Does Islam promote violence?

[Badran]

Any deliberate infliction of pain is torture, except when unavoidable in a medical setting.

In that case, i don't actually consider any type of torture to be wrong or a negative thing in a society. Some kind of punishments must include in pain, there's no escaping that for me.

I am mostly interested in state sponsored or abetted torture. The recent revelations of torture in Afghan prisons give examples.

Well as long as you're looking at Afghanistan as a normal example of Muslim societies, you'll definitely keep holding on to your views.

 

[Photonic]

In that case, i don't actually consider any type of torture to be wrong or a negative thing in a society. Some kind of punishments must include in pain, there's no escaping that for me.



Well as long as you're looking at Afghanistan as a normal example of Muslim societies, you'll definitely keep holding on to your views.

I hope other Muslims don't share your views, otherwise they will be considered violent.

Punishment does not have to mean inflicting unwanted physical pain.

That is torture. Call it what you want but it's cruel and unwarranted no matter WHAT.
Actually, while I'm on it, it's also barbaric and ancient. Those who see it as necessary are backwards and in the past. I don't care who the hell you are if you hold this belief you don't belong in the modern world.

 

[Badran]

I hope other Muslims don't share your views, otherwise they will be considered violent.

I couldn't care less about your hopes and considerations.

Punishment does not have to mean inflicting unwanted physical pain

Unwanted by whom?

That is torture. Call it what you want but it's cruel and unwarranted no matter WHAT.

Its not cruel and it is warranted if its punishing someone who did something similar to what is being done to them.

Actually, while I'm on it, it's also barbaric and ancient.

Well, no, its not barbaric.

Ancient? Is that supposed to be an inherently bad thing? Anything old is bad?

Those who see it as necessary are backwards and in the past.

You might think this would be offensive to me, but its more pathetic than anything else.

If you had combined this with any serious arguments at least, i might have taken it more seriously.

I don't care who the hell you are if you hold this belief you don't belong in the modern world.

Get a grip and quit embarrassing yourself. Your act would've been impressive if you had actually said anything of substance. Try to relax and find something to actually say instead of wasting my time with this kind of garbage.

 

[Photonic]

I couldn't care less about your hopes and considerations.



Unwanted by whom?



Its not cruel and it is warranted if its punishing someone who did something similar to what is being done to them.



Well, no, its not barbaric.

Ancient? Is that supposed to be an inherently bad thing? Anything old is bad?



You might think this would be offensive to me, but its more pathetic than anything else.

If you had combined this with any serious arguments at least, i might have taken it more seriously.



Get a grip and quit embarrassing yourself. Your act would've been impressive if you had actually said anything of substance. Try to relax and find something to actually say instead of wasting my time with this kind of garbage.

Sorry, the "Eye for an eye" barbarism of your ideology doesn't need to exist in the modern world. You can insult me as much as you want but that won't make you any more right.

 

[Bismillah]

Yes because the theory of deterrence is not an established principle and has not found its advocates in a Western society. Nor is it relevant at all that the Shari'ah places most emphasis on preserving society and reformation. Contrary to what most Orientalists would lend you to believe, the Shari'ah places an emphasis on repentance and reformation which nullifies any further punishment.

It is more repulsive to house, feed, and let career criminals live off of the public funds of society and once they have lived on society's dime they busy themselves again by attacking society. That is repulsive, idiotic, backward, and contrary to the principles of civilized society.

 

[Bismillah]

You may have misunderstood me. I very much hope that the Arab Spring will lead to a good result. I just don't yet know if it will.

No, I didn't. You misunderstand me. You see I have difficulty imagining how a man grown and raised in the relatively advanced Western education system would even begin to postulate his entire opinion of a religion by the happenstance of one historic event regardless of the outcome.

And you don't seem to understand that I find it repulsive that your cultural chauvinism extends to the idea that the "West is learning terror from Muslims". Let me just say that this is something that can be found throughout humanity and the West has been pioneering this field for many many years both before and after the advent of Islam.

By the way what do you think of these polls?

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/su...illing-civilians-than-americans-and-israelis/
Gallup Poll: Jews and Christians Way More Likely than Muslims to Justify Killing Civilians | loonwatch.com

 

[Badran]

Sorry, the "Eye for an eye" barbarism of your ideology doesn't need to exist in the modern world.

Okay, since you're basically not interested in saying anything of substance, let me do just like you:

Its not barbarism, and yes it does need to exist in the modern world.

That said, you don't actually know my ideology. My ideology doesn't include that everybody must take vengeance from others in a way equal to what has been done to them. Quite the contrary, however, i also allow it if a victim wants it, as long as that doesn't include victimization for others. I don't oppose it based on a false notion of being "modern" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

In other words, i don't include your notion of an "eye for an eye" in my ideology.

You can insult me as much as you want but that won't make you any more right.

I wasn't actually intending to insult you, and i don't think i did. I'm aiming what i'm saying at your words. You're choosing to share your thoughts in a poor, disrespectful manner in my view and i'm addressing it as such.

 

[Photonic]

Okay, since you're basically not interested in saying anything of substance, let me do just like you:

Its not barbarism, and yes it does need to exist in the modern world.

That said, you don't actually know my ideology. My ideology doesn't include that everybody must take vengeance from others in a way equal to what has been done to them. Quite the contrary, however, i also allow it if a victim wants it, as long as that doesn't include victimization for others. I don't oppose it based on a false notion of being "modern" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

In other words, i don't include your notion of an "eye for an eye" in my ideology.



I wasn't actually intending to insult you, and i don't think i did. I'm aiming what i'm saying at your words. You're choosing to share your thoughts in a poor, disrespectful manner in my view and i'm addressing it as such.

Well, I can see your ideology is making it's way into your posts. You consider my view disrespectful so you attack me.

Judicial corporal punishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take note of the places where it occurs.

 

[Bismillah]

Take a note of what is stated in your article

Moskos describes studies showing that higher rates of incarceration have little effect on decreasing crime[4]

This is presumably critical information in the United States, where the incarceration rate is five times the world's average[3] - especially inappropriate, considering most criminals are not the kinds who will need to be kept out of society for the rest of their lives[3]. Gone too, says Moskos, are the days where "cure" and rehabilitation were the focus; today, most criminals are expected to simply improve in prison, despite the fact that their time is spent in a harsh and violent environment with other criminals.[3][4] Moskos thus argues that prisons in the United States incarcerate unnecessarily, and have proven to be failures in matters of both deterrence and rehabilitation[4]

If you don't like being called out for being sensationalist and nonsensical I suggest you either deal with it or give up and take your ball home.

 

[Badran]

Well, I can see your ideology is making it's way into your posts. You consider my view disrespectful so you attack me.

Setting aside the predictable jab at my ideology, you misunderstand me. I'm mainly addressing how poor i see your particular words in this thread, nothing else. If it seemed like otherwise, let me tell you now: thats not my intentions.

Judicial corporal punishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take note of the places where it occurs.

I'm still pretty sure you misunderstand my thinking on this, at least regarding one point, but in any case, i know my thinking is not at all common in western and more advanced countries today. That, in itself, indicates nothing however.

As the article itself says, while quoting someone, the western world seems to be overreacting to get away from certain things. Not all of them, but many are taking this position based on this, in my view.

 

[Photonic]

I'm sorry, but the idea that someone has to have pain inflicted on them to make them obey the law is simply ridiculous. Even if it is a victims wish to have bodily harm done to a person it would not be justice, but revenge.

 

[Bismillah]

I'm sorry, but the idea that someone has to have pain inflicted on them to make them obey the law is simply ridiculous.

You don't think pains is a greater deterrent than life-long incarceration, which according to your article has failed?

 

[Badran]

I'm sorry, but the idea that someone has to have pain inflicted on them to make them obey the law is simply ridiculous.

Not to make them obey the law, we can't ever do that actually. Just to make it clear that are consequences for actions. If you beat up someone, expect the law to give the other person the right to beat you up just like you did to him. Actions and equal consequences. Seems pretty basic to me.

And thats not to say that this will be encouraged, just allowed. Forgiveness, focusing on rehabilitation etc... are essential and in some cases more important. In other words, the difference between us is that i include both, you include just one, and in the process of doing this, you force your views on the victims.

Even if it is a victims wish to have bodily harm done to a person it would not be justice, but revenge.

Sometimes revenge is justice, in my opinion.

 

[Badran]

Also note that physical pain is not always the worst thing we can do. Prison can be much more cruel than plenty of physical punishments.

 

[Photonic]

You don't think pains is a greater deterrent than life-long incarceration, which according to your article has failed?

Doesn't matter if it is a better deterrent.

It's about what is humane and just.

Justice isn't about inflicting pain on those who don't follow the rules.

There is a very good reason the more enlightened societies have chosen to opt out of corporal punishment in their judicial systems.

Let me put it this way. It's worked oh so well in those countries listed with corporal punishment in their judicial sys... oh wait.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry, but the idea that someone has to have pain inflicted on them to make them obey the law is simply ridiculous. Even if it is a victims wish to have bodily harm done to a person it would not be justice, but revenge.

Why?
We abhor the expressed intent & carrying out of physical punishment, but we tacitly approve the worst forms of physical
violence in prisons by allowing inmates to perpetrate it against each other. We also are reluctant to hold cops accountable
for "excessive force" when they decide to vicioiusly thump citizens. That corporal punishment is wrong, & that imprisonment
is acceptable are views we hold only because they're the views we hold. Other punishment systems deserve consideration.

 

[England my lionheart]

Sorry, the "Eye for an eye" barbarism of your ideology doesn't need to exist in the modern world. You can insult me as much as you want but that won't make you any more right.

It was probably acceptable 1400 years ago,after all they were barbaric back then,even the UK used to Hang draw and quarter,that is,cut open the traitors stomache and show him his entrails,Hang him and then cut him in quarters,fortunately for everyone here we were saved by the enlightenment.

The "Eye for an eye" barbarity you speak of doesn't exist here but you must realise that unfortunately not everyone got a share of the enlightenment and remain entrenched in the wonderful world of the 7th century IMO.

 

[Photonic]

Fine, whatever. Go kill people, that's the best deterrent.

 

[Badran]

It was probably acceptable 1400 years ago,after all they were barbaric back then,even the UK used to Hang draw and quarter,that is,cut open the traitors stomache and show him his entrails,Hang him and then cut him in quarters,fortunately for everyone here we were saved by the enlightenment.

The "Eye for an eye" barbarity you speak of doesn't exist here but you must realise that unfortunately not everyone got a share of the enlightenment and remain entrenched in the wonderful world of the 7th century IMO.

Unfortunately what you're talking about has nothing to do with what i'm saying. Using examples of punishments that far supersede the crime committed means you're either misrepresenting or simply don't get what i'm talking about.

I clearly said that i don't accept an eye for an eye in the fashion he's suggesting or have in mind, nor do i embrace it even in the fashion of encouraging it.

 

[England my lionheart]

Fine, whatever. Go kill people, that's the best deterrent.

I agree it is barbaric to us but it is prescribed by Islam of the 7th century which is the same Islam that we have now,in the west we are generally soft on criminals in comparison to Islam but ours is a work in progress,it can improve, which in my opinion Islams cannot.