The Outsider Posted January 29, 2009 Author Posted January 29, 2009 That is ownage. Yeah, truly. First I accuse you of saying that the Earth is flat and when I have proved it is round, let it be called ownage despite the fact you never called the Earth flat in the first place.
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 sometime back psec pest were trumpetting indonesia as their model shariah state along with malaysia.. we already knew the reality of malaysia now comes indonesia with ban of YOGA.. great stuff
kumble_rocks Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Who the heck is trying to defend Shariah? Tell me something, simple. Do you see any difference between the following 2 sentences : 1. I have no major issues with Shariah as practised in certain states. 2. I support Shariah. We are discussing 1, not 2. -. Agree that 1 is not same is 2... the bigger question I have for you is how do you even suggest that you have no issues with 1 . I thought you are a liberal !
kumble_rocks Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 I have been waiting for an answer on that for past 3 yrs .... :giggle: My opinion is according to his brand of liberalism ... Islam = In Danger.. hence needs to be protected at any cost like an endagered species. It doesnt occur to him that the likes of Jinnah and Iqbal also operated on the same lines :winky: To be fair , he does a valid point about the lifestyle of folks in certain muslim countries. Why do you think Bollywood is so popular Dubai /Bahrain / Jordan etc are hardly Saudi !
Macj Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Who the heck is trying to defend Shariah? Tell me something, simple. Do you see any difference between the following 2 sentences : 1. I have no major issues with Shariah as practised in certain states. 2. I support Shariah. We are discussing 1, not 2. If you don't there is no point stretching this discussion further, as I'll just accept nuances in language are beyond the understanding of a few, even though the English grammar book might say otherwise. What a misguided statement, there is no 'as practised in certain states', once of the fundamental precepts of Sharia is it has to be implemented completely. You cant implement selected portions of it.
The Outsider Posted January 30, 2009 Author Posted January 30, 2009 Agree that 1 is not same is 2... the bigger question I have for you is how do you even suggest that you have no issues with 1 . I thought you are a liberal ! Okay, there is reasonable freedom of religion in these places. I have not come across any news reports suggesting minorities are being oppressed in any systematic manner by the state or otherwise, you can wear pretty much what you want(under reasonable restrictions common to most Asian countries), you can eat and drink pretty much anything you want(again under reasonable restrictions like you won't find Pork at all places, just as you won't find Beef in India very commonly). Dubai, Kuwait, and Bahrain are home to thousands of corporate offices with people working from all around the world. I have personally been to Dubai for a few days and did not find anything which restricted a normal life that I would lead and has a very cosmopolitan feel to it, certainly at par if not more than Bombay. Are they ideal states as far as my ideals are concerned? Far from it, but they are certainly much better off than China for instance and would not be very far off from most countries in Asia or South/Latin America as far as human rights and ground realities are concerned. Yes, they might have some horrible laws in the books, but one can find such horrific laws in all countries including the US. The important things is whether they are actually ever implemented on the ground and how the conditions in reality are. Now, why should I have any major issues with the ground realities in these places when I don't have any major issues with the ground realities in India. Our police tortures people regularly, people get arrested and thrown into jail for spreading HIV awareness, teenagers were arrested with criminal charges against them for cheating in exams, caste and religion based discrimination are prevelant despite what the law books might say, people of one state attack and terrorize immigrants from other states, movie theaters get vandalized for a hero speaking out against a dam, riots happen almost every year, governments arbitrarily impose prohibition etc. etc. Despite all this I am reasonably okay with things in India for a common man. These incidents are terrible, should be condemned, and all efforts and steps should be made to make sure they are not repeated. But does all that make India a draconian state. I don't think so.
kumble_rocks Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Okay, there is reasonable freedom of religion in these places. I have not come across any news reports suggesting minorities are being oppressed in any systematic manner by the state or otherwise, you can wear pretty much what you want(under reasonable restrictions common to most Asian countries), you can eat and drink pretty much anything you want(again under reasonable restrictions like you won't find Pork at all places, just as you won't find Beef in India very commonly). Dubai, Kuwait, and Bahrain are home to thousands of corporate offices with people working from all around the world. I have personally been to Dubai for a few days and did not find anything which restricted a normal life that I would lead and has a very cosmopolitan feel to it, certainly at par if not more than Bombay. Are they ideal states as far as my ideals are concerned? Far from it, but they are certainly much better off than China for instance and would not be very far off from most countries in Asia or South/Latin America as far as human rights and ground realities are concerned. Yes, they might have some horrible laws in the books, but one can find such horrific laws in all countries including the US. The important things is whether they are actually ever implemented on the ground and how the conditions in reality are. Now, why should I have any major issues with the ground realities in these places when I don't have any major issues with the ground realities in India. Our police tortures people regularly, people get arrested and thrown into jail for spreading HIV awareness, teenagers were arrested with criminal charges against them for cheating in exams, caste and religion based discrimination are prevelant despite what the law books might say, people of one state attack and terrorize immigrants from other states, movie theaters get vandalized for a hero speaking out against a dam, riots happen almost every year, governments arbitrarily impose prohibition etc. etc. Despite all this I am reasonably okay with things in India for a common man. These incidents are terrible, should be condemned, and all efforts and steps should be made to make sure they are not repeated. But does all that make India a draconian state. I don't think so. Good Post . I kind of agree with you about Dubai and Bahrain and the fact that it is reasonably liberal. But , with due respect would beg to differ on the highlighted portion. Like you mention , their are two aspects to the governance of any country . One being the existence of laws and the other being the implementation of these laws. In your third paragraph you mention issues with India and rightly so , but those fall under faulty implementation.But we follow secular preamble which does not contain laws enforceable in a court but, no law can be enacted or amended in a manner that violates the spirit of the preamble. At least , that' what our founding father envisioned it to be. So one is guaranteed basic bill of rights .Politicians make horrible laws and is not allowed by the constitution. And I am not aware of any horrible laws in USA . Can you name one such law which belie on the basic of bill of rights . Compare this with Sharia ! The whole concept of Sharia is non separation of church and state , au contraire in countries like USA , UK , India etc it calls for separation of church and state . Even Dubai allows polygamy which obviously is derived from Sharia . Basic fundamental rights like right to marry, right to religious freedom is impugned upon by Sharia. But I guess I get your point somewhat about you being okay with diluted form of Sharia . And the point I want to drive is , it is not okay because one should be okay with secular preamble and nothing else. Implementation is next .
The Outsider Posted January 30, 2009 Author Posted January 30, 2009 Good Post . I kind of agree with you about Dubai and Bahrain and the fact that it is reasonably liberal. But ' date=' with due respect would beg to differ on the highlighted portion. Like you mention , their are two aspects to the governance of any country . One being the existence of laws and the other being the implementation of these laws. In your third paragraph you mention issues with India and rightly so , but those fall under faulty implementation.But we follow secular preamble which does not contain laws enforceable in a court but, no law can be enacted or amended in a manner that violates the spirit of the preamble. At least , that' what our founding father envisioned it to be. So one is guaranteed basic bill of rights .Politicians make horrible laws and is not allowed by the constitution. And I am not aware of any horrible laws in USA . Can you name one such law which belie on the basic of bill of rights . Compare this with Sharia ! The whole concept of Sharia is non separation of church and state , au contraire in countries like USA , UK , India etc it calls for separation of church and state . Even Dubai allows polygamy which obviously is derived from Sharia . Basic fundamental rights like right to marry, right to religious freedom is impugned upon by Sharia. But I guess I get your point somewhat about you being okay with diluted form of Sharia . And the point I want to drive is , it is not okay because one should be okay with secular preamble and nothing else. Implementation is next .[/quote'] See, the existence of laws and how ideally there should be separation of chruch and state and a uniform civil code was not the point of discussion here. And I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that it is the ideal form of governance and social democracies like the Scandanavian countries are closest to my ideal form of laws and governance. The point of dicussion here is the second part, implementation, and the ground realities. It's in that context that I have said that I don't have any major issues with the ground realities of certain states, even though officially they are under Shariah. And the ground realities in India regarding implementation are pretty bad. I mean, not even the most one eyed person would be able to say that caste system is not a ground reality in India despite it being outlawed. But coming to some official laws, here are a few instances : 1. HIV awareness workers were arrested and jailed with charges of spreading homosexuality, which is illegal in India. 2. Teenage student in UP were thrown behind bars on criminal charges after the UP government passed a law making it a criminal offence to cheat in exams. 3. Prohibition - governments implement it randomly. Gujarat has had prohibition since independence, other states have implemented it randomly over the course of the last 60 years. I mean, we have BB here asking for pubs/clubs in Dubai as a mark of it being a tolerant state while the state governed by his hero, Modi, has been under prohibition for 60 years and Modi has not done anything to change it. 4. The manner in which students were arrested and thrown in jail during the Mandal commission days on the base of some law or the other. There can be many more examples given of strange laws India has passed over the years, but I hope you get the general drift of my argument - even when it comes to laws there are stupid laws in India which don't really make it a draconian state for the common man. And we have already discussed how the implementation is terrible. There are some really stupid sexual laws in the US - I think homosexuality and anl sex is illegal in a lot of states. Utah, I think, has mastubration and oral sex as illegal too. There are quite a few more spread around, but they are nothing more than a source of amusement as they are never implemented on the ground. Now coming to Shariah - I have already said I am no expert on it, but from whatever little I've read it's far from the best form of governance on paper. But some states claiming to be Shariah don't seem to have their ground realities any worse than a lot of other countries in the world not under Shariah. Yes, selective polygamy is not a good law(I am for polygamy and polyandry ideally as long as all parties are consensual adults) and should not be there ideally. Now I don't know about Dubai, but in India it is hardly an issue to cry hoarse about beyond the law books. There are many more pressing social issues on the ground to deal with before polygamy. I don't know of more than a handful instances of polygamy being practised(that too in the lower income group) despite having lived in a city with a significant Muslim population. Now if you haid said the Muslim divorce law - yes that's something which does indeed have effect on the society in a significant manner and needs to be ridden of ASAP.
kumble_rocks Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 See, the existence of laws and how ideally there should be separation of chruch and state and a uniform civil code was not the point of discussion here. And I have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that it is the ideal form of governance and social democracies like the Scandanavian countries are closest to my ideal form of laws and governance. The point of dicussion here is the second part, implementation, and the ground realities. It's in that context that I have said that I don't have any major issues with the ground realities of certain states, even though officially they are under Shariah. And the ground realities in India regarding implementation are pretty bad. I mean, not even the most one eyed person would be able to say that caste system is not a ground reality in India despite it being outlawed. But coming to some official laws, here are a few instances : 1. HIV awareness workers were arrested and jailed with charges of spreading homosexuality, which is illegal in India. 2. Teenage student in UP were thrown behind bars on criminal charges after the UP government passed a law making it a criminal offence to cheat in exams. 3. Prohibition - governments implement it randomly. Gujarat has had prohibition since independence, other states have implemented it randomly over the course of the last 60 years. I mean, we have BB here asking for pubs/clubs in Dubai as a mark of it being a tolerant state while the state governed by his hero, Modi, has been under prohibition for 60 years and Modi has not done anything to change it. 4. The manner in which students were arrested and thrown in jail during the Mandal commission days on the base of some law or the other. There can be many more examples given of strange laws India has passed over the years, but I hope you get the general drift of my argument - even when it comes to laws there are stupid laws in India which don't really make it a draconian state for the common man. And we have already discussed how the implementation is terrible. There are some really stupid sexual laws in the US - I think homosexuality and anl sex is illegal in a lot of states. Utah, I think, has mastubration and oral sex as illegal too. There are quite a few more spread around, but they are nothing more than a source of amusement as they are never implemented on the ground. Now coming to Shariah - I have already said I am no expert on it, but from whatever little I've read it's far from the best form of governance on paper. But some states claiming to be Shariah don't seem to have their ground realities any worse than a lot of other countries in the world not under Shariah. Yes, selective polygamy is not a good law(I am for polygamy and polyandry ideally as long as all parties are consensual adults) and should not be there ideally. Now I don't know about Dubai, but in India it is hardly an issue to cry hoarse about beyond the law books. There are many more pressing social issues on the ground to deal with before polygamy. I don't know of more than a handful instances of polygamy being practised(that too in the lower income group) despite having lived in a city with a significant Muslim population. Now if you haid said the Muslim divorce law - yes that's something which does indeed have effect on the society in a significant manner and needs to be ridden of ASAP. Good post again. Can't argue much if the context was not having any major issues with the ground realities of certain states, even though officially they are under Shariah. I do get the drift . Disagree with the highlighted part , but we can have that discussion some other time. Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction. But by 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas although I still remember those nuts Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia vote against it. BB , can't argue with what Shwetabh is saying here. It is not as if he is endorsing Sharia !
kumble_rocks Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 So KR you are saying he will be as lenient as he is now if tomorrow say VHP/RSS form a Hindu nation and have Hindu laws ? Forget Hindu Nation and Hindu laws ... explain why he has fun equating Sangh parivar to terrorists or rogues when they havent even come remotely close to the dracony that Indonesia ,Malaysia and other states have enacted. BTW when this discussion was going on Shwetabh was not much worried about a temple or two being brought down in malaysia ... although he has now changed his tune. I can't speak for him , but if tomorrow say VHP/RSS form a Hindu nation and have Hindu laws , I may have problem with it. I am not so sure . And equating Sangh parivar to terrorists is plain wrong. Heck , even I support ban on conversion to Islam simply because it is a one way street. But even you will have to agree that their are rogue elements in Shiv Sena , Bajrang Dal etc . Why is it so difficult for you to criticize Hindu nut jobs who vandalize pubs , bars , archies greeting store etc ?
kumble_rocks Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 Apparently , Imran khan also wants Sharia law in Pakistan. What a ****in hypocrite ! Check this hilarious video - PhE5vKtM5KE
The Outsider Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 Good post again. Can't argue much if the context was not having any major issues with the ground realities of certain states, even though officially they are under Shariah. I do get the drift . Disagree with the highlighted part , but we can have that discussion some other time. Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction. But by 2002, 36 states had repealed all sodomy laws or had them overturned by court rulings. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas although I still remember those nuts Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia vote against it. BB , can't argue with what Shwetabh is saying here. It is not as if he is endorsing Sharia ! I wasn't aware of these rule changes in sodomy laws - good that they were past. But the general spirit of my point still stands. It was not that until 2002-2003 people were being rounded up for having anal/oral sex or masturbation - so some nonsensical laws on paper doesn't imply they are being implemented on the ground.
Recommended Posts