Islami Sharia saves Raymond Davis

[roadrunner]

You're wrong again Tormana!

He's right.

I have no doubts the family were told by influential people that Ray was going to be released anyway, so it's better to accept the money.

But if that family had any common sense then they would have refused it still. Because all of Pakistan were glued to their TV sets and internet about the case. They would have made quite a name for themselves, and then releasing him would have been problematic.

They used the legal loophole that is Sharia law which enables criminals to get off scot free.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

He's right.

I have no doubts the family were told by influential people that Ray was going to be released anyway, so it's better to accept the money.

But if that family had any common sense then they would have refused it still. Because all of Pakistan were glued to their TV sets and internet about the case. They would have made quite a name for themselves, and then releasing him would have been problematic.

They used the legal loophole that is Sharia law which enables criminals to get off scot free.

Yep, and Im sure Nicole Brown Simpson's family and Ron Goldman's family feel the same way about your brand of law. Especially since their opponent, the Juice widenened his loophole to the point of absurdity. Remember Roadrunner: The if the glove does not fit... acquit! Recall, that loophole, innocent till proven guilty doesnt beneft the Cameron Todd Willingham's of the world.

As I have said, please provide us your thoughts on:

"Second Surah O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder; the free for the free the slave for the slave the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, This is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. (178) In the law of Equality there is (saving of) life to you O ye men of understanding! that ye may restrain yourselves. (179)"

Bottom line is that you have not takers when it comes you versus the one and only God.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You have to laugh at the excuses they make. "Oh, but they're not practising Sharia correctly"

If you're not capable of practising Sharia correctly in any country, then perhaps it's better you didn't practise it at all.

Or just stop being a moron and practice it correctly.

That would be the intelligent response to the scenario.

[ScimitarXEdge]

He's right.

I have no doubts the family were told by influential people that Ray was going to be released anyway, so it's better to accept the money.

But if that family had any common sense then they would have refused it still. Because all of Pakistan were glued to their TV sets and internet about the case. They would have made quite a name for themselves, and then releasing him would have been problematic.

They used the legal loophole that is Sharia law which enables criminals to get off scot free.

wrong



Do some reading; actually get an education on the subjects you discuss, hold off the pomp of pretending to be intelligent and actually make an attempt at making an intelligent response for a change.

[roadrunner]

oh whatever scimitar. You've not understood what I've said. There's no point explaining it to you when you can't read.

[roadrunner]

Yep, and Im sure Nicole Brown Simpson's family and Ron Goldman's family feel the same way about your brand of law. Especially since their opponent, the Juice widenened his loophole to the point of absurdity. Remember Roadrunner: The if the glove does not fit... acquit! Recall, that loophole, innocent till proven guilty doesnt beneft the Cameron Todd Willingham's of the world.

As I have said, please provide us your thoughts on:

"Second Surah O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder; the free for the free the slave for the slave the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, This is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. (178) In the law of Equality there is (saving of) life to you O ye men of understanding! that ye may restrain yourselves. (179)"

Bottom line is that you have not takers when it comes you versus the one and only God.

I'll just repeat the same things I said on the other thread since you posted the exact same thing there.

This is the problem with people like you. When it comes to interpreting things of this nature then you're absolutely without a clue, as is virtually all Sharia Law in use.

Here is the main point. Pakistan has two systems of law. One is secular law, the other is Sharia Law. Secular law says he should be punished by prison. Sharia Law says he should be punished, but well, he can be let off and go scot free if he's got enough money. And that's exactly what happened.

There's no argument over the verse. You can interpret it how you like. I don't interpret it like you. But it is IRRELEVANT. The fact is that it is this interpretation of Sharia Law that let him get off free, and in fact Sharia Law in these countries that have let many murderers out of jail simply because they can afford to pay enough money to poor people. THAT is NOT justice.

If you cannot interpret, or apply something correctly or at least logically, then you are foolish to make a law out of it. The Secular Law needs no such intelligence. It is basic common sense. You commit a crime, you do the time. Money is not a get out of jail card for the rich.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'll just repeat the same things I said on the other thread since you posted the exact same thing there.

This is the problem with people like you. When it comes to interpreting things of this nature then you're absolutely without a clue, as is virtually all Sharia Law in use.

Here is the main point. Pakistan has two systems of law. One is secular law, the other is Sharia Law. Secular law says he should be punished by prison. Sharia Law says he should be punished, but well, he can be let off and go scot free if he's got enough money. And that's exactly what happened.

There's no argument over the verse. You can interpret it how you like. I don't interpret it like you. But it is IRRELEVANT. The fact is that it is this interpretation of Sharia Law that let him get off free, and in fact Sharia Law in these countries that have let many murderers out of jail simply because they can afford to pay enough money to poor people. THAT is NOT justice.

If you cannot interpret, or apply something correctly or at least logically, then you are foolish to make a law out of it. The Secular Law needs no such intelligence. It is basic common sense. You commit a crime, you do the time. Money is not a get out of jail card for the rich.

Oh roadrunner, diarrhea of the mouth (or the keyboard in this case) wont get you anwhere. You merely repeat the same dogma again and again without taking into consideration confounders, executers of the law, and the loopholes you ignore on your own turf. Repetition does not make what you say true just because you repeat it a hundred times. All that does is make you look idiotic for repeating something that is wrong, a hundred times.

Lets take a look at your interpretation. It ignores the wording of the verse completely. It neither says: O Ye tribesmen of Arabia that believe, though subsequent generations of believers not in tribal units ignore this ayaah..."

Rather it says clearly and cogently: O YE WHO BELIEVE...." Furthermore, the laws prescribed around the verse in question discuss righteusness in freeing slaves, keeping treaties, and inheritence laws that are executed to this time in the same fashion as they were revealed.

Also, where do you derive this "interpretation?" Which companion or classical text supports your rendering of A) the history behind the verse and B) the classical execution of the verse. Now pay close attention, because I am not talking about how the classicists interpreted it themselves... I am asking you for an example in which any righteous caliph of viable Islamic state (or even claimed Islamic state) of any era executed the law prescribed as you write it.

You see roadrunner, you attempt to ignore confounders in the execution of secular law (in which there are many good values) and confounders in the execution of shariah law. Once again, this clearly demonstrates your agenda and your dishonesty.

As Cameron Todd Willingham found out, you simply repeating that money and an inability to utilize the loophole of "innocent till guilt is proven" is not a loophole is about as honest as **** Cheyney on a good day.

Lets trap you a bit more with another ayaah:
"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not of well-established meaning. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not of well-established meaning. Seeking discord, and searching for its interpretation, but no one knows its true meanings except Allah, and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it is from our Lord"; and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. (7) "Our Lord!" (they say), "let not our hearts deviate now after Thou hast guided us, but grant us mercy from Thee: for Thou art the Grantor of bounties without measure. (8)

Note the absence of your compatriots roadrunner. Do you know why? Its because they know that up till now they have been able to dance around directly taking on the Quran. You have no entered them into an argument of attrition in which Afghans on here will clearly see that they have a choice between you and God.

Trust me Roadrunner, God trumps you... Everytime.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I'll just repeat the same things I said on the other thread since you posted the exact same thing there.

This is the problem with people like you. When it comes to interpreting things of this nature then you're absolutely without a clue, as is virtually all Sharia Law in use.

Here is the main point. Pakistan has two systems of law. One is secular law, the other is Sharia Law. Secular law says he should be punished by prison. Sharia Law says he should be punished, but well, he can be let off and go scot free if he's got enough money. And that's exactly what happened.

There's no argument over the verse. You can interpret it how you like. I don't interpret it like you. But it is IRRELEVANT. The fact is that it is this interpretation of Sharia Law that let him get off free, and in fact Sharia Law in these countries that have let many murderers out of jail simply because they can afford to pay enough money to poor people. THAT is NOT justice.

If you cannot interpret, or apply something correctly or at least logically, then you are foolish to make a law out of it. The Secular Law needs no such intelligence. It is basic common sense. You commit a crime, you do the time. Money is not a get out of jail card for the rich.

Also, one need not repeat themselves; as I have written on the other thread you ignore the state goals of shariah law: "allahuma rabana athenaa fid dunyaa wal akhiraa". The Quran clearly directs man to understand justice derives in this world and the hereafter. You also refuse to take on the the OJ versus Paul Bernard example and how a murderer got off free. Its interesting how the eyes of secular law saw Paul Bernard as more guilty than OJ simply because he did not have the services of the dream team. In fact the Quran answers you and delineates that:

"In the law of Equality there is (saving of) life to you O ye men of understanding! that ye may restrain yourselves."

Meaning it recognizes that all three men, Cameron Todd, Paul Bernard, and OJ have a chance at life under its execution. But at least in that world, poor Barry Scheck is not having to promote an Innocence Project:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Cont..._J_Neufeld.php

Keep going roadrunner, I enjoy attempting to divert your oral diarrhea right back towards your face.

[roadrunner]

I love the way Muslim fundamentalists argue that non Muslim (fundamentalists) ignore the context of the verse when they pick and mix verses, usually on violence. Yet when they quote verses here and there, those same Muslim fundamentalists ignore context also. Pure hypocrisy.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I love the way Muslim fundamentalists argue that non Muslim (fundamentalists) ignore the context of the verse when they pick and mix verses, usually on violence. Yet when they quote verses here and there, those same Muslim fundamentalists ignore context also. Pure hypocrisy.

I love how secularistas with blatant agendas cannot provide the answer to easy questions but do provide opinion to deflect from their utter lack of knowledge of the issue at hand. We also love how they ignore the context of secular law as it relates to OJ versus Paul Bernard for for that matter Al Capone versus the state of Illinoise or for that matter Cameron Todd Willingham versus Rick Perry in Texas.

[roadrunner]

I've answered everything as far as i know. If the questions weren't buried in piles of infantile curses, I'm sure all would be answered.

I'm also not interested in what Bernard, Perry or whatever else did. I might have a look at them later if I'm bored. Let's stick with how Sharia Law allows guilty people freedom instead shall we?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I've answered everything as far as i know. If the questions weren't buried in piles of infantile curses, I'm sure all would be answered.

I'm also not interested in what Bernard, Perry or whatever else did. I might have a look at them later if I'm bored. Let's stick with how Sharia Law allows guilty people freedom instead shall we?

Been there and done that, the answers lay underneath your piles of oral diarrhea. Let stick with how secular law let OJ off the hook per your loophole... but wouldnt afford Paul Bernard the same luxury. Lets stick with how Willingham, a poor boy from Texas, was an innocent killed before his time by Perry's brand of shoot first, ask questions later Texan justice. Lets stick with how secular law couldnt get Capone on murder so had to get him on tax evasion. Lets stick with you taking on God himself and seeing where Afghan sympathies are between the two of you.

Evidence regarding your view of the verse please... otherwise you basically cede you disagree with the verse itself.

Come on in Roadrunner... enter a war of intellectual attrition.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I've answered everything as far as i know. If the questions weren't buried in piles of infantile curses, I'm sure all would be answered.

I'm also not interested in what Bernard, Perry or whatever else did. I might have a look at them later if I'm bored. Let's stick with how Sharia Law allows guilty people freedom instead shall we?

Oh yeah lets not forget how many people Michael Jackson, the King of Pop payed off to get out of his own version of bacha bazaay. Yep, see Roadrunner, your inadequecy, in being able to objectively analyze both sets of laws makes you unworthy of even being taken seriously.

[laevanay]

Oh yeah lets not forget how many people Michael Jackson, the King of Pop payed off to get out of his own version of bacha bazaay. Yep, see Roadrunner, your inadequecy, in being able to objectively analyze both sets of laws makes you unworthy of even being taken seriously.

At lease he was charged and tried... ever see a mullah tried?

[ScimitarXEdge]

At lease he was charged and tried... ever see a mullah tried?

what use is trying someone if their status allows them a scapegoat.

that only proves that their justice system is worse than we once thought.