)
Mahariv Synagogue (Tehran)
Mullah Jacob Synagogue (Isfahan)
Mullah Neissan Synagogue (Isfahan)
Nosrat Synagogue (Tehran)
Rafi Nia Synagogue (Tehran)
Rah-e Danesh Synagogue (Tehran)
Synagogue of Gisha (Tehran)
Tafian (Hakim)(pesyan) Synagogue (Tehran)
Yusef Abad Synagogue (Tehran)
Zargarian Synagogue (Tehran)

Originally Posted by Fellowship


I actually think you have some valid points in this post where you raise your concern about the lack of religious freedom in certain countries which seem to only allow one religion. This could not be more valid a fact.

Originally Posted by Fellowship

But what I think subtracts from when you do raise a most valid observation is when you post remarks like the following:

"The Indians stole the country from some other group and treated them like crap; they earned our wrath..."

Originally Posted by Fellowship

Wrongs are simply wrongs and there is no justification. We should all learn to discuss and debate the wrongs we see. We should never dismiss wrongs just because it affects some other group of people than ourselves (as we might see it in our minds eye).

Originally Posted by segovius

OK - I'm back!! With FACTS!!!

Originally Posted by Fellowship

I actually think you have some valid points in this post where you raise your concern about the lack of religious freedom in certain countries which seem to only allow one religion. This could not be more valid a fact.

Originally Posted by Camp David

The fact that Islamic Nations forbid religious freedom... not a single Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue in the nations you mention...
Come back here when you have facts... not Islamic propaganda...\\

Matthew 7:12 Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

Do not judge, so that you will not be judged, since you will be judged in the same judgment that you make, and you will be measured by the same standard you apply.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

CD, Sego answered your question.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

No one is a judge here---.

Originally Posted by segovius

"...Actually there is no such thing as Shari'a law..."

Originally Posted by Camp David

He avoided the issue; Sego's yet to explain why Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, bans every religion but Islam. What he sidetracked the issue with was a list of minor nations that make a token attempt to embrace religious freedom, yet he deftly avoided explaining Saudi Arabia.

Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya‎ الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.

Beginning in the last years of the 18th century Ibn Saud and his heirs would spend the next 140 years mounting various military campaigns to seize control of Arabia and its outlying regions, before being attacked and defeated by Ottoman forces.

One of their most famous and controversial attacks was on Karbala in 1802 (1217 AH). There, according to a Wahhabi chronicler `Uthman b. `Abdullah b. Bishr:

"[Wahhabis] scaled the walls, entered the city ... and killed the majority of its people in the markets and in their homes. [They] destroyed the dome placed over the grave of al-Husayn [and took] whatever they found inside the dome and its surroundings. .... the grille surrounding the tomb which was encrusted with emeralds, rubies, and other jewels. .... different types of property, weapons, clothing, carpets, gold, silver, precious copies of the Qur'an."

Some Muslims, such as the Islamic Supreme Council of America, and Abdul Hadi Palazzi classify Wahhabbism as extremist, Islamist and heresy mainly based on Wahhabbism's rejection of traditional Sunni scholars and interpretation.

Sego made the outrageous claim that,

which deserves both our attention and judgment; the reason is one of facts; i.e., his lack of them, since what he claimed just isn't true....

Originally Posted by segovius

1) Saudi Arabia is not the cradle of Islam. ARABIA is the cradle of Islam.

Originally Posted by segovius

Explained it many times. Can do so again. here you go:

1) Saudi Arabia is not the cradle of Islam. ARABIA is the cradle of Islam.

Arabia is called SAUDI for a reason: it is now the domain of the House of Saud.

House of Saud follow the doctrine of Wahabism - ie a 300 year old sect.

Question for you: how can a 300 year old sect = a 1500 year old religion?

If it is the same thing then it is not a 300 year old sect is it?



They spread power and influence by oil money and violence against orthodox Muslims (a practice still seen in Yemen and Iraq and elsewhere):



That they are not orthodox and accepted by most Muslims is well-known:



Let's repeat the key bit:

based on Wahhabbism's rejection of traditional Sunni scholars and interpretation.


Another question: how can one reject traditional Sunni interpretation AND be less than 300 years old and yet still be from 'the cradle of Islam'?

Add it to the list of question to dodge along with bearded Marxists.




Let me adjust if for you then seeing as you are suffering from comprehension problems at the moment.

There is one 'Sharia Law' in Saudi.

There is one - conflicting and opposing 'Sharia Law' in Indonesia.

There is one - conflicting and opposing 'Sharia Law' in Iran.

And on and on and on....which is why btw, you're rather silly 'no churches or synagogues' statement was so silly. It was true in regard to Saudi Sharia'a but nowhere in other Sharia.

So really, as there are so many conflicting ones, it is true to say that there is no over-riding Sharia law.

If you opposed SAUDI Sharia'a or Iranian Sharia's and stipulated which you would be correct.

But you don't - because you want to promote the idea there is only ONE Sharia' in order to further your agenda and justify your bias.

Facts have nothing to do with it.

ANd it is worrying - not because of you personally, clearly you are jot threat on any level, but you represent a sort of ignorance that is regressive and which is gaining traction.

If it gains enough it will have a certain power if only through the dull dense force of a blunt instrument. But that is all the more dangerous for being blind and unaware.

Like a runaway train.

Originally Posted by segovius

<snip>

FACT: you use the word FACT far too often and have forfeited the right to use it again until you find out what it means.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

I think you answered the question, thank you. You can only try to explain it where it is understood only so many times, but sometimes you are yelling in crowd that is either deaf or refuses to listen.

Originally Posted by talksense101

I am not getting into this argument, but this made me laugh.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

It was a native American Indian, one of the millions killed by racist's who stole their country and treated them like crap for centuries.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Trumptman (aka jazzguru)

Originally Posted by trumptman

Could you provide the estimates for the population of Native Americans in the U.S. before European settlers arrived and numbers for their decline after they arrived. I'm not trying to belittle any death but death by disease isn't exactly murder. [Unless it was intentional--comments by FT]

Also it happened in Europe to so who do we blame there?

The documents

These are the pivotal letters:
Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763, [262k] suggests in a postscript the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians";
Amherst to Bouquet, dated 16 July 1763, [128k] approves this plan in a postscript and suggests as well as "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." (This postcript spans two pages.)
These letters also discuss the use of dogs to hunt the Indians, the so-called "Spaniard's Method," which Amherst approves in principle, but says he cannot implement because there are not enough dogs. In a letter dated 26 July 1763, Bouquet acknowledges Amherst's approval [125k] and writes, "all your Directions will be observed."

Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]
I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.

Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
"...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
"I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
"...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k]
"...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k]
"...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnhttp://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.htmlson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original).

Amherst that "the renowned general is worthy of that most honorable of titles, the Christian hero; for he loves his enemies and while he subdues them he makes them happy. He acts the general, the Briton, the conqueror and the Christian." From his own correspondence, however, it appears that the Indians were not among the enemies loved and made happy by Amherst. He held them in supreme contempt. He directed a subordinate: "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." Bluff, arrogant, forthright, Amherst is thus seen as a soldier of quite modern scientific resourcefulness, for all the eclipse that his military record suffered through the brilliancy of Wolfe, captor of Quebec

Originally Posted by segovius

Actually there is no such thing as Shari'a law. I was being ironic. But it does serve to show the massive ignorance existing in the West about all things Islamic.

Shari'a is in fact a conglomeration of rulings by various Imams and Judges. It consists of varying aspects; money, marriage, criminality and all manner of civil law.

There is no over-riding corpus and nor does it derive solely from the Qur'an (hardly at all in fact) but is constantly updated by many different authorities, many of whom do not agree with each other, are in contradiction and belong to differing sects and groups.

So it does not in effect exist. For example, there is SAUDI STATE LAW which they (and Western Islamophobes and other uninformed groups) claim is Shari'a but it is not accepted by other Muslims. Nor is it Qur'anic in any form.

Also much Western law is derived en toto from the Islamic Legal aspects of what such people call Shari;a which I always find hilarious. Western law is based on Shari'a !!!

Originally Posted by gerald apple

You are wrong go ask your friends in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other backwards moslem countries where they persecute and kill women, children, and this is Sharia Law.

All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars).

Many people, including Muslims, misunderstand Sharia. It's often associated with the amputation of limbs, death by stoning, lashes and other medieval punishments. Because of this, it is sometimes thought of as draconian. Some people in the West view Sharia as archaic and unfair social ideas that are imposed upon people who live in Sharia-controlled countires.

Many Muslims, however, hold a different view. In the Islamic tradition Sharia is seen as something that nurtures humanity. They see the Sharia not in the light of something primitive but as something divinely revealed. In a society where social problems are endemic, Sharia frees humanity to realise its individual potential.

Legal rulings

The Sharia regulates all human actions and puts them into five categories: obligatory, recommended, permitted, disliked or forbidden.

Obligatory actions must be performed and when performed with good intentions are rewarded. The opposite is forbidden action. Recommended action is that which should be done and the opposite is disliked action. Permitted action is that which is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Most human actions fall in this last category.

The ultimate worth of actions is based on intention and sincerity, as mentioned by the Prophet, who said, "Actions are by intentions, and one shall only get that which one intended."

Life under the Sharia

The Sharia covers all aspects of human life. Classical Sharia manuals are often divided into four parts: laws relating to personal acts of worship, laws relating to commercial dealings, laws relating to marriage and divorce, and penal laws.

Sources of the Sharia

The primary sources of the Sharia are the Qur'an and the example of the Prophet Muhammad.

The Qur'an

The essence of its message is to establish the oneness of God and the spiritual and moral need of man for God. This need is fulfilled through worship and submission, and has ultimate consequences in the Hereafter.

The Qur'an is the word of God. Because of its inimitable style and eloquence, and, above all, the guidance and legal provisions it came with, it ensures the worldly and next-worldly welfare of humanity.

The Prophetic example (Sunna)

The Prophet's role was expounded in the Qur'an, "We have revealed the Remembrance [Qur'an] to you that you may explain to people that which was revealed for them." (16:44)

This explanation was through the Prophet's words, actions, and example. Following the guidance and the example of the Prophet was made obligatory, "O you who believe, obey God and obey the Messenger," (4: 59) and, "Verily, in the Messenger of God you have a beautiful example for those who seek God and the Last Day, and remember God much." The Prophet himself instructed, "I have left two things with you which if you hold on to, you shall not be misguided: the Book of God and my example." [Reported by Hakim and Malik]

Derived sources

There are two agreed-upon derived sources of Sharia: scholarly consensus (ijma') and legal analogy (qiyas).

Scholarly consensus

The basis for scholarly consensus being a source of law is the Qur'anic command to resolve matters by consultation, as God stated, "Those who answer the call of their Lord, established prayer, and whose affairs are by consultation." (42:38) Scholarly consensus is defined as being the agreement of all Muslim scholars at the level of juristic reasoning (ijtihad) in one age on a given legal ruling. Given the condition that all such scholars have to agree to the ruling, its scope is limited to matters that are clear according to the Qur'an and Prophetic example, upon which such consensus must necessarily be based. When established, though, scholarly consensus is decisive proof.

Legal analogy (Qiyas)

Legal analogy is a powerful tool to derive rulings for new matters. For example, drugs have been deemed impermissible, through legal analogy from the prohibition of alcohol that is established in the Qur'an. Such a ruling is based on the common underlying effective cause of intoxication.

Legal analogy and its various tools enables the jurists to understand the underlying reasons and causes for the rulings of the Qur'an and Prophetic example (sunna). This helps when dealing with ever-changing human situations and allows for new rulings to be applied most suitably and consistently.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

[url]Legal analogy (Qiyas)

Legal analogy is a powerful tool to derive rulings for new matters. For example, drugs have been deemed impermissible, through legal analogy from the prohibition of alcohol that is established in the Qur'an. Such a ruling is based on the common underlying effective cause of intoxication.

Legal analogy and its various tools enables the jurists to understand the underlying reasons and causes for the rulings of the Qur'an and Prophetic example (sunna). This helps when dealing with ever-changing human situations and allows for new rulings to be applied most suitably and consistently.

The prohibition of alcohol occurred in stages and [after] many incidents, for they [the Arabs] used to love to drink it. The first [verse] revealed regarding the matter of alcohol was: "They ask you about alcohol and gambling. Say: 'There is great sin in both although there is some benefit for people" [Baqarah:219] i.e. [benefit] in their trade. Hence, when this verse was revealed, some people left [alcohol] saying, "We have no need for that in which there is great sin," and some did not leave it saying, "We take [from its] benefit and we leave its sin." Thereafter, the verse was revealed: "Do not approach prayer while you are drunk" [Nisa:43] So some people left it saying, "We have no need for that which distracts us from the prayer," and some drank it outside the times of prayer until the verse was revealed: "O you who believe! Alcohol, gambling, [sacrificing for] idols, and divining of arrows are only an abomination [of Satan's work]" [Maidah:90-91]So [alcohol] became prohibited for them such that some of them said, "Allah did not prohibit anything as strictly as alcohol."

Originally Posted by segovius

...I shall amend my comments re there being no such thing as Shari'a law to...

Originally Posted by Camp David

You seem to ignore the cases worldwide of the imposition of Sharia Law upon westerners; i.e., against author Salman Rushdie, the fatwā against him, and of the Dutch cartoonist,the fatwā against him, politician Geert Wilders and the the fatwā against him, so he denial of Sharia Law within Islam is quite preposterous and with the body of evidence against such a claim you might do well to research "obvious" as a learning word!

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

Originally Posted by segovius

Fatwas aren't anything to do with Shari'a.

Originally Posted by segovius

Btw, Wilders is a right-wing Nazi....not surprising you would support him but it is a bit disconcerting to see fascism openly espoused.

Originally Posted by segovius

I will say I am opposed to punishments such as stoning and amputation. They are barbaric

Originally Posted by segovius

Please comment on these passages from your Bible (remember these are IN the Bible - there is stoning mentioned in the Qur'an):

Originally Posted by Camp David

Wow... you've just chock full of denial this week! Not only did I find evidence to the contrary, I found legion of evidence to the contrary... not surprising that you'd be denying it... For example, if you consult Islamic Banking regulations, you'd see that Sharia, Fatwas, and Islamic belief are linked... they even set up a Control Board to regulate it!!!

Fatwa and Sharia’a Control Board
http://www.sib.ae/en/shariaa/fatwa-a...rol-board.html
The Fatwa and Sharia’a Control Board is an independent body of scholars specialised in the Islamic jurisprudence as well as fatwa experts in accordance with the Sharia’a principles. It directs, monitors and supervises the bank’s activities to ensure that the bank’s management follows the provisions and principles of the Islamic Sharia’a in the bank’s operation and transactions.

This not only proves you wrong, it does so categorically!

Geert Wilders a Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom - not at all surprising you'd object to such men and such a concept as freedom!

btw... Wilder's educational film," Islam Rising: Geert Wilders’ Warning to the West, is a great learning resource that you should watch. Trailer here.This documentary builts upon his earlier film, FITNA, which is also educational.

Good... do you also condemn those in Islam that practice such punishments?

Are Christians practicing any of those outdated passages? No. But the radical punishments as espoused in the Koran are being practiced; a woman was stoned just this week in Pakistan by Taliban following Sharia Law=>