The Magnanimity of Sudanese Islamic Courts

[jbg]

I know you asked that as a rhetorical question and are fully aware of the answer, but you know me, anything to remind the same silent people on this thread who seem to pop up to talk about the evil US, Israel or colonial West but never Sudan and other Islamic extremist behaviour in Syria,Nigeria, Iran, etc.

**********

It would appear that South Sudan has separated, they are looking for more Christians to attack within their new borders.

The selectivity and silence speaks for itself.

You wouild appear to need to show more respect for their indigenous and native cultures. These are peaceful attacks and pious attackers.

I can't wait for Iolo to clarify how this issue is not as a result of Islamic fundamentalism.

You'll have to wait--a long time.

[monty16]

Smallc the focusing away from the issue is done by people who are anti American and anti Israel. In their take on foreign policy there is selectivity and they ignore the actual practices that are arising in the world in the name of Islam and how such values are in direct conflict with Western values and not simply the US or Israel as nations or for that matter Jews because they choose to be a collective through a state or in this specific case, with the woman, Christian.

I know you asked that as a rhetorical question and are fully aware of the answer, but you know me, anything to remind the same silent people on this thread who seem to pop up to talk about the evil US, Israel or colonial West but never Sudan and other Islamic extremist behaviour in Syria,Nigeria, Iran, etc.

The selectivity and silence speaks for itself.

Sudan has been engaging in this kind of Islamic lawsince Numeiri seized powe in a military coups and now this current regime.

It would appear that South Sudan has separated, they are looking for more Christians to attack within their new borders.

I hate all fundamentalist extremist interpretations of religions equally. I would like these anti Americans or Israelis just once to criticize

this extremist fundamentalist approach to Islam just once and condemn it for what it is and admit it is ignored and treated with a different standard then when criticizing the US or Israel.

I can't wait for Iolo to clarify how this issue is not as a result of Islamic fundamentalism.

You need to just understand that I myself don't hook in to branding all Muslims with the same iron. In most instances when the issue of Muslim bad behaviour is brought up, that's the intent.

As for a comparison with Jews or Israel, we are able to brand the country, not the individuals. When it's called for we can just as easily brand a country that is nearly exclusively Muslim. Does that help you to understand the difference?

[Rue]

Monty you stated in most instances when the issue of Muslim bad behaviour is brought up the intent is to smeer all Muslims negatively.It depends on each instance. You are making a generalization. In some instances it might be intended to smeer all Muslims, in others to criticize the Muslim community as a whole for not taking a stronger stand against Muslim extremism, and in other instances only to specifically criticize the Muslim fundamentalists or extremists being mentioned. I do not know about you but I look at the context of the entire comment by the person.

I can tell you on this forum the very same people that claim people smeer all Muslims go on to engage in the exact same stereotyping of Jews and Zionists and then they come on to argue that double standard is justified because all Zionists are necessarily evil.

I think ANY generalization of an entire people because of the actual or perceived beliefs of some among them is equally as problematic..

What I also think is that from being on this forum awhile I have seen repreatedly a blatant double standard of negatively stereotyping anyone who is a Zionist or who is a Jewish person by certain people who in th enext breath complain when its done to Muslims so that annoys me yes and I challenge the contradiction saying they are both equally as wrong.

I am not accusing you of of doing that by the way. I am just clarifying my annoyance.

That said, I do think Muslim fundamentalism and extremism and the terrorism and intolerance it spreads should be criticized strongly and I think anti Americans and anti Israelis look the other way or apologize for or simply blame it on the US or Israel.

Now as for your comments about branding countries you lost me.

To me, branding a country means you stereotype all the citizens of that country. That I would argue is no different than branding all Muslims as evil. Branding for example all of a country like Israel as bad or illegal is in my opinion precisely no different than branding all Muslims evil terrorists. Either way its b.s. negative stereotyping of an entire people.

By the way when I criticize Iran or Russia I criticize its government not its people.

Hope that clarifies it.

We do agree that stereotyping an entire people is going to lead to hatred and bigotry.

I do resent certain people on this forum who pose as if they speak for all Muslims when they criticize Israel or the US, yes.

I really get annoyed when I hear people talk as if they are speaking for Palestinians as well.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Rue

[Boges]

Is it OK to say that anyone who doesn't oppose the use of Sharia Law anywhere and everywhere is a giant misogynist?

[monty16]

Monty you stated in most instances when the issue of Muslim bad behaviour is brought up the intent is to smeer all Muslims negatively.It depends on each instance. You are making a generalization. In some instances it might be intended to smeer all Muslims, in others to criticize the Muslim community as a whole for not taking a stronger stand against Muslim extremism, and in other instances only to specifically criticize the Muslim fundamentalists or extremists being mentioned. I do not know about you but I look at the context of the entire comment by the person.

I can tell you on this forum the very same people that claim people smeer all Muslims because of the perceptions that have of extremist Muslims can be the same people who engage in the exact same stereotyping of Jews and Zionists.

I think any generalization of an entire people because of the actions of some among them is illogical.

What I also think is that from being on this forum awhile I see a blatant double standard of negatively stereotyping anyone who is a Zionist or who is a Jewish person by the very same people complaining when its done to Muslims so that annoys me yes.

I am not accusing you of oding that by the way. I am just debating with you.

That said, I do think Muslim fundamentalism and extremism and the terrorism and intolerance it spreads should be criticized and this notion its the West that created it is bull in my opinion.

This notion that Muslim intolerance is simply a reaction to American intolerance is in my opinion crap.

Now as for your comments about branding countries it made no sense to me. Branding a country means you stereotype all the citizens of that country. That is no different than branding all Muslims as evil. Branding for example all of a country like Israel as bad or illegal is in my opinion precisely no different than branding all Muslims evil terrorists. Either way its b.s. negative stereotyping of an entire people.

As for a comparison with Jews or Israel, we are able to brand the country, not the individuals. When it's called for we can just as easily brand a country that is nearly exclusively Muslim. Does that help you to understand the difference?

If you think that branding a country is the same as stereotyping all the citizens of that country then you live in a different world than I. Maybe you would like to rethink that one?

I am 100% of the opinion that nearly all the problems we are having with Muslims can be traced back to US interference in predominantly Muslim countries. It didn't start with 9/11 but it can mostly be traced back to that revenge attack. The UK experienced it too but in that day Muslims didn't have the means to exact revenge and consequently it was largely ignored. And even today the brutality and slaughter of Muslims in the ME is being largely ignored and will be until another incident that makes Americans sit up and take notice. Then the slaughter will start anew again.

The question we need to ask ourselves now is, will aggrieved Muslims ever be content with the revenge they are capable of enacting against the US? Could it be that they hold their grudges long enough for them to obtain access to nuclear weapons? And then, will the US strike back at an entire nation again, as opposed to seeking out the guilty parties?

Can you put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi father who lost his children under US bombing? If you can then you may be able to start to understand why they seek revenge.

[Big Guy]

Maybe they are still a little pi$$ed about those 7 or 8 crusades where we went in to show them the error of their ways and tried to force them into Christianity?

Or were those more defensive invasions?

[Boges]

Can you put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi father who lost his children under US bombing? If you can then you may be able to start to understand why they seek revenge.

How bout the shoes of an Iraqi father who lost his children in a suicide bombing by the person of a different sect of Islam.

Are you really trying to say this part of the world would be sunshine and kittens had the US not intervened in Iraq's invasion in Kuwait? Because that's when the current issues started. Up until then the likes of Osama bin Laden were actually kinda of allies of the US. Bin Laden was upset that the US "Occupied" the Muslim Holy Land even though it was at the request of the Saudi government.

Don't forget the lion's share of the people that took part in 911 were privileged Saudis.

But the conflict with the US doesn't explain the misogynist nature of Sharia Law and the principals of Jihad that allow Muslims to justify a holy war at any perceived slight against their religion.

[cybercoma]

And the court threw out her death sentence.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/23/sudan-court-throws-out-death-sentence-against-meriam-ibrahim-convicted-of-marrying-christian-man/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29?__federated=1

[monty16]

How bout the shoes of an Iraqi father who lost his children in a suicide bombing by the person of a different sect of Islam.

Are you really trying to say this part of the world would be sunshine and kittens had the US not intervened in Iraq's invasion in Kuwait? Because that's when the current issues started. Up until then the likes of Osama bin Laden were actually kinda of allies of the US. Bin Laden was upset that the US "Occupied" the Muslim Holy Land even though it was at the request of the Saudi government.

Don't forget the lion's share of the people that took part in 911 were privileged Saudis.

But the conflict with the US doesn't explain the misogynist nature of Sharia Law and the principals of Jihad that allow Muslims to justify a holy war at any perceived slight against their religion.

One issue at a time. What I'm saying is that the US promoted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and April Glaspie blew the whistle on that fact. And that the US worked diligently behind the scenes to coerce the Kuwait monarchy to slant drill into Iraq territory and to disallow Iraq from access to the ocean, and several other reasons that are now part of history.

And you've got the wrong thread. For an in depth discussion start a thread or use the existing Iraq one.

Bin Laden was upset that the US "Occupied" the Muslim Holy Land even though it was at the request of the Saudi government.

Tell the US apologists that. Some of them think Osama was working for the Saudi monarchy! duhhhhhhhhhh!

If you're going to address me with that kind of history then it might pay for you to first fink out what side I've taken?

Edited June 23, 2014 by monty16

[Boges]

One issue at a time. What I'm saying is that the US promoted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and April Glaspie blew the whistle on that fact. And that the US worked diligently behind the scenes to coerce the Kuwait monarchy to slant drill into Iraq territory and to disallow Iraq from access to the ocean, and several other reasons that are now part of history.

And you've got the wrong thread. For an in depth discussion start a thread or use the existing Iraq one.

Tell the US apologists that. Some of them think Osama was working for the Saudi monarchy! duhhhhhhhhhh!

If you're going to address me with that kind of history then it might pay for you to first fink out what side I've taken?

LOL!

You bumped a post I made a month ago to tell me I'm arguing a point in the wrong thread. The thread is about Sharia Law and you brought the USA into it, like you appear to do with everything on this forum. The USA doesn't factor into the fact that Sharia Law is a horrific blight on humanity.

I am 100% of the opinion that nearly all the problems we are having with Muslims can be traced back to US interference in predominantly Muslim countries

That claim is especially spurious considering the Shiite v Sunni battle we see in Iraq today pre-date any US involvement in the Middle East.

Also, you might want to provide a cite for this:

And that the US worked diligently behind the scenes to coerce the Kuwait monarchy to slant drill into Iraq territory and to disallow Iraq from access to the ocean, and several other reasons that are now part of history.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Boges

[monty16]

There dozens of cites and references to what I claimed. And much more! So it's just not worth my time to prove it with references. Better that you try to debate those facts.

That claim is especially spurious considering the Shiite v Sunni battle we see in Iraq today pre-date any US involvement in the Middle East.

And as I've said many times, Saddam had succeeded in bringing relative peace and prosperity to his country after the Iran/Iraq war.

I'll stay away from the complicated stuff such as US involvement in promoting that war, complete with supplying chem/bio weapons to both parties. Stephen Pelletiere, way over your head for right now. We can work on it though if you are persistent and want to know.

[Boges]

Kay, what does all that have to do with the misogynistic nature of Sharia Law?

[monty16]

Kay, what does all that have to do with the misogynistic nature of Sharia Law?

Nothing. Find somebody to deny it for you and then debate it.

[Boges]

Nothing. Find somebody to deny it for you and then debate it.

But you're posting about Iraq and the USA about it.

Just sayin'

[Argus]

Maybe they are still a little pi$$ed about those 7 or 8 crusades where we went in to show them the error of their ways and tried to force them into Christianity?

Or were those more defensive invasions?

You evidently are unaware that the reason the holy lands were under Muslim control was due to the Muslim invasions. Before their people were either murdered ot forcibly converted at swordpoint Egypt, Israel and Syria and Levanon were Christian lands.

[On Guard for Thee]

Is it OK to say that anyone who doesn't oppose the use of Sharia Law anywhere and everywhere is a giant misogynist?

It's definitely OK with me to say that. I have seen Sharia law at work and I'm saying I'll stand at the border with a f****ng axe if need be.

[cybercoma]

Ok, since you guys are off on a tangent....let me post it again:

The Sudanese Islamic Court overturned the death sentence.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/23/sudan-court-throws-out-death-sentence-against-meriam-ibrahim-convicted-of-marrying-christian-man/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29?__federated=1

[Guest]

That's great news. I hope she gets out of the country quickly. Today if possible. I would like Canada to grant her asylum.

[Signals.Cpl]

Maybe they are still a little pi$$ed about those 7 or 8 crusades where we went in to show them the error of their ways and tried to force them into Christianity?

Or were those more defensive invasions?

So you mean that Spain an Portugal can make idiotic laws and execute muslims because of something that happened 1300 years ago? If its ok for Sudan to do it, then why not Spain, Portugal or France?

[jbg]

Ok, since you guys are off on a tangent....let me post it again:

The Sudanese Islamic Court overturned the death sentence.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/23/sudan-court-throws-out-death-sentence-against-meriam-ibrahim-convicted-of-marrying-christian-man/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29?__federated=1

That shows that there is justice in the world-not.

[cybercoma]

That's great news. I hope she gets out of the country quickly. Today if possible. I would like Canada to grant her asylum.

She was re-arrested with her husband at the airport as they were trying to leave.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/sudan/10922687/Sudan-apostasy-Meriam-Ibrahim-rearrested-with-husband-at-Khartoum-airport.html

This whole situation is so F'ed up.

It looks like they're trying to head to the US, but there are "paperwork issues" that the US embassy is trying to sort out. Hopefully this gets cleared up and they get out soon.

Edited June 24, 2014 by cybercoma

[Guest]

I forgot her husband was a US citizen. The last thing I heard on the World Service today was that she had been freed again, and the paperwork was coming up.

[Guest]

She's out again, and reportedly staying at the US embassy.