Does Islam promote violence?

[Badran]

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

Oh great, now you're not even reading my posts.

 

[Badran]

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.

This is your system in my view:

Peter Moskos says that it has become a knee jerk reaction, rather than a considered view, to reject all forms of judicial corporal punishment

Judicial corporal punishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, you had a bad history at some points, things like "burning witches" and so on. So, anything related to that time is bad regardless. Not all people who believe in this system of yours fall under this description however.

 

[England my lionheart]

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 was merely making a point and nothing to do with what you were saying

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.

I wouldn't doubt you on that from what i know of you

 

[Bismillah]

Doesn't matter if it is a better deterrent.

It's about what is humane and just.

Actually it does, one could easily argue that if a greater deterrent prevents crimes it is humane and just in that it both protects society and would be criminals.

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.

I have some statistics in a book back home that I'll dig out for you that should illustrate the point.

 

[Photonic]

Oh great, now you're not even reading my posts.

You are running on the efficiency of a deterrent. If they are dead, they can no longer do anything. Problem solved.

 

[Bismillah]

You are running on the efficiency of a deterrent.

No, all legal systems balance deterrence with justice. Yours seemingly forgoes deterrence and thus results in the absence of justice.

 

[Badran]

I was merely making a point and nothing to do with what you were saying

I wouldn't doubt you on that from what i know of you

Well he was addressing what i said, so i thought you were continuing on that. Sorry.

 

[England my lionheart]

This is your system in my view:



Judicial corporal punishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, you had a bad history at some points, things like "burning witches" and so on. So, anything related to that time is bad regardless. Not all people who believe in this system of yours fall under this description however.

This is one thing i agree with Islam on capital punishment,i think if a person is proved to be a premeditated murderer beyond doubt that they should pay the penalty.

 

[Bismillah]

Islamic view is not simply that murder results in death of the criminal.

 

[Tarheeler]

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

It's how we've been doing it in the US for over 200 years.

And I think Revoltingest made a great point: how is sending a man, even one guilty of minor crimes, to prison where he is subject to rapes and beatings on a regular basis any better?

To say that the "enlightened" nations to not participate in horrific actions is to ignore reality.

 

[Badran]

You are running on the efficiency of a deterrent. If they are dead, they can no longer do anything. Problem solved.

Not at all. Deterrence is secondary, so long as the punishment is still fair, in which ever way we can measure that as much as possible (since its not always easy to see what the punishment should be).

In other words, its not supposed to be a deterring punishment regardless of whether or not its fair. Just that the maximum of punishment as long as it fits is allowed. Note "allowed" again, not even necessary.

If a victim is attacked for instance, regardless of how horrible the thing the attacker did to her is, she should be allowed to do the same to him. This won't apply however if it includes harm to others.

 

[Photonic]

It's how we've been doing it in the US for over 200 years.

And I think Revoltingest made a great point: how is sending a man, even one guilty of minor crimes, to prison where he is subject to rapes and beatings on a regular basis any better?

To say that the "enlightened" nations to not participate in horrific actions is to ignore reality.

Citing the US incarceration system as the only enlightened system is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Tarheeler]

Citing the US incarceration system as the only enlightened system is kind of ridiculous.

I guess it's a good thing that I didn't, huh?

The US is far from the only nation with this problem.

 

[Photonic]

I guess it's a good thing that I didn't, huh?

The US is far from the only nation with this problem.

It's obvious you are talking about it though, as most European countries rely more on re-introducing criminals back into society through rehabilitation. The US system does not rehabilitate criminals, they simply separate them (which I don't think is the right way to do it, either).

 

[Tarheeler]

It's obvious you are talking about it though, as most European countries rely more on re-introducing criminals back into society through rehabilitation. The US system does not rehabilitate criminals, they simply separate them (which I don't think is the right way to do it, either).

And yet they still have their share of violence both inside and outside of the legal system.

Also, keep in mind that the US and Europe are not the only places that eschew "official" physicial punishments but still have similar issues. Most modern secular governments have this problem to some degree.

 

[uttam]

i think except hindu , all other religeons are not directly related to god. i mean we hindu only believe in avatarbad which says that god himself or his part comes to teach us on this earth. other religion never seen god they only face the representative.people of other religion are forced to believe things as they are but we hindus have the right to criticise, justify then reject or accept any idea given before us.so hindus never get violent to others with some exception.islam does not come from heart. it is imaginary which says allah is almighty but to think about allah is zero because allah is un thinkable ( nirakar). how can you imagine something out of nothing so everything done forcefully.

 

[sandandfoam]

Also, keep in mind that the US and Europe are not the only places that eschew "official" physicial punishments but still have similar issues.

I'm misunderstanding you I expect - are you saying that the US don't officially use physical punishments?

 

[Tarheeler]

I'm misunderstanding you I expect - are you saying that the US don't officially use physical punishments?

Not at all. For example, from a domestic view, you can't get anymore physicial than death. And many states, including my own, still allows for corpal punishment in schools and other government facilities.

When you move into the federal arena, there are all types of "interrogation" techniques at play, and the military isn't know for its soft touch. To date there is only one form of execution that has been ruled unconstitutional by the USSC: drawing and quartering.

Honestly, why any politician would think that a force trained to defeat and kill an enemy would make a good police force is beyond me. The military should fight wars, and the police should worry about civilians. But I guess that's a bit off topic for this one.

 

[Photonic]

Not at all. For example, from a domestic view, you can't get anymore physicial than death. And many states, including my own, still allows for corpal punishment in schools and other government facilities.

When you move into the federal arena, there are all types of "interrogation" techniques at play, and the military isn't know for its soft touch. To date there is only one form of execution that has been ruled unconstitutional by the USSC: drawing and quartering.

Honestly, why any politician would think that a force trained to defeat and kill an enemy would make a good police force is beyond me. The military should fight wars, and the police should worry about civilians. But I guess that's a bit off topic for this one.

The military is not brought in to deal with civilian matters ever. That's what the police are for.

 

[Bismillah]

The military is not brought in to deal with civilian matters ever.

Gitmo?