The Student Room Group

Saudi Arabia criticises Norway's human rights record.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by HAnwar
Just stating facts.
But you agree with the sentence, correct? (Assuming all conditions have been met).
Reply 41
Original post by QE2
But you agree with the sentence, correct? (Assuming all conditions have been met).


Yes and I'm not afraid to admit it.
Reply 42
Original post by HAnwar
Yes and I'm not afraid to admit it.


wtf

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 43


As a Muslim you do know that's sharia law don't you?
What do you expect from a country which offered to build 200 Mosques in Germany rather than taking any refugees in themselves.
Reply 45
Original post by DiceTheSlice
Ability to read is a gift.

Seemingly due to the public outcry, the late king pardoned the rape victim. Why do you not read your own article?
How does that justify the original sentence?
Reply 46
Original post by HAnwar
Yes and I'm not afraid to admit it.
I guess this is what people mean by "Muslim and proud".

The perfect illustrations of Weinberg's quote "...to make good people do evil things, it needs religion". (I pay you the compliment that without Islam, you would not support brutally torturing someone to death for no reason)
Original post by Quantex
As is the ability to not make fallacious assumptions. I read it and can remember it from the time. She should not have been sentenced in the first place. She was only pardoned due to the international anger.


I guess you are in denial? Suit yourself.

Original post by DiddyDec
Pardoned for being raped... How progressive.Posted from TSR Mobile


Indeed...

Original post by admonit
So where's the applause?


What?

Original post by QE2
How does that justify the original sentence?


..What?
Reply 48
Original post by QE2
I guess this is what people mean by "Muslim and proud".

The perfect illustrations of Weinberg's quote "...to make good people do evil things, it needs religion". (I pay you the compliment that without Islam, you would not support brutally torturing someone to death for no reason)


'...for no reason'
Obviously incorrect otherwise the sentence wouldn't have been carried out :rolleyes:
Reply 49
Original post by HAnwar
'...for no reason'
Obviously incorrect otherwise the sentence wouldn't have been carried out :rolleyes:
"Without Islam...".
It is only that particular, warped ideology that believes that act of consensual, adult sex should be punished with a slow and painful execution.

So, if sharia did not forbid consensual, adult sex, would you still consider it something that needs punishing with medieval barbarity?
Saudi Arabia and The Islamic State are two sides of the same coin.
Reply 51
Original post by QE2
"Without Islam...".
It is only that particular, warped ideology that believes that act of consensual, adult sex should be punished with a slow and painful execution.

So, if sharia did not forbid consensual, adult sex, would you still consider it something that needs punishing with medieval barbarity?

Probably would, because the act itself is nothing less of vile.
Reply 53
Original post by HAnwar
As a Muslim you do know that's sharia law don't you?

There are different forms of Sharia. If you wanna follow the Wahabi version. you shall.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 54
Original post by DiceTheSlice
..What?
How does a Royal pardon, gained through international pressure, justify or excuse a system that sentences a woman to 200 lashes and imprisonment for being raped?

If "justice" had been allowed to run its course, the woman would have suffered the approved medieval brutality. The pardon is irrelevant in the context of calling out parts of KSA's sharia laws as being an abhorrence to civilised society.
Original post by SmashConcept
And Russian observers determined that most of our recent elections were fixed. Dictators doing this is nothing new.


In Soviet days, the Warsaw Pact countries used to issue regular denunciations of Western human rights abuses.

Ugandan mass murderer and dicatator Idi Amin was constantly calling for British human rights to be improved. Saddam and Gaddafi issued similar proclamations.

Kind of a pattern here.
It really does make you think how strong the indoctrination must have been, from such a young age, to make a human-being support throwing rocks at another human until they die as a legitimate mode of punishment (for any abrogation of societal norms, let alone for a 'crime' that amounts to the exercise of consensual behaviour).

That is genuinely frightening.
(edited 8 years ago)


The main difference is that we rely on the 'friend and ally' for oil. Although I suppose if ISIS get a grip and regularise their own supplies, we might suddenly declare them to be wonderful and raise the flag over Buck House at half mast when one of the bearded wonders they call leaders gets killed.
Reply 58
Original post by HAnwar
Probably would, because the act itself is nothing less of vile.
Ah, so you are not a "good person doing evil" because of religion. You are one of Weinberg's "evil people doing evil things".

Probably why you are so keen on Islam. It permits more "evil" stuff than the other religions do now.
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
It really does make you think how strong the indoctrination must have been, from such a young age, to make a human-being support throwing rocks at another human until they die as a legitimate mode of punishment.

That is genuinely frightening.


At the risk of sounding too much like Dawkins, it's amazing what you can get people to do in the name of religion, especially if you control the schools and media.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending