Here was go again (Islam Forum)

jhegarty

Hello,

Just wanted to point out this thread in Islam

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055111316

To cut a long story short a mod is supporting stoning to death of women for adultery.....

hullaballoo

Without having read the thread at all, my first inclination is to say that there is no way the mod is supporting the stoning to death of women for adultery, and that your conclusion is way off.

However, if you can point me to specific parts of that thread where the mod has expressed his support for stoning women, I'll stand corrected.

That said, if the mod does support the stoning to death of women for adultery - so what? What bearing does that have on Feedback? What would you like to see done about it?

jhegarty

Post 3 & 10 is the one I am referring to.

I asked for clarification on the thread, but didn't get an answer. One poster called me a "a disgrace to humanity" but thats about it.


Can't use report post because its a mod , so understood this was the correct place to bring it up.

If not, then let the cats commence...

Boston

Reported posts go to a forum for all to see, not just a mod. I think InFronts comment was fair enough, particularly balances actually. Perhaps you should read the posts by the moderators on that forum. They seem quiet tolerant in general.

And btw, I know that's a massive clime down from previous comments I've made, but opinions change with experience.

InFront

I would have thought post 16 was a more thorough explanation of my opinion jhegarty. The whole issue was pretty well covered in that thread up until a point where Don Jose and Medin started to act a bit out of order.

In my opinion, there is a basis is the Shariah for the death penalty, and Shariah does allow stoning as a means of death. Would you have preferred me to suggest otherwise? I'm not sure what else I can add to that. I can't re-write Shariah or my interpretations of rulings by the ulema (scholars)

Thread's all yours.

hullaballoo

jhegarty wrote:

Post 3 & 10 is the one I am referring to.

I asked for clarification on the thread, but didn't get an answer. One poster called me a "a disgrace to humanity" but thats about it.


Can't use report post because its a mod , so understood this was the correct place to bring it up.

If not, then let the cats commence...

Ok, you didn't answer the most important part of my question, so I'll have to ask it again:

What if the mods think stoning a woman to death for adultery should be advocated? Are they not entitled to that opinion? If not, what would you like done about it?

RuggieBear

what about having the opinion that it is ok to stone to death homosexuals? would that be tolerated on boards?

hullaballoo

RuggieBear wrote:

what about having the opinion that it is ok to stone to death homosexuals? would that be tolerated on boards?

That's an incongruous analogy.

By your analysis, homosexuality is wrong. It isn't. Adultery is.

Guy:Incognito

hullaball&#250 wrote:

That's an incongruous analogy.

By your analysis, homosexuality is wrong. It isn't. Adultery is.

The Catholic church says its wrong. So is it ok to say it as long as its from a religious standpoint?

Women are stoned under islamic law for going against its rules (adultery) so can priests now start stoning for being gay?

Karl Hungus

hullaball&#250 wrote:

That's an incongruous analogy.

By your analysis, homosexuality is wrong. It isn't. Adultery is.

I don't see how the analogy is incongruous in the slightest.

Homosexuality is considered very wrong indeed by a lot of religions, so it's a perfectly relevant analogy.

RuggieBear

hullaball&#250 wrote:

That's an incongruous analogy.

By your analysis, homosexuality is wrong. It isn't. Adultery is.

How is adultery wrong?

sex between two consenting adults is wrong?

Guy:Incognito

RuggieBear wrote:

How is adultery wrong?

IT may welll be morally wrond, but worthy of the death penalty is somethign different altogether.

hullaballoo

RuggieBear wrote:

How is adultery wrong?

sex between two consenting adults is wrong?

It's a wrong against the person to whom the adulterer is married.

Boston

hullaball&#250 wrote:

That's an incongruous analogy.

By your analysis, homosexuality is wrong. It isn't. Adultery is.

That depends on personal prospective. I don't think the mod was advocating stoning, here or anywhere, just that it may be exceptable in certain circumstances for crimes to be punished in that way, adultry being the crime. I don't think he was saying that it should be ok to beat you wife to death with a stone cause she's fuking the post man.

jhegarty

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Ok, you didn't answer the most important part of my question, so I'll have to ask it again:

What if the mods think stoning a woman to death for adultery should be advocated? Are they not entitled to that opinion? If not, what would you like done about it?

To be honest he may be entitled to such a view , but I have seen people banned of far less extreme examples of sexism (as men don't get stoned for the same "crime")

What do I want done about it?
A debate on its acceptably on boards would do fine for me....As I understand it, its the only in the admin's power to decide if anything is done about it....

Nick_oliveri

Aside from my opinion that no one deserves that punishment and it is completely sick....

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

Would he or she get away with it?

Boston

jhegarty: Its an islamic forum, and it's part of Shariah law, you should accept these two points if you want to post on the topic. There are a lot of attitudes expressed on boards which I know some of the admins don't hold par with, but their still allowed.

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Aside from my opinion that no one deserves that punishment and it is completely sick....

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

Would he or she get away with it?

This is feedback, not the islamic forum. If you want to discuss the topic, go to the thread linked above.

Nick_oliveri

Nahh i dont want to get banned. Or cause "trouble" in any sense.

Boston

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Nahh i dont want to get banned. Or cause "trouble" in any sense.

What are you 12, Daddy boston will ask the question for you.

Nick_oliveri

Nah id probably get obnoxious as things progressed. Im against religions in all forms. Anyhoo... back to the topic

Hagar

I think we should draw a distinction between matters of religious faith and advocating violence.

As far as I know stoning to death is not allowed under Irish Law despite the fact that it is under Shariah Law.

Would a Muslim who stoned a person to death in Ireland for whatever reason be let off scott free by the Irish Courts?

If the answer is no, then advocating such as punishment is advocating an illegal violent act.
A bannable offence? Even for a Mod? Up to the Admins. They should make a clear call on this one.

Boston

Yea, but capital punishment is not allowed here in any form but saying "I agree with the death penalty" is grand, in fact saying you advocate the death penalty is grand also. Saying that you should go out and kill someone is different.

jhegarty

Boston wrote:

Yea, but capital punishment is not allowed here in any form but saying "I agree with the death penalty" is grand, in fact saying you advocate the death penalty is grand also. Saying that you should go out and kill someone is different.

I think its the difference between "i agree with the death penalty for pedophiles" and "i think pedophiles should be hunted down a shot"....

I would have no problem with someone saying the first, its expressing an options ... the other is nothing short of incitement in my book...

Boston

Ok, and where did the mod say that those that commit adultery should be hunted down and stoned to death? He said that in certain cases stoning to death is an acceptable punishment. I fail to see how that's different to saying "In certain cases the electric chair is an acceptable punishment". Both acts are incredibly brutal, both are equally abhorrent.

Hagar

Boston wrote:

He said that in certain cases stoning to death is an acceptable punishment. I fail to see how that's different to saying "In certain cases the electric chair is an acceptable punishment". Both acts are incredibly brutal, both are equally abhorrent.

Stoning to death is not acceptable in any case in Ireland, neither is the electric chair.
Advocating such violent behaviour should not be condoned.

Boston

Hagar wrote:

Stoning to death is not acceptable in any case in Ireland, neither is the electric chair.
Advocating such violent behaviour should not be condoned.

I agree that advocating individuals to carry out such acts should be stamped on hard. But we're talking about advocating a state to dispense punishment for a crime. It's something that happens all the time in conversation and discussion.

the_syco

hullaball&#250 wrote:

It's a wrong against the person to whom the adulterer is married.

Pretty sure a divorce needs both people to agree. If one refuses to sign, yet you seperete, go elsewhere, and then start to date somoene, you are an adulterer.

=-=

The thread in question is about Islam & stoning. The Islamic mofo's then answered the question, saying that under Islamic law, that stoning is allowed.

=-=

Someone can't away with killing someone under Islamic law in Ireland, as they would be commiting an offense under Irish law.

InFront

Look the question was brought up in relation to what the Shari'ah says about stoning in the most serious cases of adultery. One moderator is of the opinion that this may not be an authentic aspect of Shari'ah, I think, from what I've read of the traditions and from fatawa (decisions/ rulings by scholars), that it is supported as a means of execution under Sharia'h Law.
I'm not saying I enjoy or delight at what is undoubtedly a very disturbing idea, but it's not about personal opinions. Nor is it about something as ridiculous as an individual Muslim going out looking for adulterers or attacking adulterers.

It's an Islam forum, not a personal philosophy or revisionist forum. The correct answer isn't always the most attractive one, but if someone is going to ask a straightforward question about what the Shari'ah says, they should get a straightforward answer about what the Shari'ah says - or more precisely, how an individual Muslim interprets the Shari'ah in that regard.
Apart from saying I understand the Shari'ah to say something else, when I don't, I'm not sure what's expected here.

Hobbes

jhegarty wrote:

Hello,

Just wanted to point out this thread in Islam

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055111316

To cut a long story short a mod is supporting stoning to death of women for adultery.....

I don't know how Boston took this as someone scared to post in the Islam forum. Looks like a normal post questioning a post. Perfectly valid, and I checked and your not banned so as long as you remain in within the charter there is nothing to "fear".

Actually if anything the other mods are strict on holding me back. If it was up to me I would of banned more then the two.

As for the Infronts post. As he points out in Post 16 he clearly states his personal opinion on Stoning/Death Penalty.

His earlier posts were in relation to Islamic religion. It might not be an answer you like, but it is an answer and it is the intention of the forum.

But let me make one thing clear. The thread is not for Infront to have defend himself. If you want to take that discussion then go to PM.

I mean what were people expecting? A denial? It would be pointless as this does go on, however aspects of it have been clarified.

Can't use report post because its a mod , so understood this was the correct place to bring it up.

When you hit report post a mail goes to all the moderators of the forum, cat mods and to the admins (afaik) and to a special forum where other mods can review it.

Hobbes

RuggieBear wrote:

what about having the opinion that it is ok to stone to death homosexuals? would that be tolerated on boards?

I've been on boards years and I can tell you that there are enough conflicting opinions here that you will find at least one that offends you in some way. Including what you list as an example.

It wouldn't be tolerated on boards, but doesn't mean that everyone on boards shares the same moral compass as you.

Sangre

Hobbes wrote:

But let me make one thing clear. The thread is not for Infront to have defend himself. If you want to take that discussion then go to PM.

So I can state any opinion I want on boards in a thread but if someone wants to challenge me they have to take it to PM?

Hobbes

Sangre wrote:

So I can state any opinion I want on boards in a thread but if someone wants to challenge me they have to take it to PM?

Nope they are welcome to challenge the opinion/post. What they are not allowed do is attack the poster as a form of response.

Of course in other forums YMMV.

Hagar

the-new-mr wrote:

Well, first of all, there is most definitely no part of Islam that allows the stoning of children. Children are not considered to be responsible for their actions and even then, if stoning is in fact a part of Islam, it's only for married adulterers. Let me make that absolutely clear...Then, the Prophet found himself with no option but to carry out the stoning.

The poster is making it absolutely clear that stoning is the prescribed punishment for adulterers. The if which has has italicised looks very weak, a weasle word in this case. If the Prophet carries out stoning what must his followers do?

InFront wrote:

If someone is guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty, then it may be that the death penalty would only be the beginning of their suffering, which is quite a disturbing thought really. May Allah guide us on the right path.

In a genuine case where the sin has been proven, where stoning is warranted,

Most religions only damn you to Hell, it seems Islam goes one step further and sends you there.
The poster says quite clearly that there may be cases where stoning is warrented. Is that not an open endorsement of the punishment?

InFront wrote:

Islam is a comprehensive, complete guide in every aspect of personal and family and community life, including criminal justice...One thing is certain. Muslims are not allowed to tamper with the Shariah or to start enacting laws based on what the popular mood dictates.

Is there a suggestion here that Islamic Law has precedence over Irish Law? The words sedition and treason spring to mind.

Medin wrote:

InFront, if I was a mod like you, Wallahi Wallahi I woudn't wait 1 sec to ban a shaytaan like DonJose. Think about it, Allah (swt) is watching.

Although this outburst got the poster a ban, does he not fit the stereotype that westerners have of Muislims ie religious fervour overriding all else including freedoms (speech etc) enjoyed by non-muslims?

Hobbes wrote:

There is no one in the thread endorsing the stoning to death. I was serious when I said I would ban people if they continued on this vein. This is your last warning.

I disagree, as do other posters, I think it's clear that there is endorsement of stoning and I think it is draconian and/or the last desperate act of someone caught red-handed to threaten bans to anyone who states this rather obvious fact.

jhegarty

Hagar wrote:

I disagree, as do other posters, I think it's clear that there is endorsement of stoning and I think it is draconian and/or the last desperate act of someone caught red-handed to threaten bans to anyone who states this rather obvious fact.

I have to hope Hobbes didn't read the thread fully, I have quoted the most black and white example on the thread for him........

Hobbes

Hagar wrote:

The poster is making it absolutely clear that stoning is the prescribed punishment for adulterers.

Which is very different to endorsing it. Also as pointed out you have two views on the subject so far, and in one of those it is clearly stated that there are countries that do not follow this to the correct letter of the Quran.

The poster says quite clearly that there may be cases where stoning is warranted. Is that not an open endorsement of the punishment?

No it isn't.

Is there a suggestion here that Islamic Law has precedence over Irish Law? The words sedition and treason spring to mind.

The short answer is no. Sharia laws must always obey the laws of the land first. This is a common question and has been answered numerous times on Islam forum (as well as others). If you have these sort of questions find an appropriate forum.

Although this outburst got the poster a ban...

Why should that matter in relation to this?

I disagree, as do other posters,

Your free to disagree. Your not free to attack a poster for thier views. You are allowed attack those views but again within the context of the Forum. For example you can ask a question in relation to Islam, You may not like the answer but attacking it in a way that causes offense to muslims is not allowed in the Islam forum. It is allowed in Humanities/Politics forum for example but you still need to behave in those forums and remain civil.

I think it is draconian and/or the last desperate act of someone caught red-handed to threaten bans to anyone who states this rather obvious fact.

It is dragging the thread off topic, there is this thread. Use it. People were getting banned after getting warned. If you can't follow a warning or the charter then your going to get banned.

Also Infront isn't threatening bans. I am.

Plus the only people banned so far were being offensive to each other.

jhegerty wrote:

I have to hope Hobbes didn't read the thread fully, I have quoted the most black and white example on the thread for him........

you have obviously not read the whole thread. Kindly keep this part of the discussion in this thread. thx.

Tar.Aldarion

The question is, who does the admin team side with. People have different views, in Islam stoning to death is acceptable, to most of us it is not. The same will apply with homosexuality, racism etc.
I would not tolerate a religious forum on a site of mine, with such abhorrant beliefs as Islam, this is not my site though and there will always be arguments like this. I don't intend to go on about how ludicrous this belief is.
I have a question regarding this, if a muslim committed adultery and then said, 'I do not want to be punished, and I am not a muslim anymore', are they still stoned?
What happens to a male adulterer?

Also, hulla, morality is subjective so saying adultury is wrong and homosexuality is not, is just an opinion.

Vegeta

Have to say after just reading the whole thread twice I don't think it looks good for InFront

Tar.Aldarion

Why would anybody expect anybody of the islamic faith to believe anything different?
We have an Islam forum = people who think stoning is an ok punishment.

Hobbes

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I would not tolerate a religious forum on a site of mine, with such abhorrant beliefs as Islam,

Well you have made your opinion clear, however as pointed out numerous times no one is endorsing stoning in the thread.

Does it go on? Yes. So the question of the thread was in what context does it relate to Islam. Which is what was trying to be addressed in the thread before it got derailed.

It is not a discussion on the morality of it. TBH you have humanities forum to bitch and whine on.

I have a question regarding this,

This is the feedback forum.

Tar.Aldarion

Hobbes wrote:

Well you have made your opinion clear, however as pointed out numerous times no one is endorsing stoning in the thread.

The main point of the thread is not got to do with the endorsing of stoning, that does not mean it has not been endorsed by a moderator on the thread.
If you disagree with this I will post a quote and give you a definition of 'endorse'.
I however don't see the problem with this endorsement since the Islam forum was clearly given a go ahead to be made and it should be expected that their beliefs be endorsed by them on it.

This is the feedback forum.

Yes it is, you do not have to answer the question, I can still ask somebody to.

Also, I have tried to reply to the original thread with the questions, and others, but it has been locked unfortunately by you.

Hobbes

Your questions were not directly related to Stoning so you are more then welcome to post and ask about it. Start a new thread.

Wibbs

The humanities forum would be a better place for this alright. It would start to get out of hand where it is at the moment. Observe the whole shaytan BS. Luckily nipped in the bud, although impoliteness on both sides was informative.

It seemed to me at least that Infront does regard stoning as a valid avenue when required by his religious law, all things being equal. The burden of proof and the route to said execution is the issue. From what I got from it, the burden of proof etc would likely make the punishment unlikely although it's in the books.

the new mr's take seemed to me more along the lines interpretation and the punishment being whipping, not stoning.

As for stoning, people seem hesitant to acknowledge the difference between something like lethal injection, long drop hanging and something as obviously inhumane and long drawn out as stoning. If you can even begin to regard the physiology of such a death, you would be reluctant to lump it in with other methods.

There does exist a sliding scale. Indeed with other methods of execution there is at least the pretense of humane treatment of the condemned. Lethal injection was developed precisely for that reason. Same with long drop hanging. Even something that we know is inhumane such as the electric chair and gas chamber were originally touted for their "painless" and "humane" advantages.

Stoning however is designed to be as painful and long drawn out as possible. Some quarters even specify the size of the rocks so as not to kill the condemned too quickly. The addition of community involvement makes it even more disturbing. Barbarous in fact.

While there is some moral relativism at work here, a method of execution(for me all execution) such as stoning belongs in the dark ages from where it sprang. Oops went into the whole OT thing there for a sec.

Normal service to be resumed.....

Lemming

Personally, I think Hobbes made a bad call in locking the thread. It wasn't disrespectful, there were few people engaging in trading insults (those that did were banned earlier in the thread), and I know of no other religion that endorses the use of stoning to death.

Whether or not you are willing to accept it hobbes, the discussion of stoning is highly relevant to Islam, since there would appear to be many muslims who will point to it and recommend it as a viable and acceptable course of action.

Your locking of the thread combined with threats to ban people (wtf for?!!!) strikes me as someone who doesn't want to entertain further discussion on a topic where further discussion was evidently available. Prams and toys being tossed out of, spring to mind.

This leads to make an observation. If people are unwilling to accept discussion of Islam - and by that I mean questioning of the who what where and why - then why bother to have a discussion forum since we can all just go online and read the translated texts from the Qu'ran (sp?) ourselves if we are so inclined.

Schuhart

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I would not tolerate a religious forum on a site of mine, with such abhorrant beliefs as Islam, this is not my site though and there will always be arguments like this. I don't intend to go on about how ludicrous this belief is.

In fairness, I’d only see a problem if the answer given to the question about stoning was evasive. It wasn’t. I would not see this as a basis for saying there should be no Islam Forum as surely there is a level of interest in that faith. People have to express what’s on their minds, and that includes what religion they follow. If people want to get stuck into whether or not such-and-such a religious idea is consistent with human rights, then it can be pursued in Humanities without (in my experience) any interference so long as arguments are in some way coherent.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I have a question regarding this, if a muslim committed adultery and then said, 'I do not want to be punished, and I am not a muslim anymore', are they still stoned?

Muslims are not allowed to renounce their faith and in some countries that apply Sharia a death penalty for that too. I doubt it would get you off the hook.

If you’re interested, there’s some background here. Both married men and women seem subject to this penalty for adultery.

In terms of connections, I’d a dim memory that the ‘let he who is without sin’ line in the New Testament had to do with a case of adultery. Indeed it did. Two thousand years later and we still haven't figured it out.

ShowUsYourXbox

The only part of Lemmings last post hobbes should read is his sig.

Tar.Aldarion

Schuhart, thank you for the reply. If you want to discuss these things, I made a thread in the Islam forum.

Lemming

ShowUsYourXbox wrote:

The only part of Lemmings last post hobbes should read is his sig.

Stunning, articulate, reasoning ...

Hobbes

ShowUsYourXbox wrote:

The only part of Lemmings last post hobbes should read is his sig.

yea random insults from complete strangers really hurt my feelings.

lemming wrote:

If people are unwilling to accept discussion of Islam

That isn't the issue. The issue is that people felt the need to have a go at Infront rather then discuss the topic and then went off on a tangent of the morality which isn't what the thread was about (and mentioned so earlier in the thread). So rather then continue to ask people to keep it to topic or ban it is easier to just lock.

You can discuss the subject later when everyone has calmed down a bit.

Lemming

Hobbes wrote:

yea random insults from complete strangers really hurt my feelings.

I think (s?)he was trying to insult me


But as for the rest of it, fair enough Hobbes.

Morlar

jhegarty wrote:

To cut a long story short a mod is supporting stoning to death of women for adultery.....

Dont pop into feedback too often but have to say found that pretty unbelievable - and yes if you read it there is a mod advocating stoning to death for adultery.

Hagar

Hobbes wrote:

The issue is that people felt the need to have a go at Infront rather then discuss the topic and then went off on a tangent of the morality which isn't what the thread was about

I think the issue is much bigger than that. A mod came out and made an assertion that stoning people to death is ok under certain circumstances. That was such a biggie of course it became the major issue.

The bottom line is we have a mod here who advocates extreme violence, a forum that advocates it, its part of your belief, and mods who back him up and stifle anyone who questions it.

Is this the society we want here on Boards?