40% of UK muslims want Sharia law

angelica

RainDog wrote:

it also lays out guidelines...rules on how to punish a woman after she's been raped...

:eek:

soulsinging

NCfan wrote:

I think you missunderstood. The poll didn't target Islamic fundamentalist exclusively. It took into acount ALL Muslims in Britain.

I bet if you polled only young Christian-American evangelicals, you'd probably find closer to 100% would opt for biblical law.

The point is that although 40% is still a minority, it is a very significant portion of Muslims. For instance if say 40% of all young Christians in the U.S. wanted biblical law, it would be HUGE news. Can you see that?

then maybe you didn't understand. becos the first sentence with that 40% figure says only that it's the young muslims they're polling. nor does it discuss how the poll was conducted, who was chosen, how they were chosen, or what sect of islam they are from. regardless, i think that if you polled even lukewarm, mainstream christians 18-24 (just guessing this is their age range for young) and asked them "should the us law be based on christian moral values" you'd get well over 40% of people saying yes. it's the same question with the only difference being that christians don't have one big fancy name for it like sharia. im not alarmed nor surprised.

RainDog

angelica wrote:

:eek:

From Deuteronomy 22:23-24:
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

And Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

So, you know, at least she gets a new husband if she was a virgin.

RainDog

There's also this fun little tidbit:

From Deuteronomy 20:
" As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

So, yes, there is something to be afraid of when people say they want to live by Sharia law - but don't think this is simply a Muslim thing.

chopitdown

angelica wrote:

:eek:

you would consider this a gasp?

Deuteronomy 22: 25-26
But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death,

Here's a commentary on it:
If she were forced, and never consented, he that committed the rape was to be put to death, but the damsel was to be acquitted

dg1979us

RainDog wrote:

There's also this fun little tidbit:

From Deuteronomy 20:
" As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

So, yes, there is something to be afraid of when people say they want to live by Sharia law - but don't think this is simply a Muslim thing.

I have never heard anyone advocating for that though. Most religious texts have crazy stuff in them, but lets be honest, there is not any type of significant movement in modern day christianity to live by the things youve posted above.

chopitdown

RainDog wrote:

From Deuteronomy 22:23-24:
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

this is implying consent from both parties. The law was don't commit adultry and that was the consequence...yes it is a bit harsh but that is how the law was; this is not about rape.

RainDog wrote:

And Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

So, you know, at least she gets a new husband if she was a virgin.

If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of

RainDog

dg1979us wrote:

I have never heard anyone advocating for that though. Most religious texts have crazy stuff in them, but lets be honest, there is not any type of significant movement in modern day christianity to live by the things youve posted above.

There are many conservative Christians who would like to see us do to the Middle East exactly what I posted from Deuteronomy 20 above. Of course, now both sides use explosive devices, so it's harder to keep the women and children to yourself.

farfromglorified

Why has this turned into a Christianity v. Islam thread???

RainDog

chopitdown wrote:

this is implying consent from both parties. The law was don't commit adultry and that was the consequence...yes it is a bit harsh but that is how the law was; this is not about rape.



If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him, and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him, as Tamar was to Amnon after he had forced her, v. 28, 29. This was to deter men from such vicious practices, which it is a shame that we are necessitated to read and write of

I realize that "implication" has a lot to do with how these passages should be read. My issue is that there's no real difference between a literalistic approach to either Sharia law or the Deuteronomic Code.

Open

Last Exodus wrote:

Many European countries now have as much as 5% of their population being Muslim. That's pretty substantial. Due to France's liberal immigration laws, they are close to 10% which really has helped them in regards to the auto burning industry that is flourishing there. You think WE have problems with muslims? I dont think we in the States know the half of it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm

I think we have bigger problem with idiot Christians here in the states.

dg1979us

RainDog wrote:

There are many conservative Christians who would like to see us do to the Middle East exactly what I posted from Deuteronomy 20 above. Of course, now both sides use explosive devices, so it's harder to keep the women and children to yourself.

You have a point with that one specific passage, and I am sure a few others. But overall, no one is advocating to live under deuteronomy law. Basically my point, is that you cant compare this to sharia law in the least. There are actually countries that live under sharia law, and there is at least a somewhat significant portion of muslims who want to see it put in place in non muslim countries. There is no significant movement to advance deuteronomy law.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Why has this turned into a Christianity v. Islam thread???

Because I wanted it to.

RainDog

dg1979us wrote:

You have a point with that one specific passage, and I am sure a few others. But overall, no one is advocating to live under deuteronomy law. Basically my point, is that you cant compare this to sharia law in the least. There are actually countries that live under sharia law, and there is at least a somewhat significant portion of muslims who want to see it put in place in non muslim countries. There is no significant movement to advance deuteronomy law.

Liberalized interpretation of scripture is relatively recent - and there is a huge backlash against it in this country right now. Maybe not significant enough; but that doesn't mean there isn't a movement.

And, to be fair, Christianity is older than Islam. Go back a couple hundred years, and you'll find Christians as scary as these Sharia Muslims. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I believe that Muslims will eventually work this shit out.

chopitdown

RainDog wrote:

I realize that "implication" has a lot to do with how these passages should be read. My issue is that there's no real difference between a literalistic approach to either Sharia law or the Deuteronomic Code.

thanks for the clarification. You have a point with that.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Because I wanted it to.

Oh...my mistake then

Regardless, this is not a good thing, nor are Christian fundamentalists in this or any other nation. Anyone who suggests ruling the lives of others based on the fantasies in their heads should be considered dangerous.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Anyone who suggests ruling the lives of others based on the fantasies in their heads should be considered dangerous.

So what you're saying is that no one should be ruling anyone, for any reason, period??

dg1979us

RainDog wrote:

Liberalized interpretation of scripture is relatively recent - and there is a huge backlash against it in this country right now. Maybe not significant enough; but that doesn't mean there isn't a movement.

And, to be fair, Christianity is older than Islam. Go back a couple hundred years, and you'll find Christians as scary as these Sharia Muslims. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I believe that Muslims will eventually work this shit out.

Muslims may work it out, I hope so. And yes, from a historical standpoint you can certainly point out ridiculous behavior based on Christianity. But in a modern context, I dont think there is a comparison in the least. Our religious leaders stupidity ranges from throwing a fit over Janet Jackson at the superbowl, or pointing out the gay teletubby. Many of there leaders have from encouraging riots over cartoons of Muhammed. It isnt on the same level.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

So what you're saying is that no one should be ruling anyone, for any reason, period??

Hehe...pretty much, yes.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...pretty much, yes.

You're such a broken record. :rolleyes: