I in no way meant to lessen the severity of what was happening to these women. That was never my point. Since that it's how it's coming across...and I believe the thread did start disingenuously, I won't add anymore to it.
I fully understand the mistake people are making by generalizing radical Muslim behaviour to all Muslims. I can certainly understand why some might feel defensive given this- I have come to the defence of some of our Muslim contributors when unfairly attacked on this forum. I have nothing against Muslim people, but I have a lot against cruel and unfair treatment of women.
Regardless of how one might be personally affected by general criticisms that do not apply to them, I don't think it is reasonable or appropriate to in any way rationalize the extreme behaviours that have been pointed out in this thread. Stoning a woman to death or whipping them is medieval in nature: these behaviours are deplorable and need to stop. It has been put to me that there is no simple answer to the complexity of the situation, however I don't know exactly what 'complex answer' I might hear that would have me understand why such actions would be condoned.
so what are you saying exactly? that i started this thread & don't listen & don't read the books & that i may not understand every single post & that i'm just trying to cause problems & spread lies & garbage about things that are not true at all about religion(s) & branches of... & cultures & the interweaving of state & religion
yeah i am bat shit crazy, 3/4 useless, false, hate-filled & completely out of order. so i am just stirring the pot hoping to feed the flames of tearing human beings down rather than somehow lift them up, yes/no? caring about women & children is a fucking crime? the welfare of all life is important, yes/no? aware, yes/no?
in a calm, sensitive & understanding situation, where just maybe a gal slept around on her husband, she is not going to capital punishment, she is not receiving hundreds upon hundreds of lashes with a barbaric switch.
this as we know it is 'extreme & ancient behavior'. can we move forward
It doesn't sound as if you are as strongly opposed to some of the practices some people have been objecting to.
In my mind, it is weak to defend the public stoning for a woman's adulterous behaviour by making a comparison to the execution of a violent criminal convicted of rape and murder. They are not similar at all, get real. If women in the west were getting executed for having affairs, then we could have a comparison and a debate about turds being turds.
Woah, back the fuck up sir--who are you accusing of defending stoning here?
I don't understand what it is you people want with this thread anymore. I thought the whole purpose of it is to try to understand if Islam is to blame for these unjust practices occuring. And then when I try to explain what Islam says, and say that the reason these practices happen are very complex and requires deeper understanding in a variety of issues dealing with that part of the world, I am accused of condoning it?!
The purpose of my post was try to explain a few things:
First, systematic discrimination is built into the United States' judicial system, and this system leads to the unjust persecution and even execution of minorities--not just citizens but non-citizens too. (I wasn't suggesting that it is ONLY for minorities.) Now, WHY this system exists is due to a complex number of factors spanning two centuries of American history. It's not simple to analyze it. That was the only point of comparison here: the reason there is a system of discrimination against women in certain parts of the Muslim world is due to a complex history that cannot simply be attributed to religious (or even cultural) motivations. In fact, Western colonialism--a very recent thing--is much to blame for it.
Take, for instance, what many of you hear about blasphemy laws in certain parts of the Muslim world. Muslims are so "sensitive" right? They can't even bear to see people draw cartoons of their Prophet! I've posted this article before, but I think it warrants a reposting:
"Internal Muslim condemnations against the protests have relied primarily on Muhammad’s example of ignoring insults against his person. But in fact, there is a long tradition of Muslim tolerance for insults against their faith and its founder.
The ninth-century Martyrs Movement in Islamic Spain was notable, not for the deliberate incitements made by Christians seeking to sacrifice themselves to spark a revolt among their co-religionists, but for the considerable lengths they had to go to in order to provoke a response from the Muslim rulers. Their anti-Islamic spectacles in Andalucia’s market places and public squares were largely ignored and state officials repeatedly overlooked the verbal assaults in the hopes of preserving social harmony.
Even by the late 19th century, when European colonialism was in its upward swing, scathing critiques of Islam were often met with thoughtful and measured responses. To French philosopher Ernest Renan’s argument that Islam was inherently opposed to rationality, science and philosophy, the religious reformer Jamal al-Din al-Afghani replied by offering a counter-narrative of early Islamic history, while also arguing that the latest failings of Muslims should be attributed to their own shortcomings and not to their faith."
As you can judge from the example of blasphemy laws, such "sensitivities" are modern constructs and should be contextualized within the specific circumstances it has grown out of: strong autocratic governments with relatively weak social institutions, a disenfranchised civil society, corruption and collusion with Western powers, and the introduction of the nation-state which has co-opted religious institutions to keep the public in order. This is what has helped lead to the growth of fringe movements.
You guys keep saying you're willing to differentiate between "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims, but that is not just my concern: there is a need to dispel the idea that Islam as an idea, as a belief system, is responsible for the "bad" Muslims, and this is something which none of you have been willing to confront. If you disagree, tell me why.
Second, many of you are so upset about the idea of stonings that you don't even seem to be sure what it is you're upset about: is it the crime itself (adultery)? Or is it the punishment? Or is it both?
If it's the crime, then I think you all need to come to terms with something: law is not a stagnant thing, and it changes from society to society. While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time. I do think that if you read polls on what most Muslims worldwide think, they believe in equal rights for men and women, and would not subscribe to the idea of public stoning being practiced.
You also have to understand that stonings occur either in fanatical autocratic states (like Saudi Arabia) or by fringe tribal groups. It is not a widespread epidemic. While I don't like to play the numbers game, I am actually of the opinion that institutional discrimination in the United States against minorities could even be considered worse, considering that millions of minorities are disenfranchised and deal with law enforcement in a VERY different way than you could even comprehend. Try going to a low income black neighborhood and ask them what they think of your precious "due process" system. Furthermore, the fact that this system operates under the illusion of a democracy allows people like you to even go as far as to downplay it, say it doesn't happen as much as one thinks, and instead waste time trying to debate the issue of stoning happening thousands of miles away from you in another culture/society entirely! In fact, you even try to condemn an unjust system happening thousands of miles away, not by outright condemning it, but by saying their system of injustice is "outdated" because it's not as up to date as our system of injustice--hilarious.
I realize my post is all over the place, but it's just so difficult to stay focused when it's not clear what is even trying to be achieved with this thread. I've asked it before and received no answer, including from chadwick who started the fucking thing and seems to have nothing to say.
You also have to understand that stonings occur either in fanatical autocratic states (like Saudi Arabia) or by fringe tribal groups. It is not a widespread epidemic. While I don't like to play the numbers game, I am actually of the opinion that institutional discrimination in the United States against minorities could even be considered worse, considering that millions of minorities are disenfranchised and deal with law enforcement in a VERY different way than you could even comprehend. Try going to a low income black neighborhood and ask them what they think of your precious "due process" system. Furthermore, the fact that this system operates under the illusion of a democracy allows people like you to even go as far as to downplay it, say it doesn't happen as much as one thinks, and instead waste time trying to debate the issue of stoning happening thousands of miles away from you in another culture/society entirely! In fact, you even try to condemn an unjust system happening thousands of miles away, not by outright condemning it, but by saying their system of injustice is "outdated" because it's not as up to date as our system of injustice--hilarious.
You're on a roll. Especially with what you have said here.
It doesn't sound as if you are as strongly opposed to some of the practices some people have been objecting to.
In my mind, it is weak to defend the public stoning for a woman's adulterous behaviour by making a comparison to the execution of a violent criminal convicted of rape and murder. They are not similar at all, get real. If women in the west were getting executed for having affairs, then we could have a comparison and a debate about turds being turds.
Woah, back the fuck up sir--who are you accusing of defending stoning here?
I don't understand what it is you people want with this thread anymore. I thought the whole purpose of it is to try to understand if Islam is to blame for these unjust practices occuring. And then when I try to explain what Islam says, and say that the reason these practices happen are very complex and requires deeper understanding in a variety of issues dealing with that part of the world, I am accused of condoning it?!
The purpose of my post was try to explain a few things:
First, systematic discrimination is built into the United States' judicial system, and this system leads to the unjust persecution and even execution of minorities--not just citizens but non-citizens too. (I wasn't suggesting that it is ONLY for minorities.) Now, WHY this system exists is due to a complex number of factors spanning two centuries of American history. It's not simple to analyze it. That was the only point of comparison here: the reason there is a system of discrimination against women in certain parts of the Muslim world is due to a complex history that cannot simply be attributed to religious (or even cultural) motivations. In fact, Western colonialism--a very recent thing--is much to blame for it.
Take, for instance, what many of you hear about blasphemy laws in certain parts of the Muslim world. Muslims are so "sensitive" right? They can't even bear to see people draw cartoons of their Prophet! I've posted this article before, but I think it warrants a reposting:
"Internal Muslim condemnations against the protests have relied primarily on Muhammad’s example of ignoring insults against his person. But in fact, there is a long tradition of Muslim tolerance for insults against their faith and its founder.
The ninth-century Martyrs Movement in Islamic Spain was notable, not for the deliberate incitements made by Christians seeking to sacrifice themselves to spark a revolt among their co-religionists, but for the considerable lengths they had to go to in order to provoke a response from the Muslim rulers. Their anti-Islamic spectacles in Andalucia’s market places and public squares were largely ignored and state officials repeatedly overlooked the verbal assaults in the hopes of preserving social harmony.
Even by the late 19th century, when European colonialism was in its upward swing, scathing critiques of Islam were often met with thoughtful and measured responses. To French philosopher Ernest Renan’s argument that Islam was inherently opposed to rationality, science and philosophy, the religious reformer Jamal al-Din al-Afghani replied by offering a counter-narrative of early Islamic history, while also arguing that the latest failings of Muslims should be attributed to their own shortcomings and not to their faith."
As you can judge from the example of blasphemy laws, such "sensitivities" are modern constructs and should be contextualized within the specific circumstances it has grown out of: strong autocratic governments with relatively weak social institutions, a disenfranchised civil society, corruption and collusion with Western powers, and the introduction of the nation-state which has co-opted religious institutions to keep the public in order. This is what has helped lead to the growth of fringe movements.
You guys keep saying you're willing to differentiate between "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims, but that is not just my concern: there is a need to dispel the idea that Islam as an idea, as a belief system, is responsible for the "bad" Muslims, and this is something which none of you have been willing to confront. If you disagree, tell me why.
Second, many of you are so upset about the idea of stonings that you don't even seem to be sure what it is you're upset about: is it the crime itself (adultery)? Or is it the punishment? Or is it both?
If it's the crime, then I think you all need to come to terms with something: law is not a stagnant thing, and it changes from society to society. While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time. I do think that if you read polls on what most Muslims worldwide think, they believe in equal rights for men and women, and would not subscribe to the idea of public stoning being practiced.
You also have to understand that stonings occur either in fanatical autocratic states (like Saudi Arabia) or by fringe tribal groups. It is not a widespread epidemic. While I don't like to play the numbers game, I am actually of the opinion that institutional discrimination in the United States against minorities could even be considered worse, considering that millions of minorities are disenfranchised and deal with law enforcement in a VERY different way than you could even comprehend. Try going to a low income black neighborhood and ask them what they think of your precious "due process" system. Furthermore, the fact that this system operates under the illusion of a democracy allows people like you to even go as far as to downplay it, say it doesn't happen as much as one thinks, and instead waste time trying to debate the issue of stoning happening thousands of miles away from you in another culture/society entirely! In fact, you even try to condemn an unjust system happening thousands of miles away, not by outright condemning it, but by saying their system of injustice is "outdated" because it's not as up to date as our system of injustice--hilarious.
I realize my post is all over the place, but it's just so difficult to stay focused when it's not clear what is even trying to be achieved with this thread. I've asked it before and received no answer, including from chadwick who started the fucking thing and seems to have nothing to say.
Many of you are so upset about the idea of stonings that you don't even seem to be sure what it is you're upset about: is it the crime itself (adultery)? Or is it the punishment? Or is it both?
To be very clear, one can call adultery a crime if they were so inclined, but the posts speaking against 'stonings' are clearly directed at the punishment. A scarlet letter is one thing... hurling rocks at a defenceless woman is quite another.
While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time.
With all due respect, Fuck- you certainly deserve it with your efforts in this thread- this sounds like a rationalization more than an explanation. A society that deems stoning a woman to death appropriate because she had an affair is out of its mind. We do not need to respect certain societies' desires to try and arrive at a system that suits them in their own time when the process for doing so is marked with such brutality.
I'm not suggesting Islam is at the root of these incidents. I am stating that these acts have no place in anyone's world- they have been presented and I am voicing my displeasure for them.
You also have to understand that stonings occur either in fanatical autocratic states (like Saudi Arabia) or by fringe tribal groups. It is not a widespread epidemic. While I don't like to play the numbers game, I am actually of the opinion that institutional discrimination in the United States against minorities could even be considered worse, considering that millions of minorities are disenfranchised and deal with law enforcement in a VERY different way than you could even comprehend. Try going to a low income black neighborhood and ask them what they think of your precious "due process" system. Furthermore, the fact that this system operates under the illusion of a democracy allows people like you to even go as far as to downplay it, say it doesn't happen as much as one thinks, and instead waste time trying to debate the issue of stoning happening thousands of miles away from you in another culture/society entirely! In fact, you even try to condemn an unjust system happening thousands of miles away, not by outright condemning it, but by saying their system of injustice is "outdated" because it's not as up to date as our system of injustice--hilarious.
You're on a roll. Especially with what you have said here.
Are you of the opinion that people should simply respect other cultures because this is where they have come to and this is the way it is?
That was never my point. Since that it's how it's coming across...and I believe the thread did start disingenuously, I won't add anymore to it.
Sure, don't add anything more to it. Certainly don't own up to calling hypocrites those who disagree that executing a child murder via lethal injection is the same as burying an innocent woman to her waste and crushing her skull with a stone while a crowd cheers.
I can't read the whole thread, but in case no one has mentioned this, Surah 4 will give you a pretty good idea of this question
Thanks for this. I did some reading. This particular passage stood out to me: Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
How does one determine that Allah has ordained another way?
What latitude does 'another way' provide for?
Who determines what 'another way' is?
What happens to the man?
I can't read the whole thread, but in case no one has mentioned this, Surah 4 will give you a pretty good idea of this question
Thanks for this. I did some reading. This particular passage stood out to me: Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
How does one determine that Allah has ordained another way?
What latitude does 'another way' provide for?
Who determines what 'another way' is?
What happens to the man?
Good questions!
Other passages:
4:3
"If ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly
With the orphans,
Marry women of your choice,
Two, or three, or four;
But if ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly (with them),
Then only one, or (a captive)
That your right hands possess.
That will be more suitable,
To prevent you
From doing injustice."
4:34
"(Husbands) are the protectors
And maintainers of their (wives)
Because Allah has given
The one more (strength)
Than the other, and because
They support them
From their means.
Therefore the righteous women
Are devoutly obedient, and guard
In (the husband's) absence
What Allah would have them guard.
As to those women
On whose part ye fear
Disloyalty and ill-conduct,
Admonish them (first),
(Next), refuse to share their beds,
(And last) spank them (lightly);
But if they return to obedience,
Seek not against them
Means (of annoyance):
For Allah is Most High,
Great (above you all)."
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time.
With all due respect, Fuck- you certainly deserve it with your efforts in this thread- this sounds like a rationalization more than an explanation. A society that deems stoning a woman to death appropriate because she had an affair is out of its mind. We do not need to respect certain societies' desires to try and arrive at a system that suits them in their own time when the process for doing so is marked with such brutality.
:fp:
The section you quoted has nothing to do with the "stoning" as a punishment. It is in reference to what constitutes a "crime", NOT how it is then punished.
Even consider how the United States tried to ban alcohol decades ago, an experiment that went horribly wrong. Societies need to try to arrive at what works within their countries on their own. If the matter were actually left up to society, stonings wouldn't happen. I addressed that later on in the post.
I'm not suggesting Islam is at the root of these incidents. I am stating that these acts have no place in anyone's world- they have been presented and I am voicing my displeasure for them.
Stoning has no place in this world. Yes, I don't think a single person in this thread would disagree with that.
I can't read the whole thread, but in case no one has mentioned this, Surah 4 will give you a pretty good idea of this question
Thanks for this. I did some reading. This particular passage stood out to me: Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
How does one determine that Allah has ordained another way?
What latitude does 'another way' provide for?
Who determines what 'another way' is?
What happens to the man?
The latter part of the verse has been abrogated (the ruling no longer stands).
While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time.
With all due respect, Fuck- you certainly deserve it with your efforts in this thread- this sounds like a rationalization more than an explanation. A society that deems stoning a woman to death appropriate because she had an affair is out of its mind. We do not need to respect certain societies' desires to try and arrive at a system that suits them in their own time when the process for doing so is marked with such brutality.
:fp:
The section you quoted has nothing to do with the "stoning" as a punishment. It is in reference to what constitutes a "crime", NOT how it is then punished.
Even consider how the United States tried to ban alcohol decades ago, an experiment that went horribly wrong. Societies need to try to arrive at what works within their countries on their own. If the matter were actually left up to society, stonings wouldn't happen. I addressed that later on in the post.
I'm not suggesting Islam is at the root of these incidents. I am stating that these acts have no place in anyone's world- they have been presented and I am voicing my displeasure for them.
Stoning has no place in this world. Yes, I don't think a single person in this thread would disagree with that.
Crime and punishment are part and parcel. You spoke at length basically justifying a culture's right to define what a crime is according to their beliefs, but offered nothing with regards to the punishment for the said crime. Without clarifying- until now- where you stood with regards to the methods of punishment... you'll have to excuse people for not noting that you were only justifying the right for a culture to define what they deem illegal.
I can't read the whole thread, but in case no one has mentioned this, Surah 4 will give you a pretty good idea of this question
Thanks for this. I did some reading. This particular passage stood out to me: Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
How does one determine that Allah has ordained another way?
What latitude does 'another way' provide for?
Who determines what 'another way' is?
What happens to the man?
The latter part of the verse has been abrogated (the ruling no longer stands).
Which makes the questions irrelevant then. If you care to enlighten me, when was this verse abrogated? As well, has this repudiation been universally accepted by all Muslim factions?
While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time.
With all due respect, Fuck- you certainly deserve it with your efforts in this thread- this sounds like a rationalization more than an explanation. A society that deems stoning a woman to death appropriate because she had an affair is out of its mind. We do not need to respect certain societies' desires to try and arrive at a system that suits them in their own time when the process for doing so is marked with such brutality.
:fp:
The section you quoted has nothing to do with the "stoning" as a punishment. It is in reference to what constitutes a "crime", NOT how it is then punished.
Even consider how the United States tried to ban alcohol decades ago, an experiment that went horribly wrong. Societies need to try to arrive at what works within their countries on their own. If the matter were actually left up to society, stonings wouldn't happen. I addressed that later on in the post.
I'm not suggesting Islam is at the root of these incidents. I am stating that these acts have no place in anyone's world- they have been presented and I am voicing my displeasure for them.
Stoning has no place in this world. Yes, I don't think a single person in this thread would disagree with that.
Crime and punishment are part and parcel. You spoke at length basically justifying a culture's right to define what a crime is according to their beliefs, but offered nothing with regards to the punishment for the said crime. Without clarifying- until now- where you stood with regards to the methods of punishment... you'll have to excuse people for not noting that you were only justifying the right for a culture to define what they deem illegal.
No, you are wrong. I made it VERY clear I was speaking about the crime, and then made clear what most people would have to say about the punishment. I've quoted it again below:
many of you are so upset about the idea of stonings that you don't even seem to be sure what it is you're upset about: is it the crime itself (adultery)? Or is it the punishment? Or is it both?
If it's the crime, then I think you all need to come to terms with something: law is not a stagnant thing, and it changes from society to society. While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time. I do think that if you read polls on what most Muslims worldwide think, they believe in equal rights for men and women, and would not subscribe to the idea of public stoning being practiced.
Thanks for this. I did some reading. This particular passage stood out to me: Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
How does one determine that Allah has ordained another way?
What latitude does 'another way' provide for?
Who determines what 'another way' is?
What happens to the man?
The latter part of the verse has been abrogated (the ruling no longer stands).
Which makes the questions irrelevant then. If you care to enlighten me, when was this verse abrogated? As well, has this repudiation been universally accepted by all Muslim factions?
The verse was abrogated with the revelation of 24:2, which gives the punishment for illicit sex (for both men and women) as 100 lashes, and yes it is accepted universally by scholars that 24:2 is the standing ruling. A few things worthy of note however:
1) It is important to recognize the first part of the verse you quoted: four witnesses are required to prove that they witnessed specifically and very surely the actual act of sex take place at the same time. As such, the crime would likely be more accurately described as "public" illicit sex, rather than simply private.
2) There are still extremely legal problems in proving that such an act took place. The legal barriers set up within Islam are so vast that, and I've quoted this several times by now, Rudolph Peters in his book Crime and Punishment in Islam, essentially says that one cannot be punished for a crime unless he or she confesses to it. Indeed, during the Prophet's time, not only was no one ever punished unless they confessed, but there are also several cases such as: A story of a man who went to the Prophet after they prayed together and said, "I have committed a [sexual] crime, and am in need of punishment so I may be purified." The Prophet said, "Did you not just pray with us? God has forgiven you."
The important thing to note here from that story is that the crime of illicit sex is technically defined within Islam under the realm of hudud--a very specific type of law for which it is considered that when it is clear one has committed the sin, the punishment MUST be carried out. And yet, the Prophet made the choice in the story (which is confirmed to have taken place later in his life, and thus surely after the revelation of verses that ascribe punishments to these crimes) to not do so. This means that judges have more discretion than most Muslim orthodoxy (which was established and maintained by judges, go figure) generally think.
3) The same chapter, 24, also has a section where it speaks of one's accusation against one's spouse of adultery. If there is no evidence to present, and the defendant gives five testimonies denying the allegation, no punishment is given--which is in direct conflict with modern day fanatical, anti-woman practice of simply punishing a woman who is accused of adultery, even in cases when she was raped! In fact, chapter 24 actually ascribes the punishment of 80 lashes to one who accuses another of committing illicit sex without providing any proof. Unfortunately, again, fanatical governments like that of Saudi Arabia's which is not representative of Muslims, use that verse to punish women who accuse men of raping them--this is in direct conflict with general principles of maintaining social order and establishing justice. The verse is clearly not meant for that, as it is understood by all to have been revealed in reference to rumors circulating of illicit sex having taken place that were slanderous to individuals (particularly women, and even the Prophet's own wife).
4) I think most importantly, it is important to understand what Fazlur Rahman called the double understanding practice. This means taking a verse from the Quran, understanding the context in which it was revealed, and then understanding the general principle it was meant to establish, so that we may apply that in our own time. Most Muslims would not go for public stonings or lashings today, and it was a practice that was extremely rare in even medieval times. As I said before, when British generals arrived in India in the late 1700s for what would begin the colonization/expropriation of the land there, they were shocked at how lenient the judicial system was. It was Western colonial powers that introduced Draconian measures in an otherwise lenient system. Contrast that to today's Western perception of the Islam as being Draconian and barbaric, with absolutely no reference to what led to what was once a system that worked considerably well at being Just, turning into the mess it is today.
I think most importantly, it is important to understand what Fazlur Rahman called the double understanding practice. This means taking a verse from the Quran, understanding the context in which it was revealed, and then understanding the general principle it was meant to establish, so that we may apply that in our own time. Most Muslims would not go for public stonings or lashings today, and it was a practice that was extremely rare in even medieval times. As I said before, when British generals arrived in India in the late 1700s for what would begin the colonization/expropriation of the land there, they were shocked at how lenient the judicial system was. It was Western colonial powers that introduced Draconian measures in an otherwise lenient system. Contrast that to today's Western perception of the Islam as being Draconian and barbaric, with absolutely no reference to what led to what was once a system that worked considerably well at being Just, turning into the mess it is today.
Thank you for your efforts here. I think this last paragraph speaks very well to some misunderstandings and to a portion of Islam's evolution (history).
The passage I initially quoted was only one I had read. I noted several times in various other passages the language which spoke to forgiveness. The consistent theme of this was not lost on me.
I do feel very strongly for these 'events' we have spoken of. I feel horrible thinking of the conditions to which a woman may have been put to death under such circumstances. I understand they do not happen with great frequency. I understand the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful and many likely abhor these things more than I.
Be very clear that I am not attacking Islam in any way no matter how I might have presented things. I wish to speak only to the 'practices' that we know have occurred. It feels as if you might be personalizing (for lack of better word) the criticisms of such events. If any exchanges have contributed to you feeling under attack, please understand that this was not my intent. I have much respect for your contributions. I still remember the first line of the first post you wrote- where to begin?
here is the real question, it has nothing to do with religion faith or belief, the question trumps all others because at its heart it is what is unsolvable, because if it can be solved and applied this world would be utopia.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://www.examiner.com/article/victim- ... la_inbound
here is another lovely story of a gang raped woman sentenced to 90 lashes. her lawyer appealed & spoke out to the world community bringing her lashes up to 200 in the sharia courts.
she was in a car with a former high school student (a male) getting a photo from him & she broke the law of segregation of the sexes.
two men then got in the car & drove them to a remote area where 5 other men were waiting. the 7 men beat & raped her & attacked her friend.
what a wonderful place & just a smashily fantastic bunch of fucking cavemen scumbags
her lawyer got his license taken away & will go to court in a month for announcing this case to the world's news outlets
she was in a car with a former high school student (a male) getting a photo from him & she broke the law of segregation of the sexes.
two men then got in the car & drove them to a remote area where 5 other men were waiting. the 7 men beat & raped her & attacked her friend.
what a wonderful place & just a smashily fantastic bunch of fucking cavemen scumbags
her lawyer got his license taken away & will go to court in a month for announcing this case to the world's news outlets
People on here have written paragraph after paragraph that these things do not happen....when are you going to believe that Muslims do not kill there own daughters, kill there own wives, rape little boys and stone women for being raped? just because reputable sites post the News does not mean it happened! On the MT .....
"It is easier to fool people than It is to convince people that they have been fooled.'
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
so what are you saying exactly? that i started this thread & don't listen & don't read the books & that i may not understand every single post & that i'm just trying to cause problems & spread lies & garbage about things that are not true at all about religion(s) & branches of... & cultures & the interweaving of state & religion
yeah i am bat shit crazy, 3/4 useless, false, hate-filled & completely out of order. so i am just stirring the pot hoping to feed the flames of tearing human beings down rather than somehow lift them up, yes/no? caring about women & children is a fucking crime? the welfare of all life is important, yes/no? aware, yes/no?
in a calm, sensitive & understanding situation, where just maybe a gal slept around on her husband, she is not going to capital punishment, she is not receiving hundreds upon hundreds of lashes with a barbaric switch.
this as we know it is 'extreme & ancient behavior'. can we move forward
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I don't understand what it is you people want with this thread anymore. I thought the whole purpose of it is to try to understand if Islam is to blame for these unjust practices occuring. And then when I try to explain what Islam says, and say that the reason these practices happen are very complex and requires deeper understanding in a variety of issues dealing with that part of the world, I am accused of condoning it?!
The purpose of my post was try to explain a few things:
First, systematic discrimination is built into the United States' judicial system, and this system leads to the unjust persecution and even execution of minorities--not just citizens but non-citizens too. (I wasn't suggesting that it is ONLY for minorities.) Now, WHY this system exists is due to a complex number of factors spanning two centuries of American history. It's not simple to analyze it. That was the only point of comparison here: the reason there is a system of discrimination against women in certain parts of the Muslim world is due to a complex history that cannot simply be attributed to religious (or even cultural) motivations. In fact, Western colonialism--a very recent thing--is much to blame for it.
Take, for instance, what many of you hear about blasphemy laws in certain parts of the Muslim world. Muslims are so "sensitive" right? They can't even bear to see people draw cartoons of their Prophet! I've posted this article before, but I think it warrants a reposting:
"Internal Muslim condemnations against the protests have relied primarily on Muhammad’s example of ignoring insults against his person. But in fact, there is a long tradition of Muslim tolerance for insults against their faith and its founder.
The ninth-century Martyrs Movement in Islamic Spain was notable, not for the deliberate incitements made by Christians seeking to sacrifice themselves to spark a revolt among their co-religionists, but for the considerable lengths they had to go to in order to provoke a response from the Muslim rulers. Their anti-Islamic spectacles in Andalucia’s market places and public squares were largely ignored and state officials repeatedly overlooked the verbal assaults in the hopes of preserving social harmony.
Even by the late 19th century, when European colonialism was in its upward swing, scathing critiques of Islam were often met with thoughtful and measured responses. To French philosopher Ernest Renan’s argument that Islam was inherently opposed to rationality, science and philosophy, the religious reformer Jamal al-Din al-Afghani replied by offering a counter-narrative of early Islamic history, while also arguing that the latest failings of Muslims should be attributed to their own shortcomings and not to their faith."
I recommend you read the full article here: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 65762.html
As you can judge from the example of blasphemy laws, such "sensitivities" are modern constructs and should be contextualized within the specific circumstances it has grown out of: strong autocratic governments with relatively weak social institutions, a disenfranchised civil society, corruption and collusion with Western powers, and the introduction of the nation-state which has co-opted religious institutions to keep the public in order. This is what has helped lead to the growth of fringe movements.
You guys keep saying you're willing to differentiate between "good" Muslims and "bad" Muslims, but that is not just my concern: there is a need to dispel the idea that Islam as an idea, as a belief system, is responsible for the "bad" Muslims, and this is something which none of you have been willing to confront. If you disagree, tell me why.
Second, many of you are so upset about the idea of stonings that you don't even seem to be sure what it is you're upset about: is it the crime itself (adultery)? Or is it the punishment? Or is it both?
If it's the crime, then I think you all need to come to terms with something: law is not a stagnant thing, and it changes from society to society. While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time. I do think that if you read polls on what most Muslims worldwide think, they believe in equal rights for men and women, and would not subscribe to the idea of public stoning being practiced.
You also have to understand that stonings occur either in fanatical autocratic states (like Saudi Arabia) or by fringe tribal groups. It is not a widespread epidemic. While I don't like to play the numbers game, I am actually of the opinion that institutional discrimination in the United States against minorities could even be considered worse, considering that millions of minorities are disenfranchised and deal with law enforcement in a VERY different way than you could even comprehend. Try going to a low income black neighborhood and ask them what they think of your precious "due process" system. Furthermore, the fact that this system operates under the illusion of a democracy allows people like you to even go as far as to downplay it, say it doesn't happen as much as one thinks, and instead waste time trying to debate the issue of stoning happening thousands of miles away from you in another culture/society entirely! In fact, you even try to condemn an unjust system happening thousands of miles away, not by outright condemning it, but by saying their system of injustice is "outdated" because it's not as up to date as our system of injustice--hilarious.
I realize my post is all over the place, but it's just so difficult to stay focused when it's not clear what is even trying to be achieved with this thread. I've asked it before and received no answer, including from chadwick who started the fucking thing and seems to have nothing to say.
You're on a roll. Especially with what you have said here.
Many of you are so upset about the idea of stonings that you don't even seem to be sure what it is you're upset about: is it the crime itself (adultery)? Or is it the punishment? Or is it both?
To be very clear, one can call adultery a crime if they were so inclined, but the posts speaking against 'stonings' are clearly directed at the punishment. A scarlet letter is one thing... hurling rocks at a defenceless woman is quite another.
While some societies see certain actions as within the realm of personal freedom, other societies see such actions as too crucial to the maintenance of social order. This is why some societies may be willing to decriminalize hard drugs while others don't. Same goes for alcohol. Adultery is obviously more tricky, but I think you guys need to stop viewing foreign legal systems through the prism of the US, which developed its own system from its unique experience and which shouldn't necessarily be copied in full elsewhere.
I personally am of a more liberal view and think most things shouldn't be criminalized, but I think we need to respect certain societies' desires to try to arrive at a system that suits them in their own time.
With all due respect, Fuck- you certainly deserve it with your efforts in this thread- this sounds like a rationalization more than an explanation. A society that deems stoning a woman to death appropriate because she had an affair is out of its mind. We do not need to respect certain societies' desires to try and arrive at a system that suits them in their own time when the process for doing so is marked with such brutality.
I'm not suggesting Islam is at the root of these incidents. I am stating that these acts have no place in anyone's world- they have been presented and I am voicing my displeasure for them.
Are you of the opinion that people should simply respect other cultures because this is where they have come to and this is the way it is?
Except that is exactly what you did.
Sure, don't add anything more to it. Certainly don't own up to calling hypocrites those who disagree that executing a child murder via lethal injection is the same as burying an innocent woman to her waste and crushing her skull with a stone while a crowd cheers.
Poor showing here, Viva.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Thanks for this. I did some reading. This particular passage stood out to me:
Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.
How does one determine that Allah has ordained another way?
What latitude does 'another way' provide for?
Who determines what 'another way' is?
What happens to the man?
what is this?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Good questions!
Other passages:
4:3
"If ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly
With the orphans,
Marry women of your choice,
Two, or three, or four;
But if ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly (with them),
Then only one, or (a captive)
That your right hands possess.
That will be more suitable,
To prevent you
From doing injustice."
4:34
"(Husbands) are the protectors
And maintainers of their (wives)
Because Allah has given
The one more (strength)
Than the other, and because
They support them
From their means.
Therefore the righteous women
Are devoutly obedient, and guard
In (the husband's) absence
What Allah would have them guard.
As to those women
On whose part ye fear
Disloyalty and ill-conduct,
Admonish them (first),
(Next), refuse to share their beds,
(And last) spank them (lightly);
But if they return to obedience,
Seek not against them
Means (of annoyance):
For Allah is Most High,
Great (above you all)."
what a frickin mess
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
The section you quoted has nothing to do with the "stoning" as a punishment. It is in reference to what constitutes a "crime", NOT how it is then punished.
Even consider how the United States tried to ban alcohol decades ago, an experiment that went horribly wrong. Societies need to try to arrive at what works within their countries on their own. If the matter were actually left up to society, stonings wouldn't happen. I addressed that later on in the post.
Stoning has no place in this world. Yes, I don't think a single person in this thread would disagree with that.
sean hannity vs' anjem choudary
hannity is a fucking prick, that is a fact. he sure doesn't allow someone to speak much
this morning i been listening to interviews with mr. anjem choudary. fucking pretty amazing stuff.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Crime and punishment are part and parcel. You spoke at length basically justifying a culture's right to define what a crime is according to their beliefs, but offered nothing with regards to the punishment for the said crime. Without clarifying- until now- where you stood with regards to the methods of punishment... you'll have to excuse people for not noting that you were only justifying the right for a culture to define what they deem illegal.
Which makes the questions irrelevant then. If you care to enlighten me, when was this verse abrogated? As well, has this repudiation been universally accepted by all Muslim factions?
No, you are wrong. I made it VERY clear I was speaking about the crime, and then made clear what most people would have to say about the punishment. I've quoted it again below:
I wish to note the word 'most' prefaces your bolded Muslims worldwide... would not subscribe to the idea of public stoning being practiced.
The problem remains. This is what I speak to.
1) It is important to recognize the first part of the verse you quoted: four witnesses are required to prove that they witnessed specifically and very surely the actual act of sex take place at the same time. As such, the crime would likely be more accurately described as "public" illicit sex, rather than simply private.
2) There are still extremely legal problems in proving that such an act took place. The legal barriers set up within Islam are so vast that, and I've quoted this several times by now, Rudolph Peters in his book Crime and Punishment in Islam, essentially says that one cannot be punished for a crime unless he or she confesses to it. Indeed, during the Prophet's time, not only was no one ever punished unless they confessed, but there are also several cases such as: A story of a man who went to the Prophet after they prayed together and said, "I have committed a [sexual] crime, and am in need of punishment so I may be purified." The Prophet said, "Did you not just pray with us? God has forgiven you."
The important thing to note here from that story is that the crime of illicit sex is technically defined within Islam under the realm of hudud--a very specific type of law for which it is considered that when it is clear one has committed the sin, the punishment MUST be carried out. And yet, the Prophet made the choice in the story (which is confirmed to have taken place later in his life, and thus surely after the revelation of verses that ascribe punishments to these crimes) to not do so. This means that judges have more discretion than most Muslim orthodoxy (which was established and maintained by judges, go figure) generally think.
3) The same chapter, 24, also has a section where it speaks of one's accusation against one's spouse of adultery. If there is no evidence to present, and the defendant gives five testimonies denying the allegation, no punishment is given--which is in direct conflict with modern day fanatical, anti-woman practice of simply punishing a woman who is accused of adultery, even in cases when she was raped! In fact, chapter 24 actually ascribes the punishment of 80 lashes to one who accuses another of committing illicit sex without providing any proof. Unfortunately, again, fanatical governments like that of Saudi Arabia's which is not representative of Muslims, use that verse to punish women who accuse men of raping them--this is in direct conflict with general principles of maintaining social order and establishing justice. The verse is clearly not meant for that, as it is understood by all to have been revealed in reference to rumors circulating of illicit sex having taken place that were slanderous to individuals (particularly women, and even the Prophet's own wife).
4) I think most importantly, it is important to understand what Fazlur Rahman called the double understanding practice. This means taking a verse from the Quran, understanding the context in which it was revealed, and then understanding the general principle it was meant to establish, so that we may apply that in our own time. Most Muslims would not go for public stonings or lashings today, and it was a practice that was extremely rare in even medieval times. As I said before, when British generals arrived in India in the late 1700s for what would begin the colonization/expropriation of the land there, they were shocked at how lenient the judicial system was. It was Western colonial powers that introduced Draconian measures in an otherwise lenient system. Contrast that to today's Western perception of the Islam as being Draconian and barbaric, with absolutely no reference to what led to what was once a system that worked considerably well at being Just, turning into the mess it is today.
Thank you for your efforts here. I think this last paragraph speaks very well to some misunderstandings and to a portion of Islam's evolution (history).
The passage I initially quoted was only one I had read. I noted several times in various other passages the language which spoke to forgiveness. The consistent theme of this was not lost on me.
I do feel very strongly for these 'events' we have spoken of. I feel horrible thinking of the conditions to which a woman may have been put to death under such circumstances. I understand they do not happen with great frequency. I understand the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful and many likely abhor these things more than I.
Be very clear that I am not attacking Islam in any way no matter how I might have presented things. I wish to speak only to the 'practices' that we know have occurred. It feels as if you might be personalizing (for lack of better word) the criticisms of such events. If any exchanges have contributed to you feeling under attack, please understand that this was not my intent. I have much respect for your contributions. I still remember the first line of the first post you wrote- where to begin?
Have a good day.
...
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
it is the CBN, pat robertson
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
why do humans do what they do TO each other?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
because they're fucking stupid & nasty little shits
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
...and the peaceful followers of islam allow fanactics to take over.
Then one day the peaceful followers wake up and discover they have been lumped into the same group.
This goes for all believers.
here is another lovely story of a gang raped woman sentenced to 90 lashes. her lawyer appealed & spoke out to the world community bringing her lashes up to 200 in the sharia courts.
she was in a car with a former high school student (a male) getting a photo from him & she broke the law of segregation of the sexes.
two men then got in the car & drove them to a remote area where 5 other men were waiting. the 7 men beat & raped her & attacked her friend.
what a wonderful place & just a smashily fantastic bunch of fucking cavemen scumbags
her lawyer got his license taken away & will go to court in a month for announcing this case to the world's news outlets
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
These things are out of control.
to bad each nutjob sharia court house still functions
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
People on here have written paragraph after paragraph that these things do not happen....when are you going to believe that Muslims do not kill there own daughters, kill there own wives, rape little boys and stone women for being raped? just because reputable sites post the News does not mean it happened! On the MT .....
"It is easier to fool people than It is to convince people that they have been fooled.'