Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Islamic law doesn't prevent adultery from occurring, instead it prevents certain behaviors from becoming publicly acceptable.
As long as Satan exists, mankind including Muslims will be tempted to sin, from the most minor of sins to the most serious of sins, and many will always give in to temptation.
Shariah law, and the high standards of evidence that it entails, prevent undesirable behaviors from becoming publicly accepted.
Yes, even in the most liberal of modern societies, people are not going to go about (in general) having adulterous sex in public, where 4-5 adult witnesses will see it. However, it is increasingly common for people to openly admit to marital infidelity, such as to friends. This is the road to societies where adultery is openly winked it, such as France or Italy, where it is macho to have a mistress.
The purpose of such punishments is to prevent Muslim societies from such behavior patterns.
So basically, we should kill people so that they don't openly admit to adultery. You don't think adultery occurs in the Muslim world? I suppose Islam has also eradicated gay Muslims. All people like you do is encourage people to keep quiet about what they do for fear of violent reprisal.
If someone does commit adultery then God will deal with them. You are not God. Funny that you're ranting about the West when, according to your avatar, you're sitting in Toronto. How do you stand the culture of hedonism brother? Why not move to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, the land of the pure?
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party
Peace Ghost14
I gather you are a very intelligent person so it would be refreshing for us if you would think before you refute or respond. Many of your posts are good examples of sophistical reasoning, that we can conclude to be fallacious.
Your very first statement: “So basically, we should kill people so that they don’t openly admit to adultery.” this means … Killing all people is necessary until the remaining people stop admitting to adultery when asked if they had committed adultery. This is absurd.
So just imagine lots of people are minding their own business but they are openly parading around saying “we are adulterers”, then let’s say the government officials starts shooting them, some of them die and the rest become silent. When that happens the officials stop shooting.
that is not what is being said here. You may care to rephrase what you meant.
Your next question … “you don’t think adultery occurs in the Muslim world?” again this is a loaded question with irregularity to the argument at hand. We know adultery happens everywhere, we would be naive to think in this modern area of commercialised sex that such things do not happen. Heck, there is a Saudi porn site that the Tunisian websites were being diverted to. We know this happens, but how can this be a rational thing to ask based on the previous statement you made?
I think you might have a problem with the idea that punishment for adultery is no effective cure or preventative for adultery. In the case of the modern era I am inclined to agree with you, if that is you are arguing this point. Adultery is a moral crime and harms society, so if you try to understand that according to Islamic law, adultery must be witnessed by 4 witnesses to then take have enough to charge the adulterers. It is not about openly admitting to adultery, but openly doing the act … It will create an audience … And if allowed to happen it will ruin society. Every modern society I think, at least prevents such things legally from happening, and they will physically remove sex exhibitors.
Adultery is worse than mere fornication … Fornication between unmarried people does not result in the maximum penalty of death. Now let’s speak about the penalty … Fornication on the whole can go undetected and hence unpunished in this world. However, if adultery is found out, by a spouse either woman or man then their right as the spouse is affected. One witness will still not be enough to give maximum punishment … Unless and until the accused ‘wants’ to be purged of his/her moral crime. Favouring the punishment of this world over the punishment in the Hereafter is a sign of great conviction in the ghaib and a further sign of true repentance. If such an individual insists on being purified of their sin, then and only then can full penalty be given in cases of adultery that did not occur in public.
Otherwise I guess the only cases of full punishment would be for a married person to become a porn star … But then in a society that does not effectively cater for pornography how can the people be held fully responsible?
You next mention a point regarding gay Muslims, look if they are gay, but know themselves to be weak such that they give in to a offence, hide when doing the act, just as in the case of adultery then how can the state do anything about it? But if they insist they can be Muslim and free of conscience in their gayness then they have removed themselves from Islam as would be the person who feels it is their right to be an adulterer. The argument is shoddy … We don’t claim that the people do not exist when the laws are in place, we do however, claim that the laws subdue such people protecting society moreso from the ready uptake of these behaviours.
You next say a similar thing, that it causes such moral criminals to remain silent in their acts out of fear. Well yes … Society is protected from them then … however, it may help them also to feel obliged to control their urges recognising the acts to be morally wrong. That is of course if government has being catering for other aspects in society to assist that process of self-healing the mental inclinations towards such acts. Unfortunately much of the modern Muslim world governments do not help their societies move towards goodness in the soft methods, by media persuasion, but try to use hard methods to enforce it … Fear.
Next you say “you are not God” no … No one is saying they are God … But God has given us a penal system to implement. The same argument can go for a thief, do not arrest him … You are not God … Do you see the problem in that line of argumentation?
Lastly, you talk about living in a location other than in a Muslim land … I understand that it was sarcasm … But most Muslims who live in the West live and dwell among other Muslims …it is possible and in my understanding preferable to be living in this society because there are other good things happening here that are not available in the Muslim lands … Those good things do not include the porn industry for example nor to they include gambling, nor sex trade … But these examples are present even in those Muslim countries … So what would a person be running away to?
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Psyah sometimes exaggeration is used to make a point ( 1 st para) IMO. Fornication < adultery in sin Dept? And where does " gayness" fall in the sin spectrum (SS)? That such dis ussions are occurring in the 21 st century is disheartening to say the least.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Psyah sometimes exaggeration is used to make a point ( 1 st para) IMO. Fornication < adultery in sin Dept? And where does " gayness" fall in the sin spectrum (SS)? That such dis ussions are occurring in the 21 st century is disheartening to say the least.
Peace Southie
Why is it disheartening because of modernity? Modernity has done nothing to rid people of greed and power yet you become disheartened at the ethics of straightness. To be gay is unreasonable, I don't have anything against gays like I don't have anything against fornicators ... it does not promote the longevity of human existence to be gay or to be careless with sexual activity, why has modernity cut these morals out? It is because modernity wants people to indulge in their desires to control them rather than for people to strive against themselves.
I didn't know to be gay was on a spectrum of gayness ... I was talking about "gay sex" not gayness ...
And you say it was exaggeration ... but there was more than that present ... there was a mishandling of facts that was present in and amongst the exaggerated text ... I had to lay it out to clarify ... now exaggerate it! Hopefully you will see it is far better to argue from the basis of directness rather than use exaggeration - others do not take exaggeration to be useful forget about trying to make a point. Being precise is important in these discussions. Exaggerators will prove that they are not prepared to listen or try to understand another perspective.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Who are we hearing this from? Oh, Western media ... Yes, there is a change ... People are more relaxed about adultery ... People are more exposed to sexualised ideals, globally people are becoming consumeristic even with their relationships. If adultery happens in such stratosphere then it becomes an injustice to implement the hudd punishments ...
So i dont get it... Because if its reported by the Western media it must be some how false? What is the point of debating the issue if you dont even concede that our source isnt a valid one? If you dont concede the validity of the reporting from Western media, any western media, thEn why even debate?!?
If you have a valid source that tells us punishment as according to Sharia is actually reducing the incidences of adultery in those countries where the "hudd" ordinance is practiced, then please present it.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Peace Med911
No ... collateral damage or pillaging of civilians or any form of hostile engagement with a populous of a territory who are not engaged in fighting is a spree of crimes of the greatest order. If the bombs and airstrikes are not used and opponents taken out only then this is the only type of war that is acceptable. War in fact is never acceptable, but if it is going to happen there have to be rules. So it is hypocritical to argue in favour of collateral damage (where children are killed) yet in the same breath condemn a group for using children to strike at the enemy army ... Both are wrong, but I would the drone strikes killing women and children as well as possibily taking out an opponent is MORE wrong than a child who chooses to attack a military base of his enemy. But they are both wrong - admit it!
You ignore one essential difference here. One side ends up killing civilians unintentionally, the others do so willifully and without remorse. War is never desirable, but in the midst of this evil, one should not be so naive as to assume that no civilians will ever be killed. The US actively avoids civilian casualties where ever possible, while the Taliban actively attack civilians (Shia, barelvi mosques, mourners at janaza, their use of child suicide bombers). Im not arguing in favor of collateral damage, im only acknowledging it as a fact of war. Collateral might be a cold way of describing human casualties, but since when has war ever been pleasant...
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Islamic law doesn't prevent adultery from occurring, instead it prevents certain behaviors from becoming publicly acceptable.
As long as Satan exists, mankind including Muslims will be tempted to sin, from the most minor of sins to the most serious of sins, and many will always give in to temptation.
Shariah law, and the high standards of evidence that it entails, prevent undesirable behaviors from becoming publicly accepted.
Yes, even in the most liberal of modern societies, people are not going to go about (in general) having adulterous sex in public, where 4-5 adult witnesses will see it. However, it is increasingly common for people to openly admit to marital infidelity, such as to friends. This is the road to societies where adultery is openly winked it, such as France or Italy, where it is macho to have a mistress.
The purpose of such punishments is to prevent Muslim societies from such behavior patterns.
Since when has adultery ever been publicly acceptable in any society? And I have known Muslims (men) who have admitted to adultery, and done so very casually and matter of fact.
In fact, most of the people I know to have cheated on their wife happened to be Muslim, and its because they told me, so they had no guilt over it despite being Muslim, and the taboo associated with cheating in Islam.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Peace Southie
Why is it disheartening because of modernity? Modernity has done nothing to rid people of greed and power yet you become disheartened at the ethics of straightness. To be gay is unreasonable, I don't have anything against gays like I don't have anything against fornicators ... it does not promote the longevity of human existence to be gay or to be careless with sexual activity, why has modernity cut these morals out? It is because modernity wants people to indulge in their desires to control them rather than for people to strive against themselves.
I didn't know to be gay was on a spectrum of gayness ... I was talking about "gay sex" not gayness ...
And you say it was exaggeration ... but there was more than that present ... there was a mishandling of facts that was present in and amongst the exaggerated text ... I had to lay it out to clarify ... now exaggerate it! Hopefully you will see it is far better to argue from the basis of directness rather than use exaggeration - others do not take exaggeration to be useful forget about trying to make a point. Being precise is important in these discussions. Exaggerators will prove that they are not prepared to listen or try to understand another perspective.
To be Gay is as immoral and as unreasonable as it is to have brown eyes and black hair. Its not a choice, its the nature of the person.
Your logic implies that Gay people choose to be Gay... This despite the fact that no Gay person will ever say they CHOOSE to be Gay.
If you thik its against nature, preventing procreation, fair enough, but then how do you explain down syndrome, diabetes, and god only knows what else that seems unreasonable.
I assume "Gay sex" is something that people who are "gay" partake in?
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
You ignore one essential difference here. One side ends up killing civilians unintentionally, the others do so willifully and without remorse. War is never desirable, but in the midst of this evil, one should not be so naive as to assume that no civilians will ever be killed. The US actively avoids civilian casualties where ever possible, while the Taliban actively attack civilians (Shia, barelvi mosques, mourners at janaza, their use of child suicide bombers). Im not arguing in favor of collateral damage, im only acknowledging it as a fact of war. Collateral might be a cold way of describing human casualties, but since when has war ever been pleasant...
Peace Med911
How careless are you with your words ...? ... One side kills civilians unintentionally, the other side willfully does it? And this distinction in your mind makes it better? It does not it make any better. Rather those children who willfully give their lives are more free than the ones who are accidentally killed by drones ... Probably never wanted to be killed ... The unintentional aspect is what is unacceptable ... If they can't control their strikes then they should not be done. How twisted is this come back from Med911 ... I am truly shocked.
Naive ... It is not being naive to have not single innocent killed ... That is the value of life. No one who is on not prepared to fight for his life should be harmed ... Forget about being killed. Look who is being naive ... Is life that cheap for you Med911 ... Are you really a Med? Then represent that title ...
War may I remind you is between combatant and combatant ... Who is talking about pleasantries?
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
To be Gay is as immoral and as unreasonable as it is to have brown eyes and black hair. Its not a choice, its the nature of the person.
Your logic implies that Gay people choose to be Gay... This despite the fact that no Gay person will ever say they CHOOSE to be Gay.
If you thik its against nature, preventing procreation, fair enough, but then how do you explain down syndrome, diabetes, and god only knows what else that seems unreasonable.
I assume "Gay sex" is something that people who are "gay" partake in?
Med911 after your previous post you top it off with this one. Can you please explain how having brown eyes and black hair will hinder the process of human propagation if everyone had brown eyes and black hair ... If you can't demonstrate that then I cannot accept your comparison with being gay ... You do not see it as a choice because you do not recognise the moral trait of struggling against the evil in oneself ... Some people have strong urges to kill. Some have strong urges to take children away. Some people have strong urges to take drugs. Some people have strong urges to gamble. Some people are compulsive liars and others can't stop thieving. It can be argued that these traits are as much a part of them as gayness is part of the gay ... Thank God we still expect those people to struggle against their urges ... So why can't the same be expected for gays? I love every human, I need not show my love for my male friends by taking them to my bed ... It is immoral behaviour ... For something to be naturally manifest in us, is not an argument for the nurturing of that trait .... morality is not linked with what is naturally part of our animal instinct. Morality is about rising above our instinct and driving our lives through the faculties of reason and wisdom.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party
Incorrect. My statement was what mad scientist stated: the shock of public beheading would deter adulterers. That was his whole point, that it’s not enough to let society shun that person, or to let the courts punish them financially, but rather, we should kill them in public to make a point. You misinterpreted what I said.
The rationale was that even in Islamic society with the prescribed punishment (beheading) adultery still occurs. So not only does it not prevent adultery, it actually makes the society barbaric by today’s standards. The point of that statement was to refute mad scientist’s premise.
No one is arguing the merits of adultery vs fornication, just whether or not beheadings are needed and if they prevent adultery. And we have seen in fundamentalist regimes that public beheading occurs regardless of the number of witnesses, often with little or no proof, and women bear the brunt of that punishment. Your argument is idealistic and not at all representative of what actually happens.
What? The person’s moral debt will be dealt with after their death. Any civilized society make the guilty party pay financially, and then let them go. You are assuming that it is up to society to morally purge the sin of the accused, and then later you claim that no one is trying to be God.
We are not debating whether a gay man can be considered Muslim. The point of “gay Muslims” was to show that, just like adultery, despite the violent penalties associated with being gay in a Muslim country, homosexual individuals exist. Thus, violence does not deter them. It simply motivates them to hide what they do. So once again, violence does nothing to deter them, it just makes society barbaric.
You are wrong again. They do not stop out of fear, they simply hide their acts out of fear. What business is it of yours what two individuals do in their own homes? Once again, if someone committed adultery, punish them financially in the divorce proceedings, and then let them go about their business. And who are we kidding? A fundamentalist government will never be interested in rehabilitation, only violent retaliation.
If you are not God, why the fascination with moral purging of sins? A thief either pays a fine, or goes to jail. That’s the debt they have to pay. They do not pay for crime with a public beheading. Why not apply this logic to adultery? Do you see the problem with your line of argument? Unless you also advocate cutting off the hands of thieves.
Why do you think those “good things” do not exist in Muslim lands? Could it be because of fundamentalist governments that insist on violent punishments? You claim that Muslims should be allowed to live in Western countries because of their benefits, benefits that exist in part because of the justice system, and yet you claim that the Muslim countries’ justice system is superior. Flawed logic.
Besides all that, you missed the main argument: do violent punishments prevent adultery? No they do not, you admitted it yourself. So why should society insist on violence then? That’s not the version of Islam I choose to follow.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Psyah sometimes exaggeration is used to make a point ( 1 st para) IMO. Fornication < adultery in sin Dept? And where does " gayness" fall in the sin spectrum (SS)? That such dis ussions are occurring in the 21 st century is disheartening to say the least.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Hudood punishments like cutting off a thief's hand or killing an adulterer are the maximum punishments and taken as a last resort, and that in a society that is free from consumerism, porn etc. Are we missing something here?
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Hudood punishments like cutting off a thief's hand or killing an adulterer are the maximum punishments and taken as a last resort, and that in a society that is free from consumerism, porn etc. Are we missing something here?
What does consumerism have to do with punishments? This whole tangent started with mad scientist claiming that violent, public punishments prevent crime. Obviously they don't. If we have to kill someone, why not do it in a humane manner, without making a public spectacle of it.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Peace Med911
How careless are you with your words ...? ... One side kills civilians unintentionally, the other side willfully does it? And this distinction in your mind makes it better? It does not it make any better. Rather those children who willfully give their lives are more free than the ones who are accidentally killed by drones ... Probably never wanted to be killed ... The unintentional aspect is what is unacceptable ... If they can't control their strikes then they should not be done. How twisted is this come back from Med911 ... I am truly shocked.
Naive ... It is not being naive to have not single innocent killed ... That is the value of life. No one who is on not prepared to fight for his life should be harmed ... Forget about being killed. Look who is being naive ... Is life that cheap for you Med911 ... Are you really a Med? Then represent that title ...
War may I remind you is between combatant and combatant ... Who is talking about pleasantries?
Careless? How about realistic!
You yourself acknowledge that War is a reality we have to live with, even Islam tells us there are times when war is a necessity.
Now you dont like what that reality entails, and I am the one who is careless! Gimme a break.
Are mentally stable? I mean, twisted for acknowledging reality? You cannot say war is reality, and then condemn me for illustrating the harsh nature of that reality. What kind of magical fantasy do you live in up there in your ivory tower?
You have said some bizarre things, but those children (brainwashed children) willfully wanted to die! Thats insane. That you would try to romantasize CHILDREN being sent to kill themselves and others is what is truly twisted and you should be ashamed of yourself. That is a sick and demented comment.
If you cannot accept casualties, then dont have wars, but if you must fight, prepare for casualties, no matter how much you try to avoid them. THAT is the reality of war. The civilized side tries to minimize casualties. The barbaric side actively seeks out civilians to murder in order to terrorize. That you cant make such a simple distinction just mean you are Naive and really incapable rational debate.
Naive is acknowledging the reality of war and then expecting absolutely no casualties a result.
No one likes war, so get that out of your head. Now that we are stuck with it, we should hope that restraint is employed to avoid casualties as much as possible. The US is thus vindicated. Not so the Taliban.
Re: Taliban cut off heads of 17 people for having music at party :-(
Med911 after your previous post you top it off with this one. Can you please explain how having brown eyes and black hair will hinder the process of human propagation if everyone had brown eyes and black hair ... If you can't demonstrate that then I cannot accept your comparison with being gay ... You do not see it as a choice because you do not recognise the moral trait of struggling against the evil in oneself ... Some people have strong urges to kill. Some have strong urges to take children away. Some people have strong urges to take drugs. Some people have strong urges to gamble. Some people are compulsive liars and others can't stop thieving. It can be argued that these traits are as much a part of them as gayness is part of the gay ... Thank God we still expect those people to struggle against their urges ... So why can't the same be expected for gays? I love every human, I need not show my love for my male friends by taking them to my bed ... It is immoral behaviour ... For something to be naturally manifest in us, is not an argument for the nurturing of that trait .... morality is not linked with what is naturally part of our animal instinct. Morality is about rising above our instinct and driving our lives through the faculties of reason and wisdom.
First of all. Calm down. You sound frustrated.
Homosexuals have existed through out history, and today we have 7 Billion people on the planet. So where is the issue?
Point was Homosexuality is as much a choice as your hair color and or eye color. There is no inherent value placed on it either. Its is neither good nor bad, it simply is what it is. You cannot call it immoral or unreasonable if it is NOT a choice.
You seek to qualify it according to whether or not it hinders human propagation, assuming it is a choice, which it is not. Should we also qualify down syndrome and autism in the same manner, since both hinder human propagation? Im sure you wouldnt be demanding a person with Autism not be autistic...
I do not see it as a choice because it is determined genetically, NOT as a personal choice. Attraction to the same sex is as natural to them as attraction to the opposite sex is for you.
When you say evil traits, this isnt about smoking, or wanting to commit adultery, its about fighting who you are. Asking them to fight their tendencies is as unreasonable as asking you to marry a man!
The urge to gamble and take drugs is a direct consequence of choices made in life. The are addictions, and the choice to fight or not fight are secondary to the primary choice made previously. Gays are meant to be fighting not a choice they made for themselves, but something that they were born with. Its like YOU fighting against your attraction towards female. It wasnt something you choose, it was something choosen for you.
Who you are attracted to sexually is predetermined. It ingrained in your psyche and is a part of your genes. Asking someone to fight their natural tendencies is unreasonable. If you cant yourself willfully make yourself NOT be attracted to females, then dont expect that they should be able to willfully inhibit their attraction to the same sex.
that is not what is being said here. You may care to rephrase what you meant.