Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mithridates]

Are you being dense today on purpose?

You said: Yes, but Islam is alone in having a blueprint for how the state should be organised.

I said: Plus the Vatican. That's a state.

You changed the subject and said: how many political movements are there in the Christian world working to bring back biblical laws?

I said: There are political movements a, b, and c.

That's it. I said nothing about Shariah.

[bigverne]

Yes, I firstly made a point about Islam being alone in having a blueprint for the state. You then answered that the Vatican is a state. How exactly does the vatican being a state, refute my statement that Islam is alone in having a legal framework for how a state is organised, and what laws govern that state?

To my next question about how many Christian movements there are working to bring back Biblical Laws, you stated a few Christian pressure groups mainly concerned with abortion and the family. None of them are pushing to bring back Biblical Laws such as stoning adulterers to death for example, in the same way that pro-Shariah groups are.

Anyway, my central point stands. There is no equivalent of the Shariah in non-muslim countries, and there are no political movements in Christian countries working to enact similar 'Shariah-esque' strictures. So, yes, it is unique to Islam.

Anyway, does anyone know the reasoning behind the banning of cinema in Saudi, or any of the other absurd rules that they have in that country?
What is the reasoning behind banning women drivers?

[bucheon bum]

[mithridates]

[bigverne]

[mithridates]

[bucheon bum]

Islam by Karen Armstrong.

Read it.

Thank you.

[mithridates]

Me?

[bucheon bum]

that was directed towards anyone and everyone who discusses Islam and Muslims.

It's not that long of a book and i'd venture the first half of the book is relevant to this discussion.

[bigverne]

I haven't read the book you are talking about, but I have read articles by the woman and she has a tendency to demonstrate the kind of moral equivalence and PC thinking seen on this, and many other threads.

If she spouts similar nonsense as written below in her book, I think I may give it a miss:-

The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.

We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.

Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle" or "effort." Muslims are commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts - social, economic, intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put the will of God into practice.

Here she whitewashes much of Islamic history and the Quran, and even pulls out the phoney 'we didn't call the IRA Christian terrorists' (that's because they never justified any actions on such a basis), together with the 'Jihad means struggle', which it does, although it is referred to numerous times in the Koran as explicitly military in nature.

It may also be true that Islam forbids agressive warfare. However, she does not address the fact that Islam provides extremely flimsy pretexts indeed, such as 'corruption in the land' for justifying such attacks.

Moreover, the idea she puts forward that Islam says 'there should be no coercion in religious matters' is in direct opposition to later verses of the Koran which abrogate earlier more peaceful verses. Of course, she would rather not address such contentious issues as these.

[bucheon bum]

Where is she white-washing history in that quote? She didn't even mention history there. She was talking theology and the principle of jihad.

[wannago]

Uhhh....back to the original thread.

Rumor has it, and rumor in the KSA is a long way from reality, that a movie theater will be opening in Jeddah (where I happen to live). Supposedly, there will be family theaters and single men theaters in the complex, much like most restaurants are in the KSA now. I'm sure films will be heavily edited like Wangja's example. I saw Walking Tall on a flight out once and it ran 34 minutes. No, it won't be great but it will be a step toward something resembling a normal society. Hey, pretty soon they'll let women drive!

[Pusanpoe]

Saudi life is centred around the family , prayers and shopping. There are huge numbers of DVD shops and incredibly inexpensive electronics. People have a busy social life because of the extended family whereas a lot of westerners live a rather atomized life. If there are too many prayers for you think about all the wasteful commercials they miss by watching less TV asnd the wonderful thoughts tjhe KORAN brings out as it is a very principled instruction on how to improve your life in a holistic way. When you can see the benefits of the local culture rather than simply criticize it because there are no movie houses helps one to be a real global citizen. That is not to say everything is perfect there.

[On the other hand]