SomaliNet Forums

melo wrote:Look, just because there are a diversity of opinions, does not mean they are equally valid. Certain opinion are ridiculous and contradict basic Islamic tenets. I haven't at any stage debated whether your solution is more pragmatic. That is an entirely different discussion. All i was pointing out, is that it contradicts basic Islamic tenets.

abdisamad3 wrote:

Beenaale_No1 wrote:

melo wrote:Beenaale: It doesn't matter how many times you spout your nonsense.. there are certain facts about diinta that are not up for discussion. The Quran and Sunnah clearly dictate how society should be organised, and unfortunately your liberal fetishes do not match.

Unlike you, I dont wanna impose my ideology on other people. All I ask for is for everybody to be free to do what they want [within the law]. But you folks want people to practise your version of Islam. Which is precisely the problem that is going in Southern Somalia right now - brutally.

there is only one islamic version, and that is to follow the sunnah of the prophet (saw) anything else is shirk and fitna,so you choose my friend we are not forcing you to follow the prophet we are not trying to force you to stop drinking alcohol or going to clubs or hanging out with gay people, but we won't tolerate your bullshit of changing islam so it fits well with your personal life style and to throw out part's of islam that is against your life style and adopt the part's that dont go against your life style, get that through your head ok, and please stop acting like your a victim always complaining about some one is taking you out of islam , the only person that can take you out islam is you and your actions,,,

union wrote:BV, you need to understand trying to ban sinful activities is an exercise in futility. It would just waste a tremendous amount of the state’s resources and people would still find a way to engage in those activities. Take for example the prohibition movement in the United States, how well did that turn out? The best thing the state can do is to regulate those markets to make sure there is no exploitation and abuse, and other than that let people enjoy what they wish.

Alphanumeric wrote:

union wrote:BV, you need to understand trying to ban sinful activities is an exercise in futility. It would just waste a tremendous amount of the state’s resources and people would still find a way to engage in those activities. Take for example the prohibition movement in the United States, how well did that turn out? The best thing the state can do is to regulate those markets to make sure there is no exploitation and abuse, and other than that let people enjoy what they wish.

I think investing in education is a better route. Get em when they're young, no? (hooray for indoctrination )

I'm not sure what the fiqh is behind alcohol. My question is, to anyone willing to answer, what would be the ruling on a Christian who immigrated to the "Islamic State" (a historic era of your choosing) who ferments grapes to make wine, for personal pleasure and leisurely drinking with friends, in home? Is it the existence or the consumption of alcohol that is haram? Is the selling of alcohol prohibited for both Christians and Muslims? Same deal with someone who grows marijuana, or manufactures whatever narcotic.

What contradicts basic Islamic laws that beenlae has mentioned? Muslims should live under Islamic laws, yes. But if someone like you were to enforce it, it would prove destructive.

melo wrote:

What contradicts basic Islamic laws that beenlae has mentioned? Muslims should live under Islamic laws, yes. But if someone like you were to enforce it, it would prove destructive.

He is essentially propagating secular governance.

BlackVelvet wrote:

union wrote:BV, you need to understand trying to ban sinful activities is an exercise in futility. It would just waste a tremendous amount of the state’s resources and people would still find a way to engage in those activities. Take for example the prohibition movement in the United States, how well did that turn out? The best thing the state can do is to regulate those markets to make sure there is no exploitation and abuse, and other than that let people enjoy what they wish.

So this is not a matter of you drawing the line on a different spot. You don't have a line at all. Kind of scary actually.

abdisamad3 wrote:

Alphanumeric wrote:

union wrote:BV, you need to understand trying to ban sinful activities is an exercise in futility. It would just waste a tremendous amount of the state’s resources and people would still find a way to engage in those activities. Take for example the prohibition movement in the United States, how well did that turn out? The best thing the state can do is to regulate those markets to make sure there is no exploitation and abuse, and other than that let people enjoy what they wish.

I think investing in education is a better route. Get em when they're young, no? (hooray for indoctrination )

I'm not sure what the fiqh is behind alcohol. My question is, to anyone willing to answer, what would be the ruling on a Christian who immigrated to the "Islamic State" (a historic era of your choosing) who ferments grapes to make wine, for personal pleasure and leisurely drinking with friends, in home? Is it the existence or the consumption of alcohol that is haram? Is the selling of alcohol prohibited for both Christians and Muslims? Same deal with someone who grows marijuana, or manufactures whatever narcotic.

do you grow your own herbs sxb,

union wrote:

BlackVelvet wrote:

union wrote:BV, you need to understand trying to ban sinful activities is an exercise in futility. It would just waste a tremendous amount of the state’s resources and people would still find a way to engage in those activities. Take for example the prohibition movement in the United States, how well did that turn out? The best thing the state can do is to regulate those markets to make sure there is no exploitation and abuse, and other than that let people enjoy what they wish.

So this is not a matter of you drawing the line on a different spot. You don't have a line at all. Kind of scary actually.

Did I not explicitly draw a line at exploitation and abuse?

Alphanumeric wrote:

melo wrote:

What contradicts basic Islamic laws that beenlae has mentioned? Muslims should live under Islamic laws, yes. But if someone like you were to enforce it, it would prove destructive.

He is essentially propagating secular governance.

Wrong. He is propagating for civil liberties.

accident wrote:

melo wrote:Look, just because there are a diversity of opinions, does not mean they are equally valid. Certain opinion are ridiculous and contradict basic Islamic tenets. I haven't at any stage debated whether your solution is more pragmatic. That is an entirely different discussion. All i was pointing out, is that it contradicts basic Islamic tenets.

What contradicts basic Islamic laws that beenlae has mentioned? Muslims should live under Islamic laws, yes. But if someone like you were to enforce it, it would prove destructive.

abdirsamad, he said within reason.

Typical Somalis.

abdisamad3 wrote:benaale are you saying there shouldn't be any law's at all as people will find a way to break the law anyway,,,so let's say some one wishing to walk naked in the street can do so with out any consequences, or a couple can have sex in the middle of the street if they wish to do so, does this even make any sense?

melo wrote:

Alphanumeric wrote:

melo wrote: He is essentially propagating secular governance.

Wrong. He is propagating for civil liberties.

Civil liberties as defined by liberalism and not Islam.. Its essentially secularism. He believes the state should not enforce religious values upon its citizens in the public space.

melo wrote:Civil liberties as defined by liberalism and not Islam.. Its essentially secularism. He believes the state should not enforce religious values upon its citizens in the public space.

Beenaale_No1 wrote:

abdisamad3 wrote:benaale are you saying there shouldn't be any law's at all as people will find a way to break the law anyway,,,so let's say some one wishing to walk naked in the street can do so with out any consequences, or a couple can have sex in the middle of the street if they wish to do so, does this even make any sense?

Im talking about the more extreme laws. Look at Marijuana. Who has the better solution the Netherlands or the United States? This can be debated and that is my issue. We should all be able to discuss what laws make sense wnat laws dont make sense, and then reach a conclusion.

PS: I also disagree with many laws in the West but at least they can be changed in due course if people fight for it.