Capital Punishment

[barney]

In every society, on the face of the earth, rape is against the law.

If Sharia law is implemented rape is still against the law.

The law will not change. All that will change is the punishment. It will be something barbaric.

And, under Sharia courts, proving rape is more difficult than in western courts. Four witnesses ???? It becomes easy to get away with rape.

-

But ya gotta admit. The STATISTIC's would drop!:skeleton:

 

[Sampharo]

And, under Sharia courts, proving rape is more difficult than in western courts. Four witnesses ???? It becomes easy to get away with rape.

-

It is a growing trend for non-muslims to take swipes at Islam, and it seems one of the more convenient methods is to spread misinformation. It may be a psychological way to make themselves and the western man made laws appear or feel superior, even though they are actually proven statistically and by widespreading expert opinion to have become toothless and useless business for lawyers rather than a genuine tool of justice.

Whether or not you meant to, that information that you presented is false. Rape does not requires four witnesses in Islamic Shariah, only the plaintiff and proof or one witness vouching he heard her scream or watched her being forcefully taken or pulled into a car for example. Proof can be any logical material evidence, which includes in this day and age DNA and other forensic testing.

 

[Argamemnon]

Re: How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

why on Earth do you think the primary job of a woman is raising children?

Because men can't be mothers. It's one of those things we have no control over; God created men and women. I never said women aren't allowed to work (the prophet's wife was a merchant), but the children must always be put before their career. This is of utmost importance because raising happy children will create a healthy society. These are all facts, not my 'personal values'.

By the way, the primary job of a man is providing for his wife and children.

 

[Argamemnon]

Like I said, the 'natural' way of doing things does not imply Good and the unnatural way of doing things does not imply bad.

Really? Could you elaborate?

The person I was responding seemed to be implying that a woman shouldn't put her career ahead of kids and stuff.

Exactly, she should never put her career ahead of kids. How on earth could you possibly disagree?

 

[barney]

Well in 630AD they had not got formula milk, so for a period of 1 year, as the child weaned onto solids, the woman was morally bound to raise the kid.As regards feeding only.

So we should perpetuate this role forever, no matter the desires of the woman?

 

[Italianguy]

Re: How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

Because men can't be mothers; it's one of those things we have no control over. God created men and women. I never said women aren't allowed to work, but their children must always come first and it's not an easy job for sure. These are all facts, not my 'personal values'.

Amen to that! I don't understand those liberals? I would agree with you bro. Some people especially liberals feel as if men and women are equalls....wrong!....Women, mothers, sisters, aunties, grandmothers are much stronger than us. They are our future...not behind a desk, but raising our children to be strong in faith. We as men can never know a mothers love for their children, it's so much a bond, a bond hat God gave to women and their children....our children. Being a mother is the hardest job on the planet.

God bless all moms!....and future mom's:statisfie

 

[Argamemnon]

Re: How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

Amen to that! I don't understand those liberals? I would agree with you bro. Some people especially liberals feel as if men and women are equalls....wrong!....Women, mothers, sisters, aunties, grandmothers are much stronger than us. They are our future...not behind a desk, but raising our children to be strong in faith. We as men can never know a mothers love for their children, it's so much a bond, a bond hat God gave to women and their children....our children. Being a mother is the hardest job on the planet.

God bless all moms!....and future mom's:statisfie

We are in full agreement bro :statisfie

 

[Skavau]

Really? Could you elaborate?

It is the basic naturalistic fallacy. Diseases are perfectly natural but no-one would argue that they are a good thing. Our bodies are ready for sexual intercourse far sooner than most people would be mentally ready, interested or prepared for reproduction and yet we would not claim that we ought to sexually reproduce as soon as possible.

 

[Musliman]

Re: How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

Amen to that! I don't understand those liberals? I would agree with you bro. Some people especially liberals feel as if men and women are equalls....wrong!....Women, mothers, sisters, aunties, grandmothers are much stronger than us. They are our future...not behind a desk, but raising our children to be strong in faith. We as men can never know a mothers love for their children, it's so much a bond, a bond hat God gave to women and their children....our children. Being a mother is the hardest job on the planet.

God bless all moms!....and future mom's:statisfie

"Inna al janatou ta7ta akdami ale oumahat" which means, literally : Paradise is is under mothers's feet (from the Quran)

 

[Lynx]

Really? Could you elaborate?


Exactly, she should never put her career ahead of kids. How on earth could you possibly disagree?

Just because something is natural it does not follow that that is the desired way of things. Diseases are the common example of natural but bad things. Similarly, technology is unnatural but it's much better. There are natural instincts that we have to not obey because obeying them would make things worse.

I posted later to ask, and this is what I meant, if a woman decides not to have kids for the sake of career or education or whatever...would that be okay? I agree that kids come first and I was being really unclear but I meant to say if a woman decided not to have kids would that be going against her 'real job' of being a mom?

 

[aamirsaab]

...
So we should perpetuate this role forever, no matter the desires of the woman?

Point is, to remove that role is to deny her primary role as caregiver. Psychologically speaking, there is a special bond between mother and child that the father (and anyone else for that matter) just doesn't have. This relationship imprints on the son for his future wife (most cases, the wife has similarities with ones mother) which leads to higher survival rate.

So there is a lot of wisdom in Islamic teachings concerning this matter. Yes you can completely ignore this aspect, but it will have a cost later on down the line.

Technically this is off-topic though.

 

[Eliphaz]

It is a growing trend for non-muslims to take swipes at Islam, and it seems one of the more convenient methods is to spread misinformation. It may be a psychological way to make themselves and the western man made laws appear or feel superior, even though they are actually proven statistically and by widespreading expert opinion to have become toothless and useless business for lawyers rather than a genuine tool of justice.

Whether or not you meant to, that information that you presented is false. Rape does not requires four witnesses in Islamic Shariah, only the plaintiff and proof or one witness vouching he heard her scream or watched her being forcefully taken or pulled into a car for example. Proof can be any logical material evidence, which includes in this day and age DNA and other forensic testing.

Dear Sampharo, can you please provide proof for this?

 

[Sampharo]

Dear Sampharo, can you please provide proof for this?

Dear Eliphaz,

Proof for which part? Weakness of Western laws/ or growing misrepresentation of Islamic information/ or that a rape victim needs only one witness or proof of the forceful rape?

If you're asking about the shariah law regarding rape, then most certainly. Here is some sources on the matter:

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (i.e., if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess, and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him). There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her, which may be proven by her screaming and shouting for help. End quote.
Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146

Ibn al-‘Arabi said, telling of the time when he was a judge: "Some bandits were brought before me who had gone out to attack a group of travellers. They took a woman by force from her husband and the group of Muslims who were with him, and carried her off. Then they were hunted down, caught and brought to me. I asked one of the muftis with whom Allaah tested me about them and he said that they were not muhaaribeen, because haraabah (the crime of waging war against Allaah and His Messenger) applies only with regard to wealth, not rape! I said to them: To Allaah we belong and unto Him is our return (said by Muslims at times of calamity). Do you not know that haraabah (aggression) against honour is worse than aggression against wealth? All people would agree to lose their wealth and have it confiscated from them rather than to see aggression committed against their wives or daughters. If there were any punishment more severe than that which Allaah has mentioned, it would be for those who kidnap women." [Sahih Muslim; Sahih Al-Bukhary]

Sheikh Saleh Al-Munajjid: The rapist is subject to the hadd for zina, even if the rape was not carried out at knife-point or gun-point. If the use of a weapon was threatened, then he is a muhaarib, and is to be subjected to the hadd described in the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

​

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter”​

[al-Maaidah 5:33]

So the judge has the choice of the four punishments mentioned in this verse, and may choose whichever he thinks is most suitable to attain the objective, which is to spread peace and security in society, and ward off evildoers and aggressors.

Saudi Council: The majority of the Council believes that the deputies of the ruler – the judges – have the obligation to prove the type of crime and to pass judgement accordingly. If it is proven that it is a crime that constitutes war against Allaah and His Messenger (muhaarabah) and spreading mischief in the land, then they have the choice of issuing a sentence of execution, crucifixion, cutting off a hand and foot on opposite sides, or exile from the land, based on their ijtihaad and paying attention to the situation of the criminal and the circumstances of the crime, as well as its impact on society and what may best achieve the interests of Islam and the Muslims, unless the muhaarib has killed, in which case he should definitely be executed, as Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maaliki narrated that there was consensus among the scholars on this point. Among the Hanbalis, the author of al-Insaaf said: There is no dispute on this point. End quote from a paper published by the Council of Senior Scholars under the title al-Hukm fi’l-Satw wa’l-Ikhtitaaf wa Muskiraat, p. 192-104.​

As for the first two points, I think the Internet has enough statistics to show proof of those. I think actually this forum can show many examples of the second point where many muslim members have spent a lot of effort just refuting false information rather than prejudiced or confused opinion. Statistics for countries under Western laws versus those under Shariah laws can be examined here:

# 1 South Africa: 1.19538 per 1,000 people
# 2 Seychelles: 0.788294 per 1,000 people
# 3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people
# 4 Montserrat: 0.749384 per 1,000 people
# 5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people
# 6 Jamaica: 0.476608 per 1,000 people
# 7 Zimbabwe: 0.457775 per 1,000 people
# 8 Dominica: 0.34768 per 1,000 people
# 9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
# 10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people
# 11 Papua New Guinea: 0.233544 per 1,000 people
# 12 New Zealand: 0.213383 per 1,000 people
# 13 United Kingdom: 0.142172 per 1,000 people
# 14 Spain: 0.140403 per 1,000 people
# 15 France: 0.139442 per 1,000 people.
.
.
.
# 62 Indonesia: 0.00567003 per 1,000 people
# 63 Yemen: 0.0038597 per 1,000 people
# 64 Azerbaijan: 0.00379171 per 1,000 people
# 65 Saudi Arabia: 0.00329321 per 1,000 people

Interesting, huh?

 

[Supreme]

Well, Azerbaijan and Indonesia aren't under Sharia Law. Plus, do you even know what a Western country is? South Africa isn't a Western country, and neither is the Seychelles, Montserrat, Jamaica, Zimbabwe, Dominica, Papua New Guinea...

 

[Sampharo]

^ Many regions within those two countries are under some form of Shariah, and all four countries are muslim. For the other countries the discussion is whether they are under Western LAWS, nobody suggested they are actually in the WEST or First World as that is irrelevent.

 

[Woodrow]

If this has not been resolved by now, it never will be. Time to bring it to an end before it goes downhill.

:threadclo: