Another Benefit of Sharia Law: Lash those rape victims!

[PanzerJaeger]

Your squirming is admirable, but you still haven't gotten yourself out of the question at hand. ~:doh:

Let me try and make it more simple for you.

If you believe an accurate gauge of public opinion cannot be taken in Saudi Arabia, on what do you base the opinions you've stated in this thread?

I believe there are accurate ways to measure opinion in Saudi, but based on what you have said - ...that is bollox since due to the nature of the regime there is no way to measure that opinion - your opinion on the subject is worth just as much as mine... correct?

[Papewaio]

Grasshopper becomes the master. :bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you can't answer that question, tribesy, which means you had no reason for that nonsensical post quoting where I speculated that I think most people in Saudi Arabia support the laws they have there. Funny you insist that there's no accurate polling method in such a regime, but there are other ways to deduce what they believe.

Now, back to my conversation with Gk - I stand by my 'bastion of evil' remark.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Well, a couple of comments, I guess. First of all: a rather interesting graph, CR. I thought it interesting that Egypt would actually be right up there with Jordan. Also thought it was somewhat surprising that Syria was as low as it was on the "blue bar". But I do have a couple reservations about it though. First of all, where's it from? Could I see who contributed this piece? Just out of curiosity? Also, one more thing. Who's asking the question, and under what circumstances? I wouldn't consider it out of the realm of possibility that the state governments administered the questions to people. And frankly, I'm not quite certain that they would criticize their governments(especially the ultra-conservative/totalitarian govs) even if they were told it was an "anonymous" poll. Most people are rather more concerned about their own skin, especially if there isn't anyone taking a lead on civil rights(which most of the totalitarian govs certainly aren't allowing). So I guess what I'm saying is that I would consider the Monarchs 'evil', but not the average Saudi who has basically no say in how the government is run. Replace the Monarch, and let the people elect their own officials. If they kept up the same interpretations of Sharia, then I would consider changing views on the populace as a whole.

And yes, the laws aren't being handed down on the Saudi's by aliens, per say. Rather, laws are handed down by extremely affluent Monarchs, who are in a near impregnable position, partly in because of a rather large number of infidels who keep giving them more money to fund a larger military/police force. The same rather large number of infidels who keep giving the Isrealites carpet bombs and other "nifty" modern gadgets which get used on your fellow Islamic bretheren. Alas, I'm afraid this is rather going down a different tangent, perhaps for another thread.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It was from this report:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=revisiting+the+arab+street+report&spell=1

I know there are reasons to doubt such polls. But I've seen no reason to think there is wide lack of support for these laws. We hear about dissidents in Iran, factions of society that are uncontent.

But in Arabia, the rulers preside over a welfare state and control the schools. And the culture is one of the strict sharia law.

So I see reasons indicating support, but no real reasons indicating no support. It does seem that you are ascribing your natural aversion to such a horrific culture and assuming all people would share it. I think that is an error, since the culture is simply different in Arabia.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Hmm. Verrry interesting. However, there are a few things I think are a bit misleading about the charts posted earlier. They merely reference Sharia law, which isn't any single one thing. Meanwhile, from that source:


Arabs demonstrate strong support for a flexible interpretation of Islam. They showconsiderable support for the Ijtihad to remain open. At the same time, however, they strongly advocate the Shari’a as a, and in many cases the, source of law. Ijtihad. The majority of Muslim respondents in all five countries believe that interpretation in religion has not been closed. Two thirds of respondents in Lebanon and Syria and overwhelming majorities in Palestine, Egypt and Jordan indicated that interpretation in religion has not been closed and should remain open. Respondents subscribing to the view that interpretation in religion has been closed were very few: 8%in Syria, 3% in Lebanon, 6% in Palestine, 5% in Egypt and 5% in Jordan. (See Figure IV.1.) Indeed, no more than 15% of respondents in any country believed that Ijtihad should be closed, which would indicate that there is not a strong impetus for adherence to fundamentalist views.
That would indicate to me that most people are, in fact, open to new interpretation of the law, which is what truly is the problem here. Certainly, many of the laws are different, but many of them are open to interpretation, which the Saudi Monarchy has turned into a totalitarian view. Other possible interpretations are generally much, much milder. It would seem to me that this indicates that its more on of the ruler's influences and desires than the people's.

The source- http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:pi4GA7F542kJ:www.css-jordan.org/new/REVISITINGTTHEARABSTREETReport.pdf+revisiting+the+arab+street+report&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Tribesman]

Your squirming is admirable, but you still haven't gotten yourself out of the question at hand.

Let me try and make it more simple for you.
If you believe an accurate gauge of public opinion cannot be taken in Saudi Arabia, on what do you base the opinions you've stated in this thread?

Errrr....read the topic Panzer its all there .


So you can't answer that question, tribesy, which means you had no reason for that nonsensical post quoting where I speculated that I think most people in Saudi Arabia support the laws they have there. Funny you insist that there's no accurate polling method in such a regime, but there are other ways to deduce what they believe.

Just in case you could not read that above ...read the topic Rabbit .

Its quite simple , what questions were asked , what were the differences in those questions , what different responses were given to which questions , what responses are you trying to fit into which other questions ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Errrr....read the topic Panzer its all there .


Just in case you could not read that above ...read the topic Rabbit .

Its quite simple , what questions were asked , what were the differences in those questions , what different responses were given to which questions , what responses are you trying to fit into which other questions ?

If it is, indeed, "all there," why not simply re-state/summarize your answer, provide us with a brief "gloss" of your position vis-a-vis these issues and thereby "win*" the argument? Must I re-read half the posts in a hundred post thread just to "keep score?" Should I take notes as it goes along, archive it and run an analysis?

Tribes, you are being lazy. Re-state your point and support it or quit the field.

[Tribesman]

Tribes, you are being lazy. Re-state your point and support it or quit the field.
Which point ? that they are unable to define what it is that they say they have a problem with , that they claim things as fact that are untrue or cannot be proven, that they take an answer to one statement and try and apply it to other statements where it doesn't apply and claim that the answers that are not given and don't apply prove that the answer is wrong ?

Look

So tribesy, are you saying that a majority of the population of Saudi Arabia does not support the current application of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?
a complete nonsense statement that follows on from a reply to a completely nonsensical statement . The original statement was guesswork produced when requested to produce proof , Rabbit clearly doesn't like not being able to produce proof when he was requested so makes a strawman instead to attack . Simple innit .


So when you say that most muslims do not support a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, you actually have no idea?

A nonsensical statement that attempts to take a response to one statement and apply it to an entirely different statement , In fact that statement is so bloody stupid it was worth repeating many times in the last few posts , can you see why it is such an obviously stupid statement ?

[Fragony]

Let's leave the technical side of stupid for what it is and make sense, imho the best way to weight all out would be the behaviour of muslims in the western world because none of these behaviourable aspects apply there.

[Tribesman]

Let's leave the technical side of stupid for what it is and make sense, imho the best way to weight all out would be the behaviour of muslims in the western world because none of these behaviourable aspects apply there.
So would you use the article you posted where a large number of the sample surveyed said they wanted some form of Sharia law in certain aspects of their life but none seemed to want the crazy fundy version ?
Or would you go with the occasional nutter with a placard who thinks beheading is good fun ?

[Fragony]

So would you use the article you posted where a large number of the sample surveyed said they wanted some form of Sharia law in certain aspects of their life but none seemed to want the crazy fundy version ?
Or would you go with the occasional nutter with a placard who thinks beheading is good fun ?

I am easy I get it, said all in my response, do you want a society in a society or do you want a society where everybody gets to be everyone. Survey's have shown that a lot of british muslims want sharia that is bad. Why would you care? Think about it, they wish nothing less then convenient segregretion.

[PanzerJaeger]

Which point ? that they are unable to define what it is that they say they have a problem with , that they claim things as fact that are untrue or cannot be proven, that they take an answer to one statement and try and apply it to other statements where it doesn't apply and claim that the answers that are not given and don't apply prove that the answer is wrong ?
Look
a complete nonsense statement that follows on from a reply to a completely nonsensical statement . The original statement was guesswork produced when requested to produce proof , Rabbit clearly doesn't like not being able to produce proof when he was requested so makes a strawman instead to attack . Simple innit .
A nonsensical statement that attempts to take a response to one statement and apply it to an entirely different statement , In fact that statement is so bloody stupid it was worth repeating many times in the last few posts , can you see why it is such an obviously stupid statement ?

Nonsensical is right.. :dizzy2:

For what its worth, I'll try one more time.

If you believe an accurate gauge of public opinion cannot be taken in Saudi Arabia, on what do you base the opinions you've stated in this thread?

Or even..

So tribesy, are you saying that a majority of the population of Saudi Arabia does not support the current application of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?

Its worded very precisely. No one's mixing up countries and the meaning of Sharia in the question is very clear - its application in Saudi Arabia. Do you need anything else defined before you can give a straight answer?

An answer to either question would help explain your seemingly contradictory position in this thread, but I don't expect it. :shame:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...[A]re you saying that a majority of the population of Saudi Arabia does not support the current application of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?

Its worded very precisely. No one's mixing up countries and the meaning of Sharia in the question is very clear - its application in Saudi Arabia.

Tribes:

Take a swipe at this question, please. For sake of argument, treat it [as much as possible] as an initial query and respond from there. I'd like to see your assessment.

[Tribesman]

Nonsensical is right..

For what its worth, I'll try one more time.

See even then you cannot do it , your try was So when you say that most muslims do not support a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, you actually have no idea?
.
But hey lets go with.....
If you believe an accurate gauge of public opinion cannot be taken in Saudi Arabia, on what do you base the opinions you've stated in this thread?

Errrr...such a hard one , a really tricky question , oh how I shall have to rack my brains to try and answer that one :dizzy2:
What was the opinion I stated ...oh of course , since there is not an accurate guage you cannot say that there is majority support .



Take a swipe at this question, please. For sake of argument, treat it [as much as possible] as an initial query and respond from there. I'd like to see your assessment.
Oh thats simple , there is no way to accurately guage the level of support so people cannot claim that there is a majority who support it . Rabbits figures he posted don't even approach the question , Kamikhaans however do deal with it in a sense , and though not definative do give an indication that is the opposite of what Rabbit claims .
There are however indictions that could put it either way , here I shall dress it up to give a fairly negative result concerning the question . For example have you met many Saudis , do they act like a strict fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia is a guiding force or the main guiding force in their life when they are at the races , down the pub , in a club or looking for a whorehouse ?
Alternatively you could look at the large volunteer force that supports the fundamentalist religeous police , that surely would be an indication of strong support for these laws, or it could be a power trip or a wish to ingratiaite yourself with the local gestapo to keep them from your own door , but since this law is supposed to be something that supporters would gladly follow without question doesn't the existance of such a force and the fact that they are very very busy every day trying to make people live according to these laws by very brutal methods show that people are not really too good at following these laws where if they actually supported them they would be the guiding force in their daily lives .

[Tribesman]

Wow the sounds of silence , where be dat pesky rabbit ?
Have Panzer and Rabbit been put into hock or something ?
Surely the response should have them hopping , they did have a point after all didn't they ?????
There are enough holes in the response to rip into....but silence ....it says it all:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow the sounds of silence


but silence ....it says it all:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


exactly

[Tribesman]

exactly
I am so glad you included the laughing my tits off smilies in your quote .
So now Tuff , woukd you like to rip apart the obvious flaws in my post ...or is it beyond your capabilities ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

It seems as though you are now saying the same things.

Neither of your statements are backed up by reliable data? Is that the answer to the riddle?

Isn't it more fair to say that his statement was backed up by inaccurate data while yours was backed up by personal estimation?


I don't know what is really going on. When a discussion turns into one guy evading a question for a few days and constantly resorting to words like "stupid" or "obvious" in his numerous posts, you wonder why he doesn't just drop the riddle and tell us why he is smarter than the rest of the class.

[rvg]

...Oh thats simple , there is no way to accurately guage the level of support so people cannot claim that there is a majority who support it . Rabbits figures he posted don't even approach the question , Kamikhaans however do deal with it in a sense , and though not definative do give an indication that is the opposite of what Rabbit claims .
There are however indictions that could put it either way , here I shall dress it up to give a fairly negative result concerning the question . For example have you met many Saudis , do they act like a strict fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia is a guiding force or the main guiding force in their life when they are at the races , down the pub , in a club or looking for a whorehouse ?
Alternatively you could look at the large volunteer force that supports the fundamentalist religeous police , that surely would be an indication of strong support for these laws, or it could be a power trip or a wish to ingratiaite yourself with the local gestapo to keep them from your own door , but since this law is supposed to be something that supporters would gladly follow without question doesn't the existance of such a force and the fact that they are very very busy every day trying to make people live according to these laws by very brutal methods show that people are not really too good at following these laws where if they actually supported them they would be the guiding force in their daily lives...

These are merely assumptions on your part, and they are not accurate at all. Saudi society does support support Sharia in its strictest form. Heck, the Saudi state started out as a popular uprising against the Ottoman Empire because in their view the Sultan did not adhere to Islam in its pure form. Yes, even in the 19th century it was led by the Saud family, but without the support of the people, specifically, the Arabians tribes, it would have quickly fizzled out. Once the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed, the Saud family merely continued to stay the course. As for what Saudis outside of their borders is irrelevant: according to their culture they are not bound by their rules and customs outside of their community. An ordinary Saudi can drink himself into stupor while on a trip to Beirut, but once he is back in Ryadh, he will be the first one to grab a torch and a pitchfork if he sees someone with booze. In their mind this is acceptable and creates no contradictions.

[Tribesman]

It seems as though you are now saying the same things.

Nope , since I never made a claim apart from that rabbit couldn't prove his point , In my negative response I put forward things that say that it mightbe the opposite of what Rabbit claimed .
Rabbit did bet that he was right didn't he , no bookie would ever pay out on that bet because the claim was of the testicular variety .
Now I could go further and say that in all probabilty on balance when you consider more information Rabbits claim doesn't hold any water at all in the slightest whatsoever not by a long chalk in a month of sundays even on a tuesday or a wet wednesday when the moon is full of wenslydale...but thats a lot of words , its easier to say that Rabbits bet was bollox .

[Tribesman]

Woohoo another one:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Saudi society does support support Sharia in its strictest form.
Does it ?are you mixing society with regime there ?



Heck, the Saudi state started out as a popular uprising against the Ottoman Empire because in their view the Sultan did not adhere to Islam in its pure form.
Errrrr ....would you like to check your history there ?
There are many origins of the rising , many reasons for the rising , there are also many different outcomes from the rising even from those originating in what is now known as Saudi Arabia .



As for what Saudis outside of their borders is irrelevant: according to their culture they are not bound by their rules and customs outside of their community.
oh dear


An ordinary Saudi can drink himself into stupor while on a trip to Beirut
Oh dear oh dear oh dear , would you like to try again or could you show the scripture or interpretation of scriptural law that would in any way whatsoever support that bollox you just spouted , remember in a fundamentalist approach foriegn laws and practices are only relevant if they do not contradict Islamic scripture(much like Jewish or Christian extremists who take scriptural law as the be all and end all when it comes to persoal actions) .


In their mind this is acceptable and creates no contradictions.
Wow its Madam Zelda , did you get much business at the horse fair this year?

[rvg]

...Oh dear...


Smilies and "Oh dear"s do not make good arguments. Let's just say that I spent a good deal of time in the Middle East and dealt with many Saudis, so I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It seems we forget what arguement is about. I think of it as a way to communicate information or opinion and to, hopefully but rarely, change minds.

The type of argument that Tribesman is having is self-aggrandizing. I would suspect that most reading it are sort of put off by the style. I would also suspect that he is changing few minds.

Is the point to be irritating? Sometimes that is the point for all of us.

[Tribesman]

Smilies and "Oh dear"s do not make good arguments.
They most certainly do when viewed in relation to the post they address .
So now RVG what part of strict interpretation of fundamentalist Sharia law is it that you do not understand ?
Shall I repeat would you like to try again or could you show the scripture or interpretation of scriptural law that would in any way whatsoever support that bollox you just spouted


I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.
Clearly that is not the case .:thumbsdown:

[Tribesman]

Awwww come on RVG wassamatter , have you realised you shot yourself in the foot ? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

Wow the sounds of silence , where be dat pesky rabbit ?
Have Panzer and Rabbit been put into hock or something ?
Surely the response should have them hopping , they did have a point after all didn't they ?????
There are enough holes in the response to rip into....but silence ....it says it all:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Some of us do have real lives...

What more needs to be said? After pulling teeth for a few pages, you confirmed what I initially thought.

Now we could continue to find nuances in each other's arguments and apply snide remarks where necessary for another 3 pages, but it really becomes tedious after a while.

Essentially what you are saying is that there is no way to know how much support the application of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia has among the populace. I disagree, there are more ways to ascertain an indication of public support than polls.

But even if we do take your premise as fact, I feel the preponderance of evidence - including polls from neighboring arab countries, massive street demonstrations at perceived insults, public support for wahhabist organizations, movements such as Al Quaeda, numbers of people turned in for "crimes" such as this, accounts from people who have lived there, and a host of other indicators - show clear support for the way in which Sharia and Islam in general is practiced in the nation.

[Tribesman]

But even if we do take your premise as fact, I feel the preponderance of evidence - including polls from neighboring arab countries, massive street demonstrations at perceived insults, public support for wahhabist organizations, movements such as Al Quaeda, numbers of people turned in for "crimes" such as this, accounts from people who have lived there, and a host of other indicators - show clear support for the way in which Sharia and Islam in general is practiced in the nation.

Go on then Panzer , show that they constitute a majority then , that was the claim was it not .
Oh sorry you can't can you~:doh:

Oh looky
including polls from neighboring arab countriesyou did it again:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and whats more you did it despite "evidence" being posted to the contrary Indeed, no more than 15% of respondents in any country believed that Ijtihad should be closed, which would indicate that there is not a strong impetus for adherence to fundamentalist views.:oops:

[PanzerJaeger]

Go on then Panzer , show that they constitute a majority then , that was the claim was it not .
Oh sorry you can't can you~:doh:

You do make it difficult when you ignore the obvious..


Oh lookyyou did it again:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and whats more you did it despite "evidence" being posted to the contrary Indeed, no more than 15% of respondents in any country believed that Ijtihad should be closed, which would indicate that there is not a strong impetus for adherence to fundamentalist views.:oops:

uh huh..

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/apr07/START_Apr07_graph5.jpg

[seireikhaan]

Well, Panzer, it would seem that we've got contradicting data here, now don't we? Could we perhaps see where you got your info, if you could be so kind? I do believe that I did post my source.

Also, Tribesman: frankly, you're not a very good debater. No offense, but smilies and other such things do not a good argument make. Neither do mud slinging your opponents and taking pot shots at them either. I know that discussion can get heated sometimes in the backroom, from personal experience, but using it repeatedly does little to advance your cause and convince others of your point.

RVG: Again, no offense, man. However, it is rather hard for us to rely on what you've told us about your experiences in Saudi were, as its quite entirely possible for someone with an agenda to simply make that up. I'm not accusing you of doing so, I'm just saying, that from a technical point of view, it is not a reliable source of data for others do rely on.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tribesman is a good debater, but his style here is totally off base.

[Tribesman]

uh huh..

Well I think that is deserving of a rather generous D+ for effort and a definate F- for actual result
Another case of he tries again and fails yet again , poor Panzer would you like to try yet again ?

Here perhaps you need some help ? what is the difference between strict application of Sharia law and strict application of a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law in the wahabbi flavour as in the country in question ?

OK perhaps that is too hard for you . I mean come on relatively simple stuff appears to be beyond your grasp so lets get some real basics sorted out so you might have some sort of footing to build on. Try an easier one , its been asked before many times but seems too hard for you to even attempt to answer ....... What is Sharia law Panzer ?

[Tribesman]

Well, Panzer, it would seem that we've got contradicting data here, now don't we? Could we perhaps see where you got your info, if you could be so kind? I do believe that I did post my source.

Its actually quite an interesting survey , though of course someone who posted an exerpt might be somewhat reluctant to post it in its entirety for a reason that is not surprising to say the least due to its content ~;) .
Some good stuff in there about what is extremism/ fundamentalism , what is viewed as its causes and what does it threaten .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't pull a tribesman and dance for the next 20 posts without the info

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, Panzer, it would seem that we've got contradicting data here, now don't we? Could we perhaps see where you got your info, if you could be so kind? I do believe that I did post my source.

Of course... www.worldpublicopinion.org


Well I think that is deserving of a rather generous D+ for effort and a definate F- for actual result
Another case of he tries again and fails yet again , poor Panzer would you like to try yet again ?

Hey, a D+!? Thats passing! You are being generous tonight!


Here perhaps you need some help ? what is the difference between strict application of Sharia law and strict application of a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law in the wahabbi flavour as in the country in question ?

OK perhaps that is too hard for you . I mean come on relatively simple stuff appears to be beyond your grasp so lets get some real basics sorted out so you might have some sort of footing to build on. Try an easier one , its been asked before many times but seems too hard for you to even attempt to answer ....... What is Sharia law Panzer ?

Well I'm sure a man as smart as yourself can easily find the textbook answer, but thats not what you're getting at, is it?

Whats really interesting about the poll is that while each nation has varying degrees of islamic law, the populations of all want a stricter interpretation... even in Indonesia, the example of moderate islam always held up.

[Tribesman]

Don't pull a tribesman and dance for the next 20 posts without the info


Of course... www.worldpublicopinion.org
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
almost a Tribesman , but the actual poll (as well as some other interestingones relating to the subject) is easy to find there . Almost as easy as just looking at the little letters at the bottom of the graphic Panzer posted .




Well I'm sure a man as smart as yourself can easily find the textbook answer, but thats not what you're getting at, is it?

Can you answer the question , it is pretty much the core of the issue isn't it .
If you cannot get the basics right it does make your efforts on more complicated stuff very futile.



Whats really interesting about the poll is that while each nation has varying degrees of islamic law, the populations of all want a stricter interpretation
Try again Pazer , what is a stricter interpretation of Islamic law ?
Given the polls questions and responses about fundamentalism how on earth can you take a stricter interpretation and use it to represent strict application of a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law in the wahabbi flavour as in the country in question ?

[Ironside]

RVG: Again, no offense, man. However, it is rather hard for us to rely on what you've told us about your experiences in Saudi were, as its quite entirely possible for someone with an agenda to simply make that up. I'm not accusing you of doing so, I'm just saying, that from a technical point of view, it is not a reliable source of data for others do rely on.

It's actually more that


As for what Saudis outside of their borders is irrelevant: according to their culture they are not bound by their rules and customs outside of their community. An ordinary Saudi can drink himself into stupor while on a trip to Beirut, but once he is back in Ryadh, he will be the first one to grab a torch and a pitchfork if he sees someone with booze. In their mind this is acceptable and creates no contradictions.

contains one glaringly obvious contradiction about people personally prefering stricter rules. I suspect that's the issue Tribes is hinting about.

[Fragony]

Given the polls questions and responses about fundamentalism how on earth can you take a stricter interpretation and use it to represent strict application of a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law in the wahabbi flavour as in the country in question ?


Give a finger lose the hand, all that matters for me is that they want special treatment, their own laws, a society in a society. It is extremily discomforting that they want that, and it's bound to collide with national law. At a certain point a rapist will want to be judged by sharia law, and he will want to walk if the victim can't provide 5 witnesses. And a certain type of person will listen. We can all remember the german judge that said beating up the wife is a cultural thing and refused a divorce.

(put in excessive simly's if you didn't mean the uk poll)

[Tribesman]

I suspect that's the issue Tribes is hinting about.

You mean the shooting himself in the foot hint ?
Another example of someone not knowing what they are on about yet claiming
I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
ThoughI am still left wondering how long Panzer will try and play .....errr what was it again ...oh yeah ...dodgeball with the simplest of questions , the simplest of questions that must be answered to even attempt to approach the subject that he jumped into headfirst without establishing the depth of the water first .
Though of course to answer it would reveal Panzers position on this topic , which is of course having his head stuck in the mud while his feet thrash about above the surface .

[PanzerJaeger]

Though of course to answer it would reveal Panzers position on this topic , which is of course having his head stuck in the mud while his feet thrash about above the surface .

I have revealed my position and defended it several times in this thread. You have also revealed quite a bit of interesting information about your position (or lack there of). I will not, however, be goaded into yet another warning point from this thread by your lame insults. :yes:

[Tribesman]

I have revealed my position and defended it several times in this thread.
yet your position is weak and indefensible . Even the briefest scrutiny of information you attempted to use to support your views shows that they don't support them .
Here let me help ...if what you use to defend your views doesn't defend your views then surprisingly enough it is a bit of a joke to call it defending your views .


I will not, however, be goaded into yet another warning point from this thread by your lame insults.
Lame insults , you don't have to be goaded into warning points Panzer , its simple really , all you have to do is explain what Sharia law is , even a basic explanation would suffice ...well it would suffice to show how weak and indefensible your position is wouldn't it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Ice]

Lmao, what a **** show this is.

[Banquo's Ghost]

In an attempt to get some constructive debate re-emerging, I thought I would seek out a definition of Shari'ah that could provide us with a basis for going forward. I chose that found in an edition of Encyclopedia Britannica published last century, when the world took little notice of Islam - thereby hopefully more neutral in exposition. (Thus I had to type it out rather than cut and paste, so I would be disappointed if we just bounce back to Yah-Boos).




Shari’ah, the most fundamental religious concept of Islam, namely its law, systematised during the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Muslim era (8th – 9th century AD). The term originally denoted a “road to a watering place; hence, the path of God.

The formulation of the Shari’ah rests on four bases:

1. The Qur’an
2. The sunnah (“the way”) of the Prophet as recorded in the Tradition (Hadith).
3. The ijima, or universal agreement, which has been materially perhaps the most important factor in defining what the Qur’an and the sunnah mean (ie in formulating the doctrine and practice of the Muslim community) but which itself has curiously remained the least clearly formulated religious institiution of Islam. Its full nature and implications have never been adequately analysed either in medieaval Islam or by modern scholarship.

Two important points must be borne in mind. First, although this is not inherent in the concept itself, ijima in the premodern usage, has always had reference to the past, near or remote, and does not denote a contemporaneous agreement. In the modern Muslim usage of the term, however, ijima has come to mean a democratic institution opposed to traditional authority. Second, and consequently, far from working as a monolithic principle of unique standardization, ijima came to operate as a principle of toleration of different traditions within Islam.

4. The fourth principle of the Shari’ah formulation, known as qiyas, or analogical reasoning, is the genuine basis of interpretation and thought (ijtihad) in Islam. It is this which makes progressive ijima possible. Its earlier form was personal thought and opinion which was criticised by many eminent traditional authorities as “arbitrary”.

There are four sciences known as the sciences of the Shari’ah: the prophetic Tradition (Hadith); the Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir); the theology (kalam); and law (fiqh). The first two are the materials for theology and law. In the four schools of law, the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Shafi’i and the Hanbali, which took shape early – during the first two centuries of Islam – law and theology were a unity and were not separated, although theology at that time was merely a statement of the doctrine. As a result of increased exposure to other religious systems, a cleavage occurred between the law and the doctrine, and the former, which ideally presupposed the latter as its base, came not only to be and independent discipline but to claim for itself the title of the science of the Shari’ah par excellence, and was even identified with the Shari’ah itself. Thus fiqh, which orginally meant an understanding of the entire range of the faith, came to be applied to law alone.

Since no distinction was made in Islam between religious and secular law, the Shari’ah concerned itself with the total religious, political, social, domestic and private life of the faithful. It classified actions into five categories; obligatory; desirable but not obligatory; indifferent; objectionable; and prohibited.

Shari’ah differs fundamentally from Western law in that it is not, in theory, man-made, but grounded in divine revelation; to the orthodox Muslim, revelation ended with the death of Mohammed.


My understanding then, is that Shari'ah is a process, and one that has fractured along with the Islamic world so that ijima is less progressive than it was, and the law more inflexible. Rigid and simplistic interpretations have become dominant, and learned challenge made difficult - in the manner say, that Marxism rapidly lost its idealism once in the hands of pragmatists facing external and internal enemies.

For a religious person of any persuasion, I would think that the concept of a divinely inspired legal framework would be desirable, and thus it is little surprise than many Muslims might express a hope for Shari'ah based law as an aspiration - much like a Christian might hope for a legal system inspired by Jesus' teachings. So if a broad question is posed in that manner, the answers might tend to the affirmative, and Westerners might then extrapolate that to mean they also desired the more barbaric - and frankly perverted - detail practised in some countries.

In a world dominated by fear and extremism, many people seek refuge in simplicities - faith or reason - and are willing to give up critical thought or outright challenge to authority - religious or secular - for apparent safety. Perhaps this explains the lack of challenge to fanaticism in Muslim countries - and our own?

[Tribesman]

Cheers Banquo :2thumbsup:
3&4 are the most important concerning the points that some are trying to make but failing miserably .
It ties back very well to the survey Kamikhaan posted...and of course your comment...
For a religious person of any persuasion, I would think that the concept of a divinely inspired legal framework would be desirable, and thus it is little surprise than many Muslims might express a hope for Shari'ah based law as an aspiration - much like a Christian might hope for a legal system inspired by Jesus' teachings. So if a broad question is posed in that manner, the answers might tend to the affirmative, and Westerners might then extrapolate that to mean they also desired the more barbaric - and frankly perverted - detail practised in some countries.
...deals with Panzers claims from the poll he attempted to use(though the poll itself dealt with that but for some reason was ignored as the poll doesn't support the claims that were trying to be made on it) .

[Fragony]

Well you got out of it what you wanted at least, how much money is attached to the selective reading award? And the selective-complete-utter-ignorace-award that should be issued to everyone trying to defend the women's position in the islamic world? You talk about these things as if you read it in a book.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well you got out of it what you wanted at least, how much money is attached to the selective reading award? And the selective-complete-utter-ignorace-award that should be issued to everyone trying to defend the women's position in the islamic world? You talk about these things as if you read it in a book.

I don't think anyone is trying to defend the way many women are treated in many Islamic countries. Both Tribesman and myself have posted in the past deploring such abuses, and I think my own record of promoting human rights in this forum has encompassed a rant or two about women being cruelly treated.

My point in posting was to address the apparent perception that all Muslims are the same and that "Shari'ah Law" is some homogenous entity across the islamic world. It clearly isn't, and by widening one's reading, one can find that most islamic scholars would deplore the interpretations now extant in some countries. Of course my post was selective - a comprehensive examination of the various interpretation of Shari'ah would take hundreds of volumes.

I realise it is futile to attempt to convey the idea to you that the Islamic world is not a monoculture. Extremism is certainly far more rampant there than even twenty years ago, and that is deeply sad for a tradition that has a long history of tolerance and promulgation of women's rights - certainly compared to the same time-span examined from a Christian woman's viewpoint. The current lack of challenge to fanaticism from ordinary Muslims is also both tragic and worrying - though again, the reasons for such passivity are complex (which I believe was largely Tribesman's point). The causes of this lurch towards fanaticism are important to comprehend if we are to rid the world of its awful impact, and simplistic prejudices against whole groups really don't enhance that understanding.

[Fragony]

Sharia itselve is what is wrong in the islamic world in whatever form it comes because it's based on the principle of sexual segregration, it's the difference between a fine and a beating what you are talking about but that is hardly adressing the real issue if you ask me.

[Tribesman]

Well you got out of it what you wanted at least, how much money is attached to the selective reading award?
You will have to ask Panzer about the award , it was he who was selective about information from polls to show only what he wanted to show despite the polls really showing the opposite , it was he who selectively altered words from polls to completely change what they really said .


Sharia itselve is what is wrong in the islamic world in whatever form it comes because it's based on the principle of sexual segregration
Does it though , or is that just the interpretation you give it and the interpretation some others give it ?


I don't think anyone is trying to defend the way many women are treated in many Islamic countries.
Well it would be tempting to say they should be chained to the kitchen unless they are doing their other job .
But hey what can I say , me and Banquo are from a country where the "moralistic" powers treated women like **** up until very very recently(and in some respects still do)...but strangely it ain't an Islamic country .
It appears that your issue isn't so much womens rights Frag , its just another "its teh muslims" rant .




The causes of this lurch towards fanaticism are important to comprehend if we are to rid the world of its awful impact, and simplistic prejudices against whole groups really don't enhance that understanding.
Interestingly enough someone posted a link to a site that had a poll which addressed that lurch and its percieved causes .
Though I just came in and there was this British bloke on the news(I think he was that politician who went to khartoum)and he had some interesting things to say about the radicalisation of small numbers of young British muslims .

[Louis VI the Fat]

I had to type it out Really? I just found a website that has the exact same text and I was about to copy-past it here and

Nah, j/k. Thanks for that. Great post, especially the last paragraph.

[Ironside]

Some food for thought.

How many Americans would agree with that a strict application of the US constitution is a good thing?

What's a strict application of say... The second ammendment?

[Husar]

What's a strict application of say... The second ammendment?
We had that before with the citizens owning nukes, stealth bombers, tanks etc. :juggle2:

[Fragony]

lol dunno of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg3LO4VYTxw&feature=related

properly translated but I will just assume it was because that would be funnier.

[Ironside]

We had that before with the citizens owning nukes, stealth bombers, tanks etc. :juggle2:

Can you bear a tank? :laugh4:

Edit: Not intending to start a gun debate here, just showing that strict application and interpretation has influences that you normally dont think about.

[rvg]

Some food for thought.

How many Americans would agree with that a strict application of the US constitution is a good thing?

What's a strict application of say... The second ammendment?

The U.S. constitution *is* very strictly applied, and that is a very good thing.

[Blodrast]

The U.S. constitution *is* very strictly applied, and that is a very good thing.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Pardon me for channeling Tribesman, but this was way too funny to pass...

rvg, let me introduce you to a certain George who said that that Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper... yeah, sure is very strictly applied, the last 6 years clearly show that.

[AntiochusIII]

The U.S. constitution *is* very strictly applied, and that is a very good thing.Really? I think you'll find that certain Very Good Things happen because people decide to interpret the Constitution to suit a more progressive agenda than a literal reading of that piece of atrocity to the English language. Not that it's not a great document and all, but I can't for the life of me figure out exactly some of those phrases' meanings, and those who say they do just have an agenda themselves quite frankly.

The Third Amendment, for example, which by and large would've been positively extraneous in modern settings (no quartering troops in civilian houses without consent), are reinterpreted pretty much as the "Right to Privacy."

Another example would be during the 1950's-1970's, the Federal Government used the combination of the 4th and 14th Amendment to force States to accept a fairer, more just due process; before that you're much more at the mercy of the State justice system than you were in the Federal system in many cases...

Certain clauses in the Constitution itself allow Congress to implement many necessary systems which help maintain the US economy. Remember Ron Paul with his abolish the Federal Bank fetish?

Of course, certain Very Bad Things also happen as people reinterpreted the Constitution to suit other agendas as well. But from these two contrasting points it would seem that "deviating from the Constitution at all in all cases = bad" is not set in stone like some would argue.

[Papewaio]

The U.S. constitution *is* very strictly applied, and that is a very good thing.

Law is the letter, Justice is the spirit.

So don't get literal, get figurative.

[Husar]

Can you bear a tank?
If you're bear enough...:dizzy2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Saudi king 'pardons rape victim'

The Saudi king has pardoned a female rape victim sentenced to jail and 200 lashes for being alone with a man raped in the same attack, reports say.Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7147632.stm). So she'll be released. Good.

The king pardons her out of clemency, not because her sentence was unjust. So no need to worry, I am sure that there'll be other stories about sadistic torture of teenage girls that the usual suspect can defend in their enlightened cultural relativism.

[Husar]

The king pardons her out of clemency, not because her sentence was unjust. So no need to worry, I am sure that there'll be other stories about sadistic torture of teenage girls that the usual suspect can defend in their enlightened cultural relativism.
Great, those infidels surely keep us busy. :2thumbsup:
*paints a big red cross onto his white shirt*