Rape Victim Executed for having sex outside of marriage.

[RandFan]

Somalia: Rape Victim Executed (http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,3287,Somalia-Rape-Victim-Executed,NYTimescom)

A woman was stoned to death for adultery on Monday in an Islamist-controlled region of Somalia. Somali human rights officials said the woman, 23, had been raped, but the Islamist authorities determined that she was guilty of adultery. She was buried up to her neck and stoned after a crowd of thousands gathered at a soccer field in the town of Kismayu, which is controlled by the Shabab, a radical Islamist group.

Let me hasten to add that not all Muslims condone such behavior and not all Muslim nations commit such human rights abuses. Further there are other religions that carry out these honor killings in the same region.

That said, I'm still not convinced that religion can be divorced from these atrocities. The fact that a Sharia court carried it out based upon religious prohibitions against adultery make it, IMMO, appropriate to criticize religion for being a significant contributing factor for keeping these practices going well into the 21st century.

[Uncayimmy]

I don't mean to turn this political, but I think the Iraqi constitution deserves a mention. The popular press refers to Iraq as a democracy, but have you actually read their constitution? Here's the beginning of Article 2

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.


That's pretty scary to me. I am no religious scholar, but it's my understanding that the Koran says that flogging is the punishment for adultery. Stoning is commanded/recommended by one of their prophets. Thus if a man is accused of raping a woman and is acquitted because of the circumstances rather than the lack of proof of sex, the woman is pretty much admitting to adultery. And since Islam is the "fundamental source of legislation" she's gonna be in a bad place.

So, my prediction is that Iraq will have a low incidence of reported rapes.

[geni]

Let me hasten to add that not all Muslims condone such behavior and not all Muslim nations commit such human rights abuses. Further there are other religions that carry out these honor killings in the same region.

That said, I'm still not convinced that religion can be divorced from these atrocities. The fact that a Sharia court carried it out based upon religious prohibitions against adultery make it, IMMO, appropriate to criticize religion for being a significant contributing factor for keeping these practices going well into the 21st century.

She got a trial in Somalia. There was an actual court. Sure it was a total travisty of justice but in a country where war is a way of life that technicaly ranks as an improvement on the normal causes of death. Remeber these are the courts that actualy managed to bring order to large areas of the country (briefly) by ruleing that shoot people walking down the street because you felt like it isn't acceptable.

One of the reasons that this form of Sharia catches on in places like somalia and the pashtun tribal regions is that it is in many ways an improvement on the previous situation (you mean you have to drag the girl to court before you kill her? what happened to good traditional pashtun values?).

[geni]

That's pretty scary to me. I am no religious scholar, but it's my understanding that the Koran says that flogging is the punishment for adultery. Stoning is commanded/recommended by one of their prophets. Thus if a man is accused of raping a woman and is acquitted because of the circumstances rather than the lack of proof of sex, the woman is pretty much admitting to adultery. And since Islam is the "fundamental source of legislation" she's gonna be in a bad place.


Much the same things are burried in jewish law. Generaly there are few problems in rule lawyering around them. Koran says a lot of things. Up to the readers how it is enforced.

[Pardalis]

And just like in a totalitarian regime, where a climate is created where everyone is encouraged to denounce their neighbor, therefore making everyone part of the regime, these public executions work in the same way. By making the public active participants in god's (the ultimate dictator) ruling (they are literally the executioners), religion therefore guaranties that their people will be even more subservient, because they are now given part of god's power, they become little gods themselves for an instant. The people becomes an extension of god's arms, and that reinforces the belief and the control.

I think it's one of the worst forms of manipulation there is. Manufactured consent of the worst kind, but of course people like Chomsky won't agree.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

At least they executed him, too, for admittedly having sex with a woman who was not his wife.

Not.

This is so wrong in so many ways but here's one small thing that grabbed my attention: that thousands of people gathered at a public place to watch this "event".

Who on Earth would ever want to see an execution? Who?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Lots of places in the world are full of sad stories like this, but, really, what can anyone do about it, besides stating emphatically that we condemn such actions? Can they be shamed into entering the modern world? I doubt their leaders care what we think.

[The Fool]

Let me hasten to add that not all Muslims condone such behavior and not all Muslim nations commit such human rights abuses. Further there are other religions that carry out these honor killings in the same region.

That said, I'm still not convinced that religion can be divorced from these atrocities. The fact that a Sharia court carried it out based upon religious prohibitions against adultery make it, IMMO, appropriate to criticize religion for being a significant contributing factor for keeping these practices going well into the 21st century.
well done, you have critisized islam, not undeservedly......now what? Should corrective actions be taken targeted at somalia or targeted at islam?

stick that in your sig...

[geni]

This is so wrong in so many ways but here's one small thing that grabbed my attention: that thousands of people gathered at a public place to watch this "event".

Who on Earth would ever want to see an execution? Who?

Well hangings always used to draw a decent crowd. And well that Ruth Snyder exicution pic was rather popular. There are various motivations

[Pardalis]

well done, you have critisized islam, not undeservedly......now what? Should corrective actions be taken targeted at somalia or targeted at islam?

stick that in your sig...

Poor Randfan, after all the trouble of writing a disclaimer so that he wouldn't be accused of islamophobia...

Let me hasten to add that not all Muslims condone such behavior and not all Muslim nations commit such human rights abuses. Further there are other religions that carry out these honor killings in the same region.

I was going to commend Randfan and point out that we should use in the future that same disclaimer everytime one wants to criticize something an islamic state has done, but now I see it's useless because some people just can't read, or don't want to. :rolleyes:

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well hangings always used to draw a decent crowd. And well that Ruth Snyder exicution pic was rather popular. There are various motivations.


This is just a thought but I think executions might work as spectacle only when there are large numbers of people present.

If I ever had to witness an execution by myself or as one of four or five people, I'd be disgusted and horrified. And would probably be screaming and crying all day.

In a large crowd, though, it might have the sort of attraction a dog fight, boxing match, large fire or trainwreck does.

[Pardalis]

In a large crowd, though, it might have the sort of attraction a dog fight, boxing match, large fire or trainwreck does.

It also has a deterrent effect. Spectators can't help but to think to themselves:"I'm sure glad this isn't me".

But what is far worse, as I said, is that they are not just spectators, but active participants in the execution. I think it is even more frightening to see your own neighbors and friends putting someone to death: "Not only this could be me, but it could be my neighbors, friends and family who could be throwing these rocks at me". It's a very effective method to keep people "in line".

[RandFan]

well done, you have criticized Islam, not undeservedly......now what? Should corrective actions be taken targeted at somalia or targeted at islam? What do people do when America or American's commit atrocity? I speak out against that atrocity. After 5 years of defending George Bush (I never tried to silence decent) I started to criticize Bush and his administration. I started threads critical of the administration.

Come on, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Sometimes all good men can do is speak out. It was the speaking out that helped drive Bush's poll numbers into the toilet. It was the speaking out that brought western attention to the plight of native South Africans.

When Israelis commit atrocity people speak out. Don't you think they should? Don't you think Israel should be criticized? Why is it that you expect some people to shut up when it comes to Islamic atrocity?

[RandFan]

Lots of places in the world are full of sad stories like this, but, really, what can anyone do about it, besides stating emphatically that we condemn such actions? Can they be shamed into entering the modern world? I doubt their leaders care what we think.At the risk of repeating myself, Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Why has there been progress at all? When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's I would not have believed that America would significantly change attitudes about minorities. We have to overcome the attitudes that some things are impossible. To the civil rights pioneers of the early 1800's it probably looked impossible that America would ever put a black man in office.

"Some men see things as they are and ask why I dream things that never were and ask why not?" --George Bernard Shaw

[mrbaracuda]

Who on Earth would ever want to see an execution? Who?

Why, the pious of course! Well, and the curious.
Some even become the appointed executioner!

RR1gZEmEcxg

You just have to love his statement at the end of that video; after he had seen the head roll he apparently passed out, couldn't sleep for that night and had nightmares BUT ALLAH BE PRAISED, he got used to it! :boggled:

Poor Randfan, after all the trouble of writing a disclaimer so that he wouldn't be accused of islamophobia...

I was going to commend Randfan and point out that we should use in the future that same disclaimer everytime one wants to criticize something an islamic state has done, but now I see it's useless because some people just can't read, or don't want to. :rolleyes:

Did you know that the worst islamophobes are politicians and Muslim leaders?
I don't see them say "Sunni Orthodox Islam" or "The Alevites' version of Islam" and such "is the religion of peace" for example. ;)

Come on, evil triumphs when...

...when "good men" carry out "God's punishment". Or like the Quran says, "the best of peoples":

003.110
YUSUFALI: Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

[chillzero]

I don't understand any kind of 'court' system that allows the prosecution of a person for an event they had absolutely no control over.

[applecorped]

I don't understand any kind of 'court' system that allows the prosecution of a person for an event they had absolutely no control over.

Good thing that could never happen here in the US........:cool:

[The Fool]

Poor Randfan, after all the trouble of writing a disclaimer so that he wouldn't be accused of islamophobia...



I was going to commend Randfan and point out that we should use in the future that same disclaimer everytime one wants to criticize something an islamic state has done, but now I see it's useless because some people just can't read, or don't want to. :rolleyes:

OK, shall we all stick a disclaimer in our sig and get on with it?

[The Fool]

What do people do when America or American's commit atrocity? I speak out against that atrocity. After 5 years of defending George Bush (I never tried to silence decent) I started to criticize Bush and his administration. I started threads critical of the administration.

Come on, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Sometimes all good men can do is speak out. It was the speaking out that helped drive Bush's poll numbers into the toilet. It was the speaking out that brought western attention to the plight of native South Africans.

When Israelis commit atrocity people speak out. Don't you think they should? Don't you think Israel should be criticized? Why is it that you expect some people to shut up when it comes to Islamic atrocity?
I don't expect you to shut up, I expect you to attempt to look past irrelevancies. Unless you feel Islam is a causative influence.....that something different would be happening in Somalia if, somehow, they were all a different religion.

Try looking past which religious text they use to justify what they do.

Got room for that in the sig?

[sophia8]

This is so wrong in so many ways but here's one small thing that grabbed my attention: that thousands of people gathered at a public place to watch this "event".

Who on Earth would ever want to see an execution? Who?
Quite a lot of Americans did. (http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/main.html)

[a_unique_person]

Let me hasten to add that not all Muslims condone such behavior and not all Muslim nations commit such human rights abuses. Further there are other religions that carry out these honor killings in the same region.

That said, I'm still not convinced that religion can be divorced from these atrocities. The fact that a Sharia court carried it out based upon religious prohibitions against adultery make it, IMMO, appropriate to criticize religion for being a significant contributing factor for keeping these practices going well into the 21st century.

According to Feminist theory, it's more extreme sexism than religion.

[Darth Rotor]

According to Feminist theory, it's more extreme sexism than religion.
AUP, don't those tend to reinforce each other, synergistically? I don't think it makes sense to try and separate the two.

DR

[fuelair]

Let me hasten to add that not all Muslims condone such behavior and not all Muslim nations commit such human rights abuses. Further there are other religions that carry out these honor killings in the same region.

That said, I'm still not convinced that religion can be divorced from these atrocities. The fact that a Sharia court carried it out based upon religious prohibitions against adultery make it, IMMO, appropriate to criticize religion for being a significant contributing factor for keeping these practices going well into the 21st century.
And, that said, I'm all for dropping a fuelair bomb on the stadium full of watchers.




But, then, I am a firm believer in education.

[Polaris]

And, that said, I'm all for dropping a fuelair bomb on the stadium full of watchers.




But, then, I am a firm believer in education.

What would be more educational than that? Think of it as a public execution with the whole city as a witness.

Maybe half a dozen AC-130 gunships locking the stadium down and taking their time would.

I have the same thought each time there's one of these Islamic atrocities. Simply hang the court and the members of the family that carried out the killing, then leave the bodies up for a good long time. Do this enough times and I'd bet the killings would stop.

[geni]

What would be more educational than that? Think of it as a public execution with the whole city as a witness.

Maybe half a dozen AC-130 gunships locking the stadium down and taking their time would.

I have the same thought each time there's one of these Islamic atrocities. Simply hang the court and the members of the family that carried out the killing, then leave the bodies up for a good long time. Do this enough times and I'd bet the killings would stop.

Nope. Courts would simply cease to be involved. In fact ethopia pretty much tried what you suggested a couple of years back. Getting ready to leave now. Seriously if you think this event registers in the top 100 problems with Somalia you are sadly very wrong.

The courts are popular. They bring more justice than you would otherwise see and they managed to bring peace. Sure they are a bunch of illiberal jerks who only the taliban could love (well not quite the Somali lot allow you to dye your beard taliban would not be too impressed by that) but they are still significantly more liberal than significant parts of underlying Somali socety. They actualy thought the woman should get something of a trial before being stoned.

[Beerina]

When they say "determined she was guilty of adultery", was it "determined she was lying about being raped" because being raped gets you out of being stoned?

Or was it "determined she was raped, but being raped is the victim's fault for arousing the male, and thus the equivalent of adultry"?

[I Ratant]

...

Who on Earth would ever want to see an execution? Who?
.
These public executions are performed by the PUBLIC! Who do you think throws the stones?
Everyone there!
Builds a sense of community, it does.

[I Ratant]

When they say "determined she was guilty of adultery", was it "determined she was lying about being raped" because being raped gets you out of being stoned?

Or was it "determined she was raped, but being raped is the victim's fault for arousing the male, and thus the equivalent of adultry"?
.
Yes.
The woman is at fault all the time in Islam.
Or the Stone Age, no difference.

[Pardalis]

OK, shall we all stick a disclaimer in our sig and get on with it?

Trolling around I see...

[geni]

When they say "determined she was guilty of adultery", was it "determined she was lying about being raped" because being raped gets you out of being stoned?

Or was it "determined she was raped, but being raped is the victim's fault for arousing the male, and thus the equivalent of adultry"?

Being raped is a defence under sharia law but depending on the version you need to provide multiple male witnesses. The problem with this is fairly obvious.

There are other versions of sharia where flat denial is a legit defence unless the other side can produce 4 witnesses.

[geni]

.
These public executions are performed by the PUBLIC! Who do you think throws the stones?
Everyone there!
Builds a sense of community, it does.

The last public hanging in the UK was as recent as 1868 in the US as recent as 1936. Private exicutions are a fairly new concept.

[kbm99]

The last public hanging in the UK was as recent as 1868 in the US as recent as 1936. Private exicutions are a fairly new concept.

Even in the case of "private" executions family members of the victim(s) and other observers are often present. When McVeigh was executed, 200+ people watched on closed-circuit television from Oklahoma.

[Travis]

First thing I thought of was dropping a MOAB on the stadium as the crowd of barbaric primitives gathered to stone the poor woman. Then you infiltrate the population and every time you hear of something like this being planned, in court or out, you just blow up the whole damned community. Pretty soon either the religious killings stop or everyone's dead. Either way the world is a better place afterwords.


Okay.....exterminating the population would be going too far.....that was the emotions talking.....I'm still pretty damned upset just knowing crap like this still happens.

[The Fool]

dup

[The Fool]

Trolling around I see...
nope, just trying to take advantage of how impressed you are by "disclaimers"

Its all the Canadians fault, They are shifty people

PLEASE NOTE>>>
****not EVERY Canadian is shifty, some Canadians have never even heard of the issue, Some of my best friends are Canadians*****


Please give me a clue as to how that disclaimer rescues my first statement...

[dudalb]

I wonder if this were done a Fundy Christian Government, you would hear the same semi justifications we are hearing from people who should really know better.

[dudalb]

First thing I thought of was dropping a MOAB on the stadium as the crowd of barbaric primitives gathered to stone the poor woman. Then you infiltrate the population and every time you hear of something like this being planned, in court or out, you just blow up the whole damned community. Pretty soon either the religious killings stop or everyone's dead. Either way the world is a better place afterwords.


Okay.....exterminating the population would be going too far.....that was the emotions talking.....I'm still pretty damned upset just knowing crap like this still happens.

I am more upset that some people here offering explanations that amount to Justifications.
Somalia: Hope of executions for Adultry, Piracy, and General Mayhem. I hope the Libertarians who have tried to portray Somalia as the best governed country on Earth come around.

[fuelair]

First thing I thought of was dropping a MOAB on the stadium as the crowd of barbaric primitives gathered to stone the poor woman. Then you infiltrate the population and every time you hear of something like this being planned, in court or out, you just blow up the whole damned community. Pretty soon either the religious killings stop or everyone's dead. Either way the world is a better place afterwords.


Okay.....exterminating the population would be going too far.....that was the emotions talking.....I'm still pretty damned upset just knowing crap like this still happens.MOAB too big - I was after only the attendees. I do like the gunship and taking time thing though- Anything that educates (this is the trademarked Terminal Education program based on the theory that if someone does something very very wrong and is terminated for same they do not repeat the wrong thing thus indicating they have learned from the program) is great by me.:)

[Pardalis]

blah blah blah

I see you're only here to attack RandFan, why don't you focus on the topic instead?

[geni]

I wonder if this were done a Fundy Christian Government, you would hear the same semi justifications we are hearing from people who should really know better.

This wasn't done by a goverment.

[RandFan]

I don't expect you to shut up, I expect you to attempt to look past irrelevancies. Irrelevancy? These things don't happen in a vacuum. Religion is a very large part of these people's culture. Islam take a very dim view of extramaretial sex and women. Stoning women for adultery is very much part of the history of all three of the Abrahamic faiths.

For crying in the dark, it was a Sharia court. What exactly do you think a Sharia court is? The fact is that women in deeply religious nations Muslim societies are far more likely to suffer abuse and oppression than those in secular ones.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Ask an ex-Muslim (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/).

[RandFan]

She got a trial in Somalia. There was an actual court. Sure it was a total travisty of justice but in a country where war is a way of life that technicaly ranks as an improvement on the normal causes of death. Remeber these are the courts that actualy managed to bring order to large areas of the country (briefly) by ruleing that shoot people walking down the street because you felt like it isn't acceptable.

One of the reasons that this form of Sharia catches on in places like somalia and the pashtun tribal regions is that it is in many ways an improvement on the previous situation (you mean you have to drag the girl to court before you kill her? what happened to good traditional pashtun values?).Oh nonsense. If we were talking about the bronze age you might actually have a point. The Hebrew notion of commensurate justice, eye for an eye, was a huge leap forward... 3,000 years ago.

(well that's just the way they do things). For crying in the dark, this is the 21st century, you know, the one after the one that saw humans travel to the moon. Let's stop with the BS rationalization and justification. As if our only choice is to ease them into kangaroo courts in the slim hope that someday they will accept modernity.

Religions tell us that morality is not possible without faith. What exactly is morality? Isn't it possible for the Muslims to have some shame and to start to speak out against this barbarity?

This is not moral and as long as there are folks who are standing around saying, "well, she got a trial..." nothing is going to change. We need to knock that kind of crap off.

Kinda reminds me of jurisprudence in the old south (not all that long ago).

Judge: Can you be fair and impartial even though the defendant is black?
Juror: Sure, we should give the defendant a fair trial before we hang 'em.
Apologist: Hey, he got a trial.

Stoning with a farce of a trial really isn't better than stoning without. Let's not pretend that it is. That only gives cover to the apologists.

[RandFan]

Its all the Canadians fault, They are shifty people

PLEASE NOTE>>>
****not EVERY Canadian is shifty, some Canadians have never even heard of the issue, Some of my best friends are Canadians***** Pure and utter nonsense. Without any basis for comparison.


The Muslim religion, in fact,

Does take a very dim view of adultery (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548032)(and homosexuality BTW).
Uses Sharia courts to oppress women (http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2008/08/archbishop-is-helping-muslim-men.html).
Commits sexual apartheid (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexAction.html).
There is NOTHING in the Canadian constitution or law or culture or anything that would lead to such an absurd position.

There IS much in the Muslim religion that breeds inhumanity and oppression of women and homosexuals. You are being blatantly dishonest sir. Read the links that I have provided above. My points are all facts. My criticsims are not directed at Muslims. It is directed at Islam.

If Canada had laws or traditions that treated women and homosexuals as Islam does I would happily critisize it. You?

Got any links Fool that Canada treats women and homosexuals like the links I've provided?

I didn't think so.

[Travis]

I am more upset that some people here offering explanations that amount to Justifications.
Somalia: Hope of executions for Adultry, Piracy, and General Mayhem. I hope the Libertarians who have tried to portray Somalia as the best governed country on Earth come around.

Wasn't that Libman that talked up Somalia as a utopia?

MOAB too big - I was after only the attendees. I do like the gunship and taking time thing though- Anything that educates (this is the trademarked Terminal Education program based on the theory that if someone does something very very wrong and is terminated for same they do not repeat the wrong thing thus indicating they have learned from the program) is great by me.:)

I've seen footage of what an AC-130 can do and you can be sure not many would leave alive after they open up with the mini-gun and howitzer.

[geni]

Oh nonsense. If we were talking about the bronze age you might actually have a point. The Hebrew notion of commensurate justice, eye for an eye, was a huge leap forward... 3,000 years ago.

(well that's just the way they do things). For crying in the dark, this is the 21st century, you know, the one after the one that saw humans travel to the moon.

Somalia didn't. Somalia is pretty much the middle ages with added guns.


Let's stop with the BS rationalization and justification. As if our only choice is to ease them into kangaroo courts in the slim hope that someday they will accept modernity.

It is our only choice for the time being. Remeber what happened last time the US went in? Ethopia has now had enough and is leaveing. At present there appear to be four options with Somalia:

1)spend thousands of lives and decades of time trying to turn the place into something we would regcognise as a civilised country
2)Keep the place in a perminant state of civil war (probably means invadeing from time to time)
3)let the islamic courts take over
4)kill everyone south of Puntland


Religions tell us that morality is not possible without faith. What exactly is morality? Isn't it possible for the Muslims to have some shame and to start to speak out against this barbarity?


In Somalia? No one is going to listen.


This is not moral and as long as there are folks who are standing around saying, "well, she got a trial..." nothing is going to change. We need to knock that kind of crap off.

And by that you hope to atchive what exactly?


Kinda reminds me of jurisprudence in the old south (not all that long ago).

Judge: Can you be fair and impartial even though the defendant is black?
Juror: Sure, we should give the defendant a fair trial before we hang 'em.
Apologist: Hey, he got a trial.

Stoning with a farce of a trial really isn't better than stoning without. Let's not pretend that it is. That only gives cover to the apologists.

Well reality has a well known apologist bias. See jurisprudence in old somalia is along the lines of:

person1:Did you shoot that guy?
person2:Yes
person1:Oh right.

Under somali law such as it is you can shoot your neigbour (assumeing his clan isn't stronger than yours otherwise life may get interesting). Under sharia law you would have to show that he was an infidel (not even a person of the book) first.

[RandFan]

I've seen footage of what an AC-130 can do and you can be sure not many would leave alive after they open up with the mini-gun and howitzer.Spooky and Puff (http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/vietnam/spooky-puff.htm).

[The Fool]

Irrelevancy? These things don't happen in a vacuum. Religion is a very large part of these people's culture. Islam take a very dim view of extramaretial sex and women. Stoning women for adultery is very much part of the history of all three of the Abrahamic faiths.

For crying in the dark, it was a Sharia court. What exactly do you think a Sharia court is? The fact is that women in deeply religious nations Muslim societies are far more likely to suffer abuse and oppression than those in secular ones.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Ask an ex-Muslim (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/).
look son....I can't account for your thing about Islam or your desire to run threads about it but let me ask you this. If Somalia had never heard of Islam. If they were Catholic.......do you imagine things would be much different?

You talk about bad things happening when good men do nothing? Well get off the behind and do somethjing for somalia if you want to. Actually do somethiong constructive besides using thier miserable state as an engine for another "those wacky muslims" thread.

It seems asking you to look beyond your fixations is too much to ask.

Got room for that in the old sig line?

[El Greco]

I will say it without disclaimers: Islam sucks. These days, more than any other major religion.

[RandFan]

look son....I can't account for your thing about Islam or your desire to run threads about it but let me ask you this. If Somalia had never heard of Islam. If they were Catholic.......do you imagine things would be much different? Yes, of course. Murder is a sin in the Catholic church. Christ ended stoning, he was brought an adulterer and asked to stone her, he replied, "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".

Stoning was a big part of Jewish tradition and religion. It's in the Bible. Where do you think Muslims got the idea? Yes, there might be some Christian religions in this part of the world that stone women but if any were Catholic they would be excomunicated.

Do you really not know this?

And why won't you address the points I made? Are they wrong? No. Hell no.

Does take a very dim view of adultery (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548032)(and homosexuality BTW).
Uses Sharia courts to oppress women (http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2008/08/archbishop-is-helping-muslim-men.html).
Commits sexual apartheid (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexAction.html).

Oh, and BTW, let's accept your premise that a religion that had stoning as something approved by god in holy scripture, stoned people today. You think that would get Islam off the hook? Hardly.

[RandFan]

Somalia didn't. Somalia is pretty much the middle ages with added guns. And things aren't going to get any better with us shrugging our shoulders and sticking our heads in the sand.

It is our only choice for the time being. Remeber what happened last time the US went in? Ethopia has now had enough and is leaveing. At present there appear to be four options with Somalia:I don't think we should go in. I think we should note what a damnable practice sexual apartheid is. I think we should seek for as many Muslims as possible to join us in the 20th century and stop thinking that religion has nothing to do with the problem.

In Somalia? No one is going to listen. Yeah, we've heard this before, in the South.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept your premise that these people are inherently incapable of change. It's not easy but ignoring it and refusing to acknowledge the problems, particularly with the religion aren't doing anything.

Religion is a big reason why these folks don't advance (see Dennet and the Lancet Fluke). Religion is a parisite that protects itself by infusing the followers with dogmatic adherence to tradition no matter how barbaric or irrational that tradition is.

We need to keep speaking out against it. It might not change in our lives but the civil rights workers of the early 1800's had no reason to be hopeful that change would come in their lives.

Wrong is wrong and sadly Islam contributes far too much to what is wrong.

[The Fool]

Yes, of course. Murder is a sin in the Catholic church. Christ ended stoning, he was brought an adulterer and asked to stone her, he replied, "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".

.
sigh...oh well, looks like the foundation of the fixation is revealing itself...

go for it son....you may convince someone.

[slingblade]

Got room for that in the sig?

What are you, a sigophant?

[geni]

And things aren't going to get any better with us shrugging our shoulders and sticking our heads in the sand.

Well no it's Somalia. But so far the evidence suggests that none of the alturnatives work either.


I don't think we should go in. I think we should note what a damnable practice sexual apartheid is. I think we should seek for as many Muslims as possible to join us in the 20th century and stop thinking that religion has nothing to do with the problem.

That isn't going to have any effect on somalia.



Yeah, we've heard this before, in the South.


Attempting to compare Somalia to the southern united states is not a useful aproach.

[qupte]
I'm sorry, but I don't accept your premise that these people are inherently incapable of change. It's not easy but ignoring it and refusing to acknowledge the problems, particularly with the religion aren't doing anything.
[/quote]

Somalia knows all about change. You can't go five minutes without a new warlord showing up and upseting what previously passed for the balance of power.


Religion is a big reason why these folks don't advance (see Dennet and the Lancet Fluke). Religion is a parisite that protects itself by infusing the followers with dogmatic adherence to tradition no matter how barbaric or irrational that tradition is.

Not really. Somalia isn't historicaly that religious. That is why the islamic courts were such a wtf moment. A country that had previously had a rather more liberal version of islam and all out clan warfare suddenly gets a taliban like version of islam and reduced levels of warfare.


We need to keep speaking out against it. It might not change in our lives but the civil rights workers of the early 1800's had no reason to be hopeful that change would come in their lives.

Civil rights in Somalia? Um civil rights kinda presupposes a goverment to grant those rights. And there isn't one not in any meaningful sense.


Wrong is wrong and sadly Islam contributes far too much to what is wrong.

In Somalia it doesn't even register above background noise.

You think sharia law is bad try Pashtunwali.

[The Fool]

What are you, a sigophant?
:)

[WildCat]

Try looking past which religious text they use to justify what they do.
Right... because this sort of thing never happens in other countries with Islamic law! For example, theres..., hmmm, wait no there's..., nope that doesn't work either.

Help me out here Fool, I'm sure there's some Muslim country ruled by sharia law this sort of thing doesn't happen in... after all, only a very tiny minority of Muslims support such things, like you keep telling us...

[WildCat]

Civil rights in Somalia? Um civil rights kinda presupposes a goverment to grant those rights. And there isn't one not in any meaningful sense.



In Somalia it doesn't even register above background noise.
Rigfht, this sort of thing could never happen in a modern Islamic state with a strong government like Iran or Saudi Arabia... oh, wait...

[applecorped]

go for it son....you may convince someone.

Your condenscension aside, why do you care if RF does "convince" someone?

[geni]

Rigfht, this sort of thing could never happen in a modern Islamic state with a strong government like Iran or Saudi Arabia... oh, wait...

This thread is about somalia. If you wish to cover the wider issues of islamic law you are free to start a thread on that topic.

[applecorped]

This thread is about somalia. If you wish to cover the wider issues of islamic law you are free to start a thread on that topic.

From the OP :

"A woman was stoned to death for adultery on Monday in an Islamist-controlled region of Somalia. "

It seems Islamic law is on topic for this thread.

[The Fool]

Right... because this sort of thing never happens in other countries with Islamic law! For example, theres..., hmmm, wait no there's..., nope that doesn't work either.

Help me out here Fool, I'm sure there's some Muslim country ruled by sharia law this sort of thing doesn't happen in... after all, only a very tiny minority of Muslims support such things, like you keep telling us...
No problems wildcat....you can join Archbishop Randfan and cleans the world of the evils of Islam. First thing is that reason will need to penetrate your skulls to the point that you comprehend cause and effect.
Good luck.

[The Fool]

Right... because this sort of thing never happens in other countries with Islamic law! For example, theres..., hmmm, wait no there's..., nope that doesn't work either.

Help me out here Fool, I'm sure there's some Muslim country ruled by sharia law this sort of thing doesn't happen in... after all, only a very tiny minority of Muslims support such things, like you keep telling us...
lesson one wildcat...sit up straight and pay attention.

1. Everything is cool then extremist things like Sharia law is implemented and bad things happen

2. Bad things happen causing society to break down to the point that extremist things like sharia law get implemented.

study those two statements and we'll talk about them in lesson two

[Pardalis]

What's going wrong in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

All in all they seem rather stable societies.

[The Fool]

Your condenscension aside, why do you care if RF does "convince" someone?
why...has he got you convinced?....all we need to sort this somalia mess is the words of christ! Thats whats been missing all this time. Good old Christian faith!!

If they had only been believers in the true supernatural prophet instead of the evil one....it would be better there.

wooooohooooo!!!!

[Pardalis]

You must be on drugs or something.

[The Fool]

What's going wrong in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

All in all they seem rather stable societies.
Lol...

would they be "rather stable" due to the influences of extremist Islamists?

If you want to call Iran and that totalitarian joke shop Aaudi Arabia rather stable societies thats your choice. I look forward to seeing you champion that line in future threads.

[The Fool]

You must be on drugs or something.
over the line son....you will get the thread thrown in the naughty thread bin.

I am leaving this thread now because I have had a gutfull of dealing with grubs who are happy to use the misery of the people of somalia as a viehicle to push thier obsessions about Islam.

go for it lads....The thread is all yours.

[Pardalis]

Lol...

would they be "rather stable" due to the influences of extremist Islamists?

If you want to call Iran and that totalitarian joke shop Aaudi Arabia rather stable societies thats your choice. I look forward to seeing you champion that line in future threads.

So are they stable or not?

Is Sharia the rule of law in these countries?

If you answered yes to both of these questions, then what is your point?

[I Ratant]

Yes, of course. Murder is a sin in the Catholic church. Christ ended stoning, he was brought an adulterer and asked to stone her, he replied, "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".
...

>
That parable was added sometime after the 2nd Century.
The big thing Christianity did for the world was seperate out the spectral world from the real world, with "Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's....."
This is the major problem with Islam and reality.
The idea of anything not being Allah's will is repugnant to the creed, so this seperation which frees humanity from the tyranny of religion can't even be discussed in Islam.

[geni]

What's going wrong in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

All in all they seem rather stable societies.

Iran is kinda dependent on keeping the poor onside and the price of oil just droped. At the moment that is likely to only impact the outcome of the election.

Saudi Arabia's stability such as it is is based on a less than entirely stable pact between the royal family and religious authorities. The royal family allow the religious authories significant power in what in the US would be termed social issues. And the religious authorities keep the population under control. Problem is that they have a rather extreme form of islam that has a tendacy to produce troublemakers. One of the big geopolitical worries is that the house of saud could be overthrown with little notice (have you seen the unemployment rate in saudi arabia?).

[Matteo Martini]

Let me hasten to add that not all Muslims condone such behavior and not all Muslim nations commit such human rights abuses. Further there are other religions that carry out these honor killings in the same region.
[..]

There have been 4.5 millions deaths in Congo in the last few years, and you lose your time over one woman stoned..

[Lonewulf]

Hm, I do admit that that does put things in perspective...

However, in spite of the genocide in Congo and in other troubled regions Africa, certainly this affront to justice is wrong? Certainly things like it should be prevented?

Just because there are bigger evils in the world, doesn't mean that this evil should go conveniently overlooked.

[Adavidson]

Its incidents like this that bring us back to the days of the roman empire, to the age of the gladiators. Sure it was all "strength and honour" back then, but there is no honour or strength in murdering a young woman for being a victim to a fu*ked up mans hunger.

Its thanks to power sick greedy old men that theese standards and rules are beign up-held, the sooner the old generation dies the sooner things can change. I fear that if things go on the way they do, people in Islamic countries are going to be fed up will this crap, and a revolution will take place, and a lot of innocent people will get caught in the middle.

[Travis]

Hm, I do admit that that does put things in perspective...

However, in spite of the genocide in Congo and in other troubled regions Africa, certainly this affront to justice is wrong? Certainly things like it should be prevented?

Just because there are bigger evils in the world, doesn't mean that this evil should go conveniently overlooked.

Yeah, no kidding, why investigate one rape when so many other women are murdered? Why investigate those murders when there is an actual genocide going on somewhere? Why investigate that genocide if there might be a nuclear war?

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, no kidding, why investigate one rape when so many other women are murdered? Why investigate those murders when there is an actual genocide going on somewhere? Why investigate that genocide if there might be a nuclear war?

Puts a whole new meaning behind moral relativity...

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes, of course. Murder is a sin in the Catholic church. Christ ended stoning, he was brought an adulterer and asked to stone her, he replied, "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".


Oh, I see. That will be why nobody was killed in the inquisitions and the IRA never killed anyone.
Silly me...

And who cares if stonings are banned when you much prefer to burn people.

[Wildy]

...
4)kill everyone south of Puntland


And then you would have to worry about the Somalilanders and the Puntlanders fighting over their border disputes between their countries, and the dispute between Puntland and Maakhir over the "independence" of Maakhir.

All of which, on paper, isn't actually happening because none of these countries actually exist except that Somaliland doesn't exist to a lesser extent then the other non-existent countries.

[WildCat]

No problems wildcat....you can join Archbishop Randfan and cleans the world of the evils of Islam. First thing is that reason will need to penetrate your skulls to the point that you comprehend cause and effect.
Good luck.

lesson one wildcat...sit up straight and pay attention.

1. Everything is cool then extremist things like Sharia law is implemented and bad things happen

2. Bad things happen causing society to break down to the point that extremist things like sharia law get implemented.

study those two statements and we'll talk about them in lesson two
I see you managed to avoid every question asked of you.

Fact is, you can't name a single Islamic state where this crap is not only tolerated but codified in law. And most of them aren't failed states like Somalia but established, stable states like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Seems like an odd circumstance for what you assure everyone is the views of only a tiny minority.

[WildCat]

Its thanks to power sick greedy old men that theese standards and rules are beign up-held, the sooner the old generation dies the sooner things can change. I fear that if things go on the way they do, people in Islamic countries are going to be fed up will this crap, and a revolution will take place, and a lot of innocent people will get caught in the middle.
It's actually the younger generations of Muslims who are more radicalized.

[RandFan]

You think sharia law is bad try Pashtunwali.It's difficult to imagine much worse than burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her to death for having been rapped. You say this is an improvement. Perhaps in some incremental way it is.

Let's know about it and understand it. Let's make damn certain that Sharia law is at best kept to third world nations and hope these folks can some how get out of the bronze age. And let's not pretend that religion is really helping beyond some incremental way and in many ways contributing to the continuance of patriarchal subjugation of women.

[RandFan]

No problems wildcat....you can join Archbishop Randfan and cleans the world of the evils of Islam. First thing is that reason will need to penetrate your skulls to the point that you comprehend cause and effect.
Good luck. Yes, cause and effect is simply what you want it to be. Facts be damned. There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Facts: Islam --

Does take a very dim view of adultery (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548032)(and homosexuality BTW).
ses Sharia courts to oppress women (http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2008/08/archbishop-is-helping-muslim-men.html).
Commits sexual apartheid (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexAction.html).
So, you just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. Don't look at the guy behind the curtain, don't visit the links.

[RandFan]

Oh, I see. That will be why nobody was killed in the inquisitions and the IRA never killed anyone.
Silly me...

And who cares if stonings are banned when you much prefer to burn people.Fair enough. How many Christians are killed each year for adultery? Would you concede that Christ pretty much put an end to that for Christians?

[RandFan]

1. Everything is cool then extremist things like Sharia law is implemented and bad things happen

2. Bad things happen causing society to break down to the point that extremist things like sharia law get implemented.

study those two statements and we'll talk about them in lesson twoOk, is there subjugation of women in Islamic nations? Are Islamic women more likely to be subjugated and segregated from men than non-Muslim women? Are women more likely to be treated differently under the law in Muslim theocratic nations?

This isn't difficult.

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexAction.html)

We call on people everywhere to condemn sexual apartheid and the political Islamic movement that perpetrates it, and to support egalitarian movements that courageously challenge it.

Hint: the answers to the above are all yes. Did you get them right?

[Professor Yaffle]

Fair enough. How many Christians are killed each year for adultery?

I have no idea.


Would you concede that Christ pretty much put an end to that for Christians?


Nope. In some puritan colonies, the punishment for adultery was death.

ETA: And here is a Christian who seems to support the death penalty for adultery:
http://bounddragon.com/2007/01/15/the-penalty-for-adultery/

And another:
http://www.christianmarriage.com/home/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=104

[RandFan]

Nope. In some puritan colonies, the punishment for adultery was death.I'm batting zero. Damn. Yeah, I knew that. I'll try one more time. Are Christians today, killing people for adultery? What I was trying to get at is that what Christ said eventually eliminated the practice.

RF: Fair enough. How many Christians are killed each year for adultery?
PY: I have no idea.

I don't think it's much if any. It's an anachronism in Christianity.

[Fiona]

How many muslims are killed each year for adultery?

[I Ratant]

...

I don't think it's much if any. It's an anachronism in Christianity.
.
But relatively new. Post Reformation mostly.
Getting the sin removed from the crime is the biggest change intellectual enlightenment has brought.
Again, seperation of church and state is responsible.
Even in Iran, stoning is the law, but not conducted because the population isn't eager to support it. (They've been infected with the ideas of seperation, I guess.)

[I Ratant]

...

I don't think it's much if any. It's an anachronism in Christianity.
.
But relatively new. Post Reformation mostly.
Getting the sin removed from the crime is the biggest change intellectual enlightenment has brought.
Again, seperation of church and state is responsible.
Even in Iran, stoning is the law, but seldom conducted because the population isn't eager to support it. (They've been infected with the ideas of seperation, I guess.)

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_01/stoningDM_468x406.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467588/Iranian-wife-faces-death-stoning-adultery.html&h=406&w=468&sz=111&tbnid=gKYVb8W7kgYJ::&tbnh=111&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dadultery&usg=__lZISRLKszu8D96YFShtZ-tABxos=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&cd=1

[Fiona]

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17724

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm batting zero. Damn. Yeah, I knew that. I'll try one more time. Are Christians today, killing people for adultery? What I was trying to get at is that what Christ said eventually eliminated the practice.


I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who profess to be christian who murder their spouse when they discover infidelity.

[Lonewulf]

Are Christians today giving up their possessions and giving to the poor?

Damn, wait. No. Lots of self-proclaimed Christians support getting gobs of money and tax breaks.

Nevermind, carry on.

[RandFan]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who profess to be christian who murder their spouse when they discover infidelity.For religious reasons? Has cause and effect been established between religion and spouses that murder their wives? Are these murders formal and do they follow biblically prescribed methods?

It's difficult to separate religion from other factors but I'm rather skeptical that religion plays as significant role as other variables. Further, I don't think neighbors would join in and encourage the murder. I suspect most Christians would act to preserve the life of the spouse and not look about to find the appropriate sized stone. What do you think?

[Lonewulf]

Hm, doesn't the old testament tell you to stone people on all sorts of fun occasions?

Is there anything in the Bible that says, "Please disregard everything else God said to do, please"?

[WildCat]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who profess to be christian who murder their spouse when they discover infidelity.
And that's about as relevant to the topic as the price of bread.

No country with christianity as their official religion (such as Denmark) prescribes death as the punishment for adultery.

Islam, not so much.

What next, will Prop 8 be held up as exactly the same thing as Iran executing homosexuals? Indiana's blue laws (no package sales on Sunday) the same as Saudi Arabia whipping the skin off the backs of people caught with a bottle of booze?

[WildCat]

Hm, doesn't the old testament tell you to stone people on all sorts of fun occasions?
Exactly! And that's why the Christian Kingdom of Denmark stones people to this day... oh, wait.

Are you really saying these atrocities are somehow excusable because some Christian cultures did the same thing 1,000 years ago? The mind boggles.

Is there anything in the Bible that says, "Please disregard everything else God said to do, please"?
Relevance?

[RandFan]

What next, will Prop 8 be held up as exactly the same thing as Iran executing homosexuals? Indiana's blue laws (no package sales on Sunday) the same as Saudi Arabia whipping the skin off the backs of people caught with a bottle of booze?Yet the USA is appropriately criticized for the influence of the religious right.

[Lonewulf]

Are you really saying these atrocities are somehow excusable because some Christian cultures did the same thing 1,000 years ago? The mind boggles.You remind me every day why I laugh at your posts constantly.


Am I REALLY SAYING that these atrocities are SOMEHOW EXCUSABLE because some Christian cultures did the SAME THING 1,000 years ago?


No. I didn't excuse anything. If you actually read back to my comments, like an honest* person would, you would have actually known that.

Now kindly stop lying about what I said, deliberately inserting in drivel that was never posted by me, and (I ask this as nicely as I can to someone like you) please go away, troll.



*See, I'm pretty sure you read this post:

Hm, I do admit that that does put things in perspective...

However, in spite of the genocide in Congo and in other troubled regions Africa, certainly this affront to justice is wrong? Certainly things like it should be prevented?

Just because there are bigger evils in the world, doesn't mean that this evil should go conveniently overlooked.

These are not the words of a person that's "excusing" a crime of any sort.

So claiming that I'm "attempting to excuse it" is rather silly, and in fact, your lie is a pretty damn disgusting one. But it's just the tip of the iceberg of your drivel, really.


But the fact that the Christian nations seem to disregard their holy relic seems to put to rest any claim that Muslims must necessarily be evil thanks to their religion, since Christians seem to avoid it when it suits them.

They also seem to avoid what Christ said when it suits them, too.

[RandFan]

Hm, doesn't the old testament tell you to stone people on all sorts of fun occasions?

Is there anything in the Bible that says, "Please disregard everything else God said to do, please"?I'm an equal opportunity offender (please see my threads and posts in the Religion forum). I have no problem criticizing Christianity but as far as subjugating, beating and killing women for religious reasons it really isn't a Christian phenomenon to the extent that it is an Islamic one. I'm happy to condemn Christian attrocity.

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm an equal opportunity offender (please see my threads and posts in the Religion forum). I have no problem criticizing Christianity but as far as subjugating, beating and killing women for religious reasons it really isn't a Christian phenomenon anymore to the extent that it is an Islamic one. I'm happy to condemn Christian attrocity.

Fixed that for you.

[Lonewulf]

I'm an equal opportunity offender (please see my threads and posts in the Religion forum). I have no problem criticizing Christianity but as far as subjugating, beating and killing women for religious reasons it really isn't a Christian phenomenon to the extent that it is an Islamic one. I'm happy to condemn Christian attrocity.

I believe that it's a social problem, not a religious. I'd honestly say, without a doubt, that Christians, during the First, Second, and Third Crusades, committed some of the grossest atrocities around. Yet they were Christian.

My theory is that, while religion plays an influence, the influences that brought the west into development, are partly responsible for the change in mindset over the ages. So just blaming religion is pretty silly and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[RandFan]

Fixed that for you. Yeah, I think that given the fact I've conceded that it goes without saying. But fine. I'm not arguing that some religions are inherently better than others. In fact, I'm an atheist who would like to see the diminution of religious influence on public affairs. I'm decidedly not a Christian apologist and would happily join you in condemning Christian atrocity and I'm one who frequently points it out.

I do think that secular governments lead to less attrocity and I'm very concerned about the rise of Christian theocracy in my own nation and it is that concern that has led me to commit to voting for a Democrat for president for the first time in my life.

[RandFan]

I believe that it's a social problem, not a religious. I'd honestly say, without a doubt, that Christians, during the First, Second, and Third Crusades, committed some of the grossest atrocities around. Yet they were Christian.

My theory is that, while religion plays an influence, the influences that brought the west into development, are partly responsible for the change in mindset over the ages. So just blaming religion is pretty silly and doesn't get anyone anywhere.No one is "just blaming religion". I'm pointing out the very real problems of religion. I think it takes a special kind of blindness to ignore religon's contribution to attrocity. Blind faith does not often lead to tolerance or acceptance of liberal values. To say it is a social problem and then ignore the biggest social influence is to be willfully obtuse.

I stand by my claims that Islam--

Takes a very dim view of adultery (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548032)(and homosexuality BTW).
Uses Sharia courts to oppress women (http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2008/08/archbishop-is-helping-muslim-men.html).
Commits sexual apartheid (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexAction.html).

Now you can pretend these things don't happen or that religion doesn't play a part in social affairs but I think you know better.

[geni]

And then you would have to worry about the Somalilanders and the Puntlanders fighting over their border disputes between their countries, and the dispute between Puntland and Maakhir over the "independence" of Maakhir.


For the most part however those are the kind of conflicts we can at least understand.

[WildCat]

So claiming that I'm "attempting to excuse it" is rather silly, and in fact, your lie is a pretty damn disgusting one. But it's just the tip of the iceberg of your drivel, really.
It's a rich tapestry.


But the fact that the Christian nations seem to disregard their holy relic seems to put to rest any claim that Muslims must necessarily be evil thanks to their religion, since Christians seem to avoid it when it suits them.

They also seem to avoid what Christ said when it suits them, too.
Except that Muslims are doing exactly as Mohammed prescribed.

[rwguinn]

I'm batting zero. Damn. Yeah, I knew that. I'll try one more time. Are Christians today, killing people for adultery? What I was trying to get at is that what Christ said eventually eliminated the practice.

RF: Fair enough. How many Christians are killed each year for adultery?
PY: I have no idea.

I don't think it's much if any. It's an anachronism in Christianity.

You nare very hard headed. Do you not realize that IF IT EVER HAPPENED IN THE NAME OF ANY WESTERN RELIGION OR GOVERNMENT, IT IS ABSOLUTE CURRENT POLICY, AND an ONGOING PROBLEM!

[geni]

It's difficult to imagine much worse than burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her to death for having been rapped. You say this is an improvement. Perhaps in some incremental way it is.

Kill a bunch of women and girls face a fine of maybe a few thousand dollars. It would have been more for a boy of course.



Let's know about it and understand it.


Pashtunwali? People have tried but it is mostly uncodified. and local conditions make it tricky.


Let's make damn certain that Sharia law is at best kept to third world nations and hope these folks can some how get out of the bronze age.


We tried that Mohammed Abdullah Hassan tried to kill us. Took a mixture of air power, smallpox and an HMS Ark Royal to neutralise the guy (that bit of the war took 3 weeks and cost £77,000).


And let's not pretend that religion is really helping beyond some incremental way and in many ways contributing to the continuance of patriarchal subjugation of women.

I doubt it is haveing any effect on that what so ever in Somalia. The islamic courts takeing over were the first time the country has been reasonably stable since 1986.

[geni]

Fact is, you can't name a single Islamic state where this crap is not only tolerated but codified in law.

Egypt, Jordan, Bangladesh. Sharia law is in any case largely uncodified. It only really gets involved in criminal law in saudi arabia, iran and bits of nigeria.

[RandFan]

You nare very hard headed.Perhaps but I appologize more than the average person and I'm quite capable of admitting when I do in fact realize that I'm wrong.

Do you not realize that IF IT EVER HAPPENED IN THE NAME OF ANY WESTERN RELIGION OR GOVERNMENT, IT IS ABSOLUTE CURRENT POLICY, AND an ONGOING PROBLEM!I don't understand your point. Not only am I hard headed but thick also. Perhaps that's the same thing. :)

Please to clarify? The bolded capitalization doesn't seem to be helping.

[RandFan]

I doubt it is haveing any effect on that what so ever in Somalia. The islamic courts takeing over were the first time the country has been reasonably stable since 1986. It's not even that. I think the best we can do is propagate reason and point out that while religion isn't without some civilizing influence we have much better philosophies. In fact, we've had them for hundreds of years and arguably thousands. Religious based oppression isn't going away anytime soon but that fact is hardly a reason to shrug our shoulders and look away.

[Lonewulf]

It's a rich tapestry.So you're proud of your drivel and your lie. Go figure. It's what trolls tend to be -- proud of their ability to troll. Never can admit you're wrong, and have no ability to apologize... that sums you up.

If you're willing to lie, can you please tell me why I should be interested in communicating with you? Just one reason, please?

I can't think of any myself.

[rwguinn]

Perhaps but I appologize more than the average person and I'm quite capable of admitting when I do in fact realize that I'm wrong.

I don't understand your point. Not only am I hard headed but thick also. Perhaps that's the same thing. :)

Please to clarify? The bolded capitalization doesn't seem to be helping.Does this help?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:
THere are people out there (and here) who's screen names are excessively appropriate, and willm seek any way to condemn Western civilization (the US in particular) even if it means being stupidly consistent in their disdain...

[Fiona]

Does this help?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:
THere are people out there (and here) who's screen names are excessively appropriate, and willm seek any way to condemn Western civilization (the US in particular) even if it means being stupidly consistent in their disdain...

I haven't noticed that, I must say

[RandFan]

Does this help?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:No.

THere are people out there (and here) who's screen names are excessively appropriate, and willm seek any way to condemn Western civilization (the US in particular) even if it means being stupidly consistent in their disdain...I sincerely apologize. I've not a clue what your point is. Are you making a Tu Quoque argument?

Many people come to this forum to criticize America. That's fine with me. Some folks aren't interested in a discussion though and only want to denigrate the US. Those people bother me and I don't have much respect for that.

I don't seek to simply denigrate Muslims. Neither am I unwilling to discuss the merits or concede arguments. I have no ethnic bias against anyone. I'm deeply concerned about the Islamic political movement and religious dogmatism that seeks theocratic control and that oppresses women, homosexuals, non-Muslims and teaches intolerance.

So, with that in mind, what are you getting at?

[rwguinn]

No.

I sincerely apologize. I've not a clue what your point is. Are you making a Tu Quoque argument?

Many people come to this forum to criticize America. That's fine with me. Some folks aren't interested in a discussion though and only want to denigrate the US. Those people bother me and I don't have much respect for that.

I don't seek to simply denigrate Muslims. Neither am I unwilling to discuss the merits or concede arguments. I have no ethnic bias against anyone. I'm deeply concerned about the Islamic political movement and religious dogmatism that seeks theocratic control and that oppresses women, homosexuals, non-Muslims and teaches intolerance.

So, with that in mind, what are you getting at?I surrender. I had a higher opinion of your discernment that was apparently justified...
My comments were actually aimed at The Fool and the rest of the Muslim Apologists.
My apologies fo0r thinking you were making rational arguments against Sharia Law...
I'm gone..

[Professor Yaffle]

My problem with these sorts of threads (look at the bad things muslims are doing) is that I think they are actually counterproductive. Hearing this sort of thing all the time (along with a lot worse) IMO is more likely to make any muslim coming across them become very defensive and I think that defensiveness is something which drives insularity, separation and ultimately extremism.

[geni]

It's not even that. I think the best we can do is propagate reason and point out that while religion isn't without some civilizing influence we have much better philosophies.

We tried them in somalia. They didn't work (well imperialism sort of worked for a while).


In fact, we've had them for hundreds of years and arguably thousands. Religious based oppression isn't going away anytime soon but that fact is hardly a reason to shrug our shoulders and look away.

No the way they kept killing anyone who tried to change things was the reason people tended to shrug their shoulders and look away. Again it's somalia. Your 21st century western ways of thinking are not going to work here if you want to undestand the place.

[RandFan]

I surrender. I had a higher opinion of your discernment that was apparently justified...
My comments were actually aimed at The Fool and the rest of the Muslim Apologists.
My apologies fo0r thinking you were making rational arguments against Sharia Law...
I'm gone..I'm sorry.

[RandFan]

We tried them in somalia. They didn't work (well imperialism sort of worked for a while).

No the way they kept killing anyone who tried to change things was the reason people tended to shrug their shoulders and look away. Again it's somalia. Your 21st century western ways of thinking are not going to work here if you want to undestand the place.:rolleyes:

You are arguing with something in your head and not with anything I've said.

The best we can do is understand history, current events and propagate reason. It's the best we've got. I choose not to stick my head in the sand. That's not a suggestion to mount up and invade Somalia. Perhaps we could dispense with that meme.

[Jigsaw_Psyche]

That's pretty scary to me. I am no religious scholar, but it's my understanding that the Koran says that flogging is the punishment for adultery.

The punishment for adultery in the Quran is confinement to one's house until they die of starvation. However this was replaced by the ahadith punishment.


Stoning is commanded/recommended by one of their prophets.

All of Islam came from Muhammad. He is the only prophet they follow, although they pay lip service to many of the Jewish prophets (and they consider Jesus also a prophet). Stoning is mandated by Muhammad in the ahadith (sayings/deeds of Muhammad).


Thus if a man is accused of raping a woman and is acquitted because of the circumstances rather than the lack of proof of sex, the woman is pretty much admitting to adultery. And since Islam is the "fundamental source of legislation" she's gonna be in a bad place.

Adultery usually has to be proven (in islam) by 4 male witnesses, or the equivalent of females (since 2 women are equal to 1 man in testimony value because they have bad memories according to Muhammad and are deficient in intelligence). So if you had 1 male witness, then you'd need 6 female witnesses also (to make it up to 4 'whole' testimonies)

If 4 witnesses aren't found, then the woman's husband can swear 4 times that she did it and that is proof enough. Of course women can't (a)swear 4 times they didn't do it (b)swear 4 times that their husband was unfaithful (or is that 8 times?)

However, you are absolutely correct that if she claims rape but can't bring forth the witnesses required to prove it, then she has admitted to sex outside of marriage hence adultery.


So, my prediction is that Iraq will have a low incidence of reported rapes.
Yes. Actually when debating Muslims the rape Statistics of USA vs <their favourite Muslim country> are brought up to show how moral Islam is :D :D

[WildCat]

I believe that it's a social problem, not a religious. I'd honestly say, without a doubt, that Christians, during the First, Second, and Third Crusades, committed some of the grossest atrocities around. Yet they were Christian.

My theory is that, while religion plays an influence, the influences that brought the west into development, are partly responsible for the change in mindset over the ages. So just blaming religion is pretty silly and doesn't get anyone anywhere.
And while the rest of the world moved on and stopped killing people in the name of religion Islam stands alone in keeping the whole "killing for god" tradition alive. Why? Because Islam hasn't had a reformation, and in fact any Muslim considering a reformation is marked for death by the nutjobs that lead it.

500 years after Christianity largely shed the yoke of theocratic rule the Muslim world still demands it, and wherever a secular government exists in a Muslim country the Islamists wage a bloody fight to overthrow them.

[WildCat]

Egypt, Jordan, Bangladesh.
Those countries aren't ruled by Imams.

[Professor Yaffle]

And while the rest of the world moved on and stopped killing people in the name of religion Islam stands alone in keeping the whole "killing for god" tradition alive. Why? Because Islam hasn't had a reformation, and in fact any Muslim considering a reformation is marked for death by the nutjobs that lead it.

500 years after Christianity largely shed the yoke of theocratic rule the Muslim world still demands it, and wherever a secular government exists in a Muslim country the Islamists wage a bloody fight to overthrow them.

Islam was founded about 600 years after christianity, so they still have time to do a better job in a shorter space of time...
:D

[Lonewulf]

Hm, so it does appear that Wildcat isn't willing to take back an obvious lie.

Okay.


This message is hidden because WildCat is on your ignore list.

As he's suitably proven for all that he's a dishonest debater, he belongs there.

[luchog]

I do think that secular governments lead to less attrocity
Because the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China (and Vietnam, and Cambodia, and Bangladesh, and North Korea, and Argentina, and Guatemala, and Yugoslavia, and Albania, and so on) were every bit the paradises that their supporters claimed that they'd be.

and I'm very concerned about the rise of Christian theocracy in my own nation and it is that concern that has led me to commit to voting for a Democrat for president for the first time in my life.
I'm not. I don't see any evidence that the US is in any way moving toward a theocracy. I am concerned about the influence and actions of Dominionist Christian groups in the US; but no more so than fundamentalist Muslim, hardline Communist, and other fanatical groups with large followings. I think their power and influence is greatly over-exaggerated; and the vast majority of Christians are far more liberal.

[luchog]

But the fact that the Christian nations seem to disregard their holy relic seems to put to rest any claim that Muslims must necessarily be evil thanks to their religion, since Christians seem to avoid it when it suits them.

They also seem to avoid what Christ said when it suits them, too.
The main difference that people seem to be ignoring is that the penalties for various social transgressions laid out in the Old Testament/Torah were explicitly abolished by the Christ. Those who continue to apply or demand such punishments do so in direct violation of His commandments, and abrogate any claim to be His followers, as per His words in scripture. They can only support such actions by self-serving justifications that involve taking out of context and flat-out ignoring the majority of the Christ's teachings and commandments.

Islam is quite different, in that it does explicitly mandate many hard punishments for numerous transgressions. There are some variations between sects, depending on the particular hadith they consider valid; but many of the harshest penalties are enumerated in teh Quran itself; which is held to be inviolable and the final world on any issue which it addresses. And it definitely prescribes death, severe corporal punishment, or life imprisonment for many sins, including homosexuality, adultery, and bestiality. By contrast the worst penalty that Christian scripture prescribes is simple ostracism by believers, refusal to associate with the unrepentant transgressor; with no other temporal penalties allowed.

For a Christian to demand any penalty more severe than simple disassociation for a social transgression is to violate their own scripture. For a Muslim to demand a penalty less severe is also to violate their own scripture. Provisions are made in the Quran for repentance and mercy; but these often limited, and still require a substantial penalty of some sort. The penalties for many social transgressions are vague in the Quran, but there are typically hadith which are much more explicit, and the acceptad hadith are nearly equal to the Quran in authority.

Scripture does denote more substantial penalties for material transgressions, eg. murder, theft, rape; but these are almost invariably less severe than the Islamic equivalents; and enforcement is explicitly left to the existing civil authorities, whereas in Islam, there is no such divide between religious and civil authority. There is also a substantial difference in severity of punishments for transgressions by males and females in Islam, whereas no such divide exists in Christianity.

[Lonewulf]

explicitly?

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree, Luchog, unless I can see some evidence.

[luchog]

Those countries aren't ruled by Imams.
Only Iran is ruled by Imams, since the deposition of the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, may Islamic nations, while ostensibly republican or constitutional monarchies, have Islam as the official state religion, and only Muslims are eligible to hold public office. Many of these have shari'a at least partially incorporated into civil law. For example, in the majority of Islamic states, homosexuality is punishable by law, with penalties ranging from strong fines and several years imprisonment, up to and including the death penalty. In some nations which maintain seperate civil and shari'a court systems, the shari'a courts carry a power equal or nearly equal to that of the civil courts. For example, Malaysia, ostensibly a constitutional monarcy, is officially Islamic, and the civil courts cannot overrule the decisions of shari'a courts. Even though shari'a law is officially only binding on Muslims; non-Muslims are increasingly being required to attend and be subject to the authority of the shari'a courts in any dealings with a Muslim.

In states where Islam is only the majority religion, instead of the official state religion, such as Turkey, this is typically not the case. However, there are situations where shari'a is the prevailing law and fully enforced, such as in the 11 northern states of Nigeria (about a third of the total nation).

[luchog]

explicitly?

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree, Luchog, unless I can see some evidence.

Which "explicity" are you referring to? The issues regarding Christianity and temporal punishment has been hashed out repeatedly in the Relgion forum, so I see no reason to re-hash it here.

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, and as far as I saw, there was no "explicitly" about that, except Jesus mentioning how the old testament laws still applied.

So I see no need to draw the conclusion you drew, as a premise seems innately flawed.

[RandFan]

Because the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China (and Vietnam, and Cambodia, and Bangladesh, and North Korea, and Argentina, and Guatemala, and Yugoslavia, and Albania, and so on) were every bit the paradises that their supporters claimed that they'd be. Fair point. I think secular democratic nations lead to less violence. The countries you list just replaced one dogmatic belief system with another. BTW, this a good place to pluch Sharansky's The Case For Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Democracy-Freedom-Overcome-Tyranny/dp/1586482610).

I'm not. I don't see any evidence that the US is in any way moving toward a theocracy. I am concerned about the influence and actions of Dominionist Christian groups in the US; but no more so than fundamentalist Muslim, hardline Communist, and other fanatical groups with large followings. I think their power and influence is greatly over-exaggerated; and the vast majority of Christians are far more liberal.What's ironic is that I carried on an email debate with James Randi arguing your position. I don't think there is any question of it now. The sky is not falling but we are at the most dangerous time in our history.

[gtc]

Hm, doesn't the old testament tell you to stone people on all sorts of fun occasions?

Is there anything in the Bible that says, "Please disregard everything else God said to do, please"?

Jesus saying that only those without sin should cast the first stone is generally considered to overturn the right of Christians to go through with the punishment sanctioned in the old testament. I believe this is in line with the various Jewish legal interpretations which imposed similar restrictions.

There are other lines in the new testament which more or less explicitly overturn other rules of the old testament - such as the food laws.

[Fredrik]

Jesus saying that only those without sin should cast the first stone is generally considered to overturn the right of Christians to go through with the punishment sanctioned in the old testament. I believe this is in line with the various Jewish legal interpretations which imposed similar restrictions.

There are other lines in the new testament which more or less explicitly overturn other rules of the old testament - such as the food laws.
Isn't there also a section where he says explicitly that he isn't overturning any of the old laws? (I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about and can post the exact words).

[slingblade]

I can't pull up a browser right now, running something else that eats memory. But isn't that the "I come not to (abolish, destroy?) the law, but to fulfill it" verse you're thinking of? If so, then I'd take that to mean, and was taught that it meant "in me the law is fulfilled, so these things you need not do anymore," like animal sacrifice for remission of sins.

I think that's what you wanted, but am not sure...

[Professor Yaffle]

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sermon/sermon_07.htm


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[geni]

Those countries aren't ruled by Imams.

Still islamic states Islamic states. East Pakistan, transjordan and egypt were all set up as islamic states (indeed rather the point of East Pakistan) and still are.

[geni]

Fair point. I think secular democratic nations lead to less violence.

The british empire at it's hight covered almost a quater of the world land area. Cultures adverse to violence don't tend to produce that kind of situation.

[Lonewulf]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Hm...

Seems mostly to be saying "follow the commandments" more than anything.

[Fiona]

There was a whole thread on that but I cannot find it in search. Perhaps someone remembers? It was not all that long ago I think and the topic was covered in some depth

[Magyar]

Well looks like they are now making it a weekly event. Pretty soon it will have it's own channel. Maybe they'll even take bets. - How many stones will it take this week?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/01/AR2008110102052.html?hpid=sec-world

Wonder what kind of medal the men get, not just the ones that raped the women but the one who has the best toss.

[RandFan]

The british empire at it's hight covered almost a quater of the world land area. Cultures adverse to violence don't tend to produce that kind of situation.I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not sure "that kind of situation" is necassarily a good thing.

[geni]

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not sure "that kind of situation" is necassarily a good thing.

At the hight of the empire britian was a secular democratic nation. Secular democratic nations can be very violent.

[RandFan]

At the hight of the empire britian was a secular democratic nation. Secular democratic nations can be very violent.Secular is somewhat debatable but let's go with that. Yes, they can be. I think they are less likely to be so now. I think secular nations are more flexible and capable of learning from past mistakes. I think empire building is an anachronism and hegemony is quickly becoming one also.

Let's throw in Iraq. The deaths of all of the Iraqis is due in part to American involvement and America is a secular nation. Of course America didn't want those deaths. That was in part due to insurgents.

I think most would agree that secular democracy is the best bet for us but it's not an absolute. I'll concede that.

[Darth Rotor]

No problems wildcat....you can join Archbishop Randfan and cleans the world of the evils of Islam.
Not a bad start, actually. Note how successful the purge of Orthodox religion in Russia was in making Russia a land of virtue, sweetness and light.

Hmm, wait a minute . . .
First thing is that reason will need to penetrate your skulls to the point that you comprehend cause and effect. Good luck.
You might do likewise, but it will only happen when the fingers come out of your ears. The problem of the trend of Islamist reactionary political movements, since the mid 1960's, is that they are, well, reactionary, not progressive.

They are not the only movements afoot in Islam, not hardly, but those movements have had a profound impact on geopolitics since the adherents tend to take action, dramatic and frequently bloody, action.

On a less bloody front, how do you square you ostrich approach with the Islamic Revolution, and its aftermath, in Iran?

DR

[slingblade]

At the hight of the empire britian was a secular democratic nation. Secular democratic nations can be very violent.

Both you and RandFan have shown me only that all forms of government have the potential (and for many, the actuality) of abusing or misusing their powers. This seems to me to be due in large part to the type of person who is drawn to government (which I semantically differ from "leadership," although not by much).

The main difference, in only my opinion, is that secular governments can't, by their non-theistic nature, ascribe their abuses of power to the dictates of an unknowable, unreachable, unaccountable god or gods. When a secular government screws up, it has only actual people to blame.

[gtc]

The main difference, in only my opinion, is that secular governments can't, by their non-theistic nature, ascribe their abuses of power to the dictates of an unknowable, unreachable, unaccountable god or gods. When a secular government screws up, it has only actual people to blame.

I think ideology can replace the religion in some cases. The way that most communist dictators weren't thinking of actual people when they talked abou 'the proletariat'.

[The Fool]

You might do likewise, but it will only happen when the fingers come out of your ears. The problem of the trend of Islamist reactionary political movements, since the mid 1960's, is that they are, well, reactionary, not progressive.

They are not the only movements afoot in Islam, not hardly, but those movements have had a profound impact on geopolitics since the adherents tend to take action, dramatic and frequently bloody, action.

On a less bloody front, how do you square you ostrich approach with the Islamic Revolution, and its aftermath, in Iran?

DR
Lol....fingers in ears, ostrich approach. Thats a laugh. I see and hear all the same stories you do. Wackjobs doing outrageous things and saying a supernatural being says its cool...

Still leaves the good old cause and effect question. Rather than worrying about my fingers and ears have yo got fingers in ears about that question? I hope you are not joining randfan in suggesting the problem is that they subscribe to the wrong messiah? As if these wackjobs would be controlled if we issued them a new holy book....my guess is they could find what they are looking for in a cookbook so which holy volume they own is irrelevant.

[RandFan]

...my guess is they could find what they are looking for in a cookbook so which holy volume they own is irrelevant.Yet there IS oppression of women in Muslim culture in many parts of the world. Yet there is beating of Muslim women in other parts of the world. The evidence you refuse to acknowledge is that Islam preaches that adultery is a sin and Muslim culture often treats women at best as children and at worst as slaves. Islam practices gender apartheid and does not give positions of leadership to women. Islam guarantees the silencing of women to their plight and demands submission.

So yes, your refusal to acknowledge these facts IS the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

[RandFan]

Lol....fingers in ears, ostrich approach.


There are none so blind as they who will not see.

Islam akes a very dim view of adultery (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548032)(and homosexuality BTW).
Islam Uses Sharia courts to oppress women (http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2008/08/archbishop-is-helping-muslim-men.html).
Islam commits sexual apartheid (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexAction.html).

Go ahead, don't view the links. Why let the facts get in the way of your world view?

[The Fool]

Yet there IS oppression of women in Muslim culture in many parts of the world. Yet there is beating of Muslim women in other parts of the world. The evidence you refuse to acknowledge is that Islam preaches that adultery is a sin and Muslim culture often treats women at best as children and at worst as slaves. Islam practices gender apartheid and does not give positions of leadership to women. Islam guarantees the silencing of women to their plight and demands submission.

So yes, your refusal to acknowledge these facts IS the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
Calm down archbishop.....I've got some news for you. The people that are doing all the things you describe are people....humans. Its not being done by Islam...Its being done by humans using a particular interpretation of Islamic books to make themselves feel justified.
I put it to you that these wackjobs could also use the "cat in the hat" series of books and find enough justification.

Tell me again that nice bedtime story about Jesus and how if that story was in thier books they would all be happy smiling people holding hands....


and you know what is the sadest bit....I do acknowledge all those things you list...always have. Its just your lack of Honesty that allows you to continually claim I don't despite my constant reminders to you to simply read what I write instead of reading what you want to see.

[Fiona]

. Islam practices gender apartheid and does not give positions of leadership to women. Islam guarantees the silencing of women to their plight and demands submission.


Benazir Bhutto?

Massoumeh Ebtekar?

[RandFan]

The people that are doing all the things you describe are people....humans.Yes, Muslims. I know you have to play games. As if you don't know what I'm talking about. That's just another form of sticking your fingers in your ears.

Its not being done by Islam...Its being done by humans using a particular interpretation of Islamic books to make themselves feel justified.
Doesn't change that fact that women in Muslim culture are subjugated. You can flail your hands about all day but you won't change the facts.

....I do acknowledge all those things you list...Sure. You bet. All the time. Of course, if this were true there would be no argument. Stoning women doesn't happen in a vacuum. Religion does in fact play a large influence informing the morality of people. You want to say that Islam has no influence. That it plays no part. THAT is what is dishonest.

[RandFan]

Benazir Bhutto?

Massoumeh Ebtekar?Wow. 2 people. How many women clerics are there? How many male clerics are there? How many male political leaders are there? How many women political leaders are there?

Yes, we can always find exceptions but would you honestly state that these are statistically significant?

[Fiona]

No, Randfan, I wouldn't.

But I will say that the feminist movement within islam is quite clear that much of what is charged against the islamic world is not supported by the religion. It arises from the arabic culture which is dominant in some parts of the world. And I believe there is truth in that.

The religion itself is, as The Fool has said, able to support all manner of different laws and traditions, just like Christianity can.

A nasty mindset can arise out of and be supported by any "big idea", and I see no reason to single out religion in this respect. Islam is as complex as any other large religion and there are liberal and reactionary strands within it too.

[Gurdur]

Benazir Bhutto?

Massoumeh Ebtekar?


How dare you spoil a crusade speech by bringing up facts, of all things?

BTW, also:

Rābiʻa al-ʻAdawiyya al-Qaysiyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabi%27a_al-%27Adawiyya)
.
Megawati Sukarnoputri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Soekarnoputri)
too

[Gurdur]

Islam practices gender apartheid and does not give positions of leadership to women. Islam guarantees the silencing of women to their plight and demands submission.Wow. ....
Yes, we can always find exceptions but would honestly state that these are statistically significant?


Ahya! You can always find exceptions proving a statement wrong, but you can't force the person stating it to take any notice! Nyah nyah nyah and so on!

[Toke]

Come on, things are not that bad:D
Last time I was in Mauritania there was an election, and Both candidates promised to start enforcing the ban on slavery.

Wives had rights too, they could complain to the mullah if they did not get their share of maritial attention from their husbond, apparrently a serius offence.

A 17 year old female slave for wife were app. 500$, dropping with age and chance of unbroken seal.

(reference, captains conversation with pilot)

[Toke]

No, Randfan, I wouldn't.

But I will say that the feminist movement within islam is quite clear that much of what is charged against the islamic world is not supported by the religion. It arises from the arabic culture which is dominant in some parts of the world. And I believe there is truth in that.

The religion itself is, as The Fool has said, able to support all manner of different laws and traditions, just like Christianity can.

A nasty mindset can arise out of and be supported by any "big idea", and I see no reason to single out religion in this respect. Islam is as complex as any other large religion and there are liberal and reactionary strands within it too.

Good point, there are many ways to read a holy book, and you can find support for almost any custom you want.
It must have taken some deft theologi to get muhammed to ban women drivers.

[RandFan]

No, Randfan, I wouldn't.

But I will say that the feminist movement within islam is quite clear that much of what is charged against the islamic world is not supported by the religion.I don't believe that this is true. Much of it is part and parcel with the culture and the religion. Much of it is in the Hadith. You talk about Christianity but Christianity has much to answer for. Yes there are moderate and liberal Chritian churches but Christianity went through a reformation. There has been no such Islamic reformation. I would happily welcome one.

Because of it's dominant and dogmatic nature. Because it dictates what is and is not moral we must focus on Islam. To do otherwise is to ignore the elephant in the room.

Have you read Infidel (http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289684)?

[Fiona]

I have not read Infidel though I know a little of her story

Have you read anything else?

[RandFan]

I have not read Infidel though I know a little of her story

Have you read anything else? I read a book or two a month. Sometimes it takes me a bit longer to finish. I confess I spend too much time on the internet.

I read the Koran when I was on my mission. I have a copy of it but haven't read much in twenty years. As it relates to this subject I've read Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens.

Do you have something you would recomend?

[Fiona]

http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/reports/re4c.pdf

As I understand it the feminist movement within islam is using those very texts (koran and hadith) to challenge the subordination of women within some of the countries where discriminatory law are based on pre-islamic practice.

It is certainly true that islam provided rights for women far in advance of those accorded by pre-reformation christianity since the right to property was established at the outset.

Do not misunderstand me: I am not defending any abrahamic religion's stance on the rights of women: but I am saying that your understanding is simplistic and that women within those cultures found on the religion in order to seek those reforms which you are suggesting arise from that source. It is a lot more complicated than you think

I did post about islam a long time ago but I can no longer find that thread. And I have not time to dig up a lot of that stuff again now. But there are many people, men and women, who are fighting this fight: and demonising islam in the way you are doing is not helping them imvho

[I Ratant]

Come on, things are not that bad:D
Last time I was in Mauritania there was an election, and Both candidates promised to start enforcing the ban on slavery.

...
.
"...start enforcing the ban...".
Presuming one of the candidates is the incumbent, slavery was OK by him until the other guy showed up.
If the incumbent wins, then it'll be back to same ol', same ol'.

[Toke]

It was just an election promise,ferhaps only for the benefit of foreingers, besides I think they have had a coup since then.
They might well have city law and tribal law, the later will take a while longer to change.

[RandFan]

I did post about islam a long time ago but I can no longer find that thread. And I have not time to dig up a lot of that stuff again now. But there are many people, men and women, who are fighting this fight: and demonising islam in the way you are doing is not helping them imvhoI've started a number of threads and I can assure you that I am familiar with your POV and I don't take it lightly. I'm not trying to demonize Islam. I'm trying to raise consciousness.

I honestly don't know if Islam can be changed from within. I gladly support those who are trying. Fine, change Islam. I have no ethnic bias. I don't believe that Muslims are inherently different than anyone else. I'm only interested in propagating the truth of Islam. I concede that there are bigots and racists who will seize upon the criticism to advance their agenda. I'm sorry about that but I'm not going to stop just because there are such people.

I share the views of Dawkins, Harris, et al in that religion is dogmatic and makes virtue of ignorance and faith. Further it demeans and belittles the questioning of authority and independence. Islam does this more than Christianity. Islam translated literally means submission.

I find these notions antithetical to liberal thought and life. I find that religion enslaves people to a degree that is difficult to imagine. It is most offensive to women and homosexuals.

Can women live independent and fulfilled lives inside of Islam? To a degree yes. It's damn hard and given that Islam isn't true, Muhammad didn't ride to Heaven on a white horse, then to what end should a woman be subjugated by religion?

I stand by and support Ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others (like the Council of Ex Muslims of Brittan (http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/)). I speak out in support of the women who are oppressed and beaten.

I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you about the merits of Islam. Please post any information you think is appropriate.

[Fiona]

It is an interesting subject Randfan and I suspect that we have many points of agreement. Unfortunately it is very late here so this will have to wait for another time :)

[geni]

Come on, things are not that bad:D
Last time I was in Mauritania there was an election, and Both candidates promised to start enforcing the ban on slavery.


And since then the winning candidate was chucked out in a militry coup.

[Toke]

And since then the winning candidate was chucked out in a militry coup.

Come on, at least they are taking about it.
Besides he could have have been couped for any number of reasons, unlikely it was slavery.

[tomwaits]

Yeah, and as far as I saw, there was no "explicitly" about that, except Jesus mentioning how the old testament laws still applied.



Rule Number One When Attempting to Change Your Religion: Always try to make it clear that you are not trying to change the religion, you are only trying to bring it to the "real" interpretation.

This is a long standing tactic throughout world history.

[Father Dagon]

Being raped is a defence under sharia law but depending on the version you need to provide multiple male witnesses. The problem with this is fairly obvious.

There are other versions of sharia where flat denial is a legit defence unless the other side can produce 4 witnesses.Why this fixation with numbers? Quality beats quantity.

[Darth Rotor]

So I see no need to draw the conclusion you drew, as a premise seems innately flawed.
For the temporally impaired, the Reformation is not a current event, nor is the Inquisition.

RandFan's distress at the current state of play, regarding Abrahamic era norms being enforced as law, in the current sector of the space time continuum, is not a suitable arena for a moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity, for all that they share, with Judaism, Abrahamic roots.

Can we proceed to get back on topic, folks, please?

This is not R & P, this is Current Events.

Is it a Edited for Rule 10. shame that some wench got stoned for being sexually active in a Muslim country?

Yes.

Is it worth losing sleep over?

No.

Why?

It's not worth invading that load of wogs to sort them out.

This post has been brought to you by Woodford Reserve: bourbon for the discerning drunk.

DR

[gumboot]

I don't mean to turn this political, but I think the Iraqi constitution deserves a mention. The popular press refers to Iraq as a democracy, but have you actually read their constitution? Here's the beginning of Article 2

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.



I find this rather odd. Islamic philosophy is that law and rule comes from God, and only God, and therefore any attempt to allow man to dictate law and rule amounts to an attempt by man to subvert God's rule, and is therefore extreme sin.

Thus, democracy is the absolute antithesis of Islamic rule. You simply cannot have a genuine Islamic democracy. It is not possible. Boiling it down to fundamentals, Islam is the Rule of God. Democracy is the Rule of Man. There is no room for compromise.

[Travis]

So we learn from the BBC today that the girl was only 13 years old, was removed from the hole after being stoned but found to still be barely alive and was reburied so the stoning could continue and that she was initially raped by three men.

[lionking]

There has been some debate about outrages by Christian sects in the far and recent past. If a fundy Christian sect stoned someone for a violation of Abrahamic law, I am absolutely certain that Christian leaders world-wide would be condemning this long and loud. Where is the condemnation by Imams of the stoning of this poor girl ?

This is not entirely rhetorical, I may have missed it. And I don't mean condemnation by professors of Islamic Studies at western universities.

[Darth Rotor]

So we learn from the BBC today that the girl was only 13 years old, was removed from the hole after being stoned but found to still be barely alive and was reburied so the stoning could continue and that she was initially raped by three men.
At this point it might be tasteless to cue up Humble Pie's "Thirty Days in the Hole" so I won't link to the song.

Plus, the stonee wasn't Lebanese.

Travis, do you have link to the BBC? I am curious as to what punishment the three men got for having sex outside of wedlock.

I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you about the merits of Islam. Please post any information you think is appropriate. Are you referring to Islam as a religion, or as a socio-economic system?

DR

[RandFan]

Are you referring to Islam as a religion, or as a socio-economic system? Anything you or anyone else would like to discuss.

[WildCat]

There has been some debate about outrages by Christian sects in the far and recent past. If a fundy Christian sect stoned someone for a violation of Abrahamic law, I am absolutely certain that Christian leaders world-wide would be condemning this long and loud. Where is the condemnation by Imams of the stoning of this poor girl ?

This is not entirely rhetorical, I may have missed it. And I don't mean condemnation by professors of Islamic Studies at western universities.
And that's the issue, isn't it?

I once saw a video on the internet (sorry but I have since forgotten where as it was something I don't ever want to see again) of a woman in Iran (not some 3rd world backwater but an economically modern state) being stoned to death for the horrible crime of prostitution. After having both her eyes taken out by the rocks she somehow managed to free herself from the hole and ran blindly around the laughing crowd until some soldiers chased her down and shot her. It was sickening.

[Travis]

At this point it might be tasteless to cue up Humble Pie's "Thirty Days in the Hole" so I won't link to the song.

Plus, the stonee wasn't Lebanese.

Travis, do you have link to the BBC? I am curious as to what punishment the three men got for having sex outside of wedlock.

Stoning victim 'begged for mercy' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm)

As far as I can tell nothing happened to the three men because they never investigated the rape. As soon as the girls family reported the rape they simply arrested her and then had her stoned. It doesn't look like they ever tried to establish if there was a rape or not. My guess is that the local religious radicals were looking for some woman they could stone and "send a message" and this poor girl simply became their excuse to get it done.

These people are worse than animals. Animals I have empathy for but these monsters need to be tied up and introduced to the African specialty of Necklacing.

[geni]

Stoning victim 'begged for mercy' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm)

As far as I can tell nothing happened to the three men because they never investigated the rape. As soon as the girls family reported the rape they simply arrested her and then had her stoned. It doesn't look like they ever tried to establish if there was a rape or not. My guess is that the local religious radicals were looking for some woman they could stone and "send a message" and this poor girl simply became their excuse to get it done.


They overplayed their hand. The locals are not looking too happy about events.

[luchog]

Isn't there also a section where he says explicitly that he isn't overturning any of the old laws? (I'm sure someone knows what I'm talking about and can post the exact words).
Not quite.

The Law still applies. Everyone is still subject to the Law, because all of creation is bound by it, just as much as by any of the physical laws that we know. However, temporal judgement was abolished, first by His words, then by his sacrificial death, which paid the penalty, temporal and spiritual, for all transgressions of Law. That was the entire point of the crucifixion.

His words were explicit. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." When the crowd disappeared, he explicitly rescinded the accusation and command for temporal punishment under the Law; but made it clear that Law still applied in a spiritual context ("Go, and sin no more.")

Another important example was when the disciples asked Him "What is the greatest commandment?", to which He replied "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your body, and all your soul. And the second is similar, Love your neighbor as yourself. In these are contained all the Law and the Prophets." When asked who He was referring to by "neighbor", he told the parable of the Samaritan. It's important to understand who the Samaritans were, and that that the relationship of the Jews and the Samaritans wasn't just one of mutual prejudice; but actual Law. The Samaritans were an offshoot of the Jews who practices a significantly different form of the religion. Sufficiently different that they were minim and apikoresim to each other; and thus to associate was to transgress the Law, become ceremonially defiled. Such an occurrence as described in the parable was highly unusual.

[Safe-Keeper]

Isn't there also a section where he says explicitly that he isn't overturning any of the old laws?Clicky (http://thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_the_law_of_moses/mt05_17.html):).