The true face of Islamic Law

[Az]

In this respect can I recommend Francis Wheen's new book, 'How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World'

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews...1328363,00.html

in which he takes aim at certain people such as astrologer consulting presidents and prime ministers who think that creationism is as valid a scientific viewpoint as Newtonian theory.

The anti-enlightenment is everywhere.

Oh for sure. Anti-enlightment is everywhere, and modernism is under attack on all fronts - by both reactionaries, and post-modernist new-age junk philosophers.

We must not only fight the former abroad ( and home), but the latter back home.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Saras
Islam needs its Luther.

It certainly needs people in the West to stop propping up the House of Saud, giving arms to illiterate fundamentalist Sunni terrorists and supporting unelected militarist dictators.

Don't forget- such enlightened Western people as Pat Buchanan and George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury condemned 'The Satanic Verses' as a

'blasphemous assault on the faith of hundreds of millions'- Buchanan

and:

'...an outrageous slur on the Prophet... damaging to the reputation of the faith... an attack on what they (Muslims) hold most dear and would themselves die for.'

-Carey

Or kill for, as in these cases:


" Hitoshi Igarashi

Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses, was stabbed to death in July 1991.

Ettore Caprioli, Italian translator of The Satanic Verses, was attacked with a knife in the same year, but survived

Aziz Nesin, Turkisk publisher and writer, who had printed extracts of The Satanic Verses in a Turkish newspaper, was attacked by a crazed religious mob in 1993

They cornered him in a hotel and set it on fire, killing 37 people, but Nesin, an elderly man in his late 70s, escaped.

William Nygaard, Norwegian translator and publisher of Rushdie’s book. Nygaard was shot four times in the back in 1993 by an Islamic extremist. "

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SStephan/intellectual_cesorship.htm

I have no objection to people being willing to die for their faith, just as long as it doesn't involve taking other people with them.

[Mr. Harley]

Molly, I missed the Prime Minister and creationism bit. Can you give me a name and country so I can research it. I thought the USA had cornered the market on that malarky.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Molly, I missed the Prime Minister and creationism bit. Can you give me a name and country so I can research it. I thought the USA had cornered the market on that malarky.

Tony Blair, if you can you believe it.

" Sunday March 17, 2002
The Observer

When pupils start their first year at Emmanuel College in Gateshead, Tyneside, they are given a list of items they must bring with them: ruler, pens, pencils, compass, calculator - the usual paraphernalia.
But there is another, rather unexpected, pair of items on the list: two Bibles, the Holy Bible: New International Version and the Gideon New Testament and Psalms . These must be carried by Emmanuel College students at all times. 'Sometimes there were checks,' said 17-year-old former pupil Hollie Brown. 'You were punished if you didn't have your Bible. It was like some sort of cult.'

Certainly some of the school's practices appear to come close to brain-washing. Each week pupils must attend two-hour 'Special Lectures' concerning spiritual subjects and use these as the basis of a compulsory long essay at the end of the school year. No backsliding is permitted. "

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,668840,00.html

Still, another valid reason to resist creeping public-private partnership in secular or state education and to resist the faith based state funded initiatives.

Questioned in the House of Commons by Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Dr Jenny Tonge about the use of taxpayers' money to fund the teaching of creationism, he avoided answering the question and said:

"In the end, it is a more diverse school system that will deliver better results for our children and if you look at the actual results of the school, I think you will find they are very good."

Labour MP Paul Flynn commented:

"Why couldn't he come out and say such teachings should have no part in state education? "

The National Secular Society condemned Tony Blair's comments as

'a deplorable acceptance of anti-science by a man who purports to value education.' "

(Tania Branigan and Michael White The Guardian 14 March 2002)

http://www.kbr30.dial.pipex.com/educ23.shtml

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Berzerker


They did such a wonderful job in the USSR, Cuba, N Korea and China

I did not say enforced atheism , did I ? I said atheism , which should ( and will , if the atheists are sensible ) be kept separate from state policy . An atheist is not necessarily an anti-theist .

[Mr. Harley]

Aneeshm, it appears at least that you are mixing up atheists versus agnostics. One problem with aetheists is that the have faith in an unprovable premise, i.e. there is no god. Thus you will attract the same share of fanatics and do-gooders (we have to show those theists that they are wrong), with the excesses you have found in many atheistic states. I suspect the situation may be even slightly worse, because the vast majority of atheists will deny that they operate on faith. That will make them more vulnerable to fanaticism in their own ranks, because of course WE can't be fanatics.

[lord of the mark]

so blair defending state funds going to a private school that teaches creationism, on grounds of diversity, is twisted into proof that Blair believes creationism is as valid as evolution? So if he approved of state funds going toward a muslim school, on grounds of diversity, that would prove he believed Sharia as valid as the common law?

Im NOT saying state funds to private religious schools are a good idea. But I do think Blairs words have been twisted here.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
One problem with aetheists is that the have faith in an unprovable premise, i.e. there is no god. Thus you will attract the same share of fanatics and do-gooders (we have to show those theists that they are wrong), with the excesses you have found in many atheistic states. ..

Why should an atheist be under any burden to prove anything? Theists are the ones making the extrordinary claims - let them offer proof.

[Flubber]

Re: The true face of Islamic Law

Originally posted by aneeshm


A Muslim law board , however , has issued a fatwa saying that now that she has been raped , she cannot go back to her husband , as according to Islamic law , if a woman has sexual relations with anyone from their husband's family , she is "haram" ( forbidden ) to her husband and , she must , in this case , renounce her husband , marry her father-in-law , and accept her husband as her son .

Could she marry the father-in-law, and then allow herself to be "raped" by the son-in-law (her original husband)? Then she would be haram to her new odious husband and could go back to her original husband -- if that's what she wants and he isn't a totall ****** like his dad.


On the merits I agree that there are large problems when inconsistent legal regimes try to co-exist. Even in Canada there have been instances where ethnic or religious groups try to apply their own "law" to settle disputes. My impression is that results are mixed.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Umm, the world'd be better off if atheists were in charge?

the part of the world where they were is not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Look at our friend BK here and his viewpoint about any hormonal form of birth control, and the fact that he would ban them as abortificants, if he could. There are millions of Christians who would do this, and impose this on non-Christians or Christians who disagree with them, i.e. the often villified "liberal" Christians.

Yes, we would impose them upon both Christians and non Christians, so I don't see why that would be cause to vilify the 'liberal' Christians.

Secondly, the rationale for this would be the idea that unborn children are persons from conception onwards, rather than at birth. That's the real disagreement here, not religion.

[Mr. Harley]

BK - the Muslims use a similiar justification to execute Christian missionaries who convert Muslims. "My Holy Book says it's wrong/evil." That's why I am pro-choice, even though I am not paticularly fond of abortion. Who chooses which interpretation of which Holy Book?

Remember, Muslims say the child doesn't exist until 100 days after conception. So you ARE imposing your view on them, and they have, from their viewpoint, and equally valid but different belief. You are going to tell me "...but that's different" or some variation on that. You know what I have to say about that statement.

And yes, if the liberal Christian gets an abortion, then by your standards they are a murderer. I believe that qualifies as villification.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK - the Muslims use a similiar justification to execute Christian missionaries who convert Muslims. "My Holy Book says it's wrong/evil." That's why I am pro-choice, even though I am not paticularly fond of abortion. Who chooses which interpretation of which Holy Book?

Yet didn't I just say...

Secondly, the rationale for this would be the idea that unborn children are persons from conception onwards, rather than at birth.

I didn't say that we should ban abortion because my holy book says so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Remember, Muslims say the child doesn't exist until 100 days after conception.

The way it works in Canada, is that those who do not support abortion still have to pay for them because they are publicly funded. If the issue were not forcing beliefs upon other people, then religious folks shouldn't have to pay for abortion services.

Secondly, I would challenge this assertion here, that Muslims believe that the child doesn't exist until 100 days. If that were so, why don't they permit early term abortions?

And yes, if the liberal Christian gets an abortion, then by your standards they are a murderer. I believe that qualifies as villification.

They way in which you referred to vilification, indicated that they are treated differently from other supporters of abortion, presumeably because they are members of the church.