Here was go again (Islam Forum)

jhegarty

Hobbes wrote:

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.

I think its always been quite clear there is no freedom of speech on boards

hullaballoo

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

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

Just on this point - which is generally what I was getting at with my earlier points - who are we to say that stoning to death is wrong? I made the bald statement that adultery is wrong to highlight the fact that these things are subjective.

Though I personally believe (as many others do) that stoning to death is not a valid punishment - I cannot say categorically that it is an invalid punishment. In the precise same way, no one can say categorically that adultery is wrong, and if it is wrong, how wrong.

This has been a focal point for philosophers since the dawn of philosophical thought, and I don't think that this thread is so special that it's going to solve any of the issues that have plagued us for more than 4,000 years.

I'm abhorred by the number of people who have effectively cried, "Islam won't force its values on us" whilst attempting to force their own values on Islam. Aside from the sheer ignorance of that contention, it's a dangerous tack to play in this day and age where the political stability of the opposite value systems is particularly frail.

Lemming

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Just on this point - which is generally what I was getting at with my earlier points - who are we to say that stoning to death is wrong? I made the bald statement that adultery is wrong to highlight the fact that these things are subjective.

Though I personally believe (as many others do) that stoning to death is not a valid punishment - I cannot say categorically that it is an invalid punishment. In the precise same way, no one can say categorically that adultery is wrong, and if it is wrong, how wrong.

This has been a focal point for philosophers since the dawn of philosophical thought, and I don't think that this thread is so special that it's going to solve any of the issues that have plagued us for more than 4,000 years.

I'm abhorred by the number of people who have effectively cried, "Islam won't force its values on us" whilst attempting to force their own values on Islam. Aside from the sheer ignorance of that contention, it's a dangerous tack to play in this day and age where the political stability of the opposite value systems is particularly frail.

There is a difference between a religious edict stating that adultery is a sin (indeed the Catholic church says as much) and a religious edict stating that someone must be put to death for adultery.

There is a massive difference between the two scenarios. Anyone who would try to argue otherwise is a blinkered idiot regardless of their personal faith.

I have no problem with Muslims choosing to believe that adultery is a sin and trying to avoid it, as is their right to pursue their personal belief in faith. As is the right of catholics or whomever else also consider adultery to be a sin. Where I draw a HUGE line in morality is in dictating that personal faith determine another person's fate.

hullaballoo

Lemming wrote:

There is a difference between a religious edict stating that adultery is a sin (indeed the Catholic church says as much) and a religious edict stating that someone must be put to death for adultery.

There is a massive difference between the two scenarios. Anyone who would try to argue otherwise is a blinkered idiot regardless of their personal faith.

I have no problem with Muslims choosing to believe that adultery is a sin and trying to avoid it, as is their right to pursue their personal belief in faith. As is the right of catholics or whomever else also consider adultery to be a sin. Where I draw a HUGE line in morality is in dictating that personal faith determine another person's fate.

Why did you quote me there, and then go on to make an argument that is so far from the point I was making? You're imputing a meaning into my post that I never intended by doing so - and I don't think that's entirely fair.

My point has nothing to do with the scaleability of these belief systems. I don't ever remember even thinking, let alone writing that I thought the death sentence was in any way proportionate to the offence in question (or any other offence).

Yet, you insist on imposing "Western" philosophies where I don't see a requirement. It wouldn't be acceptable to many Christians to have their Church proffer sentencing of criminals. However, my limited understanding of Islam is such that they do accept such intrusion on what Christians generally regard to be secular matters. The secular/ecclesiastical divide is certainly not as prominent or, in my understanding, almost non-existent in Islam. I'm open to correction on that of course.

ecksor

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

The question is, who does the admin team side with.

I can't quite figure out what the two sides are here. InFront appears to have provided an interpretation, which people have taken as advocation (he says it isn't, the posts themselves don't really provide me with a strong sense one way or another). If I want to be nitty then I can take issue with posts using the word "abhorrent" in relation to a religion's beliefs. It's all offensive to someone if they're sensitive enough.

I'm not particularly well versed in Islam I have to admit, but I found the following two snippets interesting:

I don't intend to go on about how ludicrous this belief is.

This seems to be a common standpoint on this thread ...

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?

And this seems to reflect just how well informed the average critic here is regarding those beliefs.

There's a lot of stuff said on these boards that I don't agree with, but brushing it under the carpet isn't exactly productive. I don't think InFront has acted in an uncivil manner or set out to upset anyone in particular (which is why the homosexual analogies don't sit well with me. If we suddenly get an active adulterer community going here then perhaps I'll change my mind) so I don't quite see what people expect us to do.

(Incidentally, as horrible as stoning sounds, I'd take it over the past practices of the Inquisition any day).

ecksor

Hagar wrote:

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?

I quite simply cannot see how you stretched to this.

DeVore

1. Did the mod use mod powers during this debate?
A. No.

2. Is he entitled to his opinion?
A. Yes.

3. Is it one we should not tolerate on Boards, like the stormfronters or "knacker haters" or someone advocating gassing all homosexuals?
A. I draw a distinction here for two reasons, firstly the mod (who is really acting in the role of User here, he has used no mod powers remember), is explaining Shariah law as he understands it. Secondly this isnt some crackpot's "idea" of how to make the world a better place without all those "hussies". This is the ruling law of quite a number of high profile *countries* and our understanding of their "legal system" is very current affairs and certainly a topic for discussion.

For the record, I oppose the death penalty in all shapes and forms (from the electric chair to leathal injection to stoning).

DeV.

DeVore

For those who are asking "what happens if you arent Muslim or you stop being Muslim after the fact". You are missing the vital point that this ISNT a religious-only set of laws. Its the entire country's set of laws. Its like the separation of Church and State here, but in reverse.

This is what I find particularly disturbing and unwelcoming about Islam. If you think the Catholic Church's practise of insisting the children of any mixed marriage be brought up catholic was "sticky"... extreme Islam's desire is that the entire country be brought under Shariah Law ..."for our own good".
I have no problem with Muslim's, I have a problem with extremism/fanaticism of any kind.

DeV.

Lemming

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Why did you quote me there, and then go on to make an argument that is so far from the point I was making? You're imputing a meaning into my post that I never intended by doing so - and I don't think that's entirely fair.

The point I believe you were making was to do with imposing beliefs. I addressed that ableit perhaps not as succinctly as I should have.

Anyway, this thread seems to have run its course so I have deleted the rest of what I had typed and shall leave it at that.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hagar wrote:

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?

This looks like something from Bush administration PR team... a forum that advocates it???? Forgive me I must have missed it in the charter:rolleyes:

People on humanities say they're in support of the death penalty all the time.

Hagar wrote:

Originally Posted by Medin
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?

Perhaps, but he/she is certainly in the minority on the Islam board. I'm sure you'll find the odd football hooligan on the soccer board.

InFront

I was only intending on making the one reply to this thread and then continuing to post on the Islam forum, but just to clear up a few things:
I'm not "advocating extreme violence", nor any violence, and I’ve never said I was personally supportive of stoning a person.
In fact I haven't given any personal opinion on stoning in itself - except when I said that it isn’t something I rejoice at or admire, and that I find it disturbing. Stoning is not something I am particularly comfortable with.

I'm not advocating anything. The forum isn't about me, or any Muslim. It's about Islam. The thread in question is not about what I say, it's about what the Shari'ah says.
I'm not a religious scholar. I can't re-write Islamic jurisprudence to suit posters' opinions, none of us are in a position to rewrite the Traditions of Muhammad pbuh. If you want to know my understanding of the Shari'ah, well I've given it.

Sangre

You may detest the practice but you accept Sharia law (afaik) as a valid law and you accept stoning is part of that (in limited circumstances). Thus people conclude that you accept stoning. This is where the problem is. You may not advocate or endorse it but you (tacitly) accept the practice. This is too much for some.

If you proclaim to accept Sharia law I think you should be prepared to take any resutling praise of flax surrounding it.

the_new_mr

Seems this has gone out of hand. A couple of the admins have already made themselves clear on the situation.

I've re-opened the thread in the Islam forum. You're all welcome to come by as long as it's civilised.

Have to say (and this is not usually my style), I'm very disappointed in the behaviour of hagar here. Quoting me wildly out of context and then making it out that I made a conclusion I didn't whilst deciding not to partake in the thread on the Islam forum. Not correct at all. Very disappointing. I'd ask people to read my un-chopped-up post here.

Just thought I'd post a little thing (although I know it's off-topic) in case anyone doesn't read the thread in the Islam forum. Here's a copy & paste of a section from my last post in that thread.

the_new_mr wrote:

1.: I've already stated that I lean towards the opinion that Islam does not contain the law to stone and therefore kill adulterers (see post number 2). InFront is of the other opinion and he is free to express it. Don't attack him for it.

2.: This thread is for the discussion of stoning and the death penalty within Islam. It is NOT for the discussion of whether or not the death penalty is an acceptable practice. If you want to discuss this then I suggest you go to humanities.

3.: Regardless of whether or not Islam calls for the flogging or stoning of adulterers, the law is equally applicable to both men and women. Contrary to popular opinion, men are not excluded from this law.

4.: Either possibility of the law is only applicable to Muslims. Non-Muslims in a Muslim state are governed by the laws of their own holy books.

5.: Finally (for now), the punishment (whatever it may be) can only be carried out if the couple have been witnessed by FOUR (count'em) trust-worthy witnesses. And these witnesses have to have seen the act in all its detail (think of the most detail you can think of).

Hagar

I don't believe I quoted anyone wildly out of context. AFAIR I only quoted you once.

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.

If the Prophet carried out a stoning it must have been, and still is, the lawful thing to do, otherwise he committed murder and I don't think he would have done that.

If stoning people to death as a punishment is the direct word of your God well I can only hope there are other Gods who can protect us from him.
If stoning people to death as a punishment is a human edict within your faith then I think your faith is at about the same point in it's development that the Christian faith was during the Spanish Inquisition and I hope you grow out of it quicker that the Christians did.

My own personal take on this is that stoning a barbaric practice. Islam is not doing itself any favours in the eyes of mankind by condoning it under any circumstances.

The reason I didn't partake in the thread in the Islam Forum is quite simple, I would not have have had the freedom of expression there that I have here. I would have been banned sharpish and I didn't want that to happen as I am a regular reader there, I have an interest in Arabic culture having lived and worked for some time in the Middle-East when I was younger. I rarely post because tbh I don't like the way it's run. Too many warnings, too many bans handed out, too many personal insults, but that's only my opinion.

Tar.Aldarion

ecksor wrote:

I can't quite figure out what the two sides are here. InFront appears to have provided an interpretation, which people have taken as advocation (he says it isn't, the posts themselves don't really provide me with a strong sense one way or another). If I want to be nitty then I can take issue with posts using the word "abhorrent" in relation to a religion's beliefs. It's all offensive to someone if they're sensitive enough.

I'm not particularly well versed in Islam I have to admit, but I found the following two snippets interesting:



This seems to be a common standpoint on this thread ...



And this seems to reflect just how well informed the average critic here is regarding those beliefs.

I do know a lot of their beliefs(as a good friend comes from an Islamic country) and my first question I just wanted to make sure(to see if it is just a state law or a fundamental religious one), the second I had no idea until yesterday as I have heard people say both answers. I don't know every one of their laws.

There's a lot of stuff said on these boards that I don't agree with, but brushing it under the carpet isn't exactly productive. I don't think InFront has acted in an uncivil manner or set out to upset anyone in particular (which is why the homosexual analogies don't sit well with me. If we suddenly get an active adulterer community going here then perhaps I'll change my mind) so I don't quite see what people expect us to do.

(Incidentally, as horrible as stoning sounds, I'd take it over the past practices of the Inquisition any day).

I don't think he has either, he responded as one of his faith might be expected to. I don't have a problem with that like some people on this thread, since the forum was given a go ahead, I don't know how people are surprised that the mod just follows the beliefs of his religion. I was simply arguing with Hobbes because he was trying to argue something I did not believe to be true.

Just on this point - which is generally what I was getting at with my earlier points - who are we to say that stoning to death is wrong? I made the bald statement that adultery is wrong to highlight the fact that these things are subjective.

Nobody, people may think it is wrong but that does not make it so.
That is why I have no problem with InFront having his belief and said it is up to the owners to decide what goes.

pickarooney

5.: Finally (for now), the punishment (whatever it may be) can only be carried out if the couple have been witnessed by FOUR (count'em) trust-worthy witnesses. And these witnesses have to have seen the act in all its detail (think of the most detail you can think of).

To be a trustworthy witness you have to be a voyeur and a stalker? Isn't there something slightly odd about that?

the_new_mr

Hagar wrote:

I don't believe I quoted anyone wildly out of context. AFAIR I only quoted you once.

I don't want to get into a "You said... I said" match as it's not my kind of thing but I feel compelled to prove myself. So, let me just quote your post and let everyone else decide for themselves.

Hagar wrote:

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?

First of all, anyone who read my post would know that I actually don't think that stoning is the required punishment for adultery (even though you say that "The poster is making it absolutely clear that stoning is the prescribed punishment for adulterers"). I can't know for sure either way if you didn't know that (because you didn't read my post/didn't read it properly) or if you did know that but posted what you did anyway. In the first case it's very careless and in the second case it's deceitful.

Second of all, you made no mention of the fact that I'm not sure of the authenticity of these hadiths.

Third of all, you planted the "...Then, the Prophet found himself with no option but to carry out the stoning" smack bang on the end of my own chopped-up statement without quoting the rest of the hadith which clearly shows that the Prophet was reluctant to carry out the punishment (regardless of whether or not the hadith is authentic, quoting out of context this way can always send the wrong message).

pickarooney wrote:

To be a trustworthy witness you have to be a voyeur and a stalker? Isn't there something slightly odd about that?

I'd rather this was handled in the Islam forum rather than here but, quickly:
The whole idea is that it is the adulteress couple being careless rather than the witnesses being voyeuristic. Driving through the town streets late on Saturday night would let you know what I mean.

DeVore

Ok, just reading back the OP.
I think my post answered the issue and I think this thread no longer belongs in Feedback so it has a short life expectancy ...

DeV.

the_new_mr

Hagar wrote:

I rarely post because tbh I don't like the way it's run. Too many warnings, too many bans handed out, too many personal insults, but that's only my opinion.

I resent this statement. You make it seem like we rule that forum with an iron fist. If anything, it's the exact opposite. InFront and myself are very reluctant to ever ban anyone. Sometimes we don't even ban people when they break the forum charter and just issue a warning.

Indeed, InFront still hasn't banned anyone and I only ban when things get completely out of hand. Hobbes only bans people if they step out of line and break the forum charter. And the charter is there to prevent open-season on Islam on boards.ie As can be seen from this thread, if people were allowed to just attack Islam left, right and centre then there would be no discussion in the Islam forum. It would just be a bashing match as people fire out misconception after misconception as InFront, the others and I try our best to refute each misconception. Contrary to popular belief, this is not our full-time jobs

the_new_mr

DeVore wrote:

Ok, just reading back the OP.
I think my post answered the issue and I think this thread no longer belongs in Feedback so it has a short life expectancy ...

DeV.

Yeah, think you're right Dev.

MooseJam

the_new_mr wrote:

I resent this statement. You make it seem like we rule that forum with an iron fist. If anything, it's the exact opposite. InFront and myself are very reluctant to ever ban anyone. Sometimes we don't even ban people when they break the forum charter and just issue a warning.

Indeed, InFront still hasn't banned anyone and I only ban when things get completely out of hand

you banned me quick as is possible -> for just chuckling at the silly aspect of islam ?

DeVore

Linky?

DeV.

jhegarty

DeVore wrote:

Ok, just reading back the OP.
I think my post answered the issue and I think this thread no longer belongs in Feedback so it has a short life expectancy ...

DeV.

yes, the evil overlords admins have spoken.... my op query has been answered.....

Hagar

the_new_mr wrote:

First of all, anyone who read my post would know that I actually don't think that stoning is the required punishment for adultery (even though you say that "The poster is making it absolutely clear that stoning is the prescribed punishment for adulterers"). I can't know for sure either way if you didn't know that (because you didn't read my post/didn't read it properly) or if you did know that but posted what you did anyway. In the first case it's very careless and in the second case it's deceitful.

There was no intent to decieve on my part, perhaps your post is not as clear to other people as you think it is.

the_new_mr wrote:

Second of all, you made no mention of the fact that I'm not sure of the authenticity of these hadiths.

I have no idea as to their authenticity either, but I do know stonings take place, I do know that stoning is not the first punishment a woman faces if she is caught looking with intent at another man. Her husband has the right to put out her eye. I have seen several women who have suffered this barbarism in Libya. I didn't realise why so many women seemed to have only one eye, it was explained to me by one on my Libyan staff. They were older women so I do not know if the present generation of Muslim men treat their wives this way. I do hope it's a thing of the past.

the_new_mr wrote:

Third of all, you planted the "...Then, the Prophet found himself with no option but to carry out the stoning" smack bang on the end of my own chopped-up statement without quoting the rest of the hadith which clearly shows that the Prophet was reluctant to carry out the punishment (regardless of whether or not the hadith is authentic, quoting out of context this way can always send the wrong message).

It wasn't planted, the elipses indicate that text was ommited. Is not the fact that the Propehet actually carried out the stoning anyway the relevent point?

the_new_mr

MooseJam, you were guilty of mega trolling.

Hagar wrote:

There was no intent to decieve on my part, perhaps your post is not as clear to other people as you think it is.

Perhaps. It's always a possibility. In fairness though, it seems that everyone else understood what I meant.

Hagar wrote:

I do know that stoning is not the first punishment a woman faces if she is caught looking with intent at another man. Her husband has the right to put out her eye. I have seen several women who have suffered this barbarism in Libya.

This is indeed barbaric and is most definitely not part of Islam. It's probably part of some backward cultural thing that has hung around and, like so many arab countries, it has become labeled as part of Islam by locals ignorant of their own religion. Like FGM in a lot of north African countries. Too many Muslims actually think it's a requirement! Ignorance is a terrible thing!

Hagar wrote:

Is not the fact that the Propehet actually carried out the stoning anyway the relevent point?

Well, obviously, I don't think the hadith is authentic if I don't think stoning is part of Islam. Even if it is, it's also relevant that he was extremely reluctant in the hadith and kept trying to send the man away so that he would change his mind.

Hobbes

haven't been back in a while so a lot to read. *phew* V.quickly MooseJam you were not banned as quick as possible. I would of banned you a lot sooner if that makes you feel any better.

I see Infront explains himself better but some seem not to understand.

For example:

Sangre wrote:

You may detest the practice but you accept Sharia law (afaik) as a valid law and you accept stoning is part of that (in limited circumstances). Thus people conclude that you accept stoning.

According to Irish Law Abortion is illegal and to have an abortion is wrong (except under certain conditions). Would you say this is correct? So as an Irish person you automatically are anti-abortion.

Hobbes

Indeed, InFront still hasn't banned anyone and I only ban when things get completely out of hand. Hobbes only bans people if they step out of line and break the forum charter.

I can concur with the_new_mr. Both are very reluctant on banning people even when I know the person is just an obvious troll I'm told to hold back. Some people come on posting questions when they don't want answers they intend to rile to build a platform to attack.

For the record I only randomly patrol the forum or if a post is reported and have been doing that for some time. Both mods have been running the forum fine and for the most part its been grand.

Sangre

Hobbes wrote:

According to Irish Law Abortion is illegal and to have an abortion is wrong (except under certain conditions). Would you say this is correct? So as an Irish person you automatically are anti-abortion.

Its a fair point Hobbes but I think there are a few vital differences.

Firstly I don't believe Irish law is divinely inspired and therefore it is perfectly fine if I think it is flawed or incorret (which I do). Secondly as we have a democratically elected legislature I can campaign for changes in the law that I disagree with. Thus I can accept the law's validity and yet do my utmost to have it changed. Afaik there is no way to change the Prohpet's law (only different interpretations).
My final point is (which is the one I tried to make originally) if you accept Mohammed as the true prophet then you must accept he is divinely inspired. Thus you must accept all his law and teachings are perfect and righteous as they are God's words. Therefore if you accept Sharia law as valid you must accept stoning as valid (if you think its part of sharia law) as God can't be wrong.

InFront

Sangre wrote:

Firstly I don't believe Irish law is divinely inspired and therefore it is perfectly fine if I think it is flawed or incorret (which I do).

What's the difference between your believeing the Government's law on abortion is flawed and a Muslim believing that a particular scholar's ruling or fatwa on abortion (or stoning ftm) is flawed? As far as I can see it amounts to the same thing.

Secondly as we have a democratically elected legislature I can campaign for changes in the law that I disagree with

Different belief systems and movements within Islam mirror that process. Each claims it has the most authentic Islamic position and perpetuates it. It would be the same in a state with Shari'ah - remember, law (fiqh) in Islamic societies involves interpretation based on beliefs.
For example Shi'a Muslims would push for a "different Shari'ah" than Sunnis, within Sunni Islam, Hanafis believe different things than Maliki, etc.

Hagar

I know it's slightly off topic and I don't want to be a total prick but don't the Sunni and the Shi'ites kill each other over points of religious beliefs? Or is that as innaccurate as describing the N.Ireland conflict as a Protestant V Catholic ?