|
Shia rape victim sentenced to jail and 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
So, guys, what should "civilized" countries do with Saudi Arabia? We can't go in Bush-style on freedom crusade. What should we do??? I've stated before that change needs to come from the Saudi's within, we can't force them to change. |
Same thing we're doing to Mugabe and same thing we did to South Africa under Apartheid. It's not guaranteed to work but the advantage in Saudi Arabia is that half of the government are willing to listen... |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Religion should never replace rationality for the basis of statutes. Ever. A muslim should have every right to follow their religion as they see fit, but why it is seen as acceptable to force other muslims (or non muslims) to adhere to archaic practices is beyond me. |
I think we lost our rational discourse when you misinterpreted my sarcastic comment in the COR. Hopefully, hilarity ensues as it always does in the COR. But on a more serious note...
...I think what you and most that have posted their opinions against the link between Islam and the law in Muslim countries tend to forget is that the foundation of western democratic legal systems is also religion. You may argue that the west is definitely MORE secular, but not completely secular. Even France, which is arguably the most secular western country, has statutes that are completely based on Judeo-Christian principles.
These principles are categorized as "natural law" by legal philosophers, and as you have said earlier are UNIVERSAL. So there are universal principles, I agree, that are common between most religions/cultures/nations.
The difference with Islam is that the Quran contains a complete social/political/economic/legal system within its text. In theory, Islam provides a guideline for a whole country to exist (not just personal rituals for Muslims).
The problem, as you've also pointed out, is that it gets misinterpreted. And whose interpretation is right? The MAJORITY. Islam is also rooted in democracy, and whatever the majority of citizens of a country want, that is what will be followed.
The problem in today's world, which complicates the untrained individual's interpretation of Islamic law is that traditions and culture become embedded into a country's legal system. That's why you have different applications of Sharia Law in Pakistan vs. Saudi Arabia vs. Afghanistan vs. Egypt vs. Malaysia. I don't think this is necessarily wrong (because the MAJORITY of those populations decide what they want, not western democracies with their sanctions).
I guess your belief of unversalism is wider in scope than mine, and you wish to assign more and more western values into other countries, whereas I agree there are certain rights (like LIFE) that are universal; however, just because a country's punishment for specific acts is medieval, doesn't make the entire system wrong, imo. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia doesn't have a common law system, where a ruling of lenience in these gang rape victims' case could be used as a guidance for future instances, and so perhaps we could see a progression towards a more modern application of Islam that has more in common with its western neighbors.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i disagree completely. the overiding importance of religion and customs (created by men) mean that a man thinks more strongly about their religion and what allah thinks than the plight of their mother or sister. how many honour killings do we hear about?
if the men in these countries really cared about their mothers and sisters and daughters there would be a substantial movement for change, way more than the symbolic snail's-pace stuff we see currently.
never ever underestimate the power of religious thought to twist the rationality and reason of otherwise logical people. only a culture really fvcked up could ever sentence a rape victim for consorting with a male that was not a relative. i dont care if i come across as an arrogant westerner, but a society that allows that to happen is clearly inferior to western civilisation (in this context) "relativism" or not. |
The honour killings that you point to again, are not the mainstream, for any of the countries that you connect them to (even the Taliban, which has been one of the most extreme Muslim regimes in modern times). If you take the # of honour killings you hear about and multiply it by 100 to be conservative (for the killings you DON'T hear about), and compare that figure to the entire population of those countries, you will see that this occurrence is an isolated incident that I can tell you occurs only in the tribal, remote villages (just like the cult killings that occur in remote, mid-west USA) and is not the norm of the whole nation.
You can't blame the religion for that practice, but rather the fanatical mindset of the males in those families, which is due to lack of education and understanding of those aforementioned universal principles.
The snail's pace you refer to is absolutely no different from the way western society evolved. Women were liberated after 1,950 years of Christianity. Do you call that a snail's pace? Right now Islam is less than 1,500 years old and when you see the progress in nations like UAE, Bahrain, and to some extent Turkey and Pakistan (with female leaders) and the Persian diaspora (obviously not Iran today, but pre-revolution) you'll see how much they have evolved. Islam is not responsible for the slow pace or accelerated evolution, but rather the norms, priorities and CULTURES of the citizens and vision of the leaders that are responsible.
Finally, I categorically disagree that religion played a role in the lack of mercy those judges showed the gang rape victim. I personally disagree with that ruling, because the court should have shown more mercy, as is the practice in Islam. If they showed mercy, perhaps they would have sent out the message: "If you consort with the opposite sex, you will be punished, but if you are gang raped, you will be exempt from punishment" which in MY opinion is okay, because who the would want to get gang raped instead of getting lashed a few times, no matter how much it hurts?! However, this is my logic, and not the logic of a more learned and experienced judge, who might have other intentions that might be good or bad. We'll never know. However, if there are other Saudi women like the one who wrote a letter to the editor of Arab News, who disagree with the ruling, then it is clear that religion is not to blame, as I assume these are educated, practicing Muslim women. Not sure what is to blame, unfortunately. |
|
|
| zoogla |
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
...I think what you and most that have posted their opinions against the link between Islam and the law in Muslim countries tend to forget is that the foundation of western democratic legal systems is also religion. You may argue that the west is definitely MORE secular, but not completely secular. Even France, which is arguably the most secular western country, has statutes that are completely based on Judeo-Christian principles. |
The difference being that we have a distinct separation of church and state. Even if the americans do their damndest to avoid it! There isnt a single country that I know of that enforces christian rules on the entire society- christianity might be an important component of a nation, but nobody is being punished for not obeying antiquated laws set out in the bible. Wheras in other countries that don't do as much to separate superstition from statutes, you see rape victims being hanged (iran) priceless idols being destoyed (afghanistan) rape victims being jailed and whipped (saudi) etc.
| quote: |
The difference with Islam is that the Quran contains a complete social/political/economic/legal system within its text. In theory, Islam provides a guideline for a whole country to exist (not just personal rituals for Muslims). |
Which is exactly the problem. Religious laws set out a million years ago are not an adequate source for social organisation and legal frameworks. Its just illogical and backward.
| quote: |
The problem, as you've also pointed out, is that it gets misinterpreted. And whose interpretation is right? The MAJORITY. Islam is also rooted in democracy, and whatever the majority of citizens of a country want, that is what will be followed. |
Who is "the majority"? The majority in germany supported laws that were absolutely abhorrent, and if islam is rooted in democracy, why is the middle east one of the last bastions of the oligarch? Even if the majority of those in saudi agree with the ridiculously strict gender segregation laws, that doesn't make it right. Indeed, how can a nation expect to make progress if it systematically marginalises 50% of the population?
| quote: |
The problem in today's world, which complicates the untrained individual's interpretation of Islamic law is that traditions and culture become embedded into a country's legal system. That's why you have different applications of Sharia Law in Pakistan vs. Saudi Arabia vs. Afghanistan vs. Egypt vs. Malaysia. I don't think this is necessarily wrong (because the MAJORITY of those populations decide what they want, not western democracies with their sanctions). |
How are you determining the majority though? Do you really know that the majority favour it? And even if they do, why should the minority be subjected to the will of the majority when it comes to issues of personal liberty? Just because one group manages to maintain power and the status quo does not mean that they represent 51% support, and given so many of these nations do not have free elections, it’s a moot point in any case.
| quote: |
I guess your belief of unversalism is wider in scope than mine, and you wish to assign more and more western values into other countries, whereas I agree there are certain rights (like LIFE) that are universal; however, just because a country's punishment for specific acts is medieval, doesn't make the entire system wrong, imo. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia doesn't have a common law system, where a ruling of lenience in these gang rape victims' case could be used as a guidance for future instances, and so perhaps we could see a progression towards a more modern application of Islam that has more in common with its western neighbors. |
See, I don't see them so much as "western" values, I see them as universal values that the west happened to embrace first.
| quote: |
The honour killings that you point to again, are not the mainstream, for any of the countries that you connect them to (even the Taliban, which has been one of the most extreme Muslim regimes in modern times). If you take the # of honour killings you hear about and multiply it by 100 to be conservative (for the killings you DON'T hear about), and compare that figure to the entire population of those countries, you will see that this occurrence is an isolated incident that I can tell you occurs only in the tribal, remote villages (just like the cult killings that occur in remote, mid-west USA) and is not the norm of the whole nation. |
Oh of course, and I did not mean to imply that they were commonplace, but it does illustrate a problematic undercurrent of religious indoctrination. As long as you have strict religious statute that blankets an entire nation, there will be those within those nations that take things to the next level. And really, is there a difference between an isolated incident of honour killing or the iranian state executing homosexuals? They are both "sanctioned" by someone's warped view of religion, and as along as religion is the central source for statutes, these problems will always occur to a greater or lesser degree.
| quote: |
You can't blame the religion for that practice, but rather the fanatical mindset of the males in those families, which is due to lack of education and understanding of those aforementioned universal principles. |
Where does that fanaticism stem from though?
| quote: |
The snail's pace you refer to is absolutely no different from the way western society evolved. Women were liberated after 1,950 years of Christianity. Do you call that a snail's pace? Right now Islam is less than 1,500 years old and when you see the progress in nations like UAE, Bahrain, and to some extent Turkey and Pakistan (with female leaders) and the Persian diaspora (obviously not Iran today, but pre-revolution) you'll see how much they have evolved. Islam is not responsible for the slow pace or accelerated evolution, but rather the norms, priorities and CULTURES of the citizens and vision of the leaders that are responsible. |
The difference being that these societies are as old, if not older, than the western ones we are discussing. Certainly they're all older than australia! The world is a MUCH smaller place than it was a few hundred years ago, and your argument sounds more like an excuse than anything else. There is no reason for such antiquated modes of thought in the 21st century, and again, the problem is a lack of separation between church and state. Women might not have had the vote for a very very long time in christian societies, but neither were they harshly segregated in the 19th and 20th centuries the same way saudi does in the 21st.
| quote: |
Finally, I categorically disagree that religion played a role in the lack of mercy those judges showed the gang rape victim. I personally disagree with that ruling, because the court should have shown more mercy, as is the practice in Islam. If they showed mercy, perhaps they would have sent out the message: "If you consort with the opposite sex, you will be punished, but if you are gang raped, you will be exempt from punishment" which in MY opinion is okay, because who the would want to get gang raped instead of getting lashed a few times, no matter how much it hurts?! However, this is my logic, and not the logic of a more learned and experienced judge, who might have other intentions that might be good or bad. We'll never know. However, if there are other Saudi women like the one who wrote a letter to the editor of Arab News, who disagree with the ruling, then it is clear that religion is not to blame, as I assume these are educated, practicing Muslim women. Not sure what is to blame, unfortunately. |
I still don't understand why an intelligent and articulate person such as yourself could ever sit passively by, even support, laws that deal with the private behaviour between consenting adults, ESPECIALLY in the context of just sitting in a vehicle together. And where does the sex segregation idea come from? From the religion. That is why I see that religion played a role in the court's decision. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: |
AN Egyptian newspaper editor has been sentenced to a year in jail for publishing a front-page photograph of an Egyptian television and film actress that was found to be indecent, court sources said.
The verdict against editor Hatem Mamdouh Mahran was the latest in a string of rulings that have handed jail terms to at least 12 journalists since September on charges ranging from defaming President Hosni Mubarak to misquoting the minister of justice.
The sources said Mahran's al-Naba weekly newspaper, known for testing conservative Egyptian sensibilities, had published a picture in January of actress Hala Sidky that prosecutors said "reveals a sensitive part" of her body. They did not say which part of her body.
Mahran, who was also fined 20,000 Egyptian pounds ($4145) and granted bail of 5000 pounds, said he would appeal.
He said the picture of the Christian actress was a shot taken from a recent film that she had played a role in, and that the newspaper had neither taken the picture nor altered it.
It was the second time a member of Mahran's family has been ordered jailed for media offences.
His father Mamdouh was sentenced to three years in jail in 2001 after he enraged Egypt's Coptic Christian minority by publishing a sexually explicit report and photographs about a Coptic monk's alleged sexual affairs.
Mamdouh Mahran died while serving his sentence. |
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,2359...0-38201,00.html
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
As much as I strongly disagree with most religion-based legislation, as it so commonly seems rooted in nothing more than ignorance, the idea of a completely atheist, secular government makes me uneasy. Not because religious beliefs are a requirement for humanitarian decency, but because the horrors of what a completely sterile sort of administration could committ seem just as unlimited as one completely ruled by theocratic scribblings and God-fearing.
There is merit in being ruled by tradition, I must admit. Though it is rare and seems mostly alienated by modern misgivings and purported misinterpretations. I guess I am a bit conflicted on the subject. Most of me says that change is great; that the more technology and associated mindsets people adopt, the better off they will be, as it displays a degree of understanding of one's history as well as place in it. But then I see that the more things change, the more they stay the same; that mankind is doomed to repeat the result of his very nature, over and over, each time with nothing more than another coat of paint and a new name. Are the world's problems truly the cause of those unable to modernize? I refuse to believe that. I refuse to believe that the ignorant, the uneducated, the weak and obsolete are really the problem, just as I refuse to believe that the self-righteous, the proud, the "modern" and the "advanced" are truly the solution.
Here's something I found remarkably civilised. It seems something that western media would prefer not to divulge about the region:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but we wont because we need their oil. |
i think that, because this is an issue with Islam, we wont because we are afraid of fighting Islam.
we need their oil less than the balls we need to "condemn and sanction" Islam for their basic human rights transgressions the WORLD over, not just in Saudi Arabia.
IOW we're afraid. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
we need their oil less than the balls we need to "condemn and sanction" Islam for their basic human rights transgressions the WORLD over, not just in Saudi Arabia. |
Sanction a religion for its human rights transgressions?! wtf u been smoking, kid?! LOL!!! |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Wheras in other countries that don't do as much to separate superstition from statutes, you see rape victims being hanged (iran) priceless idols being destoyed (afghanistan) rape victims being jailed and whipped (saudi) etc. |
You must be an atheist if you're going to call religion "superstition". If so, then this whole argument is an exercise in futility, because you will simply never understand the importance of religion in daily affairs and its close connection with the very universal values you purport to hold!
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Which is exactly the problem. Religious laws set out a million years ago are not an adequate source for social organisation and legal frameworks. Its just illogical and backward. |
I forgot to mention that we as Muslims believe that the Quran is a timeless book, that can be applied to any generation. The caveat is that there should be appropriate context and interpretation from the primary and secondary sources of information: Quran/hadith/tafseer. (refer to earlier posts for an explanation or wikipedia these words) Where there is confusion on how Muslims are to apply the ancient concepts to today's modern society, there's actually a global panel of Islamic scholars from multiple nations who have memorized all the primary and secondary sources of info, acting as living, breathing encyclopedias, and also whose lifes work is to study the global affairs (historical and current) in order to make sure their interpretations are right. Unfortunately, this is all theory, like the UN, and their opinions are open for Muslim nations and individuals to apply to their legal systems/personal lives as they see fit. The weakness in this system is that there is a lack of consistency which contributes to the horror stories you read about. But this is not the main contributing factor; as I keep reiterating it's culture based. I understand your argument now, though. The very thought that these nations (and legal systems) are founded on religious grounds makes them wrong, because religion can possible make people do bad things. I find that pretty weak, to be honest.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Who is "the majority"? The majority in germany supported laws that were absolutely abhorrent, and if islam is rooted in democracy, why is the middle east one of the last bastions of the oligarch? Even if the majority of those in saudi agree with the ridiculously strict gender segregation laws, that doesn't make it right. Indeed, how can a nation expect to make progress if it systematically marginalises 50% of the population? |
I don't see how 50% of the population is marginalized by segregation? Women can carry on in the same way men can, only both are physically separated from interacting from each other. LOL but they'll still find a way. My younger cousin who still lives in Riyadh told me of how nowadays, the Saudi youth pull up to eachother in heavily tinted cars/trucks, bluetooth enabled phones in hand, and search for each other, and then make connections and keep in touch wirelessly! LOL!! So if that's what the younger generations want, eventually it will trickle into the tolerance you'll see when they start running the country. But because right now the ruling party is till the "old guard" there's nothing wrong with their legal system the way it is (even if some judges make mistakes from time to time...you and I have no idea how many rulings those very same judges GOT RIGHT in their career; on issues that you wouldn't give two s about!).
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Why should the minority be subjected to the will of the majority when it comes to issues of personal liberty? |
Your concept of personal liberty, again, is different from theirs!!! Muslims (practicing) believe they are slaves of God. I personally have to admit that my own faith isn't that strong, otherwise I might not even be listening to trance and DEFINITELY wouldn't be hitting the night life! They follow God's orders through the aforementioned sources not to an extreme extent, but in a devout way, and they believe their personal liberty is limited to the rights of life and practicing their religion! That's all they need! Hard for an atheist to believe, which is why it's a moot point to you.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
See, I don't see them so much as "western" values, I see them as universal values that the west happened to embrace first. |
This is the root of our disagreement. The west didn't embrace these values first; it only deadened its punishments with the advent of lethal injections or electric chairs. Some people think that the Jewish and Muslim way to prepare meat is medieval, by slicing the animal's neck to empty all the blood from the carcass in order to keep the meat clean (i.e. not letting the dead blood remain in contact with the meat to infect it post mortum). However, there are perfectly rational explanations to why these rituals are as such, yet the "west" by and large left these old-fashioned ways to embrace newer technologies, when there was nothing wrong with the old way! A slight digression, but hopefully you see my point that it's not a matter of differing values; the values are more or less the same between a Muslim and a non-Muslim western country because of the foundation of the legal system being religion. Cultural norms are different, which translates into different civic laws but the criminal code remaining more or less the same. (Draconian vs. Islamic; a lot in common!) For example, public nudity is illegal in North America which would be the equivalent offense (in terms of what is socially acceptable) of illegally consorting adults. It's all a matter of perspective.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
As long as you have strict religious statute that blankets an entire nation, there will be those within those nations that take things to the next level. |
Agreed.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
And really, is there a difference between an isolated incident of honour killing or the iranian state executing homosexuals? They are both "sanctioned" by someone's warped view of religion, and as along as religion is the central source for statutes, these problems will always occur to a greater or lesser degree. |
Yes there is really a difference. In one instance, a family is taking the law into their own hands, and the other, its the whole government, acting on behalf of the whole population. Just because of the possibility of these problems or because a minor few in a religious state take the religion to the next level, it doesn't follow AT ALL that the religious connection of that nation should be destroyed!!! That's undermining everything that the (often moderate; at least in the national examples I cited) mainstream followers believe in!
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Where does that fanaticism stem from though? |
Insecurity? 
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
The difference being that these societies are as old, if not older, than the western ones we are discussing. |
Whoa, whoa...how is USA (1776) and UK (England had its monarchy and political system as far back as the 9th century; therein is the foundation of the Commonwealth system) the same age as Saudi Arabia (1932) or Pakistan (1947)?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
There is no reason for such antiquated modes of thought in the 21st century, and again, the problem is a lack of separation between church and state. Women might not have had the vote for a very very long time in christian societies, but neither were they harshly segregated in the 19th and 20th centuries the same way saudi does in the 21st. |
It's pretty arrogant to apply strictly western ideologies to the notion of the "21st century" and expect those Muslim countries in question, just because of the UN and information age to automatically pick up the same principles and embed them into their centuries-old customs. I feel like a broken record here, and you keep repeating yourself as well! :o I disagree re: your point about how women are treated. Even in the 1950s it was not socially accepted for men and women to consort alone in cars. Don't know the evolution of the law in the U.S. at that time, but this consorting only began when cars became mainstream after WWII. I wouldn't be surprised if pre-1950s, the same consorting was illegal in western worlds (except France, of course, historical defenders of romance! lol)
Even today, in our western male-dominated business evironment, equitable pay and senior positons remains an issue for women!! Why? Not the remnants of religious doctrine (because women were strong role models in all three monotheistic religions, as Shaolin_Z pointed out the Islamic perspective on this in an earlier post) but rather CULTURE and TRADITION.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I still don't understand why an intelligent and articulate person such as yourself could ever sit passively by, even support, laws that deal with the private behaviour between consenting adults, ESPECIALLY in the context of just sitting in a vehicle together. And where does the sex segregation idea come from? From the religion. That is why I see that religion played a role in the court's decision. |
lol thanks for the compliment...same to you :gsmile: /ghey
I support these laws because I believe other nations have the right to apply religion or whatever values to their legal system without any other nation meddling unless there is ethnic cleansing or some other abhorrent mass occurrence. One-offs should be investigated for who made the decision and why and before the religion is denounced, the relevant context should be cited and appropriate diligence should be taken before relgion is blamed; that's all I'm saying. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Fayraree, I kind of agree with some points you say (without, admittidly, being arsed to read all your's and pck's posts cos they were just too long). I agree completely that the Saudi legal system of just one interpretation of Islamic law, and that many people say it is an incorrect interpretation. Just like the majority of Muslims condemn al-Qaida's ideology as being a false interpretation. I certainly don't think these two ideologies (plus Deobandism from Pakistan) chacterise all variations of Political Islam (for example, I see no difference between the religious conservative regime in America, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as far as their ideology and beliefs go) and I certainly don't think they represent all Muslims.
I also agree that the majority of civilisations are based, originally, from laws in their respective religions. But if you think about it this is more common sense than anything - don't kill, don't steal, etc. Even some of the religious laws that we don't necessarily agree with these days had common sense back at the time they were written. For example, pork and shellfish are prone to tapeworm eggs and other nasty bacteria which technology today can erradicate making them safe to eat. But back then, people will have found out that when they ate them they often became sick, so they learned not to eat them. When somebody asks why, they will be told its bad for them. When they ask why its bad for them, given the lack of a scientific explanation, they probably were told 'God made them bad' and a religious law was born.
However, given that God doesn't really exist, and Moses, Jesus and Mohammed were not really prophets of God (but rather political activists/leaders/philosophers), religious laws, as told by these people, are not the word of God but the construct of man. Therefore, some of the more crazy religious laws, ESPECIALLY the role of women, were created out of cultural norms. Women have always been below men throughout history. Originally due to physical attributes that then developed into our cultures. Religion consolidated these cultures, and many more, into 'God's laws'.
Today, in advanced civilisations, we know these crazy religious laws and interpretation are wrong. In the West, women are seen as equal (even if not actually treated as equal due to the fact its not possible to completely shake of 1000s of years of culture saying they aren't equal) but in some backwards third world countries, where actual religious doctrine is used as law, women are seen as justifiably inferior. Religious doctrine also reinforces some of the other archane crazy cultural beliefs that were originally consolidated by religion.
Saudi Arabia operates, what they believe to be, an Islamic legal system. Whether or not you can interpret the Koran to claim it is not actually an Islamic legal system is irrelevant - because they interpret it as Islamic and therefore it IS Islamic even if it just a small representation of the religion (just like most Christians would not consider Mormons as being Christian, they are actually a variant of Christianity so fall under that umbrella).
The fact is, there are certain universal rights that all people on Earth should enjoy. Saudi Arabia simply does not offer these rights. We've mainly been talking about women on this thread (who have a right to be treated equally to men - something the Saudi legal system does not offer them) but spare a thought for the Shia of Saudi Arabia. It is pretty much illegal to practice a different religion other than th state religion - even other variations of Islam. The Shia are horribly oppressed and are tortured and arrested for being Shia. As much as I oppose religion, a universal right everyone should have is the right to practice whatever religion they chose without fear of persecution - the Saudi legal system does not offer this right (also Jews are banned from working in the US diplomatic service in Saudi Arabia).
You can argue that the nasty side of Saudi Arabia is culutral and not religious, but the two notions are inseperable. Both influence the other and in Saudi Arabia, their legal system and archaic acts of punishment, for crimes that in no civilised nation should even be considered a crime, are based on an interpretation of Islam which should be firmly opposed by all sane people - Muslims and non-Muslims.
I also find it deeply sickening and hypocritical that this is allowed to happen in a country where the oil/diplomatic/American-friendly elite are sat in bars in Beirut, drinking alcohol, taking drugs and ing Eastern European under-age prostitutes...
I guess as long as they're happy there's no reason for them to put any kind of pressure on the religious authorities to push for change, and while the Americans are happy making billions from these Saudi oil barrons then there's also no reason for America to put pressue on them...
In fact, here ya go, have $2billion a year to spend on tanks and jetfighters... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Sanction a religion for its human rights transgressions?! wtf u been smoking, kid?! LOL!!! |
i was using PKC's quote as a metaphore, kid...don't even.
i see composition is not your strong point? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
(without, admittidly, being arsed to read all your's and pck's posts cos they were just too long). |
and you ing criticise our favourite football team for lack of effort :p
anywayz, i shall attend to Fayraree's post tomorrow, when im at work and much less drunk. |
|
|
|
|
