We are already subject to laws that we disagree with. What difference does it make if we are subject to a different set of laws that we disagree with?
And why would we disagree with the commandments of God if His laws are clearly more sensible and moral than laws that promote Cultural Marxism AKA feminism AKA laws that support the matriarchy? (As all who have been paying attention would know, discovering that you live in a matriarchy is the national equivalent of being told by your doctor that you have cancer.)
We would have a referendum on the EU, we would have capital and corporal punishment, men can have up to four wives, brothel-keeping would be legal and we would have a 20% flat rate income tax. Feminism would be defeated.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/my-politics.html
What is there not to like in this brave new Islamic world?
You are just being irrational, fearful and chauvinistic. Why be loyal to liberal democracy WHEN IT HAS SO OBVIOUSLY FAILED??
I admire Choudary for his clarity and persistence. In essence, he and I are agreed about Sharia law, and Secular Koranism http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-is-secular-koranism.html is a form of Sharia law.
What we disagree about is the interpretation and the form, and doubtless there are as may interpretations of the Koran as there are Islamic scholars.
Mine would be of course more "liberal" and humane.
He gets a few things wrong IMO. Jizya is a conditional tribute and should never be imposed on your own people, or non-Muslims living in your land.
The jizya can only be imposed on a country you have conquered. If Britain became Muslim and conquered Ireland or France, then we would impose the jizya on them. If they refused to convert to Islam, they would have to pay us the jizya. If they become an Islamic state, they avoid the tax.
If France became Muslim and invaded Britain, then it could impose the jizya on the British.
I imagine that if this happened they would convert to Islam because Islam supports a 20% flat rate income tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums
Choudary also appears to say that adulterers should be stoned to death, even when there is no mention of this in the Koran.
Nietzsche:
I am confident that right-thinking members of British society and the judiciary are more likely to prefer my liberal and humane version of Sharia than "his stone 'em to death" one.
And why would we disagree with the commandments of God if His laws are clearly more sensible and moral than laws that promote Cultural Marxism AKA feminism AKA laws that support the matriarchy? (As all who have been paying attention would know, discovering that you live in a matriarchy is the national equivalent of being told by your doctor that you have cancer.)
We would have a referendum on the EU, we would have capital and corporal punishment, men can have up to four wives, brothel-keeping would be legal and we would have a 20% flat rate income tax. Feminism would be defeated.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/my-politics.html
What is there not to like in this brave new Islamic world?
You are just being irrational, fearful and chauvinistic. Why be loyal to liberal democracy WHEN IT HAS SO OBVIOUSLY FAILED??
I admire Choudary for his clarity and persistence. In essence, he and I are agreed about Sharia law, and Secular Koranism http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/what-is-secular-koranism.html is a form of Sharia law.
What we disagree about is the interpretation and the form, and doubtless there are as may interpretations of the Koran as there are Islamic scholars.
Mine would be of course more "liberal" and humane.
He gets a few things wrong IMO. Jizya is a conditional tribute and should never be imposed on your own people, or non-Muslims living in your land.
009.029 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
The jizya can only be imposed on a country you have conquered. If Britain became Muslim and conquered Ireland or France, then we would impose the jizya on them. If they refused to convert to Islam, they would have to pay us the jizya. If they become an Islamic state, they avoid the tax.
If France became Muslim and invaded Britain, then it could impose the jizya on the British.
I imagine that if this happened they would convert to Islam because Islam supports a 20% flat rate income tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums
Choudary also appears to say that adulterers should be stoned to death, even when there is no mention of this in the Koran.
Nietzsche:
"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."
I am confident that right-thinking members of British society and the judiciary are more likely to prefer my liberal and humane version of Sharia than "his stone 'em to death" one.
No comments:
Post a Comment