RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law.

RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

isoLadyOwner -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/25/2011 4:45:48 PM)
Those who claim Libya was governed by sharia law before Obama started bombing are using a very bizarre definition of sharia law and have likely adopted Obama newspeak. Here's a link to the source article by Susan Lindauer on women's rights in Libya before Obama bombed the NTC into power: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25806 Here's a quote from Ms Lindauer on the Fatwa against Gadhafi: "The transformation of women's status has been so great that the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran imposed a fatwa against Gadhaffi years ago, declaring his government blasphemous to Islamic traditions."

Hillwilliam -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/25/2011 6:42:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Do we have the right to tell them how to govern themselves? Of course not, but we have the right not to do business with them. And last week in Yahoo they said they'd reimburse Nato for all it's expenses. So that's what, $90 - $120 billion to us? And wait until they start stoning women and doing "honor killings", the left will be screaming at us to "do something!!!" "Sorry, we don't have the right to tell them how to govern themselves!" "Look, they're sharpening up those big curvy swords!" Beheadings on You Tube?" So what exactly was it about gadhafi-law, that you prefered over Sharia? Pre Obama's Libyan NTC and enabling sharia law, women had a number of rights denied them under other arab Governments: Libyan women weren't required to have male chaperone in pre sharia Libya. Women were allowed to drive in pre sharia Libya. Unlike many arab Nations Libyan women were allowed to hold their own passports (the husband keeps her passport usually). Marriage rights are routinely denied to women in arab nations. Some women under sharia law must marry the choice of their parents or risk jail until they agree to the marriage. Pre the sharia takeover in Libya, women were never legally forced into marriages. Women even were allowed to choose their own spouse prior to Obama's "kinetic action". Polygamy was illegal too, now its 4 wives to one male. Libyan women, pre Obama's NTC, were allowed to sue for divorce, a right generally denied to women under sharia law. Husbands under sharia have the right to choose divorce. The husband says "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you", the marriage is over. Libyan women did not need to get their husband's permission to obtain a job in pre sharia Libya. Libyan women were allowed to get an education pre Obama's NTC. There were female Doctors, Lawyers, even soldiers prior to Obama enabling a sharia Libya. Obama's backing of the NTC and sharia law in Libya will allow Libyan NTC men to roll back women's rights to the stone age. quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic As far as I recalll, no one mentioned that libya was/is a islamic republic, just that its been under sharia law since 73 and 97 % of the population are sunni muslim..... something some are still ignoring, what a surprise Ghaddafi was considered an Infidel by islamists and had a Fatwa issued against him for granting women some of the rights listed above. Libya wasn't enough of an islamic Republic to satisfy the islamo fascists in Iran, the muslim brotherhood, or jihadists around the world. We'll see if Obama's Libya is sharia enough for mohammedans soon enough. You could say the same things about Hussein and Iraq. What's yer fuckin point?

Lucylastic -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/25/2011 6:49:27 PM)
There was also a fatwa ordered against him in 2011, so whats your big deal. Other women say they are not overly concerned about the lack of women in leadership roles, saying that the governing structures are temporary and reflect the rush to keep the rebel areas from descending into chaos. “I’m not at all worried,” said Molly Tarhuni, an independent analyst in Benghazi who is studying the rebel movement. “This is so temporary and transitional. I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s microcosmic of what will happen in the future. I think women are going to play an immense role.” Amina Megheirbi, who runs a group called Tawasul that provides training and other services for young people and women, said: “We want people who are qualified. The revolution was led by women. I’m sure we will have an important role.” Libyan women already face growing dangers. Public health officials say they have received evidence that scores of women were raped by soldiers in Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, and though several organizations are mobilizing teams to help the rape victims, the effort remains fractured and without central leadership. The war is also leading to increased incidents of domestic violence, doctors say. Some women also admitted to worries that progress they had made in recent decades could be undone. Despite Colonel Qaddafi’s violent suppression of political dissent, women made strides under his rule, entering secondary schools and universities in large numbers. Many became doctors, lawyers and judges, and several women also held senior government positions. Their concerns have spurred calls for a greater voice. At a conference in Benghazi this week, where speakers discussed the role of women in the revolution, several people mentioned the example of Eman al-Obeidy, who burst into a hotel full of journalists in March to tell her story of being raped by Qaddafi militiamen. “We will not be silent,” one speaker said. But most of the talk at the conference revolved around the more pressing issues of the war against Colonel Qaddafi and the need to support the men fighting on the front lines. For mothers, there was advice: don’t raise another dictator. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/africa/20benghazi.html?_r=1 regarding your source ... you should be more interested in her information about the corruption around 9/11 and GWS hand in it. and please find a source that claims the ayatollah made a fatwa against him, apart from susan because ... according to search, the only person who has reported it was ms lindauer..oh how strange

FirstQuaker -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/25/2011 7:07:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You could say the same things about Hussein and Iraq. What's yer fuckin point? Likely point being how women are usually the losers in these "improvements." Everywhere from their own rights, to watching their relatives and children being killed and wounded, their houses destroyed, them being raped, etc. Since the Bush war and a trillion or two USD, with stacks of US and British bodies, along with allegedly over a 100,000 dead Iraqis, doesn't appear to have improved things any way there in Babylonian lands, either. And the world certainly has not seen the end of the Iraqi war's consequences yet, either. Saddam was a lightweight next to those trying to "Improve" the place. Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama should party on a big aircraft carrier and get a "Mission Accomplished" sign as is traditional, for their Libyan triumph. Perhaps they could waltz around the deck, maybe the women of Libya would like to watch them dance, since it appears they get little else out of this whole performance..

Hillwilliam -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/25/2011 7:09:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You could say the same things about Hussein and Iraq. What's yer fuckin point? Likely point being how women are usually the losers in these "improvements." Everywhere from their own rights, to watching their relatives and children being killed and wounded, their houses destroyed, them being raped, etc. Since the Bush war and a trillion or two USD, with stacks of US and British bodies, along with allegedly over a 100,000 dead Iraqis, doesn't appear to have improved things any way there in Babylonian lands, either. And the world certainly has not seen the end of the Iraqi war's consequences yet, either. Saddam was a lightweight next to those trying to "Improve" the place. Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama should party on a big aircraft carrier and get a "Mission Accomplished" sign as is traditional, for their Libyan triumph. Perhaps they could waltz around the deck, maybe the women of Libya would like to watch them dance, since it appears they get little else out of this whole performance.. I was talking to isoladyowner. Yaknow, one of the Dubya lovers.

mnottertail -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 7:33:33 AM)
Libya's society became increasingly Islamic during Gaddafi's rule. His "purification laws" were put into effect in 1994, punishing theft by the amputation of limbs, and fornication and adultery by flogging. Under the Libyan constitution, homosexual relations are punishable by up to 5 years in jail The law of Libya has historically been influenced by Ottoman, French, Italian, and Egyptian sources. Under the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Libya has moved towards a legal system based on sharia, but with various deviations from it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9911625

mnottertail -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 8:20:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail moving into empty space there. They have been under conservative muslim rule in one form or another since around the 3th century, no matter who was their 'owner' and one of the reasons they had their own way to go in the third century was that the Roman-Persians were constantly at war, it wasn't them. Then the Turks come running thru in the 7th century. Then came the crusades.....11th century 12th century. Then the Ottomons in the 15th. Throughout this time they were still under local muslim conservative rule. Then came the british empire..........and since 1900 they have been revolting for their own rule again. I see. So the history books are incorrect if they state the Koran was written in the early 600s? When was it those chaps wrote the King James? Was it as it proceeded from Yeshua ben Notzris mouth? From his lips to our ol pal Jimmies scribblers? You might find that sometimes oral traditions, oral stories are later converted to written form, nothing untoward or incorrect in that. Take for instance the Sagas of the Vikings, or the Heimskringla, or the Old Testament (written about the same era as the Koran)... What the fuck does the timing of the writings have to do with the fucking thing? You are nattering on about left handed smokeshifts. So far, anything you have said is either vaguely incendental or absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, if not outright incorrect: i.e. Syria has no oil.

luckydawg -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 9:31:43 AM)
actually it is your ranting that is factually incorrect. The koran was never an Oral Tradition. Mohamed lived in the late 500s early 600s. The idea that Conservative Muslims ruled Libya in the 3rd century is stupid even for you to say. When exactly was the Libyan Crusade BTW? And the Turk Ottoman Empire got to Africa in the 1500s, not the 7th century. All this nonsense and blather to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our tax dollars.....

thompsonx -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 9:50:05 AM)
quote: All this nonsense and blather to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our tax dollars..... You being a self professed "christian" I can see where you would not be in favor of freedom of religion.

popeye1250 -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 9:54:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: All this nonsense and blather to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our tax dollars..... You being a self professed "christian" I can see where you would not be in favor of freedom of religion. Thompson, many people consider it a cult not a religion. If I opened up "The Church of Bank Robbery and Rape" would you defend my freedom of religion? Some people get those phoney "Minister" documents to get out of paying taxes. How about them?

thompsonx -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 10:05:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: All this nonsense and blather to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our tax dollars..... You being a self professed "christian" I can see where you would not be in favor of freedom of religion. Thompson, many people consider it a cult not a religion. Which paricular group of morons think islam is a cult? If I opened up "The Church of Bank Robbery and Rape" would you defend my freedom of religion? The courts have made it pretty clear what constitutes a religion Some people get those phoney "Minister" documents to get out of paying taxes. How about them? Do they have "phoney minister" documents for islam?

FirstQuaker -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 11:01:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg actually it is your ranting that is factually incorrect. The koran was never an Oral Tradition. Mohamed lived in the late 500s early 600s. The idea that Conservative Muslims ruled Libya in the 3rd century is stupid even for you to say. When exactly was the Libyan Crusade BTW? And the Turk Ottoman Empire got to Africa in the 1500s, not the 7th century. All this nonsense and blather to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our tax dollars..... Oh I was quire happy listening to his novel and alternative version of the history of the Med myself. He who controls the past controls the present, (and thus controls the future) and the EUropeans spend a lot of time and effort "correcting misinformation" about their past exploits and conduct. But at any rate I was going to let him go on about this Muslim horde boiling out of Mecca in the 3rd century, I suspect the Romans had enough juice even then, to have severely crimped their style, and it took the Ottomans until the 1400s to bring the eastern part of the Roman empire down.. But as I noted, he leaves out peoples like the Moors (Nubians) who were major Mediterranean players even back into "biblical times." Both the Pharaohs and the Romans had Nubians commanding whole armies for them, never mind the Nubian mercenaries and Nubian troops. Or maybe it was because since they were Africans, they don't count. They became a powerful force of conquistadors when they read a Koran, and the royal houses of the EU and much of the EU nobility often (usually) are direct descendents of them, as they intermarried with the rulers of Spain, who were the top tier in the EUropecking order. That the Christian aspect of the desert god divinely appointed African direct descendants of the Muslim Prophet to lord over the illiterate unwashed EUromasses (Divine right and all that EUrobelief system) is hilarious. But he probably wants to read things like - Umayyad conquest of North Africa before expanding to the masses on just how Islam spread across the place. Islam made it further and faster across the south coast Med then Christianity did across the back ends of the EU, in terms of when it occurred.

luckydawg -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 11:15:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: All this nonsense and blather to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our tax dollars..... You being a self professed "christian" I can see where you would not be in favor of freedom of religion. your intellectual dishonesty is really boring. The fact that you have to lie, proves you simply can't defend your twisted view of the world.

mnottertail -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 11:20:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg actually it is your ranting that is factually incorrect. The koran was never an Oral Tradition. Mohamed lived in the late 500s early 600s. The idea that Conservative Muslims ruled Libya in the 3rd century is stupid even for you to say. When exactly was the Libyan Crusade BTW? And the Turk Ottoman Empire got to Africa in the 1500s, not the 7th century. All this nonsense and blather to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our tax dollars..... Your blithering foolishness notwithstandiung there The Turks were thru in the 7th century and the Ottoman Empire in the 15th, which for the innumerates would be the 1400s..... Perhaps you with your astounding lack of knowledge can rant for us on the topic of what these governments looked like to these people day to day, if not conservative and islamic, so you might by example tell us of the pigherders and and bacchanali that was common even in roman times in the area, theres gotta be a wiki on that. No, I thought not, more ranting from people with zero going on. It might surprise you to know that the 11 century and the next in what the 14th (not that it matters) the crusades were christian, and they didnt control shit over that way, all they had a shot at was Jerusalem and that was tenuous. Muslims believe the Quran to be verbally revealed through angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) from God to Muhammad gradually over a period of approximately 23 years beginning in 610 CE, when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632 CE, the year of his death. Muslims further believe that the Qur'an was precisely memorized, recited and exactly written down by Muhammad's companions (Sahaba) after each revelation was dictated by him. So, you might check the dictionary for belief and oral and tradition. They apparently don't mean what they think you mean. Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq's work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad. The traditional account claims that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, written down in bits, and not collated before Muhammad's death. The Collection Under Abu Bakr (p. 11) Abu Bakr was caliph from 632-634. There are several incompatible traditions describing a collation during his reign. 'Umar was worried that bits of the Koran would be lost after many Muslims were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Therefore he commissioned Zaid ibn Thabit to collect the Koran and write it down? Or was it Abu Bakr's idea? Or maybe 'Ali's? There are several other difficulties: Could this have been accomplished in only two years? The Muslims were fighting the Battle of Yamama (in Central Asia), why had these new converts memorised the Koran but the Arab converts had not? Why was this collation not an official codex but rather the private property of Hafsa? It sounds like these traditions were invented to credit the popular Abu Bakr and (more significantly) to debit the much maligned 'Uthman. The Collection of the Koran (pp. 12-13) 'Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. Zaid was once again commissioned, with the help of three others. But… The Arabic of the Koran was not a dialect. There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!) In these stories there is no mention of Zaid's involvement in an earlier rescension. Most scholars assume that the 'Uthmanic rescension is correct and the Abu Bakr rescension is fictitious, but they have no valid reasons for preferring it over the latter, as the same reasons for dismissing the Abu Bakr story (biased, unreliable, late sources, attempts to credit the collector etc…) can be applied to the 'Uthman story as well. Well, in any case it is of no importance, and since the Ottoman empire was not founded until 1299 you should read up on the differences in the nomenclature of the Turkish Empires and the Ottoman (which is Turkish) Empires. Sorta like there is a difference between Persians and Medes. Good luck, come back when you know something about the topic at hand. We will await your findings. They will be important, I am sure.

luckydawg -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 11:23:17 AM)
Yep, thats what I said to you

luckydawg -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 11:50:46 AM)
Just more blather that proves I was correct. There were no muslims at all in the 3rd century. Your assertion that they ruled Libya is nonsense. And there was no turkish empire ruling North africa untill the Ottomans. In the 7th Century the turks lived in the Khazakastan region. They had no Empire Centuries later they moved west to the Greek Empire. And you are rather confused about the meanings of "Oral Tradition" and "Dictation" Just a bunch of blather.... really pretty boring. But why do you go to such lengths to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our Tax dollars???

mnottertail -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 11:53:17 AM)
In a speech to a cheering, flag-waving crowd, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the Transitional National Council, promised to ban interest on housing loans and scrap other laws that didn’t conform to Islamic jurisprudence. Although he lacks the power to make such changes himself, his comments, on such a symbolically significant day, suggested that Islam could play a greater role in public life in the new Libya. They also heightened an already intense debate over the role of Islam in the countries transformed by the Arab Spring. A first test for the authorities will be putting together a new interim cabinet to take the country to elections in eight months. Under a timeline set by the governing council, the new prime minister and cabinet are to be in place within 30 days. But some observers say it could take longer as regions that felt neglected by Gaddafi — such as Benghazi — press for more power.

luckydawg -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 11:55:39 AM)
and tea costs .75 a kilo in Beijing..... Are you attempting to cover your incredibly horrific mangling of History by changing the subject?

tazzygirl -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 12:02:04 PM)
So is it the cost you object too? Or the Sharia Law?

mnottertail -> RE: New govt. in Libya based on sharia law. (10/26/2011 12:02:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Just more blather that proves I was correct. There were no muslims at all in the 3rd century. Your assertion that they ruled Libya is nonsense. And there was no turkish empire ruling North africa untill the Ottomans. And you are rather confused about the meanings of "Oral Tradition" and "Dictation" Just a bunch of blather.... really pretty boring. But why do you go to such lengths to support the imposition of Sharia Law with our Tax dollars??? Well of course you pathetically ignore the fact that the 15th century occured in the 1400s so anything else is just so much more compost. Now, you are free to make things up and lie and pretend, but should another play your games of sniping and caterwauling based on false information and never really having a point other than to find some minor issue with something, then you run around flouncing some hysterical dogmas of nothingness. Again your blatherings are not of any consequence to the topic, per usual.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02