And the TIREs keep rolling down hill ......

[Roamy]

A bit old but here will be some future discussions for the US as well.
But don't feel too bad Kidney Pies - Holland will be right behind you.
And EKI will probably start a fundraiser for some courts in Finland.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/how-many-eu-countries-use-sharia-courts-you-dont-want-to-know/

[Dave B]

From the Times article:


Under the [Arbitration Act 1996], the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

So not really courts at all, then. More like a way that disputes can be settled with help from experts in the field, some with specialist knowledge of Islamic custom.

That all seems pretty fair and above board.

The article goes on to say "Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act."

So where was/is the outrage about the Jewish version - or are we being asked to reserve our opprobrium for those with a different skin colour? :rolleyes:

[Roamy]

A little more reading for you

I believe in one set of laws for all of the country. And if you cannot abide then you do not immigrate or you are deported. I think the real answer is over the long haul the Muslim religion will not fit well in our society. But they seem to fit real well over there. So the answer is that for every muslim you take we will take a jew. Matter of fact I keep saying the answer to the middle east is just immigrate Israel completely. But it would be 10 million in 10 million out. I suppose I would cause quite a stir when I selected the 10 million leaving.

[gloomyDAY]

Way to go Britain!

Sharia Law is now enforceable, so now you're legally giving Muslims the right to beat women and take away their inheritance.


So where was/is the outrage about the Jewish version - or are we being asked to reserve our opprobrium for those with a different skin colour? :rolleyes: Oh, please. How could you comfortable with that last portion of the article?

"In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations."

Imagine what else is being swept under the rug.

[Dave B]

Oh, please. How could you comfortable with that last portion of the article?

"In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations."

Imagine what else is being swept under the rug.
Incredible though it may sound, that's probably not a bad outcome. If it had been left to the "traditional" justice system, the Crown Prosecution Service would have needed reasonable proof that it was likely to result in a conviction - in other words the victim would have had to give evidence in court. Now we all know that pressure can be applied, and that victims often change their minds, leading to the case collapsing or more likely never reaching court in the first place. Imperfect though the tribunal may be, at least it resulted in the men having to take anger management courses. It's not much, granted, but I pretty much guarantee you that under the "normal" criminal justice system the case would never have progressed as far.

[Eki]

From the Times article:



So not really courts at all, then. More like a way that disputes can be settled with help from experts in the field, some with specialist knowledge of Islamic custom.

That all seems pretty fair and above board.

The article goes on to say "Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act."

So where was/is the outrage about the Jewish version - or are we being asked to reserve our opprobrium for those with a different skin colour? :rolleyes:
Good point. It's like that when Somalis circumcise their daughters it seems to be a terrible human rights violation to some, but when the Jews circumcise their sons it's OK, because that's just what Jews do.

[Eki]

Way to go Britain!

Sharia Law is now enforceable, so now you're legally giving Muslims the right to beat women and take away their inheritance.


But only if the women agree with that.

[gloomyDAY]

Good point. It's like that when Somalis circumcise their daughters it seems to be a terrible human rights violation to some, but when the Jews circumcise their sons it's OK, because that's just what Jews do.Are you insane?! Female circumcision is completely different. The clitoris is cut off, therefore, females are not able to have orgasms. This is the equivalent of cutting off the head of the penis. Jews simply cut the skin covering the head of the penis.


But only if the women agree with that.Ha! Like they have a choice. Hell, I bet the next article I read is that a woman was stoned to death in Britain for cheating on her husband.

[Eki]

Jews simply cut the skin covering the head of the penis.

And because of that your underpants constantly scratch the head of your penis, which I'd imagine isn't a nice feeling to most. Rather like having sand under your foreskin all the time.

[gloomyDAY]

And because of that your underpants constantly scratch the head of your penis, which I'd imagine isn't a nice feeling to most. Rather like having sand under your foreskin all the time.You obviously don't understand the difference. A circumcised male still has full use of his penis and can still have an orgasm (a little chaffing is no big deal). A circumcised female is mutilated, has her genitals literally cut off, and can never have an orgasm for the rest of her life.

These women are completely scarred and the shame of being circumcised causes a lot of emotional and psychological problems. Women don't "feel" like women when they can't climax. There is no enjoyment for them during sex, it's only a monotonous chore.

So, are you still saying that the difference between male and female circumcision don't matter?

Okay. Before you sidetrack another thread, Eki, let's get back to the issue at hand. Imagine when a Muslim female in the UK hits puberty, has her period, and then the father of the household decides that she should be circumcised. She opposes the procedure and is taken to a Sharia Court. The father gets the green light from the court, the adolescent girl gets snipped, and another life is ruined thanks to a silly court decision.

That can happen and I bet more intense hearings will be kept away from the knowledge of the general public. Sharia Law has trouble written all over it because it does not arbitrate, it only abuses.

[Eki]

You obviously don't understand the difference. A circumcised male still has full use of his penis and can still have an orgasm (a little chaffing is no big deal). A circumcised female is mutilated, has her genitals literally cut off, and can never have an orgasm for the rest of her life.

These women are completely scarred and the shame of being circumcised causes a lot of emotional and psychological problems. Women don't "feel" like women when they can't climax. There is no enjoyment for them during sex, it's only a monotonous chore.

So, are you still saying that the difference between male and female circumcision don't matter?

I don't know, because I've never gone through either. But are you sure Somali women miss having orgasms, when they have never experienced one and may not even know what it is?

[gloomyDAY]

I don't know, because I've never gone through either. But are you sure Somali women miss having orgasms, when they have never experienced one and may not even know what it is?Yes, most women experience an orgasm before reaching adulthood.

[Easy Drifter]

Eki I do not think you, I or any other male can make any decision or comments about a woman's orgasms and their feelings! :eek:
We had better leave that up the the females on this forum to comment on that if we know what is good for us!!!!!!!!!! :p
That is provided any of them are willing to do so.

[gloomyDAY]

Eki I do not think you, I or any other male can make any decision or comments about a woman's orgasms and their feelings! :eek:
We had better leave that up the the females on this forum to comment on that if we know what is good for us!!!!!!!!!! :p
That is provided any of them are willing to do so.Yeah, I'm dying to see what Slinkster thinks. She's freakin' hot! :)

Edit: Yes, this thread has gotten a little sidetracked.

Back to the topic, yes?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Back to the topic, yes?

No. this is not gonna happen.

When was the last time you heard Eki sticking to the topic? Just ask him if he would welcome sharia law in Finland and you will hear all kinds of rambling arguments about Jews, WWII, Bush etc. One thing you won't hear will be a straight answer.

Eki is not straight, y'know.

[Eki]

Yes, most women experience an orgasm before reaching adulthood.
Even when they have been circumcised as babies? That would make your point moot, wouldn't it?

What I try to ask here is, can people miss something they don't even know exist? For example, when I was a kid, I didn't miss the Internet, simply because the Internet didn't exist and I didn't know what it is. Now, if the Internet would be gone, I'd miss it. Similarly, can people miss an orgasm, if they don't know what it is and what it feels like? That's an interesting philosophical question.

[Roamy]

So let me see if I can get this all in one place. You are saying that the Muslim religion allows for the circumcision of females whereby they cutoff the "Clit"
Then we accept this as religion and allow Muslims to infiltrate our countries and declare sharia law.
Have I got this right.

[gloomyDAY]

Even when they have been circumcised as babies? That would make your point moot, wouldn't it?

What I try to ask here is, can people miss something they don't even know exist? For example, when I was a kid, I didn't miss the Internet, simply because the Internet didn't exist and I didn't know what it is. Now, if the Internet would be gone, I'd miss it. Similarly, can people miss an orgasm, if they don't know what it is and what it feels like? That's an interesting philosophical question.Actually, babies have been known to have orgasms, but again you're missing the point. Sex for circumcised women is painful due to the fact that their genitals are mutilated. Don't turn this into a silly philosophical debate. We're speaking about torture and you're acknowledging that it's appropriate just because some Muslim cultures have done it as a tradition.

This also ties into Sharia Law. The UK is going to answer to some abusive hearings in the near future especially if dealing with women.

[Easy Drifter]

Premier McLiar ( McGuinty) considered modified Sharia Law for Ont. a few years ago.
Public outcry stopped it. Led by Muslims especially Muslim women.
We have also been dealing with several Honour killings, mostly involving Muslims but some Hindus.
The women want to adopt western ways, largely young and teenage women, and the adult males consider this dishonouring the family and murder the women. Our courts do not buy this and have imposed severe sentences. Those who want out of arranged marriages or refuse to go through with them have also been murdered by their parents and brothers.
Our Police forces look very carefully at any case that might be a 'Honour' (what a misnomer) killing and so far seem to break most if not all of them.

[gloomyDAY]

Since we're speaking about women....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PpiuL1xREts/THSZFQ9wIXI/AAAAAAAAFig/HYLghd7lGAo/s1600/cultures.jpg

[ShiftingGears]

And because of that your underpants constantly scratch the head of your penis, which I'd imagine isn't a nice feeling to most. Rather like having sand under your foreskin all the time.

Let's put it in equivalent terms.



The male equivalent of female circumcision is having the head of your penis cut off.

[Roamy]

Actually, babies have been known to have orgasms, but again you're missing the point. Sex for circumcised women is painful due to the fact that their genitals are mutilated. Don't turn this into a silly philosophical debate. We're speaking about torture and you're acknowledging that it's appropriate just because some Muslim cultures have done it as a tradition.

This also ties into Sharia Law. The UK is going to answer to some abusive hearings in the near future especially if dealing with women.

The plain fact is that we don't need this sh!t and we should ban any future immigration and move to deport as well.

[Eki]

So let me see if I can get this all in one place. You are saying that the Muslim religion allows for the circumcision of females whereby they cutoff the "Clit"
Then we accept this as religion and allow Muslims to infiltrate our countries and declare sharia law.
Have I got this right.
No, I'm saying that if we ban female circumcision, we should IMO also ban male circumcision for religious or cultural reasons. I think it's quite hypocritical that just one is banned. Here in Finland we have even banned the cutting off puppies' tails like some dog owners have done, but male circumcision for religious reasons is still allowed. I'm against any kind of mutilation of babies and puppies.

[Roamy]

EKi I don't think you are really getting the relationship between cutting off a little worthless skin and altering a woman's life. There is quite a difference and really cannot be compared. You hate jews so bad you left the skin on your dick but a clit is much more valuable. I have to agree with you about the dogs tails although we still allow it here. Hell we allow Pit Bulls a totally worthless and extremely dangerous dog. It is time we started banning dogs along with Muslims.

[Jag_Warrior]

While I don't agree with either practice when performed on infants or people unable to make the decision for themselves, "female circumcision" has become an overly misused term when it's used as a catch-all to describe any and all sorts of female genital cutting. Again, this is another example of why it would be good for our schools to begin teaching Latin again. Then maybe people would better understand the (actual) definition of words. Circumcision is a procedure which goes around the organ and would remove the prepuce or "hood" (similar to the foreskin in the male). It is not removal of the organ itself. In this case that would be a clitoridectomy. In the late 70's and early 80's female circumcision became sort of a fad surgery among some American women, because they believed it led to greater sensitivity by having that organ MORE exposed.

Anyway, I'm not a doctor - I just took some biology along the way. And being that this is a family forum, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate topic for this board. But at the very least, it would be nice for people to use the correct terms. Circumcision, whether performed on male or female children is (by definition) genital mutilation. People who are OK with one but not the other are (IMO) hypocrites. I don't agree with the practice of subjecting infants and children to any sort of mutilation... and I don't care what religion a person wants to hide behind.

[BDunnell]

EKi I don't think you are really getting the relationship between cutting off a little worthless skin and altering a woman's life. There is quite a difference and really cannot be compared. You hate jews so bad you left the skin on your dick but a clit is much more valuable. I have to agree with you about the dogs tails although we still allow it here. Hell we allow Pit Bulls a totally worthless and extremely dangerous dog. It is time we started banning dogs along with Muslims.

Forgive me, but how on earth is this post deemed acceptable by the moderators?

[Eki]

While I don't agree with either practice when performed on infants or people unable to make the decision for themselves, "female circumcision" has become an overly misused term when it's used as a catch-all to describe any and all sorts of female genital cutting. Again, this is another example of why it would be good for our schools to begin teaching Latin again. Then maybe people would better understand the (actual) definition of words. Circumcision is a procedure which goes around the organ and would remove the prepuce or "hood" (similar to the foreskin in the male). It is not removal of the organ itself. In this case that would be a clitoridectomy. In the late 70's and early 80's female circumcision became sort of a fad surgery among some American women, because they believed it led to greater sensitivity by having that organ MORE exposed.

Anyway, I'm not a doctor - I just took some biology along the way. And being that this is a family forum, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate topic for this board. But at the very least, it would be nice for people to use the correct terms. Circumcision, whether performed on male or female children is (by definition) genital mutilation. People who are OK with one but not the other are (IMO) hypocrites. I don't agree with the practice of subjecting infants and children to any sort of mutilation... and I don't care what religion a person wants to hide behind.
Well put.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Forgive me, but how on earth is this post deemed acceptable by the moderators?

It is unbelievable. But somehow I'm not surprised that this poster thinks it is okay to compare muslims to dogs.

[Roamy]

Forgive me, but how on earth is this post deemed acceptable by the moderators?

Oh Oh Oh I telling Dad. Get over it freak!

[Rudy Tamasz]

Eki, would you welcome sharia courts in Finland? Yes or no?

[Eki]

Eki, would you welcome sharia courts in Finland? Yes or no?
If it's voluntary and all parties involved agreed with it, then why not. I wouldn't agree, so it wouldn't concern me.

[chuck34]

If it's voluntary and all parties involved agreed with it, then why not. I wouldn't agree, so it wouldn't concern me.

Hypothetical: A man is brought up on charges of beating his wife. He claims to be a Muslim, and that he's within his rights because she "dis-honored" him. Do you think that he won't just keep beating her until she agrees to go to the Sharia court?

[Eki]

Hypothetical: A man is brought upon charges of beating his wife. He claims to be a Muslim, and that he's within his rights because she "dis-honored" him. Do you think that he won't just keep beating her until she agrees to go to the Sharia court?
How's that different from non-Muslim men beating up their wives to intimidate them from leaving them or pressing charges against them? That does happen, you know.

Besides I don't know the Sharia law or what she hypothetically has done, so it may not necessarily be a worse alternative for the wife than the regular law. That much I know that the so called "honor killings" or beating up women aren't part of Islam or the Sharia law, they are older tribal traditions or machismo that still occur also among non-Muslims.

Apparently not even Muslims know or agree what the Sharia law is and how it should be interpreted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia


Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], "way" or "path") is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.

[Malbec]

While I don't agree with either practice when performed on infants or people unable to make the decision for themselves, "female circumcision" has become an overly misused term when it's used as a catch-all to describe any and all sorts of female genital cutting. Again, this is another example of why it would be good for our schools to begin teaching Latin again. Then maybe people would better understand the (actual) definition of words. Circumcision is a procedure which goes around the organ and would remove the prepuce or "hood" (similar to the foreskin in the male). It is not removal of the organ itself. In this case that would be a clitoridectomy. In the late 70's and early 80's female circumcision became sort of a fad surgery among some American women, because they believed it led to greater sensitivity by having that organ MORE exposed.

Anyway, I'm not a doctor - I just took some biology along the way. And being that this is a family forum, I'm not sure that this is an appropriate topic for this board. But at the very least, it would be nice for people to use the correct terms. Circumcision, whether performed on male or female children is (by definition) genital mutilation. People who are OK with one but not the other are (IMO) hypocrites. I don't agree with the practice of subjecting infants and children to any sort of mutilation... and I don't care what religion a person wants to hide behind.

Actually there is a big difference between male and female circumcision.

Jewish and Muslim males are circumcised as babies, they don't remember the procedure and its only the foreskin anyway.

When girls are circumcised its at puberty, they are not told what is going to happen and is rarely done under anaesthetic. The girls have their legs forced apart and their clitoris cut off with a razor (not the hood, the whole thing) most often by someone untrained. In some cases the labia are then sewn up leaving a small hole for later to ensure the girl can pee so the future husband has the pleasure of knowing the girl is definitely a virgin when he marries her by looking at the size of the hole.

As such frankly I find comparisons between the two sickening and I don't find acceptance of one and rejection of the other hypocritical at all.

It isn't a Muslim tradition btw, its an East African one thats practiced by Muslim, Christian and pagan tribes in places like south Egypt, Kenya, Sudan and Somalia. It isn't practiced in any other part of the Muslim or Christian world and I gather that many Muslims are unaware the practice even exists, let alone agree or disagree with it.

And under British criminal law which takes precedence over civil law which this sharia court is part of, anyone involved in female circumcision whether here or abroad can be imprisoned.

[gloomyDAY]

Actually there is a big difference between male and female circumcision.

Jewish and Muslim males are circumcised as babies, they don't remember the procedure and its only the foreskin anyway.

When girls are circumcised its at puberty, they are not told what is going to happen and is rarely done under anaesthetic. The girls have their legs forced apart and their clitoris cut off with a razor (not the hood, the whole thing) most often by someone untrained. In some cases the labia are then sewn up leaving a small hole for later to ensure the girl can pee so the future husband has the pleasure of knowing the girl is definitely a virgin when he marries her by looking at the size of the hole.

As such frankly I find comparisons between the two sickening and I don't find acceptance of one and rejection of the other hypocritical at all.

It isn't a Muslim tradition btw, its an East African one thats practiced by Muslim, Christian and pagan tribes in places like south Egypt, Kenya, Sudan and Somalia. It isn't practiced in any other part of the Muslim or Christian world and I gather that many Muslims are unaware the practice even exists, let alone agree or disagree with it.

And under British criminal law which takes precedence over civil law which this sharia court is part of, anyone involved in female circumcision whether here or abroad can be imprisoned. :up: I didn't know that.

[Jag_Warrior]

Actually there is a big difference between male and female circumcision.

Jewish and Muslim males are circumcised as babies, they don't remember the procedure and its only the foreskin anyway.

When girls are circumcised its at puberty, they are not told what is going to happen and is rarely done under anaesthetic. The girls have their legs forced apart and their clitoris cut off with a razor (not the hood, the whole thing) most often by someone untrained. In some cases the labia are then sewn up leaving a small hole for later to ensure the girl can pee so the future husband has the pleasure of knowing the girl is definitely a virgin when he marries her by looking at the size of the hole.

As such frankly I find comparisons between the two sickening and I don't find acceptance of one and rejection of the other hypocritical at all.

A clitoridectomy, infibulation and circumcision are not one and the same. What you described above is not circumcision (by definition). I can't help that people have come to misuse the word. I live in a country where people misuse the word "socialism" at every turn, so I'm growing used to this. But again, this was a fad surgery which was somewhat popular in the U.S. about 30 years ago among certain women on the fringe of the sexual revolution. They did not have their clitoris removed or their labia sewn shut - which I doubt very many women would volunteer to have done. They were circumcised: the clitoral prepuce/"foreskin" was removed.

As far as when Jews perform the practice, for those who are born to Jewish families, yes, the practice is performed when they are infants. For those who convert, the practice is performed prior to their full conversion, whether they are children or adults. I know someone who converted to Judaism and he was in his 20's when he was circumcised. I think he was a moron for doing that, but he was an adult and it was his choice to make. If adults want to be members of religions or cults, let them do whatever. I don't care.

And to say that babies "don't remember", and that makes it OK, suggests that they cannot be traumatized by events that take place when they are babies. I'm not aware of any medical evidence which proves that theory.

Again, my bottom line is rather simple: I do not believe in mutilating babies or children of either sex in support of some sort of barbaric, antiquated, quasi-religious reason. By what you are saying here, it would be alright as long as the females were babies and only the clitoral prepuce was removed. That would not be alright with me. People can bark at the moon, refuse to eat bread on Tuesdays and worship a rock for all I care. But when they say it's OK to hit a baby with the holy rock (since they won't remember it anyway), that's where I draw the line. And whether the baby is male or female doesn't influence my feelings one bit.

[chuck34]

How's that different from non-Muslim men beating up their wives to intimidate them from leaving them or pressing charges against them? That does happen, you know.


I believe that in most places you do not need the victim's concent to prosecute. Although it does help to have her testimony.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As far as I'm aware the main reason why Sharia law is wanted for British muslims is for divorce. A muslim couple needs to divorce to go through a Sharia court for it to be valid to their religion.

[Malbec]

A clitoridectomy, infibulation and circumcision are not one and the same. What you described above is not circumcision (by definition). I can't help that people have come to misuse the word. I live in a country where people misuse the word "socialism" at every turn, so I'm growing used to this. But again, this was a fad surgery which was somewhat popular in the U.S. about 30 years ago among certain women on the fringe of the sexual revolution. They did not have their clitoris removed or their labia sewn shut - which I doubt very many women would volunteer to have done. They were circumcised: the clitoral prepuce/"foreskin" was removed.

You're right, I use the term 'circumcision' not in the strict medical sense but in the context of 'religious' practices, though in the female variety its more cultural than religious. The surgery that you describe at length is interesting but is a sidenote and isn't terribly relevant to this particular debate except for clarifying the smallprint.


And to say that babies "don't remember", and that makes it OK, suggests that they cannot be traumatized by events that take place when they are babies. I'm not aware of any medical evidence which proves that theory.

Neither is there evidence that they are traumatised. One would expect there to be certain psychopathologies to be more common in Muslim and Jewish males or in any other male that was circumcised at birth. This isn't the case.


Again, my bottom line is rather simple: I do not believe in mutilating babies or children of either sex in support of some sort of barbaric, antiquated, quasi-religious reason. By what you are saying here, it would be alright as long as the females were babies and only the clitoral prepuce was removed. That would not be alright with me. People can bark at the moon, refuse to eat bread on Tuesdays and worship a rock for all I care. But when they say it's OK to hit a baby with the holy rock (since they won't remember it anyway), that's where I draw the line. And whether the baby is male or female doesn't influence my feelings one bit.

You misunderstand me.

That Jewish and Muslim males should be circumcised preferably just after birth is written in stone in their religions. That girls should be circumcised is not found in any Christian or Islamic religious text at all. I do not mind Jews and Muslims circumcising their babies if its a core part of their religion, especially since circumcising males has also been shown to be beneficial in medical terms. However there is no religious or cultural defence for a barbaric act performed on young girls without their consent and it should be stamped out.

[Eki]

I believe that in most places you do not need the victim's concent to prosecute. Although it does help to have her testimony.
Maybe, but if a battered wife is too afraid to report a physical assault and testify against her husband, then what can you do?

[Roamy]

you poor souls are getting overrun and just can't come to grips with it. You may as well just go in to the "towel" business.

[Camelopard]

Foustina, I got a chain letter as well, thought you might enjoy this although you may have already seen it, but even if you have it's good for another read.

It proves how north america was a much better place before all you immigrants arrived. :p :


Where White Man Went Wrong


Indian Chief Two Eagles was asked by a white government official, "You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done."

The Chief nodded in agreement. The official continued, "Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?"

The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied. "When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex."

Then the chief leaned back and smiled. "Only white man dumb enough to think he can improve system like that!"

http://www.businesspundit.com/where-white-men-went-wrong/

[Roamy]

Cameltoe A lot of truth in that. But look at this great heritage in Euro that is getting thrown under the bus. And I din't know that you are so safe down there.

[BDunnell]

As far as I'm aware the main reason why Sharia law is wanted for British muslims is for divorce. A muslim couple needs to divorce to go through a Sharia court for it to be valid to their religion.

Property law, I believe, is another reason. I don't consider any of this to be a particular threat to anyone or anything.

[BDunnell]

you poor souls are getting overrun and just can't come to grips with it. You may as well just go in to the "towel" business.

It is nice to read that, in holding your decidedly racist view about Muslims in Europe, you are lining yourself up alongside the opinions held by such a mentally stable, greatly respected world figure as... Colonel Gadaffi.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11139345

[anthonyvop]

If it's voluntary and all parties involved agreed with it, then why not. I wouldn't agree, so it wouldn't concern me.

So if "all parties" agreed that it is OK to punish a woman for wearing lipstick by "PUBLIC" flogging you are OK with that?

And how are we to decide who is OK with that? A woman living in fear of having her children taken away if she doesn't agree is suppose to have her consent taken at face value?

[Eki]

So if "all parties" agreed that it is OK to punish a woman for wearing lipstick by "PUBLIC" flogging you are OK with that?

And how are we to decide who is OK with that? A woman living in fear of having her children taken away if she doesn't agree is suppose to have her consent taken at face value?
We were talking about the Sharia law, not about wearing lipstick. You don't know anything about the Sharia law. Not even the Muslims agree what it is and how it should be interpreted. Or can you give me a quote from the Sharia law that talks about lipstick and is agreed by all Muslims?

[anthonyvop]

We were talking about the Sharia law, not about wearing lipstick. You don't know anything about the Sharia law. Not even the Muslims agree what it is and how it should be interpreted. Or can you give me a quote from the Sharia law that talks about lipstick and is agreed by all Muslims?

Pick whatever violation you want under "Sharia" law.

Are you OK with it even though one of the parties involved might be accepting under duress?

[Eki]

Pick whatever violation you want under "Sharia" law.

Are you OK with it even though one of the parties involved might be accepting under duress?
Like I said, coercion can also occur under "normal" law. No system is perfect. "Might be" is not enough a reason to dismiss it. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Easy Drifter]

A couple of points.
Try living in any Muslim country where Sharia law is practiced and ask for either common law or civil law (French) in a dispute and see how far you get.
Secondly if you come into my country as an immigrant or refugee I expect you to live under my country's laws. If you find my country and its laws unacceptable to you, get the heck out. You came here of your own free will knowing the kind of law practised here, or you should have.
Two sets of laws for different people is not going to work.

Slightly off topic but Canada has had several so called honour killings, which I and our Courts call murder. These are not by any means all Muslims.
One recent case was because a teen age girl wanted to dress like her school mates. Her father and brother were convicted of murder. They openly confessed to the murder because the girl had 'dishonoured' the family!

[anthonyvop]

Like I said, coercion can also occur under "normal" law. No system is perfect. "Might be" is not enough a reason to dismiss it. Innocent until proven guilty.

Under what you call "normal" law there are protections in place.

So if a case is tried under "Sharia Law" how is society suppose to know if no duress is used?


And if the Catholic Church in Finland decided to re-institute the Inquisition and flog those convicted of heresy are you OK with that as well?

[Jag_Warrior]

You're right, I use the term 'circumcision' not in the strict medical sense but in the context of 'religious' practices, though in the female variety its more cultural than religious. The surgery that you describe at length is interesting but is a sidenote and isn't terribly relevant to this particular debate except for clarifying the smallprint.

The meaning of the word does not change, whether we are discussing a medical procedure or a cultural/religious procedure.




Neither is there evidence that they are traumatised. One would expect there to be certain psychopathologies to be more common in Muslim and Jewish males or in any other male that was circumcised at birth. This isn't the case.

I'm sure that our friend Roamy could find some sort of chain email that would "prove" that Muslim men are more prone to psycho-pathologies. Can we use Dr. Roamy as a reliable source? ;) :D


You misunderstand me.

That Jewish and Muslim males should be circumcised preferably just after birth is written in stone in their religions. That girls should be circumcised is not found in any Christian or Islamic religious text at all. I do not mind Jews and Muslims circumcising their babies if its a core part of their religion, especially since circumcising males has also been shown to be beneficial in medical terms. However there is no religious or cultural defence for a barbaric act performed on young girls without their consent and it should be stamped out.

My apologies. It's not my intention to twist your words or put you in a box. But whether the practice of genital mutilation is religious or cultural, I really don't see how that makes a difference. Why would we say that what is done under the cover of a religion is alright, but what is done within a (long established) culture is not? As for male circumcision having some sort of medical benefits, that isn't really true. The studies that I've read are inconclusive at best. In the early part of the last century, scientists and doctors had studies which showed it to be an acceptable treatment for "self abuse"... just as they produced studies which showed hysterectomies (female castration) to be an acceptable treatment for "hysteria". And there are still people who believe the studies from the 19th century, that criminal behavior can be predicted by head size and facial characteristics. Taken from a piece I just pulled up on the topic:
The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.
And anyway, Jews and Muslims certainly didn't have the ability to perform meaningful medical studies when they popularized this now antiquated practice. In the U.S., parents are now joining the 21st century and beginning to reject this needless mutilation on their newborns. Where it was once performed on the majority of newborns, it is now done on a minority and the rate continues to fall. Perhaps other countries and cultures will follow... and I mean for female and male children. It's typical of societies for people to believe things without really knowing why they believe them. We are no different.

So I go back to my bottom line once again: I do not agree with mutilating infants or young people without their consent or against their will. But as far as I'm concerned, adults can pretty well do as they please... as long as they are not harming others. They can worship that holy rock, as long as they don't hit anyone with the rock after their prayer.

[Eki]

And if the Catholic Church in Finland decided to re-institute the Inquisition and flog those convicted of heresy are you OK with that as well?
If they only flogged each other, then why not. What they do in their own bedrooms is not my business. The Catholics have weird customs I don't understand anyway, and I guess I don't have to. I myself don't expect the Spanish Inquisition any more than I expect the Sharia law.

[Eki]

As for male circumcision having some sort of medical benefits, that isn't really true. The studies that I've read are inconclusive at best. In the early part of the last century, scientists and doctors had studies which showed it to be an acceptable treatment for "self abuse"... just as they produced studies which showed hysterectomies (female castration) to be an acceptable treatment for "hysteria". And there are still people who believe the studies from the 19th century, that criminal behavior can be predicted by head size and facial characteristics. Taken from a piece I just pulled up on the topic:
And anyway, Jews and Muslims certainly didn't have the ability to perform meaningful medical studies when they popularized this now antiquated practice. In the U.S., parents are now joining the 21st century and beginning to reject this needless mutilation on their newborns. Where it was once performed on the majority of newborns, it is now done on a minority and the rate continues to fall. Perhaps other countries and cultures will follow... and I mean for female and male children. It's typical of societies for people to believe things without really knowing why they believe them. We are no different.

So I go back to my bottom line once again: I do not agree with mutilating infants or young people without their consent or against their will. But as far as I'm concerned, adults can pretty well do as they please... as long as they are not harming others. They can worship that holy rock, as long as they don't hit anyone with the rock after their prayer.
Good points. Also lobotomy has been shown to be an effective treatment in some psychosis, but it's still not used in modern times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy

It would probably also have health benefits to surgically remove the appendix and the tonsils from every baby, just in case.

[Roamy]

Say what you want the Muslims are a "cult" to their own. They are taking your countries and soon you will probably want to be "bailed out again" Since WW2 you have be given the opportunity to preserve the cultures of the famous
"Europe" You have failed. Look at yourselves a mere shell of the wonderful people who lived in front of you a created such wonderful countries. Portugal, Spain, Italy being overrun by immigrants who are totally ruining your culture.
In my eyes we the same as you are totally pathetic. Our children will pay the price for our irresponsible actions. One thing we can probably all agree on is there in no "shame" in this era!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Say what you want the Muslims are a "cult" to their own. They are taking your countries and soon you will probably want to be "bailed out again" Since WW2 you have be given the opportunity to preserve the cultures of the famous
"Europe" You have failed. Look at yourselves a mere shell of the wonderful people who lived in front of you a created such wonderful countries. Portugal, Spain, Italy being overrun by immigrants who are totally ruining your culture.
In my eyes we the same as you are totally pathetic. Our children will pay the price for our irresponsible actions. One thing we can probably all agree on is there in no "shame" in this era!!

You really are somthing else.

Do you have a contract with the Daily Mail?

[Roamy]

You really are somthing else.

Do you have a contract with the Daily Mail?

Yea and Blair likes me too !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yea and Blair likes me too !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

Except he talks about radical Islam. You are talking about all of Islam.

[Eki]

Except he talks about radical Islam. You are talking about all of Islam.
Blair is not as radical as Fousto.

[Roamy]

Except he talks about radical Islam. You are talking about all of Islam.

where do you think they recruit from?? the mormons? :p :

[Eki]

where do you think they recruit from?? the mormons? :p :
There might be something in that theory. They recruit Mormons to pester people from door to door until they are so fed up with it that they convert to radical Islam just to get rid of the Mormons.

[Roamy]

Well I think they would have better luck if they gave up a couple of those virgins in the recruitment process