Yet More News from Our Friends and Allies... - Page 2

Um... how is that any different from the Old Testament?

No, it's not just the Saudis. Christians are persecuted in Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, et al. It's not banned outright in those places, but it's not treated equally or even fairly in many cases. I assume you don't need me to do the research for you here. Christian persecution is not exclusive to Muslim countries, but it is prevalent.


You don't know what I speak of? I'm asking: If Christianity and Islam are equally prone to being perverted by Fundies™, why hasn't violent Fundie™ Christianity become more entrenched in the US?


In your opinion. Can you provide backing for that claim? I've not heard that even a single time before.

You find it disturbing, but I find it's necessary to first get to know all the facts before passing a judgement. When I posted that, I didn't have the time to read up on the case.

Now I had the time and read up on it. Apparantely that is the case:

A shia woman that got just recentely married met with a highschool-friend in order to get a picture of herself back she once gave him.

While sitting in a car, seven men intercepted them, kidnapped and raped them.

According to Saudi-law there were three crimes occuring:

1. The private meeting between the woman and a former male highschool-friend.
2. The kidnapping.
3. The rapings.



The first crime was basically confessed by the woman, the second and third crimes were confessed by the seven men, but later recanted.

The punishment for rapists is usually death, if they are married, and if not, then 100 lashes and a possible banning-time.

Another difference is made when a gun or knife is used to force the victim or when the rapist threatens to kill the victim. In that case it is similar to an act of war. In that case the quran-verse:


is applied.

I would say that because of the kidnapping and the amount of men that worked together in this criminal act, it definitely falls under this application.

So a correct islamic punishment for these rapists would be either death, crucification, cutting off one hand and one foot, or throwing them out of the country.

It can of course be argued that "throwing out of the country" can be equaled with prison-time, but then it would have to be lifelong emprisonment, since in the quran-verse there doesn't seem to be a room for return for these "war-mongerers".

So, the saudi-judges were too soft upon the rapists.

But what about the victims? She and her highschool-friend committed a crime, according to saudi-law by meeting with each other in seclusion, and lashes are the punishment for it there.

According to the Quran, espescially given the aisha-story, just meeting with the other sex, although discouraged, is not a crime nor sin in itself, so this seems to be a specific saudi-overreaction-preemption-ruling.

But it is in Saudi-Arabia as it is, and since she has initiated the meeting, she probably receives a higher punishment than her highschool-friend. Unfortunately the international press is concentrating on the fate of the woman, and leaves out the highschool-friend completely, eventhough he was raped, too, so I'm not sure what happens with him.

The question is should the meeting people be punished with lashes, when they were victims of a much worse crime? It can be argued that the rapings were already more than enough punishment for them and therefore should not be punished additionaly by the court.

I agree with that logic, but it seems the saudi judiciary is not thinking in these routes.

Another problem, besides not having mercy, is that saudi judges have complete discretion to form punishment-verdicts, so that one judge can issue a soft punishment while another comes to a harsh verdict, eventhough the cases are similar.

That is intransparent and injust.

Instead a commision should develop standard-punishment-verdicts for crimes, and the judges should be made to follow them and if they want to make softer verdicts or harsher verdicts, they should have to explicitly make the case for it in speech and writing, and of course be open to changes in appeal-courts.


Last but not least, we have the appeal-verdict that doubles the sentencing for the rapists and the victim(s), and prohibits the victim's lawyer to further work in his profession.

The reasoning they gave for the victim's doubled sentencing and the cancelling of the lawyer's license, was that they gave interviews in the media and tried to pressurise the appeal-judges to make verdicts in their favour.

I don't know if that is a crime in Saudi-Arabia or not, but even if it were there is no basis to punish the media-pressure-attempt through lashings.

If it were a crime, then the cancelling of the lawyer's license to profess his job, is justified, since the lawyer would know more than most other people that they are breaking the law.


Nightcrawler

Well, Saudi-Arabia is claiming to follow God's law, so I have to judge them upon that basis.

Upon that basis, it seems the rapists received a too soft punishment and the punishment for the victim is at least within the original court completely undeserved, since there is no divine law that calls for the punishment of merely opposite-sex-meetings with no fornication happening.

Nightcrawler

At one point I said outlaw. But I didn't say that exclusively.


One might be tempted to believe that, but there are two problems:

1. Doesn't that lend weight to the argument that the Islamo-fascists hate us for our affluence, our free markets, etc? Isn't this an argument you reject?

2. If you accept the premise, then why haven't poor Christians engaged in the same extremism worldwide? It's not as if all Christians are affluent. Why don't we have these kind of Fundie™ extremists in Brazil, where 73% of the population is Roman Catholic? Brazil's per capita income is $8,800. Perhaps that is too rich? How about Nicaragua? They have similar percentages of Catholics, but the per capita is only around $3,300. By your theory there should be The New and Improved Crusades happening as we speak.


Could you show me specifically? There seems to be a lot of debate from what I can find. It's certainly not cut and dried, not from all of the other references to exactly who the "unbelievers" are. In other references it says that unbelievers are those who don't follow the Holy book, meaning the Koran. In others it says those who don't follow Allah. Of course, Allah is the term for God, but in the same breath, Allah is defined a certain way and communicates His will through the Koran, which only Muslims follow.

It's a little like claiming that according to Christians, Muslims can get into heaven because they accept the virgin birth, even though the Bible clearly dictates that only those who accept Christ as their one and only Savior and Lord can do so.

As I said, not cut and dried.

double post

segovius:

From what fundamentalism do I suffer?

You must realize that "fundamentalism" is an actual word with a meaning, not just some vague insult.


In what way would this apply to me? I do not claim to know or have access to any ultimate truth.


What is it that I hate?
How does this supposed hate manifest itself?


Surely you jest if you think this applies to me. I am no genius, but let's be serious…


Does this apply to me? I attack Islam and Christianity, not Muslims and Christians.


Then it's a good thing I propose the exact opposite, eh?


This one is just funny. What are my holy texts? Dawkins? Are you serious?
When have I ever expressed any kind of opinion that any books or literature was holy in any sense?

You cannot prove in any real sense the accusations you hold against me, you hold them as a tenent of blind faith, because you realize how weak your true argument is.

Perhaps you could avoid the question more next time? I disagree that there is no such thing as an Islamo-fascist, but If you prefer another term, fine. I'll repost the question:


An answer would be appreciated.


Yes, and let's move on with an answer that addresses the point I was making next time, instead of focusing on semantics, hmmm?


I see...it's all how "we" have portrayed Islam. Wow, now I've heard it all. The two are not even close to being the same. Where are the large swaths of Christians in depressed countries declaring war on the West for all it's affluence? The difference is in the faith, Seg. Christianity is less prone (at least in its current state of development) to that kind of thing than is Islam.

And I remind you...we're discussing the socioeconomic element here. You said you believed that was one of the prime contributing factors.


Yes, you gave the quotes. But there are others you haven't given, others that contradict your position. It's like saying the Bible forbids homosexuality. It does, then it doesn't. Thou Shalt Not Kill, and then Eye for an Eye. How nice that Islam is so abundantly clear.


That is cheap and uncalled for, not to mention untrue.


No, you think you know the answer. Except, the question is bullshit to begin with. You're portraying Muslims in general as accepting of other faiths, when Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of extremist driven terrorism over the past 30 years. You say this despite the previously mentioned persecution of Christians in Muslim nations the world over. Yet, in the Evil, Intolerant United States™, we have a majority Christian population, large numbers of Jews, Muslims and every other faith one can imagine. We have schools that are 90% Christian that sing holiday songs from around the world. We have Diversity efforts in our schools, corporations and government. And it's WE that are intolerant? Wow.

If this is about socioeconomics, what other groups of poor, besides those of Islamic faith, blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd of innocent people?

(it's not about economics)

And seg, if there is intolerance against Islam in America, is that intolerance Christian-based or secularist-based?

BINGO. Take a look at what I've posted in the last few posts on this topic.

Do they have to blow themselves up?

Frankly speaking, you know the foreign policies of any nation is based on what benefits them. If there is anything more benefitial than the oil supplied by Saudi Arabia or the middle east, maybe the USA would act differently. No one gives a rat's ass about right and wrong in today's world and the attitude and actions of the sole superpower only reiterate and glorify that behavior.

As far the middle east goes, my wish is for the oil supplies to dry up sooner. That will force them to come to terms with reality.

You can take the Quran and show that a certain law is contradictory to the Quran and therefore prove that a certain country's law is not following God's laws.

As I have already written:

in this case the punishment of the woman for merely meeting with the opposite sex with no fornication or adultery happening, has no basis in God's laws.

Nightcrawler

The Quran itself claims that there is in the beyond a word of God written on whatever is capable to hold it. This word is something very strange, as it contains the fate of all of us as well as it is recording our deeds, so it is a highly dynamic word, that probably is beyond our capability to understand. In fact all the life in this universe is God's revelation, but time and again, the word is being revealed through humans so as to give direct guidance.

Although it is really the same word in essence, it gets adapted to the specific time and culture it was revealed on and God further makes specific amendments, so as to make identities possible and so as to test us to our faithfulness regarding the message we received.

As to your question of subsequent revelations: Neither the torah nor the gospels close down the path of subsequent revelations, but the Quran does so, by claiming that prophet Muhammad is the seal of the messengers.

As to shirk: In the Quran itself, God warns not to set aside other gods beside Him and condemns it as sinful shirk, leading to hellfire if not repented from before death arrives.

If a believer holds fast on God's law, which the Quran explicitly calls for, does that mean that the believer is committing shirk, as in setting up God's law beside God?

No, since God's law does not take the form of a diety, it is not prayed to, it is merely following what the believer thinks is God's order. There is the story in the Quran, where God calls all the angels to bow down before Adam. Because it was an order of God, it was not shirk to follow it.

The real pressing question is if God's law can be adapted by humans to be compatible with new times and places, without a prophet or messenger or new revelation.


The Quran itself says to follow the best of it and to hold fast to it.

I think sharia-law needs a major reformation but based on the Quran not on western law-systems.

Nightcrawler

segovius:


Did I say they were?

I asked an extremely simple question, and I am not surprised that I did not get an answer.

Also, the Tamil Tigers are secular? That is most certainly news to the LTTE, who are predominantly Hindu.

The logic presented by the man you quote is that if there is any hint of socioeconomic motivation, then religion is thrown out of the window and is not a factor. This makes absolutely no sense.

Economics or political oppression alone cannot explain the behavior. Suicide bombing would simply not happen were those involved not given promise of a heaven beyond this life. That is true of the Tamil Tigers and it is true of the Muslim terrorists.

The logic of suicide bombing simply falls apart in a truly secular context. It takes a belief in divinity to be willing to kill yourself in pursuit of any effort.

Ironic that you say my response is a content-free dismissal when it obviously is not. The Tamils are not secular and it is irrational to dismiss religious motivation when those involved are also poor and oppressed. That is why your argument falls down.

The simple fact of the matter is this: The vast majority of all suicide bombers are religious and Islam is the main religion involved.

As far as my being a "fundie", not one single element of your attempted categorization actually fit me. You have little aside from personal attacks to offer.

You know,, you deserve some credit for thinking this through. I agree with you here seg..

When you boil some of this truth down to its roots I think you might agree that what we have too much of in the world are vested interests and their "cheer leaders" trying to influence the populace at large to "agree" with their "vested interests" and oppose those who are the "other" target group.

What we need is to drop our dependance on these "vested interests" and work together for the benefit of all humanity in a spirit of unitiy not division.

cheer leaders need to be put out of work you could say.

We as humanity at large deserve better.

I applaud your well thought out post..

Great work!

Fellows

ohh and one could even say:

The world has never been in unity and has always been at war / battles / fighting / divided etc. and I can't say those who point this out are wrong.

What I would submit for consideration is that in my view God desires for us to be united and the devil / satan wants to divide us, harm us, have us desire to hate and kill others etc.

We all live in "the world" but we could all bring a little heaven on earth if we just lived by the golden rule and served our neighbor and forgave our enemies.

God Bless..

segovius:


So you are adding appeal to authority to ad-hominem in your repertoire of logical fallacies?


How, then, do you explain the reality that the vast majority of the Tamil Tigers are Hindu? It is difficult to be both "atheistic" and Hindu at the same time, I imagine.


Sure, but that is not how they are necessarily being used here. How on earth could you possibly know that the Tamils are non-religious? Even further, you added the label "atheistic" to the Tamils, completely without merit.


Clearly? Clear to whom, to you? No single person or group represents the entirety of any religious faith and no one, as far as I know, has ever claimed such a thing.

However, if one cannot interpret the nature of a religion by the behavior of its adherents then how does one interpret the nature of the religion?


Why would "any orthodox Catholic leader" be any more valid a spokesman for the faith than the IRA killer? The Pope is no more a valid authority on the nature of Christianity than a fundamentalist militiaman cooped up in Montana.

What you seem to argue here is that any religion is whatever the majority of its adherents say it is, which is pure madness in its own terms.


Again, asinine ad-hominem completely free of content rears its ugly head.

Tell me, what might my "unsavoury agenda" be? A terrible outbreak of skepticism regarding absurd religious propositions? RUN FOR THE HILLS, DECENT SOCIETY!

Atheism in Hinduism

But still, I'm not sure if he's referring to "Marxism" as distinct from "Socialism" because I know Catholic Liberation Theology (before Ratzinger's iron fist eradicated it) is highly socialist.

From your link...

The atheistic viewpoint as present in the Samkhya and Mimamsa schools of Hindu philosophy takes the form of rejecting a creator-God. The Samkhya school believed in a dual existence of Prakriti ("nature") and Purusha ("spirit") and had no place for an Ishvara ("God") in its system. The early Mimamsakas believed in a adrishta ("unseen") that was the result of performing karmas ("works") and saw no need for an Ishvara in their system. Mimamsa, as a philosophy, deals exclusively with karma and thus is sometimes called Karma-Mimamsa. The karmas dealt with in Mimamsa concern the performance of Yajnas ("sacrifices to gods") enjoined in the Vedas.

Suddenly atheism means lack of belief in a creator-god?

So beyond the spurious label of "Hindu atheism", are the Tamils actually involved in this ideology?

Beats me.



M.I.A.'s Kala rocks though.

You explained what was POSTED. You did not demonstrate conclusively that your interpretation was the correct one. You can't possibly expect me to accept that all interpretations to the contrary are just based on propaganda.

I've been looking at the Eastern religion thing -- I've come to the conclusion, that unity is the goal -- those religions tend to take the shape of whatever political container they are poured into.

segovius, I'm surprised you can still type -- what with holding your breath until Saturday's big doings, and all.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I cannot speak for SDW, but reasoned argument is what generally convinces people of ideas, not appeals to authority.

You speak of Christology as if it is a unified voice. tut tut
One thread can only contain so much intellectual dishonesty, you are bringing this one to bursting point.

I would like to see some truly credible sources on Seg's claim. He seems to think that a few verses should be enough for me, just because he said so. The claim is that 'believers" includes all Christians and Jews. What he posted supported that, but something tells me that's not the whole story. How about some expert opinions? That's all I'm asking for. So far what I've gotten is a few verses and the notion that any other interpretation is just anti-Islamic propaganda. I'm not buyin' it.