Man sentenced to death for sorcery.

[Draka]

Great, why are you expecting other people to follow such requirements? What if they have other requirements for their definition of a free society?

"Free" does not mean "free except". As people grow up they gain the ability to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves and to learn for themselves. To dictate how a person should think or behave by using a religion as validation of extreme abusive parental actions is above and beyond what a normal society finds acceptable. Human beings are responsible for their own minds and actions. Human beings can have different ideas about what their religion entails, even if they use the same word for a religion. Not all Christians believe the same way, and believe it or not, obviously, not all Muslims believe the same way. To arbitrarily decide that one specific definition and interpretation of a religion is not only the only "correct" way, but to go so far as to punish those within your own religion for differences in faith is immature to say the least, barbaric is also a valid term here. The "Big Brother is watching" is a scare tactic and it is used to control people and that is it. "Protecting" people from others with differences in faith is a LAME excuse for the horrendous things perpetrated this way. It should not be allowed. And definitely not supported.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Penguin, you have a given society where me and you live. You think that the things that you listed are the minimal requirements for a free society and they shouldn't be violated and I think that Islamic Shari'a is the requirement for a free society and it shouldn't be violated. How can we solve this dispute? It's necessary because we need to form a government now.

Frankly, the way I resolve the dispute is to reject the claim that Shari'a is required for a free society until you give some good reasons why we should accept this claim as true.

Maybe as a first step, you could explain how the system you envision would be different from a secular democracy.

 

[Draka]

Penguin, you have a given society where me and you live. You think that the things that you listed are the minimal requirements for a free society and they shouldn't be violated and I think that Islamic Shari'a is the requirement for a free society and it shouldn't be violated. How can we solve this dispute? It's necessary because we need to form a government now.

I think the sheer idea of the possibility that the laws you'd want enforced could possibly be something me and my family would have to suffer from would send me packing and fleeing to anywhere not around you. That's JMO.

 

[Sahar]

Frankly, the way I resolve the dispute is to reject the claim that Shari'a is required for a free society until you give some good reasons why we should accept this claim as true.

If I said I reject yours as well, where will this lead us? Remember, a government should be formed.

Btw; very generally speaking, I don't have any issue with them. Yet, we will easily disagree on what constitute "reasonably justified" violation of these requirements. Freedom is okay, security is well and good, justice (the very strong element of Islamic Shari'a if not the strongest) is necessary, but when can I say freedom has its limits here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I said I reject yours as well, where will this lead us? Remember, a government should be formed.

It would lead us to justifying our positions. I think the requirements I laid out come from a reasonable definition of the term "free". Where do yours come from? I mean, I know that Shari'a is based on Muslim teachings, but where does the justification come from for the claim that that Shari'a is required for a free society?

Btw; very generally speaking, I don't have any issue with them. Yet, we will easily disagree on what constitute "reasonably justified" violation of these requirements.

Quite possibly, but it's hard for me to tell where our disagreements would lie if you don't tell me what you'd consider permissible or prohibited. For instance, in your Shari'a-based "free society", could a Christian build a church? Could he invite Muslims to services? Could he encourage them to leave Islam and become Christians themselves?

Could I put a "You can be good without God" bumper sticker on my car? Would I be able to have a bacon cheeseburger and a beer in my backyard on a summer afternoon? Would my bank be allowed to sell me an interest-bearing GIC?

What would happen to a gay non-Muslim? What would happen to a gay Muslim?

Edit: would Draka be able to open up her store and do Tarot card readings?

Freedom is okay, security is well and good, justice (the very strong element of Islamic Shari'a if not the strongest) is necessary, but when can I say freedom has its limits here?

IMO, you can place limits wherever you can justify them on the basis of significant benefit, the prevention of significant harm, or practical necessity.

 

[Sahar]

It would lead us to justifying our positions. I think the requirements I laid out come from a reasonable definition of the term "free". Where do yours come from? I mean, I know that Shari'a is based on Muslim teachings, but where does the justification come from for the claim that that Shari'a is required for a free society?

Comes from my perspective that following God's Shari'a liberates us from all kinds of slavery and God the all knowing prescribed what is the best for us, thus by following his Shari'a we can reach the shortest way to freedom, stability and prosperity.
okay, what if our dispute isn't on individual level anymore but there are hundreds of thousands of people in that society who support my view and another number of people who support yours, whose view should dominate to be the basis for the political system? What should we do?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Comes from my perspective that following God's Shari'a liberates us from all kinds of slavery and God the all knowing prescribed what is the best for us, thus by following his Shari'a we can reach the shortest way to freedom, stability and prosperity.

How is restricting freedom a way to freedom at all? This seems to me to be contradictory.

okay, what if our dispute isn't on individual level anymore but there are hundreds of thousands of people in that society who support my view and another number of people who support yours, whose view should dominate to be the basis for the political system? What should we do?

That depends: what's your view? You still haven't said.

You've said that you support "Shari'a", but I've seen many different systems that people have called "Shari'a" ranging from mild to positively evil, so I think it's important for you to specify.

 

[Sahar]

IMO, you can place limits wherever you can justify them on the basis of significant benefit, the prevention of significant harm, or practical necessity.

Good, what if we disagreed on what constitute "harm" or "necessity"?
What if I said producing a porn video (freedom of expression) is harmful, and you disagreed stating that it's not harmful?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good, what if we disagreed on what constitute "harm" or "necessity"?
What if I said producing a porn video (freedom of expression) is harmful, and you disagreed stating that it's not harmful?

IMO, in that case, until you can justify that it is harmful and the magnitude of the harm, then it should be permitted.

Edit: a factor in this would also be any harm associated with creating and enforcing a law against it. There's no good in eradicating a minor harm by replacing it with an even greater harm.

 

[Sahar]

You've said that you support "Shari'a", but I've seen many different systems that people have called "Shari'a" ranging from mild to positively evil, so I think it's important for you to specify.

Great, what if there are different versions of Islamic Shari'a and every section in the society support a specific version of Shari'a, in addition to the liberal sections, what should all of us do about it? Whose view should be the basis for the political system?
Should we form militias and fight? Should a group impose his views on the other by force and violence? Or should we form political parties that can go for elections?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Great, what if there are different versions of Islamic Shari'a and every section in the society support a specific version of Shari'a, in addition to the liberal sections, what should all of us do about it? Whose view should be the basis for the political system?
Should we form militias and fight? Should a group impose his views on the other by force and violence? Or should we form political parties that can go for elections?

Well, that's the thing about theocratic systems like Shari'a: really, the only opinion that should matter is God's, right?

If you were in a secular democracy, then there would be a justification for each group deciding on their own to follow different codes, but when authority comes from God, you have to reject the legitimacy of democracy as a means of establishing authority and legitimacy, don't you?

 

[Sahar]

IMO, in that case, until you can justify that it is harmful and the magnitude of the harm, then it should be permitted.

Edit: a factor in this would also be any harm associated with creating and enforcing a law against it. There's no good in eradicating a minor harm by replacing it with an even greater harm.

okay, suppose I justified it with every possible means and no matter what it didn't convince you, so...?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

okay, suppose I justified it with every possible means and no matter what it didn't convince you, so...?

If it's just up to you and me, then we haven't come to a consensus, so you don't get the right to prohibit the action.

In practical terms, though, your voice may matter more or less than mine to the decision-makers.

 

[Sahar]

Well, that's the thing about theocratic systems like Shari'a: really, the only opinion that should matter is God's, right?

If you were in a secular democracy, then there would be a justification for each group deciding on their own to follow different codes, but when authority comes from God, you have to reject the legitimacy of democracy as a means of establishing authority and legitimacy, don't you?

Please Penguin, which path do you suggest going through?

Great, what if there are different versions of Islamic Shari'a and every section in the society support a specific version of Shari'a, in addition to the liberal sections, what should all of us do about it? Whose view should be the basis for the political system?
Should we form militias and fight? Should a group impose his views on the other by force and violence? Or should we form political parties that can go for elections?

 

[Sahar]

If it's just up to you and me, then we haven't come to a consensus, so you don't get the right to prohibit the action.

In practical terms, though, your voice may matter more or less than mine to the decision-makers.

There are no decision makers yet, remember my scenario?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please Penguin, which path do you suggest going through?

If we accept the tenets of Shari'a, then we have no choice but to take God's path. Popular opinion is irrelevant.

The tricky question is how to figure out which path that is.

Edit - again: you still haven't told us what your view of Shari'a is. Can you tell us what you'd consider permissible or prohibited under the system of Shari'a that you envision?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are no decision makers yet, remember my scenario?

You mean the scenario I asked you explain, but that you didn't?

Edit: I think I'm getting a bit confused here. I took the porn video question to be a separate scenario from the rest of our discussion. Was that not your intent?

 

[TashaN]

Oh my God. I have not seen such a long thread since a while, but i feel sorry that i'm not into reading an entire long thread post by post as i used to do in the past, lol.

I just grabbed some posts from the first page and i'll try to reply to them, and hopefully the posts i'm replying to represent most of the arguments in this thread, and if that wasn't the case please come forward and ask me directly about anything you want about this case.

I'll start with this post because it will clarify alot of things.

Ok, so I ask this respectfully to any Muslims reading this. What is your definition of sorcery? How do you prove one is practicing it? Is a death sentence justifiable for it according to the various fiq. What if someone doesn't know they are practicing sorcery?

The type of sorcery being mentioned here is the one which bring harm to others through using a black magic or any other type of magic which it's sole purpose is harm whether this harm was physical, psychological, etc.

Some members here compared it to the magic some do for entertainment purposes like the one below ...

I didn't realize that Islam weakens people to the point that they can't even use their own judgment or make their own decisions? They need to be protected from something harmless and nonexistent like "sorcery"? Ha, ha. Wow.

Avert your eyes, not4me:

Yeah, that was funny FH, but sorry to tell you that this is not the type of magic we are talking about here. The type of magic most of you have imagined was being broadcasted in a Saudi tv channel "Channel 2" since a while and i was watching it. It's was quite funny and interesting.

Now, getting back to krishnakanta post and the golden question, how to prove it?

There are some common tools which such type of people use to practice, and i'll try to present some of them later on but in this case, it was clear because he was practicing it on one of the channels. The one who practice such a thing will be executed if proven to be guilty.

The most despicable thing about this is that he was on a religious pilgrimage, and he's not even safe in an Islamic state.

Ali Sabt has confessed that he wanted to enter to Saudi Arabia a normal visit, and the easiest and cheapest way was to enter through claiming to do umrah in Mekkah. I live in Saudi Arabia and most of people who want to get an easy and very fast visa ask for umra "pilgrimage" visa. Once they enter they can do whatever they want. So when he got caught he wasn't in Mekkah, but in another city "Madina" which has the Prophet Masjid, and usually those who come from outside program their visit to be Mekkah, then Madina. He was living in one of the hotels in Medina and they found the things he use to perform his magic at the room, and it's definitely not that type of tools an entertaining magician would have.

exactly. the guy goes there for Umra, visiting Ka'ba and he is arrested by "religious police" which is another point of disgrace. maybe we Muslims should think twice before we visit Ka'ba. such a shame Arabic authority threatens and scares Muslim off..

religious police..

.

Maybe we Muslims should stop relying on some awesome well known Western media like CNN.

Sorcery is a grave sin and can take the person out of Islam. Owners of such corrupting channels are the ones who deserve punishment. I seriously wonder why such channels broadcast on our Satellites!! Serious measures against such channels should be taken, like banning them? Where are the responsible authorities?
Perhaps the Suadi courts should punish the Saudi princes who own the Satellite channels that spreads indecency and immorality among our societies, instead? :sarcastic

This channel by the way has been blocked and banned by "Arabsat" satellite and the Egyptian "Nilesat" satellite.

He didn't go originally for pilgrimage. When they searched his room at the hotel they found the things he use to practice that type of sorcery.

 

[Sahar]

If we accept the tenets of Shari'a, then we have no choice but to take God's path. Popular opinion is irrelevant.

How so, in my scenario we have the choice to form political parties freely and we all can enjoy free elections that will determine the nature of political system?

 

[.lava]

Maybe we Muslims should stop relying on some awesome well known Western media like CNN.

don't blame me try to visit RF more often. i've heard about it thanks to this thread

.