I’m not sure why the article puts “crime” in quotes. Odious as it might be, it is in fact a crime under the law in place. The one comfort is the lashing applied to the original blackmailer too, so it’s not just directed at women who are alone with non-relative men.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
What do you mean “Islam”? Islam is the religion. The SAUDI ARABIAN GOVERNMENT* enforced this law.
This thread is just dripping with ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
The Saudi king’s official title is “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”. Saudi Arabia is practially 100% Muslim (mostly Sunni). It is the birthplace of Islam, and home to the religion’s two holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina. You cannot separate Islam from the Saudi government.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Guess you never cracked open the bible, huh?
[/QUOTE]
Case in point for Miller.
[QUOTE=tdn]
Question: Is this whipping the work of a few Muslim extremists, to which most of SA objects, or is this being carried out in accordance with Arabian law? The answer might give me a better basis on which to compare it with sexual abuse in the church.
[/QUOTE]
It may well be Arabian law, which is strongly dictated by the extremist Wahabbi sect.
It is not, to my rather limited understanding, in keeping with any mainstream interpretation of Islamic law. I gather that the Wahabbists reject all four schools of interpretations of shari’a and claim to be going straight from what the scripture says (sound familiar to anyone?).
The Wahabbi clerics struck a deal with the House of Saud to prop up that government in exchange for control over the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, which is the source of their power and influence.
The Wahabbis are what Phelps would like to be.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Neither are you, because…
…I was talking about this board, not this country: thus, the reference to “Catholic abuse threads”. (Emphasis not in the original.)
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and I was the one who brought up the Catholic abuse scandal in this thread in the first place. So I rather think I have a pretty good insight into why the issue was raised in this thread, at least initially.
Yes, it does support my position quite nicely, doesn’t it?
You’ve got that backwards. You certainly can’t seperate the Saudi government from Islam, but Islam is much, much larger than the Saudi government. The dictates of the House of Saud do not bear any particular weight to the billion Muslims living in the rest of the world.
Praise the search sunction, I found where I posted about this before when my dim awareness of this stuff was much fresher in my mind:
Quickie non-expert summary of mainstream shari’a positions on the subject of rape.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
The Saudi king’s official title is “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”. Saudi Arabia is practially 100% Muslim (mostly Sunni). It is the birthplace of Islam, and home to the religion’s two holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina. You cannot separate Islam from the Saudi government.
[/QUOTE]
Fallacy of Composition: You can seperate the Saudi government from Islam. Idiot.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Fallacy of Composition: You can seperate the Saudi government from Islam. Idiot.
[/QUOTE]
The Saudi regime exists not as a secular entity, but as Custodian of the Holy Places. There simply isn’t the same concept of the state in Arabic culture as there is in Western culture. It’s why apostasy is such a big deal in many Middle Eastern cultures - it is seen by many as tantamount to treason.
Saudi Arabia is a theocracy. The governing powers rule on a religious basis. It is possible to separate Islam from the Saudi government, to the extent that the Saudi government does not represent all of Islam, but it isn’t possible to separate the Saudi government from its interpretation of Islam. It is a pure theocracy. And they suck whatever the religion concerned is.
[QUOTE=villa]
…but it isn’t possible to separate the Saudi government from its interpretation of Islam.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps.
But you can separate Islam from the Saudi government’s interpretation.
That is, the Saudi government might be defined, almost in its totality, but its interpretation of Islam. But Islam is not defined by the Saudi government’s interpretation of it.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
The Roman Catholic Church has never acknowledged wrongdoing in terms of moving known paedophile priests from parish to parish, failing to report known acts of paedophelia and encouraging the suppression of evidence by witnesses, or extending an apology for said acts to victims of convicted paedophile priests.
[/QUOTE]
I think there is a long way to go.
I suspect that just as about 1/3 of the diocese appear to have failed to effectively institue the reforms established in 1989 and re-worked in 1992, there are probably still some diocese that are ducking the issue, today. However, there is no evidence that the problems were part of an official decision by the entire church in the U.S., (Cardinal Law and his counterparts in Missouri, Arizona, and California were in direct violation of the 1989 and 1992 decisions), and claims that there has never been an apology or an admission of wrongdoing are simply false.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
So does that make silenus a sworn enema of Christianity?
[/QUOTE]
A sworn WHAT ?? :eek:
Is that some kind of cleansing ritual?
[QUOTE=VCO3]
Honestly, when I hear stuff like this, I feel like those people over there aren’t even human.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it’s the exact opposite for me-it only confirms my view that we humans are just a bunch of assholes.
Wouldn’t 90 lashes likely be a death penalty? Carried out over two days?
The children that where coerced by the Priests in the US where not punished for the priests actions.
And of course, the clergy was not punished enough. If at all. But at least the victim was not punished.
At least this is taking place in Saudi Arabia and not one of those Middle Eastern countries that the US supports!
[QUOTE=enipla]
The children that where coerced by the Priests in the US where not punished for the priests actions.
And of course, the clergy was not punished enough. If at all. But at least the victim was not punished.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely. And as has been pointed out, the church never condoned the behavior.
But, no matter. Islam MUST BE DEFENDED, NO MATTER WHAT. It never amazes me the lengths some will go to protect Islam from being “unfairly” characterized in instances like this. 'Yeah, it’s just a handful of extremists, but it’s a beautiful religion of peace…"…blah, blah, fucking blah…
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
It may be unfair to smear all followers of Islam for the actions of extremists–one might as readily lay blame on Christians for the same type of acts, both in history and modern times–but even a cursory reading of the Qur’an indicates violent and misogynistic teachings. One can disclaim fundamentalist interpretations of any religion, but in the end if your faith is is based a book which suggests murdering people who don’t believe as you do is a high principle, or that a man who throws his virgin daughters out to a crowd in order to protect a couple of strangers is virtuous…well, I’m pretty suspicious of what the even the “interpreted” tenents of your religion are.
[/QUOTE]
Then you better reread the Bible, because when you do the same ‘cursory reading’ of the Bible, you come upon stories of babies having their brains dashed out, enjoinders to stone disobedient children to death, and all sorts of equally fun things.
Point is that a ‘cursory reading’ of another faith’s scripture without context is exactly the wrong way to understand the tenets of that faith. People who have grown up with the Bible understand its violent excesses in context; clearly they do not understand the Q’ran the same way.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
The Catholic Church is one faith. Christianity is dozens of faiths, one of which is Catholicism.
[/QUOTE]
As you say, just as Islam is dozens of sects, one of which is Wahabi.
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Then you better reread the Bible, because when you do the same ‘cursory reading’ of the Bible, you come upon stories of babies having their brains dashed out, enjoinders to stone disobedient children to death, and all sorts of equally fun things.
[/QUOTE]
Ah yes. The baby brain bashing begins tomorrow. It may pre-empt re-runs of Seinfeld. After that we have the flogging of women that would dare to be raped.
Posted, enipla, March 6, 2007
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Then you better reread the Bible, because when you do the same ‘cursory reading’ of the Bible, you come upon stories of babies having their brains dashed out, enjoinders to stone disobedient children to death, and all sorts of equally fun things.
[/QUOTE]
Did you miss my reference to the Biblical story of Job?
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Point is that a ‘cursory reading’ of another faith’s scripture without context is exactly the wrong way to understand the tenets of that faith. People who have grown up with the Bible understand its violent excesses in context; clearly they do not understand the Q’ran the same way.
[/QUOTE]
So, “it means what we say it means, not what you read it to mean” is the justification for arguing that brutal, judgemental, and instigative themes in the Bible, the Qur’an, et cetera are actually just metaphors for some more benevolent purpose?
In any case, then central figure of Islam, Mohammad, was a brutal warrior and encouraged aggreession. Christians, at least, can point to their eponymous figure and demonstrate that he was, with a few notable excpetions, about understanding and forgiveness. (His father, on the other hand, was a brutal, lay-waste-and-kill-the-firstborn type of guy.)
Stranger
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
So, “it means what we say it means, not what you read it to mean” is the justification for arguing that brutal, judgemental, and instigative themes in the Bible, the Qur’an, et cetera are actually just metaphors for some more benevolent purpose?
[/QUOTE]
No, it means you need a little learning to understand what you’re reading since the story-telling traditions they were handed down from are pretty much gone from today’s culture.
Ah fergawdsakes, you surely are not playing ‘our dad is nicer than your dad’?
:rolleyes:
How many times does anyone have to say that there are **ONE BILLION ** Muslims, the vast, vast, vast majority of whom are in fact, not acting as ‘brutal warriors’ and ‘encouraging aggression’.
Not sure where this holier-than-brown-people BS comes from given that it was not a whole heckuva long time ago when The Enlightened States mistreated women and people who weren’t white because the law didn’t forbid it.
When my organization got wiped out by government budget cuts, the Muslim staff were a bit surprised by the distress of the native Canucks at the prospect of possibly losing their homes, etc. My Bangladeshi colleague told me that it is part of their faith that families and friends take care of each other when disaster strikes.
Do you realize that Islam rules against excessive wealth? Tithing is expected, especially by the wealthy, so that the less fortunate are taken care of.
Maybe just for the hell of it try to look for the good that can be found in other faiths and quit allowing yourself to think it’s valid to condemn one-sixth of the planet because a small proportion of them are nutjobs.
Do you realize that current stats are that there are one hundred million evangelicals in the US? Fully one-third of the nation? That, my friend, scares me much more than your Islamic boogeymen do.