Islamic law and punishment

agreed. islam didn’t wipe out tribal customs just as Christianity didn’t wipe out certain customs (it made compromises by assimiliation e.g. goddess worship into virgin mary worship)[/quote]
The problem with Islam is that it gave 6th Century tribal customs like slavery and arranged marriages for 6 year olds divine sanction.

E.g. look at this

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm

[quote]A court in Iran has ruled that a man who blinded a woman with acid after she spurned his marriage proposals will also be blinded with acid.

The ruling was reported in Iranian newspapers on Thursday.

The punishment is legal under the Islamic Sharia code of qias or equivalence, which allows retribution for violent crimes.[/quote]
Maybe back in the 6th Century this sort of punishment was acceptable, but the non Islamic world has moved on. In an Islamic society questioning this sort of thing is dangerous because questioning Islam is punishable by death.

agreed. islam didn’t wipe out tribal customs just as Christianity didn’t wipe out certain customs (it made compromises by assimiliation e.g. goddess worship into virgin mary worship)[/quote]
The problem with Islam is that it gave 6th Century tribal customs like slavery and arranged marriages for 6 year olds divine sanction.

E.g. look at this

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm

[quote]A court in Iran has ruled that a man who blinded a woman with acid after she spurned his marriage proposals will also be blinded with acid.

The ruling was reported in Iranian newspapers on Thursday.

The punishment is legal under the Islamic Sharia code of qias or equivalence, which allows retribution for violent crimes.[/quote]
Maybe back in the 6th Century this sort of punishment was acceptable, but the non Islamic world has moved on. In an Islamic society questioning this sort of thing is dangerous because questioning Islam is punishable by death.[/quote]

@KingZog

Very true in what you say.
Islam still lives in the 6th 7th century
Well at least Iran has modernised its stoning methods
Instead of hurling rocks at the poor soul now then tip a truck load of rocks over them

Erm, do you realise that this punishment was actually requested by the woman? It isn’t a punishment which was mandated by ‘Islamic society’. Sharia law simply allows for retributive punishment if requested. She requested it.

In any case, in many ‘Islamic societies’ questioning ‘this sort of thing’ isn’t dangerous at all.

That must save a lot of sore arms.

And most secular legal codes ban ‘cruel and unusual punishments’, which this certainly is. Which is better?

And most secular legal codes ban ‘cruel and unusual punishments’, which this certainly is. Which is better?[/quote]

That wasn’t the original point. The original point was whether or not this punishment was selected by ‘Islamic law’. It wasn’t. As for what constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, Western secular courts debate this all the time. It’s certainly not a hard and fast matter.

@Fortigurn

Do you have a source for this statement I would be interested in reading it

Islamic law allows for this punishment, that was my point.

Yeah, and in Islamic countries there is no debate because a reference to a Hadith or the Quran ends it. So anything that was done in Mohammed’s time is legal now. Given that he was a 6th Century warlord, that means some pretty nasty stuff.

The point about is that there needs to be room for people to debate what is an appropriate punishment. Shariah law prevents that debate and thus any progress towards a more civilised society.

@bigtone - Fortigurn is right, at least according to the BBC article. It’s beside the point though, as she wouldn’t have been able to request this punishment in a non Shariah country. Or rather she could but the government would not have carried it out.

[quote=“KingZog”]
@bigtone - Fortigurn is right, at least according to the BBC article. It’s beside the point though, as she wouldn’t have been able to request this punishment in a non Shariah country. Or rather she could but the government would not have carried it out.[/quote]

@KingZog
Do you have a link to that story? :slight_smile:
Well if it was in a country that has Sharia law she would have no rights anyway. Cattle would have more rights

[quote=“bigtone”]@KingZog
Do you have a link to that story? :slight_smile:[/quote]

The link is already right here at the top of the thread.

[quote=“bigtone”]@KingZog
Do you have a link to that story? :slight_smile:
Well if it was in a country that has Sharia law she would have no rights anyway. Cattle would have more rights[/quote]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7754756.stm

Actually in this case, the problem is that she has too many rights, namely the right to tell the government to splash acid on someone’s eyes and blind them. In a secular country she wouldn’t have that right. If she asked the goverment to do it they’d say no, and if she hired thugs to do it, those thugs would go to prison.

The reason for that is subtle. Clearly this guy deserves to be punished in a fairly serious way, but in a secular legal system the whole ‘eye for an eye’ thing, literally in this case, is not followed because as Ghandi put it “it leads to the whole world going blind”.

The point is that people may be vengeful but a functioning justice system should limit this. I guess this guy would be locked up in Europe or executed in America, but only in Iran would he be blinded with acid by the state. The reason it happens in Iran is because the Iranian system is based on the principle of qias which give the victim the right to demand that the criminal being punished in the same way as the original crime.

Essentially Shariah gives her a right victims in civilised countries don’t have.

@Fortigurn

Do you have a source for this statement I would be interested in reading it[/quote]

You could try the original article. The link is in this very thread.

That’s your point now.

I think it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not all Muslim countries use the Hadith or Quran to determine secular punishments for the breach of secular laws. And I don’t see any evidence that ‘anything that was done in Mohammed’s time is legal now’. That’s just nonsense. In Mohammed’s time, non-believers were simply killed by Muslims, and that was legal. That doesn’t happen in Muslim countries today, even the most rabid like Saudi Arabia.

Oh that’s your latest point is it? Then read my previous post and you’ll be delighted to see that in many Muslim countries there’s plenty of room for debate on that. By the way, Shariah law does not prevent that debate. The court could have refused the woman’s request for retribution.

[quote]Actually in this case, the problem is that she has too many rights…

Essentially Shariah gives her a right victims in civilised countries don’t have.[/quote]

Irony is you! :bravo:

Clearly you don’t know anything about Sharia law either. Under Sharia law the woman has far more rights than cattle, and ironically KingZog is arguing that under Sharia law she has too many rights. Ah, the hilarity which ensues when the ignorant bicker among themselves.

Yes it does.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_i … ecent_past

Our friend Bigtone would be killed in an Islamic country, just for trolling.

Oh that’s your latest point is it? Then read my previous post and you’ll be delighted to see that in many Muslim countries there’s plenty of room for debate on that. By the way, Shariah law does not prevent that debate. The court could have refused the woman’s request for retribution.[/quote]
But they didn’t and Shariah courts always seem to impose draconian or down right barking mad penalties for all sorts of things, and quote some psychopathic Quran verse to justify it.

In this case she does have the right to request a punishment that would be illegal in most of the world.

Incidentally, do you have to be so rude when you’re arguing about this stuff? Do you really think it improves the quality of your arguments, or detracts from them? I suppose you probably win by default since people get sick of talking to you, but that doesn’t seem to me to be something to be proud of.

Yes it does.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_i … ecent_past

Our friend Bigtone would be killed in an Islamic country, just for trolling.[/quote]

Wrong. The key word is ‘legal’. From your own link:

  • ‘The violence or threats of violence against apostates in the Muslim world usually derives not from government authorities

  • Bangladesh does not have a law against apostasy, but some Imams encourage the killing of converts from Islam’

  • ‘Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds by the Afghan court

The only evidence in the article was of people being legally put to death for apostasy from Islam, not non-believers (Christians, atheists, etc), being rounded up in Muslim countries and killed for not converting to Islam. And that was only in Iran.

No, but they could have, and that’s my point. You tried to lay this all at their feet. You were wrong. The woman requested the punishment, and the court granted it.

In other words, you believe what you read about Shariah courts from sources like The Sun, the Daily Mirror, and Fox News, and then think you know how Shariah courts work.

Yes she does. That’s the irony.

No I don’t. I do apologize for that last post, it was over the top.

That isn’t what I think, and that’s certainly not what happens (anyway, I don’t see any of this as a matter of ‘winning’). But at times I do grow weary of the incredible ignorance shown by people who, in this modern age of communication and vast information, refuse to inform themselves properly on subjects concerning which they then pontificate.

Apostasy is leaving Islam, and people are still being killed quite legally for it.

Well the poor woman was blinded with acid. If someone did that to me, I’d probably want the same thing to happen to them. On the other hand from the safety of a nice warm office I don’t support judicial blinding and I don’t think the legal system should do it. In a non Shariah law the legal system wouldn’t grant her request. It doesn’t seem at all unfair to me to blame the judges for this, since they are supposed to consider things dispassionately, unlike victims.

In other words, you believe what you read about Shariah courts from sources like The Sun, the Daily Mirror, and Fox News, and then think you know how Shariah courts work.[/quote]
Well this case is reported by the BBC.

Still, no media is reliable, but no one is suggesting that this case didn’t happen. You can find the same cases reported all over the place. The fact of the matter is the Shariah courts do impose medieval and or unjust punishments (like stoning rape victims for adultery), that’s not something which tabloids make up, even if they do tend to dwell on it to sell papers.

Actually I don’t think it’s bad that they do that. If you look at the Afghan guy who was almost executed for converting from Islam to Christianity, the outcry in the Western press convinced Karzai to intervene. It’s the same I think with Amina Lawal, if it hadn’t been for massive and very hostile coverage of the decision to stone her to death for adultery, the sentence would have been carried out.

Certainly in the Islamic countries themselves it would be a very bad idea to criticise these sorts of verdicts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_i … ic_of_Iran

I’m sure if you read some Islamic apologist text (Islam for Dhimmis? :wink: ) all this stuff is glossed over and it seems more high brow than the tabloids, but that doesn’t make it more accurate.

Apostasy is leaving Islam, and people are still being killed quite legally for it.[/quote]

That wasn’t under dispute. What was under dispute is whether or not it is legal in Muslim nations for Muslims to kill non-Muslims as Muslims did in Mohammed’s day. At present, all evidence says no. The most which is legally allowed (and that in very few countries), is that Muslims who apostasize from Islam may legally be executed.

You can blame the judges all you like, I won’t disagree that they are responsible for permitting it. But the original question was whether Sharia law required it. The answer to that was ‘no’.

In other words, you believe what you read about Shariah courts from sources like The Sun, the Daily Mirror, and Fox News, and then think you know how Shariah courts work.[/quote]

And thus it said nothing about Sharia courts ‘imposing draconian or down right barking mad penalties for all sorts of things, and quoting some psychopathic Quran verse to justify it’.

The fact of the matter is that some Sharia courts do this. Not all. And not all Muslim countries are governed by Sharia law. I have been objecting to you attempting to describe all Muslim countries as operating under Sharia law, and all Sharia courts as behaving in the same way. They aren’t, and they don’t.

Again you cite a single example (Iran).

I don’t read Dhimmi literature if I can help it. It’s usually painfully bad apologetic, demonstrating only too well that they’re very new to it.

@Fortigurn

According to these suras from the Q’uran Non believers should be killed

sura 4:89 they long that ye should not believe even as they disbelieve- take them and kill them wherever you find them

9:123, O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

2:193 slay and kill non-believers

2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them

These are a few of the many verses of the Q’uran urging Muslims to fight and kill those who don’t believe

Also here are some clerics suggestion that non believers are legitimate targets for terror attacks and that there should be more attacks on the west

Abu Abdullah (The West should be subjected to more attacks http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=PmZD7kgfTLY
Anjem Choudary (when we say innocent people we mean Muslims http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=C73ePf_2KVw
Undercover mosque part 1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee2_1208691530

@Fortigurn

According to these suras from the Q’uran Non believers should be killed[/quote]

Yes, I’m well aware of them. They form the basis for part of my argument. The fact is that in the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries it is illegal to kill non-believers ‘wherever you find them’, despite what the Q’uran says. This demonstrates, as I have already shown, that Muslm countries do not simply follow the Q’uran and Hadith blindly, as has been claimed here.

This was not the matter under dispute. You’re changing the subject.

Whether or not killing over apostasy is legal is not really the issue, it is whether it is being practiced or not that matters. It’s a lot like zebra crossing etiquette in Taiwan: the law says that cars shall indeed stop for pedestrians, but 99% of them don’t give a hoot, and a signed pedestrian crossing is really just a target range for cars hunting pedestrians. Of course, a death sentence for apostasy is a bit more infringing of one’s basic rights to freedom of religious thought, but the outcome is still the same: death by stoning or death by vehicular manslaughter is still death.

The issue originally being discussed was whether or not Muslim countries permit Muslims to do legally anything which Muslims did in Mohammed’s day, and whether or not Muslim nations blindly follow the Qu’ran, Hadith, and Sharia law. That was the issue originally being discussed. Thus far the claims made concerning these issues have all been debunked.

I have no love for Islam, the Q’uran, the Hadith, or Sharia law. Nor, for that matter, for Muslim nations. But if we’re going to discuss these issues, let’s get our facts straight.

‘Blame the judges’ for what precisely?