I can't stand the bull**** about 'Shari'a' anymore

[Fake Boris]

It's not set in stone.

It does not exist as a single document.

It is the result of centuries of interpretation and religious debate; it's a corpus of religious sources and commentaries. Kind of like the Torah - but even more open.

So why do you hear 342 idiots/day discussing the possibility that "the" Shari'a could be introduced in [insert Arab country here]?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/news/2011/02/07/banned-muslim-brotherhood-ready-to-impose-sharia-law-in-egypt-115875-22904547/

BANNED hardline group the Muslim Brotherhood was yesterday in talks with crisis-torn Egypt’s government – and is ready to impose strict Islamic laws.

Britain and the US already fears the Islamist political movement is poised to seize power after President Mubarak said he would end his 30-year rule by not seeking re-election in September.

And in an exclusive interview with the Daily Mirror, the Muslim Brotherhood’s deputy said Sharia – which allows oppression of women and stoning of adulterers – could be introduced “if it is the will of the people”.

possibility of stoning makes it popular

[Fake Boris]

Look, this is the point.

Stoning is a possibility defined by some texts in the corpus, not an absolute principle.

[germanos]

It's a scare crow, Boris.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

but the very fact that the possiblity exists, fascinates the mirror and countless other big tits papers... why would anyone be buying those things anyway if there was no sharia stoning, terrorst threats, big government, big tits or wayne rooney? It looks like you are complaining about the very core of the western society.

[Fake Boris]

I know.

I just can't stand it anymore. You can't listen to more than 4 minutes of talk radio without an allusion to this being made.

[Dinner]

Fox News and the other right wing media groups love to talk about Sharia because it helps them explain why, they think, Islam is inheriently evil and it allows them to claim supporting repressive dictatorships is really secretly better for the people then an Islamic regime. Of course they claim that any majority Islamic country will naturally vote in a hard line fundamentalist government which seems doubtful as it has never happened in history but the conservatives feel they need to present that false choice (between repressive US backed dictatorship or Islamic extremism) because it makes them feel better. Do you ever notice that despite all their talk about freedom US conservatives are always the first to support dictatorship abroad? They come up with a million justifications and false choices ("it's either our dictatorship or an anti-US Islamic state! There is no other option!") all of which are bull****.

[Wezil]

The Democrats like their "bastards" as well.

To a non-American there really is little difference between parties on that issue.

[Hauldren Collider]

Religious law is something to be wary of no matter its incarnation. And on top of that, Sharia has a history of being brutal and completely unjust.

[BeBMan]

The new "angry" message icon is a joke. The classic smiley is much better

[Nikolai]

Itjihad is generally frowned upon in major circles Boris.

Although it has had minor gains the last century and a half.

[Elok]

Itjihad is generally frowned upon in major circles Boris.

Although it has had minor gains the last century and a half.

IT Jihad? Is that like the Butlerian Jihad, or just something that happens at alqaeda.com?

[BlackCat]

Religious law is something to be wary of no matter its incarnation. And on top of that, Sharia has a history of being brutal and completely unjust.

That's actually funny when it comes from an american - lots of your legislation is religious based.

[Al B. Sure!]

That's actually funny when it comes from an american - lots of your legislation is religious based.

No. What's funny is it comes from HC... you know, the guy in favor the explicitly JEWISH state of Israel.

Not to mention things like this:

Currently, Israeli marriage licenses are recognized only if performed under an official religious authority (whether it be Orthodox Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze, etc.) only between a man and a woman of the same religion, while civil marriages are only officially sanctioned if performed abroad. This is a major issue among secular groups, as well as adherents to non-Orthodox streams of Judaism. There is fear that civil marriage will divide the Jewish people in Israel between those who can marry Jews and those who cannot, leading to concerns over retaining the character of the Jewish state.

[Egbert]

No. What's funny is it comes from HC... you know, the guy in favor the explicitly JEWISH state of Israel.