Pat Condell on Fitna

semi-pro waster · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:08

Spend_day said:
Yes but where the western world has watered down our faith and chopped out the bit we dont like anymore muslims have not. they have kept to there teaching and now people are starting to use that against them.

I can't decide, are you arguing that as a good point or not?

Spend_day · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:09

RDM said:
Isn't Sharia law with regards to inheritence biased towards men? Are there not more restrictions on women than there are on men?

If an Islamic system isn't a flawed justice system to live under why is it that most Islamic states seem to have flawed justice systems? Are they all getting it wrong?

spend_day said:
also the church for a long time supported the idea that women were less valuable then men. it is unfair to single out Islam like this

also how often do you hear about people pretty much getting away with murder in our justice system. ours is as flawed as theres

manoz · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:10

RDM said:
Isn't Sharia law with regards to inheritence biased towards men? Are there not more restrictions on women than there are on men?

If an Islamic system isn't a flawed justice system to live under why is it that most Islamic states seem to have flawed justice systems? Are they all getting it wrong?

This is where you need to dig deeper into the law, men have a responsibility in the family to provide for the whole family so can't keep everything they get whereas women can keep everything. This point was discussed before I remember.

Spend_day · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:10

semi-pro waster said:
I can't decide, are you arguing that as a good point or not?

im saying that these people chose to stay strong in there faith. where we didnt. not what they did was better just different and we shouldn't hold it against them

RDM · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:12

manoz said:
This is where you need to dig deeper into the law, men have a responsibility in the family to provide for the whole family so can't keep everything they get whereas women can keep everything. This point was discussed before.

And is pretty much invalid in a modern nation. The problem is that Sharia law is based on a book written for a particular culture 1400 years ago. Time moves on, the rules in the book didn't. It seems that maybe God wasn't quite as all seeing as you would have hoped.

RDM · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:14

Spend_day said:
also how often do you hear about people pretty much getting away with murder in our justice system. ours is as flawed as theres

Ours is as flawed as Saudi Arabia? Are you sure about that? Do you actually know much about the law in Saudi? Even by Islamic standards it is pretty nasty.

semi-pro waster · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:16

Spend_day said:
im saying that these people chose to stay strong in there faith. where are's didnt wasn't either was better just different

Not convinced that is a great thing personally, to assume that something from several centuries ago will still maintain the same relevance today isn't something that I find easy to believe in. Some points will undoubtedly remain useful today but if you don't or can't question and discard what you no longer find to be of relevance I think you may be missing a trick somewhere.

manoz · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:17

RDM said:
And is pretty much invalid in a modern nation. The problem is that Sharia law is based on a book written for a particular culture 1400 years ago. Time moves on, the rules in the book didn't. It seems that maybe God wasn't quite as all seeing as you would have hoped.

This is where you could argue whether it WAS a good idea to move on the way WE have now, imo not such a good idea, for the reason we're discussing such a thing

Spend_day · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:17

RDM said:
Ours is as flawed as Saudi Arabia? Are you sure about that? Do you actually know much about the law in Saudi? Even by Islamic standards it is pretty nasty.

no i dont know a huge amount about saudi law except its pretty hardcore. Also i didn't say that our laws were flawed in the same manner but both systems have do have flaws

MookJong · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:18

RDM said:
And is pretty much invalid in a modern nation. The problem is that Sharia law is based on a book written for a particular culture 1400 years ago. Time moves on, the rules in the book didn't. It seems that maybe God wasn't quite as all seeing as you would have hoped.

Yes but it's no different then New Zealand looking at us over 100 years ago and wondering why a modern country like the UK doesn't give women the vote.

The world has only been a small place for the last 50 years, it has a vast heritage which you cannot expect everyone to just suddenly drop, especially those who do not have access to the freedoms and information that you and I have.

These things take time....education takes time

Spend_day · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:21

semi-pro waster said:
Not convinced that is a great thing personally, to assume that something from several centuries ago will still maintain the same relevance today isn't something that I find easy to believe in. Some points will undoubtedly remain useful today but if you don't or can't question and discard what you no longer find to be of relevance I think you may be missing a trick somewhere.

im not conviced either thats why i don't live in a Islamic contry.

RDM · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:21

manoz said:
This is where you could argue whether it WAS a good idea to move on the way WE have now, imo not such a good idea, for the reason we're discussing such a thing

Looking at standards of living now and at standards of living in 700AD I know which one I would prefer. Looking at personal freedom now and personal freedom in 700AD I know which one I would prefer. Looking at being a woman now and being a woman in 700AD I know which one my wife would prefer. Looking at being a homosexual now and a homosexual in 700AD I know which one my gay friends would prefer.

RDM · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:23

MookJong said:
Yes but it's no different then New Zealand looking at us over 100 years ago and wondering why a modern country like the UK doesn't give women the vote.

The world has only been a small place for the last 50 years, it has a vast heritage which you cannot expect everyone to just suddenly drop, especially those who do not have access to the freedoms and information that you and I have.

These things take time....

So in short you are agreeing with me, you just want to give them more time?

MookJong · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:29

RDM said:
So in short you are agreeing with me, you just want to give them more time?

I certainly don't think Sharia law is a good idea, I agree with that.

manoz · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:32

RDM said:
Looking at standards of living now and at standards of living in 700AD I know which one I would prefer. Looking at personal freedom now and personal freedom in 700AD I know which one I would prefer. Looking at being a woman now and being a woman in 700AD I know which one my wife would prefer. Looking at being a homosexual now and a homosexual in 700AD I know which one my gay friends would prefer.

Of course you would but sadly that's not the point I'm trying to make even though it may look it, it's too hard for me to explain lol

mattyrigby00 · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:36

surprised pat condell isn't banned off youtube yet lol.

RDM · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:38

manoz said:
Of course you would but sadly that's not the point I'm trying to make even though it may look it, it's too hard for me to explain lol

So even though living now is generally better for us than it was 1400 years ago and living under an Islamic system would be worse off for women and homosexuals you still think it may have been better to stick to the systems of 1400 years ago? However, you are finding it hard to explain why? I can see why you would find it hard to explain why...

manoz · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:50

RDM said:
So even though living now is generally better for us than it was 1400 years ago and living under an Islamic system would be worse off for women and homosexuals you still think it may have been better to stick to the systems of 1400 years ago? However, you are finding it hard to explain why? I can see why you would find it hard to explain why...

I never put the point across as an absolute whereas you did, I just merely said the way we've moved on in this point in time isn't necessarily a good idea in the context of what could have or could not been. And you're treating the points in a previous point like they are related

Phog · 31 Mar 2008 at 16:56

Nullvoid said:
They already did ages ago in a form of Islam that pre-dates pretty much all of the more extremist interpretations (Ibadism).

Well according to Wikipedia, Ibadism follows this 'religious obligation':

barā'ah: dissociation and hostility towards unbelievers and sinners, and those destined for Hell.

Ok, that's not murdering and savaging people however it is on the same level as say the Westborough Baptist Church. Maybe someone can give me more clarity of the word 'hostility' in that setence as well. This could arguably range from physical violence to feeling of deep-seated ill-will towards non-believers.

Liefrich · 31 Mar 2008 at 17:25

Another Muslim thread, ha!

Well on the whole I find it hard to disagree with what he is saying, I am an atheist and dislike organised religion.

However he goes on to say he is insulted by those Muslims who insult his culture which subsequently insults his values. Well surely he is insulting the Islamic culture and therefore he must be prepared for some backlash. I do not defend extreme Muslims, but there is no need to make sweeping statements, and although he does explain he is only targeting those extremists it just feels like a blanket attack.

Oh and howcome the video cuts out halfway?