+paolomath I'm not sure if that's true. The fact is there are many uk laws that many citizens do not agree with but simply tolerate. For example many people are pro-weed these days as it's becoming legalized in more and more countries. But it's still illegal in the uk and all pro-weed peeople tolerate that law, even though they do not agree with it. And there are certain people that still want capital punishment for murder in the uk, but they tolerate life sentence for murder as a law.
ShaktiX You're probably right. The term "tolerate" does not matter here. An immediate difference is evident though, between your examples and the Sharia-in-the-UK idea. The examples refer to laws that, as normal in the civil society, apply to all ("Equality before the law"), while the proposed Sharia would be a complete novelty in this sense, regardless of its content. And, regardless of its content, for this reason I am pretty convinced it is a disastrous idea.
One justice system for all? It's for precisely that reason that I declared Liberalism to be a totalitarian system of uniformity. People are not uniform, any system that does not account for that is oppressive by definition. Justice should be based upon reciprocation and desert, not some 'one size fits all' imposing system. This was dealt with in the debate,
This is kind of bullshit debate is, questioning the question of the question and saying what is right from wrong from right?!?!? no progression at all.
I never said Liberalism is being imperfectly adhered to. I said it contradicts Human reality, like how Communism contradicts human reality. Any ideal which needs to be overriden by pragmatism, meanss the ideal is unfit for purpose. If a system cannot address the reality of the human being, it is a flawed system. This is different to a system which is not perfectly adhered to by its followers/supports.
You are not arguing for Liberalism, but rather for a independent judiciary, which almost all systems have. Islam believes in an independent judiciary, but unlike Liberalism, we do not believe that we should force a Christian hotel owner to allow people to use his property to do things which goes against his conscience. This denies him his choice, the right to practice his beliefs (which do not physically harm anyone), and the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit.
many people do not realize that many verses(ayaats-signs) in the quran end with for those who understand . salam aleikom . Be patient and keep up the good works .
So if the family can forgive a murderer and they will be set free, that sounds like a family can take out a contract to murder a family member and get away with conspiracy to commit murder.
The point is that liberalism imposes itself upon minorities of a liberal state, Islam allows minorities far more freedom in determining how they are governed.
All debated professionally. Abdullah had given many insights on Sharia. The Jewish speaker made a valid question, that revealed his objectivity and fairness: Why is it only the Jewish court is permitted to be practiced among the Jewish minority in the US while other religious minority groups courts ain't, i.e. Sharia?! Abdullah had exposed many inherit deficiencies about modern Liberalism. This debate had added a lot to me. Thanks to the speakers and the host.
Dude, he said that several statements in the Qur'an are ambiguous and are left for humans to reflect upon and interpret for themselves. This is why the Shari'ah is flexible, because the Ulimah are provided a scope of interpretation to deal with.
Investigation should be conducted in the case of murder. If one who commits murder through all evidence has caused death then he is sentenced either by capital punishment, electric shock, death injection or either with full life sentence. As for forgiveness, it should come from the family of the victim and the "soul" of the victim himself. So, how does this do justice to the victim? He does not wants to die, and he is murdered. To know how this going on, one should be in the victims' place.
Anyway, being simpler: As selective forces can define races and eventually species, shari'a can have "races". Shari'a has a few fundamental static rules on adultery, murder, etc, which lets you say: "This is shari'a". However given certain periods of time and locations it will differ to better suit those people, the selective force, without violating the fundamentals, in economic laws, punishments, health laws, etc. It can even adjust to individual cases. Same origin, consistent methods.
Sharia is only practiced in matrimonial, Muslim child adoption, Muslim property and practiced with different interpretations at states level in the federation. Non-Muslims are treated with Common and Civil Law.
Mash'Allah. It's great to hear you were born in a muslim household. And also good to know that you'd be interested in watching videos like this. The best part of debates is hearing the points the "other side" has to make. They could always bring up something you've never looked at a certain way or thought about, which gives you a chance to revise and possibly update the way we see the world.
Jizya is best considered as a Relation Definition Tool with non-Muslims living under the Islamic State, rather than a tool of suppression against them. It's the "Tax" in modern time. Jizya/Tax on non-Muslims is, in fact, one-tenth of what a Muslim citizen is obliged to pay! In addition to the many non-Muslim categories who don't have to pay, (women, children, elders, priests, etc.)
A few points: 1) You stated what you thought was fact, I evaluated what you said and corrected it independent of your title. 2) The indication of title is a display on the likelihood that my correction is trustworthy. If you still don't think it is, it can be confirmed by hundreds of other sources. 3) I need to prove to you the consensus? What you do is write a paper for peer review on how shari'a is set in stone, you don't even need to submit it, once you've done that, we'll discuss it.
Thanks brother... This is so much useful for my assignments. I'm mention all of the presenters and credits to them. It's a good discussion and sharings.
Islamic Laws only apply to Muslims. And guess what, none of us supporting Br. Abdullah are shocked or appalled by apostasy being punishable by death or being against insulting the Prophet (saws)...so please, try harder with your emotional appeals.
So, each religious group will have their own law and the national government would have to enter into negotiations with each group. Wouldn't that be too taxing on the national government? Who will define what a religion is? I don't see this as being logical on a large scale because this would impact more than just Muslims. Plus, each sect of Islam, and all other religions too, do not interpret the religious laws the same...Wow... this will be impossible to implement
Impracticality does not disprove an ideal as "unfit for purpose," whatever that means. Anyway, I wasn't advocating anything, I was just responding to your summing up of the person's statement. They said that there was an ideal state to work towards, but that you must be realistic in the end. Nothing is wrong with that. I didn't say anything about liberalism being imperfectly adhered to.
i dont think you have read the quran properly or you've read it out of context and also have you read bible or the old testament. if you need help with violent quotes from bible or old testament let me know i will give you them.
In our country where the top leaders are Muslims and the kings as the Head of the State are the leader of Islam, legal procedures for criminal law is based from Common Law as practiced in British India. Contract law is based from British India precedence. Property Law based from Torrens System.
As-salamu alaykum brother Abdullah. i've really enjoyed watching your videos on sharia and i have some questions regarding the sharia. is there any way i can contact you via email or something? i would ask questions here but i'm afraid of getting spammed by hate mail.
Ok, this is the last time I'm going to reply. By stating that a FEW *hint hint* laws never change, does not, in any way, give the picture that shari'a is a monolithic static system. I do leave with a little food for thought though: - If there were 0 fixed laws, would that be a system at all?
Despite the fact this isn't directed to me. I have to state that in your very limited knowledge of shari'a law, you assume that shari'a is set in stone. It's never been set in stone and in fact it's the most organic and flexible system that's ever existed permitting situational evaluation and not just point blank "you did this, therefore you suffer this" without any regard for what led to the action. First learn and then talk, it would make conversations so much more fruitful.
The kind of human rights as simply in jailing the criminals of murder case for a life only for those who is alive but not for those who were dead and victimized? So, it is just looking at the perspective of what is material and human or beings have no "soul"? Speaking in general gnosticism term without being confined by any particular religious law. For sure there are different degree of murder with intention or without intention. The most important thing as to say, is the investigation.
The more tolerant attitude the muslims had to those of other faiths, which put the crusaders to shame, is sadly no longer representative of sharia as a whole. Such views seem to survive mainly outside countries where sharia law is in control. In the majority of countries where sharia law is in control this speakers views would probably be seen a western liberalism not sharia.
Actually I didn't commit any fallacy. I was pointing out yours by displaying to you that if I need a title for my arguments to be valid, you place yourself in a worse position. In philosophy arguments are evaluated on their own independently of who makes it or the title the person has. If you had taken a second to ponder over what I said, you would have gotten the message. Also, given the first impression, it's very likely that no matter the arguments, you wouldn't change your mind.
He's right though. The liberal view would leave everyone safer and happier, but as the many systems currently stand, base desires override judgement. We do bad thing because we cant get what we need. When we get more of what we need, we do things better. Eventually, it may be possible to overcome most of this bad behavior simply by addressing needs better in better ways. Liberalism is not so much an impossible ideal as it is an outcome that is trending.
Which deception are you talking about ? Please elaborate Also, america doesn't punish people with capital punishment for leaving Christianity. Also. Just because I hate islamic laws that doesn't mean that I love other laws.
I'm curious. Why still to this day the amount of logical folk who not need religion to sustain their contentment and live a life without harming another life form, does not out number the amount of people who bicker and fight and cause anxiety which governments thrive off of over this nonsense. I guess we don't relate enough to our actual culture enough to let go of it completely once we lose the easiest, most printed, and least useful tools from our (all our) history.
Bees and ants also don't have higher consciousness with which to ponder over the universe or override instinctual behaviour with reason based behaviour. This capacity of overriding instinct based action is the fundamental difference between humans and other animals on this planet. Hence, the message arrives externally in reply to mankind's fundamental question "Why am I even here?". And you don't "just believe". You ponder over if it's reasonable. Faith in Islam is not blind belief.
This is typically why I don't enjoy talking to people who lack the intellectual foundations to even have a discussion of this depth and calibre. First off, theory in academia is NOT the definition of theory you're using. Secondly, the words used have precise meanings related to precise concepts, they aren't vague, however seeing the "big picture" is not trivial. "A system like Islam" - You talk almost as if you know what that is. Which from prior comments seems to be very far from the case.
they commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?" (7:28 . . Definetely not blind faith and for those who still dont want to think and then believe there is also a challenge in the quran which will never be defeated . salam aleikom brother in islam .
MashaAllah.. truely inspired by you pal.. you seem like a very open-minded, educated young man. Keep up the good work.. and welcome to Islam.. btw, where you from?
Shariya law!! Whenever I hear that it makes me laugh. May Allah Azzawajal bless and protect all those at MDI and may Allah help you to continue your good work, ameen.
On the subject of physical laws, it depends of the islamic philosophy you adhere to. For example, in Ashari school of thought, causality is merely an illusion caused by God's consistency, while in Mu'tazilite school of though you'd find clockwork causality. So God devising only static mechanisms is a moot point. As to "devising", temporal actions only make sense in space-time frameworks, so using it on God is like describing the texture of the number 1, supposing you're not a synesthete.
Redundant and contradictory, yet you don't present one example where it is the case, then you follow up with "you can't argue against either the morals or the logic". I'm sorry, but countering what I say with "it is because it is... period" doesn't count for much to me and doesn't warrant a reply. Also, you want to argue morals with me when you don't even have an epistemological foundation with which to discuss it with me. Again... don't waste my time any further, I've given you a lot already.
Not consistent? Have you not seen the social structures of the ants and the bees? The Qur'an itself alludes to these as examples. They have defined laws, but depending on the species as they evolve, these vary slightly, some are nomadic, some are sedentary, some build hills, some don't, however you don't see them stray from the basic hierarchal structure. The social laws aren't either totally fixed or totally unpinned either. Shari'a functions like this. Plus, you're discrediting western law.
The Muslim that pays the Zakah ends up paying much more ! So subdued does not imply some sought of weakness, oppression or slavery that u wish it does my 'friend'
With the investigation then it depends on how the State interpret the clauses and sentence the criminals. The interpretation of Sharia law could be "interpretive" and also "literal". The literalists or puritanists as those portrayed in Saudi Arabia reflects the world view of the kingdom and the regime. Sharia law can also reflect the world view of other nations within the framework of Islam as they might incorporate it with their customs (non-Islamic).
While the crime rate is low, it is not without the Things you mention and saying that, is just wrong, the result of a population of people living in fear of 'law enforcement,' lacking basic freedoms, lots of innocent people punished or executed for crimes they didn't commit, you have no way to know for certain that crimes are, or are not commited, becouse of the lack of freedom.
Really? This old cliché? The Islamic God may be the most-kind and most-merciful, but not the ALL-kind, ALL-merciful. Plus, what makes you think heaven and hell were created FOR YOU. Has it never crossed your mind that conscious beings may have been created for heaven and hell? That you're made with the purpose of one or the other, but here just finding out which one it is and how you got there? The universe doesn't indicate pure love and roses.
Wait what? You're tell me, a muslim, what Islam does or doesn't? Now that I'm done laughing, let's proceed. Shari'a has a few laws that are permanently the same, such as the few that appear in the Qur'an. Everything else is flexible, because it's not a direct instruction from God, but an attempt of men to provide the best they can for a certain place and age. Secondly, you want me to display to you how it's more "organic and flexible" in a few characters on youtube? Sorry, but I'm no magician.
Here's a few key differences you should have noticed, but didn't: 1) In your case the paper existent independent of you, unlike the case of God where existence depends on him, including himself, because by definition God, aside from creating, maintains/sustains existent things. 2) If he's responsible for everything including your feelings and what you see, what do you think his capacity of relation is? p.s: I use him due to the flaws in the english language. I'm not implying sex here.
Actually no. If you're in to mathematics like I am, I advise you a book like flatland, it's an easy read and exposes it's ideas clearly. One can be outside of the entire universe yet be infinitesimally close to you. Any dimension, be it as weird as it may with whatever properties, if it's perpendicular to our space-time, it can, in fact, contact with any point inside of you, outside of you, before you or after you, anywhere and any when. And no, it's not "the fact of the matter" at all.
Well if you look on some videos on TH-cam you'll find out that many people are not really making decisions by themselves but together or pushed by the whole clan, stoning is something they use quite often or at the taking feet or hands something we shouldn't have in our society I think Remember it is not a religion of peace for non-Muslims and not for those who dare to do something wrong adultery is punished with stoning
You clearly need to google the BRUTALITY of this bullshit. What if? Stoning, burry alive, choke, oh decisions decisions. It's BARBARIC and needs to stop n the UK and the west.
I don't think the concept is simple. I know it is, there's a difference there. It's mathematically demonstrable. Whether or not you want to accept logical fact is your business and I won't judge you for it. However it's only naivety on your part to assume it's even debatable. Let me see if I can make this clearer to you. Draw a 2D man on the surface of a paper, that surface is his universe, and Lo and Behold you in 3D can see all his universe. You even see his insides. Now generalise the idea.
Do you know what an oxymoron is? And if you do, please tell me clearly what properties are juxtaposing each other. I told you exactly why it isn't possible, but your usage of the word "awhile" shows you were unable to comprehend the concepts involved. Lastly, you use the word conscious influence as if talking about an RTS game, which also seems to indicate you're having difficulty abstracting yourself from human experience and perspective.
You do know infinitesimal is a mathematical notion don't you? It has in absolutely no way, ever been used in academic work the way you've just tried to use it. And as to the second part. I facepalmed. Literally... You seriously believe in what you just said? Or are you just trolling now? You're telling me that the originator of every experience you've ever had and every detail of your being would be incapable of judging you? And with a serious face too? Oh well... to each his own I suppose.
Salaam, Abdullah al Andalusi, ur view of Boko Haram is wrong in some part i.e. this anti-west position is not the whole truth. It is injustice my the Northern elites against their own people. They have used religion to create a space of misunderstanding at a level far greater than how the west is currently misrepresenting Islam. The fact that the Nigeria government want to make sure that the "Boko Haram" sect does not get a fair hearing on the public space. In time we will know the real truth.
+Adriaan Nunes So what's the question? Look it up. It is perfectly acceptable for those of the Islamic faith to lie 'only' if it furthers the agenda of their faith. Seriously. Do some research. You will see I am speaking the truth on this.
No its not and islam sees the act of homosexuality as a sin but in sharia you can be gay al you want but you just cant have sex in public we have historical proof for this and un the sharia it self it says that sharia is only for those that want it but sure i'm just brainwashed
Yes, I did address you to correct you on a basic mistake about Islam and shari'a. I don't need to waste my time proving this to you because it's fundamental knowledge any student of Islam should have. You're on the internet for goodness sakes. You can't tell me that this knowledge is out of your reach. Lastly, if you say "The Sun goes around the Earth" and I correct you, I won't waste my time teaching you stuff you can easily look up. My time is too valuable to waste on such trivial matters.
For one to be perfect, one has to fulfil certain characteristics that define an entity as complete. I would love to know what characteristics you've come up to define what a "perfect" God is, and how you've done so objectively. Also, living in the universe, I suppose you've observed the sun which generates new photons 24/7. Did the sun tell you it needed or desired to do so? Creation does not entail desire/need, it can be a mere implication. Btw, perfect and complete is a pleonasm.
Ok, let be clearer. My issue was not with perfection, but how you're attempting to say perfection is somehow at odds with creation. Let me put it in the form of a question: What is a perfect writer? And also, once again, it still comes down to your inability to escape reasoning in space and time. There is not time when God was less complete and another time where is more complete. Time does not encompass God, is this too hard for you?
1) Well, once again, God is not there being around in time, Time is a creation. So you're asking for one like him, which is tantamount to asking for a created uncreated. It's an oxymoron. This "other" is not going to be, self sufficient from here on out. Every moment is as much of a creation as any spacial point or object at that point. 2)You lost me at "empathetic level". I can't know the experience of any other human being, yet you're asking me about empathy in God? Keep it objective please.
No, you can't. It is only through the usage of mirror neurons which provide you an illusion of feeling what the other person feel, you never feel what they feel. It depends on how your brain associates certain cues with emotions you've experienced in the past. The laws of physics (i.e "will of God") permitted you to have a glimpse of the feelings of others. If God needed an illusion to relate to me, I wouldn't take such a God seriously.
If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess. (6:116) When they are told, "Follow what GOD has revealed herein," they say, "We follow only what we found our parents doing." What if their parents did not understand, and were not guided? (2:170)
Shariya law!! Whenever I hear that it makes me laugh. May Allah Azzawajal bless and protect all at MDI and may Allah aid you in continuing your good work, ameen
1) If you want to discuss the plausibility of the God muslims believe in, you discuss OUR definition of God, all others means zilch, nothing, nada. Also, single entity sustaining multiple is simpler than multiple entities sustaining themselves, which is a larger presumption. 2) None of us assume cognition as per human experience, we're not talking beardy man in the sky here. However, even your perspective is brought in to being by it, so all you see, all you feel, all you remember, it "knows".
Before continuing, let me just ask, because I'm genuinely interested, why does God relating to you even matter at all? I can't get this fascination of yours for this. I, personally, don't really care as to whether I'm related to or not, but I'm interested in to knowing why you care? Needing some sort of daddy figure to be psychologically well off? Can't see it.
No belittling done here. Look at the empires of the time n how HEAVILY they taxed their own subjects including the Roman Christians to fellow Christians. Overall n certainly when compared to others the Muslims as shown in documented history were far more fairer n just. The Jizya did not apply to women, children, elderly , poor etc etc . In fact they would be entitled to the Islamic Zakah ( charity)!
Look, if you were really true to yourself, and you really, deep down, had these arguements about Islam that don't make sense you, AND YOU WERE SINCERE TO FIND THE TRUTH, you won't be here arguing with someone whom you've never met, and therby don't know his level of Islamic knowledge, rather you would go down to your local mosque and argue with the Imam there.. I mean why don't ppl just do that? Why not? God makes a promise to mankind in the Quran, that they would be guided if they're sincere
I was really adamant on just letting you be, but I have this one last one for you. Maybe in some vain hope it'll light a bulb in your mind. Just follow with me on this. Let's say all existence, including this universe has a God, and let's say it's the one of the Qur'an. By inspection we see that life's systems evolve via a few static mechanisms, but otherwise malleable and iterative. Would it not make sense, given the same God, that it'd be the same for social laws for biological organisms?
Ixxros Sorxxi as 80 to 90% of all immigrants to Europe are economic migrants, not refugees, it has less to do with wars and more to do with benefits of living in better societies. You can judge countries, ideologies, and cultures by their output in things like literature, culture, science, technology, human rights, universities, and on and on. Now you tell me, how do all those things rate in the middle east? Not just now, but historically? Google an image of Saudi Arabia hundred years ago, what do you think you see? People living in mud huts and tents in the desert. How much do you realistically think an entire country is going to progress from tribalism in 100 years to a modern society? A couple years ago religious leaders in KSA elevated women to the level of mammals as far as importance, as of yesterday they could drive. Wow, what progress!
that migrants are suffering after post colonialism of economic colonialism from the west which took different way of colonialism which is you force them to take products then you add interest on that then they will never pay you then you start to take resources of oil, diamond, gold,............
Hamdi khelifa what products is the west forcing countries to take? What interest rates are you talking about? How much aid is Western society sending to those countries, and how much of it actually is use for economic development, education and reform? And with that said economic aid, how much do you think leaders are skimming off the top? Are you referring to Arab countries that Western technology, industrialization have made rich because of oil and natural gas resources? Also, OPEC had petroleum at over $100 a barrel, now it's somewhere around 30 due to a free market and not as much reliance on the Middle East for it. Look up KSA a hundred years ago, Sand and mud huts. They took all kinds of western innovation and technology and built something, but it still doesn't resemble a modern society. The whole world hates it.
I am very sorry its my mistake I wanted to say loans you force us to take loans then they add interest on that then we will be poor for a very long time and so you take the resources of middle east and Africa through war and corruption to sustain western dominance but that will change in time because every thing that begins have an end>
i hope a god will sit in the palace and keep the next muhammed from being demon possesed. nothing worse than a demon possed king passing judgement on us little people
Euro Dumb-head? I think you'll find Europeans more educated about the world then you americans. Most Europeans speak more than one language - how many americans speak more than MTV english? (latino immigrants excepted). Many AmericanChristians believe the Bible is the word of God! Americans were the very last to abolish slavery (even morocco got there before you) - go check your history. Honor killing is just called a 'crime of passion' in the West. Moses and Jesus were from the 'desert' too.
1) If you want to discuss the plausibility of the God muslims believe in, you discuss OUR definition of God, all others means zilch, nothing, nada. Also, single entity sustaining multiple is simpler than multiple entities sustaining themselves, which is a larger presumption. 2) None of us assume cognition as per human experience, we're not talking beardy man in the sky here. However, even your perspective is brought in to being by it, so all you see, all you feel, all you remember, it "knows".
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
" liberalism is the ideal and pragmatism overrides it at the end of the day"
That's a nice way of saying 'Liberalism contradicts human reality'.
"Tolerate" is misnomer here. A law is enforced, or allowed, not "tolerated". OPINIONS can be tolerated or not. Not LAWS.
+paolomath I'm not sure if that's true. The fact is there are many uk laws that many citizens do not agree with but simply tolerate.
For example many people are pro-weed these days as it's becoming legalized in more and more countries. But it's still illegal in the uk and all pro-weed peeople tolerate that law, even though they do not agree with it.
And there are certain people that still want capital punishment for murder in the uk, but they tolerate life sentence for murder as a law.
ShaktiX
You're probably right. The term "tolerate" does not matter here. An immediate difference is evident though, between your examples and the Sharia-in-the-UK idea. The examples refer to laws that, as normal in the civil society, apply to all ("Equality before the law"), while the proposed Sharia would be a complete novelty in this sense, regardless of its content. And, regardless of its content, for this reason I am pretty convinced it is a disastrous idea.
One justice system for all? It's for precisely that reason that I declared Liberalism to be a totalitarian system of uniformity. People are not uniform, any system that does not account for that is oppressive by definition. Justice should be based upon reciprocation and desert, not some 'one size fits all' imposing system. This was dealt with in the debate,
No
This is kind of bullshit debate is, questioning the question of the question and saying what is right from wrong from right?!?!? no progression at all.
I never said Liberalism is being imperfectly adhered to. I said it contradicts Human reality, like how Communism contradicts human reality. Any ideal which needs to be overriden by pragmatism, meanss the ideal is unfit for purpose. If a system cannot address the reality of the human being, it is a flawed system. This is different to a system which is not perfectly adhered to by its followers/supports.
You are not arguing for Liberalism, but rather for a independent judiciary, which almost all systems have. Islam believes in an independent judiciary, but unlike Liberalism, we do not believe that we should force a Christian hotel owner to allow people to use his property to do things which goes against his conscience. This denies him his choice, the right to practice his beliefs (which do not physically harm anyone), and the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit.
many people do not realize that many verses(ayaats-signs) in the quran end with for those who understand . salam aleikom . Be patient and keep up the good works .
So if the family can forgive a murderer and they will be set free, that sounds like a family can take out a contract to murder a family member and get away with conspiracy to commit murder.
That's stupid. Just because you can't achieve perfection doesn't mean you shouldn't work toward it. The closer you get, the better it is for everyone.
The point is that liberalism imposes itself upon minorities of a liberal state, Islam allows minorities far more freedom in determining how they are governed.
All debated professionally. Abdullah had given many insights on Sharia. The Jewish speaker made a valid question, that revealed his objectivity and fairness: Why is it only the Jewish court is permitted to be practiced among the Jewish minority in the US while other religious minority groups courts ain't, i.e. Sharia?!
Abdullah had exposed many inherit deficiencies about modern Liberalism.
This debate had added a lot to me. Thanks to the speakers and the host.
Dude, he said that several statements in the Qur'an are ambiguous and are left for humans to reflect upon and interpret for themselves. This is why the Shari'ah is flexible, because the Ulimah are provided a scope of interpretation to deal with.
Investigation should be conducted in the case of murder. If one who commits murder through all evidence has caused death then he is sentenced either by capital punishment, electric shock, death injection or either with full life sentence. As for forgiveness, it should come from the family of the victim and the "soul" of the victim himself. So, how does this do justice to the victim? He does not wants to die, and he is murdered. To know how this going on, one should be in the victims' place.
Anyway, being simpler:
As selective forces can define races and eventually species, shari'a can have "races". Shari'a has a few fundamental static rules on adultery, murder, etc, which lets you say: "This is shari'a". However given certain periods of time and locations it will differ to better suit those people, the selective force, without violating the fundamentals, in economic laws, punishments, health laws, etc.
It can even adjust to individual cases.
Same origin, consistent methods.
Sharia is only practiced in matrimonial, Muslim child adoption, Muslim property and practiced with different interpretations at states level in the federation. Non-Muslims are treated with Common and Civil Law.
Mash'Allah. It's great to hear you were born in a muslim household. And also good to know that you'd be interested in watching videos like this. The best part of debates is hearing the points the "other side" has to make. They could always bring up something you've never looked at a certain way or thought about, which gives you a chance to revise and possibly update the way we see the world.
Jizya is best considered as a Relation Definition Tool with non-Muslims living under the Islamic State, rather than a tool of suppression against them. It's the "Tax" in modern time.
Jizya/Tax on non-Muslims is, in fact, one-tenth of what a Muslim citizen is obliged to pay! In addition to the many non-Muslim categories who don't have to pay, (women, children, elders, priests, etc.)
A few points:
1) You stated what you thought was fact, I evaluated what you said and corrected it independent of your title.
2) The indication of title is a display on the likelihood that my correction is trustworthy. If you still don't think it is, it can be confirmed by hundreds of other sources.
3) I need to prove to you the consensus? What you do is write a paper for peer review on how shari'a is set in stone, you don't even need to submit it, once you've done that, we'll discuss it.
Why, if the sharia law is superior, don't the majority muslim countries implement it and adopting democracy instead? It is a genuine question.
They wouldn't be allowed by the elites.Here is the answer you looking for:www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/3rd-march-1924/
And, is there a specific reason why the moderator on cocaine?
Thanks brother... This is so much useful for my assignments. I'm mention all of the presenters and credits to them. It's a good discussion and sharings.
Islamic Laws only apply to Muslims.
And guess what, none of us supporting Br. Abdullah are shocked or appalled by apostasy being punishable by death or being against insulting the Prophet (saws)...so please, try harder with your emotional appeals.
this is best debate I saw ever .. God bless you
this isn't a debate
So, each religious group will have their own law and the national government would have to enter into negotiations with each group. Wouldn't that be too taxing on the national government? Who will define what a religion is? I don't see this as being logical on a large scale because this would impact more than just Muslims. Plus, each sect of Islam, and all other religions too, do not interpret the religious laws the same...Wow... this will be impossible to implement
Impracticality does not disprove an ideal as "unfit for purpose," whatever that means. Anyway, I wasn't advocating anything, I was just responding to your summing up of the person's statement. They said that there was an ideal state to work towards, but that you must be realistic in the end. Nothing is wrong with that. I didn't say anything about liberalism being imperfectly adhered to.
i dont think you have read the quran properly or you've read it out of context and also have you read bible or the old testament. if you need help with violent quotes from bible or old testament let me know i will give you them.
>"yes but the Quran says they feel themselves "subdued"."
Subdued to the laws of the -Islamic- State.
In our country where the top leaders are Muslims and the kings as the Head of the State are the leader of Islam, legal procedures for criminal law is based from Common Law as practiced in British India. Contract law is based from British India precedence. Property Law based from Torrens System.
As-salamu alaykum brother Abdullah. i've really enjoyed watching your videos on sharia and i have some questions regarding the sharia. is there any way i can contact you via email or something? i would ask questions here but i'm afraid of getting spammed by hate mail.
Ok, this is the last time I'm going to reply. By stating that a FEW *hint hint* laws never change, does not, in any way, give the picture that shari'a is a monolithic static system.
I do leave with a little food for thought though:
- If there were 0 fixed laws, would that be a system at all?
Despite the fact this isn't directed to me. I have to state that in your very limited knowledge of shari'a law, you assume that shari'a is set in stone. It's never been set in stone and in fact it's the most organic and flexible system that's ever existed permitting situational evaluation and not just point blank "you did this, therefore you suffer this" without any regard for what led to the action. First learn and then talk, it would make conversations so much more fruitful.
No actually it also affects non-Muslims such as Christians and Jews with regards to jizya.
The kind of human rights as simply in jailing the criminals of murder case for a life only for those who is alive but not for those who were dead and victimized? So, it is just looking at the perspective of what is material and human or beings have no "soul"? Speaking in general gnosticism term without being confined by any particular religious law. For sure there are different degree of murder with intention or without intention. The most important thing as to say, is the investigation.
The more tolerant attitude the muslims had to those of other faiths, which put the crusaders to shame, is sadly no longer representative of sharia as a whole. Such views seem to survive mainly outside countries where sharia law is in control. In the majority of countries where sharia law is in control this speakers views would probably be seen a western liberalism not sharia.
Actually I didn't commit any fallacy. I was pointing out yours by displaying to you that if I need a title for my arguments to be valid, you place yourself in a worse position. In philosophy arguments are evaluated on their own independently of who makes it or the title the person has. If you had taken a second to ponder over what I said, you would have gotten the message.
Also, given the first impression, it's very likely that no matter the arguments, you wouldn't change your mind.
He's right though. The liberal view would leave everyone safer and happier, but as the many systems currently stand, base desires override judgement. We do bad thing because we cant get what we need. When we get more of what we need, we do things better.
Eventually, it may be possible to overcome most of this bad behavior simply by addressing needs better in better ways. Liberalism is not so much an impossible ideal as it is an outcome that is trending.
Which deception are you talking about ? Please elaborate
Also, america doesn't punish people with capital punishment for leaving Christianity. Also. Just because I hate islamic laws that doesn't mean that I love other laws.
MashaAllah.. Really enjoyed the debate. Nicely addressed and explained, Abdullah
I'm curious. Why still to this day the amount of logical folk who not need religion to sustain their contentment and live a life without harming another life form, does not out number the amount of people who bicker and fight and cause anxiety which governments thrive off of over this nonsense. I guess we don't relate enough to our actual culture enough to let go of it completely once we lose the easiest, most printed, and least useful tools from our (all our) history.
Bees and ants also don't have higher consciousness with which to ponder over the universe or override instinctual behaviour with reason based behaviour. This capacity of overriding instinct based action is the fundamental difference between humans and other animals on this planet. Hence, the message arrives externally in reply to mankind's fundamental question "Why am I even here?". And you don't "just believe". You ponder over if it's reasonable. Faith in Islam is not blind belief.
This is typically why I don't enjoy talking to people who lack the intellectual foundations to even have a discussion of this depth and calibre.
First off, theory in academia is NOT the definition of theory you're using.
Secondly, the words used have precise meanings related to precise concepts, they aren't vague, however seeing the "big picture" is not trivial.
"A system like Islam" - You talk almost as if you know what that is. Which from prior comments seems to be very far from the case.
FFS I can't stop laughing at the guy at the end who keeps on making those faces!
40:40 Wow, Abdallah, you called it. This is exactly whats happening today... holy **** this should be cropped out.
they commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?" (7:28 . . Definetely not blind faith and for those who still dont want to think and then believe there is also a challenge in the quran which will never be defeated . salam aleikom brother in islam .
MashaAllah.. truely inspired by you pal.. you seem like a very open-minded, educated young man. Keep up the good work.. and welcome to Islam.. btw, where you from?
Shariya law!! Whenever I hear that it makes me laugh. May Allah Azzawajal bless and protect all those at MDI and may Allah help you to continue your good work, ameen.
no,no and more no, we cannot and will not tolerate sharia.
On the subject of physical laws, it depends of the islamic philosophy you adhere to. For example, in Ashari school of thought, causality is merely an illusion caused by God's consistency, while in Mu'tazilite school of though you'd find clockwork causality. So God devising only static mechanisms is a moot point.
As to "devising", temporal actions only make sense in space-time frameworks, so using it on God is like describing the texture of the number 1, supposing you're not a synesthete.
Redundant and contradictory, yet you don't present one example where it is the case, then you follow up with "you can't argue against either the morals or the logic". I'm sorry, but countering what I say with "it is because it is... period" doesn't count for much to me and doesn't warrant a reply.
Also, you want to argue morals with me when you don't even have an epistemological foundation with which to discuss it with me.
Again... don't waste my time any further, I've given you a lot already.
Not consistent? Have you not seen the social structures of the ants and the bees? The Qur'an itself alludes to these as examples. They have defined laws, but depending on the species as they evolve, these vary slightly, some are nomadic, some are sedentary, some build hills, some don't, however you don't see them stray from the basic hierarchal structure. The social laws aren't either totally fixed or totally unpinned either. Shari'a functions like this. Plus, you're discrediting western law.
The Muslim that pays the Zakah ends up paying much more ! So subdued does not imply some sought of weakness, oppression or slavery that u wish it does my 'friend'
With the investigation then it depends on how the State interpret the clauses and sentence the criminals. The interpretation of Sharia law could be "interpretive" and also "literal". The literalists or puritanists as those portrayed in Saudi Arabia reflects the world view of the kingdom and the regime. Sharia law can also reflect the world view of other nations within the framework of Islam as they might incorporate it with their customs (non-Islamic).
While the crime rate is low, it is not without the Things you mention and saying that, is just wrong, the result of a population of people living in fear of 'law enforcement,' lacking basic freedoms, lots of innocent people punished or executed for crimes they didn't commit, you have no way to know for certain that crimes are, or are not commited, becouse of the lack of freedom.
Really? This old cliché? The Islamic God may be the most-kind and most-merciful, but not the ALL-kind, ALL-merciful. Plus, what makes you think heaven and hell were created FOR YOU.
Has it never crossed your mind that conscious beings may have been created for heaven and hell? That you're made with the purpose of one or the other, but here just finding out which one it is and how you got there?
The universe doesn't indicate pure love and roses.
Wait what? You're tell me, a muslim, what Islam does or doesn't?
Now that I'm done laughing, let's proceed. Shari'a has a few laws that are permanently the same, such as the few that appear in the Qur'an. Everything else is flexible, because it's not a direct instruction from God, but an attempt of men to provide the best they can for a certain place and age.
Secondly, you want me to display to you how it's more "organic and flexible" in a few characters on youtube? Sorry, but I'm no magician.
You've said ""rather than a tool of suppression" - yes but the Quran says they feel themselves "subdued".
why those guys in the right corner behaving so unprofessionally
Here's a few key differences you should have noticed, but didn't:
1) In your case the paper existent independent of you, unlike the case of God where existence depends on him, including himself, because by definition God, aside from creating, maintains/sustains existent things.
2) If he's responsible for everything including your feelings and what you see, what do you think his capacity of relation is?
p.s: I use him due to the flaws in the english language. I'm not implying sex here.
Actually no. If you're in to mathematics like I am, I advise you a book like flatland, it's an easy read and exposes it's ideas clearly. One can be outside of the entire universe yet be infinitesimally close to you. Any dimension, be it as weird as it may with whatever properties, if it's perpendicular to our space-time, it can, in fact, contact with any point inside of you, outside of you, before you or after you, anywhere and any when.
And no, it's not "the fact of the matter" at all.
What if the families can not agree on the punishment?
Well if you look on some videos on TH-cam you'll find out that many people are not really making decisions by themselves but together or pushed by the whole clan, stoning is something they use quite often or at the taking feet or hands something we shouldn't have in our society I think
Remember it is not a religion of peace for non-Muslims and not for those who dare to do something wrong adultery is punished with stoning
You clearly need to google the BRUTALITY of this bullshit. What if? Stoning, burry alive, choke, oh decisions decisions. It's BARBARIC and needs to stop n the UK and the west.
I don't think the concept is simple. I know it is, there's a difference there. It's mathematically demonstrable. Whether or not you want to accept logical fact is your business and I won't judge you for it. However it's only naivety on your part to assume it's even debatable. Let me see if I can make this clearer to you. Draw a 2D man on the surface of a paper, that surface is his universe, and Lo and Behold you in 3D can see all his universe. You even see his insides. Now generalise the idea.
Do you know what an oxymoron is? And if you do, please tell me clearly what properties are juxtaposing each other.
I told you exactly why it isn't possible, but your usage of the word "awhile" shows you were unable to comprehend the concepts involved.
Lastly, you use the word conscious influence as if talking about an RTS game, which also seems to indicate you're having difficulty abstracting yourself from human experience and perspective.
You do know infinitesimal is a mathematical notion don't you? It has in absolutely no way, ever been used in academic work the way you've just tried to use it.
And as to the second part. I facepalmed. Literally... You seriously believe in what you just said? Or are you just trolling now? You're telling me that the originator of every experience you've ever had and every detail of your being would be incapable of judging you? And with a serious face too? Oh well... to each his own I suppose.
Salaam, Abdullah al Andalusi, ur view of Boko Haram is wrong in some part i.e. this anti-west position is not the whole truth. It is injustice my the Northern elites against their own people. They have used religion to create a space of misunderstanding at a level far greater than how the west is currently misrepresenting Islam. The fact that the Nigeria government want to make sure that the "Boko Haram" sect does not get a fair hearing on the public space. In time we will know the real truth.
Sexual intercourse with a person of the same gender in your house not being punishable by Sharia? Why is he lying?
They are 'allowed' to lie, it's perfectly acceptable when lies are meant to 'further' their religion and please allah...
+LilCabinInTheBigWoods ?
+Adriaan Nunes
So what's the question? Look it up. It is perfectly acceptable for those of the Islamic faith to lie 'only' if it furthers the agenda of their faith. Seriously. Do some research. You will see I am speaking the truth on this.
No its not and islam sees the act of homosexuality as a sin but in sharia you can be gay al you want but you just cant have sex in public we have historical proof for this and un the sharia it self it says that sharia is only for those that want it but sure i'm just brainwashed
damm i never ever spoke to somebody this f*ckd up you should seek help not to hurt youre feeling or so but i really think you should seek help
Yes, I did address you to correct you on a basic mistake about Islam and shari'a. I don't need to waste my time proving this to you because it's fundamental knowledge any student of Islam should have. You're on the internet for goodness sakes. You can't tell me that this knowledge is out of your reach.
Lastly, if you say "The Sun goes around the Earth" and I correct you, I won't waste my time teaching you stuff you can easily look up. My time is too valuable to waste on such trivial matters.
For one to be perfect, one has to fulfil certain characteristics that define an entity as complete. I would love to know what characteristics you've come up to define what a "perfect" God is, and how you've done so objectively.
Also, living in the universe, I suppose you've observed the sun which generates new photons 24/7. Did the sun tell you it needed or desired to do so? Creation does not entail desire/need, it can be a mere implication.
Btw, perfect and complete is a pleonasm.
Can someone please smack the mediator in the face?
Ok, let be clearer. My issue was not with perfection, but how you're attempting to say perfection is somehow at odds with creation.
Let me put it in the form of a question: What is a perfect writer?
And also, once again, it still comes down to your inability to escape reasoning in space and time. There is not time when God was less complete and another time where is more complete. Time does not encompass God, is this too hard for you?
1) Well, once again, God is not there being around in time, Time is a creation. So you're asking for one like him, which is tantamount to asking for a created uncreated. It's an oxymoron. This "other" is not going to be, self sufficient from here on out. Every moment is as much of a creation as any spacial point or object at that point.
2)You lost me at "empathetic level". I can't know the experience of any other human being, yet you're asking me about empathy in God?
Keep it objective please.
Another translation is "belittled"...
No, you can't. It is only through the usage of mirror neurons which provide you an illusion of feeling what the other person feel, you never feel what they feel. It depends on how your brain associates certain cues with emotions you've experienced in the past. The laws of physics (i.e "will of God") permitted you to have a glimpse of the feelings of others. If God needed an illusion to relate to me, I wouldn't take such a God seriously.
If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of GOD. They follow only conjecture; they only guess. (6:116)
When they are told, "Follow what GOD has revealed herein," they say, "We follow only what we found our parents doing." What if their parents did not understand, and were not guided? (2:170)
Shariya law!! Whenever I hear that it makes me laugh. May Allah Azzawajal bless and protect all at MDI and may Allah aid you in continuing your good work, ameen
1) If you want to discuss the plausibility of the God muslims believe in, you discuss OUR definition of God, all others means zilch, nothing, nada. Also, single entity sustaining multiple is simpler than multiple entities sustaining themselves, which is a larger presumption.
2) None of us assume cognition as per human experience, we're not talking beardy man in the sky here. However, even your perspective is brought in to being by it, so all you see, all you feel, all you remember, it "knows".
Before continuing, let me just ask, because I'm genuinely interested, why does God relating to you even matter at all? I can't get this fascination of yours for this. I, personally, don't really care as to whether I'm related to or not, but I'm interested in to knowing why you care? Needing some sort of daddy figure to be psychologically well off? Can't see it.
No belittling done here. Look at the empires of the time n how HEAVILY they taxed their own subjects including the Roman Christians to fellow Christians. Overall n certainly when compared to others the Muslims as shown in documented history were far more fairer n just. The Jizya did not apply to women, children, elderly , poor etc etc . In fact they would be entitled to the Islamic Zakah ( charity)!
Jazak'Allah Khair. I'm from Portugal. You?
We weren't born as individuals? Mmmm, i'll have to look into this. Mmmm
As always with those who r consumed with jealousy n hatred the truth hurts.....
Look, if you were really true to yourself, and you really, deep down, had these arguements about Islam that don't make sense you, AND YOU WERE SINCERE TO FIND THE TRUTH, you won't be here arguing with someone whom you've never met, and therby don't know his level of Islamic knowledge, rather you would go down to your local mosque and argue with the Imam there.. I mean why don't ppl just do that? Why not? God makes a promise to mankind in the Quran, that they would be guided if they're sincere
the first 2min of this video! this guy is great!!
whats peaceful about is Islam ? everything, I don't think you have read the Quran
haha so true
*UH OH* he didn't say "people be upon him" @ 1:07:10 when he said _Muhammadan!!_ *tsk tsk tsk*
I was really adamant on just letting you be, but I have this one last one for you. Maybe in some vain hope it'll light a bulb in your mind. Just follow with me on this. Let's say all existence, including this universe has a God, and let's say it's the one of the Qur'an. By inspection we see that life's systems evolve via a few static mechanisms, but otherwise malleable and iterative. Would it not make sense, given the same God, that it'd be the same for social laws for biological organisms?
You want Sharia law. You can have it, in your own country, with your religion, and with your people.
Right! And look what Sharia does in the ME. They all run away to Europe!
Ixxros Sorxxi as 80 to 90% of all immigrants to Europe are economic migrants, not refugees, it has less to do with wars and more to do with benefits of living in better societies.
You can judge countries, ideologies, and cultures by their output in things like literature, culture, science, technology, human rights, universities, and on and on. Now you tell me, how do all those things rate in the middle east? Not just now, but historically? Google an image of Saudi Arabia hundred years ago, what do you think you see? People living in mud huts and tents in the desert. How much do you realistically think an entire country is going to progress from tribalism in 100 years to a modern society? A couple years ago religious leaders in KSA elevated women to the level of mammals as far as importance, as of yesterday they could drive. Wow, what progress!
that migrants are suffering after post colonialism of economic colonialism from the west which took different way of colonialism which is you force them to take products then you add interest on that then they will never pay you then you start to take resources of oil, diamond, gold,............
Hamdi khelifa what products is the west forcing countries to take? What interest rates are you talking about? How much aid is Western society sending to those countries, and how much of it actually is use for economic development, education and reform? And with that said economic aid, how much do you think leaders are skimming off the top? Are you referring to Arab countries that Western technology, industrialization have made rich because of oil and natural gas resources? Also, OPEC had petroleum at over $100 a barrel, now it's somewhere around 30 due to a free market and not as much reliance on the Middle East for it. Look up KSA a hundred years ago, Sand and mud huts. They took all kinds of western innovation and technology and built something, but it still doesn't resemble a modern society. The whole world hates it.
I am very sorry its my mistake I wanted to say loans you force us to take loans then they add interest on that then we will be poor for a very long time and so you take the resources of middle east and Africa through war and corruption to sustain western dominance but that will change in time because every thing that begins have an end>
i hope a god will sit in the palace and keep the next muhammed from being demon possesed. nothing worse than a demon possed king passing judgement on us little people
They should bring a political scientist to these debates in the future.
Abdullah Andalusia rules!
so where does one sign up to be one of his wives?
;)
Polygamy is bad? Are you a christian?
EDIT:
Wait didnt realize your comment was a compliment
muslims and jewish look alike :D
Sheikh Longwinded
Euro Dumb-head? I think you'll find Europeans more educated about the world then you americans. Most Europeans speak more than one language - how many americans speak more than MTV english? (latino immigrants excepted).
Many AmericanChristians believe the Bible is the word of God!
Americans were the very last to abolish slavery (even morocco got there before you) - go check your history. Honor killing is just called a 'crime of passion' in the West.
Moses and Jesus were from the 'desert' too.
Shariah punishments are not welcome here you muslims better stop advocating for shariah because you will start a war you cant win.
Of course!! you would live an amazing life if you used your brain
hahahaha
Why sahria law in the west this not arab world
1) If you want to discuss the plausibility of the God muslims believe in, you discuss OUR definition of God, all others means zilch, nothing, nada. Also, single entity sustaining multiple is simpler than multiple entities sustaining themselves, which is a larger presumption.
2) None of us assume cognition as per human experience, we're not talking beardy man in the sky here. However, even your perspective is brought in to being by it, so all you see, all you feel, all you remember, it "knows".