Hanged?
Pages
| Author | Topic: Hanged? |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 12:04
Profile
quote:What percentage of rapes are reported in Islamic countries, do you think? I'm thinking more of rapes committed by husbands and male relatives, which is supposedly very common, according to some anti-Islamic people. Come to think of it, it is said that most rape cases in Western countries aren't reported, let alone solved. Also, I'm no great fan of "let's butcher 1/3 of the peons to make the rest 50.1% happier" utilitarianism. :P Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 12:11
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, that's the correct comparison if the aim is to stop violence in general. However, it seems like the US is only worried about threats to itself (terrorism). Thus Afganistan and not Sudan. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 13:11
Profile
quote:And I'm sure Iranian women are glad to have a legal system that will go to any length to protect them. Even execute them. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 14:41
Profile
I'm sure some societies create laws to protect the individual rather than the society. I can understand not liking the law, the ruling, the death. Taken in isolation it appears to complete misogyny. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here, and I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that Iranian society is being harmed by this law. Perhaps you could make that clearer for me. *this message sponsored by keanu reeves* -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 15:58
Profile
If an unmarried woman can fight off her attacker, she will only come free, if she can prove that he wanted to rape her. Otherwise, death by stoning. If she comes free, honour killings are reported, because she has shamed her family. A married woman will be considered an adulteress in any case, death by stoning. Should a woman accidentily kill her attacker, she is charged with murder in any case, death by hanging. Well, it's not your gender that's being made to pay, young Jumpin'. That may explain your generosity. Sorry, but I feel hurt. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 16:11
Profile
Homepage
Iranian society isn't harmed, but Iranian women are. Look through Nicholas Kristof's columns in the New York Times for a very different perspective on rape in Islamic countries. I don't know how the statistics compare, but it's certainly a problem there too, and it's more of a problem because the law is on the side of the attackers, not the victims. —Alorael, who believes that laws for the good of society at the cost of individuals are generally considered human rights violations. If you would like to argue about the moral relativism of human rights, you may do so, but be clear that that's what you're doing. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 16:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:I would certainly hope so... and even so, it's still unpleasant. quote:When 50% of a country's population is victimized and repressed by a law, I think it's safe to say that society is being harmed. Sure, their society may be stable, but that doesn't mean that it's doing the people any good. In fact, that sort of rigidity seems to be a decisively negative trait, particularly when you're dealing with this kind of oppression. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 17:19
Profile
If we have any sense of inter-connectedness as the human race, anyone harming others in one place is harming us all. If a tree falls in the woods "unseen" it still alters its environment, because it's all interconnected. The owl loses its home. The trees it falls on are damaged. Nothing happens in true isolation. I think we have great accountability for our personal, and even hidden actions in this context. As someone stated earlier, the real question is what does any of us do about it? -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 18:23
Profile
Oh well, I'll give up my devil's advocate position to point out that this antiquated law is as acceptable as arranged marriage. It may have had a place in tribal days, when daughters were married off to other tribes in hopes of cementing trading bonds, but not today. It seems that purity and chastity were extremely important to those tribesman, otherwise they wouldn't have gone to great lengths to guarantee the same within their own families. Who would doubt a chieftains word on this matter if his own daughter had been put to the sword? Today, and indeed ever since the tribal system ended with the post World War I division of the middle east, this type of law does nothing to aid an ancient society in the modern world. Unfortunately it is not the focus of major corporations which benefit from their relationships with those countries. Great things were done a few decades ago when apartheid was officially ended in South Africa due to boycotts of major corporations, mutual funds, and stockholders of those corporations (specifically colleges) where those corporations did business in S Africa. If you believe, as I do, that something needs to be done, a boycott should work. It has worked before, and the crime against humanity is no less. There. Is everything all happy and jolly again? *this message sponsored by dick "deadeye" cheney* -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 19:37
Profile
Homepage
Iran and Middle Eastern countries with oil (or any country with oil) have a huge advantage over other countries. Modern society can't function without it. All other economic sanctions are basically worthless without including oil as part of the deal, but that would be a larger sanction on modern society than on the Middle East. Dikiyoba wishes the power of stupidity could be harnessed to generate electricity and run cars. A cheap, renewable power source would work wonders. Better yet, it wouldn't pollute the environment any worse than stupidity does while unharnessed. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 21:57
Profile
Social pressure can be brought to bear in strange and wonderful ways. Those countries may have oil, which we need, but they have very little else. Bring pressure on companies that send them products that they desire. Not necessarily for those companies to stop doing business, but for part of their message to be that misogyny is not part of the global economic culture. As a silly example, tell Rolls Royce that they are jerks for selling cars to rich guys that murder women. *this message sponsored by nike* -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 22:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA lol -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 23:11
Profile
Homepage
My guess as to TM's point is that the companies concerned care not one wit about anything that might harm their profits. Capitalism works in wonderful ways to make our world a better place every day. That crash was the sarcasm-meter going off the scale. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Tuesday, February 14 2006 23:52
Profile
I don't think companies could make a difference, even if they cared. Islamic law is based on the Quran. It is therefore somewhat open to interpretation, but not much. An eye for an eye is the basic rule and that is unchangeable. There is a fundamental difference between the Quran and the Old and New Testament of the Bible. Judaism and Christianity both differentiate between the message and the messenger, who is not seen as perfect and sacrosanct. Prophets and apostles tell us of God's/Jesus' teachings, and how they do that is seen as related to their own cultural background and time. So there's space to adapt their teachings to changing times. This is different in Islam. The Quran is understood as the direct teaching of God via the archangel Gabriel, who makes Muhammad aware of God's wishes for men and of God's law. That makes it an absolute message, infinite, unchangeable. There's not much space for interpretation. Also, as the Quran is younger than the Bible, it is seen as the final version of God's will. Islam has no trouble accepting the Bible, as we would accept the first edition of a book and then the second edited one. After that comes the third and final publication, and that covers all aspects of life, mundane and spiritual, private and public. Changes to Islam, if at all possible, can only come from within, through its own scholars and clergy, through its own people. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 00:18
Profile
This is my take as well. There is in principle a mechanism. The Quran does not actually function directly as a body of law for societies very different from the Medina of the first decade AH. A lot of interpretation and appeal to analogy is needed in order to extract relevant legal consequences from the revealed text. This has essentially always been explicitly recognized by Muslim jurists. In the first few centuries of Islam, four independent schools of legal interpretation grew up, all equally based on the Quran, but with somewhat differing conclusions. All four continue to function in parallel today. At some point a few centuries ago now, however, the consensus emerged in the Islamic world that enough interpreting had been done. It is said that 'the gates of interpretation were closed'. It is not accepted in any mainstream Islamic group today that one could found a new school of interpretation. And after centuries of use, there is not much freedom of interpretation within the four schools. Okay, that much I believe is true, based on my reading of a few books. I have no idea how the parallel schools of interpretation work out in practice in modern states where Islamic law is state law. I understand that more flexibility to interpret exists in Shia Islam, where recognized imams have immense authority. Hence it might actually be easier to revise Islamic law in Iran than in Sunni countries. Also there is some variation of legal opinion even within the four formal schools. Any individual Muslim legal scholar can issue a 'fetwa', or legal opinion; and opinions do differ. Whether any state agencies will respect an opinion is another matter. In principle, though, there is no reason why Muslims collectively could not just decide to re-open the gates of interpretation. Quite a few have called for this. The principle that interpretation is needed is already established. The only Quranic principle that constrains new interpretations is the precept that the general consensus of Muslims is infallible. Since closing the gates was a consensus, it cannot be undone by any small group. But a new consensus could legitimately emerge. In principle. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 06:57
Profile
I figured that would please TM to no end, but honestly Aran, step down from the high horse of sarcasm and provide a better answer than me. Using corporations as leverage has a long history of success, and is still in use today. Since the majority of US companies are publicly traded, their stock is distributed over a large number of people, and a percentage of those people would consider themselves to have a morality which precludes rape, torture, and societal misogyny. If one of the several extant groups was convinced that this cause is worthwhile and possible, they would be able to organize pressure at the corporate level to divest themselves from a list of Islamic states. Major stockholders could also have protests brought against them, much like Harvard and apartheid in the 1980's. I'm kinda disappointed that zero enthusiasm is produced when a solution is proposed, especially with you ef. You soundly castigated me for making an argument from the minority viewpoint, and then basically said that nothing can be done. Shame. GE stopped manufacturing nuclear weapon parts because of a boycott. Anything can be possible. *this message sponsored by the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Citizens Peace Committee" -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 07:39
Profile
Problem is that economic leverage is limited. Sanctions took decades to effect change in South Africa, and: I bet sanctions were only part of the cause of change; Iran sells mostly oil, which is a tough commodity to boycott; otherwise Iran's trade is mostly buying, and money is even tougher to boycott; and apartheid wasn't (quite?) a religion. Historically, I think the only sanctions that have had serious teeth have either quickly led to war, or had harsh effects on citizens that were comparable to those of war. It used to be that the United States could drop a big hammer by refusing to export oil to rogue nations. Those were the days, perhaps; then again, that was what provoked Pearl Harbor. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 07:49
Profile
Homepage
Arranged marriage is vastly better than legalized rape. I've indirectly known some Indian couples who were arranged by their parents and have lived happily together for their entire lives. This sort of custom is rather less likely to end in happiness all around. Islamic law is more open to interpretation than some would have people believe. The shari'a has adapted over time, and it has developed differently in different places. Polygamy is one good example. Muhammad said that each Muslim man could marry up to four women, as long as he could treat all four of them equally. This has often been interpreted to allow men to have multiple wives (although not hordes of women treated purely as property, as was the case before Islam — Muhammad and his message actually dramatically improved the status of women at the time). However, an argument surfaced, not long after the rise of Islam, that it's impossible to treat four different women exactly equally. Therefore, a man can marry only one wife. Many modern Muslims believe that this is the true meaning of the words of the Qu'ran. Some things are pretty much set in stone. A Muslim has to pray five times every day unless he or she is in immediate physical danger. But most things are open to a lot of interpretation, if only it were in the interests of the interpreters to give a more modern spin on these things. Personalities are in play here as much as the ancient message. [ Wednesday, February 15, 2006 07:52: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 08:14
Profile
quote:For good or bad, all western interference in the Middle East has had these consequences. It usually happens when "we" try to shift the political compass, which is so firmly tied to the religious compass that nothing can or will happen. (Ready TM?) Compassionate corporate ambassadors could however indirectly mention that more investment could result from a shift in view over the antiquated interpretations of women as physical commodities laws. Simply suggest that their value is also in their intellectual prowess. Human greed will direct secular leaders (political or corporate) to request new interpretations of the Quran, and if it is the will of the Prophet then it will happen. Religion is a collective. I hope I've not suggested that changing the status quo is easy, quick or painless. I'm not sure it ever has been. All I'm suggesting is that it is possible, there is a mechanism, and there only lacks a concerted effort to make it happen. Nicholas Kristof's articles may be very well written and researched, but I'm not sure they do more than sell newspapers. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 10:16
Profile
Homepage
By ef: quote:Not all Christians think that the Bible should be evaluated based on time. The authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus the words are timeless. Granted, Christians no longer have to follow the Levitical law, but that is because Christ fulfilled it (for more on this topic, read the Gospel according to Matthew and the letter to the Hebrews). (Sorry for the rant. After months in a sterile university environment, I need some theological release) And on the topic of sanctions: these rarely work on an authoritarian country. The leaders simply take more resources from the populace, and incite anger against the countries responsible for the sanction. -------------------- Everyone seems normal, until you get to know them. Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 12:49
Profile
quote:The essence of the message is, but that message is delivered through a human medium whose associations and understanding are shaped and limited by cultural background and time period. This is the official catholic canon, and is the reason why Pope Benedict feels that a dialogue should be started between christian and islamic clergy to discuss the very nature of revelation. Most protestant denominations have a similar outlook, though I know that there are currently (mainly american) protestant groups that disagree. quote:Yes. I honestly don't know what could be done. Like many others I'm currently trying to inform myself and understand things better, but what I do understand sofar has not yet opened a path ahead. And my favourite Imam quote, though it never fails to cheer me up, is not very helpful either: "Mohammed (peace be upon him) did not suffer anything from the newspaper cartoons because he is dead, he is at peace, he is in paradise. There is no reason to ask for any apology, because what do you expect from people who say God had a son. They will say anything. They will draw cartoons too." -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 15:04
Profile
quote:? Anyway, it's too bad the Kurdish genocide was over slowed or done for the most part by the time Bushie got around to his whole presidency thing. -------------------- "Oh, North Wind, why frighten others? In Nature's family all are brothers. Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss; You can't frighten Shingebiss. Bring your frost and ice and snow; I'm still free to come and go. You can never frighten me, One who never fears is FREE!" -Shingebiss, the mighty duck Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 16:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:I am inspired by the Holy Spirit to pee all over you. Now you come up with a decent counter-argument before I give you a golden shower. No, really. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 16:48
Profile
I'm afraid TM's correct this time… But I think ef's taking a bit of a universalist view of what scripture (biblical, non-apocryphal) is. My answer: Meh, what do I care what he thinks? EDIT: quote:And that's why all catholics are evil TERRORISTSSSSS!!! ^bad joke [ Wednesday, February 15, 2006 16:51: Message edited by: Desert Pl@h ] -------------------- "Oh, North Wind, why frighten others? In Nature's family all are brothers. Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss; You can't frighten Shingebiss. Bring your frost and ice and snow; I'm still free to come and go. You can never frighten me, One who never fears is FREE!" -Shingebiss, the mighty duck Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Wednesday, February 15 2006 16:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:I am inspired by the Holy Spirit to pee all over you. Now you come up with a decent counter-argument before I give you a golden shower. No, really.[/QB][/quote]Can you speak in tongues? :P -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |