AP- TEHRAN, Iran: A man convicted of adultery was stoned to death last week in a village in northern Iran, an Iranian judiciary spokesman said Tuesday, the first time in years that the country has confirmed such an execution.

Jafar Kiani was stoned to death Thursday in Aghchekand, 200 kilometers (124 miles) west of Tehran, said spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi.....
.....Capital offenses in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, apostasy, blasphemy, serious drug trafficking, adultery or prostitution, treason and espionage.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/10/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Stoning.php

This is very sad. And why stoning? Sure, OT. But there is much in the OT that is now ignored, and yet this hangs on. Can you imagine actually watching it? The man screaming and crying out as he is struck time and again, until he is finally silenced?

And the woman involved may face the same fate.

He deserved it. I dont get why they used stones though.

Incredible! He deserved it. For adultery. Monogamy doesn't work particularly well with humans. Many, many people in relationships stray. Why is it anyone's business outside of those involved?

Why not twenty lashes for burping or farting? Cut off a finger for sneezing. Just declare jihad only human frailties.

Only a mind mired in superstition and hate could find this this execution justified.

wow, I've never heard of a man receiving this punishment, only women.

Well the thing is they use different rocks for men.

the Hollywood movie set fake ones??

He deserved it. I dont get why they used stones though.

No matter what the typical response from the Perfect Believer, and Scholar of the Quran, Norsefire, he deserved it, another True believe Yusuf Islam has the same opinion about Salman Rushdie, and S.A.M. believes that anyone killed by the Peaceful Jihad of Islam in the Middle East deserves it, after all it is done in the name of Allah, the utterance of that name justifies all actions of the Moslems terrorist.

He deserved it. I dont get why they used stones though.

mans inhumanity to man. right before our very eyes we see it.

and after that muslims will just dont understand why we dont like them.

He deserved it. I dont get why they used stones though.

Are you from a backward village? Or are all Syrians this forward thinking?

and after that muslims will just dont understand why we dont like them.

Indeed

He deserved it. I dont get why they used stones though.

You are barbaric!

The guy must have know this was the price for the game he was playing if he got caught. You play you pay. Its that simple. There is nothing surprising about this.

The guy must have know this was the price for the game he was playing if he got caught. You play you pay. Its that simple. There is nothing surprising about this.

Bull.

Bull.

Not everywhere is as lax about adultery as we are. In all fairness, the people over there would probably be amazed at the concept of getting a ticket and fine for j-walking and not a punishment for adultery. Different societies have different concerns.

Not everywhere is as lax about adultery as we are. In all fairness, the people over there would probably be amazed at the concept of getting a ticket and fine for j-walking and not a punishment for adultery. Different societies have different concerns.

I disagree. You cannot compare a fine for J-walking with a death sentence for adultary. It does not add up. In principle, I think that capital punsihment is a sign of barbarism. Most civilized countries on this planet abonded it long ago. I dont think that anyone ever documented that it has a preventive effect.

Also, accepting this on the grounds of cultural differences is a dangurous form of cultural relativism. This is setting a culture which allows for thatequal ours. It equals to my mind, that antisemitism was a part of german culture in the early 20th century, so we must accept the holocaust.

The regime in Iran is so oppressive, his adultary might have been a way of rebellion, even though he knew of the consequnces.

Is adultry in Iran when both people are married others or just one of them or neither of them?

I disagree. You cannot compare a fine for J-walking with a death sentence for adultary. It does not add up. In principle, I think that capital punsihment is a sign of barbarism. Most civilized countries on this planet abonded it long ago. I dont think that anyone ever documented that it has a preventive effect.

Also, accepting this on the grounds of cultural differences is a dangurous form of cultural relativism. This is setting a culture which allows for thatequal ours. It equals to my mind, that antisemitism was a part of german culture in the early 20th century, so we must accept the holocaust.

The regime in Iran is so oppressive, his adultary might have been a way of rebellion, even though he knew of the consequnces.

All countries have their own standards of morality. e.g. China just executed their head of FDA.

No one blinks at torture of terrorists. Invasion of countries for oil is considered a pragmatic solution to the energy crisis. Instead of pointing fingers, it is more productive to engage in dialogue. When you grow up in a certain kind of society, it takes education and exposure to other kinds of society to enlarge your perspective and think twice about your personal values and moral beliefs.

I disagree. You cannot compare a fine for J-walking with a death sentence for adultary. It does not add up. In principle, I think that capital punsihment is a sign of barbarism. Most civilized countries on this planet abonded it long ago. I dont think that anyone ever documented that it has a preventive effect.

Also, accepting this on the grounds of cultural differences is a dangurous form of cultural relativism. This is setting a culture which allows for thatequal ours. It equals to my mind, that antisemitism was a part of german culture in the early 20th century, so we must accept the holocaust.

The regime in Iran is so oppressive, his adultary might have been a way of rebellion, even though he knew of the consequnces.

You are obviously a more moral person than those nuts in Iran. You should probably go over there and set the whole country straight. Get over yourself already. Not everyone thinks like you do and (gasp) if you were raised to believe what they do you would think like they do and do what they do.

His adultery was a way of telling the government to f-off? Thats a new one for me.

You stop stoning people for adultery;
it's the start of a slippery slope;
you start letting people consume alcohol;
you stop labelling bastards as bastards;
you start letting people smoke dope;
you stop beheading queers;
you start permitting pornography;
you stop cutting the hands off thieves;
you start giving handouts to unmarried mothers;
you stop hanging murderers;
finally you get a complete breakdown of family values;
ultimately the collapse of civilisation! :(

Don't like it? Don't live there; simple as that. Sovereign countries are free to have whatever laws they choose.

- N

Don't like it? Don't live there; simple as that. Sovereign countries are free to have whatever laws they choose.

- N

Great advise.

Instead of pointing fingers, it is more productive to engage in dialogue.

I thought you got all pissed off when people tried the "dialogue thingy".

Meh, whatever.

I thought you got all pissed off when people tried the "dialogue thingy".

Meh, whatever.

Oh I never engage in dialogue with self professed haters. No point really.

Oh, couldn't agree with you more.

wow, I've never heard of a man receiving this punishment, only women.

It's more common for men to receive the punishment, as this is also the punishment for rape.

Well, what's your opinion of it, Diamond? Is it a rational punishment?

Well, what's your opinion of it, Diamond? Is it a rational punishment?

It depends on what the Iranian people as a whole desire.

Death for adultery?

Please take your attitudes elsewhere.

Incredible! He deserved it. For adultery. Monogamy doesn't work particularly well with humans. Many, many people in relationships stray. Why is it anyone's business outside of those involved?

Not talking about "monogamy" here. Where talking adultery. Two different things. Should one be stoned to death for it? Not my country, not the law I live under. As desi stated, they knew the rules of the game they were playing. They accepted the good of it, not they gotta accept the bad. If the US had the same law no one would be harping about how unfair it was when Uncle Franklin was stoned to death...

It's is the business of the people involved.... the husband and/or wife, children, etc of the person who committed adultery.

I disagree. You cannot compare a fine for J-walking with a death sentence for adultary. It does not add up. In principle, I think that capital punsihment is a sign of barbarism. Most civilized countries on this planet abonded it long ago. I dont think that anyone ever documented that it has a preventive effect.

We Americans still practice the fine art of capital punishment. We are good at it. Just ask our beloved President. He loved flipping the switch while running the great state of Texas. But then you did say "civilized countries". My mistake.

All countries have their own standards of morality. e.g. China just executed their head of FDA.

No one blinks at torture of terrorists. Invasion of countries for oil is considered a pragmatic solution to the energy crisis. Instead of pointing fingers, it is more productive to engage in dialogue. When you grow up in a certain kind of society, it takes education and exposure to other kinds of society to enlarge your perspective and think twice about your personal values and moral beliefs.

What do you know. Capitial punishment is barbaric in all countires, pointing to a book which is 2000 years old, and say "it says here you must die" is also wrong. Why must I respect that? What dialouge are you talking about? They are doing Gods bidding, so how can their be discussion with them?

In europe we are blinking at the toture of terrorist. The yanks are just as barbaric, but they are of course led by a christian fundamentalist. Just as bad.

Being against killing people for petty adultary, I dont think I need to think twice about my values and moral beliefs.

All countries have their own standards of morality.
All hail the moral relativist. Everything is equal. Female genital mutilation, apartheid, genocide. It's all cool. So long as anyone but the US does it, that is.

You are obviously a more moral person than those nuts in Iran. You should probably go over there and set the whole country straight. Get over yourself already. Not everyone thinks like you do and (gasp) if you were raised to believe what they do you would think like they do and do what they do.

His adultery was a way of telling the government to f-off? Thats a new one for me.

Well, Iran has a large drug problem, especially of opium and heroin (about 2 mio people out of a population of 70 mio). It tells me that a lot of people are not happy with their lives. Remember that this regime only took over some 30 years ago. It was not always like that in Iran. Just count the number of refugees from Iran after the revolution. Do you honestly belive that they would not choose a different system if they had the free choice?

stoning to death adulterers great method of population control
also could help make some space in the house of representatives and houses of parliament and that's just for starters

and after that muslims will just dont understand why we dont like them.

A-men. At least they are stoning MEN now... and not just women. Though, I'm willing to bet that this was to just "show" that it isn't just women who get killed for wandering.

Wonder if they have running water there?

~String

All hail the moral relativist. Everything is equal. Female genital mutilation, apartheid, genocide. It's all cool. So long as anyone but the US does it, that is.

Sure, as long as they keep it within their borders and the people who live there consider it legal. When they start exporting their culture by force, that's when there is a problem.

Things like FGM and stoning for adultery are actually a sign of poor exposure to other cultures and also lack of education. Things like supporting terrorists for oil is another matter altogether.

What do you know. Capitial punishment is barbaric in all countires, pointing to a book which is 2000 years old, and say "it says here you must die" is also wrong. Why must I respect that? What dialouge are you talking about? They are doing Gods bidding, so how can their be discussion with them?

In europe we are blinking at the toture of terrorist. The yanks are just as barbaric, but they are of course led by a christian fundamentalist. Just as bad.

Being against killing people for petty adultary, I dont think I need to think twice about my values and moral beliefs.

You live in a culture that is not only very recent in its values, it is also nonsustainable without exploitation of a lot of resources and people. So perhaps you should look at the bigger picture before pontificating.

What are you talking about? Seriously.

What are you talking about? Seriously.

You're defending values that are superficial in your own culture.

And you are an expert in our values?

And you are an expert in our values?

You could debate the point instead of my qualifications.

Ok, then explain your claim that the values are only superficial in our soceity.

Ok, then explain your claim that the values are only superficial in our soceity.

Pick one. Start a new thread, maybe

Sorry?

Sorry?

Pick any value that you think is considered important in your society, by your society.

Freedom of speach. (As you may know this was a big topic last year).

The right for anyone to express their belief, thoughts and opinions, regardless how stupid.

Sure, as long as they keep it within their borders and the people who live there consider it legal. When they start exporting their culture by force, that's when there is a problem.

Come on, Sam: you can't really consider that kind of moral relativism ok. What if it were considered legal to oppress people on basis of, say, their religion? What if the law in the West were that muslims had to pay an extra tax on top of their regular taxes, or had to practice it only in private? What if people were killed or imprisoned for changing religion? Would that be just?

and after that muslims will just dont understand why we dont like them.

It's got nothing to do with religion, only culture. Since ages stones have been used as a method of killing and punishing people around the world (it's even mentioned in the Bible) and that means Iran must be standing somewhere in that era.

I'm personally against any kind of execution, but they should have treated him like they did to those two 14 years old homosexuals. Quick and painless.

Come on, Sam: you can't really consider that kind of moral relativism ok. What if it were considered legal to oppress people on basis of, say, their religion? What if the law in the West were that muslims had to pay an extra tax on top of their regular taxes, or had to practice it only in private? What if people were killed or imprisoned for changing religion? Would that be just?

You'd have the choice to stay or move out. Like in Saudi Arabia.

Or do you think that everyone should embrace Western values because they are so obviously superior?

What if the Saudi Arabians think like that about their values? Would that be alright with you? Being forced to embrace values alien to your culture?

Freedom of speach. (As you may know this was a big topic last year).

The right for anyone to express their belief, thoughts and opinions, regardless how stupid.

Is that why Tariq Ramadan is banned in the US?

You'd have the choice to stay or move out. Like in Saudi Arabia.

Come on. These are people's homes, here. Because they don't agree with being stoned they shouldn't live there? Can they even afford to move? Why should their economic suffering be the state's business?

Or do you think that everyone should embrace Western values because they are so obviously superior?

Yeah, when the alternative is stoning adulterers or apostates. Sure.

What if the Saudi Arabians think like that about their values? Would that be alright with you? Being forced to embrace values alien to your culture?

1) Well, they do think like that. That's why Saudi religious interests are being actively exported worldwide via Saudi petrodollars. I fight against it because these values are not too humanitarian from an absolutist stance; and how can there be other than absolute humanitarianism?

2) Allow me to remind you that you (and others) claim the moral superiority of islamic culture in the Gulf specifically because Mohammed prohibited the infanticide of female babies, and because he limited the number of wives to four instead of (as the admittedly historically challenged Qa'Dark believes) hundreds. In other words, broke the back of a hostile polytheism. Now, that strikes me as a notable deviation from the moral relativism you're arguing above. So is moral relativism all right to a point? Why are you now defending lapidation? When you criticize other cultures about their problems - many of which I indeed agree with - how does this fit into your suddenly discovered moral relativistic stance?

Actually, ol' Tariq is down with the stoning too. "Moratorium for further investigation" my arse.

Come on. These are people's homes, here. Because they don't agree with being stoned they shouldn't live there? Can they even afford to move? Why should their economic suffering be the state's business?



Yeah, when the alternative is stoning adulterers or apostates. Sure.



1) Well, they do think like that. That's why Saudi religious interests are being actively exported worldwide via Saudi petrodollars. I fight against it because these values are not too humanitarian from an absolutist stance; and how can there be other than absolute humanitarianism?

2) Allow me to remind you that you (and others) claim the moral superiority of islamic culture in the Gulf specifically because Mohammed prohibited the infanticide of female babies, and because he limited the number of wives to four instead of (as the admittedly historically challenged Qa'Dark believes) hundreds. In other words, broke the back of a hostile polytheism. Now, that strikes me as a notable deviation from the moral relativism you're arguing above. So is moral relativism all right to a point? Why are you now defending lapidation? When you criticize other cultures about their problems - many of which I indeed agree with - how does this fit into your suddenly discovered moral relativistic stance?

Like I said, you have the choice to move if you don't like where you live. I am totally against outsiders telling the locals how to lead their lives, we had enough of that for the 200 years the British told us how backward we were. And as for exporting interests, so is MacDonalds and Starbucks. But thats only where people want it, right?

And my stance is to merely point out foreign policy (ie interference with sovereign states); all others are mere opinions; everyone is allowed opinions.

Like I said, you have the choice to move if you don't like where you live. I am totally against outsiders telling the locals how to lead their lives, we had enough of that for the 200 years the British told us how backward we were. And as for exporting interests, so is MacDonalds and Starbucks. But thats only where people want it, right?

You're imagining I support McDonald's or Starbucks: I don't...well except economically occasionally. (Damned Big Macs.) But is Ronald going out and stoning people to death? No. I think it’s a dangerous thing, too, but no one is forced to eat it. No one is going to walk up and pelt you to death with hamburgers.

I agree with you that outsiders should not be telling the locals how to live – within reason. Yet I don’t call lapidation or mortal punishment for adultery or religious apostacy or blasphemy “reasonable”. The Christians don’t do it any more. The Jews don’t. No one does! And anyone who does do is wrong, period. I wouldn’t give a fuck if it was in Das Kapital or if the International Socialists held a rally for it; it’s wrong, and I don’t care who does it, it’s still wrong.

Let’s consider the “bossy outsiders” issue a bit further. You’re “totally against telling the locals how to live”, and I agree. But what about when the outsiders are telling them how to irrigate, or giving them inoculations against disease – what about when the unpleasant foreigners are helping? Is that unwelcome too? And in what category, exactly, does the outsider opinion of “don’t stone people to death for adultery, because that’s fucked up” fall then? Is it negative, somehow, this silly opinion they have for thinking that adultery – bad as it is – doesn’t require mortal punishment? Especially as rape requires four witnesses and otherwise falls into the area of zina? How much exploitation is a system like that open to? And apostacy – does a man need to die because he changes religion? Is that fair? Is it right? So which kind of outside influence does criticism – mere criticism, mind you, not even enforced moratoria – of the latter constitute? Negative? Positive? How about for the victims? What might they feel about the importance of the canonicity of social religion as they stand in front of the pockmarked wall and the rifles come up? I appreciate the "choice to move", but how about the right not to be killed for changing religion, or going out with the wrong person, or committing adultery? Is not this “choice to move” we’re discussing the exact same as your criticism of Hugh Ferguson for opining that if hostility and extremism continue to mount in the muslim communities in the West that they should, similarly be forced out? Join in or get out?

This “let alone” relativist stance of yours is in contrast to your previous one about the wrongfulness of the pagan Arabs; but could not their response to you be the same? “If you don’t like it, move”. You – and others – have no trouble damning the ancient Arabs for their attitudes, but are a little loathe to criticize some of the more appalling practices of Islamic societies from the perspective of a Westerner.

And why? What for? To protect this Allah fellow, the same as burning heretics used to protect God? Can He really be so badly damaged by words, by heresy, by adultery? He’s a sensitive soul, then. Same for the Vatican pushing abstention and fighting birth control in Africa: it doesn’t work, it spreads disease, it means death. It’s the religious arm pushing its nose in where it doesn’t need to be, and where it causes pain. Again: what in hell for? Do all these gods feed on suffering or something? Or is it something theists are silently nodding along with, because making sure everyone follows a set of partially arbitrary rules helps smother their own insecurities? Because it makes everything simpler and cleaner? Life isn’t clean or simple, either now or in some long-forgotten by-the-by past.

And my stance is to merely point out foreign policy (ie interference with sovereign states); all others are mere opinions; everyone is allowed opinions.

As you like; but my stance is to point out the domestic policy of foreign states, which is to say ‘how they treat their own’. Killing people for adultery and apostacy is wrong, period. These are – as some interpretations would agree, among the Sufis I would imagine, and others – matters between a person and their spouse, or their god. Secular strongarms need not apply.

Sorry about all the question marks; I have been described as a highly questionable commentator. ;)

You can point out all you like, as I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But all societies have to grow at a rate that they can adjust to, rather than what someone else thinks is right for them. And without outside interference, they most certainly will. With outside interference, they are more likely to cling to the familiar over the foreign.

Without outside interference, they still have not done so. When will they? And what about the victims in the interim? Sacrifices to progress?

Things like Female Genital Mutilation and stoning for adultery are actually a sign of poor exposure to other cultures and also lack of education.
That's right. It's not their fault. It's our fault for not educating them.

But wait! I thought you said we shouldn't impose our evil values on other cultures? And then you say their barbaric practices are the result of not being exposed to other cultures...........
Or do you think that everyone should embrace Western values because they are so obviously superior?
Why do they need to be exposed to other cultures and educated if all cultures are equal? If the Western value of not ripping a young girls clitorus out with a sharp stone is not superior, why is that practice a sign of not being exposed to other cultures?

That's right. It's not their fault. It's our fault for not educating them.

But wait! I thought you said we shouldn't impose our evil values on other cultures? And then you say their barbaric practices are the result of not being exposed to other cultures...........
Why do they need to be exposed to other cultures and educated if all cultures are equal? If the Western value of not ripping a young girls clitorus out with a sharp stone is not superior, why is that practice a sign of not being exposed to other cultures?


That's actually a dishonest argument and classic sly cognitive dissonance. There are positive and negative, superior and inferior aspects of all cultures. Just because that practice is inferior doesn't automatically equate that all aspects of western culture are superior as well. Actually, their more severe penalties for some serious crimes may be better in other cultures versus the west. Sometimes thats the way it works and that's why we continually try to learn, improve and change often learning from others what we lack or fail to percieve.

Is that why Tariq Ramadan is banned in the US?

I cannot vouch for the americans. They are somewhat appart in all this. I think that american view on these issues is quite different from the western european view (such as capital punishment, the patriot act and so on). Recently the moderation of Tariq Ramadan has been put into question. There has been, and still is, doubts in some circles that he is sincere in his moderate stance on crtical issues. Some muslim politicians here in Denmark are in doubt about him.

In any case, critics in the US say that he supports suicide bombings, hence they have not allowed him to enter the US. But I dont think he is under direct censorship? Not in europe as far as I know. Muslim organisations in Denmark he is seen as a reformer. But, as he lives in europe so he is free to do so. I have not studied what he says, only articles about him. I doubt he would be allowed to do that in Saudi Arabia.

That's actually a dishonest argument and classic sly cognitive dissonance. There are positive and negative, superior and inferior aspects of all cultures. Just because that practice is inferior doesn't automatically equate that all aspects of western culture are superior as well. Not at all. I never said all aspects of Western Culture are superior to any other. Quite the contrary. I think we are decadent and that our refusal to judge other cultures is part of our decadence.

The idea that a concept or practice should be rejected out of hand because it comes from another culture is absurd. But even more absurd is the idea that a concept or practice should be accepted because it is from another culture.

SAM was saying we should not judge the barbaric practice of the intentional mutilation of female genetalia by our standards. The implication is that all cultures and all cultural practices are equal.

I don't buy that. Certain practices are adhorent, and I don't give a crap what your "culture" says about it.

Good Morning all

I have followed this thread with great interest..

Justa couple fo comments which stuck out on the first page


He deserved it. I dont get why they used stones though.

Norsefire...Thanks for this really productive statement you just made:rolleyes: extremely disappointing

and after that muslims will just dont understand why we dont like them.
Spocky.... Thats really disappointing that you think that!

Are you from a backward village? Or are all Syrians this forward thinking?
Indeed Sam
You are barbaric!
Indeed Mighty Bell

A-men.



~String

I expected better from you Mr String, hugely disappointing attitutude.

No , another True believe Yusuf Islam has the same opinion about Salman Rushdie, .
Hey buffalo,

Yusuf islam has never admitted to supoporting the faatwa


anyway look what he's up to nowadays

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrKiPdXbPno


~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

\

SAM was saying we should not judge the barbaric practice of the intentional mutilation of female genetalia by our standards. The implication is that all cultures and all cultural practices are equal.


Please show where I said that.

From Juan Cole:

AP reported on March 8, 1989, that "Cat Stevens Endorses Rushdie Death Sentence Again," writing:


' Former pop singer Cat Stevens reiterated his support for the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's death sentence against Salman Rushdie, saying the author's treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart." . . . "It's got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again," Stevens said in an interview with the television show "World Monitor," produced by The Christian Science Monitor . . Stevens, who said the novel's treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart," suggested that Rushdie should repent writing the book. "If he manages to escape (the death sentence) he still has to face God on the day of judgment," he said. "So I would recommend to him to sincerely change his ways right now." '
http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html

And Wikipedia also confirms that Stevens said these things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens'_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie

From Juan Cole:

AP reported on March 8, 1989, that "Cat Stevens Endorses Rushdie Death Sentence Again," writing:


' Former pop singer Cat Stevens reiterated his support for the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's death sentence against Salman Rushdie, saying the author's treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart." . . . "It's got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again," Stevens said in an interview with the television show "World Monitor," produced by The Christian Science Monitor . . Stevens, who said the novel's treatment of Islam was "as good as stabbing Moslems in the heart," suggested that Rushdie should repent writing the book. "If he manages to escape (the death sentence) he still has to face God on the day of judgment," he said. "So I would recommend to him to sincerely change his ways right now." '
http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html

And Wikipedia also confirms that Stevens said these things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens'_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie

Hi repo,

thanks, but i cant seem to find the article in the link you provided

, or you could read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/04/29/svcat29.xml&page=3

~~~~~~~
cheers
zak

Hi repo,

thanks, but i cant seem to find the article in the link you provided

, or you could read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/04/29/svcat29.xml&page=3

~~~~~~~
cheers
zak

Control F, type stevens. And/or look at the Wikipedia page.

But I have a hard time rushing to Yusuf Islam's defense because I never forgave him for advocating the execution of Salman Rushdie in 1989. He endorsed Khomeini's "fatwa" or death edict against Rushdie for the novel, Satanic Verses. He later explained this position away by saying that he did not endorse vigilante action against Rushdie, but would rather want the verdict to be carried out by a proper court. These are weasel words, since he was saying that if Khomeini had been able to field some Revolutionary Guards in London to kidnap Rushdie and take him to Tehran, it would have been just dandy if he were then taken out and shot for having written his novel. In my view, that entire episode of the Khomeini fatwa showed how sick some forms of Muslim activism had become, and served as a foretaste of al-Qaeda's own death warrant served on a lot of other innocent people.

Hey buffalo,

Yusuf islam has never admitted to supoporting the faatwa

Hey zak, hope all's well.

Actually, yeah, he did support it. Saw the vid a long time ago. Something like how if Rushdie turned up on his doorstep he'd go "tell the Ayatollah on him".

Later,

Geoff

That's actually a dishonest argument and classic sly cognitive dissonance. There are positive and negative, superior and inferior aspects of all cultures. Just because that practice is inferior doesn't automatically equate that all aspects of western culture are superior as well. Actually, their more severe penalties for some serious crimes may be better in other cultures versus the west. Sometimes thats the way it works and that's why we continually try to learn, improve and change often learning from others what we lack or fail to percieve.

That was my point precisely, but I think you're pointing fingers at the wrong poster.

Please show where I said that.

You did say "if they don't like [X], they should move". That's the same deal, basically. If no one supports it, really, should they all move?

And here is the footage of that show, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7KnWHDFsjo

Screw that guy in a major way. And he's supposed to represent the reasonable face of his religion?

Incredible! He deserved it. For adultery. Monogamy doesn't work particularly well with humans. Many, many people in relationships stray. Why is it anyone's business outside of those involved?

Why not twenty lashes for burping or farting? Cut off a finger for sneezing. Just declare jihad only human frailties.

Only a mind mired in superstition and hate could find this this execution justified.
Yeah... imagine what you would get for picking your nose... !! :eek:

You stop stoning people for adultery;
it's the start of a slippery slope;
you start letting people consume alcohol;
you stop labelling bastards as bastards;
you start letting people smoke dope;
you stop beheading queers;
you start permitting pornography;
you stop cutting the hands off thieves;
you start giving handouts to unmarried mothers;
you stop hanging murderers;
finally you get a complete breakdown of family values;
ultimately the collapse of civilisation! :(
Are you talking about america? :D

stoning in the middle east is not just a government sanctioned policy -- it's the culture.
it goes to show the difference between our extremists and their extremists

You did say "if they don't like [X], they should move". That's the same deal, basically. If no one supports it, really, should they all move?

If no one supports it, they don't need to move do they? Are you high or something?:confused:

What if the government and the clerics support it? Can they get a voucher? What is the fiqhing best possible answer?

What if the government and the clerics support it? Can they get a voucher? What is the fiqhing best possible answer?

Unless the people are comfortable with the system or can't be arsed to change it, there is no way a government could continue it IF (and that's a big IF) they did not have continued outside support to keep the people subjugated. Follow the money, I always say; thats where you'll find the roots of the problem.

Ahhhh - so it's the American's fault again: gotcha. And in all 64 islamic states too, and all islamic territories all the way back to Mo himself. 1400 years. Wow. But how? You do realize the average deLorean can't really travel forwards and backwards in time? A fine automobile anyway, though.

However, I suspect you might have hit on the answer accidentally with your "comfortability" comment. People do so hate change...or difference, even. And there's such a great degree of variability in theistic monocultures. Now just hold on and lemme see if I can think of a couple.

The money is in shooting converts? News to me. Economics is such a strange voodoo. I always thought the Yanks were working against Iran, for example. Linky winky:

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1110284713

Ahhhh - so it's the American's fault again: gotcha. And in all 64 islamic states too, and all islamic territories all the way back to Mo himself. 1400 years. Wow. But how? You do realize the average deLorean can't really travel forwards and backwards in time? A fine automobile anyway, though.

However, I suspect you might have hit on the answer accidentally with your "comfortability" comment. People do so hate change...or difference, even. And there's such a great degree of variability in theistic monocultures. Now just hold on and lemme see if I can think of a couple.

The money is in shooting converts? News to me. Economics is such a strange voodoo. I always thought the Yanks were working against Iran, for example. Linky winky:

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1110284713

Is that why they are funding Sunni insurgents in Iran and Iraq? To bring about world peace? Or a civil war? Which of the two is more likely d'you think? When was stoning reinstated into Iranian law d'you think? Can you guess? Musta seemed a whole step forward from metal chairs with electrodes, doncha think?

So the US are funding present day Iran too? Their geopolitical strategy seems a bit inept, then. Did they fund all those other dictatorships in the past, too, then?

So the US are funding present day Iran too? Their geopolitical strategy seems a bit inept, then. Did they fund all those other dictatorships in the past, too, then?

They funded the Shah, his son is still trying for a comeback, and they are funding the Sunnis in Iran, those peace loving Balochis affiliated to the Talibam. Thats how they worked the last time they tried a coup; the Shah's son is all ready to step into the breach (from his "exile" in the US of course).

But I wouldn't be surprised if, like all their other tactics, this one, too blows up in their faces. Arrogance aside, I don't blame them for wanting to avert a depression, but economics catches up with politics sooner or later.

It's wierd that you blame the Balochis generally for the terrorism presumably used by a few of them to fight the forces of the imperialist oil-profiteering Iranians. Baluchistan wants freedom and you stoop to defending Big Iranian Oil? At least the Baluchistani freedom fighters hit military targets.

Now, back to the subject: are the Americans funding all 64 islamic states worldwide? Did they also fund and support those states prior to their own existence? Can all humanitarian violations in islamic politics be blamed on the Yanks, in history as well as in perpetuity? How does that work?

Let people do as they want within their own borders. If the Iraqis wanted to get rid of Saddam they should have risen up themselves. That's how the British got rid of the power of the monarchy, and how Americans got rid of the Brits. You can't act as the World Police. If people want Sharia law, who are you to oppose them. Leave people to run their own countries.

That's just fine for the folks who want to live in Hell, but what of the others? I mean, it's not like the U.S. is about to open its arms and borders to welcome hordes of dark-skinned, non-Christian refugees. Not that it will be solely an American issue, but I won't leave them there to rot. How many million Arab Muslim refugees from fascism can Britain accommodate? Australia? France? Ooh, how 'bout Japan? What do we do with the diaspora that would result? Poland? Denmark? And who the hell was it that sent the bomb-squad monkeys? How many can they take?

Can, or will? There's another pretty question.

Likewise, I sometimes think that if the Confederacy decided to secede again, we ought to let them. But I wouldn't be able to look the innocent victims in the eye.

So I suppose it would be convenient if I didn't have to. Something about "will" goes here.

If the US was perfect, these countries would be knocking at your door asking how you do it. America isn't perfect, and they're not knocking. Unwanted interference is causing more harm than good.

should it matter to anyone else but those who are married? if you stray then there is somthing missing in your relationship, and anyway some people will stay together and work on what they have with each other, i dont think stoning anyone to death for adultery is right.