Man sentenced to death for sorcery.

[Sahar]

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?

The pron example takes us back to your suggested requirements.

No need to explain anything more. No need to go into details. The simple idea is there are members of a society who disagree on the requirements for a free society, it doesn't concern me now the details, just the fact that they have different understanding of free society and different political ideologies, in all these last posts I asked you (and you successfully evaded my question) how we can solve such dispute. One of my suggestions was forming political parties and going into elections and the party that wins the majority voices, its agenda of requirements for a free society shall determine that nature of the political authority.

 

[Sahar]

Faisal, you can give us informed insight on the issue.
Btw, FH's image (when he said avert your eyes) never appeared to me before your post. LOL. It would have helped me to know some posters' impression about the show.

 

[Sahar]

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

On the contrary form the start I suggested representation of people's will (the majority) and you are the one who said that their opinion is irrelevant and they have no right to represent their will as long as your suggested requirements (on which they disagree with you) must be fulfilled.

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?

The Islamic system must be the outcome of the public will.

 

[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?

Man, legitimacy of the political authority comes from the people. Weird, so what all this scenario about representation of public will, elections, political parties with different agendas...etc? :areyoucra

You deserve this :slap: (jk)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

So God's will is subject to popular vote?

On the contrary form the start I suggested representation of people's will (the majority) and you are the one who said that their opinion is irrelevant and they have no right to represent their will as long as your suggested requirements (on which they disagree with you) must be fulfilled.

That doesn't mean that it's physically impossible for them to do it. I wholly agree that many governments deny the freedom of their people. My point is that if these fundamental freedoms are denied, then the society cannot be validly called "free".

Anyhow, you didn't start with the suggestion representation of the people's will. You started bemoaning the fact that Muslims living in secular democracies are somehow having their rights infringed... a point that you never really did satisfactorily explain.

The pron example takes us back to your suggested requirements.

No need to explain anything more. No need to go into details. The simple idea is there are members of a society who disagree on the requirements for a free society, it doesn't concern me now the details, just the fact that they have different understanding of free society and different political ideologies, in all these last posts I asked you (and you successfully evaded my question) how we can solve such dispute.

Actually, I asked for clarification, which you so far have refused to provide.

One of my suggestions was forming political parties and going into elections and the party that wins the majority voices, its agenda of requirements for a free society shall determine that nature of the political authority.

Do you really think that protection of individual rights and freedoms isn't important?

There's an old quote that's taken several forms; here's one version: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Or, in a more inflammatory version: "gang rape is democracy in action."

Any government, including a democratic government, has limitations on what power it can rightly wield. You cannot be truly free if your neighbours can band together and decide that to outvote you about your right to continue living.

Man, legitimacy of the political authority comes from the people.

Sure... in a secular system. Not in a theocracy.

Weird, so what all this scenario about representation of public will, elections, political parties with different agendas...etc? :areyoucra

They're still subject to the reasonable limits of fundamental freedoms.

And I should note that it's these very freedoms that protect the rights of Muslims to believe, worship and act as they see fit in countries where they're in the minority.

 

[love]

Basically, on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Plus, It's known that some persons can do some stuff that can harm others out there mainly by contacting with the Jinn I believe (I can't believe I am defending this kind of things now). Another thing like al hasad (destructive envy); wishing that a blessing that Allah has bestowed on the envied person be taken away can be observed but is it possible to be verified scientifically? I don't know. But I do believe in hasad. I can observe it. There are phenomena that happen in our world and can't be explained in the light of the currently known laws of science, am I the only one who believe this?

I don't disagree with you here. There are these stories about persons who are sick and possessed by jinn. A sheikh or a fraud claims to know how to heal such person and force the jinn to leave their bodies and during the treatment session, the possessed person scream and make crazy movements...you know all these crazy things...I am wondering about the truth of such things and I don't believe in them at the same time but I do believe in the presence of Jinn, just like I do believe in the presence of angels or heaven and hell, all this is a part of my belief in the unseen based on God's revelation.

I know that this thread has progressed alot since this post but I have read enough to get a feel of what the real problem is here.
You state that frauds claim to have the power to heal. Be that that as it may, the person or persons who sentenced this man to death have real power in this world to take the God given breath of life from this man and and lay him cold in the ground that his five children and wife shall never know his love and protection and guidance again.
The Saudi rulers give them the power to make this judgement, not God. If they truly believe that they themselves will one day sit in a position to be judged, what kind of love and compassion can they expect. This man came to their country seeking to be united with what he felt in his heart to be the will of God. Of the two who do you think will find God's grace.

 

[AxisMundi]

You are being dishonest and I am not interested in bothering myself with such dishonesty.

Merely asking you to clarify your opinion in the first sentance.

In the second, I am noting that the worst areas of the globe today religion has invaded the government.

 

[kai]

Saudi Religious Police Get Tough on Black Magic

Loading...



Shades of Mathew Hopkins

 

[AxisMundi]

Who said this?! Who will say that they are the minimum requirements for a free society and democracy is secondary to them?

Who says? The vast majority fo the free world.

And yes, democracy IS secondary to Human Rights.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Penguin I think maybe there is a miscommunication between you and not4me, and I think it has to do with the fact that you live in Canada and she lives in Egypt.

I agree with you that there are certain things the majority has no right to do. However, there are gradations and I also agree with not4me that in general, issues need to be settled politically by a fair democratic process. Consider three cases:

(1) I don't think the majority in America has the "right" to carry out genocide against minorities;

(2) I also personally don't think the majority has the "right" to put "Jesus is LORD" on our currency.

(3) I personally think taxes should be raised (or lowered).

These are three very different cases. In case (1) there can be no compromise. I think you, me, or not4me would be justified in breaking the law, disturbing the peace, sabotaging the government, even possibly committing violence -- whatever it takes to stop genocide. No one, not even a majority, has the "right" to do this.

By comparison, case (2) is in a completely different universe. I have strong opinions on this issue but so do other people, and it's important to have a fair and peaceful process to resolve the issue. The evil of disrupting a fair and democratic process would far outweigh the "evil" of having any particular motto on our currency. In this case, the majority has the "right" to make the decision, by which I mean, we should accept the majority has the legitimate power to do this, and we should accept the results of a fair democratic process in which everyone got a vote. I don't think I would have the "right" to sabotage the money-printing machines at the Treasury to prevent this, or something like that.

OTOH in my personal opinion, I also think the majority does not have the "right" to do this. I'm not contradicting myself. I'm using the word "right" different ways: I'm saying putting "Jesus is LORD" on our currency establishes a bad precedent, that whoever gains the majority should abuse their power to trample all over minorities. I would hope people would realize that just because their religion or ethnicity is the majority and has the POWER to do something, doesn't mean they have the right. I don't really care about the slogan on our currency, so much as I care about the principle of the issue. I might challenge the issue in courts, or become an "activist" or try very hard to persuade the majority not to abuse their power in this way.

Now in case (3), I don't think "rights" enter into the equation. There's an issue, and people have different opinions. I may disagree with the majority view, but I would not say they have no "right" to raise or lower taxes, in any sense of the word. I would cast my vote and accept the outcome. I would not say the majority are abusing their power or violating an important principle of our laws and Constitution.

So I think what's happening here, is Penguin and not4me are talking about very broad things, like does the majority have the "right" to do something. The problem is, depending on the specific situation, this can have very different meanings. And I think when not4me talks about an Islamic political party, she has different specific situations in mind than Penguin.

Penguin may think the Islamic party does not have the "right" to say explicitly in the Constitution "this is an Islamic state" even if they have a 99% majority. But, I am certain he does not mean that he would support a bloodless coup by 1% of the secular Afghans to overthrow their parliament, violate democracy and rewrite the Afghan Constitution under the barrel of an AK47.

That kind of behavior would be irrational, unjustified and stupid, except in extreme cases. I think Penguin would agree and he doesn't realize this is the crucial point not4me is asking about.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Who says? The vast majority fo the free world.

And yes, democracy IS secondary to Human Rights.

Are you sure that's categorically true? Not all Human Rights are the same and not all violations of Human Rights are the same magnitude. When you say "democracy is secondary" to a person who lives in Egypt, like not4me, it sounds like you are supporting a secular dictatorship, or sectarian violence or political assassinations, or invasion by foreign powers.

You are probably referring to nonviolent civil disobedience, and you are probably referring to egregious violations of Human Rights, but you must make yourself clear.

For example, there are many people who think that any form of capital punishment is a violation of Human Rights. Would you want a U.S. general and his troops to assault the White House, disband Congress, and rewrite our Constitution in order to end capital punishment?

Or should we end it through a democratic process?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do you really think that protection of individual rights and freedoms isn't important?

There's an old quote that's taken several forms; here's one version: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

Or, in a more inflammatory version: "gang rape is democracy in action."

Any government, including a democratic government, has limitations on what power it can rightly wield. You cannot be truly free if your neighbours can band together and decide that to outvote you about your right to continue living.

Yes, but HOW do we impose those limitations? In general, people have to believe in these limitations. In general, the majority (say, white people) have to believe they do not have the right to do everything that it is in their power to do. (We can have specific measures, like minority rights in the Constitution and courts and judges to uphold it, but this still depends on people believing in the Constitution, a sustained, determined and large enough majority could change it through the democratic process.) Getting people to believe this idea is a political struggle and we may not always win it. But it seems to me the evil that would be done by the destruction of a democratic process by *foreign intervention* or a *secular dictatorship* or *violent civil strife*, which is what not4me probably thinks you are suggesting, is usually far more than the evils which are inevitably done when the majority abuse their power.

 

[kai]

Are you sure that's categorically true? Not all Human Rights are the same and not all violations of Human Rights are the same magnitude. When you say "democracy is secondary" to a person who lives in Egypt, like not4me, it sounds like you are supporting a secular dictatorship, or sectarian violence or political assassinations, or invasion by foreign powers.

You are probably referring to nonviolent civil disobedience, and you are probably referring to egregious violations of Human Rights, but you must make yourself clear.

For example, there are many people who think that any form of capital punishment is a violation of Human Rights. Would you want a U.S. general and his troops to assault the White House, disband Congress, and rewrite our Constitution in order to end capital punishment?

Or should we end it through a democratic process?

Through a democratic process, The thing is once a society introduces an Islamic State by the democratic process will the process to democratically end that Islamic state still be an option. After all Gods will has more importance than the democratic process.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's too bad we don't have better scales for language, the way we have scales in science. If we are talking about cells, then at that scale a millimeter is large. If we are talking about the solar system, a lightyear is large. They are lengths that are large on different scales. I think genocide, the execution of "sorcerers", or even the phrase "this is an Islamic government" in the Constitution are wrong. But they are wrong on different scales.

 

[Gharib]

Let's say, hypothetically, that I moved to Saudi because my hubby got a very well paying job there with a big company. I wanted to have my own small business doing what I enjoy. I opened a Tarot Room. Would I be in any danger being that I'm not Muslim? Would I likely have any repercussions upon me?

islamically speaking if you were to do this within the borders of the islamic nation, then you may face some sort of punishment not necessaraly death depending on what the evidence suggest.

but in saudi arabia it would be with their laws which may be as those of islam or not.

 

[Gharib]

OH yes The Mutaween
Mutaween - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why is it ok to have FBI's and CIS's but not RP (religious police)??

 

[Gharib]

So stoning a omwan becasue she was raped is humane? Hanging teenagers because they are gay is humane?

prove it that islam teaches to stone the rape victim.

prove it that it is not humane to punish a criminal

 

[Gharib]

Muslims do that? i would like to know if there are any Muslims knock on doors to preach like Christian do

.

no muslims do not do that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Through a democratic process, The thing is once a society introduces an Islamic State by the democratic process will the process to democratically end that Islamic state still be an option. After all Gods will has more importance than the democratic process.

I think it would depend on the specific situation. Indonesians, Afghans, Iraqis and Kurds, Turks, Saudis, Lebanese, Israeli Muslims, Hamas and Fatah and nonaligned Palestinians, I think they have different ideas about what an "Islamic State" or any state they want to live in, should be. The Queen of England is the official head of both the state and the Church of England, it would be nonsense to make no distinction between this and any other Christian theocratic government.

 

[blackout]

It's too bad we don't have better scales for language, the way we have scales in science. If we are talking about cells, then at that scale a millimeter is large. If we are talking about the solar system, a lightyear is large. They are lengths that are large on different scales. I think genocide, the execution of "sorcerers", or even the phrase "this is an Islamic government" in the Constitution are wrong. But they are wrong on different scales.

How do you comparitively measure the unjust killing of people?

re. genocide and the execution of sorcerers,
I can hardly imagine what scales you use
to come up with any kind of difference.
(beyond numbers of people executed for no just reason)

But perhaps you are refering to some aspect of "scales"
that I am not grasping in the case of this comparative example.