Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou don't have to post shock videos for me to criticize the criminal law systems of Saudi Arabia and Iran just as you wouldn't need to post a vid of an execution in the US for me to say I oppose the death penalty. But appealing to emotionalism is something I thought was beneath you, Doc.
So what happens when I post my examples of Saudi Arabian and Iranian officials carrying out similar punishments? Will you concede my point that such criminal systems deserve criticism?
Originally posted by no1marauderOK, then we both agree that serigado is wrong.
You don't have to post shock videos for me to criticize the criminal law systems of Saudi Arabia and Iran just as you wouldn't need to post a vid of an execution in the US for me to say I oppose the death penalty. But appealing to emotionalism is something I thought was beneath you, Doc.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOf course I don't agree... I don't agree with any death penalty. But it doesn't concern me, whether it's America or Nigeria, adultery, nose picking or mass killing.
Does it concern you that adulteresses get stoned to death under Nigerian law?
If it happened in my country, I would manifest and try to abolish it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm glad that we at least can agree on this! I hope you don't mind. 🙂
Islam is a scourge.
"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"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/20/qanda.islam
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI've been told so. I lack the superior moral of a theist.
Then you are a bad person.
Do you think you have the right to interfere with their law? That's so american policy.... Invading a country to impose the rightful moral conduit of the so superior and enlightened.
Know this: Muslim look with much greater disgust to our vile and corrupt society. Do you think they have the right to come and change our ways?
Originally posted by serigadoAbsolutely not!
I've been told so. I lack the superior moral of a theist.
Do you think you have the right to interfere with their law? That's so american policy.... Invading a country to impose the rightful moral conduit of the so superior and enlightened.
Know this: Muslim look with much greater disgust to our vile and corrupt society. Do you think they have the right to come and change our ways?
Originally posted by no1marauderI can't look at those beheading videos as they mess with my mind. I had a personal experience with being sprayed with blood from someone about to die and I don't like going there. It was ironic though that when you go to those links (at least for me) it was almost a porn site. But for me the porn is not the erotic positions of the women, but the executions and violence.
You don't have to post shock videos for me to criticize the criminal law systems of Saudi Arabia and Iran just as you wouldn't need to post a vid of an execution in the US for me to say I oppose the death penalty. But appealing to emotionalism is something I thought was beneath you, Doc.
He makes a valid point: lets play role reversal here for a minute. If instead of predominantly white Christian societies being the dominant people on the planet, we had mainly Islamic/sharia law societies in control of global politics. And trust me from their perspective we're vile, and our laws a immoral. Would it be just for them to impose their laws on the minority of white Christian nations on the planet?
Its all about your perspective on the world really and nothing to do with right and wrong. You have to remember that to them what they do is right and just. And our actions are vile and evil. You cannot force your moral perspective on anyone it doesn't work.
I'm not saying its right I'm saying that if we want to stand by our morals and principals then we cannot interfere.....
Also if they were in control, I have no doubt they would force their laws on us. But you see they don't and a lot of our ethics/morals are based around freedom of will and choice. If a majority wants Sharia law then so be it, if they don't then they suck it up or move somewhere that is closer to the way of life they want.....
Originally posted by serigadoThere are a lot of other ways to deal with it than simply war or embargo. There are many forms of political pressure and most of them start with a statement by various people that they do not approve of a given practice.
With neighbors, I meant other countries. If another country wants something that goes against my will, there's a conflict. Either we solve our conflict or we go to war.
Else, there free to live as they want, as long as it doesn't concern me. If I don't like what they do, I'll have no business with them (embargo).
Originally posted by serigadoLaws are not based solely on the constitution.
A country has a constitution. The laws made in the country are made according to that constitution. People must follow it always. If they're not happy, they free to protest and form a movement to try to change it... If they can't, they can always leave the country if they're not willing to accept the majorities decision.
1. The constitution provides methods for people to enact laws.
2. The laws enacted must remain compatible with the constitution.
However the vast majority of laws are not specifically dictated by the constitution.
I am sure that a significant proportion of sharia law could be enacted in the UK without violating the constitution.
I believe the introduction of Sharia law must be opposed in Britain, but not because I'm fearful of Muslims or any rubbish pertaining to Islam taking over. It should be opposed for two reasons, firstly because, as no1 points out it places theocracy over democracy. Law is and should remain a secular affair, one that is in no way decided by religious institutions, or a belief in magic. And secondly because it is a perverse system of law which advocates abhorrent punishments, like stoning for crimes of adultery and as such is shamefully barbaric and primitive.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
I pointed this out previously, but no one seemed to care. There is no canonical Sharia law. Instead, there is a diverse collection of sayings and interpretations each developed in separate schools of thought. There are some more progressive Muslims who do not believe that Sharia recommends that men be lashed or that gays be stoned to death.
From Wikipedia:
There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit. Based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad), (sayings and doings of the early followers of Muhammad), ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.