Here was go again (Islam Forum)

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?

Nick_oliveri

Probably better to be a bit careful there buddy. We are talking about a reigion here, as much as the opinion in question sickens me. (infront i haven't got anything against you personally)

Hagar wrote:

Is this the society we want here on Boards?

Well its a religious belief. There might be a good reason to put a disclaimer or some such on the forum. It would probably be a good idea to put a large amount of distance between us and the opinion expressed.

Hobbes

Hagar wrote:

A mod came out and made an assertion that stoning people to death is ok under certain circumstances.

Actually he made the assertion that stoning can happen under certain conditions.

The bottom line is we have a mod here who advocates extreme violence,

I know reading is hard for some people but let me grab Infronts words "And I will also clarify and repeat that I'm not in favour of the death penalty, much less stoning "

Do you see that as an advocation? Just because someone talks about the context of a subject and acknowledges it can doesn't automatically mean they agree with it.

mods who back him up and stifle anyone who questions it.

Tilting at windmills.

Tar.Aldarion

You can't really put yourself at distance from what a poster says, boards owners are held accountable.

Hobbes

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

You can't really put yourself at distance from what a poster says, boards owners are held accountable.

True but thankfully the ability to read English is required to work in law.

Vegeta

Hobbes wrote:

I know reading is hard for some people but let me grab Infronts words "And I will also clarify and repeat that I'm not in favour of the death penalty, much less stoning "

Wow its funny how everyone who read the thread thinks InFront agrees with stoning adulterers yet somehow you think he didn't Hobbes.

Yeah we're all wrong that's it, we're out to get you :rolleyes:

Way to quote the first line of a paragraph.

And also, the fact I say I am not a male and am not 24 doesn't change the fact that I am indeed 24 and yes that's right a male.

Hagar

I think InFront has made it clear that he thinks it's ok to stone someone to death in certain circumstances. It's his religious belief, he can't help it. But that does not make the public advocation of violence on these Boards acceptable. Hobbes is trying to defend the indefensible. Full marks for loyalty but no marks at all for "thankfully the ability to read English is required to work in law". We can all read English here so please let's not resort to insults.

Tar.Aldarion

Hobbes wrote:

I know reading is hard for some people but let me grab Infronts words "And I will also clarify and repeat that I'm not in favour of the death penalty, much less stoning "


Do you see that as an advocation? Just because someone talks about the context of a subject and acknowledges it can doesn't automatically mean they agree with it.

InFront wrote:

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

InFront wrote:

I agree that the death penalty has a place in society

When asked was he in favour of stoning for adultery:

InFront wrote:

I did say that the crime would be a very very serious one, detested by Allah, and fully proven of course.

Well Hobbes?
He clearly says that he is for it if it is proven the person is guilty.

True but thankfully the ability to read English is required to work in law.

What does that even mean?
It could be inferred to mean several things.

Hagar

For those of you who may have missed it here is the link posted by Hobbes explaining Hudud

Arabic حدود, also transliterated hadud, hudood; plural for hadd, حد, limit, or restriction) is the word often used in Islamic social and legal literature for the bounds of acceptable behaviour and the punishments for serious crimes.

It doesn't look any better.

Hobbes

Hagar wrote:

It doesn't look any better.

Actually read the whole thing.

He clearly says that he is for it if it is proven the person is guilty.

Likewise. Read up on what is required to prove a married person guilty. The rules are laid out pretty thick to stop causal killing of audulters, in fact it would be almost impossible to convict. Of course these are for the most part ignored in some countries (like some parts of Nigeria for example) however I'd see that as a straight on endorsement rather then what was discussed.

The irony in all this those claiming freedom of speech are quick enough to try and get it silenced because they don't like how someone responded.

Tar.Aldarion

I read everything already. Just because it is hard to convict somebody of such a crime by right, that does not change his opinion or what he said. What you said means nothing, has no bearing, and what you quoted by InFront earlier was just misleading.