Huh? Sharia Courts.... ?

[scorza]

If anyone is stupid enough to doubt that not all Muslims are jihadi idiots then they should read this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7619642.stm

British Muslims are guilty of a "victim mentality" and should take greater responsibility for their lives, a Muslim Labour MP has argued.

Sadiq Khan also said more British Muslims must tackle sexism, learn English and condemn forced marriages.

Not sure how recognising Sharia courts will achieve that though.

Hilariously, Muslim youth organisation the Ramadhan Foundation disagreed, and proved his point by saying:

the "real issues" holding Muslims back were "poverty, crime, racism and Islamophobia".

 

[@if ®afiq]

To be fair, regardless of the requirement (which from reading the above could equally just be the husbands word could be taken if he alone witnessed it) it still does advocate torture for commiting adultry. With 100 lashes being enough to kill someone depending on how they were done.

The last sentence is the crucial bit - a quick google returns: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Interesting to note too that it only gives the option for the husband to act as a sole witness for his wife's adultry and not the other way round.

Not too sure how you read that::

024.006SHAKIR: And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones.

024.007SHAKIR: And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars.

024.008SHAKIR: And it shall avert the chastisement from her if she testify four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely one of the liars;

024.009SHAKIR: And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be on her if he is one of the truthful.

 

[RDM]

The last sentence is the crucial bit - a quick google returns: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

If one hundred lashes as described in that document were used against a detainee in Guantanamo Bay would you consider it torture? Also the above is one interpretation of what it means, the Koran is a bit short on actual detail though so it could very well be one hundred strong lashes, which could be enough to kill.

Not too sure how you read that::
024.006SHAKIR: And (as for) those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, the evidence of one of these (should be taken) four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely of the truthful ones.

024.007SHAKIR: And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allah be on him if he is one of the liars.

024.008SHAKIR: And it shall avert the chastisement from her if she testify four times, bearing Allah to witness that he is most surely one of the liars;

024.009SHAKIR: And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be on her if he is one of the truthful.

And where in the above is the ability of the wife to accuse her husband of adultry as a sole witness? It makes no mention of it. While if the husband does it and the wife goes "Fair cop, I did have it away with the milkman" then to the lash she goes.

 

[fini]

I'd point out that Christianity advocates pretty strict penalties as well - including the death penalty and stoning.

@RDM - the Koran often contains passages that are aimed at and framed in the masculine purely because at the time it was written it would be men who would be reading it (even now most contracts are framed in the masculine). Whether particular parts should be read as ONLY applying to men is, of course, up for debate.

 

[scorza]

I'd point out that Christianity advocates pretty strict penalties as well - including the death penalty and stoning.

Wut? News to me - please don't tell me you're going to quote something from the Old Testament that backs that statement up. My reading of the Gospels made it clear to me that Jesus was most definitely against death penalties - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Even the dastardly "Christian right" in America have campaigned against executions taking place in prisons.

 

[RDM]

I'd point out that Christianity advocates pretty strict penalties as well - including the death penalty and stoning.

So it's OK because other religions do it too? Two wrongs don't really make a right do they? As a matter of interest what Christian nations advocate religious punishments?

@RDM - the Koran often contains passages that are aimed at and framed in the masculine purely because at the time it was written it would be men who would be reading it (even now most contracts are framed in the masculine). Whether particular parts should be read as ONLY applying to men is, of course, up for debate.

Sadly it is a debate where the women lose an awful lot of the time. And yes, Christianity is the same too.

 

[fini]

Wut? News to me - please don't tell me you're going to quote something from the Old Testament that backs that statement up. My reading of the Gospels made it clear to me that Jesus was most definitely against death penalties - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

You're not going to try the classic and ill-conceived 'Nothing in the Old Testament counts' idea are you?

Firstly it's nonsensical - why would the Old Testament be in the bible if it was irrelevant. Secondly Jesus specifically states

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

To answer your oft-quoted stone-throwing phrase you have to read the whole of John 8. Note that they brought in a woman caught in the act of adultery. Why did they not bring in the man as well because Leviticus 20:10 calls for anyone caught to be subject to punishment. In pulling in only the woman they were acting as hypocrites. Jesus, by his line, was reminding them of that fact. He of course could not deal out the punishment himself because

You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one

In addition the Romans had revoked the Jew's authority to pass out the death penalty and as such any stoning would have been acting against the law - and the Bible always calls for acting within the law.

Even if we exclude the Old Testament to pacify yourself though lets look at a few of the things said in the New Testament

New Testament
Jesus quotes the old testament in saying that those that swear at their parents should be killed

Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death

Throw out and trample on sinners.

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

Advocating the death penalty for those that do not repent

Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny

Suggesting the chopping off of limbs and the gouging of eyes.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Any government agent carrying out an act of Barbary is OK

But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Also note how in Luke 23 Jesus didn't save the two people on the cross beside him. Indeed he merely reminded the one that repented that he'd be going to heaven - tacitly approving of the death penalty.

When it came to Jesus' court case did he stop the case and point out that the death penalty was wrong? No, instead he said

If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.

Again tacitly approving the death penalty.

When the day of judgement comes Jesus will kill you personally

Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter.

Should I go on are you now satisfied that the Bible consistently calls for mutilation, the death penalty and more?

 

[fini]

So it's OK because other religions do it too? Two wrongs don't really make a right do they? As a matter of interest what Christian nations advocate religious punishments?

That's not what I'm saying at all. My point is that some people seem to have an opinion that is somewhere between 'Islam is the most Barbarous of religions' and 'this country is Christian we don't do that kind of thing'.

 

[@if ®afiq]

If one hundred lashes as described in that document were used against a detainee in Guantanamo Bay would you consider it torture? Also the above is one interpretation of what it means, the Koran is a bit short on actual detail though so it could very well be one hundred strong lashes, which could be enough to kill.

That would depend on you - if you were inclined to inflict maximum damage then you would look for a way to do it, but Islam teaches peace and in line with that the punishment would always be toward the lenient side of thing. What's more, there is far more to Shaira then just punishments - it's an entire legal system.

The gitmo comment doesn't compare. They have not been found guilty of anything, if they were and then received the punishment then that would be fine by me, however as it is they are being tortured in order to find them guilty of something.

And where in the above is the ability of the wife to accuse her husband of adultry as a sole witness? It makes no mention of it. While if the husband does it and the wife goes "Fair cop, I did have it away with the milkman" then to the lash she goes.

I think fini explained it far better than I could.

 

[RDM]

The gitmo comment doesn't compare. They have not been found guilty of anything, if they were and then received the punishment then that would be fine by me, however as it is they are being tortured in order to find them guilty of something.

Hypocrisy, pure and simple. If the Americans did it, then it would be torture. If muslims do it then it is fair and just. But you just can't see it, which is very sad.

 

[scorza]

...

Nice try but no cigar. Unlike you it seems, I've read the whole Gospels, and I repeat that there's nothing that Jesus says that condones the death penalty - quite the opposite. For example, the whole of that passage in Mark 7 is not about putting people to death for cursing their mother and father, it is about food believe it or not, and means I can eat Pork (yum yum). But why let facts get in the way of a bit of good old-fashioned Christian bashing.

Yes the Old Testament is significant, but nothing is more significant than the Gospels in Christianity.

Also note how in Luke 23 Jesus didn't save the two people on the cross beside him. Indeed he merely reminded the one that repented that he'd be going to heaven - tacitly approving of the death penalty.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on Christianity. LOL.

 

[@if ®afiq]

Hypocrisy, pure and simple. If the Americans did it, then it would be torture. If muslims do it then it is fair and just. But you just can't see it, which is very sad.

Eh? In one case a party has been found guilty of a crime and in the other they have not - how is that hypocrisy? Forget the fact that it is muslim's involved (if you can!).

For one of the more intelligent posters on this forum, your sense of reason seems to fly out the window when it comes to the us evil muzzies!

 

[RDM]

Eh? In one case a party has been found guilty of a crime and in the other they have not - how is that hypocrisy? Forget the fact that it is muslim's involved (if you can!).

For one of the more intelligent posters on this forum, your sense of reason seems to fly out the window when it comes to the us evil muzzies!

Because I think that giving anyone 100 lashes for whatever reason is cruel and unjust punishment regardless of the reasons. So if the americans did it to force a confession it would be wrong and if some Sharia court did it to enforce the law on adultry it would be wrong. Whereas you are quite happy for people to get flogged as long as it is for a "just" reason. Nope, my sense of reason is perfectly intact, I just prefer a better excuse than "God said it was OK" before I think it is OK to torture people.

And where are you getting this "evil muzzies" rubbish from? Becuase I disagree with some of the tenants of your faith?

 

[fini]

Nice try but no cigar. Unlike you it seems, I've read the whole Gospels, and I repeat that there's nothing that Jesus says that condones the death penalty - quite the opposite.

Yes I've read everything and unlike you I present quotes to back up my stance that both the old and new testament calls for the death penalty.

For example, the whole of that passage in Mark 7 is not about putting people to death for cursing their mother and father, it is about food believe it or not, and means I can eat Pork (yum yum). But why let facts get in the way of a bit of good old-fashioned Christian bashing.

I suggest you go read Mark 7 in more depth. It is cursorily about food, but the message behind it isn't really much to do with food - it is about priorities, specifically

For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.

That doesn't stop his quoting of the old testament in approval as just that - approval of a part of the old testament.

That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on Christianity. LOL.

In your opinion. It is my reading of the referenced passage and one that you have presented nothing to dispute.

 

[fini]

Nope, my sense of reason is perfectly intact, I just prefer a better excuse than "God said it was OK" before I think it is OK to torture people.

If people choose to engage in such behaviour and it's completely consensual then what business is it of yours?

 

[scorza]

I suggest you go read Mark 7 in more depth. It is cursorily about food, but the message behind it isn't really much to do with food - it is about priorities, specifically

Yeah you're right, gone back and read it all again and only a small part of it is about food. My bad.

However you're so wrong about Jesus supporting the death penalty. If that's what they teach you Jesus is about in your Mosque then I really do worry.

 

[@if ®afiq]

Because I think that giving anyone 100 lashes for whatever reason is cruel and unjust punishment regardless of the reasons. So if the americans did it to force a confession it would be wrong and if some Sharia court did it to enforce the law on adultry it would be wrong. Whereas you are quite happy for people to get flogged as long as it is for a "just" reason. Nope, my sense of reason is perfectly intact, I just prefer a better excuse than "God said it was OK" before I think it is OK to torture people.

Right, try and take religion out of it - if you can.

For our non-religous scenario:

A punishment exists for a crime comitted. A criminal comitted of a crime gets the proscribed punishment. That in my opinion is fine.

On the other hand, a person being held captive and being punished with the punishment for something they have not been found guilty of is not OK.

The two are not the same.

And where are you getting this "evil muzzies" rubbish from? Becuase I disagree with some of the tenants of your faith?

Because you consistenly fail to use reason in your eagerness to show how bad Islam is....as I've shown above.

 

[wannabedamned]

How much english law has been adopted over in their country?

I'm not asking to beable to say "NONE SO GET LOST"

It's a serious question, Are english laws allowed to be passed over their if you are indeed english, or do you have to abide to their laws?

 

[@if ®afiq]

How much english law has been adopted over in their country?

That depends what you mean by their country??? Muslim's can be British

 

[wannabedamned]

That depends what you mean by their country??? Muslim's can be British

Where is sharia law currently enforced?

They are the theys and that is the country.