Kip Powick Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Not being a reader of the Koran, I wonder if this individual is twisting the "word of the Koran" in his defence or is this a legitimate claim........... SINGAPORE (Reuters) -- Three Singaporean Muslim women, all married to the same man, were sentenced to jail for persuading some of his under-age daughters to have sex with him, court documents showed on Thursday. The man, who has 10 wives and 64 children, was sentenced to 32 years in prison and 24 strokes of the cane in April 2006 after he was found guilty of raping five of his under-age daughters. The case has shocked many Singaporeans, both for the crimes committed and the unusual living arrangements depicted in the court papers. One of the wives was sentenced to nine years in jail after she coaxed her own daughter and two other under-age girls in the family to have sex with the man, court documents showed. "She was the cook in the family," the court papers said, adding that "she was also responsible for managing the fair and equal treatment of intimacy" between the man and 10 wives. The other two women, who each persuaded one of their own daughters to sleep with the man, both received three-year terms. "They participated in the sordid conspiracy by actively persuading their daughters into submitting to the sexual violations," District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan said in the documents. The man, citing the Koran, had told his wives and daughters that he had complete ownership over his children, including the right to have sex with his daughters, the papers showed. The wives then acted as his messengers, telling their daughters to meet their father in his bedroom whenever he wanted sex over a period of 18 months, according to the court papers, adding that two of the daughters have had abortions. The eldest daughter, now 17, went to the police in 2005 to report the rapes. The man, who ran a transportation business, has four legal wives and six contractual wives -- an arrangement whereby a Muslim couple enters into a union for a fixed period. His 33 sons and 31 daughters range in age from about 2 years to 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 We are fighting WWIII. WWII, against the Nazis. Korea, Vietnam, against the Communists. WWIII, against radical Islamics. When we fight this as if this is a war, then things will change. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 We are fighting WWIII. I do not agree that we are fighting WWIII. Who exactly is the enemy? What uniform does the enemy wear? Where is their turf? This kind of thinking is completely off base and not at all analgous to any prevous world war. The Vietnam comparison is probably somewhat apt because the US got bogged down in an unwinnable war just as they are in Iraq. After that I just don't get who we are at war with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Who exactly is the enemy? What uniform does the enemy wear? Where is their turf? That is the problem. They don't wear uniforms. They hide in schools and mosques, they strap explosives to their women and children and send them to blow themselves up, they use our laws against us. When our leaders finally see the light of how they are using our societal freedoms against us under the banner of "human rights", maybe then we will have a rethink of what 'Rights' really are. As I see it at this point, they are conducting themselves in a far more intelligent manner that we, as Western Society are. At this pace, we are only destined to lose. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 We are fighting WWIII. WWII, against the Nazis. Korea, Vietnam, against the Communists. WWIII, against radical Islamics. When we fight this as if this is a war, then things will change. Iceman Get Real! To equate this individual's actions with a mainstream or even radical interpretation of the Koran is the equivalent of suggesting that Winston Blackmore and his particular sect of polygamous (and allegedly pedophilic) nuts is representative of mainstream Christianity. Most observant Muslims would be appalled by this man's use of religion in his defence and, quite likely, the radical Islamicists (whatever their other failings) would be even more appalled. The guy is a criminal pedophile under pretty much anyone's definition, and that's how this should be viewed (and seems is in Singapore). To suggest that we engage in a WWIII with anyone on the basis of this is roughly the equivalent to suggesting that the Chinese should have invaded Canada in response to Paul Bernardo. If we want to move forward as a nation and culture with the intent of being a force for positive change in the world then one of the first things we need to do is to be able to distinguish between that which represents the mainstream belief of other cultures and societies versus the extremist, intolerant or criminal fringes of those cultures which in truth are no more weird, wacky or inexcusable than our own homegrown brand of nutcases. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Pete Amen!! Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 I guess we should then have to go to war with the Dukabours and the Mormons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 The world would be a safer and more peaceful place if all religions were outlawed. It is astonishing to think that most conflict situations present in the world today have religion as a root cause. Can't we live moral and ethical lives without believing in the imagined?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Pete: right on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 The world would be a safer and more peaceful place if all religions were outlawed. It is astonishing to think that most conflict situations present in the world today have religion as a root cause. Can't we live moral and ethical lives without believing in the imagined?? Not so sure that religion is the root cause. I suspect it continues to be radicals using religion as their excuse to do evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 "believing in the imagined??" I have a great difficulty with the concept of organized religion. Everyone basically wants to get to the same destination and yet most doctrines claim to be the true and only path to salvation? Religion is much like the political "Party" system. Everything offered is flavoured accordingly and can only honestly represent the word of "man". IMHO, people should be free to live and practice the faith of their choosing (certain restrictions do apply), or not at all. Spirituality is another issue. Is the quote above intending to suggest that spiritual belief is an absolutley flawed concept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 "believing in the imagined??" I have a great difficulty with the concept of organized religion. Everyone basically wants to get to the same destination and yet most doctrines claim to be the true and only path to salvation? Religion is much like the political "Party" system. Everything offered is flavoured accordingly and can only honestly represent the word of "man". IMHO, people should be free to live and practice the faith of their choosing (certain restrictions do apply), or not at all. Spirituality is another issue. Is the quote above intending to suggest that spiritual belief is an absolutley flawed concept? Spot on, Defcon. Those have been my sentiments for nearly 35 years. It took a while to quantify what I thought but I've now got a stock answer for anyone asking "Well what DO you believe in?". Me, I believe in the Human Spirit. And that gives me hope over time. But not in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Defcon, in my opinion, spirituality is an individual concept that has nothing to do with religion. Must you believe in an imaginary creator to be spiritual or to have soul?? I don't believe in a non-existant creator, yet I consider myself to be extremely spiritual and introspective. What irks me the most about organized religions is the arrogance in which they believe they have a monopoly on morality and ethics. As a side note, I came across this quote a few weeks back: If one person is delusional, it's insanity but if many people are delusional, it's religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 YYC IC "Defcon, in my opinion, spirituality is an individual concept that has nothing to do with religion." I might say; spirituality is an individualistic concept that has little to do with organized religion. "If one person is delusional, it's insanity but if many people are delusional, it's religion." That is often my opinion as well. "But must you believe in an imaginary creator to be spiritual or to have soul??" I'm not of the opinion that our Creator is imaginary. I'm not certain as to the true "nature" of our Creator but, my very being tells me that there's a much bigger picture out there than I'm able to see and IT is ever present? Someone once said, "prove to me that there is a God". The other inquires; "Do you love your child"? The answer of course is; "yes" to which the other responds; "prove it"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 religion is just the scapegoat. People need an excuse to kill people they hate. Religion, or some deity gets the blame, but when you get right down to it, it's just racism or some other pathetic human hatred of another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 The world would be a safer and more peaceful place if all religions were outlawed. It is astonishing to think that most conflict situations present in the world today have religion as a root cause. Can't we live moral and ethical lives without believing in the imagined?? Sure and maybe we can have free speech outlawed too. While we're at it why doesn't the government just tell us what we can and can't think. Maybe you're against blacks and Jews too. Do you wear a funny white hat on weekends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Handyman, I am of free mind - I own my brain.........unlike many of the believers. And from my recollection of your many anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic posts of the past, is it not ironic for you to call anybody "against" anything - akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Don't let your devout Christian belief get in the way of an intelligent discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Defcon, in my opinion, spirituality is an individual concept that has nothing to do with religion. Must you believe in an imaginary creator to be spiritual or to have soul?? I don't believe in a non-existant creator, yet I consider myself to be extremely spiritual and introspective. What irks me the most about organized religions is the arrogance in which they believe they have a monopoly on morality and ethics. As a side note, I came across this quote a few weeks back: If one person is delusional, it's insanity but if many people are delusional, it's religion. The problem with your idea is that some people (the majority of people I guess) require a belief and fear of something more powerfull than themselves. If it was not for the moral guidelines handed down by organized religion along with fear of judgement by a higher being, the world would be a far worse place than it is today. And my point of view is that of an Agnostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 And my point of view is that of an Agnostic. At the end of the day, I am an agnostic too. An aethiest is essentially a believer as well - he just believes there's no God. I have no proof either way, thus I am an agnostic (although an aethiest leaning agnostic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 At the end of the day, I am an agnostic too. An aethiest is essentially a believer as well - he just believes there's no God. I have no proof either way, thus I am an agnostic (although an aethiest leaning agnostic). From the man who coined the phrase: Huxley defined agnositicism as follows, and this is perhaps, the truest definition of the term today: “… it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.” It is not merely a matter of whether or not one knows if God exists, but it is a matter of whether one can objectively define his belief, whether in God or in anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 At the end of the day, I am an agnostic too. An aethiest is essentially a believer as well - he just believes there's no God. I have no proof either way, thus I am an agnostic (although an aethiest leaning agnostic). No, you're just a lost soul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 Well here's something to gnaw on...a rather brave soul going public... One man's opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 No, you're just a lost soul! No Handyman, I have soul, spirituality, and most importantly, clarity.......that's the benefit of not giving proxy over one's mind to an imagined creator. Hard to be herded like a sheep when you own your own brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYC I/C Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Well here's something to gnaw on...a rather brave soul going public... One man's opinion... Kip, I'm taking odds........I give that brave man 2 to 1 that he makes it beyond 2007. He makes Salman Rushdie look innocent by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 No Handyman, I have soul, spirituality, and most importantly, clarity.......that's the benefit of not giving proxy over one's mind to an imagined creator. Hard to be herded like a sheep when you own your own brain. I shouldn't stick my nose into this but I'm just wondering why you think it is that you have a brain and why do you recognize it as being yours. Why do you have a sense of beauty or justice; why are you able to love or feel empathy. From a scientific standpoint why is that a infinite number of dimensionless particles look, taste, smell, sound or feel like something. Why is there anything at all. How does time mesh when time is different for everyone and everything depending on their velocity and gravity. I was reading through my most recent copy of Scientific American yesterday and here is a quote from an article called "The Simpler Origin for Life". Richard Dawkins elaborated on this image of the earliest living entity in his book The Selfish Gene: "At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself" Now Dawkins and others think that life could have just happened "by accident" and that all of the questions that I asked above all happened by accident as well. Francis Collins, (who holds down the top job for bilologists around as "Head of the Human Genome Project"), sees the evolutionary process as, (the name of his recent book), "The Language of God". Now people can go on believing that this world just happened by some random accident or you can come to the conclusion that there is an external intelligence behind our creation. In my case I found that the idea that life and the universe are the result of some cosmic accident requires more faith than I can muster. So in the end I am much happier with believing in a Creator than I am in an "imagined accident". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.