Unjust Islamic Laws should be repealed

[Compassionist]

We should have a worldwide campaign to repeal the ten unjust Islamic laws below:

1. Death penalty for apostasy. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... blasphemy/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

2. Death penalty for blasphemy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

3. Death penalty for homosexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

4. Death penalty for adultery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajm

5. Son gets twice as much inheritance as a daughter. https://quran.com/4/11

6. Two female witnesses are required to counter one male witness. https://quran.com/2/282

7. The victim of rape is punished as it is considered illegal sex. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 22326.html

8. Males are allowed to have 4 wives but females are not allowed to have 4 husbands. https://quran.com/4/3

9. Husbands are allowed to punish disobedient wives by beating them. https://quran.com/4/34

10. Chopping off a limb for theft. https://quran.com/5/33-43

For more issues with the Quran please see: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #9]

That's absolutely great I mean homosexuals are destroying life and limiting it that's why homosexuality isn't moral according to your quote.

I really want to understand how someone say something is just or unjust without having a standard to base his claims upon. Using personal preference can make anything just or unjust.

Also no need to ask him about what he said he is not a scholar and I already replied to your claims I hope you have something to say about my past reply.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #9]

That's absolutely great I mean homosexuals are destroying life and limiting it that's why homosexuality isn't moral according to your quote.

I really want to understand how someone say something is just or unjust without having a standard to base his claims upon. Using personal preference can make anything just or unjust.

Also no need to ask him about what he said he is not a scholar and I already replied to your claims I hope you have something to say about my past reply.

Homosexuals are not destroying lives. Where did you get that from? In a democratic country, laws are created by elected officials and are consistent with the values of the majority of the people in the country. I don't support any theocracy because I am not convinced of the existence of any god. I am an egalitarian. Islamic practices are not egalitarian. Also, I am a vegan. Islam requires the slaughtering of sentient animals during Eid-al-Adha every year.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #12]

Well if all humanity became homosexual we all will die and there will be no human alive ...

(laws are created by elected officials and are consistent with the values of the majority of the people in the country.)

Now what if those values say that you can do adultery or threesome ( like the minister of France declared ) is it still going to be valid only because the majority said it's ok ?!

In middle Africa FGM is ok does this mean we should accept this act ?!

Again and again I will ask what is the standard to base morality or just rules upon ?!

I didn't ask you if you are convinced of God or not I'm asking based on what you can say something is right or wrong .

[Tcg]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #12]

Well if all humanity became homosexual we all will die and there will be no human alive ...

Uh, no. I've known many gays who are parents. Their gayness didn't stop them from procreating. Additionally, humans don't become gay in the same way that they don't become straight. Some are gay, some are straight, but in fact most are bisexual. Oh, and bisexuals also procreate.


Tcg

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #12]

Well if all humanity became homosexual we all will die and there will be no human alive ...

(laws are created by elected officials and are consistent with the values of the majority of the people in the country.)

Now what if those values say that you can do adultery or threesome ( like the minister of France declared ) is it still going to be valid only because the majority said it's ok ?!

In middle Africa FGM is ok does this mean we should accept this act ?!

Again and again I will ask what is the standard to base morality or just rules upon ?!

I didn't ask you if you are convinced of God or not I'm asking based on what you can say something is right or wrong .

Your claim about homosexuality is not true. As TCG said, many homosexuals and bisexuals are parents. I and the vast majority of humans consider FGM to be wrong. It is wrong because it causes harm to girls. Democracy is the least bad form of government. It is not perfect but it is much better than theocracies. It is not necessary to be married to have sex. As long as sex occurs between consenting adults there is nothing wrong with it.

[Miles]

Unfortunately, according to Islam, Islam was PERFECT at the time of Mohammed and given by Allah himself.

I notice that you say Islam was perfect. So I assume it's fair to say it's not so perfect now. Correct?

.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #9]

That's absolutely great I mean homosexuals are destroying life and limiting it that's why homosexuality isn't moral according to your quote.

I really want to understand how someone say something is just or unjust without having a standard to base his claims upon. Using personal preference can make anything just or unjust.
...

For me, the standard is, "are they human?"

How bout you?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #9]

That's absolutely great I mean homosexuals are destroying life and limiting it that's why homosexuality isn't moral according to your quote.

I really want to understand how someone say something is just or unjust without having a standard to base his claims upon. Using personal preference can make anything just or unjust.
...

For me, the standard is, "are they human?"

How bout you?

I consider all living things to have rights. I consider sentient living things to have even more rights than non-sentient living things. If I could live as a total non-consumer, I would. I would love to live without consuming any oxygen, water and food but I can't. So, I am doing the best I can as a vegan to live an ethical life. Of all the religions, I like Jainism the best because its practitioners are either strict vegetarians or vegans. Islam is the only religion that requires humans to slaughter sentient living things during Eid-al-Adha every year.

[mms20102]

[Replying to Tcg in post #14]

Uh, no. I've known many gays who are parents. Their gayness didn't stop them from procreating. Additionally, humans don't become gay in the same way that they don't become straight. Some are gay, some are straight, but in fact most are bisexual. Oh, and bisexuals also procreate.

I guess you need to get back to biology class maybe you will learn something but here is a little study to satisfy you

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-f ... e-research

[mms20102]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #15]

I and the vast majority of humans consider FGM to be wrong. It is wrong because it causes harm to girls. Democracy is the least bad form of government. It is not perfect but it is much better than theocracies. It is not necessary to be married to have sex. As long as sex occurs between consenting adults there is nothing wrong with it.

Let me point out the problems with your statement.

I didn't say that FGM is a good thing but I said "clitoral hood reduction" is a good thing according to the vast majority of doctors including my father also I didn't say every girl must do it.

Islam is not a "Theocratical" system since religious men are not the rulers and are not supposed to be the rulers unlike the Christian era, but as you have a constitution in any country, we agreed to have our own constitution, and I guess we are free to choose what is morally right since we don't choose based on self prefrences or emotional prefrences, we choose our morals based on logical explanations.

It is not necessary to be married to have sex.

No, It's necessary to be married to have sex, since marriage is the commitment toward having a society, and the commitment toward having a family, and without marriage we will have no families, and we will have no commitment, and we will have children with unknown fathers, which will turn in the future to be having psychologically disordered serial killers, and the greatest example is the "Bikini Killer".

As long as sex occurs between consenting adults there is nothing wrong with it.

I need the social media accounts and phone numbers of your daughter, mother, sister, and wife and all the females in your family then as long as we have consent I hope you don't be angry about it.
Putting sex as on-the-go pleasure, is converting it from a relationship that consists of love and care and other good feelings, to a drug that you can use any time to stimulate your pleasure. Objectification of women starts with free women for all as long as they agree.
And soon you will see people having sex with young girls and animals and they will say the same "As long as sex occurs between consenting".