They Have Stones in Iran! I thought it was all sand?

[amicus]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ed_to_death_in_iran_outrages_politicians.html

Iran: woman convicted of adultery will not be stoned to death, embassy responds to worldwide outrage

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor..._iran_outrages_politicians.html#ixzz0t85RJ39b

For all those who contend that the conflict in the Middle East and throughout the world is merely from Radical Islam…have another think.

Shades of the Isolationists in the 1930’s as Germany, Japan and Russia were telling the world just what they were going to do. Russia invaded Finland, Germany, Poland and Japan, China.

Tell me again how most of the Muslim world is of peaceful intent, I missed your argument the first time around.


Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Many of the protests have come from Muslim countries and Muslim clerics.

It is nothing to do with Islam, and everything to do with Iran's repressive regime which has had people stoned to death for dissent.

Stoning to death was also a Jewish tradition - read your Bible.

We Brits didn't bother with stoning. Hanging, drawing and quartering was more certain - and messier.

Og

PS. Again your facts are slightly wrong: Germany AND Russia invaded Poland.

 

[amicus]

I am thinking Og was a woman in another time and we were married...why else would she nag me so?

All that just for a little pussy...what fools we be!

ami

 

[oggbashan]

The case in Iran is disturbing, not just because of the sentence, but because there was virtually no evidence that the convicted woman had actually done anything she was convicted of.

It seems that they wanted to stone her to death for adultery she probably didn't commit because they couldn't convict of murdering her husband that she also didn't do.

It says a lot about Iran's regime that Muslims are ashamed of it.

Og

 

[amicus]

The article noted that she has already be incarcerated for five years...

Let us make this real, real, real simple for your my dear Oggbashanee, under Islamic law, Muslim Law, from the Koran, spell it any way you wish; women are considered property.

Women have no rights under this religious abomination.

Why is it that progressive liberals chastize the US for coming late to the table of emancipation, but refuse to see Islam for what it admittedly is?

Please educate me/us...thankee...



Amicus, an unabashed male...

 

[JackLuis]

The point you are missing is that the Iranian Regime, is not only Islamic but Fascist as well. The Fascists run the Courts and need show trials to prove their manhood.

Just like American politics, the most extreme responses get the most press and attention. Up and coming young Fascists Prosecutors need flashy cases to make their bones and rise in the Party.

The Revolutionary Guard is another way to let motivated would be fascists join in the competition for the best dogmatic expression of the latest Abomination.

These people hide behind the facade of Islam, but their jackboots are in plain sight.

 

[ishtat]

, under Islamic law, Muslim Law, from the Koran, spell it any way you wish; women are considered property.

Women have no rights under this religious abomination.

Why is it that progressive liberals chastize the US for coming late to the table of emancipation, but refuse to see Islam for what it admittedly is?

Please educate me/us...thankee...



Amicus, an unabashed male...

Ok Amicus, although I would classify myself as a pragmatic, non- doctrinal conservative with independent anomolies, I'll have a go at your request for education.

One of the prime reasons that women in Iran have these ridiculous sentences passed is because of their rights under Sharia law and the conflict between Sharia and tribal tradition.

Since the ninth century women have had specific rights to own property under Sharia and those rights to property are upheld under Sharia in the event of the death or divorce from a spouse. However like western law, Sharia also allows those rights to be struck down if a woman is guilty of a crime ( but including adultery) . In those circumstances the property is usually divided up amongst the mans relatives. This creates a strong economic reason to frame widows and female divorcees in order to relieve them of their property.

In rural areas in particular, tribal tradition trumps Sharia every time and as the rural Sharia is invariably interpreted by a semi literate tribal iman the worst possible sentence ensues. However, any death sentence has to be referred to Tehran where the better educated Ayatollah's will eventually overturn it. In fact more men have been executed (shot or hanged) in Iran in the last twenty years for framing women like this than have women been punished (by any method), but of course there is no hysterical headline in that. Making a false accusation under Sharia is a very serious offence.

The Law has worked particularly well in Indonesia, the worlds largest Moslem Country. The Bali bombers 3 years after 9/11 killed 180 people. The perpetrators were caught given a fair trial sentenced and shot (a year or two ago). I suppose the Indonesians could have parked them on an offshore island for 10 years whether innocent or not without bringing them to trial ; People in Glass Houses eh Ami.?

America demonised Iraq and where did that get us? Then Iran was targeted who of course were massive beneficiaries of the Iraq adventurism in terms of their increased influence. Where will isolation and sanctions get America? Probably about as far as the US has got with Cuba these last 51 years.

Currently US policy in the middle east is to support Saudi Arabia and the Arabs against the Iranians just quietly ignoring the fact that 20 of the 23 9/11 bombers were wahabbi Saudis. Are they the good moslems?

It's not impressive to see Obama bowing to Saudi princes whilst cancelling his visit (twice) to the Indonesians who actually showed America how to make a justice system work against terrorists.

My own view is that all religious fundamentalism is vile, Islam no more nor less than any other, but branding all moslems the way you have is absurd and shows a zeal in denigrating ones fellow men that is usually only observed in extremists of other religions.

On your final issue about emancipation you have a point. On another thread it was claimed that the Brits had canned the slave trade by 1799. That is wrong; slavery was not allowed in UK from 1772 as a result of a legal ruling by Judge Mansfield in 1772 (Somerset case from memory) However the slave trade was not banned until 1807, by which time British slavers had transported 2.2 million slaves to the Caribbean sugar islands and 360,000 to the US. The British sugar barons needed more because they were far more careless about the health of their slaves than American owners. Slavery was not banned in British colonies where 99.9 % of them were until 1834 and actual emancipation waited until 1838 under the notorious 'apprenticeship provisions.'

Incidentally William Wilberforce who led the campaign against the slave trade and slavery was a died in the wool Tory with no liberal sympathies at all.

Obviously I have raised more questions than answers but I do refute the validity of condemning an entire religion because of the behaviour of a few of its members.

Penultimately Ami this wiki article isn't bad though it is constantly under attack from all sorts of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#The_Shi.27a_perspective

And finally Ami what rights would women have under your preferrred legal system?

 

[amicus]

Hello Ishtat and thank you for your time and effort.

I accept your rebuttal good naturedly as I welcome educated opposition to any interpretation I make that has not yet become fact and only the implications can be assessed.

My central focus is on the United States, our History and our present situations, with all other world political situations taking a back seat.

Even more pointed as I may accept a position at a radio station to do some inflamatory talk radio and the Muslim world might well be a topic.

I am also outlining a novel that concerns the expansion of Muslim nations around the world, Indonesia as part of that, Asia in general and Africa. My superficial research on a global scale turned up many articles concerning the expansion of Islam on all fronts and I still hold that as a viable foundation for future conflict.

Many sources I have browsed indicate an eminent conflict in the Middle East, during which oil shipments to the rest of the world would be interrupted and even halted for a period of time and without petro dollars in the middle east, civil unrest might well take place.

There are to this day Communist conflicts in the Philippines and South East Asia and again, reports and speculation I have read, indicate that Muslim influence may replace the communists in several countries and is already underway.

My mindset, which I might compare to that of Tom Clancy's, may not be totally accurate, but contains enough truth and real situations to make a fine plot line for a story, and being mere speculation, with no claims to expertise in any area, save that which I gather from others, leaves me in the fortunate position of being able to fictionize whatever future situation I can imagine...within limits of course.

There is also serendioity involved; the more I read concerning the period before world war two, the more I realize that dozens of options were possible before the final one finally took place. Who is to say that influential movements might not have changed the outcome of history had the Versailles Treaty signators enforced the treaty that ended world war one?

Of course, I can call upon the old canard of the continuation of the Crusades as a speculative venture to fuel my fiction.

There is also the continuing influx of Muslims into Europe from former colonies and commonwealth nations that has already led to conflict and legislation.

So...toy with me as you might, I am not in the least dissuaded from collecting supporting opinion for my own speculation.

Thanks again...

Amicus