Sharia law vs. Christian law

by Charlatan Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:07 am

First topic message reminder :

This is what divides the world. Only in north and south america is this topic not really important, but the rest of the world fights tooth and nail over this. If we could find a happy medium, then there would be nearly global peace! So off we go to find the meeting point...

I find that abrahamic laws are pretty societal. If we take away from them, well we could lose out with divorce or whatever that is, and in the opinion of world peace it is pretty hard to make people worship god. Other than that it must remain, but could we add to it for these countries? I wouldn't be surprised if in London some happy go lucky bomber targets markets or something, so we need to 'get sharia law in' to 'keep it out.' If there are enough sharia law places then there will be no world terror, i figure - well not in these proportions.

What do we know about sharia law? Does it say you must kill? Does it say you must steal? Does it upset society? It does none of these things, so what is wrong with it??? People are fighting in north africa and he middle east, with concern coming from europe and eastern asia. The muslims have spread far and wide, and where they are impoverished they will not sell out on religion to the abrahamic laws only. The best thing to do is get more information on how to give the people this. It happens in iran and saudi arabia at least. Maybe a thing to consider would be why are the poor so willing to fight for what they believe in?

The poor often have little to do with luxury. The more luxury you have the less you fight! You see this in america too, at least, where the republicans are usually the poorer people an are also very religious. Could it be that money breeds sin? Surely not... right?

If we were to look at this from a psychological stand point, we would observe that poor people have less to be happy with, but, have the time to spend with family, strangely. For some reason they have a happy family typically when in the rural areas. Would it be that demolishing all churches would satisfy this need for peace? I hope not, let's get back to the psyche? If the person who has less loves more, then maybe there should be more wealth distribution. This will occupy the minds of all these rural people and then they would be happier, distanced from their loved ones. I understand also that families in the middle class have a lot of love, but time spent with them is less compared to the rural people. What is it about being impoverished that makes people think their lives are not worth anything, and the lives of others are also not worth anything?

Maybe what is needed is a lot of love? Imagine a radio station that is tuned to gospel music all day long? This simple luxury could be what is missing in the lives of the rural people. I know in my country south africa they go madd for gospel in the rural areas, so why not try that in other muslim areas? Al jazeer is still in business, so they must support local stuff. Imagine a muslim radio station that plays muslim worship songs all day long. Think how important the music is to people that go to concerts and watch mtv, buy cds and go to night clubs or trendy restaurants to listen to music? Music must be the way to get to these people and relax and soothe them...

So is it a case of sharia vs. abrahamic laws? Is it that simple, or are the people not exposed to enough of their desire to feel with god at all times? I guarantee you that feeling as if god is with them more they will relax more, dance more, feel better.

But now it is a politcal thing! The west wants to 'domesticate' the east. The problem with that is that there is already a identity that exists out there in the outback, and that it wants to remain there. I am sure with some gospel music there would be great strides forwards.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:04 pm

jackthelad wrote:Has i said, religion is the root of all evil, whether the god was of the earth, sun or sky, or has now, an unknown, unseen being.

Has you? Yes! You has said that. However... and this is where it gets a bit tricky so it's ok if you don't know the answer... Who created Religion? Because who ever created that... is the root of all 'man made' evil... don't you think?

I put it to you that Humans created Religion and therefore Humanity is the root of all 'man made' evil... Has I said even. Very Happy

by jackthelad Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:30 pm

True Blue wrote:
jackthelad wrote:Has i said, religion is the root of all evil, whether the god was of the earth, sun or sky, or has now, an unknown, unseen being.

Has you? Yes! You has said that. However... and this is where it gets a bit tricky so it's ok if you don't know the answer... Who created Religion? Because who ever created that... is the root of all 'man made' evil... don't you think?

I put it to you that Humans created Religion and therefore Humanity is the root of all 'man made' evil... Has I said even.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, that is true.
True without humans there would be no religion, but it still is religion that is the root of all evil, most wars, are caused through religion, sacrifices was done in the name of religion. The Spanish Inquisition did what they did in the name of religion, No humanity involved, humanity is supposed to mean kindness, Splitting hairs is not going to make you right, just as i don't think it was right to split the Atom, that only brought more evil into the world. Laughing

by **Ivan** Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:32 pm

Humans created religion

Yes. Paedomorphosis is the retention into adulthood of childhood characteristics. If we encourage children to believe in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy, aren’t we setting them up to believe other absurdities, such as a virgin birth, a resurrection, or even a paedophile flying to heaven on a winged horse?

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:06 pm

jackthelad wrote:
True Blue wrote:
jackthelad wrote:Has i said, religion is the root of all evil, whether the god was of the earth, sun or sky, or has now, an unknown, unseen being.

Has you? Yes! You has said that. However... and this is where it gets a bit tricky so it's ok if you don't know the answer... Who created Religion? Because who ever created that... is the root of all 'man made' evil... don't you think?

I put it to you that Humans created Religion and therefore Humanity is the root of all 'man made' evil... Has I said even.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, that is true.

But it has its purpose nonetheless.

True without humans there would be no religion, but it still is religion that is the root of all evil, most wars, are caused through religion, sacrifices was done in the name of religion. The Spanish Inquisition did what they did in the name of religion, No humanity involved, humanity is supposed to mean kindness, Splitting hairs is not going to make you right, just as i don't think it was right to split the Atom, that only brought more evil into the world.

Humanity can mean benevolence, but its first meaning is as a collective noun for humans and its use in my posts was clearly in that vain.

The Spanish Inquisition did not do what they did in the name of religion. You ignore the role of the Monarchy when making such sweeping statements. You ignore the Jews and Muslims who had recently converted to Christianity, and for whom the Inquisition was put in motion, but not necessarily the reason why it stayed in motion. What's more, you ignore the Christian text itself which in no way encourages or supports such actions as occurred within the Inquisitions.

I don't think I am splitting hairs here or splitting atoms for that matter... rather I'm telling it as it is. Humanity... that is the collective group called Humans... are violent and highly political.

Quite frankly... a better argument would be that the male of the human species is the root of all evil.

by astra Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:53 pm

a better argument would be that the male of the human species is the root of all evil. .
True Blue

For myself, I have ever found the female of the species to be more hurtful, vindictive, single minded, and uncaring of consequenses when a point can be proven than any male CEO I have worked for!!

Indeed, we had a prime minister who proved this point so many times, my point MUST be true! Twisted Evil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYatyBtYwC4

by Charlatan Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:05 pm

jackthelad wrote: Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, that is true.

True without humans there would be no religion, but it still is religion that is the root of all evil, most wars, are caused through religion, sacrifices was done in the name of religion. The Spanish Inquisition did what they did in the name of religion, No humanity involved, humanity is supposed to mean kindness, Splitting hairs is not going to make you right, just as i don't think it was right to split the Atom, that only brought more evil into the world.

Religion follows a typical path. If you have a grandfather, you will sacrifice something or other for them? You sacrifice for your family, and taxation is the sacrifice made to the state. Everywhere you need to bend over and sacrifice, follow rules... god just gave us some to make us happy!

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:26 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
True Blue wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
gurthbruins wrote:
... people of intelligence naturally discard religion as a lot of trash

Oh, I dunno. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

So Galileo Galilei was an idiot... I knew it... I just knew it! Lennox, the Mathematician from Oxford Uni, is a moron too I guess.

Huh?

I am pointing out the absurdity of gurthbruins claim. Galileo and Lennox was/ is well known for their religious beliefs yet both quite brilliant in the sciences. Therefore intelligence does not naturally discard religion as a lot of trash.

by Charlatan Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:29 pm

True Blue wrote: I am pointing out the absurdity of gurthbruins claim. Galileo and Lennox was/ is well known for their religious beliefs yet both quite brilliant in the sciences. Therefore intelligence does not naturally discard religion as a lot of trash.

I find that these people did question their religions and decided that they will still embrace them, after much thought, or no thoughts, of course. Hopefully they thought about it for a while!

by ROB Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:32 pm

True Blue,

Gotcha. No worries, mate.

by jackthelad Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:49 pm

Charlatan wrote:
True Blue wrote: I am pointing out the absurdity of gurthbruins claim. Galileo and Lennox was/ is well known for their religious beliefs yet both quite brilliant in the sciences. Therefore intelligence does not naturally discard religion as a lot of trash.

I find that these people did question their religions and decided that they will still embrace them, after much thought, or no thoughts, of course. Hopefully they thought about it for a while!

They probably thought they would play is safe, if there was the slightest possibility there was a god, it would be better to follow the herd. They really had nothing to lose, if there was no heaven and hell, that would be good, if by some odd chance there is a god, and a heaven and a hell, then there would be a good chance they would go to heaven instead of hell. Very Happy

by Charlatan Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:04 pm

This is actually more of a tradition versus rights issue it seems. The points of women not having rights under tradition for so long means that we should look to why there was tradition. If a woman did not fight for her rights back then, it must be a modern anomaly that means a woman had a man fight with her towards rights. So, from tradition we get to progress to rights.

Does this mean that all traditions are against rights? When do traditions become law? What other traditions are out there? Christmas, thanksgiving, super sweet sixteens, marriage, medicine and all forms of education. It is only tradition until written into law, and then also it must be voted on by a lot of people. This means the traditions of the few become the laws of the many.

If we were to look to flash points of violence where people fight for sharia law, we find a law of more rights to be held there. This is where people find more reason in the traditions, and fight for them. Is it right to fight for the end of rights? Clearly this is an issue where the few fight the many, so, like the political side of it, the traditions of the few could become the laws of the many.

What do you say to a person fighting the state for sharia law? To give up and go home? They want to bring the laws of their religion into being - they can do this at a private level! They could make house rules for sharia law, and then their god would be pleased. If their god wanted them to fight all the other people of other gods, then they would have told them so. Of course, as is typical today, all gods want peace for their people, and a lot of love too. They could go home, they could sit with their family and love them, and they could bring sharia law into their own houses. If they want to bring the children of another god into their tradition, then they have no right to do that. Tradition is something that guides people into a way of thinking for the sake of itself, it is not an absolute nor a requirement.

Did mohammed bring the sharia law into being? He did not? Then who can argue that this sign is of no consequence? If he himself could not bring it into being, then should it be? If people want it, they vote for it. If they fail to vote for it, they bring it into their homes passively. They do not kill over traditions, do they? Why kill someone over christmas? Is this some idiot that doesn't understand the traditions of others? Who's house is it? Who's country is it? It is for them to admit defeat and lay down their weapons, for folls they are. They are fools because they want to bring their ways into someone else's house, like hitler, like stalin, like christians too. All people want to bring their traditions into the houses of others, and that is why men carry the family name - it is expected that the man carries the weight in the family with regaurds to work, and that he therefore has the ultimate say in what goes on there.

So why do they fight? They want to be the men of the country! They want to be the boss. They want to tell others what to do. Telling people what to do means you carry the burden, but they just kill those opposing them. I they were to see that they are being fought by other rational people, then there is surely some irrationaility there, as rational people do not fight. If they are not rational, what are they? If they do not stop fighting many people will go hungry. They fight the system, the system is the countries means of rationally existing. This needs to go to the churches first - they need to go in there and apologise for being ignorant, both of them. Both sides are ignorant. They could just let them have sharia law, but they resist it, and, everyone is ignorant in the face of god. If both of them can acknowledge that, then there is hope. For them to say they know more than the minister, is a slap to the family of all they serve. The people that should have a say in what they should acknowledge or not should be holy men, and these holy men will all say to stop fighting.

This is why the irrationality falls on the rebels. If they keep fighting after hearing the voices of the lord's trusted people, then they will keep fighting for being the boss, and kiling becuase they want to be the boss. The real trouble makers are the leaders of these factions who see the way to power through the mass slaughter of the innocent. Does it matter how many guns you have? This is a holy war... does Allah war against Yaweh? Why do the people fight then?

by ROB Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:12 am

Charlatan wrote:
does Allah war against Yaweh? Why do the people fight then?

Are you aware that YHVH and Allah (Hebrew Eloah) both are “names” which describe attributes of the Creator?

by Charlatan Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:12 am

Yes well I am a pagan so believe in many gods.

by oftenwrong Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:26 am

On Earth, "God's Law" is decided by humans, principally for control purposes. The Priests devise the canon to maintain themselves in Office, to differentiate "their" religion from all the others by e.g. proscribed diet, and to assist proselytising.

An early satire of human behaviour was Gullivers Travels, and included tales about which end to break your breakfast egg, according to Belief.

by Charlatan Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:11 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Charlatan wrote:
Yes well I am a pagan...

Why?

Charlatan wrote:
... so believe in many gods.

Why?

I believe in many gods because if there is one, there might be more. I believe that god occurs inside this universe, and came into being by forming reflexes in the energy of the universe the same way a muscle remembers things it does. So energy remembered circulations and then it became 'wise.' If this can happen once, it can happen multiple times, leading to many gods.

I found evidence of nature magic in my garden in 2006. I was talking to a gardener on church property, and these two bugs were flying over him, hovering. I motioned for the one on the left to fly away, and it followed my hand movements, then the one on the right did the same. I stopped waving them away and noticed that then they had stopped. It is hard to explain, but I believe in nature magic.

So, why are you a christian, rockonbrother?

by oftenwrong Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:51 pm

"Bugs"?

Apart from flying-buttresses, many people on church property would primarily associate Angels with the activity of flying.

by oftenwrong Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:08 am

.... and The Lord said,
"Let there be light!"
and behold, there WAS light,
so you could see for absolutely MILES. sunny

by witchfinder Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:44 pm

All laws should be based on reason, common sense, justice and humanity.

No statute law or criminal law of any land should be based on any religion, no matter what religion; If however believers of certain faiths wish to adhere to their faith in matters of civil law, then they should be able to.

For example, if a Muslim or a Jew wishes mediation or judgement from a Sharia court or Beth Din on matrimonial matters, matters of family, gentlemens agreements, finanial agreements, arguments over money or property, then why shouldent they. ?

There is a lot of ignorance where Sharia Law is concerned, and as to whether certain aspects of Sharia Law should be accepted in western nations where there are minority Muslim populations.

In the United Kingdom there are Jewish courts based on Jewish law, they have been here for many years, I have never heard anyone call into question their right to exist, but for some reason we appear to have objectors to similar courts for Muslims.

by ROB Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:54 am

witchfinder wrote:
In the United Kingdom there are Jewish courts based on Jewish law...

Do Jewish courts condone “honor killings”, a most heinous, monstrous form of murder with malice aforethought?

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:28 am

That may depend upon how devoted a boy was to his prepuce.

by witchfinder Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:38 pm

RockOnBrother

No - Sharia courts and law which allready operate in some western countries do not condone "honour killings", indeed Sharia Courts are not allowed to deal with any matters which involve criminal law or the law of the land.

The constitution of the United States is deliberately secular, the law of the land in the UK is a mixture of very old, sometimes ancient laws and modern day secular laws.

The vast majority of Muslims who want there to be Sharia law and courts in the west, do not want these courts to over-rule the laws of the land or state, and they do not wish for seperate laws, they simply want matters of a civil or civic nature to be dealt with from an Islamic stand point.

Some Muslims do not want any kind of Sharia law in places like the UK, and no one will have to adhere to such courts.

As stated previously, there is a lot of nonsense and scare stories put out about Sharia law in the west, some people actualy believe that it will mean flogging people, stonning people to death or cutting of a thiefs hand.

by ROB Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:36 pm

witchfinder wrote:
The constitution of the United States is deliberately secular, the law of the land in the UK is a mixture of very old, sometimes ancient laws and modern day secular laws.

Calling our constitution “secular” is a misrepresentation that is a consequence of intentional misrepresentation over the past seventy or eighty years.

The Constitution of the United States of America is in fact the implementation of the idea, eloquently expressed in the operative phrase of the Declaration of Independence, “that to secure these [Creator-endowed unalienable] rights [unto all men], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (modern capitalization convention followed).

Notice the natural flow:

“deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Declaration of Independence), “We the People of the United States” (Preamble, Constitution of the United States of America);
“governments are instituted among men” (Declaration of Independence), “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (Preamble, Constitution of the United States of America).

This idea, derived primarily from English law, customs, and the profound, tediously thorough work of John Locke, and Englishman, exposited in the and implemented by the ordination and establishment of by , emanates from God’s Word, including Romans Chapter 13 Verse 1 and following, got a jump start at Runnymede in 1215 AD, and expressed in documents such as the Petition of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, would never have found ground in which to be rooted had the thirteen colonies been French or Spanish.

We are a nation and a government “under God” rather than “under religion”; thus, no religious authority has any civil authority in the fifty-one sovereign governments of the United States of America.

witchfinder wrote:
they simply want matters of a civil or civic nature to be dealt with from an Islamic stand point.

The People’s Court stipulates in its opening that the litigants have mutually agreed to have their civil suits dismissed from various civil courts throughout the United States and to have their disputes resolved in this out-of-court televised forum. Those who wish their civil suits resolved in Sharia courts could do likewise without any new legislation.

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:13 pm

Oh. Television. "The one-eyed God in the corner".

by Shirina Wed Dec 07, 2011 5:50 pm

The vast majority of Muslims who want there to be Sharia law and courts in the west, do not want these courts to over-rule the laws of the land or state, and they do not wish for seperate laws, they simply want matters of a civil or civic nature to be dealt with from an Islamic stand point.

I think a lot of people are pretty well fed up with immigrants coming to both of our nations and expecting our governments and our citizens to bend over backwards to accommodate their culture. Shouldn't they be embracing our culture instead of setting up mini-Irans, mini-Saudi Arabias, or mini-Lebanons in the middle of our cities? And I'm speaking AS an immigrant! Believe me, I've immigrated three times so I know what it's all about. I jumped into American culture with a swan dive, mid-air pirouette, and a perfect 10.0 score, even from the East German and Soviet judges. This I did not to repudiate or renounce my heritage but because I was embracing a new one.

But more to the point, Sharia Law can be brutal on women in matters of marriage and divorce. I don't mean the extremes like honor killings or wife beating (both of which are illegal anyway), but more in regards to how much freedom a woman has to marry - and especially divorce - even if she is in an abusive relationship.

I know Sharia Law has been demonized to ridiculous degrees and really isn't anything different than private contractual agreements between, say, a homeowner and a construction contractor. However, I think people get a bit twitchy when a particular group wants separate laws for themselves. There is an inherent danger when there are two sets of laws for the same national population.

by witchfinder Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:11 pm

OK - so I will give the yanks a good example of how American or British civil law cannot deal with a civil matter for many Muslims.

It is strictly forbiden for Muslims to either recieve or pay any kind of financial interest, therefore things like paying by installments and even mortgages are not an option for most Muslims.

Here in the UK there are "Islamic Mortgages" and also "Islamic Banks" and in actual fact these services are also used by many none Mulims, but then comes the question of regulation, interpretation and disputes, which clearly cannot be handled in a normal civil court.

As stated previously, there are similar Jewish courts and has been for a long time, so once again, why should it be any different for Muslims. ?

Or is there some kind of paranoia about Muslims stemming from a paranoid United States, and why am I suddenly mindfull of that great right wing American "Joseph McCarthy".

by Charlatan Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:28 pm

I think muslims are pusing for total sharia law in the war zones, and that is their culture. What we are doing is going there and trying to stop bombngs, bombings that come about because there is no sharia law.

There is no way to end this, so, give the people the sharia law they want in their homelands - most people won't notice anyway!

by Charlatan Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:07 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
witchfinder wrote:
Or is there some kind of paranoia about Muslims stemming from a paranoid United States….

No.

I beg to differ, as there is a lot of media coverage of the evils of islam. Why is there a lot of coverage? Because the people that put together the show identify this as what people want to see, and people want to see it because they are afriad of it. You might say they are merely interested, but the truth that people fear change in themselves or unto themselves, or, a fear of what they don't undersand, leaves only fear as the reason.

by ROB Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:22 pm

Charlatan wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
witchfinder wrote:
Or is there some kind of paranoia about Muslims stemming from a paranoid United States….
No.
I beg to differ…

You most certainly may do so.

Charlatan wrote:
… as there is a lot of media coverage of the evils of islam.

Erroneous.

Hakeem Abdul Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Ahmad Rashad are fondly greeted throughout the United States with no mention of “evils of islam” attending their appearances.

by Shirina Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:45 pm

Afghan woman: I'll marry rapist, 'even though I can't look at him'

KABUL, Afghanistan – “I am obliged to marry him, even though I can’t look at him,” 19-year-old Gulnaz said about the man she claims raped her.

Gulnaz, who uses one name, has been in an Afghan prison cell for about two years. She says she only has one choice if she wants to bring dignity back to her family and tribe: She must marry the man who forced his way into her home, tied her up, and then raped her.

The man was Gulnaz’s cousin’s husband, and the humiliation continued a few months after the attack, when Gulnaz finally got the courage to tell Afghan police what had happened. Instead of getting justice, she was accused of adultery and sent to prison.

I don't know. Maybe there is something to be said for the "evils of Islam." I'm not anti-Islamic, but when I see this nonsense, well ... just because the media focuses on this type of story doesn't mean the story isn't real.

by ROB Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:58 pm

Shirina wrote:
Maybe there is something to be said for the "evils of Islam."

For this aberration of Islam committed in the name of Islam, the words “evils of Islam” don’t even begin to adequately describe the utter depravity and obscenity of the atrocities visited upon this woman by her own people.

by Charlatan Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:07 pm

May I just say that I like debating here. There is very little name calling, and there is a general joyous mood... okay, just a ggod mood then!

I think the wrongs of sharia law fall onto the bringers of justice. If you propsed to them in court that a person stolen from must pay for the goods, then there might be some logic in place. What happens under certain interpretations of sharia is totally like as if you said that that guy who burned a quran was the forebearer of Christianity?

by witchfinder Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:38 pm

OK so very sorry to RockOnBrother for calling him a yank, I understand how insulting this could be, someone once called me a Lancastrian. Crying or Very sad

To charlatan

The more backward a society is, the less developed any nation is, you will always find primitive ideas and you will find great religions that are interpreted in basic and literal forms, and you will always find greater extremes of intollerance, very different to the west.

In parts of Africa for example Christianity is mixed with witch doctor magic, in other African countries homosexuals are beaten and murdered in the name of Christianity, albino people are regularly tortured and murdered, and in some African countries adultery is often met with honour killings.

The moderate and quite liberal Muslim society of Turkey is a long way from the almost stone age Muslim society of some third world nations, the real enemy is ignorance and lack of education, and also poverty.

by Charlatan Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:46 am

witchfinder wrote:To charlatan

The more backward a society is, the less developed any nation is, you will always find primitive ideas and you will find great religions that are interpreted in basic and literal forms, and you will always find greater extremes of intollerance, very different to the west.

In parts of Africa for example Christianity is mixed with witch doctor magic, in other African countries homosexuals are beaten and murdered in the name of Christianity, albino people are regularly tortured and murdered, and in some African countries adultery is often met with honour killings.

The moderate and quite liberal Muslim society of Turkey is a long way from the almost stone age Muslim society of some third world nations, the real enemy is ignorance and lack of education, and also poverty.

I don't understand what this has to do with me, yet I agree with the ideas of mixing religions to form something that the people are comfortable with. If we were to take the people that commit the crimes and ask them if they are wrong, then they would try to twist it into something that makes them right. That is where religion goes awry, yes?

Is it not through twisting things that we arrive in the first world? Look at their crime levels, then look at the crime levels in iran for example, only three percent of the total people in jail are women! Isn't that good? We all know that crime levels in 'sharia countries' is very low, and this is no coincidence. I would attribute it to a stance on saying no to the evils of the west, those arrived by by twisting the words of the bible to mean what they want them to mean, or, ignoring them altogether!

If you drum religion into people, it is like brainwashing. Drumming the right things into them, a sort of 'gentleman's agreement' for the men and women, you make them less likely to commit crimes. This is a good thing - any poison that kills the virus is widely accepted as good, and these words are not even poison, they are family orientated.

I know a lot of you may think I have gone loopy for sharia, but this has happened recently only, as before I was opposed to this as it was restrictive for women. On the other hand, leading to such a good way of life must be good. I can see why people practice it at home and then 'fight' for it, but I cannot see why they actually "fight" for it?

This what we have today is not a war on terror, it is a war on sharia, and, one that neither side will win soon. The only way to end the war is for america to prove sharia is 'evil', or for the miltants to dominate the whole world, which is far more likely. I have a neutral stand point here in africa's southern tip, so have an image of the west and near east aplenty! You will find mediators are often from neutral standpoints, but I only mediate here on cutting edge!

What I propose is that there be a vote for sharia law. If people abstain that means that they are lazy or really westernised! It is typical of western countries to find people disinterested - the adult emo generation! I mean, I think I put it perfectly there. "No use to me, someone else will do it..." The only way western values will survive in near eastern and north african societies will be a break from the western emo generations and a gamble for the future in a christianity pride parade, or else it is doomed.

For a long time now I have been sitting here atop my mountain watching the world speak. It speaks by doing things - like body language. If this emo thing leads to crime, the people revolt - well some of them anyways! If you were to go to an american woman and tell her sharia law is coming, she will protest, but if you ask her to go to a march against this she will decline. Something for nothing seems to be the mindset. Nowhere in the world has worse emo than south africa amoung the white culture, we never march! It is seen as a black thing to do, or a racist thing to do. We have a culture here of being kings and letting the darkies do everything for us, nowhere will you find white municipal workers or diggers in the road, even if they were starving and unwanted. It is far more common here for whites to sit with their families complaining about the mess being made by the anc, who make quite a mess. By the way our president has promised five million more jobs over five years one year ago, and nothing has been done yet. That we call the 'puppy generation,' or i do. Nothing loves so blindly as a puppy, so that is what happens here for the black people.

Now back to the sharia comparison. Instead of the west fighting a holy war, they should go home. after apologising. This emo bush guy declared a war on terror, this terror is actually not related to the 'sharia warriors', but to poltical sources. There is nothing anyone gains by blowing up a railway. This is not terror, just a poltical thing. They should chase shadows in the houses of parliament, not on the streets of afghanistan. These are the pawns, the real people behind it have something to gain from blowing up a railway. If you ask a 'sharia warrior' what will happen if a railway gets blown up, they will say they would have to take a bus! Nothing more.

So when they blow up banks and military installations, it is because they have been told to. Arresting them, people sworn to silence, will lead nowehre, because they are clueless to the real problem. When a bank or military gets blown up, they will say it is because the money is not flowing, or they are occupied. That is a fight for freedom. The people at the top see an occupying force and twist it to their needs. If they were caught then the war would end. The real war lies in the alleys of the senate, where they need to identify who will benefit from building a new subway, or which banks are not being blown up! It is that simple. Once these people have been caught, leave the area, let the people vote in sharia law, and then it all ends peacefully.

by kentdougal Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:56 pm

WAKE UP AMERICA AND THE WESTERN WORLD!!!!!!

20 years from now, I will be in Heaven --bye !!
This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim.

Make sure you read the paragraph (in red) towards the end.

Joys of Muslim Women
By Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9. The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce. To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the West World ( America and Britain ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and British Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American and British women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law. Ripping the West in Two. Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.

Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .

When he died, he was considered a "shahid," a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.

But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age.. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing.. She converted to Christianity after hearing a Christian preacher on television.

In her latest book, Darwish warns about creeping sharia law - what it is, what it means, and how it is manifested in Islamic countries.

For the West, she says radical Islamists are working to impose sharia on the world. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Sharia) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one's children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics - one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others.

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with God, Sharia advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

It's hard to imagine, that in this day and age, Islamic scholars agree that those who criticize Islam or choose to stop being Muslim should be executed. Sadly, while talk of an Islamic reformation is common and even assumed by many in the West, such murmurings in the Middle East are silenced through intimidation.

While Westerners are accustomed to an increase in religious tolerance over time, Darwish explains how petro dollars are being used to grow an extremely intolerant form of political Islam in her native Egypt and elsewhere.

(In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. and Britain To elect the President by themselves! Rest assured they will do so... You can look at how they have taken over several towns in the USA .. Dearborn Mich. Is one... And there are others....) (Britain has several cities now totally controlled by Muslims)

I think everyone in the U.S. and Great Britain Should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

It is too bad that so many are disillusioned with life and Christianity to accept Muslims as peaceful.. Some may be but they have an army that is willing to shed blood in the name of Islam.. The peaceful support the warriors with their finances and own kind of patriotism to their religion. While America and Britain are getting rid of Christianity from all public sites and erasing God from the lives of children the Muslims are planning a great jihad on America .. (and Britain ) ..

This is your chance to make a difference...! Pass it on to your email list or at least those you think will listen..

Some of those I'm sending it to WILL NOT! Put your head back under the covers so you can't see the boogie man!

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:13 pm

Every human Community seems to need something to demonise about other communities. Isn't that funny?

by kentdougal Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:06 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Every human Community seems to need something to demonise about other communities. Isn't that funny?

Not funny at all we are speaking of facts here which appear to be self demonic

by ROB Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:09 pm

kentdougal wrote:
Not funny at all...

True. Beheadings are never funny.

by Shirina Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:00 pm

OK so very sorry to RockOnBrother for calling him a yank, I understand how insulting this could be, someone once called me a Lancastrian.

LOL! In the US, only Northerners are called "Yanks." It's a Civil War thing. Billy Yank and Johnny Reb. Of course the Brits have been calling all Americans "Yanks" for decades. Generally it's not considered an insult unless you say it to one of those "down-home southern good-ole-boys." If you see a Confederate flag anywhere on his person or vehicle, it's probably not a good idea to call him a "Yank." Very Happy

by Charlatan Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:02 pm

Just because a man may beat hs wife at will doesn't mean he will. It is like abortion in the west, just because they can doesn't mean they kill every child, does it?

by Shirina Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:58 pm

Some of those I'm sending it to WILL NOT! Put your head back under the covers so you can't see the boogie man!

I think we have to be careful here about identifying the boogie man. We all know there are radical extremists within the Islamic faith, and radical extremists almost always use the worst aspects of their own cultures for their own political and religious gains. Neither Islam nor Sharia Law is used in every Muslim nation to subjugate women and the vast majority of Muslims just want to be left in peace just like the West. They aren't interested in world domination. The radicals are easy to pick out of a crowd. Just draw a picture of Muhammad and their Pavlovian response will have them out with their machetes ready for a beheading straight away. No doubt our governments already know who they are and will deal with them should the need arise.

I have doubts as to whether the Muslims have "taken over" such towns as Dearborn, Michigan. The mayor's name is Jack O'Reilly, a good Irish name if ever there was one, and there are no Muhammads serving on the city council. One would think that if they had an intention to vote in a Muslim president, they would have at least voted in a Muslim mayor, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The Dearborn Muslims have, to the best of my knowledge, displayed as much (if not more) patriotism for the good ole US of A as anyone else.

Now, the real enemy, in my opinion - at least in America - are Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists. They do have a majority, and they have voted in Christian presidents since our very first election. In fact, good luck even getting a nomination by a major party if you are not a) Protestant Christian and b) wear your religious belief on your sleeve. Just a few weeks ago, these right-wing extremists were making a lot of noise over the fact that Obama didn't mention God during his Thanksgiving speech. These so-called "Christians" are the same ones who rabidly campaign against the poor, bar all attempts to create nationalized health care, think anyone on government assistance is lazy, still believe any form of socialism is as evil as Satan, and are largely responsible for America's decline.

They have their own version of Sharia Law which is otherwise known as fascism. It is not uncommon at all - in fact it is even likely - that a nation in the throes of economic turmoil and pressed on all sides (and from within) by perceived enemies, even a freedom-loving nation like America could theoretically embrace fascism. Keeping in mind, of course, that one does not need a dictator to live in a fascist state. Europe has a bit clearer picture on Islam than America, both because it has governed Muslim colonies and because it is not so blinded by it's own resurgence of religious extremism. During a Muslim festival in Dearborn last summer, the so-called "pastor" Terry Jones - you may remember him burning a Quran some months ago - showed up with three cronies to shout his Christian messages at the Muslim participants. He was rightfully arrested for being disruptive, and he has since used his arrest to rally Christians to his banner under the auspices of Christianity being "under attack" by Islam. All I can say is LOL!

Islam is not the threat, and they do not have even close to the majority needed to elect a Muslim president, not even in 20 years (as the article claimed). The enemy in our case is creeping fascism, not creeping Sharia. Even now, the right-wing media is busy propagandizing American citizens against Muslims, against atheists, against liberals, against gays, against the poor, against socialists, and against intellectuals. Funny how that list mirrors almost precisely the list Hitler used to determine who ended up in the camps. Replace Muslims with Jews and you have an identical match. Their propaganda would have made Josef Goebbels proud.

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:38 pm

A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet.

"Fascism" is normally understood to apply to Politics, but of course it is easy to elide from Political to Religious since both refer to different but similar Control mechanisms.

It has always been in the interest of current "Leaders" to have a bogey-man, and followers of a different belief provide an easy hate-figure.

by Sponsored content