When the concept of multiculturalism was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”;
The Islamic supremacist Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) Canadian event is publicized on the Hizb ut-Tahrir web site as being sponsored by “Hizb ut-Tahrir Canada” as part of HT’s “2009 Khilafah Campaign,” which included the July 19, 2009 HT event in the Chicago Oak Lawn, IL suburb. HT has advertised this event to be held at the Canadian govt-managed facility in Mississauga for: “Friday, July 31st, 6.30PM to 8.30PM, Frank Bean Lounge — Mississauga Valley Community Center, 1275 Mississauga Valley Blvd, L5A 3R8.” The HT Canada event has also been promoted by a Toronto, Canada website called “TorontoMuslims.com”. (R.E.A.L. contacted this Toronto Muslim website to ask why they were promoting such a supremacist organization’s event, and received no reply.)
The Hizb ut-Tahrir web site promoting the July 31 event in Canada also promotes a pamphlet (page 62) [pdf] that supports killing those individuals who leave Islam as guilty of “treason and a political attack on the Khilafah.”
They’ve de-linked it now, though the title still appears on the website. The “conclusion” starts at page 60, if you’d like to skip ahead to the juicy stuff.
Entering into Islam is essentially entering a contract. There can be no compulsion in it. People enter into Islam based on free will. As there is no force the intellectual conviction must be overwhelming especially since someone entering into Islam willingly knows full well there can be no return to non-Islam due to the death penalty – This cements the need for intellectual conviction. It also prevents those who would seek to publicly become Muslim then publicly apostate in order to bring doubt in the ideology. No ideological state would allow its basis to be openly questioned in society as this would lead to the weakening and possible removal and replacement of the ideology by another.
Apostasy is a question of what kind of person would openly and publicly abandon Islam with full knowledge that they will be killed for it, rather than either keeping it to themselves or leave the Khilafah. Hence, the death penalty only applies on those who in the Khilafah openly leave Islam, and choose to remain in the state despite knowing the law; this is considered an open attack on the basis of the state which is Islam, essentially it is viewed as treason and a political attack on the Khilafah in order to undermine it. No ideology would tolerate this.
just wanted to point out that just because an event is posted on the TorontoMuslims.com general event page, it doesn’t mean that TorontoMuslims.com supports it or promotes it in anyway…
The event page is a resource for the community to use to promote their events. People post their events and we usually clean up the list weekly.
Since our team is currently busy with MuslimFest 2009 (www.MuslimFest.com), we didn’t get a chance to investigate the event in question.
I laugh at their blindness, Islam is full of complusion, if you are born Muslim, you have no choice, if you convert like I did for love you are doomed to submit to them in their eyes. Islam as currently taught is all about submission and complusion.
DC I thought that was exactly what I said. ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS should be questioned by those who hold them and those who don’t hold them. I’m a former secular humanist. I discovered that it was about as intellectually honest as a CBC reporter covering a Conservative convention.
I discovered in Christianity the intellectual rigor to answer the questions of the mind and the questions of the spirit.
Although I never tried to follow Islam I did research it and I found it’s theological underpinnings were prekindergarten leaving its followers with a god that one could confuse with a common chunk of granite. I mean really who needs a god that is pure unknowable Will? You can’t know it. You can never be sure you please it. You can never know if you’re on its good side or its bad side. It doesn’t interact with its creation. Someone wrote a bunch of rules for others to follow with the promise that if you follow all these rules Maybe the Islamic god will be merciful enough to accept you into heaven.
Now compare that with Yahweh whom Christians worship. Yahweh which BTW means I AM is comprised of three parts. Part One we call the Father is also the Will. Part Two we call the Son is the Thoughts of God. Part Three we call the Holy Spirit is the Manifestation of God.
The Will determined that He would create many beings like Himself. The Thought determined how to do this huge undertaking and in The Manifestation appeared all that we see and know as the physical universe. Every particle and wave is in its place in the Manifestation by the design of the Thought at the behest of the Will.
Likewise you and I are in our place. Now you and I are funny creatures. We think that we must somehow please our god. We set up temples, mosques, churches, synagogues then we decorate them and in them we perform sacrifices or lecture each other about following this code or that code so we will be acceptable to God.
About 2000 years ago the Thought took on the form of a man and offered Himself as a sacrifice. That sacrifice was meant to show us that we don’t earn our way to heaven. We simply accept the Gift. That Gift is a new nature that takes away our urge to kill, lie, cheat, steal etc. That Gift gives us assurance that nothing shall ever come between us and Divinity. We are assured that we are always loved and that any time we turn to Him He will answer.
There are many other points but I don’t want to take up Kate’s band width with information that your Islamic mind is not yet capable of grasping.
DC, you’re defending a group (Hizb ut-Tahrir) who says its neccessary to -kill- people who don’t want to be in their club anymore.
This makes you an -accessory- my friend. Is that what you had in mind, or were you just flinging some poo at the stupid Christians?
Nice safe target, those Christians, eh?
BTW, if -your- multi-culti creed gets systematically and logically disproven here, will -you- abandon it? Or just cling harder and more bitterly? In my experience liberals usually go with option 2, the bitter clinging.
DC @10:44 – “Where a muslim woman gets murdered in court, stabbed 17 or 18 times by the person being tried for abusing the woman’s ideology, and this happened in front of the “Western” lawmen… who, instead of stopping the killers, stopped and injured the injured woman’s husband (who was trying to save his wife)…”
I believe this “incident” has come up before on this blog. I’d appreciate it if you’d provide a link. I really would.
Phantom: If I show up, I’ll bring my sword, my attitude, and maybe even my leather jacket. Indy Homez knows what I’m talkin’ about, oh yes he does.
stupid.
DC, do you expect any civilized, rational, thinking human being to take seriously any religion which calls for the death of apostates and blasphemers? I know militant islamists believe Islam to be the perfect religion, but any thinking person can see through the BS. Please, do try to give us a logical reason why killing someone who ceases to believe in some invisible guy in the sky is logical and righteous. I’m afraid that history has passed Islam by and left it choking on the dust. And no, Islam has not produced anything useful to the advancement of humanity in at least 1,000 years. Ever wonder why nothing useful other than oil ever comes out of Islamic countries? Because Islam discourages independent, curious thought under threat of death. No wonder you yahoos hate Jews. They are the only mid-eastern tribe (yes arabs and jews are the same semitic people) which didn’t fall for Mohammed’s BS cult and kept up with history. Go peddle your crap on islamistsuicidebomber.com
Dc- there is no rational proof of the existence of a metaphysical being (god). You can believe in such an existence but you cannot logically or empirically prove such an existence.
Your quesions are rhetorical; i.e., they are general and therefore, can’t be answered with a specific (which is non-general).
Islam is not and never was a nation but a socio-political and economic ideology sealed as dogma by defining its beliefs and behaviour as religious. Islam was never a superpower. Islam, which rejects reason, science and individual thought, did not make ‘huge contributions’ to science and technology, but only the most minimal and those were based on the Greek thought (Avicenna, Averroes).
And capitalism, which is an economic system, favouring the middle class, has nothing to do with Islamic economics, which rejects a middle class and operates within a two-class system, made up of a hereditary elite and a peasantry. The problem with such a two-class system is it is stagnant; it has no ability to change,adapt, deal with expanding populations.
joe – yes, I agree with your triad of Will, Thought, Manifestation. It’s actually Aristotelian – who also analyzed existence within such a triad. And I agree with you in rejecting the dyadic frame of Will-Manifestation, which does indeed reduce the Manifestations to a dependent and hapless entity.
What you, DC, haven’t explained is how an ideology that rejects reason and individual freedom, ought to be supported? Why?
Furthermore, you haven’t explained why you support an ideology that, trapped within a 7th c socio-economic and political perspective, treats women as ‘half a man’, and rejects the rights of Others, defining any non-believers as non-human and meant to be killed. COuld you explain why you support these views – and they are in the Qu’ran.
Do you support honour killings? Do you know the source of such beliefs?
Here are the email addresses for Mississauga city hall, mayor and councilors in the format ready to copy/paste in an email:
public.info@mississauga.ca; carmen.corbasson@mississauga.ca; pat.mullin@mississauga.ca; maja.prentice@mississauga.ca; frank.dale@mississauga.ca; mayor@mississauga.ca; eve.adams@mississauga.ca; carolyn.parrish@mississauga.ca; nando.iannicca@mississauga.ca; katie.mahoney@mississauga.ca; pat.saito@mississauga.ca; sue.mcfadden@mississauga.ca; george.carlson@mississauga.ca;
Let them know what you feel about them hosting a terrorist recruiter meeting.
“How can 1200 years of a nation being the sole superpower be not known or ignored?”
Try as I might, and after consulting considerable historical sources, I have yet to identify the “nation” that was “the sole superpower” for 1200 years.
Can you please be more precise?
hello
Knight 99 wrote:
“:) You just don’t get the big picture, fool. ”
— if you have the mental capacity to explain the big picture to me in words that dont make you look like a kid who has recently learnt how to curse, then Im ready to listen
No-One wrote:
“The superpower you speak of that apparently lasted 1200 years is no more – fact – no emotion there. Get over it. the Greek, Roman, Persian empires no longer exist either – get over it. You seem to equate longevity with truth – which is a false assumption at best. Honor killings do occur – another fact – by Muslims – yet another fact in Canada, another fact.”
I totally agree that the superpower that I mentioned does not exist anymore. But I dont agree with your statement that I seem to equate longevity with truth. 1200 years of being a superpower is not a proof of being correct. I mentioned the superpower’s longevity in response to statements ignoring that there ever was a superpower or there ever was contribution to humanity. So yes truth is proven by the basis not by longevity.
Honor Killings do occur by Muslims in Muslim-majority areas and maybe in Canada as well, but so do interest-based transactions, corporate farming, privatisation of resources, alcohol drinking, robbery, drugs, democracy, free-mixing, patriotism, nationalism, lying, deceit, etc, in the Muslim majority areas and maybe in Canada as well.
Does the fact that something is being done by Muslims make it acceptable in Islam?
Muslims are being ruled by unIslamic governments, agents of the West, who have encouraged non-Islam and discouraged Islam, who have given us probably the worst possible conditions to live in, and generated a society contradictory to an Islamic one, so what do you expect?
Having a system where man decides, man makes and breaks laws will generate a society where even
the most absurd and inhumane actions are expected from man, like the Austrian guy who was
involved in incest in the West, the increase of single mothers in the West, the increase of illegitimate kids in the West, the worshipping of the devil in the West, viewing woman as an
object, a symbol of sex, to be used, abused and thrown away like a condom in the West, leaving
parents at old houses to rot in the West, and much more, and in our case, when this said system is not a choice but something forced upon us, then it will resulted in a society of slaves who do not know about their right to say NO or their responsibility of correcting their affairs.
In short, honor killings may be as much alien to Islam as incest or school shootouts or gang
rapes are to you but they still happen in your lands, and so do honor killings in ours.
The only difference is that what happens in your lands is a product of the freedom-teaching system of yours which you have chosen for yourself or have accepted willfully, but what happens in our lands is NOT a product of the system we want and are intellectually convinced of, rather a product of the absence of that system and the presence of a West-dictated system and corrupt agent rulers.
Amer wrote:
“Since our team is currently busy with MuslimFest 2009 (www.MuslimFest.com), we didn’t get a chance to investigate the event in question.”
Brother, do you really consider the style of questionning that most of these guys have shown as reason enough to defensively disassociate yourself from the “event in question”?? Has the western society enslaved your thought process to the point where you would consider something to be wrong on the slightest of shitty baseless criticism by the dominant ones?? Wassalaam wa Rahmatullahi Wabarkatuhu!
Colin wrote:
“I laugh at their blindness, Islam is full of complusion, if you are born Muslim, you have no
choice, if you convert like I did for love you are doomed to submit to them in their eyes. Islam as currently taught is all about submission and complusion.”
Islam as currently or previously or ever taught is all about submission, but submission to an
unlimited entity whose existance can be proved by using your 5 senses, brain, and proven previous information regarding realities. It is not about submission to whims and desires or to the limited intellect of man.
To submit to dependent, needy, imperfect, limited things like the human intellect or the human desires is blindness. To submit to an unlimited entity whose proof of existance is comprehendable by the limited human intellect is enlightenment and is liberation from darkness into light.
Joe wrote:
“Now compare that with Yahweh whom Christians worship. Yahweh which BTW means I AM is comprised of three parts. Part One we call the Father is also the Will. Part Two we call the Son is the Thoughts of God. Part Three we call the Holy Spirit is the Manifestation of God.”
Prove to me the existance of such an entity
The Phantom wrote:
“DC, you’re defending a group (Hizb ut-Tahrir) who says its neccessary to -kill- people who don’t want to be in their club anymore.”
Firstly, where does it say this? Secondly, I dont need to defend this group, especially from kids who attack with toys and not real weapons
The Phantom wrote:
“if -your- multi-culti creed gets systematically and logically disproven here, will -you- abandon
it? Or just cling harder and more bitterly?”
If you prove to me the non-existance of an unlimited entity that created man, life, and universe, I will not only abandon this concept, I will also try to convince others to abandon it. And if you believe in the existance of such an entity but do not believe Islam to be its final message, then find me a person who knows arabic and fulfils the challenge of the inimitable Quran i.e. disproves Quran’s miracle of eloquence. As I am convinced that Quran is the word of that unlimited entity as Quran’s eloquence is a miracle (something that breaks the law of human nature and hence has to be from the unlimited entity who created humans with their nature laws).
I’ll be most interested in your response as yours was the most reasonable question put forward in the midst of false accusations, abuse, assumptions and baseless emotional rhetoric by others.
Black Mamba wrote:
“I believe this “incident” has come up before on this blog. I’d appreciate it if you’d provide a
link. I really would.”
Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8136500.stm
and here’s a new incident-MUSLIM MAN KILLED BY A BUNCH OF GUYS AFTER BEING ABUSED FOR BEING A MUSLIM: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/13/race.july7
Tanker wrote:
“DC, do you expect any civilized, rational, thinking human being to take seriously any religion which calls for the death of apostates and blasphemers? I know militant islamists believe Islam to be the perfect religion, but any thinking person can see through the BS. Please, do try to give us a logical reason why killing someone who ceases to believe in some invisible guy in the sky is logical and righteous.”
What is being civilized in your view and what is being logical and righteous?
Tanker wrote:
“Islam has not produced anything useful to the advancement of humanity in at least 1,000 years.
Ever wonder why nothing useful other than oil ever comes out of Islamic countries? Because Islam discourages independent, curious thought under threat of death.”
There is no such thing as Islamic countries, Islam allows only one state for all Muslims and
there has not been an Islamic State since 1924. Oil was discovered near this time and what Islam
delivered during its implementation through a state for 1300 years was other than oil. After
1924, our lands became colonies of your ruling elite, ruled by their slaves and hence our lands
have become warehouses and war booty for the capitalists, instead of the centre of human
advancement that they were in the past.
You accuse us of not having independent thought while you blindly accept what was fed to you for
all those years and this might be the only reason for rejecting the following:
On September 26, 2001, the ex-CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina, in a speech related to
leadership, said at the end:
“I’ll end by telling a story. There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.
It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from
northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.
One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.
And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed
buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.
Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things.
When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive.
When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.
While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about
was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts
of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.
Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth.
Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.
And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population–that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.
This kind of enlightened leadership — leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity
and courage — led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.
In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and
institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness. More than ever, we must focus on the
importance of leadership– bold acts of leadership and decidedly personal acts of leadership.
With that, I’d like to open up the conversation and see what we, collectively, believe about the
role of leadership.”
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/minnesota01.html
Adam Smith, known as the foundern of modern economics, whose picture is printed on the current UK 20 pounds note, said in History of Astronomy, The Essays of Adam Smith (London, 1869), p. 353
“…the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed
that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the
protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquility, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=201&chapter=56007&layout=html&Itemid=27
In the book ‘The Heart of the Qur’an’ by Lex Hixon:
“Neither as Christians or Jews, nor simply as intellectually responsible individuals, have
members of Western Civilisation been sensitively educated or even accurately informed about
Islam… even some persons of goodwill who have gained acquaintance with Islam continue to
interpret the reverence for the prophet Muhammad and the global acceptance of his message as an
inexplicable survival of the zeal of an ancient desert tribe. This view ignores fourteen
centuries of Islamic civilisation, burgeoning with artists, scholars, statesmen, philanthropists, scientists, chivalrous warriors, philosophers… as well as countless men and women of devotion and wisdom from almost every nation of the planet. The coherent world civilisation called Islam, founded in the vision of the Qur’an, cannot be regarded as the product of individual and national ambition, supported by historical accident.”
George Sarton’s tribute to Muslim Scientists in the `Introduction to the History of Science`:
“It will suffice here to evoke a few glorious names without contemporary equivalents in the West: Jabir ibn Haiyan, al-Kindi, al-Khwarizmi, al-Fargani, al-Razi, Thabit ibn Qurra, al-Battani, Hunain ibn Ishaq, al-Farabi, Ibrahim ibn Sinan, al-Masudi, al-Tabari, Abul Wafa, ‘Ali ibn Abbas, Abul Qasim, Ibn al-Jazzar, al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Ibn Yunus, al-Kashi, Ibn al-Haitham, ‘Ali Ibn ‘Isa al-Ghazali, al-zarqab, Omar Khayyam. A magnificent array of names which it would not be difficult to extend. If anyone tells you that the Middle Ages were scientifically sterile, just quote these men to him, all of whom flourished within a short period, 750 to 1100 A.D.”
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1998:
“I hope that the Muslims of this country will help this country, and the best way you possibly
can is by standing up for Islam.”
“Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity.”
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0399/9903086.html
Samuel P. Huntington:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by
its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Samuel_P._Huntington
ET wrote:
“there is no rational proof of the existence of a metaphysical being (god). You can believe in
such an existence but you cannot logically or empirically prove such an existence.”
I would love to rationally prove the existance of an unlimited entity who created man, life and
universe. If youre intellectually serious in saying what you just did then I request you to read this brief book which proves this:
Faith & Progress by Jamal Harwood (easily available if you search online)
If you still insist that I prove it and you wouldnt read the book, then I will do so.
ET wrote:
“And capitalism, which is an economic system, favouring the middle class, has nothing to do with Islamic economics, which rejects a middle class and operates within a two-class system, made up of a hereditary elite and a peasantry.”
Capitalism is the name of an ideology whose creed is secularism from which a complete system for life’s affairs emanates and not just the economic system. The economic system is a part of it and the most prominent part of it, that is why the ideology is named after its most prominent aspect i.e economic system.
Favouring the middle class?? You must have heard of the most common saying regarind this system
`the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer`, meaning the middle class keeps on shrinking.
Either they become rich, which is rare, or they become poor, which happens in majority of the
cases. In Capitalism, wealth is sucked in from the masses to the bank accounts of a few, through smokescreens such as free market, and when there is crisis, the taxpayers money is used to rescue the drowning giants who were responsible for the mess. In this case, they ignore the ‘free market’ concept, just as the concept of ‘free speech’ is ignored when the interests of a few become far greater than the ideology itself.
I totally agree with your statement that Capitalism has nothing to do with Islamic economics. Definitely!
What in the world did you study to come up with the information that Islamic economics operates
within a two-class system???
ET wrote:
“What you, DC, haven’t explained is how an ideology that rejects reason and individual freedom, ought to be supported? Why?”
If I havent then I will now. If an ideology rejects the usage of reason to prove its basis,
meaning its creed, from which the system of the ideology emanates, then such an ideology is NOT
to be embraced as the ideology would be incorrect from its basis. Just like the capitalist creed that is secularism. Secularism is a concept which was a result of a compromise between the clergymen and the so-called intellectuals. So it is based on compromise and not on intellectual reasonning. The Communist creed of materialism is based on matter such that they say that thought is the reflection of matter, hence matter is the basis of thought according to them, so their creed is based on matter even though they some flawed reasonning is used to reach this conclusion.
As for individual freedom, it is more of wishful thinking on the part of a few and blind following on the part of the rest, because every human has intincts and organic needs and the
non-satisfaction of instincts leads to misery and the non-fulfilment of organic needs leads to
death. Humans need a system to organise the satisfaction of their instincts and the fulfilment of their needs, otherwise it would lead to misery due to being erronous and abnormal. How can humans organise a correct system for their needs and instincts through the human understanding of organisation which is liable to disparity, differences, contradictions and influenced by the environment in which one lives? Humans’ intellect is incapable of devising a perfectly organised system for their needs and instinct that would lead to the prosperity of mankind instead of its destruction.
ET wrote:
“Furthermore, you haven’t explained why you support an ideology that, trapped within a 7th c
socio-economic and political perspective, treats women as ‘half a man’, and rejects the rights of
Others, defining any non-believers as non-human and meant to be killed. COuld you explain why you support these views – and they are in the Qu’ran. Do you support honour killings? Do you know the source of such beliefs?”
Explain to me the reason behind stating that Islam is an ideology trapped between the 7th c
socio-economic and political perspective
As for women and rights of others, these are relative issues depending upon what one considers to be a right and why and the human characteristics. It is only rational to accept that the entity which created men and women has the capability to correctly decide the method of organising relationships between men and women, defining their roles in the private and public life, and defining their rights. The human intellect differs in defining these issues permanently and correctly due to its incapability, hence, it works on trial and error. 40 to 50 years ago being gay or lesbian was considered taboo, now it is considered a right. Previously women were not allowed to vote, now it is considered a right. Prostitution was considered a vice back in the older days of capitalism and now its considered to be a right to chose this profession, etc. In the future, you never know what may become a right.
Even though I would argue on the same lines for the non-believer issue, that only the Creator
should be accepted as the authority to define the rights of the non-believers, but still I would correct you on what I know of that which the Creator has defined. Firstly, the Quran does not define the non-believers as non-human and they are not meant to be killed just because they are non-Muslims, rather the killing is related to certain actions such as the battlefield(war) or as punishment handed out by the judiciary of the state on issues like murder or adultery for which a Muslim can be killed as well. The apostate is a specific non-believer, one who was previously a Muslim, and not a general non-believer. In fact it is prohibited in Islam to harm a general non-believer citizen of the Islamic State and it is likened to harming the Messenger of God.
As for honor killings, ive already answered.
JJM wrote:
“I have yet to identity the “nation” that was “the sole superpower” for 1200 years. Can you please be more precise?”
Muslims
Knight 99 wrote:
“:) You just don’t get the big picture, fool. ”
— if you have the mental capacity to explain the big picture to me in words that dont make you look like a kid who has recently learnt how to curse, then Im ready to listen
No-One wrote:
“The superpower you speak of that apparently lasted 1200 years is no more – fact – no emotion there. Get over it. the Greek, Roman, Persian empires no longer exist either – get over it. You seem to equate longevity with truth – which is a false assumption at best. Honor killings do occur – another fact – by Muslims – yet another fact in Canada, another fact.”
I totally agree that the superpower that I mentioned does not exist anymore. But I dont agree with your statement that I seem to equate longevity with truth. 1200 years of being a superpower is not a proof of being correct. I mentioned the superpower’s longevity in response to statements ignoring that there ever was a superpower or there ever was contribution to humanity. So yes truth is proven by the basis not by longevity.
Honor Killings do occur by Muslims in Muslim-majority areas and maybe in Canada as well, but so do interest-based transactions, corporate farming, privatisation of resources, alcohol drinking, robbery, drugs, democracy, free-mixing, patriotism, nationalism, lying, deceit, etc, in the Muslim majority areas and maybe in Canada as well.
Does the fact that something is being done by Muslims make it acceptable in Islam?
Muslims are being ruled by unIslamic governments, agents of the West, who have encouraged non-Islam and discouraged Islam, who have given us probably the worst possible conditions to live in, and generated a society contradictory to an Islamic one, so what do you expect?
Having a system where man decides, man makes and breaks laws will generate a society where even
the most absurd and inhumane actions are expected from man, like the Austrian guy who was
involved in incest in the West, the increase of single mothers in the West, the increase of illegitimate kids in the West, the worshipping of the devil in the West, viewing woman as an
object, a symbol of sex, to be used, abused and thrown away like a condom in the West, leaving
parents at old houses to rot in the West, and much more, and in our case, when this said system is not a choice but something forced upon us, then it will resulted in a society of slaves who do not know about their right to say NO or their responsibility of correcting their affairs.
In short, honor killings may be as much alien to Islam as incest or school shootouts or gang
rapes are to you but they still happen in your lands, and so do honor killings in ours.
The only difference is that what happens in your lands is a product of the freedom-teaching system of yours which you have chosen for yourself or have accepted willfully, but what happens in our lands is NOT a product of the system we want and are intellectually convinced of, rather a product of the absence of that system and the presence of a West-dictated system and corrupt agent rulers.
Amer wrote:
“Since our team is currently busy with MuslimFest 2009 (www.MuslimFest.com), we didn’t get a chance to investigate the event in question.”
Brother, do you really consider the style of questionning that most of these guys have shown as reason enough to defensively disassociate yourself from the “event in question”?? Has the western society enslaved your thought process to the point where you would consider something to be wrong on the slightest of shitty baseless criticism by the dominant ones?? Wassalaam wa Rahmatullahi Wabarkatuhu!
Colin wrote:
“I laugh at their blindness, Islam is full of complusion, if you are born Muslim, you have no
choice, if you convert like I did for love you are doomed to submit to them in their eyes. Islam as currently taught is all about submission and complusion.”
Islam as currently or previously or ever taught is all about submission, but submission to an
unlimited entity whose existance can be proved by using your 5 senses, brain, and proven previous information regarding realities. It is not about submission to whims and desires or to the limited intellect of man.
To submit to dependent, needy, imperfect, limited things like the human intellect or the human desires is blindness. To submit to an unlimited entity whose proof of existance is comprehendable by the limited human intellect is enlightenment and is liberation from darkness into light.
Joe wrote:
“Now compare that with Yahweh whom Christians worship. Yahweh which BTW means I AM is comprised of three parts. Part One we call the Father is also the Will. Part Two we call the Son is the Thoughts of God. Part Three we call the Holy Spirit is the Manifestation of God.”
Prove to me the existance of such an entity
The Phantom wrote:
“DC, you’re defending a group (Hizb ut-Tahrir) who says its neccessary to -kill- people who don’t want to be in their club anymore.”
Firstly, where does it say this? Secondly, I dont need to defend this group, especially from kids who attack with toys and not real weapons
The Phantom wrote:
“if -your- multi-culti creed gets systematically and logically disproven here, will -you- abandon
it? Or just cling harder and more bitterly?”
If you prove to me the non-existance of an unlimited entity that created man, life, and universe, I will not only abandon this concept, I will also try to convince others to abandon it. And if you believe in the existance of such an entity but do not believe Islam to be its final message, then find me a person who knows arabic and fulfils the challenge of the inimitable Quran i.e. disproves Quran’s miracle of eloquence. As I am convinced that Quran is the word of that unlimited entity as Quran’s eloquence is a miracle (something that breaks the law of human nature and hence has to be from the unlimited entity who created humans with their nature laws).
I’ll be most interested in your response as yours was the most reasonable question put forward in the midst of false accusations, abuse, assumptions and baseless emotional rhetoric by others.
Black Mamba wrote:
“I believe this “incident” has come up before on this blog. I’d appreciate it if you’d provide a
link. I really would.”
Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8136500.stm
and here’s a new incident-MUSLIM MAN KILLED BY A BUNCH OF GUYS AFTER BEING ABUSED FOR BEING A MUSLIM: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/13/race.july7
Tanker wrote:
“DC, do you expect any civilized, rational, thinking human being to take seriously any religion which calls for the death of apostates and blasphemers? I know militant islamists believe Islam to be the perfect religion, but any thinking person can see through the BS. Please, do try to give us a logical reason why killing someone who ceases to believe in some invisible guy in the sky is logical and righteous.”
What is being civilized in your view and what is being logical and righteous?
Tanker wrote:
“Islam has not produced anything useful to the advancement of humanity in at least 1,000 years.
Ever wonder why nothing useful other than oil ever comes out of Islamic countries? Because Islam discourages independent, curious thought under threat of death.”
There is no such thing as Islamic countries, Islam allows only one state for all Muslims and
there has not been an Islamic State since 1924. Oil was discovered near this time and what Islam
delivered during its implementation through a state for 1300 years was other than oil. After
1924, our lands became colonies of your ruling elite, ruled by their slaves and hence our lands
have become warehouses and war booty for the capitalists, instead of the centre of human
advancement that they were in the past.
You accuse us of not having independent thought while you blindly accept what was fed to you for
all those years and this might be the only reason for rejecting the following:
On September 26, 2001, the ex-CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina, in a speech related to
leadership, said at the end:
“I’ll end by telling a story. There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.
It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from
northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.
One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.
And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed
buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.
Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things.
When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive.
When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.
While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about
was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts
of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.
Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth.
Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.
And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population–that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.
This kind of enlightened leadership — leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity
and courage — led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.
In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and
institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness. More than ever, we must focus on the
importance of leadership– bold acts of leadership and decidedly personal acts of leadership.
With that, I’d like to open up the conversation and see what we, collectively, believe about the
role of leadership.”
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/minnesota01.html
Adam Smith, known as the foundern of modern economics, whose picture is printed on the current UK 20 pounds note, said in History of Astronomy, The Essays of Adam Smith (London, 1869), p. 353
“…the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed
that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the
protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquility, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature.”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=201&chapter=56007&layout=html&Itemid=27
In the book ‘The Heart of the Qur’an’ by Lex Hixon:
“Neither as Christians or Jews, nor simply as intellectually responsible individuals, have
members of Western Civilisation been sensitively educated or even accurately informed about
Islam… even some persons of goodwill who have gained acquaintance with Islam continue to
interpret the reverence for the prophet Muhammad and the global acceptance of his message as an
inexplicable survival of the zeal of an ancient desert tribe. This view ignores fourteen
centuries of Islamic civilisation, burgeoning with artists, scholars, statesmen, philanthropists, scientists, chivalrous warriors, philosophers… as well as countless men and women of devotion and wisdom from almost every nation of the planet. The coherent world civilisation called Islam, founded in the vision of the Qur’an, cannot be regarded as the product of individual and national ambition, supported by historical accident.”
George Sarton’s tribute to Muslim Scientists in the `Introduction to the History of Science`:
“It will suffice here to evoke a few glorious names without contemporary equivalents in the West: Jabir ibn Haiyan, al-Kindi, al-Khwarizmi, al-Fargani, al-Razi, Thabit ibn Qurra, al-Battani, Hunain ibn Ishaq, al-Farabi, Ibrahim ibn Sinan, al-Masudi, al-Tabari, Abul Wafa, ‘Ali ibn Abbas, Abul Qasim, Ibn al-Jazzar, al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Ibn Yunus, al-Kashi, Ibn al-Haitham, ‘Ali Ibn ‘Isa al-Ghazali, al-zarqab, Omar Khayyam. A magnificent array of names which it would not be difficult to extend. If anyone tells you that the Middle Ages were scientifically sterile, just quote these men to him, all of whom flourished within a short period, 750 to 1100 A.D.”
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1998:
“I hope that the Muslims of this country will help this country, and the best way you possibly
can is by standing up for Islam.”
“Islam is the best chance the poor of the planet have for any hope of decency in their lives. It is the one revolutionary force that cares about humanity.”
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0399/9903086.html
Samuel P. Huntington:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by
its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Samuel_P._Huntington
ET wrote:
“there is no rational proof of the existence of a metaphysical being (god). You can believe in
such an existence but you cannot logically or empirically prove such an existence.”
I would love to rationally prove the existance of an unlimited entity who created man, life and
universe. If youre intellectually serious in saying what you just did then I request you to read this brief book which proves this:
Faith & Progress by Jamal Harwood (easily available if you search online)
If you still insist that I prove it and you wouldnt read the book, then I will do so.
ET wrote:
“And capitalism, which is an economic system, favouring the middle class, has nothing to do with Islamic economics, which rejects a middle class and operates within a two-class system, made up of a hereditary elite and a peasantry.”
Capitalism is the name of an ideology whose creed is secularism from which a complete system for life’s affairs emanates and not just the economic system. The economic system is a part of it and the most prominent part of it, that is why the ideology is named after its most prominent aspect i.e economic system.
Favouring the middle class?? You must have heard of the most common saying regarind this system
`the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer`, meaning the middle class keeps on shrinking.
Either they become rich, which is rare, or they become poor, which happens in majority of the
cases. In Capitalism, wealth is sucked in from the masses to the bank accounts of a few, through smokescreens such as free market, and when there is crisis, the taxpayers money is used to rescue the drowning giants who were responsible for the mess. In this case, they ignore the ‘free market’ concept, just as the concept of ‘free speech’ is ignored when the interests of a few become far greater than the ideology itself.
I totally agree with your statement that Capitalism has nothing to do with Islamic economics. Definitely!
What in the world did you study to come up with the information that Islamic economics operates
within a two-class system???
ET wrote:
“What you, DC, haven’t explained is how an ideology that rejects reason and individual freedom, ought to be supported? Why?”
If I havent then I will now. If an ideology rejects the usage of reason to prove its basis,
meaning its creed, from which the system of the ideology emanates, then such an ideology is NOT
to be embraced as the ideology would be incorrect from its basis. Just like the capitalist creed that is secularism. Secularism is a concept which was a result of a compromise between the clergymen and the so-called intellectuals. So it is based on compromise and not on intellectual reasonning. The Communist creed of materialism is based on matter such that they say that thought is the reflection of matter, hence matter is the basis of thought according to them, so their creed is based on matter even though they some flawed reasonning is used to reach this conclusion.
As for individual freedom, it is more of wishful thinking on the part of a few and blind following on the part of the rest, because every human has intincts and organic needs and the
non-satisfaction of instincts leads to misery and the non-fulfilment of organic needs leads to
death. Humans need a system to organise the satisfaction of their instincts and the fulfilment of their needs, otherwise it would lead to misery due to being erronous and abnormal. How can humans organise a correct system for their needs and instincts through the human understanding of organisation which is liable to disparity, differences, contradictions and influenced by the environment in which one lives? Humans’ intellect is incapable of devising a perfectly organised system for their needs and instinct that would lead to the prosperity of mankind instead of its destruction.
ET wrote:
“Furthermore, you haven’t explained why you support an ideology that, trapped within a 7th c
socio-economic and political perspective, treats women as ‘half a man’, and rejects the rights of
Others, defining any non-believers as non-human and meant to be killed. COuld you explain why you support these views – and they are in the Qu’ran. Do you support honour killings? Do you know the source of such beliefs?”
Explain to me the reason behind stating that Islam is an ideology trapped between the 7th c
socio-economic and political perspective
As for women and rights of others, these are relative issues depending upon what one considers to be a right and why and the human characteristics. It is only rational to accept that the entity which created men and women has the capability to correctly decide the method of organising relationships between men and women, defining their roles in the private and public life, and defining their rights. The human intellect differs in defining these issues permanently and correctly due to its incapability, hence, it works on trial and error. 40 to 50 years ago being gay or lesbian was considered taboo, now it is considered a right. Previously women were not allowed to vote, now it is considered a right. Prostitution was considered a vice back in the older days of capitalism and now its considered to be a right to chose this profession, etc. In the future, you never know what may become a right.
Even though I would argue on the same lines for the non-believer issue, that only the Creator
should be accepted as the authority to define the rights of the non-believers, but still I would correct you on what I know of that which the Creator has defined. Firstly, the Quran does not define the non-believers as non-human and they are not meant to be killed just because they are non-Muslims, rather the killing is related to certain actions such as the battlefield(war) or as punishment handed out by the judiciary of the state on issues like murder or adultery for which a Muslim can be killed as well. The apostate is a specific non-believer, one who was previously a Muslim, and not a general non-believer. In fact it is prohibited in Islam to harm a general non-believer citizen of the Islamic State and it is likened to harming the Messenger of God.
As for honor killings, ive already answered.
JJM wrote:
“I have yet to identity the “nation” that was “the sole superpower” for 1200 years. Can you please be more precise?”
Muslims
DC: We are both Deists. I believe in God just as you believe in God. The only question in play here is which description of God is more accurate. As I stated your god, according to Muslim scholars is pure will. Therefore every thing he created he created without thought. This also explains the Muslim shunning of thought. Everything he created is outside of himself which means he is of limited scope. Now if what he created is outside of himself then with what did he create it? To quote the title of a Christian book, Your God is too Small!
Now I won’t try to prove the existence of Yahweh since you already acknowledge that God exists. The only question is which concept of God better explains our existence. Yahweh has Will just as allah has will. Unlike allah, Yahweh has intelligence. Unlike allah, Yahweh created all that He created within Himself. Thus when we look at the physical universe it is more than simply physical matter. It exists. It exists in reality. It exists as the result of intelligent design. It exists as the result of an act of Will. It is not divorced or separated from its Creator. It fully reflects the Glory of its Creator.
One other interesting thing is the interaction between the creation and the Creator. In Muslim prayers you recite over and over the same words. When I pray I don’t say a word. When you pray you fill the silence with your recitations. When I pray I receive wisdom and knowledge as I remain silent. ET accused me of being Aristotelian in outlook. I found that interesting since I don’t recall ever reading Aristotle. One day I read a book that said that we Christians couldn’t explain the Trinity. I realized it was true I couldn’t explain the Trinity so I asked Yahweh to explain it to me. Over a period of a year the idea formed. The Apostle John wrote ‘In the beginning was the LOGOS.’ Logos means logic, Logos means thought, Logos means consciousness. The Apostle John went on to say that the LOGOS was with God and that the LOGOS was God. A little later I read what Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me “LORD, LORD” shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven but rather he who does the WILL of the FATHER”. Now if Jesus is the LOGOS then the FATHER must be the WILL. However none of this makes sense until we receive the word from St. Paul who wrote “In WHOM we live and breathe and have our being”.
Suddenly the light went on. I have a will, I have a consciousness and I have a body. Indeed I am made in the image of my Creator who said before He created mankind, “Let US create man in OUR Image”.
This also explains our purpose here on this earth. The object of the exercise is not to kill ourselves and anyone else who obstructs our way to paradise. The object of the exercise is not to get enough ‘brownie points’ with allah so we can skronk 72 virgins for eternity. The object of the exercise is not even to get to heaven! The object of the exercise is to be ever more conformed to HIS IMAGE! The object of the exercise is to be like HIM!
Now if you want to run around acting like a nutbar killing people in the name of allah then you go right ahead. When you are stopped dead in your tracks by the bullet of a well aimed gun and find yourself wailing and gnashing your teeth as you remain on the outside looking in, don’t tell me I didn’t warn you. And by the way, do you really think that an earthly kingdom even matters? Seriously? Kingdoms shall rise and kingdoms shall fall but the LOGOS of GOD remains forever.
Firstly, I apologize for posting my last post twice, it was because I thought there was some problem in posting it the first time.
Joe wrote:
“As I stated your god, according to Muslim scholars is pure will.”
Belief in the existance of an unlimited entity that created man, life and universe is a rational discussion and not a discussion where imitating others is correct, so dont hold me accountable for what others believe in or dont attach me to what others believe in. Muslim scholars whomever youve read or listened to (that is IF you have) are not the basis of believing in the existance of God, rather human intellect is the basis. So stop assuming what I believe in because it wont lead to a constructive conclusion, that is, if you want one.
Joe wrote:
“Therefore every thing he created he created without thought. This also explains the Muslim shunning of thought. Everything he created is outside of himself which means he is of limited scope. Now if what he created is outside of himself then with what did he create it?”
Therefore this and therefore that, in my view this is thinking based on assumptions or the use of logic (if A tends to B and B tends to C, therefore A tends to C) as opposed to the rational process (in which the part ‘A tends to C’ is accepted only if there is definite evidence for it instead of assuming it because ‘A tends to B and B tends to C’). Your questions are in my view arising from a concept reached through the usage of incorrect criteria and parameters for this discussion.
Joe wrote:
“Now I won’t try to prove the existence of Yahweh since you already acknowledge that God exists. The only question is which concept of God better explains our existence.”
Forget whether I believe in God or not for the moment, first we need to agree upon the criteria for this discussion and its parameters. The criteria and parameters for answering the question that where have we come from? or you can say what was before man, life and universe? or what is the cause of the existance of everything around me, everything that can be sensed without doubt? All these questions are in fact related to the same discussion. If i start discussing with you regarding an entity assuming that we both have reached the conclusion through the same process with the same criteria and parameters and in reality we havent then we both will be discussing on different criteria and parameters and hence disputing endlessly.
So what is the criteria and the parameters for this discussion in your view to judge whether we have reached a conclusion correctly or not?
And after we’ve reached an agreement on the criteria and the parameters to be used then try to prove to me the existance of the entity you call Yahweh. It is how you reach the intellectual conclusion which will clarify the concept of the existance of an entity responsible for man, life and universe.
Once youve correctly proved to me the existance of this entity, with all my questions about it answered clearly and completely, then is when my discussion regarding it will start.
Joe wrote:
“One other interesting thing is the interaction between the creation and the Creator. In Muslim prayers you recite over and over the same words. When I pray I don’t say a word. When you pray you fill the silence with your recitations. When I pray I receive wisdom and knowledge as I remain silent.”
and Joe wrote:
“This also explains our purpose here on this earth. The object of the exercise is not to kill ourselves and anyone else who obstructs our way to paradise. The object of the exercise is not to get enough ‘brownie points’ with allah so we can skronk 72 virgins for eternity. The object of the exercise is not even to get to heaven! The object of the exercise is to be ever more conformed to HIS IMAGE! The object of the exercise is to be like HIM!”
One moment youre talking about my belief as if you know what it is, the other moment youre talking about the actions that I need to perform due to the command of the entity I believe in, which is a separate matter. Either you dont know how to debate in a clear and effective manner or youre not really interested in winning me over on what you believe is the truth.
Joe wrote:
“Now if you want to run around acting like a nutbar killing people in the name of allah then you go right ahead. When you are stopped dead in your tracks by the bullet of a well aimed gun and find yourself wailing and gnashing your teeth as you remain on the outside looking in, don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.”
Now if you want to keep on typing wrongly-percieved, stereo-typical opinions about Islam in the name of intellectual debate then it is better you go bang your head on a wall, because typing like this wont get you anything but banging your head on the wall might, just might, get something working in your brain.
And after death, on the Day of Judgement, when you find out that I was right, dont say then that you werent advised.
Joe wrote:
“And by the way, do you really think that an earthly kingdom even matters? Seriously? Kingdoms shall rise and kingdoms shall fall but the LOGOS of GOD remains forever.”
What matters to me are the commands of My Lord, My Creator, the Creator of you and me, the Creator of the rest of mankind, the Creator of life and and the Creator of the universe, the Creator of everything, and the giver of life’s provisions and the giver of Death, the One who sent down His Messengers(AS) to guide mankind with what He revealed upon them, the One who sent Daood(AS), Musa(AS), Isa(AS), as well as others and finally Muhammad(saw) with the inimitable Quran, the One who revealed Islam as the final and complete way of life for mankind, and the One who will account me after death on my obedience to His Commands.
He has ordered the establishment of a state on this earth where all of man’s affairs are governed by His Commands, hence Islam does not allow kingdoms where man’s affairs are governed by the commands of the limited, needy, dependent, imperfect man.
Islam is more dangerous to the western democratic world than was communism and naziism, because muslims believe their god directs them to conquer the world.
We are dealing with insane people here, and they will attempt to overthrow several European countries when their population numbers allow.
In Canada they will create their own urban ghettoes in cities like Toronto, Montreal, Windsor. They can integrate, but they cannot assimilate because they are forbidden to assimilate.
A muslim man can marry a kuffir woman to bear his children, but a muslim woman will be killed if she cohabits with a kuffir man. That is the crazed mentality of these people.
Canada has become a ghettoized multi-cultural country with people like this. It’s all a big mistake, and within 2 generations, Canada will suffer for this mistake.
Nice dodge DC. You still haven’t even come close to describing a god that any sane individual could believe in let alone follow in setting up some goofy theocracy. It is very evident that questioning beliefs doesn’t apply to you. As such there is no point in discussing any farther. You have no personal knowledge of any of the ‘commands’ other than what someone else told you. Why don’t you at least have the intellectual and spiritual honesty to seek God on your own instead of relying on what some one else says?
Did you ever wonder why Mohamed declared himself to be the final prophet? Because it put him in an a position where he could never be questioned. Nice trick as it certainly silences the gullible. Thinking and questioning individuals will not fall for that ruse but the gullible will.
Should you decide to remain in the realm of the gullible then you go right ahead. Its costs like its benefits are nil.