al-munafiq al-kabeer

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Mar 9, 2009 at 18:28

Our dear Atiq wrote

>Whilst we live in a democratic country where freedom of speech should not only be tolerated but encouraged, the discussion surrounding my comments regarding Sharia Law have quickly taken a very sinister turn and have been used by many as an opportunity to air racists

Oh let me see: so if we (the we here are us infidels) say that chopping arms and stoning women is barbaric then we would be called racists? If so then be it

Oh and let me help you: democracy pre-supposes al-3ulmaniyya (oh the Arabic? it means secularsim) and there is no place for al-3ulmaniyya in islam therefore there is no democracy in islam so you cannot have both or islam/the brabaric shari3a or secularsim/democracy so which combination do you want? Let me guess: you are clueless

>and Islamophobic views against Islam and Muslims.

Oh yeah I knew this one was coming. OK let us have a deal: delete the hate and the antisemitism from the Qur'an, as in calling Jews pigs and monkeys, and delete the hate in the hadith as in calling the jews rats and delete Christianophobia and Hinduphobia and anti- buddhism in the Qur'an and stop calling us kuffar and we will stop going after islam. Deal?

>In light of the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments that Sharia law was 'unavoidable' in the UK and in light of the reactionary racist backlash that followed, I posted a comment arguing that I did not see a problem with the rulings of Sharia law, believed by Muslims to be the law of God laid down in His scripture.

In his "scripture" really? do you mean the Qur'an? then where would i find ayat al-rajm in your Allah's little scripture? Oh let me help you: you will not find it but the funny islamic tradition tells us that the palm leaf upon which this barbaric aya, thank the gods, was written was eaten by a goat! So did a hungry goat eat your Allah's barabaric ayat al-rajm? Oh the arabic? may be you can ask your Mullah to tell you what it means

> I argued that Muslims in the UK should be allowed, if they so please, to apply Sharia Law to their personal lives as long as both parties agree to it.

Oh the argument from dhimmitude. Oh spare us this one It might work in England but it does not work here

>Not only did my comments not break any laws, my suggestion that Sharia Law could be applied to the UK would in no way set a precedent. As I made clear in the posts following my original comment, English law states very clearly that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute. Members of other faiths in the UK have the legal freedom to practise their own religious legal code where matters of their private affairs are concerned. Many British Jews for example turn to their own religious courts known as the 'Beth din' to resolve a vast number of civil disputes, from marriage and divorce to business matters. As this is the case, Muslims, I argued, should be allowed to set up something akin to the 'beth din'.

Really? but wait; I never heard of a jew who would demand that the Jewish religious law should be the law of the land. Muslims? that is a different story

>Members of the blogs where I posted my original comments, rather than questioning me on my views, took my comments out of context

What context? You want the barbaric shari3a! Right? so what is the context ?

>and used them as an opportunity to use Islamophobic stereotypes to condemn Islam and Muslim.

Oh let me see: so if we infidels tell you that Muhammad was an Arabian warlord and caravan raider and a child molester so you will regard us as an islamophobes? My sources: How about Ibn Hisham's redaction of Ibn Ishaq's sirat rasul allah and al-waqidi's al-Maghazi! Great islamic sources. Right? So if you regard us as islamophobes then we are in good company with the likes of Ibn Hisham and Ibn ishaq and Waqidi

> I will be pursuing action against the 'Wembley Observer' and the 'Willesden & Brent Times' for misconstruing my comments.

Oh the "I will sue them argument" Here in the US you will have no chance

>In no way did my comments 'advocate' the stoning of adulterous women as was reported by the 'Willesden & Brent Times' and in no way did I place emphasise on women when writing about some of the Sharia punishments. The claim by the 'Wembley Observer that I was expelled from the Brent Conservative Group in May last year for voting against Tory Policy is also untrue as I chose to leave the Group and form the Democratic Conservative Group.

I do not live in England thank the gods but I do not believe you. You were kicked out were you?

Snip drivel

>If democracy is to mean anything at all, views like mine,

No you have no clue about what is really democracy

>however unpopular they may be, should be in the least tolerated. If Muslims, regardless of their location, opt via democratic methods to be ruled by a Law which they believe is just, then surely it would be a betrayal of democracy to vilify Muslims for their choice. Unfortunately it seems apparent that a constructive discussion regarding Sharia Law cannot be had as Sharia Law has been misrepresented and misunderstood.

Whatever

Oh al-munafiq al-kabeer? you have to look this one up

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".