Saudi Rape Victim To Get Additional 110 Lashes For Speaking to News Media

Exactly. I would never live in Saudi but it would be awesome to be living in Dubai again.

 

As a Muslim, I would never live in Saudi. Their radical ideologies differs with mine. I have plenty friends from there to know to stay away from that place unless I'm performing pilgrimage.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Islamic law is Islam. All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia.

What is Shariah?
The word Shariah means "the path to a watering hole." It denotes an Islamic way of life – not just a system of criminal justice.

How did it originate?
According to Muslim scholars, the Prophet Muhammad laid down the laws.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html

The problem is Islam. It is a cancer.

 

so would you be alright if laws in the bible were enacted by the us government? you don't think there are some screwed up rules in the bible that have no place in pratical everyday life?

 

I agree with the premise that Islam isn't the problem, but the people practicing it and the laws in these countries are the real culprits.

That said, a lot of these same people hide behind the argument. They say it's not Islam's fault but at the same time support Islamic law, which will inevitably lead to oppression. There needs to be a separation of Church and state, or at least major reforms in the laws.

 

but its not as simple as that. laws aren't static. they are interpreted by lawyers and judges and scholars. just like the framers in the constitution didn't say anything about speed limits, the prophet muhammad didn't either.

so while tiger is correct that saudi's interpretation shouldn't be considered 'islam', it is a manifestation of islam. and while we can say its not the appropriate interpretation, given that islam has no clergy this argument is harder to make than for a catholic to denounce some heterodox viewpoint or that we can say the constitution considers segregation illegal by pointing to the precedential authority of brown.

until the collective mass of muslims are able to denounce absurd interpretations like saudis, i think the 'average person' can reasonably have a negative view of islam. have they? i think they can argue they have denounced terrorism. but inequality for women etc? im not sure.

 

I don't disagree with this. if you're a wealthy man in saudi, why would you give up the power.

 

While this is certainly not politically correct, I will not argue with you insofar as Islam, in the form it is practiced in many countries around the world, appears to be in urgent need of reform to me.

 

But there are multiple ways to interpret any religious text. To characterize all of Islam based on the most fundamental interpretation is unfair to Muslims who are more progressive. Do you have the same feelings about Christianity that you do about Islam? If America were run by fundamentalist Christians, we would have some pretty oppresive laws, yet these laws would only represent one interpretation of Christianity and not the faith as a whole.

As for your last statement, it would appear to be some sort of an attempt at an analogy, but I can't really read any meaning into it except that you chose to associate Islam with the worst word you could fit into a sentence with it. Pretty disgusting, not to mention lazy.

 

But....its not.

The topic is Islam in everyday life in Saudi Arabia. Not a hypothetical scenario of theocracy in the west.

Your point is irrelevant. It is this way there. It is not this way here.

 

I think his point isn't Islam but its interpretation. It happens that in Saudi Arabia Islamic law is interpretted in the most strict way possible. Malaysia calls itself an Islamic Federated Republic yet doesn't interpret the Islam in the same way as the Saudis.

Calling Islam a cancer and basing it on Saudi Arabia is as bad as calling Christianity a cancer and basing it on Pat Roberston.

 

Yeah. I get that.

I get that, too. So what? Is that a defense of some sort?

Good for them? I have no idea what your point is.

Not really. Here in America, the vast majority of people don't subscribe to Pat Robertson's interpretation of the Bible and/or Christianity. We also have separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the freedom to take a walk with whomever we *******-well please whenever we *******-well choose too.

In Saudi Arabia, the rule of law is based on religious interpretation, huh? Sounds basically like Saudi Arabia has however many versions of Pat Robertson deciding what the interpretation of Islam ought to be, and it becomes law, and the people better damn-well follow it, or a 19-year-old rape victim will get f**king FLOGGED.

And again, you're comparing barbarism to a hypothetical, non-existant U.S.

 

Maybe you should have figured it out before trying to counter it, so no one would have to explain it again.

Your objection is to specific aspects of one interpretation of Islam. Other, more progressive interpretations exist, as rocketsjudoka pointed out. To categorize all of Islam negatively because of the flaws of one interpretation of Islam is unfair to more progressive Muslims. That's all. You can say that the official Saudi interpretation of Islam is oppressive without making a blanket statement about all of Islam, as has been done repeatedly in this thread. Similarly, it would be silly to categorize all Christians as bigoted just because many fundamentalist Christians are.

 

As I said already: I get it, smart guy. I'm well-aware that Saudi Arabia is governed by a strict interpretation of Islam. I said that above in my post #110. Maybe you ought to read what was written before being a smart ass about it.

Silly me. Here I was thinking that this was a thread about ISLAM IN SAUDI ARABIA. Read my posts. Nowhere did I mention anything about Islam anywhere but in Saudi Arabia, and nowhere did I mention anything that could be construed as a blanket statement regarding Islam as a whole.

Islamic rule in Saudi Arabia is barbaric and brutal. The fact that the case that inspired this thread exists and is government-sanctioned proves it. It is also non-inclusive and intolerant of other religions while the vast majority of the western world quite literally bends over backward to accept others and any differences they may have.

And people line up to defend it, which is utterly stupefying.

 

Let's not pretend everything is puppy dogs and rainbows in Malaysia. A number of Christian churches have been burned or bombed there by Malay Muslims.

 

because no acts of intolerance ever have occurred in the US.

 

How many mosques have been blown up in America in the last 6 years again?

 

that's is the only litmus test of intolerance.

 

Stop trying to relativize the barbaric acts of the Islamic rulers of Saudi Arabia.

 

no I'm not, I'm saying the problem is their religion is their law. religion and law should be separate.