Saudi Rape Victim Sentenced to 90 Lashes

Scholarly rory, you sure like to prop yourself up, put the other man down, and all without making much in way of actual argument. I stated my lack of knowledge specifically concerning Islamic text history. It was indeed, better to be forthcoming about it, rather than doing what you did and talking about it and easily being refuted. Avoid strawmen rory, they seem to be your bane.

Your little comment of "entire kingdom" blah blah, just shows how easily strawmen pop up in your mind when it comes to Islam/Muslims. Saudi Arabia is known to have one of the most fundamentalistic and extreme laws on tablet, which a helluva lot of Muslims disagree with. As Tribesman pointed out, this "entire kingdom" had newspaper articles calling th lashings "unislamic". Why not point this out rory, afraid it contradicts your thesis. Keep looking to Bin Laden and related examples to push your view on Islam rory, don't be surprised when others call you out though...

You prop up your talks with Christians you know and their positive expression of their faith, and yet you look to Saudi law and Osama bin Laden for your impressions of Islam? No wonder it's so hopeless with you... That's not fair, rory. :no:

The link (amazing choice of objectivity again scholarly rory :rolleyes:) you show gives citations from Muslim clerics, and Adrian II points out the hadiths. All well and good, now where does it show up in the Quran? Again, the Old Testament has verses calling for the death of apostates, where are they in the Quran? Clerical opinions are another matter altogether rory, you need to keep that clear. Again, I pointed out St. Aquinas's view on apostates and heretics (death). It's not just Islam rory, open your blinders... :rolleyes:

I pointed out that many Muslims do hold the Quran as the word of God in my first post rory, you atcually have to make an effort to look before jumping to make false claims (first strawmen, now this :rolleyes:):

Quote:

---

You must simply be waiting for your interlocutors to bring up the objection: "A significant group of Christians hold a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Why are you stating that the Quran was written directly from God (a position of many Muslims, true), but not doing the same for Christianity and the Bible?}

---

Also, what the hell is a "poverty of clarity"? Figurative language should make sense rory... :rolleyes:

Horetore pretty much killed the rest of your argument on "word of God" blah blah blah, saving me the trouble.

I think Vuk's point was that it is assumed she is lying because in the city if she cried out she would be heard and a pious Jew would kick in the door go Rambo on the rapist.

So in that case it's not dealing with rape, but, and it's a big one, there should also be a provision for proving the woman was able to cry out.

On the flip side if a woman falsely accuses you of rape in the country with no witnesses then you're dead, litterally.

If you say that the quran and hadith together constitute the quran, then surely you must agree that both the new and old testament constitute the bible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you say that the quran and hadith together constitute the quran, then surely you must agree that both the new and old testament constitute the bible?

---

Eh? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you say that the quran and hadith together constitute the quran, then surely you must agree that both the new and old testament constitute the bible?

---

I second: Eh? :dizzy2:

Okay, the Koran is the Holy book, the Hadith is tradition about the Prophet, if and when the two conflict the Koran will always come out of top. This is rather different to the Bible.

I think the relationship between Quran and Hadith is best likened to Torah and Talmud.

Britannica article:

Quote:

---

he term Hadith derives from the Arabic root hdth, meaning “to happen,” and so, “to tell a happening,” “to report,” “to have, or give, as news,” or “to speak of.” It means tradition seen as narrative and record. From it comes sunnah (literally, a “well-trodden path,” i.e., taken as precedent and authority or directive), to which the faithful conform in submission to the sanction that Hadith possesses and that legalists, on that ground, can enjoin. Tradition in Islam is thus both content and constraint, Hadith as the biographical ground of law and sunnah as the system of obligation derived from it. In and through Hadith, Muhammad may be said to have shaped and determined from the grave the behaviour patterns of the household of Islam by the posthumous leadership his personality exercised. There were, broadly, two factors operating to this end. One was the unique status of Muhammad in the genesis of Islam; the other was the rapid geographical expansion of the new faith in the first two centuries of its history into various areas of cultural confrontation. Hadith cannot be rightly assessed unless the measure of these two elements and their interaction is properly taken.

The experience of Muslims in the conquered territories of west and middle Asia and of North Africa was related to their earlier tradition. Islamic tradition was firmly grounded in the sense of Muhammad's personal destiny as the Prophet—the instrument of the Qur'an and the apostle of God. The clue to tradition as an institution in Islam may be seen in the recital of the Shahadah or “witness” (“There is no god but God; Muhammad is the prophet of God”), with its twin items as inseparable convictions—God and the messenger. Islamic tradition follows from the primary phenomenon of the Qur'an, received personally by Muhammad and thus inextricably bound up with his person and the agency of his vocation. Acknowledgment of the Qur'an as scripture by the Islamic community was inseparable from acknowledgment of Muhammad as its appointed recipient. In that calling, he had neither fellow nor partner, for God, according to the Qur'an, spoke only to Muhammad. When Muhammad died, therefore, in AD 632, the gap thus created in the emotions and the mental universe of Muslims was shatteringly wide. It was also permanent. Death had also terminated the revelation embodied in the Qur'an. By the same stroke scriptural mediation had ended, as well as prophetic presence.

The Prophet's death was said to have coincided with the perfection of revelation. But the perfective closure of both the book and the Prophet's life, though in that sense triumphant, was also onerous, particularly in view of the new changing circumstances, both of space and time, in the geographical expansion of Islam. In all the new pressures of historical circumstance, where was direction to be sought? Where, if not from the same source as the scriptural mouthpiece, who by virtue of that consummated status had become the revelatory instrument of the divine word and could therefore be taken as an everlasting index to the divine counsel? The instinct for and the growth of tradition are thus integral elements in the very nature of Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur'an. Ongoing history and the extending dispersion of Muslim believers provided the occasion and spur for the compilation of Hadith.

The appeal of the ordered recollection of Muhammad to the Islamic mind did not become immediately formalized and sophisticated. On the contrary, there is evidence that the full development of Hadith was slow and uneven. Time and distance had to play their role before memory became stylized and official.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I second: Eh? :dizzy2:

Okay, the Koran is the Holy book, the Hadith is tradition about the Prophet, if and when the two conflict the Koran will always come out of top. This is rather different to the Bible.

---

I believe it is not that simple. The Hadith attempt to clear the ambiguity in the Quran, because it is a very ambiguous book. On this particular issue, the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates, but he does this in such a suggestive manner that it is unclear whether earthly justice should precede His punishment. Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should. We are, alas, stuck with this dominant interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I second: Eh? :dizzy2:

Okay, the Koran is the Holy book, the Hadith is tradition about the Prophet, if and when the two conflict the Koran will always come out of top. This is rather different to the Bible.

---

I was referring to people linking the hadith and quran, while seperating the new and old testament.... I think it's pretty similar, the quran trumps the hadith, the new testament trumps the old... While not the same, of course. But muslims use the hadith, and yes, christians makes extensive use of the old testament.

Saying that the old testament should be ignored, would be like saying that the hadith should be ignored...

BTW, if my language is somewhat funny, then it is because I'm norwegian, and thus think in norwegian before translating to english :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Just out of curiosity , do you also hold the view that the verses dealing with rape instead deal with bearing false witness and making malicious accusations despite the fact that those are dealt with in different verses ?

---

Heya Tribes, I was catching up on this thread and I read this. All I can say is.....wut?

I'm not a scholar, so please don't flame me too badly here. My personal perspective on this topic comes from having read the Old Testament straight through for the first time while being immersed in a Muslim culture. I was struck by the similarities between the two. Both the laws of the Old Testament and the Laws of Islam dictated how a society should be run. Many of the rules were no more than a health code for people without access to modern medicine and food preservation. Of course, other rules outlined a social justice system and various provisions for dealing with people who violated its tenants. Again, I've never read any Islamic texts, and my assertions about Islam are based on my observations in a predominantly Islamic country as well as numerous conversations with its citizens.

Conversely, the "laws" of Christianity apply only to personal conduct. There are a couple of passages that give instruction for resolving problems within a church, but nothing that says you should be worried about anyone else's business. According to the New Testament, Christians are supposed to tell everyone about the Gospel, and if the people don't want to hear it, a Christian should just leave and "shake that town's dust off his feet" as he leaves.

When a religion that's been around for a couple thousand years provides for civil law and its teachings are unchanging, it can't be compatible with modern, Western civilization which allows for individual liberties. The early Christians hitched their wagon to a man who they believed had the authority to throw out the book on those old laws, and predominantly Christian societies have progressed to the point where some of those laws seem barbaric, including the ones which would seem to punish a woman for being raped. Noone has come along to "throw out the book" on antiquated Islamic laws, so they are equally barbaric to Westerners.

I'm not sure how modern Jews reconcile their current beliefs and practices with the laws of the Old Testament, but it's clear that they have found some way to relax a lot of those rules.

My prediction: Unless the Muslim extremists actually manage to take over the world, Islam will be forced to modify its dogma, similar to the Jews, or it will fade from existence.

Questions: Is there a difference between Moslem and Muslim? Why have people recently started using the spelling Quran instead of Koran? It's my understanding that there isn't really any correct way of spelling Arabic words with English letters. You just do what sounds right phonetically, right?

Oh I see. Although the punishment goes ahead, a newspaper article makes it OK. I thought a strawman has more to do when things don't occur.

AdrianII is a good source of information. "the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates... Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should". You were saying?

Again you appear to miss the part that I am all for moderate Islam. I believe that was right at the top of the article. Did this not fit with your "arguments"?

There are moderate Islamic states and I hope they spread. Morocco even has female Clerics to help fight the extremism. Tell you what: list all the states that practice extreme, oppressive regimes in the name of Islam and those that do it in the name of Christianity. That's nice and fair.

No, wait. Best point out a few more papers that say these things are bad. That's almost as good.

I prop up Christians? :laugh4: Missed the part where I stated they bomb abortion clinics? In fact I stated that their belief isn't Christianity as they don't know what they profess to believe!! Yet you accuse me of strawmen... Oh dear oh dear.

The above goes equally for your conclusion that I'm only against Islam. The way you go on anyone would think I'm a Bible basher. (I did point out I'm not a Christian, right?) Ironic that one point you made was me assuming you're Muslim.

HoreTore states that the Bible is the word of God. This in itself is a complete answer and requires no evidence and saves you the trouble of any effort to refuse points. Almost your own little religion, eh?

I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Errrrr...the Fox story is taken from a Saudi newspaper

---

With the name of.. ?

Quote:

---

With the name of.. ?

---

Well thats a complicated question X-danger .
Just wait while I go through all the bother of taxing my mind wondering if you read the link in post#1....... errrr........yep maybe you didn't..... ah that was no bother at all , simple thing this thought process isn't it .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

As Tribesman pointed out, this "entire kingdom" had newspaper articles calling th lashings "unislamic".

---

I didn't , I said that the story and interview with the woman is from a Saudi newspaper (Saudi Gazette , available in english on a computer near you) , and another Saudi newspaper (Arab News , available in English on a computer near you) had an article on how the way women were treated in religeous courts in Saudi Arabia was unislamic .
A nice line from the second goes something like " you will find a lot of Islamic practices in the west though there isn't a lot of Moslems , in the middle East you will find a lot of Moslems but not a lot of Islam "

You didn't get my point..

.. Saudi Gazette.

That's exactly the thing.. Do you know a newspaper in the UK/USA that writes things like "UFO kidnapped 3 people"? Guess what "relates" Saudi Gazette to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

You didn't get my point..

.. Saudi Gazette.

That's exactly the thing.. Do you know a newspaper in the UK/USA that writes things like "UFO kidnapped 3 people"? Guess what "relates" Saudi Gazette to them.

---

I'm not surprised Tribesman hasn't got your point - I don't know what it is either. With both of you being obtuse, I'm thoroughly confused. I suspect that you are calling into question the legitimacy of the Saudi Gazette as a unbiased source?

Care to explain in simple terms? :huh:

Kind of. It's funny when you're living in some place, and when you read the newspaper it's like you are living somewhere else! :P

Quote:

---

That's exactly the thing.. Do you know a newspaper in the UK/USA that writes things like "UFO kidnapped 3 people"? Guess what "relates" Saudi Gazette to them.

---

Ah I see

Quote:

---

Kind of. It's funny when you're living in some place, and when you read the newspaper it's like you are living somewhere else!

---

Yep , so two Pakistanis wern't beheaded for smuggling cocaine , a pervert didn't get 700 lashes for buggering a little boy , migrant workers aren't getting screwed over with health care coverage , that all happened somewhere else on a UFO . Thats clearer now , thanks .
Then again X-danger I thought you were a stateless palestinian living in Jordan ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

HoreTore states that the Bible is the word of God. This in itself is a complete answer and requires no evidence and saves you the trouble of any effort to refuse points. Almost your own little religion, eh?

I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

~:smoking:

---

Well, read the bible, and you'll see. It is stated numerous times. Ministers in Norway usually say "God states ..." or "in the word of god it is written" when they refer to the bible. And Norway isn't exactly a hotbed for extremism. It's very simple, the bible IS in fact the word of god to a christian. A lot of people think that it should be interpreted instead of read literally, and that the things described are metaphors, but it is STILL considered god's word.

So such things such as the letters that are clearly written by... the person who wrote the letter.

The Gospels are also written by people. Indeed not always by one person, as is clearly stated at the start of one of them.

God's word, but far from his word verbatim.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh I see. Although the punishment goes ahead, a newspaper article makes it OK. I thought a strawman has more to do when things don't occur.

AdrianII is a good source of information. "the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates... Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should". You were saying?

Again you appear to miss the part that I am all for moderate Islam. I believe that was right at the top of the article. Did this not fit with your "arguments"?

There are moderate Islamic states and I hope they spread. Morocco even has female Clerics to help fight the extremism. Tell you what: list all the states that practice extreme, oppressive regimes in the name of Islam and those that do it in the name of Christianity. That's nice and fair.

No, wait. Best point out a few more papers that say these things are bad. That's almost as good.

I prop up Christians? :laugh4: Missed the part where I stated they bomb abortion clinics? In fact I stated that their belief isn't Christianity as they don't know what they profess to believe!! Yet you accuse me of strawmen... Oh dear oh dear.

The above goes equally for your conclusion that I'm only against Islam. The way you go on anyone would think I'm a Bible basher. (I did point out I'm not a Christian, right?) Ironic that one point you made was me assuming you're Muslim.

HoreTore states that the Bible is the word of God. This in itself is a complete answer and requires no evidence and saves you the trouble of any effort to refuse points. Almost your own little religion, eh?

I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

~:smoking:

---

rory_20_uk, you're being argumentative, and yet you have no argument. (A paradox at initial glance, but it happens more often than not).

Just look at your and my arguments closely. Like the last time, I affirmed these things:
1) The Quran has violent passages in it
2) Clerics and "tradition" call for death of apostasy and other things

I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.
1) The Bible has violent passages in it
2) Clerics and tradition call for death of apostasy (as well as the Old Testament itself)

You simply have not done your reading. It really helps to read the other posters point clearly to end strawmen...

I attacked your terribly poor and inaccurate attempt at pseudo-scriptural comparison. Horetore continues to savage the only point you hold on to (you also make another strawman on him, as he quite convincingly offers proof for his claim and is not a mere statement).

As your conception of "literalist" itself is flawed, maybe you also need to get this through your head: literalism =!= divine authorship. Reflect on this for a bit, and it's implications...

A Quranic or Biblical literalist is not the same as one who believes in Quranic or Biblical inerrancy.

There are very few among both religions that fall in the former category, which is a matter of interpretation.

I have to say, simplifying your replies helps remove the glaring errors I highlighted. Possibly also the need to reply to them. I could also point out the dichotomy of the substantial nature of your post and the lack of substance. Another dichotomy.

Yes, the Bible is violent. You appear to have failed to read every point that requests some empirical comparison of current violence in Christianity and Islam. You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years. Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent. I have to say I am confused at your continuing need to to defend current Islamic practice (concerning violence "I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.") in many countries.

Mentioning that in Norway some preachers say it's the word of god is savaging?? A career in journalism calls I feel.

As far as you are concerned a "strawman" is "a point that is made by someone you disagree with and better than to argue with, dismiss".

Although you appear to have managed to encapsulate divine authorship in one sentence and feel very smug about it I think that it is deserving of a bit more thought. Who is to say that God has not helped write many of the texts that are not in the Bible? After all Man has freedom of action. Don't let me stop you patting your ego on the back.

Oh, I see. Putting the other man down is OK when you do it...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Yep , so two Pakistanis wern't beheaded for smuggling cocaine , a pervert didn't get 700 lashes for buggering a little boy , migrant workers aren't getting screwed over with health care coverage , that all happened somewhere else on a UFO . Thats clearer now , thanks .
Then again X-danger I thought you were a stateless palestinian living in Jordan ?

---

I spent like 3 months in Saudi Arabia.. (You can check that through my IP.. sometime ago ~;) , that is, if you don't trust my word of course :P )

I'm saying that all those news aren't backed by the least bit of proof, or sence for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I have to say, simplifying your replies helps remove the glaring errors I highlighted. Possibly also the need to reply to them. I could also point out the dichotomy of the substantial nature of your post and the lack of substance. Another dichotomy.

Yes, the Bible is violent. You appear to have failed to read every point that requests some empirical comparison of current violence in Christianity and Islam. You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years. Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent. I have to say I am confused at your continuing need to to defend current Islamic practice (concerning violence "I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.") in many countries.

Mentioning that in Norway some preachers say it's the word of god is savaging?? A career in journalism calls I feel.

As far as you are concerned a "strawman" is "a point that is made by someone you disagree with and better than to argue with, dismiss".

Although you appear to have managed to encapsulate divine authorship in one sentence and feel very smug about it I think that it is deserving of a bit more thought. Who is to say that God has not helped write many of the texts that are not in the Bible? After all Man has freedom of action. Don't let me stop you patting your ego on the back.

Oh, I see. Putting the other man down is OK when you do it...

~:smoking:

---

Yes, rory_20_uk, I am terse with people who are terse. I certainly belittled your amateurish attempt at scriptural comparison and exegesis along with actually refuting it.

Of course, seeing as you probably saw your error, you failed to mention anything this post on inerrancy vs. literalism which has been the main point (that you confused quite badly).

I'm very doubtful on the claim that man has freedom of action/will rory_20_uk, your a libertarian (philosophically)?

Lastly, you prop a strawmen once again. I in fact do not think either Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc are violent. I pointed out that there were violent passages in their texts. Read carefully. I pointed out clerics and tradition because you pointed them out earlier. I reply based on your own criterion, as I said in my first post. As for current violence, I have already pointed out in one of my earlier posts, that Islamic/Muslim terrorism is number one right now, but that their are a whole host of instances of other terrorism as well (LRA, etc.).

Here are my 5 replies to you:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=140
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=143
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=145
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=151
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=170

They clearly show that your charges are mistaken or strawmen. Honestly, would it kill you to actually read carefully what the other person says instead of click on the reply button. Any representations of how you view my point are shown to be skewed.

Another strawman you prop is that I "defend current Islamic practice". Tell me rory, where in my 10 posts in this thread have I done that? I have posted a bit on the historical situation, and later attacked you on your poor scriptural exegesis. There is no "defense" of any of this. Please rory, you are propping up strawmen again. Why, then do you ask?

If you cannot see your misinterpretations and misreads of my points, then I don't know what to say. They are strawmen. You put words in my mouth, twist things, etc. Two examples are given above...

Please rory, come back when you answer the question about why you confused literalism and inerrancy... :rolleyes:

*smacks cigarette out of mouth*

rory_20_uk, to make it easier for me and you, I have compiled a brief list of your strawmen, misreads, misinterpretations in our discourse on this thread:

My First Post:

Relevant statements present in your reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh, so is the Koran not believed by all Muslims to be written as the direct word of God? I was under the mistaken apprehension that all / most believed that this was the case. If so I heartily applaud these moderates and long may they prosper.

---

rory_20_uk seems to be implying that I am saying that most Muslims do not believe that the Quran is the direct word of God. This is mistaken, as I made a clear reference in the above post that they did.

However, rory_20_uk is also making the mistake of confusing scriptural literalism and inerrancy. That will be pointed out in better detail later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Ah, if one's reputation exceeds faith boundaries this implies that God has ordained the pronouncements??

---

rory_20_uk either deliberately or mistakenly misinterprets my referencing St. Aquinas and Averroes. I referenced them to make the point that major clerics in the past from both religions held the position that apostasy was a capital offense. rory_20_uk is going off on a different (and incorrect) tangent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I would have thought that equal loathing is a place for objective reasoning to rise. Where as yourself as a Muslim can of course be relied on for your utterly unbiased critique of religion...

---

rory_20_uk incorrectly thinks I am a Muslim. As with Red Peasant earlier, who thought I was a Christian for pointing out that "Jesus camp" was not reflective of many Christians/Christianity, it remains a peculiar statement.

My Second Post:

Relevant statements in your reply:

My Third Post:

Relevant statements in your reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Since you state yourself your lack of knowledge of the subject I should commend that this doesn't seem to stop you.

---

rory_20_uk takes my statement specifically admitting ignorance of Islamic textual history and thinks it applies broadly to the entire topic. A strawman.

My Fourth Post:

Relevant statements in your reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Oh I see. Although the punishment goes ahead, a newspaper article makes it OK. I thought a strawman has more to do when things don't occur.

---

I pointed out that rory_20_uk's comment of equating this incident as an "entire kingdom" practicing Islam was incorrect by differing arguments inside the very kingdom. rory_20_uk does not hesitate to make a strawman saying that I said it "makes it OK".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

AdrianII is a good source of information. "the Prophet repeatedly says in the Quran that Allah would punish the apostates... Islamic tradition has always been adamant that it should". You were saying?

---

What I was saying is that I affirmed that Islamic tradition and clerics had viewed apostasy as a capital punishment, as well as saying that the same was true in Christian tradition and clerics and orders in the Old Testament. rory_20_uk seems to have missed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

No, wait. Best point out a few more papers that say these things are bad. That's almost as good.

---

See above on the first newspaper comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I hope you are aware that a minority of Christians are literalists. Most aren't. Hence they don't believe everything that is written.

---

I most certainly am. In fact, I affirmed that in a post. Again, the same applies to Muslims as well (as appearances seem to strongly suggest). Of course, rory_20_uk was confusing literalism and inerrancy. This was later pointed out.

My Fifth Post:

Relevant statements in your reply:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I have to say, simplifying your replies helps remove the glaring errors I highlighted. Possibly also the need to reply to them. I could also point out the dichotomy of the substantial nature of your post and the lack of substance. Another dichotomy.

---

I simplified my reply to show you how you were confusing literalism and inerrancy, nothing more. I would love to be shown the glaring errors. You can follow my format of pointing out your strawmen. :smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You appear to have failed to read every point that requests some empirical comparison of current violence in Christianity and Islam.

---

In fact, I have not. I affirmed that Islamic terrorism is number one these days, but pointed to Christian terrorism (LRA, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years.

---

As the New Testament and the Quran do not have instructions of killing apostates, it makes sense to point to other areas. The tradition of the religions and clerical pronouncement make sense. You said in an earlier post that "Christian apostates aren't to be killed". I gave relevant counter examples. Some clerics of Islam (like you showed in your link) do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You much prefer to quote Clerics that have been dead for a few hundred years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent.

---

This is a patently false statement. Pointing out that there are violent passages in holy books is not equating the religion with violence. Strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Undeterred by this you still happily equate Islam and Christianity as both bieng violent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I have to say I am confused at your continuing need to to defend current Islamic practice (concerning violence "I merely pointed out, that every religion contains them as well.") in many countries.

---

I'm confused with this statement as well, as I have done nothing of the sort (please bring up examples to support your claim). Your interpretations are obviously twisting and stretching things. You know what we call that? Strawmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

As far as you are concerned a "strawman" is "a point that is made by someone you disagree with and better than to argue with, dismiss".

---

This is a strawman of my use of strawman. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Although you appear to have managed to encapsulate divine authorship in one sentence and feel very smug about it I think that it is deserving of a bit more thought. Who is to say that God has not helped write many of the texts that are not in the Bible?

---

:huh: Where have I ever said anything to the contrary? Where have I ever said anything at all about this completely non-sequiter and unrelated point? I was pointing out at you manifold confusion between literalism and inerrancy.

There you have it. All the examples of your strawmen with commentary. Don't wonder why I bring up the word so often. I was in long discussions about Feyerabend (who is usually "strawmaned" very much) and I brought it up only once or twice. Obviously, it is the poster I am in discourse with.

Quote:

---

I'm saying that all those news aren't backed by the least bit of proof, or sence for that matter.

---

WTF ???????????
Errrrr....so you think that two Pakistanis were not beheaded for drug offences , OK you can add that to the 17 people who obviously havn't been executed already this year :dizzy2:
So , perhaps you don't understand the laws in the country you was in , the old laws that were reinforced by the 1992 laws .

And of course this crazy sensationalist tabloid is making all these stories up , just like that other crazy sensationalist tabloid The US State Department that says the Saudis executed 20 people for drug offences by beheading last year (but good news they didn't execute anyone for apostacy last year) , then again there is always that other sensationalist tabloid the Sri Lankan government who ridiculously made up a story so it could formally protest last month about its citizens being executed and publicly displayed without any consular representation .

I can't in all honesty say that I'll cry myself to sleep tonight over 20 beheadings for drug offences....

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but still...drug traffickers deserve what they get.

Quote:

---

I can't in all honesty say that I'll cry myself to sleep tonight over 20 beheadings for drug offences....

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but still...drug traffickers deserve what they get.

---

Thats all well and good , IF (and that is a bloody big if )the defendants get a fair trial to which they are entitled , a defense lawyer to which they are entitled , both of which they should recieve under Saudi law but often don't .
Then there is also the use of torture to obtain confessions and use of evidence obtained by torture both of which should not happen under Saudi law but often do .
Oh and also if they are foriegners they are supposed to be entitled to consular access .
Someone can only deserve the punishment warrented by the law if their treatment to decide on the punishment is in accordance with the law .

Pardon, Tribesman, but you seem to have larger information about the area. I take it you lived there for your whole life? (You can't suppose you know every little detail through "media", which's usually and mostly biased. I can get you links in "arabic" that tell quite the opposite. That's my point)

Actually Tribes information seems accurate considering the in country brief I recieved back in 1990-1991 while I was in Saudi Arabia for 6 months.

It also matches the information my brother told me about his briefings for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for the year he spent in Kuwait from 2003-2004.

What's even better is that one can find this information on the internet fairily easily.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/17/saudia15353.htm

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8296.htm

Quote:

---

Pardon, Tribesman, but you seem to have larger information about the area. I take it you lived there for your whole life? (You can't suppose you know every little detail through "media", which's usually and mostly biased. I can get you links in "arabic" that tell quite the opposite. That's my point)

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So sorry :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: I thought your point was that..... I'm saying that all those news aren't backed by the least bit of proof, or sence for that matter.


yoohooo .... Redleg darling , that second link to a sensationalist tabloid with UFOs is just sooooooooo last year , well even further out of this seasons fashion if the cruel truth be told sweetie , one really must keep up with the latest trends from the house of Saud .
Heres last weeks latest catwalk model strutting its stuffhttp://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78862.htm