Shari'a Law

[rigney]

#8 10 October 2010 - 03:25 AM jimmydasaint

 

Atom: I think Bernard Shaw was an intelligent and articulate man, who had many sensible things to say. However, I believe that what you are trying to do, rigney, is to stir up some Islamophobia and 'test the waters' by posting about Bernard Shaw. If you are old enough, I assume that you would have hated Communism with the same fervour when it was popular to do so. I just want to live and let live.

 

I don't see the need to post in Ethics. What was Shaw's ethical dilemma?

 

Shaws dilemma? None. A great intellectual. But before accusing me of being a hate monger with Islamophobia, I suggest you take a look at the bits below. And your "Live and Let Live"? On another planet, perhaps.

 

Stoning in Iran: This happened less than 20 years ago.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=117_1269394282

 

Just weeks ago. Taliban execute pregnant woman in Afghanistan after 200 lashes

HERAT: The Taliban publicly flogged and then executed a pregnant Afghan widow by emptying three shots into her head for alleged adultery, police said on Monday.

 

Bibi Sanubar, 35, was kept in captivity for three days before she was shot dead in a public trial on Sunday by a local Taliban commander in the Qadis district of the rural western province Badghis.

 

The Taliban accused Sanubar of having an “illicit affair” that left her pregnant. She was first punished with 200 lashes in public before being shot, deputy provincial police chief Ghulam Mohammad Sayeedi told AFP.

 

“She was shot in the head in public while she was still pregnant,” Sayeedi said.

 

The execution is a grim reminder of the Taliban's harsh six-year rule from 1996 to 2001 in Afghanistan. The radical extremists staged public stonings or lashings of those found to have committed adultery or sex outside marriage.

 

The then-Taliban government would also chop off the hands and feet of those accused of theft and robbery.

 

Local Taliban commander Mohammad Yousuf carried out the execution, Sayeedi said, before the woman's body was dumped in an area under government control.

 

The man who allegedly had an affair with Sanubar has not been punished.

Head of Badghis provincial council Mohammad Nasir Nazaari confirmed the execution and said the Qadis district is entirely under Taliban control.

Edited October 22, 2010 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

Most muslim countries don't use stoning anymore. The actions of a few violent minority groups can't be taken as the actions of the majority either. It would be like branding all Christians because some of them blow up abortion clinics. In any case, stoning to death is the traditional punishment in the Bible for adultery, and according to this website not actually mentioned in the Qur'an.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm

 

According to this site, tribal customs in Pakistan are sometimes followed under the guise of Shari'a law.

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/

[rigney]

Most muslim countries don't use stoning anymore. The actions of a few violent minority groups can't be taken as the actions of the majority either. It would be like branding all Christians because some of them blow up abortion clinics. In any case, stoning to death is the traditional punishment in the Bible for adultery, and according to this website not actually mentioned in the Qur'an.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm

 

According to this site, tribal customs in Pakistan are sometimes followed under the guise of Shari'a law.

http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/

 

I hope you are right Mr S. But me, I am very skeptical of situations still going on that debase any gender. Jim Crow laws, be damned. Salem witch hunts, the same. Persecution of homosexuals and gays, no different. The stoning in Iran happened 20 years ago. The lashing and murder of this young woman, only weeks ago. Lynching of blacks, or a horse thief in their eras are equally as despicable.

A woman in Iran is right now alive only because world opinion and condemnation halted her being stoned to death. The laws of our country should not be compromised for any single religious belief. Today, this very thing lies at our doorstep, what do we do about it?

Edited October 22, 2010 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

Today, this very thing lies at our doorstep, what do we do about it?

No it doesn't.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, that's something that our more militant Christians would do well to consider before they go bemoaning the separation of church and state. In our country, our secular laws trump the religious ones, so I'm really not worried.

[pioneer]

Too many people fall for the media illusion, which is used to create emotional news for ratings. The way the illusion works is to not present all the data, but only a handpicked segment of the data, and then draw global conclusions for all the data, using only the small fraction. For example, based on all the data flying is safer than driving. The illusion will focus on a few data points that involve crashes, since this will bring out the rubber necker who likes to watch accidents. They may complain but they secretly like to watch this. Then based on two data points, out of millions of data points, we create a theory that will lure the irrational in, who then assume planes are falling like rain from the sky.

 

This special effect uses the same method as the lowest form of science, called risk analysis. One data point in a thousand can satisfy the parameters of risk theory. This watered down standard of science is considered valid. Trying to figure out why the other 999 data points are, may be too hard for many scientists. The easier standard is then preferred. I am not sure whether the the chicken or the egg came first. Did the media figured out how to create these illusions for ratings and then science saw it as a way to create professional ratings using this media template? Or did science create this form of science, and then media saw how this could be a useful way to create entertainment illusions for ratings?

 

Science should differentiate these distinctions. Rational science is the highest since it can make predictions. One data point out of place is enough to refute such a theory, since the standard is so high. Empirical is second since it will try to use a much of the data as possible. Then we have risk science, which only needs one data point to generalize, using fear to help narrow the mind so the illusion works. We could call these gold, silver and bronze science.

 

I understand the media template and risk science being used to create global religion theory. But bronze science is too easy to create and is not much of a challenge. Reach for the gold and silver and don't settle for bronze. It will become a sorry state for science when it enters the bronze age.

Edited October 23, 2010 by pioneer

[rigney]

Well, that's something that our more militant Christians would do well to consider before they go bemoaning the separation of church and state. In our country, our secular laws trump the religious ones, so I'm really not worried.

 

Fortunately, in this country there are many religions going on at the time. In Iran and several middle eastern nations "Muslim law is utter and dogmatic". You don't change religion there like hopping from one streetcar to another without being castigated, crippled, or killed. While the Pope, Billy Graham, "Jim Swaggart" and many other religious leaders here share equally in their splinter groups, Share'i law doesn't allow for that in a muslim nation. There, there is but one God, Allah! And one rule: The High Mullah and his hand picked cadre. You're right, we have a few Timothy McVeighs, isolated nuts cases who would murder an abortion specialist, some Black Panther separatists wackos, and a few teaching in our universities today, who were once saboteurs and bombers called, "Weathermen". Yet, I'm glad our government is still ruled secularly in most respects by the people, and nothing dictratorial, as yet.

Edited October 23, 2010 by rigney

[jimmydasaint]

#8 10 October 2010 - 03:25 AM jimmydasaint

 

Atom: I think Bernard Shaw was an intelligent and articulate man, who had many sensible things to say. However, I believe that what you are trying to do, rigney, is to stir up some Islamophobia and 'test the waters' by posting about Bernard Shaw. If you are old enough, I assume that you would have hated Communism with the same fervour when it was popular to do so. I just want to live and let live.

 

I don't see the need to post in Ethics. What was Shaw's ethical dilemma?

 

Shaws dilemma? None. A great intellectual. But before accusing me of being a hate monger with Islamophobia, I suggest you take a look at the bits below. And your "Live and Let Live"? On another planet, perhaps.

 

Stoning in Iran: This happened less than 20 years ago.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=117_1269394282

 

Just weeks ago. Taliban execute pregnant woman in Afghanistan after 200 lashes

HERAT: The Taliban publicly flogged and then executed a pregnant Afghan widow by emptying three shots into her head for alleged adultery, police said on Monday.

 

Bibi Sanubar, 35, was kept in captivity for three days before she was shot dead in a public trial on Sunday by a local Taliban commander in the Qadis district of the rural western province Badghis.

 

The Taliban accused Sanubar of having an “illicit affair” that left her pregnant. She was first punished with 200 lashes in public before being shot, deputy provincial police chief Ghulam Mohammad Sayeedi told AFP.

 

“She was shot in the head in public while she was still pregnant,” Sayeedi said.

 

The execution is a grim reminder of the Taliban's harsh six-year rule from 1996 to 2001 in Afghanistan. The radical extremists staged public stonings or lashings of those found to have committed adultery or sex outside marriage.

 

The then-Taliban government would also chop off the hands and feet of those accused of theft and robbery.

 

Local Taliban commander Mohammad Yousuf carried out the execution, Sayeedi said, before the woman's body was dumped in an area under government control.

 

The man who allegedly had an affair with Sanubar has not been punished.

Head of Badghis provincial council Mohammad Nasir Nazaari confirmed the execution and said the Qadis district is entirely under Taliban control.

 

Hi rigney. I have been coping with the return to a new school term and could not access my favourite Forum for weeks. I see that you have carefully chosen incidents to put the Muslim religion in the very worst light. Is this the action of an unbiased person or an Islamophobe? IMHO, you appear to be repeating the anti Islamic line that has been thrust on the citizens of democratic states since the fall of our last 'enemy' - Communism, in 1989, when a new 'enemy' had to be found on which to focus our fears and apprehensions.

 

Having been forced to look up Shariah Law, in order to get a realistic perspective, I found the following:

 

Women's rights

Status of women under Islamic law prior to the 19th century

 

Until the 19th century, Islamic law granted women some legal rights that they did not have under Western legal systems until the 19th and 20th centuries.[189] For example, French married women, unlike their Muslim sisters, suffered from restrictions on their legal capacity that were removed only in 1965.[190] Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor, notes:

 

As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.[191]

 

Status of women under Islamic law since the 19th century

Some argue that at this point in history the aforementioned exploration of freedom is no longer true — that is to say that whilst it is arguable that women had more extensive legal rights under Islamic law than they did under Western legal systems in the past, it is no longer true today.[192]

Shariah Wiki

 

In short, the Shariah seemed to be fairer to the Muslim women than our laws were to Western women. Hardly the type of belief that degrades or represses women, as many people believe.

 

The Taleban (the word means 'students') appear to be misogynistic oppressors and torturers. However, this mindset could be also attributable to the people who actually paid for their training in the war against the Russians who occupied their nation. Who funded the Taliban? It was the U.S. as you well know.

Edited October 24, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[pioneer]

I often wondered what was the logic behind the order of male than female in religion. One logical approach is too look at nature. The female, is connected to pregnancy, birth and caring for children. In the wild, these creates a higher level of vulnerability. The male would then have to become the hunter, provider and protector, since he does not have the same constraints. To maximize the family unit, the female would be placed closer to camp in a more defensible position. The children are also vulnerable so they are placed there too. Since that defensible position is not enough to provide food for all, the male has to leave that position to gather food, which is often beyond the perimeter of the defensible position.

 

What this does is create two distinct data fields for evolutionary learning. The male is in the perimeter and therefore is in a better position to see how the perimeter will impact the interior defensible position in the future. The female is more sheltered, but understands the real time dynamics of the interior, so she leads the real time needs of the home. The perimeter is one step ahead of the interior, since the perimeter will generate new variables that can impact the interior. For example, there is no food gathered in the last hunt. The male already knows there will be a problem. This data has a time delay until it reaches the interior. The interior is more real time, but will react to this information, trying to integrate this future into the present. The females store food.

 

Even today, males do most of the inventing, since they are more likely to live at the perimeter of culture. The females and children tend to maintain the real time cultural capacitance, but are also the among the first to react to changes, and try to integrate them. Males are also the one's who anticipate apparent future threat, causing the interior to make this real time.

 

Say we switch this around, to have the interior lead the perimeter. This amount to real time defining the future. This situation becomes more hit or miss. For example, the interior needs food, now, in real time. If this need occurs when all the animals are hiding for sleep, it can be a fool's errand. However, in some cases, the real time interior need may precipitate the need for ingenuity. It can come out well. But all in all, the process is more efficient when those at the perimeter make use of what they know about the future, to hunt when it is far more efficient.

 

The breakup of the family occurred when the rules of the interior changed (women's liberation) with female's attempted to define the perimeter for the males. The fool errands got sort of old and the male left that perimeter, to find a better perimeter to act from. Even the females found their better interior position. Religion saw the natural way, and the pitfalls of stirring from the interior real time, and made the order an institution.

 

In modern times, the defensible position is an entire culture. The perimeter is blended within culture, such that the two are not as clear cut, as a tribal homesite. Religion takes the approach of male then female since it still reflects future leading real time to avoid the inefficiencies of real time leading the future. The latter is more reactionary and might solve one problem but create another. The hunter is sent out at night to hunt on a fool's errand. He comes back realizing now the animals are easy to hunt, but he is too tired. Religion saw this and said stir from the perimeter to benefit the interior.

Edited October 24, 2010 by pioneer

[rigney]

Hi rigney. I have been coping with the return to a new school term and could not access my favourite Forum for weeks. I see that you have carefully chosen incidents to put the Muslim religion in the very worst light. Is this the action of an unbiased person or an Islamophobe? IMHO, you appear to be repeating the anti Islamic line that has been thrust on the citizens of democratic states since the fall of our last 'enemy' - Communism, in 1989, when a new 'enemy' had to be found on which to focus our fears and apprehensions.

 

Having been forced to look up Shariah Law, in order to get a realistic perspective, I found the following:

 

 

Shariah Wiki

 

In short, the Shariah seemed to be fairer to the Muslim women than our laws were to Western women. Hardly the type of belief that degrades or represses women, as many people believe.

 

The Taleban (the word means 'students') appear to be misogynistic oppressors and torturers. However, this mindset could be also attributable to the people who actually paid for their training in the war against the Russians who occupied their nation. Who funded the Taliban? It was the U.S. as you well know.

 

Seems that every time I make a statement, it's diametrically opposed to someone with a liberal concept. If it's true, then I'm glad.

To me, left wing liberalism is a means of testing the waters for destruction. That's not to say that a rightist is any more correct in their preachings. Somewhere between the two I hope there is enough calm ans sensibility to maintain our nation. I've been branded a bigot, racist, and atheist among other things. Listen to the positions of some interesting people in these clips. Some of these folks may not have gone to Harvard, Yale or other law schools. But since they seem to be much more intelligent than I, other than the radical bantering I hear from a few, I tend to go along with the majority.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40un7UKr0ac

Edited October 25, 2010 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

When criticizing other countries, it is important to look at yourself, and think: "Are we really that much better?"

If you can confidently say "Yes, I am certain that our culture is superior", then feel free to explain this.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the "free world" is forcing freedom onto some other coutries... which means it's not free, and therefore it failed before it started.

At the same time, the "free world" reduces the freedom for its own citizens in order to be able to protect them. Our governments are more concerned with our life expectancy than our actual freedom. Profit trumps freedom already for several decades... It is also the capitalist world, not the free world that defeated communism... and it is the capitalist world that needed a new enemy.

 

As far as I'm concerned (and sorry if this is considered rude) you're a misinformed person, rigney. You have no idea about the actual statistics. You probably do not know many Muslims. You see only extremes. You use individual examples to show a certain trend, but then completely overestimate that trend. You ignore a billion Muslims that are "moderate" (stupid word - they're just "normal"). Your argumentation is based on emotions, and is in many cases flawed.

 

But worse, your ideas are a direct threat against the freedom we hold so dear, because you distinguish between peoples. It is this type of thinking (us and they) that will destroy the freedom we enjoy. You cannot live in freedom, and have your borders closed. The only way to defeat oppression is to actually live in freedom! We cannot reduce our freedom in order to fight for freedom in order to keep our freedom.

 

A wise person came up with the saying: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. You cannot fight for peace, and you cannot force freedom upon someone.

 

So, I must conclude that the "free world" isn't much better... only less violent... and even that can be debated.

I would not go as far as to say that the Muslim world is a better place. I like my own culture too much. But I do not think that the course taken by Western governments against the Muslim world is the right one... and I am fairly certain that it will not achieve any of the goals.

 

I believe that the story goes that Jesus himself said that "You should love your neighbor like you love yourself". In this modern world, your neighbor can come from up to 200 countries. And the world isn't gonna change because you dislike a minority of a particular branch of a religious group in a number of those countries.

 

... And I always wonder why we fight the Taliban, and at the same time support a similar situation in Saudi-Arabia with hundreds of billions on oil money...

[rigney]

When criticizing other countries, it is important to look at yourself, and think: "Are we really that much better?"

If you can confidently say "Yes, I am certain that our culture is superior", then feel free to explain this.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the "free world" is forcing freedom onto some other coutries... which means it's not free, and therefore it failed before it started.

At the same time, the "free world" reduces the freedom for its own citizens in order to be able to protect them. Our governments are more concerned with our life expectancy than our actual freedom. Profit trumps freedom already for several decades... It is also the capitalist world, not the free world that defeated communism... and it is the capitalist world that needed a new enemy.

 

As far as I'm concerned (and sorry if this is considered rude) you're a misinformed person, rigney. You have no idea about the actual statistics. You probably do not know many Muslims. You see only extremes. You use individual examples to show a certain trend, but then completely overestimate that trend. You ignore a billion Muslims that are "moderate" (stupid word - they're just "normal"). Your argumentation is based on emotions, and is in many cases flawed.

 

But worse, your ideas are a direct threat against the freedom we hold so dear, because you distinguish between peoples. It is this type of thinking (us and they) that will destroy the freedom we enjoy. You cannot live in freedom, and have your borders closed. The only way to defeat oppression is to actually live in freedom! We cannot reduce our freedom in order to fight for freedom in order to keep our freedom.

 

A wise person came up with the saying: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. You cannot fight for peace, and you cannot force freedom upon someone.

 

So, I must conclude that the "free world" isn't much better... only less violent... and even that can be debated.

I would not go as far as to say that the Muslim world is a better place. I like my own culture too much. But I do not think that the course taken by Western governments against the Muslim world is the right one... and I am fairly certain that it will not achieve any of the goals.

 

I believe that the story goes that Jesus himself said that "You should love your neighbor like you love yourself". In this modern world, your neighbor can come from up to 200 countries. And the world isn't gonna change because you dislike a minority of a particular branch of a religious group in a number of those countries.

 

... And I always wonder why we fight the Taliban, and at the same time support a similar situation in Saudi-Arabia with hundreds of billions on oil money...

 

The problem is Captain, you only read and talk what seems to suit your metaphorical innuendo. I've lived a lot of years and thought they were spent protecting such ignorance. Guess I was wrong.

[cypress]

When criticizing other countries, it is important to look at yourself, and think: "Are we really that much better?"

If you can confidently say "Yes, I am certain that our culture is superior", then feel free to explain this.

 

It seems rather easy to argue that a free democratic society founded on principles of inalienable rights is superior to a society based on Shari'a law.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the "free world" is forcing freedom onto some other coutries... which means it's not free, and therefore it failed before it started.

 

One can establish the basis for a free society but the society must reach out and grasp freedom. Freedom can only be forced on those who would otherwise force tyranny on others.

 

At the same time, the "free world" reduces the freedom for its own citizens in order to be able to protect them. Our governments are more concerned with our life expectancy than our actual freedom.

 

In a functioning democracy the government is accountable to society and society freely chooses limits to prevent some from gaming the system.

 

Profit trumps freedom already for several decades... It is also the capitalist world, not the free world that defeated communism... and it is the capitalist world that needed a new enemy.

 

Capitalism relies on a free market and a free society. They go hand in hand. Capitalism is its own worst enemy. It needs no others.

 

You ignore a billion Muslims that are "moderate" (stupid word - they're just "normal"). Your argumentation is based on emotions, and is in many cases flawed.

 

Surveys indicate that nearly half globally do not disapprove of suicide attacks. I don't see that as a "normal" viewpoint.

 

But worse, your ideas are a direct threat against the freedom we hold so dear, because you distinguish between peoples. It is this type of thinking (us and they) that will destroy the freedom we enjoy. You cannot live in freedom, and have your borders closed. The only way to defeat oppression is to actually live in freedom! We cannot reduce our freedom in order to fight for freedom in order to keep our freedom.

 

I don't understand this viewpoint. History indicates that societies that assimilate are successful while those that attempt to coexist within the same borders continue to have conflicts. A closed border does not restrict freedom of legal citizens. A free society must fight against those who would try to end it. Often that society must temporarily limit rights in order to prevent the enemy from exploiting them. This concept has been in place from the beginning.

 

A wise person came up with the saying: Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. You cannot fight for peace, and you cannot force freedom upon someone.

 

I don't find it particularly wise. I value and will fight to establish and maintain freedom. Peace is achieved through strength so that a potential enemy perceives it would be folly to attack.

 

So, I must conclude that the "free world" isn't much better... only less violent... and even that can be debated.

 

On the contrary, I would conclude you are mistaken for the reasons I described above.

 

I would not go as far as to say that the Muslim world is a better place. I like my own culture too much. But I do not think that the course taken by Western governments against the Muslim world is the right one... and I am fairly certain that it will not achieve any of the goals.

 

I think ending terrorist attacks against the West a worthy goal that is achievable.

 

I believe that the story goes that Jesus himself said that "You should love your neighbor like you love yourself". In this modern world, your neighbor can come from up to 200 countries. And the world isn't gonna change because you dislike a minority of a particular branch of a religious group in a number of those countries.

 

The premise behind this statement seems flawed. It is entirely possible to love the person and still disapprove of what they support and do.

 

... And I always wonder why we fight the Taliban, and at the same time support a similar situation in Saudi-Arabia with hundreds of billions on oil money...

 

One generally goes after the greatest threat and one that can more easily be defeated and leaves the other and lessor challenges for a better opportunity or different tact. Are you suggesting that the Saudi Kingdom currently actively supports terrorism?

[rigney]

It seems rather easy to argue that a free democratic society founded on principles of inalienable rights is superior to a society based on Shari'a law.

 

One can establish the basis for a free society but the society must reach out and grasp freedom. Freedom can only be forced on those who would otherwise force tyranny on others.

 

In a functioning democracy the government is accountable to society and society freely chooses limits to prevent some from gaming the system.

 

Capitalism relies on a free market and a free society. They go hand in hand. Capitalism is its own worst enemy. It needs no others.

 

Surveys indicate that nearly half globally do not disapprove of suicide attacks. I don't see that as a "normal" viewpoint.

 

I don't understand this viewpoint. History indicates that societies that assimilate are successful while those that attempt to coexist within the same borders continue to have conflicts. A closed border does not restrict freedom of legal citizens. A free society must fight against those who would try to end it. Often that society must temporarily limit rights in order to prevent the enemy from exploiting them. This concept has been in place from the beginning.

 

I don't find it particularly wise. I value and will fight to establish and maintain freedom. Peace is achieved through strength so that a potential enemy perceives it would be folly to attack.

 

On the contrary, I would conclude you are mistaken for the reasons I described above.

 

I think ending terrorist attacks against the West a worthy goal that is achievable.

 

The premise behind this statement seems flawed. It is entirely possible to love the person and still disapprove of what they support and do.

 

One generally goes after the greatest threat and one that can more easily be defeated and leaves the other and lessor challenges for a better opportunity or different tact. Are you suggesting that the Saudi Kingdom currently actively supports terrorism?

Edited October 26, 2010 by rigney

[rigney]

I'm not saying all, but do any of you making these slanderous remarks against our country, "America", actually live in the United States? Or should I be appalled to find out that you do? To even remotely compare our governing system with that of any another nation is abominable at best, if you live here. And you can take that to the bank! We, as a nation have all but become the soft underbelly for a bunch of blase, self-indulging idiots living amongst us in abstract luxury, caring less as to how it gets done? Shame on you! You are worse than the Taliban, Al Queda or any Muslim nation that "may" eventually roust you from your idoitic stupor and bring you to your knees just to slit your throat. I just hope that's not the case, for the sake of the many! It will only mean that a lot of our young people will have to go to war again, to save your "Sorry Asses".

Edited October 26, 2010 by rigney

[jimmydasaint]

It seems rather easy to argue that a free democratic society founded on principles of inalienable rights is superior to a society based on Shari'a law.

 

That goes without saying but, within the freedom of a democratic society is the facet of individual freedom, and people who can practise the Shariah within the parameters of the law are free to do so if their rights are respected. From my limited reading of the Shariah, it seems to be reasonably able to operate in a 'normal' Muslim state. As a former member of the Labour Party in Britain (a 'Socialist-leaning Party). I should make my position clear so that rigney can label me as a pinko Commie Liberal...

 

In a functioning democracy the government is accountable to society and society freely chooses limits to prevent some from gaming the system.

 

Agreed but in a system where big business is limited from its interference in the Government of the people by the people. IMHO, I have seen the Government of the UK led by the nose in political policy by a host of unelected 'advisers' who had links with big business. From 2000

 

Captain, you made a lot of idealistic and sensible comments, I hope you retain this idealism in the future.

 

I'm not saying all, but do any of you making these slanderous remarks against our country, "America", actually live in the United States? Or should I be appalled to find out that you do? To even remotely compare our governing system with that of any another nation is abominable at best, if you live here. And you can take that to the bank! We, as a nation have all but become the soft underbelly for a bunch of blase, self-indulging idiots living amongst us in abstract luxury, caring less as to how it gets done? Shame on you! You are worse than the Taliban, Al Queda or any Muslim nation that "may" eventually roust you from your idoitic stupor and bring you to your knees just to slit your throat. I just hope that's not the case, for the sake of the many! It will only mean that a lot of our young people will have to go to war again, to save your "Sorry Asses".

 

I'm afraid this ex-Army nonsense cuts no ice with me mate. You are a patriot blind to the faults of his nation so that you are counted as a 'useful idiot' by the very rulers you admire so much. Your previous remarks seem to show that you will blindly follow the views of people in power, as long as they are more educated than you are. This is absolute folly and an excellent reason for all young people in America and other countries in the world to become highly educated precisely so that they are not held in the thrall of the highly educated leaders of their countries. In Britain, most of our Members of Parliament are highly intelligent and have gone to the best Universities but I wonder how many of them are self-serving instead of serving the public, with juicy directorships awaiting them as soon as they take the reins of power and also when they retire. Figures from 1993

 

So you are afraid of Shariah Law in your country, and have suitably performed some quote mining to support your points, yet probably support executions in your country.

The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and have varied widely throughout time. Some jurisdictions have banned it, others have suspended its use, but others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37 executions in 2008.[2] That is the lowest number since 1994[3] (largely due to lethal injection litigation).[4][5] There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia). Texas executed the largest number, 24, followed by Alabama with 6; Ohio 5; Virginia, Oklahoma, and Georgia 3; Florida, South Carolina and Tennessee 2; and Missouri and Indiana 1.[6]

Wiki

 

Before you answer back, please research and tell me how many of your Congressmen and Senators have sent sons and daughters into Iraq during the campaign to secure oil supplies? If the answer is less than 10, then those intelligent people who you admire so much for their 'protection' of the USA have not bothered putting their children into the firing line but choose to sacrifice the lives of the children of others instead.

 

Finally, rigney, and I hope you learn from this please, don't let blind emotion overcome your reasoning:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle?

Aristotle Quotes

Edited October 26, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[rigney]

That goes without saying but, within the freedom of a democratic society is the facet of individual freedom, and people who can practise the Shariah within the parameters of the law are free to do so if their rights are respected. From my limited reading of the Shariah, it seems to be reasonably able to operate in a 'normal' Muslim state. As a former member of the Labour Party in Britain (a 'Socialist-leaning Party). I should make my position clear so that rigney can label me as a pinko Commie Liberal...

 

Naa!. I'm crude but not that crude. You don't live here no more than I live there. The cultures are similar, but as different as night and day. While I do believe your country has slipped into socialism as has France, I don't look forward to it here in the states.

We have laws here that govern Americans, not the rest of the world. If you want to be an American, you can be. But American only. We don't need laws from other countries imposed on us. If you want it, that's your business. The majority of Americans don't.

 

Agreed but in a system where big business is limited from its interference in the Government of the people by the people. IMHO, I have seen the Government of the UK led by the nose in political policy by a host of unelected 'advisers' who had links with big business. From 2000

 

Captain, you made a lot of idealistic and sensible comments, I hope you retain this idealism in the future.

 

 

 

I'm afraid this ex-Army nonsense cuts no ice with me mate. You are a patriot blind to the faults of his nation so that you are counted as a 'useful idiot' by the very rulers you admire so much. Your previous remarks seem to show that you will blindly follow the views of people in power, as long as they are more educated than you are. This is absolute folly and an excellent reason for all young people in America and other countries in the world to become highly educated precisely so that they are not held in the thrall of the highly educated leaders of their countries. In Britain, most of our Members of Parliament are highly intelligent and have gone to the best Universities but I wonder how many of them are self-serving instead of serving the public, with juicy directorships awaiting them as soon as they take the reins of power and also when they retire. Figures from 1993

 

So you are afraid of Shariah Law in your country, and have suitably performed some quote mining to support your points, yet probably support executions in your country. Wiki

 

Before you answer back, please research and tell me how many of your Congressmen and Senators have sent sons and daughters into Iraq during the campaign to secure oil supplies? If the answer is less than 10, then those intelligent people who you admire so much for their 'protection' of the USA have not bothered putting their children into the firing line but choose to sacrifice the lives of the children of others instead.

 

Finally, rigney, and I hope you learn from this please, don't let blind emotion overcome your reasoning:

 

Aristotle Quotes

Edited October 27, 2010 by rigney

[cypress]

That goes without saying but, within the freedom of a democratic society is the facet of individual freedom, and people who can practise the Shariah within the parameters of the law are free to do so if their rights are respected. From my limited reading of the Shariah, it seems to be reasonably able to operate in a 'normal' Muslim state. As a former member of the Labour Party in Britain (a 'Socialist-leaning Party). I should make my position clear so that rigney can label me as a pinko Commie Liberal...

 

I suspect you have a point to make here but I don't see what it is you are saying. If a free democracy is superior to shari'a law then what significance is it that a free society is able to accommodate individuals who wish to practice and admitted inferior system? I fail to see the value of retaining an inferior practice at all. Why should we encourage anyone to be mediocre?

 

Agreed but in a system where big business is limited from its interference in the Government of the people by the people. IMHO, I have seen the Government of the UK led by the nose in political policy by a host of unelected 'advisers' who had links with big business. From 2000

 

It would appear that the fault lies with the politicians who allow their influence to be bought and the voters who enable them.

 

Before you answer back, please research and tell me how many of your Congressmen and Senators have sent sons and daughters into Iraq during the campaign to secure oil supplies? If the answer is less than 10, then those intelligent people who you admire so much for their 'protection' of the USA have not bothered putting their children into the firing line but choose to sacrifice the lives of the children of others instead.

 

Our armed forces are voluntary and the decision to join is made by the individual not by our politicians so I don't see the relevance. Do you have information that our politicians actively prevented their sons and daughters from entering the voluntary forces?

[Mr Skeptic]

It seems rather easy to argue that a free democratic society founded on principles of inalienable rights is superior to a society based on Shari'a law.

 

How could a society founded on the principles of fallible and sinful men possibly compare to one founded on the principles of a loving and infinite God?

[rigney]

Jimmy DeSaint: I'm afraid this ex-Army nonsense cuts no ice with me mate. You are a patriot blind to the faults of his nation so that you are counted as a 'useful idiot' by the very rulers you admire so much. Your previous remarks seem to show that you will blindly follow the views of people in power, as long as they are more educated than you are. This is absolute folly and an excellent reason for all young people in America and other countries in the world to become highly educated precisely so that they are not held in the thrall of the highly educated leaders of their countries. In Britain, most of our Members of Parliament are highly intelligent and have gone to the best Universities but I wonder how many of them are self-serving instead of serving the public, with juicy directorships awaiting them as soon as they take the reins of power and also when they retire. Figures from 1993[/b][/b]

 

Sorry about that Jimmy. Me, my three sons and one daughter in law have contributed almost ninety years in the military defending America. It didn't start with us, but goes back to the revolutionary war when we kicked your asses. It's a thing that we here in the states still refer to as patriotism. You have many countrymen there who still think of it as such. Heck!, You could even call me the 'village idiot" if it pleases you. Just don't run that phrase by any of my children. Even the female in the crowd would kick your ass, or make a damn good attempt to do so! There are two Phds and a CPA in the crowd and another Phd on the way in a year or so. Dad really didn't have to be that smart! I simply have intelligent children. HAGO!

Edited October 27, 2010 by rigney

[jimmydasaint]

I suspect you have a point to make here but I don't see what it is you are saying. If a free democracy is superior to shari'a law then what significance is it that a free society is able to accommodate individuals who wish to practice and admitted inferior system? I fail to see the value of retaining an inferior practice at all. Why should we encourage anyone to be mediocre?

 

My point was simply that democracy allows certain freedoms - for example, individual, political and economic freedoms. Freedom to worship on any manner you please is an individual freedom. If Muslims want Shariah, in a Western country, to be applicable to Muslims, let them have it, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. At that point, the Shariah should be limited. The point was, that it seems far more mundane, banal and moderate than portrayed by our media.

 

 

Our armed forces are voluntary and the decision to join is made by the individual not by our politicians so I don't see the relevance. Do you have information that our politicians actively prevented their sons and daughters from entering the voluntary forces?

 

I suspected that rigney was an ex-military man with strong convictions about following the Stars and Stripes to bring 'democratic capitalism' across the world. However, by forcing our systems on others, we are interfering with their individual liberty. The point has been made before. As far as military service, if our politicians were completely committed to the cause ideologically, then they would be willing to send their children abroad to fight the 'enemy'. Yes you are right, there is no reason why they should do so, but it demonstrates, once again, that it is the children of the poor who fight wars that the rich wage against each other (paraphrased from the Linkin Park song)

 

 

 

Sorry about that Jimmy. Me, my three sons and one daughter in law have contributed almost ninety years in the military defending America. It didn't start with us, but goes back to the revolutionary war when we kicked your asses. It's a thing that we here in the states still refer to as patriotism. You have many countrymen there who still think of it as such. Heck!, You could even call me the 'village idiot" if it pleases you. Just don't run that phrase by any of my children. Even the female in the crowd would kick your ass, or make a damn good attempt to do so! There are two Phds and a certified CPA in the crowd and another Phd on the way in a year or so. Dad really didn't have to be that smart! I simply have intelligent children. HAGO!

.

 

Rigney, you really should read what I have written very carefully. Obviously you have let blind emotion rob you of reason. I am glad that you educated your children so that they are hopefully able to reason where you cannot. I did ask you to carefully consider your reply but you did not do so. Never mind.

 

I also have a PhD rigney but some of the people in this Forum make me feel that it has the value of a postage stamp. Their breadth and depth of knowledge make me feel humbled and appreciative. I think it is how you use your knowledge that is more important than a mere title. I have no right to consider myself superior to anyone else. I also tried to say that to you. Obviously it also went unheeded like the rest of my post. Peace.

Edited October 27, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[rigney]

My point was simply that democracy allows certain freedoms - for example, individual, political and economic freedoms. Freedom to worship on any manner you please is an individual freedom. If Muslims want Shariah, in a Western country, to be applicable to Muslims, let them have it, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. At that point, the Shariah should be limited. The point was, that it seems far more mundane, banal and moderate than portrayed by our media.

 

 

 

 

I suspected that rigney was an ex-military man with strong convictions about following the Stars and Stripes to bring 'democratic capitalism' across the world. However, by forcing our systems on others, we are interfering with their individual liberty. The point has been made before. As far as military service, if our politicians were completely committed to the cause ideologically, then they would be willing to send their children abroad to fight the 'enemy'. Yes you are right, there is no reason why they should do so, but it demonstrates, once again, that it is the children of the poor who fight wars that the rich wage against each other (paraphrased from the Linkin Park song)

 

 

 

.

 

Rigney, you really should read what I have written very carefully. Obviously you have let blind emotion rob you of reason. I am glad that you educated your children so that they are hopefully able to reason where you cannot. I did ask you to carefully consider your reply but you did not do so. Never mind.

 

I also have a PhD rigney but some of the people in this Forum make me feel that it has the value of a postage stamp. Their breadth and depth of knowledge make me feel humbled and appreciative. I think it is how you use your knowledge that is more important than a mere title. I have no right to consider myself superior to anyone else. I also tried to say that to you. Obviously it also went unheeded like the rest of my post. Peace.

From Jimmy: If Muslims want Shariah, in a Western country, to be applicable to Muslims, let them have it, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. At that point, the Shariah should be limited.

Quote by: Rigney. Shariah is not a religion Jimmy, but Muslim "law", and not to be construed in any fashion as being a democratic concept of law.

 

That was the bourbon talking last night Jimmy. And of course you made several good points in trying to free up my ignorance. Blind emotions, never gave them a thought 'til you mentioned themt. But Rage and Hells fire? Screw with America and you may have a plate filled with more than you can eat. If I felt hate or malice of another human being it would be a different matter, but I don't have that insecure feeling. Caution, perhaps. The Muslims in this country are allowed the same religious freedoms as anyone else. But to murder your own female children because they want to move on with their lives and perhaps love and marry someone outside their faith, is rediculous. It would be like me killing one of my daughters for wanting to marry a black, hispanic, or a muslim. Who am I to say no? No dad anywhere in this world should ever have that kind of power. And asking that foot baths be installed in our schools to accommodate muslims, and seperate quarters for their female counterparts, is ludicrous, don't you think? It just can't be allowed to happen here Jimmy. We've just about given up my favorite holiday "Christmas" to appease a few malcontents who don't like it. But, as we do for one, we must do for the whole. And as far as riding into other countries throughout the world as mercenaries to save their oil and gas supplies for the good old US of A.? C'mon! Where the hell was the oil back in 1917 when our troops went to France? Where was the oil we coveted so much when returning to Euorpe in 1942 and stayed thru 1945? We never captured one oil well. Or Japan or the Phillipines or Korea or Vietnam? Where the hell was the oil there? We have never invaded a country without first being asked to do so, either by that particular country's government, or the meek and mild of the surrounding neighborhood, too damn sorry or scared to do their own warring. As far as the middle east? We should have stayed out of that dust bowl completely and allowed the local gentry to burn it and turn it into a full blown blood bath. Israel, I'm sure would have straightened things out post haste. But hey!, the US, being the maudlin "SUPER POWER" of the west, simply can't bear to hear the bleatings for help from some down hearted "quail" without rushing in like a bunch of frikkin idiots, pretending to be Charlemagne on a dashing white stallion. But our military is not made of idiots, as you seem to view them jimmy. Me? You might make an exception of. But in general, our military personnel are very bright lads and lassies with IQs ranging far above mine. And no! To be a patriot you don't have to be of the intelligentsia, but many of them were there when we needed then most, and still abound today. The McCains, McArthurs, Eisenhowers, Pershings, Bush's, Kennedy's, etc. are good examples and will attest thate fact. I was a conscript who grew to love my country even more so by serving in its military. None of my children were forced by either me or our government to serve. I wasn't even consulted by my children as to a, 'should I or shouldn't I'? question. Had they done so, I would have probably advised they to remain civilians, and they knew it. That's why they didn't ask. No, you may think of our military as being in the servitude of a demagog or slick politicians bent on keeping their own kids out of harms way, but you'd be entirely wrong. A few, as in any society will do just that, but the majority are not self serving, but proud. I'd say 'peace back at you", but we both know it can never happen in this life. And that Linkin Park thing? Give your hearing aide a tune up. There's a bit of intel below relating to our oil intake and who supplies it. Check it out.

 

 

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

July 2010 Import Highlights: Released September 29, 2010

Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in July 2010 has been released and it shows that five countries exported more than 1.00 million barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 65 percent of United States crude oil imports in July while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 84 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for July were Canada (2.055 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.174 million barrels per day), Nigeria (1.143 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.033 million barrels per day), and Venezuela (1.016 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Iraq (0.430 million barrels per day), Colombia (0.381 million barrels per day), Angola (0.374 million barrels per day), Russia (0.367 million barrels per day), and Algeria (0.353 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.890 million barrels per day in July, which is an increase of 0.018 million barrels per day from June 2010.

 

Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in July, exporting 2.534 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.711 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.289 million barrels per day.

 

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)

(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country Jul-10 Jun-10 YTD 2010 Jul-09 YTD 2009

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CANADA 2,055 2,174 1,988 2,129 1,913

MEXICO 1,174 1,066 1,113 985 1,128

NIGERIA 1,143 1,064 1,020 858 674

SAUDI ARABIA 1,033 1,120 1,070 1,026 1,055

VENEZUELA 1,016 850 923 904 994

IRAQ 430 630 494 321 454

COLOMBIA 381 387 329 251 256

ANGOLA 374 425 401 320 503

RUSSIA 367 416 290 292 270

ALGERIA 353 375 323 196 236

BRAZIL 315 307 284 392 344

UNITED KINGDOM 200 117 150 52 115

ECUADOR 200 211 185 193 212

KUWAIT 189 217 201 187 174

AZERBAIJAN 82 90 61 34 58

 

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)

(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country Jul-10 Jun-10 YTD 2010 Jul-09 YTD 2009

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CANADA 2,534 2,711 2,552 2,664 2,461

MEXICO 1,289 1,208 1,249 1,076 1,238

NIGERIA 1,174 1,108 1,050 879 714

VENEZUELA 1,084 899 1,004 976 1,123

SAUDI ARABIA 1,053 1,125 1,079 1,046 1,087

RUSSIA 719 760 596 758 656

ALGERIA 518 550 495 383 468

IRAQ 430 630 494 321 456

COLOMBIA 404 407 357 289 284

ANGOLA 374 425 410 320 513

UNITED KINGDOM 351 269 293 203 250

BRAZIL 332 308 308 408 363

VIRGIN ISLANDS 239 244 245 273 303

NETHERLANDS 211 87 125 118 142

ECUADOR 205 211 187 198 217

 

Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.

 

PS: So, whom do we attack next? Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela or Saudia Arabia? All big oil pushers. But Hey!, they are all easy marks, except the folks up north of us. I'd be a little leary of leaning on Canada too much. Ain't sure about the rest of them, but the folks up there have "Balls"

Edited October 28, 2010 by rigney

[cypress]

How could a society founded on the principles of fallible and sinful men possibly compare to one founded on the principles of a loving and infinite God?

 

I don't see how it could. Which society are you implying is founded on the principles of a loving and infinite God?

 

My point was simply that democracy allows certain freedoms - for example, individual, political and economic freedoms. Freedom to worship on any manner you please is an individual freedom. If Muslims want Shariah, in a Western country, to be applicable to Muslims, let them have it, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. At that point, the Shariah should be limited. The point was, that it seems far more mundane, banal and moderate than portrayed by our media.

 

Societies with mutually incompatible subcultures have a long and consistent history of failing. Why should a society promote a practice that historically fails?

 

I suspected that rigney was an ex-military man with strong convictions about following the Stars and Stripes to bring 'democratic capitalism' across the world. However, by forcing our systems on others, we are interfering with their individual liberty. The point has been made before. As far as military service, if our politicians were completely committed to the cause ideologically, then they would be willing to send their children abroad to fight the 'enemy'. Yes you are right, there is no reason why they should do so, but it demonstrates, once again, that it is the children of the poor who fight wars that the rich wage against each other.

 

Democracies enter into hostilities generally with support of a majority of the voting public, the politicians represent the entire voting public, not just the wealthy (if politicians represented only the wealthy, then the tax structure and redistribution of the wealth would look far different than it does). So we have the voting public sending those who volunteer to fight to wars. A very different picture than the one you paint.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't see how it could. Which society are you implying is founded on the principles of a loving and infinite God?

 

The Muslims, of course. Is there any other society who's principles are based on a loving and infinite God? They worship the Abrahmic God, who is loving and infinite, and they have their laws based on that. Most other societies are based on secular laws (like the US).

http://en.wikipedia....gion_comparison

[jimmydasaint]

Societies with mutually incompatible subcultures have a long and consistent history of failing. Why should a society promote a practice that historically fails?

 

What evidence do you have that the systems are incompatible with each other in the first place? In fact, I believe that I saw a T.V. documentary showing Muslims sending minor non-British legal system issues to a Shariah court. However, I cannot find it at the moment. Additionally, I would be interested in evidence that Shariah or Judaism or Hinduism, each with their own distinctive cultures is doomed to failure in the West. IIRC, the Roman Empire, and others had a pretty pluralistic society with outposts all over Europe, the Mediterranean coast and North Africa. The British Commonwealth (more, or less, the former British Empire) are fairly pluralistic societies. India has a Constitution which guarantees rights to its heady mix of subcultures.

2.4 ‘Separate Domain’ of Minority Rights

 

The Minority Rights provided in the Constitution which fall in the category of ‘Separate Domain’ are as under:-

 

(i) right of ‘any section of the citizens’ to ‘conserve’ its ‘distinct language, script or culture’; [Article 29(1)]

 

(ii) restriction on denial of admission to any citizen, to any educational institution maintained or aided by the State, ‘on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them’; [Article 29(2)]

 

(iii) right of all Religious and Linguistic Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice;[Article 30(1)]

 

(iv) freedom of Minority-managed educational institutions from discrimination in the matter of receiving aid from the State;[Article30(2)]

 

(v) special provision relating to the language spoken by a section of the population of any State;[Article 347]

 

(vi) provision for facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage;[Article 350 A]

 

(vii) provision for a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities and his duties; and [Article 350 B]

 

(viii) Sikh community’s right of ‘wearing and carrying of kirpans; [Explanation 1 below Article 25]

 

Indian Constitution

 

Democracies enter into hostilities generally with support of a majority of the voting public, the politicians represent the entire voting public, not just the wealthy (if politicians represented only the wealthy, then the tax structure and redistribution of the wealth would look far different than it does). So we have the voting public sending those who volunteer to fight to wars. A very different picture than the one you paint.

 

I think that this is a pretty disturbing issue to me. Firstly let's examine the wealth divide in Western countries, and this is a typical representation of what I have found:

 

MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?

 

Wolff: The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

 

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

 

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

 

This is a very concentrated distribution.

 

MM: Where does that leave the bottom tiers?

 

Wolff: The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.

 

Wealth Distribution

 

In short, the wealthy have a very unequal majority of the wealth in America, and I suspect, in many Western countries. That being the case, they also have an unhealthy influence in Parliamentary affairs in this country, able to sponsor Members of Parliament or to dangle the carrot of directorships at the end of a political career. Members of Parliament are asked formally to declare interests as this snippet shows for a Committee although memories have been known to slip by our distinguished leaders:

 

Declaration of Interests

 

I will come back to the issue of the majority of the public wishing to go to war.

 

Finally, the bottom line IMHO, is that Shariah law (I've stuck with this spelling so far, and it is too late to change now) is not coming to America or Britain. It is, and always will be the case, that immigrants in our nation will have to follow our laws. And the OP and subsequent posts are arguing about a storm in a teacup.

Edited October 28, 2010 by jimmydasaint