I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

"You put your right foot out..."

Yorkie -



A lot of politicians make policy with their bums, too. I wish it were as orderly and beautiful as a spider's web!

For E....just cause I ran across it and thought of you:

Hee, hee!

Like the humor of my crazy favorite cousin, a.k.a. the man I needed who came over today to put my new piece of furniture together.

Chickadee, I'm not sure. But my guess is that it's no worse than what some Republicans are wanting American women,Christian and otherwise, to endure.

I was curious too.  Found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia  It is heavy reading but interesting.  As with most things the application of it seems to depend on the culture of the community involved.  Not really what I expected to tell the truth. 

I searched out the most right wing source in the US that could be reputable and I came upon.....the CIA World Factbook.

Sharia law is described thus (my italics):

Islamic Law - The most widespread type of religious law, it is the legal system enforced in over 30 countries, particularly in the Near East, but also in Central and South Asia, Africa, and Indonesia. In many countries Islamic law operates in tandem with a civil law system. Islamic law is embodied in the sharia, an Arabic word meaning "the right path." Sharia covers all aspects of public and private life and organizes them into five categories: obligatory, recommended, permitted, disliked, and forbidden. The primary sources of sharia law are the Qur'an, believed by Muslims to be the word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, and the Sunnah, the teachings of the Prophet and his works. In addition to these two primary sources, traditional Sunni Muslims recognize the consensus of Muhammad's companions and Islamic jurists on certain issues, called ijmas, and various forms of reasoning, including analogy by legal scholars, referred to as qiyas. Shia Muslims reject ijmas and qiyas as sources of sharia law.

More here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2100.html

****************

Here is what those useless commie pinkos from the Center for American Progress (sarcasm oozing) have to say about sharia, and in response to the report initialy making allegations that were misleading:

Most academics studying Islam and Muslim societies give a broad definition of Sharia. This reflects Muslim scholars struggling for centuries over how best to understand and practice their faith.

But these specialists do agree on the following:

• Sharia is not static. Its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time.
• There is no one thing called Sharia. A variety of Muslim communities exist, and each understands Sharia in its own way. No official document, such as the Ten Commandments, encapsulates Sharia. It is the ideal law of God as interpreted by Muslim scholars over centuries aimed toward justice, fairness, and mercy.
• Sharia is overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws.

Any observant Muslim would consider him or herself a Sharia adherent. It is impossible to find a Muslim who practices any ritual and does not believe himself or herself to be complying with Sharia. Defining Sharia as a threat, therefore, is the same thing as saying that all observant Muslims are a threat.

The CSP report authors—none of whom has any credentials in the study of Islam— concede this point in several places. In the introduction they say, “Shariah is a reference point for a Muslim’s personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.” Yet the rest of the report contradicts this point.

.....

The “Sharia threat” argument is based on an extreme type of scripturalism where one pulls out verses from a sacred text and argues that believers will behave according to that text. But this argument ignores how believers themselves understand and interpret that text over time.

The [my bold] equivalent would be saying that Jews stone disobedient sons to death (Deut. 21:18- 21) or that Christians slay all non-Christians (Luke 19:27). In a more secular context it is similar to arguing that the use of printed money in America is unconstitutional— ignoring the interpretative process of the Supreme Court.

More here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/report/2011/03/31/9175/understanding-sharia-law/

This site has some very informative and interesting clips about neo-religious women in the Levant.

http://www.veiledvoices.com/content/sneak-peek

I just had a thought. What if those who fear the implementation of a fictitious form of Sharia law in the US are on the wrong track completely?

Maybe instead of fearing  a group who primarily live far away, they should fear the nearest big neighbour - Canada. What if some of our laws were imposed? There would be gun laws, bilingualism, no capital punishment, abortions and universal health care to name a few. Even with our conservative Prime Minister, we have been able to keep those features of our country. Our Federal goverment sometimes trumps provincial rights. We have Federal and Provincial elections with standard forms, criteria, voting days and no room for gerrymandering (except a few tricks the Conservatives learned from Republicans). It might be a frightening possiblity.

I am seriously considering it.

Milan Fashion Week is still here. Very interesting collection from Dolce & Gabbana. The two co-creative directors (Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana) are Italian to their very soul, often featuring aspects of Sicilian and other southern Italian life, with a high fashion twist and superb tailoring. This collection, with its stunning fresco-like fabrics, is timely given what is going on in the Vatican. It is a fest of sex and religion, and you also can appreciate their incredible skill with lace:

The disturbing part to me is how often they play with the whore-Madonna complex, but they are also parlaying a strong cultural current in doing so:

There is always some Milanese sophistication (one of them is Sicilian, the other is Milanese - I forget which is which):

Boy, those head accessories. They really know how to make a show.

To me, the Dolce and Gabbana woman is always playing a familial role - either mother or daughter. Sometimes, just the lengths of the skirt and the movement of fabric can tell you who is who:

Versus:

Just when I think I have these two figured out, they amaze with their range. I think the show was today - looking forward to reading the reviews. I'd love to see the literature (in the show program the designers will have a piece explaining the inspiration and intent).

Blue...that is too funny.  As always I'm relying on those of you here who can find the right information ( trusted sources ) so I can learn.  I have and had little awareness of Islam.  I always started though ( as simplistic as it may seem ) from the premise that if you are sane to begin with, most people actually ( allowing for cultural customs ) want nearly the same thing. 

Lassie...you have a very good point.

I think in the main, the people who want 'less' government are going to see bogeymen, point fingers and otherwise give into hysteria on very little evidence.  That a shame.  Some bright, intelligent people, but as long as you focus on everything that looks threatening, that is all you will get. 

Jackie

Athena, those look like the Ravenna mosaics, and the tiaras and jewelry are clearly sourced from Byzantine prototypes as well. Not sure my poor husband would approve of Jesus being splattered on a dress.

The plain tweed things remind me so much of things my mother wore in the 50s and 60s.

Checked Ravenna, but on second thought, it is probably Palermo that is the inspiration here: