I am not here to argue any more, so I am just posting to educate you. Read Al-maidah 33:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official Islamic Thread
- Thread starter AmMortal
- Start date
I am not here to argue any more, so I am just posting to educate you. Read Al-maidah 33:
OttomanScribe
Member
Sameness and equality are two distinct things. If one takes the Sha'riah in its entirety, the financial obligations of men are greater than those of women. Thus giving men and women the same amount of inheritance would be doing men a disservice.
Upon marriage, a woman is given a dower of her choice, this is a sum paid by the man to the woman, and is not to be accessed by the man in any way. It is her money. When the woman works, anything she earns, is her own. However any money a man earns, is proportionally to be accessed by his wife. Nothing he earns is entirely his own.
There is no verse that orders Muslims to kill or convert all non-believers, calm down junior and look at your sources (or maybe just earlier in the thread). The closest it gets is a verse that commands the Muslims to throw out the kuffar from wherever they have taken over the Muslim lands, however it does, within the same surah, call the Muslims to be merciful if the kuffar desist in their advances.
Allah is all Merciful, but not confined to the attribute of Mercy. If you believe that God should be a giant Sky Teddy who will kiss all your boo boos and say that He will forgive you regardless of the bad things you do in your life, then your idea of God is not that of the Christians, the Jews or the Muslims.
The Sha'riah is harsh within strict bounds, and it does call for some brutal punishments against transgressors. However you need to be careful as to how you understand the intended manner and context of such punishments.
They exist not to be carried out by random vigilantes but rather exist within a legal tradition which has a burden of proof upon crimes that is as high as the punishment. There is also contained within that legal tradition an extensive list of mitigating circumstances that must be taken into account before any punishments are to be carried out.
If, for example, you are a corporate criminal, who revels in your crimes, ruining the lives of people knowingly and happily in your greed, and are found indisputably guilty then one option a Qadi (judge) may choose to offer those you harmed (in Muslim jurisprudence, the rights of the victim generally come before the rights of the perpetrator, which includes choice of punishment in many cases) , is the severing of your hand. That may seem barbaric to you. I say that that is a sign that you have never truly been stolen from, or lived a society where scarcity means that to be a victim of theft is not merely an inconvenience, but often a death sentence.
Lucky you. But don't expect your own values to be universal.
Edit: Additionally, if you are seriously up for a discussion on these issues, might I request that you take it one issue at a time. There is a debating technique called the 'Gish gallop' where one party throws out assertions in such volume that many will 'slip through' as people simply do not have the time to address them all at once. When you say 'omgpolygamyholywarinheritancearmcuttingcrazymuslamicrayguns' it comes off as trying to do this.
Salaam all, was bored tonight and this is the only thread I am email subscribed to, so thought I would drop by and weigh in. Hijra Mubarak to y'all for the other day
Really? So the official islamic thread is not the place to discuss islam?
I'd say coldfoot was fine unless he makes it personal. It's interesting reading.
crazy monkey
Banned
Ottoman is here.
OttomanScribe
Member
crazy monkey
Banned
Like a ship passing in the night
HAHA. your knowledge is invaluable here sir. I can not explain 99% of the time what I want to but you and some other guys here are very articulate. Better not hang out here much it is waste of time but drop by here every now and then.
OttomanScribe
Member
Not so much a waste of time, but it takes more time than I have lol. Pringles and all that.
Thanks for your kind words
been reading a lot of the poetry of Imam Shafi'i lately, two really stood out:The first is my favourite, but the second is a good reminder for Muslims engaging in internet discussions lol. We are not debating with others, we are debating with God, and our conduct should be as such
part of the reason I am away is also lest I make it harder to reach that ideal lol.I have stuff stolen from me just like most people. Big stuff too, like a car. While at the time I was furious and wanted to hurt the thief, whoever he may be, after calming down I would NEVER wish anything that's as cruel as that on him, neither would anyone with a clean bill of mental health. If you truly wish that your thief would have his hands severed, you're a psychopath. There is absolutely no defending this, none at all. True Islam is not compatible with Humanism. People who think this is acceptable are those who made less progress on the evolution ladder of human logic, reasoning, and compassion.
OttomanScribe
Member
In books of Islamic jurisprudence, there are guidelines for individuals to pray without clothing. Basically if it comes time to pray, and you have no clothes at all.
The reason for this is because while in the society you live in, in most situations, even a major theft, like that of a car, will not seriously impinge on your survival ability. The reason there are guidelines for those who need to pray naked, is because theft and robbery in many societies not so wealthy as the one you live in, would involve the theft of the sum total of an individuals possessions, and would often lead to starvation or death to the elements.
It is this experience, not yours, that has been and remains, the standard within human societies. That you view theft as almost a trivial thing, is not a sign of some objective measure that you are privy to, it is a sign of the wealth of the society that you live in. This however cannot be a standard that all of us can be expected to follow, nor anything that can be asserted as approaching objectivity.
That is from the perspective of, again, one who has never truly been stolen from. You have not had a theft that truly effected your ability to feed your children, or protect your family. As I said before, theft in a society with as much wealth as the ones we live in currently, is at most an inconvenience. Thus you have no ability to comprehend what true theft is like. Additionally, the person who is willing to commit that kind of theft, out of pure greed, with no need involved, is themselves a social blight. For some such people, the only real deterrent is the harshest of punishments.
Of course that specific hadud (mutilation) was rarely carried out in Traditionalist Islamic societies. There are few records of the legal requirements being fulfilled for it to actually occur. As, as I previously mentioned, the proof requirements are at an extremely high level. The punishment is specifically for those who have stolen out of greed specifically. There is an account of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) walking along a road, and coming to an orchard. He saw there a man who was beating another man with a stick. The Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) called out to them, demanding the reason for it and asking them to stop. The man doing the beating explained to the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) that the man he was beating had stolen from his orchard. He was asked if this was the case (the Prophet sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam did not, like some villain in Aladin, just whip out a sword and start trimming limbs) and the man replied that he had been hungry, and had no food. In response, the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) berated the orchard owner and demanded that he employ the thief, that he could be provided for, and recompense given for the beating.
There is no 'evolutionary ladder' evolution does not contain an idea of 'progress'.
I did not say that Islam was humanistic. Any monotheistic religion will naturally place the main goal of religion as being the fulfilment of a divine ideal. Thus humanism, at least as it is often defined, will not be compatible. This is not something unique to Islam.
What I think is interesting is that you are willing to assert that anyone who believes other than your specific, subjective viewpoint, is not only a psychopath, but also 'less evolved' than you. That is a bit worrying.
Clay Davis
Member
what if someone stole the food that meant the difference between life and death? or the water you walked miles to collect? it's understandable, why in certain circumstances, such a punishment would be rendered.
the same punishments, sometimes worse, were doled out in the past in yours and my countries.
im not condoning such punishments, but when the theft of something can mean death for you or your family, its understandable why such punishments exist.
of course such punishments have no place in saudi arabia, but are in place due to the reining party keeping the vast wealth from oil sales in the upper echelons and leaving the rest to fend for themselves.
Kill or be killed? I'm not sure whether the extreme theft or extreme examples in general should have a basis for treating most examples of thievery. How is justice fair when fair is only the use of extreme examples to set the bar?
What happens when a poor man steals a loaf of bread? cut his hand off.
What happens when somebody steals your livelihood? cut his hand off.
?
What happens when a poor man steals a loaf of bread? cut his hand off.
What happens when somebody steals your livelihood? cut his hand off.
?
OttomanScribe
Member
Indeed, the Saudi monarchy is arguably defined by its irrational application of the Hadud punishments in combination with an almost absolute neglect of the kind of social programs that are enshrined within the Sha'riah to make theft unnecessary.
Of course the Saudis are not, and have never been, an example of anything save a minority, literalist sect... don't get me started on the Saudis lol.
OttomanScribe
Member
That is not how the Sha'riah works. As I said earlier (admittedly in an edit so you may have missed it) the hadud only relates to irrefutable guilt and specifically to cases where greed is the only motivation. If an individual is not in need, they are not culpable. This is based in the previous Prophetic tradition, as well as the way that it was operationally employed as a punishment in Islamic history (at some times of great famine, the hardship was so great that the punishment for theft was basically suspended entirely for specific communities, as no one could be said to not be in dire need).
In general of course, no act of theft, at least in most societies, is trivial. There are two things that drive people to steal, extreme need, and extreme greed. No one, living in a society where even a small theft can greatly impact upon one's livelihood, can arguably (if they are of sound mind) steal out of any other motivations other than maybe being a psychopath. No one, upon seeing the kind of precariousness that is the lot of most individuals within the human race, could in their right mind view theft from such people as anything but one of the gravest of crimes.
Theft as a grave crime? How does one apply that to watching a copyrighted documentary on youtube?
I cannot justify it (for argument's sake, let us say it was probably because I was lazy more then I couldn't find a version, I could pay for).
Is that a grave crime? Actually, say, I admitted this in Saudi Arabia. Copyright theft is rife throughout the known world; yes even in the middle east.
So if 75% (random number) of 16 to 35 year old steal, what do different schools of thought say on the treatment of society.
I'm still not sure about the scale, and how multiplication works? what are the different punishments available? how do they scale up or down?
I cannot justify it (for argument's sake, let us say it was probably because I was lazy more then I couldn't find a version, I could pay for).
Is that a grave crime? Actually, say, I admitted this in Saudi Arabia. Copyright theft is rife throughout the known world; yes even in the middle east.
So if 75% (random number) of 16 to 35 year old steal, what do different schools of thought say on the treatment of society.
I'm still not sure about the scale, and how multiplication works? what are the different punishments available? how do they scale up or down?
OttomanScribe
Member
There are differences of scholarly opinion on copyright theft. So I can't talk about anything approaching a majoral position on the issue. I follow the line that within the Sha'riah it is not possible to own knowledge, or even art, though it is possible to own and trade individual products that contain art or knowledge. However I avoid copyright theft out of a desire to avoid questionable moral actions, even if I hold an opinion one way or the other.Theft as a grave crime? How does one apply that to watching a copyrighted documentary on youtube?
I cannot justify it (for argument's sake, let us say it was probably because I was lazy more then I couldn't find a version, I could pay for).
Is that a grave crime? Actually, say, I admitted this in Saudi Arabia. Copyright theft is rife throughout the known world; yes even in the middle east.
So if 75% (random number) of 16 to 35 year old steal, what do different schools of thought say on the treatment of society.
I'm still not sure about the scale, and how multiplication works? what are the different punishments available? how do they scale up or down?
As in most legal systems, the punishment is within bounds often set by a qadi, so there is never a single punishment that will be applied regardless of the nature of the crime. There are of course exceptions in all legal systems, the 3 strike system for example that was/is in place in the US for example.
What would rates of copyright theft have to do with anything? It certainly does not have anything to do with the morality or immorality of an act. If everyone was engaged in backbiting or slander, would it be made any more morally acceptable? If everyone thought it was permissible to kill someone arbitrarily, would that make it morally acceptable? Bringing up rates of a crime is a red herring when it comes to discussing the correctness of it.
OttomanScribe
Member
Anyways, I'm off to the hole/Afghan cave system/other forum/BF3 from whence I came. I think I have said the extent of my arguments on the matter. I don't believe any new ones will be forthcoming.
Asalaamu Alaykum all keep me in your dua insha'Allah.
Oh, for those who followed my wife's meteoric rise and awesomeness, we got a notification today that she has a scholarship for Macquarie University, so she will be doing her PHD! her subject is the racialisation of Muslim converts, and her honours research will be published, insha'Allah t'ala in the La Trobe journal, so keep an eye out
Asalaamu Alaykum all
keep me in your dua insha'Allah.Oh, for those who followed my wife's meteoric rise and awesomeness, we got a notification today that she has a scholarship for Macquarie University, so she will be doing her PHD!
her subject is the racialisation of Muslim converts, and her honours research will be published, insha'Allah t'ala in the La Trobe journal, so keep an eye out I'm not sure I was discussing the correctness of an act in that post, I certainly wasn't justifying stealing. And I'm not talking about principles. I've accepted that stealing, whether it be small or great, is still wrong. But I'm trying to get you to explain to me how a judge would treat a report that says 75% of folks steal something.
You've said the copyright issue is still being debated, and that takes away that argument.
My argument is simply this. I think there is a danger of a greater crime being committed in the way of punishment, by a government (any kind of government or ruling elite), as regards the act of its citizen stealing. And I have to balance whether ethically I can agree with such a possibility.
I understand that laws are a preventative measure, and that some claim that they do work. But if copyright was declared theft, it'd certainly be interesting whether studies would be branded falsehood, or whether isp refuse to hand over the people who abuse copyright theft, and what the government would do, will they carry through 'the cutting of the hand punishment' for thousands of people in one go, if it is only meant to be a preventative measure?
Edit: Spent too much time thinking my thoughts through, and busy writing up... Good to hear your wife is doing well. Wish both of you good luck.
You don't have to answer, we can just call it a day on that matter.. enjoy bf3...
You've said the copyright issue is still being debated, and that takes away that argument.
My argument is simply this. I think there is a danger of a greater crime being committed in the way of punishment, by a government (any kind of government or ruling elite), as regards the act of its citizen stealing. And I have to balance whether ethically I can agree with such a possibility.
I understand that laws are a preventative measure, and that some claim that they do work. But if copyright was declared theft, it'd certainly be interesting whether studies would be branded falsehood, or whether isp refuse to hand over the people who abuse copyright theft, and what the government would do, will they carry through 'the cutting of the hand punishment' for thousands of people in one go, if it is only meant to be a preventative measure?
Edit: Spent too much time thinking my thoughts through, and busy writing up...
Good to hear your wife is doing well. Wish both of you good luck.You don't have to answer, we can just call it a day on that matter.. enjoy bf3...
The Quran is the only book that's God's word. Any other book or saying by someone else does not mean that's how the Muslim God wants it. If it did, it would put it in the Quran now, wouldn't it? Therefore anything that's not in the Quran can be discredited as a weak means to rationalize.
1. The Quran does not distinguish between minor thefts or major thefts, and anything outside of Quran is not a relevant source for the Muslim who wants to please his Deity.
2. Even in the case of a major theft, "the real deterrent" is STILL NOT cutting their arms/legs off! It's the removal of that person from society by locking him up. That's barbarism and the mark of a less evolved society. It is not acceptable under ANY circumstances.
Because most people know better than doing what a psychopath orders them to do, even if that psychopath is God itself. They'll twist the words and rationalize it because their whole thought system is based on the existence of a Muslim God. It cannot ever be incorrect and it's easier to just reinterpret as needed.
Your definition of "subjective" is a bit worrying. The fact that amputations are despicable, horrible things is not my subjective opinion, but it's the result of the evolution and progress of human societies through history. The Quran is clearly in the wrong here for suggesting them, and it reflects the time period that it was written in.
You think you have it all figured out. Those pesky Muslims and their Psychopath god. Yes, that's the reason it works. Because they believe in a psychopathic god, and he makes these rules, yeah, and if you disobey there will be hell to pay; yes, isn't that what hell is?, see yes, it fits, I have answered you, and what about this, that, and the other. People, see, people know better then to do what a psychopath god tells them to do, even if they are brainwashed, and they must be, but they still do what that psychopath god tells them to do. Wait they don't do it. That's what I mean. They'll reinterpret the freaking math. Dude. Those pesky brainwashed deluded Muslims.
Here's the typical reasoning:
My God can't possibly be a psychopath/math-illiterate/misogynist, and it can't possibly have meant those things as they're written in the Quran. It must have chosen those words to mean something else and as a test for the believers.
oh jeez. You are running circles around yourself. I was merely pointing out that you say one thing, then on a separate issue your argument contradicts the rules you built up in the first argument. I don't even care if you don't see this.
Come up with a clear coherent argument that is consistent throughout. People aren't here to babysit you, while you learn how arguments work, or how to speak.
I know you can do better than this. So do it already. Instead of insulting the person (OS, crazy monkey, zapages etc) sitting opposite you all the time- psychopath god this, and deluded brainwashed fools that. And it is at this point you are shitting up the thread.
OttomanScribe
Member
The Qur'an is only one of the sources of morality and law for the Muslim. It is only about 4% legal rulings, and its intent is not as a legal book, being primarily concerned with morality, rather than law. The Prophet and Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the one who is used to interpret the Qur'an, and he takes the classic role (like old testament Prophets ) of a lawgiver.
Thus you are showing your ignorance of Muslims and Islam here. The source of Muslim law and morality is not merely the Qur'an, but is also the vast collections that make up the Prophetic tradition, and also the legal ijtihad (rulings) of the community that followed the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam)
This is a false assertion, especially considering what the Qur'an says on the matter. The status of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is enshrined in the Qur'an, and is one of his major functions, as the giver of the Sha'riah.
Mutilation bad, slavery good? It seems that we both agree that something should occur to a thief, but you say that he should become a slave of the state for a proscribed amount of time instead.
Since that was the way that the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) carried out the hadud, are you saying that he was simultaneously making up his own God, and then not following the edicts from that God? How does that work?
Again, evolution and progress: not the same thing.
That your opinion is the result of the 'evolution and progress of human societies throughout history' manages to be both arrogant and contradictory at the same time. If you are saying that it reflects the time it was written in, then it was not wrong to suggest it. How can it simultaneously be a product of its context, while also being held to the products of your contexts?
Subjectivity is about your personal opinions, tastes and feelings. Objectivity is about something that is beyond the realm of your personal feelings.
Since you and I disagree on this matter, and you are not bringing facts to the table in order to show that your opinion is out of the bounds of personal opinion, then I have no reason to believe that it is objective. Simply because you can point to your own culture and say 'they agree with me on this issue', only shows to me that it hasn't been a conscious choice of yours on the matter, it doesn't get more subjective than that. Your argument seems to be 'I think this, and my society on the whole agrees with me, therefore it is objective truth'... it doesn't work like that. I think that there is nothing inherently more barbaric about state slavery than about amputation. Both take something away from the thief who has taken something from another.
I think that 'barbaric' is a weasel word that is used by you to label things that you don't agree with, it is certainly not something objective.
I hate to play the 'junior' card, as I rarely post enough these days to call myself a member. However you need to think through the points you are making. They are often contradicting previous ones, or even points in the same post. Sit down, read through what you have written, and see if it looks systematic and consistent. This is the internet, not a personal debate, you have time to reply, and to read through your own posts to check them for errors and contradictions. Most importantly, steer away from weasel words, they add nothing to your points, they merely fog up the debate with a bunch of negative vibes.. man.
Good to hear your wife is doing well. Wish both of you good luck.
You don't have to answer, we can just call it a day on that matter.. enjoy bf3...
Thanks mate. It is awesome.. been too long since I've had a game eat up my time like it. Oh and Skyrim.
As to your point, how much do governments actually prosecute in cases of copyright theft? If I recall correctly, it is damn hard to get a conviction. Add to that the kind of principle discussed by Al-Ghazzali in relation to entering someone's home (in relation to suspecting your neighbour has a still and is getting drunk) I think that it would be damn near impossible to get a conviction.
This obsession with the Hadud as an example of Muslim barbarism is a new thing, the old obsession was with Islamic law as being far too lenient, and never being able to secure a conviction because crazy things like 'proof' and 'not trial by combat' were involved. In general, Muslim legal structures don't resemble the kind of intrusive nation-states we deal with today. Within the Sunni tradition, there is no single legal structure, and not really any such thing as common law, precedent exists, but in a different way. A scholar today may disagree with a scholar contemporary to him, or one from 1000 years ago, and there is not much to call them to a specific interpretation in if they stay within the bounds of the community and have learnt from a legitimate source. This is bad or good, depending on how you like your law. I imagine, somewhat oddly, an Islamic state realised today along traditionalist lines, would be something of a libertarians dream.
He's been making it personal since his 2nd post.
Quran says it's the only unchanged text of religion and it's forbidden to alter it, correct? How do you trust all of those reports of the rulings of the community, since they're more than a thousand years old, and unlike the Quran, they are not immune to alterations? Who's to say someone didn't make them up based on their beliefs at the time. The only absolute, unchanged words of God and the Prophet are in the Quran. Everything else has no guarantee of being accurate or correct.
Prison time is a lot different than being a slave for the state. Being a prisoner and a slave are two different things. Even prisoners have rights in our modern societies and they are not "owned" by the state. Most importantly, a slave has no say in whether he's a slave or not, but everyone in prison went there because of their actions and through the legal system. Therefore, this analogy of yours fails.
He wrote a book that says "it can't be altered in any way", so he was elaborating on some unclear parts of the Quran. It's like software development, when you find bugs but the software has already gone gold, the best you can do is to acknowledge them and write reports about it. The problem is that we cannot trust any reports or history of what he did in his lifetime except for the Quran, as everything else is subject to alteration.
Because it claims to be the universal, the final, the be all and end all source of God's word that transcends time and space, yet it contains verses that don't apply to our modern society. Therefore it is held up to the context of my time and society, and fails miserably at it.
You have to choose one of the following: either the Quran is not a universal book and only intended for tribes living in the Arabian peninsula around 7th Century AD, or that it's a universal book containing the words of a barbaric, psychopath god that suggests mutilation as punishment. Which one will you choose?
Oh, and any person suggesting mutilation in this day and age is clearly a barbarian psychopath that needs to be kept away from the general population. This is not a subjective opinion, but an objective fact that's verifiable through observation of societies that practice this vs ones that don't practice it and seeing which one is better off.
I don't think you know what the words mean.
OttomanScribe
Member
The collections of the hadith are one of the greatest, most intensive scholarly works of any culture. Their collection, while not making them immune to alteration, makes it a far more likely premise that they have no been altered in a significant way, so as to make them useless. Additionally, the value of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is something vouchsafed in the Qur'an. For the Muslim living in the current time, their access to him is through these scholarly traditions, just as God does not allow the Qur'an to be changed, so access to the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is always possible, regardless of the times.
At least until the end, at which point both the Qur'an, and the accounts of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) will leave the community in entirety.
Many slave holding societies gave rights to slaves.
The actions of a person to bring themselves to a point of slavery makes no difference in them being defined as a slave.
What defines a slave is not rights, or actions leading up to the point of slavery, it is ownership of liberty and labour. A slave is one whose liberty and labour are owned by another. Thus a prisoner is a slave of the state.
Your analogy fails. It also is a false assertion, simply because everything else could possibly be subject to alteration, in part or whole, does not mean that a reasonable person automatically assumes that this alteration has occurred.
Furthermore, if one takes the Qur'an's word on the Qur'an being intended as an eternal document (it can't be altered in any way doesn't mean what you seem to think it does, it is a command, not a statement of fact) then one also takes the Qur'an's word regarding the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and his role.
You assert that they don't apply to modern society, that is a subjective interpretation, not an objective one. In order for it to be an argument at all, you need the assertion, followed by a reason for it. You haven't presented this, thus your argument does not follow.
Oh, well, with such wonderful choices, not at all containing weasel words or false dichotomies, how can I possibly choose?
*sigh*
The Qur'an is a universal book, some of its rulings are contextual, some are universal and others are understood with context as a guide. You have presented me a false dichotomy, this is a sign of a very bad argument.
Again, you need to look up what 'objective' means. There are people on this forum, non-Muslims, who have agreed with me previously regarding the appropriateness of corporal punishment. Similarly your own culture (whichever it is) embraced corporal punishment up until very recently, with far fewer checks and balances than mine.
So all of a sudden, when your culture changes its mind on an issue, it becomes an objective fact? Sounds pretty dodgy to me. What happens in another twenty years when your culture changes its mind again? Will that be an objective fact also?
Also I think that your assertion regarding 'better off' is fundamentally flawed. Unless you are saying that the lack of corporal punishment is a reason for European societies and their offshoots being temporarily dominant on the world stage (give it a few years) then you need to seriously investigate exactly what you are claiming. The height of European and 'Western' control has passed, and throughout its height, corporal punishment was still practised.
One of the greatest imperial powers, Britain, had a navy built on the whip, for much softer crimes. Also need I point out that the death penalty is merely an extension of the principle of corporal punishment, and is an enshrined method of criminal disposal in the United States, one of the greatest world powers for the last 50 years.
Your assertion, essentially that you can turn the negativity of corporal punishment into an objective fact by observing the success or lack thereof of societies that practice it, is riddled with flaws. Not only because there are historic examples of successful societies who practised it, but also because causality is not clear. It could just as much be that 'successful' (and by success you mean success at domination of others, and the accumulation of wealth from such) societies are disinclined towards corporal punishment by merit of their success, and not successful because of that disinclination. Indeed if we are looking for a more likely causality, that one stands out far clearer, as I think the success of certain nations has far more to do with economics and skill at violence than it does their opinion on corporal punishment.
And what if the person was actually innocent?
If you don't know colloquial Arabic, and you don't know the context i.e the who, where, when, these versus were revealed, please stop trying to think you get it. This is not something that is unique to you, but is a major problem even amongst Muslims. Hence why we have idiots using the Qur'an as a justification for committing atrocities.
Now in regards to the inheritance aspect, the reason the shares are different is because a man by Islamic law is required to spend of his wealth on his wife and family. A women on the other hand, has no such requirement placed on her. Think about that for a moment. A girl gets half of what her brother gets, but she gets to keep all of it. She doesn't have to spend a dime of it, even to take care of herself. Because that responsibly falls on her husband, or male members of her family. Her brother on the other hand, has to spend his share on his family as the need arises. Now me personally, I'd just give the same amount to all my kids, because times are different. But that's me personally.
Besides these corrupt oil shieks, how many Muslim men are married to multiple wives? I doubt even a 1% of the total Muslim population have more than one wife.
The Qur'an says that there is no compulsion in religion. When the Qur'an talks about fighting non-believers, each of those verses is referring to an actual incident occurring during that time. Meccan army invades Medina, the verses tells them to fight. What are you expecting the verse to say? "If the enemy comes to kill you, dig a hole in the ground, stick your head in it, and wait for death"? What I love is how people who keep bringing up the "kill the infidel" aspect, always conveniently leave out the rest of the verses that occur before and after that command is given. How come you don't mention that the Qu'ran almost always states along with the "fight the non-believers" bit, that if the non-believers leave you in peace that you are to do the same, and if even after conflict arises, if they sue for peace, you are to come to terms with them? Doesn't quite fight your narrative to do so does it?
So, they're no more accurate than Wikipedia. Unless the Prophet himself is here telling you what to do, you cannot trust any of it. Especially when you're in front of a God that almost takes pleasure in describing what kinds of pain and suffering await you if you fail to obey his word, in his book.
BS. Many were born into slavery, but you can't be born into living in prison. Prison term has nothing to do with slavery at all. You do the crime, you temporarily lose your freedom. Key words being temporarily and freedom. Equating slavery to prison is a bad analogy through and through. Unlike slavery, you're not forced to work in prison either, and you're guaranteed meals and lodging regardless of if you work or not.
Sure, if the Prophet himself came and said something, it would be just as valid as what was in the Quran. However second, third, fourth, nth hand accounts are suspect and not to be trusted.
It makes zero sense for a universal book to talk about how you shouldn't disturb the Prophet after dinner and leave quickly, nor to utterly fail at math. It definitely does not make sense to suggest mutilation as punishment.
Neither corporal punishment, nor even the death penalty are comparable to cutting off someone's limbs. The person in the receiving end of such a penalty is doomed to live as a disfigured, disabled hunk of meat for the rest of his life. It's much more heartless and barbaric than even the death penalty, since it's continual suffering. Plus, no one gets the death penalty just for stealing in modern evolved societies.
There is a reason we don't see a single Muslim country to be a significant world player except for selling their natural resources to the West. The ideal society as described in the Quran and governed by Sharia law, is a primitive and backwards society for the 21st century. For 7th century, it was quite advanced and modern though.
A proper, universal book of the forever, intended for everyone, should not need explanations and context, or frivolous verses that are only applicable to the people who personally visited the Prophet. Such writing can't possibly come from a divine source of perfection. Anyone with an open mind and average intelligence who reads the Quran will find out that it's far more likely to be written by a 6th century Arabian merchant than a divine being.
As you said, times are different today and you'd go against what it says in the Quran and divide your inheritance equally. A universal book should have been able to foresee this and make provisions for it.
It's a stupid form of justice that only primitives and morons subscribe to. There is no recompense to society and it hardly deters crime.
OttomanScribe
Member
This is an assertion you are making based on your own understanding, it does not however represent how the majority of Muslims interact with their religion. If you are willing to admit that your main problem is only with the idea of Islam you have, that resides in your head alone, with no relation to how Muslims actually understand their religion, then I am happy and we can leave it at that.
Another selection of non sequiturs. What does whether you are born into it or not have to do with anything? Some systems understood the offspring of two slaves to be born free, does that then not make them slaves?
The second point 'Prison term has nothing to do with slavery at all' doesn't seem to be referring to anything in particular in my post. The third point is what I am saying, you do the crime, you become a slave for a set amount of time. The fourth is an assertion that I disagree with.
As to the final point, at least in the American case, the American constitution specifically makes an exception for penal servitude. Refer to the 13th Amendment: 'neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States'. The constitution itself acknowledges the fact that it is the same thing.
Furthermore, while the owning of labour is an important part of slavery, it is not the primary part, the primary part is the owning of liberty, as inherent within that is the fact that someone's labour, while possibly not being used by the state, is still owned by the state. The decision to work or not, to provide for oneself or not, is the state's choice.
This is not a matter of 2nd 3rd and 4th hand accounts, as that implies a single chain of transmission. Where there is only a single chain of transmission, a hadith is not taken as being even 'sound'. For a hadith to be classified as 'sahih', it needs multiple chains of transmission. This is not a matter of 'Chinese whispers', but the work of an entire civilisation to preserve the life of a single man in all detail possible.
There are hadith that have more chains of transmission than the Qur'an itself!
Why does it not make sense for the Qur'an to legislate both manners and the law. As to the maths bit, I don't accept your assertion, I would rebut it in person but others have done so here and I hate maths.
So taking someone's life is less than taking a limb? How does that work? If someone came to you today and said 'you have a choice, either I shoot you in the head, or I chop of your hand', you would, without hesitation, demand death? Even if you say yes (unlikely) I doubt that you would represent anything even approaching a majority.
I am sure that amputees are very grateful for your definition of them as such.
Are you really making this argument? The dominance of the Western world is a temporary blip on a historical timescale. The entirety of Europe lived under the shadow of the Ottomans for centuries. If you define success as 'being a significant player on the world stage', then the Western world has only been successful for a minute amount of its history, and you seem to make the assumption that this is now a permanent state of affairs, despite Europe and America both being in decline.
Always with the weasel words. 'Primitive', 'backwards', define these words. Which culture built a weapon that could wipe out a city in a single strike, and then used it on a civilian city? If that is what not being primitive and backwards represent, then I think Muslims should be happy to be defined as such.
It is telling that your calls to success are calls to the global dominance of Western military power. You define a culture that has amputation as a punishment for theft as being barbaric, what do you think a MOAB does? Or napalm? Or radiation poisoning? Or zyklon B? Or germ warfare agents?
The advanced, evolved culture that you take as your example is the one that came up with that stuff. Yet we Muslims are barbaric? From where I am standing, the barbarity was exported, Europe and America have a culture so wealthy as to make theft an inconvenience, and that wealth they gained through military ventures as much as anything else. Their barbarity they exported, making others poor, and on the receiving end of their wicked weapons of war. Then they turn around and call everyone else barbaric.
Show me something more barbaric than mustard gas or VX, then talk to me about which society or culture is 'highly evolved'.
That's because they're not open minded, and most of them have never even read the Quran. It's easier to go along with what people around you are saying than to think for yourself at the cost of rearranging your whole world beliefs.
Slavery has not been practiced that way throughout history for the most part. You were born into it, and it wasn't a temporary punishment for something you did wrong, unless you committed a heinous crime such as murder and were in prison for life. You were a slave for life. That kind of slavery can not be compared with incarceration for a crime you committed.
The same applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is fine for casual browsing and reading, but if the stakes are high and the cost of not doing them right is eternal damnation, I wouldn't bet my ass on a source like that and go back to the one true source which is guaranteed to be pure, the Quran itself.
No one has rebutted my sources and shown how 9/8 = 8/8 as written in Quran, to make sense. Only how people in practice found workarounds for that problem. Just like you wouldn't expect a perfect computer program to have workarounds, you wouldn't expect something like a religion to have workarounds. Anything that has workarounds must be the work of a human.
Because in modern societies, the decision to take someone's life only applies to heinous crimes where the accused has committed murder. No one gets executed for theft in modern societies. In fact, progressively more countries and states have been abolishing the death penalty as time passes, demonstrating which way true progress lies. The Western society as of today is definitely not a perfect and fully evolved society, but it's much further evolved than any Islamic society that ever existed.
ROFL. After the Ottoman Empire, not a single Muslim country/empire dominated, and none ever will because the West was able to reform their religion to adapt, while Islam remained static.
Suggesting mutilation as punishment for theft is the sign of a primitive culture. Not equating men with women is the sign of a primitive culture and one of the biggest reasons why Muslim countries are absolute shitholes when they don't have oil to sell to the west.
Designing weapons for defense is not barbaric, regardless of how terrible they may be. Besides, you're taking the USA as the most advanced western civilization, when this is not true, they're only the most powerful western Civilization. Look at Canada or Sweden as examples as how a modern society should be.
OttomanScribe
Member
So they are not open minded because they don't accept your narrative on their religion. You are the one that appears to have done little analysis of your own beliefs. In terms of your social group, could you name a single belief that you hold that it is outside the norm?
So are the points where it was practised that way not slavery? Because that is what you need to argue in order for this diversion to be at all relevant.
Why not? They seem quite comparable. The only difference being time of slavery. So temporary slavery is cool, it is just when slavery becomes long term that it becomes actual slavery?
No, it is not like Wikipedia at all. The Qur'an is the guarantee of the hadith tradition, the integrity of the consensus of scholarship and the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).... the same is true of the others, they all support each other in term. If you accept one, you accept them all.
What? You have changed your line of argument entirely. Your initial line of argument was that having a limb amputated was worse than death, now you are changing your argument to say that the difference is the crime itself. Why the change? Surely if you were wrong about an assertion, you need to say, 'okay, that was a wrong assertion to make, this is a more sound argument' rather than just switching arguments mid stride?
I don't believe I said they were?
No, that doesn't demonstrate anything about progress at all.
Again, evolution, read about it. Evolution and progress are not the same thing. There is no idea of progress enshrined within evolution. There is no such thing as 'fully evolved'. Your narrative reeks of your cultural background and Christendom's end time narratives.
The Ottoman Empire ended in 1918, though it had been sick for about 50 years before that. So 150 years. 150 years is the basis for your final narrative? Muslim regions have been in worse decline, for longer times than that, and then risen again. You need to think about the long game. The Muslim world seemed over when the Mongols sacked Baghdad, yet out of the dust of that 'end times' came the Mughals, the Timmurids, the Ottomans... what makes you think that there is any finality here and now? Turkey is a rising power in the ME and has weathered the economic storm far better than Europe. It is also increasingly Muslim in character. What makes you think that history is over?
Here you appear to have entirely missed my point. Might I request that you go back and try again. I don't feel any need to restate my position, as you are simply restating yours.
Why not? Also I think here you are using the word 'defence' inappropriately, not least because the defensive uses of something like VX is extremely limited, for reasons I feel are too obvious to state.
You are the one who put forth power as a description of validity, not me. So you are changing this too? Why should I look at Canada or Sweden, I don't see them as particularly representative, certainly not more so than anywhere else.
It seems like you want me to look at them because you agree with certain aspects of their social and political structures. This doesn't speak to me of objectivity in any way at all.
If you are going to ground all your arguments in your own subjective opinions and refer very rarely to any supporting objective points... then you are just ranting, and I don't feel at all obliged to indulge you.
You are constantly shifting the goalposts of this argument, and I think it will be obvious to anyone reading that you are doing so. It is bad form.
Hmm...static you say...? but apparently the fastest growing religion in the world...
Ever played Sid Meier's Civilization series? Cultural victory...so satisfying to dominate people without having to hurt a single soul...
Also pretty much every other day one can find an article/news piece/report where the central concern is Islams Growing Threat to Western Civilization...
I just want to chime in state some thing, just personal thoughts I have developed over the years. I am no longer a Muslim. Still trying to find my place in the world...
Firstly, I'm tired of people stating " No no no, the Quran does not mean that. You just don't understand it. Need to study it for decades to even begin to comprehend it's complexity". And they go on to attack people personally based on this.
All I have to say, is that even IN THE QURAN it states that; It is a simple book, made easy to understand for everyone.
That is all that matters to me. The God that you worship and follow stated he made this religion and book for everyone easy to understand. The same people criticize others for following that rule, and try to make it complex by deriving unnecessary meaning and metaphors.
Secondly, using things not from the Quran like Hadith and scripture; people justify this by stating that: The Quran isn't big enough, and there wasn't enough time to have everything in it. So we need to also follow other sources.
Again in the Quran it states than; The Quran is COMPLETE, and nothing needs to be added. God even goes on to say that, if he had deemed it necessary, he would have have extended it. One line he even uses a metaphor stating that he could have written a book using an ocean of ink.The ocean of ink would be completely drained, but he would still have material to write. BUT again, he did not deem it necessary, as the Quran is Complete.
[Quran 6:38] ..We did not leave anything out of this book..
WE MADE THE QURAN EASY TO LEARN [54:17]
Finally, Sunni and Shia and the other divisions. I absolutely hate this. God and Muhammed stated many times to be one, live together, follow one god and book. Yet people who claim to be rational muslim bicker and argue about this. Just infuriates me.
That's all I have to say about this subject. If anyone needs more citations regarding anything I posted let me know. I am ready to post multiple quotes from the Quran, and nothing else.
Firstly, I'm tired of people stating " No no no, the Quran does not mean that. You just don't understand it. Need to study it for decades to even begin to comprehend it's complexity". And they go on to attack people personally based on this.
All I have to say, is that even IN THE QURAN it states that; It is a simple book, made easy to understand for everyone.
That is all that matters to me. The God that you worship and follow stated he made this religion and book for everyone easy to understand. The same people criticize others for following that rule, and try to make it complex by deriving unnecessary meaning and metaphors.
Secondly, using things not from the Quran like Hadith and scripture; people justify this by stating that: The Quran isn't big enough, and there wasn't enough time to have everything in it. So we need to also follow other sources.
Again in the Quran it states than; The Quran is COMPLETE, and nothing needs to be added. God even goes on to say that, if he had deemed it necessary, he would have have extended it. One line he even uses a metaphor stating that he could have written a book using an ocean of ink.The ocean of ink would be completely drained, but he would still have material to write. BUT again, he did not deem it necessary, as the Quran is Complete.
[Quran 6:38] ..We did not leave anything out of this book..
WE MADE THE QURAN EASY TO LEARN [54:17]
Finally, Sunni and Shia and the other divisions. I absolutely hate this. God and Muhammed stated many times to be one, live together, follow one god and book. Yet people who claim to be rational muslim bicker and argue about this. Just infuriates me.
That's all I have to say about this subject. If anyone needs more citations regarding anything I posted let me know. I am ready to post multiple quotes from the Quran, and nothing else.
Explanation is not explanation when you twist it into something else. When you create whole books out of it. putting cultural rules in it not stated anywhere in the original source at all. So no, I have no interest in these kind of explanations.
[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt.
[Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[Quran 6:38] All the creatures on earth, and all the birds that fly with wings, are communities like you. We did not leave anything out of this book.** To their Lord, all these creatures will be summoned.
[Quran 18:27]You shall recite what is revealed to you of your Lord's scripture. Nothing shall abrogate His words, and you shall not find any other source beside it.
[Quran 18:109] Say, 'If the ocean were ink for the words of my Lord, the ocean would run out, before the words of my Lord run out, even if we double the ink supply.
[Quran 75:16] Do not move your tongue to hasten it. [Quran 75:17] It is we who will collect it into Quran. [Quran 75:18] Once we recite it, you shall follow such a Quran. [Quran 75:19] Then it is we who will explain it.
I'm confused...are you saying you are against the existence of hadiths?
Oh and yeah anyone can understand Quran...but it doesn't mean there is a universal agreement and understanding. There are verses where god says;
"But none will grasp the message except the men of intellect." (Quran 2:269)
"He did lead me astray from the Message (of Allah) after it had come to me! Ah! The Satan is but a traitor to man!" And the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense." (Quran 25:29-30)
Oh and yeah anyone can understand Quran...but it doesn't mean there is a universal agreement and understanding. There are verses where god says;
"But none will grasp the message except the men of intellect." (Quran 2:269)
"He did lead me astray from the Message (of Allah) after it had come to me! Ah! The Satan is but a traitor to man!" And the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense." (Quran 25:29-30)
Yeah, I am against the hadith, as I truly believe they are not part of Islam. Foe example things such as stoning, which is practised today. That comes from Hadith, not from the Quran.
Also, both those lines have nothing to do with what I said. the first one is about god giving knowledge to people, to people he choices; by blessing them, and they will "remember" that. And the second one I see no connection at all.
some questions for the Muslims here.
1) Does the Koran really tell Muslims to kill those that are'nt Islamic?
2) Does the Koran not treat women as equal to men? If it does, then where does the 40 virgins in heaven come from?
3) Why do asian muslim countries (malaysia, singapore) tend to be a lot more liberal than the middle east? I've been to KL, and I see muslim womens in miniskirts and stuff, and I see no one trying to stone them
1) Does the Koran really tell Muslims to kill those that are'nt Islamic?
2) Does the Koran not treat women as equal to men? If it does, then where does the 40 virgins in heaven come from?
3) Why do asian muslim countries (malaysia, singapore) tend to be a lot more liberal than the middle east? I've been to KL, and I see muslim womens in miniskirts and stuff, and I see no one trying to stone them
Why say this when you don't want to debate the issue? The very nature of debate is a form of intellectual democracy. You don't get to dictate the right answer; no one does. You listen to the reasoning, and point out flaws, contradictions and other issues; and you move on from there. Either agree or disagree.
So far, you want to abandon context and explanation, because you're not interested and then you expect other people to follow the direction - why? do you think your 'logic' is self-evident?
Where did I even say I don't want to debate the issue? o_o
I said in regards to the hadith and the hadith explanations that "I have no interest in these explanations". I did not mean your explanations to justify them, or to enlighten me.
You completely misunderstood what I said.
No, you failed to explain yourself, and are unable to see where you are going wrong in your explanation.
I use to just point out fallacies in argument, but *some* people tended to google it for the first time, and think they understand it after reading it once, and so the debate became about whether it is this fallacy or that fallacy. So I won't even bother to explain what fallacy I think your argument falls under.
I'm sorry but what in the world are you talking about? "Failed to explain myself"??
I posted what thought about islam, about Quran and God, then posted some suras as sources. This is what your post looks like form my perspective:
Hey Kraftwerk, I see that you have posted your ideas and thought abut this subject, and included sources too. You seem to want to have a healthy discussion about this,
OH BTW
You dont want to debate this subject, and I deem your argument a failure. have a nice day.
Give me a second and I'll try again.
1) No. It gives Muslims the right to fight back if oppressed or attacked.
2) All people regardless or race or gender are equal in front of God, the only thing that differentiates anyone is their deeds. Men and women are different by their physical make an men are to be held responsible for the care of their wives and families. Women are not banned from participating in the workspace however. Muhammad's first wife was a successful merchant. 40 virgins are never mentioned in the Quran.
3)Not all Muslim countries are the same just like all western countries are not the same. Some are more conservative than others. They all have different cultures, governments, and histories.