It's a waste of time becoming a medieval historian

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Are you being sarcastic? Otherwise I can't believe you just said that."Civilising the black man, although he be the most primative of primative, is a prime objective of the Holy Anglican Church in this 19th century"Why don't you steal educate their children and teach them to be civilised europeans human beings while you're at it?

Look, I do not beat around the bush or indulge in coddlywobbly PC talk; when I see a primitive human, I'll call him a primitive human. When the Anglican Church referred to the black man as the most primitive of the primitive in the 19th century, then I am positive they were generally correct.

There are many misconceptions about primitiveness; it simply denotes an early stage of development. It's also a relative term; compare British civilisation in the 19th century, perhaps the most advanced in the world at that time, with the civilisation of most Sub-Saharan Negroid tribes. The gap between them would be obvious, and as the civilisation of the Negroid tribes would be closer to the "original" (hence primitive) stage of mankind (many of these were and still are hunter-gatherer societies), it was fully justified to say they were the most primitive of the primitive - unless of course they could find someone even more primitive. And I'm not just grinding my own wheat here; a thousand years earlier you could see a similar gap between the Islamic world and the Europeans, and this is reflected in how Islamic sources describe Europeans.

Honour killings are an indicator of a society that is comparatively quite primitive when compared with the most advanced forms of civilsation today. We certainly had honour killings in Europe too, but these were gradually extinguished in the Middle Ages as the King was to a greater extent able to enforce the monopoly of legitimate violence that is the fundament of any state. Honour killings were thus an earlier, more primitive stage of our development. Likewise in the Middle East today, the antiquated practice of honour killings is carried on mainly by people from rural and uneducated social groups, who have progressed the least, and there is a civilisational gap between these and the higher strata of society.

Edited by Reginmund - 02-Dec-2007 at 12:17

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Once they are about 30 that would be a true statement. People who think like that from the start are maybe only 20-30%

You have solid sources behind your claim, I'm sure.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Very well illustrated. You just measured a families worth in dollars. That is an extrodinarily western thing to do, and really shoots your whole argument in the foot. Its true that conservative westerners do value the family (albeit a nuclear family not an extended one). But these are people who for some reason haven't kept up with the times. Perhaps they disagree with the current fashions, perhaps they couldn't care less about them. Either way, you can't hold them up as typical anymore.

Marriage is much about economics in any socieity.

And I do wonder on what you base your information on western society. The family is and always was of highest value here. It doesn't matter that the less-family oriented are the loudest groups; they are certainly not in the majority.


Though I do agree retirement homes are barbaric.
----

I'll refrain from commenting the saudi woman case, I don't really trust any information coming from that place enough to consider myself able to make up a well-founded opitnion.

----

Rule no1, Reginmund: only when talking about Europeans primitive may be called primitive.

Hello sparten

I'll speak my mind at all times and I won't alter my opinions or voice them any differently under threat of suspension. Were I to do that I would lose all respect for myself, and I'd rather be suspended with my integrity intact than to be yap to the tunes of the PC like a whipped dog. The decisions of the moderators I will leave up to them, but I won't tailor my rhetoric to suit all sensibilities. I do not wish to hurt or offend anyone but I won't corrupt what I see as the truth to avoid it either.  

Edited by red clay - 02-Dec-2007 at 16:11

Originally posted by Sparten ^ I do hope that was in jest?   Al Jassas, The fact remains that the procedural law is very clear on this, a confession dose not suffice, only if 4 witnesses can be brought forward with sufficient evidence that the act was indeed consensual, only then can Hadd be applied. Here the judge just presumed that she was a slut and  awarded the punishment. It may be Saudi law. But it certainly is not Islamic law.

Edited by longshanks31 - 02-Dec-2007 at 16:53

Sparten, i agree, i can happily bore you to a coma with all the things wrong with the british legal system, there isnt a legal system in the world that is perfect, and i doubt the will ever be.

Rape is the ultimate act of taking into possession someone else's autonomy and choice- it is the reduction of a fellow human into a utilitarian means to an end; something which is fundamentally at odds with the ethics of the moral imperative.

It has been observed that structure and rigid societies can tend to care little for the desires and dreams of individuals- there can be the subsumption of the individual into the collective without there being any positive impact on the society as a whole. These Benthamite philosophies always tend to hold the individual in shallow regard in comparison with the collective.

Although i agree with Brian about his rehabilitation talk. Beating someone does not rehabilitate him.

mughaal, i shall not name names but i think theres one or two kings that still need standing up to, and i very much hope muslims one day get around to it