freediver wrote on May 2
nd, 2012 at 9:05am:
What about in practice? Does the practice of Islam differ from the theory? Do you support stoning these girls to death or not?
Girls are never stoned in Islamic law - only adults are allowed to be stoned.
freediver wrote on May 2
nd, 2012 at 9:05am:
Quote:Can you write a post that does njot contain lies? Islam does not permit rape, nor does it permit forced marriage.
And yet Islam prevents you from punishing a man for raping his wife or slave. Correct?
I don't know that that is correct. In islam there are prescribed mandatory punishments, and there can also be other punishments given out by judges .
As for marriage, how can a husband rape his wife? If a woman felt strongly about not having sex with her husband, why wouldn't she just get a divorce? It seems strange to accuse a husband of divorce while still staying married to him.
As for slaves, Islam does not even allow a master to slap a slave on the face:
Quote:Book 015, Number 4082:
Mu'awiya bin Suwaid reported: (of when he was young) I slapped a slave belonging to us and then fled away. I came back just before noon and offered prayer behind my father. He called him (the slave) and me and said: "Do as he has done to you." He (the slave) granted pardon. He (my father) then said: 'We belonged to the Muqarrin family in the lifetime of God's Messenger (Muhammed, peace & blessings of God upon him) and we had only one slave-girl, and one of us slapped her. This news reached God's Messenger (Muhammed) and he said: "Set her free." They (the members of the family) said: "There is no other servant except she." Thereupon he said: "Then employ her and when you can afford to dispense with her services, then set her free."'
Two of the greates scholars of Islam, Imam Maalik and Imam ash-Shafi'ee, wrote on the subject thus:
Quote:In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)
Quote:"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force...then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)
Did slave women consent to having sex with their masters?
Quote:Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat. (John McClintock, James Strong, "Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)
Quote:The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes
They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.
The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.
The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts" the women. (Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women" [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)
freediver wrote on May 2
nd, 2012 at 9:05am:
falah wrote on May 1
st, 2012 at 10:44pm:
Stonings are a mercy.
Can you explain to us how they work?
Stonings are an expiation from sin, and protect society by deterring open illicit sexual conduct such as that which destroys Western culture. Affairs, divorce, pornography, open homosexuality, the threat of stoning protects society from these evils.
The permissive nature of the West is destroying families and leading to social breakdown. Here is an example of what the West is doing to itself by permitting all types of sexual activity to be considered normal:
Quote:Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge
Devices temporarily prevent pregnancy by releasing hormones into the blood
In 2011, 1,700 girls aged 13/14 were fitted with implants
Under 'patient confidentiality' rules, school staff are banned from seeking permission of parents beforehandhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2097662/Parents-furious-girls-13-given... Are you going to keep asking the same question a million times. Not all Shia are apostates. The leaders in Iran have apostated by their words and actions
So why don't all Shites get stoned to death? Is the death penalty for apostasy applied selectively?
freediver wrote on May 2
nd, 2012 at 9:05am:
Quote:Do you support the jailing of an Australian man who was teaching people how to put both Labor and Liberal last on a ballot paper?
I support the jailing of criminals if the crime is bad enough. I think it is irrelevant how they vote, or what they had for breakfast. But I'm sure you already know this.
Do you support the jailing of Albert Lange for telling people how to vote in a manner that denies giving a preference to either Liberal or Labor?
Quote:The story of Albert LangerIn 1996, Albert Langer was jailed for telling people how to vote. Langer was a member of the Neither! campaign, which argued that voters shouldn't have to direct their preferences to parties they didn't agree with. They said that voters could legally vote 1 for a party of their choice, and then put a 2 in each of the other boxes, thereby stopping their preferences from flowing on to the major parties when they didn't want them to. This was particularly aimed at supporters of minor parties, who might not want to see their votes ultimately go to Labor or the Coalition, as it usually does for all votes in the House of Representatives.
The Australian Electoral Commission wasn't very happy with this campaign. While it argued that Langer had the right to vote this way, he should not be encouraging others to do so. The Victorian Supreme Court ultimately agreed and then ordered that Langer be jailed for contempt of court when he continued his campaign after being ordered to stop. When Langer was sent to prison Amnesty International declared him Australia's first prisoner of conscience for more than twenty years, and called for his release.
In the end, Albert Langer only served three weeks of a ten week term because the Federal Court ruled the Victorian Supreme Court's sentence had been too severe.
AEC figures show that around 46 000 votes were exhausted during the 1996 House of Representatives election, an increase of over 500 percent on the number of exhausted votes in the 1993 election. Albert Langer thanked the AEC for the publicity his advocated method of voting received following the action taken against him.
The Electoral Act has since been amended. Section 240 was changed to say that voters need to number the boxes in order and without repeating any numbers.
Interestingly though, the section which outlawed Langer from encouraging people to vote this way has also been repealed. Instead the law now says it is only an offence to print or publish material which may deceive or mislead a voter.
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/events/election_04/albertlanger.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Langer
Forum
Pages: 
