Serious Question for Muslims

[picoico]

we agree to disagree. Individual freedom > all isms.

And what if I disagree with the above statement, too?

[quote]

it is actually your logic that is flawed. You fail to distinguish between crimes that directly affect other people and crimes like drug use which involve a personal choice where the only "victim" is the users. (YEAH THE VICTIM)

[/quote]

I think that's a stretch. There is a fundamental similarity between drug abuse and an oversexed society, in that the root cause for overindulgence is biochemical, at the end of the day. It's all about the stimulus.

Calling drug abuse a crime doesn't answer my question; indeed it skirts the question altogether. Who gets to establish the criminality of the act, on a universal basis no less?

[quote]

I believe for the most part the government has no place telling us what is acceptable and unacceptable if it doesn't harm anyone else. Why should pre martial sex be an exception?

[/quote]

Because the government acquires to public morality on the issue, which is why one can make long drawn out arguments against all sorts of human activity (polygamy, sex in public, underage sex, and so on), but it's the exceptionalism and the false appeal to "evidence" for the alleged "harm" an activity poses that eventually undermines the very arguments made.

So why is homosexuality legitimized, and polygamy not? Presuming such relationships are consensual, theoretically the law should stay quiet on the matter...it doesn't. Aside from hard core libertarians, I don't know of anyone wanting to upset the status quo and carry forth the argument...for no simpler reason that one behavior is congurent to established social paradigms of sexual liberation, while the other grates against it. Harm doesn't enter the picture unless one want's to engae in an endless sophistry.

[citation needed]

****ing LOL.
But why should a social phenomenon be illegal? It's not the govenment's job to regulate relationships.

[/quote]

So, pray tell, why did I have to register for a marriage licence?

[quote]

Why are you so afraid of sex and intimacy? the only charges that i would agree with is if the 2 adults were having sex in public. every other moral defense should be thrown in the bin.
[/quote]

By your criteria, what's wrong with 2 adults having consensual, clean, and safe sex...even if it were in public?

[USResident]

@hareem01

The punishment for adultry cannot be given on the basis of pregnancy or birth according to the three major fiqh unless she confesses or there is enough evidence.

I agree. However if she confesses then? I am just trying guage whether PCG is serious about Islamic punishments if the judgement is valid or is she just playing to the crowd here.

[USResident]

That's why you're an idiot.

thanks for playing. Try harder next time.

kthanksbye.

Thank you and God bless you.

[navid83]

@ehtasab

Who is Taliban sympathizer here?

A lot of Pakistanis living in the diaspora, especially a large proportion in the UK.

[Slickstar]

And what if I disagree with the above statement, too?

why do you hate freedom ? :P

I think that's a stretch. There is a fundamental similarity between drug abuse and an oversexed society, in that the root cause for overindulgence is biochemical, at the end of the day. It's all about the stimulus.

I have yet to see such evidence.

Calling drug abuse a crime doesn't answer my question; indeed it skirts the question altogether. Who gets to establish the criminality of the act, on a universal basis no less?

are you proposing religion?

Because the government acquires to public morality on the issue, which is why one can make long drawn out arguments against all sorts of human activity (polygamy, sex in public, underage sex, and so on), but it's the exceptionalism and the false appeal to "evidence" for the alleged "harm" an activity poses that eventually undermines the very arguments made.

Well what one person perceives as harmful, another may see as highly beneficial.

Throughout history the dominant view of what is beneficial and harmful has constantly changed.

Why should the group that is in the majority at the time impose their view of what is beneficial and harmful on everyone?

If you feel on balance polygamy, homosexuality, drugs etc is more harmful than beneficial, don't consume it. If others feel differently, let them be.

So why is homosexuality legitimized, and polygamy not? Presuming such relationships are consensual, theoretically the law should stay quiet on the matter...it doesn't. Aside from hard core libertarians, I don't know of anyone wanting to upset the status quo and carry forth the argument...for no simpler reason that one behavior is congurent to established social paradigms of sexual liberation, while the other grates against it. Harm doesn't enter the picture unless one want's to engae in an endless sophistry.

i think in the western countries even if polygamy was legal, women would have enough rights to stand up and protest against it, because polygamy objectifies women as sex objects and decreases the relationship between husband and wife , because having more then one wife is just not emotionally fair for the wife, she would not feel as important as a monogamous marriage.

However, just because some people dislike something doesn't mean you should make it illegal. If it harmed or afflicted society in any way then there would be an argument for it, but to pass a law on this is to basically control a sexual/romantic relationship that doesn't really affect wider society.

So, pray tell, why did I have to register for a marriage licence?

formalities. Most likely to determine your taxable income and government handouts. no different from having a 'partner' living with you. However, that is NOT regulation, but notification.

By your criteria, what's wrong with 2 adults having consensual, clean, and safe sex...even if it were in public?

I dont know? why dont you try it in public. Of course such an act should be deemed illegal. We are playing with a fine between "freedom" and "anarchism"

[ravage]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

on balance I would come someway between freedom and social laws.

[quote]

I dont know? why dont you try it in public. Of course such an act should be deemed illegal. We are playing with a fine between "freedom" and "anarchism"

[/quote]

Define that line. Ask an anarchist and there'd be no difference :). What you are trying to skirt around is the issue of when my freedom starts intruding on others. In america you have state zoning laws that dont allow adult stores near places of worship, why is that? Atleast in that limited geographic sphere outside a church, that bit of land seems to be devoid of freedom does it not? In the relatively godless UK, street facing adult stores are disallowed from placing their products in store windows.

there is certainly libertarian grounds for a society legislating rules about behaviour in public.

[quote]

i think in the western countries even if polygamy was legal, women would have enough rights to stand up and protest against it, because polygamy objectifies women as sex objects and decreases the relationship between husband and wife , because having more then one wife is just not emotionally fair for the wife, she would not feel as important as a monogamous marriage.

[/quote]

How about porn? Does that objectify women? The issue boils down to informed consent doesnt it, if we were speaking from a freedom perspective.

[Slickstar]

@ravage

on balance I would come someway between freedom and social laws.

Define that line. Ask an anarchist and there'd be no difference :). What you are trying to skirt around is the issue of when my freedom starts intruding on others. In america you have state zoning laws that dont allow adult stores near places of worship, why is that? Atleast in that limited geographic sphere outside a church, that bit of land seems to be devoid of freedom does it not? In the relatively godless UK, street facing adult stores are disallowed from placing their products in store windows.

It should be deemed illegal on the basis that it interferes those who are surrounded by 2 couples having sex in public.

hmm, i remember a few years ago, a person proposed to open a brothel and a pornography shop outside a primary school in my local suburb (sydney, australia). Of course, the local council knocked back the proposal, however the proposer took the case to the land and environment court and it was passed.
The business is operating as a normal business would, without any issues. The world has moved on.

@ravage

there is certainly libertarian grounds for a society legislating rules about behaviour in public.

yes.

@ravage

How about porn? Does that objectify women? The issue boils down to informed consent doesnt it, if we were speaking from a freedom perspective.

I was playing devils advocate. The paragraph that followed truely represent my views.

However on porn, if the behavior is consensual, frankly, everything else is irrelevant.

Why can't some people accept that different people value things differently and let them be?

remember, government doesn't distribute pornography.** The market does this because it is demanded.**

[ravage]

@Slickstar

It should be deemed illegal on the basis that it interferes those who are surrounded by 2 couples having sex in public.

How does it interfere with them?

[quote]

hmm, i remember a few years ago, a person proposed to open a brothel and a pornography shop outside a primary school in my local suburb (sydney, australia). Of course, the local council knocked back the proposal, however the proposer took the case to the land and environment court and it was passed.
The business is operating as a normal business would, without any issues. The world has moved on.

[/quote]

Different places have different laws. However there is precedents even in more libertarian western countries that disallow conduct deemed immoral/unseemly/lewd by some standard in atleast a portion of the public sphere.

[quote]

yes.

[/quote]

Given that there is room for laws regulating public behaviour based on social values in libertarian thought the society can choose to restrict things such as mingling of the sexes (publicly) and say barrs on the distribution of alcohol or drunked behaviour (publicly)

[quote]

However on porn, if the behavior is consensual, frankly, everything else is irrelevant.

[/quote]

Theres a number of reasons why the consent often isnt really informed consent. And one can make the same argument for polygamy. That porn is allowed and polygamy isnt has little to do with exploitation and womens lib.

[quote]

Why can't some people accept that different people value things differently and let them be?

[/quote]

they shouldnt have to in a libertarian society. however they shouldnt try to use the government to change social values. instead the appropriate method is preaching.

[quote]

remember, government doesn't distribute pornography.** The market does this because it is demanded.**
[/QUOTE]

the government doesnt arrange polygamous marriages either.

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

What is going on here? The conservatives are happy with me, and the liberalists are angry with me.

I don't get it.

[ravage]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

^ your inner mullah is revealing itself

[PyariCgudia]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

OMG, please don't say that.

[Nima]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

Why do all discussion become off track and start becoming personal?

[_Jeena]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

@ravage

^ your inner mullah is revealing itself

lol...

[hareem01]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

@USResident

I agree. However if she confesses then? I am just trying guage whether PCG is serious about Islamic punishments if the judgement is valid or is she just playing to the crowd here.

If she confesses then yes. There’s no way that we can reject or deny the ayat of Quran or can we?

Ma’salam

[AllahkaBanda]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

The punishment for adultry cannot be given on the basis of pregnancy or birth according to the three major fiqh unless she confesses or there is enough evidence.

wouldn't the fact that she got pregnant or gave birth and was not married be an evidence for her adultery?

[hareem01]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

.

[AllahkaBanda]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

^by the time you posted, I've edited my post so could you please edit yours as well, Jazak Allah khayr?

[hareem01]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

wouldn't the fact that she got pregnant or gave birth and was not married be an evidence for her adultery?

In Maliki school it will be enough.

[psyah]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

@AllahkaBanda

wouldn’t the fact that she got pregnant or gave birth and was not married be an evidence for her adultery?

She could have been raped!

Or it is not unheard of for immaculate conceptions - although this a very special case

[AllahkaBanda]

Re: Serious Question for Muslims

@hareem01

In Maliki school it will be enough.

yes, I know sister. My point was that wouldn’t her pregnancy in absence of her marriage be considered enough evidence in the opinions of other three madaahab as they state that there has to be enough evidence. Well, it seems my point was wrong as there can be different valid possibilities.

@psyah

She could have been raped!

Or it is not unheard of for immaculate conceptions - although this a very special case

wassalam akhee,
yes, true that; this possibility didn’t cross my mind