This is just sickening!

smeggle

They say that Muslims/Islamists are offended by the recent pics/cartoons and they are most agrieved and then they also wonder why the Western World can ridicule and find disgust in there oh so perfect understanding, harmonious religion?

Heres a reason why

Girl to be hanged in Iran for killing rapist

Iran to hang teenage girl attacked by rapists

Sat. 07 Jan 2006
Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

Last week, a court in the city of Rasht, northern Iran, sentenced Delara Darabi to death by hanging charged with murder when she was 17 years old. Darabi has denied the charges.

In August 2004, Iran’s Islamic penal system sentenced a 16-year-old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, to death after a sham trial, in which she was accused of committing “acts incompatible with chastity”.

The teenage victim had no access to a lawyer at any stage and efforts by her family to retain one were to no avail. Atefeh personally defended herself and told the religious judge that he should punish those who force women into adultery, not the victims. She was eventually hanged in public in the northern town of Neka.



link: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/ne...hp?storyid=5184


Only one word can really describe how I personally feel about these people 'Sickening'...

The girl protects herself and her niece from a threat to there lives basically and these sickening perverts hang her?

If that is your idea of a decent religion then I an so glad I am non-religious..

What a thouroughly disgusting bunch of bigotted mindless, perverted excuses of an existance. That is far worse than any stupid cartoon depicting some geexer with a bomb on his head and they ask or demand more like that I show respect? Like F*** I'll show perverts like this any respect...

:mad:

**Please spread this story**

DubGal

That just angers me, I can't comprehend how sick it is. I reckon the cartoon should be blown up in size, attatched to a plane, and flew over Iran etc

flogen

I don't think the actions of the state of Iran is truely representative of the Islamic faith.
It's ignorant for you to assume otherwise.

lostexpectation

lets bomb them into civilisation!!!

mike65

No its the House of Saud that truly represnts Islam....or is it Ozzy Bin Liner, or is it the Talliban?....etc

The simple truth is no "Christian" (if I may use that as shorthand) court would pass such a sentence.

Mike.

flogen

mike65 wrote:

No its the House of Saud that truly represnts Islam....or is it Ozzy Bin Liner, or is it the Talliban?....etc

The simple truth is no "Christian" (if I may use that as shorthand) court would pass such a sentence.

Mike.

From what I can gather no country truly represents Islam, or Christianity for that matter.
I think that criticising Islamic people because Iran is a totalitarian state is ignorant; regardless of what other countries would or wouldn't do.

smeggle

flogen wrote:

I don't think the actions of the state of Iran is truely representative of the Islamic faith.
It's ignorant for you to assume otherwise.

religious judge

It's Religion that is sentencing them not the Iranian State - they do that - there fair game to any scorn, ridicule or otherwise that is heaped upon them imo..

That is not ignorance it is ignorance of any base moral value instead by them and no way can they tell me that Muhamed would agree with such a decision nor any where in the Koran would it agree with it.

This is the decision of a disgusting morally perveted individual who was probably only jealous that he could not have been there to help rape the girl in the first place.

I'm not a violent person by any means nor do I condone violence but I beat that 'Religious Judge' till he got a grip on reality. I actually sympathised with them over the bomb joke in away but certainly not now and not after there resulting reaction.

They deserve everything they get. People like this are an insult to humanity and imho that superseeds any Religion, no matter what that Religion is, Islamic or otherwise.

Hobbes

**Please spread this story**

Isn't that how urban legends start? Seeing as we are in news/media hows about actually researching the story.

For example an initial look.
- Only 1 website has this news story.
- Absolutly no other news/media outlet I could find has the story.
- I can find numerous copies of this exact same story but no initial source. (which is supposed to be in Etemaad paper).

Hows about coming back with your research before jumping to conclusions.

Hobbes

Ok further checking. The story above is kind of correct. First up she wasn't raped. She killed one of the attackers in an attempted rape. (and before anyone asks whats the difference, ask yourself what is the difference between Murder and attempted murder).

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130052006

Horrible. Yes. But before you get all worked up about teenagers being put to the death I suggest you look through western media. You might be disturbed to find that the west also puts children, mentally unstable and OAP to death.

Hobart

flogen wrote:

From what I can gather no country truly represents Islam, or Christianity for that matter.
I think that criticising Islamic people because Iran is a totalitarian state is ignorant; regardless of what other countries would or wouldn't do.

Exactly, "from what you can gather", you are the one admitting to ignorance. You are in no position to say what does and does not represent the faith/state of Islam. You seem to be posting, just for the sake of posting.

smeggle

Well - lets see how the Minister for Foreign affairs specialising in Human Rights fairs. I have just phoned and given details of the story to a representitive there and registered a formal complaint with them!

I have also made enquiaries to the Iranian Embassy in Dublin and at first had a nice chat (In English) with a chap there. Once he found out what my complaint was, he immediately switched to 'Pigeon English' and 'I not understand English' and to call back tomorrow. Yeah figures - you could understand English at first though matey!!

We'll leave it in the hands of the Foreign Office and see if they will or do follow up. They better cause I will certainly be following it up with them!

And fair play to the one website who has the guts to print! Others are probably to scared considering the recent reactions!

edit: I mean how? How can anyone accuse anyone girl, woman or otherwise of killing someone who was intent on doing them harm? and not only that 3!! of them!!

Oh thats ok for the three men irrespective of Religion to attack and hurt someone? And that person has no right what so ever to protect them selves or there younger relatives?

Those men were the ones committing the crime not the girls and there blokes should be utterly and thouroughly ashamed of themselves. I don't know which disgusts me more. I'd wager a strong bet if it had been the otherway around and the guys had stayed and killed one of the 'Would be Rapists' that he wouldn't be getting sentenced to death!

And what difference does it make 'Attempted Rape or Rape'? Well only difference here is that he would be A 'Rapist' instead of 'Only' an 'Attempted Rapists' if the girl hadn't got the better of him!...


As far as I'm concerned I have no respect what soever for people like this. Demanding 'Moral Respect' from me whilst carrying out the most repugnant of atrocious behaviour under the guise of a Religion!

Baggly

mike65 wrote:

The simple truth is no "Christian" (if I may use that as shorthand) court would pass such a sentence.

they were called the dark ages.

granted we ve moved on, are we going to punish others for not believing as we do?

take into account i think this was a disgraceful act and is concurrent with the story i heard on matt coopers the last word, where a group of young school girls were beaten back into a burning school cause they didnt have their head scarves on.

that is wrong, by anyone i know's standards.

but islam will have to evolve as christianity did if we are to see an end to it. and noone here can force that change, especially not by saying

lostexpectation wrote:

lets bomb them into civilisation!!!

flogen

Hobart wrote:

Exactly, "from what you can gather", you are the one admitting to ignorance. You are in no position to say what does and does not represent the faith/state of Islam. You seem to be posting, just for the sake of posting.

I never pretended to be an expert of Islamic states; in relation to the issue at hand I am certain that Iran is not a fair representative of the faith, and I have yet to see a state that is, the same applies for Christianity. I'm sure most countries legal system is based heavily on religious ideals, although this is because the basis religious ideals of most faiths are common sense; don't murder, don't steal etc.
I was not posting for the sake of posting, I was posting because I felt it was dangerous for the OP to draw ties between a legal decision of a state and the religion it claims to follow.

Hobart

flogen wrote:

I never pretended to be an expert of Islamic states; in relation to the issue at hand I am certain that Iran is not a fair representative of the faith, and I have yet to see a state that is, the same applies for Christianity. I'm sure most countries legal system is based heavily on religious ideals, although this is because the basis religious ideals of most faiths are common sense; don't murder, don't steal etc.
I was not posting for the sake of posting, I was posting because I felt it was dangerous for the OP to draw ties between a legal decision of a state and the religion it claims to follow.

Well here's some links for you

1) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

explains why they are called the Islamic Repluic of Iran (with some history)

2) http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/iran.html

A guide to the law in Islamic Iran

3) http://www.iranjudiciary.org/supremecourts_en.html

A link to the Islamic High Court in Iran

4) http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/irn-summary-eng

A brief listing of some punishments that have been handed down by the Islamic Courts in Iran.

Maybe you would like to qualify why you feel that a country which has a population of over 68 million, of which, 98% practices the Islamic faith is not representitive of Islam?

Hobbes

Hobart wrote:

Maybe you would like to qualify why you feel that a country which has a population of over 68 million, of which, 98% practices the Islamic faith is not representitive of Islam?

Because it makes up 4.8% of total Muslims in the world?

Incidently muslims in the Arab world only make up 18% of the muslim population in the world.

Baggly

Hobbes wrote:

Because it makes up 4.8% of total Muslims in the world?

Incidently muslims in the Arab world only make up 18% of the muslim population in the world.

good point here. altho it doesnt change the fact that this is a harrowing story

Hobbes

smeggle wrote:

And what difference does it make 'Attempted Rape or Rape'? Well only difference here is that he would be A 'Rapist' instead of 'Only' an 'Attempted Rapists' if the girl hadn't got the better of him!..

It would be nice if we could apply that rule to everything but you will find the same would apply in the west. Granted your not looking at a death sentance in say Ireland but you would certainly be looking at jail time for killing someone.

Hobart

Hobbes wrote:

Because it makes up 4.8% of total Muslims in the world?

Incidently muslims in the Arab world only make up 18% of the muslim population in the world.

I don't see your point tbh. This is a country populated by muslims, ruled by muslims and policed by muslims. How are they not representitive of the muslim faith? Is it because of the overall percentage that they represent in the muslim faith across the world?

smeggle

flogen wrote:

I was posting because I felt it was dangerous for the OP to draw ties between a legal decision of a state and the religion it claims to follow.

The thing is flogen, it would be a lot simpler if it was a legal decision of a state though still as reprehensible. Here though judgements are made not by a 'Legal State' as we understand it but a 'Religious influenced Judgement'.

Were it the former it would be a lot easier to apply Govermental Pressures to influence a change. However because there 'Legal Decisions' and there trials are procided over by Religious Zealots/Extremists it is far harder to influence change.

Remember that there trials are presided over not by 'State Judges' but Religious Leaders'.

It is that and there scurrilous demands for respect in the most vemhement and violent way possible over the last few weeks that has led me to finally speak out. I personally have no problem with any culture or with anyones beliefs. I believe that everyone has the right to believe in that which they choose but that should be civilised.

They request my respect? Fine, I'll respect them as long as they do not insult my moral humanity in itstead. I'm sorry but Moral Humanity superseads any religious belief in any way or form. It would be as well for some of the other mentioned religions to get that point as well!

I'm not having a go at you flogen and I see your point clearly but as I said it's not a 'Legal State' passing this sentence - thats a big difference really..

Apoligies for being so 'Lit up' about it...

edit: @Hobbes:

It would be nice if we could apply that rule to everything but you will find the same would apply in the west. Granted your not looking at a death sentance in say Ireland but you would certainly be looking at jail time for killing someone.

Not really, in the West and especially in this case, the girl would not have faced a charge. It would have rightly been a 'Case of Self Defence'. Even if not a girl but anyone, male or female has the right to protect themselves even if ultimately that leads to the death of another. In that sence some may bring in the case of the Farmer that was convicted (Luckily imho) of manslaughter.
There is a distinct difference between the two. In this case the person is outnumbered three to one and has probably been incredibly lucky to have defended thier own life and that of thier relative. There is absolutely no way anyone in there right mind could see that this person commited any crime and anyone who does and especially so under the guise of some 'Religion' is not only an insult to all that is humanely moral but also an affront and insult to that Religion.

Hobbes

petermonaghan wrote:

good point here. altho it doesnt change the fact that this is a harrowing story

Agreed. But I would love to see a bit of perspective in the whole thing. We go on about how terrible country X is that doesn't follow our ideals when the truth generally is that the west is often as bad. We just have watered down media.

For example if you saw the Austrailan documentry recently about Abu Garib (which showed all photos) and were told it was Iran that did this sort of thing there would be holy war over it. Yet the incident hardly got a mention in Western media (seriously). Bagnews did a piece on it.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2006/02/media_coverage_.html

Capt'n Midnight

Sharia law isn't the same as Islam is it ?
Are there different interpretations of it ?

IIRC Sharia law means that a woman needs four male witnesses to be able to prove an allegation of rape. Otherwise there may be the possibility that she could be accused of adultary

flogen

Hobart wrote:

Well here's some links for you

1) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

explains why they are called the Islamic Repluic of Iran (with some history)

2) http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/iran.html

A guide to the law in Islamic Iran

3) http://www.iranjudiciary.org/supremecourts_en.html

A link to the Islamic High Court in Iran

4) http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/irn-summary-eng

A brief listing of some punishments that have been handed down by the Islamic Courts in Iran.

Maybe you would like to qualify why you feel that a country which has a population of over 68 million, of which, 98% practices the Islamic faith is not representitive of Islam?

All those links prove is that the Iranian government calls itself the Islamic Republic of Iran because its supreme leader has been an Ayatollah since the revolution (because the majority of people are Shi'a Muslims etc. etc.). It doesn't prove anything about the links between Iranian law and Islamic beliefs.
I have yet to see any valid links between this court ruling and the Islamic faith.

The decision is certainly appauling, but I don't think it should justify criticism of the Islamic faith, just the Iranian government.

Baggly

Hobbes wrote:

Agreed. But I would love to see a bit of perspective in the whole thing. We go on about how terrible country X is that doesn't follow our ideals when the truth generally is that the west is often as bad. We just have watered down media.

For example if you saw the Austrailan documentry recently about Abu Garib (which showed all photos) and were told it was Iran that did this sort of thing there would be holy war over it. Yet the incident hardly got a mention in Western media (seriously). Bagnews did a piece on it.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2006/02/media_coverage_.html

please define 'west'

Hobbes

Hobart wrote:

Is it because of the overall percentage that they represent in the muslim faith across the world?

Correct. As pointed out before the Islam religon does not have a central person (like the pope). Instead you have Imans/Scholars who preach the interpretation of the faith.

Hobbes

petermonaghan wrote:

please define 'west'

Europe, USA, Canada although Austrailia tends to fall into it as well. Not the middle East. I am guessing you didn't even bother reading the link and are instead trying to argue on what a word means.

Johnee

The US is a Christian country, made up predominantly of Christians, and with a government which makes very obvious its belief that its actions are guided by Christian values.

Yet it has executed mentally ill and child 'criminals'.

Do I think the US equals Christianity? No. Just as one government does not represent all Muslims.

Every religion has its proportion of zealous 'true believers' who enforce the letter and not the spirit of it teachings. And, by and large, they tend to come from the poorer, less educated classes. It's certainly the case with the hard-core US evangelicals. As it is with the countries with the most hard-core Islamic laws.

Makes you think about whether we're doing the right thing in focusing on the religion rather than the socio-economic background that breeds these underclasses.

Hobart

flogen wrote:

All those links prove is that the Iranian government calls itself the Islamic Republic of Iran because its supreme leader has been an Ayatollah since the revolution (because the majority of people are Shi'a Muslims etc. etc.). It doesn't prove anything about the links between Iranian law and Islamic beliefs.
I have yet to see any valid links between this court ruling and the Islamic faith.

The decision is certainly appauling, but I don't think it should justify criticism of the Islamic faith, just the Iranian government.

From the second link I put up:

Article 170 [Control of Regulations]
Judges of courts are obliged to refrain from executing statutes and regulations of the government that are in conflict with the laws or the norms of Islam, or lie outside the competence of the executive power. Everyone has the right to demand the annulment of any such regulation from the Court of Administrative Justice.

There are lots more, but I have linked to the parent documents. What about the actual question I posed in the piece you quoted from.

Hobart

Hobbes wrote:

Correct. As pointed out before the Islam religon does not have a central person (like the pope). Instead you have Imans/Scholars who preach the interpretation of the faith.

Hang on, are you telling me that 60 odd million people are incapable of living in an islamic way because they do not have a pope? They may not be a "huge" (in percentage terms) chunck of the world population of Islamics, but I would argue that they could not be far from representing their faith.

Baggly

Hobbes wrote:

Europe, USA, Canada although Austrailia tends to fall into it as well. Not the middle East. I am guessing you didn't even bother reading the link and are instead trying to argue on what a word means.

you guess wrong, what i was getting at was a clear definition which would include ireland or not. condemning us for what was primarily a us atrocity when we havent been in a war since the war of independence would be unfair. its that kind of generalisation that you just disagreed with with hobart

Hobbes

Hobart wrote:

Hang on, are you telling me that 60 odd million people are incapable of living in an islamic way because they do not have a pope? They may not be a "huge" (in percentage terms) chunck of the world population of Islamics, but I would argue that they could not be far from representing their faith.

You can argue all you want. You are wrong. There is no central voice to the religon so it is open to interpretation by various Imans. They are living in an Islamic way, but thier interpretation of it.

Seriously, its like saying that Protestants are Roman Catholics. Or comparing Christian fundies to normal Christians.

Incidently if I was you I would go read up on how these fanatics in Iran got into power.

Hobbes

petermonaghan wrote:

you guess wrong, what i was getting at was a clear definition which would include ireland or not. condemning us for what was primarily a us

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am not saying we (as Ireland) had a part in Abu Garib, however the Western media has seriously played down what went on there. The documentry shows everything and there is only a small portion of it shown in Western media and then mostly pictures similar to the first set.

Incidently you can watch the full documentry here.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/02/abu_ghraib_redu.html

Then go look at some of the Western papers to see what matches up (you can use Bagnews for examples)

Hobart

Hobbes wrote:

You can argue all you want. You are wrong. There is no central voice to the religon so it is open to interpretation by various Imans. They are living in an Islamic way, but thier interpretation of it.

Seriously, its like saying that Protestants are Roman Catholics. Or comparing Christian fundies to normal Christians.

Incidently if I was you I would go read up on how these fanatics in Iran got into power.

I'm not arguing with the facts. I accept that there is no central voice, big deal tbh.

I would argue that a country with 98% of the population Islamic could, in all reasonability, an Islamic country and are representitive of the Islamic faith, what ever that kind of Islamic faith in that country would be (are they Fundie Islamics? non-fundie ones? Which?).

I would never equate Protestants to RC's, that's ignorant. I would call them christians though. Christian fundies are christians, just fundamental ones.


As for the power rise, I'm probably a bit older than you give me credit for, I lived through the Shaa and his overthrow.

flogen

Hobart wrote:

From the second link I put up:

Article 170 [Control of Regulations]
Judges of courts are obliged to refrain from executing statutes and regulations of the government that are in conflict with the laws or the norms of Islam, or lie outside the competence of the executive power. Everyone has the right to demand the annulment of any such regulation from the Court of Administrative Justice.

There are lots more, but I have linked to the parent documents. What about the actual question I posed in the piece you quoted from.

So the law cannot oppose the laws and norms of Islamic teaching; however I don't know of (but am open to correction) any Islamic teaching which specifically covers what should be done in this case (when someone kills someone who is attempting to rape them). In other words, this decision was made on an interpretation of Islamic law, I'm not sure how good or bad an interpretation that is, but I cannot see it as being one based too heavily on Islamic faith.

Maybe you would like to qualify why you feel that a country which has a population of over 68 million, of which, 98% practices the Islamic faith is not representitive of Islam?

I don't think it's fair to suggest that each Muslim in Iran agree entirely with the Supreme Leader, the President or the Legal representatives of the state. For all we know this decision is abhorred by 97% of the population, or it could be supported by the same amount.

Baggly

Hobbes wrote:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am not saying we (as Ireland) had a part in Abu Garib, however the Western media has seriously played down what went on there. The documentry shows everything and there is only a small portion of it shown in Western media and then mostly pictures similar to the first set.

Incidently you can watch the full documentry here.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/02/abu_ghraib_redu.html

Then go look at some of the Western papers to see what matches up (you can use Bagnews for examples)

it seems to me that bagnews seems to be focusing too much on this issue. i concede that it deserves more attention than some of the 'western', and i still hate that word, papers have been giving it, but your asking me to compare a news source that gave a small amount of coverage to a news source that gave too large an amount of coverage, imo

metrovelvet

flogen wrote:

I don't think the actions of the state of Iran is truely representative of the Islamic faith.
It's ignorant for you to assume otherwise.

Yes and its not the KKK who are the racists, its just the extremist ones. :rolleyes:

Greenhorse

Hey People,

Lots of bashing of Islam here. Lots of bashing of people bashing Islam and lots of .........

bla bla bla.

Anybody who has the time should call into the Chester Beatty library in Dublin Castle. explaines the difference between the different branches of Islam. Just like christianity they are splintered and neither one likes the other.

BTW. How did these people get in charge of Iran. Oh thats right the Allies of old proclamed a Shah to rule Iran and to be a bit of a pal to the west. Unfortunatly he wasnt very well liked by his people so was overthrown and the present status was reached.

So what did the Allies of old do next ? Lets give lots of money and amunition to Iraq to fight the pesky new govnt of Iran. While we are at it lets thro lots of money and amunition at the Mujahadin (Binny Layden et al) to fight the pesky Russians in Afganastan.

And finally lets ignore the fact that 80% of the 9/11 suicide bombers were Saudi and thats where all the 9/11 funding came from and go and topple our previous mates in Iraq because they are getting a bit uppity.


Lets go out and earn some money and bring our girlfriends/wifes out on the town and enjoy what we have and stop slinging mud thru the air.

Rgds,

Niall

.

flogen

metrovelvet wrote:

Yes and its not the KKK who are the racists, its just the extremist ones. :rolleyes:

Explain that please.
Are you trying to say that Islam is as extreme as the KKK?

flogen

Greenhorse wrote:

Hey People,

Lots of bashing of Islam here. Lots of bashing of people bashing Islam and lots of .........

bla bla bla.

Anybody who has the time should call into the Chester Beatty library in Dublin Castle. explaines the difference between the different branches of Islam. Just like christianity they are splintered and neither one likes the other.

BTW. How did these people get in charge of Iran. Oh thats right the Allies of old proclamed a Shah to rule Iran and to be a bit of a pal to the west. Unfortunatly he wasnt very well liked by his people so was overthrown and the present status was reached.

So what did the Allies of old do next ? Lets give lots of money and amunition to Iraq to fight the pesky new govnt of Iran. While we are at it lets thro lots of money and amunition at the Mujahadin (Binny Layden et al) to fight the pesky Russians in Afganastan.

And finally lets ignore the fact that 80% of the 9/11 suicide bombers were Saudi and thats where all the 9/11 funding came from and go and topple our previous mates in Iraq because they are getting a bit uppity.


Lets go out and earn some money and bring our girlfriends/wifes out on the town and enjoy what we have and stop slinging mud thru the air.

Rgds,

Niall

.

This thread has already developed into something that would probably suit better in the Islam forum, please lets not move even more off topic.

Hobbes

petermonaghan wrote:

it seems to me that bagnews seems to be focusing too much on this issue. i concede that it deserves more attention than some of the 'western', and i still hate that word, papers have been giving it, but your asking me to compare a news source that gave a small amount of coverage to a news source that gave too large an amount of coverage, imo

Well fine, then pick various western papers and see what was printed vs the documentry. I am not sure what you mean by they are focusing too much on the issue. It is one article.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Agreed. But I would love to see a bit of perspective in the whole thing. We go on about how terrible country X is that doesn't follow our ideals when the truth generally is that the west is often as bad. We just have watered down media.

There is validity in that, certainly. Both western and eastern media are guilty of it.

You can argue all you want. You are wrong. There is no central voice to the religon so it is open to interpretation by various Imans. They are living in an Islamic way, but thier interpretation of it.

Very true. While there are consistancies, the lack of a central authority causes problems.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Sharia law isn't the same as Islam is it ?
Are there different interpretations of it ?

It depends on your viewpoint. Unlike Christianity(and others), Islam from the start, set down more complete and complex rules and regulations for everyday life. There is less seperation of church and state and arms of same. Sharia law would be a large part of that. The wiki article is a good starting point for further study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law (and the rebuttal page too). The Islam forum would be another place to check out.

IIRC Sharia law means that a woman needs four male witnesses to be able to prove an allegation of rape. Otherwise there may be the possibility that she could be accused of adultary

In the more extreme examples of Sharia, it's not just rape but any serious crime where a woman's testimony is worth half a man's. This is debated by many progressive Muslim scholars, however. The latter bit doesn't get the headlines though, nearly as much as the uneducated 'primitives' stoning and hanging people.

There are two sides to this. Sadly if the media keep promoting the nuttyier guff it may just act as advertising for it.

Freddie59

flogen wrote:

Explain that please.
Are you trying to say that Islam is as extreme as the KKK?

Well I'd say that haging a girl for murdering an "attempted rapist" comes very close. We can argue this East/West BS all night. This is savagery at it's worst. It belongs in the Middle Ages - with those bigoted "religious" "zealots" who practice this barbarity. Shades of Afghanistan.:mad:

The kkk hated blacks and treated them like a sub species.

Islam behaves similarly with women.

Coincidental?

Freedoms in Iran:

http://setad.org/foto/FOTO-S/befor&today/Before-After.htm

flogen

Freddie59 wrote:

Well I'd say that haging a girl for murdering an "attempted rapist" comes very close. We can argue this East/West BS all night. This is savagery at it's worst. It belongs in the Middle Ages - with those bigoted "religious" "zealots" who practice this barbarity. Shades of Afghanistan.:mad:

The kkk hated blacks and treated them like a sub species.

Islam behaves similarly with women.

Coincidental?

Freedoms in Iran:

http://setad.org/foto/FOTO-S/befor&today/Before-After.htm

I agree in so far as to say that this is savagery and it is not something that should be accepted; but I have seen nothing to suggest that this punishment was handed down in the name of real Islamic practice, why are people criticising the religion of a country rather than the country itself?
Ireland's constitution gives a special place for Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's catholicism's fault that the Irish Government allows US planes through shannon (despite the fact that they are going to fight an illegal war).
I know it's a bit different, but I can't see anyone except the Iranians claim that this act was Islamic.

Hagar

Obviously the girl should have allowed the men to commit the rape and when they had left, if she was still alive, she should have informed the proper authorities who would have dealt with the matter in a manner befitting the public good.

Freddie59

flogen wrote:

I agree in so far as to say that this is savagery and it is not something that should be accepted; but I have seen nothing to suggest that this punishment was handed down in the name of real Islamic practice, why are people criticising the religion of a country rather than the country itself?
Ireland's constitution gives a special place for Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's catholicism's fault that the Irish Government allows US planes through shannon (despite the fact that they are going to fight an illegal war).
I know it's a bit different, but I can't see anyone except the Iranians claim that this act was Islamic.

I see where you're coming from. I suppose the Islamic/Iranian thing is becoming very muddied, purely because people see things like this (and the cartoon issue) as the Islamic religion being used as an excuse to terrorise others.

The nub of the issue is the fact that they're using religion as an excuse for everything - the treatment of women seems to be a solely Arab/Islamic issue. In fact, 65 years ago in Ireland women were treated very similarly - only difference was they didn't have to wear that ridiculous getup(and could actually go to the beach, out in public, etc).

luckat

Two separate points.

First, a country can't be judged by isolated events, no matter how extreme those are. Take Ireland a few years ago, with the Kerry Babies, the Donegal gardai, Ann Lovett - you'd imagine that this was a church- and state-power-ridden, primitive country, but it wasn't.

Second, as several people have said, it's not unique to Muslim countries that unjust sentences happen - there's a play touring the world at the moment about an American couple sentenced to death for a murder they didn't commit. The man was executed in the electric chair; the woman served 16 years - even though the real murderer confessed three times after the trial.

Hagar

luckat wrote:

Two separate points.

First, a country can't be judged by isolated events, no matter how extreme those are. Take Ireland a few years ago, with the Kerry Babies, the Donegal gardai, Ann Lovett - you'd imagine that this was a church- and state-power-ridden, primitive country, but it wasn't.

I disagree Ireland was a Church ridden state and those events were typical of overall attitudes at the time

luckat wrote:

Second, as several people have said, it's not unique to Muslim countries that unjust sentences happen - there's a play touring the world at the moment about an American couple sentenced to death for a murder they didn't commit. The man was executed in the electric chair; the woman served 16 years - even though the real murderer confessed three times after the trial

May I point out the difference between a blatant miscarriage of justice and a system which is blatantly unjust.

Freddie59

luckat wrote:

Two separate points.

First, a country can't be judged by isolated events, no matter how extreme those are. Take Ireland a few years ago, with the Kerry Babies, the Donegal gardai, Ann Lovett - you'd imagine that this was a church- and state-power-ridden, primitive country, but it wasn't.

I would agree to a degree. But the difficulty I would have with it is that if you commint a crime here you won't have your head/limb, etc amputated. And a lot of the justice parctised in those countries is instantaneous. Although, given the revolving door justice system we have here at present, some of it wouldn't go astray here.

rsynnott

mike65 wrote:

No its the House of Saud that truly represnts Islam....or is it Ozzy Bin Liner, or is it the Talliban?....etc

The simple truth is no "Christian" (if I may use that as shorthand) court would pass such a sentence.

Mike.

I'd be cautious of saying that. Many christian-dominated and officially christian countries in the developing world have rather harsh laws.

metrovelvet

Like where rsynnott? Ireland? lol.

metrovelvet

flogen wrote:

I agree in so far as to say that this is savagery and it is not something that should be accepted; but I have seen nothing to suggest that this punishment was handed down in the name of real Islamic practice, why are people criticising the religion of a country rather than the country itself?
Ireland's constitution gives a special place for Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's catholicism's fault that the Irish Government allows US planes through shannon (despite the fact that they are going to fight an illegal war).
I know it's a bit different, but I can't see anyone except the Iranians claim that this act was Islamic.

Right. And the magdalene laundries had nothing to do with real Catholic practices. Nor did the beatings by the Christian brothers. Nor did the law which said its ok to rape a woman if your married to her, nor did the all the raping of little boys that took place. Give me a break. DO you think those things would have happened anywhere else but Ireland and perhaps the Middle East?

Ilegal war ... blah blah blah.... it doesnt change the nature of Islam whether this war is legal or not. They were like this before. Just ask my friend who lost his baby sister in the Lockerbie tragedy.

Is it Catholicisms fault that the Irish government allowed the systematic abuse of women and children for decades. Is it the governements fault that the Irish people let it happen through their passivity and denial? Yes yes yes it is.

You can't be a moderate in Islam. Its like saying I'm in the KKK but im a moderate. The extremist control the moderates. You guys need to wake up. These people are not our friends.

There is no separation of church and state in islam thats why you cant separate criticising islam from the countries that practise it.
luckat - I agree that the US has to get rid of the death penalty. It degrades all of us, it degrades respect for human life. IMO.

rsynnott

metrovelvet wrote:

Like where rsynnott? Ireland? lol.

We are, fortunately, no longer a Christian country. We, of course, used to be a Christian nightmare.