User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Sharia

  1. #21
    Senior Member Critical Hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    ....the point being that its the peaceful and democratic majority of illiberal movements that are better able to build popular support and enact their oppressive vision under the cover of democratic legitimacy. The terrorists are the larger physical danger, but far more rights are violated by peaceful Islamists movements (which in any event have a symbiotic relationship with the violent segments of the movement). On a global scale, the Muslim Brotherhood and similar movements are a far greater threat to human rights than Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks.
    Ok I guess I could see your point. But I still think that in time these opinions will die out as education/quality of life increases.
    +10% Crit Chance

  2. #22
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    I have some opinions about this since I've spent a total of 4 months living in Saudi Arabia, making four trips into the country.

    I think there is no question that Muslims want to spread Theocracy. At university in Alabama, I attended a lecture which included a conversion film about the founding of Islam, and then listened to a speaker talk about the benefits of theocracy.

    In Saudi Arabia itself, there were some nice people, but largely I did not feel free.

    I was jet lagged the first time, and I was awake at 4:00 AM, so I decided to walk on the beach. Men with automatic weapons and a black suburban "kidnapped me", then questioned me for hours. All I knew was my family's name, and where the house was relative to the beach. I didn't know my father's badge number or how to get to the beach from the guard shack. Eventually, they got someone that spoke English.

    Largely we were free, but I didn't feel that way.

    One thing, in bookstores all the magazines were scribbled out. They drew an abaya (or berka) over all the women in magazines. Although I didn't witness it myself, I heard many tales about crimes against women and the religious. I smuggled 40 Bibles into the country myself, and took them to underground churches. I'm somewhat agnostic myself now, but at the time I was actually risking imprisonment if the right people found out.

    Of course, women are not allowed to drive as a common example.

    And going out without full coverings would almost be like women going out in public naked in America.

    I still get a magazine they send frequently talking about how wonderful Islam is combined with stories about Archeology or horses or art.

    However, I want no part of Sharia law.

    Someone on my freethought forum posted a video that when two verses in the Koran conflict, then the one that is written later is thought to supplant the earlier teaching. Thus, according to this video, the peaceful texts were written before the violent ones. I don't know if that is true, but it is clear that some Muslims believe that.

    I've rarely experienced prejudice, but there I left a stall in the restroom, and the Arab had a clear expression of disgust at me. Granted our customs and bathroom habits are different, but some no doubt hate us.

    In contrast, I dressed in native garb one day, and a man working in the post office, a Muslim smiled and very carefully and gently fixed my head garment properly. He was very nice.

    Anyway, most seemed like regular or normal people with different culture. However, I would not live under Sharia. Also, it's clear many believe that this should be imposed by violence like Victor said. Yet, even if it were not imposed by violence, it is wrong in itself, especially in regard to its treatment of women.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Sharia law is spreading from province to province in Indonesia. And as Sharia spreads, violent attacks on minorites are increasing.

    Yesterday an Islamic suicide bomber entered a crowded christian church in Solo, Java, Indonesia, as they were worshipping, and detonated his bomb.

    They keep telling us Islam is a religion of peace, but wherever Sharia goes, violence follows.
    What do you care? Sure you where telling us Christians were all child molestors and mind bandits who where brainwashed a short time ago? Surely you'd be positively gleeful about all the poor deluded theists ripping each other a new one?

  4. #24
    Senior Member Critical Hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    I have some opinions about this since I've spent a total of 4 months living in Saudi Arabia, making four trips into the country.

    I think there is no question that Muslims want to spread Theocracy. At university in Alabama, I attended a lecture which included a conversion film about the founding of Islam, and then listened to a speaker talk about the benefits of theocracy.

    In Saudi Arabia itself, there were some nice people, but largely I did not feel free.

    I was jet lagged the first time, and I was awake at 4:00 AM, so I decided to walk on the beach. Men with automatic weapons and a black suburban "kidnapped me", then questioned me for hours. All I knew was my family's name, and where the house was relative to the beach. I didn't know my father's badge number or how to get to the beach from the guard shack. Eventually, they got someone that spoke English.

    Largely we were free, but I didn't feel that way.

    One thing, in bookstores all the magazines were scribbled out. They drew an abaya (or berka) over all the women in magazines. Although I didn't witness it myself, I heard many tales about crimes against women and the religious. I smuggled 40 Bibles into the country myself, and took them to underground churches. I'm somewhat agnostic myself now, but at the time I was actually risking imprisonment if the right people found out.

    Of course, women are not allowed to drive as a common example.

    And going out without full coverings would almost be like women going out in public naked in America.

    I still get a magazine they send frequently talking about how wonderful Islam is combined with stories about Archeology or horses or art.

    However, I want no part of Sharia law.

    Someone on my freethought forum posted a video that when two verses in the Koran conflict, then the one that is written later is thought to supplant the earlier teaching. Thus, according to this video, the peaceful texts were written before the violent ones. I don't know if that is true, but it is clear that some Muslims believe that.


    I've rarely experienced prejudice, but there I left a stall in the restroom, and the Arab had a clear expression of disgust at me. Granted our customs and bathroom habits are different, but some no doubt hate us.

    In contrast, I dressed in native garb one day, and a man working in the post office, a Muslim smiled and very carefully and gently fixed my head garment properly. He was very nice.

    Anyway, most seemed like regular or normal people with different culture. However, I would not live under Sharia. Also, it's clear many believe that this should be imposed by violence like Victor said. Yet, even if it were not imposed by violence, it is wrong in itself, especially in regard to its treatment of women.
    Every Muslim apologetic I have heard has explained that the violent verses were written in a time of war and thus do not supplant the peaceful ones. But these were all American Apologetic Muslims, Saudi Arabian Muslims probably have a much different interpretation.
    +10% Crit Chance

  5. #25
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Every Muslim apologetic I have heard has explained that the violent verses were written in a time of war and thus do not supplant the peaceful ones. But these were all American Apologetic Muslims, Saudi Arabian Muslims probably have a much different interpretation.


    It could be. That's interesting on the Muslim Americans. The magazine I get is called "Saudi Aramco World", since my father worked for Saudi Aramco for 7 years. I rarely read it. Yet, it often portrays Muslims as being hip, educated, and normal. It shows Western Muslim women in Western clothing.

    Inside the country, things are a bit different. Saudi Arabia is an ally too. We have military bases there. In 1992, supposedly the Iraqi's were going to invade Saudi Arabia itself, as well as others. Of course, I have no proof of this; only hearsay.

    Yet, having visited under conditions that felt oppressive and not free, I believe that Sharia equals bad.

    So what can be done?

    It ironic that we removed the Suni dictator of Iraq. Now the Shia majority will probably take control there.

  6. #26
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    may want to take a look at socioeconomic status
    Socioeconomic status has very little to do with who chooses to be a suicide bomber.
    I took two classes on terrorism in the past year and wrote a paper on suicide bombers.
    If you look at the demographic statistics of people who chose to be suicide bombers, they are UNREMARKABLE as compared to others in their same region.
    They do not have a criminal record.
    They are not ignorant street peasants.
    Many are educated, working, middle class people. Most are men, but women are increasingly joining the ranks.

    The thing that most SUICIDE ATTACKERS have in common in regions where terrorism runs rampant is the presence of a long term foreign military that is occupying the country in question.
    ----------------------------------------------
    - Occupation breeds resentment.
    - Those who resent the presence of an occupying superpower will eventually fight back, whether to avenge their relatives who were injured, mamed, or killed in the conflict, or simply to protest the foreign military occupation.
    - Some just wish to leave this life with some meaning instead of living as a pawn in a skirmish they have no control over.
    - There is no magic formula that can predict who will become a suicide attacker and who will not.

    Also, suicide attacks are very well organized.
    The attack is typically highly compartmentalized.
    It is necessary to have the skill of a bomb maker.
    The aid of people to perform surveillance is also needed.
    Of course it is necesasary to have a recruiter to find volunteer suicide attackers.
    The suicide attackers are kept away from the other individuals planning the attack.
    Each person only knows their respective part of the work, which limits the damage any one person or team can cause if apprehended and interrogated.

    Terrorists use ASYMMETRIC WARFARE to fight forces who are superior in numbers, firepower, and materiel.

    IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices) are one example of a weapon favored by terrorists. They are inexpensive to make, can be planted in a myriad of different locations frequented by enemy troops, and can kill or mame without the presence of the maker of the device.

    CAR BOMBS are another example of a terrorist weapon. Fill a car up with ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil) Explosives and you have a lethal, moving explosive device. All it took to make it was high nitrogen fertilizer, diesel fuel, and an explosive primer charge.

    SUICIDE VESTS/JACKETS were the weapon of choice for the early Palestinian suicide bombers.

    The now extinct LTTE (Liberatian Tigers of Tamil Eelam) developed a SUICIDE BELT (a nylon belt filled with plastic explosive and large metal balls/shrapnel/etc.) that was very difficult to detect, and to make it worse, they recruited women to wear them, as women were not thought to be terrorist operatives in the early stages of their conflict. So, a woman could get closer to the LTTE's target than a man could, and that is exactly what they did.

    Suicide attacks are constantly evolving. Use of motorcycles and even bicycles loaded with explosives (in the hollow space of the frame's metal tubing) have been reported. At some point children and animals will also likely be used as living weapons.

    So long as there is political tension and hatred, there will be terrorism.

    If you want I can post the salient points of my final paper, with the works cited of course.

    I got an "A" in the class.



    -Alex
    --------------------
    Type Stats:
    MBTI -> (E) 77.14% | (i) 22.86% ; (S) 60% | (n) 40% ; (T) 72.22% | (f) 27.78% ; (P) 51.43% | (j) 48.57%
    BIG 5 -> Extroversion 77% ; Accommodation 60% ; Orderliness 62% ; Emotional Stability 64% ; Open Mindedness 74%

    Quotes:
    "If somebody asks your MBTI type on a first date, run". -Donna Cecilia
    "Enneagram is psychological underpinnings. Cognitive Functions are mental reasoning and perceptional processes. -Sanjuro

  7. #27
    Senior Member Wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    Every Muslim apologetic I have heard has explained that the violent verses were written in a time of war and thus do not supplant the peaceful ones. But these were all American Apologetic Muslims, Saudi Arabian Muslims probably have a much different interpretation.
    Islam has not just the Koran, but all the additional Hadith's by later apologists - many of which are quite violent. Some things in the actual text of the Koran are just completely wrong headed. If you value things like peace, equality, women's rights, freedom of religion, speech, etc, Islam is the LAST religion you want to see in power.

    I think the issue here is that even the "peaceful" muslims want to live under Sharia law, and though Sharia law may start out in a relatively mild manner, it reinforces and encourages increasingly fundamentalist views, which leads to stricter Sharia laws.. which mandate horrible things like female circumcision, second class citizenship for infidels, etc.

    Regarding whether it was a religion of peace; Islam was practically bathed in blood during Muhammed's time and immediately upon his death the Caliphate conquered much of the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, and made a serious incursion into Southern Europe. In order to spread Islam. The European Crusades were a weak, ineffectual attempted response. Watch this video. Right around the 750 AD mark. http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

    Anyone who tells you Islam is a "religion of peace" knows very little about it's origin, history, or current practices. I've done a lot of study on sharia laws and dhimmitude. Bad news. All of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    Socioeconomic status has very little to do with who chooses to be a suicide bomber.
    I took two classes on terrorism in the past year and wrote a paper on suicide bombers.
    If you look at the demographic statistics of people who chose to be suicide bombers, they are UNREMARKABLE as compared to others in their same region.
    They do not have a criminal record.
    They are not ignorant street peasants.
    Many are educated, working, middle class people. Most are men, but women are increasingly joining the ranks.

    The thing that most SUICIDE ATTACKERS have in common in regions where terrorism runs rampant is the presence of a long term foreign military that is occupying the country in question.
    ----------------------------------------------
    - Occupation breeds resentment.
    - Those who resent the presence of an occupying superpower will eventually fight back, whether to avenge their relatives who were injured, mamed, or killed in the conflict, or simply to protest the foreign military occupation.
    - Some just wish to leave this life with some meaning instead of living as a pawn in a skirmish they have no control over.
    - There is no magic formula that can predict who will become a suicide attacker and who will not.

    Also, suicide attacks are very well organized.
    The attack is typically highly compartmentalized.
    It is necessary to have the skill of a bomb maker.
    The aid of people to perform surveillance is also needed.
    Of course it is necesasary to have a recruiter to find volunteer suicide attackers.
    The suicide attackers are kept away from the other individuals planning the attack.
    Each person only knows their respective part of the work, which limits the damage any one person or team can cause if apprehended and interrogated.

    Terrorists use ASYMMETRIC WARFARE to fight forces who are superior in numbers, firepower, and materiel.

    IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices) are one example of a weapon favored by terrorists. They are inexpensive to make, can be planted in a myriad of different locations frequented by enemy troops, and can kill or mame without the presence of the maker of the device.

    CAR BOMBS are another example of a terrorist weapon. Fill a car up with ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil) Explosives and you have a lethal, moving explosive device. All it took to make it was high nitrogen fertilizer, diesel fuel, and an explosive primer charge.

    SUICIDE VESTS/JACKETS were the weapon of choice for the early Palestinian suicide bombers.

    The now extinct LTTE (Liberatian Tigers of Tamil Eelam) developed a SUICIDE BELT (a nylon belt filled with plastic explosive and large metal balls/shrapnel/etc.) that was very difficult to detect, and to make it worse, they recruited women to wear them, as women were not thought to be terrorist operatives in the early stages of their conflict. So, a woman could get closer to the LTTE's target than a man could, and that is exactly what they did.

    Suicide attacks are constantly evolving. Use of motorcycles and even bicycles loaded with explosives (in the hollow space of the frame's metal tubing) have been reported. At some point children and animals will also likely be used as living weapons.

    So long as there is political tension and hatred, there will be terrorism.

    If you want I can post the salient points of my final paper, with the works cited of course.

    I got an "A" in the class.



    -Alex
    I would expect so! Very well analyzed. Perhaps you could post a link to the essay for the curious to read?

    I *do* disagree on there "always being terrorism" though. There are methods of pacification that are quite effective. If you make the consequences dire enough and actively erode their culture and religion, I believe you could pacify a country in a generation or two. Think of Mao's re-education camps in Communist China. Except Athiesm doesn't lead to a malleable populace, so I would advocate something else. If you replace their religion with one that is more likely to lead to a peaceful population - Buddhism or Confucionism spring to mind, or Christianity - you can successfully pacify a populace.
    A country has to have the will to do so, however.

    If pacification isn't an option, the Romans had it right - If none will submit, leave none alive. See The Sack of Carthage and the Destruction of Jerusalem.

  8. #28
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Christianity and Political Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What do you care? Sure you where telling us Christians were all child molestors and mind bandits who where brainwashed a short time ago? Surely you'd be positively gleeful about all the poor deluded theists ripping each other a new one?
    Christianity accepts the separation of Church and State as well as Freedom of Religion. Also Christianity accepts the Rule of Law arrived at through Liberal Democracy. And Christianity also accepts the Equality of All Before the Law.

    And as well, Christianity is the religion of Western Civilization.

    Political Islam, on the other hand, is totalitiarian and violent, with a well thought out and aggressive ideology.

    And as well, Islam is not the religion of any civilization - not Western Civilization, nor Chinese Civilization, nor Indian Civilization.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Critical Hit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Christianity accepts the separation of Church and State as well as Freedom of Religion. Also Christianity accepts the Rule of Law arrived at through Liberal Democracy. And Christianity also accepts the Equality of All Before the Law.

    And as well, Christianity is the religion of Western Civilization.

    Political Islam, on the other hand, is totalitiarian and violent, with a well thought out and aggressive ideology.

    And as well, Islam is not the religion of any civilization - not Western Civilization, nor Chinese Civilization, nor Indian Civilization.
    All of those things are very recent developments, historically speaking.

    The main problems I have with the idea of Islam being super doubleplus bad and all Muslims being mindless violent savages is that the Koran isnt much worse than the Bible when it comes to violence and oppressing women and all that jazz. Most modern Christians honestly have no clue what the Bible teaches and just ignore the parts they dont like. I dont see why Muslims couldnt eventually do the same thing. In fact they pretty much already do over here in America.
    +10% Crit Chance

  10. #30
    Senior Member Wanderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critical Hit View Post
    All of those things are very recent developments, historically speaking.

    The main problems I have with the idea of Islam being super doubleplus bad and all Muslims being mindless violent savages is that the Koran isnt much worse than the Bible when it comes to violence and oppressing women and all that jazz. Most modern Christians honestly have no clue what the Bible teaches and just ignore the parts they dont like. I dont see why Muslims couldnt eventually do the same thing. In fact they pretty much already do over here in America.
    well;
    Regarding Government, Paul says in the New Testament that we are to be subject to the Government, and obey its laws so far as they do not contradict God's. Equality before the law isn't recent and as far as the Bible is concerned we're all a bunch of hell bound sinners in need of salvation, so.. xD

    I don't think we're saying they're all mindless violent savages. Just that Islam is oppressive to the rights of the individual, and is highly violent in nature.
    If you're looking at things in historical context, the bible was revolutionary. Yes, women are considered "the weaker vessel" - no offence ladies, but I've played coed sports teams, and there ARE physical differences in strength, at least - but spiritually and as persons they were viewed as having the same worth as men. And for a middle eastern culture, they actually had a LOT of rights. A woman's personal rights were never considered any less than a man's.

    You could take what is said, culturally, in the bible concerning women's dress codes, but again, that is considered subjective - don't wear a specific type of jewelry (because those who do are whores) sort of edicts are culturally specific.

    Regarding violence; yes, there was MASSIVE amounts of violence in the Old Testament, not all of it was "approved by God" though some of it WAS at his direct command. Some of it was just historical fact. HOWEVER. None of those commands to commit violence were permanent. They were situational; e.g. "Kill all the Hittites in Canaan, because they worship Baal and sacrifice babies to him and that really pisses me off." Situational, and once all Hittites in Canaan are dead, the command is "spent" as it were. The directives a Christian is to live by are the ones that don't have an expiration date. The ten commandments (on which most of our legal code is based, like it or not) and the most recent ones from Christ himself; Love your neighbor as yourself. etc. Yes, Christianity has been used as an excuse for violent, bloody war since roughly 500 years after the time of Christ. It was used as an excuse, however, with no actual basis in Christian teachings. It was not a violent religion at it's conception, being instead pacifistic a degree I find dumbfounding - read some historical accounts of the Martyr's. I couldn't believe some of what I read.

    Islam on the other hand. Well. This site puts it far better.
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...3-violence.htm

    The problem is, that according to Islam, those who "ignore the parts they don't like" are bad Muslims who at best are merely earning the disfavor of allah and [according to the most violent demagogues] at worst they should be exterminated along with the infidel if they don't get their act together.

    I have nothing against alternative religions to those found in the west. Buddhism did great things in India under Kanishka, before it was stamped out by Hinduism. Confucianism made for a great Chinese society.

    I am however a student of History, and I've read enough to know that there's something seriously wrong with the idea of "Islam" as portrayed by the media and Muslims in America. So I call it like I see it. An ideology that is Super Double Plus Ungood and fit only for the dustbin of history.

Similar Threads

  1. Sharia law and Islam
    By Poki in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-23-2016, 09:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO