Hey Canada, Sharia Is Working Wonderfully

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe someone mentioned this already, but this whole idea of two sets of laws is assinine. You effectively have a state within a state. And what if this happens, what if under shariah law it becomes legal that the citizens should receive an extra allowance from the state, and under regular law they raise taxes. And the atrocious anti progress in women's rights? This is sickening on many levels.

The Canada Chamber of Commerce must REALLY want that Islamist Settler dollar, so much so they're willing to bend their culture to accomodate the sexism and barbarity of their target audience. How noble.

 

[Isaac Brock]

A lot of things this act covers with regard to family law are very unfair, just that alone should have had major influence on the way this was decided. Is there much mention of it locally where either of you are?

Blurbs in local paper, but that's about as far as it goes. Since it is only civil matters, it means that it doesn't have the watershed capacity of a criminal court which has federal ramifications. Though i think it'd be a cold day in hell if that was implemented in the Prairies.

The only arbitration style act we have out here is related to First Nations. Sometimes a provincial or federal judge can sentence a felon to do service and healing within native communities. It's still up to Crown justice, however, I must admitt, that it does seem to work in many cases.

 

[Said1]

Blurbs in local paper, but that's about as far as it goes. Since it is only civil matters, it means that it doesn't have the watershed capacity of a criminal court which has federal ramifications. Though i think it'd be a cold day in hell if that was implemented in the Prairies.

I grew up in Calgary, in the late 70's. At that time, Calgarians didn't seem to like immirgrants from other provinces, let alone other contries. My parents, being hardcore leftist did not fit in, they hated Alberta, and Ralph Klein (SP??). From memory alone, I would have to agree with your opinion.

The only arbitration style act we have out here is related to First Nations. Sometimes a provincial or federal judge can sentence a felon to do service and healing within native communities. It's still up to Crown justice, however, I must admitt, that it does seem to work in many cases.

I work within the Native community myself, there is a lot to be said for many programs offered to First Nations people by their own communities. These programs are very progressive, not backwards as Sharia Law is in many ways.

 

[Said1]

That needs to be changed, without question, but what does that have to do with Sharia Law, and flaming Kathianne?

 

[Annie]

By law you can still have sex with a 14 year old in Montreal (Quebec) and 16 yrs in most of Canada. I guess we should call it Canarabia?

Also, (as a Liberal Thinker, not voter), i think that it is morally right for an 18 year old to sleep with a 16 year old...(in fact if you disagree with me, then i think you are a retard)at least better than to have a 17 year old sleep with a 13 year old. Laws are messed up.

well lets see, women/girls can have children at the age of 13.... and girls in highschool have sex at that age... If you go back in time, it was quite common for Christians/Muslims/Jews to get married at young ages.. I know my grandma was 15, when she willfully married my Grandpa he was 23....Times change. back then it was normal. in the 1500's anything went..

To conclude, times / cultures change. Today the Muslim culture is different than most, and therefore, if they say it is ok for women to get married at 14.. then so be it. Do your own thing and ignore others instead of hating everyone who is different.

Kath your "anti-Muslimism" is vibrant. Infact, i wonder if it's your Hatred/Racism against all muslims that sparked this tread OR the fact that you are upset at the lack of Jewish Influence in Politics in Sweden/Media... Cause we all know this would never happen here in Canada/US ..Eitherway, If anyone spoke of Jews the same way you speak of Muslims YOU would be crying anti-semite and we would never hear the end of it. And Just out of curiousity, what is a Muslim hating Jew like yourself doing on a Muslim discussion board meant to educate non-Muslims about Islam...are you going to tell me you went in there with an open mind trying to learn about Islam?? BS! you are a hater/troll, get a life. or like they say in the UK "piss off".

In Fact please explain to me what is wrong in the quote By "MALIK"? that they came from a Muslim? Read it again. It was a reply to a troll (you?)

IMO, You are discusting, flthy, you make me sick.

Sorry I upset you so, haven't been on this thread for quite a bit, but You are flaming me, so take 24.

 

[Annie]

Talk about dark ages...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14712

Kath your "anti-Muslimism" is vibrant

Guess so! As long as they are like this.

How Canadian Tolerance Became Intolerance
By Michael Radu
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 18, 2004


Sooner or later, the de facto mutual support society of progressives and Islamists had to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

The progressives who have supported the claims of Islamists in the West have long chosen to disregard the saying that one cannot be so open minded as to let your brains fall out. Now reality forces them to wake up and, increasingly in Europe and now in Canada, realize that the Islamists’ goals are incompatible with their own, and that excessive "tolerance" inevitably leads to intolerance.

The days of the joint anti–American demonstrations of the Left and Islamists, of the Communists, Socialists and Muslim radicals in the streets of Paris or in Trafalgar Square may indeed be coming to an end.


The first and most spectacular sign that the progressives and the Islamists seek different, contradictory goals came from the Netherlands -- that most progressive of all countries, the land of legal drugs, medical assisted suicide and euthanasia, gay marriages and unionized military. It had a face – Pym Fortuyn, a gay environmentalist who famously declared that Islam is a reactionary and "stupid" religion, and that his country is "full."

Blasphemy? Not really. Shortly after Fortuyn’s 2002 assassination by a radical environmentalist, his party came from nowhere to place second in the general elections that year. While the party soon collapsed under the weight of its own incompetence, its radical (by European standards) anti-immigration (read anti–Muslim immigration) program was largely adopted by the present government in The Hague. Meanwhile, the same year, the gay Socialist mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, was almost killed by a Muslim who did not like gays. No matter how multiculturalists may tie themselves in knots over the issue, Islam and homosexuality are irrevocably incompatible. This is demonstrated by the attitudes of Muslims everywhere. Muslims condemn homosexuality as much if not more than fundamentalist Christians. And unlike fundamentalist Christians, they are willing and ready to kill over it.


Then there is Islam’s problem with feminism, and women in general. Polygamy, which is illegal everywhere in the West, is quite commonly tolerated, practiced, subsidized in a number of countries, especially France. Then there is the practice of genital mutilation of girls -- not an Orthodox Muslim practice, but it happens nonetheless -- in many Muslim countries. Finally there is the general -- and theologically correct -- Islamic denial of the most basic rights to women. Put polygamy, genital mutilation, anti-abortion attitudes and the burqa together and one is likely to drive feminists wild indeed. It is also a combination that makes all Western women -- and most decent men for that matter -- question the realism of accepting Islam as just another religion to be respected and tolerated in their midst.


Now, Canada is becoming the Netherlands of North America. Its official ideology is "multiculturalism." Canadians may not like the term, but that is the ruling Liberal Party’s entrenched policy since the premiership of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1970s. However, multiculturalism is now facing the limits of "tolerance."

Canadian-style multiculturalism, the dream of American academics and the enemy of serious Canadians who care about politics and their own culture, is simple to define: immigrant ethnic minority groups, virtually all from the Third World, are not only not required to assimilate, but the taxpayers, in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance," are required to pay for maintaining their culture. Hence the plethora of ethnic – Chinese, East and South East Asian, Indian sub-continent, etc. associations, schools, cultural organizations paid by the taxpayers of Alberta or British Columbia – via Ottawa, of course, since the Canadian West is quite hostile to this.

One may ask the key, common sense question to all pro–immigrant, anti–assimilation groups everywhere: why would anyone choose to emigrate from the balmy climates of the Third World to chilly Canada if their culture – political or otherwise – is so worthy as to be maintained in the new country? Indeed, if Pakistani, Romanian, Bangladeshi or Jamaican culture are so great, why leave? Or is there no link – logical and practical – between that culture and the push factors for emigration?


In the name of tolerance and multiculturalism, in 1991 the Ontario provincial government passed something called the Arbitration Act, allowing religious (at the time Christian and Jewish) authorities to perform certain legal functions, in family and civil law, rather than having regular courts do it. Of course, as Ontario goes, so goes Canada. Ontario Muslims demanded that Sharia (Islamic law) "courts" be allowed to solve family and other civil matters (divorce, child custody and inheritance, etc.) among Canadian Muslims. And why not? After all, it would be hypocritical to allow a rabbi to deal with kosher matters while denying an imam the right to deal with divorce or child custody, wouldn't it? It is a valid legal point within the moral, cultural and legal universe of Canadian multiculturalism.


As one may expect, supporters of the sharia as de facto Canadian law for Muslims promise – perhaps sincerely – that no obligatory sharia punishments such as cutting off the hands of the thieves, stoning adulterers, etc., associated with strict application of sharia in Saudi Arabia, would happen in the snowy towns of Ontario. However sharia is divinely ordained, in its totality, in Muslim eyes. It is a matter of faith, and choosing and picking among its rules is not for Canadian (or any other) imams to decide. But that essential issue is not what has provoked a strong feminist reaction in Ontario and among those Canadians not in Barbados or Florida at this time; it is the relationship between sharia and women rights – and feminism.

"It's shocking to see the seeds of an Islamic republic being sown here in Canada," one young woman shouted to vociferous applause at a recent Toronto rally, organized to denounce the practice of sharia in Ontario. "Sharia doesn't work anywhere else in the world. Why does the government believe it will work here?" [1]


This is a clear case of "tolerance" gone wild and becoming intolerance – and it is a double one. On the one hand, Muslims in Canada (at least some of them) claim that, in the name of Canadian "tolerance" and "multiculturalism," they have a right to live by their own legal rules (sharia), which is by definition intolerant (to non-Muslims), "morally conservative" and gives Muslims a legal domination over all others. On the other hand, the Left – of which feminism, here, in Europe and in Canada is one of the strongest contingents – believes in erasing religious moral standards, indiscriminate "equality" between sexes and to gays, bisexuals, etc. The problem for Western leftist politicians and their media sidekicks is that, sooner or later, their gay, feminist and "tolerant" constituencies would rebel and prove that they are still more numerous at the ballot box than those immigrant Muslims who cannot adapt.

[1] Susan Bourette , Can tolerant Canada tolerate sharia?, The Christian Science Monitor, August 10, 2004.

 

[Annie]

Good post! I do not think all Muslims are 'bad', meaning 'radicalized Muslims' or 'orthodox believers', I too know some as you do. Nice people, though I don't think they drink, though they're not teens either!

 

[freeandfun1]

. . . . as long as people do not obey they Torahs, Bibles and Korans to the letter. . . .

WTF?

One cannot claim to be a "faithful" Jew, Christian or Muslim if they don't follow their scriptures.

Yes, as long as the Muslims don't follow the Koran, everything should be okay. Neither the Bible nor the Torah tell us to kill non-believers like the Koran does.

I have MANY Muslim friends, so I agree, "not all are bad". However, the majority are and even the ones I know put their religion before ANYTHING else. They might have a drink now and then, they might even eat bacon, but if they are told by their church to rebel, that they will do and they are not afraid to admit it as they believe that Islam is THE relgion of the world and the rest of us are NOT HUMAN as we are NOT believers.

The world is divided into two spheres, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The latter, the Land of Warfare, is a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam. The Dar al-Harb becomes the Dar-al Islam, the Land of Islam, upon the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. Thus the totalitarian nature of Islam is nowhere more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth: there is no possibility of salvation outside it. Muslims must fight and kill in the name of Allah.

We read (IX. 5-6):“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them”;

IV.76: “Those who believe fight in the cause of God”;

VIII.39-42: “Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s.”

Those who die fighting for the only true religion, Islam, will be amply rewarded in the life to come:

IV.74: “Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God’s path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.”

What should we make with these further unfortunate verses from the Qur’an:

*Torment to Non-believers->IV.56
*Only Islam Acceptable-> III.85
*No friends from outsiders->III.118
*No friends with Jews, christians->V. 51
*No friends with non believers->IV.144, III.28
*No friends with parents/siblings if not believers->IX.23
*Fight non-believers->IX.123 * Kill non-believers->IV.89
*Anti Jewish verses->V.82
*God a "plotter"->VIII.30
*Killing Idolators->IX.5
*Idolators are unclean just because they are idolator->IX.28
*Forcing non-believers to pay tax->IX.29
*The Torment of Hell->XLIV.43-58
*All except Muslims/Jews/Christians/Sabeans will go to hell->II.62, V.69
*Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers ->VIII.12
*Smite the neck of unbelievers->XLVII.4
*Severe Punishment for atheists->X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86
*Severe Punishment for non-believers->XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6
*Punishing non-believers of Hereafter->XVII.10
*Punishing for rejecting faith->III.91
*Non believers go to hell->IV.140 ; VII.36 * Partial Believers go to hell too->IV.150-1
*Sadistic punishments->LVI.42-43
*Punishment for apostates->XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.
*Threat of punishement for not going to war->IX.38-39, XLVIII.16
*God making someone more sinful so he can be punished more->III178
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from knowing the truth->VI.25 ; VI.110
*Intentionally preventing unbelievers from Understanding Quran->XVII.45-46
*It is God who causes people to err and He punishes them for that->XVII.97
*God could guide, if he chose to, but did not->VI.35
*Intentionally misguiding those whom he pleases to->XIV.4
*Willfully misguiding some->XVI.93
*God causes human to err->IV.143 ; VII.178
*God deceiving humans->IV.142

But of course, being PC as we are, we all KNOW that it is them damn PESKY CHRISITIANS that are causing all the problems!

 

[Annie]

That's Fair, I revised my quote.. I didn't see the comma initially.

Funny what a comma can do! :tng:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

They will ban Jewish and Christian Law if they have to before letting Muslims chop hands off from theives (lol).

Yes, it will probably happen in that order, but I don't see what's funny about it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally Posted by r2200t
They will ban Jewish and Christian Law if they have to before letting Muslims chop hands off from theives (lol).



Well i was laughing at the notion of "chopping hands" i think it's rediculous. Imagine what happens if someone is wrongfully accused!
cheers

you are very ignorant if you think that does not take place in Muslim dominated countries today.

 

[William Joyce]

Americans believe whatever the Jews tell them. They won't listen to anyone else. If they said Muslims reproduce by standing on their heads, Americans would believe it.

 

[Comrade]

You're very ignorant if you think they chop hands in most Muslim countries.

lol, well, again, I am a Christian Palestinian... Or a Christian Semite (lol).. I know what goes on in the middle east. I've been there, and i've been discriminated agains by Muslims. I was in beautifull Dubai when i was 8 years old (dad got a job there) and i remember some kids (not all) didn't let me play with them cause i was Christian. some kids said "don't play with him he eats ham".. It was sad, but i made friends with some other Christians and some tollerant Muslims... I was also in Lebanon, for a week during the 15 year civil war between the US and Russia...Or the Christians and the Muslims, Israel and PLO, and Syria...it was a messy war.. but i got the chance to experience it from both sides,and i almost died when a missile hit the appartment building next to us. My mom's family (also Christian Palestinians) lived in the Muslim side of Beirut in another appartment building, They had muslim friends and no one threatened them. I think this is why i am tolerant of Muslims.

There is no Hand Chopping in most muslim Countries, whatever you heard in the News is written in a way to make you think that. eg: UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Morroco, Malasia, Philipines, Palestians, Pakistan... are free from hand chopping. But i'm not saying any of these countries have a good human rights record. I don't think that Muslim countries are run properly either...

I know that Hand Chopping takes place in Saudi Arabia, and i know that very few people steel because of it... And i know that in Africa, there is a country that mutilates (slice off!) clitorises on women to stop the from getting orgasms (or masturbating? I saw it on the discovery channel, discusting!!!) However, 2 countries out of all the muslim countries in the world should not represent all of em... The impression i get from North Americans is they think all Muslim countries chop hands. It's like sending a European to a southern US state and telling them that this is how all Americans are. Or since we are talking about Canada... It's like sending an American to Yukon (northern Canada) and telling him that this is how Canadians live.

The point is again, This will not happen in Canada. Even if Pigs Fly.

Again, IMO, Hand Chopping is rediculous. Did you know they also chop your dick off if you rape! lol, it's crazy!

cheers

If you mean Iraq under Saddam never chopped off hands, then watch one or more of the videos recovered from his regime here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136582/posts


There is definately one clip of one individual who was presented in front of a crowd, who were actually cheering as the poor soul had his hand sloppily chopped off right between his wrist and knuckles. It's something I think will stick with you for a long time. And actually I recall that a number of people who suffered such brutal punishment under Saddam were recently provided artificial limbs by the American army, in some significant numbers.

So at least there, you are wrong. I bet I can also dig up many other examples of brutality from the countries you excuse as 'civil'.

 

[Comrade]

Girl, 16, hanged in public in Iran

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.

The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.

In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.

The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”.

Just another 'isolated' case of enlightened Islamic society.

 

[Comrade]

r2200t

I chose another one, Yemem.. first hit:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8313.htm

The Constitution may be interpreted as permitting amputations in accordance with Shari'a (Islamic law). In January authorities amputated the right hand of Ahmed Mohammed Sharaf, a repeat offender convicted of murder (he was also sentenced to death, but had not been executed by year's end). However, the use of amputations as punishment is extremely rare. Prior to the Sharaf case, there had been no reports of amputations since 1991, although a small number of persons who have been found guilty of theft and sentenced to amputation remain in jail awaiting the implementation of their sentences. The Shari'a-based law permits physical punishment such as flogging for some crimes. For example, in July 2000, two individuals convicted of kidnaping were sentenced to 80 lashes (the penalty for the consumption of alcohol) in addition to a period of imprisonment because they had been intoxicated during the commission of their crime. In Ibb governorate in January 2000, Mohamed Tahbit al-Su'mi, after being tried and convicted, was stoned to death for the 1992 rape and murder of his 12-year-old daughter. Capital punishment usually is carried out by firing squad; stoning is almost unheard of, but was approved in this case due to the unusual brutality of the crime. In rare cases involving particularly egregious crimes, such as the rape and murder of children, the law permits the ritual display in public of the bodies of executed criminals. The ostensible purpose of this practice is to demonstrate to the families of victims that justice has been served and to prevent blood feuds between tribes.

Well it's apparently rare in Yemen to chop off hands, but it sure is legal. Actually, a hand chopping is probably better than a stoning, which I suppose Pakistan would be next on my list for that sort of practice. Actually, there are much worse travesties of justice involved in Sharia law as practiced in the middle east. But I don't really need to go on, do I?

 

[Comrade]

There is a big difference. In Saudi Arabia, the LAW states that those caught stealing will get their hand chopped off (which ever hand that was carrying the stolen goods)

In Iraq Saddam Hussein, used torture, for fun, or to scare others. China uses torture, Russia did etc... This is different than it being in the law. Also, In Iraq, those who got their hands chopped of, did more than steal (i'm making an educated guess)

So it was against the law for Saddam and his Iraq to conduct such grisly things? This kind of law, whether or not it's claimed to be based on Sharia or not, seems typical of ever Muslim state in our modern age. The application of such law is obviously based upon the whim of the tyrants which rule in each.

 

[Comrade]

Yes you do need to go on, there are more than 3 Muslim countries in the world. and comparing all Muslim Counties to the worst is unfair. So, i attached a list of countries with large/majority muslim populations, I would like you to show us which of all those countries, have a law with stoning and hand chopping, or anything equivalent to that.

Some of these Countries do/did have laws like Stoning etc.., but for MOST countries, your task of proving me wrong is impossible...because i am right .

Again This is not about Human Rights (like your weak argument about Iraq), it's about laws. Show me countries with Laws that support your vision.

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Benin
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Cote D’Ivoire
Cyprus
Dijibouti
Egypt
Gabon
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
Libya Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Mozambique
Niger
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leon
Somalia
Sudan
Suriname
Syria
Tajikistan
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Yemen

Are you kidding me?

There is no Hand Chopping in most muslim Countries, whatever you heard in the News is written in a way to make you think that. eg: UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Morroco, Malasia, Philipines, Palestians, Pakistan... are free from hand chopping. But i'm not saying any of these countries have a good human rights record. I don't think that Muslim countries are run properly either...

The Iraq and Yemen governments are not 'free from hand chopping'.

So maybe I took it as an accusation of us 'Mericans being ignorant because our news media is supposed to be deceptive, and naturally I threw it right back to you and let you consider just how well informed we are, after all.

 

[Comrade]

As far as i know Public Capital Punishment is still practiced in the US...Also 16 year olds are commonly being tried as adults.

And hanged for having a 'sharp toungue'?

Iran is a fundamentalist run country, this sort of thing will not/will never happen in many Muslim countries.

Surely you jest. If Musharaff gets assassinated by the Wahabbi fundamentalists I bet you'll eat those words.

The point i am making is about generalizing. i.e. saying that all Muslims chop hands etc... Those generalsations are wrong. Most Muslims are good people, all you need to do is open up to them and you'll see. Sure some countries are rulled by ruthless dictators, but that is no reason to discriminate against the victims, the Muslims in those countries and the Muslims in North America.

Who said anything about discrimination? Islamic nations are sick, sick to the core. They've been ran by dictatorships for the last 700 years and show little sign of being willing to adopt democracy or allow religious freedoms, let alone equal rights to women. I don't blame the people, but their religion, culture, and leadership something I find in need of serious reform before I'd feel comfortable living among them. I don't pretend our society is perfect either, but I can certainly draw comparisons.

 

[Comrade]

Typical of every(?) Muslim state? Common, i listed 61 states. And i've personally been to a few, and i can tell this sort of thig does not happen everywhere. Unless you choose to be brainwashed to think that way. Research the issue and you'll find the truth.

Didn't I just do that, and give you a link?

The discussion here is about Islam and the Sharia Law. When this law is in effect, Hand Chopping becomes legal.

Well now we're almost there... you said:

There is no Hand Chopping in most muslim Countries, whatever you heard in the News is written in a way to make you think that. eg: UAE, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Oman, Morroco, Malasia, Philipines, Palestians, Pakistan... are free from hand chopping. But i'm not saying any of these countries have a good human rights record. I don't think that Muslim countries are run properly either...

And I said no, you're not going to get away with that, calling us ignorant Americans, because, sir, you are wrong. Iraq and Yemen chopped hands. And if it's like Iraq doesn't count because it's not under Sharia...

Saddams' torture vidoes, are examples of torture. Torture exists all around the world and does not depend on religion...and thus does not qualify as a "Muslim Sharia thing.". The point is, Saddam did not chop those fingers due to religious belief (being a secular sunni Muslim himself who protected 1,000,000 Christians and their Chuches in Baghdad!!!!!Did you forget Tariq Aziz, a Christian who was one of Saddam's top men?, Saddam only "acted" like he was religious to rally the fundamentalist Shiite majority with him to fight the US, that's it.). He Chopped hands to intimidate. That's why video's were made, to scare people.. For all you know the guy getting his fingers chopped off could have been a Fundamentalist Shiite Muslim being punished for fundamentalist celebrations. Saddam punished and prevented Fundamentalist Muslim celebrations and practices...that's one reason Iran is celebrating saddams removal, so that they can visit and practice rituals previously banned.

Well, then, stick with Yemen, if that helps.

Link:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8313.htm

The Constitution may be interpreted as permitting amputations in accordance with Shari'a (Islamic law). In January authorities amputated the right hand of Ahmed Mohammed Sharaf, a repeat offender convicted of murder (he was also sentenced to death, but had not been executed by year's end).

Sharia law.
--- Check.

Hand chopping.
--- Check.

Unjustified patronization.
--- Check.

Point made. Own up to it or move on. And the only reason I'm being snotty about it is because you kind of dissed us in that annoying way while actually being totally wrong. :usa:

 

[Comrade]

I deserved that... I shouldn't have named Yemen, i knew it was risky...Nevertheless..That list is really long and there are dozens of countries that'll pass the hand chopping test!

Cool... missed this part... and yet, I make the same kind of risks and get burned sometimes, but you gotta keep it real!