Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Your trolling isn't going unnoticed Aid4n.
Afghan Woman's Public Execution Slammed
- Thread starter Spook187
- Start date
Yet, having read the Qur'an, you would obviously concede that verses not merely permitting, but inciting such punishments, do exist? Thus, if you believe that said book was dictated by the creator of the universe, do you not think that people would be likely to act upon that belief?
I'm just interested as to how the behavioural consequences of belief aren't really considered, when having these conversations.
The Quran doesn't say such a thing?
The Hadith and Quran are not the same thing, the Hadith was written years later if I remember right as an additional "guide" to help people understand terms in the Quran that they might not understand, like an interpretation of sorts, the Hadith is not the word of god. Think of the variations like left wing/right wing political groups.
That's why many variations of Hadith exist, not all of them for the better though sadly.
It is the Hadith (some of, anyway) that these backwards cultures are still following with ancient traditions and over the decades have been subjected to corruption and political agendas.
The Hadith and Quran are not the same thing, the Hadith was written years later if I remember right as an additional "guide" to help people understand terms in the Quran that they might not understand, like an interpretation of sorts, the Hadith is not the word of god. Think of the variations like left wing/right wing political groups.
That's why many variations of Hadith exist, not all of them for the better though sadly.
It is the Hadith (some of, anyway) that these backwards cultures are still following with ancient traditions and over the decades have been subjected to corruption and political agendas.
Last edited:
It absolutely does. Though, it has often been said that the Qur'an should only be read in Arabic, I have read the Marmaduke Pickthall translation which, as far as I have been able to tell, has been most highly praised of the English translations. That, whilst comparing it to my translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (which I haven't read in its entirety).
I seriously don't understand how people can think that the Torah, the Bible or the Qur'an are 'nice' books, or that Mohammad was a peaceful man... It just underlines incredible ignorance, or a phantasmagorical level of denial. Read the books and find out for yourself.
I would not concede that precisely becasue I have read the Qu'ran, both in Classical Arabic and in translation, because the woman in question was married and Rajm doesn't apply to married women or men anyway (it is also not in the Qu'ran, no crime in the Qu'ran makes mention of stoning as a punishment).....and it is entirely the province of the unmarried.
Also the An-Nur 24:2–9 verses that refer to Adultery do not mention stoning either. They mention lashes (for both the Adulteress and Adulterer) and the conditions laid out for bringing witnesses to prove their innocence and the punishments for those that make false claims. The practice of Rajm has no basis in the Qu'ran.
It is only with a particular traditional interpretation of certain Hadith that stoning has been advocated, and even then it is a subject that causes some debate even amongst the fundamental adherents that would interpret it that way.
This is the problem for those that rely on external sources for what they think the Qu'ran actually says, often it is simply not the case.
No it doesn't.
We shall use the Pickthall translation as you mentioned it:
There is absolutely no mention of Rajm or stoning or a death sentence of any kind.
That pretty much sums it up.
Last edited:
Perhaps I should elaborate on what I meant, I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't solely referring to stoning, as the lady in question was shot.
I agree, and I never said that it did. I was referring to violence, the incitement to it ad the administration of it, which is permeating the whole book.
Thanks, but that's not a problem for me.
For the record, I wasn't claiming that the Qur'an carried a mandate for execution by firing squad, either.
Stoning or shot or any other form of killing is simply not advocated by the Qu'ran for Adultery and the punishments served are not only applicable to women, but also to men and it was written in the 7th century, not in the twentieth....
The Qu'ran doesn't support the death of that woman, in fact if they were truly following the Qu'ran, she would have had the opportunity to bear witness before Allah four times to avert any punishment becasue she was married and she needs no witnesses other than Allah's judgement and if she was guilty (and more afraid of her God than the men with the Guns) then the Taliban Warlord she committed adultery with would also have been subject to the same punishment. The Qu'ran actually confers primacy to the married woman in regard to her expressing her innocence. Obviously none of this was followed in the murder of the woman in Afghanistan.
Like I said, if they had actually followed what the Qu'ran laid out then the woman would have been unharmed.
Thanks, but that's not a problem for me.
No disrespect, but simply reading the Qu'ran is not enough, you really need to study it properly, otherwise you will make mistakes in interpretation as you have done tonight.
For the record, I wasn't claiming that the Qur'an carried a mandate for execution by firing squad, either.
The Qu'ran actually conferred a multitude of rights on women that they simply did not have prior to or in other comparative societies including divorce and property rights and as we have seen with correct reading of the passages rights in law to defend herself from accusations, it also includes an explicit statement of equality.
There is no doubt that some groups and schools interpret the Qu'ran (using Hadith) to justify some pretty horrific things, however that is fault and responsibility of the interpreter and we should not abrogate their guilt by allaying blame elsewhere.
What happened to the Woman in Afghanstan was a crime not only in secular law but also a crime in Islam, and if there is such a God as Allah I hope he burns the perpetrators in whatever Hell he possesses
Last edited:
I don't feel disrespected, don't worry. But I don't understand how I have misinterpreted anything, here. Feel free to point how anything I said above contradicts anything written in the Qur'an. I didn't mention the specific case in the original post once, I was making a general point, referring to incitement to violence, and violent punishments (which I thought was obvious, but have since clarified). I have studied the history of how the book was revealed, who Muhammad was, where he was living, the time period, etc (along with the subsequent spread of the faith), none of which does anything other than underline the patent absurdity of the claim that the book was, in fact, dictated by the creator of the universe. I will happily concede that I'm no scholar of said book, though. But you don't need to be in order to realise that there's nothing even remotely 'divine' about it.
Well, I will save this debate for another time, so that the inevitable derailing into a religious debate isn't laid at my feet. But please don't think that I am backing out because I have nothing to say, I invite you to call me up on this in another thread.
You referred to such punishments, so I assumed that you were referring to the punishment laid out in the OP and subsequent thread. It was the only incident I was referring to in my post that you originally quoted.
You and I are not believers, in Islam or any other religion, so it is understandable that you think the premise of a divinely dictated book (and it was not directly dictated by God, another fallacy that everyone, including most Muslims believe) is absurd, particularly given your philosophical position.
However I don't think the Qu'ran is any more prone to inciting violence than any other religious book or political philosophy for that matter...plenty of excesses have been committed using political theory as the basis of justification. I think everything rests on how you interpret the entire text and the subsequent theology. Each of us will do so differently and come to different conclusions based on our inherent bias and objectives.
Don't think that I am dismissing your general criticism because I am not (I was disagreeing with what I thought was being said given the OP subject matter and the idea that the Qu'ran supports the actions against that poor woman), there is much in the Qu'ran, like many philosophies, that can be used to promote violence and oppression, but at the same time there is much that is in direct or indirect opposition to that promotion of negativity and it largely depends on the innate bias and political aims of the interpreter what message is conferred from the text. And I also do not agree that Mohammed was a peaceable Man, I do however think he was a product of his time and circumstance.
I am also impressed that you take the time to read the texts you are critical about, and in more than one translation no less. I wish more people would do the same as it is a rarity I do not see often.
Last edited:
It's a backward religion tbh, a waste of us and british troops out in countries like that. Leave the savages to themselves, but their countries are full of assets such as oil, gas, gold, uranium, iron etc so we go and invade them. Personally i think the taliban should have been left in place in afghanistan, alqueada moved on. That dump of of a country isnt worth the life of one british or american soldier. If they want to live in the dark ages, so be it. Fence it off and leave them to it.
Last edited:
I'm interested in your answer to a question I have regarding the required punishment in Islam for adultery. We'll go with the most moderate possible interpretation, relying solely on the Qu'ran itself - 100 lashes - and note that the passage in question explicitly states that the whipping must be done in full, without pity or mercy.
That "moderate" interpretation leads me to this question. It's a serious question and I would like a serious answer.
If the victim dies during the whipping (quite possible, since it's a combination of torture, beating and cutting), is that sufficient for Allah's wishes or is it necessary to continue whipping the corpse until you get to the required 100 lashes?
Wow, I'm really concerned after reading some of the posts in this. Backwards religion? Savages? Wow, just wow.
Muslims are fine, a little extreme in some of their ways, but other than the negative reputation the Taliban and other extremists are giving them, they are peaceful, they've had the west wage war on them for the past 1,000 years, almost constantly invaded and threatened, and then we call them war monger's and savages. Lol.
As for our soldiers being there, what the extremists are doing to that country... would you leave somebody in the street to get mugged, would you stand idly by and let it happen? This is the same, and they need our help, period.
I can't see the deleted posts obviously, but has somebody pulled out the timeless classic 'we should nuke them' ******** yet? The Iceberg called, it wants its tip already.
Muslims are fine, a little extreme in some of their ways, but other than the negative reputation the Taliban and other extremists are giving them, they are peaceful, they've had the west wage war on them for the past 1,000 years, almost constantly invaded and threatened, and then we call them war monger's and savages. Lol.
As for our soldiers being there, what the extremists are doing to that country... would you leave somebody in the street to get mugged, would you stand idly by and let it happen? This is the same, and they need our help, period.
I can't see the deleted posts obviously, but has somebody pulled out the timeless classic 'we should nuke them' ******** yet? The Iceberg called, it wants its tip already.
Last edited:
Sorry to take so long to answer, I thought I would ask a colleague of mine who is an Islamic Scholar what the position on this was where it was in use:
Firstly he pointed out that when attributing punishment laid out in the Qu'ran it is important to apply the spirit of the word of God as well as the letter....he pointed out that throughout the Qu'ran the overriding spirit of God's Word is one of Mercy and Compassion.
Secondly he said that the 100 lashes is not a symbolic punishment, it is meant literally, however a Muslim must take into account the following things when applying the punishment.
The aim of the sentence is not to physically or psychologically damage a person permanently and 100 lashes applied without mercy can easily maim or kill someone. The Muslim who carries out this sentence and kills someone are themselves subject to Islamic Law and would be guilty of murder and the punishment for what he termed Zina (unlawful sex) is never intended to end in death or anything other than superficial physical damage. He said that any Imam worth listening to would state that the lashes must be applied in a substantial way, but must not break the skin or draw blood...if this happens the punishment is deemed completed regardless of the amount of lashes applied and suitable compensation or restitution is paid to the family or individual.
He said that no incapacitation or long lasting harm must come to the person being punished, any financial loss incurred must be compensated for by the authority issuing the decree.
The age, gender and physical and mental condition of the offender must also be considered, a person in poor physical condition should only receive a symbolic or light punishment in keeping with the tenets of the Faith.
I asked him then what about the condition that the punishment be enacted without mercy, he said it is not without mercy, mercy is the province of God and not of men and God is merciful and it is not for men to decide when to apply that and when not to....he said the the punishment should be issued without pity, in other words the sentence should be pronounced and carried out without empathy and sympathy for the individual interfering with the sentencing or punishment, only the limits defined by God should be the mitigating factors, not the personal feelings of the person carrying out the sentence.
He said that basically any sentence for Zina should be carried out by the letter and the spirit of God, it is a measured punishment and must not exceed those limits and that the compassion of God overrules all else. He also pointed out that any believer that repents and reforms by swearing to Allah and if they can produce four witnesses that will stand for them in testament then the punishment can be abrogated as God will then decide as it is only God that grants forgiveness and the Qu'ran is testament to the clemency of God in all things. He said the most common thing that actually happens is that the two people who commit Zina and do not immediately repent and reform are confined (not imprisoned, simply isolated from society) until they either marry or reform. If they repent and reform immediately (by witness to Allah) then they should be left alone. He said a good and proper Muslim would realise that by swearing their reformation and repentance as witnessed by Allah they are subject to his forgiveness and if they do not truly repent then they had better be prepared for painful retribution in the afterlife.
He did give me all the Qu'ranic verses that support this, but I don't think they are particularly important to the question asked and would make the post longer than it already is. The thing that stuck me most is that most non-Muslims do not really understand just how invested in their religion many Muslims are, and that while it may see pretty superficial to us to simply sin now and repent at leisure, a pious Muslim would rather take the lashes than lie to their God.
I also asked him about the actions that led to the woman's death in the OP...his answer was that those men committed one of the worst worst sins that there is, they murdered an innocent woman and used God's Word to justify it, he pointed out that broke the following laws in Islam:
They committed Murder;
They bore false witness;
They forged statements concerning Allah, the Qu'ran and the Hadith;
They gave false testimony;
Making false oath;
Ruling by Laws other than the Laws of Islam in the name of Islam;
Committing Injustice;
and a couple of others that I forget.
He was pretty disgusted and doesn't judge those people to be Muslim at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 3,310
- Location
- In west London
I agree with Castiel and his friend, those people are far from being called muslim.
yup
problem is though that there are still rather a lot of people out there who would self identify as 'Muslim' but whom many moderate Muslims would be quick to point out aren't true Muslims... there was a whole crowd of people cheering this woman's execution.
I think that since you are clearly very knowledgeable on the subject that you should go over there and sort them all out.
I'll pay for the ticket and translator for you