The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. If you've claimed something exists, it's not up to me to prove an absence of it.

Great argument Abu, have you ever considered that argument when justifying your belief in Allah?

Just like men in prison have sex with other men sometimes, its not because they are attracted, its because their is no other option.

That doesn't answer the question and it doesn't make sense either. How can you get an erection if there is no attraction? There are other options, like masturbation. I suspect this idea of gay sex as a subsititute for hetero sex is just an absurd position taken to try to avoid the issue of executing gays. If men can marry up to four wives, then inevitably some men will be forced to go without. So even 'wholistic' Islam is going to put men in that position.

No, you may not have but it does occur I'm afraid.

Yes, gays have sex with each other. But straight people don't just subsitute men for women.

Either way it only applies with four witnesses and if someone is so blatantly arrogant to actually do it in public in an Islamic State like that then it serves them right.

I don't believe this issue of four witnesses actually protects people. Surely if someone is committing a crime, then it should be investigated. The idea that something is illegal, but it is also illegal to try to prove it, is absurd. I suspect you are misrepresenting the Koran there. Yes it may protect against the theocracy going into everyone's bedroom, but once people become suspicious of gays it is inevitable that they will be rooted out. Whether this happens according to the Koran or not is irrelevant. It is human nature. If you make gay sex illegal, people will investigate it.

Just the same as if I blatantly break the law in this country in public and arrogantly expect no one to do anything about it the punishment I get would definitely be deserving.

Right, but here it is legal to have gay sex with four people watching. You are misrepresenting the four witnesses part. Just because in modern society it would be hard to get four witnesses to a private act does not mean it would never happen. Even today there are lots of people who cannot afford privacy. For example, to homeless gay men may make reasonable effort to hide their acts from public, but eventually some group of people is going to bust them. In muhammed's time, few people would have ahd that sort of privacy ensured. I don't believe it is restricted to stopping people having sex in full view of everyone else, neither in practice nor in intent.

Do the four witnesses have to witness it at the same time?

freediver,

Quote:


Actually I think someone else made the original claim in the thread from which you forked this.

Quote:


No. Muslims are people, Islam is a system of living. The people are there, but the system is not. No contradiction.

Quote:


Executing any human being for any crime is a serious issue, and I haven't seen anyone running around claiming it's a good idea. As has been noted, the requirements for actually passing a capital sentence are quite stringent, four witnesses for instance. You *are* being a sensationalist.

Quote:


Nothing wrong with asking specific questions, but they're always the same boring old questions that really have no relevance to an individual Muslim. What punishments an Islamic State implements are not really my business as an individual Muslim, why do you not ask me a question about Islamic economic policy or the role of science and techology in Islamic society? Why must the Western "enquirers" these days always being with "Do you wanna execute gays??". Is this all that your depraved minds are focused on?

Quote:


Wait a minute. Where did I say anything about that?

The Islamic system existed in the Muslim lands prior to that time, not the Democratic system. Just to make it clear, Democracy is not merely the popular election of a leader, Democracy comes from the word Demos Kratos and refers to a system whereby human beings legislate their own laws according to their own concepts of right and wrong, something Islam strictly forbids. As I mentioned, Islam has used the process of popular election of a leader at times, but not commonly, either way that's irrelevant, what I stated was that the Islamic system was being implemented, the society was Islamic, and we can judge it as an Islamic society, unlike the post-colonialist states that exist in the Muslim lands today.

Quote:


They are incompatible ideologies, but that doesn't mean a believer in one cannot live under the other. Your ideas wreak of McCarthyism, and I think you'd like to inflict the same kind of bias and oppression upon the Muslims in today's Australian society. It is you who holds beliefs and seeks to implement actions that contradict Australian values, not I.

Quote:


Again another example of your sensationalism. Nobody said anything about anyone running this country. This is your own xenophobic fear, that Muslims are here to lobby the government and eventually take it over, so they can execute all the gays.

Quote:


This is a fundamental flaw in your understanding about the nature of states. A state is not merely a loose collection of individuals all acting as independant entities. It is a much more complex beast than that. The individuals have next to no bearing on the activities of the state whatsoever, it is all done through institutions and bodies that follow strict processes and procedures. A muslim individual has no authority to implement a punishment from the State's penal code, and expecting an individual Muslim to be responsible for it is ludicrous.

What's more ludicrous is that you suggested Muslims would be in other countries trying to clandestinely implement those punishments. Really your whole line of questioning is just laughable.

Quote:


Let me give you a small example to demonstrate why your line of questioning is pointless. During the time of Caliph Omar Bin al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him), there was a famine in the Arabian Peninsula, the heartland and capital of the Islamic State at the time. During the famine Caliph Omar suspended the punishment for stealing. Why did he do that? Because the laws of Islam have requirements for how society must be, before the punishments can be implemented. If those conditions don't exist, then it's not justice to implement the punishment for them.

In short, I would not support capital punishment in this society for anyone, because the society itself doesn't even attempt to provide an atmosphere which discourages people from committing the kind of crimes we're talking about.

5500 character limit reached.. again. This is really annoying, if  someone here has the ability to increase it, please do so.

Executing any human being for any crime is a serious issue, and I haven't seen anyone running around claiming it's a good idea.

Isn't that what the Koran commands? Is Islamic law a bad idea?

As has been noted, the requirements for actually passing a capital sentence are quite stringent, four witnesses for instance.

That isn't stringent at all. It certainly won't stop gays being executed. You appear to be conceding that it is wrong to execute gays by suggesting that the requirements that reduce the number of executed gays are a good idea.

Nothing wrong with asking specific questions, but they're always the same boring old questions that really have no relevance to an individual Muslim.

Well, I'm not a Muslim.

What punishments an Islamic State implements are not really my business as an individual Muslim

That's absurd. You are pretending that Islamic law is none of your business as a Muslim? Are you a fair weather Muslim that only supports Islam when it is tempered by outside influences?

why do you not ask me a question about Islamic economic policy or the role of science and techology in Islamic society?

Because I don't care about that. Being tolerant of science hardly makes up for killing gay people. I'm not going to ask you what you had for breakfast either, for the same reason.

Why must the Western "enquirers" these days always being with "Do you wanna execute gays??". Is this all that your depraved minds are focused on?

So you accuse me of sensationalising issues, but then accuse me of being depraved for standing up for human rights? I shouldn't have to answer that. If you had any understanding of Australian values, you wouldn't have to ask.

Wait a minute. Where did I say anything about that?

Well I'm just trying to understand you.

Democracy is not merely the popular election of a leader

Yes but I was asking about electing leaders democratically. When did that last happen under Islamic law?

As I mentioned, Islam has used the process of popular election of a leader at times, but not commonly, either way that's irrelevant

It is not irrelevant to me.

what I stated was that the Islamic system was being implemented, the society was Islamic, and we can judge it as an Islamic society, unlike the post-colonialist states that exist in the Muslim lands today

Perhaps you should have just answered the question. You are welcome to clarify it all you want, but you should answer it first or there is no point.

They are incompatible ideologies, but that doesn't mean a believer in one cannot live under the other.

I am not saying you cannot live under our laws. I am asking about how you would change them, if you could.

Your ideas wreak of McCarthyism, and I think you'd like to inflict the same kind of bias and oppression upon the Muslims in today's Australian society.

I am just asking questions Abu. Questions that seem to make you uncomfortable. To equate that with McCarthyism is sensationalising the discussion. This is a politics forum. I am asking how you would change this society, if you could.

It is you who holds beliefs and seeks to implement actions that contradict Australian values, not I.

You are welcome to mount such an argument, if you can.

Again another example of your sensationalism.

Wrong. Most Australians would hate the thought of living under communism.

This is your own xenophobic fear, that Muslims are here to lobby the government and eventually take it over, so they can execute all the gays.

Hang on, both you and Malik said you want Islam to dominate Australia. Malik said he would vote for Australia to become an Islamic state if he had the chance. I am merely asking you to clarify the issue.

A state is not merely a loose collection of individuals

True, but completely beside the point. Saying your opinion doesn't matter is not the same as saying you have no opinion. Because we live in a democracy your opinion does matter. Are you saying it is only OK to have these opinions if there is no chance they will be implimented?

A muslim individual has no authority to implement a punishment from the State's penal code,

Yes they do. Our institutions are set up to facilitate this, not to prevent it.

and expecting an individual Muslim to be responsible for it is ludicrous

I am not expecting one Muslim to do it alone. As Malik pointed out, he would merely do it as soon as he was able to. This doesn't change anything.

What's more ludicrous is that you suggested Muslims would be in other countries trying to clandestinely implement those punishments.

No I did not suggest that. Instead, I asked if it was clandestine for Malik to publicly proclaim support for secular democracy then vote against it at the first opportunity. You can hardly blame me for asking you to clarify these issues. If you believe in theocracy, executing gays, marrying 4 eleven year old girls etc, you should say so, not tell everyone you support our laws, up until you are in a position to change them. That is clandestine. That is deceptive.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:


Not all men can afford to marry four wives nor are all Muslim women happy with having their husbands have other wives. So we certainly aren't running out of women any time soon.

Secondly if someone is frustrated enough sexually, like some of those people in prison or in places like Saudi due to the restrictions they are under then of course some would commit gay sex.

But also like people in prisons, it doesn't mean however that ALL will do it.

It's a small minority.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:


First of all, accusing someone of misrepresenting the Qur'an is a very serious charge, I certainly am not doing it and don't appreciate being accused of it, especially by someone with as little understanding of Islam as you have..

Of course crimes should be investigated. But you aren't allowed to go into someone's home and spy on them to see if they are gay in Islam.

That WOULD be illegal and against Islam and God has been very specific about this type of behaviour:

049.012
O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

As you see it not only is it a sin, but it's comparable to eating the flesh off of your brothers back.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Of course it's legal to have gay sex in front of 4 people here but we're not talking about Australia, we are talking about in an Islamic State, last I checked Australia isn't.

This just further shows your lack of understanding.. You seem to be making alot of assumptions regarding Islam without the actual knowledge of Islam to back it up I'm afraid. People did have their own privacy at Muhammad pbuh's time.

You need four witnesses to witness the same event from my understanding, unless the person who committed the crime testafies against themself four times.

BTW, I researched the topic of punishment for unmarried people having gay sex and I am correct in saying the death by stoning penalty only applies to married people.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:

100 lashes regardless of whether they have sex with their own sex or the opposite sex.

The people should be married BEFORE having sex, if they are not married then they are liable to get the 100 lashes. However this, like all punishments require a Qadi (Judge) to ensure that the person has had every opportunity to get married and had the finances to do so. It has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the fornicators had intentionally not gotten married when they were able to.

If this isn't the case then the lashes might not be applicable because the Islamic State has failed it's citizen in not providing adequate ability for people to get married.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 2:43pm:

Adultery is death by stoning and fornication is 100 lashes

What is the penalty for a woman who uncovers more than her face and hands? Are there any similar restrictions on men? Are children free of all clothing restrictions?
[/quote]
I'm not aware of a penalty for that, but if there is it would be as applicable for men as it is for women. ie men have certain criteria of covering too.

Children are free from clothing restrictions within reason. A girl who has not reached puberty doesn't have to cover everything but the hands and face.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

I'm sorry, tell me again in detail the reason I said that many men are not worthy of marriage?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

You're in fantasy land if you believe that mate.

Those "gay" inmates come out of prison and are completely straight.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:


Yes of course I accuse people like Sprint of misrepresenting the Qur'an, because I at least have read it and understand Islam. For you to accuse me of misrepresenting is ridiculous because you don't even know enough about Islam to know what is misrepresenting or not.

Of course it's to guard against injustice. And I also didn't say the law is made to endorse gay sex in one's own privacy.

It's still forbidden either way.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

How would you prove that they had gay sex with another person that way? If only going inside their house to collect evidence.

Can you give an example?


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

It's eating the skin of your dead brother, take the skin from where you want mate..

And yes, there is the ability to do undercover detective work.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

Ok, so your asking IF Australia was an Islamic State. Well the same laws apply to any Islamic State.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

Then if my brother is married, he will be brought before a court and if the witnesses are there then he will be stoned to death.

If he is not married, he will recieve 100 lashes.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

They'd have all had to witness the same event occur.
freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2008 at 5:29pm:

No, the person who is not cheating will get 100 lashes and the one who is will be stoned to death.