Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

You cannot legislate what a person will believe; the most you can do is attempt to brainwash them.
I feel the Middle East would have more peace and unity with separation of church and state. They are familiar with
the concept, but it is hard for most of them to conceive of such a change as harmonious with their faith.
I think we should get out of there and let the idea percolate.
It works for the Turks.
It must be terribly hard to export our notions of freedom and human rights when we do not practice it there.

What's your answer, MD?

---

Quote:

---

Today, I had a chance to meet with a number of key partners and allies in preparation for tomorrow’s conference. This meeting comes on the heels of the overwhelming vote in the UN General Assembly, which condemned the Saddam regime’s widespread and systematic violations of human rights...

Iraq will be an important opportunity to begin turning international consensus into action. We look forward to concrete progress on three fronts: providing humanitarian relief, increasing pressure on the regime, and preparing for a democratic transition. To that end, we hope to see new pledges of emergency assistance for Iraqis caught in Saddam's stranglehold and international coordination and diplomatic pressure on Baghdad to convince it to allow humanitarian aid to those who need it most. We also expect additional nations to impose effective sanctions against the regime, and we look to all countries to aggressively implement the measures they have already adopted.

Finally, we hope to hear from the Iraqi opposition about their vision for a post-Saddam Iraq that is governed by the rule of law and respects and protects the universal rights of every citizen regardless of religion, ethnicity, sect, or gender, because, after all, we must never lose sight of what this is about: a regime making war on its own people, families suffering in cities under siege, a nation brought to the brink of chaos. And that is what we will discuss tomorrow.
...

as I’ve said, the efforts that we are undertaking with the international community are intended to demonstrate Saddam's deepening isolation and the resolve of a vast majority of nations to support the Iraqi people in their demand that the violence end, that the suffering be addressed, that the democratic transition begin.

So tomorrow, we will be discussing a range of options, from tightening sanctions to increasing humanitarian relief to helping the opposition – to be able to strengthen their position as the voice of so many Iraqis whose voices cannot be heard right now. But this takes time and it takes a lot of diplomacy, old-fashioned outreach, dialogue, planning that we’ve been doing now for several weeks which we continued in meetings today. But I think there is a great resolve and commitment and there is an openness to exploring what can work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But then we have these secular males... rappy and geezer... who theoretically have NO beef with Islam. As males, the religion protects them. As atheists... or at least agnostics... the assumption that one religion (Islam) rules versus the assumption that another religion (Xtianity) rules should be about as meaningless as a conflict between Zeus and Jove.

So, what IS the problem, really?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Perhaps most of us are Idiots.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm going to give rappy a chance to respond. I'll wait until this evening.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?

---

Quote:

---

Spectrum of Muslim legal systems

The legal systems in 21st century Muslim majority states can be classified as follows:

Sharia in the secular Muslim states: Muslim countries such as Mali, Kazakhstan and Turkey have declared themselves to be secular. Here, religious interference in state affairs, law and politics is prohibited.[46] In these Muslim countries, as well as the secular West, the role of sharia is limited to personal and family matters.

The Nigerian legal system is based on English Common Law and the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and separation of church and State. However eleven northern states have adopted sharia law for those who practice the Muslim religion.[47]

Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco and Malaysia have legal systems strongly influenced by sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical sharia.[48]

Muslim states using classical sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with sharia.[49]

---

Quote:

---

tax fraud have routinely appeared among the dockets of those receiving the death sentence, as have drug offenses, corruption, property theft. Capital punishment in China can be imposed on crimes against national symbols and treasures, such as theft of cultural relics and (before 1997) the killing of pandas.[8]

---

Quote:

---

There are many more contemporary examples of women leading Muslim-majority countries. The majority of all Muslims in the world live in countries that have, at some time, elected women as their leaders. Indeed, the three most populous Muslim-majority countries have had women as leaders:

Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as president[2]
Pakistan, the second most populous Muslim-majority country, twice (non-consecutively) elected Benazir Bhutto as prime minister[3]
Bangladesh, the third most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Khaleda Zia[4] and Sheikh Hasina as prime ministers.

Other Muslim- majority nations which have had female political leaders include:

Turkey elected Tansu Çiller, who became prime minister on June 13, 1993[5]

In the Muslim majority region of Kosovo, President Atifete Jahjaga was unanimously elected by the Assembly of Kosovo on April 7, 2011[6]

Kyrgyzstan's President Roza Otunbayeva was sworn in on July 3, 2010, after acting as interim leader following the 2010 April revolution.

Senegal's Mame Madior Boye was Prime Minister from 2001 to 2002.

Nearly one-third of the Parliament of Egypt- the fifth most populous Muslim majority nation- also consists of women.[7]
See also: List of the first female holders of political offices

Women still face many pressures as political leaders.[8]

Some Muslim women hold important positions in some governments, political parties and corporations. A paradoxical example is the banned Islamist party of Morocco, Al Adl Wa Al Ihssane (Justice and Charity). Since the leader cannot speak openly, his daughter Nadia Yassine is the one who publicly defends the opposition to the Mudawana, government-sponsored reforms on the legal status of Moroccan women.

The circumstances, and the often explicitly non-Islamic ideology of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and the Iran-Iraq war, because of the number of men fighting, led to an increase of the role of women in the public life of the Sahrawi and Iranians.

---

Quote:

---

Islamic perspective on child custody after divorce Print E-mail
Introduction

Children are focus of gravity in Islamic Family tradition and law. When spouse are together, upbringing their child(ren) is paramount joint responsibility. Not only physical care and health, but emotional, educational, and religious welfare and well being are mutual responsibility. When spouses separate by divorce or annulment, these welfare responsibilities get also split according to best abilities of each parent. While fathers are vested with financial burden and legal guardianship roles, mothers are given role of physical carer and emotive guardian of child(ren). Inherently, Islamic system balances between multitude levels of child(ren)’s need. In recognition of an infant’s need for female care, all the juristic schools give first preference to a mother’s claim to physical custody of her young child provided that she satisfies all the requirements for a female custodian. After divorce during the period of the mother’s custody, she is generally entitled to receive custody wages from the father to help her maintain the child. Islamic Jurisprudential inferences Islamic law on custody of children after divorce is based on several hadith relating to how the Prophet sallalahu Alaihe wasallam dealt with cases brought before him. One of the key relevant hadith is the following: According to Amr Ibn Shu'aib, a woman came to the Prophet* and said: 'Truly my belly served as a container for my son here, and my breast served as a skin-bag for him (to drink out of) and my bosom served as a refuge for him; and now his father has divorced me, and he (also) desires to take him away from me.' The Prophet sallalahu Alaihe wasallam said: 'You have a better right to have him, as long as you do not marry again. Hadith: Ibn Majah The mother is recognised as generally the fittest person to take care of the children, because of the instinctive love and tenderness she feels for them and her closer contact with them throughout pregnancy, nursing, and childhood. However, if the mother marries again she would generally forfeit her right to custody. However, the period of female custody ends once the child reaches a certain age of custodial transfer. The Hanbali and Shafii schools do not distinguish between girls and boys regarding the duration of female custody. The Hanbalis maintain that the female custodian should have custody from birth until the child reaches the age of seven, at which point he or she may choose between parents. The Shafiis allow female custody until the child reaches the age of discretion and may choose either parent as custodian. The Malikis rule that female custody of a boy shall last until he reaches puberty, and for a girl until she marries. Under the Hanafi School, female custody of a boy ends when he is able to feed, clothe, and cleanse himself. Most Hanafi jurists set this age of independence at seven years, although some set it at nine. Hanafi jurists differ on when a mother’s custody of her daughter ends. Most maintain that the mother’s custody ends when the girl reaches puberty, set at either nine or eleven years of age. However, others allow the mother’s custody to last until the girl reaches the age of womanhood. Conditions of custody Whoever has custody of a child has to abide by conditions concerning residence and Islamic upbringing, to ensure that the child's welfare is properly cared for. The court may, if necessary, enforce these conditions or direct that the child be given to the next eligible custodian. The father should have access to his children, and he remains financially responsible for their maintenance and education even though they may be under the care of their divorced mother or one of her relations. Duration of custody and Transfers The duration of custody varies between the Four Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence as detailed earlier.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
If the Moslem God, called Allah, is imaginary ...
Is the Christian/Hebrew God, called Jaweh or Jehovah, also imaginary?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:

If the Moslem God, called Allah, is imaginary ...
Is the Christian/Hebrew God, called Jaweh or Jehovah, also imaginary?



Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What is it, specifically, that YOU would find troubling about living under Sharia law?

---

Quote:

---

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Most people don't know what Sharia law is. As I read it, it is very similar to Orthodox Judaism in many ways. Hell, they (Jews) can go on and on about whether it is allowed to cut the beard with a blade (razor. The answer is "no") or scissors (two blades, the answer is "yes").

What people really rebel against from Islam, they will accept its equivalence from Xtianity or Judaism. Israel, for example, is a theocracy, and is just as harsh on its Muslim residents as Iran is on its non-Muslim residents. In fact, while Jews can travel from Iran to Israel, they cannot travel from Israel to Iran. And while people here hate the idea of a theocracy in far-off places, many don't seem to react as badly against Santorum and the right-wing here in the USA who push creationism in our education system instead of science and who seem to want to turn our schools into Xtian madrassas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, before I give a COMPLETE answer, I have to look up Sharia law. Most people here including many who responded don't understand it well. I have heard, but have not had the time to look it up, that many of the practices that westerners find most abhorrent are actually not sourced in the Qu'ran or the sunnah (the two most authoritative sources of Allah's word) but in local practices and customs.

---

Quote:

---

I have to compare that to our right-wing evangelicals, like Santorum and the (mostly) Protestant contingent.

---

Quote:

---

To expand on that a little... if one REALLY wants to test one's tolerance for "religion in government", one must be able to accept ALL religious expressions in ALL government support, no matter how indirect. So putting up a nativity scene (on government property) would also allow the menorah, the crescent moon, and the elephant god ganesah, as well as prayer flags and animistic representations. If a person cannot tolerate one specific religious symbol, perhaps there should not be ANY.

---

Quote:

---

Your irrational fear mongering about Santorum, or any on the 'religious right' would have folks believe that we're mere months away from installing some sort of Christian version of Sharia law.

---

Quote:

---

There IS no equivalence to Sharia Law. None. At least, not in the western, civilized world.

---

Quote:

---

All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,"

---

Hello,

I stand with all those opposed to Sharia Law in opposing this candidate's dangerous position.

I know from the content in this thread that Mr. Raptor and Mr. Hero are incensed at the mere idea of this, and will join me in their opposition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


And Santorum, he's 1 man. He can press for creationism all he wants ( to his own peril ) and it would not carry any weight. He'd be President, not King. Talk about fear of the unreasonable!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office.

---

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that religion should be part of government.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

All Santorum is saying is that we should have the right to be religious and still hold public office.

---

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that religion should be part of government.

---

So, religious folk have no business being a part of the govt ? Is THAT what you're saying ?

---

Quote:

---

And Anthony, to answer your question, the persecution of Santorum seems proof enough for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

No. People can have their religion. Their religion shouldn't be able to dictate *MY* behavior.

---

You mean like the religion of global warming ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Evolution is a fact. I don't have to pay to acknowledge that. Do you ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Because the scam of carbon credits and paying car companies with tax payer money to produce electric cars which no one wants...yeah, that pretty much is an attempt to dictate MY behavior.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you show me any examples of a person in this country being kept from holding public office because of his religion?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Here is where you're wrong.

There IS no equivalence to Sharia Law. None. At least, not in the western, civilized world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Can you show me any examples of a person in this country being kept from holding public office because of his religion?

---

I'll take that one.

George Quayle Cannon, 1882 - cause he was Mormon.

Brigham Henry Roberts, 1898 - cause he was Mormon.

Reed Owen Smoot, 1902 - cause he was Mormon.

Notice a pattern here ?

---