Sharia Law

[germypill]

Let's discuss Sharia Law. I did a search and couldn't find any threads about this, and up until a month or so ago, I've never heard of it. It seems to be gaining popularity on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Lately, there has been more and more news stories about it, but I don't really get it. I don't think it would ever, in any reality, work or even be put in place in America. I think it's just being used as scare tactic to cause more hatred/negative attitudes towards the Muslim people.


So let's discuss it.

[eriatarka24]

Let's discuss Sharia Law. I did a search and couldn't find any threads about this, and up until a month or so ago, I've never heard of it. It seems to be gaining popularity on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Lately, there has been more and more news stories about it, but I don't really get it. I don't think it would ever, in any reality, work or even be put in place in America. I think it's just being used as scare tactic to cause more hatred/negative attitudes towards the Muslim people.


So let's discuss it.
Really? Source?

[germypill]

Really? Source?


I may have worded that weird. I meant, it's gaining popularity in the sense that it's being talked about a lot. (ie: Conservatives called Obama the Sharia Law President). Also my Dad and all his conservative buddies telling me that it's going to happen if we don't watch out. I really don't have any sources other than what conservative forms of media are talking about.

Here's a story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/01/fox-news-obama-trying-to_n_181858.html



If anyone else has good, credible links, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Kozzy333]

Does anybody have a good link that outlines exactly what Sharia Law is?

[Machu505]

Yay straw men.

[rawspinner]

It's set of laws outlined in the Islamic faith. In this context it refers to when international countries use them as their set of laws governing their country. I think calling Obama the "Sharia Law" President is absurd, however it is some pretty radical stuff. Unfortunately, I believe the countries that adhere to it the most (Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) are the countries that have a lot of negative energies towards the Western hemisphere, specifically the US. See the film Osama for a crazy depiction of it.

On one hand, how one country decides to govern themselves is their business. On the other hand, when it may violate internationally recognized human rights, then that's another. However, that is no excuse for one society to go in and try to force upon them THEIR set of beliefs.

[germypill]

It's set of laws outlined in the Islamic faith. In this context it refers to when international countries use them as their set of laws governing their country. I think calling Obama the "Sharia Law" President is absurd, however it is some pretty radical stuff. Unfortunately, I believe the countries that adhere to it the most (Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) are the countries that have a lot of negative energies towards the Western hemisphere, specifically the US. See the film Osama for a crazy depiction of it.

On one hand, how one country decides to govern themselves is their business. On the other hand, when it may violate internationally recognized human rights, then that's another. However, that is no excuse for one society to go in and try to force upon them THEIR set of beliefs.

I agree.

But those laws could never work here. 1 law in particular makes it illegal for women to be out in public without a man. How the hell would that work in America? It wouldn't.

[Juan Jose]

Let's discuss Sharia Law. I did a search and couldn't find any threads about this, and up until a month or so ago, I've never heard of it. It seems to be gaining popularity on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Lately, there has been more and more news stories about it, but I don't really get it. I don't think it would ever, in any reality, work or even be put in place in America. I think it's just being used as scare tactic to cause more hatred/negative attitudes towards the Muslim people.


So let's discuss it.

I've only heard about it in the context of this terrorist group in Somalia, apparently it's supposed to be like laws that muslims should follow like Jews and Christians are supposed to follow the Torah and Bible (respectively). But in Somalia apparently they take it to a new extreme where they stone people for having sex and amputate people's limbs for various crimes like stealing and whatnot. I'm not really that knowledgeable about Islam but one of my muslim friends compared Sharia to how Christian extremists use the bible to oppose gay rights and abortion and all that other stuff.

edit: My friend compared the extreme version of Sharia in somalia to Christian extremists not Sharia in general

[LostAllways]

Yay straw men.

If there ever was an ironic comment.

I am actually born and raised a Muslim, and went to a private Islamic school from pre-school to 8th grade, and there was a designated class throughout those ten or so years about Islamic studies/Sharia law. With a very moderate and sensible approach (and certain elements removed), Sharia law in America isn't as big of a stretch as it may seem. Under those circumstances, though, anything isn't as big of a stretch as it may seem. Not sure how to go into details on this.

[sjb2k1]

oh, because he's secretly a muslim. i get it.

[Machu505]

oh, because he's secretly a muslim. i get it.
I was going to get at this point by saying that he'd never be accused of imposing Sharia law were he white. But pointing out racial double standards has fallen out of style these days.

[LostAllways]

oh, because he's secretly a muslim. i get it.

I was going to get at this point by saying that he'd never be accused of imposing Sharia law were he white. But pointing out racial double standards has fallen out of style these days.

I don't get it?

[paper halo]

This debate occurred over here not so long ago. There were calls to allow aspects of Sharia law to be intergrated in to the country's legal system, for settling family disputes and the like. Of course, the conservatives started screaming that we were going to turn into Iran, and that women would no longer have any rights etc etc. :yawn:

The aspects of Sharia law seen practiced in Iran, and by the Taliban in Afghanistan, are obviously completely backward and generally awful.

[sjb2k1]

I was going to get at this point by saying that he'd never be accused of imposing Sharia law were he white. But pointing out racial double standards has fallen out of style these days.yeah, pretty sure you're right.
I don't get it?OP talking about Obama as the Sharia Law President. I'd actually never heard that one. And those who call him that, I'd assume, do so because they think he's really a Muslim come to sink our ship of freedom.

[germypill]

If there ever was an ironic comment.

I am actually born and raised a Muslim, and went to a private Islamic school from pre-school to 8th grade, and there was a designated class throughout those ten or so years about Islamic studies/Sharia law. With a very moderate and sensible approach (and certain elements removed), Sharia law in America isn't as big of a stretch as it may seem. Under those circumstances, though, anything isn't as big of a stretch as it may seem. Not sure how to go into details on this.


What aspects of the Law do you think could work?

From what I've researched, some of it seems outdated (ie: people who get caught stealing get their hands cut off, stoning people who commit adultery, etc)

[Mitch]

SHARIA LAW IS COMING TO NYC!1!!1!!!

x

[Zeran]

Really? Source?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/30/4784221-challenge-is-muslim-baiting-for-votes-a-bipartisan-deal

[Regards]

I've only heard about it in the context of this terrorist group in Somalia, apparently it's supposed to be like laws that muslims should follow like Jews and Christians are supposed to follow the Torah and Bible (respectively). But in Somalia apparently they take it to a new extreme where they stone people for having sex and amputate people's limbs for various crimes like stealing and whatnot. I'm not really that knowledgeable about Islam but one of my muslim friends compared Sharia to how Christian extremists use the bible to oppose gay rights and abortion and all that other stuff.

edit: My friend compared the extreme version of Sharia in somalia to Christian extremists not Sharia in general
What a terrible comparison.

I'll have to dig around for it, but I believe a group out of lower Michigan was purposing it in a small town. I can't quite remember the whole story. I'll try to dig it up and see what I can find.

[Simulcast]

I've only heard about it in the context of this terrorist group in Somalia, apparently it's supposed to be like laws that muslims should follow like Jews and Christians are supposed to follow the Torah and Bible (respectively). But in Somalia apparently they take it to a new extreme where they stone people for having sex and amputate people's limbs for various crimes like stealing and whatnot. I'm not really that knowledgeable about Islam but one of my muslim friends compared Sharia to how Christian extremists use the bible to oppose gay rights and abortion and all that other stuff.

edit: My friend compared the extreme version of Sharia in somalia to Christian extremists not Sharia in general

There are no "Christian" nations that enforce the laws of the Bible to the extent that countries like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, and Lybia enforce Sharia Law. Th extreme view of Sharia is unfortunately the practiced norm in those countries.

[Juan Jose]

What a terrible comparison.

I'll have to dig around for it, but I believe a group out of lower Michigan was purposing it in a small town. I can't quite remember the whole story. I'll try to dig it up and see what I can find.

how is it terrible? he was referring to conservative groups using sharia to enforce strict behavioral codes on people and it's the same as extremist Christians who peruse the bible looking for bible verses that condemn homosexuality and other behavior that they don't approve of.

[Juan Jose]

There are no "Christian" nations that enforce the laws of the Bible to the extent that countries like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, and Lybia enforce Sharia Law. Th extreme view of Sharia is unfortunately the practiced norm in those countries.

Uh in the past, yea there were, and even now some states still have anti-sodomy laws that target gays for what they do in their homes.

[Simulcast]

Uh in the past, yea there were,

Irrelevant.

and even now some states still have anti-sodomy laws that target gays for what they do in their homes.

Yes, but those states don't base their law codes completely on the Bible, not even close. Not true for the countries listed, concerning the practice of Sharia law. That law is taken completely from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

[Juan Jose]

Irrelevant.



Yes, but those states don't base their law codes completely on the Bible, not even close. Not true for the countries listed, concerning the practice of Sharia law. That law is taken completely from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

you're pretty much splitting hairs now, obviously in the U.S. where we have religious freedom there wouldn't be any place that enforces one religion's laws to the letter like in the middle east but the fact that there are still laws in place that have their roots in religious reasons, and that are in place to the detriment of the states' citizens shows the same thing goes on here but to a lesser extent, prop 8 was backed by the Christian right because they believe homosexuality is a sin and find support in the bible the same way Muslims in the middle east look to religious texts to justify their harsh laws

[Simulcast]

you're pretty much splitting hairs now, obviously in the U.S. where we have religious freedom there wouldn't be any place that enforces one religion's laws to the letter like in the middle east but the fact that there are still laws in place that have their roots in religious reasons, and that are in place to the detriment of the states' citizens shows the same thing goes on here but to a lesser extent, prop 8 was backed by the Christian right because they believe homosexuality is a sin and find support in the bible the same way Muslims in the middle east look to religious texts to justify their harsh laws


I'm not splitting hairs at all. I was making a distinction between religious law supposedly governing America, and the reality of a harsh religious law in many countries in the Middle East. I understand your points, but they don't matter in this context.

[Juan Jose]

I'm not splitting hairs at all. I was making a distinction between religious law supposedly governing America, and the reality of a harsh religious law in many countries in the Middle East. I understand your points, but they don't matter in this context.

oh my bad i guess i did drift away from the OP's main point about it being instituted in the U.S. I thought we were just talking about Christians and Muslims using scripture to enforce their type of morality on others

[Simulcast]

oh my bad i guess i did drift away from the OP's main point about it being instituted in the U.S. I thought we were just talking about Christians and Muslims using scripture to enforce their type of morality on others


No problem.

[Regards]

you're pretty much splitting hairs now, obviously in the U.S. where we have religious freedom there wouldn't be any place that enforces one religion's laws to the letter like in the middle east but the fact that there are still laws in place that have their roots in religious reasons, and that are in place to the detriment of the states' citizens shows the same thing goes on here but to a lesser extent, prop 8 was backed by the Christian right because they believe homosexuality is a sin and find support in the bible the same way Muslims in the middle east look to religious texts to justify their harsh laws
Prop 8 was also backed by the majority of the state :rolleyes:

[TheFaceOfZach]

It's nothing that should be a concern. The Imam trying to build the Muslim community center said we should be more Sharia compliant. Some assume this means make honor killings legal. Some assume that he just things that people should be tolerable of people wearing a hijab or practicing their religious rights. Whatever it is, who the Imam is doesn't matter. But these quotes are being blown out of proportion by some 24/7 news channels.

[Regards]

how is it terrible? he was referring to conservative groups using sharia to enforce strict behavioral codes on people and it's the same as extremist Christians who peruse the bible looking for bible verses that condemn homosexuality and other behavior that they don't approve of.
Is it illegal for a man and a man to hop on the good foot and do the bad thing? No. Prop 8 and other laws were against homosexual marrigae. There's a big difference between the two.

[Juan Jose]

Is it illegal for a man and a man to hop on the good foot and do the bad thing? No. Prop 8 and other laws were against homosexual marrigae. There's a big difference between the two.

Besides prop 8 and other anti-gay marriage laws there are also sodomy laws in some states that target gays for what they do in their homes. But honestly I just hear these things from gay rights groups at my school that always bother me to sign up to give donations and what not so i might be misinformed about those laws because I'm only hearing their side i don't care enough to really look into it

[bung]

Prop 8 was also backed by the majority of the state :rolleyes:

Yeah, and the majority of the people who backed it (http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/California-Proposition-8-Results/California-Proposition-8-Results-Egan-Sherrill.pdf) were Christian conservatives. Presumably using their Bible as justification for their discriminatory beliefs.

First percentage is the percentage of voters. Second percentage is the percentage who voted 'yes.'

Attendance of Religious Services

(45%) - weekly (70%)
(12%) - monthly (48%)
(14%) - holidays and special occasions (44%)
(29%) - hardly ever (30%)

Party Identification

(45%) - Democratic (30%)
(18%) - Independent (53%)
(34%) - Republican (81%)

Political Ideology

(37%) - Liberal (22%)
(27%) - Moderate (51%)
(36%) - Conservative (82%)

The person most likely to vote 'yes' was a conservative Republican who attended church services every week.

[Regards]

Yeah, and the majority of the people who backed it (http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/California-Proposition-8-Results/California-Proposition-8-Results-Egan-Sherrill.pdf) were Christian conservatives. Presumably using their Bible as justification for their discriminatory beliefs.

First percentage is the percentage of voters. Second percentage is the percentage who voted 'yes.'

Attendance of Religious Services

(45%) - weekly (70%)
(12%) - monthly (48%)
(14%) - holidays and special occasions (44%)
(29%) - hardly ever (30%)

Party Identification

(45%) - Democratic (30%)
(18%) - Independent (53%)
(34%) - Republican (81%)

Political Ideology

(37%) - Liberal (22%)
(27%) - Moderate (51%)
(36%) - Conservative (82%)

The person most likely to vote 'yes' was a conservative Republican who attended church services every week.
Never once disputed this?

[bung]

Never once disputed this?

Saying "Prop 8 was also backed by the majority of the state," then rolling your eyes, seemed to undermine the fact as well as that other guy's point.

[Regards]

Saying "Prop 8 was also backed by the majority of the state," then rolling your eyes, seemed to undermine the fact as well as that other guy's point.
The point was that it was not entirely Christians like some people like to paint, and was also a bit of frustration in the clear negligence of what was supposedly a democratic process.

[bung]

The point was that it was not entirely Christians like some people like to paint, and was also a bit of frustration in the clear negligence of what was supposedly a democratic process.

Right, it was just mostly Christians, so we agree.

[Simulcast]

Bringing this back to the topic. A few examples of Sharia Law put into practice:

A Saudi Arabian judge wants to sever the spinal (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/08/saudi-judge-considers-severing-spine-of-attacker-who-paralyzed-man/1) cord of a man who paralyzed another man in an attack.

In 2007 two Saudi men were sentenced to 7,000 lashes a piece (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/236825/Two_Saudis_to_receive_7_000_lashes_ for_committing_homosexual_acts_) for "sodomy". That same year a 19 year-old girl was sentenced to 200 lashes after being gang-raped by 7 men (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/17/saudi.rape.victim/).

Iran had planned on stoning to death a number of people, but commuted their sentences to hanging (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/12/iran-stoning-sentences-commuted-ashtiani) after international outcry.

Nigeria has beaten and executed homosexuals, some by stoning, (http://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/ng.htm) since adopting Sharia Law. These practices continue today.

In Iran a 14 year-old boy was flogged to death for eating in public during Ramadan (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=849).


Honor killings are being reported (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-29-honor-killings-in-the-US_N.htm) in the U.S. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-02-arizona-car_N.htm), a practice consistent with Sharia Law around the world.

[caveBEAR]

Honor killings are being reported (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-29-honor-killings-in-the-US_N.htm) in the U.S. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-02-arizona-car_N.htm), a practice consistent with Sharia Law around the world.

This is something that has always irked me. 6 'honor killings' in the U.S.? :shudder: People murder other people for a whole myriad of reaons, and I guarantee if someone cared to look, they could find a non-Muslim murder case that could parallel these murders, only without the frightening 'sharia law' aspect to it.

As well, somehow the detail that these people who commit 'honor killings' are arrested and brought through the same legal system as every other American gets lost in all the fright.

EDIT: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders <-- There's a crime statistics site. In 2002, the United States had 16,204 murders. I assume the rates for the past two years are within a close distance to this number, yet people are freaking out over 6 out of those ~16,000 murders? :rolleyes:

[Simulcast]

This is something that has always irked me. 6 'honor killings' in the U.S.? :shudder: People murder other people for a whole myriad of reaons, and I guarantee if someone cared to look, they could find a non-Muslim murder case that could parallel these murders, only without the frightening 'sharia law' aspect to it.

As well, somehow the detail that these people who commit 'honor killings' are arrested and brought through the same legal system as every other American gets lost in all the fright.

Sure, that may be the case here. World wide though, there are thousands of these killings (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html) every year by peoples functioning under the tenets of Sharia Law. Point is though, that these killings are happening in the U.S and there is a push (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/native_american_courts_precedent_fo r_an_islamic_arbitral_system/0013143) to promote Muslim family law here. England already operates under two law codes, one giving deference to Sharia Law, and similar types of killings occur there as well.

[Simulcast]

This is something that has always irked me. 6 'honor killings' in the U.S.? :shudder: People murder other people for a whole myriad of reaons, and I guarantee if someone cared to look, they could find a non-Muslim murder case that could parallel these murders, only without the frightening 'sharia law' aspect to it.

As well, somehow the detail that these people who commit 'honor killings' are arrested and brought through the same legal system as every other American gets lost in all the fright.

EDIT: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders <-- There's a crime statistics site. In 2002, the United States had 16,204 murders. I assume the rates for the past two years are within a close distance to this number, yet people are freaking out over 6 out of those ~16,000 murders? :rolleyes:


I'm not sure how your point relates to Sharia Law, or why you feel the need to trivialize these deaths.

[caveBEAR]

Sure, that may be the case here. World wide though, there are thousands of these killings (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html) every year by peoples functioning under the tenets of Sharia Law. Point is though, that these killings are happening in the U.S and there is a push (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/native_american_courts_precedent_fo r_an_islamic_arbitral_system/0013143) to promote Muslim family law here. England already operates under two law codes, one giving deference to Sharia Law, and similar types of killings occur there as well.

I understand these killings happen worldwide, I was specifically talking about people's paranoia about sharî'ah law in America. As well, there's pushes for pretty much everything, doesn't mean it's going to happen. On top of that, the precedent that group talks about, Native American Tribal Court, is a situation spilling out of our different treating of Native American tribes due to our past; Muslims have no ground to stand on in that aspect, and will find they cannot supercede our legal system anymore than a gang can legally operate 'street justice'.

Oh, and England isn't America.

I'm not sure how your point relates to Sharia Law, or why you feel the need to trivialize these deaths.

My point related to the FoxNEWS paranoia over the 'takeover' of sharî'ah law in America. My point was that it's insanity to panic over the details of 3 (I say 3 because your article mentioned 6 'honor killings' over 2 years, my numbers only count for one year) murders when there 16,000 murders in the U.S.

I'm not trying to trivialize the deaths overseas (as I specifically wasn't speaking to those) and in no way wish to trivialize the loss and pain that those cases brought about to those families, but instead speaking to the ridiculousness of the American public getting worked up over 'honor killings' and sharî'ah law.

[paper halo]

Sure, that may be the case here. World wide though, there are thousands of these killings (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html) every year by peoples functioning under the tenets of Sharia Law. Point is though, that these killings are happening in the U.S and there is a push (http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/native_american_courts_precedent_fo r_an_islamic_arbitral_system/0013143) to promote Muslim family law here. England already operates under two law codes, one giving deference to Sharia Law, and similar types of killings occur there as well.

There isn't much of a link here, the killings would most likely occur anyway. Only civil disputes are catered to, utilising the enforcement powers of the High Court.

That said, I am fully opposed to it's existence in any country. While the nastiest aspects are obviously not allowed over here, Sharia law still allows for blatant discrimination of women. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts)

[Simulcast]

There isn't much of a link here, the killings would most likely occur anyway. Only civil disputes are catered to, utilising the enforcement powers of the High Court.

That said, I am fully opposed to it's existence in any country. While the nastiest aspects are obviously not allowed over here, Sharia law still allows for blatant discrimination of women. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts)


The difference being that the law is tolerated more in England. You make an excellent point with regards to women's rights.

[GeeBee]

I'm going to put this out there...

Christians and Jews inherently believe in much the same kind of corporal punishment, they've simply cherry-picked them out. Islam merely carries out what the other Abrahamic religions have eschewed.

[GeeBee]

The point was that it was not entirely Christians like some people like to paint, and was also a bit of frustration in the clear negligence of what was supposedly a democratic process.

I think in simple terms: Not every Christian is a homophobe, but most homophobes base their bigotry in their religious beliefs, which are largely Christian in this country.

[paper halo]

The difference being that the law is tolerated more in England. You make an excellent point with regards to women's rights.

It's easy to see the rationale behind allowing it, other religious courts have existed for a long time (Beth din, for example). While assuring everyone that we would not be allowing use of corporal punishment, proponents seemingly overlooked the room for discrimination. Regardless, it's my view that religion should have no bearing on the application of law.

[x togepi x]

Prop 8 was also backed by the majority of the state :rolleyes:

The bulk of Proposition 8's funding came from the Mormon church and Christian churches. They were the ones who were on the ground advocating for it to be passed. Most Pro Prop 8 organizations had religious backing. You can't pretend like this wasn't a religious law. It's a test case in classes about religion and politics nowadays.

[Regards]

The bulk of Proposition 8's funding came from the Mormon church and Christian churches. They were the ones who were on the ground advocating for it to be passed. Most Pro Prop 8 organizations had religious backing. You can't pretend like this wasn't a religious law. It's a test case in classes about religion and politics nowadays.
It may have started that way, but it ended (lol) with majority voting in favor of it. That point your making does not negate the fact that the majority of the state voted for it.

[x togepi x]

It may have started that way, but it ended (lol) with majority voting in favor of it. That point your making does not negate the fact that the majority of the state voted for it.

yeah but as it already was pointed out, a majority of that state self identifies as christian.

I really doubt you had a lot of people who were atheists voting for that particular law.

[LostAllways]

Honor killings are being reported (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-29-honor-killings-in-the-US_N.htm) in the U.S. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-02-arizona-car_N.htm), a practice consistent with Sharia Law around the world.

There is nothing in Sharia law about honor killings. I studied the Sharia for ten years; honor killings are a product of extremism.

[the sky below]

there is hope....


http://www.reformislam.org/



a must read.

[saysmydoctor]

There are no "Christian" nations that enforce the laws of the Bible to the extent that countries like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, and Lybia enforce Sharia Law. Th extreme view of Sharia is unfortunately the practiced norm in those countries.
It's called Vatican City, actually.

[Simulcast]

It's called Vatican City, actually.

Even the Vatican doesn't enforce stoning and beating mentioned in the Bible. A decent attempt though. I had forgotten about that completely.

[Simulcast]

There is nothing in Sharia law about honor killings. I studied the Sharia for ten years; honor killings are a product of extremism.


Fair enough. We have many, many extremists it seems.

[saysmydoctor]

Even the Vatican doesn't enforce stoning and beating mentioned in the Bible. A decent attempt though. I had forgotten about that completely.
No, instead it does things like claiming condoms could make the AIDS epidemic worse (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/pope-condoms-not-the-answ_n_175623.html), not to mention refusing to sell off their vast assets to do some of that philanthropy their sacred book preaches about over some contrived duty. It's not a "decent attempt." It's the same fucking thing.

So, I'll say it again:

It's called Vatican City, actually.

[saysmydoctor]

Honestly, end of the day, what is sharia law but Islam's Westboro Baptist Church? Or Mormonism. Take your pick.

[Simulcast]

Honestly, end of the day, what is sharia law but Islam's Westboro Baptist Church? Or Mormonism. Take your pick.

Mormons and the WBC don't execute homosexuals and rape victims.

[saysmydoctor]

Mormons and the WBC don't execute homosexuals and rape victims.
:wallbash:

No, instead Mormons subjugate women and "baptizes" dead people, which I at least find disrespectful, and WBC spouts inflammatory homophobic rhetoric.

[Midget Pirates]

Honestly, end of the day, what is sharia law but Islam's Westboro Baptist Church? Or Mormonism. Take your pick.

umm i'll pick the ones that don't execute people. nice try on the moral equivalency though. Sharia Law is very prevalent in Islamic cultures worldwide, it isn't some tiny sect like Westboro that can just be ignored.

[Simulcast]

:wallbash:

No, instead Mormons subjugate women and "baptizes" dead people, which I at least find disrespectful, and WBC spouts inflammatory homophobic rhetoric.

Hahaha. So one is a little backwards and the other exercises its right to free speech (albeit in a sick, twisted way) without causing physical harm. Yeah, like I said, nice attempt.

[Simulcast]

No, instead it does things like claiming condoms could make the AIDS epidemic worse (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/pope-condoms-not-the-answ_n_175623.html), not to mention refusing to sell off their vast assets to do some of that philanthropy their sacred book preaches about over some contrived duty. It's not a "decent attempt." It's the same fucking thing.

So, I'll say it again:

It's called Vatican City, actually.

OK, let me try and understand this. A law code responsible for state sponsored executions of homosexuals and adulterers, and the state's condoning of wife beating and lashes for breaking Ramadan is the same thing as the pope's condemnation of condoms and it's supposed refusal to be more philanthropic.

Yeah, I don't see what you're going for here. You might have had a case 100, 200, and 300 years ago, but not anymore.

[saysmydoctor]

OK, let me try and understand this. A law code responsible for state sponsored executions of homosexuals and adulterers, and the state's condoning of wife beating and lashes for breaking Ramadan is the same thing as the pope's condemnation of condoms and it's supposed refusal to be more philanthropic.

Yeah, I don't see what you're going for here. You might have had a case 100, 200, and 300 years ago, but not anymore.
You do realize AIDS kills people right? I don't have spell that out to you, right? You are being very intentionally dense.

I have a case right, in 2010.

[Simulcast]

You do realize AIDS kills people right? I don't have spell that out to you, right? You are being very intentionally dense.

I have a case right, in 2010.

I'm not being dense, I'm just not grasping at straws. The Pope doesn't FORCE anyone to not use condemns and then get AIDS and die. The Catholic Church doesn't inject people with AIDS as a punishment for using condemns. They may espouse an idea which seems ludicrous, but they are not trying people in court and killing those who do not follow their edicts. That went out a long time ago.

Muslim countries functioning under Sharia law execute you for being homosexual, for being an adulterer. If you are a woman, they stone you to death for being inappropriately present among men. These actions are backed in their court systems. There is a marked difference.

[saysmydoctor]

Yeah, blah blah blah lists of harsh things they do blah blah blah there is still no difference.

So, again:

It's called Vatican City, actually. Or there is also the Holy See. Either way...

We can continue to debate the semantics (which you are trying to) but it's a pretty useless debate though. If anyone's grasping at straws, it's definitely you. The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has just as much blood on their hands (I hate this phrase) as those who enforce sharia law in Islamic countries. The only difference is the book they you use to substantiate their atrocities.

This debate has devolved into who suffers more--something which is purely subjective. There is definitely no difference, no matter what kind of vivid terminology you try to use to describe what sharia law is--it's irrelevant.

[Simulcast]

Yeah, blah blah blah lists of harsh things they do blah blah blah there is still no difference.

Who is being dense now? You are simply ignoring the facts while still trying to get your point across

So, again:

It's called Vatican City, actually. Or there is also the Holy See. Either way...

You provided an example of a "nation" that supposedly follows the bible to the letter (it doesn't). It's STILL a weak example and cannot be compared to the present draconian enforcement of Sharia law in aforementioned countries.

We can continue to debate the semantics (which you are trying to) but it's a pretty useless debate though. If anyone's grasping at straws, it's definitely you. The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has just as much blood on their hands (I hate this phrase) as those who enforce sharia law in Islamic countries. The only difference is the book they you use to substantiate their atrocities.

All I've done was state the differences between state assertion of Sharia law and the Vatican's assertion of its Christian Law. I haven't changed my argument at all.

If you want to talk about "blood on their hands" we can go into the Muslim conquests of the late first millennium, but what's the point? Both are irrelevant in terms of today.

This debate has devolved into who suffers more--something which is purely subjective. There is definitely no difference, no matter what kind of vivid terminology you try to use to describe what sharia law is--it's irrelevant.

Ah. So suddenly the argument is vague and that is why I am wrong. Nice.

If you truly believe the level of suffering for women, for homosexuals, for secularists living in those Muslim countries is currently matched by those subscribing to (voluntary) Vatican ideals, then I feel sorry for you.

[saysmydoctor]

1. I don't understand why you put nation in quotations. It's a nation.
2. There is no difference.
3. No, the argument was an appeal to emotion and that's why you were wrong. I'm not trying to level anything. But go ahead and feel sorry for me.
4. I wasn't ignoring the facts, I was just dismissing your colorful language to make a point of how fucking irrelevant it is and that my point still stands.

[deFobbed14yrs]

read

Paradise Beneath her Feet- How women are transforming the middle east
or
reading lolita in tehran

educate yourself about Islam and the fact that there are a lot of extremists, not the blow up building kinds, just the kind who want nothing more than power dominance and will use a religion and lies to do so and how Sharia is used.

[mcm1610]

Under Muhammad's political reign and the Rightly Guided Caliphs that followed, there really was no distinction between religion and government. That's from where Sharia law stems.

It's a political motive not too distant from saying an emperor is descended from god or is a god so that defying the emperor is a sin against religion as well.. this just doesn't go as far because the leader isn't descended from god, but the rules he follows are straight from him.

In the context of today's world, even in countries that are truly Islamic states, they don't follow hand in hand perfectly. To even hint at the idea that the US is going to be overtaken by Sharia law just highlights the current political climate in this country as ignorant and/or slanderous in order to scare the uninformed.

[whiterussian]

1. I don't understand why you put nation in quotations. It's a nation.
2. There is no difference.
3. No, the argument was an appeal to emotion and that's why you were wrong. I'm not trying to level anything. But go ahead and feel sorry for me.
4. I wasn't ignoring the facts, I was just dismissing your colorful language to make a point of how fucking irrelevant it is and that my point still stands.

dude, they're talking about killing people. you're terrible at this.

[saysmydoctor]

dude, they're talking about killing people. you're terrible at this.
And I made a clear example of how Vatican ideals, considering the Vatican's position and wealth, can lead to people dying.

You know AIDS kills people, right? Get the fuck out of here.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Sell the Vatican... feed the world.

[whiterussian]

And I made a clear example of how Vatican ideals, considering the Vatican's position and wealth, can lead to people dying.

You know AIDS kills people, right? Get the fuck out of here.

so Vatican = AIDS?


They weren't talking about "leading to people dying". I'm pretty sure that happens everywhere around the world.

You're argument reeks of desperation, and I don't know why.
Hell, I wish there was no Vatican but damn son.

[deFobbed14yrs]

This thread is so full of stupid.

[saysmydoctor]

so Vatican = AIDS?


They weren't talking about "leading to people dying". I'm pretty sure that happens everywhere around the world.

You're argument reeks of desperation, and I don't know why.
Hell, I wish there was no Vatican but damn son.
Reading comprehension fail.

[whiterussian]

Reading comprehension fail.

when wrong, resort to internet lingo.


But you make a good point. Why the hell would I expect someone on the internet to admit their logic is severely flawed.


You pretty much stalled the thread with your Vatican bullshit. kudos.

[saysmydoctor]

when wrong, resort to internet lingo.


But you make a good point. Why the hell would I expect someone on the internet to admit their logic is severely flawed.


You pretty much stalled the thread with your Vatican bullshit. kudos.
I'm not wrong. Trying to say there is no country that pushes and uses its political power in support Christian ideals is patently wrong.

I guess you can debate the semantics of who causes more suffering, those in Shari'a law or those in countries in the Christian sphere of influence, but that's a highly subjective debate. I'm not going to even bother with that debate.

[inevitable]

when wrong, resort to internet lingo.


But you make a good point. Why the hell would I expect someone on the internet to admit their logic is severely flawed.


You pretty much stalled the thread with your Vatican bullshit. kudos.

Get used to it. saysmydoctor resorts to internet lingo the majority of the time followed up with a good facepalm. Trying to carry a discussion with him can be a lot like talking with a 7 year old.

[whiterussian]

I'm not wrong. Trying to say there is no country that pushes and uses its political power in support Christian ideals is patently wrong.

I guess you can debate the semantics of who causes more suffering, those in Shari'a law or those in countries in the Christian sphere of influence, but that's a highly subjective debate. I'm not going to even bother with that debate.

Putting aside the fact that Vatican City is the size of a pea and apparently has a population of less than a thousand, it's still pretty silly to mention it in a serious debate.


And the worst accusation you could come up with was:

"No, instead it does things like claiming condoms could make the AIDS epidemic worse, not to mention refusing to sell off their vast assets to do some of that philanthropy their sacred book preaches about over some contrived duty".

We're talking about forcing people who don't agree to abide to rules such as killing and maiming people who commit rather harmless crimes.
You're talking about idiotic statements and possibly greed.

You could bring in the whole child molestation thing, which is much worse, but that isn't the case here discussed. I do hope any molesters worldwide get prosecuted accordingly (as any normal person would), in the state where the crime was commited.

[whiterussian]

Get used to it. saysmydoctor resorts to internet lingo the majority of the time followed up with a good facepalm. Trying to carry a discussion with him can be a lot like talking with a 7 year old.

i got fooled by the 30k+ post count. I'll keep this in mind next time.

[inevitable]

i got fooled by the 30k+ post count. I'll keep this in mind next time.

it's about 30k facepalm pictures and sarcastic comments.

[mcm1610]

Putting aside the fact that Vatican City is the size of a pea and apparently has a population of less than a thousand, it's still pretty silly to mention it in a serious debate.


And the worst accusation you could come up with was:

"No, instead it does things like claiming condoms could make the AIDS epidemic worse, not to mention refusing to sell off their vast assets to do some of that philanthropy their sacred book preaches about over some contrived duty".

We're talking about forcing people who don't agree to abide to rules such as killing and maiming people who commit rather harmless crimes.
You're talking about idiotic statements and possibly greed.

You could bring in the whole child molestation thing, which is much worse, but that isn't the case here discussed. I do hope any molesters worldwide get prosecuted accordingly (as any normal person would), in the state where the crime was commited.I don't know exactly what you're saying child molestation is "much worse" than, but the fact that condoms are forbidden in Christianity is a huge contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. President Bush refused to send aid in the form of condoms because it conflicted with his precious Christianity.

I think the point in bringing up the Vatican is that while yes, an adulterous woman getting stoned to death and similar occurrences of Shari'a law being barbaric is terrible, so is the fact that Christians in general and particularly the Pope refuse to go back on a stupid rule in order to save thousands and thousands of lives.

[whiterussian]

I don't know exactly what you're saying child molestation is "much worse" than, but the fact that condoms are forbidden in Christianity is a huge contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. President Bush refused to send aid in the form of condoms because it conflicted with his precious Christianity.

I think the point in bringing up the Vatican is that while yes, an adulterous woman getting stoned to death and similar occurrences of Shari'a law being barbaric is terrible, so is the fact that Christians in general and particularly the Pope refuse to go back on a stupid rule in order to save thousands and thousands of lives.

It's much worse than what saysmydoctor accused Vatican City of doing.

You say condoms are forbidden. So if I go to Africa and wear a condom, and talk about it, I get my junk cut off? I get thrown in jail? I pay a fine? Whether I'm Christian or not?
I am also against the Church's stance on condoms - they should just say what they really mean- "dudes and dudettes, have less non-married sex, God will think you're sluts". 'Cause that's the whole issue for them right?

I feel bad for entering this thread to criticize the other guy. Somebody might have had something interesting to say if the topic hadn't strayed off.

I am interested in knowing how far Sharia law will be "secretly" applied in Western nations, in communities.
I'm glad to hear honor killings aren't a part of it. Hate that term by the way.

[Healthy Scratch]

I don't know exactly what you're saying child molestation is "much worse" than, but the fact that condoms are forbidden in Christianity is a huge contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. President Bush refused to send aid in the form of condoms because it conflicted with his precious Christianity.

I think the point in bringing up the Vatican is that while yes, an adulterous woman getting stoned to death and similar occurrences of Shari'a law being barbaric is terrible, so is the fact that Christians in general and particularly the Pope refuse to go back on a stupid rule in order to save thousands and thousands of lives.
christian =/= vatican

condoms are forbidden by catholics, not 'christians in general'.

[Simulcast]

I don't know exactly what you're saying child molestation is "much worse" than, but the fact that condoms are forbidden in Christianity is a huge contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. President Bush refused to send aid in the form of condoms because it conflicted with his precious Christianity.

I think the point in bringing up the Vatican is that while yes, an adulterous woman getting stoned to death and similar occurrences of Shari'a law being barbaric is terrible, so is the fact that Christians in general and particularly the Pope refuse to go back on a stupid rule in order to save thousands and thousands of lives.

This is not true.

[mcm1610]

That's kind of what I thought, but Bush was staunchly opposed and I know he's not Catholic, so explain that. And the fact that the Bible Belt, which isn't Catholic, rejects sex-ed in classrooms.

And, whiterussian, they're not forbidden in Africa, it's just that most of Africal doesn't have the resources to get concoms, and certain countries (USA..) refused to send them because of the fact that it's a form of birth control.

*Doing some quick "research" made it click, and I don't know how I overlooked it. Christianity in general called forms of birth control immoral for a long time, and many people still feel that way. Catholicism is the only one that officially forbids it because Catholics are the only ones with a unified leader with the authority to do that.

The Pope and the Vatican are one example of people refusing to do something about a large problem because of a stupid religious rule. Bush as President was another example, but not based on a rule so much as a religious belief. Passively letting someone die when you have the power to intervene is arguably as bad as killing them yourself. So you've got Sharia law where people are killed for stupid reasons, or you've got the complete apathy to intervene in a disease on epidemic levels. Which is worse?

[mcm1610]

christian =/= vatican

condoms are forbidden by catholics, not 'christians in general'.

I wasn't implying that all Christians are Catholics, but the Pope is certainly a Christian, which is how it was phrased.

[Simulcast]

That's kind of what I thought, but Bush was staunchly opposed and I know he's not Catholic, so explain that. And the fact that the Bible Belt, which isn't Catholic, rejects sex-ed in classrooms.

And, whiterussian, they're not forbidden in Africa, it's just that most of Africal doesn't have the resources to get concoms, and certain countries (USA..) refused to send them because of the fact that it's a form of birth control.

*Doing some quick "research" made it click, and I don't know how I overlooked it. Christianity in general called forms of birth control immoral for a long time, and many people still feel that way. Catholicism is the only one that officially forbids it because Catholics are the only ones with a unified leader with the authority to do that.

The Pope and the Vatican are one example of people refusing to do something about a large problem because of a stupid religious rule. Bush as President was another example, but not based on a rule so much as a religious belief. Passively letting someone die when you have the power to intervene is arguably as bad as killing them yourself. So you've got Sharia law where people are killed for stupid reasons, or you've got the complete apathy to intervene in a disease on epidemic levels. Which is worse?


Well, considering that the U.S. still sent billions of dollars of aid to Africa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html), I don't think we can call it apathy. So to answer your question, I believe killing people under Sharia law is worse.

[saysmydoctor]

Get used to it. saysmydoctor resorts to internet lingo the majority of the time followed up with a good facepalm. Trying to carry a discussion with him can be a lot like talking with a 7 year old.
Irony.
Putting aside the fact that Vatican City is the size of a pea and apparently has a population of less than a thousand, it's still pretty silly to mention it in a serious debate.


And the worst accusation you could come up with was:

"No, instead it does things like claiming condoms could make the AIDS epidemic worse, not to mention refusing to sell off their vast assets to do some of that philanthropy their sacred book preaches about over some contrived duty".

We're talking about forcing people who don't agree to abide to rules such as killing and maiming people who commit rather harmless crimes.
You're talking about idiotic statements and possibly greed.

You could bring in the whole child molestation thing, which is much worse, but that isn't the case here discussed. I do hope any molesters worldwide get prosecuted accordingly (as any normal person would), in the state where the crime was commited.
The Vatican also actively tried to defend those involved in the child molestation situation as well.

We're talking about the same thing. You're the one trying to draw differences here. I'm not trying to delve into a debate of semantics concerning which is worse. It doesn't really matter. They are both bad and counterproductive. They should both be condemned--we shouldn't be trying to figure out who suffers worse. It's a stupid debate to entertain because it's purely subjective to the person suffering it.
I don't know exactly what you're saying child molestation is "much worse" than, but the fact that condoms are forbidden in Christianity is a huge contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. President Bush refused to send aid in the form of condoms because it conflicted with his precious Christianity.

I think the point in bringing up the Vatican is that while yes, an adulterous woman getting stoned to death and similar occurrences of Shari'a law being barbaric is terrible, so is the fact that Christians in general and particularly the Pope refuse to go back on a stupid rule in order to save thousands and thousands of lives.
Not forbidden by Christianity, but rather by Catholic figureheads and leaders, which is the same thing as leaders of nations who enforse shari'a law.

Thank you for getting my point, however. I wouldn't generalize to Christians as a whole. It's kind of a waste of time.
Well, considering that the U.S. still sent billions of dollars of aid to Africa (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html), I don't think we can call it apathy. So to answer your question, I believe killing people under Sharia law is worse.
Why do people try to say which travesty is worse? It's a debate of semantics.

[Simulcast]

Why do people try to say which travesty is worse? It's a debate of semantics.

He asked me. I think you are using that as a cop out.

[Simulcast]

Your avatar kills me by the way.

[saysmydoctor]

It's not a cop out. It's just stupid to debate the suffering between two groups of people. I'm a member of neither of them, so I really can't make an argument which would be worse. Not to mention, it doesn't really matter. People are suffering regardless. Trying to rank it is going to change that.

[Simulcast]

It's not a cop out. It's just stupid to debate the suffering between two groups of people. I'm a member of neither of them, so I really can't make an argument which would be worse. Not to mention, it doesn't really matter. People are suffering regardless. Trying to rank it is going to change that.

Well it is now. It wasn't originally though.

The reason I said that was because of this statement I made:

There are no "Christian" nations that enforce the laws of the Bible to the extent that countries like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, and Lybia enforce Sharia Law. Th extreme view of Sharia is unfortunately the practiced norm in those countries.

Comparing the Vatican's condemnation of condoms is not equal to the extent at which Sharia Law is enforced in many Muslim countries. Comparative suffering has no bearing on this point. I don't feel you ever been able to prove that the Vatican enforces Biblical law to the same extent.

[saysmydoctor]

It's always been a stupid debate in my opinion, that's why I never really entertained it. And I believe that their policies are openly just as problematic even if they aren't so "in-your-face" as Shari'a law when it comes to things like stoning.

Using your symbolic power in a negative way is just as harmful as using your political power in a negative way.

[caveBEAR]

I am interested in knowing how far Sharia law will be "secretly" applied in Western nations, in communities.
I'm glad to hear honor killings aren't a part of it. Hate that term by the way.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sharia law 'secretly' applied in Western nations? I hope you don't mean by the government or any branches of it.

[mcm1610]

That's what uneducated people are afraid of in this country. Somehow the Muslims are going to infiltrate the government and all of a sudden we'll be under Sharia law when no one but people like Beck saw it coming.

Kind of like how 60 years ago the commies were going to do the same with communism. It's the same never-ending conspiracy plot to drum up support for the right that's been going on since probably the 1920s. Only sometimes the "other" changes.

[caveBEAR]

That's what uneducated people are afraid of in this country. Somehow the Muslims are going to infiltrate the government and all of a sudden we'll be under Sharia law when no one but people like Beck saw it coming.

Kind of like how 60 years ago the commies were going to do the same with communism. It's the same never-ending conspiracy plot to drum up support for the right that's been going on since probably the 1920s. Only sometimes the "other" changes.

Well, to be fair, China is a Communist nation now, and I'm pretty sure McCarthy tried to send all the Chinese people back...

[inevitable]

Irony.

Thank you for backing up my point.

[whiterussian]

What the fuck are you talking about? Sharia law 'secretly' applied in Western nations? I hope you don't mean by the government or any branches of it.


that's why I said - COMMUNITIES.

[saysmydoctor]

Thank you for backing up my point.
Show me your point, seriously, cause you didn't contribute anything except ad hominem attacks really.

Why don't you actually present an argument, like those who disagreed with me, rather than sitting there being the reason that I place my face in the palm of my hand.

[inevitable]

Show me your point, seriously, cause you didn't contribute anything except ad hominem attacks really.

Why don't you actually present an argument, like those who disagreed with me, rather than sitting there being the reason that I place my face in the palm of my hand.

Why do I need to prove my point when you continually do the things I say you do? There is no reason for me to do go back through and show you all the times you acted like a jack ass because you do it on a continual basis.

[saysmydoctor]

Why do I need to prove my point when you continually do the things I say you do? There is no reason for me to do go back through and show you all the times you acted like a jack ass because you do it on a continual basis.
My point exactly. You're done here.

[inevitable]

My point exactly. You're done here.

:hitself:

[saysmydoctor]

:hitself:
Didn't you just criticize me for this? Thanks for derailing the thread with your bullshit.

[inevitable]

Didn't you just criticize me for this? Thanks for derailing the thread with your bullshit.

One thread compared to the thousands you've derailed. Looks like I'm doing pretty good then.

[caveBEAR]

that's why I said - COMMUNITIES.

What communities?

[saysmydoctor]

One thread compared to the thousands you've derailed. Looks like I'm doing pretty good then.
You still have yet to provide a substantive argument here. We're all waiting.

[Simulcast]

What communities?

http://www.mndaily.com/2010/03/24/loan-caters-minneapolis-muslim-business-owners

Let's not blow this post out of proportion now. It's just a link.

[whiterussian]

What communities?

arab or islamic communities in western nations. the less open ones.

such as in france or the UK, or the US.

[caveBEAR]

http://www.mndaily.com/2010/03/24/loan-caters-minneapolis-muslim-business-owners

Let's not blow this post out of proportion now. It's just a link.

Right...I get it, and I understand the possible 'precedence' argument, but offering a slightly altered loan to coincide with religious practices that, in the words of the article;
really amounts to the same thing
is in no way, shape or form close to stonings or chopping off of hands.

[Simulcast]

Right...I get it, and I understand the possible 'precedence' argument, but offering a slightly altered loan to coincide with religious practices that, in the words of the article;

is in no way, shape or form close to stonings or chopping off of hands.

Sigh... this is why I said not to blow it out of proportion. I never made that comparison. I knew you would do it for me though.

[caveBEAR]

Sigh... this is why I said not to blow it out of proportion. I never made that comparison. I knew you would do it for me though.

I'm not making the comparison for/towards you, just in general to the people who would read into that. The title of that link is misleading to someone who was just giving this thread a cursory glance.

[Simulcast]

I'm not making the comparison for/towards you, just in general to the people who would read into that. The title of that link is misleading to someone who was just giving this thread a cursory glance.

Fair enough.

[open mind]

i don't agree with sharia law but you ought to be able to choose to go through their courts if you want to...not unlike tribal courts that most native american tribes have today.

the current mood in the country that anything muslim must be inferior or bad constantly reminds me of our past treatment of native americans....especially when you look at the possible economic motivations fueling these attitudes.

[mcm1610]

i don't agree with sharia law but you ought to be able to choose to go through their courts if you want to...not unlike tribal courts that most native american tribes have today.

the current mood in the country that anything muslim must be inferior or bad constantly reminds me of our past treatment of native americans....especially when you look at the possible economic motivations fueling these attitudes.

That's not comparable, though. Native American Tribes are technically independent nations, not just groups of people with their own laws.

[Simulcast]

Woman stoned to death in Afghanistan. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rare-video-shows-taliban-allegedly-stoning-woman-death/story?id=11717682)

Before we leave that place, can we at least kill those guys?