Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Persia

Who's Afraid of Shariah ?

1,007 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Lion6969

Yeah, but people that voted for it wouldn't necessarily want the 'whole package'. I doubt the people that voted for it would want women treated as second class citizens or for people to be stoned or hanged. If Islam wants to be taken seriously, then Shariah needs to calm down.

Well you put in place those things they have voted for, and the rest of your post is entirely misleading and full of misconceptions, quite common ones too usually the same things sensationalised in the media don't believe everything you see on tv, read or hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

Are you going to answer my question? You seem to keep dodging tough (yet simple) questions about your true views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Okay, so you'd support forcing Sharia on the minority who don't want it? Good to know.

Would you not install secular democracy if elections showed that the leading majority in favour. Yes you would!

There are historic events where by secular democracy has been the tools and system whereby Islamic parties have been voted in one I noted earlier was Algeria remember. You democracy is a farce if a group which is not to the liking of secular thought then they are not worthy even the people decided otherwise. Like in Algeria people voted fir shariah and Islam so can other nations, the test is whether western nation and secularist accept even though it happened through their own system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thalassa

I really can't see people in America going for the Shariah. If you consider what Shariah Law actually is:

is a form of Islamic justice often criticized for its brutal physical punishments, including flogging and execution by stoning. Sharia punishment is often enforced against women found guilty of "Haram" offenses such as premarital sex and adultery.

taken from:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/09/22/bill-would-ban-sharia-law-and-advocates-from-us.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Are you going to answer my question? You seem to keep dodging tough (yet simple) questions about your true views.

I have answered unless you want the answers in a different language. Lol.

I know your game and circular arguments. Do you understand that same processes in place that vote in your leaders and systems and laws are the same systems I'm referring to in regards to people changing things by vote etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

I really can't see people in America going for the Shariah. If you consider what Shariah Law actually is:

is a form of Islamic justice often criticized for its brutal physical punishments, including flogging and execution by stoning. Sharia punishment is often enforced against women found guilty of "Haram" offenses such as premarital sex and adultery.

taken from:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/09/22/bill-would-ban-sharia-law-and-advocates-from-us.htm

I can't see shariah in the USA full stop ! Regardless if the misconceptions you posted.

I really can't see people in America going for the Shariah. If you consider what Shariah Law actually is:

is a form of Islamic justice often criticized for its brutal physical punishments, including flogging and execution by stoning. Sharia punishment is often enforced against women found guilty of "Haram" offenses such as premarital sex and adultery.

taken from:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/09/22/bill-would-ban-sharia-law-and-advocates-from-us.htm

I can't see shariah in the USA full stop ! Regardless of the misconceptions you posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Would you not install secular democracy if elections showed that the leading majority in favour. Yes you would!

There are historic events where by secular democracy has been the tools and system whereby Islamic parties have been voted in one I noted earlier was Algeria remember. You democracy is a farce if a group which is not to the liking of secular thought then they are not worthy even the people decided otherwise. Like in Algeria people voted fir shariah and Islam so can other nations, the test is whether western nation and secularist accept even though it happened through their own system.

In a way I have to agree. When a democracy is declared and those that vote against the norm and are punished it's not a democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

Would you not install secular democracy if elections showed that the leading majority in favour. Yes you would!

There are historic events where by secular democracy has been the tools and system whereby Islamic parties have been voted in one I noted earlier was Algeria remember. You democracy is a farce if a group which is not to the liking of secular thought then they are not worthy even the people decided otherwise. Like in Algeria people voted fir shariah and Islam so can other nations, the test is whether western nation and secularist accept even though it happened through their own system.

I have answered unless you want the answers in a different language. Lol.

I know your game and circular arguments. Do you understand that same processes in place that vote in your leaders and systems and laws are the same systems I'm referring to in regards to people changing things by vote etc.

Once again, this isn't about government, law or anything of the sort. It's about morality. I'm asking you personally if you favor forcing Sharia on, say, the 35% of the people who don't want it, including homosexuals and countless women, and then support hanging the homosexuals and treating the women like cattle. Do you? It's a simple question. No games or circular arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Well you put in place those things they have voted for, and the rest of your post is entirely misleading and full of misconceptions, quite common ones too usually the same things sensationalised in the media don't believe everything you see on tv, read or hear.

Oh so you're going to deny women are treated as second class and that people are stoned and hanged regularly by Shariah law?

You say that US/UK wouldn't get Shariah law because the majority isn't Muslim... but how do you know that the majority of Algeria isn't? Certainly there's enough people there to be effected negatively. You say people should be allowed to vote on their systems but people were Shariah's in place aren't. Anyone that suggests any other form of government is silenced. Shariah is barbaric in it's punishments and, as such is an extremely corrupt system.

Despite what you think Algeria made the right tmove since not 100% of it's population is Muslim.

In America if people think someone is gay (even if they're not) they can bully and abuse them, but that person is protected by law if things get out of hand. Under Shariah that person could be hanged, no question. Just a few months ago two teenagers were hanged because of it.

I can't support a government that readily kills it's citizens just because they're different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xris

I think ninja dude took the words out of my mouth. I know your games. A leading majority ok.

Now for and xris an example. This is what happens when Muslim apply secular democracy and elections.

http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/articles/espo.html

What has occurred, is that many including muslims, understand that giving way to a Muslim authority finishes of any idea that democracy can survive. When Islam openly confronts the idea of one man one vote and only Islamic clerics have the ability to rule, then any secular or free thinking individual will oppose an Islamic state. You want islamic authority to be the only choice no matter what the majority require. I would love to hear you dispute this charge and deny scriptures demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Once again, this isn't about government, law or anything of the sort. It's about morality. I'm asking you personally if you favor forcing Sharia on, say, the 35% of the people who don't want it, including homosexuals and countless women, and then support hanging the homosexuals and treating the women like cattle. Do you? It's a simple question. No games or circular arguments.

If elections are held and democratic processes take place and if the ballot box decides in favour of the majority then they win and the government they elect. This is a secular process which was what was also used in Palestinian elections and the majority voted Hamas. Yeah they have a terrorist background but they had entered the political arena and dialogue. They were voted in using the very systems we use in our secular governments yet no one recognised them to be legitimate, yet the Irish government consisting if former terrorists enter into dialogue and politics and are accepted. Your version of democracy is a farce when the processes bring a result not to your liking then they are destroyed. So even if shariah is voted in by legitimate processes that's still not good enough, this is because of the inherit prejudice deeply rooted in your heart and others against Islam. That's evident. Even though I inisted no viable shariah here and for it to be applied the people have to want it and be in an Islamic state within. Still not good enough. The Algeria example is enough to show when secular democratic processes result in favour of Islam then outrageous secular backed forced is used to destroy it, in the process 1000s die and Islamic fundamentalism is blamed.

An Islamic state has no room for adultery, fornication, intoxicants, prostitution and homosexuality. The Christian state the Vatican also has no room for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

Your version of democracy is a farce when the processes bring a result not to your liking then they are destroyed.

So would it be ok if we voted, here in the west, to reinstate slavery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markprice

If elections are held and democratic processes take place and if the ballot box decides in favour of the majority then they win and the government they elect. This is a secular process which was what was also used in Palestinian elections and the majority voted Hamas. Yeah they have a terrorist background but they had entered the political arena and dialogue. They were voted in using the very systems we use in our secular governments yet no one recognised them to be legitimate, yet the Irish government consisting if former terrorists enter into dialogue and politics and are accepted. Your version of democracy is a farce when the processes bring a result not to your liking then they are destroyed. So even if shariah is voted in by legitimate processes that's still not good enough, this is because of the inherit prejudice deeply rooted in your heart and others against Islam. That's evident. Even though I inisted no viable shariah here and for it to be applied the people have to want it and be in an Islamic state within. Still not good enough. The Algeria example is enough to show when secular democratic processes result in favour of Islam then outrageous secular backed forced is used to destroy it, in the process 1000s die and Islamic fundamentalism is blamed.

An Islamic state has no room for adultery, fornication, intoxicants, prostitution and homosexuality. The Christian state the Vatican also has no room for it.

False premise up there^ ANY REAL DEMOCRACY CANNOT ELECT A NON-DEMOCRACY. When a single election is used to elect an anti-democracy the result is there never was a democracy in place before or after the election. If the majority of people want Shariah law it would have to be in a place with no democracy. If that situation existed in a real democracy--and even if 90% were in favor of Sharia law--the democracy would need an amendment to preclude a vote on non democracy to end the possibility of its total destruction. Even worse in England where the Queen could just say no.

Sharia law is nothing but a wicked system based of human suppression; everyone knows that so there is no chance of it ever creeping up on any real democracy, ever. (suppression is the root cause of violence in Islam, and I am definitely NOT saying our democracy is perfect or the pentagon is benevolent--we all have a right to be p***ed off at government, but not cartoonists and artists etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

If elections are held and democratic processes take place and if the ballot box decides in favour of the majority then they win and the government they elect. This is a secular process which was what was also used in Palestinian elections and the majority voted Hamas. Yeah they have a terrorist background but they had entered the political arena and dialogue. They were voted in using the very systems we use in our secular governments yet no one recognised them to be legitimate, yet the Irish government consisting if former terrorists enter into dialogue and politics and are accepted. Your version of democracy is a farce when the processes bring a result not to your liking then they are destroyed. So even if shariah is voted in by legitimate processes that's still not good enough, this is because of the inherit prejudice deeply rooted in your heart and others against Islam. That's evident. Even though I inisted no viable shariah here and for it to be applied the people have to want it and be in an Islamic state within. Still not good enough. The Algeria example is enough to show when secular democratic processes result in favour of Islam then outrageous secular backed forced is used to destroy it, in the process 1000s die and Islamic fundamentalism is blamed.

An Islamic state has no room for adultery, fornication, intoxicants, prostitution and homosexuality. The Christian state the Vatican also has no room for it.

You said it yourself. An Islamic state has to be 100% Islamic for it to take hold. You think everyone in Algeria was? No. Sure 1000s died, but how many more would have suffered had it taken hold? Look at Islamic countries with Shariah law. Women are second class citizens, you can be killed or tortured on a whim, speak out against the government and you're silenced, the governemtn (and police force) is riddled with corruption. Is that really the sort of place you'd want to live? Is that really the place that anyone would want?

If they had gained Algeria that woul have been the end of democracy there.

Yeah, but you know what the difference is between an Islamic state and the vatican? You do those things in the Vatican and you won't be killed for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

You said it yourself. An Islamic state has to be 100% Islamic for it to take hold. You think everyone in Algeria was? No. Sure 1000s died, but how many more would have suffered had it taken hold? Look at Islamic countries with Shariah law. Women are second class citizens, you can be killed or tortured on a whim, speak out against the government and you're silenced, the governemtn (and police force) is riddled with corruption. Is that really the sort of place you'd want to live? Is that really the place that anyone would want?

If they had gained Algeria that woul have been the end of democracy there.

Yeah, but you know what the difference is between an Islamic state and the vatican? You do those things in the Vatican and you won't be killed for it.

I can't even fathom the thought process whereby ANY of that would be a good idea. The only way sharia would work here is if the entire place got nuked, and they started fresh with a whole different kind of people. As it is people hate the control the government has on us now; this sharia junk would have people oiling up their guns and stocking up on ammo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Oh so you're going to deny women are treated as second class and that people are stoned and hanged regularly by Shariah law?

Yes I do deny that. Infact there is not Muslim country which implements shariah, besides Saudi. They only implement about 90% because they are autocratic monarchy supported by the west. Islam has no room for monarchy. All the other Muslim nations are not Islamic but just Muslim countries due to being majority. Those countries are secular military or dictatorship states, which infuse a small amount shariah with doctoral systems and laws. So your above quote does happen unfortunately but not as a result of Shariah but as a result of dictators and generals puppeted by western goverments who fund them and keep them in power to oppress and spread their tyranny. You ain't gotta a clue about shariah law, governmental systems, economic systems and others.

You say that US/UK wouldn't get Shariah law because the majority isn't Muslim... but how do you know that the majority of Algeria isn't? Certainly there's enough people there to be effected negatively. You say people should be allowed to vote on their systems but people were Shariah's in place aren't. Anyone that suggests any other form of government is silenced. Shariah is barbaric in it's punishments and, as such is an extremely corrupt system.

Everything above Iis utter rubbish and baseless, to base your knowledge on Islam based on media reports about individual extremist actions and then paint everyone with the same brush is very naive and immature. Add to that your knowledge about algeria and complicity of the situation in that country. Let me enlighten you about how secular democracy functions when it's legitimate processes are employed and the ballot box votes for an Islamic state as happened in Algeria.

Firstly the population and majority in Algeria is Muslim. About 99% is Muslim.

World Top Ten Countries With Largest Muslim Populations

Country Muslim Population

Pakistan 150,365,000

India 122,570,000

Indonesia 116,105,000

Bangladesh 110,849,000

Turkey 64,714,000

Iran 64,707,000

Egypt 57,780,000

Nigeria 49,000,000

Algeria 30,442,000

Morocco

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-countries-with-largest-muslim-populations-map.html

Secondly about the situation of Algeria.

In December 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), an Algerian political party, had won national democratic elections, proving to be immensely popular. However, before the parliamentary seats could be taken after January 1992, the Algerian military violently overturned democracy. The parliamentary elections that would have brought the FIS to power were cancelled by the Algerian army. The army rounded up tens of thousands of Muslims who supported the winning party and threw them into concentration camps in the midst of the Sahara, to be tortured and abused.[1] Subsequently, the army took power, democracy was eliminated, and the popular FIS was scattered. Summarising the coup, Lahouri Addi observes that “in February 1989, just months after the October 1988 riots that cost nearly a thousand lives, the ruling National Liberation Front (FLN) embarked on a series of reforms, changing the Constitution to allow multipartism and alternation in power by means of elections. Yet the legalization of multipartism mainly benefited the Islamists organized into the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), which carried both the June 1990 local elections and the first round of the December 1991 national legislative races. The military suspended the process and nullified the first-round results in January 1992. Next, it forced President Chadli Benjedid to resign. Since then, Algeria has plunged into murderous strife that already has claimed more than 60,000 lives.”[2]

so election took place the nation which is 99% Muslim voted for an Islamic state. Once the result was in the secular government and army destroyed them forced them out and systematically killed their leaders, reps, supporters who were mainly the poor masses. All while the west was quite at this atrocity.

Despite what you think Algeria made the right tmove since not 100% of it's population is Muslim.

Oh really, what did they do right, enlighten me. While I show you what they did wrong, and which western nations helped and supported the wrong doing.

As noted by John Entelis, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Middle East Program at Fordham University in New York, regarding the elections, “The Arab world had never before experienced such a genuinely populist expression of democratic aspirations… Yet when the army overturned the whole democratic experiment in January 1992, the United States willingly accepted the results… In short, a democratically elected Islamist government hostile to American hegemonic aspirations in the region… was considered unacceptable in Washington.” This was primarily because the democratically elected government was unlikely to allow the United States to use Algeria as part of its attempts to consolidate its military-economic hegemony throughout the region. Professor Entelis acknowledges that, in contrast, “More important was the army government’s willingness to collaborate with American regional ambitions”, which included “collaborating with Israel in establishing a Pax Americana in the Middle East and North Africa.”[3]

More

Amnesty International reported in 1997 that the human rights crisis that followed the military coup of 1992 “has already claimed tens of thousands of lives [and] has continued to worsen. In the past year, thousands have been killed in what has been the most intense period of the conflict. Men, women and children have been slaughtered, decapitated, mutilated and burned to death in massacres. The large scale of the massacres of civilians of the past year have taken place against a background of increasingly widespread human rights abuses by government security forces, state-armed militias and armed opposition groups. Arbitrary and secret detention, unfair trial, torture and ill-treatment, including rape, ‘disappearances’, extrajudicial executions, deliberate and arbitrary killings of civilians, hostage-taking and death threats have become routine. As the toll of victims continues to rise, the climate of fear has spread through all sectors of civilian society.” By 1997, up to 80,000 people, many of them civilians, were reported to have been killed, though according to other sources, such as Algerian political parties, health workers and journalists, the number of victims was considerably higher. By 1999 this conservative figure had risen to an estimated 100,000.[5]

Wait there is more, please let me know which things were right in name secularism, status quo and maintaining secular regime while the ballot suggested otherwise.

It is crucial to note that AI has also openly admitted that the claims of the Algerian government that these massacres are being instigated by ‘Islamic terrorists’ are considerably problematic, given that most of them occurred beside government military barracks and security forces, and went on - often for hours - without any intervention. The conundrum is compounded by the sinister fact that “the Algerian authorities have systematically failed to carry out investigations and to bring those responsible to justice.”[6]

In November 1997, Secretary General of Amnesty International, Pierre Sane, pointed out that in that year alone “Algerians have been slain in their thousands with unspeakable brutality”, “decapitated, mutilated and burned alive in their homes”, with torture, ‘disappearances’ and extrajudicial executions becoming “part of the daily reality of Algerian life”. Moreover, “many of the massacres have been within shouting distance of army barracks, yet cries for help have gone unanswered, the killers allowed to walk away unscathed”. In fact, the majority of these massacres had “taken place in areas around the capital Algiers, in the most militarised region of the country.” Often villages where such massacres occurred - sometimes for hours on end - “were close to army barracks and security forces posts. Yet the army and security forces did not intervene, neither to stop the massacres nor to arrest the killers - who were able to leave undisturbed on each occasion.” Pierre Sane puts forward a crucial question: “what action has the international community? None... This last point is as disturbing as the grizzly catalogue of abuses”

To convey the scale and brutality of the massacres, Sane cites several examples from 1997: “on the night of 11 July in Bou-Ismail, west of Algiers, a family of 12 were massacred”; “on the night of 28 August in Rais, south of Algiers, up to 300 people, many of them women and children, even small babies, were killed and more than 100 injured”; “on the night of 5 September in Sidi Youssef, on the outskirts of Algiers, more than 60 people were massacred”; “on the night of 22 September in Bentalha, south of Algiers, more than 200 men, women and children were massacred”; “in the past few weeks, hundreds more have been killed in a series of massacres of a dozen or more people at a time”.

Sane adds that although there have been “recent statements by the UN Secretary General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF and UNHCR condemning the massacres of civilians and other human rights abuses in Algeria” these “words are welcome, but start to sound hollow when they are followed only by the hedging of governments and not by action.”[7] Thus, despite the huge humanitarian catastrophe in Algeria, Western governments have studiously ignored the escalating crisis, to the extent that they refuse to even place Algeria under viable international pressure. Likewise, the Western mass media, complying with highly questionable Western government policies, also largely ignore the crisis.

Just a bit more. It's a lengthy article so will leave link too.

Maybe some reports by ex military and police might suffice and the alleged right actions you claim.

We should therefore reflect upon the strategy adopted by the Algerian regime, which bears an uncanny resemblance to those adopted at the insistence of the CIA by military regimes in South America (e.g. Chile and Nicaragua). According to Ben Lombardi, who is with the Directorate of Strategic Analysis at the Department of National Defence in Ottawa, Canada: “In 1991, the West supported the coup in Algeria in an effort to prevent Islamic fundamentalists coming to power through the ballot box.”[19] Dr. Hamoue Amirouche, a former fellow of the Institut National d’Etudes de Strategie Globale (Algiers), noted at the beginning of 1998 that “the military regime” thus supported by the West, “is perpetuating itself by fabricating and nourishing a mysterious monster to fight, but it is demonstrating daily its failure to perform its most elementary duty: providing security for the population. In October 1997, troubling reports suggested that a faction of the army, dubbed the ‘land mafia’, might actually be responsible for some of last summer’s massacres, which… continued even after the Islamic Salvation Army, the armed wing of the FIS, called for a truce, in effect as of October 1, 1997.”[20] The French magazine Paris Match reported that this “land mafia”, consisting of elements of the Algerian military regime, was cleansing premium lands of peasant occupants in anticipation of the privatisation of all the land in 1998.[21]

Read on please.....

The appalling record thus confirms the complicity of the Algerian authorities and the Western governments supporting them. The Independent reported in 1997 that “GIA men - or those claiming to be its members - have attacked Algerian villages for more than a year, cutting the throats of women and children, burning babies alive in ovens, disembowelling pregnant women and slaughtering old men with axes. They have even employed a mobile guillotine on the back of a truck to execute their enemies. But evidence that the massacred villagers were themselves Islamists, and increasing proof that the Algerian security forces remained - at best - incapable of coming to their rescue, has cast grave doubt on the government’s role in Algeria’s dirty war.”[22] A short report on 10 November 1997 by the UK-based Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) refers to the similar findings of other investigators. IHRC points out that a series of articles in the British press on the situation in Algeria “have revealed that the Algerian secret services have been deliberately massacring its citizens, and orchestrating bombing campaigns in France to discredit Islamists.” The so-called GIA is apparently part and parcel of the Algerian regime’s propaganda campaign. Particularly, the Observer reported that an Algerian informer “claims that European MPs, and journalists regularly received bribes from the Algerian authorities.” Investigators the IHRC refers to include Robert Fisk in the Independent and John Sweeney in the Observer, who “have all produced separate work on this issue, which has been well-known in human rights circles for some time.”[23]

This is what you call secular democracy. Do anything to keep the status quo if the ballot takes your power away.

The evidence of this twin Algerian and European governmental complicity in Algeria’s humanitarian crisis only mounts. Robert Fisk, for instance, recorded the testimony of ‘Dalilah’, an Algerian policewoman who was witness to the torture and executions carried out by the Algerian intelligence services: “They tortured people - I saw this happening,” she stated. “I saw innocent people tortured like wild animals... They executed people... people who had done nothing. They had been denounced by people who didn’t get along with them. People just said ‘He’s a terrorist’ and the man would be executed.... They tied young people to a ladder with rope. They were always shirtless, sometimes naked. They put a rag over their face. Then they forced salty water into them. There was a tap with a pipe that they stuck in the prisoner’s throat and they ran the water until the prisoners’ bellies had swelled right up... Sometimes while this happened, the torturers would put broomsticks up their anuses. Some of the prisoners had beards, some didn’t. They were all poor... Any cop would hit the prisoners with the butt of his Kalash (rifle). Some of the prisoners went completely mad from being tortured. Everyone who was brought to the Cavignac was tortured - around 70 per cent of the cops there saw all this. They participated. Although the torture was the job of the judiciary police, the others joined in. The prisoners would be 20 to 30 to a cell and they would be brought one by one to the ladder, kicked in the ribs all the time. It was inhuman. In the cells, the prisoners got a piece of bread every two days. There was no medicine. Every prisoner, according to the law, has the right to a doctor. But they would be returned to their cells covered in blood.”

Fisk comments: “For more than four years released prisoners have told us of water torture and beatings, of suffocation with rags, of how their nails were ripped out by interrogators, of how women were gang-raped by policemen, of secret executions in police stations.” He gives several typical examples: “A police officer who was in charge of the Algiers’ city police armoury has described to The Independent how his colleagues killed prisoners in cold blood, how police torturers suffocated prisoners with acid-soaked rags after tearing out their nails and raping them with bottles. A 30-year old Algiers policewoman has told of how she watched prisoners - at the rate of 12 a day - tied half-naked to ladders in the Cavignac police station in Algiers while, screaming and pleading for mercy, salt water was pumped into their stomachs until they agreed, blindfolded, to sign confessions. The same policewoman admitted to signing false death certificates to prove that dead prisoners had been ‘found’ decomposing in the forests south of Algiers. A 23-year old army conscript spoke of watching officers torture suspected ‘Islamist’ prisoners by boring holes in their legs - and in one case, stomach - with electric drills in a dungeon called the ‘killing room’. And he claimed that he found a false beard amid the clothing of soldiers who had returned from a raid on a village where 28 civilians were later found beheaded; the soldier suspects that his comrades had dressed up as Muslim rebels to carry out the atrocity.”[28]

A former Algerian secret service officer known as Captain ‘Haroune’ - who was authenticated by the British Foreign Office - had also defected, left Algeria, and sought asylum in London. He informed a British House of Commons all-party committee that his ex-colleagues carried out “dirty jobs, including killing of journalists, officers and children”. He confessed, for instance, that the murder of seven Italians in Jenjen in July 1994 was perpetrated by state military security death squads, in order to blacken the name of “Islamic fundamentalists”. Arrested suspects for the murder are merely scapegoats who were forced to sign confessions under torture.[29] The former Algerian agent also testified in 1998 that “It’s the army which is responsible for the massacres; it’s the army which executes the massacres; not the regular soldiers, but a special unit under the orders of the generals. It should be remembered the lands are being privatized, and land is very important. One has first to chase people from their land so that land can be acquired cheaply. And then there must be a certain dose of terror in order to govern the Algerian people and remain in power. A Chinese saying tells that a picture is worth a thousand words. I could not stand the image of a young girl having her throat slit. I could not bear seeing what happened and not tell it. I have children, imagine what this girl had to suffer, the last 10 seconds of her life must have been horrible. I think it’s our duty to speak up about this. I speak today in the hope that others would do the same, so that things change, and so that these killings cease.”[30]

Please enlighten me what was right about Algeria and what it's goverment and military did right. Below is the full link read it all including the references and then check them too.

In America if people think someone is gay (even if they're not) they can bully and abuse them, but that person is protected by law if things get out of hand. Under Shariah that person could be hanged, no question. Just a few months ago two teenagers were hanged because of it.

Like I said an Islamic state does not accommodate homosexuality like the Vatican a Christian state. But there is no Islamic state all the atrocities are committed by dictatorships, regimes, autocratic monarchies propped up by our governments to keep the status quo investments in oil etc. Western governments fear that an Islamic state may emerge from the ballot box hence propp up puppets and fund them, if that does not work then invade them! When in Rome do as the Romans do, if in an Islamic state you must obey it's laws of the land as Muslim need to obey the laws of the land of non Muslim states.

I can't support a government that readily kills it's citizens just because they're different.

BS who is killing it's civilians non but brutal regimes run by propped up puppets who destroy anyone in their path. If islamists want to enter the secular process they can't, the people are only given secular alternatives anything else is not welcome even if the ballot wants it. Call that democracy, shariah and an Islamic state can emerge via secular process too, this is the fear of the west that their imperial status quo will disappear because an Islamic state will not let non Muslim state be the sole investors in their resources, they want the benefit to go to people of that nation but the west does not want this and would not allow it. Like the way they are still quite about Algeria and prefer the current situation of brutal rule and support the killing of 1000s of innocent people because they voted for shariah and islam. Your version of democracy is a sham!

Oh the link. http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq4.html

Edited by Lion6969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

BS who is killing it's civilians non but brutal regimes run by propped up puppets who destroy anyone in their path

So sharia law is passive in regards to homosexuality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markprice

Just looking into this I found that criticism of the government under Shariah law is considered blasphemy and punishable by prison or death.

What is the punishment for alcohol? I couldn't find that one, but saw pics of an eight year old kid who was forced to have his arm run over by a truck for stealing bread...not to mention the stoning to death and other horrors...just too awesome to behold the horrors of Shariah and the people who believe in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

Just looking into this I found that criticism of the government under Shariah law is considered blasphemy and punishable by prison or death.

What is the punishment for alcohol? I couldn't find that one, but saw pics of an eight year old kid who was forced to have his arm run over by a truck for stealing bread...not to mention the stoning to death and other horrors...just too awesome to behold the horrors of Shariah and the people who believe in it.

yeah, and the list goes on. To try and tell anyone who has had ANY degree of real freedom in their life that there is an upside to sharia law...kind of like trying to say Stalin was a nice guy. There just isn't enough PR in the world to pull that off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

So would it be ok if we voted, here in the west, to reinstate slavery?

Slavery is bad analogy to equate to Islam. If a party emerged in the USA which won at the ballot box put they want slavery to be reinstated. Then the minority can't do anything besides protest, fight and rebel. Islam and I would not vote for slavery!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

So sharia law is passive in regards to homosexuality?

It's as passive as the Vatican!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

yeah, and the list goes on. To try and tell anyone who has had ANY degree of real freedom in their life that there is an upside to sharia law...kind of like trying to say Stalin was a nice guy. There just isn't enough PR in the world to pull that off.

I find it funny that all of a sudden we have experts in shariah law. Lol

Don't believe the hype, don't believe all you see on tv and read in papers. But guess that's your tool for educating yourself about Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Just looking into this I found that criticism of the government under Shariah law is considered blasphemy and punishable by prison or death.

What is the punishment for alcohol? I couldn't find that one, but saw pics of an eight year old kid who was forced to have his arm run over by a truck for stealing bread...not to mention the stoning to death and other horrors...just too awesome to behold the horrors of Shariah and the people who believe in it.

BS. Like i said and it's even simple for single organisms to understand. That shariah is not implemented any where why don't you read my first post and the links on this page aswell as understand that all the places and incidents you refer to are individual extreme actions or state sponsored punishment, carried out by dictators, military and secular propped regimes. Propped by our secular governments to rule brutally ad they do to maintain the status quo.

Your knowledge on Islam is appalling and probably comes from far right sites and books. Someone who thinks saying or even referring to some one as a **** is ok, has an inherit prejudice rooted in the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

I find it funny that all of a sudden we have experts in shariah law. Lol

Don't believe the hype, don't believe all you see on tv and read in papers. But guess that's your tool for educating yourself about Islam.

Perhaps you can show me where I made such a claim of expertise? I NEVER claimed to be an expert. And actually I have spent a good deal of time in the middle east dealing with people of every strata.

guess what? even firsthand, the sharia law is ridiculous. But it is easy to make something sound popular when 50% of the people dont get to open their mouths, and the other half get tortured if they do try to stand against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

False premise up there^ ANY REAL DEMOCRACY CANNOT ELECT A NON-DEMOCRACY

What utter rubbish. Algeria, Tunisia come to mind. What is a real democracy. You see western secular democracy is a farce and the west expects it's model to fit all, when other civilisations have different morality filters some religious some tribal some individual some cultural and ofcourse some western secular morality filters in society. My morality filter is religion and it's compatible with secular morals in general bar few. So even if a secular democracy which is basically rule of the people vote for shariah it still not acceptable by you even though your own conditions and systems were in place. You call that democratic. I don't want to debate on shariah law because most of you lot base your legal shariah knowledge on google. Lol

When a single election is used to elect an anti-democracy the result is there never was a democracy in place before or after the election.

BS. In Algeria there was democracy but after Islamic group won they were destroyed using USA uk and French money and weapons. You then wonder why Islamist turn to arms( I don't agree with it) if the very democratic processes don't serve the people, then it's not democratic is it.

If the majority of people want Shariah law it would have to be in a place with no democracy. If that situation existed in a real democracy--and even if 90% were in favor of Sharia law--the democracy would need an amendment to preclude a vote on non democracy to end the possibility of its total destruction. Even worse in England where the Queen could just say no.

Again utter rubbish, shariah law has emerged from a democracy and it's processes but was quashed to maintain status quo which was western nation raping it for it's resources. If their puppets had failed I have no doubt the western nation who propped them would have invaded them.

Sharia law is nothing but a wicked system based of human suppression; everyone knows that so there is no chance of it ever creeping up on any real democracy, ever. (suppression is the root cause of violence in Islam, and I am definitely NOT saying our democracy is perfect or the pentagon is benevolent--we all have a right to be p***ed off at government, but not cartoonists and artists etc.)

Islam is the true democracy but your limited knowledge won't allow you to comprehend that. Shariah law does not serve individualism but implemented to better society and protect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.