Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

kanelli wrote: Other societies should not be forced to change more quickly than they are ready for

The universal declaration of human rights by the UN is BS then?

^Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allow for capital punishments? (Serious question - not sure of the answer).

{Edit:

Amnesty International argues that it does:

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice.
It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.

}

..then many states are in violation of it - from China, Saudi Arabia to the US (who execute children, human rights groups often point out) - as well as Iran etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:LOL - eh that's a new one on me. The Quran I have doesn't say it is ok for me to kill my kids if they disobey me.

Mel - as for ancient pre-Islamic Persia - they had some inventive ways of executing people (please excuse going slightly off topic):

Scaphism, also known as the boats, was an ancient Persian method of execution designed to inflict torturous death. The name comes from the Greek word skaphe, meaning "scooped (or hollowed) out".

The naked person was firmly fastened within a face-to-face pair of narrow rowing boats (or a hollowed-out tree trunk), with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey to the point of developing severe diarrhea, and more honey would be rubbed on his body to attract insects to the exposed appendages. He or she would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects, which would eat and breed within his or her exposed and increasingly gangrenous flesh. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that dehydration or starvation did not provide him or her with the release of death. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism

It is 100% off topic! we are talking about chopping off hands and stonning here! what was your intention of bringing up the ways of punishment?!

I m sure in all nations and historical scriptures, you can find this rubbish! oh btw, although your post is very off topic it is not being practced now in persia!

^Yes Mel - as I said it was off topic - but I would classify scaphism as a punishment, and I'd say it is worse than stoning as a means of execution! Are you sure that the Persians didn't chop off hands? What was the punishment for persistent theives (serious question)?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:

kanelli wrote: Other societies should not be forced to change more quickly than they are ready for

The universal declaration of human rights by the UN is BS then?

Personally, I don't think it is BS, but plenty of countries, including Western and non-Islamic ones don't follow the UN declaration of human rights.

kanelli wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:

kanelli wrote: Other societies should not be forced to change more quickly than they are ready for

The universal declaration of human rights by the UN is BS then?

Personally, I don't think it is BS, but plenty of countries, including Western and non-Islamic ones don't follow the UN declaration of human rights.

Thats absolute zero excuse for poking somebody's eye out and cutting his ear based on Islamic law.

But have you established that it is Islamic law, or laws that tend to be practiced in some Islamic countries? (Like how female genital mutilation is not according to Islam, though some like to accuse it of being so. It is practiced in some Islamic countries but also non-Islamic ones.)

shafique wrote:^Yes Mel - as I said it was off topic - but I would classify scaphism as a punishment, and I'd say it is worse than stoning as a means of execution! Are you sure that the Persians didn't chop off hands? What was the punishment for persistent theives (serious question)?

Cheers,
Shafique

prison!

which u can not find in islamic rules! because they used to live in tents and they didnt have prison! they just could kill or lash!
that s the super funny part of islamic punishments!

event horizon wrote:Indeed. If you don't honor your parents, turn rebellious or convert to another religion, your parents may have a right to kill you - it's all in the Koran, unfortunately.

dear oh dear...
Where is it in quran? I need some lecturing on this one.....

melika969 wrote:

shafique wrote:What was the punishment for persistent theives (serious question)?

prison!

which u can not find in islamic rules! because they used to live in tents and they didnt have prison! they just could kill or lash!
that s the super funny part of islamic punishments!

[/quote]

Excellent - where can I look up this fact from?

The ancient Persians were quite advanced if they had prisons for persistent thieves! Something that didn't come to Europe many centuries later I'd say - so another thing for Iranians to be proud about.

(You're right - Arabia didn't have prisons in the 7th century)

Cheers,
Shafique

Oops, I almost forgot - the Quran itself talks about God revealing the eye-for-an-eye law to the Jews:

And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allâh has revealed, such are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong¬doers - of a lesser degree).

And in their footsteps, We sent 'Īsā (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), confirming the Taurât (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurât (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2). (46) Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allâh has revealed therein. And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fâsiqûn (the rebellious disbelievers). (Quran 5:45-47)

What God does not say is that an eye for an eye has to be applied literally in all circumstances.

I guess eh should answer the question why he didn't quote these verses in his OP.

Cheers,
Shafique

herve wrote:You can debate all day and turn around interpretations of whos done it before, or wher it comes from, fact is that it is an Iranian court , today, and not 2,000 years ago, who ordered this barbaric judgment.

In the Islamic view of history, it is worth pointing out, what is primitive has never been necessarily uncivilized. The first man was given all necessary knowledge and guidance, and though he may have been technologically backward compared to the twentieth century, he definitely was not humanly backward. Uncivilized is what man thinks and does in deviating from the divine order.

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Sate ... z19aNdL5zx

kanelli wrote:Like how female genital mutilation is not according to Islam

There are saying of Muhammed with examples of FGM and he is not against it. I donot think anywhere in the Quran or hadith, it is forbidden. I cannot see how FGM goes against Islam. Its not obligary, but its also not against ISlam.

^There are cultural practices which do fall outside the tenets/teachings of Islam (which aren't forbidden or alternatively aren't a requirement either).

If the religion of Islam does not require a certain practice (such as FGM) then it can't be termed Islamic.

I think that's an easy test of logic to check whether any practice is Islamic or just a secular/cultural. You can apply this to driving a car, riding a camel/horse, smoking shisha etc.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... al_cutting
Al Azar is categoric - FGM not Islamic, and in depth treatment on the hadith you referred to.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:^There are cultural practices which do fall outside the tenets/teachings of Islam (which aren't forbidden or alternatively aren't a requirement either).

So, its halal.

^ see the edit I just posted above.

FGM is not halal:

Muslim scholars rule female circumcision un-Islamic
November 24, 2006 - 11:31AM

A Egyptian conference of Muslim scholars from around the world declared female circumcision to be contrary to Islam and an attack on women, and called today for those who practice it to be punished.
..

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/mus ... 89618.html

Cheers,
Shafique

Very encouraging, that an such an authority on Islamic law, al-azhar, has issued a fatwa so categorically against FGM.

Agreed.

But many Muslims also confuse cultural practices for religous ones too - but mostly it is easy enough to tell them apart. Many Muslims from the Indian sub-continent, for example, will follow some customs that are Indian/Hindu based - such as certain wedding rituals (Mehendi, 'chowtari') - these aren't Islamic as such, but as they are not forbidden it's seen as ok.

I've read reports of Muslims in India demanding dowries for their daughters - now that is definitely unIslamic (Islam says the groom pays the bride) - but it is a practice they culturally haven't got rid of yet. (Not many of these, fortunately).

The innovations such as stoning, killing of apostates and blasphemers fall into the category of some Muslims believing these are Islamic injunctions when in fact they aren't.

Cheers,
Shafique

The innovations such as stoning, killing of apostates and blasphemers fall into the category of some Muslims believing these are Islamic injunctions when in fact they aren't.

You can't call something an innovation or un-Islamic without any evidence. Execution for apostasy is confirmed as a tenet of Islam from the fact that the earliest Muslim scholars, having lived during the time of Muhammad, had ruled that the punishment for apostasy is execution.

This is an established practice in Islam just as much as how a Muslim will pray - also derived from the practices of the earliest Muslims and found no where in the Koran.

dear oh dear...
Where is it in quran? I need some lecturing on this one.....

It's in the 18th chapter of the Koran where a prophet of Islam follows a man who kills a child (and the man does other things the prophet does not initially understand).

Later on after questioning the man (whom some Muslims also believe was a prophet), the man explained to the prophet that he killed the child because he would become rebellious against his parents and convert to another religion.

Koran 18:74 - So they departed; until, when they met a lad, he slew him. He said, 'What, hast thou slain a soul innocent, and that not to retaliate for a soul slain? Thou hast indeed done a horrible thing.'

Koran 18:80-81 - As for the lad, his parents were believers; and we were afraid he would impose on them insolence and unbelief;

so we desired that their Lord should give to them in exchange one better than he in purity, and nearer in tenderness.

The Koran, in that part of the story, clearly believes killing children who may convert to another religion is an honorable thing to do.

Since most Muslims do not know the future, the lesson Muslims can take from this story is that it is 'ok' to kill your children if they become a disbeliever after the fact or you suspect them of becoming a disbeliever - just as it is 'ok' to sink a ship before it can fall into enemy hands, which is what the man did as well but the prophet who was following him at the time did not know this until after he was told by the man that this event would happen.

You're having a laugh aren't you?

eh - you claimed that the Quran says a parent can kill a rebellious child. You've failed (again) to back up this outrageous claim.

Exodus is clear - a child cursing their parent should be killed. Quite unambiguous wording - and a verse that quite rightly should not be acted upon. There is no equivalent in the Quran - only a wild stab at a fantastical interpretation.

18:74 etc is actually talking about an incident involving Moses!

Epic failure eh, epic.

Cheers,
Shafique

Koran 18:80-81 - As for the lad, his parents were believers; and we were afraid he would impose on them insolence and unbelief;

so we desired that their Lord should give to them in exchange one better than he in purity, and nearer in tenderness.

Seems clear to me.

It's 'ok' to honor kill your child if they become a disbeliever.

Did you even read the chapter eh?

The incident being referred to is an encounter Moses had. I'm sure even you learnt about Moses in Bible class. And, more to the point, no where does it say a parent can kill a child for insolence. sigh.

(In any case, 18:60 onwards is recounting a spiritual journey of Moses)

Epic. Failure. Again.

Cheers,
Shafique

I hear Moses didn't eat pork, do Muslims?

The incident being referred to is an encounter Moses had.

But that example is in the Koran.

Why should Muslims ignore the pieces in the Koran - why were they even inserted in the Koran if Muslims are supposed to ignore them?

And, more to the point, no where does it say a parent can kill a child for insolence. sigh.

The passage is an ethical standard for Muslims to follow.

No where in that example is killing a child for honor condemned. Exactly the opposite message is passed instead; that killing children for rebellion/apostasy is on par with other good deeds such as storing treasure for the right people to inherit or sinking a ship to prevent the enemy from taking it over.

LOL.

Must try harder, eh, must try harder.

You really are fooling no one with your fantastical interpretation to try and cover up the fact that Exodus does actually say a child cursing their parent should be killed!

I can't believe you're still arguing with a straight face that:
"Quran says it is ok for a parent to kill a child!"

Wow - and you believed whichever website told you this!

Cheers,
Shafique

[Mod: Moved to Religion forum due to subject matter being mostly about scriptural issues]

It does say in the Old Testament that children may be killed for seemingly minor transgressions against their parents which I find disturbing. The bible is supposedly a great source of moral guidance and I find it unthinkable that I (or any other parent) could have their own children put to death.

On the surface, these laws may appear to be evil, although I don't think that Moses instated evil laws and I think he was acting with compasion. I think in some situations making a law which allows a child put to death may be the lessor of two evils and in the particular society that Moses was leading, there was a real and present danger that children would simply abandon their elders when they became a burden, leaving them to die. In order to protect the welfare of the elderly, such draconian laws were instated to impress on people their duty to honor and support their parents.

In modern times, killing children cannot be regarded as the lessor of two evils as people don't depend on their children for their survival in the way they once did, therefore on that basis, this law should not be retained.

The Bible contains many grisly and violent passages that everyone agrees these days should be ignored as instructions.

Most Christians would actually denounce the war crimes described in the Bible - such as the wholesale slaughter of captured people (only sparing the virgins for the captors). For example we have:

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens" (Numbers 31:17-18).

And an actual war crime is described in the Bible - see:
philosophy-dubai/biblical-war-crimes-t40711-105.html#p330779


That said, most would agree that Christians and Jews would not take these verses to heart as instructions for today.

With the Quran, we have categoric verses which forbid murder and even instructions which forbid the pre-Islamic Arab practice of female infanticide (burying their baby daughters alive).

The previous few exchanges above illustrate graphically the difference between a person who is a critic of Islamic teachings and perhaps follows another religion, with an Islamophobe. A critic will have an honest debate whilst an Islamophobe constructs a fantasy view of Islam and ignores reality - in this case making a fanatastic argument that the Quran says it is ok for parents to kill their children if they are rebellious.

Indeed, it shows that eh is just a troll when it comes to discussing Islamic theology.

Credit is due to FD who expressed his view and understanding of the Islamic stance regarding female circumcission/FGM - and when it was shown that this view was mistaken and that mainstream, major scholars have condemned this as unislamic and a even punishable crime, he acknowledged and welcomed the clarification. (FD and I don't see eye-to-eye on many other issues, but that's the nature of debate and having different views on subjects)

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:I hear Moses didn't eat pork, do Muslims?

The incident being referred to is an encounter Moses had.

But that example is in the Koran.

Why should Muslims ignore the pieces in the Koran - why were they even inserted in the Koran if Muslims are supposed to ignore them?

Muslims, well better say believing muslims don't ignore any passage or verse of the quran..
Believers do not read and choose selective verses only to degrade what they don't understand..
Read the whole chapter as a whole...what actually has been explained there is that it is only him (God) that has supremacy and absolute wisdom on our everyday of life..

The story of Moses and Khidr reminds us that God is the Most Wise. For the frail human being life can hold great joy and laughter but sometimes we are beset by trials, tragedies, and calamities that seemingly make no sense. As believers we should believe that whatever God’s decree is it stems from His Supreme and Absolute Wisdom.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/3467/

.

It's a shame that many still have these beliefs today. Only the other day a friend and I were having discussions along these lines and she was shocked, that a Pakistani work mate stated that if his daughter ever have s.e.x before marriage that he would kill her! My friends other work mate, who is Emirati, laid into the guy, telling him he is no muslim and he has no right to think that he has the right to take the life of his own child.

But in Pakistan honour killings are rife.

Its ironic that the "honor killings" which is practiced by a large majority of muslims everywhere , is nothing more than cold blooded murder , which will achieve the exact opposite of what the criminal initially intended