Stoning to death and Sharia law

Medin

DonJose wrote:

Hugs and cuddles

Sure DeJay, Muslims are brothers and they advise and warn each other. What do you expect?

Medin

DonJose wrote:

In regards to your remark, "It's barbaric when your daughter has sex when she's like 12 years old",
How old was Mohammeds wife Aisha?

Goin' off topic? I think you have to reposition yourself. Your question will not be answered coz:

1. It ain't sincere
2. It's not a part of this thread
3. You're not able to swallow the truth about the evils of the modern society

You answer me, or rather prove that women have EQUAL rights (here in Ireland)? Just to say that is far away from proving it, wouldn't you say?

Boston

Medin wrote:

Goin' off topic? I think you have to reposition yourself. Your question will not be answered coz:

1. It ain't sincere
2. It's not a part of this thread
3. You're not able to swallow the truth about the evils of the modern society

You answer me, or rather prove that women have EQUAL rights (here in Ireland)? Just to say that is far away from proving it, wouldn't you say?

Women have equal rights in ireland, if no mroe in certain cases. You actually don't have nearly as many rights as people think they do. Women and men however are not treated the same in all situations because they arn't the same.

You view irish males as typically being puppets and slaves in their own homes? Would you care to expand on that? Personal belief is that this situation of the husband making all the decisions and being in total control of the family unit is a bad one, and extremely bad one. Marriage should be a partnership of equals, why does one person have to be the slave/puppet to another.

the_new_mr

DonJose wrote:

Islam is an evil and barbaric religion and your statement confirms my belief.

Medin wrote:

I woudn't wait 1 sec to ban a shaytaan like DonJose.

I'm not going to let either of those comments slide. DonJose and Medin each receive a one week ban for breaking the rules in the forum charter.

DonJose:
You clearly broke rule #1. If you want to discuss Islam in a civilised manner without making such insulting remarks then you are welcome to do so. However, ranting in this manner is not allowed here. Read the forum charter and come back in a week if you wish.

And, just for the record, the topic of Aisha has been brought up here before and, in summary, the opinions are that:

1.: It's impossible to know exactly how old she was
2.: Even if she was married at a young age, the marriage wasn't consummated until a later age.

Medin:
You need to respect other people more. Just because someone is an un-believer doesn't make it okay to disrespect them in this manner and call them a shaytan.

I remind you of the story of how one of the un-believers in Mecca at the time of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) used to leave rubbish outside his door every day. One morning, when the Prophet awoke to find that no rubbish was there, he hurried to the man's house to ask if he was alright.

And a word to everyone here. Continue the discussion in a civilised manner (Bottle_of_Smoke) sets a good example.

invincibleirish

off topic i know but can i ask what what is a shaytaan?is just a word for unbeliever or what? would it be like a christian calling someone a pagan?

Boston

invincibleirish wrote:

off topic i know but can i ask what what is a shaytaan?is just a word for unbeliever or what? would it be like a christian calling someone a pagan?

Oh my, pagan and heathen are different things.

philologos

I thought kufaar was the word for unbeliever...

BuffyBot

shaytaan is the Arabic word for Satan.

Dr Strange

invincibleirish wrote:

off topic i know but can i ask what what is a shaytaan?is just a word for unbeliever or what? would it be like a christian calling someone a pagan?

As far as I know it means "Satan, devil, etc." Could be wrong though.

EDIT: Too late, BB was quicker.

invincibleirish

bit harsh no coming onto a forum and calling someone satan?

Boston

and a ban was handed out, nuff said. Back on topic already.

6th

MooseJam wrote:

So what are all your opinions of stoning to death and Islam, the internet being what is is I've been unfortunate enough to view both children and adults ( women of course) being stoned to death

I've been on the internet for 15 years and I have never seen anyone getting stoned to death - must be something to do with the fact that I wouldnt go looking for it.

The fact that you have found it and watched it says alot. Even if you came across it be accident you still have the choice of not looking at it.

Call Me Jimmy

Hobbes wrote:

But whats the difference between stoning or hanging/injection/electrocution that *western* methods use. Are we somehow more human in how we kill others?

You think stoning is equally humane as lethal injection? Also, in those instances, or in the 'west', people are executed if they are proven to be a definate threat to society, an adulterer is hardly a threat to society?

Boston

Lethal injections can go horribly wrong, and the electric chiar was used for a long long time. As for the "Threat to society" that just a difference of degrees.

Boston

Someone on feedback who is to afraid to post here asks

What if someone was caught for adultery but didn't believe in the Muslim faith or was an athiest?

wes

Very much against the death penalty in anything but the most heinous crimes (multiple murders etc) and even then used sparingly. Also, I think modern methods should be used rather than stoning. No need to be any more brutal than necessary, I think lethal injection is the best one currently available.

Not really a fan of the death penalty, as its possible to execute an innocent person. However, there are cases where I think it has to be used such as I suggested above heinous crimes.

Sangre

Stoning, a violent outlet for the sexually repressed savages in a society. An act of barbarians and animals. To think someone could physically pick up a stone and hurl it at the head of someone who cannot defend themselves (just for adultery) makes me nauseous. Its not a death penalty, its a public torturing.

Boston

Edit: Sorry thought this was the feedback thread.

Agreed with Sangre completely.

Death penalty should be only used to prevent more lifes being lost, not as a punishment.

Sangre

Good thing I didn't then.

Boston

Yea sorry, thought it was the other thread, half asleep.

Dave!

Sangre wrote:

Stoning, a violent outlet for the sexually repressed savages in a society. An act of barbarians and animals. To think someone could physically pick up a stone and hurl it at the head of someone who cannot defend themselves (just for adultery) makes me nauseous. Its not a death penalty, its a public torturing.

Agreed wholeheartedly, and the fact that some people have attempted to justify it (but only for "very very" serious crimes :rolleyes:) makes me sick.

It takes a disgusting vile animal to commit such an act, and something similar to defend it.

And because someone commited adultery, of all things. I wonder where that conviction originated for the people who believe it....... :rolleyes:

/Andy\

Sangre wrote:

Stoning, a violent outlet for the sexually repressed savages in a society. An act of barbarians and animals. To think someone could physically pick up a stone and hurl it at the head of someone who cannot defend themselves (just for adultery) makes me nauseous. Its not a death penalty, its a public torturing.

Agreed also, takes a sick, sick backward person to take part in this or attempt to infer that it could ever be warranted.

InFront

Boston wrote:

Someone on feedback who is to afraid to post here asks

For these penal punshments (hudood) I'm pretty definite the individual concerned would have to be a Muslim. They would also have to be sane, know the gravity of their crime, commit it under no prior obligation upon them (e.g. not raped/ coerced) etc.

It is also possibly important to mention that a functional characteristic of the punishment is that it acts an atonement of the sin.

Lemming

InFront wrote:

For these penal punshments (hudood) I'm pretty definite the individual concerned would have to be a Muslim. They would also have to be sane, know the gravity of their crime, commit it under no prior obligation upon them (e.g. not raped/ coerced) etc.

It is also possibly important to mention that a functional characteristic of the punishment is that it acts an atonement of the sin.

Er ...... that strikes me as being very warped logic InFront. Kill someone to absolve them of their crime .....

Not to infer primitive thinking or anything, but the first thing that popped into my head after writing that was the idiocy of the middle ages where the "test" to see if someone was a witch was to tie them up, and throw them in a river. If they floated, they were guilty and must be killed. If they were innocent then God would look after them anyway.

Whilst the "threat to society" regarding adultery is all down to interpretation and highly subjective, I can't see it ever being anything that would actually warrant a death-sentence.

Coming back to stoning though. Again I cannot fathom how it is defended. Even by Muslims. If you compare someone who murders someone with a gun, and then contrast that with someone murdered by being repeatedly kicked in the head outside a night club or some such ... it takes a base level of sheer animal instinct to physically beat someone to death. And to me, stoning fits into that category squarely. It panders to the base violent lust for revenge and nothing more.

Incidentally, I am squarely against the death penalty for one simple reason. Better that a thousand people be sent to jail than a single innocent be condemned for a crime that is not theirs to bear. You can release someone from prison. You can't roll back an execution.

wes

Lemming wrote:

Incidentally, I am squarely against the death penalty for one simple reason. Better that a thousand people be sent to jail than a single innocent be condemned for a crime that is not theirs to bear. You can release someone from prison. You can't roll back an execution.

While I am very much against stoning, I still think in some cases some people deserve to die (not via stoning, but more modern method e.g. Lethal injection). I am talking of the like of Saddam, the recently convicted Chemical Ali, or Milosvitch. I don't like the death penalty, but some real monsters deserve no less.

Lemming

wes wrote:

While I am very much against stoning, I still think in some cases some people deserve to die. I am talking of the like of Saddam, the recently convicted Chemical Ali. I don't like the death penalty, but some real monsters deserver no less.

Even people like that, I am against the death penalty. Do you reserve the right to determine who lives and who dies?

And you run the very real risk of creating a martyr. As we all know, martyrs cannot be silenced. Better that someone who abuses such power be laid low and left in the gutter, divest of any power so that they can experience it for the rest of their lives (or however long is decided by society)

But this I think is a seperate issue and is likely to pull this debate wayyy off tangent.

wes

Lemming wrote:

But this I think is a seperate issue and is likely to pull this debate wayyy off tangent.

Fair enough, agree to disagree then.

Hobbes

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

You think stoning is equally humane as lethal injection?

Yes I would say they are both equal. Humane, no.

Lemming

Hobbes wrote:

Yes I would say they are both equal. Humane, no.

Hobbes, you cannot *honestly* be defending stoning as a manner of punishment ....

As against the death penalty as I am, I can also recognise the difference between the likes of lethal injection and stoning as much as the end result may b ethe same .. the means are quite, quite different.

Stoning is pretty much the same as repeatedly kicking someone in the head until they die. It's a slow, and incredibly violent and painful manner in which to end a life. And the attacker sees the results of every blow they land upon the victim. You are literally watching their life disappear with each strike. It takes a level of incredible hatred and primal, animal visciousness to do something like that, whether it's stoning someone to death, beating someone to death outside a night-club, or murdering someone in their sleep with a hammer to the head ....

To be honest, I would question who was the greater threat to society - the victim or person conducting the assault. The psychological affect of watching something like that, much less actually participating cannot be counted for.

MooseJam

6th wrote:

I've been on the internet for 15 years and I have never seen anyone getting stoned to death - must be something to do with the fact that I wouldnt go looking for it.

The fact that you have found it and watched it says alot. Even if you came across it be accident you still have the choice of not looking at it.

we all could hide our heads in the sand but i don't think that is particularly beneficial, there are a lot of people here endorsing stoning to death, perhaps if they had also seen someones life taken in this way they would not be so quick to embrace it