Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh

Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.

I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.

More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.

With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?

Same new PP here. Forgot to add, here in the United States, we like to say, "Ignorance of the law is no defense." We expect all residents to abide by US law, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it, regardless of whether they know about it. Why should the same NOT apply to Malaysia's law, which happens to be the Sharia? Btw, I ask this as someone who actually is against many Sharia laws. It's just that PP's line of reasoning simply makes no sense.

Not sure what is so hard to understand. I'll spoon feed it to you.

Malaysia has two legal systems, the broadly utilized federal-level constitution, and state-level ordinances. This fairly modern legal system is based on British common law, a leftover from British colonial days much like elsewhere in the world that has legal systems based on British common law. This is the law of the land. The second legal system, Sharia law, has limited scope largely pertaining to family and religious matters, and applies only to Muslims. Sharia law is recognized and practiced in Malaysia because the Muslims there demands it. Muslims current make up a little over 60% of Malaysian population, and as indicated in my previous post, 86% of them believe Sharia law should be the law of the land, and 55% of those wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.

Why is this relevant?

Because the poster Muslima claimed:

"since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there"

As you can see, Muslims prove her wrong because instead of living under the unified law of Malaysia, they demand and operate under a secondary legal system. They want their own law, Sharia law, to be the law of the land, replacing the exisiting one. This is not respecting the laws of the land.

2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws.

Again, as you can see, Muslims in Malaysia prove her wrong again, with a significant portion of Muslims wanting Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hindu but I want to speak in defense of any Muslims who are offended by Mohammed being depicted in art. The reason it's offensive is because he's not being depicted in art respectfully, as the prophet he was.

It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!

And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.

While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.

Anonymous wrote:It seems to be the custom in the land to look down om beliefs and religion that is not your own

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hindu but I want to speak in defense of any Muslims who are offended by Mohammed being depicted in art. The reason it's offensive is because he's not being depicted in art respectfully, as the prophet he was.

It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!

And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.

While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.

Anonymous wrote:What if you see an image of the Prophet on a toasted cheese sandwich. Is that blasphemy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add….

That all said, in Islam it is not permitted to apply Islamic law to non Muslims. This is clear from the Quran. Regardless of what Malaysia's citizens want, in this case, it is not likely to become law.

Although Islamic law does require non-Muslims to pay special taxes to Muslim rulers.

Yes, as compensation for the protection by the Muslims in control against outsiders that may war against the state. It's not enough to be able to spout off various Islamic laws. You kind of need to understand why they are in existence too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you see an image of the Prophet on a toasted cheese sandwich. Is that blasphemy?

Well, considering nobody knows what he looks like, most Muslims would just tell you to get your eyes checked

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Hindu but I want to speak in defense of any Muslims who are offended by Mohammed being depicted in art. The reason it's offensive is because he's not being depicted in art respectfully, as the prophet he was.

It's like how furious I get when ignorant European fashion houses and retail labels in the US like Urban Outfitters think it's super cool to put an image of Ganesha - the Hindu deity of luck and remover of obstacles - on the soles of flip flops or on bags. First of all, putting a Hindu deity under someone's feet is INSANELY disrespectful, and second, the holy figure is meant to depicted as a holy figure in art - not as scenery!

And that's part of what I hate about the Mohammed cartoonists and anyone else who portrays Mohammed in art without reference to his role in life.

While we're on this track, I also couldn't keep watching South Park when they kept making fun of Jesus and turning him into some stoner character. It infuriated me, it was so disrespectful.