Hillary Clinton: "Terror has no religion."

[Thunder]

You dont need a religious scripture to understnad the laws "Thou shalt not MURDER" & "Thou shalt not steal".I don't think any secular or atheist person object to those laws.

um....apparently they did...back then.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Some reality check.The state of Israel is governed by secular laws and not the "Law of Moses" while ALL muslim nations are governed by Islamic laws.The only exception turkey is racing to establish islamic law.

some comprehension check. i know israel is governed by securlar law, that was my point. if you were to interpret the law of moses in an extremely fundamentalist manner judaism would be incompatible with secular governments, but most dont interpret it that way. same applies to almost all other religions, including islam, only with a very fundamentalist interpretation of the religion does it become incompatible with a secular government, otherwise there is no conflict

ETA: also, religious influence in the government of muslim nations doesnt say one way or the other whether islam is compatible with a secular government or not. one could look at european law 500-1000 years ago and conclude catholicism is incompatible with a secular government

 

[rtved]

some comprehension check. i know israel is governed by securlar law, that was my point. if you were to interpret the law of moses in an extremely fundamentalist manner judaism would be incompatible with secular governments, but most dont interpret it that way.

Interpret anyway the law of moses can never be compatible with secular governance.That is the reason Israeli govt doesnt say they intend to run the country based on biblical laws.

Show me ONE islamic country(Turkey excluded) which does'nt say that they run on principles of Islam.

That s why same applies to almost all other religions, including islam, only with a very fundamentalist interpretation of the religion does it become incompatible with a secular government, otherwise there is no conflict

Your argument falls flat based on what i wrote above.

ETA: also, religious influence in the government of muslim nations doesnt say one way or the other whether islam is compatible with a secular government or not. one could look at european law 500-1000 years ago and conclude catholicism is incompatible with a secular government

Catholicism or for that matter christianity is incompatible with secular governance.That is the reason why the christian nations have secular constitutions.Show me ONE christian majority nation that runs on Biblical laws or atleast intends to run on biblical laws.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Some reality check.The state of Israel is governed by secular laws and not the "Law of Moses" while ALL muslim nations are governed by Islamic laws.The only exception turkey is racing to establish islamic law.

You know it might be news to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Egyptian Government.

 

[DC]

Interpret anyway the law of moses can never be compatible with secular governance.That is the reason Israeli govt doesnt say they intend to run the country based on biblical laws.

Show me ONE islamic country(Turkey excluded) which does'nt say that they run on principles of Islam.





Your argument falls flat based on what i wrote above.





Catholicism or for that matter christianity is incompatible with secular governance.That is the reason why the christian nations have secular constitutions.Show me ONE christian majority nation that runs on Biblical laws or atleast intends to run on biblical laws.

what is an Islamic Nation and what is a Christian Nation?
what is the Republic of Albania?

 

[rtved]

You know it might be news to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Egyptian Government.

Leave alone the egyptians.The palestinians must be happy that

the israel is not following biblical commands like

"thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:" .

 

[PhantomWolf]

Leave alone the egyptians.The palestinians must be happy that

the israel is not following biblical commands like

"thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:" .

That makes little to no sense.

You said:

Show me ONE islamic country(Turkey excluded) which does'nt say that they run on principles of Islam.

Eygpt. It has a Constitution that prevents Regilous political parties and preserves a secular political enviroment. The closest they have got to being Islamic based is that a 1980 admendment to the Consititution has made it so that no laws can be made that contradict Sharia Law.

 

[PhantomWolf]

By the way, here are the rest of the Secular Muslim Nations

Burkina Faso
Chad
Djibouti
Guinea
Mali
Senegal
The Gambia
Uzbekistan
Bangladesh
Turkmenistan
Kazakhstan
Niger
Azerbaijan
Tajikistan
Kyrgyzstan

 

[rtved]

That makes little to no sense.

You said:



Eygpt. It has a Constitution that prevents Regilous political parties and preserves a secular political enviroment. The closest they have got to being Islamic based is that a 1980 admendment to the Consititution has made it so that no laws can be made that contradict Sharia Law.

Sharia law is secular?.What a Joke.

Egyptian Constitution adopted 11th September 1971; Article 2 affirms Islam as state religion; amended in 1980 to add recognition of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence as the principal source of legislation.
Ref:http://www.law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/egypt.htm

Egypt's society WAS more secular, compared to other islamic nations, in the 60's.It is not any more.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Interpret anyway the law of moses can never be compatible with secular governance.That is the reason Israeli govt doesnt say they intend to run the country based on biblical laws.

Show me ONE islamic country(Turkey excluded) which does'nt say that they run on principles of Islam.





Your argument falls flat based on what i wrote above.





Catholicism or for that matter christianity is incompatible with secular governance.That is the reason why the christian nations have secular constitutions.Show me ONE christian majority nation that runs on Biblical laws or atleast intends to run on biblical laws.

i think we are having 2 different discussions here.

i was responding to claims from luchog that islam is incompatible with secular government, therefore muslims can never live under a secular government, and that christianity and judaism dont have that restriction.

my point was that muslims certainly can live under a secular government, just as christians and jews can and that all 3 religions are compatible with secular governments, but that all 3 can be interpreted in a way that makes them incompatible with secular governments


BTW egypts affirmation of islam as a state religion doesnt really mean much, check this list there are a lot more countries with some form of christianity as state religion than there are with islam

 

[Augustine]

i was responding to claims from luchog that islam is incompatible with secular government, therefore muslims can never live under a secular government, and that christianity and judaism dont have that restriction.

my point was that muslims certainly can live under a secular government, just as christians and jews can and that all 3 religions are compatible with secular governments, but that all 3 can be interpreted in a way that makes them incompatible with secular governments

I certainly don't presume to speak for anyone else, and I certainly don't think that Islam is incompatible with secular government; however, it is not inaccurate to point that the tradition of separation of church and state is historically different between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Muslim tradition. I believe it was Bernard Lewis (himself a fan of Ataturk, so obviously a believer in a secular government in a Muslim nation) who noted that Judaism and Christianity both had their origins as minority religions where the ruling or governing class had differing beliefs, while Islam developed as the religion of the governing class at that time, and so the concept of a separation of church and state did not exist in the Muslim mind and they had to use Christian terms to express it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I certainly don't presume to speak for anyone else, and I certainly don't think that Islam is incompatible with secular government; however, it is not inaccurate to point that the tradition of separation of church and state is historically different between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Muslim tradition. I believe it was Bernard Lewis (himself a fan of Ataturk, so obviously a believer in a secular government in a Muslim nation) who noted that Judaism and Christianity both had their origins as minority religions where the ruling or governing class had differing beliefs, while Islam developed as the religion of the governing class at that time, and so the concept of a separation of church and state did not exist in the Muslim mind and they had to use Christian terms to express it.

another thing that came to mind was that it seems most muslim nations were until fairly recently (last 100 years) colonies of european powers, i wonder if the islamic law is being enforced to (intentionally or unintentionally) distance them from european culture

 

[rtved]

another thing that came to mind was that it seems most muslim nations were until fairly recently (last 100 years) colonies of european powers, i wonder if the islamic law is being enforced to (intentionally or unintentionally) distance them from european culture

That underlined part is the dumbest thing i ever read.It was Mohammad who forced middle easterns to islam.The later muslims expanded islam right upto spain.

Islamic conquest in to europe was put to an end by Charles martel starting with "battle of tours".

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I PMed Pardalis about his ah, rather offensive statements about terrorism in the UK, for those who care.

 

[luchog]

my point is a fundamentalist interpretation of the law of moses is incompatible with a secular government, yet thats what israel has and the people seem content with it, it doesnt matter who it applies to (although the noahide laws still apply to everyone)

Again, this is purely ignorance. If by "fundamentalist" you mean a strict, literal interpretation of the Torah and Talumd, or even just the Torah; then you are most abjectly wrong yet again. The only form of government mandated by the "Law of Moses" is the anarcho-tribal structure mentioned earlier; or at worst, a secular monarchy with a seperate priesthood wielding no political power. If by "Fundamentalist" you mean "any extremist I care to lump under this particular banner" then I'd say you're arguing dishonestly. Try actually reading the Law before you comment on it.

it just seems that you assume a fundamentalist interpretion of the koran is the only one, while allowing looser interpretation of other religions. somewhat of a double standard, no?

Sorry, you're wrong here yet again. The Quran clearly and explicitly deliniates a theocratic government as the ultimate goal of Islam: the Ummah, or nation of Islam, which will be subject to shari'a law esclusively, and ruled by a Kahlifah, literally a "successor" to The Prophet, who will wield ultimate religious and political as Muhammad's representative on Earth. The only thing preventing such a society from coming about is the intense factionalization of Islam; although many different leaders have laid claim to the title and ultimate authority.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Bump for Pardalis.

 

[luchog]

i was responding to claims from luchog that islam is incompatible with secular government, therefore muslims can never live under a secular government, and that christianity and judaism dont have that restriction.

No you're not. I never claimed that muslims can never live under a secular government. The Quran mandates a theocratic government as the ultimate goal for Muslims. That is not my claim, that is in their holy book. Read it. Your comments are either pure ignorance, or outright lies.

my point was that muslims certainly can live under a secular government, just as christians and jews can and that all 3 religions are compatible with secular governments, but that all 3 can be interpreted in a way that makes them incompatible with secular governments

Wrong again. Judaism cannot be interpreted as such, because at its most fundamental, it mandates no government whatsoever. Christianity cannot be interpreted as such, because it explicitly separates itself from government, and mandates that Christians get by the best they can under existing governments. Neither one can be used to justify a theocracy without completely ignoring meaning and context of whatever passages are used to justify it.