Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Video and Photo Cameras for sale in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Dubai Cars Classifieds Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

How do muslims accept Islam when..


PARANOID It consists of extremly gross, primitive punishments such as chopping off hands for something that costs about 80 DHS, killing those who convert from Islam, killing married men who cheat on thier wives by stoning them to death,killing gays and lesbians, crucifying thugs after cutting off a hand and a leg,...etc Just wondering, I'm a muslim myself but have been questioning a bit. How do other muslims accept this? Don't come here telling me that we don't do that today, or that only Saudi Arabia practises some of those things. Fact is, muslims believe Islam never changed, so all these shariah laws are what the original Islam is about. If you don't agree with them/don't practise them- you aren't being a good muslim now are you. I think the whole idea about god worrying about two boys kissing and turning things up side down cause of it is as lame as sht. And I think Islam and muslims make a big fat deal out of sex. It's fukin sex not murder and everyone is doing it. I'm glad I'll never have to go to my preachy school anymore, just the other day the teacher in islamic studies class was telling us how completely justified it is to kill a man who cheats on his wife. Schools here are like fkin cults. So any muslims wanna share thier thoughts? How do you feel about some of the Islamic laws? specifically the ones I mentioned?
benwj what's the problem with love? Lithium222 Correct me if I'm wrong, PARANOID. But it seems the main problem you have is Islam's stance on homosexuality? PARANOID
I meant s.e.x not love.

Maybe Lithium, but who wouldn't? If a religion does not accept homosexuality then it should just tell it's followers that it's wrong and that they shouldn't engage in homosexual activities. Not call for all gays and lesbians to be killed! That's plain bigotry.
Why were there muslims condemning Irans execution of thoes two (or three?) gay youth when Iran was actually following the real Islam? shafique I'm happy to debate these issues with you - but I fear you are not looking for a rational debate. Capital punishment forms part of a judicial system for a society and is found in secular societies around the world - eg China and the US. If one accepts the premise that we need laws and systems of punishments for those who break the law, then the debate becomes what should be allowed/forbidden and what the punishments should be. Misrepresenting a whole religion with sensationalist headlines/phrases is not a good basis for a rational debate though. For example, where in Islam does it say it ok to crucify theives after having amputated their hands? As for Homosexuality being forbidden - yes this is the case in Islam. It stems from the teachings that the foundation of a stable, functioning society is the nuclear family where both men and women have rights and obligations. Women have the right to own property, own their own businesses, manage their own money and affairs and ultimately the right to divorce. The men are given the responsibility to be the providers and have no rights over the property and earnings of their wives. In the partnership that is a nuclear family, the emphasis on women is to play the vitally important role of raising the next generation - a job that yields the greatest investment for the family, society and the world - so vitally important that Islam teaches that 'Paradise lies under the feet of the mother'. Homosexuality is viewed as a perversion, along the lines of how paedophillia is viewed by most people around the world. There are organisations that will argue that paedophillia is natural and just a way for people to express their love of one another - and as long as the child is happy and concedes, where is the harm? Finally - on the point of cutting off hands, even a cursory investigation will reveal that the punishment is not meant to be carried out for petty crimes, but as a punishment of last resort and as an alternative of just locking up the perpetrator. It also is a strong deterrent. wasalam (peace) Shafique Bleakus
Thats not love dude, thats called homosexuality.....

let me ask you this dude, if you were married for 10 years (lets say) and your husband/wife cheats on you with someone else....how would you feel? That person would have hurt you for doing that, if you loved that person so much, the pain can really make you suffer. Now if people know that if you do such a thing to your husband/wife that your gonna be punished heavily for it, your not gonna think about doing it.
the main question you should always ask is why, why are laws made that way? what is its purpose? what would happen if there wasnt such laws to prevent a crime that someone did?
And to answer the title "How do muslims accept islam when", if you are going to do something or believe in something....you believe in it completely or dont do it. If you have a goal in life, you have to believe in it completely or else youll have doubt in that goal and you will never achieve it. you know what i mean? PARANOID
Just because I started a thread with a strong way in voicing my opinion and questioning other muslims dosen't mean I don't know what I'm talking about or am just trying to make Islam look bad. Below you'll find me using common logic in defending gays while you are going around the subject to imply that killing them is OK.

I haven't said otherwise, have I? But seeing as people are still humans even after they commit crimes then they should be treated as such. I'm against sadistic punishments such as the ones displayed in the Shariah law.

Oh it very much says so and I'll gladly fetch you up the english translation of the verse taken from the Quran itself, I have been taught it just the other day.

Way to go trying to distract people from the main point with the whole "women do this and men do that" speech. You still haven't given me a valid reason on why it's right to kill gays and lesbians in Islam. Like I said, if it's wrong in Allah's eyes, why not just say "it's wrong so don't do it" and that's it? If you don't think murdering people for being gay is right, why try to defend it?
Executing people because of thier sexuality is gross bigotry. Period. The "nuclear family" reason dosen't make it right to intrude on other people's harmless choices. comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is wrong, in the first the child is being harmed because kids can't make certain choices for themselves and are easily taken advantage of. While in homosexuality, gays are actually helping our over populated earth and the ones who choose to form families are doing so through adopting kids who were abbandonned by thier straight parents.
To give me the "straight people and thier oh-so-stable houses" reason is so lame, gay people can do that too. And straight people can have a less than stable home- so why try to say that gay people can't form a good home enviroment for thier kids? It happens that straights sometimes fck up too.

Look, I know what I'm talking about, I've been going to a fcking maddrassa all my life. A thief who steals something that costs 1/4 of a golden Dinar (about 80 Emarati Dirhams) should get thier hand cut off. Trying to give that thief an alternative punishment or using hands-cutting as a "last resort" is something frowned upon by Islam.
Not to mention the "way" the whole process should happen- as in doing it quickly right after the ruling is given and in a public square for people to watch.
And after cutting the hand, the thief's wound is shoved in boiling oil for it to close.
I think that's gross and inhumane. Specially that we're talking about theft not murder. I'm not saying everything in Islam is wrong, I just don't get it how some things which are so bloody in it can be accepted with ease by other muslims. Cause I don't think thoes things are right. How it's ok to kill people because of thier sexuality and then justify it.

I'm an arab, you don't need to do that arabic-to-english translations (except if it wasn't directed at me). PARANOID
Like I said, I was talking about s.e.x and that muslims make a big deal out of it. I meant all kinds of s.e.x- gay/bi/straight...etc
And no hon, gay love is love. For you to come claiming it isn't is fkin moot cause that's just your opinion so don't be a jerk and use it as fact.

No Bleakus, I DON'T know what you mean. Even if I was stabbed by someone I wouldn't want them to be burried in the ground with thier head popping out and people standing all around them throwing stones at thier head till they die. If you were married and your wife cheated on you, are you telling me you'll be fine with her being killed like that? If so, you're another sick freak and I hope noone marries you.
And about "why those rules are the way they are", here in the UAE most of those things aren't used or even needed. Not cutting people's hands dosen't mean thiefs are gonna run the neighbourhood. A LOT if not most of those punishments can be avoided into equally effective yet humane punishments. PARANOID Oh yes, also Shaf. I believe I mentioned the rule about killing anyone who changes thier religion from Islam to something else and you ignored it. Prophet Muhammed balantly said "kill whoever changes his religion" How is THAT ever right? Waiting for a convincing reply. Bleakus
lol why are you getting upset huh? over the points i just mentioned.
listen dude, you have 2 choices yeah
Either you go and read about the religion and study why these so called muslims are so barbaric and unreasonable. Understand exactly why is the religion like this and places (what you just say) harsh punishments
Or
dont choose to understand it, ignore the religion and go on with your life. If you feel also dubai is still a backward place, grab a plane and leave.
attacking me personnaly will not do you any good paranoid, you want to be a muslim, you dont want to be a muslim, that up to you. This is not the place to ask about these questions, you have to go to a scholar.

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique Strewth Paranoid, take a chill pill. Firstly, there is no punishment of Apostacy in the Quran and the Holy Prophet, pbuh, never said a person who renounces Islam should be killed, nor is there any record of any punishment being meted out to anyone renouncing Islam. On the contrary the Quran talks about the people who joined Islam in the morning then renounced it in the evening to cause dissension, and then repeated this day after day - and no punishment was ordained on these people (whose names are recorded in Islamic history). As for cutting off hands, as I said even a cursory investigation into how this is carried out today and in the past will confirm my previous post. As for killing of homos.exuals, I simply ask you for a Quranic reference. The punishment of homos.exuals is on a par with adulterers and fornicators - all of which are considered sinful. Similarly I'll take you up on the offer of Islam teaching that Theives should be crucified - you say the Quran says this, so please let me see the reference before commenting. There is much wrong with the implementation of Islam these days - many things are being done by Muslims which have nothing to do (and in many cases, goes against) Islam. By all means you are free to believe that there is nothing wrong with two people loving each other and that there should be no limits to who can go with whom. Society says otherwise. All religions also say otherwise - there are limits to the satisfaction of one's carnal desires. I therefore make no apology for Islam's stance on family values and am willing to go over the mountain of evidence in support of these values from a sociological and logical perspective. But first, let us clear up some of the bigger issues you seem to have with the misinterpretation of Islamic teachings/injunctions on capital punishment. Wasalaam, Shafique benwj Too many things being debated on this thread. The main problem that PARANOID has, is that homosexuality is not accepted by Islam (and by all other mainstream religions for that matter). It sounds like you want to practice Islam, but can't becuase you are gay. What everyone needs to understand is that homosexuality is not a choice. He can't stop being gay. This is why I don't have a major problem with homosexuality, even though I don't agree with it. If Islam forces him to stop being gay, he will become a basket case and his future wife/family will suffer. Although you can probably take comfort in the fact that there are probably thousands of other men in you position and I am sure that there is an underground network. shafique How one chooses to live their life is a choice. One learns that a person cannot act out all their fantasies, or even fulfil all their wishes in life. Setting up a family and living with other people in general involves compromises and selfless acts. Being attracted to younger women does not mean I have the right to sleep with whomever I choose or that this is good for me or society in the long run. Will this cause me to be emotionally stifled if I can't have my way and live out my carnal desires? Being 'Gay' is a choice - in-so-far as acting on those impulses goes. Similarly there are those that will argue that there is nothing wrong with paedophillia if no harm is being done. The whole 'nurture vs nature' arguement about being Gay is far from solved - there are still many experts and evidence that being Gay is not in the Genes. But even if it is - there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with society saying that the best way to have a functioning society is to only encourage nuclear families - whose primary purpose is to create a loving environment for the two people in that relationship, and for any Children that they may choose to have. Nature shows that the right environment is a husband and wife of different genders. Life is about choices. I choose to follow Islam and curb any desire I may have for drinking, gambling or eating pork - for example. I also limit any desire I may have for extra marital fun. One, these days, can easily choose not to follow any religion and have same s.ex relations. Go ahead - have fun. However, as the Quran says, look at the outcome of all previous societies that 'developed' to the stage where there was open acceptance of hom.o.s.e.x.uality - the current practice of 'West' is not something new - but dates back to Soddom and Gommorah! Cheers, Shafique PARANOID Shafique, do you read arabic? I'm having a hard time finding english translations for the verses and the prophet's hadith about killing thoes who change thier religion and the punishment of thugs- I wasn't talking about thieves, more like the people who stop traveller's cars and steal thier stuff or kill them. I have nothing wrong with punishing them but mutilating them they killing and hanging them is far from normal. I can easily show you if you know arabic. Bleakus, you missed the point. If to you, or shafique, homos.exuality is wrong and destroys family lives don't claim it to be a fact, cause that's only an opinion- YOUR opinion. You say it, but you can't and never prove it. Same with the thing about homos.exuality being a choice or not. You can't come here ,shaf, and tell people it's one way or the other, since like you said yourself it still hasn't been solved. I've studied a lot of Islam, and really the questions I asked were genuine at first , I wanted to know how others were OK with such things when I'm not. And would you like me to show you how in the animal kingdom a lot of animals choose to form families with gay parents? There was an amazing video I watched on youtube about how in nature same se.x partners choose to be together for various reasons. Let's remember that animals don't have s.ex for the pleasure- therefore making homose.xuality natural. Don't pull words out of your a$$ and claim same s.ex parents don't exist in nature, cause they do. satan-the-redeema Firstly, there is no punishment of Apostasy in the Qumran and the Holy Prophet, pbuh, never said a person who renounces Islam should be killed, Oh that will make a lot of immigrants to Europe very happy because there are reports of lots of converts to Christianity PARANOID Alright maybe you can help me get the verse. It's from surat Al-ma'eda , verse number 33. The prophet's saying about killing those who leave Islam was narrated by Al-bukhari and Ahmed bin Hanbal taken from Abdullah Bin Abbas. All of those are supposed to be credible people, no? shafique Just give me the references in the Quran - Sura and Verse number and I'll look them up. I can read Arabic, but am not fluent in Arabic. As I said before, if you want to live your life in a same gender relationship - fine, go ahead. The Quran does not say you should be killed, and neither do I. If you don't accept that nuclear families are natural and think I'm pulling words out of my posterior for having the temerity to suggest this - again you are free to believe this. The Quran says there is no compulsion in religion - it is a choice for each and every person to make. Muslims have a view about what actions are best for human interactions - what should be legislated and what limits to personal freedoms must exist (eg. not stealing, murdering etc). This also extends to personal restraint when it comes to marriages and extra-marital relations. Same gender relationships that extend to the physical, are by definition extra-marital and are condemned as being harmful to the fabric of society. I look forward to the references. Cheers, Shafique shafique
Ok, let us see the verse in context:
[5:32] On account of this, We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.
[5:33] The only reward of those, who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land, is that they be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on account of their enmity, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;
[5:34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[5:35] O ye who believe! fear Allah and seek the means of approach unto Him and strive in His way that you may prosper.
v33 lists a number of punishments to be meted out to those who commit the crimes listed. v34 says those who repent should not be punished.
The crime in question is waging war against God and His Messenger - no small crime. The punishments are many and include banishment (hard to do that if you've just been crucified)!
As for the Hadith - I refer you to my other post about Apostacy - if there is a Hadith in Bukhari that quotes the Prophet as saying apostates should be killed ( I still haven't seen one ) - then it is in contradiction with the Quran and I reject it as false.
Cheers,
Shafique PARANOID But we were taught that the "waging war against allah and his prophet" part was not to be taken litterarly and it dosen't mean waging an actual war, but that it means "if you sin and go against thier words" by doing what people such as road bandits do. And the different punishments are for different cases. Like I said, if they steal and kill they get cut, killed and hanged. If they have only stolen, they are either banished (jailed in modern times) or have parts of them cut. I never said I'm against punishments, but against freaky, sadistic ones. So I don't get it, are you telling me that stoning isn't a part of the original punishments in Islam? In out book it's written that if a single person has s.ex they get 100 lashes and are banished from the country. For the married, it says :Stoning till death. What about the story about the woman who had s.ex at the times of Muhammed, and was pregnant cause of it. Then she wanted to repent and have herself stonned for it, but the prophet made her wait each time she came back to him until the baby was born and then had it's teeth grow and stopped feeding of it's mom's milk. Then afterwards she was stonned, and some of her blood dripped on Omar Bin Al-Khattab and he got pissed, but Muhammed told him not to feel that way cause the woman was in heaven?
shafique
You were taught wrong - the Quran is quite clear on this part, as is the actual implementation of these injunctions now and in the past. Look at the accounts of the treatment of opposing armies in wars against the Prophet and also the accounts of the punishments given to criminals.

Stoning as a punishment is not in the Quran. I've spoken about this before - my understanding is that stoning as a punishment for adultery was only given by the Prophet, pbuh, to either Jews (as part of their Law) or were handed out according to Jewish law +before+ the Quranic verses about 100 lashes were revealed.

This is a true hadith. You will note that the Prophet, pbuh, tried to dissuade her from seeking the punishment and was keen to forgive her.
wasalaam,
Shafique benwj
So its OK for you to act on your impuses and make love with someone of the opposite gender, but its not OK for a homosexual to act on their impuses make love with someone of the same gender?

Just try and imagine yourself being attracted to the same gender and you will quickly realise that it is not your choice.
There is no question that genes are involved.

DITTO benwj
If you want to compare yourself to animals then go ahead, but in the human world offspring are produced by a male a female, who are subsequently responsible for their upbringing. You can argue that some may do a better job of this than others, but this is irrelevant.
A male/female couple cannot produce offspring together and therefore they do not have the right to raise children. valkyrie http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=3056

D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].
At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind.
Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior", and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2].
Another line of testing done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies. The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7].
shafique
No - Islam does not single out homo.s.exuality as a sin, it says that all carnal relationships outside of marriage are a sin. Fornication and adultery are viewed as just as sinful.

Actually, there is considerable debate about whether Genes are involved - and yes I have read Valkyrie's quote and others like it. I shall do my own cut and paste job in reply. :)
But as I have said repeatedly, for whatever reason one is attracted to other men - a man can choose not to act out on these impulses. He can have male companionship in terms of friends, but should he decide to enter a marriage, should do so with a woman. Many men are inclined to sleep around and successfully repress these desires and commit to a normal marital relationship.
This is also the stance of the Church - only the act is sinful.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Is there a Gay Gene?
The first hit from Google when searching 'genetic homosexuality' was:
Excerpts:
How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.
....
More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community
Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
" Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors. "{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
And I liked this one:
How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way
Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.
The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.
So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.
:)
But please, read through the web site (it is biased, of course, but it gives the full references).
As for the first link in Valkyries post - the references for the punishment of Gays are very weak, and actually encompass men who sodomise women. The article is also clear that the Prophet, pbuh, never ruled on gays specifically. (One example of the weakness of the hadith is that a reference is made to the first Khalifa ordering a gay person in a far off place to be put to death by burning/fire and that this was carried out - whilst it is a clear and well known instruction that Islam forbids the burning of anyone, including enemy combatants and this was religiously (pun intended) followed by Muslim leaders - with notable examples in the times of the crusades).
Cheers,
Shafique PARANOID OK shaf, thanks for clearing some things for me. I don't agree with everything you said, or your stances on things, but there were other bits I didn't know about so it's good to be informed. To the other guy, gays don't have the "right" to raise kids? Straight people have every right to make as many babies as they feel like making, even if they wanted to throw them in dumpsters afterwards, or leave them in orphnages for someone else to take them,or abort them, but gays still shouldn't raise any? Oh yeah sure, I mean what do you know. You prolly got everything from your mommy and daddy and had them around forever, it wouldn't accur to you what impact two people who happen to be gay would leave on a young kid's life who's been alone by raising him like thier own child and giving him a family. If that article you posted is for real Shaf, then even if there isn't a "gay gene" or whatever, it still dosen't make homose.xuality a choice. A gay gene is not all it takes. shafique Paranoid, Islam basically teaches that the foundation of a stable society is the family unit. Having a mother and father is the ideal, and if there is a breakdown of the marriage or a death, re-marriage is encouraged for the benefit of the surviving spouse and also the children. Similarly fostering orphans is encouraged as the ideal solution. With this view, gay marriages - which by definition is sinful, is not condoned in Islam. Whether a gay couple can or cannot raise a child is not legislated in Islam - on the contrary we are encouraged to have children and raise them. A gay person may be a good father or mother - no question. They should be able to raise their own children - again no question they should. Criminals aren't barred from raising children or being parents - so why would gays be barred from this? However, when it comes to adopting or fostering, then the child's welfare comes first and the authorities have an obligation to look at the whole picture. Whilst there may be well balanced children being raised in Gay households with a missing mother or father, I would still argue that the ideal of a mother and a father is what the authorities should be looking for when placing children. So, on that point, I would say that I personally would not place foster or adopted kids with gay couples - any more than I would place them where there was violence, drug taking or drunkeness in the prospective family. On the other point - I fully concede and accept that people are attracted to others of the same gender. My point is that whether it is genetic or enviromental, the way you choose to act on the attraction is a choice. Most young men will testify to a strong impulse to sleep with as many partners as possible - but society/laws/religion asks them to regulate these impulses and limit intimate contact to marriages or one partner at a time. Similarly, people with gay inclinations can and do enter into hetero.se.xual marriages and make the same sacrifices as other men and women in limiting their carnal pleasures to that found within the family unit. Older people understand this wisdom of compromise as the secret to successful partnerships - whether marital or on a big stage between nations. Conflicts tend to occur when one insists on fulfilling selfish desires. Just my opinion. Cheers, Shafique PARANOID
Wow, you group gays with drunk, violent people and drug addicts. Gotta admit I'm offended.
But yep, totally your opinion. Cause you have nothing to prove that a missing mom or dad will make that big of a difference in the child's life. As long as there's good parenting and understanding between family members, everything can work IMO. We just have different opinions on what a family is all about. shafique
Actually, yes I do group them together for the purposes of adoption - and this is also what adoption agencies around the world do. Of late, adoption by gay couples is being allowed in a few countries, but by and large the (non-religious, I may add) authorities have sought a male and female couple to raise children.
Glad we can respect each other's views without agreeing with the other. I take back my comments about you appearing to not want a rational debate - please accept my apology.
Cheers,
Shafique jabbajabba I have learned a lot reading this. So from what I have gathered the Quran does not support the killing of gays, hand removal of criminals and other violent acts. But Islams 5 main religious Madh'hab's largely do interpret the Quran this way. And they are the one's teaching children and upholding the sharia law in the major Islamic countries? shafique Jabba, The Quran does ordain the amputation of the right hand as the ultimate punishment for theft - but it is the last resort, and as this is how it has as is being carried out, I would imagine this is how it is being taught as well. As for the killing of Gays - yes, there are many muslims who believe this to be the punishment. Similarly many muslims are taught and believe that the punishment for apostacy (leaving/renouncing Islam) is death. Both of these are incorrect from a Quranic and Sunnah (the practice of the Holy Prophet, pbuh) standpoint. In my view, Islam is going through the equivalent of the Christian Middle Ages where the Mullahs are doing what the Church/Priesthood did in the Middle Ages - using Islam for political means and twisting the meanings and teachings for their own ends. The fact that the self-same 'teachers' will not encourage people to read, question and think is a great clue about their insecurity. The rejection of science and things modern is an insult to the many great Imams and scholars of Islam in the past who revelled in the study of the sciences. But don't get me wrong - the Mullahs are just doing what is in their self-interest and as history has shown, blood-lust against a foe is a great (and more to the point, distracting) rallying call. These issues are really at the periphery of Islam and 99.9% of the time have no relevance to the lives of a believer - Muslims aren't going round gay-bashing or looking to execute anyone who stops being a Muslim - they are busy leading their own lives - as is everyone else. Cheers, Shafique benwj
And since Islam does not allow gay marriage, it is impossible for a gay person to have a legal relationship? shafique
That's right.
In Islam, s.ex is only lawful within marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman.
Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie If a gay person isn't born gay that doesn't mean that he chose to be gay. Homosexuality does not have to be genetic to be outside one's control.
If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7]. shafique A gay person can choose to consumate his urges, as can a paedophile - and I agree in both cases it doesn't really matter whether they were born that way or not. I do not think I am being sensationalist in the comparison - both are differing forms of attraction - both were universally seen as repugnant and intolerable, now it is only the latter which has this stigma in some socieities. I've never contended that gay people are attracted to the same gender - but just have a problem with the notion that they can't live a normal married live with a partner of the opposite gender. There are many people who are married to partners who do not fit the 'ideal' s.exual partner for them - and it is also my contention that s.exual part of a relationship (whilst important) is not the main criteria in a lasting, loving relationship - the main one imo is that both persons are committed to a long term, stable relationship - for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health etc. Anyway - glad to see we agree that the nature/nurture debate is not really relevant in the above context of how one chooses to live one's life. Cheers, Shafique benwj I think that it is unfair to include gays and paedophilles in the same boat.
Even if you view both as being repugnant, there is one main difference between them. Paedophilles prey on children who are not willing partners.
This is rape.
Gay people choose willing partners and should have the right to practice their beliefs with them.
And it is more than just the s.ex for them also.

My wife asked a recently married co-worker how things were going. She said that they wanted to have children as soon as possible, but had been trying for a while without success. I didn't get into the details, but it turns out that she was getting a very sore backside from the "s.ex". I find it hard to beleive that anyone can be this naive, but the story is from a reputable source and I have no doubt that it is true.
Your endorsement of marriage between a gay person and a hetrosexual only adds weight to the story.
Yes, it happens, but it ain't healthy. shafique
My point is that both have 'urges' and both can choose to follow through or not follow through on these urges. Both relate to whom they want to sleep with.
Anything that stops short of the physical act though is just friendship or companionship and is ok in everyone's book.
As for your story about the sore behind - you're kidding right?
You seem to be mistaking 'being gay' with 'sodomy' - in my book a gay person is a person who is attracted to the same gender, not someone that likes to perform sodomy. A heteros.exual man can prefer sodomy with a woman and is not a gay person (but in Islam, as with Christianity and Judaism, sodomy is a sin and considered a perversion).
I feel a bit dirty discussing this - not that I hate gays or anything (I have close friends and colleagues who are gay) - I can and do distinguish between the people and the acts they choose to go through. Another example is that the majority of colleagues and friends I have are ok with fornication (s.ex outside marriage) and they know I consider the act a sin - but I get on well with them and their partners and we are all friends.
But to discuss the mechanics of coitus is not a comfortable topic for me and I think I've said all I think I can say on the topic.. :)
Cheers,
Shafique jabbajabba Shafique, I think it is no more then your own assumption to state that Gay people just need to stop acting on urges and that is all there is to it. Hom.o.se.xuals are typically repulsed by the idea of sleeping with the opposite gender in the same way that a hetr.o.se.xual is repulsed by sleeping with the same s.ex. They normally know that they are very different from a quite young age. Many of them unlucky enough to live in homeo.pho.bic society's under fear, persecution and ridicule (and as we have discussed, hanging) not to mention the millions creating unhappy 'family units' in an attempt to conform to the views of others - just like the one expressed in your post. shafique
I've been called worse than self-conceited. :)

Are they typically repulsed? That is not the case in my experience - but hey, if you know better - who am I to argue with your research into Gay people's preferences. The people I have spoken to and read about have no psychological hang up with sleeping with women, but prefer men. Perhaps my friends also share my self-conceited delusion? :)

Thank you for your opinion.
I see you agree that millions do try to conform to the natural order of a family unit - even though you state that they are all unhappy. May I if you think that all men who are not married to their ideal partner now are equally unhappy? Most men end up with a different woman than the one they wooed or shared the honeymoon with - people change after years of marriage and don't look like they used to :)
Hey, as I said - people are free to live how they want to live in this world and can choose to live in societies where homo.se.xuality is tolerated or even celebrated. I have been giving religion's view of the practice which I agree with and which makes complete sense to me.
At the end of the day - all Gays, imo, can choose whether or not to live a gay life.
Cheers,
Shafique PARANOID One thing you said here Shaf:

If cutting the right hand really is the last resort, then why didn't Muhammed act like it? You know- in that hadith about the woman from Quraish who stole things from another woman after Badr. Osama Bin Zaid tried talking to Muhammed to convince him to try some other punishment or repayment and Muhammed's face "changed colours" and was pretty mad. Because it was considered going against allah's laws.
Then at the evening of the same day, the woman's hand was cut. Not much time to think it over, no?
If you believe everything in Islam is perfect, you don't need to twist facts. When you say cutting hands is the last resort, that's you just saying stuff. You have nothing to back it up, and the actions of the prophet speak otherwise.
He said: "If Fatima the daughter of Muhammed stole. I'd cut her hand off" It is the official punishment for any theft of property which costs 1/4 of a gold Dinar. If not, prove it. PARANOID
If Islam really is tolerant of different lifestyles and personal choices (Which I personally don't see, since nothing the Quran or the hadiths specifically calls for the "hate the sin-love the sinner" kinda thing- and everyone who has s.ex should be whipped and whatnot), then it kinda forgot to teach it's followers that tolerance. Cause you know, contrary to popular belief not every sinner is of a social age or has enough resources to travel around into a tolerant country with a majority of tolerant people. Just saying. PARANOID
Uh..No.It wasn't for her, it was for the baby. He waited till it was old enough to chew food So it wouldn't die without the mother (Or with the mother- Cause the first time she came to him she was still pregnant).
EDIT: Gee Shaf, your logic is kind of wacked here. Who's the prophet to "forgive" sinners or not? That's Allah's job not his :roll: shafique
Paranoid - if you look back at my posts you will see that I said this was an easy one to prove - just look at how the punishment was and is being carried out under authorities which implement Shariah and also how it was carried out by the Prophet, pbuh.
You have quoted two hadith which are well known - so the question you should ask is that given these two hadith why is it that all jurists are clear about how the punishment should be implemented and that not all theives have their hands cut off?
[Clue - there are not only two hadith on the subject ]
A general point - wishing a fact to be true doesn't make it that way.
Wasalaam,
Shafique PARANOID
Yes I read all your posts, I still don't see the proof that losing a hand is the last resort? If there are other hadiths, quote them. What I'm telling you is that Muhammed did what was written in the Quran, and got angry when people tried to change it or take it easy with criminals. If you have something to say, say it straight. I'd like to read your response as soon as possible cause I wont be able to access my computer in a couple days or so, so please be direct.
I'm not "wishing" this stuff was real. That's really weak of you to say, obviously it's starting to get to you so you have to accuse me of being this and that. I'm talking from what religious people rant about, and the ways they justify things, and the way muslims act. shafique A couple of references for cutting off the hands as a punishment (sorry, only had a couple of minutes to do a search):
&id=29178
(reference for 1/4 dinar's worth of goods stolen - but note that the other hadith saying that stealing 'worthless' or low value items does not merit the cutting of the hand --- and I wonder how much 1/4 dinar is worth in today's money?)
We must also look at the complete ruling of cutting off the hand for stealing. For example, if a man steals because he is hungry then nothing will happen to him. But in fact, his neighbor will be reprimanded for not helping him and feeding him! And, for a man to have his hand cut off for stealing there would be the requirement of 2 witnesses who saw him do such a thing. And for adultery it must be 4 witnesses! How often does that happen? Not very often. But you see, the concept of the possibility is still there and that deters people. As a result of these punishments the environment is safer and people are more mindful of respecting the lives, honor and property of others. The goal of Islamic law, broadly stated, is to bring about good and minimize evil. We can see that the Islamic penal code helps to enforce these ideas in society.
There have been cases where a thief stole something, but there were no witnesses yet the thief came forth and confessed, asking for his hand to be cut off. The reason for such confessions is because of the person's knowledge of what is to come in the Hereafter. All our deeds are recorded - from what we say to what we do. And on the Day of Judgment we all will be held accountable for our deeds, good or bad. And these people who confess have repented and wish to be accounted for their deed here in this world. The punishment for a deed in this world is lifted from the next world. A person who is punished for something they did here now will be relieved of it in the Hereafter. The punishment and embarrassment in the Hereafter is much greater than it is here. Hence, their confessions come due to repentance and their wish to return to a good relationship with their Lord. And Allah forgives in abundance, if only we turn to Him with a sincere heart.
It was however interesting to note the number of anti-Islam sites that Google threw up when searching on the subject. Interesting.
At the end of the day, from just a common sense standpoint, if you know your hand may be chopped off for stealing - you wouldn't steal. If there are extenuating circumstances, precedence is clear that you won't have your hand chopped off. I fail to see the problem - but perhaps that's just me - I was brought up not to steal.
Cheers,
Shafique PARANOID
I haven't said differently. Why would I mention the 1/4 dinar If I don't know that anything that costs less wouldn't take a hand?
88 dirhams is pretty cheap. It dosen't deserve a hand. Nothing does. Cause theft can be fixed.
And I know the rest of the info about needing to steal etc.. Still, that's way far from the main point. YOU claimed cutting a hand is the last resort for someone who stole something that costs 1/4 dinar or above. You still can't prove it.

I remember being in Saudi Arabia as a child with my dad. I used to steal a lot, he told me not to steal there cause I'll get my hand cut. Didn't stop me from getting free makeup. benwj Shafique, I feel responsible for making you feel uncomfortable and I apologise. Although I admire you willingness to share information about such issues. Thankyou. shafique No probs benj.
Paranoid, the first reference says"
The Penalty for Theft:


Concerning theft, Islam legislates cutting the thief's hand off as a maximum punishment and under certain conditions . In countries that apply this punishment, like Saudi Arabia, we notice that theft is a very rare occurrence. The judge decides the seriousness of the case and decides if the thief should get the maximum penalty or not according to certain conditions and restrictions.

When a person knows that he will lose his hand if he uses it in stealing, this makes stealing a rare possibility. The implication of such a punishment is this: each organ in the body must be used cleanly, honorably, and legally. The function of the hand is not stealing. If the hand is used to threaten other people, it is a dangerous hand and the judge is entitled to reconsider its existence.

The other implication of cutting the hand off is to give the thief and other people a permanent example and a continuous reminder of the fate of thieves. In countries that merely imprison the thief, the thief himself may steal again after being released from prison.

The article is making my point about how the punishment is implemented in practice - that a Judge assesses the seriousness of the theft to see whether the maximum punishment should be applied.
The second reference gives the hadith, but without interpretation.
In my mind, the practice is what is important - the criterion is not 88 dhirams - but whether it is a significant amount or not.
The article also explains the philosophy of the punishment as well - as a severe deterrent.
As for you stealing as a child - that is covered in the hadith and explanations as well - children are not punished this way.
What I will try and dig out when I have time is a judicial ruling on how the punishment should be applied, and the reasoning they give.
Until then, I make the point that in practice not all theives have their hands cut off as per the article quoted. Maybe I should have used the words 'maximum punishment' rather than 'last resort' - for I didn't mean to imply that all theives were let off on their first theft - for serious enough thefts the punishment is merited.
On a social level, I think the thousands of victims of muggings and burglary in London (say) would much prefer if the criminals did not commit the crimes and would rather say a handful of criminals have their hands chopped off and deter all the others from committing the crimes. Sometimes, protecting the rights of the criminal is in effect condemning or punishing a larger number of innocent victims. That is not justice.
Cheers,
Shafique PARANOID Yes Shafique I GET that. What I was saying is, if the "seriousness" of the case exeeds 1/4 dinar the hand is gone- if there are 88 dirhams stolen, the first thing they will do it cut the hand. If not 88 dirhams, other stuff will happen. You can't choose to tell me what's in your mind and ignore what's really happenning. That's what I said in the first place but you decided to disagree. To the "judge", it's serious when it's 88 dirhams. I think that's wrong, and noone deserves to lose a hand over theft. You think otherwise, good for you. How about when people use thier s.ex organs for s.ex before merriage we cut them off too ? Or if they LIE at court and use thier tongue to put someone innoucent in trouble, we cut off those damn sinning tongues?? Geez. I know that children aren't in the category. I don't think people in London would prefer that, if you do then note that that is only your opinion. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. shafique
Paranoid - you are asking me to prove something that is self-evident - in that you can verify how these punishments are carried out.
Let me use a Dubai analogy for how this particular part of the discussion feels to me:
A: Here is a quote and a photo that says there only camels and donkeys in Dubai and that the road between Dubai and Abu Dhabi is a dirt track. Therefore Dubai is a backward country that bans cars.
B. Yes - that quote and photo is 100% correct, but just stand outside and you will see that Dubai doesn't actually ban cars.
A. Ahh - good arguement, but you have not shown any reference to me yet that my references are wrong !
B. Ok - [thinks perhaps A isn't in Dubai and can't look out to see the cars] - here you go 'A', here are a few news articles showing you the problems we have with traffic here in Dubai.

A. You still haven't disproved my original references.
B. Your references were absolutely correct - but in practice we have loads of cars in Dubai - so you can't say Dubai bans cars.
A. YOU say that - but you haven't given me any proof.
B. Arrrgh - ok if you want to believe Dubai bans cars, go on then.
:)
Cheers,
Shafique satan-the-redeema Here is a quote and a photo that says there only camels and donkeys in Dubai and that the road between Dubai and Abu Dhabi is a dirt track. Therefore Dubai is a backward country that should bans cars. Yes they should ban all ragheads from the roads and keep all the roads free for westerners; it was nice to read that in America that there are states that will not allow Middle East peoples to drive unless they pass an American road vehicle test :lol: :lol: :lol: freza Paranoid,
You've OBVIOUSLY made up your mind about Islam and criticize certain aspects of it (which you clearly don't understand) to justify your views on it.
If you don't agree with religion, then don't, period. Leave it, it's your choice to leave it, it's your choice not to follow it. It's not about to change its fundamental teachings and views in order to satisfy people that most criticize it. It doesn't work that way. It won't conform to your individual wants, whims, and demands (and in your case, obsessions). No matter how much you think you're right compared to it. Faith is meant to give purpose to life, if you've found purpose in your life, great, why get all worked up about these issues that you've brought up? Do you want to be accepted so badly? If so, the first step is accepting religion wholeheartedly into your life first , and that's a logic that you haven't quite figured out. Yeah, religion really isn't about picking and choosing what is more convenient for you, that kinda defeats the purpose...
Don't like the teachings that go against what you are? Then don't follow it, leave it and don't worry about it. I'm sure that you have other bigger worries to concern yourself with.... Bogus-Borgas / :cry: xibit Paranoid u seriously need some physiotherapy, u sick fool shaf I value ur effort and all the typing, but it is point less explaining it to people who have made their mind up. leave it As it is said “To you be your Way, and to me mine.” jabbajabba xibit - I don't think paranoid needs physiotherapy (physiotherapy is for people recovering from physical injury). Paranoid - follow your own heart. God is big enough to get along without man's religions. PARANOID Shafique I'm getting sick of you acting like you're the only one who knows sht about Islam. I've been defending the god damn religion in so many topics on another forum INTELLIGENTLY, I looked up my info and came up with my own conclusions. Don't you and other people accuse me of already making up my mind about it. If you'd like I can show you some of those topics if you pm me. Your attempt at being a smartass is so lame. I feel liek you are intentionally not answering my very clear statement here. I did not ask you about children stealing. I did not ask you about someone who HAD to steal. I did not ask you about people stealing something that costs less than 88 dirhams. You proved all those things successfully, but I already knew them. You said "well they cut hands depending on the seriousness of the case", I repeated for you that in Islam it's "serious" if the thief had no reason to steal, but did it anyway and stole something that costs 88 dirhams or above. You disagreed, but you never proved it. I can prove my claims, you can't yours. I think it's wrong to brand someone forever over theft. Freza, this was never about me. xibit, you're not worth the time I spent reading your lousy reply. shafique Paranoid - 88 dhirams is a false analogy. At the time of the Prophet, dowries for some women was 3 dates only. Gold was more expensive then (as a % of someone's wages) than it is today. You have chosen to interpret the Hadith in one way - but unfortunately for you and your argument, the way in which the punishments are carried out do not bear out your interpretation. By all means criticise Islam or Muslims for things that they teach or do - but it is unfair to criticise something that is a fabrication of one's mind (that any theif who steals over 88 Dhirams has his hand cut off). Please show me where this figure of 88 dhirams is used in a sharia court today. For someone who is critical of Islam, you seem to be putting a lot of credence to your own interpretation of Hadith. I'm afraid I won't be able to defend an 'imaginary' implementation of Islam - but I am happy to discuss the teachings and implementation of Islam in reality. I don't shirk from pointing out wrongs when they occur (see apostacy thread) - but it does annoy me when myths are created to discredit Islam. Cheers, Shafique PARANOID
I dunno what to say to you. Everywhere I look over the internet, Islamic websites support what I said. It IS what other muslims taught me and I'm here critisizing it, and it is what most muslims seem to believe in.
But I think it makes sence that 1/4 dinar (Which you yourself quoted from a website in an earlier post) was considered a lot of money long ago. Still, what's being widly spread is the idea that that amount of money is what should get a hand cut. Blame your muslim brothers for spreading supposed lies.
Also, I still believe that making a mistake at one point in your life which can be fixed should NOT be punished by something that lasts forever. Concord
Paranoid, I'm not the only one to say this but some of your posts are scary and make no sense. The statement above, however, makes a lot of sense. Kudos. PARANOID Actually, thinking about it again. It couldn't have been such a big amount of money even then. Because at the time if someone accidentaly cut off another person's hand, the one who got his hand cut can either choose to cut the offender's hand too, or instead choose to be paid 500 dinars. There was a poet who was critical of Islam, I believe his name was Ibin Nawwas. One part of a poem he wrote said something along the lines " A hand that is worth 500 dinars, how come it's cut off for the quarter of one?" Then some Islamic poet wrote back that the first hand was innocent and the second was that of a thief. So both ways, it was cheap. shafique Paranoid,
I asked for evidence that 88 Dirhams was being used in a Sharia court. Then you ask me to blame my 'brothers' for spreading disinformation.
A few posts ago you said you could provide evidence:

Are you now saying you can't, after all, prove your claims?
As for your point about one mistake shouldn't cause a hand to be chopped off - well, I agree with you and so do the Sharia Judges.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique duplicate post PARANOID Actually Shafique, I meant I can prove to you the 1/4 dinar claim through lots of Islamic websites, all of them interpreting them as "Today if someone steals that mush, they should get this punishment". I don't have evidence that "today" 88 dirhams id the amount. Neither do you, but what I'm saying is my claims are the ones it seems most muslims believe. PARANOID
No. No they don't, as long as there are hands getting cut off at one point or another over theft in different cases, then Sharia law and the judges do not agree.
I have found new hadiths by Muhammed, saying "If someone steals an egg his hand should be chopped off,..." And he goes on to list these other things that are similar to the egg in value, and after each says "His hand should be chopped off"
The source for sharia law is not only the Quran, it's the Quran AND the sunnah. So you cannot completly ignore what the hadiths say, specially the ones which were narrated by people considered credible. shafique Ok Paranoid, let me just get your argument straight in my head - I want to be clear that I'm answering your query/objections. 1. I think you are saying that chopping any person's hand off for theft is unjustified and barbaric. Theives should not be punished in this way. Is this your argument? 2. Then you point to numerous hadith that Islam teaches that thieves who intentionally steal, are of sound mind, don't have extenuating circumstances, don't steal in full view of everyone AND steal an item of value of above a nominal small amout (1/4 dinar, 88 dirhams, or an egg) MUST have their hands chopped off. Is this your view? Assuming you answer yes to the questions above, let me answer you. For 1. let me use another analogy. If I want to protect my wife's diamond jewellery by placing them in a box with poisonous snakes and then post signs everywhere that possessions are protected by poisonous snakes - will I be doing anything wrong? What if a theif ignores the signs and wants to try his luck and attempts to steal the jewels, but is bitten and is killed. Who is wrong - the snake, me, my wife or the Thief? Is this barbaric? A deadly trap that kills someone trying to steal some bits of bling? Or is it suicide? Leaving aside point 2. for now - what if you manage to convince everyone that chopping off anyone's hands is wrong. Let's say where this is in effect, they remove this punishment. What will be the result in your mind? In my mind it will lead to: a. happier thieves b. unhappier victims of increased thefts Do you disagree? As for 2. - we only disagree on how the various hadith are being implemented - you seem to be insisting that your interpretation means all petty thieves have their hands lopped off. I have merely stated (repeatedly) that this is not and has not ever happened in practice and that your interpretations of the implementation of the Hadiths is faulty. If no one is doing what you THINK they are doing - is this still wrong? I look forward to your considered answers. Cheers, Shafique PARANOID
Yes Shafique, that's pretty much what I'm saying. But I was also against the way the punishment was carried out and the amount of money involved. And am still considering all the hadiths from the Sunnah which you can't just claim are false since the narraters are all supposed credible people in Islam and muslims believe other hadiths from them are completly true.

Yeah, I think Islam teaches that but muslims are probably acting differently. I never critisized muslims in the original post, I wondered how they were fine with following a religion that has such flaws (IMO)

Your analogy dosen't make the matter any less barbaric. If you think it's not, then like I said- fine. But I don't understand how you or anyone with your mindset don't realize that it's very inhumane to punish anyone like that over offences like theft- which CAN be fixed once you got the thief.
Not cutting hands dosen't mean you can't teach someone a lesson and prevent crime. That's like saying spanking is the only way to discipline a child, when there are numerous other ways to have the same effect from a different approach.
And removing that specific punishment dosen't mean that people will turn into thieves and will take over the place.

Yes, I disagree a lot. Look above. Justice can be served without us acting like we're still living in the middle ages.

Like I said, if what is clearly written in the hadith and Quran about this matter isn't being practised- it simply makes the muslims not practising it rational, good people. But bad muslims in a way for disobeying god's laws.
Still it's wrong. Some punishments encouraged in Islam , specially this one, are wrong. This isn't justice, it's revenge. It does nothing to rehabilitate the criminal, and obviously the offended are encouraged to have no sence of forgiveness in Islam. That once a muslim is wronged, they should work thier way into seeing the offender sufferring to satisfy thier feelings of hate and blood thirst. Justice here is not about first giving back the stolen items, but about making the criminal suffer in a way that dosen't fit the crime.
Don't you agree that the punishment should fit the crime? Didn't you already agree that a mistake that dosen't ruin someone's life in a major way like murder or rape, shouldn't be punished by something that will be with the criminal forever? Surely after reading your last reply it seems you never meant it when you said you agreed. shafique Thanks Paranoid, I think we are getting somewhere.
I totally agree with you that if Islam teaches that all petty theives should have their hands cut off for a small amount, then this is wrong and barbaric.
You and I can disagree on the deterrent effect of capital punishment - fair enough. I think that anyone who decides to steal when they know what the penalty is going to be is taking a big risk and there will be lower rates of crime as a result. I leave it for you to decide whether Saudi and other Islamic states have less thievery and muggings than other similar countries (in terms of wealth) but who choose to only lock up theives.
Let us agree to disagree on what Islam actually teaches - I have stated that the implementation of Shariah Law in terms of stealing has been along the lines of the articles posted detailing the conditions.
All the Tafseers (explanations) of the Quran also do not state that all petty thieves have their hands cut off.
But I can certainly join you in condemning the barbaric implementation of the law that has never actually happened in practice - and congratulate the Muslims who have interpreted the Hadith in such a way that only serious thieves have their hands cut off.
Cheers,
Shafique bschmidt
Shafique...
this is not true unfortunately - otherwise there would be an easy solution to keep crime rates low everywhere.
The typical criminal (at least a large percentage) never expects to get caught. Statistics show, that in countries where punishments are severe (like USA) crime rates are NOT lower, than in countries with rather mild punishments (like Germany). benwj The problem is that they are not hard enough in the USA. The jails there are no deterrant. Perhaps they should start cutting thiefs' hands off, rapists' you know what off, and peodophilles' balls off. shafique The deterrent effect of punishment on crime rates merits its own thread! My opinion is that the incidence of crime is a multi-factorial problem - of which the severity of punishment is only one fact (an important one though). Crime at the end of the day is a risk-reward decision, either conciously or unconciously - is the benefit of the reward worth the risk. Looking at robbery/thieving specifically: On the 'benefit' side - we have a lot of factors, how poor the people are, the general morality of the population, the sense of inequity, how wealth is distributed in society etc. On the risk side we have the liklihood of being caught, the punishment one may face and the way in which society will view/treat them (linked to general morality). My view is that - ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL - capital punishment will reduce the incidence of crime because it increases the risk of punishment. For thieving, the stats do bear this out - lower levels of muggings and general robbery in Saudi and here, for example. However, the other factors are also having an effect. In the case of the US having high murder rates etc -despite having the death penalty does not affect my arguement. For in the US their are other factors at play - primarily the wide-spread availability of guns. Michael Moore's film 'Bowling for Columbine' graphically highlights the culture of the US vs its neighbour Canada in regards of the difference in deaths by gunshot in the two countries (even allowing for differences in population size). I have no real inclination to research crime stats etc - I'll leave this to others to prove/disprove - I try and live within the laws of man and God and avoid punishments :) I'm not a judge or a lawyer, nor a politician - so don't think I'll be in a position to make or enforce any laws anytime soon either :) :) I do however think that Capital Punishment is humane overall - it takes into account the feelings of the victims of crimes and potential vicitims of crimes that may have been committed. I am horrified though at the criminal justice systems that convict innocent people to death - I think that these should be reformed and stricter measures imposed before the ultimate penalty is imposed, and that it should be reserved for the severest punishments. At the end of the day Capital Punishment is a tool that can be used well - and can be misused. We shouldn't ban hammers if some fools go around killing people with hammers - should we? Cheers, Shafique shafique Hiya folks - good to be back occasionally. Currently on business in Turkey - in historic Istanbul. Had a little time on my hands and thought I'd check out the old haunt of Dubai Forums!
Scot [sorry, I mean Jabba!] - Sanskrit of the Hindu scriptures is not widely spoken and is largely only known by scholars and a few pockets of people. See this extract from wikipedia's entry for Sanskrit:

Revival attempts
The 1991 Indian census reported 49,736 fluent speakers of Sanskrit . Since the 1990s, efforts to revive spoken Sanskrit have been increasing. Many organizations like the Samskrta Bharati are conducting Speak Sanskrit workshops to popularize the language. The CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) in India has made Sanskrit a third language (though it is an option for the school to adopt it or not, the other choice being the state's own official language) in the schools it governs. In such schools, learning Sanskrit is an option for grades 5 to 8 (Classes V to VIII). This is true of most schools, including but not limited to Christian missionary schools, affiliated to the ICSE board too, especially in those states where the official language is Hindi. Sudharma, the only daily newspaper in Sanskrit has been published out of Mysore in India since the year 1970.
Sanskrit is spoken natively by the population in Mattur village in central Karnataka. Inhabitants of all castes learn Sanskrit starting in childhood and converse in the language. [2]
Whilst Hindus will recite prayers in Sanskrit and hold services in that language, my understanding is it remains a largely liturgical language and the native speakers of the time the scriptures were written down would not be understandable to modern-day Indians.
There are 'classical', 'vedic' and modern dialects of sanskrit.
The remarkable thing about the Quran and Arabic is that the classical arabic of the Quran is still understandable today by Arabic speakers - and the numbers of people who still comprehend and speak this language has increased generation by generation, whilst all other languages from a similar period have decreased in numbers of people speaking and understanding that form (i.e. other languages have changed to the extent that the old classical languages aren't understood or spoken any more)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique ps - at the end of the article on Sanskrit on wiki:
Computational linguistics
There have been suggestions to use Sanskrit as a metalanguage for knowledge representation in e.g. machine translation, and other areas of natural language processing because of its highly regular structure.[7] This is due to Classical Sanskrit being a regularized, prescriptivist form abstracted from the much more irregular and richer Vedic Sanskrit. This levelling of the grammar of Classical Sanskrit occurred during the Brahmana phase, after the language had fallen out of popular use.
So it appears that 'Classical Sanskrit' imposed rules and regulations on the older 'Vedic Sanskrit' to make it more structured.
and the main point, that this re-working of Sanskrit took place after people stopped speaking it as an every-day language.
This has echoes of the revival of Hebrew as a language (which took place in the 20th century)
Interesting stuff - I had to look these facts up, so I have learnt something new as well! :)
Cheers,
Shafique dave101 this thread is far too long to read all of it, so i will just jump in with my own thoughts. so what if muslims ban homosexuals and other things that we westeners would say 'meh' over. its their country, their rules! just like in my country, my rules! and i read somwhere that its not the act of gay sex that disgusts islam, more its the thought that 2 men can 'love' eachother. cos even with my liberal views, thats pretty queer, pardon the pun! if you are interested in some 'highly factual' islam discussion, then go to utube, theres a guy on there who has many of utubes highest rated vido blogs regarding islam, and what he feels is their attempt to islamise europe, by using europes freedom of speech against them. sound familiar to anyone? jabbajabba
Well there is Sanskrit which is the language of the scriptures of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism. This has also not changed much since it's classical period and Sanskrit is widely spoken in India still.
I think any claims of one being the true word of God run the risk of bringing up the dilemma of standing amongst the many others that claim to be the true word of God. Like Homer wisely said (Simpson that is, not the Greek) '"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder".
I think they all have touched on the same source and principle, but the culture of the area and the tradition of the time in which the texts were worded has been a strong influence as well. None has a monopoly though.
Shafique -Good to see you back as well habibi. uaebadoo Chopping off the hands as punishment for robbery
Islam prescribes chopping off the hands of the convicted robber. The Glorious Qur’an says in Surah Maidah:
"As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands:a punishment by way
of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power, full of wisdom."
[ Al-Qur’an 5:38]
The non-Muslim may say, "Chopping off the hands in this 20th century. Islam is a barbaric and ruthless religion!"
Results achieved when Islamic Shariah Implemented
America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries in the world. Unfortunately it also has one of the highest rates of crime, theft, and robbery. Suppose the Islamic shariah is implemented in America i.e. every rich person gives Zakaat ( 2.5% of his savings in charity above 85 grams of gold every lunar year), and every convicted robber has his or her hands chopped off as a punishment. Will the rate of theft and robbery in America increase, remain same or decrease? Naturally it will decrease. Moreover the existence of such a stringent law would discourage many a potential robber.
I agree that the amount of theft that takes place in the world today is so tremendous that if you chop off the hands of all the thieves, there will be tens of thousands of people whose hands will be chopped off. The point here is that the moment you implement this law the rate of theft will decline immediately. The potential robber would give it a serious thought before jeopardizing his limbs. The mere thought of the punishment itself will discourage majority of the robbers. There will barely be a few who would rob. Hence only a few person’s hands would be chopped off but millions would live peacefully without fear of being robbed.
Islamic Shariah is therefore practical, and achieves results xero_
through what means does shariah achieve this exactly? and also do you have any statistics/factual examples about your statements?
see :) uaebadoo
Read this my friend
uaebadoo
Read this
&raid=426 uaebadoo
My friend, this is against the Nature of human being, God created Men and Women to complete each other, If you allow a man to have a sexual relation with another man, then is it ok to that you can have sex with your mother or your sister, ofcourse not, you see if we go this way we become humans with no morals and values and we live the life of animals arniegang nice to see you back Shaf Thanks for the post interesting as always Chocoholic You can hardly compare incest with being gay. Plus most people these days have a lack of morals. And FYI the human being is the worst 'animal' there is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, each to their own, if it's not bothering of hurting anyone why do you care? scot1870 Agree, incest is deemed bad in most cultures both as it is clearly worrying from a psychological viewpoint, but also as not spreading the gene pool widely enough causes a massive increase in the number of birth defects and infant mortality. This clearly isn't an issue for gay couples of either gender. But, hey, if an ancient book tells you it's wrong then who are we to argue? It's not like anything has changed since those times. Chocoholic Nice one Scot. uaebadoo The ancient book u r talking about is valid for all the times, and it is proven: / shafique
Agree with Chocs that all that is written by man is flawed.
I personally do not believe in any 'Quran code' etc.
However, one point to bear in mind concerning the Quran - it claims to be the literal word of God and is primarily an Oral revelation - the writing down of it is to make it portable, but the Quran was revealed word for word and since the revelation it has remained intact, and the language it was revealed in continues to be understood by a greater number in each generation.
Compare that with other holy books who do not make the claim to be word-for-word revelations, and whose original languages have had decreasing numbers understanding them each generation (eg for Hebrew, the language had no native speakers a few decades ago and had to be re-constructed - with some words taken from Arabic)
Whilst it is debateable whether the claims of the Quran are true, what isn't debateable is the fact it hasn't changed and Arabic remains the only language that is more widely understood now than 1000 years ago (say) - all other languages from that period would be unintelligible to current day speakers (that goes for Greek, English, Italian, French etc)
Cheers,
Shafique Chocoholic Sorry but I disagree, the Bible, Koran etc were all still written by the hand of 'man' and can therefore be flawed, because 'man' is not perfect and everything is open to interpretation. They cannot reflect the ever changing times, society etc. Plus exactly the same things were said about the Bible, google The Bible Code! It depends what your beliefs are. I believe in the religion of humanity and mankind. I'll just play Devils Advocate. Bleakus mods please close this topic, now it getting a little sensitive jabbajabba
I would stand corrected - but as you say it was scot's mistake anyway :)
Anyway not being one to lay down to easily - I was going to raise lao tzu or Confucius, but alas it was originally penned in a very ancient Chinese dialect not understood by a large majority of modern Chinese. jabbajabba
Interesting fact with Turkey - when (and it looks quite likely) Turkey joins the EU, Europe will be neighbors with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Georgia. shafique Apologies to Scott! Jabba it was you that was wrong :lol: Cheers, Shafique



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy