Class One Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Sharia law, nor do I agree on the punishment, and yes it is more than extreme. Forty lashes is far too harsh, and if anything the school and the Iman to the school should be sharing a burden of responsibility. Didn't the American kid who spat gum onto the pavement in Singapore all those years ago receive an equally harsh punishment? Ignorance of the law is not a defence in this country, why all of a sudden should it be a defence in another country when one of our citizens is faced with a harsh punishment not befitting a crime that we consider by our own values to be heinous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Shouldn't they be upholding the law for everyone equally though? Surely all those parents who called their son Mohammed are guilty of blasphemy too? What makes them think their kid is so worthy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Shouldn't they be upholding the law for everyone equally though? Surely all those parents who called their son Mohammed are guilty of blasphemy too? What makes them think their kid is so worthy? Islam allows for a male child to be named after the devine prophet, but they cannot attach the name to an image made by man. That, according to the Kuran and under Sharia law is blasphemy. I learnt today that Mohammed in all it's connotations of spelling is the 2nd most popular boys name behind Jack in the UK today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanchan Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Shouldn't they be upholding the law for everyone equally though? Surely all those parents who called their son Mohammed are guilty of blasphemy too? What makes them think their kid is so worthy? My thoughts exactly. It seems completely over the top to me, but as others have said, when in another country, you have to respect their laws, no matter how absurd they seem. It would just be nice if they reciprocated that respect in our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Islam allows for a male child to be named after the devine prophet, but they cannot attach the name to an image made by man. That, according to the Kuran and under Sharia law is blasphemy. I learnt today that Mohammed in all it's connotations of spelling is the 2nd most popular boys name behind Jack in the UK today.Ah, I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPRASUZUKI Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I understand she broke the law of the land, so needs to be punished. However just because it's within their law to punish her with a whip doesn't make it right. Although I suspect with the publicity the case has recieved it will act as a deterent. I think our government should be stepping in to protect a British citizen. How far do we allow other regimes to go? If they said they were going to behead her or cut her hands off because it was within 'their' law would we accept that?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 By our standards ther punishment is harsh AND if you look to our history, criminals were transported to Australia for stealing bread. This is where Sudan is at the moment, we talk of obeying the laws of the country we live in, fine, but tell it to those in this country who wish to bring Sharia law here. We have moved on and we have a democratic society with a fair legal judicial system where a person can be tried by their peers. This may look like contradiction, but one one side you have a person ignorant of the law in a foreign land and on the other hand a community wanting to change the law of the land. The punishment does not fit the crime, as we all know from the Human Rights Act that is used and abused by those who break the law and the ambulance chasers, rather than the Human Rights of the victim, that we have recourse to this Yes we as a country have moved on, we went to war in Iraq, was it because of Saddam and his WMDs or was it because of the oil. What of Zimbabwe, a country in the Commonwealth that has been plundered by Mugabe and his cronies, wait we don't send our armed forces their, why, no oil I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dane_stone Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Hang on a min so if I rape a Muslim women she will be punished for it and not me LOL. This can't be correct can it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Hang on a min so if I rape a Muslim women she will be punished for it and not me LOL. This can't be correct can it? The way I understood the story, she was punished for being out in a car with a man she's not related to or married to, not because she was raped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dane_stone Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 The way I understood the story, she was punished for being out in a car with a man she's not related to or married to, not because she was raped. Makes so much more sence now she should of been killed for that Allha would aprove he does for most things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Are Muslims then, in your opinion, not allowed to live according to their own laws in countries where they have adopted the faith and choose to live according to their Sharia? Are you suggesting religious persecution against the Islamic faith because you see it as barbaric and a threat to your way of life, much as Hitler did against the Jews? Your argument is flawed, & you contradict yourself. you deliberately misunderstand and there is no contradiction. my argument is to protect the woman, yours leaves her to be victimised by a state. i know which i prefer and i would support steps to protect her. the local custom argument can't stand up as when taken to extremes it breaks. eg if she is to be executed for this you would change your tune and therefore it is the level of punishment you are content with not the issue of whether she should be punished at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Sharia law, nor do I agree on the punishment, and yes it is more than extreme. Forty lashes is far too harsh, and if anything the school and the Iman to the school should be sharing a burden of responsibility. ... eg if she is to be executed for this you would change your tune and therefore it is the level of punishment you are content with not the issue of whether she should be punished at all. You seem to have missed what Class One wrote earlier so I thought I'd help you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Makes so much more sence now she should of been killed for that Allha would aprove he does for most things. I agree that punishing someone for her 'crime' is stupid (sorry everyone, as much as it's their right to have whatever laws they want, in my opinion it's plain daft), the theory that she was punished for being raped is wrong. In their eyes she was the victim of a crime, whilst committing one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 You seem to have missed what Class One wrote earlier so I thought I'd help you out. no, the point at issue is whether the uk should act in all the circumstances. i say yes, others (inc class one) says no as we have no right to interfere. (hope that helps you out.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 no, the point at issue is whether the uk should act in all the circumstances. i say yes, others (inc class one) says no as we have no right to interfere. (hope that helps you out.) By ignoring an obvious mistake in your post (as pointed out in the quotes I left) you are now making yourself look very silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 not at all. read all the posts the issue is more than sympathetic (emphasis on pathetic) watchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 not at all. read all the posts the issue is more than sympathetic (emphasis on pathetic) watchers. I repeat, you are now making yourself look very silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 touche. i suppose i'm beat (sarcasm in case the dim miss it). i suppose i better go off and sign up to the apathetic front. no wonder the world is fucked up with you guys around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 touche. Definition from Cambridge online dictionary: Touché An exclamation used to admit that someone has made a good point against you in an argument or discussion So, I guess I should be saying thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackie Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 looks like the dim DID miss it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 looks like the dim DID miss it!! Well I guess I am lucky I quoted you before you read the correct definition of touche and then changed your original post eh? Otherwise, I could have looked really stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexsum Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 yeah you are lucky (SARCASM again for those dumb enough to fool themselves twice.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Not looked at this in a while, since i last posted, wish i didnt because i cant believe what some people have posted in what appears to be defence of this joke. Suppose Doug, if you wana let people in other countrys rule how they want to, regardless of how stupid there laws are, then you have to accept the odd terrorist bombing now and again and whatever they want to do because they "think" its o.k FFS, ive read some shite on this forum in my time but FFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 you deliberately misunderstand and there is no contradiction. my argument is to protect the woman, yours leaves her to be victimised by a state. i know which i prefer and i would support steps to protect her. the local custom argument can't stand up as when taken to extremes it breaks. eg if she is to be executed for this you would change your tune and therefore it is the level of punishment you are content with not the issue of whether she should be punished at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.