Crime and Punishment

[Qingu]

for example, a husband is owned by his wife as a wife is to her husband. Would it be alright with you to share your wife to your best friend? ... or perhaps your worst enemy?.... how would you feel? moreover, would it be ok if your wife be sleeping with another man in your own house? with the knowledge of your children?

That would not be alright with me, but that is immaterial since laws are not made by "what is alright with me."

I fail to see what this has to do with the government or crime. Adultery, in most religions (including Islam) is construed as basically a property crime. You allude to this when you claim that husbands and wives own each other. I fail to see how a human being can legally own another human being.

Blasphemy operates in the same principle. We are all children of Adam... and Adam is created by Allah....

According to your religion.

Most people in this world do not believe in your religion. Why on earth should they be subject to your blasphemy laws?

And I hope you can come up with a better answer than "because my religion happens to be the one true religion."

I am sure you will still FAIL TO SEE the wisdom of shariah. By the way, there is no country in the world that is really under shariah law....

Has there ever been a country anywhere at any time under shariah law? Because it sounds like you're saying that shariah law is simply a pipe dream that has never actually worked out in reality. Why am I not surprised—religious laws tend to be just that.

May you spend more quality time in reflection to whats really happening to humanity.... and if you can.... please read the Qur'an... find time to read it... all your questions will find their answers there. I guarantee that. Inshaallah.

I've read the Quran.

 

[believer]

I don't think he was saying that adultery wasn't a big deal (as it can cause a lot of pain), but that it shouldn't be defined by society as a crime. It should be dealt with between the participants and those affected.



I think here, as he doesn't believe God exists I think, he is saying punishing someone for blasphemy is pointless and unnecessary. So if he is right, the punishment is proscribed for no reason.

Thanks.

Adultery is a crime against partnership... in business laws... Partners sue each other for any breach of Partnership agreement. Marriage is a partnership... therefore, any breach in this partnership is a crime against the partnership contract.

I don't think anybody is getting punished for blasphemy anymore... not that I am aware about... except a few cases outside the real Islam world.

God hates those who do not recognize HIM.... specially those who associate partners with him..... (disbelievers and polytheists)... In the old days... believers are killed for preaching their religion.

Who gets punished for what really?.... then, as Religion crept into the empires... i.e., Christianity into Rome... the blasphemers or heretics gets punished. Point is... who are the real bad guys here and now?

If you don't believe in God or is you associate partners with him... I won't punish you... and nobody will. That will be left entirely to Allah alone. If you say something against any religion whatsoever which is considered blasphemy - you can only get some complaint - like what the present Pope did... but you won't get punished... we are in the 21st century bro.

What is prescribed... is to have the punishment here in this life because it is better than having it in the after life... this has something to do with repentance.... unless the offender is willing to undergo punishment - noone can subject him to what he doesn't want.

That's why it is only a presicription... take it or leave it.

If it is an abosolute commandment or order... then, you have no other option.

Prescription vs. Order - two different things.

:sunny:

 

[Whatsthepoint]

you can only get some complaint - like what the present Pope did... we are in the 21st century bro.

Some complaint...

...we are in the 21st century bro...:sunny::hmm:kay:

 

[believer]

Some complaint...

...we are in the 21st century bro...:sunny::hmm:kay:

ok... well, that's a demonstration. so who's going to punish the pope???

 

[Whatsthepoint]

I don't think he should be punished. In the developed world there's a lovely thing called free speech. And anywayw, he merely quoted a Byzantine emperor or something. What was all the fuss about?:?

 

[islamirama]

That would not be alright with me, but that is immaterial since laws are not made by "what is alright with me."

I fail to see what this has to do with the government or crime. Adultery, in most religions (including Islam) is construed as basically a property crime. You allude to this when you claim that husbands and wives own each other. I fail to see how a human being can legally own another human being.


According to your religion.

Most people in this world do not believe in your religion. Why on earth should they be subject to your blasphemy laws?

And I hope you can come up with a better answer than "because my religion happens to be the one true religion."

You can spit in th streets all you want in (lets say USA) but if you do it in Singapore, then you get cained. You respect and obey the laws of the land you are in or face the punishment, it's that simple.

Has there ever been a country anywhere at any time under shariah law? Because it sounds like you're saying that shariah law is simply a pipe dream that has never actually worked out in reality. Why am I not surprised—religious laws tend to be just that.

Have you ever tried reading history or even current events of the Muslim world?

Muslim world was ruled by Shariah law thru out history upto when monarchy came. Saudia Arabia is shariah law based (some what) and somalia was starting to thrive under shariah law of the courts before ethiopia and US bombed them to stop such an "evil thing" to continue and show the world it can solve your problems.

i think it would be prudent for you to visit this site below to clear any myths and misconceptions you hold on this topic.

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

 

[islamirama]

I don't think he should be punished. In the developed world there's a lovely thing called free speech. And anywayw, he merely quoted a Byzantine emperor or something. What was all the fuss about?:?

His choice of quotations was very bad taste, he chose to quote some moron who had anti-islam sentiments. Not very wise of the Pope (leader of the Christian world) to be quoting stuff that will stir trouble. Seems like pope got some marbles loose, he's undoing all the good and hard work Pope John did in building bridges between the two faiths.

I hear this "free speech" monotone all the time, even you will agree that your free speech is limited to you only, when it inflicts harm, incites violence, etc on others then it becomes abuse and not free speech. Me calling you mom something bad is not free speech, it's disrespectful, ignorant, insensitive and hateful stuff. Some people in here fail to see the difference.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

His choice of quotations was very bad taste, he chose to quote some moron who had anti-islam sentiments. Not very wise of the Pope (leader of the Christian world) to be quoting stuff that will stir trouble. Seems like pope got some marbles loose, he's undoing all the good and hard work Pope John did in building bridges between the two faiths.

I hear this "free speech" monotone all the time, even you will agree that your free speech is limited to you only, when it inflicts harm, incites violence, etc on others then it becomes abuse and not free speech. Me calling you mom something bad is not free speech, it's disrespectful, ignorant, insensitive and hateful stuff. Some people in here fail to see the difference.

He's not the lader of the enteire christian world, just the Catholic church. Some evangelicals hate him even more than muslims.
He quoted the emperor to express his disagreement with spreading faith using violence and claimed this isn't "God's way". He did not explicitly say Islam had spread violently (which it did), he merely quoted Manuel II, who happened to believe so.
I guess it was an intentional provocation, however the muslim response was totally inappropriate.

Despite his charming looks, the pope, in my opinion, still has the wits.:sunny:

No, I think we are entitled to free speech. People who feel insulted by one's remarks, can sue, write an article, do a interview or burn embassies...
Limiting free speech is limiting the freedom of expressing one's views, religion etc. You wouldn't wanna do that, would ya?
And if you do limit free speech you eventually find yourself in a police state where a single inappropriate word can get you fined or even killed.:nervous:
Freedom of expression can and tends to result in "disrespectful, ignorant, insensitive and hateful stuff but that's just how the world goes round. Every right/freedom produces "colatteral damage". In my opinion, unlimited free speech produces less damage than would limited freee speech.
You calling my mum something bad would probably insult me but I wouldn't go about abolishing free speech nor would I try to cut your tounge or whatever the Shariah has for the insulters.:happy:

Le me ask you something:

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?"

It's about women...
Is this hate speech? Should Sheik be prosecuted?

 

[islamirama]

He's not the lader of the enteire christian world, just the Catholic church. Some evangelicals hate him even more than muslims.
He quoted the emperor to express his disagreement with spreading faith using violence and claimed this isn't "God's way". He did not explicitly say Islam had spread violently (which it did), he merely quoted Manuel II, who happened to believe so.
I guess it was an intentional provocation, however the muslim response was totally inappropriate.

He quoted a ignorant bigot who believes Islam was spread by violence. You are associated by those whom you support. If he was thinking he'll get showered with claps and flowers, he sure got a wake up call there. Did you know prior to this he had demoted a bishop who was fluent in arabic and was the middle man between muslims and Pope John. The bishop was liked by Muslim leaders as well and he did a good job in keeping interfaith dialogs going. And after the unwelcoming response to this pope's stupidity, he decided to call back the bishop who was doing such a good job with the last pope.

As for you believing also that Islam was spread violently, that is your opinion but i really am annoyed by ignorant people who base their believes on hearsay rather then doing their own proper research and reading. i suggest you go read some facts before basing your beliefs on something so grand.

Despite his charming looks, the pope, in my opinion, still has the wits.:sunny:

are you serious? looks like a hobgoblin to me...

No, I think we are entitled to free speech. People who feel insulted by one's remarks, can sue, write an article, do a interview or burn embassies...

Then why are you complaining about those protests against the Pope, do you not like that kind of free speech?

Let me ask you something:

It's about women...
Is this hate speech? Should Sheik be prosecuted?

Do you live in aussie or did you read that from some newspaper. I have friends there, in the same community as this sheikh. His stuff has been taken waaaay out of context and on purpose. Election year is around so you see many publicity stunts by the media and politicians.

 

[MTAFFI]

I have to agree here with democracy (if there is such a thing) or rather the idea of it, and Shariah Law as well. Rather than argue about Shariah and speak of how it infringes on people rights (which I believe it does) lets talk of the principals of Shariah.

While the punishments and the law in general is strict, what is wrong with having a good moral code to live by? Sure I cuss, I have had sex with many women, I drink from time to time, I used to eat pig, and the list goes on and on of the things that I have done in my life that could and should be considered immoral, however imagine a country that enforced "rules" against these things. What would be wrong with living your life righteously? What would be wrong with not cussing, or having sex with as many people as you can before marriage? What would be wrong with capital punishment on a wife or husband that commits adultry? IF my wife ever cheated on me I would feel as though she carried out capital punishment on me, so why shouldnt she be punished? Imagine if every pedophile knew that should he get caught in such a dispicable act he would have his genitals removed and a second perpetration would cost his life, I can guarantee the cowards wouldnt carry their acts out in great numbers like they do all over the world today. Imagine if murder was automatic death penalty, rather than 25 yrs, people would think twice before they went shooting up a neighborhood or a liquor store (or a gas station if the liquor store didnt exist).

Now on the other hand Shariah has some negatives in my opinion, where democracy flourishes. Such as the right to worship or not worship as you wish, to me this is what makes Shariah fail. I agree that Islam is the best religion and I agree that its values and teachings surpass anything else I have ever encountered as far as religions go, but the Quran itself teaches not to force others into Islam. Some will respond to this with, "You can be a disbeliever in an Islamic State", this is true, but at them same time your rights are not equal to a Muslims, among other things you pay higher taxes, you cannot serve in the military, you can not marry a Muslim woman, and the list goes on... In my opinion, and the majority of the worlds opinion, you should be able to worship freely. You should be able to speak freely about the government or an individual. You should be able to listen to music if you wish, you should be able to dress however you feel appropriate, the press should be able to report without worry of closure.

There are downsides and upsides to everything, perhaps instead of trying to pick at the worst of each others way of life, it would be more beneficial to our entire race to find a common ground to integrate the two, filter the negative aspects, and become a more powerful, intelligent and peaceful people than we are today.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

As for you believing also that Islam was spread violently, that is your opinion but i really am annoyed by ignorant people who base their believes on hearsay rather then doing their own proper research and reading. i suggest you go read some facts before basing your beliefs on something so grand.

There are diferent opinions and many contoversies in the historical science conserning the violent spread of islam. Islamic scholars probably claim there was no violence whatsoever, some fundi christian historians probably claim just the opposite...Then there are the moderate ones, whose claims are somewhere in between...

are you serious? looks like a hobgoblin to me...

No matter how funny he looks, in my opinion, his mind works perfectly fine.

Then why are you complaining about those protests against the Pope, do you not like that kind of free speech?

I don't believe in violent demonstations. They made more damage than benefit to the muslims. They should peacefully respond to pope's claims, present their views, their evidence etc. Well, in 700 years perhaps...
And you also said you do not support violence, didn't you?

Do you live in aussie or did you read that from some newspaper. I have friends there, in the same community as this sheikh. His stuff has been taken waaaay out of context and on purpose. Election year is around so you see many publicity stunts by the media and politicians.[/QUOTE]
The pope's words were also taken out of context.:happy:

Hilali was quoted in The Australian newspaper Thursday as saying in the sermon: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?"

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he was quoted as saying, referring to the headdress worn by some Muslim women.

It seems clear to me what he was trying to say...

Anyways, if hate speech were sanctioned, imams would have to stop making hateful remarks about women, homosexuals, nonbelievers etc or would face prosecution. Would you like that? I personally wouldn't.

 

[believer]

He's not the lader of the enteire christian world, just the Catholic church. Some evangelicals hate him even more than muslims.
He quoted the emperor to express his disagreement with spreading faith using violence and claimed this isn't "God's way". He did not explicitly say Islam had spread violently (which it did), he merely quoted Manuel II, who happened to believe so.
I guess it was an intentional provocation, however the muslim response was totally inappropriate.

Despite his charming looks, the pope, in my opinion, still has the wits.:sunny:

No, I think we are entitled to free speech. People who feel insulted by one's remarks, can sue, write an article, do a interview or burn embassies...
Limiting free speech is limiting the freedom of expressing one's views, religion etc. You wouldn't wanna do that, would ya?
And if you do limit free speech you eventually find yourself in a police state where a single inappropriate word can get you fined or even killed.:nervous:
Freedom of expression can and tends to result in "disrespectful, ignorant, insensitive and hateful stuff but that's just how the world goes round. Every right/freedom produces "colatteral damage". In my opinion, unlimited free speech produces less damage than would limited freee speech.
You calling my mum something bad would probably insult me but I wouldn't go about abolishing free speech nor would I try to cut your tounge or whatever the Shariah has for the insulters.:happy:

Le me ask you something:

It's about women...
Is this hate speech? Should Sheik be prosecuted?

Everyone is entitled for Free Thinking... and Free Speech. Freedom to express ones thought has a directly proportional amount of Responsiblity attached to it... and for every spoken words he utter he can be liable to it as well...

Cause and Effect suggests the irresponsible speech of the present pope merely triggered a sensitive chord in the entire Muslim Ummah.

The Muslims who went into the streets are also entitled to Free speech... therfore - what's wrong with expressing ones' thought?

a Demonstration in the street is normal in a christian world... it happens everyday... recently, Auto Unions in America also held street demonstrations... this is free speech.

So what makes Muslims any different?... aren't we supposed to have street demo also as a means to exercise our freedom of speech?... This is a rare thing for Muslims to be doing but the fact that it happened is something to be really taken seriously.

Pope Benedict has a strict religious background... in fact, he doesn't agree with the late Pope John Paul II's ways of Ecumenism.

Pope Benedict is a German... as a chuch leader he is considered as a shepperd.... in other words... a German Shepperd. He already manifested how he barks... and the Muslims don't really like his tone. I am just waiting to see how he bites. (just look deep into his eyes...)

 

[Whatsthepoint]

I used to eat pig

I fail to see how eating pork is immoral.:muddlehea

 

[islamirama]

Now on the other hand Shariah has some negatives in my opinion, where democracy flourishes. Such as the right to worship or not worship as you wish, to me this is what makes Shariah fail. I agree that Islam is the best religion and I agree that its values and teachings surpass anything else I have ever encountered as far as religions go, but the Quran itself teaches not to force others into Islam. Some will respond to this with, "You can be a disbeliever in an Islamic State", this is true, but at them same time your rights are not equal to a Muslims, among other things you pay higher taxes, you cannot serve in the military, you can not marry a Muslim woman, and the list goes on... In my opinion, and the majority of the worlds opinion, you should be able to worship freely. You should be able to speak freely about the government or an individual. You should be able to listen to music if you wish, you should be able to dress however you feel appropriate, the press should be able to report without worry of closure.

You have some misconceptions like many which makes you feel the way you do.

1. you have the right to worship, all churches or other religious places stay in tact and are not demolished like the crusaders did.

2. Your rights are not less than those of a Muslim in an Islamic state. You are entitled to same protection of life, property, and everything else.

3. Can you show me where it says you pay high taxes? The non-Muslims pay jizya, a tax on them for living under protection of the Islamic state. They do his becuase the are exempt from paying the Zakat which all Muslims are obligated to pay.

4. You are spared from serving in the Military, there is no draft and forcing you to fight anyone. Muslims will fight and protect you as well as everyone else in the land.

5. You can't marry a Muslim women regardless of where in the world you are, it has nothing to do with living under an islamic state. The marriage is not valid and is not even recognized by anyone. We all know that Husband is the man of the house even in feminists homes, This prohibition is to protect her and her rights.

6. You can speak freely. One time Umar r.a. (i think) was passing thru the street with his companions and a man was sitting sharpening his dagger/sword and he said this is for you oh Amir (leader). The companions of the caliphate were about arrest him but Umar r.a. stopped them saying he has not done anything (yet) so leave him be. That same man later assassinated Umar r.a.; Compare that to the US, you say "you are going to kill the president" and you'll have Secrete Service knocking on your door and making your life hell. Who has more freedom, one under shariah or western democracy?

7. You can listen to music or dress how you want or what not in your home. Every society has rules and norms and those should be followed. Would you let someone from nudist colony walk freely on your streets or would you make them put some clothes on and obey the law, show some modesty?


Here is an interesting link shedding light on Shar'iah, i think you'll find it quite illuminating

http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

I fail to see how eating pork is immoral.:muddlehea

hmm i don't know? all i know is it is forbidden for Muslims and people of the book. (jews and christians).

 

[Whatsthepoint]

The Muslims who went into the streets are also entitled to Free speech... therfore - what's wrong with expressing ones' thought?
a Demonstration in the street is normal in a christian world... it happens everyday... recently, Auto Unions in America also held street demonstrations... this is free speech.

Sure they are and nothing's wrong with expressing ones thoughts...until it gets nasty and violent. How many people died during muslim protests? How many churches were damaged? How many pope dolls were burned? And how many died in auto Unions demonstrations?

So what makes Muslims any different?... aren't we supposed to have street demo also as a means to exercise our freedom of speech?... This is a rare thing for Muslims to be doing but the fact that it happened is something to be really taken seriously.

It happens quite often...every time a certain religious leader mentions the violent spread of silam...every time a scandinavian nutjob draws a cartoon...kay:

Pope Benedict has a strict religious background... in fact, he doesn't agree with the late Pope John Paul II's ways of Ecumenism.

Pope Benedict is a German... as a chuch leader he is considered as a shepperd.... in other words... a German Shepperd. He already manifested how he barks... and the Muslims don't really like his tone. I am just waiting to see how he bites. (just look deep into his eyes...)

I don't like him either. He's to conservative on many issues including ecumenism and he always manages to look incredibly funny.:happy:
I can't see a reason why islamic opinion should matter to the catholic..after all it is their faith, not yours. If they don't like "inter-monotheistic" ecumenism, the just don't like it.
Msulims don't care what the westerners think of their morals and faith...do they?

________________________________

;D;D;D;D

 

[Whatsthepoint]

hmm i don't know? all i know is it is forbidden for Muslims and people of the book. (jews and christians).

Not for Christians:
Matthew 15,11:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

 

[believer]

I don't like him either. He's to conservative on many issues including ecumenism and he always manages to look incredibly funny.:happy:
I can't see a reason why islamic opinion should matter to the catholic..after all it is their faith, not yours. If they don't like "inter-monotheistic" ecumenism, the just don't like it.
Msulims don't care what the westerners think of their morals and faith...do they?_______________________________

;D;D;D;D

I knew it!!! - now see!... he's teeth are showing already... not just fro his mouth... but, what are those two fangs doing on top of his head? (where did you get this photo?)lol

Oh yes, violent christian demonstrations like anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-nuke... etc... have been numerous and frequent also... and also with burning dolls and burning embassies...

Muslims in general don't care about ecumenism... but not for a revert who just got out of the seminary some years ago and who has been active with good christians just weeks before embracing Islam. I am merely excersicing free speech.

 

[Gator]

Adultery is a crime against partnership... in business laws... Partners sue each other for any breach of Partnership agreement. Marriage is a partnership... therefore, any breach in this partnership is a crime against the partnership contract.

OK, So from this I believe you agree that adultery should not be treated as a criminal prosecution, but as a civil matter (the wife can sue for divorce in family court). Great, no problems then.

Thanks.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Oh yes, violent christian demonstrations like anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-nuke... etc... have been numerous and frequent also... and also with burning dolls and burning embassies...

Protests against war, violence, nukes...are positive. Protests against the freedom of speech aren't.
BTW: Thoes demonstrations aren't christian...people of all religions join them. Christians mostly protest against abortion, nonviolently of course.
Westerners don't burn embassies...If they happen to burn one it's because that country did something unacceptable, not because a citizen of that country drew a cartoon or said something about Islam.

Muslims in general don't care about ecumenism... but not for a revert who just got out of the seminary some years ago and who has been active with good christians just weeks before embracing Islam. I am merely excersicing free speech.

Lol:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

 

[islamirama]

btw, When did you become expert on christianity?

Not for Christians:
Matthew 15,11:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

The Bible prohibits the consumption of pork, in the book of Leviticus and the swine, as he divideth the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch, they are unclean to you. Leviticus chapter 11 verse 7 and 8:

And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass. Deuteronomy chapter 14 verse 8:


A similar prohibition is repeated in the book of Isaiah chapter 65 verse 2-5.