myrrh bait

[Strangelet]

the guardian posted a video of a young girl being flogged in public by the taliban because "She came out of her house with another guy who was not her husband, so we must punish her."

here's the account

Two men hold her arms and feet while a third, a black-turbaned fighter with a flowing beard, whips her repeatedly. "Please stop it," she begs, alternately whimpering or screaming in pain with each blow to the backside. "Either kill me or stop it now." A crowd of men stands by, watching silently. Off camera a voice issues instructions.
"Hold her legs tightly," he says as she squirms and yelps.

It strikes me that her punishment for committing a "promiscuous" act reads like the screen play of a sado masochist porn scene. In fact its hard to argue that there isn't more sexual charge in the public display than there ever was in her walking out of her damn house with a guy.

or is that just my diseased western mentality?

[BeautifulBurnout]

And of course the guy got beaten too, for walking out of the house with her?

Thought not...

[Sean]

When I hear about how great a state under Sharia law would be, this is what I think of.

[Rog]

bunch of fuckin aresholes

[dubman]

gentlemen, i have invented the auto-response mechanicisimal in case of such an abscence by thee member in question. [/frink]

*click*
*whirr*
*chunka-chunk... printing*
*tear*

a-ha! yes and now to read it...

"these are just the stories the media takes and exaggerates to paint a disproportionate picture to make sure the antagonistic relationship with muslim countries continues. i'm sure if there was an equally keen focus on ahorrent acts committed in the US those countries not under a democracy would shudder and be relieved with their own form of rule."

gentlemen you may now PROCEED.

[dubman]

oh and this is also a baggo fun

[Deckard]

Obviously no argument from me about the 'delights' of any society governed by such a strict, literal reading of a text that's only ever been the product of bronze age (or in Islam's case, iron age) ignorance and barbarity.

That Washington installed Karzai, a former member of the moujahadeen with his intimate contacts to Bush Snr and the CIA should explain why women's rights aren't exactly high on the agenda here. Despite the 2002 rodeo-rhetoric about freedom being on the march and women walking the streets liberated, did we honestly expect any different? Because the growth of the moujahadeen is the last significant point at which it all changed direction, isn't it?

Women's rights in Afghanistan have been on a continuous downward path ever since the late 70s-early 80s, when Afghanistan did have a government committed to them: equal education, equal access to health provisions, the abolition of the veil, the introduction of women into politics, etc. A government that was genuinely trying to drag the country into the (then) 20th century.

Remind me what we did about that?

[BeautifulBurnout]

In fairness, this extreme form of Islam is just that - extreme, and doesn't represent Islam in Pakistan. The Pakistani Supreme court is forming a Bench to investigate it, and the majority of Pakistanis are in uproar about it.

So, to a certain extent, I suppose I am parroting the Myrrh "boilerplate response" provided by Dubman, in that it is easy to take these incidents as representative of all Islam. That would be a little like taking the persecution of "witches" in Kenya as representative of all of Christianity, which it clearly isn't.

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

I suppose I am parroting the Myrrh "boilerplate response" provided by Dubman, in that it is easy to take these incidents as representative of all Islam. That would be a little like taking the persecution of "witches" in Kenya as representative of all of Christianity, which it clearly isn't.

But why is it possible to clearly describe the positive affects a religion has on a culture but impossible to discuss the negative affects a religion has on a culture? For example. you hear all the time that religious community x is one that is more honest and charitable. But I don't often see people taken seriously when they say that religous community x is one that is promotes child abuse and subjugated will.

I guess I'm thinking one *can* take these incidents as representative of Islam, as much as witch hunting with christianity. Which is not saying that Islam is inherently evil or even does more evil than good. Its simply saying that the religion *is* a contributing cause to unethical behavior.

I mean I can come up with a great religion that has its own code of laws: Rexia Law. And Rexia law is written in pheonician poetry by a revered but eccentric person in a small truck stop town in wyoming. And it says we should do x,y,z but its not Rexia law that's to blame when the inevitable side affects and adverse consequences arise from everyone doing x,y,z. That's human error. Because Rexia Law is perfect as God is perfect. So basically anything that is indefensible and smacking against common sense and prima facie human understanding of ethics : that's a singular rotten apple that's spoiling the bunch. But all the good stuff? that's Rexia law man.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by BB

In fairness, this extreme form of Islam is just that - extreme, and doesn't represent Islam in Pakistan. The Pakistani Supreme court is forming a Bench to investigate it, and the majority of Pakistanis are in uproar about it.

So, to a certain extent, I suppose I am parroting the Myrrh "boilerplate response" provided by Dubman, in that it is easy to take these incidents as representative of all Islam. That would be a little like taking the persecution of "witches" in Kenya as representative of all of Christianity, which it clearly isn't.

...and before anyone says it - yes of course there's a deeper and more widespread problem with Islamic fundamentalism than Christian fundamentalism (including Kenyan witches(!)) - but your point stands.

Funnily enough, I started typing (but deleted) my own boilerplate response, about the futility of asking "what is the real Islam" and how, through a few different twists of the dial of history, a few battles going the other way, we might easily have ended up with Islam as the dominant moderate religion of secular states today, and Christianity or Judaism as the religion latched onto by countries taking a literalist approach to the Bible and using it to justify all manner of oppression.

I accept that the Qur'an isn't the Bible, but there still seems to be sufficient barbaric nonsense in both should a society ever choose to take ANY of them literally and strictly - and I include treatment of women in that. I think we get a bit obsessed with the current extreme notion of violent jihad and Sharia Law that we often forget how much of modern Islamic extremism has its roots in 1980s Afghanistan rather than in some inherent difference in values between Islam and other religions. Personally I'm interested in the political reasons of why this slide away from Afghan progress happened, and why it's continuing to happen. You often hear people dismissing it simply as "that's Islam" or "that's what it says in the Qur'an" or even "that's just how the natives think and behave" - and I think that's just refusing to see the bigger picture, even though Islam is quite clearly the lynchpin.

But then I'm personally sceptical of the belief that we owe our own supposed enlightenment and progressive values to the fact that our societies happened to come from a Judeo-Christian rather than a Muslim origin. I think we (GB followed by the US) just happened to be the victors in enough battles and the wielders of enough power for our own societies to evolve to their current ways (evolve in the sense of affording equal rights, tolerance, free speech, etc to our own citizens if not other countries')

I can only imagine how much further we'd have evolved had we decided to instigate Rexia Law.