Man sentenced to death for sorcery.

[Sahar]

Upholding the basic human rights and civil liberties of every man, woman and child on this earth takes a priority over respecting "cultural differences", especially when said cultures are unjust, oppressive and barbarous.

Don't you have anything new to say? It became very boring.

 

[Moonstone]

Upholding the basic human rights and civil liberties of every man, woman and child on this earth takes a priority over respecting "cultural differences", especially when said cultures are unjust, oppressive and barbarous.

human rights should come before any religion or culture..

 

[Sahar]

Ah, you're right, thanks for correcting me there. It still must be true that some of the 5% non-Muslim viewers must be pagans, mystics, non-traditional Christians, and so on, no?

But still every country has its local channels of course. I was just talking from my experience of such silly channels that air on our satellites. The satellite channels are much more famous than the local ones, I guess, maybe it's also depending on the area.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr Spinkles, why going into a hypothetical situation? What do you think of the example of banning the usage of the loud speakers for Adhan in many Western countries? They think it's harmful and thus it's banned. Here we are talking about a real religious practice that is banned because it "harms" the community.

Absolutely, I see your point. I think I agree with you on most of your fundamental arguments, including the one about an Islamic versus secular political party. The difference between us comes down to specifics and some of these issues are a matter of subjective opinion, community decision, and compromise, like the loud speakers. I don't disagree with you that we should actively try to combat harmful superstitions and expose frauds, but OTOH I could argue that every religious preacher who earns any money is a fraud and should be arrested, since they are deceiving people into believing they will go to a heavenly afterlife. I wouldn't argue that, of course -- room has to be left to allow people to explore different beliefs, and to me, that should include new and unorthodox beliefs as well as ancient ones.

 

[Sahar]

human rights should come before any religion or culture..

Unfortunately, sometimes we can disagree on what constitute a human right.

 

[Father Heathen]

human rights should come before any religion or culture..

Precisely. It's just a damn shame that some societies just aren't up to speed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But still every country has its local channels of course. I was just talking from my experience of such silly channels that air on our satellites. The satellite channels are much more famous than the local ones, I guess, maybe it's also depending on the area.

BUT when a traveller is attempting to trespass the land in good faith, the "local channels" become an international incident.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

No, it means that no person should be denied their fundamental human rights without their consent.

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

You do? Why do you have that right, exactly?

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

Canadian troops haven't been in Egypt since 1956, and when they were, it was more about teaching the British and French to be civilized than teaching the Egyptians.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

That is absolutely sick, almost as sick as the hanging of the homosexuals in the middle of a town. They were probably as homosexual as this poor goof was a sorcerer. I feel horrible for him, but I have to say he brought it on himself. The extremist oppressive aspects of the enforced submission in that area through.... "religious police" (what the hell?! seriously?) should have been noted by him, and he should have anticipated that action against him. Who knows? He might have. If so, his faith did not save him from his fellow muslims and he put his own head on the chopping block. I wish him the best of luck.

And yes, basic human rights should supersede religion and culture always. Religion and culture are over-blown justifications, rationalizations, escape-goats, and bold faced blinding denial of malice, in cases like this.

 

[Sahar]

No, it means that no person should be denied their fundamental human rights without their consent.
You do? Why do you have that right, exactly?


Canadian troops haven't been in Egypt since 1956, and when they were, it was more about teaching the British and French to be civilized than teaching the Egyptians.

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?

Can you give me your reply, if you don't mind?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Although it wasn't directed at me, I would like to answer the question, if you don't mind.

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?

No a secular government should not be imposed, yes their will should be represented.

 

[.lava]

Although it wasn't directed at me, I would like to answer the question, if you don't mind.No a secular government should not be imposed, yes their will should be represented.

i thought secular government is supposed to not let that happen

.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i thought secular government is supposed to not let that happen

.

I believe in pursuing democracy and a fair political process before anything else. I hope people will embrace the idea of human rights and freedoms and that a secular government is the outcome of that process. (And I do not mean an anti-religion, atheist regime like communist China or the Soviet Union.) It's not my right to usurp the will of the people or the democratic process, except in extraordinary circumstances.

 

[kai]

I wonder if a nation voted for an Islamic government with full Sharia would they be able to vote it out again? Is this new territory?

 

[Sahar]

I hope people will embrace the idea of human rights and freedoms and that a secular government is the outcome of that process. (And I do not mean an anti-religion, atheist regime like communist China or the Soviet Union.)

Actually the secular system is anti-Islamic by default, it's a system of kufr. And every one has its version of human rights and freedoms.

 

[Sahar]

i thought secular government is supposed to not let that happen

.

Practically it won't let this happen even if it was theoretically possible. The secular government proved its great failure when dealing with the opposing Islamic political ideology and work.

 

[Sahar]

You do? Why do you have that right, exactly?

Yes, I do. I have that right because I am a member in a society. And if it isn't the case, what is all this fuss about democracy, elections, civil society, human rights...etc?

Although it wasn't directed at me, I would like to answer the question, if you don't mind.No a secular government should not be imposed, yes their will should be represented.

Thank you. I don't know why Penguin is ignoring this fundamental question.

 

[Gharib]

Of course I'm no expert on Islam, so I'm happy to get answers.

what kai said was sort of correct with some corrections needed, for example there are 2 views for the punishment of an apostate.

1. Ok this has thrown me a little, I was under a completely different impression. I agree that the Saudi's shouldn't be doing this anyway, but I thought it was happening because of Sharia law? Also what is the difference (if any) between those countries with laws founded upon Islamic doctrine and Sharia law?

the sharia law is the law set by Allah. that law is fully applied to the nation of islam under a caliphat. if muslims have a caliph then any muslim who would do any wrong (in public) the caliph has the power to issue an arrest or punishment for that person no matter where he is if he is a muslim whether living in that nation of islam or a non-islamic country. non-muslims however are judged with their laws if they are just, for example nowadays if a worker sues a wealthy company or you sue the government it is highly unlikely that you will win because they have more money over you thus they buy the outcome, that is considered unjust in islam.

2. By "true Islamic state" do you mean a hypothetical Islamic state or those countries of a predominantly Islamic perspective?

the state that has the caliph and full sharia implemented and no law that is not in accordance to the quran and hadith, basically the nation that Muhammed (saws) created which now doesn't exist.

Also, being unable to simply abandon Islam isn't surprising unfortunately, it's a catch 22. You have the freedom to choose Islam if you aren't born into it, but once you are in... you stay in... or else. I was always skeptical about the amount of choice a lot of Muslim members have claimed to have, but this (if it is correct) seems to confirm my suspicions.

no there are 2 interpretations (scholarly views to this) one is kill the one who leaves islam if he doesn't repent. 2 the only apostate that is allowed to kill is the one that goes to the enemies of war of islam. meaning instead of having him to come some day and kill a muslim, we might as well kill him since he is joining our enemie.

Honestly, Islam is really beginning to confuse me. I'm under the weather as it is, but I still can't figure out whether or not some of the Muslim members here agree with the death sentence for sorcerors or not. It seems that the general consensus is that sorcery deserves the death penalty, but then there is a lot of confusion over whether that penalty should be carried out and under what circumstances.

no person is sentenced just because he claims or there is some evidence to support that he is a sorcerer. the islamic way of sentencing someone is far more lengthier than what the west has currently. if there is in shred of doubt in the mind of the judge then even a little then the sentencing cannot go on untill the judge is satisfied with the evidence.


but not all cases of sorcery are to be applied the death sentence, thats where the investigation comes is. why was it being done, what was the effect etc etc.

 

[Gharib]

So the lesson is: If you do not accept Islam then you are safe from the religious police. Good to know.

if you do not commit a crime though. i don't know if the religious police are anywhere around the places that non-muslims are allowed to visit.

 

[blackout]

What if you are born into a Muslim family,
are raised Muslim,
but decide when you are older,
it's not for you.

Are you free to just say,
hey... I was raised this way,
but the religion of Islam is not for me.

What will happen to you,
if you do this in an islamic state?