You are so missing my point. That thing you just said: “the Saudi government does not represent all of Islam” - THAT was my point. I don’t know how you missed it. I really thought I was being pretty fucking obvious.
Perhaps an analogy will help? (Probably not, because some doofus will overextend the analogy and pick it apart like jackals over a carcass, but here goes…)
We could say that Jim Jones’ cult was all about Christianity, as he saw it. So we could say that The People’s Temple couldn’t be seperated from Christianity.
That’s NOT the same thing as saying Christianity is about Jim Jones.
FWIW, the Woman’s lawyer is appealing the sentence.
There have always been some pretty fucked up happenings in Saudi concerning women. Recently, a couple of women were divorced in absentia and then jailed when they were found ‘living in sin’. The divorces were requested by the ‘male guardians’ of the women baised on tribal affiliations, which are not recognised in Shiria law. What I find interesting is that these cases are published in the local newspapers and show how backward the Saudi Society can be at times.
Right. But the Catholic Church is one faith that states pretty clearly that it’s a sin to molest altar boys. In the confession of Islam that these people practice, whipping a girl for getting raped is not a sin, in fact it’s required. So comparing this particular form of Islam to the Catholic Church is inappropriate. As I pointed out the first time I posted, most Muslims are not Wahabbis, or Arabs, for that matter.
“You can’t leave your husband. Your job is to keep your family intact. If your actions cause him to beat you into a bloody pulp you must look deep into your soul to discover what you are doing to make him do that.”
I know it’s really, really hard to belive that mainstream Christian men of the cloth preach that line of bullshit, but it happens across the globe. I think it’s disgusting that a woman was whipped for being raped, but I think it’s more disgusting that socio-economic pressures conspire to force free women to remain in abusive relationships.
How many native-born white American women were killed by abusive partners in, say, 2002? 2003? 2004, 2005, 2006? How many native-born white American women were abused by partners in those years? How many women in SA were killed by abusive partners in those years? How many women were abused by their partners in those years?
But you’re on a roll, so don’t let me stop you from preaching your anti-Islamic rant.
My impression of Islam is that it is fundamentally misogynistic. I feel like the religion is largely about men trying to maintain the status quo.
Does anyone know what the percentages are of different sects (actually, I’d be more interested in the various restrictions on women’s rights)? Warning, this is a gross simplification, as all countries are not homogeneous. I assume Turkish Muslims have amongst the mildest restrictions or really none at all. Moderate Islam in large parts of Egypt, Lebanon, and the rest of Northern Africa, India and Malaysia. Next in line might be Indonesia. I guess sharia law is the other extreme which exists in the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Nigeria (places that make the news).
Arab Muslims desperately need their equivalent of the Enlightenment. Although incidents like this grab headlines it’s really just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah. Which is sooo different from other societies and indeed other religions.
Do any of you who strive so mightily to hold Western society out to be spectacularly more fabulous than all others actually live on this planet? Are you, perchance, male?
Since blind hatred is not a rational state of mind, it’s pretty tough to talk people out of it using reason. I’d say if they don’t get it the first time, they aren’t going to.
Oh fuck right off. It is a handful of extremists that are doing this. I know of many many sects where the elements of peace, tolerance, learning, understanding and peaceful co-existence with one’s fellow man are emphasised and being brutal and the desire for Jihad are positively discouraged. Unfortunately, the extremists are the ones who will shout the loudest, and who, through their attention getting antics get the most attention. The billions of Muslims who lead lives fully integrated with the ‘native’ populations of the countries in which they live are never talked about. The Muslims who contribute greatly to the welfare and social wellbeing of their communities are never showcased. The Muslims who found non-denominational aid agencies and support them with their own funds are never even mentioned.
You and people like you just see what you want to see; you see what puts Islam in its most brutal light and conveniently ignore or are blind to everything else. I am as appalled by the acts of the Saudi government as any one else. More to the point, I am ashamed that the Saudi government perpetuate such things in the name of Islam. I do not agree one iota with what they do, and I know many other Muslims who feel the same. To tar all of us with the same brush is as if I tar all Christians with the brush of “You’re all like Fred Phelps and his ilk”, i.e. wrong, stupid and the actions of a moron.
Darryl Lict: Islam in its spirit is not misogynistic, there are however, certain interpretations of Islam that are, much like there are interpretations of Christianity that could be considered so.
This by and large backs up my understanding. Full Sharia Law is full of barbaric stuff stemming from the twin pillars of the Koran and the life of Mohammed with what can be argued as ‘faulty human development’ so coded in over the centuries in the devlopment of Sharia that it is hard to seperate now from the original message of Islam. To the extent that an Islamic country is adapting to the modern secular world of equality and human rights it does not codify some aspects of sharia law into its legal system and we can only encourage the seed kernels of change that some very marginal Islamic scholars and groups see as a basis for fundamental change.
That some Islamic legal systems do not fully implement Sharia is good. But Sharia Law, in its full uncompromising form, does not conform with western notions of equality and human rights. But in this particular case - the extension of Sharia laws of evidence that devalue a woman’s uncorroberated testimony and so makes rape adultery - I can only find this.
In the end I feel religions are what religions do. Some islamic societies choose to ignore aspects of their religion, some don’t. In all its extant forms sharia law is incompatible with my notions of human rights and secularism and I have no trouble at all condemning any legal system based on full sharia law as backward and barbaric.
And for the rest - I welcome their hesitant half-steps away from this barbarism and hope they go the whole hog and throw the whole concept of sharia law into the dustbin of history. But as it is fundamental to islam I feel the best we can hope for is the kind of compromises we see in Indonesia and Egypt.
In follow up. The big question is - can there be a ‘moderate’ sharia?
For what it’s worth here is a discussion of a book on the subject. The article comes down firmly on the side of those who argue that ‘moderating’ influences are not intrinsic to Sharia but come from the outside. Whatever the biases and conclusions the article is interesting though.
You also brought up reading comprehension. My comments were about “the Catholic abuse threads”, not about Catholic abuse posts in this thread. If you were to diagram the phrase I wrote, “threads” would be on the top line. “The” would modify “threads”. “Catholic” would also modify “threads”. And “abuse” would modify “Catholic”.
It supports the position that someone felt obliged to offset a slam against the Qur’an with a slam against the Bible. Unless I convinced you of my position, then it doesn’t support yours.
But this case (the OP’s topic) isn’t. The Saudi government applied Islamic law — its law and its official religion.
Nope, not missing your point at all. That statement is, I hope, incredibly obvious. But you were calling Lib an idiot for calling people’s attention to the nature of the Saudi regime, which is not a secular regime that is a follower of a certain sect of Islam, but exists entirely as a representative of that sect, and claims (wrongly) to be a representative of Islam as a whole.
Obviously you are right in saying the Saudi government doesn’t represent Islam as a whole, but that wasn’t the point, I think, that Lib was making. My post was a result of your (all too common) throwing out of insults at people.
Yeah Angua! How dare you come in here and be all Muslim and female and reasonable and stuff! Can’t you see that some people are busy trying to paint all Muslims as barbarians? Stop ruining things with facts!
This is exactly the kind of disengenuous stupidity I was referring to. First, no one, certainly not I, claimed that all Muslims are murderous barbaric shitheads. No, that was a leap YOU made. I firmly believe that there are millions of peace-loving Muslims. The point is that every time we here about some terrorist act by Islamic fundamentalists or the barbarism of their laws beiing carried out, we here the apologists say, “Oh, but it’s just a few extremists”. Well, how many bunches of “few extrenmists” have to act before you see some connection between murderous, barbaric Islamic extremists and ISLAM? Sheeze, this gets tiring. Wake the fuck up.
Regarding your Phelps point, when other people and groups are routinely popping up chanting his vile stupidity, you may have a point. Until then, he stands out as a lone asshole of the highest order. This contrast actually help[s make my point, so thnak you for helping.
