Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Didn't Muhammed live in, or at least travel to Syria with his first wife (the trader - I forget her name)?
    He travelled to Syria with his uncle to learn trade but it still doesn't prove that he is not a Prophet. The evidence suggesting he is just cannot be refuted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    And it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to disagree with prostitution, after all its a choice, you can choose to sell sex or you can choose to go on the dole or work at tescos, and you can choose to see a prostitute or not. Do you approve of prostitution for those that choose it?

    And when it comes to abortion are you pro choice?

    You may agree with these things, but I am going to make a really wild guess that Muslims who advocate sharia courts don't.

    How about indentured servitude, that could be a choice, so its all good right, democracy is just about making choices, heck a vote for the BNP is just a choice right? A racist and despicable choice, but if choice is intrinsically a good thing you wouldn't regard that as a problem.
    I approve of prostitution for those who choose it

    I am pro choice with regards to the issue of abortion

    The likelihood of Sharia Law becoming the principal Law in the U.K. are comparable with my chances of having sex Sarah Palin. What I said was : Muslims who prefer some matters to go through a Sharia Court should be welcome to. And why stop non-muslims, as long as they familiarise themselves with Sharia Law.

    Also I am not really in favour of democracy at this present time, but the fact is that we are in two wars in support of democracy, putting our own country on a pedestal in terms of civilised culture. I have no problem with people voting BNP, I don't have to talk to them by choice, or so much as glance at them. The ability to choose is not a bad thing, but the choices an individual makes may well be.

    So... what is your problem ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    But its British law to allow people to sort out civil and family disputes between themselves. Its one of the freedoms and liberties offered to people.

    There isn't even an obligation to take it to court and all these so called courts are arbitration sessions that use Islamic principles, which are more than just chopping peoples hands off. Private companies do it all the time (when there is a dispute on a contract), Jews have their own court(but funnily enough nobody within the Daily Mail has a problem with that).

    I quote Democracy, because you make some intelligent posts on this site, but then you try to take a shot at Islam at every oppurtunity it seems and you seem to have double standards. You are always advocating democracy and freedom etc. but it doesn't seem to apply to religious folk and Muslims in particular.

    There are some seriously thick people on here too.. making wild assumptions, forming their opinion soley from what they read in the papers.
    I am against the Beth Din too.

    You seem to be confusing secularism with "rampant atheism". I am not an atheist of any description. However, I am a secularist, and secular law is the fairest, most just system of jurisprudence.

    Democracy should not be used to take away people's fundemental rights and subject them to archaic laws, which tends to happen under Sharia, especially to women.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    He travelled to Syria with his uncle to learn trade but it still doesn't prove that he is not a Prophet.
    But the idea that he had no idea about Jewish and Christian beliefs is wrong, as he must have encountered them?

    The evidence suggesting he is just cannot be refuted.
    I wouldn't be so hasty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuppie20)
    Your reputation speaks for you
    No it doesn't. I couldn't give a **** about my rep anyway and you are again demonstrating your stupidity, instead of justifying what you said.

    You even know what you said is untrue.

    Do you think mediation service providers are going to be in a position to challenge criminal courts? Ofcourse not, whats so different about an Islamic variation? They can't even challenge the position of civil courts, never mind the criminal ones. It is just a form of alternative dispute resolution which is promoted by the government and the courts to avoid lengthy, expensive court proceedings. You are a moron. No one is forced to go through Shariah proceedings and it only applies to contractual disputes (family, employment and other money related stuff).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    No it doesn't. I couldn't give a **** about my rep anyway and you are again demonstrating your stupidity, instead of justifying what you said.

    You even know what you said is untrue.

    Do you think mediation service providers are going to be in a position to challenge criminal courts? Ofcourse not, whats so different about an Islamic variation? They can't even challenge the position of civil courts, never mind the criminal ones. It is just a form of alternative dispute resolution which is promoted by the government and the courts to avoid lengthy, expensive court proceedings. You are a moron. No one is forced to go through Shariah proceedings and it only applies to contractual disputes (family, employment and other money related stuff).
    How can- All Muslims should go to Afghanistan, be untrue?

    It's not a statement you weirdo.

    I didn't ask you what you thought of your reputation, nor did you ask me to justify what I said, but I'll humour you anyway.

    Islam is growing fast, increasing numbers of Sharia courts, encouraging hateful and down right retarded Islam views show this. Thus, Muslims who are not prepared to live by British laws, and who constantly call for an Islamic revolution, should be deported.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I am against the Beth Din too.

    You seem to be confusing secularism with "rampant atheism". I am not an atheist of any description. However, I am a secularist, and secular law is the fairest, most just system of jurisprudence.

    Democracy should not be used to take away people's fundemental rights and subject them to archaic laws, which tends to happen under Sharia, especially to women.
    1) But doesn't that mean taking away people's religious freedom? How do you justify that? and How is democracy being used to take away people's fundemental rights here? If anything it is promoting them. Nobody is being subjected to anything here, the decisions aren't binding in any way. This is people exercising their freedom.

    2) Does it also mean taking away people's right to alternative dispute resolution/mediation services in regards to civil matters, or just the Islamic ones?

    If in 2, you are saying just the Islamic ones because they are based on Archaic/unfair laws or whatever, you are forgetting firstly that both parties have to agree to it 100%, rulings aren't legally binding and all people have the freedom if the ADR/mediation fails to take the matter to the English courts. Also, the so-called 'Shariah Courts' were never called as such in Islamic communities, this was a name given by the media to sensationalise the issue, they have always been known as 'Shariah Councils'.

    I just don't see the distinction between the Shariah based services and something like this http://www.davidparratt.com/ (first one that came up in google that looked slightly relevent), but I'm sure you get my point.

    What you say is simply invalid, even if Islamic law has what some might see as archaic/unfair/barbaric rules in regards to criminals, I don't think they apply in civil matters. Secondly, even if they do, both parties are agreeing to be subject to these principles in the process of solving their dispute/problem. I don't see the problem with it. Instead, I see a problem with people campaigning to have one of our freedoms limited or removed for stupid reasons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuppie20)
    How can- All Muslims should go to Afghanistan, be untrue?

    It's not a statement you weirdo.
    That isn't what I quoted.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=173

    Click that and look again. I was saying it was stupid of you to say that so called Islamic courts are going to challenge our legal system or the courts of this country. That is utter rubbish, if anything these Shariah councils are simply taking advantage of and promoting our current system which encourages ADRs and mediation before taking the matter to the courts and further increasing their work load.

    I didn't ask you what you thought of your reputation, nor did you ask me to justify what I said, but I'll humour you anyway.
    I might not have, but I insulted you for what you said, you could have been kind enough to then justify why you said what you did, because there was no explanation for it in your initial post. Just a bunch of wild, unsubstantiated claims.

    Islam is growing fast, increasing numbers of Sharia courts, encouraging hateful and down right retarded Islam views show this. Thus, Muslims who are not prepared to live by British laws, and who constantly call for an Islamic revolution, should be deported.
    Where have these Shariah councils encouraged hateful or retarded views on anything? Any evidence/source for this?

    The only people I have seen call for actual Islamic courts are members of Islam4Uk, who are a bunch of retards that need to be lined up and shot. Like i said in the previous thread about them, they are a bunch of attention seeking nobodies. Their protest turn outs are more shameful than the BNP etc. they have 18 people or something at the last protest, 40 or something at Luton, they would never have got 500 at wooton basset.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    But the idea that he had no idea about Jewish and Christian beliefs is wrong, as he must have encountered them?

    I wouldn't be so hasty.
    The idea that there have been Jewish and Christian influences on Muhammed is very wrong. This is a long read I understand but I summarised into the main points to refute this accusation you have.

    Firstly, the Prophet (pbuh), was only 12 years old when he met Baheera (a Christian monk) for a very short period of time on the way to Syria. Such a brief meeting would not have been sufficient to discuss religious doctrines. It is illogical to assume that a young boy could discuss religious doctrines and scriptural prophecy about the coming of the Messenger, etc, at this tender age.

    Baheera had knowledge that the Christian scriptures told the coming of a new prophet and recognised Muhammed (pbuh) was that prophet. Thus he told Abu Talib to take the Muhammed (pbuh) home.

    Secondly, in Makkah, there were only a few Christians of humble social and intellectual status, being either slaves or petty retailers and mostly immigrants. Only one or two original residents of Makkah such as Uthmaan bin Al-Huwayrith and Waraqah bin Nawfal had become Christians, the former out of personal or political considerations, and the latter as a result of his search for better faith. The Makkan community had some second-hand knowledge of these two religions of Judaism and Christianity.

    So the question is would Muhammed (pbuh) challenge the credibility of both the prevailing systems of Judaism and Christianity only on the basis of hearsay and superficial knowledge of them?

    Firstly, this is a naive accusation because the concept of prophethood, the memory of Abraham (pbuh) as a prophet and founder of the Ka'bah, which the Arabs universally cherished, as well as the rites of Hajj instituted by Abraham (pbuh) were unquestionably from before the time of Jews and Christians. Pre-Islamic Arabs, independent of any Jewish or Christian influence, knew the concept of Allaah as the supreme God. The teachings of Abraham (pbuh) found haven in Arabia long before the arrival of Judaism or Christianity.

    Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) accused the contemporary Arabs, Jews and Christians of having deviated from the original teachings of their prophets and of having degenerated into polytheism. He also rejected what they claimed to be the teachings of their scriptures. So he cannot be accused as having conceived the idea of monotheism from the Judeo-Christian influence.

    Thirdly, the Qu'ran does not maintain that it is teaching a new religion. Instead it upholds and revives the original teachings God has given through all Prophets of all nations. It claims that its teachings are the same as that of Abraham, Moses and Jesus (pbut). Since every Orientalist agrees on the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) has not read any of the scriptures, therefore his source of knowledge must be something else.

    Fourthly, the rejection of Biblical teachings about the son or father of god was rejected even in the Makkan Surahs, long before the Prophet’s migration to Madinah. Hence, it is not correct to say that these rejections came about, at the wake of the separation from the Jews and Christians in Madinah. Also it was impossible to get even a glimpse of monotheism by observing Judaism and Christianity in those days as the religions have become full of corruption and superstition.

    Also, the allegation that the Prophet (pbuh) received instructions from Waraqah bin Nawfal on Christianity is rejected on the ground that, if this information is true, then the Quraysh would have made a very big issue about it. If some of the Christians and Jews of Makkah had provided the Prophet (pbuh) with information about former religions, they would not have faith in the Prophet’s mission and leadership and would never have become Muslims themselves.

    So in the words of Dr Jamal Badawi, “It would be highly imaginary to say that through his occasional chats with Jews and Christians, while busy with his caravan, Muhammad (pbuh) learned enough about either or both religions to formulate a new powerful and viable religion, a task that defies the collective efforts of scholars for centuries.”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Coming soon to a Sharia court near you!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7708169.stm

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...sharia_is.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnthebaptist1)
    I skimmed through your post, it made some other questionable comments, but this got me laughing.

    Plagarism from a shepherd (maybe wrong?), 1400 years ago, who can't read or write, living in a pagan country, nobody following christianity or judaism anywhere near by (except Jerusalem).

    At the same time he got many things correct about scientific things relating to the Earth.
    Nonsense, there were many Jewish tribes in Arabia at the time, and probably some Christians, the fact that there are no longer any 'people of the book' left in Saudi today is a result of the actions of Muhammad's followers.

    Jews and Christians receive extensive discussion in the Qu'ran, go and read it, unless Muhammad was actually told about them by God he knew about them from his own experience. There are stories and figures from both the Bible and the Torah in the Qu'ran, and I think I know how they got there.

    Also the Hadith refers to the battles of Muhammad against Jewish tribes, as well as pagan Arabs, in Arabia.

    Your comments suggest that you don't believe that oral cultures possess much knowledge of any kind, this is also far from the case. Close to Arabia were the ancient and powerful civilisations of Byzantium and Persia, and there were many Arab traders who would have brought knowledge and objects from these sources into Arabia. The 'Arabic' numerals and concept of zero are from Hindu India, but they were communicated to Europe through the Arab world and Arab mathematicians made great strides employing these concepts as well as knowledge from the Classical Greek writers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samrout)
    I approve of prostitution for those who choose it

    I am pro choice with regards to the issue of abortion

    The likelihood of Sharia Law becoming the principal Law in the U.K. are comparable with my chances of having sex Sarah Palin. What I said was : Muslims who prefer some matters to go through a Sharia Court should be welcome to. And why stop non-muslims, as long as they familiarise themselves with Sharia Law.

    Also I am not really in favour of democracy at this present time, but the fact is that we are in two wars in support of democracy, putting our own country on a pedestal in terms of civilised culture. I have no problem with people voting BNP, I don't have to talk to them by choice, or so much as glance at them. The ability to choose is not a bad thing, but the choices an individual makes may well be.

    So... what is your problem ?
    Because its prejudicial to women, and because there should be one set of legal principles on which we adjudicate personal and family matters.

    The fact that you are not in favour of democracy speaks volumes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Nonsense, there were many Jewish tribes in Arabia at the time, and probably some Christians, the fact that there are no longer any 'people of the book' left in Saudi today is a result of the actions of Muhammad's followers.

    Jews and Christians receive extensive discussion in the Qu'ran, go and read it, unless Muhammad was actually told about them by God he knew about them from his own experience. There are stories and figures from both the Bible and the Torah in the Qu'ran, and I think I know how they got there.

    Also the Hadith refers to the battles of Muhammad against Jewish tribes, as well as pagan Arabs, in Arabia.

    Your comments suggest that you don't believe that oral cultures possess much knowledge of any kind, this is also far from the case. Close to Arabia were the ancient and powerful civilisations of Byzantium and Persia, and there were many Arab traders who would have brought knowledge and objects from these sources into Arabia. The 'Arabic' numerals and concept of zero are from Hindu India, but they were communicated to Europe through the Arab world and Arab mathematicians made great strides employing these concepts as well as knowledge from the Classical Greek writers.
    Thats all fair enough and I never said that Christians/Jews aren't discussed in the Qu'ran, but Muslims claim that this is what the Angel Gabriel told Muhammed, rather than what he learnt from what arab tradesmen told him after they had travelled abroad.

    I am wrong about the Jewish/Christian people in Arabia at the time then I guess. But still, your explanation still doesn't explain a lot of interesting stuff in the Qu'ran about the earth, solar system etc. I know a lot of people claim that these are vague words being interpreted by people to give it some scientific credability, but I have watched a couple of speeches, where the whole lingustic aspect is discussed and it explains how they reach to that translation and how it coincides with scientific belief today. (Big bang, solar system/universe constantly expanding, stuff about Mountains/tectonic plates, the shape of the Earth at a time when people thought the world was flat etc. none of it is incorrect, even Muslims didn't understand a lot of it I don't think until modern science made these discoveries.)

    But we are going completely off topic here.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    The idea that there have been Jewish and Christian influences on Muhammed is very wrong. This is a long read I understand but I summarised into the main points to refute this accusation you have.

    Firstly, the Prophet (pbuh), was only 12 years old when he met Baheera (a Christian monk) for a very short period of time on the way to Syria. Such a brief meeting would not have been sufficient to discuss religious doctrines. It is illogical to assume that a young boy could discuss religious doctrines and scriptural prophecy about the coming of the Messenger, etc, at this tender age.

    Baheera had knowledge that the Christian scriptures told the coming of a new prophet and recognised Muhammed (pbuh) was that prophet. Thus he told Abu Talib to take the Muhammed (pbuh) home.

    Secondly, in Makkah, there were only a few Christians of humble social and intellectual status, being either slaves or petty retailers and mostly immigrants. Only one or two original residents of Makkah such as Uthmaan bin Al-Huwayrith and Waraqah bin Nawfal had become Christians, the former out of personal or political considerations, and the latter as a result of his search for better faith. The Makkan community had some second-hand knowledge of these two religions of Judaism and Christianity.

    So the question is would Muhammed (pbuh) challenge the credibility of both the prevailing systems of Judaism and Christianity only on the basis of hearsay and superficial knowledge of them?

    Firstly, this is a naive accusation because the concept of prophethood, the memory of Abraham (pbuh) as a prophet and founder of the Ka'bah, which the Arabs universally cherished, as well as the rites of Hajj instituted by Abraham (pbuh) were unquestionably from before the time of Jews and Christians. Pre-Islamic Arabs, independent of any Jewish or Christian influence, knew the concept of Allaah as the supreme God. The teachings of Abraham (pbuh) found haven in Arabia long before the arrival of Judaism or Christianity.

    Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) accused the contemporary Arabs, Jews and Christians of having deviated from the original teachings of their prophets and of having degenerated into polytheism. He also rejected what they claimed to be the teachings of their scriptures. So he cannot be accused as having conceived the idea of monotheism from the Judeo-Christian influence.

    Thirdly, the Qu'ran does not maintain that it is teaching a new religion. Instead it upholds and revives the original teachings God has given through all Prophets of all nations. It claims that its teachings are the same as that of Abraham, Moses and Jesus (pbut). Since every Orientalist agrees on the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) has not read any of the scriptures, therefore his source of knowledge must be something else.

    Fourthly, the rejection of Biblical teachings about the son or father of god was rejected even in the Makkan Surahs, long before the Prophet’s migration to Madinah. Hence, it is not correct to say that these rejections came about, at the wake of the separation from the Jews and Christians in Madinah. Also it was impossible to get even a glimpse of monotheism by observing Judaism and Christianity in those days as the religions have become full of corruption and superstition.

    Also, the allegation that the Prophet (pbuh) received instructions from Waraqah bin Nawfal on Christianity is rejected on the ground that, if this information is true, then the Quraysh would have made a very big issue about it. If some of the Christians and Jews of Makkah had provided the Prophet (pbuh) with information about former religions, they would not have faith in the Prophet’s mission and leadership and would never have become Muslims themselves.

    So in the words of Dr Jamal Badawi, “It would be highly imaginary to say that through his occasional chats with Jews and Christians, while busy with his caravan, Muhammad (pbuh) learned enough about either or both religions to formulate a new powerful and viable religion, a task that defies the collective efforts of scholars for centuries.”
    This seems to conflict with secular historians.

    "The material which penetrated from Mecca to Greece prior to Islam was popularized, and heavily fused with Jewish and Christian elements."

    (Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, ed. A.F.L. Beeston et.al., Cambridge 1983, pp.460-464)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Nonsense, there were many Jewish tribes in Arabia at the time, and probably some Christians, the fact that there are no longer any 'people of the book' left in Saudi today is a result of the actions of Muhammad's followers.

    Jews and Christians receive extensive discussion in the Qu'ran, go and read it, unless Muhammad was actually told about them by God he knew about them from his own experience. There are stories and figures from both the Bible and the Torah in the Qu'ran, and I think I know how they got there.

    Also the Hadith refers to the battles of Muhammad against Jewish tribes, as well as pagan Arabs, in Arabia.

    Your comments suggest that you don't believe that oral cultures possess much knowledge of any kind, this is also far from the case. Close to Arabia were the ancient and powerful civilisations of Byzantium and Persia, and there were many Arab traders who would have brought knowledge and objects from these sources into Arabia. The 'Arabic' numerals and concept of zero are from Hindu India, but they were communicated to Europe through the Arab world and Arab mathematicians made great strides employing these concepts as well as knowledge from the Classical Greek writers.
    But if the biblical accounts of past figures and events are to be taken as historical events, why shouldnt the Quran mention them again? What you think if a two history books recount a historical event one must be plagirising the other? That particular point is mute.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Because its prejudicial to women, and because there should be one set of legal principles on which we adjudicate personal and family matters.

    The fact that you are not in favour of democracy speaks volumes.
    Actually it seems it is you who is not in favour of democracy.

    Civil matters do not on the whole affect the state, they have no reason to intervene unless it is absolutely necessary or if in the rare case they do affect the state.

    Also, any kind of arbitration isn't legally binding, people still have the right to take the matter to court if they are not happy with the advice/ruling offered by the arbitration council.

    I don't understand how you attach favouring democracy to your argument to be quite honest. It seems that your argument takes away people's democratic right and freedom on how to solve personal matters.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes just like every Western woman, they have to present explicit evidence to indict someone.
    Western women don't have to provide any more evidence than their own testimony, and if the prosecution is not successful they are not punished as a result.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Utter nonsense
    And in the real world:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006...an.theobserver

    "Up to 80 per cent of women in Pakistan's jails are charged under rules that penalise rape victims. But hardliners have vetoed an end to the Islamic laws

    ...The story of this 19-year-old's journey here is horrifying. In spring 2005 she was raped by her family's neighbour, a postman, and his teenage son. She fell pregnant - and later miscarried - as a result. Her mistake was to tell her parents. With their consent, under Pakistan's orthodox Islamic laws, she was charged with fornication outside marriage and sentenced to 100 lashes, later reduced to 50 and then 25 because of her age, and sent to jail. After four months her prison ordeal ended when a family friend secretly paid a bribe. Her plight is not unique.

    According to a recent report by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a woman is gang-raped every eight hours in the country. However, because of social taboos, discriminatory laws and the treatment of victims by police, campaigners believe the real figure is far higher. Women who report their rapists remain more likely to go to prison themselves than see justice, so most cases are never reported. Women who are raped can face legal difficulties anywhere in the world, but human rights groups remain particularly concerned over Pakistan's record. Their alarm is centred on enforcement of the 'Hudood ordinances', a complex set of Koranic laws whose name is derived from hud meaning 'punishment'. Similar sharia laws have existed in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan for centuries, but Pakistan's were enacted by former President Zia ul-Haq only in 1979, as part of his radical attempt to 'Islamicise' the country.

    The legislation has always been full of legal ambiguities, and none more so than the Zina ordinance which deals with adultery, premarital sex and rape. The maximum punishment for adultery is stoning to death for married people and 100 lashes for the unwed.

    For a rape trial to go ahead in Pakistan, four adult Muslim men, 'all of a pious and trustworthy nature', must have witnessed the attack and be willing to testify. Evidence from female and non-Muslim witnesses is considered worthless. A woman who can't produce those witnesses can be prosecuted for fornication and alleging a false crime, the penalties for which are stoning, lashings or prison."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3511560.shtml

    "A Saudi court sentenced a woman who had been gang raped to six months in jail and 200 lashes - more than doubling her initial penalty for being in the car of a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported Thursday.

    The New York Times reported that her lawyer, Abdulrahman al-Lahem, is a well-known human rights activist who angered the court by publicly criticizing the verdict. He said the verdict was too lenient for the rapists and unjust for the victim.

    The victim had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicting her of violating Saudi's rigid laws on segregation of the sexes.

    Under Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives.

    The initial sentences for the men convicted of the gang rape ranged from 10 months to five years in prison. Their new sentences range from two to nine years, the paper said."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rsagainstwomen

    "In Darfur, Janjaweed militia kidnapped a 12-year-old girl and gang-raped her for a week, pulling her legs so far apart that she was crippled for life. The biggest fear of rape victims in Darfur, however, is that they will never find a husband. Under sharia law, raped women are prosecuted for adultery or fornication. Last year, at least two young women in Sudan were sentenced to death by stoning. As Refugees International observes: "The government is more likely to take action against those who report and document rape than those who commit it."

    -

    Sharia law when fully applied in several countries results in this kind of barbarity, and as it isn't fully applied in any country where it would be a more sensible toned down version of Sharia, the point that it could be interpreted differently is a mute point. There are countries which apply bits of sharia, but they mix them with other legal principles - and if you have to mix it or reinterpret it in line with modern sensibilities what is the point of advocating it over a modern legal system anyway? The argument is for 'Sharia lite' without the same level of misogynistic calories, but even the fluffy safe versions of Sharia are still prejudicial to women's rights to equality before the law.

    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Now lets us compare that with your bible
    And if we had a legal system based on the ugliest parts of the Old Testament (which is in any case superceeded by the New Testament for Christians in the same way that the Hadith is not binding upon Muslim) you just might have a point. But its not Christians campaigning for misogynistic legal codes that effectively punish rape victims now is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    This seems to conflict with secular historians.

    "The material which penetrated from Mecca to Greece prior to Islam was popularized, and heavily fused with Jewish and Christian elements."

    (Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, ed. A.F.L. Beeston et.al., Cambridge 1983, pp.460-464)
    Islam doesn't disagree with this from my understanding, it openly admits this but states that Christians have strayed from their original teachings.

    There is much evidence on this point from completely independent sources, about the Bible not being what it was in its original form. There are so many different variations of it, so many different interpretations. It has supposedly been subjected to a complete revamp in some aspects, according to some people. Hence, the promise from God (in the Qu'ran), to protect the Qu'ran from any changes until the day of judgement.

    King Henry VIII made up his own version did he not after disagreement with the pope? (correct me if i'm wrong, this is simply my understanding).

    Though muslims have similar (to some extent) divisions and sects within their faith, Sunni & Shia been the main one, but they all still believe in the 1 same book.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)

    "A Saudi court sentenced a woman who had been gang raped to six months in jail and 200 lashes - more than doubling her initial penalty for being in the car of a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported Thursday.

    The New York Times reported that her lawyer, Abdulrahman al-Lahem, is a well-known human rights activist who angered the court by publicly criticizing the verdict. He said the verdict was too lenient for the rapists and unjust for the victim.

    The victim had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicting her of violating Saudi's rigid laws on segregation of the sexes.
    Was she punished because she broke the segregation laws or because she was raped?

    In other words, had she not been in that car, and been raped 'out-of-the-blue', would she still be punished the same way?

    I think not. If you're arguing that being raped warrants a punishment, you failed in this particular example you cherry-picked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Western women don't have to provide any more evidence than their own testimony, and if the prosecution is not successful they are not punished as a result.



    And in the real world:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006...an.theobserver

    "Up to 80 per cent of women in Pakistan's jails are charged under rules that penalise rape victims. But hardliners have vetoed an end to the Islamic laws

    ...The story of this 19-year-old's journey here is horrifying. In spring 2005 she was raped by her family's neighbour, a postman, and his teenage son. She fell pregnant - and later miscarried - as a result. Her mistake was to tell her parents. With their consent, under Pakistan's orthodox Islamic laws, she was charged with fornication outside marriage and sentenced to 100 lashes, later reduced to 50 and then 25 because of her age, and sent to jail. After four months her prison ordeal ended when a family friend secretly paid a bribe. Her plight is not unique.

    According to a recent report by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a woman is gang-raped every eight hours in the country. However, because of social taboos, discriminatory laws and the treatment of victims by police, campaigners believe the real figure is far higher. Women who report their rapists remain more likely to go to prison themselves than see justice, so most cases are never reported. Women who are raped can face legal difficulties anywhere in the world, but human rights groups remain particularly concerned over Pakistan's record. Their alarm is centred on enforcement of the 'Hudood ordinances', a complex set of Koranic laws whose name is derived from hud meaning 'punishment'. Similar sharia laws have existed in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan for centuries, but Pakistan's were enacted by former President Zia ul-Haq only in 1979, as part of his radical attempt to 'Islamicise' the country.

    The legislation has always been full of legal ambiguities, and none more so than the Zina ordinance which deals with adultery, premarital sex and rape. The maximum punishment for adultery is stoning to death for married people and 100 lashes for the unwed.

    For a rape trial to go ahead in Pakistan, four adult Muslim men, 'all of a pious and trustworthy nature', must have witnessed the attack and be willing to testify. Evidence from female and non-Muslim witnesses is considered worthless. A woman who can't produce those witnesses can be prosecuted for fornication and alleging a false crime, the penalties for which are stoning, lashings or prison."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3511560.shtml

    "A Saudi court sentenced a woman who had been gang raped to six months in jail and 200 lashes - more than doubling her initial penalty for being in the car of a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported Thursday.

    The New York Times reported that her lawyer, Abdulrahman al-Lahem, is a well-known human rights activist who angered the court by publicly criticizing the verdict. He said the verdict was too lenient for the rapists and unjust for the victim.

    The victim had initially been sentenced to 90 lashes after being convicting her of violating Saudi's rigid laws on segregation of the sexes.

    Under Saudi Arabia's interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women are not allowed in public in the company of men other than their male relatives.

    The initial sentences for the men convicted of the gang rape ranged from 10 months to five years in prison. Their new sentences range from two to nine years, the paper said."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rsagainstwomen

    "In Darfur, Janjaweed militia kidnapped a 12-year-old girl and gang-raped her for a week, pulling her legs so far apart that she was crippled for life. The biggest fear of rape victims in Darfur, however, is that they will never find a husband. Under sharia law, raped women are prosecuted for adultery or fornication. Last year, at least two young women in Sudan were sentenced to death by stoning. As Refugees International observes: "The government is more likely to take action against those who report and document rape than those who commit it."

    -

    Sharia law when fully applied in several countries results in this kind of barbarity, and as it isn't fully applied in any country where it would be a more sensible toned down version of Sharia, the point that it could be interpreted differently is a mute point. There are countries which apply bits of sharia, but they mix them with other legal principles - and if you have to mix it or reinterpret it in line with modern sensibilities what is the point of advocating it over a modern legal system anyway? The argument is for 'Sharia lite' without the same level of misogynistic calories, but even the fluffy safe versions of Sharia are still prejudicial to women's rights to equality before the law.



    And if we had a legal system based on the ugliest parts of the Old Testament (which is in any case superceeded by the New Testament for Christians in the same way that the Hadith is not binding upon Muslim) you just might have a point. But its not Christians campaigning for misogynistic legal codes that effectively punish rape victims now is it?
    None of this relates firstly to Sharia arbitration in the UK.

    Secondly, most muslims say that these are skewed interpretations and sometimes totally incorrect interpretations of Islamic law. They would also argue that these are human frailties rather than flaws within the Law. I'm no exper though, this is simply the response I have had from western muslims when I've asked them about this in the past.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.