Man sentenced to death for sorcery.

[Sahar]

Is this really necessary though? I know that plenty of Muslims hold seminars, meetings, hand out fliers etc in England in order to advertise their beliefs. No loudspeakers doesn't prevent people from advertising their faith, but it does prevent noise pollution.

It's not about advertising our faith.

Secular states are by no means perfect, but I think they are pretty understanding of most religious practices.

How many times do I have to repeat this?
Religious practices and rituals are a thing and on the other hand the ideologies and values on which political, economic and social systems are based are a different thing.
When did I say that a non Muslim shouldn't practice his religion? When did I even talk about this?

 

[Sahar]

Is my English that bad?

 

[.lava]

Is my English that bad?

i can understand you but maybe mine is as bad as yours btw thank you for sharing. i've learned a few things tonight

.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Is my English that bad?

You're English is perfectly fine, not4me.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Not4me, how can you reconcile you're thoughts that a Muslim country under Sharia law should allow a Muslim to convert to Christianity with the apostasy laws of the Hadith?

 

[Erebus]

It's not about advertising our faith.

How many times do I have to repeat this?
Religious practices and rituals are a thing and on the other hand the ideologies and values on which political, economic and social systems are based are a different thing.
When did I say that a non Muslim shouldn't practice his religion? When did I even talk about this?

I was talking more about your argument that in a non-Islamic country a Muslim would not be allowed to use a loudspeaker. I've said that I don't see how a loudspeaker is necessary. Now if I've got this wrong, please tell me. What is the loudspeaker used for and why would it be necessary?
I don't understand what the rest of your post is talking about. I haven't mentioned any of those things.

*edit* sorry, just saw your post explaining the loudspeaker

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Broadcasting the call for prayers by mosques is essential. Airing the adhan and prayers on TV and radio is another thing.

Is it? I know I'm not Muslim, but I feel pretty confident in saying that you won't find anything in the Quran, the Hadiths or the Sunnah that says that making the call to prayer over the radio isn't sufficient.

Yet, it would not be the case in an Islamic country. And non Muslims will have to bear the disturbance.

Tell you what: if I agree to let you broadcast your call to prayer, do you agree not to execute people who don't measure up to your version of Islam? I mean, if that's all it will take, then fine - a bit of racket at dawn while I'm trying to sleep is a small price to pay for a person's life.

Sorry, my context went into becoming general and discussing general and various ideas.
But I'd like to say, if Muslim governments will execute people for these reason (whether we agreed or not), they are applied on MUSLIMS. If Muslims believe that adultery is a crime and punished those who committed such crimes, sorry you have no say in this.

Of course I do. I enjoy rights (the right to not be arbitrarily executed, for instance). I feel that my enjoyment of this right imposes an obligation on me to protect this right for others.

And we are not going to ask the adulterer if he want to be punished or not. If you think that adultery should be practiced freely, dude you are free to think whatever you want, if you are happy to see it this way where you live, okay but you can't expect Muslims to run their lives according to what makes you happy.

I personally disapprove of adultery, but I disapprove even more of the idea of murdering adulterers. You're free to live by any wacky ideas you want, but when you start talking about imposing those ideas on people who don't want or accept them, that's when I draw the line.

I don't know, some Westerners are very arrogant, they are expecting Muslims to view life through their eyes. And if they don't, they are not modern and civilized like them.

In some respects I agree with your point, however, I have no problem condemning as backward people who would execute someone for sorcery.

What do you think, Penguin?

"The people" are not a monolithic block who all think the same and act the same. I think it's important for society to be free: IOW, to only impose limitations on people when they can be reasonably justified.

I think it's important for you to remember that while I do like living in a democracy, I also like living in a country where individual rights and freedoms are protected. For instance, there's a new major highway extension planned near me. It's supported by a democratically elected government, but if it fails to pass the environmental assessment process (which includes consultation with people in the communities that the project affects), then I don't think the highway should be built.

If you want to live by your interpretation of Shari'a, fine. If you only want to buy halal foods, fine as well. If you don't want to sell haraam foods in your store, that's fine, too. However, if you start trying to tell me (or anyone else who doesn't share your views, including Muslims who do things you don't agree with) what I can and cannot do, then I get a voice in the rules that will apply to me.

Basically, what I'm saying is that unless every single person under it agrees to it, you do not have the right to live under a system of Shari'a law that would apply to everyone. You get the right to make decisions about your own life; you do not get the right to make decisions about the lives of others.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I still want my question addressed:

When is the execution date?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still want my question addressed:

When is the execution date?

I answered it a while back: there is no date yet.

He's got one appeal left. I don't think that the date it will be heard has been set. If he loses that appeal, then he can be executed immediately.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I answered it a while back: there is no date yet.

He's got one appeal left. I don't think that the date it will be heard has been set. If he loses that appeal, then he can be executed immediately.

Thanks.

Perhaps this trial will be public and he'll have a lawyer.

 

[Sahar]

Not4me, how can you reconcile you're thoughts that a Muslim country under Sharia law should allow a Muslim to convert to Christianity with the apostasy laws of the Hadith?

This is a big question that requires a detailed long answer.
Of course, it's not me who is going to do this, it's the job of the scholars of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence).

So, I will quote parts of Dr Jamal Badawi's assay on this issue (Perfect Circle, if you are interested in how the opinion that says leaving Islam is not a crime against the Muslim society, can be reconciled with the related hadiths, it's better to check the assay);
Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam?

• The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur'an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.
• References to early capital punishment for apostasy were not due to apostasy itself, but rather other capital crimes that were coupled with it.
• In the context of the besieged early Muslim community, apostasy was a major threat to the nascent Muslim community. Taking a passive attitude towards it would have jeopardized the very emergence of the Muslim community. This may be one reason why the consensus of scholars is that apostasy is an offense (in the context of an Islamic society) is an offense. However, there are wide divergence of views about its suitable punishment. Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh argues that "we can conclude that the issue of the penalty prescribed for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the nation. Therefore, there is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation. On the other hand, if a group of apostates endangers the security and interests of the Muslim community, then the Muslim ruler should consider them to be a danger and threat to society."24

He discussed the related hadith's and their interpretation like;
Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) "cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, "Cancel my pledge." But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina). Allah's Apostle said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good."11

In this hadith, the prophet didn't prescribe any punishment against the bedouin and let him leave.
​

And
Abdullah narrated that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas (retaliation) for murder, a married person who commits adultery and the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the (Muslim) community."

​

This hadith has been interpreted in more than one way. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) speaks here of three capital crimes, the third of which is committing apostasy and parting with the (Muslim) community. By merely committing apostasy and parting peacefully with the Muslim community without committing any act of treason justifies the death penalty, then why did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) let the man in the first hadith cited above go unmolested? Would that show that parting with the community refers to coupling apostasy with joining the enemies who were at war with Muslims at that time?
The argument that apostasy itself is an act of treason because Islam is also a religious entity is questionable on several grounds. First, it is known that all people of other faith communities, who are peacefully coexisting with Muslims, are entitled to just and kind treatment and are not pressured into accepting Islam against their will (Al-Mumtahanah 60:8-8). If a Muslim chooses to commit apostasy, bad as it may seem from a Muslim perspective, the relevant question is whether or not such apostasy is coupled with other crimes against the state.
Another relevant question is whether an individual apostasy is itself an offense (in Arabic jarimah). And if it were an offense, it would be an offense that goes purely against God. In that case, God would hold the person accountable on the Day of Judgment. Or, if it were automatically considered to be a capital offense here on earth regardless of the particulars of any specific situation. More central here is whether it is coupled with any other punishable offense.

​

 

[Sahar]

Thanks lava and Perfect Circle. I feel there is a wide communication gap and I find myself repeating what I said over and over.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The most offensive aspect of this is the willingness of Saudi Arabia to execute foreign nationals for crimes not even committed on their soil.

This must violate basic concepts of hospitality. Killing travellers is horrible. But murdering religious pilgrams!

 

[AxisMundi]

Good point. Death penalty is mentioned in the Qur'an in cases of Qisas for murder (it's optional to the family of victim) and in cases of Hirabah (piracy); spreading corruption and terrorism in land (a range of penalties can be applied depending on the case).

A range of penalties including apostasy and homosexuality (in men only) apperently.

 

[Sahar]

Is it? I know I'm not Muslim, but I feel pretty confident in saying that you won't find anything in the Quran, the Hadiths or the Sunnah that says that making the call to prayer over the radio isn't sufficient.

Over the radio? So we can say too that opening the TV on a channel that airs a prayer in congregation live and praying at home with the Muslims on TV is sufficient and it's not necessary to go to a mosque and pray in congregation, TV can solve a lot of problem.
If you claim that broadcasting of the adhan over the radio is sufficient, what's the evidence that back up your claim?

How the Adhan Was Prescribed - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
The Adhan is fard kifayah (a communal obligation).

...that the Prophet, peace and blessings be on him, told him, “I see you love the sheep and hillside. So if you are with your sheep or on the hillside, and you happen to call Adhan, you should call it loudly; for a muezzin’s voice reaches no one among the species of the jinn and mankind, without he acting as a witness for him on the Day of Resurrection.”

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...olar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar#ixzz0j2eT2Ylj
​

"The people" are not a monolithic block who all think the same and act the same. I think it's important for society to be free: IOW, to only impose limitations on people when they can be reasonably justified.

Well Islam is the way to freedom of my society, so...?

If you want to live by your interpretation of Shari'a, fine. If you only want to buy halal foods, fine as well. If you don't want to sell haraam foods in your store, that's fine, too. However, if you start trying to tell me (or anyone else who doesn't share your views, including Muslims who do things you don't agree with) what I can and cannot do, then I get a voice in the rules that will apply to me.

So again what if the majority of people don't want a secular government but an Islamic one, should the secular government be imposed on them? Should their will be represented? Yes or no?

 

[Sahar]

Tell you what: if I agree to let you broadcast your call to prayer, do you agree not to execute people who don't measure up to your version of Islam? I mean, if that's all it will take, then fine - a bit of racket at dawn while I'm trying to sleep is a small price to pay for a person's life.

Sorry habibi, in my Islamic society the Adhan will be broadcast out loud and those who violate the law will be punished, if you liked it or not. I don't want to see persons walking free when they commit crimes in my Islamic society just because it doesn't match your standards.

I personally disapprove of adultery, but I disapprove even more of the idea of murdering adulterers. You're free to live by any wacky ideas you want, but when you start talking about imposing those ideas on people who don't want or accept them, that's when I draw the line.

This will be what the Muslim society want.

You get the right to make decisions about your own life; you do not get the right to make decisions about the lives of others.

I do have every right to share in shaping my society, its values and how I want to see it.

In some respects I agree with your point, however, I have no problem condemning as backward people who would execute someone for sorcery.

Cool, but don't send your troops over here to teach us how to be civilized.

 

[Sahar]

Just amazing, Muslims don't have the right to live by their Islamic standards and views even in their countries. How arrogant!!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just amazing, Muslims don't have the right to live by their Islamic standards and views even in their countries. How arrogant!!

If their standards were humane, there would be no debate.

 

[Sahar]

If their standards were humane, there would be no debate.

Thank God, I don't rely on yours to define what's humane and what is not.

Every single person in the country must agree to form a certain government, just great. :areyoucra

 

[Azakel]

Thank God, I don't rely on yours to define what's humane and what is not.

Every single person in the country must agree to form a certain government, just great. :areyoucra

So I guess that you consider Killing a man for sorcery 'Humane' then?