Islamic Justice: girl lashed for being raped; rapist pardoned

[Riverwolf]

Semantics,

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

I wasn't addressing any poor linguistic skills. Sorry if I came across as doing so.

Hadiths are small aphorisms, as far as I can tell. Because I haven't read any of them, I can't say whether or not there are some that can be followed without following Islam.

 

[Commoner]

I wasn't addressing any poor linguistic skills. Sorry if I came across as doing so.

Hadiths are small aphorisms, as far as I can tell. Because I haven't read any of them, I can't say whether or not there are some that can be followed without following Islam.

Oh, ok, I thought you were attacking.

Well, the numero uno thing you'd have to do is believe in Allah. That's pretty much every other sentence (disclaimer: exaggeration).

And conversely, rejecting the big guy is pretty much the ultimate no-no.

So...pretty incompatible with not being a Muslim.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh, ok, I thought you were attacking.

Well, the numero uno thing you'd have to do is believe in Allah. That's pretty much every other sentence (disclaimer: exaggeration).

And conversely, rejecting the big guy is pretty much the ultimate no-no.

So...pretty incompatible with not being a Muslim.

But does every single aphorism require a belief in God?

If I gave you a random aphorism, without telling you its source, and it said nothing about God or metaphysics whatsoever, and you decide to follow it, would you stop following it if I told you it was from a religious text or commentary?

 

[Commoner]

But does every single aphorism require a belief in God?

If I gave you a random aphorism, without telling you its source, and it said nothing about God or metaphysics whatsoever, and you decide to follow it, would you stop following it if I told you it was from a religious text or commentary?

Of course not. But what does that have to do with it?

Then you're trying to argue that I follow the Qur'an, the Bible, most if not all religious texts, Mein Kampf, Lord of the Rings, Little Red Riding Hood etc...?

In all of those there are parts that I agree with.

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course not. But what does that have to do with it?

Then you're trying to argue that I follow the Qur'an, the Bible, most if not all religious texts, Mein Kampf, Lord of the Rings, Little Red Riding Hood etc...?

In all of those there are parts that I agree with.

That's what I'm talking about. While I can't be certain, as I haven't really read any of the hadiths, I'd wager that there are several that can be followed without having to be a Muslim, just like you can follow certain teachings of Jesus without actually becoming a Christian.

 

[Commoner]

That's what I'm talking about. While I can't be certain, as I haven't really read any of the hadiths, I'd wager that there are several that can be followed without having to be a Muslim, just like you can follow certain teachings of Jesus without actually becoming a Christian.

Yes, I'm sure there are.

But, Riverwolf, I don't follow certain teachings of Jesus. I believe in certain principles that happen to also be what Jesus (is supposed to have) taught. Do you understand the distinction?

If you don't, I'm affraid I'm going to have to peg you as a follower of Hitler and Stalin. Because I guess you can follow Hitler's ideology without becoming a Nazi, right? Right.

That's just a useless way of thinking about it.

 

[kai]

I take that as a no?

indeed

 

[kai]

This particular issue in the OP do people think its a Muslim Problem or a Bangladeshi problem.?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, I'm sure there are.

But, Riverwolf, I don't follow certain teachings of Jesus. I believe in certain principles that happen to also be what Jesus (is supposed to have) taught. Do you understand the distinction?

The distinction is only present if you already followed them before you realized that Jesus taught the same thing.

If you don't, I'm affraid I'm going to have to peg you as a follower of Hitler and Stalin. Because I guess you can follow Hitler's ideology without becoming a Nazi, right? Right.

That's just a useless way of thinking about it.

I'm afraid that's not quite right. You've basically equated following a few aphorisms that are, on their own, unrelated to the source material, with following an entire ideology. You can't follow Hitler's ideologies without being a Nazi. That's obvious.

Tell me: do you agree with this proverb: "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."?

 

[Riverwolf]

This particular issue in the OP do people think its a Muslim Problem or a Bangladeshi problem.?

I think we can safely determine that it's a bit of both, because while this incident is based on ancient tribal customs, it is being utilized with Islamic terms. Using Islamic terms to justify such acts is also not limited to Bangladesh, as we have seen that similar acts have been committed elsewhere in the world.

 

[YmirGF]

This particular issue in the OP do people think its a Muslim Problem or a Bangladeshi problem.?

I vote that it is actually an Islamic problem due to the endless ways that the Qur'an and Sunna can be interpreted. Modernistic forces in Islam are trying to adapt to current sensitivities, but for every person saying "No way" there are, by .lava's estimates, 9 saying "Way!". It is the nature of the Vortex itself.

My guess is that there is going to be a rather messy clash between modernistic Muslims and the old guard in the years to come. The old ways are not going to just roll over and play dead.

 

[gnostic]

OK now, i think i had enough. please quote me and show me where i claim he is not a Muslim.

Sorry, .lava. I probably didn't may wrote clearly enough.

In any case, however, I did not say "you will" or "you have".

and Muslims like you yourself, .lava, may claim he is not Muslim.

I said "you may", because his or their interpretations may not be in line with your interpretation.

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

If that was true (and it would be true if every imam or scholar have perfect understanding), then they would only interpretation in everything. And there isn't just one interpretation.

Are you saying that the imam are perfect? Perfect understanding? Perfect interpretation which every other imams agreed with, whether the subject be religious teaching, law or politics?

 

[kai]

I vote that it is actually an Islamic problem due to the endless ways that the Qur'an and Sunna can be interpreted. Modernistic forces in Islam are trying to adapt to current sensitivities, but for every person saying "No way" there are, by .lava's estimates, 9 saying "Way!". It is the nature of the Vortex itself.

My guess is that there is going to be a rather messy clash between modernistic Muslims and the old guard in the years to come. The old ways are not going to just roll over and play dead.

The problem is there,s no hierarchy no structure to deal with this, its not as if there is someone to send an emissary. Bangladesh has a justice system it has a judiciary and a police force that is failing its citizens.

Judicial system of Bangladesh

 

[Commoner]

I'm afraid that's not quite right. You've basically equated following a few aphorisms that are, on their own, unrelated to the source material, with following an entire ideology. You can't follow Hitler's ideologies without being a Nazi. That's obvious.

Just as you've attempted to do with "following the Hadith". You cannot follow them without being a Muslim.

Just as you don't follow Hitler by agreeing with a single disjointed statement or idea.

Tell me: do you agree with this proverb: "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."?

Oh, stop it. It's a really bad argument, just let it go.:sorry1:

 

[Commoner]

This particular issue in the OP do people think its a Muslim Problem or a Bangladeshi problem.?

In this particular case, hard to say. I think it's both, but I also think people don't generally get specific ideas such as this in their head all on their own.

So...the motivation I would say is a Muslim problem. That they were able to actually do it and get away with it - Bangladeshi problem.

 

[.lava]

Sorry, .lava. I probably didn't may wrote clearly enough.

In any case, however, I did not say "you will" or "you have".



I said "you may", because his or their interpretations may not be in line with your interpretation.



If that was true (and it would be true if every imam or scholar have perfect understanding), then they would only interpretation in everything. And there isn't just one interpretation.

Are you saying that the imam are perfect? Perfect understanding? Perfect interpretation which every other imams agreed with, whether the subject be religious teaching, law or politics?

oh OK, i apologize....i may not

if every Imam learns and teaches the same knowledge and in case it was perfect a.k.a. not corrupted knowledge of Islam, then there would not be sections in Islam. there are main sections and there are also sections within sections. each section believes they have the right version of Islam. Qur'an is very clear about sections. religion supposed to unite people but knowledge of sections divide people. by unite, i don't mean just Muslims. today many non-Muslims are scared of Sharia. but in fact anyone supposed to be united, rights of everyone supposed to be protected. i tried to explain how it happened, how corruption in practice has started. 200 years after death of the last Prophet, his sayings were written. it was his wish, he did not want sayings to be written. maybe people forgot it in time. then Imams began to offer their personal aspects on verses. they wrote commentaries. different commentaries divided people into sections in time. the same thing happened with Christianity as well. the difference between is that original text of Qur'an is not changed. yet people rather study or learn what commentaries says, instead of Qur'an. this is the main reason why we contradict. today if someone asks why they do whatever they do, they would give a name of a Imam as a reference


.

 

[Riverwolf]

Just as you've attempted to do with "following the Hadith". You cannot follow them without being a Muslim.

Just as you don't follow Hitler by agreeing with a single disjointed statement or idea.

I've never seen any statement by Hitler that isn't compatible with the Nazi ideology. Besides, he didn't write in aphorisms(as far as I know); he wrote a whole book.

Not to mention, I've never actually seen any writing of Hitler's that I agree with, so to peg me as a follower of his ideology because I do not oppose cherry picking is very inappropriate.

Hadiths are aphorisms. In other words: the kind of thing that would fit on bumper stickers. You can't really compare them to Hitler's teachings.

Oh, stop it. It's a really bad argument, just let it go.:sorry1:

That's the response I get for posting yet another example?

I will not let it go until you can actually give me some concrete reason to do so, like actually stating the relationship between Hitler's ideology and brief aphorisms.

 

[Commoner]

I've never seen any statement by Hitler that isn't compatible with the Nazi ideology.

There's this thing called Google, you know?

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. "

"Hate is more lasting than dislike. "

Adolf Hitler

That's the response I get for posting yet another example?

Wofl, I've explained it to you already. It's a useless argument and there is nothing to be gained from it as it is pure semantics. You can give all the examples you'd like, but unless you actually understand the distinction between following the Hadith and having some principles that also happen to be in the Hadith, any example will be pretty meaningless.

 

[Riverwolf]

There's this thing called Google, you know?

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. "

"Hate is more lasting than dislike. "

Adolf Hitler

Hm... I fail to see how either of those are dependent on his ideologies.

BTW, Google is my homepage. I never cared enough about what Hitler had to say to look up any quotes by him. The only one I really know is "we need breathing room," and I only know that from Star Trek VI.

Wofl, I've explained it to you already. It's a useless argument and there is nothing to be gained from it as it is pure semantics. You can give all the examples you'd like, but unless you actually understand the distinction between following the Hadith and having some principles that also happen to be in the Hadith, any example will be pretty meaningless.

I don't see any consequential difference, since the Hadith isn't a single piece of work, but several aphorisms, which, by the way, have several authors (though many of them are attributed to Mohammad), and are compiled based on whether or not they appear to contradict the Qur'an. Not at all the same thing as Hitler's ideologies.

I can understand when talking about what Hitler had to say. I can understand it with that. But when the authorship is questionable and we can safely say that several were involved (and it's brief aphorisms), I don't see how any difference would be consequential. It's like the difference between "little" and "small." There is a connotative difference, but it's so inconsequential that it doesn't matter.

 

[Commoner]

Look, Hadith are supposed to be the words and deeds of Muhammad -it's not unlike the Bible, the two main branches of Islam have their own collection of these "words of wisdom" that they follow. It doesn't matter in what format they are and who the author is. Just like the Bible, just like Mein Kampf, just like Lord of the Rings, you cannot be said to follow the Hadith or follow the Bible just because there's always something in them you can find which you'll agree with. The collections represent something as a whole, they are not just the sum of their individual parts - just as the Bible represents something.

You cannot say I follow the Bible anymore than you can say that a Muslim follows the Bible, yet we both probably agree with parts of it. The Bible isn't a single piece of work either.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. If you reduce the "follow the Hadith" statement to such a degree that even agreeing with a single idea makes you a follower - even though you strongly disagree with the rest, than it's a useless expression. It's useless for the Bible, it's useless for Mein Kampf, it's useless for the Communist Manifesto and it's useless for The Lord of the Rings.