Stoning in Iran

Freiheit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/02/iranian-woman-stoning-death-penalty

Another sad case under a barbaric regime. I'll be emailing Michael Martin.

Wolfe Tone

Simply is pure primal savagery. Disgusting and sickening.

Jarndyce

Freiheit wrote: »

I'll be emailing Michael Martin.

He was too spineless to intervene in the comparatively minor problem that was the passport crisis. Do you really think he would have the wherewithal to influence Iranian politics and law? He's an EU sycophant. Nothing more.

Brendog

Its disgusting!! cannot believe there is systems like this still in place!.....

Wolfe Tone

Thats what happens when people twist religion to suit themselves.

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats what happens when people twist religion to suit themselves.

Actually, in regard to Islam (the relevant religion in this case), there is no need whatsoever to 'twist it', so to speak; such heinous acts are mandated by the unalterable 'word of God', that is, the Qur'an.

Eve_Dublin

Jarndyce wrote: »

Actually, in regard to Islam (the relevant religion in this case), there is no need whatsoever to 'twist it', so to speak; such heinous acts are mandated by the unalterable 'word of God', that is, the Qur'an.

...and the Bible condones stoning adulterers as well.

Fuinseog

Freiheit wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/02/iranian-woman-stoning-death-penalty

Another sad case under a barbaric regime. I'll be emailing Michael Martin.

i'd say he will pay heed. what concern of yours is it what happens in other countries and why should Iran adopt western ways?
i'm sure a good stoning makes folk there think twice before breaking the law, not like here where we are on the verge of anarchy.

jhegarty

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

...and the Bible condones stoning adulterers as well.

That was reversed in the new testament.

Giselle

Fuinseog wrote: »

i'd say he will pay heed. what concern of yours is it what happens in other countries and why should Iran adopt western ways?
i'm sure a good stoning makes folk there think twice before breaking the law, not like here where we are on the verge of anarchy.

Its his concern because he's a human being, and lots of human beings (the better ones) give a sh t about what happens other people.

A 'good stoning'? Buried up to the waist, and killed by onlookers hurling rocks at your head, in 2010?

Even if you had it in your head and your heart that that was somehow okay, what about the wrongfully convicted? It seems a judge can make a fairly arbitrary decision about what constitutes guilt in Iran.

Still, she probably has shifty eyes and deserves it.

Fuinseog

peter robinson had old Iris declared mentally unwell when she went for a bit on the side. it can not have down her reputation any good. perhaps this was a form of mental torture.

Fuinseog

Giselle wrote: »

Its his concern because he's a human being, and lots of human beings (the better ones) give a sh t about what happens other people.

A 'good stoning'? Buried up to the waist, and killed by onlookers hurling rocks at your head, in 2010?

Even if you had it in your head and your heart that that was somehow okay, what about the wrongfully convicted? It seems a judge can make a fairly arbitrary decision about what constitutes guilt in Iran.

Still, she probably has shifty eyes and deserves it.

its no concern of his and its most unlikely he will intervene in soemthing thta just does not concern teh irish. if you are so conerned go out and help the homeless and drug addicts in dublin

Jarndyce

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

...and the Bible condones stoning adulterers as well.

That's not exactly relevant but yes, that's also true. The distinction, in practice, is that many Christian religions have 'twisted' their teachings to accord with modern day views of what is acceptable behaviour. What makes this possible is the fact that the Bible is not held out to be the 'word of God', per se. The Qu'ran, on the otherhand, says that this is the unalterable word of God and all good Muslims must abide by all directions therein, irrespective of how pernicious and barbaric such teachings may be.

So while it seems that your post may have been coloured with a suggestion of 'well hey, we adopt similar views, so don't just blame them', in reality, that's actually a false distinction.

Freiheit

I have my own moral compass and this vile act in Iran, no doubt reviled by a majority of Iranian people, is in gross violation of that. It's very very sad that someone would try in any way to justify or condone such barbaric practices today as Fuinseog appears to do. Echos of the Holocaust enters my ears, another country, implementing it's own laws which it was entitled to do, what concern was that of ours???????. Shameful and disgusting.

Fuinseog

Echos of the Holocaust enters my ears, another country, implementing it's own laws which it was entitled to do, what concern was that of ours???????. Shameful and disgusting.[/QUOTE]

ditto. it was and is none of our business. By the way the holocaust was implemented by several countries and not just one.

Wolfe Tone

So we should do nothing to try and prevent injustices as we see them?

Fuinseog

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So we should do nothing to try and prevent injustices as we see them?

why not focus our energy more on the home scene. i mean, I am sure there is some injustice on this little isle of ours, but for some reason do gooders are more interetsed in saving the rainforest rather than a few trees in ireland. personally I would be more concerned with national issues rather than international ones that do affect me.

Wolfe Tone

Fuinseog wrote: »

why not focus our energy more on the home scene. i mean, I am sure there is some injustice on this little isle of ours, but for some reason do gooders are more interetsed in saving the rainforest rather than a few trees in ireland. personally I would be more concerned with national issues rather than international ones that do affect me.

Well thats a right terrible attitude to have, endemic of the Celtic tiger years.

Jarndyce

Freiheit wrote: »

...this vile act in Iran, no doubt reviled by a majority of Iranian people...

You have no doubt? Perhaps you should scratch a little deeper than the newspaper article in question. If you do so, you'll find that you were quite naive to presume that the majority of Iranian people would consider such punishment to be abhorrent. Iran is a theocracy and from this stems law that encourages male violence to women.

You should investigate these things a little before playing the do-gooder card. Do you really think Micheal Martin can change the entire legal system of a huge, trenchantly Islamic country like Iran?

Wake up. Such acts are not anomalous in Iran, nor are they reviled by the masses. The majority believe that such acts conform to the tenets of Islam i.e. the will of 'Allah' and therefore they are justified.

Your do-gooder card holds no sway, nor would Minister Martin's if he were so-inclined to produce it to the Iranian government.

Wake up and realise what the world is dealing with. It's not a few chauvinistic radical male Muslims. Rather, it is hundreds of millions of people who accept the barbaric actions enjoined by the Qu'ran for sole reason that it is the will of Allah.

Do you think that they are wrong in that regard? Do you not believe the words of Mohammed? That would make you an infidel. Why don't you google what the Qu'ran thinks of infidels.

Wolfe Tone

Not all muslims are like that of course.... Blame the people not the Religion.

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Not all muslims are like that of course.... Blame the people not the Religion.

Obviously not. There are over one billion Muslims in the world. I don't think there is anybody out there would claim that every single one subscribes to such practices.

Your point is astoundingly ignorant. Blame the people, not the religion. You fail to see that their behaviour stems directly from the religion. The religion is the root cause of the behaviour. How you fail to see that, I have no idea. Children are born into theocracies, like Iran, where they grow up knowing from a young age that apostasy is punishable by death. The religion creates a self-preserving, self-perpetuating, oppressive societal regime.

To say blame the people, not the religion, is a mind-bogglingly fatuous remark.

Wolfe Tone

What I meant was that behavior like this has existed long before Islam. Blame the people hiding behind the veil of religion. Using religion to validate and justify their actions. Plenty of Muslims will be just as sickened about this type of thing as you or I are. I was attempting to prevent this from degrading into one of the regular Muslim bashing threads we have here on boards. The issue at heart here is the injustices of Iran, not the religion. Remove Islam entirely and you still have a totalitarian regime which denies many people of basic human rights. Religion is being used here, to validate that.


If Islam was not being used, some other justification would be found.

Wibbs

I'd have to agree a fair bit with Jarndyce. Obviously not all Muslims worldwide will feel like this. Not even all Muslims in Iran, but many, enough, will believe or feel affinity enough with this mindset to tacitly support such ideas, if only to turn a blind eye. Look at our own country. Good Catholics had an inkling or knew about the various human rights abuses as we see them now. From small stuff to the really morally abhorrent stuff. Yet until they had enough distance from that theocracy and how it affected Irish life, they did precious little about it. Good ordinary people all, or mostly. Do not make the mistake of hoping that the common man or woman in the street gives enough of a damn to actually stand up.

Jarndyce wrote:

The religion creates a self-preserving, self-perpetuating, oppressive societal regime

I would also agree with this. We and especially those who have not read or had even a passing look at the theology, history and aims of Islam may be fond of comparing our own religious history with that of Islam and in fact we were all too often the ones lacking, but Islam is far more a self preserving religion than christianity. On more than a few levels. Theologically, politically and socially. From early on and based on the theology, the christian church and state had a disconnect. "My kingdom is not of this earth/give all unto Caesar that's Caesar's". No such sentiment exists in the theology of Islam. The founder of the religion actively sought out and had killed those who disagreed. He had many poets killed who disagreed with him. Poets he had no liking for at all. He even forgave a man who stabbed his wife to death, because she had been writing poems criticising him. THough many atrocities have been claimed in their name, jesus nor buddha killed anyone themselves nor called for it or actively supported it. Big diff.

Interpretation and criticism of the texts in christianity has a very long history. In Islam it does not. The texts themselves are sancrosanct as far as critique goes. Go to the christianity forum on this very site and post a question on the authenticity or evolution of their texts and you may get vigourous debate, but it'll stand as a valid question,so long as you observe the rule of "dont be a dick". Indeed various strands of the faith have their own reading of it. Try suggesting in the Islam forum that the Quran "evolved" at all and you will likely get banned, even if you are not trying to break the "dont be a dick" rule. The very question is being a dick. A very different mindset.

There is far more "wriggle room" in the various world religions than there exists in Islam. It is singularly pickled in 7th(more like 9th) century aspic. The very notion of a reformation is more remote and almost impossible given the lack of a central authority. Even more remote today when the peoples, good peoples from that faith feel hemmed in from western muppetry. And whatever hope the world had, islamic and non islamic, was pretty fcuked up by the various imperial powers in the early 20th century. We all, Muslim or otherwise may be waiting quite a while for that to change again.

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What I meant was that behavior like this has existed long before Islam.

What a ridiculous point to make.. Islam originated in the 6th century. So, "long before Islam" you are talking about 2,000 years ago. It was a completely different era.

The point you fail to grasp is that Iran's barbaric behaviour, that is the subject of this thread, exists solely because of Islam. It was a result of an offence under Sharia law. Does behaviour like this occur in Ireland? No, of course not, for many reasons including Christian teachings, secularisation of society, international law, human rights conventions etc. Western civilizations have advanced, whereas theocratic Islamic states, in comparison, have not. This is not based on some sort of innate violent human behaviour as you foolishly seem to suggest. Rather, it is based on the unalterable word of Allah to which citizens must adhere to or they will, at best, face ostracization, or, at worst, face death for apostasy.

I'm trying to keep my posts brief because I fear that even a more detailed response would be lost on you. I would advise you to wake up, for you are astoundingly oblivious to reality (including, for example, history, theology, law, and facts in general).

Wolfe Tone

No need whatsoever to be insulting you know.

Yes, of course, I am wrong. No barbaric offences have ever occurred under totalitarian regimes which are not "backed" by Islam.

People will find anything to justify subjugation, in this case it is Islam.

Wibbs

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

People will find anything to justify subjugation, in this case it is Islam.

Agreed 100%, but I think his point is that Islam encourages that subjugation more than most. The very word means surrender.

Wolfe Tone

Agreed 100%, but I think his point is that Islam encourages that subjugation more than most. The very word means surrender.

Then that brings me back to my point, it is people which are the root problem, weather it be Islam, Hellenistic gods, twisted racial ideology, for centuries people have found reasons to do this type of thing. If it was not Islam it would be something else. I feel it is based on "some sort of innate violent human behavior". People will exploit anything to have power.

People are quite capable of practicing Islam without resorting to this.

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

No need whatsoever to be insulting you know.

If I was insulting, that was not my intention.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes, of course, I am wrong. No barbaric offences have ever occurred under totalitarian regimes which are not "backed" by Islam.

I'm baffled by that comment. Please quote the relevant part of my post(s) from which you draw that absurd inference. I in no way, whatsoever, suggested or implied that.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

People will find anything to justify subjugation, in this case it is Islam.

How do you fail to see that the subjugation in such theocracies is Islam? The women in question violated Sharia law. If you are unaware what that is, it is Islamic law. Therefore there is no alternative in these countries. There is no separation of Church and State. The laws derive directly from Islamic precepts - laws such as condemning innocent women to death by stoning. In other words, Islam is the oppressor. Citizens of such countries are conditioned to these barbaric customs and they have little choice but to obey them.

I am truly baffled as to how you fail to grasp any of this. It is not a difficult concept, nor is it merely baseless opinion. It is fact, outlined by my opinion.

Wolfe Tone

So you think that atrocities like this would not occur in the world if it were not for Islam?


Despite millions practicing it peacefully? Does this occur everywhere Islam is practiced? Or only where extremists have grabbed onto it in order to propel themselves into power? People carry out these ideas you know. To claim that Islam is the root of evil in these cases, I feel, is not true. This type of thing will happen anyway. Despicable people have taken Islam and are using it as an excuse.


I do no appreciate the condescending tone which you have taken, you seem intent on personalizing this debate.



I maintain that if Islam were not the reason for atrocities like this occurring it would be something else. Man is violent, man is evil. Remove Islam: something else takes its place. It has happened prior to Islam, it will happen after.

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So you think that atrocities like this would not occur in the world if it were not for Islam?

Again I ask you to please quote the relevant part of my post(s) from which you draw that absurd inference.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Does this occur everywhere Islam is practiced? Or only where extremists have grabbed onto it in order to propel themselves into power?

It occurs almost everywhere it is practiced, to varying degrees of course, based on many factors. If you bothered to educate yourself you would find a wealth of information on, for example, honour killings in UK, France, Germany, Canada, US etc, hardly countries where Muslim extremists have propelled themselves into power.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

People carry out these ideas you know. To claim that Islam is the root of evil in these cases, I feel, is not true. This type of thing will happen anyway. Despicable people have taken Islam and are using it as an excuse.

Ah, the old 'guns don't kill people, people do' argument.. Tell me, if someone is killed for apostasy, how is Islam not the root? If a woman in Sudan gets 40 lashes for dressing indecently (wearing trousers), how is Islam not the root (as the Quran states that women should dress modestly)? Explain that, please.

irishconvert

Jarndyce wrote: »

Actually, in regard to Islam (the relevant religion in this case), there is no need whatsoever to 'twist it', so to speak; such heinous acts are mandated by the unalterable 'word of God', that is, the Qur'an.

Speaking as a Muslim, I can tell you that you are speaking is complete rubbish. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say anything about stoning a person for adultery.

EDIT: The relevant verse from the Qur'an (Surah Al-Nisa, verse 15 & 16):

If any of your women are guilty of fornication, ask for four reliable witnesses from among yourselves against them; and if they testify and their guilt is proved, confine them to their houses until they die or Allah opens some other way out for them.[15] And the two, whether married or unmarried, who are guilty of this offense, punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. Surely Allah is the Acceptor of Repentance, Merciful.[16]

biko

A bit more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Islam

Freiheit

I'm trying not to label Muslims as barbarians, I'm sure most are not. I own a copy of the Koran and am well aware of it's contents. There is a problem with Islam as a creed, no doubt about it but by labelling all Muslims are blood-thirsty barbarians will only alienate them and not help.

I personaly hope that in time humanity will come to see all religous texts for what they are, fable's and the product of faulty wiring in peoples brain's, not any divine revelation and not of any relevance to the world.

irishconvert

Jarndyce wrote: »

It occurs almost everywhere it is practiced, to varying degrees of course, based on many factors. If you bothered to educate yourself you would find a wealth of information on, for example, honour killings in UK, France, Germany, Canada, US etc, hardly countries where Muslim extremists have propelled themselves into power..

Honour killings are a cultural practice, which is totally against Islamic teachings by the way. It is practised by people from all religions including Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh.

irishconvert

Freiheit wrote: »

not of any relevance to the world.

Not relevant, even though you (and most people) probably agree with much of what is written in the Qur'an and use those rules in day to day life?

Jarndyce

irishconvert wrote: »

Speaking as a Muslim, I can tell you that you are speaking is complete rubbish. Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say anything about stoning a person for adultery.

EDIT: The relevant verse from the Qur'an (Surah Al-Nisa, verse 15 & 16):

I am speaking complete rubbish?

Surah 24, Verse 2:
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment."

irishconvert

Jarndyce wrote: »

I am speaking complete rubbish?

Surah 24, Verse 2:
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment."

And where is the part about stoning, which you said was in the Qur'an?

Jarndyce

irishconvert wrote: »

And where is the part about stoning, which you said was in the Qur'an?

I never said that the Qur'an contains sections on stoning. I said that it does not need to be twisted to make its passages appear barbaric and condoning of violence.

Why did you simply ignore Surah 24, Verse 2?

Why not comment on that?

Eve_Dublin

Jarndyce wrote: »

That's not exactly relevant but yes, that's also true. The distinction, in practice, is that many Christian religions have 'twisted' their teachings to accord with modern day views of what is acceptable behaviour. What makes this possible is the fact that the Bible is not held out to be the 'word of God', per se. The Qu'ran, on the otherhand, says that this is the unalterable word of God and all good Muslims must abide by all directions therein, irrespective of how pernicious and barbaric such teachings may be.

So while it seems that your post may have been coloured with a suggestion of 'well hey, we adopt similar views, so don't just blame them', in reality, that's actually a false distinction.

Not sure how you gathered all that from one line. I´m an Atheist so I wouldn´t include myself in that "we". I think all religions are completely barmy. My comment wasn´t supposed to have such a weighty meaning. I was just pointing it out because I´ve recently read the Old Testament and was shocked by some of stuff it condones. It compounded my suspicion that all religion is a dated farce.

Jarndyce

Oh, and while 'stoning' is not expressly enjoined, what do you have to say about:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

I could go on..

Before you cite them, I am aware of the many 'peaceful' verses in the Qur'an that Muslims use in a vain attempt to offset such vile passages.

irishconvert

irishconvert wrote: »

And where is the part about stoning, which you said was in the Qur'an?

Its much of a muchness as to whether or not stoning is mentioned. The fact that having sex outside of marriage is condemned should be the focal point. Sex is a personal choice and not one that should be governed by "holy scripture", be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever. Why should this woman or indeed any other suffer for essentially being a human? It is a clear infringement on personal autonomy and the right to self determination.

Bella_purple

I also think we all humans have in the D.N.A. the violence instinct, let's call it. Otherwise, how can you expline the gladiators, back in the Roman Empire, the beheading, burning at the stake practiced against "witches" and "heretics" by the Roman-Catholic Church? Not to mention all the wars in the world. So we have it in us.

Jarndyce

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Not sure how you gathered all that from one line. I´m an Atheist so I wouldn´t include myself in that "we". I think all religions are completely barmy. My comment wasn´t supposed to have such a weighty meaning. I was just pointing it out because I´ve recently read the Old Testament and was shocked by some of stuff it condones. It compounded my suspicion that all religion is a dated farce.

Forgive me if I read too far into your comment.

As for your suspicion that all religion is a dated farce, that is indeed true. However, there is an important distinction, as I have outlined, in terms of the extent to which each dated farce applies in modern society. It would be unfair to consider each to be equally reprehensible, in practice (not in logic), as some, for example, Islam, present a far more pernicious influence on society.

Jarndyce

Deleted User wrote: »

Its much of a muchness as to whether or not stoning is mentioned. The fact that having sex outside of marriage is condemned should be the focal point. Sex is a personal choice and not one that should be governed by "holy scripture", be it Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever. Why should this woman or indeed any other suffer for essentially being a human? It is a clear infringement on personal autonomy and the right to self determination.

Exactly.

Wolfe Tone

Jarndyce wrote: »

Oh, and while 'stoning' is not expressly enjoined, what do you have to say about:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

I could go on..

Before you cite them, I am aware of the many 'peaceful' verses in the Qur'an that Muslims use in a vain attempt to offset such vile passages.

All of that is open to interpretation. Is irishconvert not "fighting" in a manner of speaking right now?

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

All of that is open to interpretation. Is irishconvert not "fighting" in a manner of speaking right now?

To such suggest that irishconvert is fighting with me right now is absurd, like almost all of your posts on this subject. The phrase 'clutching at straws' comes to mind.

You say "all of that is open to interpretation".
Please interpret the following in a way that does not enjoin murder.

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

If you are going to make such fatuous remarks as the aforequoted, do at least make some attempt to show that they are not as inane as they appear.

Wolfe Tone

Jarndyce wrote: »

To such suggest that irishconvert is fighting with me right now is absurd, like almost all of your posts on this subject. The phrase 'clutching at straws' comes to mind.

You say "all of that is open to interpretation".
Please interpret the following in a way that does not enjoin murder.

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

If you are going to make such fatuous remarks as the aforequoted, do at least make some attempt to show that they are not as inane as they appear.

It depends how you define "fight" For example:

To engage in a quarrel; argue: They are always fighting about money.
To strive vigorously and resolutely
An intense verbal dispute; "a violent fight over the bill is expected in the Senate"(applicable here perhaps)
Fight against or resist strongly; "The senator said he would oppose the bill"; "Don't fight it!"


You can fight with words.

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It depends how you define "fight" For example:

To engage in a quarrel; argue: They are always fighting about money.
To strive vigorously and resolutely
An intense verbal dispute; "a violent fight over the bill is expected in the Senate"(applicable here perhaps)
Fight against or resist strongly; "The senator said he would oppose the bill"; "Don't fight it!"


You can fight with words.

I am aware of that. However, it would be obvious to a simpleton that the English language contains words which comprise of numerous, varying meanings. The best aid for interpretation is to consider the context in which they are used. A child would grasp this concept, yet it appears to have eluded you.

I'll break it down for you.. The quote in question is:
"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

You neatly side-stepped the first sentence which contains the not so ambiguous direction of 'slay them'. As the next sentence begins 'fight against them', do you think it is more likely that 'fight', in this context, means 'argue', or does it mean "to contend with in battle or combat; war against". I would have thought that it was pretty self-explanatory. You clearly struggle with such simple English, for what reason I do not know.

The bottom line is as follows. Your claim that you can interpret 'fight', in this context, to possibly have a moderate meaning is absolutely absurd. That is not merely my opinion, that is fact - a fact that would be strikingly obvious to a child. Clearly you are intent on disagreeing with the premise of my general argument, but to disagree in the manner that you have done so has neither challenged my argument factually, intellectually, or otherwise, but rather it has only served to embarrass yourself to a most awful degree.

You ought to reflect on that point and feel shame for the utter vacuousness thereof.

Wolfe Tone

It is pointless to continue this debate when you are so intent on personalizing this debate, belittling my intellect, etc.
How is it "absurd" to claim that it may have a moderate interpretation? How can you decide which is "more likely"?

You can also interpret "slay" as to defeat or overcome.

Jarndyce

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It is pointless to continue this debate when you are so intent on personalizing this debate, belittling my intellect, etc.
How is it "absurd" to claim that it may have a moderate interpretation? How can you decide which is "more likely"?

You can also interpret "slay" as to defeat or overcome.

Do you know what they say you should do when you're in a hole?

irishconvert

Jarndyce wrote: »

I never said that the Qur'an contains sections on stoning. I said that it does not need to be twisted to make its passages appear barbaric and condoning of violence.

Oh come on, the original poster posts a news story about a woman about to be stoned in Iran, MUSSOLINI says:

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats what happens when people twist religion to suit themselves.

You reply:

Jarndyce wrote: »

Actually, in regard to Islam (the relevant religion in this case), there is no need whatsoever to 'twist it', so to speak; such heinous acts are mandated by the unalterable 'word of God', that is, the Qur'an.

How else are we supposed to intrepret your reply? You obviously alluded that the Qur'an says to stone women quilty of adultery. In any case I am happy that you have backed down on this point now.

Jarndyce wrote: »

Why did you simply ignore Surah 24, Verse 2?

Why not comment on that?

I ignored it as you were using it to divert from the above point.