Natalie,
I was going to chip in when the UK was mentioned some way back in this
thread, but I can't find it so I'll say it here. A good summary of the present
situation in the UK is given here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447
Mind you, if I were forced to cjhoose between Islam and Christianity I
would certainly choose the former for its theology. It is far more
understandable and far less morbid than Christianity. And Muslims look
after their poor, too. A least they used to. Whereas Christianity, when at
its most powerful in the Middle Ages, sloughed off the job to the local lay
council, it was the local mosque that supported the poor in the Muslim
countries. Nor was there much wrong with the culture of Islam in the Middle
Ages. I stand to be corrected by Lawry but the first thing that Muslim
armies did after conquering a country was was to send for its scholars at
home to join them. The scholars would wanr to see, and ultimately read and
translate, any literature, philosophic or mathematical, to be found there.
What's bothersome -- if not, downright nasty -- about present-day Islamic
culture in at least a dozen Middle East countries are practices such as
arranged marriages, girl circumcision and oppressive treatment of women
such as burying women up to their neck and stoning them on the basis of
their husbands say-so. To my mind, this puts modern Middle East Islam on an
ethical basis that's inferior to any hunter-gatherer tribe that has ever
been discovered. Mind you, Hinduism in some regions of modern India is just
as bad with widows being obliged to tnrow themselves onto their husbands's
funeral pyre, and we, too, in the UK, burning suspected witches only 400
years ago.
Keith
;00:36 15/03/2013, you wrote:
OK. Undea rstand.
N.
On 14/03/2013 5:11 PM, Ray Harrell wrote:
I wasn't being literal about Sharia in Oklahoma. It's the state's Anglos
that are using Sharia, which has no chance of being used in Oklahoma, as
a stalking horse to go after the Native courts. Perhaps the list
members are not aware that Sharia law was banned in Oklahoma. The
particulars are unimportant, it's the politics that counts. That is why
two idiot Oklahoma Senators have so much power. They are sophisticated
politically even though they are idiots.
REH
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:01 PM
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Wanted for immediate placement: Swordsmen
But Sharia courts would only pertain to two parties who are both Muslim,
is my understanding. Which would not bode well for Muslim women in most
cases since Muslim women have few laws that protect them. The
introduction of Sharia courts to Great Britain are a step backwards, not
only for Muslim women and their families, but for civilized justice and
national law enforcement overall.
I see your point about the rest.
Natalia
On 14/03/2013 9:53 AM, Ray Harrell wrote:
It's called the "Law of Blood" amongst the Cherokee and was the law
enforced by the seven clans which ruled the nation. But that was all
changed when the English insisted their way was better and shattered our
culture in a grand Diaspora. As the social contract in the US breaks
down around class, these ancient legal systems are arising again because
our people can't get recompense from the English law. When the English
thought that it was safe, they once again allowed our language and the
religion to emerge, in 1978, feeling that they were not subject to
either. The Sharia law that Oklahoma Anglos are afraid of is in reality
the sovereignty of the Native Peoples in the old Indian Territory and the
emergence of traditional legal systems. Not the Hollywood variety. The
Cherokee Nation had a Supreme Court, the building still stands in
Tahlequah, and Cherokee lawyers were the first "State" lawyers when the
English changed "Indian Territory" to the "State" of Oklahoma. The
Oklahoma Anglos are now afraid of that and Sharia is a stand in for their
fear of Native Courts. That's why the Violence Against Women Act was
held up in Congress. They didn't like Anglos being subject to "Sharia"
(Stand in for Indian National Courts) when they raped an Indian woman as
defined in the VAWA. "Oh what dark and entangled webs we weave."
REH
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:07 PM
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Wanted for immediate placement: Swordsmen
On the surface, settlement between the two parties sounds like a workable
solution which could spare many lives.
If the victimized party is pressured by community or authorities to
arrive at leniency, justice may not necessarily prevail. Especially for women.
I never would have guessed that this method of settlement existed in
today's Saudi Arabia, and it seems worthy of study and consideration.
Natalia
On 12/03/2013 5:17 PM, de Bivort Lawrence wrote:
This was reported a couple of days ago in the Saudi press, eg ARAB NEWS.
the committee referred to only found that death by firing squad was
permissible. Neither this committee nor the Saudi government decide the
matter: each regional government decides policy on this. As of a few days
ago, at least one prisoner on "death row" had requested a firing squad.
The discussion on this in Saudi Arabia is quite similar to that in the
US, ranging from the death penalty itself, to the method itself. Ironic,
in my view, that the issue of cruelty is raised in the context capital
punishment.
In Saudi Arabia, unlike the US, the perpetrator and the victim (or the
victim's family) can negotiate a voluntary settlement or restitution that
then supersedes and voids governmental action and punishment. Many
crimes, including murder, get resolved this way.
Cheers,
Lawry
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Arthur Cordell
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia A Saudi newspaper says a ministerial committee is
looking into formally dropping public beheadings as a method of execution
in the oil-rich kingdom because it cant find enough swordsmen.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where a death sentence
results in beheading in a public square.
A government committee argues that a change to execution by firing squad
would be fine under the laws of Islam, the Saudi daily newspaper al-Youm
reports.
This solution seems practical, especially in light of shortages in
official swordsmen or their belated arrival to execution yards in some
incidents, the committee said in a statement.
<http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/lack-of-swordsmen-leads-saudi-arabia-to-consider-dropping-public-beheadings-as-method-of-execution/>http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/lack-of-swordsmen-leads-saudi-arabia-to-consider-dropping-public-beheadings-as-method-of-execution/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
