The World's Biggest Problems Identification and solution

[Shahrukh 0]

Not really.They don't stop earning money so the rich man who earns £250,000 per year each year gives 2.5% to the poor and the poor man who earns £10,000 per year each year gets a suplement of x from Zakat. How does that close the gap? It is just the same as having a 2.5% income tax on high earnings. It doesn't close the gap, it maintains it.

In year 1, the rich guy will give 2.5% of 250k and in the next he will give 2.5% of the new 250k plus the left-over from previous year's 250k. Hence the amount given in year 2 will be more. If he has already spent it, then he has already given it to others; if they were poor (whether as charity or doing business with them), all the better, if they were rich, they'll pay 2.5% of their money to the poor. So in the end, quite a lot of money will go to the poor. Thus closing the gap gradually.

Have you ever met a rich person who would say that their money is idle? I haven't. It will be busy somewhere making more money - investments, speculations, bonds...etcNew money is added to the economy in line with increased productivity. This is, of course, bad news for the poor because another way of saying increased productivity is doing more work with less people.

They get a weekly benefit cheque for about 50-70 quid (depending on age and whether they have disabilities or other issues).

I guess things are different on your side then.
All the rich people I know have stockpiles of wheat, sugar, etc. in warehouses; kept for times when their virtual shortage will raise prices.
Or they have lots of plots held for sale later on. Even my parents have a few (and we do pay Zakat out of it).

As for the weekly compensation, I doubt such facilities are available in even half of the world.

My argument was not about violence not increasing. I was specific. It is decreasing and doing so very markedly. That means that simply doing nothing will, eventually, lead to much lower violence. I doubt it will ever drop to zero - that seems unrealistic given human nature - but drop it most certainly will, unless there is some massive shift - such as fresh water running out, global warming making some counries uninhabitable etc, in which case we will see attempted mass migrations followed by countries closing borders and soon after open warefare for the remaining resources. About that you can do nothing except change your own behaviour to make it less likely.

That may be true. I agree with that.
Maybe I made more of an issue out of it due to the unrest in my region. Things seem more peaceful in other regions.

There is some excessive use of natural resources like fuel. F1 racing and some other programs are wasting the fuel. I see no reason F1 as sport which damages the environment and wastes natural resource.

Good point there. But many people earn quite a lot of money with such sports, from machine-makers to stall-keepers. Then again, there are other less resource-hungry sports.

Zakat ? sorry, this will only be applied by those who are jealous of rich people and want distribution wealth without working with excuse of exploitation. Zakat as already applied in terms of VAT or TAX which is more than enough. Taking money out of illegal accounts of politicians will solve the problem instead of adding zakat to honest middle class or those who earned their wealth honestly and are tax payers as well.

In the Islamic economic system, the only tax you have to pay is land tax called Ushr. Other than that, you pay Zakat only. For development, a Bait-ul-Maal is maintained.
My family is among the richer families of the country and we do pay Zakat. Who are we jealous of then?
As for distribution of wealth without work, I think that is happening more in the case that Bikerman stated:

They get a weekly benefit cheque for about 50-70 quid (depending on age and whether they have disabilities or other issues).

Also, not everyone is poor because of their laziness.
Mahesh, you ought know how the resources got distributed here if you are from India.
And many of the poor since 1947 have not found enough opportunities to get rich. Most lack the resources for educating their children. Not many people become rich without education or investment. Sure there have been people who were poor, uneducated and even without parents who became icons, but such people and opportunities are rare.

People will not be honest if they don't see their profit from things. If they see any loss out of any activity then they'll choose path of dishonesty to get over it. Before even thinking about stopping dishonesty, try thinking living life like gandhi, buddha (which is impossible in todays date).

I don't have to think about their lives. I have an example much more better. Hazrat Muhammad, the most perfect human. He was the most honest person.
You can read any authentic life history to find that out for yourself; even if you don't believe on his religious teachings, there can be no doubt of his ethical and moral values.
Even his sworn enemies trusted him with their valuables.

And talking about myself, I am a very honest person. But of course, you won't know that.
While you will find many dishonest and corrupt Muslims, they are not following the teaching of Islam when they commit those acts.
But I, thanks to Allah, am a religious person.

Besides, why would I talk about being honest when I myself am not?

EDIT: By the way, why aren't we discussing the other 6 points?
Edited August 14, 2010 by Shahrukh (see edit history)

[mahesh2k 0]

That seems to me like a very arbitrary and fairly weird choice. Rallying? NASCAR? Formula 3000? Formula Ford? They all have to go on the same principle, not to mention private planes, live music concerts..etc. Seriously, why Formula 1? 24 cars racing for 2hrs 30min every fortnight for In fact each team uses around 200000 litres of fuel per season (including practices, tests and the races themselves.I think there are currently 11 teams. So that gives us 2,200,000 litres per season.The UK uses 1,763,000 bbl/day which is 159*1763000 = around 280 million.
So the entire fuel for a formula 1 season uses as much fuel as the UK uses in about 11 minutes.
I don't think that is going to tip the balance..do you?

I picked F1 because i can only think of that in short time. I can name many fuel eater sports like that. I don't mean to pick only F1 there. I think you're seeing through words too much i guess ?

In the Islamic economic system, the only tax you have to pay is land tax called Ushr. Other than that, you pay Zakat only. For development, a Bait-ul-Maal is maintained.My family is among the richer families of the country and we do pay Zakat. Who are we jealous of then?
As for distribution of wealth without work, I think that is happening more in the case that Bikerman stated:

Just because It works in islamic countries doesn't mean it'll work & should work everywhere. Nor everyone should waste time thinking being part of islamic thinking for zakat. World is different and everyone have their way of thinking and freedom. Nobody wants to restrict their freedom by islamic way of thinking in zakat or the other. Just because you're rich in country doesn't mean your case applies to almost every rich person in the world. Read carefully, i'm talking about people who are jealous of rich people that doesn't mean you suggested this idea and you're supposed to be jealous.

I don't have to think about their lives. I have an example much more better. Hazrat Muhammad, the most perfect human. He was the most honest person.

more better ? most perfect ? subjective. Anyway, this sounds like hatred towards other religious people's examples. So, I'll move on because such extremism towards other religions will go nowhere in arguments.

You can read any authentic life history to find that out for yourself; even if you don't believe on his religious teachings, there can be no doubt of his ethical and moral values.Even his sworn enemies trusted him with their valuables.

Sorry i don't consider Mohammad as perfect person nor i'm interested in his teachings of authentic life that asks us to restricts right of womens & other religious thought process and freedom of expression and his ideas of society formation is not right in every case. He may be your idol or respect but not mine. I choose to differ with his thinking hence i disagree with zakat and some of the pro-islamic thoughts of society formation or problem solving. In this point for mohammad i'm done.

And talking about myself, I am a very honest person. But of course, you won't know that.While you will find many dishonest and corrupt Muslims, they are not following the teaching of Islam when they commit those acts.
But I, thanks to Allah, am a religious person.
Besides, why would I talk about being honest when I myself am not?

Being religious doesn't mean honest or sober or true person. That's just escapism when some person commits wrong actions and then tries to apply self-bias by claiming that they don't follow XYZ religion if they do something wrong. This is how any religion & religious person protects their faith. If something good happens,it's religious if not then they're not part of religion to begin with. Escapism.

Anyway, moved enough from the topic. I'll stick with my point of race- fuel wastage.

[Bikerman 2]

In year 1, the rich guy will give 2.5% of 250k and in the next he will give 2.5% of the new 250k plus the left-over from previous year's 250k. Hence the amount given in year 2 will be more. If he has already spent it, then he has already given it to others; if they were poor (whether as charity or doing business with them), all the better, if they were rich, they'll pay 2.5% of their money to the poor. So in the end, quite a lot of money will go to the poor. Thus closing the gap gradually.

No it won't. How many people do you know who, at the end of the year, say - hey, I've got this spare 40 grand? Nobody. They won't have any spare - that is the whole point. It will be invested, or paying for 'stuff', or in a trust. Rich people are not stupid and they are not more ethical than others (arguably less) so why on earth would they leave spare money to be taxed? Even a rookie accountant will stop that on day 1.

I guess things are different on your side then.All the rich people I know have stockpiles of wheat, sugar, etc. in warehouses; kept for times when their virtual shortage will raise prices.
Or they have lots of plots held for sale later on. Even my parents have a few (and we do pay Zakat out of it).

You actually highlight a difference between the west generally and the rest of the world. People in the west generally don't save. People in China, India, pakistan etc generally DO save. We are used to having enough money so that we don't need to worry about lean times. But then as standards rose, credit was cheap so even if you haven't got the money, you buy it on credit and pay it off.
So now we have the weird situation where India and China are floating in money - so much they have to get rid of some, so they buy America and the UK. Really, I'm serious. It is Chinese money mainly that Americans spend - the Chinese buy up Government bonds (which is national debt, in another name) and they invest in businesses.A lot of UK business is now owned by Indian and Chinese consortia.
So the people who earn the least have bought the people who earn and spend the most...poetic irony.. :-)

As for the weekly compensation, I doubt such facilities are available in even half of the world.

No but they are in the half that matters. Yes, I know that is offensive, but it is true. As far as the west is concerned the west is more important that the east. I'm sure that as far as China is concerned the same thing applies in reverse - the Chinese must regard the Chinese as by far more important that the US. The difference is that until recently we have been right - you really didn't matter except as pawn in the cold war and as bases of operation to ensure the oil kept flowing. Now it is changing rapidly. China is very important to the US now. India slightly less so but still important. Those two countries are huge and both will overtake the US in commercial power soon (arguably China already has)

In the Islamic economic system, the only tax you have to pay is land tax called Ushr. Other than that, you pay Zakat only. For development, a Bait-ul-Maal is maintained.My family is among the richer families of the country and we do pay Zakat. Who are we jealous of then?
As for distribution of wealth without work, I think that is happening more in the case that Bikerman stated:

But this is why your health service and social services are worse than anything we have. We pay much more into the common pot of government money. Typically a low paid worker will pay 20% (not a measly 2.5%) and a rich worker will pay 40-50% of any earnings above a certain level.

Also, not everyone is poor because of their laziness.Mahesh, you ought know how the resources got distributed here if you are from India.
And many of the poor since 1947 have not found enough opportunities to get rich. Most lack the resources for educating their children. Not many people become rich without education or investment. Sure there have been people who were poor, uneducated and even without parents who became icons, but such people and opportunities are rare.

I didn't say the poor were idle/lazy. I was trying to explain how becoming used to government benefits gradually destroys your motivation and energy until you literally cannot be bothered to get out of bed. This happens to respectable middle-class people who suddenly find themselves with no job. It is a very bad experience. Obviously in Pakistan it is worse - we get a handout, you could starve.

I don't have to think about their lives. I have an example much more better. Hazrat Muhammad, the most perfect human. He was the most honest person.You can read any authentic life history to find that out for yourself; even if you don't believe on his religious teachings, there can be no doubt of his ethical and moral values.
Even his sworn enemies trusted him with their valuables.

I have 2 copies of the quran on my shelf - the Saudi annotated one which they distribute everywhere, and Panj Para Complete Quran in Six Volumes (bought from a local bookstore for the bargain price of 50p). I have read most of the quran so I know what it says in the main.
It is a bit like using the new testament to tell you what Jesus was like. You get a very one sided picture.I have no wish to offend you, but neither will I say that which I do not believe. Let us just say that I'm not personally convinced that Muhammed was as pure and honest as you think he was. I don't think he was particularly bad, certainly for the time, but the picture from the quran, sira and hadiths is not the same picture that emerges from non-Islamic historians.

And talking about myself, I am a very honest person. But of course, you won't know that.While you will find many dishonest and corrupt Muslims, they are not following the teaching of Islam when they commit those acts.

I have nothing against muslims. I know quite a few (though to be honest, less nowadays because we live in a largely white middle-class area) I was born in Lancashire and we had a fairly large muslim population since i was born. I have also travelled a little in muslim lands - Morocca and Algeria in particular. The problem with arguing about who is following the quran is that both sides say exactly the same thing. Bin Laden, Bakar Bashir, Zakir Naik and many others would say that their version of Jihad against the invader of holy muslim mecca is what all true Muslims are called to do by the Quran. Fight the enemy that occupies the holy places until he is dead or gone from the holy lands. That isn't word for word (I don't know the quran that well) but it is a fairly accurate paraphrase of one of the surahs...and this is what the terrorists use to justify their actions and their Muslim credentials.
I know you can point me to many more verses that talk about being kind and generous - I've read them too. But it is too easy to say - they are not proper muslims because no proper muslim would do x or y. That is YOUR interpretation - theirs is different. It is also an example of something called the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Shahrukh 0]

Just because It works in islamic countries doesn't mean it'll work & should work everywhere. Nor everyone should waste time thinking being part of islamic thinking for zakat. World is different and everyone have their way of thinking and freedom.

Other economic laws seems to work in all of world, why can't the Islamic economic system work everywhere?
It has nothing to do with religious believes of the people.

more better ? most perfect ? subjective. Anyway, this sounds like hatred towards other religious people's examples. So, I'll move on because such extremism towards other religions will go nowhere in arguments.Sorry i don't consider Mohammad as perfect person nor i'm interested in his teachings of authentic life that asks us to restricts right of womens & other religious thought process and freedom of expression and his ideas of society formation is not right in every case. He may be your idol or respect but not mine. I choose to differ with his thinking hence i disagree with zakat and some of the pro-islamic thoughts of society formation or problem solving. In this point for mohammad i'm done.

I never said anything against any other religion or person. Nor do I hate other religious people.
Also, I never said that you have to get into the discussion of religion. I was talking about morals and values of Hazrat Muhammad.
Unless you have read about his life, you won't know it.

Also, Islam does not restrict the right of women. I don't know why people say that so much.
At the time Islam came, women were treated very badly and Islam saved them from the horrors.
The pagans used to bury their daughters alive while Islam stopped this madness.
It also ended slavery, gradually. But that is yet another topic.

Being religious doesn't mean honest or sober or true person. That's just escapism when some person commits wrong actions and then tries to apply self-bias by claiming that they don't follow XYZ religion if they do something wrong. This is how any religion & religious person protects their faith. If something good happens,it's religious if not then they're not part of religion to begin with. Escapism.

Being a religious Muslim does mean being honest and truthful.

Well, a person who steals is not obeying a law, right? You can't call him a law-abiding citizen. Even if he obeys other laws.
The same goes for religion. Islam is not just about faith, it a complete code of life, with its laws. And whosoever does not obey those laws can't be called a religion-abiding person.
Its not about protecting my faith. Faith is a different thing and deeds are a different thing.
Honesty and truthfulness are deeds. And they are taught by every religion, not just Islam.
Even Ghandi and Buddha were famous for their honesty and truthfulness.

As for not believing in Hazrat Muhammad being the best person, you have your believes, I have mine. We can rest with that.

[Shahrukh 0]

No it won't. How many people do you know who, at the end of the year, say - hey, I've got this spare 40 grand? Nobody. They won't have any spare - that is the whole point. It will be invested, or paying for 'stuff', or in a trust. Rich people are not stupid and they are not more ethical than others (arguably less) so why on earth would they leave spare money to be taxed? Even a rookie accountant will stop that on day 1.

Agreed. But even when the money is spent, the person with that money will now pay Zakat.
That 40 grand maybe with different people at the year end. But the 2.5% will still be taken out, by different persons.

You actually highlight a difference between the west generally and the rest of the world. People in the west generally don't save. People in China, India, pakistan etc generally DO save. We are used to having enough money so that we don't need to worry about lean times. But then as standards rose, credit was cheap so even if you haven't got the money, you buy it on credit and pay it off.So now we have the weird situation where India and China are floating in money - so much they have to get rid of some, so they buy America and the UK. Really, I'm serious. It is Chinese money mainly that Americans spend - the Chinese buy up Government bonds (which is national debt, in another name) and they invest in businesses.A lot of UK business is now owned by Indian and Chinese consortia.
So the people who earn the least have bought the people who earn and spend the most...poetic irony.. :-)

Yeah. Thats the difference between developing and developed countries.

No but they are in the half that matters. Yes, I know that is offensive, but it is true. As far as the west is concerned the west is more important that the east. I'm sure that as far as China is concerned the same thing applies in reverse - the Chinese must regard the Chinese as by far more important that the US. The difference is that until recently we have been right - you really didn't matter except as pawn in the cold war and as bases of operation to ensure the oil kept flowing. Now it is changing rapidly. China is very important to the US now. India slightly less so but still important. Those two countries are huge and both will overtake the US in commercial power soon (arguably China already has)But this is why your health service and social services are worse than anything we have. We pay much more into the common pot of government money. Typically a low paid worker will pay 20% (not a measly 2.5%) and a rich worker will pay 40-50% of any earnings above a certain level.

And how exactly do you find out who matters and who doesn't?
To me all human beings matter, be they from the east or the west.

I didn't say the poor were idle/lazy. I was trying to explain how becoming used to government benefits gradually destroys your motivation and energy until you literally cannot be bothered to get out of bed. This happens to respectable middle-class people who suddenly find themselves with no job. It is a very bad experience. Obviously in Pakistan it is worse - we get a handout, you could starve.

That was on Mahesh's quote, actually. I know what you meant.

I have 2 copies of the quran on my shelf - the Saudi annotated one which they distribute everywhere, and Panj Para Complete Quran in Six Volumes (bought from a local bookstore for the bargain price of 50p). I have read most of the quran so I know what it says in the main.It is a bit like using the new testament to tell you what Jesus was like. You get a very one sided picture.I have no wish to offend you, but neither will I say that which I do not believe. Let us just say that I'm not personally convinced that Muhammed was as pure and honest as you think he was. I don't think he was particularly bad, certainly for the time, but the picture from the quran, sira and hadiths is not the same picture that emerges from non-Islamic historians.

Right, then...

I have nothing against muslims. I know quite a few (though to be honest, less nowadays because we live in a largely white middle-class area) I was born in Lancashire and we had a fairly large muslim population since i was born. I have also travelled a little in muslim lands - Morocca and Algeria in particular. The problem with arguing about who is following the quran is that both sides say exactly the same thing. Bin Laden, Bakar Bashir, Zakir Naik and many others would say that their version of Jihad against the invader of holy muslim mecca is what all true Muslims are called to do by the Quran. Fight the enemy that occupies the holy places until he is dead or gone from the holy lands. That isn't word for word (I don't know the quran that well) but it is a fairly accurate paraphrase of one of the surahs...and this is what the terrorists use to justify their actions and their Muslim credentials.I know you can point me to many more verses that talk about being kind and generous - I've read them too. But it is too easy to say - they are not proper muslims because no proper muslim would do x or y. That is YOUR interpretation - theirs is different. It is also an example of something called the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Just like restricting women's rights, many people blame Islam this way as well.
You guys have to understand that Islam and every other religion does not allow killing innocent people, whether of the same or different religion.
And if these people are so religious, why do they destroy mosques? I've never heard of them destroying a church.
Why are they killing more Muslims in Pakistan? Shouldn't they blast bombs in USA or UK or any other non-Muslim country?

As for pointing to verses that talk about being kind and generous, yes I can do that. And I can also tell you that killing a human, both Muslim and non-Muslim, does not earn you Heaven, it leads you straight to Hell, according to Islamic beliefs, no matter what the interpretation.
People say that the terrorists are told that if they do a suicide bombing they will counted as a Martyr and have 72 virgins in the Afterlife. That is true. People do brainwash people like that. But Islam does not say this anywhere in the Quran or Hadith or any where else.

But this is why your health service and social services are worse than anything we have. We pay much more into the common pot of government money. Typically a low paid worker will pay 20% (not a measly 2.5%) and a rich worker will pay 40-50% of any earnings above a certain level.

Nah, we don't have Islamic economic system here. Actually, we don't have any economic system here.
Edited August 14, 2010 by Shahrukh (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

Agreed. But even when the money is spent, the person with that money will now pay Zakat.That 40 grand maybe with different people at the year end. But the 2.5% will still be taken out, by different persons.

But in effect there will be no equalisation...anyway this is getting monotonous, let's drop it and move on. I object to ANY religious law in my secular country. I am an atheist, would you like me to move to pakistan and insist that all the mosques be closed because I think my lack of belief is better than your belief?

And how exactly do you find out who matters and who doesn't?To me all human beings matter, be they from the east or the west.

Missing my point...it isn't what I think, it is what the real=politik is. The country that matters is the one with the most power - either military or commercial or, preferrably, both.
For about 200 years it was the UK. Since WW2 it has been the US. Next it will be China. We call them 'superpowers' - though the USSR never actually should have had that nametag IMHO, since it was a lot weaker than the US led people to believe.

Just like restricting women's rights, many people blame Islam this way as well.You guys have to understand that Islam and every other religion does not allow killing innocent people, whether of the same or different religion.
And if these people are so religious, why do they destroy mosques? I've never heard of them destroying a church.
Why are they killing more Muslims in Pakistan? Shouldn't they blast bombs in USA or UK or any other non-Muslim country?

But again you are missing the point. They will have a reason and justification for everything. Bin Laden is no idiot and I think he genuinely regards himself as a good Muslim. Have you ever noticed that even his worst enemies in Islam are never accused of not being Muslims? The worst thing Bin Laden says about other muslims is 'they are bad muslims'. You could say the same about him, but you can't say he isn't a muslim. The same applied regarding the treatment of women. I KNOW how women are treated in much of the middle east - a cross between a possession and an ornament. Sharia Law is fundamentally sexist, sorry but it just is. Now you can say that Saudi and other countries are not real muslim countries but that is the same argument again and it won't do. Islam can allow or not allow whatever it likes, but the fact is that the people who brought down the twin towers, the people here who blew themselves up and took a lot of people with them, the people in spain who blew the train up - they are all Muslims. So to say that Islam does not allow killing innocent people really gets on people's nerves. It is like saying that Christians don't tell lies, because the bible says they shouldn't. The simple fact is that they do, just like everyone else.

As for pointing to verses that talk about being kind and generous, yes I can do that. And I can also tell you that killing a human, both Muslim and non-Muslim, does not earn you Heaven, it leads you straight to Hell, according to Islamic beliefs, no matter what the interpretation.People say that the terrorists are told that if they do a suicide bombing they will counted as a Martyr and have 72 virgins in the Afterlife. That is true. People do brainwash people like that. But Islam does not say this anywhere in the Quran or Hadith or any where else.

I know, as I said I have read most of it and I know that the 72 virgins is a corrpution of Surah At-Tur (52):20], Surah Al-Waqi'a (56):34-36 and Surah Ar-Rum(30):21...27. mixed up with Hadith 2562 in Sunan al-Tirmidhi "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

So they mix them together and get 72 virgin

[Shahrukh 0]

But in effect there will be no equalisation...anyway this is getting monotonous, let's drop it and move on. I object to ANY religious law in my secular country. I am an atheist, would you like me to move to pakistan and insist that all the mosques be closed because I think my lack of belief is better than your belief?

 

I wasn't talking about it as a religious thing. But you are right. We are both saying the same things over and over in different words.

 

Missing my point...it isn't what I think, it is what the real=politik is. The country that matters is the one with the most power - either military or commercial or, preferrably, both.

For about 200 years it was the UK. Since WW2 it has been the US. Next it will be China. We call them 'superpowers' - though the USSR never actually should have had that nametag IMHO, since it was a lot weaker than the US led people to believe.

 

Oh, you meant politically. Well, thats a different story then.

 

But again you are missing the point. They will have a reason and justification for everything. Bin Laden is no idiot and I think he genuinely regards himself as a good Muslim. Have you ever noticed that even his worst enemies in Islam are never accused of not being Muslims? The worst thing Bin Laden says about other muslims is 'they are bad muslims'. You could say the same about him, but you can't say he isn't a muslim.

 

To judge who is wrong and right, Muslims appoint their learned scholars as judges. And all of them say that he is wrong in killing innocent people.

One or even many unlearned people's opinion or interpretation cannot be called authentic or right. So, he clearly is wrong.

 

The same applied regarding the treatment of women. I KNOW how women are treated in much of the middle east - a cross between a possession and an ornament. Sharia Law is fundamentally sexist, sorry but it just is. Now you can say that Saudi and other countries are not real muslim countries but that is the same argument again and it won't do.

 

I differ in opinion here.

I think that Shariah has defined roles for both the genders according to what is most suited for them and not as discrimination.

Taking the matter of the veil, I personally would not marry a woman who goes about showing his 'beauty' to everyone else. And that's not due to my religious beliefs. Its due my emotional feelings. Therefore, I think that the order for women to cover themselves is a very good thing.

Men are made responsible for finances where as women look after the home. That makes sense too.

Women are better at handling children, also much neater and organised in most cases. So their staying in homes makes up a better environment for the children and the husband.

Plus their dedication with their husband makes him happier and less worried. And the woman feels safer and much secure.

 

Islam can allow or not allow whatever it likes, but the fact is that the people who brought down the twin towers, the people here who blew themselves up and took a lot of people with them, the people in spain who blew the train up - they are all Muslims. So to say that Islam does not allow killing innocent people really gets on people's nerves. It is like saying that Christians don't tell lies, because the bible says they shouldn't. The simple fact is that they do, just like everyone else.

 

There is a difference between don't and shouldn't. Muslims (and also others) shouldn't kill people. What they actually do does not represent Islam's teachings. Rather, it represents their beliefs. People can have wrong beliefs. And those who kill this way certainly do have wrong beliefs.

 

I know, as I said I have read most of it and I know that the 72 virgins is a corrpution of Surah At-Tur (52):20], Surah Al-Waqi'a (56):34-36 and Surah Ar-Rum(30):21...27. mixed up with Hadith 2562 in Sunan al-Tirmidhi "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

 

So they mix them together and get 72 virgin

 

Exactly. Its just for convincing people that there is a lot of benefits of doing what they are saying.

 

EDIT: And I was supposed to study 15 sections of the companies ordinance today...

Edited August 14, 2010 by Shahrukh (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

To judge who is wrong and right, Muslims appoint their learned scholars as judges. And all of them say that he is wrong in killing innocent people.

One or even many unlearned people's opinion or interpretation cannot be called authentic or right. So, he clearly is wrong.

That depends whether they are Shi'te or Sunni (or Wahhabi).

We have several learned scholars who don't say he is wrong. Travel over to Egypt and you will find that many muslims not only support him but think he is a truly great man. In fact quite a lot of your fellow Pakistanis are very supportive of Bin laden..I'm sure you must know that...

Here's a 2008 survey before the election

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf

(PDF file)

I differ in opinion here.

I think that Shariah has defined roles for both the genders according to what is most suited for them and not as discrimination. Taking the matter of the veil, I personally would not marry a woman who goes about showing his 'beauty' to everyone else. And that's not due to my religious beliefs. Its due my emotional feelings. Therefore, I think that the order for women to cover themselves is a very good thing.

 

And I think it is a selfish male nonsense that is both sexist and extremely offensive. Why should your feelings be the thing that decides things? What about her feelings? It doesn't bode well if you are getting jealous thoughts before you even meet the woman...I'm afraid you are going to get quite a shock when women's lib finally penetrates the muslim world...and it will, trust me..

Men are made responsible for finances where as women look after the home. That makes sense too.

Women are better at handling children, also much neater and organised in most cases. So their staying in homes makes up a better environment for the children and the husband.

Plus their dedication with their husband makes him happier and less worried. And the woman feels safer and much secure.

Sexist stereotype. Better with children, yes, probably. The rest? Nonsense. What you mean is that you, as a man, are allowed to be less neat and less organised because the wife will do it for you. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am, but there is absolutely no way that I would tolerate any such laws or even proposals in my country and the huge majority would agree. Jeez, I tell you true mate, it is a really good job my missus isn't reading this...she may be small, but she is very feisty and she knows exactly where to punch and kick...

There is a difference between don't and shouldn't. Muslims (and also others) shouldn't kill people. What they actually do does not represent Islam's teachings. Rather, it represents their beliefs. People can have wrong beliefs. And those who kill this way certainly do have wrong beliefs.

This is directly contradicted by Sura 2:191 where specific intruction to kill the infidel is given... Edited August 14, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

That depends whether they are Shi'te or Sunni (or Wahhabi).We have several learned scholars who don't say he is wrong. Travel over to Egypt and you will find that many muslims not only support him but think he is a truly great man. In fact quite a lot of your fellow Pakistanis are very supportive of Bin laden..I'm sure you must know that...
Here's a 2008 survey before the election
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf
(PDF file)

The survey says that people are supporting him less now. Only 1% would vote for him.
By learned scholars, I meant the Aalims and Muftis. And I doubt any Aalim or Mufti will allow bloodshed of innocent people in this way because murder and suicide both are major sins.

And I think it is a selfish male nonsense that is both sexist and extremely offensive. Why should your feelings be the thing that decides things? What about her feelings? It doesn't bode well if you are getting jealous thoughts before you even meet the woman...I'm afraid you are going to get quite a shock when women's lib finally penetrates the muslim world...and it will, trust me..Sexist stereotype. Better with children, yes, probably. The rest? Nonsense. What you mean is that you, as a man, are allowed to be less neat and less organised because the wife will do it for you. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am, but there is absolutely no way that I would tolerate any such laws or even proposals in my country and the huge majority would agree. Jeez, I tell you true mate, it is a really good job my missus isn't reading this...she may be small, but she is very feisty and she knows exactly where to punch and kick...

The girl I have proposed actually liked this thought of mine.
What I meant was not that man is allowed to be less neat or organised. But that a woman can handle a house's neatness and organisation better than a man would.
I agree with having our own beliefs and opinions.

This is directly contradicted by Sura 2:191 where specific intruction to kill the infidel is given...

Another common objection.
You should read this article.
And also this one.
Edited August 15, 2010 by Shahrukh (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

The survey says that people are supporting him less now. Only 1% would vote for him.By learned scholars, I meant the Aalims and Muftis. And I doubt any Aalim or Mufti will allow bloodshed of innocent people in this way because murder and suicide both are major sins.

Really, so if I show you differently?
Try these
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/new-jerusalem-mufti-endorses-suicide-bombers
http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/09/11/aalim-online-inciting-murder-against-ahmedis

Then, of course, you have to remember I'm British and I read a lot. That means I like Salman Rushdie. I heard just about every senior muslim call for him to be killed for writing the Satanic Verses, so when you say that murder is a major sin then it rings a bit hollow. Likewise with the recent protests in Danemark and the UK about a few cartoons in a magazine. Muslims were screeming hatred, death threats and bile at anyone who would listen. In fact 4 were arrested for incitement to murder.
Now please don't tell me that this was justified because they insulted your prophet. That will not do at all. We don't kill someone who writes something we find objectionable or draws a few cartoons. That is not civilised behaviour, that is the behaviour of the thug, the bully and the tyrant.

The girl I have proposed actually liked this thought of mine.What I meant was not that man is allowed to be less neat or organised. But that a woman can handle a house's neatness and organisation better than a man would.
I agree with having our own beliefs and opinions.

Fine, I hope you are very happy. It wouldn't work here - in fact it would probably cause real trouble if you tried to tell English women that this was a good way to behave. I promise you that they would not agree. This is another reason why Islamic law cannot be allowed into our secular society...

Another common objection.You should read this article.
And also this one.

No you still misunderstand. It isn't what I believe, this is what Bin Laden and radical islamists believe and what they quote. Their interpretation is quite different to yours and to the sources you cite, but that does not mean they are wrong even though you think they are, I think they are and the majority of UK muslims think they are....

[Shahrukh 0]

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

But Al-Amin did answer Al-Jozo's wrongful claims. Right till the end.
And when a single or even a few Muftis are supporting one thing where as the majority is supporting another, its the majority that is considered right.
Of course, people have their personal opinions. This Mufti is expressing those. He did not quote any reference, didn't even say the Islam says to kill these people. Where as Al-Amin clearly said that Allah will distinguish between civilians and enemies even if the bombers didn't.
So, basically, you are pointing to a single person who deviated from the general opinion. You can get that kind of behaviour everywhere. 1% Pakistanis supported Ladin in the previous survey as well. He is no different.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/new-jerusalem-mufti-endorses-suicide-bombers

Can't seem to open this link.

http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/09/11/aalim-online-inciting-murder-against-ahmedis

This guy is not an Aalim. He is a TV host. His comment do not hold any value.
In Islam, a person is allowed to believe whatever they want. We do not judge anyone, Allah will deal with everyone when the time comes.
But if his believes are not what Islam says, he cannot be called a Muslim. Like the case of Ahmedis. The changed their faith and were declared non-Muslims a while back.
The order to kill is only against a traitor, no one else. And that also after giving him opportunity to come back.

Fine, I hope you are very happy. It wouldn't work here - in fact it would probably cause real trouble if you tried to tell English women that this was a good way to behave. I promise you that they would not agree. This is another reason why Islamic law cannot be allowed into our secular society...

I hope so too.
Right. Let them go their way and we'll go ours.

No you still misunderstand. It isn't what I believe, this is what Bin Laden and radical islamists believe and what they quote. Their interpretation is quite different to yours and to the sources you cite, but that does not mean they are wrong even though you think they are, I think they are and the majority of UK muslims think they are....

They might be right in their belief but the truth is still that the are wrong.
If I interpret the law of the country wrong, I will not be exempted because according to me I was right. Same goes for Islamic laws.
For example, if I proved somehow that murder was allowed in Pakistan's law by changing interpretations, I would still be hanged.
Similarly, if Bin Laden proves that murder is allowed in Islamic law by changing interpretation, he would still be beheaded.

Besides, his forces kill more Muslims than non-Muslims. No way he can justify that in his mind.
As many people say, I think there is something fishy with him. But I can't really prove anything there.

[Bikerman 2]

You keep shifting the goalposts. First you say that you doubt any aamin or mufti would condone killing an innocent person.I give you evidence that this is wrong, so you shift it to say - ahh, but the majority disagree...That is not how I do debate and not how it should be done. You make and defend a point and concede it where refuted.You also completely ignored the other examples - Rushdie and the Danish Cartoonists - in both cases a huge number of Muslims, including their leaders, called for the murder of all of them. That is insupportable and it is, incidentally, when I stopped being outspoken in defence of Muslims. In my youth I often used to jump in and say how wrong people were about Muslims being murderous evangelicals, determined to convert or kill.After 1990 I was not so sure of that any more. I still believe that most muslims are reasonable people just like anyone else, but there is a very nasty side to Islam (from my point of view) that censors what it doesn't want to see and declares those who break that censorship to be evil people who HAVE to be killed. That, to me, cannot be defended and MUST be resisted actively. That is why any move to islamicise our systems of government whether education, juduicial or whatever, will be strongly and actively resisted by people like me.PS - any guesses why you can't open that other link? It opens fine for me....could it be...censorship...perhaps? :-)(I'm assuming you know that your internet connection is actively censored and filtered by your Government?)

Edited August 15, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

You keep shifting the goalposts. First you say that you doubt any aamin or mufti would condone killing an innocent person.I give you evidence that this is wrong, so you shift it to say - ahh, but the majority disagree...
That is not how I do debate and not how it should be done. You make and defend a point and concede it where refuted.

People do make mistakes, man. And this one is definitely things wrongly.
As for my doubt that any Mufti will allow such killing, I really was surprised by his sayings. But that still doesn't mean that Islam allows it.
Although, his followers will now consider it allowed.

You also completely ignored the other examples ... by people like me.

Yeah, forgot to add the answer to that.
You can call us anything you can, dude, but neither me nor any other Muslim with a little self-esteem will tolerate insult to Hazrat Muhammad.
Not believing in his teachings is a different thing but going out of the way to insult him is not good.
I don't think any of the followers of Hazrat Isa (Jesus) will think any different if someone insulted him.

PS - any guesses why you can't open that other link? It opens fine for me....could it be...censorship...perhaps? :-)(I'm assuming you know that your internet connection is actively censored and filtered by your Government?)

Could be.
Yeah, I can't even open the page 'Muhammad' in wikipedia.

[Bikerman 2]

People do make mistakes, man. And this one is definitely things wrongly.As for my doubt that any Mufti will allow such killing, I really was surprised by his sayings. But that still doesn't mean that Islam allows it.
Although, his followers will now consider it allowed.

Exactly my point. I'm not trying to score cheap debating points - this stuff is important because unless people can see and admit that these people exist then there is little chance of things changing....

Yeah, forgot to add the answer to that.You can call us anything you can, dude, but neither me nor any other Muslim with a little self-esteem will tolerate insult to Hazrat Muhammad.
Not believing in his teachings is a different thing but going out of the way to insult him is not good.
I don't think any of the followers of Hazrat Isa (Jesus) will think any different if someone insulted him.

I have no interest in calling people names, but there is a difference between responding in a civilised manner to an insult and calling for the person to be murdered and I am surprised you do not see that. Nobody has a right to murder is what you keep telling me, yet if anyone dares to insult Mohammed then they are fair game. You see no contradiction in that?

Could be.Yeah, I can't even open the page 'Muhammad' in wikipedia.

Oh yes, it is certainly true. I worked in network/systems management for a while with a Pakistani - Aftab ****, good bloke. He helped put in some of the routing used by the Pakistani government to implement their censoring systems..

PS - I have edited my last paragraph and changed Aftab's name - giving his real name might have been silly of me in the circumstances - it could cause him problems and I have no wish to do that.
Edited August 15, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

Exactly my point. I'm not trying to score cheap debating points - this stuff is important because unless people can see and admit that these people exist then there is little chance of things changing....

I wish they change for the better.

I have no interest in calling people names, but there is a difference between responding in a civilised manner to an insult and calling for the person to be murdered and I am surprised you do not see that. Nobody has a right to murder is what you keep telling me, yet if anyone dares to insult Mohammed then they are fair game. You see no contradiction in that?

Murdering innocent people that is. Not one who attacks our prophet.
We love our prophet more than our lives. And we don't tolerate anything against him, not a physical attack (which is of course not possible now) and not an insult.
I see your point here. But insulting Hazrat Muhammad means open war for us. And the insulter has made the first attack.

Oh yes, it is certainly true. I worked in network/systems management for a while with a Pakistani - Aftab ****, good bloke. He helped put in some of the routing used by the Pakistani government to implement their censoring systems..
PS - I have edited my last paragraph and changed Aftab's name - giving his real name might have been silly of me in the circumstances - it could cause him problems and I have no wish to do that.

Right, right.