Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

[FalcoX]

No you don't understand.

To prove a crime you need to prove all the elements of the crime. In the case of rape you need 2 elements: [sexual penetration] and [lack of consent].

Presume a woman pregnant with a mans child (not her husband) accuses that man of rape. She goes to the police to report it.

Element 1 (sexual penetration) is made out. She's pregnant with his child. Both parties make admissions to the police that the sex happened.

But she cant prove element 2 (lack of consent) as it's his word against her word and there is no other evidence to prove she did not consent. It's a 'he said, she said'.

She now gets flogged. She's admitted to having sex, outside of marriage, and that sex was proved to not be rape.

I understand what you are saying however I disagree that it was proved that there was no rape, for that to occur there would have to be some sort of proof that it was consensual, which there isn't.

All the court found was that there was not enough proof to say that it had happened. Rape can occur even when there is no hard evidence. Shocking, I know.


On the basis of the above, punishing someone for coming forward to report rape would fly in the face of any notion of fairness of justice unless it can be proved that it is a false accusation.

 

[Scotland]

Adultery punished by lashes. What a progressive culture.

 

[Malifice]

I understand what you are saying however I disagree that it was proved that there was no rape, for that to occur there would have to be some sort of proof that it was consensual, which there isn't.

If I have sex with a woman, and it isn't rape, how can it be anything other than consensual?

 

[fleabitten]

If I have sex with a woman, and it isn't rape, how can it be anything other than consensual?

Failing to prove it was rape isn't the same as proving it was consensual. They're just taking the man's word over the woman's word.

 

[Scotland]

He said/she said rape cases happen all over the world.

Can we focus on the whole being lashed for adultery thing? That certainly does not happen all over the world.

Only in the woke West do you have people saying that society should be more tolerant and accepting of religions/cultures like Islam and at the same time complaining of an oppressive patriarchy because women don't make up 50% of CEOs.

 

[its free real estate]

Normal religion imo

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...in-death-by-stoning-as-punishment-for-gay-sex

 

[Malifice]

Normal religion imo

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...in-death-by-stoning-as-punishment-for-gay-sex

Abhorrent.

I'm not sure the religion is to blame though. I blame the Sultan.

If the leader of a Christian country implemented the penalties in Leviticus then I'd blame the leader as well FWIW.

 

[its free real estate]

Abhorrent.

I'm not sure the religion is to blame though. I blame the Sultan.

If the leader of a Christian country implemented the penalties in Leviticus then I'd blame the leader as well FWIW.

Sophistry.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...i/news-story/6eac970ff7aa06716f95356a5470d3f4

 

[Malifice]

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...i/news-story/6eac970ff7aa06716f95356a5470d3f4

Exactly.

The country is basically a dictatorship (supported by the UK and others I may add, due to the massive Oil and Gas reserves) where the Sultan (and his brothers) have a harem of international escorts at their beck and call. The Sultans brother has a yacht named '****' for Gods sake.

This wasnt a law that was asked for by the people, it's just one the Sultan is imposing on them by decree.

I dont know if its a case of the Sultan turning Ultra conservative in his old age or what.

Ordinarily I would expect huge international backlash, but due to the nations Oil and Gas reserves there will probably be crickets.

Hopefully the UK sanction the s**t out of Brunei.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Exactly.

The country is basically a dictatorship (supported by the UK and others I may add, due to the massive Oil and Gas reserves) where the Sultan (and his brothers) have a harem of international escorts at their beck and call. The Sultans brother has a yacht named '****' for Gods sake.

This wasnt a law that was asked for by the people, it's just one the Sultan is imposing on them by decree.

I dont know if its a case of the Sultan turning Ultra conservative in his old age or what.

Ordinarily I would expect huge international backlash, but due to the nations Oil and Gas reserves there will probably be crickets.

Hopefully the UK sanction the s**t out of Brunei.

But when the law doesn't apply to the Royal Family its not exactly leading by example even if the Sultan IS getting conservative.
And yes they should be sanctioned.

 

[Malifice]

But when the law doesn't apply to the Royal Family its not exactly leading by example even if the Sultan IS getting conservative.
And yes they should be sanctioned.

Yeah, the law only applies to Muslims (other than the Royal family of course).

So they're (once again) the ones getting ****ed over by some douchebag with a fundamentalist interpretation of the religion.

If I'm critical of the relgion here, it's Islams propensity towards this sort of s**t (extremist fundamentalists interpretations) and the fact that the religion makes it arguably the hardest of the Abrahamic big three to interpret a lot of this kind of s**t away.

I reserve my criticism for the Sultan here though. It's ordinary Muslims (especially homosexual Muslims) that are the victims here.

Why he feels the need to invite international sanction for something so petty is beyond me.

Now it remains to be seen if the rest of the World has the balls to do something about it.

Personally, I'd like to see Australia take a strong stance, including offering immediate asylum to any homosexual Bruneians (Brunei-ites?), banning Brunei airlines from Australian ports and economic sanctions.

 

[Kwality]

Shakes m'head:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...ape-baghuz-question-return-australia/10929124

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah, the law only applies to Muslims (other than the Royal family of course).

So they're (once again) the ones getting ****** over by some douchebag with a fundamentalist interpretation of the religion.

If I'm critical of the relgion here, it's Islams propensity towards this sort of s**t (extremist fundamentalists interpretations) and the fact that the religion makes it arguably the hardest of the Abrahamic big three to interpret a lot of this kind of s**t away.

I reserve my criticism for the Sultan here though. It's ordinary Muslims (especially homosexual Muslims) that are the victims here.

Why he feels the need to invite international sanction for something so petty is beyond me.

Now it remains to be seen if the rest of the World has the balls to do something about it.

Personally, I'd like to see Australia take a strong stance, including offering immediate asylum to any homosexual Bruneians (Brunei-ites?), banning Brunei airlines from Australian ports and economic sanctions.

If you're born into a Muslim family In Brunei, i don't think its so easy to say "I don't want to be a Muslim" either. My friend had an affair with a Malay woman for a while, she spent half her life running from her husband ( arranged marriage ) and wasn't at all interested in the religious side of things, she just wanted to be free to live her life.

 

[sonicthelaconic]

https://www.sonicthelaconic.com/be-more-like-george-and-amal-clooney/

George Clooney wants a public boycott of nine hotels owned by Hassanal Bolkiah’s Brunei Investment Agency after the Brunei government announcement that they will stone Muslims to death for homosexuality or adultery. In 2014, Brunei became the first East Asian country to adopt Islāmic Sharia law. Clooney called for the boycott because laws that enable the state to stone LGBT people and adulterers to death are human rights violations. We cannot change Brunei’s laws; our best alternative is to vote with our dollar, refusing to subsidise these human rights violations.

Why did I say be more like the Clooney’s? Two reasons.

Reason one is that George does not shy away from criticism and backs up his support with actions, not just the hotel boycott. When Clooney came out in support of refugees, Clooney received criticism for not housing any refugees. Clooney and his wife, human rights lawyer, Amal, later sponsored and welcomed Hazim Avdal, a Yazidi refugee from Iraq, into one of their homes. Avdal is a computer science student at the University of Chicago. The Clooney’s also fund the Clooney Foundation for Justice for refugee housing, education, and legal protections.

Reason two is the Clooney’s are not turning a blind eye to the harms of an Islāmic theocracy. The Left of the political spectrum is not a hive mind easily quantified; same with the Right. Supporting the right to seek asylum, a fundamental human right, does not mean burying your head in the sand about Sharia Law. A middle ground is possible on the divide over Muslim migration in the West. An essential part is increasing public dissemination of information on precisely how the immigration and refugee programs work. Reassurance a strict procedure exists, and works should help ease public concerns.

Brunei’s brutal laws is another example demonstrating people have legitimate reasons to seek refuge, but the country they seek refuge in must adhere to all their fundamental rights. Furthermore, the other side of the coin is that among Muslim arrivals, you will have those who support the same ideals as their theocratic leaders do. Pew Research sheds light on the cultural divide between Islāmic countries and the West; however, the numbers do not tell the story. That is another issue worthy of a separate article.

The truth is that pro and anti-Muslim immigration camps are right and wrong. Cultural assimilation does not wholly work for adults because your parental, cultural, societal, educational, political, economic, historical, and media influences, ingrained early in life, shape who you are. However, acculturation becomes more likely for each new generation born into another culture, departed from their roots.

Radicalisation is the counter to the argument acculturation is failing, but that has more to do with the Internet, vengeance, and seeking belonging than segregation and Islāmic dogma. Critics argue Islāmic extremists target countries not involved in the War on Terror, which is true, but the propaganda young, angry, isolated, depressed, disadvantaged radicals succumb to is anti-Western; therefore, it is not surprising. Radical Islāmic propaganda solely from the Quran text cannot be the only reason for the increase in terror, given pre-War on Terror attacks were a shadow of what they have been since.

Essentially, George and Amal Clooney’s actions are an excellent example of how giving people a chance is not the same thing as naïvety or ignorance about the potential dangers of weaponised, politicised Islāmic governments. However, who we are is greatly influenced by our culture. Hope for a peaceful multicultural future starts with trusting our immigration, intelligence, and police departments to know what they are doing and wish to keep their communities safe.

They will make mistakes, as they are only human, but do not let media hysteria and snake oil or tick politicians make you think we are failing to keep our communities safe. Sweden is not the “rape capital of Europe,” and George Clooney is not a “total prick,” as Paul Joseph Watson claimed.

A prick may do something because they feel guilty, but a total prick does nothing and does not feel guilty. If it is any consolation, Bill Maher is right: stop driving if you really want to fight Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Islāmic theocracies over their human rights violations. Is that realistic, though? Refusing to stay at certain hotels is easier than refusing to drive.

 

[Malifice]

A balanced post on the issue.

That your own work?

 

[Kwality]

Sharia Law is a no go, cant ignore treatment of kids (genital mutllation, forced marriages), two wives .... sorry no, abide by our laws 100% or dont come at all.
As for religion, the Catholics & the Protestants have fought for generations but the Irish didnt bring the trouble here.

I acknowledge the role of Muslims outing trouble.

 

[Malifice]

Sharia Law is a no go, cant ignore treatment of kids (genital mutllation, forced marriages),

Derp. Neither of those things are features of Sharia law.

The only religious law I'm aware of that requires genital mutilation is Judaism (Halakah) via male circumcision.

Muslims commonly practice male circumcision as well, but not due to Sharia. It's because it's mentioned in the Hadiths (not the Quran though). There is some positive reference to FGM in the Hadiths as well (as FGM was common to the Middle East pre Mohammed and Islam) but outside of Shaffí Islam, it's not a religious requirement, and it's certainly not contained in the Sharia legal code.

 

[sonicthelaconic]

A balanced post on the issue.

That your own work?

Yep. And thanks.

While I'm at it, any advice on how to post my blog exposure?

 

[Malifice]

Yep. And thanks.

While I'm at it, any advice on how to post my blog exposure?

My take on it is there arent any issues if you're posting the occasional links to your blog on here (as long as the links are topical to the thread and the post) and there isnt a commercial element in place (and it's not spam).

Like; dont be starting threads simply linking stuff to your blog, but feel free to chime in to a thread with 'I discuss this very topic on my blog here [provide link]. My central arguments is [blah blah, condensed version of the Blog post].'

It's preferable if you post a summary of your arguments (a condensed version of your post), along with the link to the full argument or content on your blog.

Feel free to cross link via your blog back to the site as well.

That's just my view on it; the sites owners may have different rules.

That being said, I'd ask Chief via PM for the exact rules, just so you're clear.

 

[sonicthelaconic]

My take on it is there arent any issues if you're posting the occasional links to your blog on here (as long as the links are topical to the thread and the post) and there isnt a commercial element in place (and it's not spam).

Like; dont be starting threads simply linking stuff to your blog, but feel free to chime in to a thread with 'I discuss this very topic on my blog here [provide link]. My central arguments is [blah blah, condensed version of the Blog post].'

It's preferable if you post a summary of your arguments (a condensed version of your post), along with the link to the full argument or content on your blog.

Feel free to cross link via your blog back to the site as well.

That's just my view on it; the sites owners may have different rules.

That being said, I'd ask Chief via PM for the exact rules, just so you're clear.

Sure, thank you. Yeah, I'm not going to start threads to promote my blog posts.

 

[Kwality]

Derp. Neither of those things are features of Sharia law.

The only religious law I'm aware of that requires genital mutilation is Judaism (Halakah) via male circumcision.

Muslims commonly practice male circumcision as well, but not due to Sharia. It's because it's mentioned in the Hadiths (not the Quran though). There is some positive reference to FGM in the Hadiths as well (as FGM was common to the Middle East pre Mohammed and Islam) but outside of Shaffí Islam, it's not a religious requirement, and it's certainly not contained in the Sharia legal code.

Thanks for the info, not required by law, are these regularly reported customs just that, a custom, because they certainly arent acceptable in Australia, nor should they be.
Begs the question what is taught in Islamic schools, given I was educated in the Catholic system which is far from faultless.

 

[Malifice]

Thanks for the info, not required by law, are these regularly reported customs just that, a custom, because they certainly arent acceptable in Australia, nor should they be.

FGM and to a more debateable degree, male gential mutilation (i.e. circumcision) for sure; they have no place in Australia.

I say that as someone who got the chop as a baby. Im not opposed to circumcision, but it should be something that involves informed consent (no different to ear piercing or tattoos).

I just dont want to equate 'Sharia law' with practices like FGM or arranged marriages. Neither is prescribed under Sharia law.

In Islamic marriage law under Sharia, the only legal requirement for marriage is that the bride, groom and guardian for the bride (wali), give their legal consent to the marriage.

The fact that many Islamic marriages are arranged, is more to do with pre-Islamic tradtions in the Middle east and Pakistan. Those customs (with respect to the Middle East) in antiquity got themselves enshrined in the Hadith and Quran on account of Mohammed engaging in both Polygamy and arranged marriages himself. Many Muslims then go further and view them as divnely ordained or preferable to 'love marriages'.

Of course even Mo himself married a few women for 'love' in addition to a heck of a lot of arranged marriages (often for poltical reasons).

The point is arranged marriages dont form part of Sharia law as a mandated practice in Islamic religious law. It's more of a cultural thing, that remains hard to dissasociate from the Religion due to the above cultural reasons.

Begs the question what is taught in Islamic schools, given I was educated in the Catholic system which is far from faultless.

I would anticipate that Islamic schools would teach that arranged marriages are OK, and indeed even preferable to 'love' marriages.

I know a few Muslims (Pakisani and Bangaldeshi) ladies and the pressure placed on them to enter into an arranged marriage by the family was intense. Whenever I strike up a conversation with a Muslim lad (usually my Uber driver!) and they're married, it's invariably an arranged marriage as well.

More than a fair share of non Muslim Indian blokes I know also get pressured into arranged marriage.

I dont have a problem with arranged marriage in and of itself, as long as the parties to the marriage ultimately consent.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Derp. Neither of those things are features of Sharia law.

The only religious law I'm aware of that requires genital mutilation is Judaism (Halakah) via male circumcision.

Muslims commonly practice male circumcision as well, but not due to Sharia. It's because it's mentioned in the Hadiths (not the Quran though). There is some positive reference to FGM in the Hadiths as well (as FGM was common to the Middle East pre Mohammed and Islam) but outside of Shaffí Islam, it's not a religious requirement, and it's certainly not contained in the Sharia legal code.

From the horses mouth , my friend who had the Malay girlfriend.
Quite simply she was missing a clitoris, and its very very very common.
Why are they doing that in Muslim countries if its not part of the religion?

And no a bit of "skin" as in fore - skin is not the same level of mutilation as losing a clitoris.

 

[Malifice]

From the horses mouth , my friend who had the Malay girlfriend.
Quite simply she was missing a clitoris, and its very very very common.
Why are they doing that in Muslim countries if its not part of the religion?

And no a bit of "skin" as in fore - skin is not the same level of mutilation as losing a clitoris.

Read what I said mate. FGM is not part of Sharia Law.

It's a pre Islamic cultural practice of the ME that found it's way into Islam via a positive reference in a few Hadiths (its literally not mentioned in the Quran anywhere).

Its strongly correlated to Islam as a consequence, but it's not part of Sharia law. There is no penalty for not doing it (or having it done) for example.

The Sharia legal code is silent on the matter.