-
Islam: Our Partners in Peace...
Form the AOL homepage
Think of the amazing progress made...they're actually considering an overall worldview, the ramifications, and natural law vis-a-vis human rights...'tis a dawning of a new age...
KHARTOUM, Sudan (Sept. 7) - A Sudanese judge convicted a woman journalist on Monday for violating the public indecency law by wearing trousers outdoors and fined her $200, but did not impose a feared flogging penalty.
Lubna Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by the public order police in Khartoum. Ten of the women were fined and flogged two days later. But Hussein and two others decided to go to trial.
"I will not pay a penny," she told the Associated Press while still in court custody, wearing the same trousers that had sparked her arrest.
Hussein said Friday she would rather go to jail than pay any fine, out of protest of the nation's strict laws on women's dress.
"I won't pay, as a matter of principle," she said. "I would spend a month in jail. It is a chance to explore the conditions in jail."
The case has made headlines in Sudan and around the world and Hussein used it to rally world opinion against the country's morality laws based on a strict interpretation of Islam.
Galal al-Sayed, Hussein's lawyer, said he advised her to pay the fine before appealing the decision. She refused, he said, "She insisted."
The lawyer said the judge ignored his request to present defense witnesses.
"The ruling is incorrect," he said, adding that the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements.
Al-Sayed said the judge had the option of choosing flogging, but apparently opted for fine to avoid international criticism. "There is a general sentiment in the world that flogging is humiliating."
Ahead of the trial, police rounded up dozens of female demonstrators, many of them wearing trousers, outside the courtroom.
The London-based Amnesty International on Friday called on the Sudanese government to withdraw the charges against Hussein and repeal the law which justifies "abhorrent" penalties.
Human rights and political groups in Sudan say the law is in violation of the 2005 constitution drafted after a peace deal ended two decades of war between the predominantly Muslim north and the Christian and animist south Sudan.
The Amnesty statement said Sudan had been urged to amend the law which permits flogging, on the grounds that it is state-sanctioned torture, after eight women were flogged in public in 2003 with plastic and metal whips leaving permanent scars on the women. The women had been picnicking with male friends.
As a U.N. staffer, Hussein should have immunity from prosecution but she has opted to resign so that she could stand trial and draw attention to the case.
In a column published in the British daily the Guardian Friday, Hussein said her case is not an isolated one, but is a showcase of repressive laws in a country with a long history of civil conflicts.
"When I think of my trial, I pray that my daughters will never live in fear of these police ... We will only be secure once the police protect us and these laws are repealed," she wrote.
Hussein said earlier she would take the issue all the way to Sudan's Constitutional Court necessary, but that if the court rules against her and orders the flogging, she's ready "to receive (even) 40,000 lashes" if that what it takes to abolish the law.
El Deeb reported from Cairo.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-09-07 09:02:09
-
Sharia law in Ontario
For a time serious consideration was given to permitting Sharia law to govern civil contracts between consenting individuals in the province of Ontario.
As I recall it was justified on the basis that it wasn't essentially different than have publically sponsored Catholic schools or the voluntary special criminal courts permited for status aboriginals. However the proposal was eventually rejected on the grounds (1) that the province simply didn't need two sets of laws, and (2) that the civil contracts in question would be predominently marriage contracts that would be discriminatory against women relative to the common law.
-
The judge should have just ordered the flogging and put it to rest. She has essentially already won.
For some reason Bob Seger's song Her Strut just came to mind.
Think of the endorsement money from jeans companies after this.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
The judge should have just ordered the flogging
Do you really believe that?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02audionoob
Do you really believe that?
Well no matter what, she has already won on the international stage. He could still order this thereby saving his face in the community. No matter what he orders, internationally it will be condemned.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02audionoob
Do you really believe that?
I was just being facecious. But, not that I believe she should have been for what she did but if they really wanted to enforce this law then they have to impose the penalty.
People want to think flogging is so unhumane then the same people won't hesitate to get into a fist fight over the stupidest of things. I have to wonder if the U.S. did this if our jails would be less populated. There's a town here in our state where some guys were arrested for walking up and just hitting a person. It seems this was a game to see if they could knock the person out in one punch. I just wonder if they will receive any real punishment, something other than parole. Would flogging stop stupidness like that or other petty crimes that wind people up in jail. It's like the school yard, love goes so far, you get your ass kicked enough, and then one day you have had enough and decide to fight back to prevent yourself from becoming the school door mat. When there's no consequence for one's actions then you get stupid stuff like what I mentioned. Sorry, for that rant but it some how connected at the time.
I'm not sure how letting women wear jeans would bring about peace but if that's what it takes...... Without knowing much about their government maybe this is what it takes to get a law changed. There are numerous examples of people here in the States who had to be arrested and take their case to the Supreme Court in order to win and change a law.
-
Punishment is a complicated issue in any humane culture.
-
The punishment should fit the crime.
I don't think flogging a woman for wearing pants is warranted, but I would strongly consider it for those yahoos who simply wanted to punch people for no reason.
But, that's cultural relativism for ya. Remember, this is the same culture that blames the woman when she's raped.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02audionoob
Punishment is a complicated issue in any humane culture.
Predicated on "humane culture"...but you knew that...
...:skep:
-
It looks like we are all on the same page so far.
I don't know if it was the same judge but i saw some women were flogged some days earlier for breaking the same law. They are physically scarred for life. The sentence on the books is 40 lashes, the thought of that makes me crenge.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
As a U.N. staffer, Hussein should have immunity from prosecution but she has opted to resign so that she could stand trial and draw attention to the case.
This woman is a hero. I know that I could not be so brave.
For anyone who doubts the severity of Taliban Islam against womens rights (and human rights) and freedoms, I recommend reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's memoirs, Infidel. It is a real eye opener.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
The judge should have just ordered the flogging and put it to rest. She has essentially already won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir TtT
Well no matter what, she has already won on the international stage.
No. She hasn’t won. The law has not been changed and the next woman to get arrested for something as silly and simple as wearing pants may still be flogged. The fact that a woman can get arrested for this at all is obscene. Yes she’s brought this to the attention of the world, but the only reason that the judge is not imposing the flogging (yet) is so that he doesn’t look bad to international eyes. It is not out of any sense of wrong or human decency.
She wins when the law is abolished.
If the world was not paying attention, I’m sure that she would be flogged with her sisters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
Think of the endorsement money from jeans companies after this.
That isn’t funny.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn
This woman is a hero. I know that I could not be so brave.
For anyone who doubts the severity of Taliban Islam against womens rights (and human rights) and freedoms, I recommend reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's memoirs, Infidel. It is a real eye opener.
Das freulein ist korrect....
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02
Mebbe some Nazi apologists will come along to correct me...
-
Where were the versus taken from? They must be either out of context or taken from some non-mainstream version of the Quran. If not, how could any Muslim live amongst anyone else and consider themselves devout?
-
That isn’t funny.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not, but I would bet she receives some offers. Sad, but true.
-
And your point is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
Das freulein ist korrect....
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43
If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8
You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74
Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76
But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89
Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39
O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65
It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28
Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.
Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41
O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73
Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111
Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.
Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5
Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25
Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29
Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9
The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51
Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02
Mebbe some Nazi apologists will come along to correct me...
Sorry man, you can find just as many bloody exhortations to kill the Philistine in the old testament of the bible. Look ALL "organized" religions have their faults. Considering the dirt the Catholic Church has done down through the Centuries against Protestants and Muslims I personally wouldn't be one pointing fingers. Still, you can't fault the religion but what people DO WITH THAT RELIGION. Hell according to the Book of Mormon I'm a lesser human being stained with sin, so trust me there's plenty of dirt to go around.
Da Worfster
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
Sorry man, you can find just as many bloody exhortations to kill the Philistine in the old testament of the bible. Look ALL "organized" religions have their faults. Considering the dirt the Catholic Church has done down through the Centuries against Protestants and Muslims I personally wouldn't be one pointing fingers. Still, you can't fault the religion but what people DO WITH THAT RELIGION. Hell according to the Book of Mormon I'm a lesser human being stained with sin, so trust me there's plenty of dirt to go around.
Da Worfster
On the contrary, you can fault religion: see Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great. But I agree that it is generally sanctimonious to criticize one religion versus another.
I don't recall the details, but I think it was Hitchens who recounts the story of T.H. Huxley's son (nephew?) who, having been brought up without religion, was exorted to read the Bible by a fellow solidier (WWI?). Huxley read the Old Testiment for a week or two, and exclaimed, "Isn't God a sh!t!", referring e.g. to Yahweh's instruction to the Tribes of Israel to slaughter the ememies, man, women, child, and domestic beast.
The God of the Old Testment is indeed a jealous and vengeful god and that's where Mohammed got his initial ideas, I suppose. The "God of Love" of the New Testement is argueably an improvement, (though I personally am not making the arguement).
-
That sort of stuff does scare me, but Worf's right. I'm afraid all that which is written in the Koran isn't particualrly original, and neither is the old testament for that matter. Judism isn't the world's first organized religion. Some stories in the Bible are direct decendants of greek mythology. Same with the Koran.
But I see Bobstyx's point - we see the old testament and appreciate it for its virtues and don't take it verbatim, at least not everyone. It's scary to think that anyone could read that text and not see it for it is, a reaction to western occupation, just as a lot of the new testament was a reaction to Roman occupation. We don't slaughter people outright in the name of religion, but every time the US has gone to war, we've evoked the righteousness of our God over others. So we're not as obvious. We'd never flog a woman for wearing pants. We don't publically flog anyone in western culture, at least not literally. We have more subtle, entertaining ways of stealing people's dignity called reality TV. But at least we limit our hysteria to people who ask for it...mostly.
It isn't hard to see how an Islamic culture, who is familiar with the Bible, could come to the conclusion that the Bible might be the basis for US policy in the middle east. The US seems to have unflinching, dutiful support for Israel - hey, even if you don't believe it, you know the rest of the world thinks it.. That plays right into a lot of that extremist rhetoric.
I myself, don't think all muslim people buy into that stuff, because they enjoy a fair amount of wealth and technology themselves - Bagdad was a very modern city at one time, hell, Muslims invented most of our modern engineering and mathematics. I think the extremists just get the most attention. Its like what if Quakers were gun toting zealots or something...luckily, we don't have any such contingencies in our society... But I guess sometimes it comes down to pickin a side...everyone's gotta picka side, whether we like it or not.
Like Bob Dylan once said, "You're gonna have to serve somebody".
If it comes down to protecting a way of life or doing whats right, which do you choose if you don't know the difference? Which do you choose if you do?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3LB
...
But I see Bobstyx's point - we see the old testament and appreciate it for its virtues and don't take it verbatim, at least not everyone. It's scary to think that anyone could read that text and not see it for it is, a reaction to western occupation, just as a lot of the new testament was a reaction to Roman occupation. We don't slaughter people outright in the name of religion, but every time the US has gone to war, we've evoked the righteousness of our God over others. So we're not as obvious. We'd never flog a woman for wearing pants. We don't publically flog anyone in western culture, at least not literally. We have more subtle, entertaining ways of stealing people's dignity called reality TV. But at least we limit our hysteria to people who ask for it...mostly.
It isn't hard to see how an Islamic culture, who is familiar with the Bible, could come to the conclusion that the Bible might be the basis for US policy in the middle east. The US seems to have unflinching, dutiful support for Israel - hey, even if you don't believe it, you know the rest of the world thinks it.. That plays right into a lot of that extremist rhetoric.
I myself, don't think all muslim people buy into that stuff, because they enjoy a fair amount of wealth and technology themselves - Bagdad was a very modern city at one time, hell, Muslims invented most of our modern engineering and mathematics. I think the extremists just get the most attention. Its like what if Quakers were gun toting zealots or something...luckily, we don't any such contingencies in our society... But I guess sometimes it comes down to pickin a side...everyone's gotta picka side, whether we like it or not.
...
It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.
Really? Did you ever wonder what was the main reason for the crusades?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.
when?
-
This is true...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
It's ironic that for a thousand years, Islamic realms were, in practical terms, far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian residents than contemporary Christian realms were their religious minorities.
In certain areas of Europe conqured by the Muslims, particualrly southern Spain, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived together in relative peace and harmony. This was shattered completely when Isabella and her hubby took over all of Spain, particularly the Moorish parts. Next up, the Spanish Inquisition. It is quite true. For a modern parralell, There are Jews in Iran still. They have the tacit blessing of the current Ayatollah who follows the precedent of the first one who intimated that the Jews who have lived peacefully in Iran are NOT the same Jews cross the way in Palestine. As far as I've heard, there've been no mass slaughters etc.. That might change in Isreal hits their nukes.
Da Worfster
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
Yes, really. I'm not talking about aggression between Islamic empires and Chritian empires, but about treatment of citizens within the respective empires.
-
FA, I never thought I would say this, but I completely agree with your post. I've also read Ayaan's books and seen her movie. I don't exactly think she had a good grasp of the politics in Somalia (or later The Netherlands), but it's certainly a vivid personal account worth reading. Let's hope she doesn't succumb to the same fate as Van Gogh....
That said, Islam is about complete submission. What Lubna Hussein is questioning isn't just the right to wear pants, but the right to question Islam, which in the eyes of many Muslims is far more blasphemous than the original crime. It is this very act that is so offensive about women in Iran refusing to wear the Hijab - it shows a defiance on many levels, one that if allowed, would lead to a domino effect. It could very well turn out that a higher court, one made up of different judges, will find her guilty of not complying with the lower court's findings, and punish her with a much more severe sentence.
On the issue of corporal punishment I do not agree at all that this would solve stupidity. As someone who spent years in schools where this was common practice, I can tell you without a doubt that it did nothing to curb undesired behavior and was seen by most of us as a rite of passage. I still keep in touch with a couple of my classmates and one was arrested for beating his own daughter and the other also regularly punishes his children with the dreaded "belt." Violence begets violence, so to speak, and it only furthers the escalation of violence in the lives of these people.
And this is true in the most repressive and violent countries too. Egypt comes to mind, where despite the most repulsive treatment in prisons (flogging, rape, fingernails, boiling, well you can use your imagination from there), their is no shortage of anti-government militants. Saddam couldn't contain his own republic of fear despite using the most unspeakable repression. We won't even go into the colorful history of Iran under the terror of the Savak, Pakistan's ISID, or the reasons we render the most stubborn "enemy combatants" to Morroco. These countries had/have atrocious human rights records and yet are still amazingly unstable to boot.
If we allow our (surprisingly religiously conservative) criminal justice system to become even more repressive and abusive against its inmates than it already is, then we only create a more violent criminal once he/she is released. Is it any wonder we have one of the highest rates in the Western world of criminals who return to prison? Would any of us allow an ex-con to move next door to our own homes? It matters little what crime they have committed - once they wear that scarlet letter, they can never be trusted again. And why is this? Because the violence inside has made them a person never to be trusted again. Our prison system is in some ways just as violent as the prisons in other countries, but we just pretend it isn't.
As Robin Williams put it so elegantly: once we convict a man for sodomy, we send him to a place where he'll be sodomized regularly. Where is the logic in that?
P.S. And yes, the violence and cruelty of the Crusades was incomparably one-sided.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Yes, really. I'm not talking about aggression between Islamic empires and Chritian empires, but about treatment of citizens within the respective empires.
So, you're saying that once they've subjugated the indigenous peoples and brutally killed off all that disagree with them, they were "nice" to those that survived?
There's a problem with that logic. See if you can figure it out.
-
Ahem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
...once they've subjugated the indigenous peoples and brutally killed off all that disagree with them, they were "nice" to those that survived?
There's a problem with that statement, too.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
There's a problem with that statement, too.
and that would be...?
-
During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.
This is not so say that Christians, Jews, et al., enjoyed anything like what we think of as "equality" today. Technically they were inferior to Muslims in various important ways -- different military service, (in fact forbidden from military service generaly speaking), and special taxes were typically applied. But at the same time they enjoyed rights and, usually, protection from arbitrary violence, pogroms, and the like that were too common in Christian Europe.
-
-
"many actually survived???
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflier
During the Muslim conquests, the point wasn't to "subjugate the indigenous peoples and brutally kill off all that disagreed with them." Actually, it is a testament to their civilized ways that so many actually survived, thrived, and participated in civil society under Muslim rule - there was tolerance for Jews and Christians as well as Zoroastrians and other who were not "of the book." This is in sharp contrast to the bloody mess left in the wake of the crusades - on one of these the crusaders even sacked Constantinople, the city that sponsored them in the first place.
You make it seem like so much fun! You should be a recruiter for the armed forces.
I'm sure their arrival was seen as a trip to Disneyland in all these countries
-
Well...
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
You make it seem like so much fun! You should be a recruiter for the armed forces.
I'm sure their arrival was seen as a trip to Disneyland in all these countries
Whatever your opinon of Islam as it practiced by some in the past and present what you've been told is true. You can characterise it any way you want but, for a time, Muslims were far more tolerant of religious differences than their "christian" neighbors. It's just as simple as that. I was born and raised a Christian and currently practice no organized religion, but fair is fair, truth is truth.
Da Worfster
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf101
Whatever your opinon of Islam as it practiced by some in the past and present what you've been told is true. You can characterise it any way you want but, for a time, Muslims were far more tolerant of religious differences than their "christian" neighbors. It's just as simple as that. I was born and raised a Christian and currently practice no organized religion, but fair is fair, truth is truth.
Da Worfster
When did their attitudes change, and why? Because they finally got enough of a handle on the situation to let their true intent come to light?
Looking at what's going on in Africa, Indonesia, and other countries under the Moslem influence simply appalls me and. as far as I can see, their style of law goes back as far as I can remember. And, I'm not too sure that a bit of revisionist history doesn't apply, either.
And, I see that Europe is slowly being "invaded" by Islam as well. How long before there is enough influence there to start the change to shahira law there big time?
"Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without kafir influence. The thin end of the longest wedge is to demand that Muslims live outside kafir law in family and banking. Already, in England Islamic family law supercedes British law in families. There is no end to Islamic demands for power. So one day, Muslims in Britain will live under their own law, judges and police. The final stage is when Sharia law replaces English law in totality and kafirs have to live under Sharia law as dhimmis. The British have decided not to oppose this process, but for it to happen slowly and smoothly."
The first bolded section has been tried and failed in Canada but don't be surprised if it resurfaces. It already seems to have gained a foothold in England.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkW
"Islam demands that Muslims form their own political units without kafir influence. The thin end of the longest wedge is to demand that Muslims live outside kafir law in family and banking. Already, in England Islamic family law supercedes British law in families. There is no end to Islamic demands for power. So one day, Muslims in Britain will live under their own law, judges and police. The final stage is when Sharia law replaces English law in totality and kafirs have to live under Sharia law as dhimmis. The British have decided not to oppose this process, but for it to happen slowly and smoothly."
Have you been to church lately? Not trying to start anything, but really, do you think other religions don't have laws by which they live? OK so they won't imprison you if you don't 'pop to', but they did a few centuries ago.
I know that the words of the Koran are harsh and are inflexible, but so too are the words of most religious texts. Mormons have laws that are very restrictive, with regards to the power they must yield to their church in social and financial matters, not to mention they are very ritual oriented (secret rituals). They even tell their members how they should have sex. "The only Church" as some catholics call it has a long history of stifling sustenative human development in both society and science, up to and including imprisonment and execution, in the name of holiness. But yeah, I know, it ain't like that no more. Both catholicism and protestantism have rules they want everyone to live by, but they both started acknowledging human rights a century or two ago...took'em a while, but they got there.
Look, I know you think we should come to our own conclusions here, but I think what you are trying to say, is that the muslims are coming and their gonna hold their own inquisition over us westerners. Maybe they're just gonna infiltrate our societies and have their own gov't within established western gov't, until they one day overthrow what's left of westernized society. So what then pray tell is the long term plan. You and Bobstyx can't just keep posting articles about how abrasive and exclusive and murderous the Koran and its followers are because evey religious text can be picked apart and exploited for the weird shit within and that's not even an opinion. If you think they're gonna kill us, then we need a plan. Should we kill them first? Jes wonderin
But if this is about whether or not it might supplant christianity as a major influence, then BFD. As long as I don't have to miss football on Sundays or where a towel on my head, and they leave me alone, and stop putting pamplets on my door...Unless of course Islam does take over under its current inflexible sharia, then we got a several century long dark ages to look forward to again...well, they say there's gonna be a worldwide pandemic in the next few years anyway, where disease and famine will kill billions of people, maybe Islamic leaders will be better at digging mass graves than westerners would be...just a thought.
-
You're kidding, right?
Yeah, I've been to church and they do offer rules to guide my life, but do you really see where they also make the rules for the entire country to live by and enforce them with an iro hand?
Try living under sharia law and being a woman unde rsharia law. How about being blamed if you're a woman who is raped? I don't remember the punishment for adultry but you can bet it's not fun. How about facing cruel punishment (stoning?)for talking to a man who is not a member of your family? How about being allowed to kill your daughter because she brought shame to you?
Men have it a bit easier, but not by too much. How about losing a hand for stealing? How about being hung (and not in the good sense) for being gay?
Oh, yeah, I really see the parallel you're trying to make. [sacrasm mode off] gimme a fargin' break.
Wake up dude. This is going on today, just not here, thankfully! Did you not read the original post?
pssst.... you might want to poke around that link in my previous post.
-
Quote:
but do you really see where they also make the rules for the entire country to live by and enforce them with an iro hand?
as I clearly stated above - not anymore
Quote:
Try living under sharia law and being a woman unde rsharia law. How about being blamed if you're a woman who is raped? I don't remember the punishment for adultry but you can bet it's not fun. How about facing cruel punishment (stoning?)for talking to a man who is not a member of your family? How about being allowed to kill your daughter because she brought shame to you?
"I agree, those things are terrible" - is that the response you think the originator of the post wanted to elicit? are you kidding?
Quote:
How about losing a hand for stealing? How about being hung for being gay?
stealing what? how gay?
i keed i keed
Quote:
Wake up dude. This is going on today, just not here, thankfully! Did you not read the original post?
yes I did - but I gotta go take a kid to the orthodontist, so I won't be here for your response (for while anyway). So if you do respond, kindly point out any points you think I've missed with regards to the intent of the original post, or any of yours for that matter, because inquiring minds want to know, and I hate easter egg hunts.
-
Mark,
I think you're missing the points being made:
1. Islam 1500 years ago is not the Islam of today. The religion and people under it have changed dramatically. There have been times since Mohammad's time where Islam was more tolerant and times when it was more conservative. But to think for even a minute that Europe under the Inquisition was anything better than life in the Middle East at the same time is absolutely ludicrous. Likewise, the violence against Islam during the crusades as well as the rule under the crusaders was far more violent and oppressive than under Islam. That is historical fact.
2. The stories we hear about Sharia Law being applied are also being challenged within Islamic countries. Therefore, the best thing for the West to do, is to work peacefully with those countries to bring about change. A position such as you're taking, which really boils down to isolation and violent resistance, is what gives militant Islam (and consequent Sharia Law) its strength and reason for being. Ironically, Muslim conservatism is far more at risk from a peaceful interchange of ideas, cooperation, and having to show respect for other beliefs. That can only happen if both sides stop fighting and start talking, which is the opposite of what we've been doing since 911. Speaking of 911, we had far more goodwill from Islamic states immediately following than we've had in the last 5 years, so maybe our policy of violent resistance and also hegemonic conquest is having a rather undesired effect both here in the West, and in their own countries.
All that being said, it is true that Islam is far more immutable than Christianity has been, especially in the last 200 years, but can we really say that this isn't really a response to our colonial aspirations? Looking at states that are more open, such as the UAE, Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt, the most headway the West has been able to make there was the direct result of peaceful cooperation. At times when Western ideas retreated and conservatism rose were almost always times of conflict. This should be a lesson.
I am not at all excusing what I believe is the inhumanity of Islamic conservatism, and the experience of Lubna Hussein especially, but there must be common ground for us to even begin to have a dialogue about it. Showing up brandishing weapons and religious texts is hardly the way to get there. For your information, Ayaan Ali is what most would consider a conservative (member of the Dutch Ultra-Right Party, read: anti-Muslim), but she never disavows her faith, despite the Fatwa on her head. She's essentially been dealt the same punishment as Salman Rushdie, and yet she perseveres. That's the type of courage we need right now, not guns and angry rhetoric.
-
The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago. Even then, your postulation that living under the yoke of foreigners who took over by force and being ruled by "benevolent rulers" being preferable to not is highly questionable.
As for today, simply look around you. I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely. As for the punishments I state, while perhaps not 100% accurate, are pretty close.
Do you get the meaning of "dhimmi"(sp). That is essentially a second-class citizen who has to pay for safety and still has to follow sharia law. Is that what you or your progeny to be, or are you willing to convert?
Look carefully at the population stats for Europe and you'll see that, just like Mexico is doing here, they're being invaded by immigration and reproduction, a foreign influence is slowly taking over.
Read this link and then you tell me that it's not something to be carefully monitored. There is no negotiation involved. When a majority can, it will apply it's laws.
I have five grand-kids and would like them (and their grand-kids) to live their lives with the same rights we were born with and in the same country in which they were born.
Of course, if you don't mind your grand-kids living under sharia law, then that's your choice.
-
Whoa there
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago. Even then, your postulation that living under the yoke of foreigners who took over by force and being ruled by "benevolent rulers" being preferable to not is highly questionable.
As for today, simply look around you. I cannot think of any country that is under muslim control as being any place for a non-muslim or a woman to live safely. As for the punishments I state, while perhaps not 100% accurate, are pretty close.
Do you get the meaning of "dhimmi"(sp). That is essentially a second-class citizen who has to pay for safety and still has to follow sharia law. Is that what you or your progeny to be, or are you willing to convert?
Look carefully at the population stats for Europe and you'll see that, just like Mexico is doing here, they're being invaded by immigration and reproduction, a foreign influence is slowly taking over.
Read this link and then you tell me that it's not something to be carefully monitored. There is no negotiation involved. When a majority can, it will apply it's laws.
I have five grand-kids and would like them (and their grand-kids) to live their lives with the same rights we were born with and in the same country in which they were born.
Of course, if you don't mind your grand-kids living under sharia law, then that's your choice.
Mark, while I understand and even share some of your concerns (I'd want myself nor my loved ones anywhere near Sharia Law) I'm not as alarmed by Islam's rise as you. There are several reasons for Islam's rise and popularity of Sharia law, particularly in the 3rd world.
1. Sharia law is while considered harsh and draconian is at least 'fair". That's its major appeal in the 3rd world. Most "governments" in the 3rd world are so corrupt there's not even a hint of "justice" in the room, just the stench of abuse, patronage and graft. Muslims in the hills come down and say, hey, while we might flog you, behead you ror stone you, the law is inviolate, incorruptable and applied equally (such as it is). Until the west or their home societies can give them something "better" Islam and Sharia Law will continue to attract converts.
2. Lets face facts, White, Christian Westerners ain't having enough goddamn kids. Simple as that. England may be drowning in Muslims but it ain't their fault that they keep having kids and Lord Fortesque's line has died out like Bobby Browns recording career. You want to hold on to your country's ideals, culture and political bent? Well you better start having some kids then. You can't hold an empire from the grave man!!!! And it appears that many of the kids today don't seem to share the same jingoistic xenophobia as their parents soooo. You do the math.
Da Worfster
-
You're exactly correct about having children.
Dude, I've got three grown boys and five grand-kids so far. I've done my share and I really would like to wait a while before starting on great-grand-kids since the oldest grand-daughter is 14.
And, while I hear you, I don't think color or religion has anything to do with it. I know many black Christians and various non-Christians of various colors as well who are aware of this situation as well.
There's a great video on exactly what you're saying on this somewhere and I'll try to dig it up. I think the magic number is 1.9. When i find it, I'll post it.
[edit] found it!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqpn-FpFnuM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqpn-FpFnuM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
|