Lanatin

This is a very interesting point that i would like to dwell on, because atheists constantly bring up the case of religious injunctions that contravene today's humanism as a counter argument to the need for religious morality. It is interesting because it is a case of 'catch 22', as you are now appealing to an objective basis for morality to deride Islam. Let's ignore questions regarding apostasy and sodomy for now. Is not the amputation of a thief's hand conducive to the common good? Is it not a powerful deterrant for those in our society who wish to deprive others of their property? We must admit it is a further incentive to uphold the social contract within our society that protects our selfish needs. And our selfish motive to maximize benefit and minimize loss is what defines our morality as atheists (as you so ably conceded earlier); what pain that may be inflicted on a criminal is of no concern for us. Ultimately there is no valid objection to this particular punishment from an atheist standpoint.

You could say that, yes. They are carrying on their legacy. I only hope more people stress the heretical nature of these takfiri groups, whose intolerance the above mentioned hadith rebukes.

It's quite the opposite really, historically many schools of law and theology flourished side by side in muslim lands. Hence the four schools of law in sunni islam, the mutazilite rationalists and asharis, and countless other examples. Isis is a modern heresy that the muslims of the past would see as another incarnation of the kharijite heretics, the group that fought Imam Ali (as) and killed any muslim with a dissenting opinion. Dissent was seen as a virtue in its own right, based on this hadith: “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.” عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ

There's a hadith from Imam Sadiq (as) about not insulting sacred personalities, bringing Sura Al-An'am's admonition against insulting pagan gods as proof (i'll look for the hadith next time). I think its fair to say from our narrations and your narrations that Umar did institute bid'as, however he is exempt from the general rule as he is a sacred personality for sunnis. By the way, takfir is not sabb :) . Clearly you dont know what the parameters of sabb are: والمراد بسبهم الاتيان بكلام يوجب الاستخفاف بهم، قال الشهيد الثاني رفع الله درجته: يصح مواجهتهم بما يكون نسبته إليهم حقا لا بالكذب "And what is meant by insulting them is bringing words that degrade them, Shahid Al-Thani (may God raise his degree) said: 'It is allowed to confront them with what is rightfully attributed to them, not with lies'" Bihar Al-Anwar, Vol. 71 pg. 204 بحار الأنوار - العلامة المجلسي - ج ٧١ - الصفحة ٢٠٤

^And how is Saduq an extremist exactly?

They actually found four reliable male witnesses for the act of penetration? Sounds more like a revival of the kangaroo courts of Al-Shabab.

More in this link: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/aleksandr-dugin-russian-expansionism

and then a gay man came

...Just stop, you're making yourself look like a plain idiot in front of everyone now. There's no dispute over what this verse is talking about (i.e. the ways of life given in different scriptures) ; it's what every muslim has known since time immemorial. Is a simple correction too unbearable for your over inflated ego or something? The verse is there in full for everyone to read. Perhaps if I quote it again your dense head might process it: And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ

Are you seriously that delusional? Every exegete and educated muslim has known what 5:48 has meant for fourteen centuries. The words in arabic is shir'an meaning a prescribed way, a law. Get off your high horse and at least admit you're wrong on this point, sheesh.

Why are you slandering the Quran and giving it a completely different meaning? It's 5:48 btw and not 5:42 (there goes another embarrassing hit from your copy paste methodology in debating) ; anyway this is talking about ways of life appointed by God : And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ (Quran 5:48) 9:51 is talking about trials afflicting man in this life, not our deeds. Better to keep your head down and quit acting like an expert exegete :P The rest is irrelevant to my stake in this topic.

Are our good and evil deeds predetermined like the shape of the pot? Analogies, often the worst form of argument.

Gotta love his work. I mean some of the most awe inspiring episodes of Imam Hussain's life are shown not to be fairytale by pulpit hoggers, but authentic events and dialogue.

Its why Abu Mikhnef is a priceless individual.