Barbaric? You Decide
I put this post under the War category, because this kind of barbarism is what we are up against! I realize we are not at war with Iran, but this same mindset is exactly what we are fighting to be free from;
"On the day of her punishment, the woman's hands are tied behind her back as she becomes covered from head to toe in winding sheets and is placed seated in a pit. The pit is then filled up to her chest with dirt and the dirt is tamped down. At that point, members of the community are invited to murder her by hurling rocks at her. However, to ensure that the condemned woman/girl receives the absolute maximum amount of pain and torture, the Iranian government has even mandated the size of the stones that are to be used in this barbaric act of public execution. By law, the stones must not be too small as to prevent ultimate death, nor must they be too large that they could cause the girl's death "too soon."
"On the day of her punishment, the woman's hands are tied behind her back as she becomes covered from head to toe in winding sheets and is placed seated in a pit. The pit is then filled up to her chest with dirt and the dirt is tamped down. At that point, members of the community are invited to murder her by hurling rocks at her. However, to ensure that the condemned woman/girl receives the absolute maximum amount of pain and torture, the Iranian government has even mandated the size of the stones that are to be used in this barbaric act of public execution. By law, the stones must not be too small as to prevent ultimate death, nor must they be too large that they could cause the girl's death "too soon."
This is not just in Iran, this is Shari'ia law! While our media was fawning over Ahmadinejad, this is the sort of thing that goes on all the time in his country. [hat tip: Michelle Malkin]
But Dagney you don't understand, they kill her with love in their heart. The pain is only so she'll remember to not do it again.
Right? No barbarism here, move along please.
Reply to this
Hello,
I am confused about something you have written DagneyT: You state that it is this type of barbarism that we are fighting against - and that this mindset is exactly what we are fighting to be free against.
However it is no secret that there are many many countries all over the world, who practice barbaric things because of cultures that go way way back. Some cultures dont anymore, some still do.
If you are, like you state, fighting this barbarism, then what plans are there, or what plans do you think should be put in place, to remove half of Africa's barbaric practices, along with similar plans for removing such plans from parts of Asia, and South America?
If the fight is REALLY against barbaric practices, then why do you not support an invasion of Africa, South America, and parts of Asia?
Thank you
Reply to this
You have asked a very interesting question, my friend, and it deserves an answer. First, the barbarism I referred to is "This is not just in Iran, this is Shari'ia law!" Keyword; Shari'ia law. Muslims are attempting to institute it in many of the countries they've "invaded" through immigration; UK most notably.
In America, we were attacked by Islamists who wish to impose such laws on our country, and the rest of the world as well. Attacks from suicide bombers and death squads in Iraq, and countless countries around the world are carried out by those who would have us all live by Shari'ia law.
I would love to stop barbaric practices in countries in Africa particularly, and I would support military intervention there, as thousands of my fellow Christians die daily there, at the hands of Islamic fanatics.
After decades of radical medrassas teaching their hatred to Muslim children, this is an uphill battle. As is the basis of all societies, education is the foundation. When hatred and dying is taught to young children, they will grow up to live that lifestyle. America's vision for Iraq is one of secular and democratic freedom, without the restrictive medrassa training. Until we can teach children to live in peace with others, there will be no peace.
Reply to this
Dear DagneyT,
Thank you for your reply. I am pleased to know that you also share in my convictions for secular life, where religion is between one person and his own god, whoever that god may be, and where people govern other people, who elect people to make laws for said people, and where those people can be held accountable by those same people. Basically, secularism.
Sadly however DagneyT, (and I was hoping this was not the case), but I strongly suspect that you are one of those people who use a paint-roll fit for a wall in a house, to paint your masterpiece on a small paper canvas. In other words, I strongly suspect, that you are giving into sweeping generalizations.
In the heat of the moment and in face to face conversations, it might be forgivable. But with the aid of typing and the infinate times available to us on a blog, I would hope we need not revert to generalizations.
The generalization I am refering to is this: I find it sad that you damn all Muslim immigrants who have come to the UK by insinuating that they all want to implement sharia law. No doubt, there are certain Muslims who do want that. But to damn the entire lot by your statement and call their arrdous journey through immigration to a new world as an "invasion", is not only untrue, but also uncalled for and rude, to say the least.
I understand that we can all be rude and crude sometimes. And I would hope, that that statement was made in haste, and does not reflect an actual conviction of yours.
The second generalization I noticed was your opinion on the motivation for modern day terrorists. You have stated that they want to impose sharia law on us. And although this particular point is a grand subject in and of itself, I would like to say that I disagree with your opinion on the motivation behind their actions, as I talk from personal experience. Imposition of sharia law is shadowed by a greater motivation for terror, and this motivation is political in nature, and not religious. I know it is unfair to you that I do not say more, but I am approaching the 3000 character limit already.
The final point I wanted to make Ms DagneyT, was about my first post - regarding barbarism in all its forms:
Are you of the opinion that all cultures that have any semblance of barbarism in their punishments, codes of conduct, etc, must be militarily invaded, (islamic or not islamic) in order for them to be "corrected"? I ask because there are a multitude of non-Islamic cultures out there that do have barbaric practices that are practiced. What of them?
If you answer in the affirmative, am I to understand that it is also your opinion that the early settlers in America should have simply hunted down and exterminated the savage Indian tribes and be done with them once and for all, barring a success in educating them?
Thank you for your time and effort Ms DagneyT, and I look forward in great anticipation towards your responses, opinions, and personal insight!
Thank you
Reply to this
"I find it sad that you damn all Muslim immigrants who have come to the UK by insinuating that they all want to implement sharia law."
Within this limited venue, I have tried to express the concern the original post was meant to expose, i.e., that some would kill to impose Shari'ia law on all who can be conquered. There has been a strong movement in UK to allow communities to impose Shari'ia law.
"Are you of the opinion that all cultures that have any semblance of barbarism in their punishments, codes of conduct, etc, must be militarily invaded, (islamic or not islamic) in order for them to be "corrected"?
Military is not going to answer the root problem. As I said in my earlier post; education is the key. In America, our left leaning politicos took over our educational system 30 years ago. They stopped teaching actual history, and began a revisionist version. This has given rise to a movement in America. The result of public schooling's lies to our children has given birth to home-schooling and other forms of schooling.
Islam should take something from this, and learn to adapt.
In the end, the danger, of course, is that the freedom to teach is going to lead to a situation akin to a medrassa.
If we can learn to teach history as it happened, we will all prosper.
Reply to this
Dear DagneyT,
" that some would kill to impose Shari'ia law on all who can be conquered. "
Thank you DagneyT. The key word here is "some". This key word was mising in your earlier statement when you said: " Muslims are attempting to institute it in many of the countries they've "invaded" through immigration; UK most notably.".
I am sure you will agree with me that those two have wildly different meanings. In the first, you damn all those immigrants to the UK who happen to be Muslim. In the second, you call attention to SOME, who want to impose Sharia law.
Thank you for the clarification. I had a feeling you werent a "generalizer". In my heart, I knew you were focusing on some of the bad apples out of a lot.
You have said:
"Military is not going to answer the root problem. As I said in my earlier post; education is the key."
I too think education is tatamount. Not just science and calculus, but also of history, historical trends, even man's nature itself. This so that children can learn from it all, and not repeat our old mistakes.
But regarding all those cultures who still have punishments that you are considering barbaric, etc, what of them? Do you have any thoughts on how to educate them? Do you believe that one must invade them, kill their current leaders, huddle them in a mass, and educate them in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? If you answer in the affirmative, what do you propose be done to this huddled mass?
The reason I ask you this, is because it seems that military action is completely necessary in order to actually get into said lands, to implement this "education plan" that you are speaking of. This leads me to the conclusion that you advocate the invasion of said countries, so that some form of missionaries, are sent in to "educate" them.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Thank you for your time again, Ms DagneyT.
Reply to this
"But regarding all those cultures who still have punishments that you are considering barbaric, etc, what of them? Do you have any thoughts on how to educate them? Do you believe that one must invade them, kill their current leaders, huddle them in a mass, and educate them in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? If you answer in the affirmative, what do you propose be done to this huddled mass?"
Though those questions are all valid, I'm afraid I cannot answer them because I am unfamiliar with the countries and practices you refer to in your questions. I know that missionaries from many Christian denominations venture into many countries and cultures, in order to teach them to read. That would be my personal preference for "invasion".
Reply to this
How about an accurate clarification on the invasion of England -- MOST Muslims in England want to impose Shari'ia law. The MAJORITY of Muslims in England want this. Not "some," not "a few," but OVER HALF. That's scary and needs to be stopped if people are to be free. Otherwise the situation outlined in the initial post will be occuring with the full support of the government in Great Britian.
Reply to this
Greetings Ogre,
"MOST Muslims in England want to impose Shari'ia law. The MAJORITY of Muslims in England want this. Not "some," not "a few," but OVER HALF."
I am curious. On what evidence have you based this statistic of British Muslims on?
Thank you
Reply to this
The numerous polls of Muslims in England that show the the majority want Shairia rule, who support terrorist acts in the name of Mohammed, and the near 80% who said they would not turn in a fellow Muslim for terrorist acts.
Reply to this
I am sorry Ogre,
Could you please provide me with the same sources you have seen, that show that the majority of Muslims want to (by your own words) "impose" Sharia law. Not how many want Sharia. How many want to impose it. Big difference.
And the difference is that plenty of people might want a law passed - doesnt mean they will impose it on you - means they want it, and can get it legally, versus imposingly, which is not legal.
Thank you! I look forward to looking over the evidence.
Reply to this
Feel free to expound on that comment. If a law prevents me from tying my shoe, and I want to tie my shoe, that law is imposed on me because I don't want it. It doesn't matter if the law is passed legally or illegally (huh?), it's still imposed on me. If they "want" the law, they ARE going to apply it to me, whether I want them to or not. If they don't, then it's not a law.
So feel free to quit quibbling over words. Muslims DO want Sharia law in England. That's a bad thing for freedom.
Reply to this
Interesting. If a county in your state passes a law for universal healthcare by majority vote, but you do not want it, then they have "imposed" universal healthcare on you.
And therefore, any law that gets passed in your own country that you happen to disagree with, is an "imposition", even though you agree with the mechanics of how laws must be passed in your country.
Essentially, you have no qualm with the machinery on how a law is to get passed in your country, but if this machinery now gives you a law which you do not like, its being "imposed" on you.
Thats following your logic. The result? Hypocrisy on your part.
By living in your country, (I am assuming the US), you inherently agree with how laws are to come into existance. That means once passed, you follow them. This is a law-abiding nation. You cant pick and chose.
Thus, you have already accepted that if a town is to receive majority votes for Mr X, then Mr X is rightfully its mayor, or representative.
If you agree with that, then you cant bitch and moan just because you happen to dislike Mr X, and then claim that since I dont like him, and he believes in this and that, its an "imposition" on me, even though yes, he was elected fair and sqaure in a system which I beleive in. hehe. Thats hypocrisy.
Agree with the machinery? Good. You agree that laws are to be made via concensus. Dont agree with the results of that concensus? Then either:
1) Leave the country
2) Recommend a new type of machinery.
In other words, your fretting over Muslim leaders being elected into congress is a moot point.
-------------------------
Regarding your mind-reading abilities on the million or so Muslims in the UK who you telepathically absolutely know want to "impose" Sharia law on you, I am not a telepath - only a mere mortal, so I humbly ask you, (again), for the poll you conducted that shows that all Muslims are rubbing their hands together trying to figure out how to "impose" sharia law on you.
Thanks!
Reply to this
At least you finally admit the understanding of the word "impose" -- almost.
Yes, if something I don't like is forced on me, even by majority, that IS imposed on me! Would you say that a woman shouldn't complain if she's raped by the majority vote of 5 men in a room to her 1 vote? After all, it was a majority vote, so all is okay with you, even if the woman does get raped.
Then again, that might not be a good example because as a supporter of Muslims, you may actually support rape and subjugation of women. Maybe you don't, I'm not sure if you support Islam. Islam does, however, and you certainly seem to like Islam from your comments here.
There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is good and evil. Was Hitler okay with you because he was elected? Maybe, according to your standards, everything Saddam did was okay with you because he was elected, too.
There is evil, and Shairia law, no matter how it is imposed, IS evil and wrong.
Reply to this
"Yes, if something I don't like is forced on me, even by majority, that IS imposed on me! "
According to Ogre, aproximately 40% of the American population have the current presidency being "imposed" on them.
"Yes, if something I don't like is forced on me, even by majority, that IS imposed on me!"
Ahh I see. The patriot act is being imposed on people. Speeding limits are impositions. Recent president elect? Imposed. What an imposing country! /sarcasm off.
"Would you say that a woman shouldn't complain if she's raped by the majority vote of 5 men in a room to her 1 vote?"
I would tell her not to worry - we will arrest and detain a random Muslim across town for her rape since her rapists were all Muslim who screamed "Allhu Akbar" while raping her. Justice has to be served afterall!
(lol!)
On a serious note, Ogre's analoy here is flawed. This is because, people and their governments live in a social contract. If a state decides that it will elect a representative with a majority vote, or pass laws with a majority vote, then that is the law of the land. The fact that people chose to live there means they know of this social contract. Thus, as a citizen party to this social contract, one cannot begin to throw a temper tantrum just because a law got passed that he does not like - its part of the contract that it will pass given a majority vote!
The flaw in his analogy with the girl-rape is that in his example, presumably the girl had no "social contract" with those 5 men. So their actions WERE in fact impositions. If she lived and accepted a "contract" where she would have sex with 5 men should a majority vote pass, then that is her perogative. She has accepted it as part of this umm... sexual contract.
That is why his analogy Mr Ogre makes is flawed. People live under a social contract, here, that people are elected in some way, laws are passed in some other way, etc etc. And that is the social contract. This means that should a person become elected according to this machinery - this contract, you have no right to be fretting about it.
Mr Ogre does however. This is what makes him hypocritical in his thinking.
"Was Hitler okay with you because he was elected? "
No, as I recall, he liquidated the social contracts between the German people and its government. He broke the contract essentially.
"Islam does, however, and you certainly seem to like Islam from your comments here."
I "like" Islam? That is like me telling Ogre that alcohol is not a potent poison, and he telling me "so you must like alcohol".
"There is evil, and Shairia law, no matter how it is imposed, IS evil and wrong."
The imposition of Sharia law by a Muslim fanatic through violence, and the election of a city mayor into office who happens to be a Muslim, are two vastly different things. The latter abides by the social contract. The former does not.
hehe - A telepahic-hypocritical-fascist!
Thank you!
Reply to this
I do believe this is the first time I've read your comments, and they make sweet sense to me. Welcome to Dagney's site! She is good people, but I guess you already know that.
Reply to this
Nice try. So, according to your world, everyone must be, and remain, a member of any social contract, and any majority decision can not be discussed or complained about.
No, Hitler WAS elected. So are communist leaders.
So, since one is required, by you, to be a member of a social contract and has no right to complain when they are repressed by the majority, I presume in your world slavery never would have been abolished. After all, the majority voted for it and all slaves were a member of the social contract.
I'm sorry that the process of logical deduction, freedom, and good vs. evil escape you. Dagney, sorry for clogging your comments with quibbling and nit-picking.
Reply to this
There will be NO complaints from me! You're welcome any time!
Reply to this
Rosemary,
Thank you for your words!
Mr Ogre,
"Nice try. So, according to your world, everyone must be, and remain, a member of any social contract, and any majority decision can not be discussed or complained about."
Put very simply, this is Mr Ogre's stance:
He will agree with the machinery by which a person or law are enacted into office. Agree to it.
But god help him if the product of this machinery which he agrees to gives an outcome that he doesnt like or agree with - then its no longer a lawful valid outcome, but suddenly an "imposition"!
So agian, according to Mr Ogre, your current president is an "imposition" on 40% of Americans, and by virtue of there always being someone who disagrees with a law or character who has gotten voted and rafitied in, that person is being "imposed" on. The poor poor American souls! Being so imposed on! Stupid congress! Who do they think they are to be imposing on all of us! ..ahhh! THE PAIN!! ....the pain... tsk tsk...
(lol!)
This no doubt, is the height of ridiculousness.But here is the real kicker: You see, Mr Ogre fretts and fesses about a current trend in the US, in which mayors, senators and representavies who happen to be Muslim, are being elected into public office.
You see, its ok for people to elect their leaders...that he's ok with. But should the electorate pick a person whose sole crime is that Mr Ogre finds their faith disagreeable with, then its an imposition! ..an...an Invasion!
His solution to the "imposition" of a mayor who happens to be Muslim being elected? : "The only way to stop them is to shoot at them!" is our Fascist friend's solution. (He claims he isnt Fascist though - I mean, come on, its not like he wants to shoot random Muslim people.)
"So, since one is required, by you, to be a member of a social contract and has no right to complain when they are repressed by the majority, I presume in your world slavery never would have been abolished. After all, the majority voted for it and all slaves were a member of the social contract."
Slaves were part of the social contract? Oh yes of course! All those polls and votes the Confederates allowed their slaves to partake in.
Here is a quickie for Mr Ogre: The social contract in the US (unlike Germany) is, (very roughly), that laws are passed and accepted by majority vote in the legistlature, so long as they do not contradict the constitution. Majority rules pulls up, and constitution pulls down. There is balance, and never a run-away effect. That is the social-contract.
Mr Ogre thinks that the election of US citizens who happen to be of the Muslim faith, violate his social contract - not because their platforms - no - because of their personal faith.
In short, Mr Ogre judges an INDIVIDUAL not by his character, but by his tribe:
A well documented tenant of Fascism.
thank you!
Reply to this
Hoo-ah! Another spirited discussion!
First, I'd like Mr. AL Antar to give us a little background about himself so we better know how to understand his opinions and words. I think Dagney, Rosemary and Ogre all have sufficient familiarity with one another through our previous comments and from our blogging efforts. Might be a good idea for us to get to know you better, Al.
As to the discussions above...I'm willing to believe that all of the Islamic world is not at fault for our current world problems. I will say that there exists a very radical, violent and psychopathic faction that is hijacking the faith and causing those of us in the West to be very suspicious of ANYONE practicing the faith though. I believe that the day I hear a coalition of liberal and moderate imams pull together to hold a press conference to demand an immediate cessation of terroristic hostilities AND Muslims taking to the streets to protest the violence perpetrated by the radical thugs, I'll believe we're well on our way to a solution.
Dagney started this post off describing the preparation and then the act of stoning a young woman to death. I find it very interesting that I've often heard from the capitols of Europe that they believe the capital punishment practiced in the United States as barbaric. Compare lethal injection to this description of stoning where the goal of not using large rocks is the intentional move to make the pain and punishment last...and then tell me we're a barbaric nation. We have established laws here that remain no mystery to the population. Do the crime, do the time. However, I believe we've come a little further in our societal evolution to get away from the sadism that might have been part of early man's psyche.
As to the Islamic tide moving across the globe...it's completely up to the nations in the crosshairs to deal with as they see fit. Perhaps nations like France, Germany and the UK will wake up and decide that they've got quite enough angry, unemployed and uneducated young Islamic men in their midst and halt the tide themselves. Maybe it will take repeated attacks by these extremists to force the wakeup call and start the deportations of those that don't want to assimilate into their host societies. I don't really know...but one thing I do know is that I really doubt that we're in danger of being overrun here in the US.
My biggest fear is that we'll eventually be the sole free nation...and then we'll have to open the can of whoop ass that's remained sealed since we started Operation Enduring Freedom. When that happens, there will be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed in the retribution for the attacks that might be looming in the future.
The US, Russia and China WILL NOT succumb to the rolling tide of Islamic fanaticism. I hope that when the Islamic terror prone folks finally get their bomb, they get enough to fight these three powers. They'll need everything they've got!
MajorDad1984
Reply to this