Sharia Law

[Truthiness Inspector]

Would you want that here?

Before you flame me, ask yourself honestly if you would accept or reject that way of life.

[Trajan]

1. Reject ....

I despised the Taliban long before 911 ....

ANY fascist organization deserves that kind of scorn ....

[Warren DeMontague]

2. No, religious nutjobs should be kept far, FAR away from the levers of power.

That's a big reason I vote for the Democrats.

[Truthiness Inspector]

4. This was about Sharia Law

Not your perversion of that into Christian stuff. It is not the law of this nation to stone gays to death and do the same to rape victims. Get a grip.

[Trajan]

7. Christians have been restrained for over 200 years from practicing ...

Levitican law, which DOES promote those very same things ....

One might forget: When the Spanish and British first arrived, such draconian laws were the norm, and noble humanities were still far off notions yet to be dreamt by Jefferson, Paine, Locke and Hobbes ....

Unrestrained Christianity is just as ugly .....

[Truthiness Inspector]

9. Stop lying

Can you give me info of any modern day "Christian Nation" that sanctions people with their lives for being gay, raped, adultery?

What I don't understand is why people keep making excuses while professing to give a shit about the truth.

[Trajan]

22. Undefined qualifier ....

'Modern Day' .....

Do you mean when they had electric toasters and such ? ....

Shall I recite the passages for you ? ..... is that what you seek ? ... Unadulterated, UNexegeticized biblical references ? .... Or more of that crusted over apologism suited for obfuscation and denial ?

The theology is based on the canons, and the canons are clear:

Leviticus:

20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Children that curse their parents.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

While I would agree that such laws are NOT carried out today, they WERE carried out, and CAN be carried out again ..... To deny that these passages had NO effect or were never put into effect, even in the US, would be a ludicrous claim, and you know it .... This IS the Old Canon, and only apologism and exegesis can be used to twist them into meaninglessness ....

The point is: The theological underpinnings of Judaic, Christian and Islamic 'law' are very similar and have strong parallels. The fact that Muslims intend to fulfill those laws TODAY cannot detract from the fact that they were practiced THEN in Christian and Judaic milieus ....

I haven't time for your anger .. If that's all you have, then stew in it yourself ....

[Truthiness Inspector]

24. Care to date that?

LOL.

[Trajan]

32. No .. I dont care to date that ....

Does the word of god have an expiration date ?

Has Leviticus gone stale ? ... Do NOT ingest past 325 CE ?

I will say it is unmitigated barbarism, and that ANY belief system formed of such ideas is without worth to a moral person .....

Sharia law - Levitican law ..... No difference to me ....


Otherwise: We have nothing to discuss ....

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Maybe she was asking if you'd care to date Brit Hume.

Me? No thanks.

[Yupster]

116. I don't know of any Christians who follow Levitican Law

The birth of Jesus and the New testament was a major change to religion back then.

Maybe Islam will have its New Testament soon to add to the Koran.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Funny, though, that the people on the forefront of the "religious" fight against gay rights in this

country overwhelmingly seem to self-identify as "Christians", and not "Jews".

And if you don't know of any "Christians" who quote Leviticus to justify homophobia, I'd say you haven't been paying much attention to politics in this country.

[Riktor]

29. You First

There are no modern day Christian theocracies to compare. The point is moot.

So, I leave you with this tidbit, courtesy of Bertrand Russell:

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

[WinkyDink]

124. I doubt if Christians (i.e., NT) would care to enforce O.T. anything, given

how the N.T. is considered by Christians to supercede the other.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. "Get a grip". No, I will talk about whatever I damn well please. Frankly, "Christians" stoning gays

in this country is a fuckload more likely of a threat than Muslims doing it.

Don't like it, too damn bad. I don't submit my thoughts to you for approval before stating them, and I'm not going to start.

That's the fact. You asked a question, (or, more likely, felt like grinding some axe so you tried to start some kind of flame-fest) and this is my answer. I will continue to give it as my answer, particularly if you tell me things like "Get a grip".

The threat of Theocracy in this nation is VERY real, but it's not coming from Osama Bin Laden, it's coming from the Republican Party.

[Truthiness Inspector]

11. If you don't want to get a grip

I can't help you.

How many gays are put to death for being gay by our government...NONE.

That's right. NONE.

Carry on with your big angry misguided letters and fonts. The truth eludes you.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. No, you asked a question, I answered it. If you wanted to limit it to a yes or no, you should have

posted a poll. Beyond that, I don't know why you're seemingly not capable of having a rational conversation on this.

The point of starting a thread is that people talk. You seem to think you can start a thread with a very limited range of permissible subjects or opinions which will be expressed therein, and with a whole list of demands and edicts about where it's allowed to end up. Sorry, a thread is like a conversation. You don't know what you are going to get when you start a conversation- that's the whole point of talking to someone else--- and not yourself.

You must be a blast at parties.

By the way: Since you really think it's "misguided" to state that Theocracy is a threat from the Republican Party; have you read the Texas GOP platform, lately? They may not want to stone gays to death (yet) but they sure as shit want to arrest 'em. And, apparently, this a "Christian Nation", according to them.

So... -yes or no- do you think that Theocratic rule is a threat from the Christian Right or the Republican Party (as if there's a difference?)

[Truthiness Inspector]

45. The Texas GOP wants to arrest gays

so you say...why are you holding back? That is some good shit, let's see it!

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Let's see. We have the 2000 GOP Platform for Texas, and the 2006.

Here's 2000, which was obviously before the Lawrence decision:

The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy....We publicly rebuke judges Chief Justice Murphy and John Anderson, who ruled that the 100 year-old Texas sodomy law is unconstitutional, and ask that all members of the Republican Party of Texas oppose their re-election.

2006 is a little more brief:

Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

So, okay, they didn't want to put Gays in jail--- Just any gays who have consenting adult sex with each other.

Assuming the gays don't actually ACT gay, I guess they can avoid being hauled off to Jail. :eyes:

Here's some more fun with the Texas Republican Platform that you seem so eager to defend:

http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_06/004089.php

I suggest you read the pertinent quotes from the platform, along with the translation into English. Like, "Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and the concept of the separation of Church and State and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State."

Translated into English, that means: "We should completely do away with separation of church and state."

Pretty fucked up, if you ask me.

[Baby Snooks]

82. Texas is pretty fucked up

For all intents and purposes Texas is a theocracy where the courts are concerned since most benches in the state are Republican benches and appear destined to remain Republican benches.

It is similar to having ayatollahs on the benches instead of judges. Their attitude for the most part is they don't care what the US Constitution says because they are Republican and they don't care what the Texas Constitution says because they are Republican.

When the newspapers endorse a Democrat in a primary for a governor's race on the basis that he will "work well with the Republican legislature" it pretty much sums up the state of affairs in the state of Texas. A Democrat better really be a Republican in order to win. Which explains why so few Democrats win. Even the ones who are really Republican are still running as a Democrat. Texas is, well, just a Republican state.

And so Texas is, well, pretty fucked up as you put it.

Texas is also a reflection of the Republican Party itself. It is like a poster boy for bad behavior.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. I know some really good people from Austin.

Great music scene- I like the Butthole Surfers. Steve Earle's from down there, too, isn't he?

But man you couldn't pay me enough to live there, not with that crowd in charge. Did they ever throw that lady in jail for selling the vibrators?

Any progressive in Texas has my sympathy.

[Forkboy]

97. Don't forget the late, great Ed Hall (now Pong) and Crust!

Two bands that blew me away...especially Ed Hall!

[Bluerthanblue]

89. please do some research.... there were many people put in

mental intuitions and subjected to cruel and inhuman treatments that ended in death simply because they were "gay".

I never knew that, until the new batch of 'fundamentalist' 'christ' ians started pushing their agenda starting with the Reagan admin. - *.

But this country's not too distant past is full of injustices, often championed by people who used the excuse of the "bible" to support them.

Slavery, women treated as chattel, denied the right to vote, subject to domestic violence and marital rape- all grounded in some cHristian church teachings.

I'm not an atheist- but i don't support religiosity.

peace,
blu

[EFerrari]

14. I'll never forget the moment when a friend of mine told me

there were what amount to concentration camps for gay teens in this country. You can't know something like that and just sit with it.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. I've certainly heard "Christians" advocating such things.

And on radio and television to boot. You don't think it's even remotely possible that they could eventually be in a position to institute those policies? After what's gone on in this country the last eight years?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. Get a grip yourself. The poster you reply to didn't even utter the word "Christian."

And before I forget...

[Yupster]

115. You really can't have a thread about anything you see wrong

about most Islamic countries or Islamic terrorists, or Sharia law, because within three posts it will turn into a bashing Christian thread.

It's pretty much clockwork. Kind of like Abbott and Costello's Who's on first routine. Regardl;ess of where you start, you always end up with "I don't know. Third base."

[Jed Dilligan]

121. There is a simple explanation for that

Pointing out problems abroad distracts from our problem at home. It's up to us to fight American fundamentalism, theocracy, and fascism. Leave it to the Arabs to fight Arab fundamentalism, theocracy, and fascism. They've actually been doing a good job considering what they have to work with.

[Malikshah]

125. Nor is it such in Shari'a law. It's been pervetted by humans

So get a grip.

Or does one protest too much regarding flame wars.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. So how about "Biblical Law"?

Seems to me that's a damn sight more likely of a threat to our freedom.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/a_nation_under_god.html

[mike_c]

5. what's the point of this...?

Sharia doesn't fit into our culture, so our rejection of it doesn't mean much else.

[Truthiness Inspector]

6. Good answer

Sharia Law does not fit into our culture.

[Orsino]

80. And yet the stoning of gays and adulterers might.

These actions are punishable by law in America, but that's because there are dangerous fools out there who would do it anyway. Criminalize sex between consenting adults, and you are asking for more of these atrocities.

I don't understand why you think a rejection of theocratic morality codes on principle isn't an answer to your original question.

[Bluerthanblue]

91. you are absolutely right- the laws still exist-

on the books in many states.

The fact that they aren't being enforced doesn't make them not a threat.


:shrug:

[Thothmes]

102. Stoning

When was the last governmentally sanctioned stoning of a gay or lesbian in this country?

[Warren DeMontague]

111. So what's your point? That our theocratic pinheaded fundy fucks are BETTER than theirs?

Okay, so they are.

But I don't want either group running my life. Playing them off against each other is like saying "would you rather have acid thrown in your face, or a car battery hooked up to your testicles?"

Er, I'll take neither, thanks. But Theocracy at the hands of the Christian Right is a real possibility, if not an outright reality. Sharia law isn't going to fucking happen here. Ever. It's about as much of a threat as a Martian invasion. How's that.

[Orsino]

127. Was Matthew Shepard happy, in his last moments...

...that gay-bashing wasn't "governmentally sanctioned"?

I was requesting more than a spurious rhetorical question, though. I still would like to know why a rejection of theocratic morality on principle isn't an answer to the OP?

[EFerrari]

10. There seems to be an emerging pattern here And it is unlovely. nt

[Hissyspit]

12. Not emergent, sfexpat2000.

Fairly well-established.

[EFerrari]

15. Sorry, I guess I'm just not attentive enough.

:(

[Crunchy Frog]

51. I hadn't noticed it before, but frankly, I hadn't been looking. I'm a trusting person.

I'll be paying more attention hence.

[Truthiness Inspector]

13. What pattern is that?

What is your point?

[EFerrari]

17. I don't want to hijack your thread. Can you tell me what your aim is

in posing this question about Sharia? Maybe there's something I'm not getting here.

[Truthiness Inspector]

19. My aim?

Just trying to establish that this is not something we want here.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Religious Rule of ANY STRIPE is not something we want here.

How's that?

[EFerrari]

23. I wonder why you'd single out Sharia as something we don't want.

We don't want a lot of things. Like cannibalism or turquoise sectionals. Why Sharia?

[Truthiness Inspector]

25. LOL

The prevalence matters.

[EFerrari]

28. How? Sharia is not as widely practiced as many other belief systems.

[Truthiness Inspector]

34. Amazing

That wasn't my question, and you know it.

Would you like to live under Sharia Law?

On edit: typo

[EFerrari]

35. Right. I was asking why you brought this question to GD.

[Truthiness Inspector]

38. Why not bring it here? n/t

[EFerrari]

41. Because the Christian rightwing doesn't need the competition? n/t

[treestar]

84. I've heard it outside DU from rightwingers

Their motive is to claim that if we leave Iraq, the "Islamofascists" will follow us home and establish an Islamic theocratic state in the U.S.

Whether they actually fear such a thing or are just using it hoping that I will accept that ridiculous argument is another question.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. It's the same argument used during Vietnam- that we would leave and the Viet Cong would come invade

Malibu.

Which didn't exactly work out that way. Although we did leave Vietnam, and now there's a Vietnamese restaurant not 3 blocks from my house.

So maybe we're not fighting them here, but we're certainly eating their soup! EeeeeeeeeK! :wow:

[treestar]

106. Like all of our other imperialistic wars

we will end up with a huge immigration wave from the place in question.

We have very large numbers of Vietnamese immigrants from the late 70s. We are about to get a large wave of Iraqi immigrants.

It's always happens. The "empire" draws people in to the belly of the beast.

Look at the british, they have huge waves into Britain from the countries they tried to control.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. On the plus side, that pho is quite tasty. nt

[tkmorris]

31. Which do you think we need to worry about here?

1) Sharia law, or

2) Christian law

Which is more relevant to US, here in the United States?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Because the ISLAMOFASCISTS are coming, and they're gonna subject ya to it!

They have dehydrated themselves into a fine, grainy powder, and they are currently blowing in over the Pacific ocean disguised as Chinese smog particles.

First good winter rain on the West Coast, and it's going to be rainin' ISLAMOFASCISTS! and SHARIA LAW!

Then you won't be laughing, there, funny-lady.

[EFerrari]

39. And I look terrible in veils. Oh, hell.

[Riktor]

53. I hope they at least bring Baklava...(n/t)

[Crunchy Frog]

52. Hey, speak for yourself. I kind of like the idea of cannibalism.

:9

[EFerrari]

54. I bet you eat chicken, too.

lol

[TheFarseer]

74. becauce dumbass Republicans

like Sean Hannity repeatedly and constantly say that if Democrats had their way, we'll soon be under Sharia Law and it's absolute nonsense. Sean has never accused democrats of cannibalism that I know of, although it doesn't seem beneath him.

[EFerrari]

86. I thought there might be something more to this.

Thanks.

[Bluerthanblue]

93. do you really need to ask?

i mean, really?

[Forkboy]

71. Nope...just par for the truthi course.

[dailykoff]

16. Sharia banking forbids usury a.k.a. interest on loans.

It seems they have other ways of collecting fees, but the concept is intriguing. Of course Citicorp and Wells Fargo might not agree.

[soothsayer]

70. Out local Muslims do this 'donate $200 per paycheck" thing and like every two years

it's your turn to receive the pot of money which is some $5000 or more. Like a pyramid scheme, except it keeps going and nobody gets screwed. Kind of cool.

[Bluerthanblue]

96. shhhh.... so

does the bible- it not only forbids interest, it forbids loans- and borrowing, and hoarding treasures, and lots of other things that wouldn't fit in this society of ours.

[Yupster]

118. Nor would grandma living off the interest from her cd's

or someone who tries to get a mortgage to buy a house.

No interest on loans was in early Christianity too. It's supposed to be why Jews became the first bankers of Europe.

[Riktor]

18. Is This a Trick Question?

I only ask, because I think the concept of a theocratic America is enough to send most progressives into a cerebral edema. So, the answer you seek is most likely a resounding "NO".

Now that I've answered your question, how about you answer one of mine: What on God's green Earth possessed you to pose such a nonsensical question?

[Truthiness Inspector]

26. What made you

equivocate?

[Warren DeMontague]

30. I don't know what kind of bee crawled into your bonnet tonight, but that didn't sound like

an "equivocal" answer, to me.

Seriously. If you want someone who will only say things the way YOU want them to, you should invest in one of these:

[Riktor]

33. I didn't

The phrase "most likely" rules out equivocation as I never presumed to speak on the behalf of everyone here.

Regardless, you have failed to answer my question. Try again.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. "Can we have a rational adult conversation?"

[tkmorris]

42. LOL, pegged.

Well done sir.

[EFerrari]

43. LOL!

:rofl:

[Katherine Brengle]

104. lmao

[Crunchy Frog]

44. Um, who here has EVER advocated sharia law?

Isn't it pretty much the freepers who think that just because we don't buy into their notions of the "war on terror" that it means we want sharia law? Why would a DUer ask such an idiotic question?

[EFerrari]

46. Me. I confess. I think we could clean up this joint with Sharia.

No more women in suits and TENNIS SHOES.

That, all by itself, would be worth it.

And I hope The Law would be retroactive -- so I could stone people I still resent long after I've forgotten whatever the hell it was they did to piss me off.

We need a Sharia forum.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. You make a very persuasive case. I may have to reconsider.

I'll second that Sharia forum idea.:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

56. Okay! YOU pitch it to Skinner.

:rofl:

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Nah, your idea. You get to start the thread. I'll be the first to sign on.

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

59. I'd like to see Sha Na Na clean up this joint, actually.

I bet Bowser's handy with a dustbuster.

[EFerrari]

62. I'd settle for Tommy Roe.

[cboy4]

65. A Sharia forum!!!

:spray:

[Truthiness Inspector]

47. LOL

Read the thread for yourself. I take no responsibility for the idiotic answers herein.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. LOL! The only idiotic answers I'm seeing in this thread...

Well, you can guess the rest.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Dude. Get out of my head.

Seriously!

[Forkboy]

72. You should at least take responsibility for the craptacular OP.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. "craptacular". That's a great word.

It'd be good for movie reviews.

[Forkboy]

114. I think that's where I got it.

Pretty sure it was a review of Pearl Harbor. :)

[Truthiness Inspector]

55. Thanks for the replies

as surprising as they were at times. I have to hit the hay. Peace to all.

[Riktor]

57. The average human being eats at least eight spiders while sleeping in the course of a lifetime.

Enjoy

[EFerrari]

63. If DU had existed in 1975, I never would have had to resort

to illegal substances.

:rofl:

[Riktor]

66. It isn't nearly as bad as THIS

http://www.newstimes.com/forum/

This is the online forum of the newspaper printed in my home town. Half the forum members are ultraconservative, illiterate, and don't even live in the surrounding area. In fact, they are partly the reason why I once resorted to illegal substances in the first place.

[Vidar]

64. Fundamentalism, whatever its religious identification, needs to be

resisted, denounced, ridiculed and held in check.

[JCMach1]

67. don't conflate Sharia with Fundamentalism

From an American standpoint Sharia is fundamentally flawed from a separation of powers point of view.


However, like every other form of law, Sharia is a living and breathing thing... It depends on who is doing the application.

i.e. you don't particuliarly want fundamentalists in charge of your law system whatever background they are coming from.


Living in a nation with Sharia law, I notice very little difference between here and America. The exceptions are largely cultural and have do with the fact that this country (UAE) has gone from village life to first world in a generation. I have been here 5 years and things are even more liberalized now.

The morale of the story... don't let fundies take over anything.

[cali]

68. What a good and sensible

post. Thank you.

[Cobalt Violet]

76. And your male, Clearly your testimony is worth twice that of a mere woman.

Sharia is kind of fun like that.

[CJCRANE]

79. Many post-colonial countries

(including muslim ones) use English Common Law (as it was in colonial times) in which homosexuality (for instance) is illegal, so not all non-progressive ideas come from islamic culture.

[CJCRANE]

78. Also

I wonder if many muslim majority countries actually have sharia law?

There seem to be quite a few that have secular laws or a version of English Common Law (a legacy from colonial times).

[CJCRANE]

69. Bush Republicans = Wahabbi Lite.

This OP illustrates a very simple but effective tactic: the appeal to emotion (fear). But when it comes to the Republicans the killer app is when they couple it with hypocrisy.

So we should be afraid of sharia law but not notice that they are keen to implement a christian version of it in America. We should also not notice that Bush-Cheney's foreign policy has directly and indirectly made the Wahabbis more powerful and richer and able to export their ideology more effectively around the world.

[TheFarseer]

73. The Taliban is 100 times worse than our

watered down Christian version of them in the states. What the hell makes them think Democrats would accept Sharia law? They're the ones accepting illegal wiretapping, the government deciding who can get married, what women do with their bodies, which people with funny names can fly on an airplane and on down the law. Fuck them and their lame talking point.

*note* no disrespect to the OP. I know you are only trying to dispel this nonsense.

[Orsino]

128. OUR pinheads are just as pin-headed...

...as "their" pinheads.

It can happen here, and when it does, it won't be because of a fad for all things Muslim. The same old atrocities will return, not-so-cleverly rebranded, and heaven help us if we have to hope that Democrats won't "accept" it.

[Cobalt Violet]

75. NO sharia here please.

Not now,not ever.

It's weird that so many people have to change the subject to ...but, but, but christians. It reminds me of republicans and their ...but , but , but Clinton.

That all it is is changing the subject.

[kdmorris]

77. Do YOU even know what the "laws" are

in Sharia law?

"Sharia (Arabic: شريعة transliteration: Šarī‘ah) is the dynamic body of Islamic religious law. The term means "way" or "path to the water source"; it is the legal framework within which the public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of devising laws, based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings of Muhammad), ijma, qiyas and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."

Sharia Law isn't the problem. It's the way it's often practiced or INTERPRETED that is the problem.

But, that being said, no, I would not like to live under any government that bases it's laws on ANY religious text, be it Muslim, Christian or Judaism.

[Cobalt Violet]

81. Sorry , I thought your reply was to me. n/t

[cali]

90. Any system of religious law leads to abuse. And historically

much of that abuse is directed at women,so Sharia is a problem.

[kdmorris]

112. True

I was trying to say that. Sharia law in today's world is not very friendly to women. It's PRACTICE is the problem.

In the beginning of Sharia Law, back in the Dark Ages, the rules that were in place for women in the "Christian" world were the backward, "we own them" sort of laws.

Did you know that Sharia law forbids forcing a woman into marriage? THAT'S overlooked much of the time in practice.

Sharia Law also states that women are supposed to have their own property set aside by husband or father, to do with as they wish. Again, that's mainly ignored in most of the "Sharia Law" countries.

As I said, it's the way it's practiced that is the problem. When these laws were first used, European women were still treated as cattle.

But what you state is correct. Which is why I don't wish to live under any rule that is religious rule, be it Muslim, Jewish, or Christian.

[treestar]

83. I'd need to know more about it

What most of us know is probably exaggerated and filtered through the media and terra, terra, terra, so in reality, it probably is not as extreme as the average American thinks. It might have its advantages too.

[cali]

92. What poppycock

there's ample documentation of the type of abuse that goes on daily under Sharia in many places. And it doesn't come from the media, it's been documented by organizations like Amnesty.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. "It might have its advantages too". Uh, bullshit. I don't want fucked up fundies running people's

personal lives, no matter what word they use to describe it.

[treestar]

107. But as I said, you probably know little about it but what's been

fed to you from the media.

Most Americans probably have no idea how it really works and don't want to know what its advantages might be.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. I'd like to have some specifics on what you think any POSSIBLE 'advantages'

might be.

Please.

Specifics.

[treestar]

113. It's at least an open question to be looked into

Rather than just a knee-jerk opinion that it must be rotten.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. No, I'm serious. If I need to be re-educated, re-educate me. Tell me some SPECIFIC advantages.

If it needs to be "looked into", then look into it, and get back to me. I'd like to know what the specific advantages to Sharia law are.

[Marrah_G]

85. I'd rather be dead

[BlooInBloo]

94. God, why won't you call all of the mythology-believers home? They really fucking shit up down here.

[Forkboy]

98. I think even God is tired of being associated with them.

[BlooInBloo]

99. Fuck that. Try living in the same fucking world with them.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

95. Uh, hell no.

Not as the Islamic fundies do it. Frigging moronic. But so too is Biblical law.

So basically, fuck all religious law. It's positively barbaric and should have nothing to do with the US. As it stands, I'm a little more afraid of Biblical law than of Sharia, considering that Christian fundies are just a little more prevalent in the country than are Muslim fundies.

[Katherine Brengle]

103. No. What's your point?

[tabasco]

105. Only if implemented with communism and make French the official language!

Crawl back under your rock.

If you believe there is a threat of sharia law being imposed on us, I pity you.

It must be hell living in such fear.

[Jed Dilligan]

117. Reject

Answered without reading thread. Now going back to read thread, see if it contains your point.

[Jed Dilligan]

119. Locking people in rape rooms for smoking a plant

Basically the same thing, driven by the same forces.

[blitzen]

120. Do you really, honestly know a damn thing about Islamic law?

If not, I can suggest some book titles for you.

[uppityperson]

126. No. I reject it. Would you? nt