(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Home Fires

[António Pedro Marques]

DAVID STOCKHOFF wrote (11-04-2012 15:11):
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* "entonio at gmail.com" <entonio at gmail.com>
> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:47 AM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Home Fires
>
> No dia 11/04/2012, às 12:49, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net
> <mailto:dstockhoff at verizon.net>> escreveu:
>
>  > On 4/11/2012 7:28 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>  >>
>  >> From another angle: severed limbs and stoning is what you have in Iran or
>  >> Saudi Arabia, two of the few countries which claim to base their laws on
>  >> sharia. Now, if iranians or saudi arabians living in Europe claim for the
>  >> introduction of sharia into the european legal systems, how come is an end
>  >> result of severed limbs and stonings a bogeyman?
>  >
>  > Because they'd probably have to stage a revolution to do so---a
> revolution which is not mentioned in HF.
>
> It's them claiming there is a demographic revolution going on, not their
> opponents.
>
> ---False. Their opponents DO claim that. Google something like "Europe
> demographics Islam."

Look, it isn't like I haven't been following the issue for ages... I live in 
Europe, you know. Their opponents only began talking about the demography 
*echoing* what the islamists had been boasting for long.

>  > Whereas the bogeyman of today (or rather from a few years ago) is
> depicted as a creeping horror.
>
> But it's *you* calling it an horror, it's you condemning 'sharia'. The
> people professing an islamic form of government cannot object to it. You're
> arguing as if severed limbs and stonings were not hallmarks of penal systems
> claiming to be based on sharia, but rather a libel. Wel, they are not. The
> Saudis and the Iranians aren't shy about defending those penalties.
>
> ---Like most Muslims, I approve of sharia without the medieval penalties.

But what's sharia without the 'medieval' penalties, and what's about it that 
should meet approval as opposed to what we have in our current legal systems?

> You're arguing as if all Muslims are fundamentalists like Iran and Saudi
> Arabia.

No, I'm saying those are the countries where it has been given legal weight. 
Most muslims do *not* live under sharia, nor do they desire to.

>  > Why would people who have fled repression of any kind be so keen on
> recreating it in their new country?
>
> I could say 'ask them', but the fact is that they came to europe feeing from
> poverty, not from repression.
>
> ---For the most part, yes. So what? Are they then Islamic fundies fleeing
> anti-sharia repression so they can set up Islamic republics? You've answered
> the question.

They - the ones who claim for sharia - are islamic traditionalists unwilling 
to live and let live by the laws of the societies that they went to live in.