All Comments (21)

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny,

I apologize for the double posting. Hit the Post button the second time by error.

And what don't you understand about either message?????

If your ideas don't make any sense to anyone sane, just post it several times and it will become clear to all.

Levent, Levent, Levent,

I see you are back to your "gibberishing again".

Here are the issues. We await your answers.

Your problems go beyond Islamic laws, Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

These are tough issues.

Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

Levent, Levent, Levent,

I see you are back to your "gibberishing again".

Here are the issues. We wait your answers.

Your problems go beyond Islamic laws, Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

These are tough issues.

Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

=========Being a Muslim i think this will open a new pandora box in UK that will have no end because Muslims themselves have not agreed yet unanimously about the Islamic Laws.The Shiat have their own islamic rules which differ from the islamic rules of other sects of Muslims-----
========Once Pakistani government tried to introduce ZAKAT ( Islamic tax system ) in Pakistan. The Shiat islamic people did not agree with those & said that those were against their Islamic rules.They made a whole day protest against those newly introduced rules in front of National Parliment. Finally the Pakistani government made amendment & now two parallel Islamic rules are working in Pakistan with reference to Islamic tax system.Shia people Islamic tax is not deducted from their bank deposits while other Muslim people islamic tax amount is deducted from the bank deposits------
=========Similarly probably in year 1951 the Pakistan court asked the Pakistani religious scholar to give defination of Muslim & surprislingly the Muslim scholars could not reach to one defination about the word Muslim
=========The shiats & other Muslims have not reached one decission to matters regarding DIVORCE of women----Shiat believe that divorce is not valid till three months & even couple can compromise during this time period ( even if husabnd has said more than three times words like "divoce to you") while other Islamic sect people take it as a valid divorce & they say that there is no scope of reconcilation after three divorces in one sitting
Under these circumstance how can we impose Islamic laws

Thank

=========Being a Muslim i think this will open a new pandora box in UK that will have no end because Muslims themselves have not agreed yet unanimously about the Islamic Laws.The Shiat have their own islamic rules which differ from the islamic rules of other sects of Muslims-----
========Once Pakistani government tried to introduce ZAKAT ( Islamic tax system ) in Pakistan. The Shiat islamic people did not agree with those & said that those were against their Islamic rules.They made a whole day protest against those newly introduced rules in front of National Parliment. Finally the Pakistani government made amendment & now two parallel Islamic rules are working in Pakistan with reference to Islamic tax system.Shia people Islamic tax is not deducted from their bank deposits while other Muslim people islamic tax amount is deducted from the bank deposits------
=========Similarly probably in year 1951 the Pakistan court asked the Pakistani religious scholar to give defination of Muslim & surprislingly the Muslim scholars could not reach to one defination about the word Muslim
=========The shiats & other Muslims have not reached one decission to matters regarding DIVORCE of women----Shiat believe that divorce is not valid till three months & even couple can compromise during this time period ( even if husabnd has said more than three times words like "divoce to you") while other Islamic sect people take it as a valid divorce & they say that there is no scope of reconcilation after three divorces in one sitting
Under these circumstance how can we impose Islamic laws

Thank

Being a Muslim i think this will open a new pandora box in UK that will have no end because Muslims themselves have not agreed yet unanimously about the Islamic Laws.The Shiat have their own islamic rules which differ from the islamic rules of other sects of Muslims-----
Once Pakistani government tried to introduce ZAKAT ( Islamic tax system ) in Pakistan. The Shiat islamic people did not agree with those & said that those were against their Islamic rules.They made a whole day protest against those newly introduced rules in front of National Parliment. Finally the Pakistani government made amendment & now two parallel Islamic rules are working in Pakistan with reference to Islamic tax system.Shia people Islamic tax is not deducted from their bank deposits while other Muslim people islamic tax amount is deducted from the bank deposits------
Similarly probably in year 1951 the Pakistan court asked the Pakistani religious scholar to give defination of Muslim & surprislingly the Muslim scholars could not reach to one defination about the word Muslim
The shiats & other Muslims have not reached one decission to matters regarding DIVORCE of women----Shiat believe that divorce is not valid till three months & even couple can compromise during this time period ( even if husabnd has said more than three times words like "divoce to you") while other Islamic sect people take it as a valid divorce & they say that there is no scope of reconcilation after three divorces in one sitting
Under these circumstance how can we impose Islamic laws

There's been a lot discussion and debate on these pages about the differences between so-called secularists and so-called religionists.

In the matter of Islam and Christianity coming to terms, this is where the secularists win. Mixing those two faiths is tantamount to mixing water and oil. They have absolutely nothing in common and to make any concession in any way is to dilute either one or both religion(s).

Secularists are correct. Persons are free to worship geckos and goats if they want to, as nutty as that may seem to some, but the government should be rational and distinct from religious or quasi-religious thought, because either we address and accede to all religions (impossible) or we concede to none.

In America, just as people find the non-possibility of being subject to Sharia law in their lifetimes to be, well, frightening, let's put it this way... If they think the *state* is really validating their church-marriages in some religious way, they're wrong.

The state's job is to guarantee religious liberties to the *individual,* and, often, to arbitrate *legal* contracts.

The state does not arbitrate religious contracts. You can swear your life on Odin, the Buddha, Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, religiously, if you like...

If you decide, 'I don't wanna be Muslim or Pentecostal or Pastafarian anymore, heck with this noise, I'm getting slapped around...'

Then the state allows a procedure to dissolve the legal contract and, in theory at least, has no authority to dictate on religious matters, (though in a few to-us-prominent cases, a divorcee's Pagan faith has been used to deny visitation, property, or to compel certain silence about religious matters, though this is just the kind of abuse Christians scream about fears-of-Islam-taking-over, -therefore-enforce-more-Christianity- for)

Frankly, I think the reason this is such an alarming issue to Christians is about your similarities to Islam, and not your differences.

Personally, I observe that it stops mattering after a while exactly whose name you're getting smacked around in and finding your legal recourse limited.

America guarantees certain rights, liberties, and freedoms, even if the Pope or various prophets, or even someone's reading of the Bible says otherwise.

This is how we do it. This is how we prevent most of the worst of the abuses of authoritarian religion.

But don't think they don't still happen, particularly wherever we compromise ideals of civil, secular, justice.

The way I, as an American, see it, your religion is your own business, until you start making it my *government.*

At which point it's *my* business.

That would go for Islam, too, but that's not my big concern, right now.

Well, this is an issue, but on this:

"There is precedent, the Imam cogently argues, in that as an Imam he is licensed by the State of New York to perform weddings, though not divorces. As a Christian minister I too am so licensed by the State of Illinois, but I have concluded that this legal work on my part is an unwarranted intrusion of the state into the church where I conduct weddings and so I will no longer do the legal part; as a Pastor I need to lead worship, not work for the State of Illinois. The reason is simple. Gay rights. Gay marriage as a political issue simply goes away if Pastors, Rabbis, Imams and other religious leaders cannot perform legally binding marriages, but only conduct religious ceremonies. Then every American who wishes to marry could get legally married by a civil authority and those who wish a religious ceremony could go those religious leaders they wish to officiate at the religious ceremony who are willing to do so. We in the United Church of Christ welcome such same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples."

...I think people often want to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples because they believe that civil marriage is somehow a Church thing that the state made law: in fact, it's a state thing that the churches can be certified by the state to do, legally... if you go through the certification procedure. Theoretically religion-neutral, if not always expressed as such in practice, as often happens when a bureaucrat thinks the state gave them permission to arbitrate spiritual matters.

I can and have religiously-presided over handfastings, and could get certified to do such by several states (Ironically-enough, my mail-order ULC ID often holds more legal weight than anything else, but I guess that's what it's for...

When it comes to issues like this, I like to point out that as clergy, I could refuse to marry a couple if I didn't like their haircuts, ...the state, on the other hand, isn't entitled to deny people a civil ceremony on the basis of religious hangups... Not anyone's, no matter how common those hangups may be.

(And before Fundies scream 'Next Stop, I Marry My Livestock,' well a) What? and b) You can't enter a civil contract with livestock, anyway. )

The state is *not* supposed to make any law regarding an establishment of religion... and as much as some people and establishments of religion carefully-try to claim it's otherwise, it's really asking the *state* to enforce a religious edict when they say, 'Same-sex-marriage is 'just wrong,'

...So I'd say, go ahead and perform legal marriages, Reverend... The fact is that more churches than states would recognize it if I married my *own* sweetie, and to me, that only points out the disparity. Same service, same ritual, different legal treatment.

Why?

Cause someone said so.

And it's wrong.

Explain what Christians have in common with Islam?Does Christianity also worship an ancient moon god? When has Christianity send mentally handicapped children into a crowd of civilians and blew them up? Does the concept of the Christian god contain contradictory attributes; as does the Islamic moon god, that effectively destroys the concept as being incoherent and impossible?

Religious delution has killed more people in history than all wars combined.

What we really need to do is jetison delutional thought from our minds and learn to live in the real world instead of spending our days believing in a sky daddy that cannot and does not exist...except in the mind of idiots.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

ah, sometimes gratitude is the fermentation for milk to be yoghurt.

what do you see in Group?
Grow Up?

rose has been applied in the philosophy for Muhammed, to say the truth.

how we can make yoghurt from milk is as follows: get it from the cow or sheep, boil the milk and let the boiled milk calm. put a spoon of yoghurt into it and let it rest to cool covered with cloths.

as far as i know, milk of fig is used for fermentation. but spiritually, we get the one spoon of yoghurt from presents of masters and saints and prophets, and the milk from the Milky way.

the milk of fig is from Milky Way too. this is Greek way, brothers from the West. i am free today. there may be leisure in my text.

Bubble of Biology is "Bible of Life Science". did anybody hear this phrase? "Bubble of Biology"?

rose is not related with Ahmet prophet. it has later been applied in the philosophy.

also there are seeds of apple. those tiny things in the fig are planets and stars of the universe.

fig leaves are for universality. one over the genitals may be transliterated as follows:

"as above so below", genitals is the second from the bottom "overkidney" adrenalin gland. and thirdeye hypophysis gland is the second from the upper of the body.

leaf over the genitals is awareness in universality. or being a member of universal life on Earth.

and there was olive oil, vinegar, a sweet fruit, salt, olive and bread on the table.

what are the differences between todays law and islamic law?

1. poligami
2. inheritance
3. witness
4. dining
5. prayers
6. charity

i here should point again the difference between Ahmet prophet and Muhammed. today islamic law is concrete and it is not as wooden as life of Ahmet prophet.

and islamic law was established later by another family. we may not find the gentleness and grace in this islamic system that are in Ahmet prophet's life.

are there farmers, gardeners and foresters here? did anybody take pneumatic and hydrolic vehicles nearby? neolitic tools are applicable too.

lets see what we have in the vegetables in the garden.

1. in a house, there may be women besides houselady for housework, kitchen and children. for these women, there is marriage for protection of peace in the house and family. it is not for poligami.

3. women are gentle and sensitive, easily broken with a few words. one woman may be weak. but two women are strong.

2. i have not any idea about inheritance. with much money, a woman could lose her gentleness.

4. as far as i know, Ahmet prophet offered to eat meat once a week. at that time even in breakfast, there was meat on the table in the rich. but for the poor to have meat at least once a week was proper and healthy.

5. prayer is related with the sun and nature. the inspiration and love are vital. oral verbalizations from the heart are public. he took his grandsons to his shoulders while standing and putting them aside while touching the ground with his head. he was gentle and cheerful.

6. charity and wisdom are vital. 40 is a number of strength and maturity. to give 1/40 of what i have is to share wisdom and wealth.

these are already in todays inheritance and law and life, in love and wisdom in hearts and life. we already keep this lively and we may learn how to more.

Well Said. In India, we have separate laws for Hindus/Muslims/etc, and that leads to all sorts of problems. First of all, it creates difficulties, when persons from 2 religions are married. Which religion's laws do you follow? It also leads to a LOT of resentment between members of religions, because they see the other religion's followers get certain benefits they dont receive.

This is a terrible idea, and must certainly not be entertained. For e.g. in the case of the will, it is the duty of the religious follower to set up his/her will in accordance with their religion, and not that of the government's

In these days that try man's soul
When all but the richest go on the dole
Every minister and Ayatollah alive
Dispute who gets the government tithe
It's nothing that the greed can deter
For it's all in the plan of old Lucifer.

Lucifer loves all faith. All faith is good for Him. Well, leave faith in God out of course. The more diverse the faith and the more entangled faith gets with government the more Lucifer likes it. Therefore we must "cherish" all faith. Faith is faith.

Look about you. Where did all this chaos come from? There must be a Devil.

There is! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul There is a Devil and His name is Lucifer. Devil delivers the big money to those who follow His divine teachings and lead people of faith to His kingdom, hell.

Case in point, the really big money: 400 years ago the Spanish were about the business of looting Latin America -turned it into a 3rd world area today. Sir Francis Drake robbed the Spanish and took a few boatloads of gold belonging to Latin Americans.

Drake brought the gold to the Queen, head of the Church of England. She rewarded Drake with knighthood and some of the gold was passed on to the Archbishop of Canterbury where it was used to make the sacred articles of faith, chalices, monstrances etc. In the end all the gold was 'gifted to God' by one or the other intermediate looters.

You probably know that story. And of course you may have seen the fine church in Spain with a solid Aztec/Inca gold altar where the son of God is sacrificed. That's what the catholic mass is all about, the sacrificing of the son of God so that sins can be forgiven. Did you know that Devil just loves it, people sacrificing God's son to Him. So it's His son. A sacrifice is a sacrifice and when it's Devil receiving the sacrifice...beggers can't be choosers.

The next terror attack will be planned at a tax exempt mosque and use unaccounted money that's tax free and deductible too. Isn't that comforting?

Maybe we should uphold and defend the constitution and 'officially' recognize no religion the way we 'officially' recognize no astrologer? Taxes! End tax breaks of any kind for religion or religious. Let what's happening in England be a lesson.

Imam Feisal argues that it is in the area of family law, however, where “Separation of church and state…will not be violated if we establish separate Muslim, Jewish, or Christian personal status courts to render judgments for Muslim, Jewish, or Christian couples…”

He is wrong.

If Muslims, Jews or Christians want to enter into contracts around these things, they are free to do so under the laws that pertain to contracts. But under NO circumstances will the Constitution permit a "personal status court" that forces anyone to be subject to it. That will NEVER be allowed in this country unless we change the Constitution to do so.

Beautifully put. Thank you.