Do they have a law there prohibiting women from being in a car with unrelated males?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Printable View
Do they have a law there prohibiting women from being in a car with unrelated males?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShariaQuote:
Originally Posted by Andres
wiki is always a good start
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And no, what tribal leaders in hillbilly hick country does with their village doesn't count.
It's the principle of segregration of the sexes, how it is upheld differs from country to country.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
edit, forgot link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation_in_Islam
what has storming the mosk to do with it?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That sure supported your statement, eh? :laugh4:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The selective reading award is yours :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
Is that a new definition of selective reading then Frag ? :inquisitive:Quote:
The selective reading award is yours
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:
What claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by by me
As far as I can see, this is a Saudi law.Quote:
Originally Posted by your claim
The Horetore monologues....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Look at the reality of women in the muslim world and ask again.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The reality is that this law does not exist outside Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Errrrrrr...Quote:
What claim?
~:doh:Quote:
Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Libia to name a few.
But hey you keep on piling in the bull excrement don't you ....
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
This particular punishment, in some of the islamic parts of Nigeria you just get stoned.
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:
Fragony and I disagree often, but I assume he refers to news stories like this one from BBC.
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.
Thank you Kukri!
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.
Devastatingly true. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Fragony and George Bush have done more for human rights and dignity for Arabs than the entire European left combined.
I just consider that a non-discussion, I have nothing to prove.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
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.Quote:
Fragony and I disagree often, but I assume he refers to news stories like this one from BBC.
...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....and replace "Fragony" with "Kukrikhan" .Quote:
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 ?
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 .
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 .Quote:
I just consider that a non-discussion, I have nothing to prove.
What claim.
Oh for heaven's sake. Your claim was that Nigeria, Iran, Libya and Pakistan had this law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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:Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/188500...putee300ap.jpg
I wonder why he simply didn't choose another punishment.. :inquisitive:
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 .Quote:
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.
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 .
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?
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 .Quote:
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?
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 .
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.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
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!
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 .
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 .Quote:
Most of the time they just got locked up by their beards or divorced.
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 .
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 .Quote:
divorced. Now I couldn't care less, their desert their rules their problem
Now isn't that the woman who had to lie about how badly she had been treated in order to enter the country ?Quote:
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.
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.
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:
Well bugger me sideways and call me sandra Frag you really excelled there:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Oh common you know very well that sharia courts are religious authorities that act independently
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 .
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 .Quote:
So, you claim that prosecution because of being in the pressence of an unrelated male doesn't happen there?
A simple challenge isn't it , you claim these laws exist in these countries , so show those laws in these countries .
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:Quote:
You really have no clue about the position of women there in desertstan do you.
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 .
Sorry you lost me there IA , where has anyone in this topic apologised for misogyny ?Quote:
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.
..........
No. Not on here but CiF in the Gruniad makes for a good laugh.Quote:
Sorry you lost me there IA , where has anyone in this topic apologised for misogyny ?
It's because they're cowards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Wow Fragony made a post in a topic about Islam that doesn't contain nonsense , thats progress .:2thumbsup:Quote:
..........
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
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.
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 ?
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 .Quote:
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.
Fundi's :dizzy2:
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 ?Quote:
Odd that I am on better terms with the muslim orgers then with you, but ah well.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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!
Oh please not in Nigeria, they have a savanne there
:laugh4: It's a teddy bear and a name... :laugh4: :dizzy2:
or imprisonment or a fine if she is found guilty .Quote:
40 lashes for a teddy bear!
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 .
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 .Quote:
Oh please not in Nigeria, they have a savanne there
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?Quote:
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.
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.
Am I indeed ?Quote:
Tribesy, are you actually defending the ******* who rule Sudan?
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 .Quote:
Remember that these ******** have killed and raped hundreds of thousands of people just because they were black.
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 .Quote:
How about they give the kids the option of imprisonement or 40 lashes
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: that actually makes a little sense. I can live with that compromise:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
About sums up the teddy bear incident... ~DQuote:
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]
An update, the victim's story:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...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****.
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.
Talk about a loaded system:
Right so it is illegal to represent someone if it embarrasses the institution...Quote:
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.
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.
Oh come on if you want to update the victims story then update it .Quote:
An update, the victim's story:
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 .
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
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.
Why cannot one make judgement calls about a way of life?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'm allowed to criticize whoever I see fit, and I chose to criticizes these monsters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Like it has been stated, the rich are not a good representation of the general population. By the sound of it, these people were of the extremely wealthy class.
Also, is it women's business, who reside in the country, to decide how they are treated? What if they disagree with how the country is run, but lack the power to do anything about it? What if they disagree with the monarchy?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
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/126000...7_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.
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 .Quote:
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....
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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 .Quote:
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'.
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 .Quote:
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.