posted
Sudan: Two women at risk of stoning after being convicted of adultery Posted: 20 March 2007
Thousands of Amnesty International supporters are sending messages of concern to the Sudanese authorities upon receiving news that two women from Darfur, western Sudan could face death by stoning after being convicted of committing adultery.
22-year-old Sadia Idriss Fadul from the Fur ethnic group was sentenced to death by stoning on 13 February, and Amouna Abdallah Daldoum who is 23 years old and a member of the Tama ethnic group, was sentenced on 6 March.
Amnesty International has expressed serious concern that these two women received an unfair trial as reportedly neither was given access to a lawyer nor was she able to defend herself, because her first language was that of her ethnic group in Darfur. The court proceedings were conducted in Arabic and the women were reportedly not provided with a translator.
Amnesty International UK's Campaigns Director, Tim Hancock said: 'Sadia and Amouna were subjected to most unfair trial proceedings where they were given no appropriate defence and as a result could face a tragic and cruel death.
'Such a penalty totally contravenes Sudan's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is unacceptable.'
The two women were charged under Article 146 (a) of Sudan's 1991 Penal Code. Article 146 states that anyone having sex outside marriage shall be punished with execution by stoning when the offender is married (Muhsan); or one hundred lashes when the offender is not married (non-muhsan).
While Amnesty International does not take a position on Islamic or any other religious law, it considers such penalties to be cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally and under any circumstances.
Tim Hancock continued: 'The death penalty is the ultimate violation of the right to life and should be abolished in all circumstances. But it is particularly disturbing when we realise that these two women did not have a chance to adequately defend themselves.
'The Sudanese government has a duty to stop this death sentence from being carried out, and to allow these two women to be given a fair trial.'
posted
For real.......what RIGHT does the Sudanese government have in this type of case anyway? They let a bunch of marauders rape women, so who are they to judge about what is moral or immoral? Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Agreed. My blood boils that the world seems to care so little about what's happening in Sudan.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: ^^ Agreed. My blood boils that the world seems to care so little about what's happening in Sudan.
For real. It is very upsetting.........Well, thank God that if there isn't mankind type of justice, that there is divine justice. It doesn't make sense to me why people do evil to another in this world. Don't they realize that they will, in time, reap what they have sown? Anyway, salaam and blessings.
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Salaam, Israel. I agree that we shall all reap what we sow, one day.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by humanist: And people moan and whine on a daily basis as to why Muslims are hated?
You know humanist, I'll make a comment that I'm not very keen on pursuing....because I'm really not into internet arguments but I thought I should at least give you a glimpse of the other side
They whine because they are frustrated that the likes of Sudanese government, Taliban and OBL and his murder squad are seen as representative of them..... Mainstreem Muslims see them as twisted sorry miscreants but unfortunately, their publicity is so wide due to the very atrocity of their acts and they sell themselves as THE true Muslims....THEY'RE NOT, I promise ya.
I mean,look, I'm Muslim and I do know my religion and its many labyrinths and there are arguments among Muslim religious scholars about whether the stoning penalty exists at all in Islam and even the lesser penalty is only applicable not for adultery but for adultery in public where the actual act of "penetration" is viewed and testified on by four people, not one , not two, not three but four people. That's how it is in the Quran. It's like it can almost never be proved unless maybe in the case of porn...and not even then because the movies can be doctored....it's got to be a live show or find four witnesses from the film crew if you can get them to do it
I could back this up but I didnt think you'd be interested in looking at the details. I do expect one of the misguided eternal defenders of the faith who keep patrolling the internet to spread their message about what they think is true Islam to come in and contradict me. There's so much wrong information out there that our own kids are at risk of getting sucked into the wrong streams....so I cant blame you for not knowing which is the right one.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadia Idriss Fadul from the Fur ethnic group
Amouna Abdallah Daldoum of the Tama ethnic group
Both are Muslim names, if these two were from a Pagan faith then the executions wouldn't be handed down from the government. Only the Sudanese government court rulings are noted in the press, the Sudanese Pagan tribes are not on the media's monitor because the media cannot get into the area.
This is a draw back for not allowing citizens their civil rights, if they don't have any rights to exercise they can't abuse them.
Posts: 3168 | From: If you don't like it, don't look or read it! | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Mainstreem Muslims see them as twisted sorry miscreants but unfortunately, their publicity is so wide due to the very atrocity of their acts and they sell themselves as THE true Muslims....THEY'RE NOT, I promise ya.
And whats the difference between a "mainstream" Muslim and the Taliban?
Are "mainstream" Muslims those who turn a blind eye to many of the Qu'ran's or Hadith's more indigestible commands?
While the Taliban and others of their ilk embrace the Qu'ran and the Hadiths in all their tainted glory?
quote:I mean,look, I'm Muslim and I do know my religion and its many labyrinths and there are arguments among Muslim religious scholars about whether the stoning penalty exists at all in Islam and even the lesser penalty is only applicable not for adultery but for adultery in public where the actual act of "penetration" is viewed and testified on by four people, not one , not two, not three but four people. That's how it is in the Quran.
The fact that a stoning penalty is even being debated says much..
posted
Applying laws which are not mentioned in the Qur’aan or Sunnah
Question: Does applying every law that is not mentioned in the Qur’aan or Sunnah constitute kufr?
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
Shaykh al-Shanqeeti said:
It should be noted that we must differentiate between man-made systems the implementation of which implies disbelief (kufr) in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and systems which do not imply that. This may be explained by describing systems as being of two types, administrative and legislative. With regard to administrative systems which are aimed at organizing things and making them run smoothly in a manner that does not go against sharee’ah, there is nothing wrong with this and no one among the Sahaabah or those who came after them objected to it. ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) did many things of that nature that were not done at the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), such as writing down the names of the soldiers in a register to keep track of who was present and who was absent, even though the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do that and he had not known that Ka’b ibn Maalik was not present during the campaign of Tabook until after he had reached Tabook. Similarly, ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) bought the house of Safwaan ibn Umayyah in Makkah and turned it into a prison, even though neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) nor Abu Bakr had established a prison. Such administrative matters which are intended to make things run smoothly and which do not go against sharee’ah – such as organizing employees’ affairs and organizing work matters in a manner that does not go against sharee’ah – is a kind of man-made system that is o.k. and does not go against the basic principles of sharee’ah which aims to take care of the public interest.
But in the case of legislative systems which go against the laws of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, referring to them for judgement constitutes disbelief (kufr) in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, such as claiming that giving males precedence over females in matters of inheritance is not fair and that they should be given equal shares, or claiming that plural marriage is a form of oppression, or that divorce is unjust towards women, or that stoning and cutting off hands etc. are barbaric actions that cannot justifiably be done to anyone, and so on.
So implementing this kind of system to govern people’s lives, wealth, honour, lineage, minds and religion constitutes disbelief in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and rebellion against the divine system which was set up by the One Who created all of mankind and Who knows best what is in its interests. Glorified and exalted be He far above having any other legislator alongside Him.
“Or have they partners with Allaah (false gods) who have instituted for them a religion which Allaah has not ordained? And had it not been for a decisive Word (gone forth already), the matter would have been judged between them. And verily, for the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there is a painful torment”
[al-Shooraa 42:21 – interpretation of the meaning]
“Say (O Muhammad to these polytheists): ‘Tell me, what provision Allaah has sent down to you! And you have made of it lawful and unlawful.’ Say (O Muhammad): ‘Has Allaah permitted you (to do so), or do you invent a lie against Allaah?’”
posted
Repentance of the Fornicator It is not obligatory that S\he admit to a judge what he did. It is sufficient that repentance take place between him and Allah, and Allah is the Acceptor of repentance and the Most Merciful. We ask Allah to forgive us and the rest of the Muslims.
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can someone who used to commit adultery and steal repent?
Question: If someone is a very bad Muslim. He/she commits adultry, steals, and gambles. What is the punishment for that person? Just suppose, later in his/her life he/she realize that he wants to be punished for all the sins he has commited. What should that person do? Can he/she go and tell the world to cut-off his hands, and slaughter his head because he is a sinner?
Answer: Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
Adultery (zina) is a major sin. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And come not near to unlawful sex [zina]. Verily, it is a Faahishah (i.e. anything that transgresses its limits: a great sin, and an evil way that leads one to hell unless Allaah Forgives him)”
[al-Isra’ 17:32]
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The adulterer is not a believer at the moment when he is committing adultery; the wine-drinker is not a believer at the moment when he is drinking wine; the thief is not a believer at the moment when he is stealing; the robber is not a believer at the moment when he is robbing and the people are looking on.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2475; Muslim, 57).
It is a major sin, and the one who does it is warned of a painful torment. In an important hadeeth – the hadeeth of the Mi’raaj – the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “We went on and we came to something like a tannoor oven.” I [the narrator] think that he said, that in it there were shouting and voices. “We looked inside and we saw naked men and women, towards whom flames were coming from the bottom of the oven. When the flames reached them they made a noise. I said to them [the two angels], ‘Who are these people?’ … They said to me, ‘We will tell you… the naked men and women in the structure like a tannoor oven are the adulterers and adulteresses.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari in Baab Ithm al-Zunaat, no. 7047).
Allaah also punishes the adulterers severely in this world, and has prescribed the hadd punishment for that. Allaah says concerning the unmarried person who commits zina:
“The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allaah, if you believe in Allaah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment”
[al-Noor 24:2 – interpretation of the meaning]
With regard to one who is married, the hadd punishment is execution. It says in a hadeeth narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (3199) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “For a married or previously-married person the punishment is one hundred lashes and stoning.”
Posts: 1007 | From: http://www.sultan.org | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: And whats the difference between a "mainstream" Muslim and the Taliban?
Are "mainstream" Muslims those who turn a blind eye to many of the Qu'ran's or Hadith's more indigestible commands?
While the Taliban and others of their ilk embrace the Qu'ran and the Hadiths in all their tainted glory?
~Alistair
Mainstream Muslims are the ones who understand the "undigestible commands" correctly and have a deep and proper knowledge about how and when they are used .... they dont feel quite so undigestible when they're correctly understood
Besides, they dont get partcularly hung up if one of them decides to disregard them....everybody's free to sort it out with their maker at the check out counter. The untainted glory guys, on the other hand, feel they have a monopoly on faith....(like, well, priests in Europe before the renaissance ?).... so they pronounce the rest of us as heretics and would burn us on the stake, only they have better ideas of how to murder us!
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that a stoning penalty is even being debated says much..
~Alistair [/QB]
It says that at some point along the history line there was a stoning penalty that was incorrectly stuck into the muslim religion when it's got nothing to do with it.... so it isnt Islam's fault.... the fault of some other sadist who wanted to give weight to his decision to kill.
The stoning penalty was there before Islam. It existed at the time of Moses and maybe evn from before...Doesnt Jesus mention something along the lines of if one of you has no sins he can throw a stone at her dissuading his people from doing it.
Just follow history back far enough to see how it started
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sultan,please, have you got something to say for yourself that isnt cut and paste? or at least, could you summarise that rant for us. I dont have time to read all this.
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: The stoning penalty was there before Islam.
That's true. But Muhammad (pbuh) shouldn't have incorporated those laws into Sharia.
quote:Laws have nothing to do with truth or falsehood. We make laws because they are useful and reduce human friction/conflict. We change them when they outwear their utility. As the society changes, so should the laws governing it. Laws have noting to do with right or wrong or truth and falsehood. In England the law say you must drive on the left side of the road. In France the law requires that you drive on the right side. Is one of these laws false?
Some laws however are oppressive, outdated and they must be changed. They have been devised for times and societies very much districts from ours and they are not fit for our world. Most of the laws of Islam existed prior to Islam among the pagans. Take the law of cutting the hand of the thief. In those days and in that primitive part of the world, jails did not exist and the society could not afford keeping the criminals in jail. Jails are expensive. You must not only feed the criminal, you must also pay the salaries of a few guards and have secure prisons. These societies were mostly villages and nomads and such thing was superfluous. It was not feasible in those days among the primitive tribes of Arabia to have prisons. So the only way they could punish a criminal was to harm him physically. They either beheaded him or maimed him, according to the gravity of his crime. This was a very cruel form of punishment. Nonetheless it was the only thing those primitive societies could think of and do. Now the world has changed and we have much more humane ways for punishing the criminals. Also we are wiser and know that the criminals are victims of childhood abuses. So we create secure jails to separate these disturbed and dangerous people from the society. The idea is not to punish them but to protect the society from their harms and if possible correct them so once released they can be useful to the society.
The law of chopping hands is barbaric. It has been devised by very primitive people prior to Islam and adopted by Muhammad because he was not a visionary and could not think beyond his experiences. But it is backward and draconian for our time. This law is wrong now, even though it had its utility thousands of years ago.
In democracies, where people make the law, we can change inhumane laws. In theocracies we can’t. This and the example of Galileo’s theory about heliocentricity show that although democracy is not about right and wrong or truth and falsehood, it provides a milieu where right and truth can triumph over wrong and falsehood.
Theocracies and all other forms of autocracies, can't tolerate criticism. They rely on falsehood for their survival and censor the truth. A good example of that is the Islamic Republic of Iran where those who speak against it are jailed or executed and dissidents outside Iran are assassinated. Iran is not the exception. In all Islamic countries, thoughts are suppressed and truth is nipped in the bud. Falsehood must rely on violence, censorship and suppression of truth to survive. Without that it will vanish like darkness faced with light.
So although democracy is not about truth and falsehood, in democracy you have the chance to right the wrong and reach the truth while in dictatorship you don't have that chance.
posted
But he didn't, Undercover. That's what the debate is about. This particular penalty was stealthily squeezed into the muslim heritage and can never be supported from the quran.
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
homing piegon...(nice nick by the way haha)
How can you say that Muhammad did not endorse those laws? Isn't Sharia for all times?
Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported Allah’s Messenger as saying, "The hand of a thief should be cut off but for a quarter of a dinar and what is above that." (Bukhari 8:6789; Muslim 3:4175-79)
Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, "God curses the thief who steals an egg, for which his hand is to be cut off, or steals a rope for which he has his hand cut off!" (Bukhari 8:6799; Muslim 3:4185)
A woman committed theft during Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca, and she was brought to him. A devout Muslim interceded for her, wanting her repentance to be accepted before the penalty. But Muhammad’s face turned red with anger and he rebuked the intercessor, saying that even if his own daughter were to steal, he would have her hand cut off. Allah’s command must be carried out no matter what. So Muhammad had the woman’s hand cut off, and Aisha reported that her repentance afterwards was sincere. Narrated Aisha: The prophet cut off the hand of a lady ... and she repented, and her repentance was sincere. (Bukhari 8:6800; Muslim 3:4187 and 4188)
Abu Abudallah said: "If a thief repents after his hand has been cut off, then his witness will be accepted" .... (Bukhari 8:6801)
homing pigeon,
don't you think that Muhammad should have set a better example?
In what ways was he revolutionary for his time? I don't think he was. Did Muhammad come to guide people to the right path or was he a victim of the bad traditions of his people? Didn’t he call the pagans ignorant? If so, why did he follow their ways? The man who taught his followers with how many stones they should wipe their rears after the call of nature (sorry if I am offending you, but it's true!) did not know that excessively harsh punishments are not appropriate, he should not set that kind of examples.
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Undercover, this is a different discussion thread really...My comment was specific to the stoning penalty.
I'm sorry I cant go into a lengthy converstion about these things. I'm sure you would appreciate . I have assignments to submit by noon next Monday...oh, and also I am trying toi keep my peace and quiet because I'm taking reductil to lose some weight and if I get my adrenaline going my blood pressure would rise and I wont get a repeat prescription .
but just a quick comment there is a lot what relates to hadith and the other stories you hear like rear wiping and this stuff that is subject to criticism in terms of authenticity. They were never written down at the time of the prophet and they were collected hundreds of years later at a time of political strife. Some of them are decidedly false.
However, the hand choping off is another matter..we could talk about that after assignment time, though.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why is it that - in contrast to the attention given to the Middle East conflicts - Arab media and politicians are largely ignoring events in Darfur? Moataz El Fegiery and Ridwan Ziyada look for answers
For many people in the Arab world the "humanitarian catastrophe" unfolding in Darfur just doesn't exist – and the simple reason for that is that the Arab media has ignored it. So it's little wonder that there has been no unease or disapproval voiced at the ignorance exhibited by the Arabs on the subject of crimes against humanity in this region of Sudan.
What makes things worse is a suspicion that what we are faced with here is the kind of unscrupulousness that borders on a denial of history; one need only recall the role of some Arabs in the African slave trade.
Let's assume for the moment that Arab governments' displaying a less than clear cut commitment to the human rights issue in Darfur is only to be expected – in fact it is just about the last thing an Arab government is going to place on its list of foreign policy priorities – but what about Arab journalists, intellectuals, political activists and artists? How is their behaviour, particularly those whose job it is raise public awareness of such things on behalf of the United Nations, to be explained?
Turning a blind eye on the Darfur crisis
How can they justify their silence on events in Darfur? No explanation, no honestly expressed shock at what is happening in Darfur has been forthcoming. The only rent in this curtain of silence being the statement of 17 October 2006, when at least some few Arab intellectuals were prepared to express their disapproval of "the silence of the Arab world in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur."
Since 2003, a combination of the armed hostilities, generally poor living conditions and widespread disease and malnutrition has brought the death toll in Darfur to somewhere in the region of 300,000 – 400,000. Over two million refugees are on the move or have fled the country completely. The violence has left three and a half million people dependent upon humanitarian aid money.
The peace treaty signed at Abudja on 5 May 2006, between the Khartoum government and one of the most influential of the province's guerrilla groups has failed to bring either security or peace to Darfur. The indications are, in fact, that far from improving, things are getting worse.
In Darfur, in contrast to what is happening in other Arab regions, what we have is an internal Sudanese conflict that is being fought out between the central government and armed opposition groups, against a backdrop of decades of backwardness in development and government greed for power – and this in a region where ethnic, cultural and religious disharmony has brought a catalogue of wars, one after the other.
The fact that the Arabs have ignored the subject, despite the vicious bloodletting, may be down to the central importance attached to the Middle East, particularly to the conflict with Israel. Certain sections of the political and intellectual elite of the Arab world are choosing not only to ignore, but also even to deny the situation in Sudan. This has been suggested by reports from both the Arab Doctors and Muslim Lawyers unions, amongst others.
The role of the Arab media
Darfur, then, unlike the Middle East conflicts, is a non-event as far as Arab media interest is concerned – "as if Darfur were really none of our business, or we didn't want it to be any of our business," was how one female Arab journalist put it.
Some sections of the Arab media even insist on referring to the Darfur crisis as "a Zionist-American conspiracy" whose aim is to carve up and depredate Sudan. It's a belief that conveniently allows them to ignore the crimes committed in the region itself. Some national media, the Egyptian in particular, are choosing to lay increasing importance on the question of national security to the detriment of all other humanitarian concerns.
The Egyptian media, in fact, has not only continually denied the existence of the humanitarian crisis in Sudan; it continues to adopt an arrogant attitude to the subject. Egyptian press reports on the crisis of the Sudanese refugees, dozens of whom were killed after they gathered in a square in Cairo to protest against policy on refugees, clearly illustrated this.
The official Egyptian press vindicated the action of the security forces and were arrogant and racist in their reporting of the fate of the defenceless Sudanese, who had fled the misery of Sudan only to make the acquaintance of clubs wielded by the Egyptian security forces.
Much of the current debate is taken up with protest over the presence of the UN peacekeeping forces in Sudan. On the one hand, the Arab regimes accuse the international community of incompetence and of applying double standards with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, however, there are constant demands made for international protection for civilians in Palestine.
Double standards
The same double standards are also recognisable in Arab thinking. The blinkered political rationale has cost millions of civilian lives in Darfur, with innocent people suddenly becoming expendable pawns in the conflict being waged by the political and intellectual Arab elite against the West.
What some, in particular the Khartoum government, have overlooked is the fact that a 10,000-strong UN troop, made up mostly of soldiers from 60 different African and Asian countries, is currently stationed in Sudan.
It was the peace agreement of 2005 that brought an end to twenty-one years of civil war between the government and the Sudanese liberation movement and led to the troops being deployed in central and southern areas of the country.
Collaboration with the international community for the purposes of securing peace in Darfur does not contravene international law nor undermine the sovereignty of the Sudanese leadership; it is in fact the duty of the international community.
The Arab world's response to the Darfur crisis has been a miserable failure. It's the moral failure, however, more than the political failure, that is the real tragedy. And it is a failure of the intellectuals just as much as it is of the Arab governments.
Because it is better late than never, Arab politicians, intellectuals, lawyers and journalists must act now. They must come together to protect the people of Darfur. It may, perhaps, still be just enough to help ease a little the pangs of remorse and grief which are the lot of all who indulge in misplaced silence and ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by Undercover: In what ways was he revolutionary for his time? I don't think he was.
Hi,again, undercover, I came back when I came across the following stuff, accidentally, in Katie Hickman's book "Courtesans" . It's a sort of social study. It was useful to copy and paste quickly in answer to one of the questions you asled me.
Katie Hickman, author of "daughters of Britania" writes about women's rights in 19th century Britain saying; " It is hard to imagine, in the beginning of the 21st century, the radical changes to women's rights brought about by the Divorce Act of 1857, and the Married Women's Property Act of 1882. Before the latter, a married woman could own no property nor even control any earnings she might have and she had the legal rights of a minor on a par with children, criminals and the insane"
In this regard, for example, was Mohammad not progressive in the seventh century as compared to 19th century Britain? He allowed women to control their own wealth, and decide on a voluntary basis whether or not to allow their husbands access to it. He considers husbands to be responsible for maintaining wives and children unless the wife voluntarily agrees to let them off the hook...and even then, the money spent by the wife on her home and children remains a debt of the husband unless she agrees to let him off the hook. Source: FIqh Alsunna by Sayed Sabek...another high reliability text... I only have it in hard copy in Arabic, I'm afraid.
Katie Hickman continues;" Although prior to 1857, she could be divorced by her husband, she herself was debarred from bringing a divorce suit or any other kind of legal action against him regardless of his treatment of her. It had, of course, been very rare for a husband to divorce his wife before 1857, since it required a ruinously expensive Act of Parliament to do so. After 1857, the double standard was effectively enshrined in the legal system. It was enough for a hsuband to prove adultery against his wife; but for a wife to divorce her husband, adultery alone was no sufficient grounds."
In that aspect as well, Mohammad was forward. He allowed a woman divorce from her husband just because she didnt like him anymore... the basis of the Khulu law that Egypt has introduced recently. The fact that some countries and cultures have not been applying the full extent of proper Islamic laws or going overboard by applying extreme versions of it is another matter; a matter of culture, not religion.
It is really very easy to pick holes in other people's cultures and other people's beliefs, undercover...maybe more difficult to look for the truth.
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Mainstream Muslims are the ones who understand the "undigestible commands" correctly and have a deep and proper knowledge about how and when they are used .... they dont feel quite so undigestible when they're correctly understood
Your comment exposes the weakness of religion..
Are YOU the sole arbiter who gets to decide how to interpret the indigestible commands correctly?
How do you even know you have a proper understanding?
Especially when there are formally trained Islamic Mullahs whos' interpretations may differ from yours, and in a negative manner I might add..
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Mainstream Muslims are the ones who understand the "undigestible commands" correctly and have a deep and proper knowledge about how and when they are used .... they dont feel quite so undigestible when they're correctly understood
Your comment exposes the weakness of religion..
Are YOU the sole arbiter who gets to decide how to interpret the indigestible commands correctly?
How do you even know you have a proper understanding?
Especially when there are formally trained Islamic Mullahs whos' interpretations may differ from yours, and in a negative manner I might add..
~Alistair
Exactly, there are formally trained Mullahs that I trust and that MANY MANY mainstream muslims trust ... and these are the ones I get my info from....The ones you get your info from, unfortunately are recognized as aberrant groups by the mainstream Mullahs ...We dont use the word Mullahs , by the way among Arabs or at least the Arab mainstream...we call them sheikhs or Imams....I could mention to you a few names and you could go cross reference what I say with what they say if you want. Sheikh Mohammad Alghazaly, Sheikh Yousef Alkaradawy, sheikh Taha ELAlwany...and others..check the Azhar website and the Egyptian DAR AL IFTAA (House of fatwas)
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: Exactly, there are formally trained Mullahs that I trust and that MANY MANY mainstream muslims trust ... and these are the ones I get my info from....The ones you get your info from, unfortunately are recognized as aberrant groups by the mainstream Mullahs ...They're not called Mullahs , by the way among the mainstream...they're just sheikhs or Imams....I coudl mention to you a few names and you coudl go cross reference what I say with what they say if you want. Sheikh Mohammad Alghazaly, Sheikh Yousef Alkaradawy, sheikh Taha ELAlwany...and others..check the Azhar website and the Egyptian DAR AL IFTAA (House of fatwas)
But that wasn't my point dear Pigeon..
My point was, what makes you think YOUR interpretation of the Qu'ran is correct, over those of anyone elses?
Islam, like the other Abrahamic religions, are subject to interpretation.
Interpretation is then subject to PERCEPTION, and everyone has a different mode of perception.
For example, look at the contention in Islam over something as seemingly simple as whether the Hijab/Niquab is mandatory or not?
You say that fundamentalist Muslims interpret the Qu'ran incorrectly, but then they claim the same thing about you.
Thats basically what I'm saying, hence my earlier comment about the "weakness of religion."
BTW, I like the way you argue and present your opinion on Islam..
A sharp contrast to most other Muslims on this website
posted
wELL, YOU HAVE a point there...All I can say is that I believe that what I learned was true. I subject it to common sense tests and it gets through very well everytime so I believe it more. I try and subject the other perspective to scrutiny and it doesnt work so I believe more and more.
But , of course, if you want to take the the relativity approach, then.... your choice as long as you allow me my interpretation. All I want is to be able to show that maybe Islam is not quite as bad as it is being made out to be.
-------------------- Noha Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
BTW, I like the way you argue and present your opinion on Islam..
Wait till she gets to know you well. She will then tell you what we've all been telling you for years.....**** off Posts: 465 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dalia*: The Tragedy of Darfur
Turning a blind eye on the Darfur crisis
How can they justify their silence on events in Darfur? No explanation, no honestly expressed shock at what is happening in Darfur has been forthcoming. The only rent in this curtain of silence being the statement of 17 October 2006, when at least some few Arab intellectuals were prepared to express their disapproval of "the silence of the Arab world in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur."
Since 2003, a combination of the armed hostilities, generally poor living conditions and widespread disease and malnutrition has brought the death toll in Darfur to somewhere in the region of 300,000 – 400,000. Over two million refugees are on the move or have fled the country completely. The violence has left three and a half million people dependent upon humanitarian aid money.
The peace treaty signed at Abudja on 5 May 2006, between the Khartoum government and one of the most influential of the province's guerrilla groups has failed to bring either security or peace to Darfur. The indications are, in fact, that far from improving, things are getting worse.
In Darfur, in contrast to what is happening in other Arab regions, what we have is an internal Sudanese conflict that is being fought out between the central government and armed opposition groups, against a backdrop of decades of backwardness in development and government greed for power – and this in a region where ethnic, cultural and religious disharmony has brought a catalogue of wars, one after the other.
The fact that the Arabs have ignored the subject, despite the vicious bloodletting, may be down to the central importance attached to the Middle East, particularly to the conflict with Israel. Certain sections of the political and intellectual elite of the Arab world are choosing not only to ignore, but also even to deny the situation in Sudan. This has been suggested by reports from both the Arab Doctors and Muslim Lawyers unions, amongst others.
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: But , of course, if you want to take the the relativity approach, then.... your choice as long as you allow me my interpretation. All I want is to be able to show that maybe Islam is not quite as bad as it is being made out to be.
I have no problem with your interpretation persay and you're most welcome to it..
I'm not a Muslim, nor Christian or Jew..
I am simply anti-religious in general, although I'm not an atheist.
As for whether Islam is "bad" or not, I have an opinion on that.
From the view of someone like me who's a non believer, Islam appears to be overtly constrictive and dogmatic.
There are rules and regulations all over the place. Halal vs Haram and so on.
This can be appealing to some though, because of the greater discipline required to live as a Muslim.
As for whether Islam is inherently "evil" or wicked now, I don't believe that.
The Qu'ran is a reflection of the era in which it was written, and as such, it contains many teachings and sayings which in the Modern World today, many would find "indigestible."
But this does not make it evil or bad.
So, why do some Muslims use Islam as a crutch for their abominable deeds?
Because, from what I've been able to garner, Islam allows alot of leeway in regards to using violence to either defend itself, or Muslims from perceived aggression from outsiders.
The other provision ofcourse deals with aggression and violence towards unbelievers aka infidels.
And ofcourse, Islam has not undergone the level of reform that Christianity has in the West, nor been balanced by the opposing force that is SECULARISM.
Until these things happen, Islam will continue to be increasingly villified as a backward, archaic religion by many in the World I'm afraid; even if it shares many things in common with Christianity.
posted
Religion -any religion- only tries to set guidelines for people to live with and be good. You might chose to ignore religion and yet have your own moral code which fulfills the role of those rules and regulations... instead of chosing one thing over another because it is halal; you'll be chosing it because it's the right thing to do, from your perspective.
I often dont think of things in terms of halal and haram but in terms of right or wrong...and many muslims do the same. However, we all ahve our weaknesses and we cant be good all the time. We WILL do some haram stuff (at different rates)because it is human nature.One side of Islamic dogma that never gets advertised is the forgiveness of the merciful creator and how much leeway you are given to repent and atone for your errors. Of course, I know what makes it difficult for non Muslims to see that side of things when ,continuously, you hear about stoning and hands chopped off with reprentance to follow. But between this and that, there appears to be a big chunk of terra incognita (for non muslims...ummm,maybe for some muslims, too, I suppose )
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned:
So, why do some Muslims use Islam as a crutch for their abominable deeds?
Because, from what I've been able to garner, Islam allows alot of leeway in regards to using violence to either defend itself, or Muslims from perceived aggression from outsiders.[/qb]
From a totally pragmatic point of view, this particular allowance for violence (defence) is legitimate. If any country is faced with agression , it will react with agression. My suggestion to the answer of your question is that as long as there have been blood thirsty beasts, they have searched for a cause to hide behind. In this case, it's Islam; no matter to them if their acts have NEVER serviced Islam in any way but have often done the opposite. It doesnt matter to them because they are convinced ,in a twisted way, that their acts are for Islam. Most good causes in history have had some lunatics do them the same disservice.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned:
And ofcourse, Islam has not undergone the level of reform that Christianity has in the West, nor been balanced by the opposing force that is SECULARISM.
[/qb]
That's a thorny issue! One thing that appears to be much less of a controversy among Muslims is that the religion cannot be subjected to the same reform that Christianity has been subjected to...because, this in effect means tampering with it and altering its content...which is exactly the problem that Islam sees with the way Christianity has evolved over the centuries.
But that is, of course, what you are advocating to make it more "digestible"....deadlock, there, I'm afraid. Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, I have a suggestion, why dont we allll ****off and get some sleep! Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, guys, your argument about whose common sense IS commonsense is faulty. It should be fairly easy to define common sense using the "central limit theorem" that we use as basis for all biomedical, social and behavioural research. The gist of it is that most people are "middling" in all their characteristics and will aggregate towards a central point and there will be a few scattered around it on both sides, less as you go further out. More about that on wiki
The mean value, right at the middle of the curve will represent the point where most number of observations (number of people agreeing on a certain concept of common sense, here) will be seen. The majority of people (68%) will lie within one standard deviation of the mean and 95% will fall within two standard deviations of the mean. The remaining 5% on both sides will be the "extremists"
When this distribution was used in biomedical studies, behavioural scientists didnt think it was applicable to them but LO nad BEHOLD, it turned out it does apply....so if you ask a group of people "what is LOve" for example, you'll find a central aggregation of ideas at some point and a scatter around it. Similarly if you give them a list of choces for what can be counted as commonsense and what not the majority will aggregate within one standard deviation of the mean.....this could also be used to identify who are the "mainstream"....It should make "sense" that it is where the majority is.
Now, how do you,Pigeon, know that your views are shared by the majority. It should be fairly easy, in a country, like Egypt to know what is the majority concept of something if you live there. It can be seen on Arabic speaking discussion boards as egyptianoasis, egyptiantalks, normandy...where you can clearly see an internet community (dynamic) where the ideas that are perpetuated by salafis (niqab, abrogation and the like)... are received with horror, disbelief, outrage, sarcasm....and then the number of members who start posting what they know supported by evidence hugely outnumbering the few salafis who are trying to shove in those concepts. And what's more, the proofs make sense, too and are obtained from reliable sources. The story is repeated over every one of those boards. Time goes and comes and people change and the same story keeps on repeating itself over those boards.
Another proof is the sheer number of books that keep on being published by mainstreem muslim clerics to respond to these allegations and describe them for what they are.Unfortunately they dont get translated because the focus of these books is to protect the muslim society from being drawn into these ideas.
The third thing that I dont expect non muslims to share with me , but it is for muslims to look into is that we have been warned about the emergence of these groups and about what concepts they will try to spread among us: Our prophet called them KHAWAREG (OUTLIERS, in direct translation: explained as somebody who breaches the limits of religion)
Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: That's a thorny issue! One thing that appears to be much less of a controversy among Muslims is that the religion cannot be subjected to the same reform that Christianity has been subjected to...because, this in effect means tampering with it and altering its content...which is exactly the problem that Islam sees with the way Christianity has evolved over the centuries.
But that is, of course, what you are advocating to make it more "digestible"....deadlock, there, I'm afraid.
Yep, it's a thorny issue, which is why I brought it up
Not that I advocate it necessarily, but I see no other option because insofar, no one has been able to contain radical Islam.
If Islam remains as it is for an indefinite period of time, and Islamic countries continue to use Sharia Law for guidance and remain firmly under the hold of religion and nothing serious is done to combat fanatacism, then the rift between the Middle East and the West (actually, not just the West), will continue to widen even more.
This could prove dangerous for Islam and it's followers in the future; unless moderate Muslims like yourself find a way to curb the extremists..
If another attack similar in scale to 9/11 or greater occurs either in Europe or the U.S, then there would such a severe backlash towards Islam and Muslims that you could not imagine!
Muslims living in Western nations may be forced to flee for their own safety, because the atmosphere will be so hostile against them.
Remember, this is how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started..
Islam and moderate Muslims cannot afford to let extremists continue to act as dictators of their faith.
In an ideal World, people would realize that Islam is simply a religion and it's followers vary in character and morality just like anywhere else..
But, this isn't an ideal World, and like I said, if another attack were to occur on Western soil courtesy of Islamic militants, then the backlash would be severe; and it would affect all Muslims to some degree regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.
posted
We're getting very close. It can't be much longer now
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Not that I advocate it necessarily, but I see no other option because insofar, no one has been able to contain radical Islam.
You definition of radical Islam is anything you don't agree with. It's total westernization of we're all radicals.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: If Islam remains as it is for an indefinite period of time, and Islamic countries continue to use Sharia Law for guidance and remain firmly under the hold of religion and nothing serious is done to combat fanatacism, then the rift between the Middle East and the West (actually, not just the West), will continue to widen even more.
Oh, it's fanaticism you're worried about. I thought it was all them radicals. The "rift between the Middle East and the West" is a ploitical and conommic one. It has zero to do with religion or idiology.
But just for my own personal entertainment why don't you describe to me in very simple form as the reason for that so called rift.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: This could prove dangerous for Islam and it's followers in the future; unless moderate Muslims like yourself find a way to curb the extremists..
If another attack similar in scale to 9/11 or greater occurs either in Europe or the U.S, then there would such a severe backlash towards Islam and Muslims that you could not imagine!
Muslims living in Western nations may be forced to flee for their own safety, because the atmosphere will be so hostile against them.
It is not dangerous for Islam it is dangerous for the west. Those "moderates" you're talking about have so far failed to combat the real threat and that is corrupt governments supported by the west. The threat you perceive as coming from Radical Islam is a result of that failure. People resort to Islam to unite them against a common enemy.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned:
Remember, this is how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started..
Really! You still living in that fantasy land of yours. Ok, let's say Afghanistan was a result of 9/11. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Islam and moderate Muslims cannot afford to let extremists continue to act as dictators of their faith.
"Moderate" Muslims, intellectuals and any one with any brain are being persecuted buy driminal regimes supported by the west and specifically the US. If the "west" is so interested in helping "moderates" it should at end it's support or better yet exert some pressure to help and protect those "moderates" you love so much.
The problem with all your arguments, as always, is that they are completely void of reality. Anyone with any brain knows that the US and the west support governments for the west's benefit not to help moderates or combat "radical Islam". They routinely support Radicals, Extremists and criminals to suppress national movements.
Posts: 465 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Âutomatic For The People: We're getting very close. It can't be much longer now
You know, what I like about Pigeon, is that she can argue and present her side of the debate without letting her emotions get out of whack....unlike you!
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: You definition of radical Islam is anything you don't agree with. It's total westernization of we're all radicals.
My definition of radical Islam mostly pertains to using violence and other undesirable means against Civilians to make a statement or to influence events using force, all under the banner of Islam.
quote:Oh, it's fanaticism you're worried about. I thought it was all them radicals. The "rift between the Middle East and the West" is a ploitical and conommic one. It has zero to do with religion or idiology.
Fanatacism and radicalism are the same in my eyes. Different words, similar meaning..
As for the rift, I disagree with you that it has nothing to do with religion or idealogy.
Islam, unlike many other religions, penetrates virtually EVERY LEVEL of Society, from the political to the social to the legal and even to the economic.
So in this sense, Islam is not only a religion, but a distinct culture.
Look at Saudi Arabia, and their Society as an example; although I admit that not all Muslim Societies take it to such extremes.
But, Islam has alot to do with the current rift between the West and the Middle East.. It's undeniable as far as I'm concerned.
quote:But just for my own personal entertainment why don't you describe to me in very simple form as the reason for that so called rift.
Now, if you think to trap me, I am not saying there aren't political reasons for this rift aswell. For example, the U.S's support of Israel among other things, has infuriated Arabs for years. Then there is the Colonial history with the old European powers and it's consequences, which can still be seen today..
Those do matter. Actually now that I think of it, it would be accurate to say that religion and idealogy never really became an issue until radical Muslims started attacking the West and or Western interests IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: It is not dangerous for Islam it is dangerous for the west. Those "moderates" you're talking about have so far failed to combat the real threat and that is corrupt governments supported by the west. The threat you perceive as coming from Radical Islam is a result of that failure. People resort to Islam to unite them against a common enemy.
Corrupt Western supported governments are a major issue I agree, but so are Islamic regimes.
And the danger is definitely to Islam and Muslims, moreso than to the West.
9/11 spawned two conflicts over in the MIDDLE EAST, that has taken tens, or even hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives, innocent and guilty.
You fail to realize that Western powers will do everything in their considerable power to stop Islamic militants from bringing the conflict to Western soil.
Instead, they will send forces to the Middle East, an already volatile and chaotic region of the World, to get at the heart of the matter.
Again, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates this quite well.
Should another major attack occur, the West will send even more forces into the Middle East, thus escalating the violence in the region even more.
And what can the local governments do?
Absolutely nothing, because they are outgunned big time and many of them like you said, are puppet governments for the West.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Really! You still living in that fantasy land of yours. Ok, let's say Afghanistan was a result of 9/11. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11.
Iraq? Iraq the nation had nothing to do with 9/11..
And although I personally think Saddam may have had something to do with it, I can't say so with any certainty.
However, it is clear that Saddam did sponsor terrorism, and was actively courting Al Quaeda before 9/11 occurred.
Whether these are grounds enough to go in and uproot him, I'm not so sure anymore to be honest.
At first, I was 100% for the War, but in hindsight, I think it was too excessive a reaction..
The U.S could have used the billions we're spending on Iraq right now to improve security in the homeland or some such.
Still, I'm not sure..
quote:Moderate" Muslims, intellectuals and any one with any brain are being persecuted buy driminal regimes supported by the west and specifically the US. If the "west" is so interested in helping "moderates" it should at end it's support or better yet exert some pressure to help and protect those "moderates" you love so much.
You're probably correct here. However, your statement fails to take History into consideration.
For the longest, the West's primary interest in the Middle East was OIL, and because of this, they interfered in the local politics and installed or aided regimes that would support their need for the "black stuff," regardless of any other factors.
But now, due to radical Islam, the focus has changed.
The West may do as you say, and start to actively support moderate Islam.
quote:The problem with all your arguments, as always, is that they are completely void of reality. Anyone with any brain knows that the US and the west support governments for the west's benefit not to help moderates or combat "radical Islam". They routinely support Radicals, Extremists and criminals to suppress national movements.
Actually, contrary to what you may believe Auto, I put alot of thought into my arguements and beliefs.
I don't believe things for the sake of believing.
I am fully aware that the Western powers are acting foremost in their own interest.
I've never said otherwise..
Thats the nature of global politics though I'm afraid, and nothing will ever change that.
posted
To: The Secretary General of the United Nations, The United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), African Commission on Human and People's Rights Amnesty International, Sudanese, regional and international organisations of Human rights, All concerned individuals, nationally and internationally.
Save Amouna Abdallah Daldoum and Sadia Idries Fadul from Death by Stoning
The International organization Against Torture has recently disseminated news from Sudan that two Darfurian women
Ms. Amouna Abdallah Daldoum (23 years old) and Ms. Sadia Idries Fadul (22 years old from Tama tribe, Darfur)
have been convicted of adultery under s.146 of Sudan penal Code 1990 ,and sentenced to death by stoning(before Al-azazi Court/Managil Province /Gazera State) , while the accused man has been acquitted.
In this critical time when the atrocities of mass rape and sexual violence against women have been painfully used as a war weapon in Darfur conflict. Sudan justice system witnesses reluctance or even failure to effectively adjudicate and punish the perpetrators and adequately redress the victims. Thus, such convictions and cruel sentencing raise a serious question of impartiality.
We, the undersigned, urge you to call upon Sudan Government to abolish such major punishments and to affect legal and institutional reform to remove gender-based discrimination in laws and practices.
posted
I haven’t read the indictments and I am not inclined but every independent nation has a penal code. Sudan enforces ‘Islamic Sharia’ to some extent an Islamic law that is only applicable to Muslims. These two women if they are guilty then they are subject to the laws of Sudan because:
1.) They are Sudanese 2.) They are Muslim
I’ve read that they are married and in such cases the prescribed punishment is death. The only discrepancies I find are:
1.) Why were the men released is it because they are unmarried and in effect were subjected to the lesser punishment of 100 lashes prescribed to a non-adulterous fornication?
2.) It is my understanding that there was was a language/dialect problem with regards to the proceedings.
Sovereign countries are entitled to their own penal codes for example if I was in China I wouldn’t dare speak about the communist government because 15 years incarceration is a reality. Many kingdoms around the world imprison nationals and foreigners alike for up to 20 years for merely mocking the monarch.
There isn’t a universal penal code not as far as I know. Personally I might have reservation however the law is the law, don’t get caught with your pants down in countries like Sudan, Iran and Saudia Arabia it’s as simple as that.
Posts: 2079 | From: 'by any means necessary' - Malcom X | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Yep, it's a thorny issue, which is why I brought it up [/QB]
Naughty boy We can discuss this at length sometime, though....just not in a hurry coz I just cant keep up this way.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Not that I advocate it necessarily, but I see no other option because insofar, no one has been able to contain radical Islam.
If Islam remains as it is for an indefinite period of time, and Islamic countries continue to use Sharia Law for guidance and remain firmly under the hold of religion and nothing serious is done to combat fanatacism, then the rift between the Middle East and the West (actually, not just the West), will continue to widen even more.
This could prove dangerous for Islam and it's followers in the future; unless moderate Muslims like yourself find a way to curb the extremists..
If another attack similar in scale to 9/11 or greater occurs either in Europe or the U.S, then there would such a severe backlash towards Islam and Muslims that you could not imagine!
Muslims living in Western nations may be forced to flee for their own safety, because the atmosphere will be so hostile against them.
Remember, this is how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started..
Islam and moderate Muslims cannot afford to let extremists continue to act as dictators of their faith.
In an ideal World, people would realize that Islam is simply a religion and it's followers vary in character and morality just like anywhere else..
But, this isn't an ideal World, and like I said, if another attack were to occur on Western soil courtesy of Islamic militants, then the backlash would be severe; and it would affect all Muslims to some degree regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent.
~Alistair [/QB]
I do have a problem with this post, though, Alistair. I feel a vaguely disguised threat to Muslims all over the world. If-this-happens-again-u'll-regret-it sort of thing!
The threat is real, though....so cant say I blame YOU for mentioning it. Most are prepared for it, though, so dont worry about us. My estate agent just mentioned to me he's got all his stuff in order because "this could be Bosnia tomorrow"!!!
But, hey, that is unfair. Isn't it enough we could get caught up in the explosions just like u guys.... for us to be in the position of victim and accused at the same time!!! Don't you recognize that we have our own problems with Islamic militants even inside Islamic countries?
The answer may not be in reforming Islam. And certainly not in barging with troops into every Muslim country on the globe. I 'd have thought the Iraq experience was enough proof. (looks like u maybe right, Auto )
I got a suggestion that I'm surprised how the West (which is a grandiose designation for the US ) did not notice. Investigating the moderate side of Islam and propagating its message!....what? not a good idea? You know, if Tony Blair, for example, thinks of this option as a way for promoting safety in the UK, he could easily work with chosen groups and actually manipulate the culture...I'll depend here on the discretion of the moderate clerics he'd be working with to identify what needs manipulation and what doesnt. Looks to me like there is enough scope for agreement. Targeting certain concepts of violence that can be discredited by proof from within Islam should be an achievable goal. And the country has myriads of scientists who can do this...people who have experience working with communitites and actually bringing about social and behavioural change in the most difficult of cases. I could list half a dozen off the top of my head this minute!
Dont tell me you Americans dont have the same and can export to the Middle East, too ....was it ever considered?
P.S. I still feel friendly inclined though....so do take this stuff in good humour
Hey, but no guarantees my fuse wont get shorter Posts: 670 | From: alex living in leeds, UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by homing pigeon: I got a suggestion that I'm surprised how the West (which is a grandiose designation for the US ) did not notice. Investigating the moderate side of Islam and propagating its message!....what? not a good idea?
Not wanting to interfere in this discussion, but a short while ago I was watching a brief video containing, among other things, a debate between Reza Aslan and Jack Cafferty. And reading this thread just brought the following exchange to my mind:
CAFFERTY: Let me go back to something I asked you a minute ago. If that's the case and they have succeeded arguably beyond their wildest expectations, where is the organized voice of the moderate Muslim in the Middle East saying these people do not represent us? This is not what we stand for. Here is what we do stand for. Here is how we would like to, you know, change our image, change our ways, engage the west in whatever ways they choose to engage us, or not? I mean, I'm not hearing anything from the organized moderate voice of Islam in the Middle East. Why not?
ASLAN: Well, I hate to say this, but you're not listening hard enough. I mean this is a movement that is just enormous and overwhelming, unfortunately, for some reason, we are not that cognizant of it here in the United States. Perhaps that may be because it's just not sexy enough for the media. But I can tell you from traveling throughout the Middle East and I think anyone who has in depth knowledge of the people and the cultures of the Middle East will tell you the same thing.
But, Islam has alot to do with the current rift between the West and the Middle East.. It's undeniable as far as I'm concerned.
Actually Islam is a message with moral guide. And just like all the absloute moral values we belive in there will be always people who will do terrible things in the name of 'Justice' ' freedom' or 'Peace' and other values which we all agree on its great value.
Islam isn't a monster going after you and other western people to hunt them. In fact the very basics of Islam makes no distinction in value between races.
If you think of history, not very long ago, alot of terrible things happened in the name of things other than Islam.
In fact the idea about 'protecting our civilized world' has led the west into doing the very thing they claim to wage a war on.
The fact that you choose to belive that Islam is what makes a gap between us puts you in the same camp with those 'radicals' you hate who chose to belive the same version of Islam you chose.
And if I have to choose between Islam and westerners like yourself, I'd say go **** yourself.
quote:Islam is a test. a test to see how stupid we really can be. a test to prove that we are so eager to appease and deny moral and universal truths that we will actually see Red as Blue and up as down, and wrong as right.
I'd say Humankind is failing this test.
Posted by: Concerned Canadian
Posts: 3188 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: My definition of radical Islam mostly pertains to using violence and other undesirable means against Civilians to make a statement or to influence events using force, all under the banner of Islam.
Using your definition of Radicals, how many of them are there and how did you arrive at the number?
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned:
For example, the U.S's support of Israel among other things, has infuriated Arabs for years. Then there is the Colonial history with the old European powers and it's consequences, which can still be seen today..
Those do matter. Actually now that I think of it, it would be accurate to say that religion and idealogy never really became an issue until radical Muslims started attacking the West and or Western interests IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.
Well from what you're saying, everything was fine from your point of view until people started attacking your interests. So for as long as the US was supporting Israel and criminal regimes that oppressed the people and bankrupt their economies everything was cool with the west. But, it wasn't fine with Middle Easterners. It was OK for people to suffer at the hands of the west but it is not OK for them to fight back. They are expected to behave themselves and be like good little slaves. Only when they snapped back the "rift" came to your attention. And attacking the west in the name of Islam doesn't change the rift from political.economic to ideological. The objective is not ion any way ideological.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: 9/11 spawned two conflicts over in the MIDDLE EAST, that has taken tens, or even hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives, innocent and guilty.
You fail to realize that Western powers will do everything in their considerable power to stop Islamic militants from bringing the conflict to Western soil.
Instead, they will send forces to the Middle East, an already volatile and chaotic region of the World, to get at the heart of the matter.
9/11 did not spawn any conflicts. The west's actions spawned the conflicts that were going on way before 9/11. Why do you think they attacked the US? What do you believe were the reasons ?
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Should another major attack occur, the West will send even more forces into the Middle East, thus escalating the violence in the region even more.
The way things are going another attack or attacks are coming for sure. It's the only logical progression of events possible.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: And what can the local governments do?
They will fall.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned:
And although I personally think Saddam may have had something to do with it, I can't say so with any certainty.
However, it is clear that Saddam did sponsor terrorism, and was actively courting Al Quaeda before 9/11 occurred.
Garbage. You obviously don't read much. If you don;t have evidence you should at least be able to logically support your conclusions. Not just a hunch.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: Whether these are grounds enough to go in and uproot him, I'm not so sure anymore to be honest.
At first, I was 100% for the War, but in hindsight, I think it was too excessive a reaction..
You supported a war where Hundreds of Thousands of people died and now you're not sure. How do you live with yourself. What's more, why do want them to leave you alone an not attack you for what you;very don to them?
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned:
However, your statement fails to take History into consideration.
For the longest, the West's primary interest in the Middle East was OIL, and because of this, they interfered in the local politics and installed or aided regimes that would support their need for the "black stuff," regardless of any other factors.
And what would YOU do if all that was done to you?
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: But now, due to radical Islam, the focus has changed.
Well the focus havent really changed. The primary goal is political/economics but now they realize that "Radical Islam" could be an obstacle. "Radical Islam" proved to be and effective fighting force against the west's agression.
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: The West may do as you say, and start to actively support moderate Islam.
If they're corruptible...yes. Otherwise NO
quote:Originally posted by The Conditioned: I am fully aware that the Western powers are acting foremost in their own interest.
I've never said otherwise..
Thats the nature of global politics though I'm afraid, and nothing will ever change that.
Then war it is...see you in hell.
Posts: 465 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I agree that we shall all reap what we sow, one day.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
....was it ever considered? 
Printer-friendly view of this topic