GameBanshee Forums

Curry wrote:[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w"]See this video.[/url]

Assuming that everything he said in the video is true, we would have a winner in most hostile and wicked religion contest.

As-Salamu Alaykum,

The above posted video nullifies itself in the first minute. Stating that certain groups will profess what they believe to be absolute truths. Frankly that video is one of those horrific sorts that tries to portray itself as being neutral, enlightening and well-researched. The interpretation of Islam and the Qur'an stated within is so outrageously biased it stings the eyes and ears.

Official sharia courts in the UK? Not heard of them. They were suggested by the top ecclesiastical figure (not the figurehead Queen Elizabeth) of the Church of England, and Muslim-run courts may exist, but I am not aware of any court of civil or criminal law in England and Wales (Scotland has a different legal system ) incorporating Sharia law. Adding to this, the common law legal system which predominates in English speaking and ex-Commonwealth nations, was based and actively incorporated Christian tenets. It is natural for a society to base its rules and laws (which should arguably be of a moral nature) on the prevailing religion of the time. Of course the UK being wonderfully secular these days has written out any official reference to religion for the most part. Common law doctrines of equity were entirely sourced from the Church; where justice was not done under law, it would be referred to the Keeper of the King's Conscience (again the leading religious authority in the country) to decide upon a moral outcome.

I honestly don't know where to begin on that video. Utter trash. Even if the notion of abrogation and suchlike is true it disregards that the Qur'an is x hundred years old. Cultures and societal values change. Many Muslims seem to be quite happy here living without whipping and stoning and suchlike.

As for the Shari'a law, I have a limited (albeit i expect greater than most posters in this thread it must be said ) understanding of Shari'a but its jurisprudence and contract law share an enormous amount with common law.

Without being explicit and foulmouthed ( ) some comments in this thread are incredibly controversial, not to mention intolerant. We did once have a very active and outspoken Muslim member of the boards, who left due to similar comments as those expressed here.

During university I was part of a close trio of friends, myself a white English Christian, a Pakistani Muslim and a French/North African Jew who later emigrated to Israel. I visited both Israel and Pakistan. Both were some of the most beautiful countries I have seen. In Pakistan I was staying in a village (true village, AKs lying against the wall, dirt roads, no electricity) in the North West and they knew of a couple of Christians, all of whom had a enormous respect as they came along in the relief effort after the 2005 earthquake. The only thing that seems to irk Muslims are atheists.

After a great deal of discussions with said Muslim friend (who did -rarely- drink, regularly smoked 'herb' but also prayed daily etc.) there are all kinds of philosophical underpinnings and rationale for the more quirky or 'abhorrent' elements of Islam, some of course developed to allow a Muslim to live in the modern age.

I did a course in Religious Studies a few years back, if one thing emerged, it's that the superficial/barebones view or 'interpretations' miss practically 90% of what's there. I'm not particularly religious myself, but have to hand it to some theological concepts - they're an amazing journey into philosophy.

Long post, sorry, doubt it'll be read by those that should. Frankly I just felt i had to post as this thread has seen Islamophobia and Orientalism at its best. Glory and power to the West! Our infallible democracy and liberalism! Our way is best... tolerate but nevertheless note the inferiority of all that is different to our superior Western values [/sarcasm].I am fully in support of Pakistan and Israel holding nuclear arms. Especially Pakistan. It's called balance of power. And of all those corrupt, nasty Muslim nations*, Pakistan is the most stable and economically developed.

I'll admit there are a lot of geopolitical and cultural problems at the moment between the West and Islam/the West and everyone else, but I am playing advocate.

*Again this is sarcasm, just to be sure :/

Edit: and please, Peace be With You

I believe that you've misunderstood some of the posts here, Denethorn. Mainly the ones about what the thread was originaly about WMD's in eastern countries.

I doubt that anyone meant that they don't find country X or Y a good candidate for having nukes because they have one or another religion there. We (well, I) don't want country X or Y (X beign Israel, Y Saudi Arrabia) having WMD's because they're ruled by people (or the rules are influenced by people who) who are ready to launch them "In the name of xxx"

Now.. While i'd rather not see ANY WMD's in ANY country, and while i know that US gov went a few extra miles to start a few conflicts (to fatten their wallets / get people's support AND fatten their wallets / other and fatten their wallets ) and may keep doing it. Hell, they may even go with another "911" and kill thousands of their own citizens to achieve their goals.. I don't see any possibility for them to use the WMD's, other than counterattack that is. With this beign said any nuke launched against any populated area would face worldwide opposition, and not many gov's would ever come even close to repeating Hiroshima. Not even the idea would come through. Except for the desperate and vengeful (possibly Israel if things turn realy bad) and the dictatorships (ALL).

Note that not a single of my posts was intended to insult any faith, any nationallity, nor anyone who lives in Israel, Saudi Arabia or other countries that i've mentioned.

I did however intend on insulting stupidity, fanaticism, religious demagogy and dictatorships. These plagues that like Midas will turn everything they touch into something else. But instead of gold, it turns to ****.

Ahoy.

Denethorn wrote: Official sharia courts in the UK? Not heard of them.

[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece"]Now you have[/url]

What is usually referred to as muslims (as if they all thought the same way about their religion and about politics), is obviously a diverse and complex group of people. I (perhaps naively) believe that most people here know that, though they might not express it cleary enough.
The problem (at least in my country) may be that orientalist discourses are almost the only ones offered to the public (by the media, politicians etc.) as a way of speaking about and understanding muslims - "The Clash of Civilizations" being a particularly problematic way of looking at Islam and the rest of the world.

While it's not irrelevant nor uninteresting to study what the Quran says - if one seeks understanding of muslims or Islam - it is far more relevant etc. to look at the way muslims today practise and think about their faith (let the muslims speak , instead of telling them what their religion is all about).

Wouldn't it be better if all just dropped having nuclear weapons?

Also not sure that Pakistan qualifies as a stable state, nor as the most stable muslim state.

BTW just saw that 3 things about Islam video. What a horrible and one-sided video!!! Also taking a video on youtube as an authoritative and completely factual source for understanding Islam is just not serious...

Stworca wrote: Note that not a single of my posts was intended to insult any faith, any nationallity, nor anyone who lives in Israel, Saudi Arabia or other countries that i've mentioned.

I did however intend on insulting stupidity, fanaticism, religious demagogy and dictatorships. These plagues that like Midas will turn everything they touch into something else. But instead of gold, it turns to ****.

Ahoy.

Thanks for clarifying that; some of your posts seemed a bit in engorged with hate is all. I found the original post interesting but the thread then veered off into Anglocentric politics. Forgive me, but orientalism/cultural imperialism was a favourite subject of mine when I took a module in Law and Social Theory so things always scream out at me. It's a profoundly interesting concept that really makes you re-assess your world view and also also how these world views have been fed to you.

The classic line is that the Orient (also called 'the other' - as in not British or American; for instance in the time of the British Empire the Orient was The Near East/Middle East such as Turkey, under the American Economic Empire it means the Far East such as China) is often depicted as exotic and beautiful but also inferior. For example the Chinese Emperors and the culture of dragons and suchlike holds a mystique and beauty to a lot of westerners and we can acknowledge it as such, but it is also implicitly inferior to our modern democracy/technocracy. It can be glaringly obvious in some art: Disney films, Indiana Jones etc. ("MMMM... MONKEY BRAINS " :laugh

Further reading:
Orientalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Haven't read this article but at a glance it seems to be focussed on the cultural elements rather than how it then transferred into politics/power.

If you ever have the inclination or the time Edward W. Said's Orientalism is fantastic. Ofcourse for balance there's Defending The West by Ibn Warraq. Said is Palestinian and Ibn Warraq definately sounds Muslim so it's an interesting clash of scholarship.

I'll also raise my hand and say I still have 'Islamophobic moments' when certain things come on the news. Being a rational being is ofcourse very difficult in this ideological war the media presents/fuels.

Curry wrote:Now you have

I was tempted to Google for Shari'a courts in the UK, had a feeling something like this might be lurking out there. Key quote from the article: "Under the act, 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." These are not courts of the Crown/Judiciary. I am not familiar with arbitration outside of commercial law or tribunals outside of employment law, but the appointment of an arbitrator in which both parties accept his/her decision is fairly common practice (google 'Dispute Resolution and Arbitration' or something). The article implies that the situation is now is that the results of the Muslim community's own separate 'courts' (rather methods of solving disputes) are now recognised in a true UK court. As in if a 'Sharia Court' decided that that a contract was not acceptable (i.e. null and void) and freed both parties from it, one party could not then go to an 'official UK court' and have the matter decided again (hopefully in their favour obviously). The official court (man that sounds like such a horrible term) would atleast recognise the decision of the Sharia court (hence the term legally binding). Previously it would have been meaningless, other than possible corroborating evidence.

Could write any essay on the subject tbh

tl;dr, Shari'a law is not in the English legal system. A court of the crown will not reference Shari'a law, but may recognise a decision reached under Shari'a law.

TAKR86 wrote: Also not sure that Pakistan qualifies as a stable state, nor as the most stable muslim state.

It's a difficult one. Economically it's a powerhouse compared to most other Islamic states (excluding the UAE, but they're on another planet - wealthy but so precariously positioned). As a nation it's suffered a lot of turmoil recently ofcourse, and its domestic politics aren't completely sound. However in terms of international politics it seems fairly steady.

The West/the US certainly have little to fear and alot to gain from Pakistan; WMDs or no. It's India that are likely bricking it over Pakistan + nukes.

edit: I do believe that technically Pakistan is officially secular, not sure though. So it isn't really an 'Islamic State'

The official name is: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Islam is the state religion. This of course says nothing about the religiousity of the population.

Denmark has lutheran christianity as a state religion, but very little and continually diminishing church attendance and many people have adopted a very anti-religion attitude.

Ahh, I was getting mixed up with Turkey.

If only we could all be more like Denmark I was fortunate enough to spend 24 hours in Aarhus last year. Denmark would likely be my number one place to live if I were free to do so, alot of it is I love Tuborg .


Pakistan certainly has a very religious population. Sheikhs or 'community elders' still hold incredible sway over the police and military. I didn't really spend much time in Islamabad and didn't see a big industrial city like Karachi, but out in the country the communities are very closely knit. Family ties and 'knowing the right people' count for a lot on that basis. Young men who disregard Islamic practice and family responsibilities/commands too much (i.e. freerolling around on a moped abusing drugs and enjoying women) are ostracized.

That said, the similarities with a Western society are striking. In many ways alcohol and hashish trade places. Hashish is smoked a lot as long as you don't dangle it in front of the elders. Booze is illegal so becomes the contraband traded underground, a bottle or two whisky or something emerges for a special occasion like a wedding. It's hard to imagine but they're human too :laugh: dodging 'the man', taxes and the moral eyes of grandparents.

If you interested in reading more about religion and politics in the Middle East I'll recommend reading some of Olivier Roy's books espcially the one about globalized Islam and also "The failure of Political Islam". One of his hypothesises being that most of the countries (even where Islamists are in power) are behaving like "regular" nation-states. The national interest before any panislamic solidarity...

Yeah the beer is pretty great here