Sharia law? Don't even think about it

[barb162]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1713628,00.html

Sharia law? Don't even think about it

Marcel Berlins
Monday February 20, 2006
The Guardian

Forty percent of British Muslims are in favour of applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of the country, according to an ICM poll in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph. If taken at face value, this is a worrying figure. I do not believe that it should be taken too seriously at this stage, but it is a warning that should not be ignored.

This government has shown itself to be somewhat over-receptive to calls from ethnic and religious minorities to take their customs, traditions and sensitivities into account over a range of activities.
In an attempt to assuage the feelings of such minorities, and deflect accusations of racism or religious discrimination, the government falls in with demands which it should be resisting. The law on inciting religious hatred, for example, was brought to parliament not because it was needed, but as a way of appeasing Muslims.

Sharia law is on an altogether different plane. The government must not even think of allowing it to have some sort of official status within our legal system. Yes, of course our judges should be - and, indeed, are - entitled to take into account particular religious, ethnic or group habits, attitudes, ways of behaving and traditions.


But that flexibility must still remain within the basic laws and moral principles that govern the nation. The trouble with sharia law is that so much of it is based on principles that are widely regarded (even among many, perhaps most, Muslims) to be unacceptable, even offensive. It would be inconceivable to allow to flourish in this country a law under which women can be stoned to death for adultery and petty thieves can have both arms amputated; or a series of laws that places women in a permanent state of inferiority and supplication while giving men overwhelming power, including the right to perform acts of violence on their wives.
snip

[philarq]

1. I Have some interesting Ideas on Law---

Can I have them Applied in My area?

[barb162]

2. SURE!

[philarq]

3. cool

Saturdays are talk like a pirate day on my lot now---arrrgh

[phaseolus]

4. This raises an interesting question --

I wonder what the results would be if someone polled Christians in the U.S. on their opinion of putting a biblically-based legal code in place in predominantly Christian areas? Stonings for adultery, that kinda stuff...

[barb162]

5. Interesting, but there are so many denominations

in the US I doubt anyone could agree even if it were taken up as a serious issue. Also, when is the last time you have ever heard of stonings for adultery in Christian cultures, whereas this kind of thing does occur today in the Mideast.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. There's also many denominations in Islam...

btw, stonings for adultery do not happen in most Islamic countries, so trying to portray that as a common occurence in predominantly Muslim countries is misleading, to say the least...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

11. misleading

btw, stonings for adultery do not happen in most Islamic countries,...

Ooops..Barb didn't say that, she said,

...whereas this kind of thing does occur today in the Mideast.

Notice any difference? If not, let me help...Barb said "...this kind of thing does occur today in the Mideast." However, you made her statement out to be "this kind of thing does occur today in most Islamic countries. Do you deny that this does occur in the Mideast in this day and age? Maybe you object because it is not always stonings? Because, as I am sure you aware, that sometimes it is just out-and-out murder.

...so trying to portray that as a common occurence in predominantly Muslim countries is misleading, to say the least...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Again, Barb didn't say "stonings for adultery do (not) happen in most Islamic countries," nor did she say it was "a common occurence in predominantly Muslim countries." No, you made those comments and made her post out to be something it wasn't..."to say the least..."

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Yes, her comment was misleading...

Because if that wasn't what she was implying, then what exactly was the point she was trying to make? Please reread her post and try to explain what that comment had to do with it if she's meaning to say that things like stonings aren't common occurances....

Violet...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Not at all...

'whereas this kind of thing does occur today in the Middle East' is an attempt to claim it happens on a common basis. I asked you in my previous post what the point of that comment was if that wasn't the implication and you've failed to answer. Wouldn't it make much more sense in the context of the conversation to actually raise something that does happen on a regular and widespread basis in predominantly Muslim countries?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

19. More misleading....

'whereas this kind of thing does occur today in the Middle East' is an attempt to claim it happens on a common basis.

You are joking, right? Your opinion does not make "fact."

I asked you in my previous post what the point of that comment was if that wasn't the implication and you've failed to answer.

I 'failed' to answer because I wasn't the one who made the post you are calling into question. However, since I am sure you will not let this drop, my opinion is that Barb was responding to the post before her's. In actuality, I did point that out in saying :

So, if anyone was "implying" anything, it was phaseolus. His 'implication' was that "...biblically-based legal code ..." had commonality with Sharia law; to which barb162 responded with a question about the last time Christian "based" nations 'stoned adulterers.' Her following statement "...whereas this kind of thing does occur today in the Mideast." hardly implied that stonings were common occurrences, which is what you tried to imply her post was saying.

You say:

Wouldn't it make much more sense in the context of the conversation to actually raise something that does happen on a regular and widespread basis in predominantly Muslim countries?

Well, VC, considering no one, except you, was implying anything was "...regular and widespread in predominantly Muslim countries...," why should anyone deviate from the conversation?

BTW... what is something that,

...does happen on a regular and widespread basis in predominantly Muslim countries?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

36. My comment wasn't misleading at all

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGASA110052005
Afghanistan: Stoning to death -- human rights scandal
Press release, 04/26/2005

Discrimination against women in Afghanistan will continue to have grave consequences until the government takes concrete steps to end it, said Amnesty International following the killing by stoning of a 29 year-old woman accused of adultery.


http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/iran_executions_191204.shtml

http://www.mafhoum.com/press3/112S23.htm

But the problem isn't just stoning; it is all forms of violence and discrimination against women under sharia.


Below: Saudi Arabia
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm
snip
By religious law and social custom, women have the right to own property and are entitled to financial support from their husbands or male relatives. However, women have few political or social rights and are not treated as equal members of society. There were no active women's rights groups. Women may not legally drive motor vehicles and are restricted in their use of public facilities when men are present. Women must enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit in specially designated sections. Women risked arrest by the Mutawwa'in for riding in a vehicle driven by a male who was not an employee or a close male relative. The law provides that women may not be admitted to a hospital for medical treatment without the consent of a male relative; however this was not generally enforced. By law and custom, women may not undertake domestic or foreign travel alone (see Section 2.d.). During the year, the Government began again to issue national identity cards to females, despite a national campaign by some religious conservatives against it. In public, a woman was expected to wear an abaya (a black garment that covers the entire body) and also to cover her head and hair. The Mutawwa'in generally expected Muslim women to cover their faces, and women from other countries in Asia and Africa to comply more fully with local customs of dress than they do non-Muslim Western women; nonetheless, in recent years they have instructed Western women to wear the abaya and cover their hair. During the year, Mutawwa'in continued to admonish and harass women to wear their abayas and cover their hair. In one case, a Mutawwa sexually assaulted a female expatriate, and there was no evidence that he received any punishment.

There were some restrictions placed on accredited female diplomats that did not apply to their male counterparts. For example, single females must receive exception letters from their respective embassies in order to stay at a hotel, and some social functions were restricted to male or female participants only.

Women also were subject to discrimination under Shari'a as interpreted in the country, which stipulates that daughters receive half the inheritance awarded to their brothers. While Shari'a provides women with a basis to own and dispose of property independently, women often are constrained from asserting such rights because of various legal and societal barriers, especially regarding employment and freedom of movement. In a Shari'a court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women (see Section 1.e.). Although Islamic law permits polygyny, with up to four wives, it is becoming less common due to demographic and economic changes. Islamic law enjoins a man to treat each wife equally. In practice such equality is left to the discretion of the husband. Some women participated in Al-Mesyar (or "short daytime visit") marriages, or what are described as "weekend marriages," in which the women relinquished their legal rights to financial support and nighttime cohabitation. Additionally, the husband was not required to inform his other wives of the marriage, and any children resulting from such a marriage have no inheritance rights. The Government placed greater restrictions on women than on men regarding marriage to noncitizens and non-Muslims (see Section 1.f.).

Women must demonstrate legally specified grounds for divorce, but men may divorce without giving cause. In doing so, men were required to pay immediately an amount of money agreed upon at the time of the marriage, which serves as a one-time alimony payment. Women who demonstrate legal grounds for divorce still were entitled to this alimony. If divorced or widowed, a Muslim woman normally may keep her children until they attain a specified age: 7 years for boys; and 9 years for girls. Children over these ages are awarded to the divorced husband or the deceased husband's family. Numerous divorced foreign women continued to be prevented by their former husbands from visiting their children after divorce.

snip

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I'm confused now. So you were implying that this is widespread?

n/t

[barb162]

56. the links point out Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria.... hmmmm

you decide if that's widespread

[barb162]

35. BRAVO, BRAVO!!!! Excellent!

Thank you so much as I wasn't on the thread and the misstating of posts is a serious problem.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. I didn't mistate yr post...

I may have misunderstood it, in which case it would make sense for you to attempt to clarify what you meant. If you weren't implying that stonings are a common occurence throughout Islamic countries, then I accept that, and I'm very glad that you acknowledge that this is not widespread or something that occurs regularly in the Muslim world...

Violet...

[barb162]

57. the post is perfectly clear

My sentence: "...Also, when is the last time you have ever heard of stonings for adultery in Christian cultures, whereas this kind of thing does occur today in the Mideast."


Concentrate on this part of the sentence:'"this kind of thing does occur today in the Mideast."

It doesn't use the word "common" or the word "widespread"

[barb162]

34. hmmm, maybe I should have also mentioned honor killings, etc

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Why?

n/t

[barb162]

58. Why? Read this National Organization of Women article

http://www.now.org/nnt/summerfall-2005/iraqiwomen.html

snip
"Conservative Sharia law as the basis for the country's family law system threatens to send Iraqi women back to the Middle Ages."

snip
"Sharia Anti-Women?

Critics say that Sharia law is inherently misogynistic: In some sects, divorce is easy for men who are allowed multiple wives, and custody of children goes to the father. A conservative dress code requires many women to cover most or all of their bodies; women may be restricted to the home and are frequently not allowed to speak to men other than relatives. Women are not allowed to be clergy or religious scholars and may be restricted from certain jobs where they might come into contact with men.

Worst of all, most interpretations of Sharia law allow beating of "disobedient" wives. This permission has led to the practice in many Muslim cultures of so-called honor killings where women are beaten or murdered if the family believes that the woman has 'dishonored' the family with an extramarital affair. "
snip

[barb162]

45. Do you have a link for that?

Yours: "btw, stonings for adultery do not happen in most Islamic countries..."
I was clearly referencing the MIDEAST Islamic countries, not those outside the Mideast, although there was a famous stoning trial in Nigeria. Although women also get tried under Sharia in Islamic countries outside the Mideast as the below story indicates:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2116540.stm
Monday, 8 July, 2002, 17:01 GMT 18:01 UK
Nigerian woman fights stoning
An Islamic court in northern Nigeria has begun hearing an appeal from a woman convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning under controversial Sharia, or Islamic, law. snip


As to this part of you post( "...so trying to portray that as a common occurence in predominantly Muslim countries is misleading, to say the least...) don't misquote me please. I certainly never stated it was "common"....

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Why? Haven't you just said that stonings aren't commonplace events?

So why are you now wanting a link for some proof of what is bleeding obvious to most folk - that stonings for adultery do not happen in most Islamic countries. And barb, as this thread started with an article about Muslims in a country that's not a middle eastern country, why are you focusing now on Middle Eastern countries?

btw, in which Middle Eastern countries have stonings for adultery happened? Jordan? Egypt? Syria? Iraq under Saddam? UAE? But seeing as you've already agreed that you don't think stonings are commonplace in Islamic countries (not even the Middle East) then it's a moot point...

Violet...

[barb162]

59. Violet , an exposition by various human rights organizations

of the effects on women living under Sharia is a good case for sharia not being applied in England. Again look at the links I have variously supplied in posts by Amnesty Int., Human Rights Watch, NOW, etc.

[sam sarrha]

6. so a mosque maybe can rent a soccer field before a game and kill women

who shamed their husband or stepped outside the home without an escort to get the paper..

[neweurope]

7. Bravo, Sunday Telegraph!

By polling this incredible bullshit you give people the idea it might be done, and next they'll be demanding it.

Is it me or are we watching a serious try to stir up hatred between muslims and non-muslims allover the world right now? Wherever I look I see crap like this now; only three years ago, even two years ago things were normal. I'm wearing my tinfoil hat even when in my sleep now; somebody help me, I'm beginning to see the Bushistas and their billions of dollars for propaganda behind everything!

:tinfoilhat:

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

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Yep, there's a very serious attempt to stir up hate happening...

The Islamophobes who, after all, are the audience that the Daily Telegraph is tailored to, jump on this stuff with glee, proclaiming themselves experts in all things Islamic, even though it's abundantly clear that none of them actually have any comphrehension of what Sharia law is (it doesn't mean replacing existing laws at all) apart from the version fed to them by the Bush brigade...

People forget to quickly that it was very clear immediately after the Sept 11 attacks that Bin Laden was hellbent on setting off a war between Muslims and non-Muslims. Unfortunately some folk including the Bush administration have played right into his hands with their ingrained bigotry and hatred of anything different than themselves...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

12. So Marcel Berlins is an Islamaphobe from "The Guardian?" n/p

[Violet_Crumble]

14. No, I don't recall saying that...

I'm talking about the Daily Telegraph and its poll, which was clear in my post...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

17. You didn't say that...you IMPLIED it.

You clearly say:

The Islamophobes who, after all, are the audience that the Daily Telegraph is tailored to, jump on this stuff with glee, proclaiming themselves experts in all things Islamic, even though it's abundantly clear that none of them actually have any comphrehension of what Sharia law is (it doesn't mean replacing existing laws at all) apart from the version fed to them by the Bush brigade...

Considering that Marcel Berlins of "The Guardian" wrote the the article quoted in the OP, don't you imply that he is an Islamaphobe? Especially, since you say, "The Islamophobes who, after all, are the audience that the Daily Telegraph is tailored to, jump on this stuff with glee...?" Or are you just trying to imply that the orginal poster, posting from "The Guardian," is an Islamaphobe?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. No, I didn't imply it...

That's why I said: 'The Islamophobes who, after all, are the audience that the Daily Telegraph is tailored to, jump on this stuff with glee'. What part of that is difficult to understand? Claiming I think the writer from the Guardian is an Islamophobe is as ridiculous as thinking the writer of the article I just posted that discussed Sharia law is an Islamophobe as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x193214

As for yr last question, you know very well that it's against the rules for us to voice our opinions about other posters...

Now, if you'd like to discuss what my post actually said, rather than what you claim it implies, this could become a good discussion...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Tsk, tsk....

You are catching yourself in your own "spin."

No, I didn't imply it...That's why I said: 'The Islamophobes who, after all, are the audience that the Daily Telegraph is tailored to, jump on this stuff with glee'.

So, are you now saying that Marcel Berlins is not an "...audience that the Daily Telegraph is tailored to...?" After all, he is the author of the piece we are discussing.

Claiming I think the writer from the Guardian is an Islamophobe is as ridiculous as thinking the writer of the article I just posted that discussed Sharia law is an Islamophobe as well.

Talk about misleading...it is not the OP of the article, nor it is from "The Guardian."

As for yr last question, you know very well that it's against the rules for us to voice our opinions about other posters...

That is very true...however, it doesn't stop "implications," especially considering other posts.

Now, if you'd like to discuss what my post actually said, rather than what you claim it implies, this could become a good discussion...

I did discuss what your post actually said. You don't want to discuss the "implications' from your own post.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Once again, I did NOT imply that at all...

Could you please afford me the respect of accepting that I know better than you what's in my mind when I post? And I do not appreciate you claiming I was making implications about other posters when I wasn't. If you have nothing constructive to say about what I actually posted as opposed to what you would like to think I said, then I've got nothing more to say to you...


Violet...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neweurope]

28. Leave him/her be.

Not worth the time. You certainly implied nothing of the kind.
:hi:

-----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Yeah, I figured it was a waste of effort continuing...

Thanks! :)

[barb162]

38. Debate rages over women and Sharia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2977446.stm

Debate rages over women and Sharia

By Jane Little
Religious affairs correspondent



Now the debate over Islamic law is raging globally, among Muslim women's groups alarmed by cases in Nigeria and Pakistan.

snip
But human rights groups say that is not how it is being implemented in northern Nigeria. At the same time they fear that the government of North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, which is implementing Sharia, will violate the rights of women. Are there real grounds for concern?

According to a human rights report in Pakistan, of 1,800 women in jail, 80% are there for so-called "huddud" offences.

Huddud is the part of Islamic law dealing with punishments for crimes such as "illegal sex" - or sex outside marriage. There is no equivalent number of men in jail for the same offences, which raises the question: who are these women having sex with?
snip

[barb162]

40. You're wrong. Defending women's rights is important.,Violet

And there are two articles in this thread from the Guardian, I've provided links from Amnesty International, BBC, etc.. Bringing up the Telegraph is a little silly, since that's a mainstream paper in any case. Don't you think Sharia law is a serious problem for women? It needs to be brought up.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. How do you come to the conclusion I don't defend women's rights??

Uh, barb. Didn't you notice I posted a very long article in this forum last night about the exact same thing you now seem to be acting as though I don't think is important...

Here it is, as I know in yr fascination with Islam that you'll be wanting to read it and comment on it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x193214

In case you haven't noticed, there's a world of difference between legitimate and intelligent discussion of women's issues and Islam, and the sort of nonsense trotted out by conservative wankers like the Daily Telegraph. btw, since the Daily Telegraph is who did the poll in the first place, it's not silly at all to 'bring them up' even though I was responding in a sub-thread where the poll was being discussed...


Violet...

[barb162]

60. Why are you asking a question that I concluded something

about your stance on women's rights. I have no idea what your view is on the subject.

Also why are you apparently concluding in the second paragraph that I have a fascination with Islam? Should I conclude by the fact you came on this thread or that anyone who came on this thread has a fascination with Islam?Back about a year ago many DUers including me wrote about pedophile priests. WOuld you conclude that I and the others who did a lot of posts on it were "fascinated by the subject? Because I wasn't...it was more a case of it was in the news. I think you are jumping to conclusions.

I will remind you again...the article I posted is from THE GUARDIAN, not the Telegraph. By the way, here is another article from the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,777972,00.html

"Sharia law

Susie Steiner explains the Islamic legal system which has sentenced a Nigerian woman to be stoned to death

Tuesday August 20, 2002


Why is sharia law in the news?
An Islamic court in Nigeria yesterday upheld a sentence of death by stoning for a woman accused of adultery. The case is the latest in a series of sentences passed under sharia law - a set of religious laws adopted over the past two years in northern regions of Nigeria, which have predominantly Muslim inhabitants.

Sharia law, which derives from the teachings of the Koran and from Sunna (the practice of the prophet Mohammed), is implemented to varying degrees in different Islamic countries - from the beheadings of Saudi Arabia, to the relatively liberal social mores of Malaysia."
snip

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Though a similar survey was done for the Guardian in Nov 2004

A special Guardian/ICM poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61% wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles - "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law".

Many civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance.

The poll also found a high level of religious observance with just over half saying they pray five times a day, every day - although women are shown to be more devout than men. The poll reveals that 88% want to see schools and workplaces in Britain accommodating Muslim prayer times as part of their normal working day.

Alongside these signs of a desire for more recognition of their religion, however, the poll suggests that the Muslim community is perhaps more integrated than many might imagine, with 62% saying they number "a lot or quite a few" non-Muslim people among their closest friends and 35% saying they would consider marrying someone who was not a Muslim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,15568,1362591,00.html

[neweurope]

29. delete

[fedsron2us]

30. In civil matters

it has always been possible to use religious courts in the UK as a means of arbitration providing both parties agree to be bound by the decision. Sometimes this is followed by formal ratification in secular courts. Although much diminished in the scope of their activities the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church Of England still meet and their judgments are reported in the London Times. There are also a number of Beth Din operating in the UK used by Jews and on rare occasions non Jews to settle disputes. One of the main problems with religious courts even within quite small and homogeneous religious communities is that they do not always agree to abide by each others judgments or acknowledge a common body of case law. This can result in the bizarre situation such as the individual formally converted to Orthodox Judaism by a religious court is Israel who was not recognised as a Jew by the Beth Din in London

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/1423_beth_din_bad_decisio.htm

It is this fact which means that even quite devout members of religious groups sooner or later wind up taking their cases to the secular courts.

[neweurope]

32. I never knew. Very interesting, thank you

for the information!

:hi:

-----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[barb162]

41. When I got to this part of the story from the link

"Are not Sephardi orthodox conversions good enough for an Ashkenazi organisation?"

I just said "oy" and quit reading ( way over my head).

Thank you very much for the link

[neweurope]

33. I'm taking my tinfoil hat off when I read the Guardian.

:hi:

-----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[barb162]

39. thank you for posting the article

[barb162]

37. The Guardian is considered left

I would also point out that a move for Sharia was stopped in Canada last year. What you call this "incredible bullshit" thankfully was stopped inm Canada in September, 2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4236762.stm
"Sharia law move quashed in Canada

The prospect of Sharia law in Ontario sparked protests in Canada
The head of Canada's Ontario province has rejected attempts to allow Muslims to use Sharia law in family disputes.
A report by Ontario's former attorney general Marion Boyd had recommended the use of Islamic law to settle issues such as divorce and child custody.

But Premier Dalton McGuinty ruled against the move, saying there should be "one law for all Ontarians".

snip
Critics said allowing Islamic tribunals could lead to discrimination against women."

[Violet_Crumble]

47. They were talking about the Daily Telegraph, not the Guardian...

Y'know, the poll that appeared in the Daily Telegraph.

barb, there's a thread on Sharia law in the Muslim forum here at DU where someone explains what it actually is. I think you should visit that forum and read it instead on relying on Western media sources for the final word on what Sharia is...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Very interesting.

The survey itself, which is done every so often, is an interesting read. Muslim Poll

A very interesting article as well.

[neweurope]

31. Thanks for the link.

Very interesting to see the original.

-----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[barb162]

42. see post 26 also

The Guardian has commented before on this matter and the poster (Muriel)kindly sent the link. Plus there was an attempt to get Sharia in in Canada in Sept.05

[iverglas]

54. oh, here we go again

Plus there was an attempt to get Sharia in in Canada in Sept.05

Yup. And didya notice how, as a result of the ignorant, bigoted uproar about it, the Jews and Roman Catholics who had been merrily using their own little ecclesiastical courts for years and years -- and having the decisions of those courts (treated as arbitration tribunals in law enforced in the real courts, while Muslims did not get the same treatment -- have now lost their option to do that, too? Sauce, geese, ganders.

Not too happy about that, some of them aren't. They were special, now they aren't.

Say ... got a get?

[rodeodance]

25. Seems to me that when one immagrates, one accepts the lawa of their

new country. Simple to me.

And I agree" "don't even think of it"

[Jim Sagle]

27. Fuckin' A.

[barb162]

43. It's simple to me too.

[barb162]

44. There's an interesting little discussion of stoning in Wikipedia

in the dispute section of the topic sharia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharia

snip
So, the authors agree that Sharia law sees adultery as a "most serious crime". An issue that they carefully side-step, of course, is the prescribed punishment. Fortunately, it's easy enough for us to figure it out, because it's right there in the Qu'ran, An-Nur 24:2:

The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allâh's Law).

No wonder they prefer to beat around the bush! But is a judge really bound by Sharia law to uphold this punishment? Well - the article itself says that no judge can alter this punishment, for better or for worse.

So, to sum it up, we ignorant and hate-inciting Westerners are supposed to believe that Sharia law is a-ok, and just like our law, because, well yes, married people who have sex outside of marriage are considered most severe criminals, and yes, they do get stoned to death for it, but actually only if there are four credible witnesses, so it's not that bad after all! Never mind that any sort of collective punishment for consentual sex between adults, even outside marriage, let go one of the cruelest forms of execution ever invented, is utterly incompatible with concepts tremendously popular in the West, such as personal liberty and dignity, abstinence from unnecessary cruelty, and the respect for universal human rights. The truth is, no amount of wisdom found in other parts of Sharia law can cancel out this indelible stain in the eyes of any compassionate person, whether Christian or secular humanist. Don't let the apologetics fool you - the problem with Sharia is not in our perception, even if we may not know all there is to know about it. What we do know - that it prescribes "cruel and unusual punishments" (to put it in the language of the Eighth Amendment) for a deed that isn't considered punishable by state in any Western country at all - is enough to know that Sharia law in its present form and basic and universal human rights can never be reconciled. Aragorn2 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
snip

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Any raving idiot can post in the talk section at Wikipedia...

It's like reading the message boards at Yahoo and trotting some poster from there out. The only interesting thing about that sort of thing is realising the internet has given incredibly ignorant folk a platform to display their complete ignorance.......

I tend to think that people should understand what Sharia actually is before wailing about how evil it is, because a lot of the reaction to it is borne of not knowing what it is, apart from the distorted and simplistic version fed to us by our leaders...

Here's a link to the thread in the Muslim forum on Sharia that I think everyone reading this thread should read, and I'm sure if anyone else has questions about it (that is those who don't see themselves as experts on it) that the regulars in the Muslim forum will be more than happy to help you out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=359x257

Violet...

[barb162]

55. the fact is stonings and other atrocities do occur under sharia

whether people can take any position in the disputes section of wikipedia isn beside the point. This individual pointed out something very important: the Koran states the penalties and it is a horrible punishment