Governor of Bamiyan province in Afghanistan wants to put back together Buddha statues blown up by Taleban

[jordanianprincess 0]

In most countries with Sharia law, you would lose custody of your children once you remarry and/or when they become age of custodial transfer. Few countries make provisions for when a women converts and the father is a non-Muslim.

I thought the law system of Jordan was broken into civil courts and religious courts, with the religious courts deciding personal matters like divorce and inheritance (similar to Morocco's moudawana), and that the religious courts were divided into ecclesiastical courts for Christians and Sharia courts for Muslims, with the Court of Appeals in Amman presiding over both.

I can check on that, however I know 3 females that had to flee the country in order to keep their children for the reason that I stated, they wanted the divorce.

When I fast during lent, there is temptation all around. My ability to pass up those temptations is what makes my religious convition even stronger.

JP, allow me to expound on this statement, please!

The ability to keep to your sacrifice while faced with it head on - despite the flesh being weak - is what also lends more meaning and depth to the reason for sacrificing in the first place.

IE a lot of ppl give things up that are relatively easy to do....I give up something every Lenten Season that is HARD...something I will miss on a daily basis. Something I will have to govern myself to look in the eye and say 'no'. I'm a grown adult, I don't need to be spoonfed

Thank you Lisa, exactamundo, You get the gold star

[Bosco 1]

And Sharia is supposedly a 'desirable' state in which to live? Sounds like a self-deceiving fantasy to me...

A popular fantasy. A recent survey of Muslims in the UK revealed the following:

A third of those questioned said they would rather live under Sharia law in the UK than British law.

I would be curious to know how the question was proposed.

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would be extreme to most.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Bosco

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And Sharia is supposedly a 'desirable' state in which to live? Sounds like a self-deceiving fantasy to me...

A popular fantasy. A recent survey of Muslims in the UK revealed the following:

A third of those questioned said they would rather live under Sharia law in the UK than British law.

I would be curious to know how the question was proposed.

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would extreme to most.

Fair point.

Let me ask you this. If the question was simply whether or not they wish to live under Sharia law, with no qualifiers attached... wouldn't that imply Sharia law in both the criminal and civil spheres?

I will see if I can find the wording of the actual survey.

[Veiled Princess 1]

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would extreme to most.

I was going to respond but I won't even waste my time here.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would extreme to most.

I was going to respond but I won't even waste my time here.

I don't get it. What pissed you off?

[jordanianprincess 0]

In most countries with Sharia law, you would lose custody of your children once you remarry and/or when they become age of custodial transfer. Few countries make provisions for when a women converts and the father is a non-Muslim.

I thought the law system of Jordan was broken into civil courts and religious courts, with the religious courts deciding personal matters like divorce and inheritance (similar to Morocco's moudawana), and that the religious courts were divided into ecclesiastical courts for Christians and Sharia courts for Muslims, with the Court of Appeals in Amman presiding over both.

If the woman remarrys, the kids will go to the father. There is no court of appeals, religious matters are handled in the churches and mosques.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And Sharia is supposedly a 'desirable' state in which to live? Sounds like a self-deceiving fantasy to me...

A popular fantasy. A recent survey of Muslims in the UK revealed the following:

A third of those questioned said they would rather live under Sharia law in the UK than British law.

I would be curious to know how the question was proposed.

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would extreme to most.

Fair point.

Let me ask you this. If the question was simply whether or not they wish to live under Sharia law, with no qualifiers attached... wouldn't that imply Sharia law in both the criminal and civil spheres?

I will see if I can find the wording of the actual survey.

Bosco,

I found it. The question does not differentiate between civil and criminal. It refers to Saudi Arabia and Iran as 'examples' of Sharia law countries.

This is the question asked.

10. If it were possible, would you prefer to live under Sharia law*, as practiced in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, or the laws of Britain as they are now?

Live under Sharia law

Live under British law

Don't Know

You answered a). 30.1% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

You answered B ). 54.6% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

You answered c). 15.3% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

* By Sharia law we mean Islamic law that comes from a combination of sources including the Koran - the Muslim holy book, the Hadiths - the sayings and conduct of the prophet Mohammed, and fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars

Source: http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/.../muslim_survey/

Edited August 9, 2006 by Gupt

[Bosco 1]

And Sharia is supposedly a 'desirable' state in which to live? Sounds like a self-deceiving fantasy to me...

A popular fantasy. A recent survey of Muslims in the UK revealed the following:

A third of those questioned said they would rather live under Sharia law in the UK than British law.

I would be curious to know how the question was proposed.

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would extreme to most.

Fair point.

Let me ask you this. If the question was simply whether or not they wish to live under Sharia law, with no qualifiers attached... wouldn't that imply Sharia law in both the criminal and civil spheres?

I will see if I can find the wording of the actual survey.

Bosco,

I found it. The question does not differentiate between civil and criminal. It refers to Saudi Arabia and Iran as 'examples' of Sharia law countries.

This is the question asked.

10. If it were possible, would you prefer to live under Sharia law*, as practiced in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, or the laws of Britain as they are now?

Live under Sharia law

Live under British law

Don't Know

You answered a). 30.1% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

You answered B ). 54.6% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

You answered c). 15.3% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

* By Sharia law we mean Islamic law that comes from a combination of sources including the Koran - the Muslim holy book, the Hadiths - the sayings and conduct of the prophet Mohammed, and fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars

Source: http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/.../muslim_survey/

Thank you for finding that. I wonder how many of that 30.1% fully comprehend exactly what they are saying means - unless someone actively seeks information, little is really known about what goes on in those two places. I also wonder how many of those have actually set foot in either Saudi Arabia and Iran. Many people have these idealized views on what "cracking down on social decay" would do, but fail to realize how unfairly this is implemented.

I also wonder if a poll was conducted in the United States (not only Muslims) how many would support an "eye for an eye" system (similar to Sharia but not using the term Sharia which is obviously loaded) how many would say yes. I somehow suspect the numbers may be fairly similar based on the support for capital punishment and views on things like gay marriage, but that is purely speculation on my part.

[jordanianprincess 0]

And Sharia is supposedly a 'desirable' state in which to live? Sounds like a self-deceiving fantasy to me...

A popular fantasy. A recent survey of Muslims in the UK revealed the following:

A third of those questioned said they would rather live under Sharia law in the UK than British law.

I would be curious to know how the question was proposed.

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would extreme to most.

Fair point.

Let me ask you this. If the question was simply whether or not they wish to live under Sharia law, with no qualifiers attached... wouldn't that imply Sharia law in both the criminal and civil spheres?

I will see if I can find the wording of the actual survey.

Bosco,

I found it. The question does not differentiate between civil and criminal. It refers to Saudi Arabia and Iran as 'examples' of Sharia law countries.

This is the question asked.

10. If it were possible, would you prefer to live under Sharia law*, as practiced in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, or the laws of Britain as they are now?

Live under Sharia law

Live under British law

Don't Know

You answered a). 30.1% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

You answered B ). 54.6% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

You answered c). 15.3% of Muslims canvassed agreed with you.

* By Sharia law we mean Islamic law that comes from a combination of sources including the Koran - the Muslim holy book, the Hadiths - the sayings and conduct of the prophet Mohammed, and fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars

Source: http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/.../muslim_survey/

Thank you for finding that. I wonder how many of that 30.1% fully comprehend exactly what they are saying means - unless someone actively seeks information, little is really known about what goes on in those two places. I also wonder how many of those have actually set foot in either Saudi Arabia and Iran. Many people have these idealized views on what "cracking down on social decay" would do, but fail to realize how unfairly this is implemented.

I also wonder if a poll was conducted in the United States (not only Muslims) how many would support an "eye for an eye" system (similar to Sharia but not using the term Sharia which is obviously loaded) how many would say yes. I somehow suspect the numbers may be fairly similar based on the support for capital punishment and views on things like gay marriage, but that is purely speculation on my part.

I also wonder how many of them are scared to give their true feelings. Its not uncommon for people to say one thing on camera and another among each other.

Take Iraq for example, 30 years and its appeared that people supported Sadaam because if they didn't off with their heads. Now they have regained their voice.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Take Iraq for example, 30 years and its appeared that people supported Sadaam because if they didn't off with their heads. Now they have regained their voice.

Oy, have they ever. If only they didn't insist on expressing themselves with those IEDs

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Every time an archeologist (sp?) finds a doll in some dig we get a new fertility goddess that someone must have worshipped in the old days....

The point is not to encourage idolatry in the future by leaving things like this behind in muslim culture. I believe that's the reason why the prophet destroyed the idols in his day and why he ordered others to do the same.

It's not just about offending God... it's also about preserving the truth. (our truth)

Is it not also forbidden in christianity to make idols? graven images?

How does destroying the past amount to 'preserving' truth?

What's the point - that archaeology is evil and should be shunned whenever something is unearthed that is 'inconvenient' to the people currently living there

we had to destroy the past to preserve the present

There is a difference between a Sharia-based criminal code and Sharia-based family law. I can completely understand Muslims wanting Sharia-based family law to decide on matters like custody, divorce, marriage and inheritance as it would implement laws according to their beliefs. However, that is far different than believing hands should be cut off for stealing and punishments that would extreme to most.

I was going to respond but I won't even waste my time here.

I don't get it. What pissed you off?

she's upset because the cookies are burning and she's getting her butt spanked again

[Veiled Princess 1]

Idols are not forbidden in Christianity? What would give you that idea? They are a huge part of Christianity.

(Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

(Exo 23:24) Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

(Exo 34:13) But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

(Exo 34:14) For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

(Lev 26:1) Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

(Num 33:52) Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

(Deu 7:5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

(Deu 7:25) The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

(Deu 12:3) And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

(2Sa 5:21) And there they left their images, and David and his men burned them.

(1Ki 15:12) And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

(Isa 2:18) And the idols he shall utterly abolish.

(1Jo 5:21) Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

(Rev 9:20) And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

Am I reading the wrong bible again?

This is from the KJV BTW...

Note the underlined part above... sounds like God in the bible was also afraid for His followers to fall into idol worship.

That first one there seems pretty clear that this command includes any image of pretty much anything.

How stupid do you take people to be? A guy goes out for a walk, a muslim in the morning and a worshipper of a Lovecraftian Tsathogguan toad demon by sun-down?

I'm not talking about people today... I'm talking about things getting twisted over a long period of time.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Idols are not forbidden in Christianity? What would give you that idea? They are a huge part of Christianity.

(Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

(Exo 23:24) Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.

(Exo 34:13) But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

(Exo 34:14) For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

(Lev 26:1) Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

(Num 33:52) Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

(Deu 7:5) But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

(Deu 7:25) The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.

(Deu 12:3) And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

(2Sa 5:21) And there they left their images, and David and his men burned them.

(1Ki 15:12) And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

(Isa 2:18) And the idols he shall utterly abolish.

(1Jo 5:21) Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

(Rev 9:20) And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

Am I reading the wrong bible again?

This is from the KJV BTW...

Note the underlined part above... sounds like God in the bible was also afraid for His followers to fall into idol worship.

That first one there seems pretty clear that this command includes any image of pretty much anything.

How stupid do you take people to be? A guy goes out for a walk, a muslim in the morning and a worshipper of a Lovecraftian Tsathogguan toad demon by sun-down?

I'm not talking about people today... I'm talking about things getting twisted over a long period of time.

Quoting scripture doesn't justify destroying historical relics.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Quoting scripture doesn't justify destroying historical relics.

Clues are free today... get one

I was answering her question to me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not talking about people today... I'm talking about things getting twisted over a long period of time.

Its not true though. The argument is little different to the one about that frequently gets trotted out about how pornography and video games intrinsically "corrupt" our youth, and is just as baseless IMO.

We live in a multi-cultural world - people of many faiths and beliefs live side by side in many nations the world over. The prescence of idols of one form or another makes absolutely no difference to someone's ideological preferences, unless of course it is the advancement of knowledge of other customs and cultures that is somehow "corrupt".

Quoting scripture doesn't justify destroying historical relics.

Clues are free today... get one

I was answering her question to me.

So what - I'll respond to whatever post I feel like, thank you very much. And again - it doesn't justify destroying historical relics, unless of course you are presenting the idea that articles of faith are to be obeyed absolutely, and without question.

Edited August 10, 2006 by erekose