Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:59 am

K.Snyder;907649 wrote: If it had been 50% Islam and 50% of one single other religion it wouldn't have been predominate...You have a dictionary which uses the word that way? I'd love to know which it is. Here's mine...

Having ascendancy, supremacy, or prevailing influence over others; superior,

Constituting the main, most abundant, or strongest element; prevailing, preponderating.

Domineering over something; overruling, towering over other objects.

Do you know of any Westerner who's been jailed or murdered in a predominantly Muslim country for criticizing their treatment of women or anything else the Westerner found backward? Your post did say, after all, that jailing or murder would be the consequence of doing such a thing, you'd think there would be easy examples if it were that common.

The Middle East isn't the way you describe it.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:04 am

spot;907662 wrote: You have a dictionary which uses the word that way? I'd love to know which it is. Here's mine...

Having ascendancy, supremacy, or prevailing influence over others; superior,

Constituting the main, most abundant, or strongest element; prevailing, preponderating.

Domineering over something; overruling, towering over other objects.

Right...To say that other religions spontaneously conjure together to go against another is conspiracy theoretics...Because each individual religion is separate in it's beliefs they're considered opposition...One being 40% and the other being 10% leaving the 50% population of Muslims in Nigeria regarding the majority of the influence over the 40% of Christians and the 10% of the others...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:12 am

spot;907662 wrote:

Do you know of any Westerner who's been jailed or murdered in a predominantly Muslim country for criticizing their treatment of women or anything else the Westerner found backward? Your post did say, after all, that jailing or murder would be the consequence of doing such a thing, you'd think there would be easy examples if it were that common.

The Middle East isn't the way you describe it.

I don't see what "westerners" has anything to do with it...Nomad is a human being and should be regarded as one before he's regarded by his ideology...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:19 am

spot;907662 wrote:

Do you know of any Westerner who's been jailed or murdered in a predominantly Muslim country for criticizing their treatment of women or anything else the Westerner found backward? Your post did say, after all, that jailing or murder would be the consequence of doing such a thing, you'd think there would be easy examples if it were that common.

The Middle East isn't the way you describe it.

Here's one instance...

Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Three women charged with violating Indonesia's 2002 Child Protection Act by trying to convert Muslim children were found guilty on all charges in an Indonesian court and sentenced to three years in jail. The verdict against Rebecca Loanita, Etty Pangesti e Ratna Mala Bangun was pronounced on September 1 after four months of trial during which Muslim extremists tried to intimidate and influence the judges. http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4060

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:29 am

K.Snyder;907674 wrote: I don't see what "westerners" has anything to do with it...Nomad is a human being and should be regarded as one before he's regarded by his ideology...

You can't stick to the point? "what happens to me if I walk into any Middle Eastern country and criticize them for making women cover up or any number of other traditions I find backwards ? Do I have that right there ?" - that's what you jumped in on with no, you'd be jailed or arrested.

Countries like to be thought of as hospitable to visitors. America likes to project that image about itself. So do Arab countries of the Middle East. The people who live there go to great lengths to be hospitable, friendly and pleasant to strangers from abroad. What you have in your head is a xenophobic hatred of them, that's all. It's not a trustworthy perspective to judge them by.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:43 am

spot;907688 wrote: You can't stick to the point? "what happens to me if I walk into any Middle Eastern country and criticize them for making women cover up or any number of other traditions I find backwards ? Do I have that right there ?" - that's what you jumped in on with no, you'd be jailed or arrested.

My response to this was this...

K.Snyder;907133 wrote: So maybe he wouldn't be jailed or murdered in most Muslim countries...

Not as if there's no predominately Muslim country in the world that wouldn't...

You proceeded to challenge me on this...

K.Snyder;907133 wrote:

Not as if there's no predominately Muslim country in the world that wouldn't...
I then presented to you one instance blatantly supporting that...

You feel Islam is being slenderized...I won't say that's entirely false...I will say however that there are a proportion of Muslim followers who will Jail and Murder as a result of having their beliefs mocked and questioned...I presented proof for this...This argument should end with that...

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:52 am

K.Snyder;907713 wrote: You feel Islam is being slenderized...I won't say that's entirely false...I will say however that there are a proportion of Muslim followers who will Jail and Murder as a result of having their beliefs mocked and questioned...I presented proof for this...This argument should end with that...How on earth can a "Muslim follower" jail anyone? Nation States jail people. How is a street riot in Nigeria anything to do with murdering a person for their views on Islam? How is prosecuting people for breaking a law forbidding Christian evangelism relevant to Nomad's query about the treatment of foreigners? "Not as if there's no predominately Muslim country in the world that wouldn't..." is still obviously discussing the treatment of foreigners, how does it get so far from the question as to discuss internal affairs all of a sudden?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:21 am

spot;907728 wrote: How on earth can a "Muslim follower" jail anyone? Nation States jail people. How is a street riot in Nigeria anything to do with murdering a person for their views on Islam? How is prosecuting people for breaking a law forbidding Christian evangelism relevant to Nomad's query about the treatment of foreigners? "Not as if there's no predominately Muslim country in the world that wouldn't..." is still obviously discussing the treatment of foreigners, how does it get so far from the question as to discuss internal affairs all of a sudden?

The predominately Islamic state of Indonesia jailed three women for going against the beliefs of that state...

spot;907728 wrote:

How is a street riot in Nigeria anything to do with murdering a person for their views on Islam?

"Muslim followers" murdered Danish cartoonists because their newspaper made fun of Islamic beliefs...

What does "foreigner" have to do with anything...Nomad is a human being and should be regarded as one before anything else...I simply stated...

K.Snyder;907114 wrote: Yes you have that right there...

The only problem being that you'd be jailed and possibly even murdered...

You have that right there...I wouldn't suggest it...

Where does "foreigner" come in at?...You asked for instances of human beings being jailed and murdered by Muslims...I presented a instance of a Muslim country who jailed three people for going against there beliefs as you asked...I presented Muslims murdering Danish cartoonists for insulting their beliefs...You thrown that out as irrelevant...

I'll present this...

In Muslim societies, insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad is considered one of the gravest of all crimes. Some interpretations of the Shariah, in particular the relatively fringe Salafi (Wahabi) group, state that any insult to Muhammad warrants death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-P ... g_Muhammad

There own law states they will kill by insulting Muhammad...

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:09 am

spot;907607 wrote: And that's not an example of you selectively quoting is it, by any chance? I mean, I'm quite sure you read the whole account but you decided you'd rather grab at the bias and egg your own point of view than help people understand reality. It's not helpful, it's not sensible, it's a waste of bandwidth and I wonder why you do it. Why do you do it?

Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."

Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.......

What he said was that civil agreements made under sharia principles could at some point be accepted as enforceable contracts by English courts. We've been doing that in England for other religions' civil agreements since the days of the Victorians.
Well, not at first... it's a foot in the door, the very fact that Britain or other western countries are even contemplating this is sad

Islamic law will "inevitably" become part of the British legal system and work should start immediately on specific changes, according to a leading barrister.

he's quite clear, it is a start and only a start - to even hint at the possibility of permitting Sharia in any western country is a betrayal of everything our vets died for in WW 11 - appeasement, pandering and capitulation means that we eventually will fall to this legal jihad.

Your dhimmitude is perplexing, and your ability to deny events happening daily in the world is unfortunate - but at least this guy has it right

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 1803264.jp

"I respect your religion, you respect my religion and we both respect our laws. Sharia law is not an option in Britain.

"Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in a modern western democracy. But it must be practised in a way that respects the same rights of others. Freedom of speech is an ancient right in this country but it does not mean tolerating imams coming to this country to preach hatred of this country."

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:14 am

freetobeme;907842 wrote: Your dhimmitude is perplexing, and your ability to deny events happening daily in the world is unfortunate

You know, you had to actually trim out my quoted material in order to be able to look as though that's a reasonable comment.

"There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here. So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."

Which words don't you understand? Where's the thin end of the wedge in something so absolute? That's the Lord Chief Justice speaking. The door is shut, locked, barred, incapable of ever being moved and the Lord Chief Justice owns the key.

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:21 am

1. one-party dictatorships: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Tunisia, Afghanistan.

2. multi-party regimes: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority.

3. traditional Islamic regimes: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, UAE and (non-Arab) Iran as well as Pakistan.

The first group is characterized by severe limitations on personal freedoms, a strict control of the media, and strong repression of all dissidence.

The second group allows a limited degree of parliamentarianism, some freedom of speech and organization, but with clear, and often harsh, limits set to criticism through the use of strong police and security services.

The third group is based on traditional Islamic values and concepts of government with some tokenism designed to present a more modern face. There ensue different approaches to the rights of women and minorities that do not always meet with globally-accepted norms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ality.html

Iran dissident defies jail fighting for equality

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/ ... of=ENG-SAU

No dissent allowed

Course, you might prefer to live in, say Iran where a woman can be stoned to death for adultery.

Yes spot, I trimmed out some of your words for brevity, waste of space quoting everything again...

what part of this do you not understand

he said there was no reason why sharia principles could not be used in “mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution”.

Sharia – a set of principles governing the way that many Muslims believe people should live their lives – suffered from “widespread misunderstanding” by the rest of the world, he added.

Lord Phillips said: “There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:24 am

freetobeme;907861 wrote: Course, you might prefer to live in, say Iran where a woman can be stoned to death for adultery.To what extent do you distinguish between "can be" and "is"? I've followed the Amnesty International reports on sentencing in Iran for some years and I don't recall an instance. Do you?

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:30 am

spot;907865 wrote: To what extent do you distinguish between "can be" and "is"? I've followed the Amnesty International reports on sentencing in Iran for some years and I don't recall an instance. Do you?
last year comes to mind

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... g-boy.html

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34939

Under Shari'a law, a prisoner is buried up to her breast, her hands restrained. Rules also specify the size of the stones which can be thrown so that death is painful and not imminent. Both men and women can be sentenced to die by stoning. In practise, however, an overwhelming number of women receive that penalty.

"It's high time this brutal practise ends. Not only are people deprived of their right to life by the state but they are tortured in the process," Nicole Choueiry, Amnesty's Middle East press officer, told IPS.

"Iran should review its legislation as a matter of urgency to bring it into line with international human rights standards," she added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1435760.stm

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?o ... ew&id=1088

Women to be hanged, stoned to death in Iran

Sunday, 26 December 2004

Iran Focus

Tehran, Dec. 26 â€“ Iranian press have reported the public execution of at least four women in the past year, with at least 14 more to be publicly hanged or stoned to death.

Not to mention Nigeria and Afghanistan

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:10 am

freetobeme;908081 wrote: last year comes to mind

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... g-boy.html

Whoops. Wrong country. And oh gosh, it wasn't judicial either, it was mob violence. And wasn't that a country under US control at the time?

freetobeme wrote:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34939

I'm delighted to say that Iran - some while ago, actually - put a complete moratorium on stoning. Your link is a please don't do it link, not a gosh you did it link. I don't think there's current instances - I may be wrong, but I can't find any.

Might I also say, in passing, that if a country is so utterly backward as to retain the death penalty I'd much rather be stoned to death than given that sequence of lethal injections, that's the most protracted and potentially agonizing judicial death on the planet. I'd much rather be stoned to death than judicially electrocuted, come to that, that's also high on my list of things to avoid.

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:31 am

spot;908298 wrote: Whoops. Wrong country. And oh gosh, it wasn't judicial either, it was mob violence. And wasn't that a country under US control at the time?

I'm delighted to say that Iran - some while ago, actually - put a complete moratorium on stoning. Your link is a please don't do it link, not a gosh you did it link. I don't think there's current instances - I may be wrong, but I can't find any.

So what if it wasn't Iran, that doesn't excuse the practice, and Amnesty international claims sentencing continues in Iran. The group has received credible reports that two people were stoned to death in May.

4 women were stoned to death in 2004... and here - 2000-FEB: United Arab Emirates a woman was stoned to death,

June 29, 2006, a court in the Islamic Republic of Iran sentenced Malak Ghorbany, a 34-year-old mother of two, to a brutal death by stoning after finding her guilty of adultery. . . . Two men who were found guilty of murder in the same court were only given jail sentences of six years. . . . The size of the stones used during the execution are required to be . . . not so large that they would kill a woman too quickly, nor so small that they would fail to cause serious injury or pain . —

There was a petition to save her life, I don't know what the outcome was, but it is possible after a huge world outcry it was stayed.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?o ... ew&id=7481

Woman, man stoned to death in Iran –

Monday, 05 June 2006

Iran Focus

London, Jun. 05 – Iranian authorities have stoned a man and a woman to death, according to a report that has surfaced in Persian-language websites.

The stoning was carried out in the middle of the night three weeks ago in a cemetery in the north-eastern city of Mashad, the report said.

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?o ... ew&id=5038

Tehran, Iran, Dec. 27 – Iran’s State Supreme Court upheld stoning and amputation sentences for four men and jail terms for several dozen other members of a gang in the north of the country, according to a report in a semi-official daily.

The men, who had been arrested in January in the town of Nowshahr in the northern province of Mazandaran, were all part of a gang called the “Wild West”, the hard-line daily Jomhouri Islami reported in its Sunday edition.

Three of the men – Eskandar M. (also known as Abbasi), Jamshid E., and his unnamed brother – were each given two death by hanging sentences and one death by stoning sentence.

Another man, identified only as Afshin R., was sentenced to have his fingers amputated and receive prison time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6288156.stm

and here a man was stoned to death in 2007

BTW, here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... judge.html

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge

By Steve Doughty

Last updated at 12:05 PM on 04th July 2008

Lord Phillips

Explosive: The Lord Chief Justice's endorsement of Sharia law has already created huge controversy

The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:44 am

freetobeme;908361 wrote: So what if it wasn't Iran, that doesn't excuse the practiceYou asked to! You instanced Iran. "Course, you might prefer to live in, say Iran where a woman can be stoned to death for adultery". That's why we're looking at Iran.

Your BBC article says that in July 2007 "The Iranian judiciary says a man has been stoned to death for adultery - the first time it has confirmed such an execution in five years". You instanced women, not men. The BBC article says no women were stoned to death in the 5 years preceding July 2007 and I'm sure there have been none since. That sort of fits with Iran having a complete moratorium on stoning women as a method of execution.

Lord Phillips: "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law". Well yes, what sort of surprise is that? This is civil law he's discussing, not criminal law. As far as criminal law goes, "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here. So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:29 pm

Okay spot, Iran is a wonderful country to live in, there is no problem with any part of Sharia law coming to the U.K. (thank G.d Ontario saw the writing on the wall and said no, and that with a Liberal gov) we really don't have a problem with any part of Sharia law or really care to know what they really really want, what they really really ant - and you know what - I would probably look good in a Burkha

on vacation for the next 3 weeks

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:11 pm

freetobeme;908520 wrote:

on vacation for the next 3 weeks

Iran ?

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:22 pm

yeah, I've ordered by Burkha...

-

I will leave you for now with this and I guess these guys are all wrong too

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 272421.ece

July 5, 2008

The Sharia debate: we can't all be equal under different laws

Allowing British Muslims recourse to Islamic law would be a charter for male dominance and peer-group bullying

Matthew Parris

Sneakily, Britain's first Muslim Minister, Shahid Malik, has ducked the critics that he will enrage in an interview to be broadcast on Channel 4's Dispatches programme on Monday.

Knowing that the phrase he uses to describe the situation of British Muslims - “the Jews of Europe” - will make the headlines, he has put it in the mouths of others. “If you ask Muslims today what do they feel like,” he says, “they feel like the Jews of Europe.” He does not say if he thinks that they are right.

I'll respond in the Malik method. If you asked most non-Muslims what they feel about the suggestion, they would say that it was disgraceful, outrageous and insulting.

Mr Malik's assessment of how some British Muslims feel may be accurate; but they are wrong. Race is not the issue. Unless we face up honestly to the incompatibilities between aspects of the ways of life of some (not all) Muslim groups in Britain, and the British mainstream culture, we shall find ourselves babbling about racism when the issue has less to do with race than with culture.

Background

That is why I thought the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in a careful speech at the East London Muslim Centre on Thursday, slid too quickly over the trickiest parts of his argument. He was discussing the application of Sharia in England and Wales.

The speech has been variously reported as anything from a gentle warning to cultural separatists within Islam, to a craven endorsement of the compromising speech about Sharia made by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year. Lord Phillips took as his theme and title Equality Before the Law. This was shrewder than it was brave.

“Equality” is a dummy concept in the philosophy of law. Here it allowed both speaker and audience to overlook real differences between them, because everyone is in favour of equality. But Lord Phillips was wrong to say that only recently has English law developed a respect for equality. Common Law and Statute have always regarded everyone as “equal before the law”, but depending on who and what you are and what you've done, your rights may differ. A cat burglar and a householder are not equal before the law. An under-age teenager and an adult, a British citizen and an illegal immigrant, are not equal. An in-catchment-area and out-of-catchment-area parent are not (in their children's access to a local school) equal. It's all a question of category; the categories of citizen that our laws create do and must create differences - inequalities - in the rights of individuals.

The only interesting question is whether these inequalities are fair and in the public interest. This must depend on moral and cultural standpoints, which change over time. The argument about “equality” for (say) women who wanted the right to vote, gays who want the right to marry, slaves who wanted to be free, or convicted paedophiles who want the right to be considered for employment in children's homes, has only and always been about the suitability of these categories to enjoy the rights urged for them; not whether the law should be “equal”.

No more than English law does even the most brutal Sharia advocate “inequality”. It simply reflects a cultural belief that women are different. Lord Phillips ducked that by taking equality as his theme.

He ducked again by denying that Dr Williams had said anything surprising. He reminded his audience (as Dr Williams had) that it is possible under English law for groups to agree on whatever rulebook (or adjudicator) they like, and that Sharia cannot be excluded from the available range of rulebooks.

That apparently bland reminder steers round some serious difficulties about jurisdictions-within-a-jurisdiction. The key paragraph in Lord Phillips's speech is this: “A point that the Archbishop was making was that it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law. To quote him again ‘the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right'.”

There are two statements here, both doubtful. It is by no means certain that a group of individuals may voluntarily conduct themselves according to Sharia without breaking English law. It depends what Sharia says. We are not free under English law to agree (however willingly) to break English law. We may not agree to discriminate on racial or (usually) on religious grounds against third parties or even each other. A woman may not agree to accept diminished employment rights. We may not agree to punish each other (as elsewhere Phillips acknowledges) unlawfully. Without a clear account of what Sharia demands, Lord Phillips cannot know.

But the second claim that Lord Phillips endorses is more dangerous. Decoded, Dr Williams is saying that in a multicultural society it is fine for people within a culture to agree not to exercise certain rights, even if English law would allow them to.

This is a charter for male dominance. It's a charter for cultural bullying; for peer-group pressurising; for self-oppression. It's a charter against women and teenagers who cannot make wholly free choices because they have nowhere else to go; a charter against individuals whose circumstances have made it difficult to think outside the cultural box; a charter for discreet duress. I am sorry to hear the Lord Chief Justice endorsing it. cont...

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:06 pm

Matthew Parris may well be right that it would be a charter for male dominance and peer-group bullying. What it wouldn't be is an introduction into the UK of stoning, judicial removal of limbs or criminal prosecution in courts run by clerics.

If people would just stop either exaggerating or going into ludicrous territory akin to Elvis sightings we could actually talk about the consequences of allowing sharia principles to be recognized within UK legislation, just as there have been consequences - some good, some bad - of recognizing elements of Jewish law within UK legislation, for example. If you don't know what elements those are then that's a good indication of how peripheral to UK legislation the entire area we're discussing turns out to be. It's minor tinkering. It may well be undesirable tinkering. It's not governance of our criminal system by Islamic clerics.