Well, I doubt that there was much of a thing like being “openly gay” in the historic Muslim world, so it makes sense that there would be no legal definition of “homosexuals”. So instead, the crime is defined as some action like buttsecks.
I don’t think mass shooting is necessarily more extreme than fundamentalist laws in some countries. If a country “legally” executes 500 people for sodomy in a year, that is still pretty extreme. Getting executed through getting devoured by dogs is pretty extreme. Yet, in North Korea, it is apparently legal.
Anyway, since Sharia trials, as far as I know, are based on witness testimony and self defense, I wonder how the typical sodomy trial would go. “I saw you *** that guy!” “No, I did not”, “Nuh uh”…
If you change that to when an American pulls out an automatic rifle and kills 50 people (or 20 or whatever), or when an American blows up a federal building with a truck bomb, etc., I think you’ll find that the answer is most likely yes.
(Admittedly, we probably don’t do it when it’s US Armed Forces on a specific mission, and that’s a much harder call as to whether one should or should not).
Guy mows down some women too, just for good measure??
I don’t know about Islamic law, but one thing that’s interesting about the Torah in Judaism is that while it’s pretty clear that sex between men is disapproved of (not necessarily requiring death or anything, but definitely not approved of), it’s not at all clear that lesbian sex has any problems. Indeed, given that men could have multiple wives in ancient Israel, it seems likely that lesbian sex was good for keeping families together and happy, and jews think that sex between marriage partners is good for the stability of the family.
I researched this a bit when I had a gf who was jewish and bi.
^At those days, no one gave a shit about lesbian sex for various reasons.If the Lesbian community of those days was as influential as now there may have been different laws.
I think it’s hard for Westerners to understand the level of fidelity to religion here. Westerners are just not that religious, and even religious people don’t take the Bible literally. Except for a small minority.
In Islamic cultures, this is not so. If the Quran or Hadith tell you to do something, it is taken literally. Whether it is praying 5x a day, following the example of the prophet, or not eating pork. If the scripture says to do it, it has to be done otherwise you might go to hell. It is the word of God or the example of the Prophet, who is defined as perfect. Even liberals in the Muslim world derive authority for liberal ideas from the Quran. That’s why Muslims would rather get fired than not be allowed to pray, something everybody else is baffled by.
So while I agree Islamic extremism has roots in Islamic texts, I think the bigger problem is the relationship Myslims have with their religion. After all, Jewish scriptures are pretty violent too.
So in Iran two men can be flogged for kissing, correct? I realize this could apply to heterosexual relationships as well, but at least some form of partnership or marriage is made available, effectively making homosexuality, by definition, illegal. And in KSA cross dressing, coming out online and any other gay behavior is criminal, correct?
See:
The State Department’s 2014 human rights report notes it is illegal for men “to behave like women” or cross-dress. It also says the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice — the so-called “religious police” that enforces Sharia law in Saudi Arabia — uses undercover agents to target owners of social media accounts that distribute “pornographic content or served as social networking tools for LGBT persons in the kingdom.”
So basically, homosexuality isn’t illegal, just all forms of homosexual behavior (much of which is punishible by death). That’s cute.
Yeah, THAT’s the problem with ISIS. It’s good you pointed that out though, because as far as I can tell that’s probably about the biggest difference between them and KSA where the low life individuals have to confirm their affiliation first BEFORE the violence.
How’s the left going to play this? Stay mum on the fact that a store discriminated against him, preventing him from buying military grade body armor? Defend the store’s (possible) racial/religious discrimination? Come out and say selective discrimination is ok? In any other scenario, the left would be crying foul (i.e. the baker that refused to make a cake for a gay couple).
Declaring your loyalty to ISIS like this guy is like declaring your loyalty to the Golden State Warriors. You’re like a fan, I guess, but it’s not like they give you a revenue share.
In Al Qaeda, I think there were some standards as to who can join and what they can do. The whole ISIS thing gives credit to people who want to make something out of their name for a while,contrary to Al Qaeda it’s my anecdotal assumption that these dudes are not even religious .
Also, I am pretty sure sodomy is the only act that can lead to a penalty within Sharia .
Case 2:The same guy kills 50 people and announces he is a follower of ISIS.
Which one gets more views and clicks ?Also, there is a compounding effect going on,the more these ISIS affiliations acts are committed the scarier the name becomes for the average joe and the more power ISIS wields.
I originally thought this way, but I believe that ISIS came out and said they sanction the attack (in the “we’re behind it sense,” but maybe it was the “we suggested it” sense). Maybe that’s a rumor that got debunked, because I don’t hear as much talk about it as I would expect otherwise, but that’s what made me go to the “diploma mill” analogy.
My previous analogy was “If I declare my loyalty to Queen Elizabeth, and then immediately go out and rescue some homeless Corgi dogs, that doesn’t mean that Queen Elizabeth saved the Corgis.” I was kinda bummed not to be able to use that one anymore.
So I thought about it for a minute, and I think it’s more that ISIS has the option to claim responsibility to attacks that they consider worthy, even if they actually had nothing to do with those attacks. If some loser shoots a bunch of people and arbitrarily claims he did it for ISIS, they can say “Why yes… we planned it all along.” If the event is too hacksaw or is counter to their mission, they can deny the person’s claim of allegiance. So it’s like a free call option for ISIS. Maybe this is what the “diploma mill” thing means - I’m still trying to figure out that analogy.
