Another Benefit of Sharia Law: Lash those rape victims! [Archive]

PanzerJaeger

11-16-2007, 10:48

You need to learn the difference between muslims and their government. You don't vote for neither dictatorships nor monarchies, you know...

Saudi Arabia is no police state a la Soviet Russia... if a majority wanted things different, they would be different.

Unfortunately, the only popular movements seem to be for even stricter islamic law a la Al Queda.

I don't buy the argument that there are throngs of moderate muslims waiting for liberation from their oppressive governments. It certainly didn't happen in Iraq.

It'd be interesting to see some polls on how the Saudis feel about their law codes.

Yeah, in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church encapsulates everything that is wrong and disgusting about christians, or Adolf Hitler encapsulates everything that is wrong and disgusting about northern Europeans.

The Westboro Baptist Church does not represent the law of the United States and Adolf Hitler did encapsulate the views of many Northern Europeans..... 70 years ago!

HoreTore

11-16-2007, 10:56

Saudi Arabia is no police state a la Soviet Russia... if a majority wanted things different, they would be different.

No? They've got a special police force, use torture, hereditary rule, censorship, complete control of the army, etc... It's an absolute monarchy, for crying out loud!

Unfortunately, the only popular movements seem to be for even stricter islamic law a la Al Queda.

So the reason why saudi arabia is actually getting more relaxed on the despotism is because of what then? And I'll laugh if you say "international pressure".

I don't buy the argument that there are throngs of moderate muslims waiting for liberation from their oppressive governments. It certainly didn't happen in Iraq.

People tend to rally against a foreign invader simply because they're foreign. Overthrow the government without ruining the country in an invasion, then we'll talk.

It'd be interesting to see some polls on how the Saudis feel about their law codes.

Won't happen, because, you know, these things are censored by the state... But I suppose censorship is not a sign of a police state...

Adolf Hitler did encapsulate the views of many Northern Europeans..... 70 years ago!

Unfortunately, he still has a fair few supporters here. And they're currently on the rise, especially in russia...

English assassin

11-16-2007, 12:31

Panzer, you actually know nothing at all about Saudi Arabia, do you?

Here's a link: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/

And this is to save you the bother:

No dissent allowed

Anyone brave enough to voice dissent in Saudi Arabia is likely to end up in jail for a very long time and suffer other violations of their basic human rights. The reason is simple. The government does not allow any criticisms of its policies or any independent thought or activity that might challenge the status quo.

.

Husar

11-16-2007, 13:01

homo-erotic deserts.
:laugh4:

Well, you could at least care about the woman who is about to get 200 lashes after getting raped.

Then again if women there were very strict and would never enter a man's car or even hang out with men, forcing men to either break the law themselves or live in celibacy, then maybe the men would want to have those laws changed sometime.
Yeah, I know, great plan, will definitely work, but then the plan with the army is a bit worse since the army is currently very busy giving freedom to Iraqi women and the other "armies" aren't up to the task anyway.

FactionHeir

11-16-2007, 13:16

Boggles belief. Counselling? :dizzy2:

Rape victims should get counselling (if they want it that is). Don't you agree?

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2007, 13:59

Panzer:

You really should brush up a bit on particulars.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, even in its naming, is a wholly-owned concern of the Saud family. It isn't -- quite -- an absolute monarchy, but at a minimum you'd need to label it an oligarchy dominated by one family.

I've heard people describe the Saud family in terms that were far too close to the fictitious Corleone family.

You are correct in that most of the populist opposition in SA are actually reactionary and not revolutionary in character. I haven't read anything about a group of would-be Roundheads cropping up (though others may correct me here if I have missed it).

EA:

Regime change -- Magna Carta at least if not Cromwell -- would be something to work for, I agree. Bit difficult to get started when the only apparent groups on the ground to take up the reins make the Al Queda network look like a group of candy-assed liberals.

Not to mention the economic hiccough caused by all that oil going off line for a few months or years. I'm ALREADY paying enough extra at the pump to enrich the lives of a few thousand oil futures investors....

Idaho

11-16-2007, 16:18

Panzer, you actually know nothing at all about Saudi Arabia, do you?
You are talking to someone who thinks the nazis were fair enough and that south america needs facist dictators back to sort it out. He doesn't know much of anything :laugh4:

HoreTore

11-16-2007, 16:21

Play the ball, idaho....

Fragony

11-16-2007, 16:23

You are talking to someone who thinks the nazis were fair enough and that south america needs facist dictators back to sort it out. He doesn't know much of anything :laugh4:

seen worse

IrishArmenian

11-16-2007, 17:32

:daisy:
Either that, or their government, but you're probably right.
Now, who wants to go blame Russians for their governments crimes?

Ice

11-16-2007, 17:35

Ugh. When I read these articles I wish we could produce more of our own domestic fuel so wouldn't have to trade with these monsters.

Geoffrey S

11-16-2007, 17:58

Rape victims should get counselling (if they want it that is). Don't you agree?
I just found the combination of essentially saying she got what she deserved (ie. punishment), but that she should get counseling (what? for the rape or the lashes) a bit curious to say the least.

Don Corleone

11-16-2007, 18:12

Rather than scream and yell about Sharia, could I ask LeftEyeNine or Mouzapherre, or somebody else actually familiar with the intricacies of Islam whether this really is is a valid ruling within Islam or if this is a perversion of their system? Not your opinion mind you, is it scripturally/dogmatically valid....

I ask because I'm trying to project here for a moment. I've been a practicing Roman Catholic for most of my life (took a few years off to explore being Protestant, but if anything, I think I learned more about my faith). I attended a Roman Catholic high school, I received the Pope Pius XII and Ad Altare Dei awards, served mass, you name it. As far as laity goes, I 'should' be pretty up on all of this.

And I cannot say for certain that bishops coming out and ordering their congregants not to support pro-choice candidates, or conversely, their position ordering their congregants to drop all opposition to illegal immigration, ala Cardinal Mahoney, is technically valid (and I've been thinking about it a lot lately).

I certainly wouldn't respond well to a Lutheran living in Umea, Sweden (nothing against Swedes, trying to pick an area where there's no Catholics) telling me that this represents everything that's wrong with the Catholic Church. :shrug:

Fragony

11-16-2007, 18:20

woman needs 5 witnesses easy as that. Under sharia her crime is not being able to make the men control theirselvels because she was in the wrong place (duh), cultural thing, they have that, culture.

FactionHeir

11-16-2007, 18:35

I just found the combination of essentially saying she got what she deserved (ie. punishment), but that she should get counseling (what? for the rape or the lashes) a bit curious to say the least.

Its obviously not kind to lash a rape victim, but if you break the law, there tend to be consequences (i.e. in SA according to the article that is driving a car, affiliating with other men, attempting to use media to influence judiciary).
What I mean is that she should get counselling unless she opts out of it for the rape, but she should eventually serve her sentence for the laws that she did break.

Being a victim doesn't mean you can break the law (regardless of how outdated it is) and get away with it.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2007, 18:36

Good post Don.

I too would like LEN or Mouz' to weigh in. Turkey especially, as the most "secular" of Muslim nations, should have some valid insight.

InsaneApache

11-16-2007, 18:53

Perversion or not, it's still a barbaric act.

Don Corleone

11-16-2007, 18:55

Perversion or not, it's still a barbaric act.

I'm not in any way trying to defend the legal practice. But it's being raised as an example of the endemic woes of Islam. My point is that before it can be raised to that status, let's make sure it's actually valid within an Islamic framework.

Personally, I find the whole affair repugnant. I would rather visit Iraq than Saudi Arabia.

Geoffrey S

11-16-2007, 19:10

Its obviously not kind to lash a rape victim, but if you break the law, there tend to be consequences (i.e. in SA according to the article that is driving a car, affiliating with other men, attempting to use media to influence judiciary).
What I mean is that she should get counselling unless she opts out of it for the rape, but she should eventually serve her sentence for the laws that she did break.

Being a victim doesn't mean you can break the law (regardless of how outdated it is) and get away with it.
A definite judgement from my side will have to wait, but I have yet to see anything suggesting she voluntarily entered the car; let alone, that that could ever justify such a punishment even after rape.

Still, at least Britain and Saudi Arabia "share common values", so certain ministers claim...

FactionHeir

11-16-2007, 19:29

A definite judgement from my side will have to wait, but I have yet to see anything suggesting she voluntarily entered the car; let alone, that that could ever justify such a punishment even after rape.

Still, at least Britain and Saudi Arabia "share common values", so certain ministers claim...

Agreed, let's wait for one of our Islamic members to post regarding this issue.

The article doesn't say whether she was forced into the car or whether she was in the car to begin with and driving it. Since she was sentenced for driving a car though (which is illegal there), I imagine she was there to start with before the men raped her.

Geoffrey S

11-16-2007, 19:36

The article doesn't say whether she was forced into the car or whether she was in the car to begin with and driving it. Since she was sentenced for driving a car though (which is illegal there), I imagine she was there to start with before the men raped her.
But where do you get the driving part from? The closest I'm finding is that she's being punished for being "in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack".

FactionHeir

11-16-2007, 20:04

But where do you get the driving part from? The closest I'm finding is that she's being punished for being "in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack".

I inferred it (not sure if correctly or not) from:

Saudi Arabia enforces a strict Islamic doctrine known as Wahhabism and forbids unrelated men and women from associating with each other, bans women from driving and forces them to cover head-to-toe in public.

Prodigal

11-16-2007, 20:18

Hmmmmmm....Daisy replacements bad I guesss, anyway...What I said has to be right, there's only 2 other people on this threads that aren't n00bers...And of course either one, or, (worse), both may have beards!!!

Seamus Fermanagh

11-16-2007, 21:22

PanzerJaeger

11-16-2007, 21:40

Panzer, you actually know nothing at all about Saudi Arabia, do you?

Panzer:

You really should brush up a bit on particulars.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, even in its naming, is a wholly-owned concern of the Saud family. It isn't -- quite -- an absolute monarchy, but at a minimum you'd need to label it an oligarchy dominated by one family.

I've heard people describe the Saud family in terms that were far too close to the fictitious Corleone family.

You are correct in that most of the populist opposition in SA are actually reactionary and not revolutionary in character. I haven't read anything about a group of would-be Roundheads cropping up (though others may correct me here if I have missed it).

Err... for the record..

I did not mean that Saudi Arabia is any sort of democracy, of course. You'd think I'd get a little more credit than that.

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.

Ironside

11-16-2007, 21:41

I certainly wouldn't respond well to a Lutheran living in Umea, Sweden (nothing against Swedes, trying to pick an area where there's no Catholics) telling me that this represents everything that's wrong with the Catholic Church. :shrug:

You need to pick harder... :book:

Why Umeå btw?

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.

AFAIK it's a lot because of the nice education system they have been running in Saudi Arabia for quite a while and religion has been used as massive control mechanism there.
admittably, I don't know the even more fundamentalists' actual power

PanzerJaeger

11-16-2007, 21:43

You are talking to someone who thinks the nazis were fair enough and that south america needs facist dictators back to sort it out. He doesn't know much of anything :laugh4:

1. never said..
2. was a joke..

HoreTore

11-16-2007, 21:45

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

Saudi Arabia lacks resources...? Seriously? Saudi Arabia? They have oil coming out their arses and the regime also has international support. They are certainly as well funded as Stalin was.

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.

Then do tell me; Why are the laws getting more relaxed...?

Andres

11-16-2007, 22:09

Not exactly nice (by Western standards), but if the law in her country says that you cannot be in another guy's car unless you are related, then she was asking for it (the punishment, not the rape) really.

How about universal human rights...

A long but very interesting article. (http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/tharoor.html) Take the time to read it to the end.

The Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) vs. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm)

Article 6
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

InsaneApache

11-16-2007, 22:41

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.

It was Saudis that fly a jet into building. :wall:

PanzerJaeger

11-16-2007, 23:09

Saudi Arabia lacks resources...? Seriously? Saudi Arabia? They have oil coming out their arses and the regime also has international support. They are certainly as well funded as Stalin was.

I think that a comparison of the infrastructure and political power of the Saudi Royal family to that of Stalin or Kim Jong would clearly show a major difference, which emphasizes my point. The Saudis are able to maintain control with far less energy spent containing the population, which shows a degree of legitamacy in the eyes of the populace.

Again, thats not to say that Saudi Arabia is a free country. Like most other arab nations, it is a dictatorship, but hardly a totalitarian police state.

Then do tell me; Why are the laws getting more relaxed...?

Apparently they aren't. (looks at original post.. :inquisitive: )

It was Saudis that fly a jet into building.

Yes, a clear example of the most popular anti-government movement in Saudi Arabia - (even more) radical islam.

Geoffrey S

11-16-2007, 23:29

I am saying that the Saudis do not have the means or resources to impose their will on a completely unsupportive populace. Its on the "tin-pot" side as opposed to the Iron Clad stalinist police states.
Hence the unhealthy association with Wahhabism. As for lack of resources for the state; practically all of the oil revenues end up in their hands, and they are absolutely massive. They dominate the economy totally.

Its already on shaky ground, the only problem is that the the movement for change that they can't seem to suppress is towards even harsher islamic law.
Not much of a surprise really, if the option that could be perceived as preferable, namely a democratic system akin to the US or the rest of the West, is clearly seen supporting the monarchy and whatever it spawns through thick and thin.

FactionHeir

11-16-2007, 23:47

Andres

Article 6
(a) Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.

The part you quoted doesn't seem to mention anything regarding "the right to drive a car" or "being with men unassociated to her". What it does say, is that she has equal in human dignity (which includes only the very basic things), has "rights to enjoy" (which are not specified) and that she has "her own civil entity and financial independence etc" (which are not applicable for this particular case)

Of course those things may be natural in the West, but they don't tend to be there, and it is not upon one culture/nation/group of nations to force their beliefs/values/views onto another. Again, it may not be "right" here, but it is there.

Andres

11-16-2007, 23:57

FH, the main purpose of my post was to put the notion of Cultural Relativism vs the notion of Universal Human Rights and the question if there can be such a thing as Universal Human Rights.

The article I linked to, gives some very interesting viewpoints.

Of course those things may be natural in the West, but they don't tend to be there, and it is not upon one culture/nation/group of nations to force their beliefs/values/views onto another. Again, it may not be "right" here, but it is there.

The problem with the culture argument is that it subsumes all members of a society under a cultural framework that may in fact be inimical to them. It is one thing to advocate the cultural argument with an escape clause, that is, one that does not seek to coerce the dissenters but permits individuals to opt out and to assert their individual rights. Those who freely choose to live by and to be treated according to their traditional cultures are welcome to do so, provided others who wish to be free are not oppressed in the name of a culture they prefer to disavow.

It needs to be emphasized that the objections that are voiced to specific (allegedly Western) rights very frequently involve the rights of women, and are usually vociferously argued by men. Even conceding, for argument's sake, that child marriage, widow inheritance, female circumcision, and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies, how do the victims of these practices feel about them? How many teenage girls who have had their genitalia mutilated would have agreed to undergo circumcision if they had the human right to refuse to permit it? For me, the standard is simple: where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. So it is not culture that is the test, it is coercion.

In any case, freedom is not a value found only in Western faiths: it is highly prized in Buddhism and in different aspects of Hinduism and Islam.

If religion cannot be fairly used to sanction oppression, it should be equally obvious that authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change.

Tolerance and mercy have always, and in all cultures, been ideals of government rule and human behavior. If we do not unequivocally assert the universality of the rights that oppressive governments abuse, and if we admit that these rights can be diluted and changed, ultimately we risk giving oppressive governments an intellectual justification for the morally indefensible. Objections to the applicability of international human rights standards have all too frequently been voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize their violations of human rightsŽviolations that serve primarily, if not solely, to sustain them in power.

Granted, it goes a bit further then the present case at hand, but it's an interesting read.

Anyway, regardless of one's culture, giving a woman 200 lashes because she was in a car with another man, cannot be justified imo. It is not... human :shrug:

FactionHeir

11-17-2007, 00:01

I was only quoting the part you posted, because I couldn't access the rest actually.
Still, while personally I do agree with your notion and the universality of human rights, I respect other countries' choices. It is a domestic issue IMO and the human rights issue may or may not be enforcable by law. At least no country and its leaders (that hasn't been invaded first) to my (limited) knowledge have been tried for letting human rights be violated.

[edit]
The quoted parts seem to be written in the first person singular and plural. Who wrote it?

Andres

11-17-2007, 00:21

[edit]
The quoted parts seem to be written in the first person singular and plural. Who wrote it?

I found in on www.worldpolicy.org. On top it says that it is: "ARTICLE: Volume XVI, No4, WINTER 1999/2000"

It was written by Shashi Taroor.

I'll pm you the whole text :bow:

Kralizec

11-17-2007, 00:45

I respect other countries' choices. It is a domestic issue IMO and the human rights issue may or may not be enforcable by law.

Respect their choices? Well...

I don't think that it's feasonable, nor am I sure it would be a good idea if it were, to simply topple over any government that violates human rights. I think that one of the core tenets of sovereignty is that it's the people themselves that should move on to a more "enlightened" society (or not...) instead of getting it forced down their throats.

Still I think that these other countries' choices are barbaric, and that this woman for example has been the victim of a great injustice.

Andres

11-17-2007, 00:58

Just out of interest and curiosity:

Can anyone provide me with a link to the texts of the Sharia (in English, Dutch or French). Is there any relevant Fiqh (jurisprudence) considering similar cases available on the net? I tried google, but the results were unsatisfying.

Tribesman

11-17-2007, 02:39

it is a dictatorship, but hardly a totalitarian police state.

Isn't it , well you have the rather large military , a rather large national guard , a rather large tribal milita all run by one son , then a rather large police , a rather large paramilitary police , a smaller religeous police and a rather large volunteer religeous police all run by another son .
So the Kingdom really is hardly a totalitarian police state :dizzy2: especially if you don't add all those forces together as they are all used as police .

So should I add a variation of what several people have already noted .....Panzer you don't really know much on certain subjects which you choose to write about do you .

Don Corleone

11-17-2007, 03:13

Right, right, right. Panzer's a dummy. Panzer doesn't know what he's talking about. Panzer thinks Hitler is a great guy. Bravo, I'm really impressed with the high level of thought and argument I'm seeing in this thread. Funny, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm missing where Panzer said Saudi Arabia is an open-democracy. But by all means, if it makes your argument easier :strawman1:, please, keep saying he did.

Do any of you flinging mud at Panzer actually have an argument to make?

Husar

11-17-2007, 03:28

Do any of you flinging mud at Panzer actually have an argument to make?
It's nothing new, PJ is a nazi, fragony is ALWAYS xenophobic and Tribesman cannot post without smileys. I don't know any open prejudices about me but deep down in their dirty minds most backroomers probably think I'm stupid or so. :inquisitive:

Nothing to see here!
Ok, truth is, I actually am stupid, but please don't tell anybody.

Oh and I have a nice link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93168).

HoreTore

11-17-2007, 08:28

I think that a comparison of the infrastructure and political power of the Saudi Royal family to that of Stalin or Kim Jong would clearly show a major difference, which emphasizes my point. The Saudis are able to maintain control with far less energy spent containing the population, which shows a degree of legitamacy in the eyes of the populace.

1. Soviet russia had a LOT of support, actually. And still does. And yes, even Stalin, and yes, even knowing gulag.
2. Are you saying that police states only exists when their population is rebellious? :inquisitive:
3. Nazi Germany had support from at least a third of the krauts and only minor opposition in the form of the commie terrorists(until in the later years). Are you saying that wasn't a police state?
4. As Tribesman said, the Saudi's have a huge police force/army at their disposal and a bunch of dungeons complete with accessories like torturers. They all get used a LOT. Isn't that an indicator of what they have to do to keep in control?
5. Have you ever heard of political opposition to the saudi's not living either in a dungeon or abroad?

@Don and PJ; no, I'm not arguing whether the saudi's are running a democracy, I'm arguing against the claim that the saudi's are not running an oppressive totalitarian police state.

Fragony

11-17-2007, 09:17

Why are we discussing Saudi Arabia, it's a country with sharia law that is all we need here. It's pretty whack. Poor girl should look at the bright side, if she actually survives the 200 lashes she will be so shredded to bits that no man will ever touch her again. This just begs for intercultural dialogue inmho, we can really learn for eachother.

Tribesman

11-17-2007, 11:58

, it's a country with sharia law that is all we need here.
Really ?
What is Sharia law then Frag ?

PanzerJaeger

11-17-2007, 12:04

Isn't it , well you have the rather large military , a rather large national guard , a rather large tribal milita all run by one son , then a rather large police , a rather large paramilitary police , a smaller religeous police and a rather large volunteer religeous police all run by another son .
So the Kingdom really is hardly a totalitarian police state :dizzy2: especially if you don't add all those forces together as they are all used as police .

Rather large is rather misleading. Rough numbers from wiki..

Number of military personel for Saudi Arabia: 199,500 Population: 24,735,000

Number of military personel for North Korea: 5,995,000 Population: 23,301,725

So should I add a variation of what several people have already noted .....Panzer you don't really know much on certain subjects which you choose to write about do you

Thanks bud.. ~:thumb:

Kralizec

11-17-2007, 12:10

Really ?
What is Sharia law then Frag ?

Interpretation of the Sharia varies, sometimes with marked difference, but having it as your system of law is a bad idea in any case. Unless you can provide us with an example of a country where they interpreted Sharia to mean that woman's testimonies are equal to those of man, where they shouldn't be lashed after they went out without being escorted by a male relative, where homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted, etc.

Fragony

11-17-2007, 12:16

Really ?
What is Sharia law then Frag ?

Quite barbaric.

PanzerJaeger

11-17-2007, 12:26

Rather large is rather misleading. Rough numbers from wiki..

Number of military personel for Saudi Arabia: 199,500 Population: 24,735,000

Number of military personel for North Korea: 5,995,000 Population: 23,301,725

Doh... again I've written about something I know nothing about.

According to http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/ , my previous number of 199,500 did not incorporate the paramilitary personal. ~:doh:

These numbers bring the Saudi forces up to a grand total of 244,500 and also places the Saudi population closer to 25 million.

Yep, Saudi Arabia definitely has the infrastructure of a stalinist police state... ~;)

Husar

11-17-2007, 13:42

"We believe that the comprehensive concept of human rights should be based on the realization that human communities have special characteristics, cultures, beliefs and religions, which must be acknowledged and respected. The Kingdom respects this international norm and adheres to the noble objectives that call for the protection of human rights and preservation of human dignity."
Minister of Commerce Osama Faqih delivering Kingdom's statement
to Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, September 3, 2002

from here (http://www.saudiembassy.net/Issues/HRights/IssuesRig.asp).

I say invade them before they can lash her. :no:

Since when is lashing women international norm? :inquisitive:

Tribesman

11-17-2007, 16:38

Doh... again I've written about something I know nothing about.

Panzer you did it again , you compared it with North Korea , a country that is not only a totalitatian police state it is a totalitarian police state that is mobilised because it is still at war and has been for over 50 years:dizzy2:

Don Corleone

11-17-2007, 21:25

You need to pick harder... :book:

Why Umeå btw?

Fairly large city, so most poeple might have heard of it. But not a cosmpolitan city, so it's more of a 'Swedish' cultural city than cosmpolitan/global. I justt guessed by looking a map mostly.

Romanus

11-17-2007, 23:54

Not our business. As long as the oil keeps flowing we're in the clear. Afterall they are our allies.

Blodrast

11-18-2007, 07:45

Not our business. As long as the oil keeps flowing we're in the clear. Afterall they are our allies.

Seeing as how you haven't posted much in the Backroom and so I don't know your orientation(s), and also that there are members who would make this statement in all seriousness, as well as some who would say it in a sarcastic manner, can you please clarify in which of the two categories you fall ?

Kaidonni

11-20-2007, 17:13

Well, let's sum up how idiotic such a law that prohibits women from being with men unrelated to them is...

How will the people of Saudi Arabia procreate? I mean...they can't seriously be supporting marrying within the family, can they? That's not a very good thing for the Human race. It means inbreeding. I suspect the people who come up with such laws have been badly shortchanged on the number of...darn it, what was that V&V in MTWI again? Mine is on the fritz, so I can't go check it out...lol...and I don't know where the file with the V&V descriptions is. But you get my point.

Any logical society MUST allow a man and a woman who are unrelated to be in one another's presence. A man and a woman who are unrelated may end up married and raising a family. They might split up before anything can happen, or have a fling, then find it's not working...or find true love. You just cannot keep it in the family, because that results in inbreeding, and that means the Human race is screwed, at least in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who knows biology would realise SA is asking for some nasty genetic defects prevalent in their society.

Or, am I taking that law too literally? Am I highlighting something that no one would be stupid enough to enforce? Seriously...not trying to be sarcastic here. I hope I didn't mis-interpret the law...sorry if I did so.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-20-2007, 17:36

Wahabism subscribes to the "old school" approach to dating.

Womenfolk are escorted by family menfolk to meet potential suitors. Marriages are arranged, and may -- or may not -- be arranged with the full consent of the will-be wife. Once married off, the new wife is the responsibility of the husband's family for escort etc.

Fragony

11-20-2007, 17:39

I mean...they can't seriously be supporting marrying within the family, can they?

That would be absolutily outragious, no they would never :laugh4: :laugh4:

The majority of the muslims in the netherlands marry their full cousins, leads to interesting children indeed. :yes:

HoreTore

11-20-2007, 18:47

Any logical society MUST allow a man and a woman who are unrelated to be in one another's presence. A man and a woman who are unrelated may end up married and raising a family. They might split up before anything can happen, or have a fling, then find it's not working...or find true love. You just cannot keep it in the family, because that results in inbreeding, and that means the Human race is screwed, at least in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who knows biology would realise SA is asking for some nasty genetic defects prevalent in their society.

As Seamus said, first you marry, then the nasty. Remember that marriage for love is a rather new and uncommon thing in this world...

@Fragony; well they must be very well integrated then, as they're doing the same thing that our very best men(royals) are doing...

Fragony

11-20-2007, 18:54

I can think of more they have in common, but ah well.

Vladimir

11-21-2007, 18:18

How will the people of Saudi Arabia procreate? I mean...they can't seriously be supporting marrying within the family, can they? That's not a very good thing for the Human race. It means inbreeding. I suspect the people who come up with such laws have been badly shortchanged on the number of...darn it, what was that V&V in MTWI again? Mine is on the fritz, so I can't go check it out...lol...and I don't know where the file with the V&V descriptions is. But you get my point.

Toes.

Shahed

11-21-2007, 18:25

That would be absolutily outragious, no they would never :laugh4: :laugh4:

The majority of the muslims in the netherlands marry their full cousins, leads to interesting children indeed. :yes:

Hey Frago ! Got any links where I can read up on that ?

Boyar Son

11-22-2007, 05:29

what inbreeding screws people up?

ya right:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Strike For The South

11-22-2007, 05:38

Its there buisness. Its damn stupid but its theres

Navaros

11-22-2007, 05:45

This thread title is highly misleading and sensational.

She was not sentenced to punishment for being raped.

Rather, she was sentenced to punishment for committing a crime of her own.

HoreTore

11-22-2007, 08:14

This thread title is highly misleading and sensational.

She was not sentenced to punishment for being raped.

Rather, she was sentenced to punishment for committing a crime of her own.

Quite true. If you get raped, and at the same time you get a parking ticket for your car, that ticket won't go away because you got raped.

what inbreeding screws people up?

Apparently, they also make excellent heads of states.

Geoffrey S

11-22-2007, 11:34

Quite true. If you get raped, and at the same time you get a parking ticket for your car, that ticket won't go away because you got raped.
Possibly, but I'm still trying to work out where it says she was in the car voluntarily, and not, you know, dragged in by her rapists...?

Husar

11-22-2007, 14:46

Quite true. If you get raped, and at the same time you get a parking ticket for your car, that ticket won't go away because you got raped.
That, however, as true as it may be, completely ignores the emotional and psychological consequences of being raped as well as the inhumanity of being lashed for what I'd consider a minor crime. In combination, it's even worse.

Tribesman

11-22-2007, 19:26

Possibly, but I'm still trying to work out where it says she was in the car voluntarily, and not, you know, dragged in by her rapists...?

Well that would be easy to work out , was the person she was in the car with also sentanced for breaking the law but not sentanced for being a kidnapper or rapist like the other people who were involved .

PanzerJaeger

11-22-2007, 23:47

That, however, as true as it may be, completely ignores the emotional and psychological consequences of being raped as well as the inhumanity of being lashed for what I'd consider a minor crime. In combination, it's even worse.

A minor crime? Sick muslim law at its worst. Don't fall victim to moral relativism..

HoreTore

11-23-2007, 08:03

A minor crime? Sick muslim law at its worst. Don't fall victim to moral relativism..

Sick Saudi Arabian law, Panzer... Haven't seen any other countries with that law...

Husar

11-23-2007, 10:20

A minor crime? Sick muslim law at its worst. Don't fall victim to moral relativism..
What do you think would be easier to convince your ally of, lowering the sentence to a day in prison or dumping the complete law? So far they haven't done either and you apparently refuse to bomb and liberate them so... :sweatdrop:

Fragony

11-23-2007, 10:56

Sick Saudi Arabian law, Panzer... Haven't seen any other countries with that law...

Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Libia to name a few. It's sharia law not arab law, or rather, in Saudi Arabia they have sharia law. Many countries have sharia courts but turn a blind eye from time to time. Doesn't matter if you get 10 years in prison or 20 for armed robbery, armed robbery is a crime. Same with being in a car with a man you aren't related to, it's the punishment that varies not the crime.

HoreTore

11-23-2007, 11:35

Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Libia

Are you entirely sure that it's illegal for women to be in a car with a woman in those countries...?

You did mention a 50/50 christian/muslim state there, you know.. And Pakistan isn't ruled by religion, it's ruled by martial law... Same goes for Libya...

Fragony

11-23-2007, 11:58

Are you entirely sure that it's illegal for women to be in a car with a woman in those countries...?

You did mention a 50/50 christian/muslim state there, you know.. And Pakistan isn't ruled by religion, it's ruled by martial law... Same goes for Libya...

I can say the exact same thing in endless variations. All these countries have sharia (light) courts that handle numerous things, and in Saudi Arabia they live it to the fullest.

HoreTore

11-23-2007, 12:31

I can say the exact same thing in endless variations. All these countries have sharia (light) courts that handle numerous things, and in Saudi Arabia they live it to the fullest.

Do they have a law there prohibiting women from being in a car with unrelated males?

Andres

11-23-2007, 12:34

Well, this topic is about sharia law and it seems like you all know what you are talking about.

I for one though never read (a translation of) the sharia. Can somebody provide me a link to a Dutch, French or English version, so that I can join the discussion?

HoreTore

11-23-2007, 12:40

Fragony

11-23-2007, 12:41

Do they have a law there prohibiting women from being in a car with unrelated males?

Some do yep, but broader, in the pressence of an unrelated man. Secular courts act like our administrative courts and sharia courts handle what some would call 'morality', men/woman relations, marriage/heritage issues, etc.

HoreTore

11-23-2007, 12:47

Some do yep, but broader, in the pressence of an unrelated man..

Of course, you do have something to back that statement up... I'm in particular very curious to see evidence that Musharraf's regime uses sharia, "IIRC" he is supposed to be fighting those trying to establish sharia... Something involving a red mosque and an army storming or something... I have such a bad memory, it seems like I need your help, Fragony.

And no, what tribal leaders in hillbilly hick country does with their village doesn't count.

Fragony

11-23-2007, 12:56

Of course, you do have something to back that statement up...

It's the principle of segregration of the sexes, how it is upheld differs from country to country.

edit, forgot link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation_in_Islam

what has storming the mosk to do with it?

HoreTore

11-23-2007, 21:15

It's the principle of segregration of the sexes, how it is upheld differs from country to country.

edit, forgot link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation_in_Islam

I'm sorry Fragony, but that link does very little to dispute the statement that this is a saudi arabian thing. I loved this little qoute:

When Ruhollah Khomeini called for women to attend public demonstration and ignore the night curfew, millions of women who would otherwise not have dreamt of leaving their homes without their husbands' and fathers' permission or presence, took to the streets. Khomeini's call to rise up against the Shah took away any doubt in the minds of many devoted Muslim women about the propriety of taking to the streets during the day or at night.

That sure supported your statement, eh? :laugh4:

what has storming the mosk to do with it?

It was Musharraf's crackdown on extremists, those extremists you say rule Pakistan... I do wonder why I keep seeing Musharraf though. And you also included good old gaffy on your list of women-burners, which is, well, rather ridiculous.

Fragony

11-24-2007, 05:42

TheThat sure supported your statement, eh? :laugh4:

The selective reading award is yours :yes:

edit: Lefties never cease to amaze me. There liberal thinkers in the islamic world who question the humanity of the sharia law, one would expect they would have in ally in the european left, but sadly the european left is so enlightened they never miss a oppertunity to defend an ultra-conservative movement, I find that ironic.

And I said wut? You really need to focus Horetore. Stop putting words in my mouth it's busy enough as it is.

Tribesman

11-24-2007, 09:16

The selective reading award is yours
Is that a new definition of selective reading then Frag ? :inquisitive:
Like as in he takes an example of a country you have named , then takes the information about that country from a link that you provided as "evidence" to back up your claim .
Reads it and says according to the "evidence" you posted to support your claim you do appear to be talking bollox .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Fragony

11-24-2007, 12:08

What claim?

HoreTore

11-24-2007, 12:32

What claim?

Sick Saudi Arabian law, Panzer... Haven't seen any other countries with that law...

Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Libia to name a few.

As far as I can see, this is a Saudi law.

Fragony

11-24-2007, 13:05

As far as I can see, this is a Saudi law.

The Horetore monologues....

Did the part you didn't pick to praise Iran arive savely? About the sexual segregation principle?

HoreTore

11-24-2007, 13:08

Did the part you didn't pick to praise Iran arive savely? About the sexual segregation principle?

What does the principle matter, when reality is different?

Fragony

11-24-2007, 13:22

What does the principle matter, when reality is different?

Look at the reality of women in the muslim world and ask again.

HoreTore

11-24-2007, 13:28

Look at the reality of women in the muslim world and ask again.

The reality is that this law does not exist outside Saudi Arabia.

Fragony

11-24-2007, 13:36

The reality is that this law does not exist outside Saudi Arabia.

This particular punishment, in some of the islamic parts of Nigeria you just get stoned. In Afghanistan they like their sinners halal. Position of woman in the muslim world is a discussion that is pretty much being held, why can't you accept the existance of minor issues that need attention.

HoreTore

11-24-2007, 13:39

This particular punishment, in some of the islamic parts of Nigeria you just get stoned. In Afghanistan they like their sinners halal. Position of woman in the muslim world is a discussion that is pretty much being held, why can't you accept the existance of minor issues that need attention.

Yes, women are treated like crap in much of the world(and no, it's not limited to the islamic world). But the real picture is, fortunately, brighter than the one you're painting.

Fragony

11-24-2007, 13:46

Yes, women are treated like crap in much of the world(and no, it's not limited to the islamic world). But the real picture is, fortunately, brighter than the one you're painting.

Lol, I have in one of these nice appartments here in nl, and we placed bets on which neighbour would start beating his wife first and that includes the ones above and below me. And yes, called the police several times, even had a talk with the slaphappy neighbour and got arrested nice.

Tribesman

11-24-2007, 14:52

What claim?
Errrrrrr...

Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Libia to name a few. ~:doh:
But hey you keep on piling in the bull excrement don't you ....

This particular punishment, in some of the islamic parts of Nigeria you just get stoned.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So Fragony this particular crime , what is the punishment for it in the parts of Nigeria where local courts administer sharia law (as opposed to those parts that at local court level administer tribal law or those parts that do both) ?
In fact under the local Shria law which crimes carry the stoning sentance , which carry the caning sentance , which have amputations and which have death sentances as possibilities ?
What are the tribal laws equivalents ?
What is the appeal process under the Sharia ?
What is the appeal and review process that applies to all of those sentances (both Sharia and tribal) under federal law (common English law)?
After all Sharia , tribal and federal appeals and reviews have taken place and the sentance still stands what is the process where a convict can opt to have a different punishment from stoning , caning or amputation ?

Have you in fact once again not got the faintest idea what you are talking about but instead have gone off on one of your little "its teh Muslims !!!!!!!" fantasies:yes:

KukriKhan

11-24-2007, 15:11

Fragony and I disagree often, but I assume he refers to news stories like this one from BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1885052.stm).

Hardly the basis for asserting he has "... not got the faintest idea what you are talking about ...".

Please, all: More respect, less sneering. More light, less heat.

Fragony

11-24-2007, 15:32

Thank you Kukri!

KukriKhan

11-24-2007, 15:56

No problem. Tribesman does have a small point: it would be refreshing to see a post/thread about some Muslim somewhere who did/was doing something you (and others) could applaud.

Louis VI the Fat

11-24-2007, 15:58

edit: Lefties never cease to amaze me. There are liberal thinkers in the islamic world who question the humanity of the sharia law, one would expect they would have in ally in the european left, but sadly the european left is so enlightened they never miss a oppertunity to defend an ultra-conservative movement, I find that ironic.Devastatingly true. :shame:

Fragony and George Bush have done more for human rights and dignity for Arabs than the entire European left combined.

Fragony

11-24-2007, 16:03

No problem. Tribesman does have a small point: it would be refreshing to see a post/thread about some Muslim somewhere who did/was doing something you (and others) could applaud.

I just consider that a non-discussion, I have nothing to prove.

Tribesman

11-24-2007, 18:43

Fragony and I disagree often, but I assume he refers to news stories like this one from BBC.

Yes and what has that news story got to do with anything , answer the questions that I put and then perhaps you can come back with something about the story eh .:yes: because if you notice....He said that the punishments - which included stoning, amputation and flogging - were legal under the constitution and his administration had no plans to change its justice system.
...there are many aspects to the legal system which apparently he doesn't want to change and if you don't know about those aspects then it may not be wise to comment on them .
So take this passage....
So Fragony this particular crime , what is the punishment for it in the parts of Nigeria where local courts administer sharia law (as opposed to those parts that at local court level administer tribal law or those parts that do both) ?
In fact under the local Shria law which crimes carry the stoning sentance , which carry the caning sentance , which have amputations and which have death sentances as possibilities ?
What are the tribal laws equivalents ?
What is the appeal process under the Sharia ?
What is the appeal and review process that applies to all of those sentances (both Sharia and tribal) under federal law (common English law)?
After all Sharia , tribal and federal appeals and reviews have taken place and the sentance still stands what is the process where a convict can opt to have a different punishment from stoning , caning or amputation ?
and replace "Fragony" with "Kukrikhan" .
Then perhaps you can go further and mention any cases where barbaric punishments have actually made it all the way through the system of appeals , reviews and opt out clauses in this justice system that the individual in the story doesn't want to change .

I just consider that a non-discussion, I have nothing to prove.
By making the claim in the first place you already proved all that is needed concerning your lack of knowledge about examples you thought made your point .

Fragony

11-24-2007, 22:50

What claim.

HoreTore

11-25-2007, 00:11

What claim.

Oh for heaven's sake. Your claim was that Nigeria, Iran, Libya and Pakistan had this law.

Tribesman

11-25-2007, 01:49

Oh for heaven's sake. Your claim was that Nigeria, Iran, Libya and Pakistan had this law.

Come on be fair , he appears to claim that Nigeria has the same law but has stoning instead of flogging as the punishment for that:no:

Fragony

11-25-2007, 05:02

Oh for heaven's sake. Your claim was that Nigeria, Iran, Libya and Pakistan had this law.

I thought my claim was that these countries have sharia courts and that the segregration principle is part of the sharia. The country's you just mention have this law by the way.

PanzerJaeger

11-25-2007, 07:35

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1885000/images/_1885052_amputee300ap.jpg

I wonder why he simply didn't choose another punishment.. :inquisitive:

Tribesman

11-25-2007, 11:40

I thought my claim was that these countries have sharia courts and that the segregration principle is part of the sharia. The country's you just mention have this law by the way.

So lets be really generous to Frag and forget that once again he mentions "this law" when the law that is the subject of the topic does not exist in those countries , instead go with his general theme of its sharia law .

Now each of those countries does to varying degrees have sharia law in some form in some courts under different provisions , different applications and different interpretations , so clearly they are all the same and have the same law .
Well apart of course from Iran which is unique so is somewhat different yet the same , and of course Libya which is very different but not unique so definately the same .
Its amazing really , the more Fragony tries to amend and clarify his claims the more they fall apart .

Fragony

11-25-2007, 11:51

In the netherlands you get 2 weeks in prison, in germany the same thing gets you 3, now is it the principle that is different or the punishment? And yes, in these countries a woman isn't allowed to be in the pressence of a man that isn't related, why do you insist on not understanding that?

Tribesman

11-25-2007, 12:05

And yes, in these countries a woman isn't allowed to be in the pressence of a man that isn't related, why do you insist on not understanding that?

Well the main reason I insist on not understanding what you claim is because it isn't true Fragony , it really is as simple as that .
Now I understand why you make the claims , that much has long been obvious , but if something isn't true then it isn't true Frag , no matter how much you would like to fantasise that it is .

Fragony

11-25-2007, 12:25

But of course Tribes, it simply isn't true, a woman isn't even allowed to leave the house without an related male but fine, no problem whatsoever, no sexual discrimination, even the thought! Most of the time they just got locked up by their beards or divorced. Now I couldn't care less, their desert their rules their problem, I'll leave that fight to women like Hirschi Ali who refuse to follow the european left in their blind adoration of this great great culture, opium for the elite.

Tribesman

11-25-2007, 15:25

But of course Tribes, it simply isn't true, a woman isn't even allowed to leave the house without an related male but fine, no problem whatsoever, no sexual discrimination, even the thought! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Go on then Frag attempt the impossible , attempt to show that your bull excrement is actually even remotely true .
Take any of those countries you listed as having this law and show the actual law in that country .

Most of the time they just got locked up by their beards or divorced.
This just gets funnier and funnier , one of the countries you listed was Libya , now of course I don't expect you to know about the various legal sysytems in these countries when you want to talk about the legal systems in these countries . To expect that much would be really asking far too much of you .
But perhaps if you did know a little something about the topic you wish to discuss you would understand why what you wrote is so hilariously dumb .

divorced. Now I couldn't care less, their desert their rules their problem
Ah yes the famous Nigerian desert , that little bit of savannah it the very top of the country:yes: just another example of how your wrong attempts at generalisations throughout the topic really do extend to everything you write throughout the topic .

I'll leave that fight to women like Hirschi Ali who refuse to follow the european left in their blind adoration of this great great culture, opium for the elite.
Now isn't that the woman who had to lie about how badly she had been treated in order to enter the country ?

InsaneApache

11-25-2007, 15:45

I don't think that Islams treatment of women is in dispute. Not just Islam but culturally from sub-saharan Africa across to the middle east and south asia, women are not treated as equals.

After all it was just over eighty years ago that women got the vote in the UK, (IIRC in the USA a bit later) that finally dispensed with the 'rule of thumb'.

It is fun though watching the contortions of the left attempting to hold up and celebrate 'cultural diversity', whilst at the same time apologising for the misogyny inherent in some 'celebrated' cultures.

Fragony

11-25-2007, 15:53

Go on then Frag attempt the impossible , attempt to show that your bull excrement is actually even remotely true .
Take any of those countries you listed as having this law and show the actual law in that country

Oh common you know very well that sharia courts are religious authorities that act independently, much like the inquisition in medieval europe. For a man of the world you seem to have a certain western fixation, you know seperation church and state, when looking at things beyond the western world, odd. So, you claim that prosecution because of being in the pressence of an unrelated male doesn't happen there?

But perhaps if you did know a little something about the topic you wish to discuss you would understand why what you wrote is so hilariously dumb

You really have no clue about the position of women there in desertstan do you.

Ah yes the famous Nigerian desert , that little bit of savannah it the very top of the country just another example of how your wrong attempts at generalisations throughout the topic really do extend to everything you write throughout the topic .

What generalisations? That sharia law isn't the best thing that ever happened to women and that it is quite discriminating towards women? Well isn't it?

Now isn't that the woman who had to lie about how badly she had been treated in order to enter the country?

That's the one :yes:

Tribesman

11-25-2007, 19:07

Oh common you know very well that sharia courts are religious authorities that act independently
Well bugger me sideways and call me sandra Frag you really excelled there:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You certainly are determined to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject .
Go on give me a laugh , which country with Sharia law has this strange imaginary authority that is independant of the judiciary , government and constitution .
Perhaps if you had thought about the questions I put to you (and also to Kukri) you wouldn't be making so many posts that are quite frankly absolute nonsense .

So, you claim that prosecution because of being in the pressence of an unrelated male doesn't happen there?

Errrr...Fragony you claimed it was the law ,for there to be a prosecution under that law you must be able to show the law under which that prosecution can take place .
A simple challenge isn't it , you claim these laws exist in these countries , so show those laws in these countries .

You really have no clue about the position of women there in desertstan do you.

Errrr....Fragony , if you want to quote something and use it as a basis for a reply it does help if you read what was written , then perhaps attempt to understand what was written , then make a reply:idea2:

Your problem in this topic appers to be that you are trying to take extremist fundamentalist nutcase practices and applying them wholesale across the board where they don't exist .

It is fun though watching the contortions of the left attempting to hold up and celebrate 'cultural diversity', whilst at the same time apologising for the misogyny inherent in some 'celebrated' cultures.
Sorry you lost me there IA , where has anyone in this topic apologised for misogyny ?

Fragony

11-26-2007, 09:39

..........

InsaneApache

11-26-2007, 12:52

Sorry you lost me there IA , where has anyone in this topic apologised for misogyny ?

No. Not on here but CiF in the Gruniad makes for a good laugh.

Vladimir

11-26-2007, 17:01

edit: Lefties never cease to amaze me. There liberal thinkers in the islamic world who question the humanity of the sharia law, one would expect they would have in ally in the european left, but sadly the european left is so enlightened they never miss a oppertunity to defend an ultra-conservative movement, I find that ironic.

It's because they're cowards (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2896431.ece).

It's normal and healthy to feel fear. It's how you react to it which makes you brave or a coward. That's why I can't stand the political Left.

Fragony

11-26-2007, 17:12

It's because they're cowards (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article2896431.ece).

It's normal and healthy to feel fear. It's how you react to it which makes you brave or a coward. That's why I can't stand the political Left.

They are xenophobes, that's the funiest part. Indeed they go to such lenghts because they are afraid of muslims no less then that. All that blabla is 90% fear, 10% opium for the elite.

Tribesman

11-26-2007, 20:52

..........
Wow Fragony made a post in a topic about Islam that doesn't contain nonsense , thats progress .:2thumbsup:

It's because they're cowards.

It's normal and healthy to feel fear. It's how you react to it which makes you brave or a coward. That's why I can't stand the political Left.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Grayson Perry is the political left :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

BTW you quoted this ....edit: Lefties never cease to amaze me. There liberal thinkers in the islamic world who question the humanity of the sharia law, one would expect they would have in ally in the european left, but sadly the european left is so enlightened they never miss a oppertunity to defend an ultra-conservative movement, I find that ironic.

Any guesses as to why that statement is of the nonsensical variety ?

They are xenophobes, that's the funiest part. Indeed they go to such lenghts because they are afraid of muslims no less then that. All that blabla is 90% fear, 10% opium for the elite.
That coming from a xenophobe who has a fear that muslims are taking over his world and whose blabla about Islam consists of 90% bull excrement .

Fragony

11-26-2007, 20:58

Fundi's :dizzy2:

Odd that I am on better terms with the muslim orgers then with you, but ah well.

Tribesman

11-26-2007, 21:30

Odd that I am on better terms with the muslim orgers then with you, but ah well.
Is that a variation of the old "I am not a racist I have a black friend" line ?

Fragony

11-26-2007, 21:35

Nah, got black friends because I have white lines.

You think what you want, and yes, I do have black friends

Vladimir

11-26-2007, 21:46

Nah, got black friends because I have white lines.

You think what you want, and yes, I do have black friends

The "I have black friends" line is a trap and cliché.

Fragony

11-26-2007, 22:06

The "I have black friends" line is a trap and cliché.

I don't care about the people that care. If someone wants to call me a racist fine, their problem when the word becomes meaningless. I don't have it in me to hate someone or something, but lefties need an enemy to justify their existance, in a world that is pretty much settled no less.

Lemur

11-26-2007, 22:19

If we can step aside from the partisan test of who can urinate farther and longer, there's a new bit of sharia news coming out. 40 lashes for a teddy bear! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7112929.stm)

'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting Islam's Prophet, after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Colleagues of Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, said she made an "innocent mistake" by letting the six and seven-year-olds choose the name.

Ms Gibbons was arrested after several parents made complaints.

The BBC has learned the charge could lead to six months in jail, 40 lashes or a fine.

Officials from the British embassy in Khartoum are expected to visit Ms Gibbons in custody later.

"We are in contact with the authorities here and they have visited the teacher and she is in a good condition," an embassy spokesman said.

The spokesman said the naming of the teddy happened months ago and was chosen by the children because it is a common name in the country.

"This happened in September and the parents did not have a problem with it," he said.

'Very sensitive'

The school has been closed until January for fear of reprisals.

Fellow teachers at Khartoum's Unity High School told Reuters news agency they feared for Ms Gibbons' safety after receiving reports that men had started gathering outside the police station where she was being held.

The school's director, Robert Boulos, said: "This is a very sensitive issue. We are very worried about her safety.

"This was a completely innocent mistake. Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam."

Mr Boulos said Ms Gibbons was following a British national curriculum course designed to teach young pupils about animals and this year's topic was the bear.

Ms Gibbons, who joined the school in August, asked a seven-year-old girl to bring in her teddy bear and asked the class to pick names for it, he said.

"They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad," Mr Boulos said, adding that she then had the children vote on a name.

Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad as their favourite name.

Mr Boulos said each child was then allowed to take the bear home at weekends and told to write a diary about what they did with it.

He said the children's entries were collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover and a message which read, "My name is Muhammad."

Book seized

The bear itself was not marked or labelled with the name in any way, he added.

It is seen as an insult to Islam to attempt to make an image of the Prophet Muhammad.

Mr Boulos said Ms Gibbons was arrested on Sunday at her home inside the school premises after a number of parents complained to Sudan's Ministry of Education.

He said police had seized the book and asked to interview the girl who owned the bear.

The country's state-controlled Sudanese Media Centre reported that charges were being prepared "under article 125 of the criminal law" which covers insults against faith and religion.

No-one at the ministries of education or justice was available for comment.

Mr Boulos told the BBC he was confident she would not face a jail sentence.

One Muslim teacher at the independent school for Christian and Muslim children, who has a child in Ms Gibbons' class, said she had not found the project offensive.

"I know Gillian and she would never have meant it as an insult. I was just impressed that she got them to vote," the teacher said.

In Liverpool, a family spokeswoman said Ms Gibbons' grown children, John and Jessica - both believed to be in their 20s - were not commenting on her arrest.

"I have spoken with her children and they do not want to say anything and aggravate the situation over there," she said.

Rick Widdowson the headteacher of Garston Church of England Primary School, where Gillian worked for ten years, added: "We are an Anglican school and I know for a fact that Gillian would not do anything to offend followers of any faith.

"Certainly she is also very worldly wise and she is obviously aware of the sensitivities around Islam."

Cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad printed in several European newspapers sparked violent protests around the world in 2006.

Fragony

11-26-2007, 22:28

Oh please not in Nigeria, they have a savanne there

Husar

11-26-2007, 22:47

:laugh4: It's a teddy bear and a name... :laugh4: :dizzy2:

Tribesman

11-26-2007, 23:43

40 lashes for a teddy bear!

or imprisonment or a fine if she is found guilty .
Now tell me Lemur taking into account which crazy dictators made those laws , the circumstances of them siezing power and considering the practices of those forces under the dictators , don't you find it strange that there are options in sentencing ?
I would have expected them to go more for the instant flogging of the woman without trial and the public beheading of the offending bear .

Oh please not in Nigeria, they have a savanne there
Yes they do Frag , at least you learnt something , perhaps one day you will learn that they do not have the crime you say they have , neither do they have a law system that you claim they have...neither do any of the other countries that you claimed did .

Papewaio

11-26-2007, 23:50

The bear itself was not marked or labelled with the name in any way, he added.

It is seen as an insult to Islam to attempt to make an image of the Prophet Muhammad.

Couldn't it be extended that to call a person Muhammad is to make an image of the Prophet and hence be an offense? So what is the clause that makes it okay to name a person after the Prophet?

woad&fangs

11-26-2007, 23:53

Tribesy, are you actually defending the ******* who rule Sudan? Remember that these ******** have killed and raped hundreds of thousands of people just because they were black. As for the Teddy bear, what messed up culture imprisons people for what they name a **** teddy bear. Besides, the kids were the ones who voted for the **** name in the first place. How about they give the kids the option of imprisonement or 40 lashes.

Tribesman

11-27-2007, 00:14

Tribesy, are you actually defending the ******* who rule Sudan?
Am I indeed ?

Remember that these ******** have killed and raped hundreds of thousands of people just because they were black.
Now that isn't actually true is it , putting such a simplistic but inaccurate take on things really does a diservice to the victims and the persecution they suffer .

How about they give the kids the option of imprisonement or 40 lashes
Well that might be something to do with the age limits which of course can be a bit sticky , but how about a different option ...how about giving the punishment to the parents who complained , clearly they saw a teddy with a name and associated that teddy as a depiction of their prophet , surely they must be guilty of some form of blasphemy .

woad&fangs

11-27-2007, 00:18

but how about a different option ...how about giving the punishment to the parents who complained , clearly they saw a teddy with a name and associated that teddy as a depiction of their prophet , surely they must be guilty of some form of blasphemy .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: that actually makes a little sense. I can live with that compromise:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

drone

11-27-2007, 00:36

Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah". [Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Stoner: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. " [Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. " [Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]
About sums up the teddy bear incident... ~D

Crazed Rabbit

11-27-2007, 00:37

An update, the victim's story:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=3899920&page=1

To call that ****hole of a culture 'barbaric' is an insult to barbarians*. They're worse than ******* animals.

CR

*Some may say that not every aspect of a culture is this horrible. I'd say that if you mix dog**** and ice cream, the final product tastes like dog****.

Lemur

11-27-2007, 00:59

Anybody who does not think we need to get off the oil habit should read that article. We are funding these people. So long as they're getting free money from the West, they have no reason to change. I'd say more, but I'm at a loss for PG language.

Papewaio

11-27-2007, 01:18

Talk about a loaded system:

Lawyer Punished Too

Along with the young woman's sentence, the General Court of Qatif confiscated the license of her attorney, Abdul Rahman Al-Lahem, a lawyer known for taking on controversial cases that push back against Saudi Arabia's strictly interpreted system of sharia, or Islamic law.

"Asking me to appear in front of a disciplinary committee at the Ministry of Justice … is a punishment for taking human rights cases against some institutions," Al-Lahem told Arab News.

Right so it is illegal to represent someone if it embarrasses the institution...

Why didn't Big W choose Saudi Arabia where virtually all the 9/11 terrorists come from over Iraq where none of them came from and Saddam was on the terrorists hit list. :dizzy2:

Wasn't one of the main reasons to invade Afghanistan touted by Ms Bush to free the oppressed women?

All I can say it might be the law, but that does not ethical it make.

Tribesman

11-27-2007, 02:50

An update, the victim's story:

Oh come on if you want to update the victims story then update it .
The lovely authorities in Saudi have managed to get her to confess to adultery now .
In most countries a confession would of course be tested and other evidence considered . In Saudi it only has to be accepted by a judge .
Needless to say the if judge does accept the confession the sentance is ever so slightly harsher than the flogging , what with the sentance being ever so slightly fatal .
Don't ya just love the wahabbi version of Sharia practiced in the wests special friend kingdom of Saudi Arabia .

Don Corleone

11-27-2007, 04:01

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-27-2007, 04:37

A minor crime? Sick muslim law at its worst. Don't fall victim to moral relativism..
Alright, PJ, I know this line sounds rather liberal, but in my opinion we need to understand that this is a differant culture. One of my former teachers (and his wife) taught in Oman for two years. While this isn't Saudi Arabia, it's also a Muslim Sultanate, which is what you're getting at, I presume. According to him (and his wife), they were a little surprised at seeing women doing all these things - until they were invited into the homes, and saw a little deeper.

According to their first-hand accounts, while women had little freedom by western standards, most of them, especially the rich, had no complaint. It is simply another culture, and how they are brought up. The rich women especially often have servants, luxurious trappings, and see and have parties with their women friends often. They are generally quite content.

It is simply another perspective on life, which, in Oman, people are quite content with. You cannot call something "sick" or "immoral" that you do not fully understand, or that you cannot see the other side of.

EDIT: I completely agree that these laws should never be practiced in the Western World, but what happens in the Middle East is their business.

Papewaio

11-27-2007, 04:55

It is simply another perspective on life, which, in Oman, people are quite content with. You cannot call something "sick" or "immoral" that you do not fully understand, or that you cannot see the other side of.

Why cannot one make judgement calls about a way of life?

AntiochusIII

11-27-2007, 05:19

Alright, PJ, I know this line sounds rather liberal, but in my opinion we need to understand that this is a differant culture. One of my former teachers (and his wife) taught in Oman for two years. While this isn't Saudi Arabia, it's also a Muslim Sultanate, which is what you're getting at, I presume. According to him (and his wife), they were a little surprised at seeing women doing all these things - until they were invited into the homes, and saw a little deeper.

According to their first-hand accounts, while women had little freedom by western standards, most of them, especially the rich, had no complaint. It is simply another culture, and how they are brought up. The rich women especially often have servants, luxurious trappings, and see and have parties with their women friends often. They are generally quite content.

It is simply another perspective on life, which, in Oman, people are quite content with. You cannot call something "sick" or "immoral" that you do not fully understand, or that you cannot see the other side of.I'm a liberal, and I think this whole moral relativist thinking is bull excrement. There's multiculturalism, a bad word apparently for some people here, and there's just being an apologist. You call it for what it is, and challenge it all you can.

I'm a fan of Amnesty International, of ACLU (if only for their unbiased, single-minded intent at securing as much libertarian freedom as possible regardless of the sheer idiotic criminality of some of their clients; they'd defend the so-called Christian Right's freedom of expression as readily as they do black people), of organizations similar to them in outlook and goal, and of a fairer, more open society less weighted down by traditional morality -- a society of rights and freedoms rather than unwritten codes of conduct and social control through faith. I'm not a fan of "excusing" scums for being scums.

And quite frankly, rich people are happy everywhere. You can't possibly expect me to consider them, the I-drink-only-obscure-South-African-tea crowd, as representatives of "another" culture!

If anything, the traditional definition of liberalism is to liberate -- where has that gone to? Of American liberals alone, we were liberating in the 1770's, against the Empire; we were liberating in the 1860's, against slavery; and we were liberating in the 1960's, against "traditional morality" that stifles justice, dissent, happiness, and reason. We still have a long way to go before us "liberals" can claim that we have achieved anything close to the dream of a freer, better humankind that was once such a glorious cry to so many. Why are we now excusing the thugs of the House of Al-Saud for crimes against humanity? At least the neo-cons, hypocrite sonsofagun as they are, can claim to befriend this heinous regime out of pragmatic grounds, namely, oil and strategic location. We the leftist liberals have nothing as such to stand on.

Of course, blaming Islam is waaaaaaay besides the point and reeks of Islamophobia. But you know, people are prejudiced.

woad&fangs

11-27-2007, 05:28

Hmm, I sense a hunger for irony by those that do not realize their victims will never realize it...

Look, Tribesman has a point you've all been intentionally missing... on the off chance you haven't, please allow me to spell it out for you....

Does anyone else find it ironic that our 2nd best friend in the middle east is the haven for all these 'muslims are such goonies' stories. Doesn't anyone find it odd that Turkey, a muslim country for almost as long, has no incidence of such judgements? Is the problem Islam, or the flavor?
I do realize that and find it Ironic but Bush is the one in love with the Saudis and Musharaff(pakistani dictator jerk) not me. The flavor is definately the problem. If I remember correctly the Saudis have an expecially "conservative" flavor of Islam called Wahabism or something like that.

Ice

11-27-2007, 05:41

seireikhaan

11-27-2007, 06:01

Yes, Waldinger. Saudi Arabia is extremely conservative(and heavy handed) in its interpretation of Islamic law. Its sorta like the Pope in the medieval age claiming to be ruler of all the world, basing it purely on the Bible. In my honest opinion, Islam isn't the problem, its the people who we(the west, especially the U.S.) allow to stay in power. Unfortunately, using military force has a tendency to backfire against religious radicals, as it only allows them to gather more followers to 'defend the faith', ie-their own power. And until we can develop more, and more plentiful, alternative fuel sources, 'kicking' oil will be nigh upon impossible. That, more than anything else, including global warming, is why we should be looking into oil alternatives.

Navaros

11-27-2007, 15:27

Is the problem Islam, or the flavor?

The problem is not with Islam. The problem is with secular humanist societies thinking they have some sort of superiority and moral highground, and that any society that is not a "free sex" society like theirs has something wrong with it. In fact, that is not the case. There is nothing wrong with a society not being a "free sex" society, as Muslim societies are not.

This seems also to be a stumblingblock in many failing to understand that the woman was never punished for being raped. In the update she even admits that the whole situation stems from her breaking the law. That of course does not justify her rape. The point is, there are two separate crimes in play here, and two separate punishments in play here. Trying to muddle the two together as an inaccurate sleight against Muslim societies (ie: claiming she is being punished for being raped) is wrong.

Shahed

11-27-2007, 15:47

I'd like to share something with you guys here.

I was discussing an offer in Saudi very recently. Excellent pay, bad bad badass sports car, large appartment in a foreigners compound, I was told there'd be plenty of very high class foreign women there, direct access to one of the Sauds (royals), almost all expenses paid. It hardly took me about a minute to think about it. I asked to double the offer and I would accept it. I still refused. I would go there but it's just a bit too hairy for me. Imagine being right in the middle of all that. I'd have to be very desperate or paid a GREAT deal to do a job there. This was a high profile 2 year contract to assist in the restructuring of a major Saudi company, owned by the Royal family. Excellent career building stuff.

Remember that the culture is very different. I'm used to just talking to everyone, in my neighbourhood everyone knows me. I almost never pay at the restaurants, shops, nightshops, or bars here. I'm never asked to pay, I pay every couple of weeks, and everyone trusts me enough to not ask questions if I just say bye or good night and walk out. Sometimes if I'm pissed drunk I just go home, and pay later when I remember to. They also know I'm not originally from here, and remarkably they trust me more because of this. Saudi is a very closed society, it would be hard for me to live there.

I do respect that they are different, have different laws and culture, and it's wrong to throw crap at them for their laws and customs. It's also wrong to say that this is "Sharia" or Islamic law. This is Saudi law, a Wahabi law, to generalise it as Sharia/Islamic law is simply incorrect. And it's not just a matter of semantics. That would be akin to saying Sharia in Taliban Afghanistan is Islamic law. There are many different applications of Islamic law, and the Saudi version is Wahabist, it's extremist, in my view.

Fragony

11-27-2007, 16:23

Extremist version of what, interaction between an unrelated man and woman is 'discouraged' in the islam, in Saudi Arabia rather harshly. Just because there are more interpetations doesn't mean it's not an islamic law. Protestants and catholics are both christians.

Shahed

11-27-2007, 16:37

Fragony

11-27-2007, 16:47

Yeah but if it's 'discouraged' does that mean there has to be a law for that ? What about women can't drive and all that, they did'nt even have an ID card until recently. This is just BS (IMHO with all due respect to the culture).

They must think there must be, it's the principle around which the law is built, and it's not just Saudi Arabia, also in Iran and parts of Nigeria, Afghanistan, it all comes from the same source.

Shahed

11-27-2007, 17:08

I see your point.

IMO it's their culture that's the source. Women can drive, have IDs, work, ****, etc in other countries too, such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Brunei, Maldives, Egypt, Jordan, Syria (HOTTIES!), Morocco, Tunisia, in fact in all the other Muslim majority states bar Saudi, Afghanistan (under Taliban), Iran (even Iran is more liberal than Saudi), and the Nigerians seem to want to be in the same boat as the Saudis.

So I don't think it's fair to say that because these guys are doing it, it's Islamic (as a generalisation). IMO that's their culture that is influencing their law.

Of course Islam was born there, and naturally the Arabs spread Islam and a good deal of their culture with it. So now everyone thinks that ALL Muslim states are like this, which is not true ofc. It does'nt help that a lot of Muslims happily follow the Arab culture, donning the hijab and all that. Even though they are NOT Arab, e.g the Turks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1260000/images/_1260547_saudi300.jpg

See this image, this is how the Saudis want the women to dress. If you look in the Koran it does'nt say dress like this. It says dress modestly and be covered i.e don't walk around like a slut. They make their women dress like this because of their own reasons, & their cultural influence which essentially dictates that the women have to behave ultra loyal and conservative. Look at the men, that dress is not "Islamic", it's Arab.

Tribesman

11-27-2007, 19:46

Look, Tribesman has a point you've all been intentionally missing... on the off chance you haven't, please allow me to spell it out for you....

Not everyone has been missing it don , there have been some very good posts . Though unrelated to that the best posts by far in this topic have been by Andres .
But anyhow enough of that so back onto the teddy story Lemur posted ...does anyone get the notion that there is a bit more behind that story than first appears ? Does anyone get the idea that there is a hell of a lot more behind that story than first appears ?

Don Corleone

11-27-2007, 20:02

But anyhow enough of that so back onto the teddy story Lemur posted ...does anyone get the notion that there is a bit more behind that story than first appears ? Does anyone get the idea that there is a hell of a lot more behind that story than first appears ?

They've already said there's a lot more behind it. There's some sort of import-tariff negotiation upcoming between Sudan and the UK, and the UK ambassadors all but said whipping the teacher is a bargaining chip... i.e. 'give us the better half of the deal and we won't whip your citizen'.

Personally, I say let them whip her. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the Sudan has a law that naming Teddy Bears after the prophet is worthy of 80 lashes, and you're dumb enough to go there in the first place, let alone naming Teddy Bears after Mohammed, you pretty much deserve what you have coming to you.

PanzerJaeger

11-27-2007, 20:11

But anyhow enough of that so back onto the teddy story Lemur posted ...does anyone get the notion that there is a bit more behind that story than first appears ? Does anyone get the idea that there is a hell of a lot more behind that story than first appears ?

Does it matter? A woman may still be whipped for naming a teddy bear... of course if lashing rape victims doesn't bother you, this surely won't. ~:wacko:

Fragony

11-27-2007, 20:17

If the Sudan has a law that naming Teddy Bears after the prophet is worthy of 80 lashes, and you're dumb enough to go there in the first place, let alone naming Teddy Bears after Mohammed, you pretty much deserve what you have coming to you.

It doesn't, that is what I meant with sharia courts that act independatily earlier in this thread, they are an authority of their own.

Tribesman

11-27-2007, 20:18

They've already said there's a lot more behind it. There's some sort of import-tariff negotiation upcoming between Sudan and the UK, and the UK ambassadors all but said whipping the teacher is a bargaining chip... i.e. 'give us the better half of the deal and we won't whip your citizen'.

And more , the local authority that runs the local courts is in financial dispute with this womans employers , also local businessmen who are linked to the local authority have ben trying to obtain the land that the school owns , and of course the national government are very pissed at having to cede jurisdiction in certain areas to foriegn bodies , plus of course the ongoing threat of sanctions and the pipedream about military intervention .

Tribesman

11-27-2007, 20:23

Does it matter? A woman may still be whipped for naming a teddy bear... of course if lashing rape victims doesn't bother you, this surely won't.
well its been said before and doubtless will be said again , when one reads a post like that then "what a muppet: " is all the content is worth .

PanzerJaeger

11-27-2007, 20:41

well its been said before and doubtless will be said again , when one reads a post like that then "what a muppet: " is all the content is worth .

Im wondering how that colon managed to work itself in there. :magnify:

Lemur

11-27-2007, 21:49

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If the Sudan has a law that naming Teddy Bears after the prophet is worthy of 80 lashes, and you're dumb enough to go there in the first place, let alone naming Teddy Bears after Mohammed, you pretty much deserve what you have coming to you.
I expect the outrage is being selectively applied. What about those hundreds of thousands of boys named Mohammed? Are they all blaspheming as well?

Nonsense. The teacher picked the most common boys' names and had the class vote on it. She is undeserving of any punishment whatsoever. I expect the government is more offended by the concept of "voting" than any name.

Don Corleone

11-27-2007, 22:27

I expect the outrage is being selectively applied. What about those hundreds of thousands of boys named Mohammed? Are they all blaspheming as well?

Nonsense. The teacher picked the most common boys' names and had the class vote on it. She is undeserving of any punishment whatsoever. I expect the government is more offended by the concept of "voting" than any name.

You're arguing theory of law, and whether or not the Sudanese government has the right to make such a law in the first place.

I'm arguing that regardless of what laws they pass, its incumbent on the teacher to be aware of them and to avoid travel to the place if they don't like the laws.

The Sultan of Brunei has a standing order in his kingdom that he can sleep with any woman in his domain at his choosing. Regardless of you feel about it, should Mrs. Lemur travel to Brunei one day, she would be subject to this fiat as well. While I think it's a bad law (as is 40 lashes for naming a Teddy Bear Mohammed), it doesn't matter. Brunei has their laws, Sudan has theirs. If we don't agree with them, we should stay the heck out of there.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-27-2007, 22:57

I'm allowed to criticize whoever I see fit, and I chose to criticizes these monsters.

For the love of God, relax...

I'm not saying you can't criticize, I'm saying you need to look at both sides before you do so. While you can just dive into the debate thinking of only your side, the smart option is to at least look at both.

In addition, while the rich are, of course, happy, the poorer married women (where they cannot afford servants) still live fairly well. We're talking here about schoolteachers, wives of ordinary workers, etc. They are also quite content with their lives, and still have their women friends over, love being around family, and have what they see as fairly decent lives.

I do respect that they are different, have different laws and culture, and it's wrong to throw crap at them for their laws and customs. It's also wrong to say that this is "Sharia" or Islamic law. This is Saudi law, a Wahabi law, to generalise it as Sharia/Islamic law is simply incorrect.
One of my points. I brought up the example of Oman to show this.

Ice

11-27-2007, 23:18

I'm not saying you can't criticize, I'm saying you need to look at both sides before you do so. While you can just dive into the debate thinking of only your side, the smart option is to at least look at both.

What makes you think I haven't? Just because I find the "other side" of the argument absolutely ridiculous and beyond comprehension for any sane, rational human being, it doesn't mean I haven't looked at it. I see where you are coming from, and I whole heartedly disagree.

In addition, while the rich are, of course, happy, the poorer married women (where they cannot afford servants) still live fairly well. We're talking here about schoolteachers, wives of ordinary workers, etc. They are also quite content with their lives, and still have their women friends over, love being around family, and have what they see as fairly decent lives.

You know they are content... how exactly?

Xiahou

11-27-2007, 23:18

You're arguing theory of law, and whether or not the Sudanese government has the right to make such a law in the first place.I don't think he's making that argument at all. The law as outlined is about insulting Islam. Mohammed is a common name and was chosen by classmates from among a list of other common names. Does using the name constitute an insult in itself? What of all the other children that have the same name- are they an insult to Islam?

Had she tried to suggest that the teddy bear was someone representative of the prophet Mohammed, then yes, I could see their enforcing of their ridiculous and immoral law. However, I don't see the insult in using Mohammed, as a secular name, for a teddy bear.

Tribesman

11-27-2007, 23:20

I expect the outrage is being selectively applied.
Very selectively applied , since the school has taken legal advice (like you do )from people whose job it is to deal with Sudans version of Sharia law (mixed with English common law) and they say that no crime has been committed .
Strangely enough all of the parents of the children in the class have stated that they didn't report anything to anyone and cannot see what the crime issue is .
So perhaps instead of Dons...
I'm arguing that regardless of what laws they pass, its incumbent on the teacher to be aware of them and to avoid travel to the place if they don't like the laws.

It should be ....don't go somewhere with a dodgy government if the local authorities have issues with your employer and the national authorities have big problems with your country or you may find yourself being used as a bargaining chip based on trumped up charges .

woad&fangs

11-27-2007, 23:28

Ahhh, there is a bunch of BS politics behind it. That makes more sense:idea2:

**** Sudan

Geoffrey S

11-27-2007, 23:31

I don't think he's making that argument at all. The law as outlined is about insulting Islam. Mohammed is a common name and was chosen by classmates from among a list of other common names. Does using the name constitute an insult in itself? What of all the other children that have the same name- are they an insult to Islam?
Precisely what my first thought was. Plenty of Muslims are called Mohammed, or variations on that theme, and to my knowledge not even the teacher made any link between the bear and their Prophet.

Don Corleone

11-27-2007, 23:36

I'm not arguing for the Sudan's right to have kooky laws like whipping a teacher for naming a Teddy Bear, or Saudi Arabia's right to have a law about whipping women who allow themselves to be in the presence of unrelated men.

I'm saying that if you have a problem with laws like that, stay the hell out of of Sudan and Saudi Arabia. Personally, I would never go to either country, because by their laws, I cannot testify against a muslim, since I'm not a muslim. So if a muslim were to attack me, I couldn't file a police report against them.

woad&fangs

11-27-2007, 23:38

DC and Tribesy could you give your sources about the politics behind this. I have an English project where we have to parallel the Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, and a modern event. I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Woad

Edited for spelling ironically enough

Tribesman

11-27-2007, 23:59

Woad wouldn't the witch hunt theme be better covered by the Libyan HIV infection story ?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-28-2007, 00:29

What makes you think I haven't? Just because I find the "other side" of the argument absolutely ridiculous and beyond comprehension for any sane, rational human being, it doesn't mean I haven't looked at it. I see where you are coming from, and I whole heartedly disagree.
Alright, you've looked at it. Great. But do you actually, really, understand the issue? I don't. I doubt anyone here does. But I'm trying to be as objective as I can, and look at both sides of the issue fairly. That's all I'm saying.

You know they are content... how exactly?
To my knowledge, I've explained that quite clearly, but I am basing my opinion on a very good friend of mine, also a teacher, who lived in Oman with his wife (who also taught in Oman), his son (a friend of mine), and his daughters. They, or some of them, were often invited into the homes of these women, sometimes when men were not present, and saw what
happened on the inside.

The rich women were quite content, with opulent clothing, chambers, servants, and so on. The middle-class women were also doing quite well for themselves. They were all happy. If a western woman lived like that, I doubt she would enjoy it. My point is that they were raised that way, that's how they're used to it, and it's generally not a problem for them.

woad&fangs

11-28-2007, 00:50

Woad wouldn't the witch hunt theme be better covered by the Libyan HIV infection story ?
I haven't heard about that story yet. I'll have to look into it.

Ice

11-28-2007, 00:56

Alright, you've looked at it. Great. But do you actually, really, understand the issue? I don't. I doubt anyone here does. But I'm trying to be as objective as I can, and look at both sides of the issue fairly. That's all I'm saying.

How would I go about doing that?

To my knowledge, I've explained that quite clearly, but I am basing my opinion on a very good friend of mine, also a teacher, who lived in Oman with his wife (who also taught in Oman), his son (a friend of mine), and his daughters. They, or some of them, were often invited into the homes of these women, sometimes when men were not present, and saw what
happened on the inside.

I know you are, I can read. I was asking that more to be a smart ass because you seem to be generalizing all the women (this was Oman, not even Saudi Arabia) based on the second hand information you came across from your friend who met a few families.

The rich women were quite content, with opulent clothing, chambers, servants, and so on. The middle-class women were also doing quite well for themselves. They were all happy. If a western woman lived like that, I doubt she would enjoy it. My point is that they were raised that way, that's how they're used to it, and it's generally not a problem for them.

I'm sure it would be a problem if they knew how women lived in developed countries, eh?

However, this doesn't matter because you haven't really shown me proof that all women in Saudi Arabia, be they middle or upper class, really love the current system and aren't just going through the motions.

Geoffrey S

11-28-2007, 01:02

I'm sure it would be a problem if they knew how women lived in developed countries, eh?

However, this doesn't matter because you haven't really shown me proof that all women in Saudi Arabia, be they middle or upper class, really love the current system and aren't just going through the motions.
To adapt something from a possible parallel; "they pretend that they treat women fairly, women pretend that they acquiesce". It's a matter of time before modern technology catches up, mainly a matter of how long.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-28-2007, 02:50

I know you are, I can read. I was asking that more to be a smart ass because you seem to be generalizing all the women (this was Oman, not even Saudi Arabia) based on the second hand information you came across from your friend who met a few families.

I know it's Oman and not Saudi Arabia, that was one of the points I was trying to make, and quoted and agreed to, in one of my earlier posts. The point is that this is firstly Saudi law, and not Islamic law, and that the women in most Islamic countries do not have it altogether bad.

...problem if they knew how women lived in developed countries
Who knows? They already have some western comforts. Perhaps they would view Western women as decadent. Then there was a family from some Islamic country in the Middle East that I saw taking some cousins to Legoland - a man with all of his wives and daughters. He obviously had money, and the women were strolling around, dressed in very fine clothing, independent (away from their husband most of the time), and generally having fun.

How would I go about doing that?
Well, seeing that it's just a different point of view, and that they're not "monsters", is probably a good place to start...

Papewaio

11-28-2007, 03:02

I think slavery of the mind is worse then that of the body.

Ice

11-28-2007, 03:13

The point is that this is firstly Saudi law, and not Islamic law

Which is partially based off of Islamic law, yes I agree.

and that the women in most Islamic countries do not have it altogether bad.

You haven't really proved or demonstrated that point.

Well, seeing that it's just a different point of view, and that they're not "monsters", is probably a good place to start...

I can't really agree there. Anyone who punishes the victim of a gang raping is indeed a monster.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-28-2007, 04:18

You haven't really proved or demonstrated that point.
But I have offered an eyewitness opinion (remember, this was his wife that was invited into the home as well as he, usually just her with the women, no men around. Being curious about the culture, she of course asked. They didn't have a problem with their lifestyle whatsoever.) I suppose "bad" is relative, so we'll have to agree to disagree, unless you have another opinon?

I can't really agree there. Anyone who punishes the victim of a gang raping is indeed a monster.
It was for another crime than the rape itself. If you committed a minor offence, like public drunkeness, and then were shot, would you still expect to be charged for the offense you committed? I would.

Ice

11-28-2007, 05:04

But I have offered an eyewitness opinion (remember, this was his wife that was invited into the home as well as he, usually just her with the women, no men around. Being curious about the culture, she of course asked. They didn't have a problem with their lifestyle whatsoever.) I suppose "bad" is relative, so we'll have to agree to disagree, unless you have another opinon?

Your eyewitness opinions are second hand and they are of a small sample of the entire population. Thus, they don't really back your hypothesis very well.

It was for another crime than the rape itself. If you committed a minor offence, like public drunkeness, and then were shot, would you still expect to be charged for the offense you committed? I would.

This is a bit different.

You would thinking getting raped by 9 men is punishment enough for being a car with an unrelated male, which I believe blackmailed her into the car into the first place.

So, no.

Papewaio

11-28-2007, 05:16

It was for another crime than the rape itself. If you committed a minor offence, like public drunkeness, and then were shot, would you still expect to be charged for the offense you committed? I would.

Then explain why the lawyer is getting in trouble for defending her?

The law by itself is not automatically right or ethical. Do you think it is right or ethical that a woman should get 200 lashes for talking to a stranger? Is that not a monstrous restriction on freedom.

Which is better Saudi rule or this French inspired piece:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Crazed Rabbit

11-28-2007, 06:10

It was for another crime than the rape itself. If you committed a minor offence, like public drunkeness, and then were shot, would you still expect to be charged for the offense you committed? I would.

Bah. They are still despicable monsters for giving a woman 200 lashes for being blackmailed into sitting in a car with an unrelated man. Are you going to defend that?

CR

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-28-2007, 22:58

Your eyewitness opinions are second hand and they are of a small sample of the entire population. Thus, they don't really back your hypothesis very well.
This case has nothing to do at all with how happy the woman was with her lot before the rape, so I would argue that you have no sample whatsoever.

This is a bit different.

You would thinking getting raped by 9 men is punishment enough for being a car with an unrelated male, which I believe blackmailed her into the car into the first place.

So, no.

So, yeah. It is a crime to be in the car with an unrelated male in that country, punishable by law. The men certainly weren't enforcing the law. We'll change the example if you will. You're drunk, you're staggering around in a public space, and somebody shoots you (non-fatally, of course). I wouldn't consider the shooting punishment for being drunk in public, and would still fully expect to be prosecuted for my crime.

The law by itself is not automatically right or ethical. Do you think it is right or ethical that a woman should get 200 lashes for talking to a stranger? Is that not a monstrous restriction on freedom.
I don't necessarily think it's right or ethical, at least not by western standards, but it as DC said, it is the law. If you don't obey it, you're punished. Obey it.

Bah. They are still despicable monsters for giving a woman 200 lashes for being blackmailed into sitting in a car with an unrelated man. Are you going to defend that?

See above comment. Tell me where she was blackmailed into it (IE. show me a link from a news source). If she was blackmailed, and you can prove it to me, then I have obviously been debating without that information and I will, of course, back her. The point is that it was the law, she broke it, and while other countries have laws we disagree with (they always will), it is still their law.

Papewaio

11-28-2007, 23:47

I don't necessarily think it's right or ethical, at least not by western standards, but it as DC said, it is the law. If you don't obey it, you're punished. Obey it.

You are still dodging the fact that the lawyer is also getting punished.

=][=

An unethical law should be fought against. Disobeyed, disrupted, contended, pressured, civil disobedience, pressure from both domestic and foreign sources including and not limited to trade & sporting embargoes, right up to war civil and intra...are all avenues that can and should be applied.

A good law and good lawyer are something to be admired. A bad law and there supporters should be despised and disposed of.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-29-2007, 00:09

You are still dodging the fact that the lawyer is also getting punished.

The original link is down. Is there a link I can view that states this?

An unethical law

Then we (the human populace) needs to agree on what ethical is. We never will. Ethics and morals are a point of view.

Tribesman

11-29-2007, 00:47

The original link is down. Is there a link I can view that states this?

Its in a multitude of media stories , some even note that it is not the first time the lawyer has been punished for upsetting the happy house of saud .

Bah. They are still despicable monsters for giving a woman 200 lashes for being blackmailed into sitting in a car with an unrelated man. Are you going to defend that?

She wasn't given 200 lashes for being blackmailed into sitting in a car with an unrelated man , just as she wasn't given 200 lashes for being raped .
In fact if the courts wanted to the events that they say got the sentance increased to 200 lashes rather than the original 40 could have been put with charges of sedition , which like the adultery charge she may be facing carry the death sentance .
And just as it happens that ties back nicely to the Teddy story where part of the government in Sudan is saying it is a misunderstandingand a storm in a teacup , while another part of the government is saying that the incitement to hatred charge should be increased to one of sedition which surprise surprise carries the death penalty .
I suppose that part of the government that wants to up the ante really wants Labour to keep up the shipments for the Sudans defence forces .

Ice

11-29-2007, 00:48

This case has nothing to do at all with how happy the woman was with her lot before the rape, so I would argue that you have no sample whatsoever.

I never said I had a sample.

You are the one trying to prove that women don't mind living as second class citizens based of a very small sample, that you didn't actually obtain first hand.

So, yeah. It is a crime to be in the car with an unrelated male in that country, punishable by law. The men certainly weren't enforcing the law. We'll change the example if you will. You're drunk, you're staggering around in a public space, and somebody shoots you (non-fatally, of course). I wouldn't consider the shooting punishment for being drunk in public, and would still fully expect to be prosecuted for my crime.

That wasn't my point.

My point was, she was blackmailed into the car. The article said she wanted to get a photo of herself back she gave a friend. He said, you must come to my car (or pretty much, I'll get you a lot of trouble). She came, she got gang raped.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-29-2007, 01:01

Its in a multitude of media stories , some even note that it is not the first time the lawyer has been punished for upsetting the happy house of saud .

OK...it's in a multitude of media stories. I believe you. Can I have a link to one?

I never said I had a sample.

Alright then. Out of interest, where did you arrive at the opinion that women in the Middle East are not content/happy at all, without any sort of sample or source? The woman getting raped and punished doesn't relate to the happiness of women in the Middle East in general. If a woman here in the west was punished for indecent exposure after having been raped (provided she exposed herself first, either willingly or for a petty reason, and was raped a few minutes later), do you think that we would be oppressing women? :inquisitive:

My point was, she was blackmailed into the car. The article said she wanted to get a photo of herself back she gave a friend. He said, you must come to my car (or pretty much, I'll get you a lot of trouble). She came, she got gang raped.

So she went into a car to get back a photograph back, when it is clearly stated as illegal? I can understand breaking the law to get something really important back, but a photograph? Just use your common sense.

Ice

11-29-2007, 01:33

Alright then. Out of interest, where did you arrive at the opinion that women in the Middle East are not content/happy at all, without any sort of sample or source?

I don't think I ever did. I'm merely suggesting that common sense would most likely imply that.

The woman getting raped and punished doesn't relate to the happiness of women in the Middle East in general. If a woman here in the west was punished for indecent exposure after having been raped (provided she exposed herself first, either willingly or for a petty reason, and was raped a few minutes later), do you think that we would be oppressing women? :inquisitive:

Indecent exposure and asking for photograph back aren't really compatible.

So she went into a car to get back a photograph back, when it is clearly stated as illegal? I can understand breaking the law to get something really important back, but a photograph? Just use your common sense.

The photograph must have very important to her if she was willing to risk breaking the law to obtain it.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-29-2007, 01:38

The photograph must have very important to her if she was willing to risk breaking the law to obtain it.

A photograph or lashing. It's a matter of common sense. No offence to the woman in question, but how screwed up are your priorities if you know it's going to get you lashed? Besides, if they men are obviously trying to lure her into the car...common sense.

Indecent exposure and asking for photograph back aren't really compatible.

That is not what I was comparing. Read the post again.

Papewaio

11-29-2007, 01:48

The original link is down. Is there a link I can view that states this?

Google and you will find plenty. Most of the links have in the first couple of paragraphs that the lawyer has been penalised.

The woman was originally sentenced in October 2006 to 90 lashes. But that sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in prison by the Qatif General Court, because she spoke to the media about the case, a court source told Middle Eastern daily newspaper Arab News.

Al-Lahim told CNN his law license was revoked last week by a judge because he spoke to the Saudi-controlled media about the case.

Then we (the human populace) needs to agree on what ethical is. We never will. Ethics and morals are a point of view.

Relativism only leads to the relativists having an opinion that they cannot share.

Ethics is pretty easy. You just substitute yourself or a loved one into the role of the aggressor or victim. If you or a loved one were in that situation would you want them getting 200 lashes? Would you as the judge give 200 lashes to someone for speaking out to the media?

Ice

11-29-2007, 01:53

A photograph or lashing. It's a matter of common sense. No offence to the woman in question, but how screwed up are your priorities if you know it's going to get you lashed? Besides, if they men are obviously trying to lure her into the car...common sense.

::rolls eyes::

Yeah, it's that simple.

That is not what I was comparing. Read the post again.

I don't what exactly you are trying to imply. I was never arguing a point of whether the women in the Middle East were happy or not. I was saying you can't prove your point that they are due to crappy research and an unfair sample size.

No I don't think we would be oppressing women. In that case, she was asking for something bad to happen. That would be good instance of common sense.

Going to retrieve a photograph in someone's car, because they won't give it you otherwise, isn't asking to get raped.

Better? :yes:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-29-2007, 02:59

::rolls eyes::

Yeah, it's that simple.

Seems like it. She knows the punishment for going in the car to get it.

I don't what exactly you are trying to imply. I was never arguing a point of whether the women in the Middle East were happy or not. I was saying you can't prove your point that they are due to crappy research and an unfair sample size.
Fair enough.

No I don't think we would be oppressing women. In that case, she was asking for something bad to happen. That would be good instance of common sense.

Going to retrieve a photograph in someone's car, because they won't give it you otherwise, isn't asking to get raped.

Better? :yes:

No, it's not asking to get raped. You're right. It still is, however, against their law to enter the car, and you cannot expect her not to get punished for breaking the law, even though a much more serious crime was being committed against her.

Google and you will find plenty. Most of the links have in the first couple of paragraphs that the lawyer has been penalised.
I agree that the lawyer being punished for defending her is absurd.

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 05:45

I think slavery of the mind is worse then that of the body.
Hmm, I've been skimming through this thread, and this particular post more drew my attention, and it hasn't been addressed yet. How exactly would you define "slavery of the mind"? Is that even such a thing? Are you implying that its wrong for cultures to try to make their citizens think that they're happy? Are we not all "slaves" to the cultures in which we were raised? Its not as though there is a certain code of culture and morality which applies to every facet of life. Are you not a slave to the concepts of morality and culture in which you were raised, much as I am to mine?

Fragony

11-29-2007, 05:53

It can be possitive or negative, society promoting equality or the opposite.

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 05:53

My apologies. I'm afraid I lost myself for a bit there. Will edit.

Crazed Rabbit

11-29-2007, 06:03

Just because it's the law, EMFM, doesn't make it right. What is the difference between the government handing down these laws and a group of degenerate thugs torturing people?

Do the fancy clothes the spoiled oil-princes wear make their islamic "laws" any better?

Or are you simply content to say 'its the law' and leave it at that?

A photograph or lashing. It's a matter of common sense. No offence to the woman in question, but how screwed up are your priorities if you know it's going to get you lashed? Besides, if they men are obviously trying to lure her into the car...common sense.

You. Don't. Get. It.

This is a ****** up country and culture - Her own brother tried to kill her after he found out she was raped.

Heck, it's not just screwed up - it's a bastion of evil. This is a country where the jerk who blackmailed her into the car could destroy her life by showing that photo around and whispering bad things about her - which could lead to punishment by that clawed hand of Satan that is sharia law.

It's not just a photograph.

CR

Fragony

11-29-2007, 06:03

My apologies. I'm afraid I lost myself for a bit there. Will edit.

Forum fever, it never happened ~;)

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:03

It can be possitive or negative, society promoting equality or the opposite.
And I would say there's much more to the world than black and white, although I don't think there's too much disputing this current case. It would've been potentially debatable in my mind if she'd been given the original punishment and no more. But to more than double the sentence, and on top of it, putting sanctions on her lawyer as well, screams corruption, among other things.

Lemur

11-29-2007, 06:07

How exactly would you define "slavery of the mind"?
This (http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/News/1391/Middle_East__42__of_women_condone_domestic_violence) is a decent example.

Crazed Rabbit

11-29-2007, 06:08

Wait, what?! It's 'debatable' to punish a woman for sitting in a car with an unrelated man with 90 lashes?!

CR

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:09

Forum fever, it never happened ~;)
More like "just got done debating politics with mother 15 minutes ago" fever.~;)

Fragony

11-29-2007, 06:10

pure intimidation, but there is hope for this woman, international community cauht up and they are reviewing the sentence. Nothing like a good shaming.

(was directed at kami's post)

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:11

CR, I never stated it was a very strong argument, only that it could be made.

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:26

This is a ****** up country and culture - Her own brother tried to kill her after he found out she was raped.

Heck, it's not just screwed up - it's a bastion of evil. This is a country where the jerk who blackmailed her into the car could destroy her life by showing that photo around and whispering bad things about her - which could lead to punishment by that clawed hand of Satan that is sharia law.

It's not just a photograph.

CR
Oh me, oh my. Quite strong words there, CR. "The Clawed Hand of Satan"? "A bastion of evil"? Don't get me wrong, there are quite serious problems with this interpretation of Sharia law. HOWEVER, I would like to point out a few things. 1) I find it deeply ironic you would refer to it as the "clawed hand of Satan", when in fact, Mary, mother of Jesus, herself risked being stoned to death for being pregnant with a child that was not her husbands/betrotheds. And who's laws were these? Jews. And whom were the original "chosen people of God"? The Jews. And come to think of it, I'm pretty sure Christianity's had some pretty dark times as well. How about the Crusades, sanctioned by the Holy Father himself, who claims divine inspiration from God? How about the policy of executing women who behaved out of line under the guise of witchcraft in dark times? Or the inquisition against people who spoke out against the church? So please, leave the whole "bastion of evil" and "clawed hand of Satan" out of this argument.

Fragony

11-29-2007, 06:32

Was wrong then and it's wrong now, we are allowed to condemn it. Little sidenote, the guy in the car she stepped into was a former classmate, he got raped as well, it was a kidnap.

Papewaio

11-29-2007, 06:32

Hmm, I've been skimming through this thread, and this particular post more drew my attention, and it hasn't been addressed yet. How exactly would you define "slavery of the mind"? Is that even such a thing? Are you implying that its wrong for cultures to try to make their citizens think that they're happy? Are we not all "slaves" to the cultures in which we were raised? Its not as though there is a certain code of culture and morality which applies to every facet of life. Are you not a slave to the concepts of morality and culture in which you were raised, much as I am to mine?

Religion and/or Truth should set one free. It should not be used to create thralls. I do think there are some societies that allow you to choose your poison.

Papewaio

11-29-2007, 06:34

Oh me, oh my. Quite strong words there, CR. "The Clawed Hand of Satan"? "A bastion of evil"? Don't get me wrong, there are quite serious problems with this interpretation of Sharia law. HOWEVER, I would like to point out a few things. 1) I find it deeply ironic you would refer to it as the "clawed hand of Satan", when in fact, Mary, mother of Jesus, herself risked being stoned to death for being pregnant with a child that was not his. And who's laws were these? Jews. And whom were the original "chosen people of God"? The Jews. And come to think of it, I'm pretty sure Christianity's had some pretty dark times as well. How about the Crusades, sanctioned by the Holy Father himself, who claims divine inspiration from God? How about the policy of executing women who behaved out of line under the guise of witchcraft in dark times? Or the inquisition against people who spoke out against the church? So please, leave the whole "bastion of evil" and "clawed hand of Satan" out of this argument.

Actually bring it in. We question those societies ways and improved on them. Why can't we question Saudi Arabia's? Is it some sort of nearly extinct society under protection from change?

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:37

Clarification: I am all for changing many aspects of Sharia law, especially in the ultra strict interpretation of the Saudi Monarch. However, the refer to them as being Satanic and purely evil, especially when referring to the country as a whole, is, in my opinion, going waaaay to far.

Papewaio

11-29-2007, 06:41

Aren't those quotations of what they call the US?

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:41

Religion and/or Truth should set one free. It should not be used to create thralls. I do think there are some societies that allow you to choose your poison.
In a way, yes, but you're ignoring the role that families play on the growth of an individual, in some cases, more than their society as a whole. My point is, that regardless of whether or not you're socialized by your family, society, both, or whatever, most people will still echo what they were raised to believe. Much in the way that you believe that religion/truth should set one free, others may believe that religion/truth is about other factors instead. So, still, in a way, you are 'slave' to the ideas in which you were likely raised, via society or family.

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:44

Aren't those quotations of what they call the US?
So then would that make CR Satanic by accusing them of it likewise? And by the way, there are some very good reasons why such a degree of muslims hate the United States. Although I can't imagine that it would be because we've got a history of supporting kings, warlords, military men, etc... who have gotten all buddy-buddy with us. Such men generally don't exactly champion the people...And surely it couldn't be because we stationed non-Islamic troops in Mecca and Medina, two incredibly valued cities in the Islamic tradition.

Papewaio

11-29-2007, 06:48

At 7 I choose not to go to Sunday school anymore and instead read books by David Attenborough. I didn't get whipped to death for doing so.

Lack of choice does not a good society make.

=][=

So what do you have against those who would choose us not to suckle at the teat of a non-benign inherited dictatorship 'aka a monarchy' and ask that at the minimum that it acts in a benign manner?

Nor do I see why stationing foreign troops allows a nation to behave badly... that is too much of a stretch.

I think CR was slapping them back with their own hyperbole. Something quite common in the backroom.

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 06:56

At 7 I choose not to go to Sunday school anymore and instead read books by David Attenborough. I didn't get whipped to death for doing so.
Well, I would say with a fair degree of certainty that most 7 year olds are generally not given that choice at that point in their lives.

Lack of choice does not a good society make.
I never stated otherwise.

So what do you have against those who would choose us not to suckle at the teat of a non-benign inherited dictatorship 'aka a monarchy' and ask that at the minimum that it acts in a benign manner?
I have nothing against them. Rather, I think you are missing my point. My point is that, through socialization, most of us are, in fact, "mental slaves" to our cultures/families. It might seem ironic, but even those who are devoutly in favor of choices are in fact, a "mental slave" to their obedience towards freedom in the sense that they believe that its the right thing, in the same way that a Saudi woman might think that its the right thing for her husband to beat her for 'disobediance'.

I think CR was slapping them back with their own hyperbole. Something quite common in the backroom.
Even if he is, that doesn't make it any less ludicrous of a statement, and parroting it only puts him on the same level of those he's ridiculing.

Crazed Rabbit

11-29-2007, 07:14

What a sorry, but familiar, attempt to launch an attack on Christianity that's not merely hundreds of years old, but exaggerated as well, to defend islam.

Also - I never referred to 'them' as satanic - merely sharia law. Nor did I say they were purely evil. There are very few people on this earth, if any, who I would call 'pure' evil. I said a land that gives 200 lashes to a woman for sitting in a car with an unrelated man is a land that contains evil - because I believe such a punishment is evil.

And surely it couldn't be because we stationed non-Islamic troops in Mecca and Medina, two incredibly valued cities in the Islamic tradition.

I'd bet you the earth and half the moon that we have absolutely no troops stationed in either one of those cities. So no, it surely could not be for that reason.

I'm tempted to be an ass and flood smilies, but I won't.

And I don't see what muslims hating America has got to do with the general loathesomeness of this event.

CR

seireikhaan

11-29-2007, 07:35

*Large sigh

Ok, first off, this is what you stated earlier about being a "bastion of evil".

This is a ****** up country and culture - Her own brother tried to kill her after he found out she was raped.

Heck, it's not just screwed up - it's a bastion of evil.

Perhaps I'm misinterprating it, but this indicates to me that you believe Saudi Arabia is a bastion of evil, not the law.

I'd bet you the earth and half the moon that we have absolutely no troops stationed in either one of those cities. So no, it surely could not be for that reason.
I'll see you that and raise you the other half of the moon that we HAVE stationed troops their in the past(oh, say, 20 years), and that they don't have short memories.

I said a land that gives 200 lashes to a woman for sitting in a car with an unrelated man is a land that contains evil - because I believe such a punishment is evil.
And you can blame that on the MONARCHY, which is not elected by the PEOPLE, a MONARCHY which our own President supports. So if you want the Saudi government abolished, talk to GW first and foremost, because it sure isn't going to happen while we're giving the Saudi Monarch our economic support. Declaring a 'land' evil merely because they have oppressive rulers, is, in my opinion, wrong.

What a sorry, but familiar, attempt to launch an attack on Christianity that's not merely hundreds of years old, but exaggerated as well, to defend islam.
First of all, you do nothing to support your argument that it is "sorry". How so is it "sorry"? Also, exaggerated? I'm willing to go back to our previous wager that ALL of the events which I mentioned ALL happened. So I fail to see how it is exaggerated. Now, it would seem to me that you're indicating that the Saudi interpretation of Sharia law is automatically indicative of all muslims. Well, much like the Pope doesn't represent all Christians, the Saudi Monarach doesn't represent all muslims.

Don Corleone

11-29-2007, 13:06

In this whole thread, nobody strikes me as having a small fraction of the insight that Louis did. The only thing I find more revolting then lashing a woman 40 times after she's been raped (and there's no evidence she voluntarily went anywhere without a relative present) is the people falling all over themselves to play apologist and moral relativist and say it's fine.

HoreTore

11-29-2007, 13:14

the people falling all over themselves to play apologist and moral relativist and say it's fine.

Don't confuse explaining with apologizing.

Yes, it's wrong. That's so obvious, I see little point in saying it. So I move on to debating how/why this happens, and perhaps how it could change.

Geoffrey S

11-29-2007, 13:26

Edit: nevermind

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-29-2007, 15:46

Just because it's the law, EMFM, doesn't make it right.
This will be the second or third time I said I realize and agree with that.

You. Don't. Get. It.

This is a ****** up country and culture - Her own brother tried to kill her after he found out she was raped.

Heck, it's not just screwed up - it's a bastion of evil. This is a country where the jerk who blackmailed her into the car could destroy her life by showing that photo around and whispering bad things about her - which could lead to punishment by that clawed hand of Satan that is sharia law.

It's not just a photograph.

CR
You. Don't. See. Another. Opinon.

What was on the photograph? Does it say anywhere?

Crazed Rabbit

11-29-2007, 18:02

*Large sigh

Ok, first off, this is what you stated earlier about being a "bastion of evil".

Perhaps I'm misinterprating it, but this indicates to me that you believe Saudi Arabia is a bastion of evil, not the law.

The law is evil, the law is made by Saudi Arabia. It's not some edict handed down by aliens and forced on the jolly rulers of Arabia. Note also I said the country and culture is a 'bastion of evil' (slightly less incriminating of the whole population than 'the land is evil'). Are you arguing that it doesn't (excuses aside) contain lots of simply evil things (think extremist -state supported -schools and sharia law)?

I'll see you that and raise you the other half of the moon that we HAVE stationed troops their in the past(oh, say, 20 years), and that they don't have short memories.

Okay, let's see some proof that US troops were stationed in Mecca or Medina within the last 20 years then.

And you can blame that on the MONARCHY, which is not elected by the PEOPLE, a MONARCHY which our own President supports. So if you want the Saudi government abolished, talk to GW first and foremost, because it sure isn't going to happen while we're giving the Saudi Monarch our economic support. Declaring a 'land' evil merely because they have oppressive rulers, is, in my opinion, wrong.

I'm willing to bet most people in Saudi Arabia support this law.

CR

seireikhaan

11-30-2007, 00:55

:bow: First of all, it would seem that I do indeed owe CR one earth, and one moon, as I admittingly found that the United States did not in fact deploy troops directly in Mecca or Medina.
*Disclaimer: payment of earth and moon may be delayed several decades, as world domination is currently a slower process than I had anticipated

Now CR, I seriously doubt that you will EVER see me vouching my support for the Saudi Monarch. The Monarch(and his henchmen) are the ones making and interpreting laws, not the people. Saudi Arabia is not run by the people, for the people. It is run by a mostly deluded royal family serving their own best interests.

I'm willing to bet most people in Saudi Arabia support this law.
I don't suppose you might have evidence for this? And just in case you're wondering why they wouldn't be perhaps rebelling against such rule? Simple, really. Saudi Arabia, despite having an extremely small percentage of the world's population, as well as having large tracts of territory which is either not industrialized, or only beginning the process of it, has a rather strong military in comparison to the rest of the world.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gjoTHfsWg5oJ:www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_major_spenders.pdf+Saudi+Arabia+military+spending&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Note that Saudi Arabia's military spending constitutes a higher percentage of the world's military spending than India, which has a vastly larger population, South Korea, who not only has a larger percentage of world population, but is also currently at war, and isn't much lower than Russia, who has vastly better technology, many more people, and has much more territory to potentially defend. Especially note the spending per capita, of which Saudi is second, only behind the United States, ahead of even Great Britain. Now tell me, do you think many people would be rebelling against that kind of concentrated, overbearing military presence?

Crazed Rabbit

12-02-2007, 19:46

First of all, it would seem that I do indeed owe CR one earth, and one moon, as I admittingly found that the United States did not in fact deploy troops directly in Mecca or Medina.
*Disclaimer: payment of earth and moon may be delayed several decades, as world domination is currently a slower process than I had anticipated

Alright, I'll take later payment, but I want parts of Mars as interest. ~;p

I don't suppose you might have evidence for this?

This is the closest I could find about some quick googling:
http://files.blog-city.com/files/N04/80254/p/f/table.jpg

I suspect it'd be even higher in SA than Jordan, given that the Saudi rulers control education in their country and have supported Sharia for a long time.

CR

Tribesman

12-02-2007, 20:31

I suspect it'd be even higher in SA than Jordan, given that the Saudi rulers control education in their country and have supported Sharia for a long time.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What is Sharia law Rabbit ?
Tell you what , since it has been mentioned , what about Libya ?:yes:
There can of course only be Sharia law since the country is nominally under Sharia law...but OK the country is also nominaly a democracy (yeah work that one out )?????

Hmmmm ...Shari'a must be the only source of legislation:yes: ..well apart from ther being only two sources of legislation that are valid:oops: damn those customary tribal laws ........so OK there can only be two types of legislation, those derived from various interpretations of religeous writings(which of course are open to different interpretations and different applications) and those derived from the gathered accumuation of tribal wisdom ....OK forget about revolutionary edicts and laws because they are of course by ther nature human derived and faulty and don' exist ..well apart from that they do exist and are faulty...So Ok there can be three types of law all of which are infallible because they are not human apart from the religeous law that is not infalliblebecause it is the teachings of a human that are interpreted in different ways by different humans .

So apart from sewers what have the romans ever done for us ?

Crazed Rabbit

12-02-2007, 21:22

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?

CR

Louis VI the Fat

12-02-2007, 21:55

This is the closest I could find about some quick googling:
http://files.blog-city.com/files/N04/80254/p/f/table.jpg
Ah, the Lebanon. :2thumbsup:

Always an oasis of reason, enlightenment and, most shocking of all: a sense of humour in the Middle East. We must protect it at all costs from the wretched claws of Syria, Hezbollah and their Iranian overlords.

:balloon2: This is modern Arabian civilization! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BZkzAzN9Vo) :balloon2:
You can find it in the Lebanon, in the United Arab Emirates, in Marseille, Lille and Paris. Sod the backward conservatives and the lash for all their ridiculous apologists in the west. :whip:

rvg

12-02-2007, 22:07

Ah, the Lebanon. :2thumbsup:

Always an oasis of reason, enlightenment and, most shocking of all: a sense of humour in the Middle East. We must protect it at all costs from the wretched claws of Syria, Hezbollah and their Iranian overlords.

Amen to that. It is the last bastion of sanity in that entire region, less now than it used to be, but nonetheless better than any of its surroundings. Hopefully, they don't let the Palestinians ignite yet another civil war.

Tribesman

12-02-2007, 22:47

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?

Errrrr...Rabbit the majority of the population in Saudi Arabia has no say in anything at all from the price of milk to the application of the interpretation of the law .

rvg

12-02-2007, 23:03

Errrrr...Rabbit the majority of the population in Saudi Arabia has no say in anything at all from the price of milk to the application of the interpretation of the law .

You are evading the question... whether or not the people have a say in the matter is of no importance: they can still have an opinion about it even if the government will disregard that opinion.

PanzerJaeger

12-02-2007, 23:23

Errrrr...Rabbit the majority of the population in Saudi Arabia has no say in anything at all from the price of milk to the application of the interpretation of the law .

:slomo:

Dodge ball pro apparently..

Tribesman

12-02-2007, 23:23

You are evading the question...
Not in the slightest since it is a nonsensical question .
If 100% of the Soviet population voted for Stalin would that have meant that 100% of the population supported and approved of Stalin or would the fact that publicly voicing any objection to Stalin gives you a one way ticket negate the reliability of any question about actual real approval or disapproval ?
So....
whether or not the people have a say in the matter is of no importance: they can still have an opinion about it even if the government will disregard that opinion....that is bollox since due to the nature of the regime there is no way to measure that opinion

AntiochusIII

12-02-2007, 23:32

You are evading the question... whether or not the people have a say in the matter is of no importance: they can still have an opinion about it even if the government will disregard that opinion.Yes, well, how exactly do we know what the average Ali in Saudi Arabia is thinking again?

Don't tell me polls, not even anonymous polls. Otherwise I'll be forced to pull a Tribesman and start laughing my butt off.

You see, there's a thing called dictatorship; and there's that phenomenon of telling lies to save oneself. You can, of course, do all the math you need from those two variables. If you need extra variables to strengthen the point, however, there are: "state-sponsored thugs," "state-inspired religious hatred," "fanatics around the corner," "terrorists," "oil money," "US as external enemy," "self-serving oligarchy," "poverty, oppression, and radicalism," and a bunch of other interesting variables to add in.

PanzerJaeger

12-02-2007, 23:40

So.......that is bollox since due to the nature of the regime there is no way to measure that opinion

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

Husar

12-03-2007, 00:57

Ah, the Lebanon. :2thumbsup:

Always an oasis of reason, enlightenment and, most shocking of all: a sense of humour in the Middle East. We must protect it at all costs from the wretched claws of Syria, Hezbollah and their Iranian overlords.

:balloon2: This is modern Arabian civilization! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BZkzAzN9Vo) :balloon2:
You can find it in the Lebanon, in the United Arab Emirates, in Marseille, Lille and Paris. Sod the backward conservatives and the lash for all their ridiculous apologists in the west. :whip:
:2thumbsup:

I still listen to this almost every day: http://www.beirutnights.com/
[/shameless advertising]

Tribesman

12-03-2007, 08:37

So when you say that most muslims do not support a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, you actually have no idea?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: That is such a lame attempt I doesn't need any thought , lets just repeat it and laugh again at the ludicrous statement .
So when you say that most muslims do not support a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, you actually have no idea?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Fragony

12-03-2007, 08:44

http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,,1362591,00.html

Crazed Rabbit

12-03-2007, 08:52

I knew tribesy couldn't give a straight answer. He can't cause it'd be no and that mean his rant earlier would be completely exposed for the farce it is.

I think we also know who stole all that beer in Ireland. ~;p

CR

PanzerJaeger

12-03-2007, 15:48

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: That is such a lame attempt I doesn't need any thought , lets just repeat it and laugh again at the ludicrous statement .
So when you say that most muslims do not support a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, you actually have no idea?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Typical tribesy! When backed into a wall, :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

...honestly, how do you not have carpal tunnel?

So, you believe there is no way to gauge public opinion in Saudi Arabia. How then, can you come to any conclusions about their views on the structure of their legal system?

ICantSpellDawg

12-03-2007, 16:00

pwned

Tribesman

12-03-2007, 19:42

I knew tribesy couldn't give a straight answer. He can't cause it'd be no and that mean his rant earlier would be completely exposed for the farce it is.

Pathetic, so then Rabbit how on earth could the answer be no ?
What is being exposed throughout this and the other topic is that the "its the Muslims!!!!!!" ranters are coming up with pure farcical crap again and again .

I repeated this nonsense twice already but here try again....So when you say that most muslims do not support a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, you actually have no idea?
now could you look at that and work out why it is absolute nonsense .

Interesting article there Frag .
Now what version of Sharia does it say these people want introduced to certain aspects of British law ?
Oh sorry it doesn't say does it and there are so many interpretations it would be quite a complex question to ask . But hey it does tell you one thing , it certainly isn't the fundamentalist flavour is it .

Typical tribesy! When backed into a wall
Typical Panzer cannot even read what he wrote himself:dizzy2:

pwned
Oh come on , give them a chance Tuff Stuff I am sure Rabbit and Panzer can dig themselves into a deeper hole before they are thouroughly pwned .

Seamus Fermanagh

12-03-2007, 19:53

Wow, I actually agreed with Navaros' point from 100 posts (or so) back. The crime for which she was lashed was a separate crime from that which was perpetrated against her and (apparently) her acquaintance. S.A. authorities were within the letter of their legal code in applying this penalty.

I also agree with Don C, and others, who find this kind of thing in the S.A. legal code to be inherently loathsome and unjust. It is, however, their right to apply the law in this fashion based on the code they have set for themselves.

I also agree with the comments that this stricture reflects Desert Arab culture (pre-islamic) as much or more than it does Sharia of itself. The two views on the law cohere a lot, but not completely by any means.

...but what do I know, I'm just another humble minion of "The Great Satan."

Side Note: "pwning" Tribesman is more or less impossible on an internet forum. To truly do so, you would need to hit him with a well-sourced, nuance-reflecting discussion and argument that touched on the breadth and depth of topic in its entirety. As this would require a rather lengthy doctoral dissertation-quality post, it's rather impractical. Since we're all too busy for that, there will always be holes in our arguments and Tribes will always be able to chisel away at them, smilies at hand. :yes: I just wish he'd post his views/recipes/ideas more so as to enlighten and snipe a bit less. In the scale of things, however, it is a small matter.

Tribesman

12-03-2007, 20:11

Come on Seamus , it would be easy , the problem is they are trying generalisations about specifics and specifics about generalisations (often without a clue what they are talking about and using facts that don't say what they claim they say), just look back and see how Muslim , Saudi , Islam , Sharia , fundamentalism , Taliban , Osama , Muslim world , Islamic countries are used interchangeably where they don't even apply .

Crazed Rabbit

12-03-2007, 20:30

Pathetic, so then Rabbit how on earth could the answer be no ?

So your answer is 'yes' to this question:
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?

What do you have to support that?

CR

Fragony

12-03-2007, 21:52

Interesting article there Frag .
Now what version of Sharia does it say these people want introduced to certain aspects of British law ?
Oh sorry it doesn't say does it and there are so many interpretations it would be quite a complex question to ask . But hey it does tell you one thing , it certainly isn't the fundamentalist flavour is it .

Think of it, do you want a system within a system, since when is segregration a good thing? They seem to want it, they want their own rules, they want their society within a society, just strictly practically speaking, isn't that going to be a tiny bit hard to manage? Gonna need a lot of lawyers, there's for starters, a know breed, the ones who know about these things. And judges, and their advisors because any error is kinda definite but maybe that is just me, but isn't it a bit unworkable? What on earth are these muslims thinking? Is there nothing they respect?