Kuwait ruler rejects death penalty for religious offences

[Abz2000]

KUWAIT CITY: Kuwait’s Ameer, Sheikh Sabah al Ahmad al Sabah, has refused to sign a bill passed by parliament stipulating the death penalty for major religious offences, sources in the assembly said Wednesday.
The oil-rich Gulf state’s government has sent the bill back to parliament on Wednesday, sources said, indicating that it had been rejected by the Ameer.
The Ameer has the power to refuse bills passed by the elected parliament, but the assembly can override the rejection by passing the bill again with a two-thirds majority of the house membership of 49 MPs and 16 cabinet ministers.
The bill, passed by parliament last month, stipulates that Muslims who curse God, the Muslim holy book Quran, all prophets (PBUT) and the wives of Prophet Mohammed (RA) will be punished by death or life in jail.

Yet they all seem to unanimously support illegal drone massacres based on nothing but suspicion for blasphemy against the satanic practices of leaders who illegally and immorally invade Muslim lands.

source:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/389732/k...ious-offences/

[Pygoscelis]

The bill, passed by parliament last month, stipulates that Muslims who curse God, the Muslim holy book Quran, all prophets (PBUT) and the wives of Prophet Mohammed (RA) will be punished by death or life in jail.

Good for him for stopping such a thing! Shows that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty.

Yet they all seem to unanimously support illegal drone massacres based on nothing but suspicion for blasphemy against the satanic practices of leaders who illegally and immorally invade Muslim lands.

That is quite the rhetoric. I'm not even sure what "blasphemy agaisnt satanic practices" is supposed to mean, but I do agree that drone attacks against innocent civilians has happened and is inexcusable.

Am I allowed to oppose both of these slaughters? Or is that too anti-tribal for you?

[~ Sabr ~]

In Islaam, what offence can have the outcome of a death penalty?

[جوري]

Or is that too anti-tribal for you?

You're supremely tribal- and it is amusing that your so blind to self.. but your tribe's methodology & tenets are those of intellectual intimidation, brain washing, pseudo-intellect & escape from responsibility & reality with much ado about meaningless drivel such as we see above & else where; Whereby you can't distinguish active killing from 'wishes'. You dwell more on words than actions which carry actual determent and ultimately capitalize on religious confusion that exists with what you desire to see in your telescopic view to defer from searching for truth and in hopes of wider acceptance a banner under which all goes- where weed and harvest go hand in hand. Your moral compass is questionable at best and anyone that doesn't subscribe to your ideology or the world as you see & understand it is of some other tribe.. Well what do you name your tribe? Cognitive conservatism?



best,

[Hulk]

Good for him for stopping such a thing! Shows that not all Muslims are bloodthirsty.

What kind of idiotic statement is this? So muslims are generally bloodthirsty and only a handful are not? How about all atheists are arrogant and pseudo-logical? You talk a lot about tribalism but you yourself are stuck in that concept. Just because people have a different culture than you doesn't make them inferior.

No one is forcing you to agree or disagree with the report but comments like that are plain idiotic.

[aamirsaab]

...source.

[جوري]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/389732/k...ious-offences/

[~ Sabr ~]

In Islaam, what offence can have the outcome of a death penalty?

????????

[Muhammad]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

Capital punishment can in no way be likened to blind attacks against innocent civilians, and if anyone is being bloodthirsty here it is clearly in the latter case. Let us not forget that 'the rhetoric' goes both ways.

[Muhammad]

^^ An example of such an offence would be adultery, but the death penalty would only be applied if certain conditions are met. There's a post about it here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/worship-...tml#post591159

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

---

On the authority of Abdullah Bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: "There will be rulers over you, who will leave the sunnah like this," and he pointed to the origin of his finger. "If you were to leave these rulers alone, they will bring great affliction and disaster. There has been no previous ummah except that the first thing they left from their religion was the sunnah, and the last to be left was the salat , and were not these rulers shy and afraid from people, they would not pray". (Narrated by Al-Hakim and he said this is saheeh hadith on the condition of Bukhari and Muslim).

---

Al-Harth narrated on the authority of Ibn Masood that the messenger (saw) said: "For every matter, there is a thing that spoils it, and what spoils this deen is the evil rulers". (Saheeh according to Imam Suyooti)

---

On the authority of Abu Musa(ra), the messenger of Allah (saw) said: "In the hellfire there is a valley, and in this valley there is a well called "Habahab", it is duty upon Allah to reside in this well every stubborn oppressor (ruler)". (Narated by Tabarani and its Isnad is Hasan)

---

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings Pygoscelis,

Capital punishment can in no way be likened to blind attacks against innocent civilians, and if anyone is being bloodthirsty here it is clearly in the latter case. Let us not forget that 'the rhetoric' goes both ways.

And let us not forget that I just said I oppose both. Why is that so hard to accept? By either "side"? I get the same sort of reaction but in reverse on the conservative pro-USA / anti-muslim boards.

And yes, the two can very much be likened to one another. Killing people because they are put on some suspect list and hunted down with drones (and often innocent civilians) or killing people merely because they leave or speak against your religion are both equally reprehensible to me. Both are bloodthirsty acts, and I am very glad that the latter is not something that all muslims support, just as I am glad that the former is not something that all western people support. Good for Kuwait!

Whereby you can't distinguish active killing from 'wishes'.

I can distinguish active killing from wishing people dead, and I can see that both are wrong.

[Pygoscelis]

So muslims are generally bloodthirsty and only a handful are not?

I didn't say that. Those are you words, not mine.

But apparently enough muslims in Kuwait were bloodthirsty enough to call for the death of anybody who spoke some words they don't like about their religion. This man in the article wasn't bloodthirsty and shut it down. Good for him. Most muslims I know in my personal life would agree wholeheartedly with him and look on with dismay at those who pushed this forward so he had to stop it.

Just because people have a different culture than you doesn't make them inferior.

Again, I didn't say that.

But if these particular people call for the deaths of others like this then they are bloodthirsty, and shutting down their agenda is admirable. The man deserves kudos.

[Perseveranze]

I didn't say that. Those are you words, not mine.

But apparently enough muslims in Kuwait were bloodthirsty enough to call for the death of anybody who spoke some words they don't like about their religion.

There's a pretty fine line between insulting a religion and simply saying you dislike it or aspects of it.

Burn the Qur'an day, draw prophets day etc. is different to saying you don't believe Islam is the truth.

[جوري]

I can distinguish active killing from wishing people dead, and I can see that both are wrong.

Indeed, which is exactly why I stated you've a questionable moral compass at best!
Every society has its criminals. When your body is infested with cancer cells do you ask for therapy that will put them to an arrest stage with hopes of remission. Do you opt to cauterise to excise or do you prefer a meaningless tirade shark tooth from an infomercial some folk medicine from a quack who struck up a tent.
You owe yourself the dignity of not being a hypocrite as you know the rest of us see through the transeperancy of that charade!

[Pygoscelis]

There's a pretty fine line between insulting a religion and simply saying you dislike it or aspects of it.

Calling for somebody's death for doing either is bloodthirsty, just as some yahoo american calling for the deaths of foreigners, immigrants, or those who insult the USA or Israel is bloodthirsty, and I'll fully endorse anybody who seeks to end that kind of barbarism, regardless of their religion or culture.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

And let us not forget that I just said I oppose both. Why is that so hard to accept? By either "side"? I get the same sort of reaction but in reverse on the conservative pro-USA / anti-muslim boards. And yes, the two can very much be likened to one another. Killing people because they are put on some suspect list and hunted down with drones (and often innocent civilians) or killing people merely because they leave or speak against your religion are both equally reprehensible to me. Both are bloodthirsty acts, and I am very glad that the latter is not something that all muslims support, just as I am glad that the former is not something that all western people support. Good for Kuwait!

Punishing someone for a crime and killing an innocent civilian are two very different things. Firstly, it should be noted very clearly that Islam does not condone carrying out capital punishment based upon suspicion. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, 'Avert punishments in the case of suspicion as much as you can.' For example, Islam prescribes that both adulterer and adulteress should be stoned but it does not inflict such punishment unless they are married persons and upon conclusive evidence by four eye witnesses. If the four witnesses are missing then the only way to apply the punishment is that they willingly admit it. And even if they admit, they should be asked several times to make sure that they are aware of what they are saying. And if only one of them confessed to have committed adultery, then it is only that one who is punished by stoning. Hence it is little surprise that due to the difficulty in proving this crime because of its strict conditions, the punishment of stoning is hardly applied.

As for apostasy, even in countries where the death penalty is opposed, serious acts against their constitutions may be punishable by death or life imprisonment. Apostasy from Islam (the religion of Allah) and rebellion against its system, which the person first chose freely and accepted without compulsion, is much worse than rebelling against man-made systems and institutions. The apostate is given a last opportunity to repent and return back to Islam before being executed. If he perseveres and refuses to return to what he has committed himself to, i.e. Islam, he is then executed.

Islam imposes preventive punishments which may appear cruel or coarse if viewed superficially or without proper consideration. But Islam does not execute such punishments unless it ascertains that the crime was not justifiable or that the criminal was not acting under any obligation.

It is because people have not studied the reality of the Islamic concept of crime and punishment that they consider the punishments prescribed by Islam as barbarous and degrading to human dignity. They wrongly imagine that such punishments - like the European Civil punishments - will be inflicted every day. They also fancy that the Islamic society indulges in daily executions of flogging, hand-cutting and stoning. But this is nonsense conjured by misleading headlines and twisted or fabricated stories. Whilst those killing innocent civilians may find joy in witnessing persecution, it should be remembered that Islam aims at the prevention of crimes and is a system of justice and mercy.

I hope it is evident now that merciless drones functioning without purpose and capital punishment cannot be equated as the same. And that the word bloodthirsty was most certainly misplaced when you applied it to Muslims in this context:

Bloodthirsty:

1. eager to shed blood; murderous: to capture a bloodthirsty criminal.
2. enjoying or encouraging bloodshed or violence, especially as a spectator or clamorous partisan: the bloodthirsty urgings of the fight fans.

[Roasted Cashew]

"...that Muslims who curse God, the Muslim holy book Quran, all prophets (PBUT) and the wives of Prophet Mohammed (RA) will be punished by death or life in jail."

"Non-Muslims who commit the same offence face a jail term of not less than 10 years, according to the bill."

"Defendants who repent in court will be spared the death penalty, but will get a jail sentence for five years and a fine of $36,000 or one of them, while repentance by those who repeat the crime is not acceptable, the bill says."

[Pygoscelis]

No, it has nothing to do with due process etc. I understand that these punishments are not used frequently and that you have to be sure the person did it, and while good to know, that is not what I balk at. It is that you are endorsing killing people because they disagree with or speak against or leave your worldview. Reminds me of North Korea, East Germany, or the mob. I find it easily as reprehensible as drone attacks killing innocent "collateral damage" or mistaken targets etc. That is homocide by gross negligence. This is intentional homocide. I am very happy to see that the guy in this story, like pretty much all of the muslims I know in my real life (maybe Canadian muslims are super liberal?) don't support such things.

[Kyle]

????????

Killing another Muslim for no purpose, adultery, and leaving the religion. Cursing our Holy Book is indeed a form of kufr (disbelief) and the penalty could indeed be death. However, understand that there are implications. For example, with adultery, there must be 4 witnesses who were not invading privacy, etc etc. I'm no Islamic judge, so can't say too much besides Allahu Alim!