Doubly revolting

December 14th, 2011 at 8:59 am by David Farrar

Bad enough this story, which has been around for a while:

An Afghan woman who was jailed for “forced adultery” after a relative raped her, and then officially pardoned after an international outcry over the case, is still in prison nearly two weeks after a judicial panel announced she could go free.

At least she no longer has to marry her rapist. But still, so incredibly fucked up.

Now we have the Saudis:

Rights group Amnesty International has described as “deeply shocking” ’s beheading of a woman convicted on charges of “sorcery and witchcraft” saying it underlined the urgent need to end executions in the kingdom.

Saudi national Amina bint Abdul Halim bin Salem Nasser was executed on Monday (locall time) in the northern province of al-Jawf after being tried and convicted for practicing sorcery, the interior ministry said, without giving details of the charges.

“The citizen… practiced acts of witchcraft and sorcery,” Saudi newspaper al-Watan cited the interior ministry as saying. “The death sentence was carried out on the accused yesterday (Monday) in the Qurayyat district in al-Jawf region.”

God, where do you start.

  1. There is no such thing as sorcery
  2. Hence sorcery should not be a crime. It’s like making astrology a crime.
  3. Executing someone for a fictious offence is barbaric
Tags: ,

67 Responses to “Doubly revolting”

  1. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    Wait until they start this sort of carry on here in NZ thanks to Labour government immigration policies; no one will say a word to show how pc and liberal they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. adze (1,695 comments) says:

    What a shame we don’t have street rallies across the world over cases like this, instead of one stupid comment by a Toronto cop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rich Prick (1,323 comments) says:

    That’s the judicial branch of the Religion of Peace in action. But you won’t hear a whimper from the usual leftie-shouters. I doubt there will be an “Occupy Qurayyat”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Pete George & Scot Chris with their notion that rights doesn’t exist objectively could perhaps defend their misguided belief on DO AS WHAT THE MAJORITY SAYS, BECAUSE RIGHTS IS HUMAN CONSTRUCT ONLY that the Saudis & Afghani’s are justified in what they did.

    The DO AS WHAT THE MAJORITY SAYS punishment for the 2 women in Afghanistan & Saudi Arabia is barbaric and anyone who argue otherwise, should be subjected to the same treatment suffered by those 2 women and get a taste of what’s it like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    I’m getting out my robe and sorceress hat.
    But really.
    This political environment is the main justification to me for a pro-choice reproductive stance. And that may seem like a long bow to draw, but generally women in countries where abortion rights are not recognized are executed summarily. In the bigger picture: a lot of the worlds trouble is caused by groups of individuals whose rights are not recognized.
    Ie: Women in these countries obviously.
    Men and young boys in countries where the pendulum has swung too far the other way, as witnessed by our high rates of teenage suicide and infant death. Any number of ethnic populations around the world. The question to me is: what are the core rights of this group. If you identify and correct those conditions it goes a long way towards promoting equality and equity. That and a shiteload of women and their male relations getting angry and motivated to bring about change is the only way to end this type of madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Pete George’s argument on his reply to me the other day on the GD thread, when I challenged him on the topic of rights, is if you don’t like what the majority says, then leave. If we have to ask Pete George’s question to those millions of Muslims in Islamic countries, if they don’t like their system then they should leave. I’m sure that those millions would love to have Pete George to sponsor them to come to NZ because the DO AS WHAT THE MAJORITY SAYS in NZ is much much better than the O AS WHAT THE MAJORITY SAYS in their respective countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    yup…it sucks to be an arabic woman

    maybe they should stay in school and try harder cos it’s all their own fault otherwise.

    there are never any outside forces at play…not culture, not religion, not personal bias.

    it’s all about personal responsibility.

    and yes there is such a thing as sorcery if you apply it to economics. Maybe we could do well to cut a few bankers and market traders heads off so they’ll get the message to eh ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Bed Rater (239 comments) says:

    I sometimes like reading Kiwiblog comment threads just to see how commentary on something universally abhorrent can be turned into a “us versus the left/labour” whingefest. I’m never blown away by the creative talent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ Monique

    I was going to bring up abortion from a different angle. I was going to suggest that while, of course, this women’s situation is horrible, and as DPF says, barbaric, New Zealand has it’s own forms of barbarisms that we think are OK because they ‘protect the way-of-life’ that we want. Namely, today – just like everyday – 50 unborn children will be aborted. That’s 18,000 a year. We don’t want to think about this barbarism and most NZers want to sweep it under the carpet because it allows us to keep our way of life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi – I agree that those two punishments are barbaric, abhorent in this day and age. Obviously women don’t have sufficient rights in their countries.

    Would you support a campaign for getting better rights for women in Islamic countries like Afghanistan & Saudi Arabia? Or do you think the inherent rights they had were adequate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Elaycee (4,081 comments) says:

    It pays to look beyond the headlines:

    According to Al Jazeera: ‘London-based newspaper al-Hayat quoted a member of the Saudi religious police as saying Nasser was in her 60s. The official claimed she had tricked people into giving her money, claiming that she could cure their illnesses. According to the report, she apparently charged up to $800 a session.’

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/2011121302059182183.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ Monique

    Also, Ireland didn’t allow abortion and I don’t recall women being summarily executed, so while I agree that women are second class citizens in parts of Afghanistan and the Middle East, I don’t think becoming pro-choice is the correct response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    PG asked…

    Would you support a campaign for getting better rights for women in Islamic countries like Afghanistan & Saudi Arabia?

    Yep, I would.

    Elaycee, if the Saudi woman committed fraud then she should have been charged on that crime, because it is rights violation and that’s what the state is there for in the first place, but not to persecute someone for his/her freedom to practice mysticism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. AlphaKiwi (684 comments) says:

    I find it weird that religious folk are against abortion. The aborted “child” gets a free pass into heaven for Pete’s sake! Why would you want them to risk being born and lose their salvation and end up in hell for eternity like you think most people who aren’t the same religion as you?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. sthn.jeff (100 comments) says:

    2.Hence sorcery should not be a crime. It’s like making astrology a crime

    I would be all for be heading people who constantly prattle on about what there “stars say”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. leftyliberal (616 comments) says:

    @Bed Rater: And now we have abortion and religion in the mix – time to crack out the popcorn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Yes Falafulu Fisi, it’s a shame this woman doesn’t have the rights that have recently evolved in the West. Could almost be Salem, Massachusetts in 1692:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

    And yes it’s awful, but I doubt the woman was merely practicing voodoo. Amnesty would know more details, but are being conveniently vague.

    “Saudi national Amina bint Abdul Halim bin Salem Nasser was executed on Monday in the northern province of al-Jawf after being tried and convicted for practicing sorcery, the interior ministry said, without giving details of the charges.”

    One other problem is that Saudi Arabia has no written criminal code, instead they have one based on an uncodified form of Islamic sharia law *as interpreted by the country’s judges*.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    AlphaKiwi:

    What are you smoking? Must be something pretty damn powerful …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ FF, PW, PG

    With regard to the debate about ‘majority rule’, the two cents I’d add is this. About two years ago Pope Benedict was criticised in the media after he read from a text a number of centuries old – not something that he’d written himself. (I’d note that the Pope is clever and he knew that he’d get attention so he knew what he was reading). Please bare with me… He alluded to the fact that at the core of Judeo-Christian theology is the idea that God is internally consistent with himself, the things he creates, and the Order he creates. Thus, God cannot act inconsistently with Reason. Reason does not explain God, but God doesn’t act inconstantly with Reason. The writer that Benedict quoted commented, that at the core of Islam is the idea the God is pure Will, and that that Muslim God doesn’t have to act consistently with his order. And so what this means in the religious world, is that even the Church has limits proscribed by Reason and God’s order, but that Islam doesn’t. Therefore if a Muslim religious leader says “God wills it” then it’s hard to construct a epistemological/theological argument against it because you believe God is pure Will. Now, of course Christians have from time-to-time said “God wills it” (a lot less than the atheists would have you believe) to things that by most standards of morality – and by the standards set by Jesus Christ – could not be justified when held to the light of Reason. And in due course the activities of certain church leaders and popular movements have been checked and denounced. The lack of the acceptance of true Reason within Islam makes it problematic. And I’d add, the lack of agreement on the truth, makes the modern discussion about human rights prone to popular movements, rather than a true discernment of what is right.

    For those that want to complain about the Catholic Church’s position on not allowing women to be priests I’m happy to discuss in another forum – but I’d note that no other philosophy has done more to elevate the position of women in human history than Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Paul Rain (47 comments) says:

    I used to think that there was some value in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. But really, nothing was accomplished that could not have been done as effectively (or more so) from 40,000 feet. The US still has a couple hundred small nuclear weapons in Western Europe. It’s well past time for them to get a test, and Tora Bora should have been that test site in October 2001.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Monique Watson says:- “but generally women in countries where abortion rights are not recognized are executed summarily”

    So you’re saying it’s a kind of reciprocal relationship, in that Western women have well defined rights, but their fetuses can be summarily executed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. redeye (626 comments) says:

    This is presumably the same Saudi that is such good friends with Junior Bush?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    @ East Wellington Superhero. Point on Ireland. There has been a movement and some high court cases recently to get them to allow abortion within the country. I think abortion is abhorrent. To me they become living human beings when there is brain activity and that is a hell of a lot earlier than the 70′s feminist ghouls like Dame Margaret Vulture would have us believe. The rates of abortion are far too high in New Zealand, I did an analysis and per head of population the rates are higher than those countries like India where sex selective abortion is rampant. I might post at some stage. @Scott Chris: I would say there is a reciprocal right once those rights are conferred to respect the rights of others.

    A horror story: I had a young girl helping me. She had an abortion because she didn’t think she was financially able to provide support. Good decision some might say?
    Get this: She had a brand new house in a nice area of town. a stable partner and they are getting married next year. She wants to start trying for children just 6 months after having an abortion. That New Zealand society has come to this is abhorrent to me. She told me, I told her never to feel guilt, because you see, it wasn’t her decision. society frowns on young mothers so society turfed her foetus into the incinerator. Shes got fertility problems now, not three months later; may never have more children, has a wardrobe full of baby gear.
    Rant over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. tknorriss (326 comments) says:

    Shocking but interesting cases that illustrates the difference between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

    According to moral relativism, we are not in a position to judge whether beheading a woman for sorcery is OK or not. In our culture it is not OK. However, in their culture it might be the right thing to do according to their own cultural norms. So, basically anything goes according to moral relatvism, so long as it fits within the context of cultural norms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    I’m not saying abortion causes fertility problems. I am saying societal attitudes can kill women and societal attitudes can also kill their babies and foetuses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. voice of reason (491 comments) says:

    Bed Rater (177) Says:
    December 14th, 2011 at 9:22 am
    I sometimes like reading Kiwiblog comment threads just to see how commentary on something universally abhorrent can be turned into a “us versus the left/labour” whingefest

    The very first post managed to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Manolo (12,637 comments) says:

    That’s Islam, the religion of peace, for the rest of us: a vile, barbaric and mythical concoction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. gump (1,231 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero said:

    For those that want to complain about the Catholic Church’s position on not allowing women to be priests I’m happy to discuss in another forum – but I’d note that no other philosophy has done more to elevate the position of women in human history than Christianity.

    ————————-

    If you want to look at things objectively then you would have to concede that Communism elevated the role of hundreds of millions of women in the USSR & China within the 20th century.

    The Pope is elected by the College of Cardinals and women are forbidden from becoming Cardinals. How does that philosophy “…elevate the position of women”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Elaycee (4,081 comments) says:

    “Elaycee, if the Saudi woman committed fraud then she should have been charged on that crime, because it is rights violation and that’s what the state is there for in the first place, but not to persecute someone for his/her freedom to practice mysticism”.

    Falafulu Fisi, I was merely pointing out that the headline suggesting ‘sorcery’ may not reflect our understanding of the word – we simply don’t know what constitutes ‘sorcery’ in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Al Jazeera has one version of the ‘crime’. Here is another (from Riyadh):

    http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article547011.ece

    But what gives us the right to tell Saudi what their Laws should / should not be? I can imagine the outcry if Saudis wanted Sharia Law introduced in New Zealand – all hell would break loose.

    Irony much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Monique Watson says:- “To me they become living human beings when there is brain activity”

    Fine, but it’s still an arbitrary cut off point, just as is the moment of birth. Many would say that self-awareness is the point at which humans become human, but then chimpanzees are self aware, so that test fails…Unless you want to grant chimps (and other self aware animals) human rights. Not such a bad idea imo.

    Personally, although I believe that wanton abortion is morally very dodgy even within the present context of society, I think the determining factor of the abortion issue boils down to the quality of the relationship between the parents and the child. If the parents love the child, then they’ll keep it. If they don’t, then the child’s fate is determined by the tyranny of the majority. That’s just the way it is. If you want to challenge that, then push for a referendum – or a revolution if you feel strongly enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    tknorriss says:-”so basically anything goes according to moral relativism”

    No. Moral relativism is a description of morality within its own context, just as one would dispassionately describe the prevailing cultural conditions that led to the Spanish inquisition and its subsequent demise.

    But you’ll find that most people who use moral relativism as an *objective descriptive tool* hold absolute moral views, albeit constructed from the idea that humans are selfish but reasonable. Such as me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. KevinH (1,129 comments) says:

    Before jumping to conclusions ,a good journalist would check the reliability of their sources. Judge for yourself:

    http://alwatandaily.kuwait.tt/#

    @tknorris
    Your comments regarding the differences between moral relativism and moral absolution are perhaps the best description of the dilemma associated with interpreting these types of cultural practices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tknorriss (326 comments) says:

    Scott: “No. Moral relativism is a description of morality within its own context, just as one would dispassionately describe the prevailing cultural conditions that led to the Spanish inquisition and its subsequent demise.”

    That is one way in which moral relativism is applied. But if the concept of moral relativism is accepted as valid, then it logically follows that anything does go if it is grounded in a cultural context. This is because there is no objective basis under moral relativism to judge the morality of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    The one where you’re sentenced to death for adultery, and your rapists (as the primary witnesses to your adultery) get to throw the first rocks at your head, to get the two-hour-plus execution process started, is another one that the religion of peace & love needs to move away from…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    tknorriss says:- “This is because there is no objective basis under moral relativism to judge the morality of others.”

    That’s right, unless it is to use the standards that people set for themselves as a measure, as this, paradoxically, is one way of being objectively subjective.

    But in theory, the application of a morally relative description is non-judgmental. It seeks only to describe, not prescribe, even if that narrative includes a description of hypocrisy within a particular moral system. (which some would see as a judgement of sorts)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Gwilly (154 comments) says:

    Welcome to Islam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. bc (1,252 comments) says:

    EWS “I’d note that no other philosophy has done more to elevate the position of women in human history than Christianity.”

    Yes the whole obeying your husband in the wedding vows is so liberaterating for women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. tknorriss (326 comments) says:

    “That’s right, unless it is to use the standards that people set for themselves as a measure, as this, paradoxically, is one way of being objectively subjective.”

    “Objectively subjective” has to be the ultimate oxymoron. :smile:

    “But in theory, the application of a morally relative description is non-judgmental. It seeks only to describe, not prescribe, even if that narrative includes a description of hypocrisy within a particular moral system. (which some would see as a judgement of sorts)”

    Yes, I understand that is how sociologists may apply the concept.

    However, if someone actually believes that morality is relative, then they have undermined any basis for them criticizing any practice that may emerge from another culture. To do so would imply they actually believed in an absolute standard which they were judging the particular activity against, which of course completely contradicts their position on relative morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ bc

    Can you please give some more detail to the misquotation and misrepresenting cliche you’ve just given there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. bc (1,252 comments) says:

    I think you understand me fine EWS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @bc

    Well maybe I do. Your comment is similar to something my 17 year old cousin said to me two nights ago and, like her, betrays your myopic view of Christianity and the realities of the world. If you think the Greeks or the Romans had some misty-eyed love of women and women’s rights then you don’t know your history. Women were second class citizens. It was Christianity that outrageously suggested that women were equal by virtue of the fact that they were human and made in God’s image. This pissed a whole lot of people off. Today many, if not a majority, of people who work across the globe with poor women, women slaved into prostitution, and human trafficking are Christians from Christian missions. The work of modern feminists in the West country is often aimed at middle and upper-class white women and is largely meaningless to women who really disadvantaged by their sex internationally. Christianity certainly doesn’t say that women are the same as men, or that men are the same as women, as the androgenisers would have us believe. But does say that they are equal in their dignity as human beings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Dick (80 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (602) Says:
    December 14th, 2011 at 9:50 am

    @ FF, PW, PG

    With regard to the debate about ‘majority rule’, the two cents I’d add is this. About two years ago Pope Benedict was criticised in the media after he read from a text a number of centuries old – not something that he’d written himself. (I’d note that the Pope is clever and he knew that he’d get attention so he knew what he was reading). Please bare with me… He alluded to the fact that at the core of Judeo-Christian theology is the idea that God is internally consistent with himself, the things he creates, and the Order he creates. Thus, God cannot act inconsistently with Reason. Reason does not explain God, but God doesn’t act inconstantly with Reason. The writer that Benedict quoted commented, that at the core of Islam is the idea the God is pure Will, and that that Muslim God doesn’t have to act consistently with his order. And so what this means in the religious world, is that even the Church has limits proscribed by Reason and God’s order, but that Islam doesn’t. Therefore if a Muslim religious leader says “God wills it” then it’s hard to construct a epistemological/theological argument against it because you believe God is pure Will. Now, of course Christians have from time-to-time said “God wills it” (a lot less than the atheists would have you believe) to things that by most standards of morality – and by the standards set by Jesus Christ – could not be justified when held to the light of Reason. And in due course the activities of certain church leaders and popular movements have been checked and denounced. The lack of the acceptance of true Reason within Islam makes it problematic. And I’d add, the lack of agreement on the truth, makes the modern discussion about human rights prone to popular movements, rather than a true discernment of what is right.

    For those that want to complain about the Catholic Church’s position on not allowing women to be priests I’m happy to discuss in another forum – but I’d note that no other philosophy has done more to elevate the position of women in human history than Christianity.

    One thing I notice with reading comments like these from Christian apologists, which are all over the internet, is that they always cherry pick to death what Christianity is about and never ever put it in a bad light, when a fully objective perspective would discuss the good and bad. Case on point – your example regarding women. If you look at the overall good compared to the atrocities committed to women by Christianity throughout history ever since the OT then you would objectively conclude that the harm done to them far outweighs the relatively recent (20th Century) good that has come as a result of change in civilization, culture, and human rights in general, not Christianity, which spans thousands of years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. tom hunter (4,010 comments) says:

    As bad as Saudi Arabia is it’s going to get a lot worse over the next few years in places like Egypt as the Islamists extend their reach into the military, just as they have in Turkey where the military played a very similar role for decades. Turkey was held to be an Islamic nation where such a change could never happen. In fact there are useful idiots in the West who are still arguing this.

    For all the attention given to Al Queda they’re not the smart ones because they allow their fanaticism to push them into grand, revolutionary gestures – like the 9/11 attacks. However, the Muslim Brotherhood are much smarter than that; they’ve had to be to survive in Egypt since their creation in the 1930′s. Having helped overthrow Mubarak, the smart thing to do is pretend to be a moderate:

    Well, I’ll let the most respected Muslim Brotherhood theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, do it for me.

    Let me underline that when Qaradawi answers a query, millions of people listen. Egyptian military officers and their families watch his show raptly and so do many others. And Qaradawi isn’t just talking for the sake of talking — he is teaching the revolutionary strategy of seizing all power for all time and imposing all of the Sharia on all of the people. Qaradawi is Lenin in a turban, as was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who did a little number on Iranian politics after the same people who are telling us now that the Brotherhood is moderate were telling us then that the Iranian Islamists were moderate.

    If only government officials, journalists, and “experts” would read and comprehend things like this, they might understand what’s happening in the Middle East and how their policy is headed for disaster.

    Qaradawi explains:

    Gradualism is one of the laws of nature that Allah Almighty has created. It is also needed in applying the rulings of the Sharia to make a change in people’s life.

    I’ll be interested to see how they cope with practical realities like feeding their nation, given that they’ve damned near run out of money and have perhaps only a few months worth of food importing capacity in their foreign exchange reserves. Perhaps their Islamist neighbours will help out. However, religious and tribal belief can help people endure, so even in that case I would not bet that the Muslim Brotherhood will get the blame, especially when the even more Islamist party – the Salafists – have leaders saying this:

    “The liberals have corrupted political life in the last 60 years. All they want is to protect their interests with the Americans and the Arabs.”

    As the writer says: when someone implies you are American puppet that’s equivalent to a “license to kill.” But for me his last comment is the most somber:

    There are thousands of examples of Western credulity toward dictators and extremists. Here’s one: the famous American liberal Lincoln Steffens interviewed Lenin in 1919:

    [Lenin] had shown himself a liberal by instinct. He had defended liberty of speech, assembly, and the Russian press for some five to seven months after the October revolution which put him in power. … But the plottings of the Whites [counterrevolutionaries], the distracting debates and criticisms of the various shades of reds, the wild conspiracies and the violence of the anarchists against Bolshevik socialism, developed an extreme left in Lenin’s party which proposed to proceed directly to the terror which the people were ready for.

    No doubt, when Muslim Brotherhood regimes become repressive and impose their program, we will be told: It’s the fault of the remnants of the Mubarak regime, Saudis, United States, Zionists, and the pressure from the Salafists to get tougher.

    Indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    EWS:Thus, God cannot act inconsistently with Reason. Reason does not explain God, but God doesn’t act inconstantly with Reason

    If God is omniscient then God cannot be consistent. This follows trivially from Godel’s incompleteness Theorem. The only way around this to demand that God is very knowledgable rather than all-knowing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Dick (80 comments) says:

    EWS:Thus, God cannot act inconsistently with Reason. Reason does not explain God, but God doesn’t act inconstantly with Reason

    Just because something is stated as fact doesn’t make it so. I’m sure Muslims in the Middle East would say the same thing: “Reason does not explain Allah, but Allah doesn’t act inconsistently with reason.” It’s just a load of bullshit. The Bible is full of examples of random shit that God does, most likely just written by men who didn’t know any better about science at the time and thus tried to use God to explain random events such as diseases and plagues that killed the majority of the babies in certain cities at the time etc. I mean, serious, how the fuck do you reason the ordering of the murdering of babies in every house except for those with blood painted on their doors? It’s not reason, it was simply the barbaric culture at the time. Christianity ought not to try to explain God in rational terms because that fails to recognise the historical context of what was practiced in historic civilizations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    DPF

    “God, where do you start.
    1.There is no such thing as sorcery
    2.Hence sorcery should not be a crime. It’s like making astrology a crime.
    3.Executing someone for a fictious offence is barbaric”

    You missed one.

    4.There is NO god at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. leftyliberal (616 comments) says:

    @chiz: One should not presume that something like Godel’s incompleteness theorem would stand in the way of “reason” in these matters! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    leftyliberal says:- “@chiz: One should not presume that something like Godel’s incompleteness theorem would stand in the way of “reason” in these matters!”

    Blimey, that sarcasm has Mikenmild written all over it. How’s things Mike? Thought it was you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. leftyliberal (616 comments) says:

    I’ll give you one thing Scotty – you know how to write an insult!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    Before you people try and show off with a lot of wanker words to impress everybody as to how intelligent you all are (and as a reminder as to why the rest of us should be sooooooooo f***ing impressed) you should remember one thing – noone else has the faintest idea what/who “Godel” is.

    The joke kinda fell flat.

    You mentioned “godel”; you expected 1000 people to think you were an intellectual giant and henceforth their intellectual master. In fact 1000 people looked back at you with dumb blank faces (whilst thinking “what a f**king wanker”)

    Maybe you should slink off to Red Alert or The Standard and try and impress them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. bc (1,252 comments) says:

    Oh come on EWS, you only have to read the Bible to know how christianity perceives women.

    The very first story had adam being made in God’s image. Adam gets to “walk with God”, but not Eve. She gets created from a part of man – talk about putting women in their place right there.
    But what there’s more! Next the woman truns out to be a temptress, and gets Adam to break God’s rules. Poor Adam gets kicked out of the garden of Eden. All because of nasty Eve.
    And there’s still more!! As a punishment God makes sure all women now have a difficult and painful childbirth.

    Yep, the very first story of the bible makes christianity’s opinion of women very clear. And it doesn’t get any better from then on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. tom hunter (4,010 comments) says:

    Lilly Raines: “What makes you think he’ll call back?”

    Frank Horrigan: “Oh, he’ll call back. He’s got ‘panache’.”

    Lilly Raines: “Panache?”

    Frank Horrigan: “Yeah, it means flamboyance.”

    Lilly Raines: “I know what it means.”

    Frank Horrigan: “Really? I had to look it up…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    Leftyliberal – It wasn’t an insult. Nothing wrong with the old Mikenmild persona. The heart was in the right place I think despite the closet conservatism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    @ Dick

    Get an education before you start talking cliche and crap.

    @bc

    You knowledge of Christianity seems to be limited to a superficial reading of a handful Christian scriptures. Do you even know any Christian women? Or are you just blathering with cliche?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    bc – Yep, the very first story of the bible makes christianity’s opinion of women very clear. And it doesn’t get any better from then on.

    Try reading the rest – like Christ’s attitude to women. especially compare his attitude to Mary Magdalene – ‘apostle to the apostles’, the men being basically fucking thick and non-understanding.

    You could be a little more AD than bc, bc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    It is hardly surprising that Muslims, Jews & Christians have a history of treating their women like shit. They all have their origins in a blood thirsty repressive Middle East & there’s great similarity in the Quran, the Torah & the Old Testament.

    Unfortunately organised religion has always encouraged the subjugation of women…..the Catholic religious law preventing women from becoming priests is a small example…atrocities against women sanctioned by Shariah law sponsored by the barbaric Muslim faith is religion at its worst.

    But say a prayer for them & it will all be okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dick (80 comments) says:

    East Wellington Superhero (604) Says:
    December 14th, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    @ Dick

    Get an education before you start talking cliche and crap.

    Holy shit! (As in, the shit of the Gods.) What a comeback! I can’t argue with such logic, I must withdraw from this debate as your point of view has blown my point away. I should have just taken what you said about God being rational as fact instead of questioning why He ordered the murdering of babies of Egypt instead of questioning the Bible (which was WRITTEN BY GOD). I might as well go to a church right now and become a Christian by receiving Christ as my saviour, holy shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    Some news items indicate the woman charged ill people $800 a session for ‘cures’ and was executed for sorcery.

    But none record any action against the ‘victims’ for also believing in sorcery, apparently more so than her, if in fact she was just a scammer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. nasska (9,549 comments) says:

    Yvette

    …”Some news items indicate the woman charged ill people $800 a session for ‘cures’ and was executed for sorcery.”…..

    Doesn’t put the cruel Muslim Shariah law in any better light. We have chiropractors & colour therapists ripping off the sick & dying here in secular NZ & our execution rate is very low. Even the Christian Church has long ceased to be associated with the burning of witches.

    Shariah justice….coming to a mosque near you soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    nasska – slightly missed the point there

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. gump (1,231 comments) says:

    chia said:

    If God is omniscient then God cannot be consistent. This follows trivially from Godel’s incompleteness Theorem. The only way around this to demand that God is very knowledgable rather than all-knowing.

    ———————–

    Speaking as someone with a degree in pure mathematics…

    Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (and it’s corollaries) is an extremely important result within pure mathematics. But it is an incredibly specialised technical argument with an extremely limited domain – it makes no sense to use it in the general sense as you have done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. bc (1,252 comments) says:

    Yvette: “You could be a little more AD than bc, bc”

    Great comeback! I like the cut of your jib! (Much better than being called cliched and superficial from EWS)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    Quick everyone – into the Interfaith outreach Mobile and start prattling about the equivelency of Christianity doing some things hundreds of years ago and Islam doing it now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    JamesS:Before you people try and show off with a lot of wanker words to impress everybody as to how intelligent you all are (and as a reminder as to why the rest of us should be sooooooooo f***ing impressed) you should remember one thing – noone else has the faintest idea what/who “Godel” is.

    The joke kinda fell flat.

    You mentioned “godel”; you expected 1000 people to think you were an intellectual giant and henceforth their intellectual master. In fact 1000 people looked back at you with dumb blank faces (whilst thinking “what a f**king wanker”)

    Maybe you should slink off to Red Alert or The Standard and try and impress them?

    What an incredibly mature reply. Godel’s incompleteness theorem is a very very famous result from mathematical logic and one that is very well known outside logicians. My argument was not a joke, it was quite serious. If you aren’t familiar with Godel you can always try the Wikipedia or google.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    gump:Speaking as someone with a degree in pure mathematics…

    Replying as someone who also has a degree in mathematics…

    Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (and it’s corollaries) is an extremely important result within pure mathematics. But it is an incredibly specialised technical argument with an extremely limited domain – it makes no sense to use it in the general sense as you have done.

    Why not? If God is omniscient in the sense that God knows everything, which is what most christians naively mean, then that means that God, among other things, knows which Axiom systems are consistent and which ones aren’t. If you ever managed to get in touch with Him you could ask, well mate , is ZFC+measurable cardinal+foobar’s axiom consistent and God would know the answer. Such a being cannot possibly be consistent by the incompleteness thm. The only way around this is to reduce the scope of “everything”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Scott Chris (5,682 comments) says:

    chiz

    Playing devil’s advocate here, wouldn’t God simply say that if maths isn’t internally consistent, then it is some how flawed? After all, it is merely a symbolic representation of abstract logic.

    Perhaps we haven’t learned to speak maths properly yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    scott – the problem is that isn’t really such a thing as “maths” in the singular. There are multiple systems – some are consistent, some aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.