Muslim Morality

[GeoffP]

No, its not, but you wouldn't get it.

No, that was trolling; thanks for the slow turnaround, mod.

No they have merely been killing people wholesale for the last 200+ years, essentially those who belonged to ethnic or religious minorities. In fact they are still doing it, however, even when THEY say, God is with us, its not a religious thing.

How do you know? They sure as hell believe it's religious. How can you say it isn't, when they're drawing justification from religious sources? "essentially those who belonged to ethnic or religious minorities" - yes: unbelievers. Infidels. All that. At least you admit some of it now, which is as bold a step as you've ever taken on here.

I believe this is the case with all religious minorities even in the West; i.e. they are over represented in prisons, however being Muslims/Hispanic Catholics/blacks they are not significant.

You will now please cite to me the specific laws against religious minorities in the West. You know: the laws that are used to convict them. Pay special emphasis to the Catholic thing: about 30% of the West is Catholic, so I'm sure they'd all be interested in just how they're being targetted on a religious basis.

Really? You mean people are safer in the US, with lower crime rates and greater confidence in the justice system?

Depends; kind of hard to get those sorts of stats out of dar-al-islam, you know what I mean? Abuse, punishment of apostacy, honour killings, islamic punishment; it's almost as if it would look bad or something in the eyes of the world, maybe endangering transfer payments or something. But obviously these laws are really, really just and fair: non minorities don't have a problem with them, now do they?

After all, what better criteria for a legal system than that it WORKS?

....paying money for the murder of a loved one...is "works", in your opinion? :bugeye:

I think they would opt for a death sentence. I would. As would colonel Yahtzee in the US or Levi Strauss in Israel, if al-Yahood was called Mohammed Osama.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point.

The issue was that the payout, if blood money was the choice of the family (and, tell me - is it the family or the individual that lost their lives?), could be drastically different for two human beings. Strangely, I feel that the ridiculous clan mentality engendered by assigned near-property rights in felony cases is immoral and sick; in particular, it rears up monetary value associations for human rights and life, turning the protection of human existence into a money racket.

In that case, one can also say, I forgive and walk away. However being that most criminals are men and support families (marriage still being in fashion among Muslims), a practical woman with low financial expectations would opt for enough money for self/child support over a period of time.

Loved the little cultural attack there. Very open-minded.

Anyway, how about this: punish the criminal properly, and have the state - that being the representative of the community in toto - help the victim? Is that so wrong? By choosing practicality, you throw away justice.

No merely if thought emotionally not logically.

You have it the other way around, I'm afraid. It is illogical to assign monetary value to individuals; or, at least, the islamic precedent thereof is particularly illogical.

That explains why they have NATO in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq. Not to mention insanely high prison populations, domestic abuse, and crime rates.

Strawman. Anyway, all of that is because they don't maintain patriarchal societies (or at least not so much as some) and are evil, immoral idolaters. Come on, get your Osama on. I won't judge you for it. I might laugh at you, of course, but you're used to that.

 

[Zakariya04]

He is in the US, actually

Is hee??!!??

Are you sure??!!??!!?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, that was trolling; thanks for the slow turnaround, mod.

No that was experience with real people under real circumstances, not opinions generated from hatemonger sites

How do you know? They sure as hell believe it's religious. How can you say it isn't, when they're drawing justification from religious sources? "essentially those who belonged to ethnic or religious minorities" - yes: unbelievers. Infidels. All that. At least you admit some of it now, which is as bold a step as you've ever taken on here.

Ah so you mean becuase in the West they don't say it is religious/ethnic discrimination, it is not so?

Or are you saying that Hispanics, blacks, Muslims are not over represented in prisons? That they simply have more criminal tendencies?

You will now please cite to me the specific laws against religious minorities in the West. You know: the laws that are used to convict them. Pay special emphasis to the Catholic thing: about 30% of the West is Catholic, so I'm sure they'd all be interested in just how they're being targetted on a religious basis.

See previous.

Depends; kind of hard to get those sorts of stats out of dar-al-islam, you know what I mean? Abuse, punishment of apostacy, honour killings, islamic punishment; it's almost as if it would look bad or something in the eyes of the world, maybe endangering transfer payments or something. But obviously these laws are really, really just and fair: non minorities don't have a problem with them, now do they?

So of course being as you have such extensive experience of Muslim countries and culture, your opinion must replace facts.

....paying money for the murder of a loved one...is "works", in your opinion? :bugeye:

Justice is supposed to be about revenge? La dee da.

Unsurprisingly, you missed the point.

No you did. Not having grown up in a culture, where one considers a man's life and your family's life as more important than death sentences, you are presumably allowed to pass your judgment on people who are.

The issue was that the payout, if blood money was the choice of the family (and, tell me - is it the family or the individual that lost their lives?), could be drastically different for two human beings. Strangely, I feel that the ridiculous clan mentality engendered by assigned near-property rights in felony cases is immoral and sick; in particular, it rears up monetary value associations for human rights and life, turning the protection of human existence into a money racket.

Apparently, you can only think in terms of eye for an eye.

Loved the little cultural attack there. Very open-minded.

Is that what is known as glass houses?

Anyway, how about this: punish the criminal properly, and have the state - that being the representative of the community in toto - help the victim? Is that so wrong? By choosing practicality, you throw away justice.

So in your opinion, locking up people and/or killing them and allowing the victims to suffer from poverty/lack of support is superior to arriving at a conclusion which benefits both? After all how many crimes would you commit if you kept literally paying for them?

You have it the other way around, I'm afraid. It is illogical to assign monetary value to individuals; or, at least, the islamic precedent thereof is particularly illogical.

Its illogical to look after people, more logical to lock them up.

Strawman. Anyway, all of that is because they don't maintain patriarchal societies (or at least not so much as some) and are evil, immoral idolaters. Come on, get your Osama on. I won't judge you for it. I might laugh at you, of course, but you're used to that.

Again, I would be pleased to hear some facts stating why this is happening only in Muslim countries that have oil. After all, Canada is right next door.

 

[GeoffP]

Is hee??!!??

Are you sure??!!??!!?

I am. But that's not where I'm from. Sam seems to think only she moves around. Odd.

 

[GeoffP]

No that was experience with real people under real circumstances, not opinions generated from hatemonger sites

What, like the Guardian? Telegraph? Sun? Washington Post? LA Times? And any number of Asian newspapers. Those are hatemonger sites?

Ah so you mean becuase in the West they don't say it is religious/ethnic discrimination, it is not so?

Or are you saying that Hispanics, blacks, Muslims are not over represented in prisons? That they simply have more criminal tendencies?

I'm saying that there is no legal justification to throw people in prison in the West merely because they changed their religion. I assume that's clear enough for you. Now you can go ahead and cite me the laws against Catholics and the like in the West. I'm all ears.

So of course being as you have such extensive experience of Muslim countries and culture, your opinion must replace facts.

What facts? Which ones? I know I've presented a few: surely you have something in your vast Google repertoire to explain away the punishment of apostates and such.

Justice is supposed to be about revenge? La dee da.

Justice is supposed to be about punishment of wrongfulness. Of misdeeds. Why shouldn't justice punish wrongdoing? What possible purpose would it serve if it didn't?

No you did. Not having grown up in a culture, where one considers a man's life and your family's life as more important than death sentences, you are presumably allowed to pass your judgment on people who are.

If one really considers a man's life more important than death sentences, perhaps one should not murder. What would be the prevention value of punishment if it did not? Do you pretend that doing nothing solves something? And yet even you admit to an acceptance of even the death penalty! I assume the putative ethnicity of the miscreant had nothing to do with your decision? You seem to have flipped attitude on the death penalty somewhere in the last few threads.

So: which way shall you go, at the crossroads, you know; left or right? You really must make a choice.

Apparently, you can only think in terms of eye for an eye.

"Surah 5 al-Maida 45 And We prescribed for them therein: the life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation."

Fine stuff. Justice is blind, Sam; only injustice sees what it does.

Is that what is known as glass houses?

It were, if only my house were made of glass. On some issues, socialism may be. But not on the core ones; not on not persecuting people for their religion - which you have yet to disavow, by the way - or their sexuality, or their gender, or their apostacy. Where and if it does, there it and I diverge.

So in your opinion, locking up people and/or killing them and allowing the victims to suffer from poverty/lack of support is superior to arriving at a conclusion which benefits both? After all how many crimes would you commit if you kept literally paying for them?

How many crimes would you commit if you could simply buy your way out of trouble? There are a lot of unquiet graves in the towns and hills of Pakistan. And, if you read my post, you would have seen that I don't believe the relatives of the victim should suffer from poverty; the accusation is pointless and baseless. I already asked you whether it would not be more just to do justice and let the state intervene, but you have avoided that one, too.

Its illogical to look after people, more logical to lock them up.

It's illogical to punish people severely for their crimes; it's more logical to let them buy their way out of trouble, or to put a price value on their heads. Why, how can we know the worth of a man, or a woman, or a kuffar, if we do not pay their blood price?

Again, I would be pleased to hear some facts stating why this is happening only in Muslim countries that have oil. After all, Canada is right next door.

Misplaced senses of justice, perhaps? After all, we both know that islamic society cannot change. The reformers are on the attack! - backwards, at those that agree with them. Or the stated reformers anyway. Islamic law is as whole in its unwholesome aspects as its wholesome ones; whole, and sick. It learns! but cannot learn. It is enlightened! but miserable.

It is just! and yet, not.

 

[Michael]

Nice! What was it on? You can just PM if you want, no need to put details on the thread.

Thanks

 

[S.A.M.]

I am. But that's not where I'm from. Sam seems to think only she moves around. Odd.

No I don't, but have you ever lived in the Middle East?

 

[Michael]

Hi Zak,

On the thread top: "Muslim Morality"


1) According to Islamic tradition

Is Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar considered a Learned Scholar or an complete Imbecile? Is his work considered reputable or is it considered toilet paper?


2) RE: Morality

According to Islamic Law can it be considered moral to kill another person?


3) According to Islamic Tradition

Did Mohammad ever personally kill another person or sentence another person to death?


4) According to Islamic Tradition

If yes to #3 could you give some specific examples of who were put to death and under what circumstances.



Just trying to get a handle on this one aspect of "Muslim Morality".

Thanks,

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

What, like the Guardian? Telegraph? Sun? Washington Post? LA Times? And any number of Asian newspapers. Those are hatemonger sites?

I would like to know what the sources were, for one thing, Memri?

I'm saying that there is no legal justification to throw people in prison in the West merely because they changed their religion. I assume that's clear enough for you. Now you can go ahead and cite me the laws against Catholics and the like in the West. I'm all ears.

You mean in post communist Afghanistan, post Mossadegh Iran and the like?

And like I said, are you claiming that minorities are not over represented in prisons? If not, I would like to hear your reasoning for their being there.

What facts? Which ones? I know I've presented a few: surely you have something in your vast Google repertoire to explain away the punishment of apostates and such.

See previous

Justice is supposed to be about punishment of wrongfulness. Of misdeeds. Why shouldn't justice punish wrongdoing? What possible purpose would it serve if it didn't?

Jesus would not approve, for one thing.

If one really considers a man's life more important than death sentences, perhaps one should not murder. What would be the prevention value of punishment if it did not? Do you pretend that doing nothing solves something? And yet even you admit to an acceptance of even the death penalty! I assume the putative ethnicity of the miscreant had nothing to do with your decision? You seem to have flipped attitude on the death penalty somewhere in the last few threads.

My attitude on the death penalty is not rigid; there are circumstances where it is IMO the best option. e.g. serial killers, child killers and the like.

So: which way shall you go, at the crossroads, you know; left or right? You really must make a choice.

More black and white thinking from the open minded.

"Surah 5 al-Maida 45 And We prescribed for them therein: the life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation."

So now you're a Muslim? By the way who was them?

Lets see the whole verse shall we?

005.045
We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

Well well what do you know?

Fine stuff. Justice is blind, Sam; only injustice sees what it does.

Yeah, its becoming increasingly obvious what your notion of justice is.

It were, if only my house were made of glass. On some issues, socialism may be. But not on the core ones; not on not persecuting people for their religion - which you have yet to disavow, by the way - or their sexuality, or their gender, or their apostacy. Where and if it does, there it and I diverge.

Look in the mirror, perhaps you'll see the answers.

How many crimes would you commit if you could simply buy your way out of trouble? There are a lot of unquiet graves in the towns and hills of Pakistan. And, if you read my post, you would have seen that I don't believe the relatives of the victim should suffer from poverty; the accusation is pointless and baseless. I already asked you whether it would not be more just to do justice and let the state intervene, but you have avoided that one, too.

So now it is your educated opinion that all Muslims who follow their religion are killers who buy their way out of their crimes? So first we're too barbaric and now not barbaric enough?

It's illogical to punish people severely for their crimes; it's more logical to let them buy their way out of trouble, or to put a price value on their heads. Why, how can we know the worth of a man, or a woman, or a kuffar, if we do not pay their blood price?

Still thinking like a materialistic Westerner. You forget the intense family ties and close communities. More often than not, the killer might be a relative or friend of a friend. Its not all unknown strangers like in the West. They'd know the mother, father, children, wife; think of what the consequences would be to them. Might have watched him grow, known his personlity, character, weaknesses. Not only think about themself. They'd ask the Qadi and he would tell them to have patience and strength, consider what God would want them to do, tell them to think of their families and the families of the killer, etc. This is a foreign notion to you, I'm sure, which is why it is so easy to swallow the drivel that the Western media portrays.

Misplaced senses of justice, perhaps? After all, we both know that islamic society cannot change. The reformers are on the attack! - backwards, at those that agree with them. Or the stated reformers anyway. Islamic law is as whole in its unwholesome aspects as its wholesome ones; whole, and sick. It learns! but cannot learn. It is enlightened! but miserable.

Blah blah blah

I'm not going to reply any more; you're obviously closed minded and fixed in your attitudes.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/eu-states-complicity-confirmed-cia-secret-prisons/article-164466

 

[S.A.M.]

Michael

What is your definition of Islamic tradition?

 

[Michael]

After all, what better criteria for a legal system than that it WORKS?

Good point.

The US System works for the values that Americans purport to serve - that mainly being the English notion of Freedom. Those Freedoms come at a high price (perhaps exemplified by large prisons?)

Certainly Communist China 20 years ago, per person, had a VERY much lower crime rate. Actually Communist North Korea (talk about paranoid) has a very low crime rate - in terms of drugs, murder, ect... those sorts of crimes that fill the US Prisons. But then again, Communist China and North Korea have very rigid rules and less English styled Freedoms.


We Americans are happy to live with the dangers and the crowded prisons and to keep our English notions of freedom rather than to live safe in an Orwellian society.

 

[S.A.M.]

Good point.

The US System works for the values that Americans purport to serve - that mainly being the English notion of Freedom. Those Freedoms come at a high price (perhaps exemplified by large prisons?)

Certainly Communist China 20 years ago, per person, had a VERY much lower crime rate. Actually Communist North Korea (talk about paranoid) has a very low crime rate - in terms of drugs, murder, ect... those sorts of crimes that fill the US Prisons. But then again, Communist China and North Korea have very rigid rules and less English styled Freedoms.


We Americans are happy to live with the dangers and the crowded prisons and to keep our English notions of freedom rather than to live safe in an Orwellian society.

No doubt and if it works for you, that is fine. All cultures have their own notions of what works. And they tend to stick with it for as long as it does.

 

[Michael]

Michael

What is your definition of Islamic tradition?

I know Atheists that are "Islamic". I have said before the word "Islam" has no real meaning.
So, with that in mind, think of the question as such: When taken on the whole for throughout the last 1400 years of history for the people who think that Mohammad was a Prophet.

Think of the words "Classical" "Generally held beleif" "traditionally accepted" .. etc.. if it helps clarify the intent of the questions.

Also, you could look at it like such:
Traditionally Xians believe that Christ was a real person.
Not all Xians did - but most did.
Classically, Xianits throughout history taught that Christ lived.
We could say the in the Xian Tradition Christ was real and for the most part most Xians would accept this proposition. Thus we must ignore the minority of Xians whom do not or did not think think Christ was a real person. While their beliefs may be worthy of discussion their beleif is not generally held to be the norm.

Assuming there is no game of semantics I think their intent is now easy to grasp.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

I know Atheists that are "Islamic". I have said before the word "Islam" has no real meaning.

Define this for me. It makes no sense.

What is an Islamic atheist ?

 

[Michael]

Define this for me. It makes no sense.

What is an Islamic atheist ?

Yeah, which is why I said the word has not real meaning, I should have said it has such vague meaning that Islamic Atheist is a meaning for some people. Hence the diatribe.

Read this and think about an Islamic context.


Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, which is why I said the word has not real meaning, I should have said it has such vague meaning that Islamic Atheist is a meaning for some people. Hence the diatribe.

Read this and think about an Islamic context.


Michael

Explain what an Islamic atheist is. e.g. pick two diverse Muslim cultures, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh. What would an Islamic atheist in each society mean?

What does the term mean to you?

 

[Michael]

Explain what an Islamic atheist is. e.g. pick two diverse Muslim cultures, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh. What would an Islamic atheist in each society mean?

What does the term mean to you?

As I don't have one on hand I am going to suppose that an Islamic Atheist is someone who enjoys living in an Islamic society, the way of life, the art, the traditions, the mannerisms, the way people interact - but are themselves an Atheist.

Actually a long time ago there was a person here who said they were an Islamic Atheist. They made the argument that Islam and Muslim are different.

Not that I am sure I subscribe to such a thing.

Michael

PS:
That aside, do you now feel you have an understanding of what "Islamic tradition" is?

 

[S.A.M.]

As I don't have one on hand I am going to suppose that an Islamic Atheist is someone who enjoys living in an Islamic society, the way of life, the art, the traditions, the mannerisms, the way people interact - but are themselves an Atheist.

Actually a long time ago there was a person here who said they were an Islamic Atheist. They made the argument that Islam and Muslim are different.

Not that I am sure I subscribe to such a thing.

Michael

PS:
That aside, do you now feel you have an understanding of what "Islamic tradition" is?

There is no concept of "Islamic tradition" since Muslims follow the traditions of the society they live in. There is no specific Muslim art or Muslim mannerism, or way of interaction. Even the beliefs are based on education and interaction, as well as exposure to different types of cultures and society.

That is why your definition is confusing.

How is an Islamic atheist different from another atheist?

 

[Michael]

There is no concept of "Islamic tradition" since Muslims follow the traditions of the society they live in. There is no specific Muslim art or Muslim mannerism, or way of interaction. Even the beliefs are based on education and interaction, as well as exposure to different types of cultures and society.

That is why your definition is confusing.

How is an Islamic atheist different from another atheist?

I see your point. I totally agree with you on this one. So you agree that there is no "Islamic" way of life and no "Islamic" traditions and no "Islamic" Golden Age and there is no "Islamic" History.

Agreed.

When I asked the question: According to Islamic tradition is Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar considered a Learned Scholar or an complete Imbecile? Is his work considered reputable or is it considered toilet paper?

I should have been more specific:

Regarding historians who have studied and continue to study ME History of the time period beginning at ~600CE to present, have the majority of these scholars regarded the Historian Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar as a Learned Scholar and fellow Colleague whose work on the whole is a importance and can be trusted or is the consensus that he is to be considered an ignorant layman is not a scholar was not a trustable historian and his work on the whole can be considered of little value and is of disrepute?

Clearer?
Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Historians?


Ibn Ishaq collected oral traditions; he himself claimed there was no way to verify them, since he collected them from everyone, even the Jewish scholars.

Oral traditions include all stories about the ME, including 1001 Nights.

Its the citations that make them historical.

And we have no idea what Ibn Ishaq wrote since both his and his students work have not survived, only some bits and pieces and translations by Guillaume of Hishams work.

Only what has survived of Ishaq's work supported by other work like that of Tabari or other historians is given any credence.