Great thread. It's good to see that some on here are seeing sharia law for what it is and the threat it poses here in America. Like clock work though there the same posters spouting their typical pc and uninformed comments that are posted here on a daily basis.
Just curious, can you describe what you consider the most threatening thing that sharia law has on America?
Do you consider sharia law an immediate threat on America?
Some people prefer baseless fantasies over substance and the facts.
Maybe this is why politicians have such an easy time getting the majority of the public to toe the line on anything and everything.
I mean, it worked for Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, so why shouldn't it still work in this day and age? Just make shit up and sow fear in the public mind in order to get them to fall in line like obedient sheep.
If it isn't Jews that are threatening the survival of the Western world, then it's Communists. And if not Communists that are the threat then it's drugs. If it isn't drugs that are the threat to our very survival then it's terrorists. And if it isn't terrorists that are threatening our existence then it's fundamentalist Muslims.
I wonder what the next one will be? Black people? Chinamen? The Teletubbies?
We have seen it argued in this thread that girls are not punished for rape (other articles I have read on the topic refer to this particular event as a rape, and in several countries it certainly qualifies even as presented in this article) and that lashings can be viewed as humane. I provide the following as some evidence to consider to the possible contrary:
Bangladesh village shaken after lashed girl's deathBy Ethirajan Anbarasan
BBC News, Chamta Village, Shariatpur
Dorbesh Kha witnessed the full horror of his daughter's punishment Looking at the mobile phone picture of his daughter, labourer Dorbesh Kha weeps uncontrollably.
He says he will never forget the way she suffered and he will never forgive those responsible.
Mr Kha's youngest girl, 14-year-old Hena Begum, was accused of having an affair with her married cousin and publicly lashed in a punishment meted out by villagers under Islamic Sharia law.
She died in hospital a week later and on Monday her body was exhumed for another post-mortem examination to ascertain the cause of her death.
Her family members claim she died of her injuries.
While the initial post-mortem said there were no signs of external or internal injuries, the latest one concluded that she had bled to death because of multiple wounds.
'Left alone'
Mr Kha was there to witness the horror of his daughter being lashed publicly.
Sitting in front of his small tin-sheet house in the village of Chamta, Mr Kha says the grainy picture on his phone is one of the few things left which remind him of his daughter.
“
Start Quote
They tied her legs and started lashing her continuously”
End Quote
Minu Begum
"I feel like I am left alone now. My world goes blank whenever I remember my daughter's face. I don't know whether I will ever overcome this tragedy."
Life will never be the same again in this picturesque village, surrounded by lush green paddy fields, wetlands and clusters of small tin-sheet houses. It is a remote place with a close-knit community and still doesn't have proper road access.
Hena Begum's family members say that a village court consisting of a group of village elders and a Muslim cleric found Hena Begum and her cousin Mahbub Khan guilty of having an affair. They also passed the sentence.
Mr Kha says he protested vehemently when his daughter was dragged out to be given the lashing in a nearby house.
Hena Begum's friend, another cousin Minu Begum, bursts into tears when she recounts what happened on that day.
"They tied her legs and started lashing her continuously. At one stage, she collapsed. But they did not stop. They forced her to stand again and continued lashing until she fainted and fell to the ground," she said.
For his part, Mr Kha was also lashed and fined and has since left the village with his family. Some of his relatives have expressed doubts as to whether the death of Hena Begum was related to the lashing.
Tranquillity shattered
But following a high court order, a team of police officers has now descended on the village to conduct a detailed investigation. Four people, including the local Muslim cleric have been arrested and many others are still missing.
Hena Begum died after being taken to hospital Most villagers were surprised and perplexed by the local and international attention the incident received. Some say the peace and tranquillity of the village has been shattered and it will take time before it can return to normality.
Bangladesh has been trying to portray itself as a moderate Muslim-majority nation rather than an Islamic country. Nearly 90% of the country's estimated population of 160 million adhere to a moderate version of Islam.
However, the re-emergence of fatwa and Sharia law in rural areas has shocked many community leaders.
"This is against the rules of Islam. These kinds of laws can apply in Saudi Arabia but not in our country and the verdict was illegal. We don't have these strict Sharia laws in our country. The villagers should have stopped this," says Haji Abdul Wahab Bepari, chairman of the Naria sub-district.
Mr Kha and his relatives fear that his daughter's death may be forgotten, as has happened in other cases.
"The thing that happened to my daughter, the kind of justice she received, it should not happen to anyone else. It must stop," says Mr Kha.
Activists say dozens of fatwas or religious rulings are issued in the rural areas of Bangladesh. This is the second reported death linked to Sharia punishments since they were outlawed last year by the high court.
The question is how far the ban by the government and the court is effective outside the capital Dhaka, especially in the remote rural areas of Bangladesh.
I am at least pleased to see that the sharia laws and enforcements have been made illegal in the country and hope that it eventually results in its demise. However, the stated resurgence of sharia is troublesome to read about. I fail to see the lack of barbarity or the wisdom of sharia in any circumstance. Basing a legal system upon unquestionable religious authority/divine word is madness. Sure there are standards of law and morality which can be shared between legal systems and religions, but law which is not subject to appeal, challenge, etc. because it is supposedly the word of divinity is absurd and has tremendous potential and evidence of being misused.
I am at least pleased to see that the sharia laws and enforcements have been made illegal in the country and hope that it eventually results in its demise. However, the stated resurgence of sharia is troublesome to read about. I fail to see the lack of barbarity or the wisdom of sharia in any circumstance. Basing a legal system upon unquestionable religious authority/divine word is madness. Sure there are standards of law and morality which can be shared between legal systems and religions, but law which is not subject to appeal, challenge, etc. because it is supposedly the word of divinity is absurd and has tremendous potential and evidence of being misused.
I am going to write this in capital letters. Maybe then it'll get through your thick skull:
READING ARTICLES ON THE MISUSE OF SHARI`AH DOES NOT QUALIFY AS RESEARCHING WHAT SHARI`AH IS. JUST AS READING ARTICLES ON THE MISUSE OF ANYTHING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS RESEARCHING WHATEVER SAID TOPIC IS. STOP COMMENTING ON SHARI`AH. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO, YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS.
I find it particularly hilarious how you chose to bold the quotations in your article where it suited you, but failed to quote where he said, "this is against the rules of Islam." Of course why would you highlight such a thing? You don't even know what the rules of Islam are in the first place! You find random articles of Muslims applying terrible judgment and torturous rulings and generalize it. Do you realize how many people can find such tactics applied in Christian, Jewish, or secular law proceedings?? What's the point you are trying to make? That Shari`ah is terrible and religious law is barbaric? I find it hilarious that you, who has absolutely no scholarly research WHATSOEVER on this topic, or ANYTHING having to do with it (whether it be Islamic history, the Qur'an, or the most basic beliefs Islam promotes), find yourself perfectly capable of posting about it. I'm done responding to you. I swear it's like arguing with a child who refuses to accept that he or she cannot have chocolate for dinner.
Proposed ban on kirpan slammed
Liberals, NDP defend Sikh dagger; Tories mum
By: Jonathan Montpetit
MONTREAL -- A proposal to ban a Sikh ceremonial dagger from Parliament had two of Canada's three main national parties racing to the defence of the religious symbol -- while the Conservatives refused to take a public stand.
The leaders of both the Liberals and the NDP came out strongly against the Bloc Québécois proposal Thursday, expressing sadness and even anger anyone would seek to ban a religious accessory from Parliament.
The Conservative government, however, described the dispute as a private matter.
"Our government does not believe parliamentary security should be directed by partisan politics," said an emailed statement from Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney.
"Specific questions on the security of the House of Commons should be directed to the (chamber's) Sergeant-at-Arms."
That leaves the Conservatives as the only party refusing to take a public position on the matter. The Bloc Québécois, transferring a dispute to Ottawa that originated in Quebec, wants to ask the House of Commons' board of internal economy to ban the article as a security threat.
The measure appears to have no chance of passing, now that the other major parties have quashed it. The NDP called the move shameful in a statement earlier this week.
And on Thursday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff described the matter as one of religious freedom and tolerance, instead of a security issue.
He made his remarks in French in response to a reporter's question in Quebec, where such a ban has prompted no complaints from any prominent politician or pundit.
Ignatieff told reporters he has kirpan-wearing Sikh colleagues who represent their constituents well and who do not deserve to be excluded from Parliament because of their religious beliefs.
"All Canadians have the right to have access to democratic spaces and legislatures," Ignatieff told reporters in Montreal.
"I have colleagues in the Liberal party who wear a kirpan and who represent their riding proudly. They have the right to have access to the House of Commons."
He added: "The kirpan is not a weapon. It's a religious symbol and we have to respect it."
Liberal MP Navdeep Bains, who has spoken openly about wearing his kirpan in the House of Commons, accused the Bloc of "fear-mongering" earlier this week for portraying the kirpan as a security threat.
In issuing their own condemnation, the NDP sought to upstage the Liberals.
A statement issued by the party said New Democrats were the first to propose a parliamentary motion defending Sikhs' five articles of faith, which includes wearing the kirpan at all times.
The 2001 motion "failed to pass when the Liberals refused to support it," the statement said.
"We stand with the Sikh community in solidarity," it added.
Such opposition to the Bloc proposal might kill the attempt to change the security rules at the Commons' board of economy, which require all-party consensus for any modification.
This was a topic on AMT just a week ago and serves as a good example. Did you notice the part where Ignatieff mentioned how it was a RELIGIOUS symbol which needed to be respected? This is a governmnet buliding. Didn't you say you don't want RELIGIOUS symbols in places your tax dollars are working?
Why is there no crying out by the usual suspects against this? If someone were carrying a crucifix, it would've become an international incident and you know it. This is the new norm all over the world.
...
Thanx for all of that... I didn't know the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America also applied to CANADA.
Thanx for clarifying that for me.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I am at least pleased to see that the sharia laws and enforcements have been made illegal in the country and hope that it eventually results in its demise. However, the stated resurgence of sharia is troublesome to read about. I fail to see the lack of barbarity or the wisdom of sharia in any circumstance. Basing a legal system upon unquestionable religious authority/divine word is madness. Sure there are standards of law and morality which can be shared between legal systems and religions, but law which is not subject to appeal, challenge, etc. because it is supposedly the word of divinity is absurd and has tremendous potential and evidence of being misused.
I am going to write this in capital letters. Maybe then it'll get through your thick skull:
READING ARTICLES ON THE MISUSE OF SHARI`AH DOES NOT QUALIFY AS RESEARCHING WHAT SHARI`AH IS. JUST AS READING ARTICLES ON THE MISUSE OF ANYTHING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS RESEARCHING WHATEVER SAID TOPIC IS. STOP COMMENTING ON SHARI`AH. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO, YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS.
I find it particularly hilarious how you chose to bold the quotations in your article where it suited you, but failed to quote where he said, "this is against the rules of Islam." Of course why would you highlight such a thing? You don't even know what the rules of Islam are in the first place! You find random articles of Muslims applying terrible judgment and torturous rulings and generalize it. Do you realize how many people can find such tactics applied in Christian, Jewish, or secular law proceedings?? What's the point you are trying to make? That Shari`ah is terrible and religious law is barbaric? I find it hilarious that you, who has absolutely no scholarly research WHATSOEVER on this topic, or ANYTHING having to do with it (whether it be Islamic history, the Qur'an, or the most basic beliefs Islam promotes), find yourself perfectly capable of posting about it. I'm done responding to you. I swear it's like arguing with a child who refuses to accept that he or she cannot have chocolate for dinner.
You said it well.
Soulfire42, consider the following:
1. Shariah isn't defined by what village elders in Bangladesh think or do, it is defined by the Quran and Sunnah.
2. A punishment can only be given once a crime is proven beyond doubt. This is a very basic principle of any legal system, including Shariah. It is clearly evident that mere accusation was used as evidence here. Also, if the crime was proven, the man had to be given the same punishment.
3. The way the punishment was handed out was completely un-Islamic, to say that it was in accordance with Shariah is just stupid.
4. A person wrongly accusing someone of adultery is himself liable to the punishment of Qadhf (false accusation) which is 80 lashes and his testimony is not to be accepted in future:
Those who accuse honourable women and bring not four witnesses as an evidence [for their accusation], inflict eighty stripes upon them, and never accept their testimony in future. They indeed are transgressors. But those who repent and mend their ways, Allah is Ever-Forgiving and Most-Merciful. And those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves shall swear four times by Allah that they are telling the truth and the fifth time that the curse of Allah be on them if they are lying. But this shall avert the punishment from the wife if she swears four times by Allah and says that this person is a liar and the fifth time she says that the curse of Allah be on her if he is telling the truth. (24:4-9)
This would discourage anyone who has the intention of settling a personal score or someone who just wants to misuse the law.
5. The accused is always considered innocent unless proven guilty, this should be absolutely clear from the above verse.
6. Shariah law cannot be enforced in isolation by village elders in their respective villages. The government is the sole authority in this regard and it has to decide whether it even has the capability to implement Shariah. This would entail having a council of highly qualified, learned scholars to first form a consensus on major issues, in addition to establishing courts where judges themselves would have to be well-versed in Islamic law. Unless these conditions can be met, no government can make a serious attempt at implementing Shariah.
7. Man-made laws can be questioned, but that doesn't make them better or more just. It just shows that they, like human beings, can be unjust. As of now, I myself don't know of a single Muslim country where Shariah law is being practised in it's true spirit. Hence, you quoting examples of it's misuse doesn't prove that the Shariah is unjust, barbaric or deserves to be eradicated. It just reinforces a fact we already know: human beings can be vile, intolerant and plain ignorant.
It doesn't serve any real purpose to bash Islam based on the ill-advised actions of some of it's followers. Unless of course, your purpose IS to bash Islam. In that case, I would like to stay away from this thread. If, however, you have a genuine desire to understand what Shariah is, you have to make a concerted effort to educate yourself about it. A debate would make more sense then. Also, if you want, you can PM me and I may be able to point you in the right direction to begin your research. It is you who has to make the effort, though.
no one is changing their beliefs due to a 10club thread..or any thread for that matter
then why did you bother posting? do you think you're gonna convince people to stop posting?
i'm just frustrated by my friend who is going to school for poly sci and watches the daily show so now thinks he has all the answers. i guess i took my frustrations out here.
I wonder what the next one will be? Black people? Chinamen? The Teletubbies?
... Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
Well played.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Peter King's hearings are tainted with prejudice, but far more insidious is the Islamophobic 'training' public servants receive
Tarso Ramos
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 March 2011
A generation ago, irresponsible pundits inflamed anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment, claiming that the election of then Senator John F Kennedy to the presidency would put the White House under the control of Rome. Today, where Muslims are concerned, it seems there's no claim too absurd, no charge too baseless to command the full attention of certain public officials and even the investigatory powers of Congress. Representative Peter King should know better.
We can expect a litany of ominous claims about Muslims during House homeland security Committee hearings on domestic Islamic radicalisation scheduled for this week. Representative King (Republican, New York) chairs that committee and has singled out Muslims as the source of potential terrorism on our shores. We were most recently exposed to a sustained public airing of wild-eyed Islamophobic storylines during the controversy over a proposed Islamic centre for lower Manhattan. Seemingly moderate American Muslims were said to be secretly plotting to replace the US constitution with Sharia law. Civil rights organisations were portrayed as front organisations for violent foreign "jihadi" groups. Islam was revealed to be an inherently violent, even terroristic religion. Such slanders and conspiracy theories demonise Muslims and Islam. They would be laughable were they not so ubiquitous, and therefore dangerous.
Hysterical Islamophobic rhetoric casts suspicion on all Muslims and amounts to fearmongering, plain and simple. It deserves to be condemned, not dignified with congressional hearings. Unfortunately, Representative King has invited witnesses with records of making outrageous claims about Muslims, such as Walid Shoebat. Shoebat asserts that "Islam is of Satan".
As poisoned as our public discourse has become where Islam is concerned, at least the King hearings, like the Manhattan community centre debate, will take place in public view, where there is an opportunity to refute baseless charges and rebuke those who would characterise Muslims as the enemy within. Certainly, the mob-like crowds jeering and vilifying Muslims at New York street demonstrations should give us all pause. But we should perhaps be even more alarmed at the ongoing – and, until now, largely unknown – promotion of these same Islamophobic messages to law enforcement, intelligence personnel and other public servants charged with our national security and public safety.
In the new report "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, Public Servants, and the Threat to Rights and Security", Political Research Associates' Thomas Cincotta raises serious concerns that trainers associated with private counterterrorism firms – including Walid Shoebat – propagate many of these very same conspiracy theories and malicious myths about Islam at conferences of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. Two of the firms profiled in the PRA report claim to have trained a combined 130,000 people working in security and law enforcement.
Even worse, systematic government failure to regulate content in nationwide counter-terrorism training and lax reporting requirements in federal counter-terrorism grant programmes facilitate the use of public dollars for trainings that demonise Muslims and contradict official national security policy. In light of these findings, Representative King's forthcoming hearings may be just the tip of the iceberg of public involvement in the unjust demonisation of Muslims and Islam.
Since Congressman King and the House homeland security committee appear to be complicit in the problem they should be investigating, PRA calls upon the US Senate, department of homeland security and justice department to investigate and eliminate Islamophobia from counter-terrorism training. Our democracy requires it.
Soulfire, I'd like to applaud you for starting this thread. Seeing the beliefs and opinions of many people on this forum, I'd say it was a brave move indeed. As you have pointed out, there is a problem (at least in America that I'm aware of) with what I call "tolerance for intolerance." If you push tolerance to the extreme, it becomes and absurdly vicious circle. For example, many in the "tolerant" crowd champion gay rights. However, they will also champion the rights of Muslims to their beliefs and religious practices. Then, when confronted with the fact that many (if not all) Muslim nations execute gays for no other reason than being gay, there's an internal conflict which they cannot reconcile. It's as if their brains can't process it, so it crashes like a computer with a virus, and all they can do is fling words like "racist" and "bigot."
It reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion once:
"ACLU defends Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters"
It's so insane, it really is humorous. Thanks again for speaking the TRUTH, no matter how "offensive" or "politically incorrect" it may be. The truth is the truth, and far too many people choose to put their heads in the sand.
Then, when confronted with the fact that many (if not all) Muslim nations execute gays for no other reason than being gay, there's an internal conflict which they cannot reconcile.
Hmm, last time I checked, America is not an Islamic state. So how would the mind of someone championing for freedom of religion and the right of the pursuit of happiness be blown? No one in America is being executed because they are gay.
Soulfire, I'd like to applaud you for starting this thread. Seeing the beliefs and opinions of many people on this forum, I'd say it was a brave move indeed. As you have pointed out, there is a problem (at least in America that I'm aware of) with what I call "tolerance for intolerance." If you push tolerance to the extreme, it becomes and absurdly vicious circle. For example, many in the "tolerant" crowd champion gay rights. However, they will also champion the rights of Muslims to their beliefs and religious practices. Then, when confronted with the fact that many (if not all) Muslim nations execute gays for no other reason than being gay, there's an internal conflict which they cannot reconcile. It's as if their brains can't process it, so it crashes like a computer with a virus, and all they can do is fling words like "racist" and "bigot."
It reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion once:
"ACLU defends Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters"
It's so insane, it really is humorous. Thanks again for speaking the TRUTH, no matter how "offensive" or "politically incorrect" it may be. The truth is the truth, and far too many people choose to put their heads in the sand.
Except the OP isn't talking about what goes on within Muslim nations. He's talking about a ridiculous fantasy that America is under threat from Muslims, and the U.S is in danger of becoming a state under Sharia law. There's nothing truthful in that. It's complete nonsense.
I'm going to post a link to something extremely disturbing and without apologies. If you click on it, consider yourself forewarned. The video is horrific, brutal, and contains the killing of humans by muslims in the name Allah, supposedly for adultery. I consider videos like this to be truths we must be aware of and must hold in check with pleas of infinite tolerance. There are things which deserve no tolerance and which have no excuse. We live in a day and age where it is no longer as easy to stick our heads in the sand and pretend we simply didn't know. We also live in a world where the people casting such stones are also claiming to be the victims and that they deserve special treatments and protections. It's time we call a spade a spade.
I am not trying to hatemonger or anything of the sort. But tolerance, multiculturalism and other seemingly good things must have limitations and we must not once more turn a blind eye to atrocity as it spreads tentacles as it once did in places like nazi Germany. We must be vigilant and understand that there IS a spreading influence of Islam and pushes for barbaric laws across the world. Barbarism is not limited to Islam, and I make no such claim. But nonetheless, the claim that Islam is purely a religion of peace while people carry out the murder of others under the decree of religious rulers is just absurd. There is something we must be aware of going on and something we must be willing to fight before it wins by default as we sleep. We should have a firm understanding of what we would consider an enemy to be, regardless of the religion, skin color, uniform or whatever guise it may take. And when we see it, we have to be willing to stand firm and fight against it in one way or another. After I watch a video like this, I cannot help but pretend that I do not see an enemy which must be confronted and not appeased, welcomed or allowed to flourish. Again, this is not me saying all muslims are bad, but I'm going to refuse to allow the truth that not all muslims are bad to equate to a tolerance of this insanity. This is not the act of one madman on a rampage. This is organized and must be stopped.
I provide one additional link from a British fellow who I think provides some keen insight on the topic of islamization and our need to take a stand.
Yes killing like that is Barbaric, as barbaric as dropping bombs from up high, killing men, women, gay men, gay women, kids, puppies, trees and whatever else, barbaric no? What law is that based on? Law of ignorance?
Do western bombs differentiate between the guilty and the innocent? gay or straight? No, we just drop them and kill everyone. Barbaric? Which I'm sure you will agree that it is.
What are you really scared of? What do you really fear?
Also, I'm curious, what are your general thoughts on religion? All religions,
Soulfire, I'd like to applaud you for starting this thread. Seeing the beliefs and opinions of many people on this forum, I'd say it was a brave move indeed. As you have pointed out, there is a problem (at least in America that I'm aware of) with what I call "tolerance for intolerance." If you push tolerance to the extreme, it becomes and absurdly vicious circle. For example, many in the "tolerant" crowd champion gay rights. However, they will also champion the rights of Muslims to their beliefs and religious practices. Then, when confronted with the fact that many (if not all) Muslim nations execute gays for no other reason than being gay, there's an internal conflict which they cannot reconcile. It's as if their brains can't process it, so it crashes like a computer with a virus, and all they can do is fling words like "racist" and "bigot."
It reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion once:
"ACLU defends Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters"
It's so insane, it really is humorous. Thanks again for speaking the TRUTH, no matter how "offensive" or "politically incorrect" it may be. The truth is the truth, and far too many people choose to put their heads in the sand.
posting nonsense when you're surrounded by people who like to argue using rationale is indeed a brave move.
so I don't get it. can you not be for gay rights and Muslim rights at the same time? Does supporting the rights of Muslims to adhere to their beliefs and practices mean you're supporting the execution of gays? Is this the logic you're using? And for the record, the so-called countries who execute gay people jsut for being gay, although this is HIGHLY exaggerated by the fact that only the most extreme religious countries like Saudi Arabia practice such barbaric policies, it is important to note that the Saudi Arabian regime is kept in power with U.S. support and that in fact many (if not all) Muslims are against their crazy practices. But then again, all we have over here is an internal conflict people like you and Soulfire cannot reconcile. You have so much bigotry but it just doesn't work when you try to act rational and pretend you're using facts.
Soulfire, I'd like to applaud you for starting this thread. Seeing the beliefs and opinions of many people on this forum, I'd say it was a brave move indeed. As you have pointed out, there is a problem (at least in America that I'm aware of) with what I call "tolerance for intolerance." If you push tolerance to the extreme, it becomes and absurdly vicious circle. For example, many in the "tolerant" crowd champion gay rights. However, they will also champion the rights of Muslims to their beliefs and religious practices. Then, when confronted with the fact that many (if not all) Muslim nations execute gays for no other reason than being gay, there's an internal conflict which they cannot reconcile. It's as if their brains can't process it, so it crashes like a computer with a virus, and all they can do is fling words like "racist" and "bigot."
It reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion once:
"ACLU defends Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters"
It's so insane, it really is humorous. Thanks again for speaking the TRUTH, no matter how "offensive" or "politically incorrect" it may be. The truth is the truth, and far too many people choose to put their heads in the sand.
posting nonsense when you're surrounded by people who like to argue using rationale is indeed a brave move.
so I don't get it. can you not be for gay rights and Muslim rights at the same time? Does supporting the rights of Muslims to adhere to their beliefs and practices mean you're supporting the execution of gays? Is this the logic you're using? And for the record, the so-called countries who execute gay people jsut for being gay, although this is HIGHLY exaggerated by the fact that only the most extreme religious countries like Saudi Arabia practice such barbaric policies, it is important to note that the Saudi Arabian regime is kept in power with U.S. support and that in fact many (if not all) Muslims are against their crazy practices. But then again, all we have over here is an internal conflict people like you and Soulfire cannot reconcile. You have so much bigotry but it just doesn't work when you try to act rational and pretend you're using facts.
It's true that only the most extreme muslim countries execute gays, but the others seem to be far from tolerant. Just do a quick comparison of the east vs the west on this map. Muslims are not exactly tolerant of gay rights, are they? I think something else that hasn't been addressed is the fact that the religion of Islam is not only theological, but highly political. To hard-core Muslims, the only government allowed by the Koran is the Muslim state, and therefore Sharia. Once again, we can debate these issues, but calling me a bigot simply because I point these things out is ignorant and short-sighted. Are there many moderate Muslims that don';t agree with executing gays or stoning people for adultery? Absoluteley! But we can't just ignore the fact that there is an extremely large faction of hard-line radical fundamentalist Muslims in this world, and that they thrive in the middle east. Once again, I'm sorry, but that's just a fact, and the video posted on the OP is just a small piece of evidence of this fact.
By the way, Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally to the U.S. (even if Obama did bow to their king :roll: ). The U.S. closed all of their bases in Saudi Arabia quite some time ago, and the relationship between the two countries has been quite strained ever since 9-11.
Soulfire, I'd like to applaud you for starting this thread. Seeing the beliefs and opinions of many people on this forum, I'd say it was a brave move indeed. As you have pointed out, there is a problem (at least in America that I'm aware of) with what I call "tolerance for intolerance." If you push tolerance to the extreme, it becomes and absurdly vicious circle. For example, many in the "tolerant" crowd champion gay rights. However, they will also champion the rights of Muslims to their beliefs and religious practices. Then, when confronted with the fact that many (if not all) Muslim nations execute gays for no other reason than being gay, there's an internal conflict which they cannot reconcile. It's as if their brains can't process it, so it crashes like a computer with a virus, and all they can do is fling words like "racist" and "bigot."
It reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion once:
"ACLU defends Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters"
It's so insane, it really is humorous. Thanks again for speaking the TRUTH, no matter how "offensive" or "politically incorrect" it may be. The truth is the truth, and far too many people choose to put their heads in the sand.
posting nonsense when you're surrounded by people who like to argue using rationale is indeed a brave move.
so I don't get it. can you not be for gay rights and Muslim rights at the same time? Does supporting the rights of Muslims to adhere to their beliefs and practices mean you're supporting the execution of gays? Is this the logic you're using? And for the record, the so-called countries who execute gay people jsut for being gay, although this is HIGHLY exaggerated by the fact that only the most extreme religious countries like Saudi Arabia practice such barbaric policies, it is important to note that the Saudi Arabian regime is kept in power with U.S. support and that in fact many (if not all) Muslims are against their crazy practices. But then again, all we have over here is an internal conflict people like you and Soulfire cannot reconcile. You have so much bigotry but it just doesn't work when you try to act rational and pretend you're using facts.
It's true that only the most extreme muslim countries execute gays, but the others seem to be far from tolerant. Just do a quick comparison of the east vs the west on this map. Muslims are not exactly tolerant of gay rights, are they?
Oh and I suppose the U.S. is so tolerant of gay rights, correct? We just fucking repealed don't ask, don't tell. Quit acting like we're ahead of the morality curve. There's no such thing as "even though we have problems, we still treat gay people better." You either treat people equally and non-discriminatory, or you don't.
I think something else that hasn't been addressed is the fact that the religion of Islam is not only theological, but highly political. To hard-core Muslims, the only government allowed by the Koran is the Muslim state, and therefore Sharia. Once again, we can debate these issues, but calling me a bigot simply because I point these things out is ignorant and short-sighted. Are there many moderate Muslims that don';t agree with executing gays or stoning people for adultery? Absoluteley! But we can't just ignore the fact that there is an extremely large faction of hard-line radical fundamentalist Muslims in this world, and that they thrive in the middle east. Once again, I'm sorry, but that's just a fact, and the video posted on the OP is just a small piece of evidence of this fact.
Quit repeating "this is just fact" without actually providing any evidence for your nonsense. And the fact that they're all based on just vague, general statements is further proof that you're just buying talking points from bigots. Have you ever read the Qur'an? Of course you haven't. It's absolutely fucking impossible to govern an entire state by the Qur'an. It's not a legal document in any way whatsoever. And you also make a general statement like "there is an extremely large faction of radicals" ... how large? Give me an estimate. You seem to think it's big, for what reason? And they thrive in the Middle East? Really? Where in the Middle East? You mind providing more details to your "facts" ??
By the way, Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally to the U.S. (even if Obama did bow to their king :roll: ). The U.S. closed all of their bases in Saudi Arabia quite some time ago, and the relationship between the two countries has been quite strained ever since 9-11.
By the way, Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally to the U.S. (even if Obama did bow to their king :roll: ). The U.S. closed all of their bases in Saudi Arabia quite some time ago, and the relationship between the two countries has been quite strained ever since 9-11.
By the way, Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally to the U.S. (even if Obama did bow to their king :roll: ). The U.S. closed all of their bases in Saudi Arabia quite some time ago, and the relationship between the two countries has been quite strained ever since 9-11.
posting nonsense when you're surrounded by people who like to argue using rationale is indeed a brave move.
so I don't get it. can you not be for gay rights and Muslim rights at the same time? Does supporting the rights of Muslims to adhere to their beliefs and practices mean you're supporting the execution of gays? Is this the logic you're using? And for the record, the so-called countries who execute gay people jsut for being gay, although this is HIGHLY exaggerated by the fact that only the most extreme religious countries like Saudi Arabia practice such barbaric policies, it is important to note that the Saudi Arabian regime is kept in power with U.S. support and that in fact many (if not all) Muslims are against their crazy practices. But then again, all we have over here is an internal conflict people like you and Soulfire cannot reconcile. You have so much bigotry but it just doesn't work when you try to act rational and pretend you're using facts.[/quote]
It's true that only the most extreme muslim countries execute gays, but the others seem to be far from tolerant. Just do a quick comparison of the east vs the west on this map. Muslims are not exactly tolerant of gay rights, are they?[/quote]
Oh and I suppose the U.S. is so tolerant of gay rights, correct? We just fucking repealed don't ask, don't tell. Quit acting like we're ahead of the morality curve. There's no such thing as "even though we have problems, we still treat gay people better." You either treat people equally and non-discriminatory, or you don't.
I think something else that hasn't been addressed is the fact that the religion of Islam is not only theological, but highly political. To hard-core Muslims, the only government allowed by the Koran is the Muslim state, and therefore Sharia. Once again, we can debate these issues, but calling me a bigot simply because I point these things out is ignorant and short-sighted. Are there many moderate Muslims that don';t agree with executing gays or stoning people for adultery? Absoluteley! But we can't just ignore the fact that there is an extremely large faction of hard-line radical fundamentalist Muslims in this world, and that they thrive in the middle east. Once again, I'm sorry, but that's just a fact, and the video posted on the OP is just a small piece of evidence of this fact.
Quit repeating "this is just fact" without actually providing any evidence for your nonsense. And the fact that they're all based on just vague, general statements is further proof that you're just buying talking points from bigots. Have you ever read the Qur'an? Of course you haven't. It's absolutely fucking impossible to govern an entire state by the Qur'an. It's not a legal document in any way whatsoever. And you also make a general statement like "there is an extremely large faction of radicals" ... how large? Give me an estimate. You seem to think it's big, for what reason? And they thrive in the Middle East? Really? Where in the Middle East? You mind providing more details to your "facts" ??
By the way, Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally to the U.S. (even if Obama did bow to their king :roll: ). The U.S. closed all of their bases in Saudi Arabia quite some time ago, and the relationship between the two countries has been quite strained ever since 9-11.
WHAT?![/quote]
As much as you'd like to believe that I'm just some ignorant redneck typing in my trailer, I regret to inform you that that is not the case. And as much as you'd like to assume that I haven't read the Koran, I actually have. I'm not making this stuff up and I don't lift my points from right-wing talking heads. Many Muslims believe in the theocracy of the Islamic state, and one of the main teachings of Islam has to do with submission: submission to the will of Allah, submission to the Islamic State that Muhammed established (and many Muslims wish to return), and submission to Sharia, which governs that Islamic state. The Koran is not a legal document? Of course it is, just as many other sacred texts are also legal documents. The Koran contains Islamic law just as the Old Testament contains Jewish law. You should really read this book by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani. It is a chilling account of the history of the Islamic state and Sharia (and written from a Muslim perspective, no less!). The book in its entirety can be found here:
__________, Most radicals are trained in Yemen. How can it be hard to believe Radical Muslims are in the U.S.A after Fort Hood, or 9/11. This man knows about it first hand
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
__________, Most radicals are trained in Yemen. How can it be hard to believe Radical Muslims are in the U.S.A after Fort Hood, or 9/11. This man knows about it first hand
i thought most radicals are trained in iraq and afghanistan.... isn't that why we went in there in the first place? since, you know, saddam was responsible for 9/11, right?
for those of you that can't tell, i was being completely sarcastic....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
By the way, Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally to the U.S. (even if Obama did bow to their king :roll: ). The U.S. closed all of their bases in Saudi Arabia quite some time ago, and the relationship between the two countries has been quite strained ever since 9-11.
The withdrawal of military is hardly what shocked me. It was you saying Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally when it is in fact the strongest Arab ally for the U.S. In fact, the U.S. just fucking sold them $60 Billion worth of military equipment and weapons a few months ago! This notwithstanding sharing of intelligence, etc etc etc. I mean, what you said was so nonsensical and shows that you lack ANY knowledge regarding Middle East history or politics or religion or ANYTHING in this subject.
Comments
Some people prefer baseless fantasies over substance and the facts.
Maybe this is why politicians have such an easy time getting the majority of the public to toe the line on anything and everything.
I mean, it worked for Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, so why shouldn't it still work in this day and age? Just make shit up and sow fear in the public mind in order to get them to fall in line like obedient sheep.
If it isn't Jews that are threatening the survival of the Western world, then it's Communists. And if not Communists that are the threat then it's drugs. If it isn't drugs that are the threat to our very survival then it's terrorists. And if it isn't terrorists that are threatening our existence then it's fundamentalist Muslims.
I wonder what the next one will be? Black people? Chinamen? The Teletubbies?
Bangladesh village shaken after lashed girl's deathBy Ethirajan Anbarasan
BBC News, Chamta Village, Shariatpur
Dorbesh Kha witnessed the full horror of his daughter's punishment Looking at the mobile phone picture of his daughter, labourer Dorbesh Kha weeps uncontrollably.
He says he will never forget the way she suffered and he will never forgive those responsible.
Mr Kha's youngest girl, 14-year-old Hena Begum, was accused of having an affair with her married cousin and publicly lashed in a punishment meted out by villagers under Islamic Sharia law.
She died in hospital a week later and on Monday her body was exhumed for another post-mortem examination to ascertain the cause of her death.
Her family members claim she died of her injuries.
While the initial post-mortem said there were no signs of external or internal injuries, the latest one concluded that she had bled to death because of multiple wounds.
'Left alone'
Mr Kha was there to witness the horror of his daughter being lashed publicly.
Sitting in front of his small tin-sheet house in the village of Chamta, Mr Kha says the grainy picture on his phone is one of the few things left which remind him of his daughter.
“
Start Quote
They tied her legs and started lashing her continuously”
End Quote
Minu Begum
"I feel like I am left alone now. My world goes blank whenever I remember my daughter's face. I don't know whether I will ever overcome this tragedy."
Life will never be the same again in this picturesque village, surrounded by lush green paddy fields, wetlands and clusters of small tin-sheet houses. It is a remote place with a close-knit community and still doesn't have proper road access.
Hena Begum's family members say that a village court consisting of a group of village elders and a Muslim cleric found Hena Begum and her cousin Mahbub Khan guilty of having an affair. They also passed the sentence.
Mr Kha says he protested vehemently when his daughter was dragged out to be given the lashing in a nearby house.
Hena Begum's friend, another cousin Minu Begum, bursts into tears when she recounts what happened on that day.
"They tied her legs and started lashing her continuously. At one stage, she collapsed. But they did not stop. They forced her to stand again and continued lashing until she fainted and fell to the ground," she said.
For his part, Mr Kha was also lashed and fined and has since left the village with his family. Some of his relatives have expressed doubts as to whether the death of Hena Begum was related to the lashing.
Tranquillity shattered
But following a high court order, a team of police officers has now descended on the village to conduct a detailed investigation. Four people, including the local Muslim cleric have been arrested and many others are still missing.
Hena Begum died after being taken to hospital Most villagers were surprised and perplexed by the local and international attention the incident received. Some say the peace and tranquillity of the village has been shattered and it will take time before it can return to normality.
Bangladesh has been trying to portray itself as a moderate Muslim-majority nation rather than an Islamic country. Nearly 90% of the country's estimated population of 160 million adhere to a moderate version of Islam.
However, the re-emergence of fatwa and Sharia law in rural areas has shocked many community leaders.
"This is against the rules of Islam. These kinds of laws can apply in Saudi Arabia but not in our country and the verdict was illegal. We don't have these strict Sharia laws in our country. The villagers should have stopped this," says Haji Abdul Wahab Bepari, chairman of the Naria sub-district.
Mr Kha and his relatives fear that his daughter's death may be forgotten, as has happened in other cases.
"The thing that happened to my daughter, the kind of justice she received, it should not happen to anyone else. It must stop," says Mr Kha.
Activists say dozens of fatwas or religious rulings are issued in the rural areas of Bangladesh. This is the second reported death linked to Sharia punishments since they were outlawed last year by the high court.
The question is how far the ban by the government and the court is effective outside the capital Dhaka, especially in the remote rural areas of Bangladesh.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12398757
I am at least pleased to see that the sharia laws and enforcements have been made illegal in the country and hope that it eventually results in its demise. However, the stated resurgence of sharia is troublesome to read about. I fail to see the lack of barbarity or the wisdom of sharia in any circumstance. Basing a legal system upon unquestionable religious authority/divine word is madness. Sure there are standards of law and morality which can be shared between legal systems and religions, but law which is not subject to appeal, challenge, etc. because it is supposedly the word of divinity is absurd and has tremendous potential and evidence of being misused.
READING ARTICLES ON THE MISUSE OF SHARI`AH DOES NOT QUALIFY AS RESEARCHING WHAT SHARI`AH IS. JUST AS READING ARTICLES ON THE MISUSE OF ANYTHING DOES NOT QUALIFY AS RESEARCHING WHATEVER SAID TOPIC IS. STOP COMMENTING ON SHARI`AH. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO, YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS.
I find it particularly hilarious how you chose to bold the quotations in your article where it suited you, but failed to quote where he said, "this is against the rules of Islam." Of course why would you highlight such a thing? You don't even know what the rules of Islam are in the first place! You find random articles of Muslims applying terrible judgment and torturous rulings and generalize it. Do you realize how many people can find such tactics applied in Christian, Jewish, or secular law proceedings?? What's the point you are trying to make? That Shari`ah is terrible and religious law is barbaric? I find it hilarious that you, who has absolutely no scholarly research WHATSOEVER on this topic, or ANYTHING having to do with it (whether it be Islamic history, the Qur'an, or the most basic beliefs Islam promotes), find yourself perfectly capable of posting about it. I'm done responding to you. I swear it's like arguing with a child who refuses to accept that he or she cannot have chocolate for dinner.
Thanx for all of that... I didn't know the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America also applied to CANADA.
Thanx for clarifying that for me.
Hail, Hail!!!
You said it well.
Soulfire42, consider the following:
1. Shariah isn't defined by what village elders in Bangladesh think or do, it is defined by the Quran and Sunnah.
2. A punishment can only be given once a crime is proven beyond doubt. This is a very basic principle of any legal system, including Shariah. It is clearly evident that mere accusation was used as evidence here. Also, if the crime was proven, the man had to be given the same punishment.
3. The way the punishment was handed out was completely un-Islamic, to say that it was in accordance with Shariah is just stupid.
4. A person wrongly accusing someone of adultery is himself liable to the punishment of Qadhf (false accusation) which is 80 lashes and his testimony is not to be accepted in future:
Those who accuse honourable women and bring not four witnesses as an evidence [for their accusation], inflict eighty stripes upon them, and never accept their testimony in future. They indeed are transgressors. But those who repent and mend their ways, Allah is Ever-Forgiving and Most-Merciful. And those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves shall swear four times by Allah that they are telling the truth and the fifth time that the curse of Allah be on them if they are lying. But this shall avert the punishment from the wife if she swears four times by Allah and says that this person is a liar and the fifth time she says that the curse of Allah be on her if he is telling the truth. (24:4-9)
This would discourage anyone who has the intention of settling a personal score or someone who just wants to misuse the law.
5. The accused is always considered innocent unless proven guilty, this should be absolutely clear from the above verse.
6. Shariah law cannot be enforced in isolation by village elders in their respective villages. The government is the sole authority in this regard and it has to decide whether it even has the capability to implement Shariah. This would entail having a council of highly qualified, learned scholars to first form a consensus on major issues, in addition to establishing courts where judges themselves would have to be well-versed in Islamic law. Unless these conditions can be met, no government can make a serious attempt at implementing Shariah.
7. Man-made laws can be questioned, but that doesn't make them better or more just. It just shows that they, like human beings, can be unjust. As of now, I myself don't know of a single Muslim country where Shariah law is being practised in it's true spirit. Hence, you quoting examples of it's misuse doesn't prove that the Shariah is unjust, barbaric or deserves to be eradicated. It just reinforces a fact we already know: human beings can be vile, intolerant and plain ignorant.
It doesn't serve any real purpose to bash Islam based on the ill-advised actions of some of it's followers. Unless of course, your purpose IS to bash Islam. In that case, I would like to stay away from this thread. If, however, you have a genuine desire to understand what Shariah is, you have to make a concerted effort to educate yourself about it. A debate would make more sense then. Also, if you want, you can PM me and I may be able to point you in the right direction to begin your research. It is you who has to make the effort, though.
no one is changing their beliefs due to a 10club thread..or any thread for that matter
i'm just frustrated by my friend who is going to school for poly sci and watches the daily show so now thinks he has all the answers. i guess i took my frustrations out here.
They're not referred to as Asian-American's in China.
The anti-Muslim fearmongering we can't see
Peter King's hearings are tainted with prejudice, but far more insidious is the Islamophobic 'training' public servants receive
Tarso Ramos
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 March 2011
A generation ago, irresponsible pundits inflamed anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment, claiming that the election of then Senator John F Kennedy to the presidency would put the White House under the control of Rome. Today, where Muslims are concerned, it seems there's no claim too absurd, no charge too baseless to command the full attention of certain public officials and even the investigatory powers of Congress. Representative Peter King should know better.
We can expect a litany of ominous claims about Muslims during House homeland security Committee hearings on domestic Islamic radicalisation scheduled for this week. Representative King (Republican, New York) chairs that committee and has singled out Muslims as the source of potential terrorism on our shores. We were most recently exposed to a sustained public airing of wild-eyed Islamophobic storylines during the controversy over a proposed Islamic centre for lower Manhattan. Seemingly moderate American Muslims were said to be secretly plotting to replace the US constitution with Sharia law. Civil rights organisations were portrayed as front organisations for violent foreign "jihadi" groups. Islam was revealed to be an inherently violent, even terroristic religion. Such slanders and conspiracy theories demonise Muslims and Islam. They would be laughable were they not so ubiquitous, and therefore dangerous.
Hysterical Islamophobic rhetoric casts suspicion on all Muslims and amounts to fearmongering, plain and simple. It deserves to be condemned, not dignified with congressional hearings. Unfortunately, Representative King has invited witnesses with records of making outrageous claims about Muslims, such as Walid Shoebat. Shoebat asserts that "Islam is of Satan".
As poisoned as our public discourse has become where Islam is concerned, at least the King hearings, like the Manhattan community centre debate, will take place in public view, where there is an opportunity to refute baseless charges and rebuke those who would characterise Muslims as the enemy within. Certainly, the mob-like crowds jeering and vilifying Muslims at New York street demonstrations should give us all pause. But we should perhaps be even more alarmed at the ongoing – and, until now, largely unknown – promotion of these same Islamophobic messages to law enforcement, intelligence personnel and other public servants charged with our national security and public safety.
In the new report "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, Public Servants, and the Threat to Rights and Security", Political Research Associates' Thomas Cincotta raises serious concerns that trainers associated with private counterterrorism firms – including Walid Shoebat – propagate many of these very same conspiracy theories and malicious myths about Islam at conferences of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. Two of the firms profiled in the PRA report claim to have trained a combined 130,000 people working in security and law enforcement.
Even worse, systematic government failure to regulate content in nationwide counter-terrorism training and lax reporting requirements in federal counter-terrorism grant programmes facilitate the use of public dollars for trainings that demonise Muslims and contradict official national security policy. In light of these findings, Representative King's forthcoming hearings may be just the tip of the iceberg of public involvement in the unjust demonisation of Muslims and Islam.
Since Congressman King and the House homeland security committee appear to be complicit in the problem they should be investigating, PRA calls upon the US Senate, department of homeland security and justice department to investigate and eliminate Islamophobia from counter-terrorism training. Our democracy requires it.
It reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion once:
"ACLU defends Nazi group's right to burn down ACLU headquarters"
It's so insane, it really is humorous. Thanks again for speaking the TRUTH, no matter how "offensive" or "politically incorrect" it may be. The truth is the truth, and far too many people choose to put their heads in the sand.
Hmm, last time I checked, America is not an Islamic state. So how would the mind of someone championing for freedom of religion and the right of the pursuit of happiness be blown? No one in America is being executed because they are gay.
Except the OP isn't talking about what goes on within Muslim nations. He's talking about a ridiculous fantasy that America is under threat from Muslims, and the U.S is in danger of becoming a state under Sharia law. There's nothing truthful in that. It's complete nonsense.
Yes killing like that is Barbaric, as barbaric as dropping bombs from up high, killing men, women, gay men, gay women, kids, puppies, trees and whatever else, barbaric no? What law is that based on? Law of ignorance?
Do western bombs differentiate between the guilty and the innocent? gay or straight? No, we just drop them and kill everyone. Barbaric? Which I'm sure you will agree that it is.
What are you really scared of? What do you really fear?
Also, I'm curious, what are your general thoughts on religion? All religions,
so I don't get it. can you not be for gay rights and Muslim rights at the same time? Does supporting the rights of Muslims to adhere to their beliefs and practices mean you're supporting the execution of gays? Is this the logic you're using? And for the record, the so-called countries who execute gay people jsut for being gay, although this is HIGHLY exaggerated by the fact that only the most extreme religious countries like Saudi Arabia practice such barbaric policies, it is important to note that the Saudi Arabian regime is kept in power with U.S. support and that in fact many (if not all) Muslims are against their crazy practices. But then again, all we have over here is an internal conflict people like you and Soulfire cannot reconcile. You have so much bigotry but it just doesn't work when you try to act rational and pretend you're using facts.
Check out this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_right ... _territory
It's true that only the most extreme muslim countries execute gays, but the others seem to be far from tolerant. Just do a quick comparison of the east vs the west on this map. Muslims are not exactly tolerant of gay rights, are they? I think something else that hasn't been addressed is the fact that the religion of Islam is not only theological, but highly political. To hard-core Muslims, the only government allowed by the Koran is the Muslim state, and therefore Sharia. Once again, we can debate these issues, but calling me a bigot simply because I point these things out is ignorant and short-sighted. Are there many moderate Muslims that don';t agree with executing gays or stoning people for adultery? Absoluteley! But we can't just ignore the fact that there is an extremely large faction of hard-line radical fundamentalist Muslims in this world, and that they thrive in the middle east. Once again, I'm sorry, but that's just a fact, and the video posted on the OP is just a small piece of evidence of this fact.
By the way, Saudi Arabia is no longer an ally to the U.S. (even if Obama did bow to their king :roll: ). The U.S. closed all of their bases in Saudi Arabia quite some time ago, and the relationship between the two countries has been quite strained ever since 9-11.
WHAT?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... udi_Arabia
so I don't get it. can you not be for gay rights and Muslim rights at the same time? Does supporting the rights of Muslims to adhere to their beliefs and practices mean you're supporting the execution of gays? Is this the logic you're using? And for the record, the so-called countries who execute gay people jsut for being gay, although this is HIGHLY exaggerated by the fact that only the most extreme religious countries like Saudi Arabia practice such barbaric policies, it is important to note that the Saudi Arabian regime is kept in power with U.S. support and that in fact many (if not all) Muslims are against their crazy practices. But then again, all we have over here is an internal conflict people like you and Soulfire cannot reconcile. You have so much bigotry but it just doesn't work when you try to act rational and pretend you're using facts.[/quote]
Check out this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_right ... _territory
It's true that only the most extreme muslim countries execute gays, but the others seem to be far from tolerant. Just do a quick comparison of the east vs the west on this map. Muslims are not exactly tolerant of gay rights, are they?[/quote]
Oh and I suppose the U.S. is so tolerant of gay rights, correct? We just fucking repealed don't ask, don't tell. Quit acting like we're ahead of the morality curve. There's no such thing as "even though we have problems, we still treat gay people better." You either treat people equally and non-discriminatory, or you don't. Quit repeating "this is just fact" without actually providing any evidence for your nonsense. And the fact that they're all based on just vague, general statements is further proof that you're just buying talking points from bigots. Have you ever read the Qur'an? Of course you haven't. It's absolutely fucking impossible to govern an entire state by the Qur'an. It's not a legal document in any way whatsoever. And you also make a general statement like "there is an extremely large faction of radicals" ... how large? Give me an estimate. You seem to think it's big, for what reason? And they thrive in the Middle East? Really? Where in the Middle East? You mind providing more details to your "facts" ?? WHAT?![/quote]
As much as you'd like to believe that I'm just some ignorant redneck typing in my trailer, I regret to inform you that that is not the case. And as much as you'd like to assume that I haven't read the Koran, I actually have. I'm not making this stuff up and I don't lift my points from right-wing talking heads. Many Muslims believe in the theocracy of the Islamic state, and one of the main teachings of Islam has to do with submission: submission to the will of Allah, submission to the Islamic State that Muhammed established (and many Muslims wish to return), and submission to Sharia, which governs that Islamic state. The Koran is not a legal document? Of course it is, just as many other sacred texts are also legal documents. The Koran contains Islamic law just as the Old Testament contains Jewish law. You should really read this book by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani. It is a chilling account of the history of the Islamic state and Sharia (and written from a Muslim perspective, no less!). The book in its entirety can be found here:
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/PDF/EN/en ... cState.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/us/17convert.html
for those of you that can't tell, i was being completely sarcastic....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary.
We'll start by dropping bombs on the muslims that live near you.
Nice.
Go read the Wikileaks cables dammit!