I read an account where a Muslim husband was beating his wife and she held up a Quran and he accidentally hit it. A crowd chased him down and beat him to death.
So why not print up a few million editions with micro-thin pages and cover a soldier with them! Then tanks. Then planes!
Being that I’m only half-serious I suppose this wouldn’t work because using it like that would be a desecration in and of itself, I guess? :rolleyes:
You think?
I doubt it.
Yes, it would be a desecration.
I think what bothers me more is that the crowd was more concerned about safeguarding a book than it was the physical safety of a human being. Oh, wait, the woman in question was the man’s propert- er, I mean, wife, so it’s OK for him to hurt her, but we can’t have him smacking the Qu’ran around, that’s the Word of God!!!
Sheesh. Most Christian denominations teach that the husband is in a position of headship in his family (that would include his wife), but I can’t imagine a crowd of even the most hardcore Fund’ists standing by while a man beat his wife, only to go on the attack if she held up her copy of the KJV and he accidentally smacked it.
Still, I do think it’s good that a Muslim woman has some religiously permissable means of protecting herself against an abusive husband. Not sure about the body armor thing, but I think any woman of Islam who was unsure of her husband’s love for her would do well to carry a Qu’ran with her at all times. If hubby respects the book more than his wife, at least by placing it between them she might be able to spare herself from serious injury.
BTW, do you have a cite for this?
During Gulf War 1 hundreds of western hostages were in Kuwait and Iraq, and Saddam floated the idea of tying the hostages to iraqi tanks in the hopes that the US wouldn’t fire on tanks with western hostages tied to them.
He eventually let them go instead
It sounds about as useful as the suggestion of equipping soldiers with “soul killer” bullets (hollowpoints filled with pig fat). Just the rumor of something similiar gave the Sepoy Mutiny all the political ammunition it needed.
Or printing the Koran on a roll of toilet paper, or enameling passages from it on a urinal, or even painting verses on naked women while they detail their abuse at the hands of their families. Just be careful not to end up like the director of that film.
I think that is why artillery and long range attacks are so good… so that they won’t see your covered in Quran ! :smack:
Yep it would be a desecration to do that “body” armor and yes you can still slap your wife around since she won’t be able to cover everything up.
Heh- that reminds me of this guy that used to preach on my college campus. He was waaay out there. He advocated the execution of homosexuals, for example. Anyway, he would talk about how when his wife got out of line he would hit her with his bible. He actually was against wife-beating in general, but said it was ok if she was acting in an ungodly way and he hit her with the bible to knock the word into her. 
Are you serious? I thought that was something the South Park Movie came up with. I never thought anyone would seriously think about that.
Uh…cite?
Its what I remember reading. I think it was an interview with either a defector or Tariq Aziz. It does logically make sense though, and its not much worse than putting human shields in military installations to prevent someone from bombing them.
This actually happened after the war with Iraqi civilians during the uprising, but not with Western civilians during the gulf war.
http://www.upforanything.net/archives/000664.html
Charge 6:
In 1991, the Kurds and Shi’ites rose up against Saddam Hussein. (Information for this charge found here.)
* In Basra, the rebellion was met with mass execution of civilians. Some were tied to tanks as human shields and others were tied to rocks and pushed into rivers.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~dbonni1/9-4-03-ali-chemical-dead.html
After the 1991 Gulf War, he was responsible for the bloody crackdown of the Shi’ite uprising in southern Iraq. It killed an estimated 200,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands of others. “Al-Majid ordered his men to tie people up on tanks to serve as human shields”, says Dutch journalist Henk Schutte, the author of a biography on Saddam Hussein.
As Saddam’s loyalists retook the city of Basra street by street, using women and children as human shields to protect their advancing tanks, the stories of mass executions and other atrocities mounted.
Joke thread and/or Muslim bashing? Does that about cover the topic up for “debate” in this thread?
Its no different than the idea of using human shields, which many governments have used when being in wars with western powers as of late. You take something sacred that the other culture values and hide behind it. For some cultures its civilian life for some its religious artifacts.
This is one of those instances where the poisonous snake eats its own tail. Sad, but who are we to interfere?
Right. So what are we supposed to be debating? The use of the Koran as body armor?
Go right ahead. See how well that works out for you.
Arguing it tongue in cheek, yes. Nobody seriously intends to do this, but its really no different than what warring nations have done since the beginning of war, they physically hide behind something the other nation considers sacred and is afraid to destroy. Insurgents in Iraq hide in mosques, militants in south american have been known to set up antiaircraft guns in hospitals, Saddam tied civilians to tanks, etc. Civilians, mosques, korans, ancient buildings, hospitals, schools, etc.
FTR, i’m not condoning any of this, just pointing out that it isn’t some weird aberration in warfare. Its really not that uncommon, especially if one or both countries has no regard for human rights. I remember someone on another message board telling me when his father was fighting in Korea that the North Koreans would round up civilians and make them form a wall to march in front of their small arms soldiers, hoping the UN forces wouldn’t fire back for fear of hitting a civilian.
…
…actual use of WMDs, capable of vaporizing whole cities, destroy others in order to save them, make up shit to invade sovereign nations, State sponsored terrorism in the form of Shock & Awe, etc.
Neither am I. We both seem to agree that war’s a pretty sucky event and should be approached with extreme caution.
So, again, what’s the debate?
Hey, the book was asking for it and sometimes a man just needs to let off some steam, 'kay?
He won’t do it again, he promises.
It doesn’t bother me a whit, because I’m confident it’s an urban legend.