NationStates

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Would a Maturidi Islamic country consider rape hirabah? (hirabah is punishable by death whether the criminal is married or unmarried whereas zinah* is not punishable by death for unmarried people although some scholars advocate it for adultery)
This sources thinks rape is hirabah:
https://studentsofknowledge.org/fiqh-of ... -in-islam/, https://www.learnreligions.com/what-doe ... pe-2004208
*fornication or adultery

Does Sharf not have a grand mufti? Or a caliph?

Actually it may not even matter, it requires a great bureaucracy to enforce uniform application of laws.

Is beheading with a sword a painless form of execution (if done properly like with Anne Boleyn)?

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Is beheading with a sword a painless form of execution (if done properly like with Anne Boleyn)?

Oddly no one asks for liquor as a last request in pop culture.

It will be painless if the person is smashed out drunk.

Won't work for Islamic countries, but there are natural anesthetics.

Danternoust wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Is beheading with a sword a painless form of execution (if done properly like with Anne Boleyn)?

Oddly no one asks for liquor as a last request in pop culture.

It will be painless if the person is smashed out drunk.

Won't work for Islamic countries, but there are natural anesthetics.

If the government need to knock someone out they might as well use the guillotine, firing squad or lethal injection.

Gallia: Also why do Arab countries have the death penalty for rape but America (which has the death penalty) doesn't if Arab countries consider rape a relatively minor crime?
https://news.trust.org/item/20201013104818-jvh1t
Why don't those Arab countries have death sentence for movie piracy and fraud seeing as these sometimes get harsher sentences than rape in the UK?

Danternoust wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Would a Maturidi Islamic country consider rape hirabah? (hirabah is punishable by death whether the criminal is married or unmarried whereas zinah* is not punishable by death for unmarried people although some scholars advocate it for adultery)
This sources thinks rape is hirabah:
https://studentsofknowledge.org/fiqh-of ... -in-islam/, https://www.learnreligions.com/what-doe ... pe-2004208
*fornication or adultery

Does Sharf not have a grand mufti? Or a caliph?

Actually it may not even matter, it requires a great bureaucracy to enforce uniform application of laws.

Sharifistan has a Grand Mufti

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Gallia: Also why do Arab countries have the death penalty for rape but America (which has the death penalty) doesn't if Arab countries consider rape a relatively minor crime?
https://news.trust.org/item/20201013104818-jvh1t
Why don't those Arab countries have death sentence for movie piracy and fraud seeing as these sometimes get harsher sentences than rape in the UK?

Marrying a 9 year old is acceptable in some parts of the Arab world, with Muhammed supposedly marrying one, and 13+ is usually legal, but, this isn't legally considered to be rape. It also isn't considered to be rape if a woman reveals herself in public in some places and is raped, so, it's largely an issue of how it's prosecuted. It also depends on the specific countries.

Manokan Republic wrote:

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Gallia: Also why do Arab countries have the death penalty for rape but America (which has the death penalty) doesn't if Arab countries consider rape a relatively minor crime?
https://news.trust.org/item/20201013104818-jvh1t
Why don't those Arab countries have death sentence for movie piracy and fraud seeing as these sometimes get harsher sentences than rape in the UK?

Marrying a 9 year old is acceptable in some parts of the Arab world, with Muhammed supposedly marrying one, and 13+ is usually legal, but, this isn't legally considered to be rape. It also isn't considered to be rape if a woman reveals herself in public in some places and is raped, so, it's largely an issue of how it's prosecuted. It also depends on the specific countries.

Good point about depends on specific countries. But which countries is raping a girl considered "Not rape"f she's dressed slutty (which is no excuse)? Also source that most Arab countries have the age of consent at 13?

Many places in the United States did have the death penalty for rape until the Supreme Court struck it down as cruel and unusual in Coker v. Georgia (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008).

Ainin wrote:Many places in the United States did have the death penalty for rape until the Supreme Court struck it down as cruel and unusual in Coker v. Georgia (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008).

Good point.

Three separate church services daily. On ordinary days and most Sundays: Mattins+Sext/Nones/Tierce at 6 a. m./sunrise for ~1 hours; High Mass at 12 p. m./noon for ~1 hours; Vespers+Compline at 6 p. m./sunset for ~1 hours.

On red letter feast days, Mattins+Prime/Tierce at 6 a. m./sunrise for ~2 hours; High Mass at 12 p. m./noon for ~2 hours; Vespers+Compline at 6 p. m./sunset for ~2 hours.

In a fairly religious society, would you think people would be able to attend at least two of these services?

Only priests, monks, and nutcases are going to go to church twice a day.

The religiosity of a society has little correlation with church attendance.

(Obviously there's some correlation but there are other important factors.)

Based on everything we've seen so far about the Sodor-esque hellscape of Great Nortend I'd expect to see the familiar 19th-early 20th century pattern of dismal attendance in the official church and rising competition from non-conformists.

On the other hand, we are more authoritarian than the liberal 19th and 20th centuries. I could make it law that one must attend at least one service on Sundays and red letter days, like in Elizabethan times. Possibly that would be too much. But I don't think non-conformism would be very big problem simply because non-conformism means you could lose your job, government welfare, the right to vote, full citizenship &c. I think there would be a problem with resentment amongst the population forcing them to sit through hours of offices and masses. Will have to think about it.

Also, I would be alarmed if a monk only went to church twice a day. Do you mean Sodor as in the Island of Sodor? I can assure you we don't have talking traction engines.

Worshiping more than once a day only really works when different services offer different things such as a formal service focused on preaching and education in the morning and a much more relaxed and entertaining service later in the day, particularly if you work in general community events to the later meeting including communal meals etc.

Crookfur wrote: formal service focused on preaching and education in the morning

Yes, the more formal and impersonal (ie, boring) the service the fewer people will attend. Regular church attendance was quite rare during the Middle Ages, and later compulsory attendance laws were ineffective. Church of England attendance probably peaked in the "liberal" mid-19th century.

Great Nortend wrote:But I don't think non-conformism would be very big problem simply because non-conformism means you could lose your job, government welfare, the right to vote, full citizenship &c.

History teaches us this is how it works lol

This is a part of Rezmaeristan's ideology, authenticity:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rez ... id=1356647

It's not officially enforced, but heavily promoted in the media and education. How many people should I expect to be wearing Western clothes and otherwise engaging in cultural colonialism?(I meant that last part sarcastically and semi IC)

Rezmaeristan wrote:This is a part of Rezmaeristan's ideology, authenticity:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rez ... id=1356647

It's not officially enforced, but heavily promoted in the media and education. How many people should I expect to be wearing Western clothes and otherwise engaging in cultural colonialism?(I meant that last part sarcastically and semi IC)

I'd look to Tajikistan since they have a similar attitude where traditional Tajik clothing is heavily encouraged (Or if you're a woman they have a nearly 400 page guidebook for what's considered acceptable to wear, although it's not mandatory to follow it) but not mandatory. You'll still find people wearing Western clothes in Tajikistan though. Sometimes police give them trouble for wearing foreign clothing, but not always. Tajikistan has a somewhat different reasoning though, they're mostly trying to get rid of Islamic clothing because they think it would promote extremism and they're not outright trying to discourage Western clothing altogether.

Dayganistan wrote:

Rezmaeristan wrote:This is a part of Rezmaeristan's ideology, authenticity:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=rez ... id=1356647

It's not officially enforced, but heavily promoted in the media and education. How many people should I expect to be wearing Western clothes and otherwise engaging in cultural colonialism?(I meant that last part sarcastically and semi IC)

I'd look to Tajikistan since they have a similar attitude where traditional Tajik clothing is heavily encouraged (Or if you're a woman they have a nearly 400 page guidebook for what's considered acceptable to wear, although it's not mandatory to follow it) but not mandatory. You'll still find people wearing Western clothes in Tajikistan though. Sometimes police give them trouble for wearing foreign clothing, but not always. Tajikistan has a somewhat different reasoning though, they're mostly trying to get rid of Islamic clothing because they think it would promote extremism and they're not outright trying to discourage Western clothing altogether.

What a coincidence, Rezmaeristan is a generic Indo-Iranian country and loosely based on Tajikistan, Afghanistan(more specifically the Pashtuns), Kashmir, Nuristanis, Kalash, Iran, et cetera. Anyway Astbolan'q is in fact inspired by Zairian authenticity, as the factbook alludes to. Right down to how as Mobutu got older he started relaxing it(the idea being that Urmarkan's successor Rushtihad was appointed by him as he moderated with age)

Triplebaconation wrote:

Crookfur wrote: formal service focused on preaching and education in the morning

Yes, the more formal and impersonal (ie, boring) the service the fewer people will attend. Regular church attendance was quite rare during the Middle Ages, and later compulsory attendance laws were ineffective. Church of England attendance probably peaked in the "liberal" mid-19th century.

Great Nortend wrote:But I don't think non-conformism would be very big problem simply because non-conformism means you could lose your job, government welfare, the right to vote, full citizenship &c.

History teaches us this is how it works lol

To be honest, I find preaching and catechism comparatively informal. Formal would be strict adherence to the liturgical texts. I shudder to think what a “more relaxed and entertaining service” would in fact entail. Vespers or Evensong isn't what I'd consider relaxed or entertaining, though I suppose it is more relaxed than a Mass. The Church of Nortend doesn't even sing hymns at masses, and only allows for one hymn at other services.

I would also say attendance was rare in the middle ages because there was no obligation to attend. The majority of the “services” were not aimed for the people, apart from the high feasts and festivals. It is true that later attendance requirements weren't very effective.

Anyway, this was given me much to think about. Imagine going to compulsory morning chapel services Monday to Saturday, and then having to also attend two services on Sunday for twelve years (compulsory morning chapel at schools). And then during national service and university, there are compulsory morning and evening college chapel services all week plus noon Mass on Sundays

When “free”, I can imagine either adults be glad to only have to attend twice on Sundays OR being resentful that they have to attend at all.

Relaxed and entertaining would in my experience be gospel hall/evangelical/ salvation army "happy clappy" service that are primarily a sing along rather than the more dour Presbyterian hymn/preaching sandwich.

But if you dance in church you're going straight to heck I guess.

Gallia- wrote:But if you dance in church you're going straight to heck I guess.

Not if you do it with snakes.

Possibly true but Great Nortend seems like the type who thinks square dances are the devil and finds oppressively boring singing of the Psalms to be a good Saturday evening.

So I guess the average zealous Protestant idk.

Gallia- wrote:Possibly true but Great Nortend seems like the type who thinks square dances are the devil and finds oppressively boring singing of the Psalms to be a good Saturday evening.

So I guess the average zealous Protestant idk.

And I praise Jove daily for never letting the desert religions of Abrahamism write Ostmarkian history.

Crookfur wrote:Relaxed and entertaining would in my experience be gospel hall/evangelical/ salvation army "happy clappy" service that are primarily a sing along rather than the more dour Presbyterian hymn/preaching sandwich.

Entertaining isn't the correct word. However, state-sponsored churches often offer little to the individual worshipper since they're mainly concerned with legitimizing power structures.

Mainline Christianity descended from state churches has lost out to Evangelism because Evangelical churches emphasize a personal spiritual experience over ritual.