Nadeem F. Paracha spews more hatred for Islam

[picoico]

@Reason

That was in 1953. There were no sanctions during the Shah’s reign and Iran was a very prosperous society during the Shah era. The US did nothing when the Shah was falling because the State Department thought it would be a good thing and compared Khomenini to Gandhi.

Where on earth are you getting your history?

Iran was hardly propsperous, it was highly corrupt. Many social indicators were less than what they are today, such as female literacy.

The United States in no way shape or form compared Khomeni to the Mahatma…they were caught off guard as was the Iranian intellegence services…

The sanctions cannot be used as an excuse for Iran’s failure under the current government (see USSR, Germany examples). Besides, why does Iran want to trade with the “great Satan” that it wishes death to? That is the funniest part of Iran’s crying.

Sacntions imply other nations that are otherwise on the sideline are being pressured to isolate Iran.

Your precious shariah! Shariah calls for 4 *male *witnesses in rape cases. There is no provision for DNA (why not?). Therefore, if you have conclusive DNA proof of rape but no 4 male witnesses you cannot prove rape under shariah.

You cannot apply Hadd. You can apply lesser punishments.

Pakistan’s penal code, which is loosely based on Shriah, applies a false-logic where accusation of rape is construed as admission of intercourse, and so barring definitive proof of rape that could lead to the application of hadd, the accused are aquited. Scholars have long called for that to be corrected, but instead their side-tracked into a definsive posture by people calling for the repealing, rather than reformation, of the laws.

TMuslim scholars and Muslims in general did not think about the Western renaissance. They ignored it, they ignored the Enlightment, they ignored the movement to limit the rights of kings, they ignored the movement for the concept of equal rights, they ignored the movement for the concept of natural rights, and so on. The end result?

Whatever you think the result is, it’s clear that the rise of China is proof positive that there are many paths to success, power, and modernity that does not incorporate enlightenment values. We need to grow up and get over that…

The West left the Ottomans and Persia in the dust, and now the lands of Islam have fallen behind the rest of Asia and Latin America as well.

Not by much, but the rest of Aisa and Latin America may proove to be useful non-intrusive allies who we may be able to work together with for mutual prosperity.

The chief reason Islamic lands did not pay attention to the changes occurring in the West was because they looked down on the West as “kafirs” who had zero of value to teach Muslims.

The Moghals and Persians were too far removed, and the Ottomans were too far corrupt. The religious leadership did not see any value, but then it was hardly them in a decision making capacity. There were brilliant Ottoman scientists who were on par with other Western scientists, however the state simply paid no mind. Sadly, the Ottoman military was the one to suffer the most, unable to adapt to the rapidly changing Western tactics and technoloogy.

There is no separation of powers in shariah. You are naive if you think “consultation”, which even the Saudi king does to this day, is a check on abuse of power when religious, political, and military power is held in the hands of one person.

The absolutist nature of your comment is absurd. Shariah is a body of law, without standard codified form and not a legal system. It places constraints on governments, legal systems, etc. without actually defining one…

Shariah to this day–since it cannot change–allows slavery. Do you agree with that?

All Muslim countries have signed onto anti-slavery treaties, which are fully Shariah compliant.

Fornication yes, adultery no. However, neither should be illegal. Why? Because successful countries understand the concept of liberty and are not police states.

LOL…the correlation is weak.

[quote[
Pakistan was not created for Islamism/shariah. This is why the Quaid did not fight for 9th century Arab/Roman (Justinian code) law to be imposed.[/QUOTE]

Nor did he forbid it’s use by the state, as the Attaturk (his contemporary and associate) did. Jinnah as an exponent for a secular Pakistan is an old Canard. He didn’t even want his own country…but that’s another story…