Sharia law's fine achievements

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is why human rights ought always to have precedence over religious traditions:

Execution of a Teenage Girl (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/5217424.stm).

Execution of a teenage girl
A television documentary team has pieced together details surrounding the case of a 16-year-old girl, executed two years ago in Iran.

On 15 August, 2004, Atefah Sahaaleh was hanged in a public square in the Iranian city of Neka.

Her death sentence was imposed for "crimes against chastity".

The state-run newspaper accused her of adultery and described her as 22 years old.

But she was not married - and she was just 16.

In terms of the number of people executed by the state in 2004, Iran is estimated to be second only to China.

In the year of Atefah's death, at least 159 people were executed in accordance with the Islamic law of the country, based on the Sharia code.

Since the revolution, Sharia law has been Iran's highest legal authority.

Alongside murder and drug smuggling, sex outside marriage is also a capital crime.

As a signatory of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has promised not to execute anyone under the age of 18.

But the clerical courts do not answer to parliament. They abide by their religious supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, making it virtually impossible for human rights campaigners to call them to account.

At the time of Atefah's execution in Neka, journalist Asieh Amini heard rumours the girl was just 16 years old and so began to ask questions.

"When I met with the family," says Asieh, "they showed me a copy of her birth certificate, and a copy of her death certificate. Both of them show she was born in 1988. This gave me legitimate grounds to investigate the case."

So why was such a young girl executed? And how could she have been accused of adultery when she was not even married?

Disturbed by the death of her mother when she was only four or five years old, and her distraught father's subsequent drug addiction, Atefah had a difficult childhood.

She was also left to care for her elderly grandparents, but they are said to have shown her no affection.

In a town like Neka, heavily under the control of religious authorities, Atefah - often seen wandering around on her own - was conspicuous.

It was just a matter of time before she came to the attention of the "moral police", a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, whose job it is to enforce the Islamic code of behaviour on Iran's streets.

Being stopped or arrested by the moral police is a fact of life for many Iranian teenagers.

Previously arrested for attending a party and being alone in a car with a boy, Atefah received her first sentence for "crimes against chastity" when she was just 13.

Although the exact nature of the crime is unknown, she spent a short time in prison and received 100 lashes.

When she returned to her home town, she told those close to her that lashes were not the only things she had to endure in prison. She described abuse by the moral police guards.

Soon after her release, Atefah became involved in an abusive relationship with a man three times her age.

Former revolutionary guard, 51-year-old Ali Darabi - a married man with children - raped her several times.

She kept the relationship a secret from both her family and the authorities.

Atefah was soon caught in a downward spiral of arrest and abuse.

Circumstances surrounding Atefah's fourth and final arrest were unusual.

The moral police said the locals had submitted a petition, describing her as a "source of immorality" and a "terrible influence on local schoolgirls".

But there were no signatures on the petition - only those of the arresting guards.

Three days after her arrest, Atefah was in a court and tried under Sharia law.

The judge was the powerful Haji Rezai, head of the judiciary in Neka.

No court transcript is available from Atefah's trial, but it is known that for the first time, Atefah confessed to the secret of her sexual abuse by Ali Darabi.

However, the age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law is nine, and furthermore, rape is very hard to prove in an Iranian court.

"Men's word is accepted much more clearly and much more easily than women," according to Iranian lawyer and exile Mohammad Hoshi.

"They can say: 'You know she encouraged me' or 'She didn't wear proper dress'."

When Atefah realised her case was hopeless, she shouted back at the judge and threw off her veil in protest.

It was a fatal outburst.

She was sentenced to execution by hanging, while Darabi got just 95 lashes.

Shortly before the execution, but unbeknown to her family, documents that went to the Supreme Court of Appeal described Atefah as 22.

"Neither the judge nor even Atefah's court appointed lawyer did anything to find out her true age," says her father.

And a witness claims: "The judge just looked at her body, because of the developed physique... and declared her as 22."

Judge Haji Rezai took Atefah's documents to the Supreme Court himself.

And at six o'clock on the morning of her execution he put the noose around her neck, before she was hoisted on a crane to her death.

During the making of the documentary about Atefah's death the production team telephoned Judge Haji Rezai to ask him about the case, but he refused to comment.

The human rights organisation Amnesty International says it is concerned that executions are becoming more common again under President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, who advocates a return to the pure values of the revolution.

The judiciary have never admitted there was any mishandling of Atefah's case.

For Atefah's father the pain of her death remains raw. "She was my love, my heart... I did everything for her, everything I could," he says.

He did not get the chance to say goodbye.

To try and stop this kind of evil is why I have been and always will be, a member of Amnesty.

:shame:

[whyidie]

Idiots.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What a wonderfully enlightened society.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:shame:

[Don Corleone]

This case does seem pretty extreme, granted. I'm certainly not going to defend the mulla-ocracy (though according to some, Iranian society is actually quite enlightened and this is just bad propaganda).

What I will say on this case is

1) it is a tragedy, but why would this girl continue to visit and have a relationship with a man that raped her? Some things in this story just don't add up.

2) the statement "human rights must always trump religious traditions" opens the window on a LOT of nasty things, depending on what we decide to make a human right (a very non-universal, very fluid concept).

The problem as I see it is that 'human rights' tend to be defined in relatively short-term timeframes.... what's fashionable now. Examples of 'human rights' that we no longer accept as so: the right of a husband to beat his wife, the right of a property owner to do as he wished with a slave. I know, in today's vision, these 'human rights' are no such thing, but at the time, I assure you, those who exercised their rights felt every bit as strongly entitled to them as we do with what we consider to be human rights now.

Who's to say what will be a human right in the future? What if we decide that incarceration violates a basic human right (and by decide, I mean what if some oddball judge decides to get his name in the legal books by declaring it to be so, and thus having his name attached to the precedent for posterity).

What's more, what happens when 'human rights' come into conflict with each other? Does a 13 year old girl that actually wants to be with a 35 year old man have to right to make that determination? According to most women's groups, a 13 year old girl SHOULD have the right to sexual determination, though I think they would say any male older than her should be liable for statuatory rape, should she change her mind at a later date.

Where am I going with this rant? Relgious traditions act like a low pass filter on social mores, if you will. It's the one way we have of decreasing the impact time as a variable in the social mores equation.... tradition tends to be relatively stable, especially compared to current social climes.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Address the root problem and limit your solution to that. The root cause of the problem here is not religion or religious traditions. It's a society that values the word of men over women and does not respect life, two things which I believe in word Islam is opposed to. Islam calls for a different role for women, but in no way directly states that women are lesser then men (or so I've been told, I'm sure Faisal or one or Dariush or LeftEye can speak much more informed than I can on this issue). Second, pretty much every person I've heard speak on Islam swears that the culture of death is NOT a part of Islam, it is a perversion of it (much as the Inquisition was a perversion of the teachings of Christ).

[Templar Knight]

very sad :no:

[Samurai Waki]

I hate the world just a little more every day.

[Banquo's Ghost]

1) it is a tragedy, but why would this girl continue to visit and have a relationship with a man that raped her? Some things in this story just don't add up.

Abusive relationships are often confusing to those outside. Power is a strange thing. Do you really think a 13 year old girl exploited by a 51 year old ex-policeman in such a society is likely to have the ability to break the cycle of abuse that easily? I suspect that if this had happened in your back yard, you would be baying for the lynch mob, not blaming the girl.


2) the statement "human rights must always trump religious traditions" opens the window on a LOT of nasty things, depending on what we decide to make a human right (a very non-universal, very fluid concept).

Nonsense. Human rights are exactly a universal concept - see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm). Your own Declaration of Independence contains reference to inalienable human rights which informed the development of the idea of universal rights. Just because some mad mullahs or neo-cons find it convenient to ignore the universality of rights, doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to such.

Whereas religion is made up of very many competing ideas, from many different cultures, some of which are moral and most of which are about control and fear. And, it should be noted, a remarkable number of the major 'world' religions just love to demonise and oppress women.

[orangat]

I'm quite sure stoning for adultery was carried out in Iran/Pakistan/Sudan/Nigeria where syariah law is/was enforced.

[Don Corleone]

BG, you're seriously misreading me if you think I'm blaming the victim. I'm not. If things happened as they say, you're absolutely right, I would lead the lynching party to drag the fat turd out of his house in the night and frog march him off to the nearest tree. I'm saying some things don't make sense in the story as a whole. You are right that I'm not there, and perhaps I should have made point #1 a very minor side-note, but I'm simply saying that some things don't add up.

The very same founding documents you cite specifically state that human beings of African origin, for census purposes, only count as three/fifths of a person. They also said that the vote was fundamentally tied to land ownership. You're making my point for me, those universal truths that we held so strongly... well, turns out they weren't. :idea2: Women, minorities, the lower economic classes... all of these people were treated unfairly, in accordance with these universal declarations of human rights. The (erh, help here, been a while since history class) 21st(?) granting women the vote and other legal rights is less than 100 years old.

Looking forward, what are some 'human rights' that we don't view as such now, but may in the future? That 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' you linked to has been edited before, it will be edited again.

[Dâriûsh]

That was in 2004. The glorious golden age of the post-revolution reformists.


I don’t know if any of you have heard of Nazanin Fatehi, but anyway, her death sentence was overturned last month (I've had a quote of hers in my signature for a long while) perhaps because of human rights groups’ pressure. She was sentenced to death at the age of 17 for killing a would-be rapist (allegedly a Basij militiaman). But she is not of the hook (literally) yet.

The eligibility for death penalty in Mullaland is nine for women. Nine!

[Pannonian]

2) the statement "human rights must always trump religious traditions" opens the window on a LOT of nasty things, depending on what we decide to make a human right (a very non-universal, very fluid concept).

The problem as I see it is that 'human rights' tend to be defined in relatively short-term timeframes.... what's fashionable now. Examples of 'human rights' that we no longer accept as so: the right of a husband to beat his wife, the right of a property owner to do as he wished with a slave. I know, in today's vision, these 'human rights' are no such thing, but at the time, I assure you, those who exercised their rights felt every bit as strongly entitled to them as we do with what we consider to be human rights now.

Who's to say what will be a human right in the future? What if we decide that incarceration violates a basic human right (and by decide, I mean what if some oddball judge decides to get his name in the legal books by declaring it to be so, and thus having his name attached to the precedent for posterity).

Modern concepts of human rights would often clash with the historical reality behind some of the more anachronistic laws in religions, Islam in particular (since it seeks to describe a lifestyle, not just a philosophy). For instance, polygamy may seem an abomination to people used to the idea of monogamous pairings. When the law was first introduced after a prolonged period of war, allowing rich men to marry multiple wives meant the many widows were provided for. There are numerous other teachings in Islam that were humane at the time, yet seem unbearably barbarous now.



Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Address the root problem and limit your solution to that. The root cause of the problem here is not religion or religious traditions. It's a society that values the word of men over women and does not respect life, two things which I believe in word Islam is opposed to. Islam calls for a different role for women, but in no way directly states that women are lesser then men (or so I've been told, I'm sure Faisal or one or Dariush or LeftEye can speak much more informed than I can on this issue). Second, pretty much every person I've heard speak on Islam swears that the culture of death is NOT a part of Islam, it is a perversion of it (much as the Inquisition was a perversion of the teachings of Christ).
That's what I understand the roles of the genders in Islam to be, different but not superior or inferior to each other. For instance, women were liable to be chastised by beating for transgressions (probably a remnant of the nomadic life), but early on this punishment was interpreted to mean a token beating, by rods that were little more than pieces of straw. This was for not fulfilling their role within the family. However, as long as they acted out this role, there was a great deal of independence for a woman, such as having her own income (that her husband had no right to, unlike the Christian vow), her own career, her own home and life even. And if her husband transgressed, she could carry out her own range of punishments, including divorcing him without his consent. There is much in Islam that is still wise and workable in the modern world, which is why many people are happy to be Muslims.

However, the current fashion is for an extreme, perverted version of the religion, that can indeed be described as Islamo-fascism, fixing roles and hierarchies for individuals (with the ruling class at the top), making demands of their population and preaching hatred for others. At micro-level moderate Islam can still be seen, and in traditionally cosmopolitan areas like Lebanon and pre-2003 Iraq this could still be seen in the country as a whole, and Ahmadinejad is trying to do the same in Iran, but the socio-religious leaders in many Muslim countries are trying to propagate an overtly patriarchal form of Islam, one which would probably have horrified Muhammad had he seen it.

As I've said elsewhere, love historical Islam, pity about the descendants.

[Dutch_guy]

The eligibility for death penalty in Mullaland is nine for women. Nine!

Not so strange considering it's the same for ''sexual consent'', the moral police must have their hands full with those experimenting nine year olds... ~;)


However, the age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law is nine, and furthermore, rape is very hard to prove in an Iranian court.

:balloon2:

[Reenk Roink]

How contradictory... :dizzy2:

In Pakistan, there was the well publicized Mukhtar Mai case, were a woman was gang raped on order of her tribe. There, the village imam condemned the rape and told her to press charges for the execution of the rapists. But only after significant pressure did the courts actually convict the men. Well, these places are the most chauvinistic on Earth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtar_Mai

*I hate using Wikipedia, especially now that they would not go for a 'Gah' article, but it is well documented and comprehensive*

[Ice]

This is rather disgusting. :no:

[Crazed Rabbit]

However, the age of sexual consent for girls under Sharia law is nine, and furthermore, rape is very hard to prove in an Iranian court.

"Men's word is accepted much more clearly and much more easily than women," according to Iranian lawyer and exile Mohammad Hoshi.

"They can say: 'You know she encouraged me' or 'She didn't wear proper dress'."

Isn't that just...lovely.

How very terrible. If there is evil, then this is part of it.

Crazed Rabbit

[Dâriûsh]

it is a tragedy, but why would this girl continue to visit and have a relationship with a man that raped her? Some things in this story just don't add up.
Really? My guess is that he threatened to kill her. Or turn her over to the authorities (which would equal a death sentence). The word of even a former revolutionary guardsman completely overrules the word of a teenage (lower-class Kurdish) girl in Mullahcourt.

[Dâriûsh]

What a wonderfully enlightened society.

They are just standing up for morality. After hijacking the ‘79 revolution, the crowning achievement of God’s very own representatives on Earth, the most excellent Mullahs, has been to reduce Islam to beards and Hijab and enforce it on the masses. Content with living in an illusion of a harmonic Islamic society, and unwilling to acknowledge the poorly hidden side of ruthless compulsion, terror, and murder, they stage mock elections and allow puppet reformists into government. The greatest threat to this glorious institution is loud students and sassy teenage girls. But they can fortunately be hanged. Welcome to the IRI.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

My thoughts mirror DC's, mostly.

Nine, though! The age of consent is NINE!

What we have here is a nation mixed between the 8th and 21st centuries.

It ain't pretty.

[Ice]

They are just standing up for morality. After hijacking the ‘79 revolution, the crowning achievement of God’s very own representatives on Earth, the most excellent Mullahs, has been to reduce Islam to beards and Hijab and enforce it on the masses. Content with living in an illusion of a harmonic Islamic society, and unwilling to acknowledge the poorly hidden side of ruthless compulsion, terror, and murder, they stage mock elections and allow puppet reformists into government. The greatest threat to this glorious institution is loud students and sassy teenage girls. But they can fortunately be hanged. Welcome to the IRI.

I couldn't agree more, my friend.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are just standing up for morality. After hijacking the ‘79 revolution, the crowning achievement of God’s very own representatives on Earth, the most excellent Mullahs, has been to reduce Islam to beards and Hijab and enforce it on the masses. Content with living in an illusion of a harmonic Islamic society, and unwilling to acknowledge the poorly hidden side of ruthless compulsion, terror, and murder, they stage mock elections and allow puppet reformists into government. The greatest threat to this glorious institution is loud students and sassy teenage girls. But they can fortunately be hanged. Welcome to the IRI.

I stand corrected, what a fantasticly enlightened society.

As I understand it the revolution started because the Shah tried to supress the masses and force Western values on Iranians (Or should it really be Persians?)

I understand he actually banned the Hijab. While I applaud his effort to break down chauvanistic traditions burrowed brom the Byzantine Empire I think he probably went about it the wrong way.

The sad thing is that there has been no counter revolution.

[AntiochusIII]

They are just standing up for morality. After hijacking the ‘79 revolution, the crowning achievement of God’s very own representatives on Earth, the most excellent Mullahs, has been to reduce Islam to beards and Hijab and enforce it on the masses. Content with living in an illusion of a harmonic Islamic society, and unwilling to acknowledge the poorly hidden side of ruthless compulsion, terror, and murder, they stage mock elections and allow puppet reformists into government. The greatest threat to this glorious institution is loud students and sassy teenage girls. But they can fortunately be hanged. Welcome to the IRI.People like you give us hope. :bow:

[Navaros]

And the rest of the world is just so much better eh. :oops:

The rest of the world has laws that make it ok to murder innocent babies en masse. :idea2:

That's actually much worse than anything that Sharia law does.

The idea behind the original post amounts to "the pot calling the kettle black".

[AntiochusIII]

And the rest of the world is just so much better eh. :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Navaros does have a point, though I don't know if most of the world has abortion laws as repungent as the USA.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ice]

And the rest of the world is just so much better eh. :oops:

The rest of the world has laws that make it ok to murder innocent babies en masse. :idea2:

That's actually much worse than anything that Sharia law does.

The idea behind the original post amounts to "the pot calling the kettle black".

That has to be the biggest load of s*** I've ever heard. :wall:

[Ironside]

Navaros does have a point, though I don't know if most of the world has abortion laws as repungent as the USA.

Crazed Rabbit

AFAIK you're the about only nation that has those laws. Abortion being decided freely until birth is only allowed in the Netherlands outside the US (and Puerto Rica but it's an "US-state" in many ways).

Unless I'm reading the link wrong: The worlds abortion laws (http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html)

On topic:
Dâriûsh covered most of it :bow:

[Geoffrey S]

Does a woman's legal testimony still only count for half of that of a man under shari'a law?

This case is horrendous. Even under shari'a law I see absolutely no reason for such lies to go on, no reason for there being no check on the legal decisions; although the shari'a is strict (and can be fair), such cases as this go beyond that and become thoroughly unjudicial and show fundamental flaws in the way its applied in Iran.

[Pannonian]

Does a woman's legal testimony still only count for half of that of a man under shari'a law?

This case is horrendous. Even under shari'a law I see absolutely no reason for such lies to go on, no reason for there being no check on the legal decisions; although the shari'a is strict (and can be fair), such cases as this go beyond that and become thoroughly unjudicial and show fundamental flaws in the way its applied in Iran.
Before you condemn barbarous legal niceties like these, it would be instructional to see how they have been interpreted in the past. Such as the example of beating wives for minor transgressions, nowadays resulting in hospitalised women, but in the past carried out with pieces of straw (to follow the law yet cause no damage). If you've read Sistani's rulings, you'll see many examples of this. The current radical form of Islam is horrific and should be ended. It doesn't mean that Islam as a whole is intrinsically evil.

[Tribesman]

The rest of the world has laws that make it ok to murder innocent babies en masse.
Thats a strange world you live in Navaros , have you ever visited Earth by any chance ?

[English assassin]

The current radical form of Islam is horrific and should be ended. It doesn't mean that Islam as a whole is intrinsically evil.

I was interested to read recently that Sharia is not to be found in the Koran or in the hadith, but almost all derives from decisions made in cases in the first few hundred years of Islam. Its not actually in the books that Muslims regard as holy.

Of course this makes it all more baffling in one way, in that its as if Jesus has said "love your neighbour" and St Augustine had written a few hundred years latter that it was a religious duty to chop your neighbours willy off if he committed adultery, and everyone was calling themselves christian but following St Augustine and not Jesus. But on the more positive side I suppose it does mean there is hope islamic states can move away from this form of Sharia, which they obviously could not if the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) had laid it all down.

I did find this documentary pretty depressing, not just for the view of sharia exposed, but for the fact that even those appaling laws were not being followed. The long and the short of it was that the moral police and the judge wanted that girl dead, and they killed her, and nothing is going to happen as a result, even though the execution was clearly contrary to Iranian law. The fact that Iranian law itself was also repugnant was in a sense irrelevant since it wasn't followed.

[Slyspy]

"Disturbed by the death of her mother when she was only four or five years old, and her distraught father's subsequent drug addiction, Atefah had a difficult childhood.

She was also left to care for her elderly grandparents, but they are said to have shown her no affection."

and

"For Atefah's father the pain of her death remains raw. "She was my love, my heart... I did everything for her, everything I could," he says.

He did not get the chance to say goodbye."

Yeah, cheers dearest Papa.

Although the situation described is appalling this is just bad journalism. It is bad enough already, no need to add the "tear-jerking" final words from the druggy father who the article has previously accused of being the world's worst dad. Anyway, it is too late to feel guilty now matey.

[InsaneApache]

Don't make assumptions. Ever heard of therapeutic drug addiction?

[Banquo's Ghost]

BG, you're seriously misreading me if you think I'm blaming the victim. I'm not. If things happened as they say, you're absolutely right, I would lead the lynching party to drag the fat turd out of his house in the night and frog march him off to the nearest tree. I'm saying some things don't make sense in the story as a whole. You are right that I'm not there, and perhaps I should have made point #1 a very minor side-note, but I'm simply saying that some things don't add up.

I apologise for misreading the intent of your post. No-one can be absolutely sure of the details, but they certainly add up for me as characteristic of abuse. I watched the programme last night, and there were other victims, who stated that once a girl had been imprisoned (for say, listening to music) not only were they very vulnerable to attack in prison, they would be routinely hunted down by the 'moral' police for further abuse. The word of a girl convicted for crimes against chastity is considered even less than a 'normal' woman. What chance do they have?


The very same founding documents you cite specifically state that human beings of African origin, for census purposes, only count as three/fifths of a person. They also said that the vote was fundamentally tied to land ownership. You're making my point for me, those universal truths that we held so strongly... well, turns out they weren't. :idea2: Women, minorities, the lower economic classes... all of these people were treated unfairly, in accordance with these universal declarations of human rights. The (erh, help here, been a while since history class) 21st(?) granting women the vote and other legal rights is less than 100 years old.

Looking forward, what are some 'human rights' that we don't view as such now, but may in the future? That 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' you linked to has been edited before, it will be edited again.

We are perhaps at cross purposes here. I agree that universal human rights have evolved in detail, but the concept of universal rights is an Enlightenment one that has been embraced by very many states and people. You know, the Enlightenment, so called because we began to throw off the ignorance of religion. At much the same time as you note in the past, religion's record was considerably less than shining. Do the crimes of the past invalidate all religious thinking as it has now evolved? Because that's the charge you level at universal human rights.

We get better, and more people understand what is meant by universal human rights. They're universal. They are your rights wherever you were born or end up. You don't even have to believe in them for them to apply to you. They are your birthright as a human being.

It would be wonderful if the truly moral aspects of religion applied the same way - but whose religion is going to be the universal one? Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jedi? Which flavour of Christianity? Is my soul a one shot deal or do I get to go round again? Is there a Hell or not? Should I eat pork? Why does the Bible explicitly support slavery as part of the commandments guidelines, but I am supposed to follow the ten headline ones but not the slavery ones? Why does Navaros think there's a moral equivalency between killing some cells that may fail naturally and hanging a young abused girl from a crane?

See the problem? Your religion may inform your morality and help you to be a good father and man. I think that's wonderful. Nonetheless, it doesn't do so for me because it (all of them, frankly) is shot through with hypocrisy in my experience, so what do I do?

I'd like to believe that religious people could support the application of universal human rights as many do, and bring what moral authority they can from their traditions to inform the development of rights. But mostly they just squabble about whether eating sausage on Friday gets you a one way ticket to sunburn land or who can be beastlier to people with breasts.

[caravel]

Hmmm... I think the issue is that a 16 year old girl who was in reality the victim, was executed. But as usual some people have turned it into a "lets make excuses for islam" thread. There is simply no excuse for rape, abuse and a 9 years age of consent. This type of tin pot legal system that only really applies to men and treats women as the posessions of men, to be used and abused at will, but if a woman steps out of line she is stoned or hung, is totally inexcusable.

Not our society/culture though is it? I expect worse happens in, for example, Africa or parts of the far east. Though when you have a country without any kind of real democracy controlled by a religion where the core principles of democracy goes against the grain, this is what you can expect.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Of course this makes it all more baffling in one way, in that its as if Jesus has said "love your neighbour" and St Augustine had written a few hundred years latter that it was a religious duty to chop your neighbours willy off if he committed adultery, and everyone was calling themselves christian but following St Augustine and not Jesus. But on the more positive side I suppose it does mean there is hope islamic states can move away from this form of Sharia, which they obviously could not if the prophet Muhammed (pbuh) had laid it all down.

Not at all baffling, since what you describe is pretty much exactly what happened to Christianity. Paul started it and Augustine pretty much set it in stone - almost including the willy thing. Jesus' message was largely one of toleration, poverty and love. Not much evidence of that message getting through in the last two thousand years.

As Vice-Pope Eric stated (http://www.heretical.com/miscella/mppanel.html):


Of course people accuse us sometimes of not practising what we preach, but you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful, authoritarian organisation to do it.

:laugh4:

[Geoffrey S]

Before you condemn barbarous legal niceties like these, it would be instructional to see how they have been interpreted in the past. Such as the example of beating wives for minor transgressions, nowadays resulting in hospitalised women, but in the past carried out with pieces of straw (to follow the law yet cause no damage). If you've read Sistani's rulings, you'll see many examples of this. The current radical form of Islam is horrific and should be ended. It doesn't mean that Islam as a whole is intrinsically evil.
I think you've misread my post. Nowhere have I stated that Islam is intrinsically evil. I specifically stated that while the shari'a is usually strict and possibly fair, this application is blatantly unjust.

It's the current application of the shari'a I object to, not what it can be and perhaps what it was originally intended to be, which is a fair legal system based in religion. As for the rest, I agree that progressives can provide a way out and I hope they succeed in finding a way out of this kind of situation.

Though as has been stated in this topic, law barely came into this case. The morals police decided they wanted the girl dead and got what they wanted.

[Fragony]

The rest of the world has laws that make it ok to murder innocent babies en masse.
Thats a strange world you live in Navaros , have you ever visited Earth by any chance ?

Well isn't abortion technically just that? Not that I fundamentally disagree with every abortion, there are some very rare cases where it is the best thing to do but in the end abortion is ending a life for the comfort of the self, if you see an unborn as a human being it is murder, and if you don't see an unborn child as a human being, why don't ya?

[InsaneApache]

Because it's a foetus? :inquisitive:

[Fragony]

Because it's a foetus? :inquisitive:

I am going in winer mode here, but that foetus is going to be a person, and it doesn't have the choice. Look at pic from a 4 year month old unborn, it has fingers, heart, head. If you don't want to take care of a child there are plenty of people who can't have them and would love to adopt it, most abortions are made to avoid difficult questions, and that is pretty selfish. It should be allowed for extreme cases, but it shouldn't be like a morning after pill for careless people

edit, ok that was one stupid mistake

[caravel]

I am going in dripping cunt mode here, but that foetus is going to be a person, and it doesn't have the choice. Look at pic from a 4 year month old unborn, it has fingers, heart, head. If you don't want to take care of a child there are plenty of people who can't have them and would love to adopt it, most abortions are made to avoid difficult questions, and that is pretty selfish. It should be allowed for extreme cases, but it shouldn't be like a morning after pill for careless people

edit, ok that was one stupid mistake

I agree with fragony. And I'm not exactly a right wing bush sympathiser or a redneck, which the loony left loves to portray those who are anti-abortion as.

I look at it from a purely scientific and moral perspective, not a religious one, nor a blinkered legal one. It's a human life, whether born or not. What gives anyone the right to play 'god' and take another human life? If you were a doctor would you do that, I know I wouldn't, so it would make me a hypocrite to support it. When people have become affected by abortion and aren't just reciting what they believe to be the latest ultra tolerant 'modern' ideals their opinions on this are valid. Prostitutes used to go for illegal abortions (and still do) throughout history, even the do-it-yourself knitting needles method was very common. This is not "new" or "civilised" it is archaic and barbaric and should not be recognised as a norm.

What defines a foetus? We do. doctors define when a foetus is a foetus and not a baby. And every day more evidence comes to light about what babies can feel think and hear when in the womb. This is just a convenient way to somehow moralise the killing of unborn humans. "oh it's just a foetus, well that's all right then".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with you, when it comes down to the wire abortion in the best circumstances is mercy killing and in the UK thats murder.

I also agree with Banquo about Christianity. Jesus preached pacifism. Many of the things Paul says and those written in revelations fly in the face of that and it seems most of it was included to scare the congreagation.

If you go up to a Viking and say "Be a Christian." He's going to ask why and Valhalla looks a lot more fun than heavan, that just leaves you with eternal damnation.

Its one of the reasons I'm not actually a Christian, I'm not strong enough to follow Christ.

[Tribesman]

Well isn't abortion technically just that?
That depends Frag .
do you live in the world /the rest of the world/an alternative world/a strange world that has not yet been discovered/a world that has been discovered but is lying low for tax reasons?????

Which is this world that Navaros taks about ?
Accordoing to the chart Ironside posted I live in the same sort of world as Iran , ......but I suppose they get better weather .


Which leads to some serious issues that only Dariush can answer .

How much is a pint ?
Where's the best surf ?

[Lehesu]

I would just like to point out that the decision about abortion, which has more to do with a woman's body than a man's, is increasingly being put into the hands of men.

[x-dANGEr]

Just notes.. I'm a muslim, but certainly not using Sharea'a rules.. And that is sad for me.

At any cost, sex out of marriage is banned in Islam, and through Arabs, too.. And yes, even here people die because of such things..

In short: You don't control the rules that are limited to a certain group, or even judge them till you're within them.

Now, if that girl was raped it is another thing.. She wouldn't have made sex without marriage then, and that man was the one to be executed (By being thrown with stones by the way.. That's how it must be done)..

[Dâriûsh]

They don’t stone people in Iran anymore. Some Mullah deemed it ‘barbaric’.

[x-dANGEr]

Iran has most of it's Sharia faked.. As I and Sunnis believe..

Sharia I know about, if followed would make for a VERY more peaceful community, very..

[Dâriûsh]

Holy sectarian issue!

Actually, both Iran and Saudi Arabia failed to create an ideal Islamic state with Sharia. I guess mostly because the clergy of Iran and Saudi Arabia are imbeciles.

[Fragony]

Iran has most of it's Sharia faked.. As I and Sunnis believe..

Sharia I know about, if followed would make for a VERY more peaceful community, very..

Oh ya no doubt, since there wouldn't be any objectors left, all infidels the islamic necklace that goes so well with gravity. Or maybe not, there wouldn't be a neck to put the rope.

[x-dANGEr]

Ok, so I understood nothing, Fragony.

[Red Peasant]

I agree with you, when it comes down to the wire abortion in the best circumstances is mercy killing and in the UK thats murder.



Why not take it to its logical conclusion? I must have aborted plenty of potential life-giving sperms into a kleenex. Can I expect outraged Christians outside my door calling me a mass murderer? I hope so, I fancy kicking the crap out of a few religious nutters. :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Ok, so I understood nothing, Fragony.

Well I am sure there are a hundred ways to interpret cutting of heads and fingers of unbelievers wherever you can find them, maybe that is just love middle eastern style, who knows. But I am very willing to listen, why would this sharia thingie be such a great addition to our already great society? I don't trust islam one bit, muslims say 'islam is peace', I read 'peace is islam' (in other words convert or die), and there are plenty of examples from that nice book of yours that don't give me any reason to think otherwise, 78 calls for war against anything unbearded?

[kataphraktoi]

I think Islam became great militarily, economically and politically because they absorbed the culture, institutions and influences of other civilisations rather than following the Sharia strictly. I mean, heck, the Caliphs drank wine and partied like the rest of us, not exactly Madrassh poster-boy material, but it confirms normal human behaviour.

So do we blame Islam which has shown in the past, a willingness to interact and absorb beneficial influences and practices or the Sharia, which produces rigid, inflexible rules depending on what kind of jurisprudence exists amongst the 4 schools of thought. Methinks the legal interpretation of Sharia, rather than Islam - which as a religion does not necessarily follow or base itself on the Sharia, but in terms of its behavourial history.

[Fragony]

So do we blame Islam which has shown in the past, a willingness to interact and absorb beneficial influences and practices or the Sharia.

I think we should stop admiring the islam for what it used to be, because it's that no more, and wether or not politics has destroyed islamic culture doesn't matter, because the old islamic culture (which was lightyears ahead of western) is gone, lost, conquered. Let's deal with the now, todays islam is intolerant for non-muslims and violent, and the now is all that matters really. Kinda sad how the mighty have fallen.

[Reenk Roink]

Why not take it to its logical conclusion? I must have aborted plenty of potential life-giving sperms into a kleenex. Can I expect outraged Christians outside my door calling me a mass murderer? I hope so, I fancy kicking the crap out of a few religious nutters. :laugh4:

A sperm (is that singular?) is different from a fetus, which is different from a baby...

[Pannonian]

I think we should stop admiring the islam for what it used to be, because it's that no more, and wether or not politics has destroyed islamic culture doesn't matter, because the old islamic culture (which was lightyears ahead of western) is gone, lost, conquered. Let's deal with the now, todays islam is intolerant for non-muslims and violent, and the now is all that matters really. Kinda sad how the mighty have fallen.
It survived in some traditionally cosmopolitan areas until recently. In Lebanon it was getting the upper hand against foreign influences imported from Syria and Iran, until the recent ruckus put an end to that. Iraq was a stronghold of moderate Islam until the 2003 invasion and its aftermath. In both cases foreign intervention radicalised the Muslim population.

[Fragony]

It survived in some traditionally cosmopolitan areas until recently.

Survived to become what? I won't draw a comparison with our own recent history because I know it saddens Ser Clegane, but I am sure you catch my drift.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why not take it to its logical conclusion? I must have aborted plenty of potential life-giving sperms into a kleenex. Can I expect outraged Christians outside my door calling me a mass murderer? I hope so, I fancy kicking the crap out of a few religious nutters. :laugh4:

From my point of view sperm is only 50% of a human being, a feotus is 50% of two human beings and therefore a new life.

Wasted sperm is like dead skin.

As to Sharia, its outdated, with established that, and its not in the Koran.

Ditch Sharia 1000 AD, bring in something more up to date.

Just because something's old doesn't make it holy.

The reason Catholic priests can't get married is because the Pope at the time was homosexual!

[x-dANGEr]

Fragony, we muslims really don't need to justify our rules, our regulations to anyone, keep that in mind. As long as I don't come and chop your head for violating a Sharia law, you have no right of any explanation.

Now to the point. What is so extreme about Sharia? You tell me please.


I mean, heck, the Caliphs drank wine and partied like the rest of us, not exactly Madrassh poster-boy material, but it confirms normal human behaviour.

That isn't really authenicated.. Heck, this is the first time I know about it. (You generalized by saying the Caliphs, and that is utterly wrong.)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Fragony, we muslims really don't need to justify our rules, our regulations to anyone, keep that in mind. As long as I don't come and chop your head for violating a Sharia law, you have no right of any explanation.

And that is the kind of attitude that continues to foster mistrust and knee-jerk reactions against Muslims.

Fragony made a reasonable request for information, which you could have provided in an attempt to help him learn more about your own faith.

Instead, you confirmed any prejudices he may harbour, and frankly, I wouldn't blame him.

:no:

[Reenk Roink]

And that is the kind of attitude that continues to foster mistrust and knee-jerk reactions against Muslims.

Fragony made a reasonable request for information, which you could have provided in an attempt to help him learn more about your own faith.

Instead, you confirmed any prejudices he may harbour, and frankly, I wouldn't blame him.

:no:

On the other hand, it is Fragony... :laugh4:

[Ice]

Fragony, we muslims really don't need to justify our rules, our regulations to anyone, keep that in mind.

How about to the people who you impose them on? Oh right, you don't have to justify them to anyone.

[Csargo]

This is truely sad

[rotorgun]

I would say to the judges of such a case, let he who is without sin hang the first adulterous female who was raped. I suggest a reading of the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran on the concept of forgiveness. :book:

Another case of 11th century thinking in a 21st century world. :shame:

These are the people who want to have nuclear weapons? Perhaps my President, whom I oppose on many issues, may be right in his convictions about such a backward thinking people. :inquisitive:

Respectfully,

[rotorgun]

Oh my, double post. Beg forgiveness, and please don't stone me to death.

[rotorgun]

Oops, triple post. Really sorry.

[kataphraktoi]

That isn't really authenicated.. Heck, this is the first time I know about it. (You generalized by saying the Caliphs, and that is utterly wrong.)

Look at early Ummayad art sponsored by Caliphs and princes of dancing girls, some naked, some fully clothed. That's not a generalisation, its culture. Not necessarily Islamic culture, but the culture of the Caliphal court and court life. The Ummayads were overthrown on the pretext of the corruption and decadence by the Abbasids, so its not a generalisation, it was a lifestyle which alienated the Muslim Ummah. Ironically, the Abbasids lived the same lifestyle as the Caliph's. Unlike the 4 "rightly guided Caliphs", the Ummayds and Abbasids were hardly "austere". More like their royal predecessors who enjoyed the privileges of royalty and wealth.

Once again, I point out the separation of Islam and culture, though sometimes related, but not always mutually interdependent on each other.

So X-danger, why do u feel sad Sharia is not implemented? Sorry if I misinterpreted your earlier comment about the Sharia?

[kataphraktoi]

That isn't really authenicated.. Heck, this is the first time I know about it. (You generalized by saying the Caliphs, and that is utterly wrong.)

Look at early Ummayad art sponsored by Caliphs and princes of dancing girls, some naked, some fully clothed. That's not a generalisation, its culture. Not necessarily Islamic culture, but the culture of the Caliphal court and court life. The Ummayads were overthrown on the pretext of the corruption and decadence by the Abbasids, so its not a generalisation, it was a lifestyle which alienated the Muslim Ummah. Ironically, the Abbasids lived the same lifestyle as the Caliph's. Unlike the 4 "rightly guided Caliphs", the Ummayds and Abbasids were hardly "austere". More like their royal predecessors who enjoyed the privileges of royalty and wealth.

Once again, I point out the separation of Islam and culture, though sometimes related, but not always mutually interdependent on each other.

So X-danger, why do u feel sad Sharia is not implemented? Sorry if I misinterpreted your earlier comment about the Sharia?

[x-dANGEr]

Fragony made a reasonable request for information, which you could have provided in an attempt to help him learn more about your own faith.
Reasonable? What's reasonable in what he said? He flamed Islam, and Sharia without having info about them. He didn't ask for any info either. What's reasonable in that?

If you need any clarification, just give me a topic to clear for you. Sharia is really huge, and I for one know so little about it, being a muslim who's teached Islam each day; not someone who never read a book about it..

@Kataphraktoi: I know for sure that Caliphs like Al Mua'tasem, Al Ma'moun, Salah Addein Al Ayyoubi, Nasr Addein, etc.. didn't follow that "culture".

[Banquo's Ghost]

Reasonable? What's reasonable in what he said? He flamed Islam, and Sharia without having info about them. He didn't ask for any info either. What's reasonable in that?

Fragony has been known to hold some pretty anti-Islamic views. Whilst his question was couched in combative terms, he was still leaving the door open for you to argue your case and present the positives of Sharia law. I was also interested to see what you would respond.

Instead, you brusquely dismissed his question. Which of course is your choice, but you just confirm prejudices that way.

There's no point in talking only to those who agree or sympathise. In a debate, you want to get your opponents to understand, at the very least.

[Red Peasant]

From my point of view sperm is only 50% of a human being, a feotus is 50% of two human beings and therefore a new life.

Wasted sperm is like dead skin.

As to Sharia, its outdated, with established that, and its not in the Koran.

Ditch Sharia 1000 AD, bring in something more up to date.

Just because something's old doesn't make it holy.

The reason Catholic priests can't get married is because the Pope at the time was homosexual!

Ahh, so you do draw a line in the sand somewhere, and principles can be compromised by sophistic niceties. Good to know.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No I don't, a sperm or an egg is part of the person it comes from, an embrio is the joining together of two people, and is therefore a new person. There is less of "me," 50% less, in one sperm than in one dead skin cell.

Do you have a funeral for your blood every time you cut yourself or for your hair every time you go to the barber?

You are being sophistic by sugesting that just because a sperm may become a new life it is a new life.


@Kataphraktoi: I know for sure that Caliphs like Al Mua'tasem, Al Ma'moun, Salah Addein Al Ayyoubi, Nasr Addein, etc.. didn't follow that "culture".

I should be careful when you say such things, I doubt you actually have any proof, at which point their purity becomes an act of faith, something which we do not have to partake of.

If a law cannot be justified then it is not a good law. So if you cannot justify Sharia to us then it is indefensible. Since it seems you don't know that much of the actual law, unless it can be parred down to something you can explain to us, it is also unworkable.

[x-dANGEr]

What's so unjustified in Sharia?


Fragony has been known to hold some pretty anti-Islamic views. Whilst his question was couched in combative terms, he was still leaving the door open for you to argue your case and present the positives of Sharia law. I was also interested to see what you would respond.

Instead, you brusquely dismissed his question. Which of course is your choice, but you just confirm prejudices that way.

There's no point in talking only to those who agree or sympathise. In a debate, you want to get your opponents to understand, at the very least.

Keep in mind, he asked no specific questions for me to answer, neither did he come up with anything to argue. Saying: "XXXXX sucks" is just another case of emmotional appealing as it's own refutation.

If you have any point against Sharia, bring it up, and sure I'll discuss it. (Unless I agree to it of course)

[InsaneApache]

What's so unjustified in Sharia?

Well it seems to me to be a code of laws imposed from 'on high'. Laws that were not voted on have no legitimacy IMO.

[Shahed]

Fragony has been known to hold some pretty anti-Islamic views. Whilst his question was couched in combative terms, he was still leaving the door open for you to argue your case and present the positives of Sharia law. I was also interested to see what you would respond.

Instead, you brusquely dismissed his question. Which of course is your choice, but you just confirm prejudices that way.

There's no point in talking only to those who agree or sympathise. In a debate, you want to get your opponents to understand, at the very least.

The pot calls the kettle black, in the back room, yet again.

You wrote two lines and posted an an entire article to back up those two lines, both of which stink of prejudice, and here you are putting down someone else for doing the same.

Don't expect any response to this response either, just had to get MY 2 lines off my chest. No thank you dear Sir Chamberlain.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Okay I have nothing against Islam itself, but I have yet to see a positive aspect of Sharia law, then again I haven't really looked into it that much. Could someone please explain to me what the positive aspects of Sharia law are?

And do you think it would be possible to prevent tragedies like this while holding onto whatever positive aspects of Sharia law there are?

[Shahed]

This is not directly to you Kenshin.

For me... No it is no longer possible to explain Sharai law to anyone (with some truly exceptional exceptions), go... use google, better still municipal libraries, or centers for arab/islamic research. DId I ask Catholics to teach me about their religion.. yes I did. How ? I went to the Church and held discussions with one of the priests, I prayed with the Catholics. I spent hours and hours learning about the history of that religion, of the West, of Europe. I used to explain my ass off about this and that, but I don;t feel that way anymore. I don;t believe I am doing any good because people keep asking the same questions. People are too lazy, they don;t care enough about others. My view is simple, if I see true sincerity in a person I shall help, if I see the opposite, I'll be opposite. A person who does not take interest in other people's cultures out of choice, does not warrant my help. People go around pleading innocent ignorance when in reality that ignorance is a choice, we're all grown ups here. You choose what you want to knwo, you want to know soemthing you look it up right ? You want to go to college what do you do ?

I no longer accept that it is ok for us to be ignorant of other cultures, specially when my own culture teaches me to take an interest in other's beliefs and values. I no longer accept to accept being treated in a way that is contrary to my own culture. The person who does'nt know anything about anything... well does'nt.. is ignorant and that's where it ends, for me. The person who makes some effort on his own and needs a hand, is welcome, and with pleasure. I do not value or tolerate ignorance any more.

And if anyone else thinks that's tough love, then.. tough. Look at Kashmir, Iraq, Palestine, Bosnia, Kossovo, Chechnya, etc etc and then compare.

That's the way the Muslims of the world have learned "languages", "cultures and customs". Now how many of you "men" are up to par ?

Learn to speak other people's languages on your own without them having to teach you. Take some initiative.

Sorry. So fed up with baby feeding.

Then again plenty of Muslim doves abound to learn from while the greatest nations on earth feed off their flesh.

[x-dANGEr]

Well it seems to me to be a code of laws imposed from 'on high'. Laws that were not voted on have no legitimacy IMO.

Laws that were not voted on? When you are a muslim, you agree to Islam, and Sharia is implied in it. And believe me.. If Sharia is to be truly followed, muslims couldn't be any happier.. You think Saudi Arabia follows Sharia? Naah.. Iran? Naah..

[Fragony]

Laws that were not voted on? When you are a muslim, you agree to Islam, and Sharia is implied in it.

It must be my birthday, nice to hear it from the real thing once in a while. I am just dying to hear what the multicultists have to say about this, I think X-dANGEr and me are in full agreement when I say that islam and democracy are incompatible. If muslims from muslimland want it fine with me, their part of the world, but they want it here in europe as well. Whoopie.

[x-dANGEr]

Define Democracy.

[Fragony]

Define Democracy.

Why? What is important is that muslims abide to different laws, and recognise another authority which is above everything, and thus also above democracy. We can't use people who serve two masters, if our muslim population will have to chose between democracy and sharia, what do you think it will be? And why do you think I don't like that? If democracy is anything, it's vulnerable for trojan horses.

[kataphraktoi]

I wonder if the idea of the Muslim "Ummah" could be the basis of an Islamic style of democracy, seems to be something to build on doesn't it?

[x-dANGEr]

Fragony, define Democracy and Sharia now.

(Do you know what you're talking about?)

[Fragony]

Fragony, define Democracy and Sharia now.

(Do you know what you're talking about?)

Define apples and oranges, take your time.

It's pretty simple, islam is both a religion and a political system, while in a democracy we keep those things seperated. Problem is that muslims want the political system and law here as well, not gonna happen, you have your own turf. No need to define because they can't be compared, entirely different systems. If you insist on having defenitions, why don't you look on wiki yourselve?

ah well I'll be nice, democracy is a system where the people chose their representives, and sharia is a system where lawmaking and aplication is based on the koran. Western lawmaking/values is based on human rights, sharia on a very old book.

[x-dANGEr]

So, the difinition of the word "democracy" is the seperation of religion and law? If so, then nah, we muslims do not want democracy. Sharia is way better in our opinions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The pot calls the kettle black, in the back room, yet again.

You wrote two lines and posted an an entire article to back up those two lines, both of which stink of prejudice, and here you are putting down someone else for doing the same.

Don't expect any response to this response either, just had to get MY 2 lines off my chest. No thank you dear Sir Chamberlain.

Banquo is insensed by the execution of a 16 year old girl who came from a disfunctional family and was trapped in an abusive relationship. On top of that there's the issue of corruption and no true judicial process.

Any one of these things is considered barbaric in the West and it was all done in the name of Sharia.

So Banquo sees "sharia" and its result and comes up with

Sharia = Barbarism.

So do I, as a matter of fact.

What both of us are now saying is "Show us the good side of Saria" because if you can't we're just left with the judicially murdered girl.


For me... No it is no longer possible to explain Sharai law to anyone (with some truly exceptional exceptions), go... use google, better still municipal libraries, or centers for arab/islamic research. DId I ask Catholics to teach me about their religion.. yes I did. How ? I went to the Church and held discussions with one of the priests, I prayed with the Catholics. I spent hours and hours learning about the history of that religion, of the West, of Europe. I used to explain my ass off about this and that, but I don;t feel that way anymore. I don;t believe I am doing any good because people keep asking the same questions. People are too lazy, they don;t care enough about others. My view is simple, if I see true sincerity in a person I shall help, if I see the opposite, I'll be opposite. A person who does not take interest in other people's cultures out of choice, does not warrant my help. People go around pleading innocent ignorance when in reality that ignorance is a choice, we're all grown ups here. You choose what you want to knwo, you want to know soemthing you look it up right ? You want to go to college what do you do ?

I no longer accept that it is ok for us to be ignorant of other cultures, specially when my own culture teaches me to take an interest in other's beliefs and values. I no longer accept to accept being treated in a way that is contrary to my own culture. The person who does'nt know anything about anything... well does'nt.. is ignorant and that's where it ends, for me. The person who makes some effort on his own and needs a hand, is welcome, and with pleasure. I do not value or tolerate ignorance any more.

And if anyone else thinks that's tough love, then.. tough. Look at Kashmir, Iraq, Palestine, Bosnia, Kossovo, Chechnya, etc etc and then compare.

That's the way the Muslims of the world have learned "languages", "cultures and customs". Now how many of you "men" are up to par ?

Learn to speak other people's languages on your own without them having to teach you. Take some initiative.

Sorry. So fed up with baby feeding.

Then again plenty of Muslim doves abound to learn from while the greatest nations on earth feed off their flesh.

Very pretty speech. If If wanted to learn French I'd ask a Frenchman for help, I wouldn't try to plow into it on my own, because if I make any progress it won't be towards a true understanding of the language.

As far as learning about Islam, well since the Muslim population of my area rarely rises above zero The guys here are pretty much my only point of contact. As to people who shoose to be ignorant, well I'm asking you so I'd rather not be.

Question: If Sharia has nothing to do with Mohammed, bearing in mind he was the last prophet, and is not in the Koran why can't these clearly outdated laws be updated and reformed?

Question: If the democratically elected government, which rules the country you are living in, passes a law that conflits with Sharia which law will you follow.

(This is what Fragony is getting at.)

[Fragony]

So, the difinition of the word "democracy" is the seperation of religion and law? If so, then nah, we muslims do not want democracy. Sharia is way better in our opinions.

No, democracy is a system where the people chose their representives, and by chosing their representives they have influence over the laws. Seperation between religion and law is just that, speraration of religion and law. And I know you don't want democracy, that is why I'd rather have no muslims here. I get sick of muslims who don't respect our laws, harrass girls because they don't wear veils, impose their rules on everyone, on a part of the world where they are guests.

[x-dANGEr]

@Wigferth: That source.. Is it Arabian? Isn't it "western"? Doesn't the west hate Iran?

And at any cost, she had sex out of marriage, and that is wrong in my and other muslims' opinions.

Sharia says "No sex out of marriage", you see that as bad?

Specific situations like the above go back for the specific judge, whose responsibility then is to decide wheather it violated the rule "No sex out of marriage (Of course, sex with it's intention)", or not.

So the basic rule involoving sex in Islam, is no sex out of marriage, that is Sharia. You have anything against that?


No, democracy is a system where the people chose their representives, and by chosing their representives they have influence over the laws.
What if in a muslim community, people choose their representives, and their represintives choose Sharia.. Wouldn't that make for the so-called Democracy and Sharia at the same time?

I get sick of muslims who don't respect our laws, harrass girls because they don't wear veils, impose their rules on everyone, on a part of the world where they are guests.

If there are muslims who harras girls not wearing veils (Those girls being not related to them, or not muslims), then count them out of my definition of muslims.

If Sharia has nothing to do with Mohammed, bearing in mind he was the last prophet, and is not in the Koran why can't these clearly outdated laws be updated and reformed?

Shria is implied from Qoran, most of it at least. In Qoran, a clear line said: "ولى تقربوا الزنى "


If the democratically elected government, which rules the country you are living in, passes a law that conflits with Sharia which law will you follow.
I'm not sure if there is such thing as goverment that desides laws in an Islamic country. I repeat, not sure.

[Don Corleone]

@Wigferth: That source.. Is it Arabian? Isn't it "western"? Doesn't the west hate Iran? First, I'd say the West isn't too fond of the theocracy that runs Iran, but I don't think Western people 'hate' Iran. Regardless of the source, if the facts are true and valid, they require an answer.


What if in a muslim community, people choose their representives, and their represintives choose Sharia.. Wouldn't that make for the so-called Democracy and Sharia at the same time? That's a good point. No, it wouldn't be a democracy, as rule would be by the religious authorities, not a freely elected body of representatives. But, it would be freely elected, and as a sovereign nation, it is your right to choose to live under a theocracy (government by your religious leaders).



I'm not sure if there is such thing as goverment that desides laws in an Islamic country. I repeat, not sure.

Fragony's asking you if weren't in an Islamic country. Let's suppose you moved to Switzerland for work. Would you refuse to come to work on Friday, or speak to female co-workers who didn't wear a hjab?

As for the whole sex out of marriage thing, no, plenty of Christians agree with Sharia on this point. The concern isn't the moral view that extra-marital sex is wrong. It's 1) making it a law that everyone must obey, whether they're muslim or not and 2) the harshness of the penalty if the law is broken.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Wigferth: That source.. Is it Arabian? Isn't it "western"? Doesn't the west hate Iran?

It has been reported in the West, regardless I think you'll find hate is out of fashion here, we're more into agonising over the deaths of our enemies than demonizing them.

Regardless the Iranians are not our enemies, we dislike the regime because it is theocratic and repressive.


And at any cost, she had sex out of marriage, and that is wrong in my and other muslims' opinions.

Sharia says "No sex out of marriage", you see that as bad?

No, I absolutely support the notion, as do many Christians, I can also appreciate the "alcohol bad" bit as well.


Specific situations like the above go back for the specific judge, whose responsibility then is to decide wheather it violated the rule "No sex out of marriage (Of course, sex with it's intention)", or not.

So the basic rule involoving sex in Islam, is no sex out of marriage, that is Sharia. You have anything against that?

Now here's where we part ways. Christianity holds to the same basic premise as Islam but sex at of marriage has traditional been a civil, not a criminal matter. The Church's position is one of condemnation but if you do it you go to hell, unless you atone for the sin.

For most Christians your sin is a private issue between you and god.

Besides which is Sharia the "no sex" bit or the punishment. I don't believe that a crude hanging is appropriate, especially as it removes the option for the girl to to ever atone for her sin.


What if in a muslim community, people choose their representives, and their represintives choose Sharia.. Wouldn't that make for the so-called Democracy and Sharia at the same time?

That would be a theocracy but as long as the people continue to freely elect it, with a viable alternative, its still democracy.


If there are muslims who harras girls not wearing veils (Those girls being not related to them, or not muslims), then count them out of my definition of muslims.

What about a Muslim girl who doesn't want to wear the veil, especially since the veil is differently interpretted in different places. From what I have heard from Muslim women who oppose it there is no specific provision in the Koran, which makes the whole issue one of interpretation. In fact I believe the earliest evidence for the covering of women's heads comes from 100 years after the death of the prophet and was burrowed from the Byzantines.


Shria is implied from Qoran, most of it at least. In Qoran, a clear line said: "ولى تقربوا الزنى "

I don't read Arabic, you'll have to provide a litteral translation but in Christianity we have scripture and dogma. Scripture is fixed and is collectively known as the Bible. Dogma is interpretation and varries between different branches of the church.

If the law of Sharia itself is not in the Koran then you could rework it or drop it in favour of a different interpretation. In other words that would make Sharia a non-absolute of your religion.


I'm not sure if there is such thing as goverment that desides laws in an Islamic country. I repeat, not sure.

Iraq? Until it was invaded, that is.

[InsaneApache]

Laws that were not voted on? When you are a muslim, you agree to Islam, and Sharia is implied in it.

But my statement made it abundantly clear. Laws passed on, are not laws passed by the people. Why should I, for instance, submit myself to a code of laws that some bloke wrote 1500 years ago. How is that relevant to the post-enlightenment; post-industrialization world that we inhabit?


And at any cost, she had sex out of marriage, and that is wrong in my and other muslims' opinions.

Sharia says "No sex out of marriage", you see that as bad?

I think that's no-ones business except the two, (or if very lucky:sweatdrop: ), three people involved. If someone wants to have sex, in marriage or not, why is that your business? :inquisitive:

Edited for last quote

[Banquo's Ghost]

And at any cost, she had sex out of marriage, and that is wrong in my and other muslims' opinions.

Sharia says "No sex out of marriage", you see that as bad?

Specific situations like the above go back for the specific judge, whose responsibility then is to decide wheather it violated the rule "No sex out of marriage (Of course, sex with it's intention)", or not.

So the basic rule involoving sex in Islam, is no sex out of marriage, that is Sharia. You have anything against that?

Yeah, I have a whole lot against that.

Ok. Let's try this one example at a time. For the sake of argument, let me accept your premises that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and that apparently abusive rape is consentual. (I accept neither position in reality, just in case you get confused :smile:).

Why is the girl guilty and thus punished, whereas the man is not punished, or even brought to trial? He was surely committing both extra-marital sex, and adultery? (Since the age of consent there is apparently 9 years of age, I can't charge him with under-age rape).

Why only girls?

:inquisitive:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Nuts, I really did have a sliver of hope that somebody would attempt to explain the advantages of Sharia to me and spent several minutes to try to make the wording as neutral as possible....Another time I suppose.

BTW in Vermont where I live we have a tiny number of non-white inhabitants (second least in the USA), and as a side-effect nearly no muslims. As far as I know the closest Mosque is in Albany New York, an hour away in a different state. So I can't exactly get this sort of information from anywhere around here.

[x-dANGEr]

Heh, I feel like a mentor! xD


First, I'd say the West isn't too fond of the theocracy that runs Iran, but I don't think Western people 'hate' Iran. Regardless of the source, if the facts are true and valid, they require an answer.

Pro - Po - Gan - Da!

That's a good point. No, it wouldn't be a democracy, as rule would be by the religious authorities, not a freely elected body of representatives. But, it would be freely elected, and as a sovereign nation, it is your right to choose to live under a theocracy (government by your religious leaders).

Irrelevant. I already stated, if democracy agrees or agrees not, that's what we muslims want.

Fragony's asking you if weren't in an Islamic country. Let's suppose you moved to Switzerland for work. Would you refuse to come to work on Friday, or speak to female co-workers who didn't wear a hjab?

I wouldn't.

1) making it a law that everyone must obey, whether they're muslim or not
If you aren't a muslim, you're only forced to keep the public view "polite". You can have sex as much as you want with a girl you're not married to, just in closed doors. And of course, prostitution is another matter.

2) the harshness of the penalty if the law is broken.

Sex out of marriage is by far considered the greatest sin a muslim can make.. And so, has the greatest penalty if done. But also, it just many "conditions" and needs many "proofs". For instance, at least 4 people must witness the act, and confirm that the 2 reproductive parts of the two bodies have entered each other, etc..

It has been reported in the West, regardless I think you'll find hate is out of fashion here, we're more into agonising over the deaths of our enemies than demonizing them.

Regardless the Iranians are not our enemies, we dislike the regime because it is theocratic and repressive.


Pro - Po - Gan - Da!

Now here's where we part ways. Christianity holds to the same basic premise as Islam but sex at of marriage has traditional been a civil, not a criminal matter. The Church's position is one of condemnation but if you do it you go to hell, unless you atone for the sin.

For most Christians your sin is a private issue between you and god.

When you confess of your sin, and get (In this case) executed, you atone it.

Besides which is Sharia the "no sex" bit or the punishment. I don't believe that a crude hanging is appropriate, especially as it removes the option for the girl to to ever atone for her sin.

Not all sex out of marriage gets punished like that.. If the girl/man aren't married, they get whipped at least 70 whips. If married, they get killed thrown by stones in front of the whole public.

What about a Muslim girl who doesn't want to wear the veil, especially since the veil is differently interpretted in different places. From what I have heard from Muslim women who oppose it there is no specific provision in the Koran, which makes the whole issue one of interpretation. In fact I believe the earliest evidence for the covering of women's heads comes from 100 years after the death of the prophet and was burrowed from the Byzantines.

A muslim girl must wear the veil if she believs in it, otherwise it is ok. In fact, my sister doesn't weak the veil..

I don't read Arabic, you'll have to provide a litteral translation but in Christianity we have scripture and dogma. Scripture is fixed and is collectively known as the Bible. Dogma is interpretation and varries between different branches of the church.
Litterly: And don't get any close to "sex out of marriage".

But my statement made it abundantly clear. Laws passed on, are not laws passed by the people. Why should I, for instance, submit myself to a code of laws that some bloke wrote 1500 years ago. How is that relevant to the post-enlightenment; post-industrialization world that we inhabit?

Because they make for a better community.

I think that's no-ones business except the two, (or if very lucky ), three people involved. If someone wants to have sex, in marriage or not, why is that your business?
You gotta be kiddin!

Why is the girl guilty and thus punished, whereas the man is not punished, or even brought to trial? He was surely committing both extra-marital sex, and adultery? (Since the age of consent there is apparently 9 years of age, I can't charge him with under-age rape).

I'm not saying that "Sharia" is implemented in Iran, and I'm not saying that verdict is right, and I'm not saying that I agree to it.

You flamed Sharia, while you don't know it. The verdict above has nothing to do with Sharia. Period.

[InsaneApache]

No I'm not kidding. Now pay attention and try to answer my question. What business is it of yours, if someone out of wedlock decides to have sex?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sex out of marriage is by far considered the greatest sin a muslim can make.. And so, has the greatest penalty if done. But also, it just many "conditions" and needs many "proofs". For instance, at least 4 people must witness the act, and confirm that the 2 reproductive parts of the two bodies have entered each other, etc..

Really? I'm intrigued, not least because your view contradicts most of the Muslims I know (but then most of them think Sharia is an abomination too).

Sex outside of marriage is the greatest sin in Islam? More so than murder? So it's going to be OK if one just has a small, intimate orgy with another unmarried couple and only have anal and/or oral sex? :freak:

Can't you see how nutty this is?


I'm not saying that "Sharia" is implemented in Iran, and I'm not saying that verdict is right, and I'm not saying that I agree to it.

You flamed Sharia, while you don't know it. The verdict above has nothing to do with Sharia. Period.

Well, the Iranians think they're implementing Sharia and since you don't believe in democracy, surely you have to accept the word of the mullahs? I don't know Sharia, largely because not one of its proponents seems to agree on what it actually means in practice. Who is right, you or the mullahs? (Careful in your answer, the moral police are watching).

I 'flame' Sharia along with all the other religious nutcases who think they have the only solution to the human condition and impose that solution through vilification and violence. Most especially when they judicially murder a powerless young girl.

Claiming that they haven't quite got Utopia right yet doesn't cut it. Neither does your tactic here and in other threads of claiming every source that doesn't agree with you as propaganda.

[x-dANGEr]

No I'm not kidding. Now pay attention and try to answer my question. What business is it of yours, if someone out of wedlock decides to have sex?
Just look at the relationships in the USA (No offence, it is just an example of a country which's traditions are ok with sex out of marriage), the family connection and the diseases flowing through the community.

Sex outside of marriage is the greatest sin in Islam? More so than murder? So it's going to be OK if one just has a small, intimate orgy with another unmarried couple and only have anal and/or oral sex?

Can't you see how nutty this is?

I might have said that wrong.. Murder's punishment is death. Sex while married's punishment is death publically, go figure. About the other thing, I don't know what do you mean by anal or oral sex.


Well, the Iranians think they're implementing Sharia and since you don't believe in democracy, surely you have to accept the word of the mullahs? I don't know Sharia, largely because not one of its proponents seems to agree on what it actually means in practice. Who is right, you or the mullahs? (Careful in your answer, the moral police are watching).

I'm sure even the Sharia Iran has implemented doesn't find that above verdict fine. In fact, I don't believe all that crap. Pro - Pa - Gan - Da!


Neither does your tactic here and in other threads of claiming every source that doesn't agree with you as propaganda.

Actually, this is the first time I claim a source is propaganda. And in fact, since there is only one side of this case, and that is the western, and since it is not mentioned in any other place "eastern", there is no proof about it. It mighy be lies, and it might half-truths. But if at any cost it is truth, the Judge has mistaken. Blame him, not the Sharia.

If a Judge finds a murderer, who's prooved to have killed innocent, do you blame him or the law?

[InsaneApache]

Just look at the relationships in the USA (No offence, it is just an example of a country which's traditions are ok with sex out of marriage), the family connection and the diseases flowing through the community.

And how is that any of your business?

I have this funny idea that what people get up to in their sex lives is no-ones business but theirs.

[Ronin]

Just look at the relationships in the USA (No offence, it is just an example of a country which's traditions are ok with sex out of marriage), the family connection and the diseases flowing through the community.



just because you find something distastefull does not mean you have the right to force those views on anyone else....

can a more open sex life lead to the spread of more diseases?....Yes it can...if the right steps for protection aren´t taken...

then again....eating fatty foods can lead to a higher risk of heart attack.....should we outlaw that as well?

what people do with their own personal lives is their concern and no one else´s.....get over yourself...please.

[Don Corleone]

Heh, I feel like a mentor! xD

Pro - Po - Gan - Da!
Hmm, yes, the world is always making up lies. How very convenient.


Irrelevant. I already stated, if democracy agrees or agrees not, that's what we muslims want. Okay, a democracy means a majority of people vote on everything and the outcome is determined by the largest number of votes. It doesn't mean no religion, that term is secular. If a majority of Iranians want a theocracy, then Iran should be a theocracy. But a vast majority of the people in the Phillipines do NOT want an Islamic theocracy, yet guerillas there kidnap and kill people all the time to make it one.


I wouldn't. Maybe you personally, no. But plenty of muslims come to western nations every day and immediately start demanding Sharia. Look at the 7/11 tube bombings. Read the C-A-I-R website.



If you aren't a muslim, you're only forced to keep the public view "polite". You can have sex as much as you want with a girl you're not married to, just in closed doors. And of course, prostitution is another matter. With all due respect, you are 100% wrong about this. As dhimini, it would be required for us to follow all Sharia laws, whether we're muslims or not, with the same consequences.

If by 'flaming Sharia', you mean we have the gumption to question it, you're right. But we also question our own religious creeds. What kind of religious belief is so weak that it needs to silence anybody who asks questions?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I might have said that wrong.. Murder's punishment is death. Sex while married's punishment is death publically, go figure. About the other thing, I don't know what do you mean by anal or oral sex.

Well, I won't go into descriptions as this is a PG site. My point was about your definition of proof - these are acts that don't require " that the 2 reproductive parts of the two bodies have entered each other." But they would still be considered extra-marital sex if practised by unmarried partners. (Unless you're Bill Clinton :wink:)


I'm sure even the Sharia Iran has implemented doesn't find that above verdict fine. In fact, I don't believe all that crap. Pro - Pa - Gan - Da!

OK, we're getting nowhere if you dismiss everything as propaganda. Why don't you provide some examples of where people have been executed under Sharia law for crimes against chastity (or extra-marital sexual relations) with background evidence and we can see if we agree with you that the punishment was just. Please, convince me. :inquisitive:


If a Judge finds a murderer, who's prooved to have killed innocent, do you blame him or the law?

First off, I disagree with the death penalty being appropriate for any crime. Thus injustices can be rectified if necessary. Second, I do not equate sexual infidelity and murder. Third, I believe a truly just system allows appropriate mitigating circumstances to be taken into account, such as being raped and abused.

A law that disregards these principles is a bad law, so I would blame the law.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just look at the relationships in the USA (No offence, it is just an example of a country which's traditions are ok with sex out of marriage), the family connection and the diseases flowing through the community.

I disagree.

Actually, traditional "formal" culture in the USA has always disagreed with sex out of marriage, and broad though tacit support for non-marital sex is a phenomenon only of the last 3 decades or so. Numerous states still have laws on the books banning adultery, and adultery is -- at least technically -- grounds for a dishonorable discharge in our military.

Yes, our society has always had an "informal" culture that was much more tolerant of this, but that stops well short of the cultural sanction that you imply. Heavens, our European brethren often think of us as being a little too puritanical (and impractical) by still having sex-related "blue" laws that officially restrict behavior.

As to sexually transmitted diseases and public health, statistics note that we have a continuing problem in the USA with STD, but the rate of disease among the whole population is actually quite low. We do not, thank God, have to deal with the horrific problems seen now in Africa and SE Asia.

[Redleg]

Just look at the relationships in the USA (No offence, it is just an example of a country which's traditions are ok with sex out of marriage), the family connection and the diseases flowing through the community.

Would you like me to point out the number of sexual transmitted diseases treated in muslim countries. While lower reporting numbers then in the West its not exactly clean in the Middle-East either.


A conference organized by the King Faisal Hospital and Research Center, the World Health Organization, and the Saudi Health Ministry concluded that increased AIDS education initiatives must target the Middle East. Cases of HIV and AIDS are low in the Middle East, with only 19,000 people newly infected in North Africa and the Middle East in 1998, compared to 44,000 in North America. Officials attribute the slow spread of HIV in the Middle East to strict social and moral codes; however, these same codes inhibit education about the disease. The WHO estimates that there are some 210,000 people with HIV or AIDS in the Middle East and North Africa.

http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1999/AD991045.html

Now this number doesn't take into account the population density either. Its just a nice raw number.



I might have said that wrong.. Murder's punishment is death. Sex while married's punishment is death publically, go figure. About the other thing, I don't know what do you mean by anal or oral sex.

Are you defending Sharia law based upon not understanding the consequences of what you are advocating?



I'm sure even the Sharia Iran has implemented doesn't find that above verdict fine. In fact, I don't believe all that crap. Pro - Pa - Gan - Da!


Well a young girl has been killed by the judicial system of that state..



Actually, this is the first time I claim a source is propaganda. And in fact, since there is only one side of this case, and that is the western, and since it is not mentioned in any other place "eastern", there is no proof about it. It mighy be lies, and it might half-truths. But if at any cost it is truth, the Judge has mistaken. Blame him, not the Sharia.

Actually its not the first time you have made such a claim.

So blame the judge for a faulty interpation of Sharia law, a nice cop out for a concept that is not clearly written in legal code to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Supporting unwritten laws always leaves them open for the abuse as demonstrated by this event.



If a Judge finds a murderer, who's prooved to have killed innocent, do you blame him or the law?

Not at all, and the comparision is false.

THe judge in this instance uses an unwritten and unclear religious code to condemn an individual to death.

In the instance of the death penelty for murder there is a precise legal code that is followed in most western countries that use the death penelty.

[x-dANGEr]

People people your mixing up everything..

Inasne, in your community it isn't, and I sure hadn't asked for them to being forced their. In ours, it is damn sure my buisness. It is the community's buisness, and everyone's buisness.

Ronin, who said I'd force them? Did I even suggest forcing these rules? We muslims "optionally" want them, who said anything about forcing anything!

Don: What if I tell you that a newspaper here had a link talking about let's say.. "British people raping young children and throwing them in a dumbster have been found innocent by the judge.." I'm sure what I will hear.


With all due respect, you are 100% wrong about this. As dhimini, it would be required for us to follow all Sharia laws, whether we're muslims or not, with the same consequences.

Ok, you know another Islam, give us a class about it.


OK, we're getting nowhere if you dismiss everything as propaganda. Why don't you provide some examples of where people have been executed under Sharia law for crimes against chastity (or extra-marital sexual relations) with background evidence and we can see if we agree with you that the punishment was just. Please, convince me.
Dude, I'm saying: It is propoganda, and if it is not and it trule happened, the judge was stoned.


First off, I disagree with the death penalty being appropriate for any crime. Thus injustices can be rectified if necessary. Second, I do not equate sexual infidelity and murder. Third, I believe a truly just system allows appropriate mitigating circumstances to be taken into account, such as being raped and abused.

Who said it is? There are 3 kinds of murders: Intended Murder, Semi-Intended Murder and Not-Intended murder. The Intended one's penalty is death, the other's are different, and I can explain them to you if you want.


Redleg, first of all I didn't say there is no such diseases in Arab/Muslim states.. In fact, there is, which's why we all ask for Sharia.



So blame the judge for a faulty interpation of Sharia law, a nice cop out for a concept that is not clearly written in legal code to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Supporting unwritten laws always leaves them open for the abuse as demonstrated by this event.




Not at all, and the comparision is false.

THe judge in this instance uses an unwritten and unclear religious code to condemn an individual to death.

In the instance of the death penelty for murder there is a precise legal code that is followed in most western countries that use the death penelty.

Wrong. The Judges job is to decide wheather the girl performed that act intentially or was raped. In the first case, she should get whipped 70 times. In the second case, nothing, but even maybe some fund from the state. The man, on the other side, would get killde if he was married on both cases. If not married, he will get whipped 70 times on the first case, but on the second one I don't know..
[/quote]

[Ronin]

Ronin, who said I'd force them? Did I even suggest forcing these rules? We muslims "optionally" want them, who said anything about forcing anything!


I wonder....

In what do you base yourself to say that the muslim population "want" these rules?

Was there a vote? Did they elect some representative that made this decision for them?

Call me slow....but I´m having a hard time comming to terms with the idea of a large group of people actively choosing a set of rules that gives the comunity power over such personal choices as to who you can and can´t have sex with....and to cap it all up......choose for death to be the punishment for this "terrible offence" *sarcasm warning*

:inquisitive:


if you actually believe people would freely choose such a set of rules for themselfs....I have a nice bridge i´d like to sell to you.

[Redleg]

People people your mixing up everything..

The reality of the news presents a different picture then what you are claiming here.



Inasne, in your community it isn't, and I sure hadn't asked for them to being forced their. In ours, it is damn sure my buisness. It is the community's buisness, and everyone's buisness.


So a innoncent girl who lives in Iran should die because a sick individual decided to rape her while she is still a minor in most societies....



Dude, I'm saying: It is propoganda, and if it is not and it trule happened, the judge was stoned.


It seems your now attempting to enter evidence of being stoned on drugs that was not present in any article I have seen - care to provide a link..




Who said it is? There are 3 kinds of murders: Intended Murder, Semi-Intended Murder and Not-Intended murder. The Intended one's penalty is death, the other's are different, and I can explain them to you if you want.


This still does not equate to the death sentence given to a female rape victim....



Redleg, first of all I didn't say there is no such diseases in Arab/Muslim states.. In fact, there is, which's why we all ask for Sharia.


What you stated was this. Just look at the relationships in the USA (No offence, it is just an example of a country which's traditions are ok with sex out of marriage), the family connection and the diseases flowing through the community.

A society that condemns sex outside of marriage (a death sentence for the female) is not doing as well as your attempting to paint. That sir, is my point.



Wrong. The Judges job is to decide wheather the girl performed that act intentially or was raped. In the first case, she should get whipped 70 times. In the second case, nothing, but even maybe some fund from the state. The man, on the other side, would get killde if he was married on both cases. If not married, he will get whipped 70 times on the first case, but on the second one I don't know..
[/QUOTE]

Again this is a different picture then what is being painted by the media in regards to Iran and Sharia law. The girl was not whipped and she was not let go as an innocent - she was clearly executed by the state.

Laws based upon no written code of conduct are subject to abuse Always, even here your interpation of Sharia Law shows that.

[InsaneApache]

Inasne, in your community it isn't, and I sure hadn't asked for them to being forced their. In ours, it is damn sure my buisness. It is the community's buisness, and everyone's buisness.

Why is it your business? Or for that matter, why is it the communities business? Why have you and community set yourselves up as judges? Who gave you that power? :inquisitive:

[x-dANGEr]

So a innoncent girl who lives in Iran should die because a sick individual decided to rape her while she is still a minor in most societies....

I see you implied this from beyond my words?! I simply stated in return to the "forcing" issue with what I replied. What relevance has got that comment to do with the topic this specific paragraph attended?

It seems your now attempting to enter evidence of being stoned on drugs that was not present in any article I have seen - care to provide a link..

Oh, now you take things littlerly. It simply is the Judge's wrong in this case. Though, I wonder, how could the article be so sure of the story it had published? Be so sure that what's said to have happened has actually happened.. And at any cost, if the case is like in the story, the Judge's verdict was not according to Sharia.

This still does not equate to the death sentence given to a female rape victim....
Who said it does.. ?!

A society that condemns sex outside of marriage (a death sentence for the female) is not doing as well as your attempting to paint. That sir, is my point.

Where is that society? I tell you it isn't here in Jordan, nor in Syria, neither in Lebanon, etc.. And just to ammend you, if Sharia is to be implemented, only married persons actually get killed. Non married ones (No matter if males or females) only get whipped.

Again this is a different picture then what is being painted by the media in regards to Iran and Sharia law. The girl was not whipped and she was not let go as an innocent - she was clearly executed by the state.

Which is why I doubt the media.. The girl should've been whipped, nothing more at any cost.. Because she isn't marrid yet anyway. (If she intentially had sex or got raped, she shouldn't get killed anyway)

Laws based upon no written code of conduct are subject to abuse Always, even here your interpation of Sharia Law shows that.
Because I don't know what, the punishment for a rapest? Don't worry, I can get you info tommorow about that.

[x-dANGEr]

Why is it your business? Or for that matter, why is it the communities business? Why have you and community set yourselves up as judges? Who gave you that power?
Because they are our sons and daughters, and will effect our grandsons and daughters. And as hidden it may seem to you, sex out of marriage phenonima greatly weakens family relations and connections, and we don't want to become a broken community. That is why it concerns us all. And of course, let's not forget the increase of diseases, the confusion of "ansab".. (Doesn't know the translation for "ansab")

[Shaun]

And as hidden it may seem to you, sex out of marriage phenonima greatly weakens family relations and connections, and we don't want to become a broken community. That is why it concerns us all. And of course, let's not forget the increase of diseases, the confusion of "ansab".. (Doesn't know the translation for "ansab")

Yes, two teenagers who are having pre-marital sex are greatly destroying family values, which most pre-marital sex occurs in.
And ofcourse those people who are engaging in pre-marital sex are not clever enough to use contracpetion.




:wall:

[x-dANGEr]

Ok then.. You explain to me that %50 divorce percent in USA.. Or why their are so many pr0n american sites.. And the availability of women "acting" them.. Or the so big number of "strip" clubs..

One question:

What is the benefit of sex out of marriage? What good does it do to the community? Try balancing that with what bad it does..

[Redleg]

I see you implied this from beyond my words?! I simply stated in return to the "forcing" issue with what I replied. What relevance has got that comment to do with the topic this specific paragraph attended?


The death of the girl is a direct result of Sharia law. Pointing out that she is innocent yet still condemned to death is relevant to the topic.



Oh, now you take things littlerly. It simply is the Judge's wrong in this case. Though, I wonder, how could the article be so sure of the story it had published? Be so sure that what's said to have happened has actually happened.. And at any cost, if the case is like in the story, the Judge's verdict was not according to Sharia.


Stone has two meanings when refering to an individual - either they are stoned to death - or they have partaked in either drugs or achocal. If you did not want a literial translation applied - you should of thought out the words more carefully.

Again the very nature of the non-codified nature of Sharia law allows for such abuse by those who will abuse it. You state that its not within the nature of Sharia law - but the evidence directly contradicts such a conclusion. There are several exambles of the victim of rapes - being executed for the violation.



Who said it does.. ?!


Oh several rapid advocates of Sharia Law have stated such a stance.



Where is that society? I tell you it isn't here in Jordan, nor in Syria, neither in Lebanon, etc.. And just to ammend you, if Sharia is to be implemented, only married persons actually get killed. Non married ones (No matter if males or females) only get whipped.

Someone hasn't been paying attention now have they. Where is such a society. There are a few - one of them is not that far from Jordan - you know the same place where the article comes from....



Which is why I doubt the media.. The girl should've been whipped, nothing more at any cost.. Because she isn't marrid yet anyway. (If she intentially had sex or got raped, she shouldn't get killed anyway)

Hmm it seems your attempting to deny that she was executed - just because you do not want to believe that man is a corrupt being and in this case the religious code not being codified has lead to the death of an innocent girl by the state that practices Sharia law.



Because I don't know what, the punishment for a rapest? Don't worry, I can get you info tommorow about that.

Oh I know what Sharia law states about rapists - to bad the mullah in Iran who judged the girl and sentenced her to death didn't apply it to the rapist. But then in Iran the word of a girl is only worth half of the man.

Edit: You might want to find out what Amensity International has to say about the application of Sharia Law as it is done in Iran. Then look at what that organization has to say about other nation's applications of Sharia Law.

[Ronin]

Ok then.. You explain to me that %50 divorce percent in USA.. Or why their are so many pr0n american sites.. And the availability of women "acting" them.. Or the so big number of "strip" clubs..

One question:

What is the benefit of sex out of marriage? What good does it do to the community? Try balancing that with what bad it does..


the number of divorces is explained by the fact that people are free to decide that they don´t want to live in a failed relacionship......just because 2 people fall in love and marry doesn´t mean that they are right for each other.....as a matter of fact....plenty of times they´re not.....so what should they do? Remain married and unhappy just to be "polite" and keep society happy? or seek their happiness somewhere else?

- porn, and strip clubs exist for a simple reason....there is a demand for them....people have sexual desires and fantasies.......so why shouldn´t they enjoy them? pretending these desires don´t exist and trying to repress them only create psychos on the long run.

..

And to anwser your question.....sex serves the same purposes outside of marriage as it does inside it......it´s a form of procreation and a source of pleasure.........marriage is just a social invention anyway.

[Shaun]

Ok then.. You explain to me that %50 divorce percent in USA.. Or why their are so many pr0n american sites.. And the availability of women "acting" them.. Or the so big number of "strip" clubs..

The 50% divorece rate is mainly due to the ease and simplicty of divorce, and the fact that its no longer frowned on by society.

Porn? There has been porn since the late 1800's, men like it too much for it to disspaear, its not a by product of pre marital sex. Same with strpi clubs/





One question:

What is the benefit of sex out of marriage? What good does it do to the community? Try balancing that with what bad it does..

Answer- Its natrual, marriage is not natrual. Humans of about 12 and above have sexual feelings and inclinations, thus resulting in teenage sex and pre marital sex. Oh, and its also procreation, but I suppose you will question wether a baby that was a result of pre marital sex will be normal. Remember, mariage is just a legal contract, it does nothing to increase fertility.

So, what bad does it do?
Anyone can get a sexual disease if the proper contraception is not used and one partner has a sexual disease. Marriage is just a legal contract, not contraception.
And what exactly is good for the community? Intelligent and well bahaved children?

[Ice]

Ok then.. You explain to me that %50 divorce percent in USA.. Or why their are so many pr0n american sites.. And the availability of women "acting" them.. Or the so big number of "strip" clubs..

One question:

What is the benefit of sex out of marriage? What good does it do to the community? Try balancing that with what bad it does..

None of these things have to be positive. People should have the right to do all of these things. I'm not seeing how any of this is anyone else's business besides the person participating in these activities.

[Fragony]

What if in a muslim community, people choose their representives, and their represintives choose Sharia.. Wouldn't that make for the so-called Democracy and Sharia at the same time?


That is why I said that democracy is prone to trojan horses, it can be destroyed from within. Hitler was also democratically chosen, the system isn't perfect, that is why all noses must be in the same direction.

[x-dANGEr]

About the marriage thingy.. If you believe it is wrong, you will bever be convinced it is right. IN fact, you do believe it is right, but just try to convince yourself the opposite, because you simply enjoy it the way it is.

@Redleg: I'm talking about the Sharia I know, not about the so called "implemented" one. Now, if you don't take me as a reliable source of information considering the Sharia I know, maybe you shouldn't even ask me.

[R'as al Ghul]

This thread is hilarious. :laugh4:


Porn? There has been porn since the late 1800's, men like it too much for it to disspaear, its not a by product of pre marital sex.

Shaun, you're off by a few centuries, I'm afraid.
The earliest porn I remember has been found in Pompeji. I'm pretty sure though that they haven't invented it. There're also the Kama Sutra and Japanese Woodblock prints, so late 1800 is not correct. What did see its advent in the late 1800 though was cinematic porn. As soon as the medium photography was invented, or movies for that matter, it was used to produce porn.

[Redleg]

@Redleg: I'm talking about the Sharia I know, not about the so called "implemented" one. Now, if you don't take me as a reliable source of information considering the Sharia I know, maybe you shouldn't even ask me.

The problem x-danger is that the Sharia that you are attempting to state exists as a law is not a codified law, a point that you seem to want to deny. This application of law by the state has condemn innocent victims of another's act to death, it has result in the death of innocents just because of they had the misfortunate to be born female.

Amensity International has several reports on Iran that demonstrate this point very well. Laws that are not codified are prone to abuse. You can practice Sharia Law in your home, that is your right as a human being - but what is being applied in Iran is nothing other then a situation similiar to the Witch Trails of Salem.

[Don Corleone]

This thread is hilarious. :laugh4:



Shaun, you're off by a few centuries, I'm afraid.
The earliest porn I remember has been found in Pompeji. I'm pretty sure though that they haven't invented it. There're also the Kama Sutra and Japanese Woodblock prints, so late 1800 is not correct. What did see its advent in the late 1800 though was cinematic porn. As soon as the medium photography was invented, or movies for that matter, it was used to produce porn.

It predates that. Antropologists now attribute many of the nude figureines and wall paintings of the Neolithic era, once thought to be tributes to a female goddes/fertility cult, as nothing more than caveman porn.

[x-dANGEr]

Redleg: Which's is why I'm telling you they aren't implementing it.. As I said earlier, at any case a girl who "had sex out marriage" while not married does not get killed. In the Sharia I know anyway.

[drone]

Redleg: Which's is why I'm telling you they aren't implementing it.. As I said earlier, at any case a girl who "had sex out marriage" while not married does not get killed. In the Sharia I know anyway.
I think this is the crux of this argument. You apparently believe in a different Sharia law than the Iranian judge in question. What Redleg is stating (I believe) is that there is no clearly defined, codified, written down, follow-to-the-letter Sharia doctrine. Therefore, a judge can use his version of Sharia as the basis of a judgement and not really be accountable for that decision. Maybe the Sharia law you believe in is incorrect, and the Iranian judge is "right" in his judgement. It all depends on who has the power, which leaves it open to interpretation and abuse.

[Don Corleone]

People, let it go. x-danger clearly holds his beliefs in Sharia pretty deeply. He's heard all the arguments and hasn't changed his tune by a single note. We've crossed the line and we're now, we're into...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

[Geoffrey S]

I think this is the crux of this argument. You apparently believe in a different Sharia law than the Iranian judge in question. What Redleg is stating (I believe) is that there is no clearly defined, codified, written down, follow-to-the-letter Sharia doctrine. Therefore, a judge can use his version of Sharia as the basis of a judgement and not really be accountable for that decision. Maybe the Sharia law you believe in is incorrect, and the Iranian judge is "right" in his judgement. It all depends on who has the power, which leaves it open to interpretation and abuse.
This is true. One cause of this is the lack of centralised Islam or the equivalent of the Papacy, which has made it easier for people to turn up with their own interpretation of the Islam, or the sharia for that matter.

However the subject does intrigue me, and I'm going to look for a good account of the history of the sharia when I get the time; suffice to say I believe the sharia as it is applied in countries such as Iran cannot have been the original intention. However, it appears that even from (close to) the beginning much room was left to the personal interpretation of the sharia by the qadi, again a sign of a lack of centralisation that made the sharia easy prey for those who made law. This basic situation hasn't changed in essence, except that now it's not individuals whose interpretations are applied: it's theocrats running entire countries molding the sharia to suit their aims, with absolutely no room for dissent, particularly from other experts on sharia, and that must stop before that is seen as what the sharia is.

[x-dANGEr]

I think this is the crux of this argument. You apparently believe in a different Sharia law than the Iranian judge in question. What Redleg is stating (I believe) is that there is no clearly defined, codified, written down, follow-to-the-letter Sharia doctrine. Therefore, a judge can use his version of Sharia as the basis of a judgement and not really be accountable for that decision. Maybe the Sharia law you believe in is incorrect, and the Iranian judge is "right" in his judgement. It all depends on who has the power, which leaves it open to interpretation and abuse.
There is one.. But also, one of the main differences or disagreements between Sunni and Shii'a is their "Sharia". I'm a Sunni, Iran is Shii'a.. And so, I tell you that all Sunni probably agree on something, and all Shii'a agree on another, leading to the difference between the two. So therefore, I believe it is "clearly defined, condifed, written down, follow-to-the-letter" doctrine. Just, it is different between the two teams..

(For instance, Shii'a hurt themselves in they day of Ahoura, while Sunni finds that as a sin)

Oh and Don: Blah gah doh!

[Banquo's Ghost]

Rather than start a new thread, here's another example of Sharia law's contribution to humanity.

Clemency appeal for Briton facing Death in Pakistan (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1212788.ece)

By Justin Huggler, Asia Correspondent
Published: 04 August 2006

Four weeks today, a British man is due to be hanged in Pakistan for a crime he almost certainly did not commit - and which Pakistan's courts acquitted him of 10 years ago. Mirza Tahir Hussain is to be executed after an investigation in which a Pakistani judge ruled that the police had "fabricated evidence in a shameless manner" against him.

Mr Hussain, 36, from Leeds, has spent 18 years in a tiny darkened cell, for murdering a taxi driver. Despite Pakistan's secular courts acquitting him 10 years ago, he was found guilty by an Islamic sharia court.

Now Mr Hussain's family are asking Tony Blair to intervene with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf to save him. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Law Society of England and Wales have backed calls for the execution to be halted on the grounds of an unfair trial.

Twice, President Musharraf has intervened days before Mr Hussain was due to be hanged, but only to order 30-day stays of execution. So far, he has refused to pardon Mr Hussain or commute his sentence.

Aged 18, Mr Hussain travelled to Pakistan in 1988 to visit relatives. He arrived in the city of Rawalpindi late on the night of 17 December and tried to find a taxi to take him to his family village of Bhubar. Eventually one driver agreed to take him for 500 rupees.

Later that night, Mr Hussain drove up to a police station in the taxi. Inside was the dead body of the driver and the gun with which he had been killed. He was arrested and charged.

Mr Hussain has maintained that the taxi driver stopped the car and tried to sexually assault him. When he resisted, the driver pulled the gun. In the scuffle that ensued, the gun went off and the driver was killed. Investigations proved that the gun belonged to the driver.

Mr Hussain was born in Pakistan but his parents brought him to the UK as a baby, where he took British citizenship and served in the Territorial Army. It was his first trip back to Pakistan.

He was tried for murder and sentenced to death, but on appeal the High Court in Lahore ruled that there had been serious flaws in the prosecution's case. The case was retried and Mr Hussain was sentenced to life imprisonment, but on appeal the High Court overturned that sentence too and acquitted him. On 20 May 1996, Mr Hussain was fully acquitted of all charges.

But just one week later, the Islamic sharia courts intervened. Pakistan has two parallel legal systems: the secular courts, which are based on English common law, and the sharia courts, which implement Islamic religious law.

Suddenly the sharia court, which had shown no interest in Mr Hussain's case for eight years, claimed it fell within its jurisdiction. Murder does not ordinarily come under the sharia courts, but the court argues it was a case of armed robbery, a crime which does.

Under Islamic law, at least two witnesses are required to find a defendant guilty of armed robbery. None were produced. It was proved in court that Mr Hussain hired the taxi for 500 rupees, and the gun was in the driver's possession. Despite these flaws, the three judges found him guilty in a 2-1 decision.

The dissenting judge, Abdul Wahid Siddiqui, gave a 59-page written judgment in which he excoriated the prosecution case and the police investigation. Mr Hussain was "an innocent, raw youth not knowing the mischief and filth in which the police of this country is engrossed," he wrote. The police had fabricated evidence against the Briton and introduced false witnesses, the judge wrote.

Among the irregularities to have emerged are the fact that the police fired the gun with which the driver had been killed in order to produce a bullet for the trial.

Despite the flaws in the sharia court trial, its verdict was upheld on appeal by Pakistan's Supreme Court.

"My brother should be brought back home and I'm asking Tony Blair to intervene personally," Mr Hussain's brother Amjad, who has given up his business and spent all his savings fighting to save his brother, said yesterday.

"As a whole sharia law does have a decent standard of evidence," says Sarah Green of Amnesty International. The problem, she says, is that the sharia court did not adhere to its own laws in this case.

Now Mr Hussain's only hopes are a pardon or reduction of his sentence from President Musharraf, or for the family of the dead taxi driver to accept blood money and forgive him under Islamic law. Mr Hussain's relatives have been negotiating with the driver's family, and Islamic clerics have tried to mediate.

The Pakistani authorities have claimed that under the constitution, President Musharraf is powerless to pardon Mr Hussain. But, according Ms Green: "There are cases where he's commuted death sentences."

Mr Hussain has spent half his life in jail in a foreign country. And on 1 September, unless someone intervenes, he will die there.

If Mirza's plight affects you and you want to do something to help, Amnesty has an action page here (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=116).

[Redleg]

Rather than start a new thread, here's another example of Sharia law's contribution to humanity.


If Mirza's plight affects you and you want to do something to help, Amnesty has an action page here (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=116).

But Banquo according to some Sharia law can not be wrong since its a clear, concise, and codified set of laws for man to follow. I think the west needs to return to the inquistion and witch trails so that we might begin to understand how Sharia Law works.

What this article seems like - and it alludes it at the end of the article is nothing short of blackmail to get money for forgiveness. Do you know if the family of this innocent victim of Sharia Law has a fund established to help pay the extortion being applied by this application of Sharia Law?

Because the only way to save this man's life is to pay the blood money.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But Banquo according to some Sharia law can not be wrong since its a clear, concise, and codified set of laws for man to follow.

Rats. I forgot that. :oops:


What this article seems like - and it alludes it at the end of the article is nothing short of blackmail to get money for forgiveness. Do you know if the family of this innocent victim of Sharia Law has a fund established to help pay the extortion being applied by this application of Sharia Law?

Because the only way to save this man's life is to pay the blood money.

Sadly, that might be true, but I understand that the family of the man killed has not yet decided whether to accept blood money (a fine concept that we would do well to adopt in the west but are probably too morally corrupt to really appreciate). Or maybe they are going to put the forgiveness up on ebay with a suitable reserve.

I don't think his family is rich enugh to have a fund - and to try and set one up would, no doubt bring all the Sharia apologists out in fury througout the UK.

:shame:

[Don Corleone]

Rats. I forgot that. :oops:



Sadly, that might be true, but I understand that the family of the man killed has not yet decided whether to accept blood money (a fine concept that we would do well to adopt in the west but are probably too morally corrupt to really appreciate). Or maybe they are going to put the forgiveness up on ebay with a suitable reserve.

I don't think his family is rich enugh to have a fund - and to try and set one up would, no doubt bring all the Sharia apologists out in fury througout the UK.

:shame:

Watch it there buddy. That sort of sarcasm demands nothing less than the removal of your tongue and spleen with a plastic spoon.

[x-dANGEr]

Under Islamic law, at least two witnesses are required to find a defendant guilty of armed robbery. None were produced.
And they say Sharia isn't a set of defined rules..

Are you questioning "Sharia", or "Corruption" here?

[Redleg]

And they say Sharia isn't a set of defined rules..

Are you questioning "Sharia", or "Corruption" here?


Both.

The different situations in multuple countries demonstrate the failure of both the men attempting to force Sharia Law onto people, and the problems with a law that is not codified.

[x-dANGEr]

No matter what you say, I know it is condified around here in this country.

[Redleg]

No matter what you say, I know it is condified around here in this country.

That does not make it so in all nations now does it?

So where does it state that an innocent man should be hung because of Sharia Law after the seculer national court found the man innocent of the fabricated evidence used by the police?

Laws based soley upon religion are not codified laws, even the Jordan Legal system seems to understand this. While many nations have some religious moral influence upon the legal code of the nation, the law has been codified so that misinterpations of the application can be limited, and easily overturned.

Where in the legislative process was the code adopted into legal terms by the government? Iran did indeed attempt to codify Sharia Law into its consitution and legislative process, and the world can see how effective that codification has been. Saudia Arabia also attempts to codify Sharia Law into its legal system and even they have problems with this.

Now if I remember correctly you claim to live in Jordan. Now according to several web sites Jordan does not practice Sharia Law in its criminal court system.


Not all Muslim countries practice Sharia. In countries like Jordan in the Middle East and Mauritania and Morocco in North Africa, Islam pervades the culture and way of life of the citizens in areas such as education and dress, but not the legal codes. Turkey, another majority Muslim country, maintains a strict rule of secularism, or formal separation of government and religion, and turns away from Islamic law.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec03/sharia_9-29.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8034

http://countrystudies.us/jordan/57.htm


The religious courts are divided into sharia courts for Muslims and ecclesiastical courts for the minority Christian communities. These courts are responsible for disputes over personal status (marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance) and communal endowment among their respective communities. One judge, called a qadi, sits in each sharia court and decides cases on the basis of Islamic law. Three judges, usually members of the clergy, sit in each ecclesiastical court and render judgments based on various aspects of canon law as interpreted by the Greek Orthodox, Melchite, Roman Catholic, and Anglican traditions. Appeals from the judgments of the religious courts are referred to the Court of Appeal sitting in Amman. If any dispute involves members of different religious communities, the civil courts have jurisdiction unless the parties mutually agree to submit to the jurisdiction of one of the religious courts. In case of jurisdictional conflicts between any two religious courts or between a religious court and a civil court, the president of the Court of Cassation appoints a three-judge special tribunal to decide jurisdiction or to hear the case.


Now you can claim propaganda for the last site since its from United States Library of Congress....

Now in Jordan it seems that the Sharia application is done as a civil court, not a criminal court. So in essence the codifation of Sharia Law into the legal system of Jordan is limited to the same influence that Christian teachings has on the legal system of Western Nations.

Now would you like to rephrase your statement?

[orangat]

No matter what you say, I know it is condified around here in this country.

To put it succinctly. What Redleg probably means by codified is that Syariah laws are not set in stone. Therefore syariah laws differ even among the Sunni countries.

In Malaysia, there is no uniformity of Syariah laws - 13 states have their own separate jurisdiction of Syariah courts administering 'Syariah family law' with their different set of laws. For example the conditions for polygamy and divorce (under Syariah) differ across the states. A Malaysian man actually talak divorced his wife through SMS and Muslims can simply hop to a different state to escape jurisdiction or take advantage of (different) Syariah laws.

Syariah religious laws (and religious laws in general) are not handed down word for word from a divine source. They are created by people after interpretating the scriptures in the light of their times and therefore subject to human fallibility. Islamic jurists in the past have allowed concubinage and sex with slaves but I'd doubt we'd find a single syariah court allowing such activities today.

[Redleg]

To put it succinctly. What Redleg probably means by codified is that Syariah laws are not set in stone. Therefore syariah laws differ even among the Sunni countries.

Correct - the definition of the word is pretty clear, that is why I used it.

[x-dANGEr]

Yeap. I can understand you mean that. But nonethless, there are four main sort of "teams": Al Maliky, Al Hanafi, Al Hanbali and one more I can't remember. Each one of those scientist (Islam scientists) described essenced Sharia from Qura'n and Sunnih his way, and for that each of them have the same main aspects of Sharia, but may differ in the little things. And as a general rule, follow what you believe. All of them are right, and in that we follow what we find more suitable and reasonable. Now, I don't know each one's stance about the precise event in this thread, but I don't think it is anyway far from what I mentioned.

[InsaneApache]

Yeap. I can understand you mean that. But nonethless, there are four main sort of "teams": Al Maliky, Al Hanafi, Al Hanbali and one more I can't remember. Each one of those scientist (Islam scientists) described essenced Sharia from Qura'n and Sunnih his way, and for that each of them have the same main aspects of Sharia, but may differ in the little things. And as a general rule, follow what you believe. All of them are right, and in that we follow what we find more suitable and reasonable. Now, I don't know each one's stance about the precise event in this thread, but I don't think it is anyway far from what I mentioned.

So you get to pick and choose which laws to follow? :inquisitive:

[Banquo's Ghost]

And as a general rule, follow what you believe. All of them are right, and in that we follow what we find more suitable and reasonable. Now, I don't know each one's stance about the precise event in this thread, but I don't think it is anyway far from what I mentioned.

Is this genuinely what you think is just?

In that case, I assume you agree with the defendant in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=67623) who thinks he should get to abuse disabled children because he believes it's OK? Or do you just get to chose between the four Muslim Als?

Frankly, you are proving my original point far better than I could. :2thumbsup:

[Reenk Roink]

Is this genuinely what you think is just?

In that case, I assume you agree with the defendant in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=67623) who thinks he should get to abuse disabled children because he believes it's OK? Or do you just get to chose between the four Muslim Als?

Frankly, you are proving my original point far better than I could. :2thumbsup:

Banquo's Ghost, you are actually making me reconsider your point right now...

I completely related and agreed with you when you pointed out the need to speak against the injustices done under the name of "Sharia law", but frankly, as x-dANGEr has made it clear, these examples are not Sharia law at all, rather a chauvinistic twist of the law.

Your recent comments also show that you don't understand Sharia law very well. What x-dANGEr was saying when he brought this statement up (at least what I understood from it, he can affirm or correct it):


Yeap. I can understand you mean that. But nonethless, there are four main sort of "teams": Al Maliky, Al Hanafi, Al Hanbali and one more I can't remember. Each one of those scientist (Islam scientists) described essenced Sharia from Qura'n and Sunnih his way, and for that each of them have the same main aspects of Sharia, but may differ in the little things. And as a general rule, follow what you believe. All of them are right, and in that we follow what we find more suitable and reasonable. Now, I don't know each one's stance about the precise event in this thread, but I don't think it is anyway far from what I mentioned.

One, x-dANGEr is clearly not saying "pick and choose any law", as the statement is clearly defined in the context of the 4 schools of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam (or the "four Muslim Al's" as you put it :tongue2:). The little gibe of the child molester is just plain wrong here. These schools developed naturally, and differ on their methodology on how they interpret and apply the basic Quran and Sunnah. The names of the schools come from the people who developed the methodology, but the main position of the school can differ from the original position from the person who started it, as the clerics refine the positions. What x-dANGEr probably meant to say (again x-dANGEr, please affirm or correct me) was that none of these schools can be considered wrong and so any person can pick one of them. Usually, a person "picks" a school by simply living in the environment where that school is predominant (Hanafi is the largest and is predominant in the Subcontinent and Turkey, Maliki is predominant in North Africa, Shafi is predominant in Malaysia, Indonesia and the rest of Southeast Asia, and Hanbali, the smallest, is predominant in Arabia (or should I say was, given the rise of Wahabism recently). Therefore, if the community at large follows one school, it is natural for those born there to pick up that school, as people are well acquainted with it. But there is nothing wrong with changing schools if you have to (a move). I think that if one goes between all four schools, picking and choosing the easiest things for himself, than that is disliked.

The four schools agree on around 70%-80% of their rulings, and differ more on trivial matters (how long should the beard be, is it mandatory or recommended, etc...). When the schools differ however, it is considered to be ok, as Muhammad did say that a difference of opinion was a mercy. There was a real tolerance for differences in early Islam, which we just do not see now in the Islamic world. In the Ottoman Empire, for example, the empire’s codified law was based on the Hanafi school, but communities that followed other schools within the empire were allowed to live autonomously.

There were other schools besides these main four, as different methodologies were applied, but they have since died out because of a lack of following, or been heretical like literalism, which leads to anthromorphic conceptions of God.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Reenk Roink, if that is what x-dANGEr was saying, then I accept his, and your, point. However, there is still the matter of codification. Are any of these schools actually codified in the countries you list? If they are, and consistently applied, then there are reasonable expectations of justice - as long as these do not contravene universal human rights. In Pakistan, there seems to a be a parallel justice system, which of course is going to lead to pettying squabbling.


I completely related and agreed with you when you pointed out the need to speak against the injustices done under the name of "Sharia law", but frankly, as x-dANGEr has made it clear, these examples are not Sharia law at all, rather a chauvinistic twist of the law.

There are a lot more examples, as you know, of draconian punishments disproportionate to the 'crime'. Sharia seems particularly prone to chauvinistic twists - but I'd agree it is not the only legal system that claims 'it would be lovely if it was only put into practice.' I fear, however, that these are not 'twists' but the way Sharia is practised (theory does not concern me) in many countries, and the way many more may follow if it is not challenged.

I am not versed deeply in Sharia, not least because it appears remarkably open to interpretation and confusing. I object to and work against breaches of human rights and injustice by any legal system.

I am however, still waiting (since post #102) for x-dANGEr to provide me with examples of where executing someone for crimes against chastity can be considered just punishment. Why women are treated as second-class citizens to men in law, and whose testimony is considered of less worth. Let's just start there.

I am willing to be educated. :book2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...a Reenk Roink post that I largely agree with? :inquisitive:

...and that attempts to counter a previous poster with a mostly calm and reasonable tone?:help:

I think the issue that frustrates those raised in the Western tradition is that having 4 different variants of a law code is very counter-intuitive to our intellectual tradition.

Raised in pro-scientific, ratio-legal cultures, we approve of uniformity in laws and rules on a very basic level. Consequently, we find a system that has no more than a 70% correspondence among competing philosophies a bit too chaotic for psychological comfort.

Our tradition has emphasized moving away from the "customary" laws of our early cultures and toward more uniform codes developed as logical extensions of a set of over-arching principles following the philosophical tradition of classical Greco-Roman thinking. Sharia law seems more akin to the loose and adaptive code of the Brehon judges of the Celts or the more "Saxon" components of English Common Law. In most Western cultures, these early codes have been discarded despite their practical utility as being inferior to the more uniform, philosphically-driven master codes.

It's odd, in that the other major monotheistic religions all trend toward a "one God, one doctrine, one law" scenario and Muslims seem to have side-stepped that connection.

Thinking about this, in combination with the concepts put forward in the thread on the "tribal" way of war, we may be touching on some of the basic "dis-connects" that keep us at odds on so many issues. This thread has just now -- after obledegook posts -- generated something pretty interesting to me. Thanks folks.

[Reenk Roink]

Reenk Roink, if that is what x-dANGEr was saying, then I accept his, and your, point. However, there is still the matter of codification. Are any of these schools actually codified in the countries you list? If they are, and consistently applied, then there are reasonable expectations of justice - as long as these do not contravene universal human rights. In Pakistan, there seems to a be a parallel justice system, which of course is going to lead to pettying squabbling.

Sharia law has been extremely well codified in the past. The jurists were so thorough in their study of Sharia, it is simply mind boggling. You can find thousands of extant Classical, Medieval, and Ottoman Sharia manuals today in Arabic, nevermind the many more that have not survived. I recall reading that one jurist wrote on the specifics of road etiquette, and clarified under what circumstances a Muslim had to clear trash from the road. Some English translated and Western analyzed works on Sharia are listed:

1 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521005809/sr=8-2/qid=1154969205/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-5259057-1249722?ie=UTF8)
2 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1860646522/sr=8-3/qid=1154969205/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-5259057-1249722?ie=UTF8)
3 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674017846/sr=8-5/qid=1154969205/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-5259057-1249722?ie=UTF8)

As for codification in the present day, I frankly do not know, and my guess would be that there is very little codification of Sharia law in Muslim states. I base my guess on the fact that most Muslim states presently, have adopted western style secular constitutions, and that although they may set aside special places fro Sharia law in Family law, they by and large, do not practice Sharia law (the controversial part being the punishments of Sharia law). Saudi Arabia and Iran are two nations which I would presume have some formal Sharia law codification, but then again, Saudi Arabia follows a Salafist/Wahabist school (a branch of the Hanbali school that is basically literalist) and Iran follows what I would like to say the main school of jurisprudence of Shia Islam, Jafari, but since the country is essentially run by the Ayatollah, I cannot say for certain.

Now, Saudi Arabia's law, being of an extremely strict literalist movement, has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, especially concerning murder, theft, drugs, and rape.

A little overview (a bit dated though) (http://www.photius.com/countries/saudi_arabia/national_security/saudi_arabia_national_security_crime_and_punishment.html)
Murders per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)
Rapes per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita)
Burglaries per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita)

As one can see, Saudi Arabia has both strict Sharia laws on the books, and enforces them better than any other Muslim nation. However, many Muslims, from the Orthodox Sunni and Shia, to the secular, disagree with Saudi Arabia based on many facets. Public protests are banned, the toleration of other religions is extremely low, women are barred from driving in many parts of the kingdom, etc, etc...

Arguments against these practices can be made from the paradigm of a Orthodox Sunni Muslim, who would argue that banning public protests violates Shura (consultation), that a non-Muslim is allowed more rights than he receives in Saudi Arabia, and that there is no reasonable justification in Sunni Sharia that prevents a women from driving. On the flip side, a Secular Muslim could argue against these points based on the generally recognized Human Rights, which I'm sure you are more than familiar with... :wink:


There are a lot more examples, as you know, of draconian punishments disproportionate to the 'crime'. Sharia seems particularly prone to chauvinistic twists - but I'd agree it is not the only legal system that claims 'it would be lovely if it was only put into practice.' I fear, however, that these are not 'twists' but the way Sharia is practised (theory does not concern me) in many countries, and the way many more may follow if it is not challenged.

The state of the Muslim world today is quite terrible, yes. It is sadly a place of uneducation, chavanism, and intolerance, like never before. Like I mentioned before, many Muslims from varying spectrums would disagree with the Sharia being practiced by Iran or Saudi Arabia on different grounds. However, though x-dANGEr disagrees with the Iranian rape case you brought up, he accepts that the punishment for adultery (strictly defined as illicit sexual conduct [penetration is the definition of sexual conduct] by married persons [the agreed upon punishment for unmarried in all four Sunni schools is flogging]) is death, given that a confession is made four times or that four reliable (there is voluminous work on what constitutes reliable or not) witnesses. Certainly this would conflict with your held view against capital punishment of any sort and the fact that you do not view sex crimes as a capital crime on par with murder. Here the Islamic law is in clear conflict with secular law (though it is not surprisingly in harmony with Mosaic law).


I am not versed deeply in Sharia, not least because it appears remarkably open to interpretation and confusing. I object to and work against breaches of human rights and injustice by any legal system.

I myself only have a cursory understanding of Sharia law, as I have not studied the law itself, only Islamic history where it is mentioned. For example, I cannot name you the dead Sunni schools of jurisprudence, or their verdicts, methodologies, etc, etc...

Also, as religion is open to interpretation, so will the religious law. This can be seen in every religion. Seeing how complex the Orthodox Sunni view of Sharia is, you can imagine that outside it, there is even more complexity.


I am however, still waiting (since post #102) for x-dANGEr to provide me with examples of where executing someone for crimes against chastity can be considered just punishment. Why women are treated as second-class citizens to men in law, and whose testimony is considered of less worth. Let's just start there.

There will be many different views.

For example, here are more of the charges of misogyny launched against Islam:

http://www.secularislam.org/women/

Here is an argument of an Orthodox Sunni Syrian cleric:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1875&CATE=89

Here is a Feminist organization in Malaysia that seeks to improve the plight of Muslim women, while nevertheless staying true to Sharia:

http://www.sistersinislam.org.my/
http://www.asiasource.org/asip/muslimwomen.cfm


I am willing to be educated. :book2:

I would not think otherwise of you... :bow:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Reenk Roink, thank you for the links.

I have some reading to do :book2:

:bow:

[orangat]

Yeap. I can understand you mean that. But nonethless, there are four main sort of "teams": Al Maliky, Al Hanafi, Al Hanbali and one more I can't remember. Each one of those scientist (Islam scientists) described essenced Sharia from Qura'n and Sunnih his way, and for that each of them have the same main aspects of Sharia, but may differ in the little things. And as a general rule, follow what you believe. All of them are right, and in that we follow what we find more suitable and reasonable. Now, I don't know each one's stance about the precise event in this thread, but I don't think it is anyway far from what I mentioned.

As I have said even within Malaysia which follows mazhab Shafie the 13 states have their separate and sometimes different rules.

My main point is that all the mazhabs are still opinions and interpretations of jurists based on patriarchal cultures and traditions and as I said in my example about concubinage and slavery, are not static and unchanging truths.

Female circumcision is considered wajib (or only sunnah to some Shafie scholars) in the Shafie school, to the Hanbali's it is sunnah and to Hanafis is only a noble act. But any modern Muslim would regard the practise of female circumcision as an archaic, useless and possibly harmful despite whatever school of fiqh has to say about it.

[x-dANGEr]

I believe Reenk has answered all your questions, Ghost. And, thank you for the good interpertation, Reenk ~;) (Ok.. I will let you win me with HUNS ~:) )

@orangat: Ok.. Now you confused me. You're talking english and arabic the same time..! If it wouldn't be too much trouble for you, can you please clarify your question? Thank you.

[orangat]

I just used common religious terms because I thought you are Muslim.

To repeat my 3rd paragraph -
Female circumcision is considered mandatory/wajib (or only sunnah to some Shafie scholars) in the Shafie school, to the Hanbali's it is not mandatory but recommended/sunnah and to Hanafis is only a noble act. But any modern Muslim would regard the practise of female circumcision as an archaic, useless and possibly harmful despite whatever school of fiqh has to say about it. link (http://www.asianoutlook.com/isfeamlecircumcision.htm)

To get back to my previous example. Keeping captives, slaves and concubines and having sex with them were not forbidden and were simply regulated and considered acceptable by the heavyweight Muslim scholars of the day. Islam did seek to reduce the social gap by encouraging manumition, marriages (which would ensure freedom) and fair treatment. But old habits die hard and slavery was only formally outlawed in the 50-60s in Arab countries.

Just as the Catholic church eventually had to come to accept usury and heliocentrism, syariah laws simply reflect the cultural realities of the day.

[x-dANGEr]

Sharia point of view about "keeping captives, slaves and concubines and having sex" is only viable when they are the battlefield of the battle (With the fighting force). Now keep in mind, Sharia and the interpertations of Qura'n are time-flexible, of course, only for the great scientists to decide. For instance, when first Islam started, drinking alcohol was allowed, but banned in prayers. Then, it was banned in all times and places. And I think, that the rule above was/should only be carried down in the past.. As in the past, it was a normal thing. But nowadays, I'd feel disgust of myself doing it..

So, in my own self I believe that if a research is to be done in this time about that matter, it would be edited, or optimized to fit the current era.

Though, keep in mind: Each sin in Islam has - to be toned - to get a "slave" freed. And that is to reduce it anyway. (IN the first place, a slave to be freed, if you have no one, do something, etc..)

[Kralizec]

Sharia point of view about "keeping captives, slaves and concubines and having sex" is only viable when they are the battlefield of the battle (With the fighting force). Now keep in mind, Sharia and the interpertations of Qura'n are time-flexible, of course, only for the great scientists to decide. For instance, when first Islam started, drinking alcohol was allowed, but banned in prayers.

I thought that the ban on alcohol came directly from the Qu'ran?

Well you learn something new every day :book:

[Reenk Roink]

The topic of female circumcision has always been a confusing one. Firstly, there is much to suggest that it is a cultural phenomenon, but like orangat pointed out, it has (or had) it's place in Sharia as well.

Here is Amnesty International's view on it (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm), but a Muslim website says so differently (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1702&CATE=89)...

Also, I also thought the ban on alcohol came directly from the Quran... :huh:

[orangat]

Sharia point of view about "keeping captives, slaves and concubines and having sex" is only viable when they are the battlefield of the battle (With the fighting force). Now keep in mind, Sharia and the interpertations of Qura'n are time-flexible, of course, only for the great scientists to decide. For instance, when first Islam started, drinking alcohol was allowed, but banned in prayers. Then, it was banned in all times and places. And I think, that the rule above was/should only be carried down in the past.. As in the past, it was a normal thing. But nowadays, I'd feel disgust of myself doing it..

So, in my own self I believe that if a research is to be done in this time about that matter, it would be edited, or optimized to fit the current era.
..............

There seems to be no uniformity in matters big and small. From trivial matters of form like facial hair to the legal age of majority, minimum age of marriage, laws on divorce, polygamy and child custody, I doubt there are 2 Muslim states in the world who share the same basic Syariah laws.

Malaysia is having its own crisis with a state passing the hudud law bill (Syariah criminal code) to religious police grabbing Muslim girls off the stage in a beauty contest. The hudud law in Malaysia states that 4 adult men are necessary to prove the charge of rape but pregnancy/birth alone is sufficient to prove adultery. This bizzare law means that the burden of proof is shifted back on the rape victim to prove her innocence of adultery (if no 4 male witnesses are present). Limb amputation and stoning was also legalised.

The problem with letting great scholars decide things is that it seems that obscurantist clerics instead tend to take over.

[x-dANGEr]

Banning of Alcohol acme from Quran, but on steps.. A verse said: "ولى تقربوا الصلاة وانتم سكارى "; meaning don't get near from prayer while you're drunk. Then a verse came that prohibited it entirely.

@Orangat: It also takes 4 men to proove adultery if no pregnacy was found.

[orangat]

.......

@Orangat: It also takes 4 men to proove adultery if no pregnacy was found.

And women are supposed to feel secure on that point of law? Should rape victims be left vulnerable to charges of zina when they get pregnant?

The rape/adultery syariah code in Kelantan is so totally ludicrous that only what on lawyer termed as taliban minded bureaucrats could have tried to pass such laws. The requirement of 4 (Muslim) men as witnesses to catch the act red-handed simply acts as a protection for rapists. Ironically women are better off in secular courts where the rules of evidence are just and reasonable.

By having parallel system of law where Muslim women (and all non-Muslims) are disqualified as witnesses in rape/adultery is a gross violation of human rights. Because of this I'm not surprised why westerners shake their heads about Syariah.
http://www.muslimtents.com/sistersinislam/PressStatements/17072002m.htm

[x-dANGEr]

Well, it really serves not. If a medical evidence proove XXXXX is the rapist, he will be served the punishment for rape. And raped woman, aren't punished by any cost..

Mind you, why do you think muslims make sure they don't keep their daughter/mother/wife alone with a stranger?

[Shaun]

Mind you, why do you think muslims make sure they don't keep their daughter/mother/wife alone with a stranger?

What, are all men rapists or something? Honestly, men are not all sexual predators who will want to have sex with or rape every women they see, and not letting them alone with stragners really show's how little Muslim men trust women, and how backward some of them really are. Besides, women are not mens property, they can descisions themselves you know.

[orangat]

Well, it really serves not. If a medical evidence proove XXXXX is the rapist, he will be served the punishment for rape. And raped woman, aren't punished by any cost..

Mind you, why do you think muslims make sure they don't keep their daughter/mother/wife alone with a stranger?

Regardless the first draft version of the syariah law explicitly stated the eyewitness testimony of 4 Muslim men is needed - no women or non-Muslims. Such gross injustice and discrimination that women need to be around trusted 4 Muslim men would only have only made sense to Taliban minded bureaucrats.

If such a law did get passed, non-Muslims would make sure they keep their daughter/mother/wife away from Muslims since they are at a great disadvantage in Syariah court if rape ever took place.

According to SII, the syariah code classifies rape as a category of zina by default.
http://www.muslimtents.com/sistersinislam/PressStatements/06042000m.htm
And 3 quarters of women sitting in jail in Pakistan are rape victims charged with zina according to this article by Dr Farooq.
http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/gender/rape_fiqh.html

[Kralizec]

Well, it really serves not. If a medical evidence proove XXXXX is the rapist, he will be served the punishment for rape. And raped woman, aren't punished by any cost..

A rape does not necessarily leave behind medical evidence.


Mind you, why do you think muslims make sure they don't keep their daughter/mother/wife alone with a stranger?

Because you don't trust your fellow men?

[x-dANGEr]

What, are all men rapists or something? Honestly, men are not all sexual predators who will want to have sex with or rape every women they see, and not letting them alone with stragners really show's how little Muslim men trust women, and how backward some of them really are. Besides, women are not mens property, they can descisions themselves you know.
To prevent either rape or adultery.

@Orangat: Back to Pakistan again..

[PanzerJaeger]

Mind you, why do you think muslims make sure they don't keep their daughter/mother/wife alone with a stranger?

Typical muslim mindset...

In one sentence, he just demonstrated the horrible and disgusting view of women that permeates that "society".

Get it through your head that women are not yours to "keep" where ever you wish. They are not yours to subjugate, rape, stone, dismember, bury alive, or any other perverted practices muslim men subscribe to.

I bet the very thought of Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice scares you more than american bombs and basic hygiene put together! :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Get it through your head that women are not yours to "keep" where ever you wish. They are not yours to subjugate, rape, stone, dismember, bury alive, or any other perverted practices muslim men subscribe to.


It's funny, in another forum I frequent there are always a few muslim members stating that it is really western culture that is holding back women, because we(men) dress them up like sex-symbols. They just don't seem to understand that woman do so by their own choice and that we men have no say in that.

[x-dANGEr]

Oh Panzer.. You crossed the line there.


Get it through your head that women are not yours to "keep" where ever you wish.
If one is my child, be that a girl or a boy, he is mine to keep from danger, and letting a girl dress like a "sex-symbol" (-Fragony) will only get her rape or adultery, nothing better.

They are not yours to:

rape
Oh really? I wonder how you'd find it if the same sentence was directed at you, keeping in mind, it is 100% inaccurate at both cases.

stone
Huh? I guess you don't know the meaning of a word you just wrote in your post, do you?

bury alive
An act used to be done by the nomads (Arabs) before Islam. This deed requires death as a penalty.

or any other perverted practices muslim men subscribe to.
I will keep in my shirt for now and reply politely: "You're incorrect."

[Leet Eriksson]

Haha this is amusing.


Typical muslim mindset...

PanzerJager PhD in Muslim Psychology knows how a Muslim mindset works. He also knows Muslim Rocket Science.


I bet the very thought of Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice scares you more than american bombs and basic hygiene put together! :laugh4:

Why hello thar panzer, yes we hide in caves, have 16 wives, and as such its very hard to remain clean. Above all though, we like to strap on the occassional explosive belt and go boomskiing innocents.

So tell me, how is life going as a 400 pound, middle-class yank, whose sitting in his home sheltered from the world, having illegal immigrants do everything while offroading in his flag draped SUV and simultaneously having your uncle doing some hot sodomy action?

Yep, the american dream is so awesome :2thumbsup:

[Ser Clegane]

This one obviously went down the gutter.

Closed