Koran Says - Wife-beating OK!

[guyman1966]

Wife-beating is Koranic: Imam

From correspondents in Paris

April 21, 2004

A MUSLIM cleric's comments that wife-beating is authorised by the Koran has sparked a fierce backlash in France, with Justice Minister Dominique Perben warning today that the cleric "will have to explain himself".

Abdelkader Bouziane, the imam of a mosque in the eastern city of Lyon, caused the uproar when he told the April issue of a local magazine, Lyon Mag, that he was polygamous, believed that "beating your wife is authorised by the Koran", and expressed the hope that "the entire world becomes Muslim".

The mayor of the Lyon suburb where Bouziane's mosque is located, Andre Gerin, made public a letter he wrote to the Interior Ministry in which he said he planned to start a lawsuit against the imam "for disturbing the public order and that of the republic (of France)".

Justice Minister Perben, speaking on state television, said justice officials "can and must do something" and added that other people had also vowed legal action.

A junior minister in charge of gender and professional equality, Nicole Ameline, said she was going to call together various associations tackling domestic violence "to examine what action is necessary".

Those associations may join the legal onslaught, she told radio station BFM, adding that the imam's comments were an "insult to the republic" and deserved heavy punishment.

Sources close to the organisation that runs the mosque, Es Salem, said Bouziane had defended himself by claiming the interview had not been properly conducted, and had received the order to either publish a retraction or start his own lawsuit against the magazine.

In January, an imam was given a suspended sentence in Spain for inciting violence against women in a 1997 book that gave detailed instructions to Muslim men on how to beat their wives.

privacy © The Australian

[kramadas]

and the torah says its OK to kill as long as its a gentile.

[kramadas]

ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.4

http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/shahak.html#Murder

[kramadas]

Oh, and your intelligence clearly shows when you take the actions of one or two to be the law of a religion!

[guyman1966]

Raver - there is no religion that prays for WORLD peace more that Judaism. Its a sin to kill anyone. That is why orthodox jews in Israel do not fight in the army, but serve in the red cross. Your quote is bullshit.

[kramadas]

Originally posted by guyman1966

Raver - there is no religion that prays for WORLD peace more that Judaism. Its a sin to kill anyone. That is why orthodox jews in Israel do not fight in the army, but serve in the red cross. Your quote is bullshit.

uh huh. Its from a book by a scholar. I think you're just blinding yourself to the truth. I've seen other quotes which talk about blatant discrimination between how Jews and gentiles are treated.

World peace as long as the Jews are the ones in power, right?

Some of the most die-hard, vicious soldiers are orthodox. A small percent go to the red cross while the rest move on to settle land in the OT (ie, Arab land).

[guyman1966]

Many different sections of orthodox - some don't talk about giving back the West Bank - they talk about GETTING the East Bank from Jordan. But - they are kept in line. To bad I can't say the same about the PLO or Hamas.

[dnice35]

this article shows the typical violent muslim mentality...

[sobeton]

"violent muslim mentality" another fascinating observation. Gee, I wonder if they keep crime stats, on how many Christians, Jews, etc commit spousal abuse, rape, murder, molestation, etc .

[guyman1966]

Originally posted by sobeton

"violent muslim mentality" another fascinating observation. Gee, I wonder if they keep crime stats, on how many Christians, Jews, etc commit spousal abuse, rape, murder, molestation, etc .

OK - But show me someplace where a modern Priest, Rabbi or Pastor preaches that its OK.

[bigpoppanils]

Religious Right Helps Enemies

By Michael Lind

Whitehead Senior Fellow

United Press International

September 17, 2001

The suicidal terrorists who flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and into the ground in Pennsylvania last Tuesday believed that they were on a mission from God.

The Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agree.

Last Thursday on Robertson's TV show, "The 700 Club," Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, declared, "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, expressed his agreement, as Falwell blamed the attack on the federal courts and "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians ... the ACLU, People for the American Way ... I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' " The suggestion that the terrorist attacks on the United States was divine punishment for the acts of any or all Americans is more than insanity. It is treason -- not legal treason, but moral treason.

Like Tokyo Rose during World War II and like Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War, the leaders of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition have given aid and comfort to the enemy.

Falwell and Robertson are un-American. Their fundamentalist ideology is essentially identical to that of the Muslim extremists.

The anti-American Muslims believe that the United States is a godless, secular humanist regime. So does the religious right, personified by Falwell and Robertson. The radical Muslims want to roll back feminism and stamp out abortion and homosexuality. So does the religious right.

The radical Muslims want radical censorship of culture and draconian treatment of drug offenders. So do leading social conservatives, like former U.S. drug czar William J. Bennett. In 1989, a caller to "Larry King Live" asked, "Why build prisons? Get tough like Arabia. Behead the damned drug dealers. We're just too darned soft."

"Morally, I don't have any problem with that at all," Bennett replied. He went on to say that more people in the United States should be executed.

When Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa or death sentence encouraging Muslim terrorists to assassinate the novelist Salman Rushdie, Patrick Buchanan denounced Rushdie, writing: "Sal has written a defamatory novel, a blasphemous assault on the faith of hundreds of millions."

The religious right has always been un-American. In the 1990s, it became anti-American. In 1996, the right-wing Roman Catholic writer Richard John Neuhaus hosted a symposium in the magazine "First Things," in which religious right activists and sympathizers like Charles Colson, Robert P. George and Robert Bork argued that the U.S. government is so immoral that civil disobedience and even revolution might be permissible.

Now Falwell and Robertson have gone one step farther, flirting with sedition by blaming federal judges for Tuesday's catastrophe. In addition to stirring up hatred of our elected officials and law enforcement officers, these American ayatollahs seek to make gay and lesbian Americans scapegoats for the crimes of Arab terrorists. This is an insult to the memory of the gay men and lesbians who died Tuesday -- including David Charlebois, the gay co-pilot of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, and Mark Bingham, a gay businessman and rugby player on the United Airlines jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.

If Bingham was one of the passengers who seem to have forced that jet to the ground before it could reach Washington and destroy the Capitol or the White House, then this public relations executive did more for America in the last few moments of his life than Falwell, Robertson, Bennett and Buchanan have done in their entire lives.

It is chilling to reflect that in 1996 the right-wing magazine "The Weekly Standard," edited by Dan Quayle's former aide William Kristol, called for the "reaffirmation by states of a sodomy law" that would imprison gay citizens like Charlebois and Bingham for violating 17th century statutes based on Old Testament religious taboos.

Falwell is practically inciting a lynch mob to attack many of our fellow Americans, by saying: "I point the finger in their face. ..."

It's time for patriotic Americans to point a finger in the faces of Falwell and Robertson and their allies like Bennett, Buchanan and Kristol and to say: "We are tired of the way you smear our tolerant society and seek to pit one group of Americans against others."

The Oklahoma City bombing discredited the far-right libertarian conservatives who nattered on about "federal tyranny" without stopping to reflect that somebody might actually take their rhetoric seriously.

Unabomber Ted Kaczinski discredited the radical environmentalists who didn't think anybody would actually act on their apocalyptic message.

Falwell and Robertson have now discredited the religious right forever. The attacks of Tuesday will make anybody who now compares the United States to Sodom and Gomorrah -- or says that Americans deserve to be killed for their sins -- look like a fellow-traveler or a fifth columnist for the anti-American wing of Islam.

The United States must now go to war. In doing so, we cannot afford to be demoralized by unpatriotic religious zealots like Falwell and Robertson. We need to unite as a nation -- and that requires a nonsectarian, tolerant, inclusive patriotism, that treats everybody as a free and equal citizen -- even the Americans disliked by right-wing Southern Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals and their conservative Catholic and Jewish allies. We don't need a theocratic nationalism that limits Americanism to "people of faith."

"People of faith." The very term sounds ominous after last Tuesday.

To prevail in the dangerous struggle ahead, the United States must lead a coalition of secular European nations and both secular and religiously moderate Muslim countries. Those states will follow an America that stands for freedom, reason and civility. But they are not going to join a theocratic crusade of a "Judeo-Christian America'" against an equally theocratic enemy.

The terrorists did not target the ideal America of Falwell or Robertson -- a "Christian nation" resembling an Islamic republic in form and to a large degree in content. They targeted the America that is a symbol to people around the of world freedom from religious oppression and social conformity.

The terrorists targeted the America of George Washington, who in a 1784 letter asking an aide to hire some craftsmen wrote, "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans (Muslims), Jews, or Christian or any Sect -- or they may be Atheists..."

The terrorists targeted the America of Thomas Jefferson, who said the Virginia religious liberty law "meant to comprehend within its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo (Hindu) and infidel of every denomination."

Jefferson, denouncing the idea that the United States was a Christian nation, wrote: "Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics and geometry."

Like other founders, Jefferson feared the religious fanaticism that inspires Muslim suicide pilots and Christian abortion-clinic bombers: "The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error," he wrote.

During the Cold War, the Blame-America-First crowd was found among leftists, whose ideology was a watered-down version of hard-line Marxism. During this war, it now appears, the fellow travelers of the Muslim right will be found among social conservatives, who may disapprove of Osama bin Laden's methods, but who view American society very much as he does.

Sorry, Falwell and Robertson. Whatever you Blame-America-First conservatives may think, we know that this is not a holy war between your medieval religion and theirs. It's a war of reason and tolerance against medieval superstition.

Sorry, Bennett. In the aftermath of the attack, every patriotic American knew what America stands for: freedom. Not Christian virtue or Judeo-Christian virtue. No, plain old capital "F" Freedom.

In this war, V is not going to stand for Virtue. It is going to stand for Victory. A victory for the free society that Falwell, Robertson and Osama bin Laden despise.

Copyright: 2001 United Press International

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=513

[trigger55]

Originally posted by guyman1966

OK - But show me someplace where a modern Priest, Rabbi or Pastor preaches that its OK.

they don't need to preach it.. they just do it instead you're so prejudiced in everything you post its almost not even worth arguing. Having lived in both the middle east and the US, I can easily say that Arabs are a lot more peaceful, and their communities are much much safer than most here. Its just that people like you sitting around with no worries or problems in life like to argue about what works in theory, when you have no fuckin clue about whats really going on in the world and how it really works.. reality is a bitch, maybe one day you'll experience some.

[sobeton]

Originally posted by guyman1966

OK - But show me someplace where a modern Priest, Rabbi or Pastor preaches that its OK.

simply because something is preached, does not mean you will act upon it. in most countries religious doctrine, does not supercede the law.

[guyman1966]

Originally posted by sobeton

simply because something is preached, does not mean you will act upon it. in most countries religious doctrine, does not supercede the law.

Who's talking about law? I'm talking ethics.

[sobeton]

Originally posted by guyman1966

Who's talking about law? I'm talking ethics.

actually you're talking nonsense, to try and justify your own bias. laws rule society, not religious doctrine hence my reference to the same. ethics are subjective; the law in most cases is not.

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by sobeton

laws rule society, not religious doctrine hence my reference to the same

not ALL societies are ruled by law as we know it..many are ruled by RELIGIOUS laws...

[kramadas]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

not ALL societies are ruled by law as we know it..many are ruled by RELIGIOUS laws...

still laws

I see what you mean though. The ME sure needs to get out of the rut its in, but I just hate it when certain people try to potray the whole place as "evil" (as if I believe in the "good" and "evil" nonsense).

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by raver_mania

still laws

I see what you mean though. The ME sure needs to get out of the rut its in, but I just hate it when certain people try to potray the whole place as "evil" (as if I believe in the "good" and "evil" nonsense).

u know what i mean...i.e. Iran...when u have religious figure heads in charge...it gets messy...

[sobeton]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

not ALL societies are ruled by law as we know it..many are ruled by RELIGIOUS laws...

you are correct, nor is our rule of law flawless. just as we have faults in our laws, so to our there faults in religious laws such as Sharia law. one should not be prejudiced of someone, simply based on their religious beliefs. this has been the point of my debate. further, simply because a country may be led by a religious leader. doesn't mean it is any worse or better then one that is not.

[guyman1966]

What countries today are run by religious law?

Answer: Mostly Muslim – maybe a Buddhist somewhere.

And what religion openly encourages violence against women?

Answer: Islam

And what religion still enforces stoning and an “eye for an eye�

Answer: Islam

[sobeton]

Originally posted by guyman1966

What countries today are run by religious law?

Answer: Mostly Muslim – maybe a Buddhist somewhere.

And what religion openly encourages violence against women?

Answer: Islam

And what religion still enforces stoning and an “eye for an eye�

Answer: Islam

you need to let go of your rather obvious bias and fears, and learn tolerance and understanding. No religion and no people are faultless. to continue to debate the same with you is pointless.

[livin42nite]

I think both religions are beautiful, its just the fucking people that give their religions a bad name. I know this may not be a popular opinion, but to me sharon is just as much of a terrorist as any hamas leader. only difference is sharon has a very skilled and organized army, while hamas has a bunch of crazy loonies blowing themselves up but in the end they both doing the same thing "killing in the name of god". Again though if the followers just stopped being so radical and followed their religions none of this would be a problem cause both religions are nonviolent ones.

[guyman1966]

Originally posted by livin42nite

I think both religions are beautiful, its just the fucking people that give their religions a bad name. I know this may not be a popular opinion, but to me sharon is just as much of a terrorist as any hamas leader. only difference is sharon has a very skilled and organized army, while hamas has a bunch of crazy loonies blowing themselves up but in the end they both doing the same thing "killing in the name of god". Again though if the followers just stopped being so radical and followed their religions none of this would be a problem cause both religions are nonviolent ones.

I'm not a Sharon lover - but he does not kill in the name of g-d.

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by sobeton

you are correct, nor is our rule of law flawless. just as we have faults in our laws, so to our there faults in religious laws such as Sharia law. one should not be prejudiced of someone, simply based on their religious beliefs. this has been the point of my debate. further, simply because a country may be led by a religious leader. doesn't mean it is any worse or better then one that is not.

we actually agree... ....i think i need to take a step back from the computer...

[sobeton]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

we actually agree... ....i think i need to take a step back from the computer...

stop the presses!