Islamic Justice: girl lashed for being raped; rapist pardoned

[.lava]

But you do seem to be saying that one has nothing to do with the other - that following hadiths has nothing to do with being muslim, nothing to do with the culture and tradition of Islam. And I think that's completely false - it is not possible to do one without the other.

i was not even talking about being a Muslim. i was talking about Sharia. Muslim is an individual and he or she can commit any crime or not. that is a personal thing. in case they have confidence in religious leaders, it is their right to follow them. they are not Muslims just because they believe hadiths to be real. they are Muslims because they accept Mohammad PBUH as messenger of God, Qur'an as word of God, they believe in after life, they believe in angels and so on. these are basics in Islam. no Muslims would argue about these stuff


.

 

[Commoner]

is it smart to learn religion from actions of religious?

.

The history and culture of a religion - yes, how else?

If you remove the culture, the tradition, the history, all you're left with is a book.

 

[Autodidact]

is it smart to learn religion from actions of religious?


.

Yes, I think one of the most important things to look at, in learning about the effects of a given religion, is the way that religion is actually practiced, its "actions." Remember, actions speak louder than words.

 

[Commoner]

i was not even talking about being a Muslim. i was talking about Sharia. Muslim is an individual and he or she can commit any crime or not. that is a personal thing. in case they have confidence in religious leaders, it is their right to follow them. they are not Muslims just because they believe hadiths to be real. they are Muslims because they accept Mohammad PBUH as messenger of God, Qur'an as word of God, they believe in after life, they believe in angels and so on. these are basics in Islam. no Muslims would argue about these stuff


.

"...they are not Muslims just because they believe hadiths to be real."

No, of course not, but they do believe hadiths to be real because they are Muslim - it is an exclusive club. You can't say that it's an issue that exists separate from Islam. It does not. There are no Christians living in England and no atheist living in France that follow hadiths and want to live under Sharia.

 

[.lava]

The history and culture of a religion - yes, how else?

If you remove the culture, the tradition, the history, all you're left with is a book.

and everything you can call Islamic with no doubt is in that book.

anyway, Commoner, i get your point and i believe you get mine too.

before verses of Qur'an was revealed, there were civilizations with history and traditions. many verses stood against them and for 200 years Islam lived by people. in time of Mohammad PBUH and after him for 200 years, there were no hadith books, Muslims were not divided in sections and they were Muslims. only after 200 years they wrote down hadiths. different ideas were told by different Imams, so some people followed one Imam while some others follow another Imam. commentaries were written according to hadiths, each writer wrote his understanding and Muslims went different directions because of those commentaries. they are divided now. today in schools they study commentaries. what a Shii learns is different from what a Sunni learns. i personally don't mind reading hadith books or commentaries but i would not let go of that book; Qur'an. it is my anchor. naturally it would be the only thing that's left for people who wants to learn Islam. the rest is political matter


.

 

[.lava]

"...they are not Muslims just because they believe hadiths to be real."

No, of course not, but they do believe hadiths to be real because they are Muslim - it is an exclusive club. You can't say that it's an issue that exists separate from Islam. It does not. There are no Christians living in England and no atheist living in France that follow hadiths and want to live under Sharia.

i agree. i said whatever i said because, obviously i was not clear enough, just want to correct possible misunderstanding. remember you said that i claim people who believe in hadiths are not true Muslims?....i never said that. i can't know that


.

 

[Commoner]

and everything you can call Islamic with no doubt is in that book.

anyway, Commoner, i get your point and i believe you get mine too.

before verses of Qur'an was revealed, there were civilizations with history and traditions. many verses stood against them and for 200 years Islam lived by people. in time of Mohammad PBUH and after him for 200 years, there were no hadith books, Muslims were not divided in sections and they were Muslims. only after 200 years they wrote down hadiths. different ideas were told by different Imams, so some people followed one Imam while some others follow another Imam. commentaries were written according to hadiths, each writer wrote his understanding and Muslims went different directions because of those commentaries. they are divided now. today in schools they study commentaries. what a Shii learns is different from what a Sunni learns. i personally don't mind reading hadith books or commentaries but i would not let go of that book; Qur'an. it is my anchor. naturally it would be the only thing that's left for people who wants to learn Islam. the rest is political matter


.

Then let me make myself clear - when I speak of Islam, I am speaking about a religion, a culture, a tradition, a way of life, a socio-economic system and a political system.

Not a couple of sentences (of funky origin) on a couple of piece of paper.

 

[.lava]

Yes, I think one of the most important things to look at, in learning about the effects of a given religion, is the way that religion is actually practiced, its "actions." Remember, actions speak louder than words.

so...reflecting your own hatred and revengeful thoughts onto your child, poisoning his mind with your ignorance even though he is not even able to perceive things as an adult and abusing his pain of losing his father, uncle or maybe his brother because of [fill the blank] attacks ARE attitudes that's only adapted by religious. nowhere on Earth you can't see a racist father who happened to be atheist, raising his son with hatred towards certain people. of course, it is not human ego, it is not human selfishness + ignorance that drives people that directions to abuse kids, sure it is not human nature, not human ego, not vices of ego, not human ignorance...it is just us, religious :sarcastic


.

 

[Autodidact]

so...reflecting your own hatred and revengeful thoughts onto your child, poisoning his mind with your ignorance even though he is not even able to perceive things as an adult and abusing his pain of losing his father, uncle or maybe his brother because of [fill the blank] attacks ARE attitudes that's only adapted by religious. nowhere on Earth you can't see a racist father who happened to be atheist, raising his son with hatred towards certain people. of course, it is not human ego, it is not human selfishness + ignorance that drives people that directions to abuse kids, sure it is not human nature, not human ego, not vices of ego, not human ignorance...it is just us, religious :sarcastic


.

Overall I think religious people are, on average, more racist and tribalistic than non-religious, but that's not the point. It's not just people who happen to be religious vs. people who happen not to be, it's the religion itself, as practiced by its proponents. Islam, as currently practiced, by actual Muslims, in majority Muslim countries, is very, very, sexist. That's what actual Muslims put forth as Islam, right or wrong, and that's the Islam that the rest of the world has to deal with.

So if you want us to see "True Islam" as not sexist, you would need to persuade the world's Muslims to change how they practice and believe.

I don't think there are any equivalent "atheist courts" where "atheist law" is used to unjustly punish crime victims, no. I'm not aware of any such thing.

 

[.lava]

Then let me make myself clear - when I speak of Islam, I am speaking about a religion, a culture, a tradition, a way of life, a socio-economic system and a political system.

that makes lots of diversity. it must be difficult to generalize.

Not a couple of sentences (of funky origin) on a couple of piece of paper.

just for your information, there are over 6 thousand verses in Qur'an. it is many more than "couple of pieces of paper"


.

 

[Commoner]

just for your information, there are over 6 thousand verses in Qur'an. it is many more than "couple of pieces of paper"

More in quantity, but without tradition, without history, without culture - not more in quality or content than any other piece of literature.

 

[Riverwolf]

And yet your energies were in abundance when it came to responding to Autodidact’s observation that not a single Muslim condemned the council’s actions! We express outrage at atrocities because we are human and because we care, even if we are unable to directly intervene or cause change to come about. You were offended not by the appalling punishment meted out to the victim or the perverse form of justice that saw the perpetrator go free, but by the fact that the matter had been raised at all. And if that wasn’t enough you then wanted to misrepresent the actual words to mean other than what they said.

Clearly, the words we're using for each other are causing both of us to erect solid walls between us, preventing any useful communication. (I don't know about you, but your word choices are causing all my defenses to go up, which severely inhibits my ability to rationalize. I still have to develop firm self-esteem, so I won't have any use for those defenses and can safely discard them.) Therefore, this part is the only part I'll respond to.

I am an introverted person. I don't express my outrage at something I can't control so readily, even if my culture says I should. I don't really care for popular Western culture, anyway.

Now, if you think I purposely, intentionally, misrepresented some words, please show me some evidence of that, because clearly, even though you don't know me or anything about me, really, you somehow know me better than I do. Are you a psychologist? (Only then would what you say about me have even a tiny bit of weight.)

Not to mention, take a look at the way the Western cultures view Islam right now: with hatred and fear. There's lots of trash propaganda against Islam on the market right now, and some of it can be mistaken for a legitimate study or report to those unfamiliar with Islam. (Remember when somebody reported a false verse in the Qur'an that related to the 9/11 attacks?) Therefore, it makes more sense to be careful and sensitive with these things. If you reported the fact that some people in India kill their baby daughters because they wanted sons, and labeled it, "Hindu Infanticide," it wouldn't be as much of a problem, because, while proportionately few Westerners know much about Hinduism, there isn't a lot of fear and hatred towards them at the moment.

One last thing: here's something you may not know about me: I consider rape to be the highest of all crimes: worse than murder, IMO. Now, from that alone, you should be able to infer how I feel about this situation and others like it.

 

[Riverwolf]

But you do seem to be saying that one has nothing to do with the other - that following hadiths has nothing to do with being muslim, nothing to do with the culture and tradition of Islam. And I think that's completely false - it is not possible to do one without the other.

It's not possible to be a Muslim and not follow hadiths?

 

[gnostic]

To an outside observer, both sides are Islam, even if there is a contradiction.

Or if I continue with my analogy - the Tolkien fan that thinks he has to bite off your finger and the moderate Tolkien fan who thinks that's absurd are both Tolkien fans even if they don't consider each other to be correct in their interpretations.

And at this point in time, there seems to be a lot of finger biting going on. That's a real problem and it implies that Tolkien's works and the associated "fan clubs" are not doing a very good job at the moment, regardless of the original intent. If only we could manage to convince people Lord of The Rings was just a novel.

I am love Tolkien's works. Whether I am fan of his or not, I don't know. I would never consider dressing up like one of the characters in the book.

I like the Star Wars films, but I don't try to impersonate one of the characters, or a Jedi or a Storm Trooper or a Wookie. I don't like it that much. I'd suppose that I am not fanatical enough.

But that's exactly my point - I don't define what is or isn't Islamic, Muslims do. And not just those that agree with you, but all Muslims, each Muslim.

To an outside observer, both sides are Islam, even if there is a contradiction.

I'd have to agree with you here.

I think .lava is ignoring that outsiders are not the ones who claiming what is Islamic, whether it be involved with customs, education, politics or laws. We are not the ones who would say this person or group of people are Muslims or not Muslims, Muslims make that sort of distinction about other Muslims.

Regardless of interpretations, Muslims are the ones that claim that their laws are Islamic or Sharia, not the outsiders. Whether it is or not, is really a non-issue, because even if the interpretations are wrong, it is an Islamic issue.

The thing is, imams or some other clerics (teachers, scholars) are involved with politics and laws.

The silly thing is that anyone can say that they are Islamic scholar or cleric (imam), but when that his teaching (or interpretation) is not Islamic, and Muslims like you yourself, .lava, may claim he is not Muslim. Then why is that person called himself an imam or a scholar?

That's why I don't think any spiritual Islamic teachers, scholars or leaders should be involved with education, law or politics. When given such powers and authorities, it is not non-Muslim outsiders that misrepresent Islam, but the Muslims themselves.

 

[Commoner]

It's not possible to be a Muslim and not follow hadiths?

The other way around, Riverwolf, the other way around.

 

[Riverwolf]

The other way around, Riverwolf, the other way around.

It's not possible to follow the Hadiths without being a Muslim? That doesn't make sense, either. :no:

 

[Commoner]

It's not possible to follow the Hadiths without being a Muslim? That doesn't make sense, either. :no:

That's exactly right, it's not possible to follow the Hadith without being a Muslim.

Try reading a part of it and I'm sure you'll see why.

 

[Riverwolf]

That's exactly right, it's not possible to follow the Hadith without being a Muslim.

Try reading a part of it and I'm sure you'll see why.

A part of the Hadith?

Are you aware of just how many Hadiths there are?

 

[.lava]

The silly thing is that anyone can say that they are Islamic scholar or cleric (imam), but when that his teaching (or interpretation) is not Islamic, and Muslims like you yourself, .lava, may claim he is not Muslim. Then why is that person called himself an imam or a scholar?

OK now, i think i had enough. please quote me and show me where i claim he is not a Muslim. (btw, who is he?) maybe he is maybe he is not, i don't know. we were not discussing about individuals anyway

no, anyone can not say he is a scholar or imam out of blue, just like that. they have to have certain teachings, they have to be educated. but as i said earlier they study commentaries. whoever teaches them already have the same knowledge. they just pass it on


.

 

[Commoner]

A part of the Hadith?

Are you aware of just how many Hadiths there are?

Semantics,

How about you actually address my argument instead of my poor linguistic skills.