Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An elderly Christian woman has been caned in a conservative Indonesian province for selling alcohol, the first time someone from outside the Islamic faith has been punished there under strict religious laws.
The 60-year was whipped nearly 30 times with a rattan cane before a crowd of hundreds in Aceh province Tuesday, an official said, along with a couple who were subjected to 100 lashes for committing adultery.
60 years old Christian woman caned 30 times in public??
This is really barbaric and lack any sense of basic human dignity.
Indicate this sector of Islam do not have any sense of compassion.
60 years old Christian woman caned 30 times in public??
This is really barbaric and lack any sense of basic human dignity.
Indicate this sector of Islam do not have any sense of compassion.
Also indicates that Shariah Law starts out being only for Muslims, but then starts being applied to non-Muslims.
"Although the religious law was previously only applicable to Muslims, an amendment that took effect last year extended its reach to practitioners of other religions in particular cases, according to an official from the prosecutor’s office of Central Aceh."
60 years old Christian woman caned 30 times in public??
This is really barbaric and lack any sense of basic human dignity.
Indicate this sector of Islam do not have any sense of compassion.
First one needs to understand at what the Aceh Province is. It is a breakaway section of Indonesia that is attempting to separate from Indonesia and form a Muslim only Nation.
like several other nations they have formed their own flavor of Sharia. Sharia is to be applied to Muslims only.
Also under Shariah the Hadud crime is the drinking of alcohol.Selling is not Hadud.
The Hadud ruling does not specify a punishment, but rathers allows traditional to be used,but the death penalty is not to be used. In Indonesia the traditional punishment for drunkenness has long been caning even among the non-Muslims.
There has been a long dispute in Indonesia over the legality of Aceh establishing it's own laws.Aceh has long been trying to secede from Indonesia and form their own Nation.
First one needs to understand at what the Aceh Province is. It is a breakaway section of Indonesia that is attempting to separate from Indonesia and form a Muslim only Nation.
like several other nations they have formed their own flavor of Sharia. Sharia is to be applied to Muslims only.
Also under Shariah the Hadud crime is the drinking of alcohol.Selling is not Hadud.
The Hadud ruling does not specify a punishment, but rathers allows traditional to be used,but the death penalty is not to be used. In Indonesia the traditional punishment for drunkenness has long been caning even among the non-Muslims.
There has been a long dispute in Indonesia over the legality of Aceh establishing it's own laws.Aceh has long been trying to secede from Indonesia and form their own Nation.
It is about how the ideology and ethos of Islam [in part] influenced and inspired SOME Muslims to be blind to human beings and their basic human dignity. They don't give a damn about being human being, all they want is to please Allah from the DUCK-rabbit perspective to ensure they go the Paradise.
It is not only Aceh, such evil ways are happening in many other places where SOME evil prone Muslims dominate society. The critical point here is how SOME evil prone Muslims are influenced by Quran which inspired the Ahadith and which in turn inspired the Sharia & Hudud.
Actually it is not about deterrence at all because as we can see even glaring announcement of the death penalty will not deter the hard core and the naturally born evil prone.
The insistent on Sharia and Hudud are merely to soothe the psychological nerves of the desperate who are infected with terrible existential terrors within them.
As some one stated, these evil prone and desperadoes do feel and sense of ease and euphoria when Sharia is implemented without giving a damn about its consequences to the human beings who are victimized by it.
It is about how the ideology and ethos of Islam [in part] influenced and inspired SOME Muslims to be blind to human beings and their basic human dignity. They don't give a damn about being human being, all they want is to please Allah from the DUCK-rabbit perspective to ensure they go the Paradise.
It is not only Aceh, such evil ways are happening in many other places where SOME evil prone Muslims dominate society. The critical point here is how SOME evil prone Muslims are influenced by Quran which inspired the Ahadith and which in turn inspired the Sharia & Hudud.
Actually it is not about deterrence at all because as we can see even glaring announcement of the death penalty will not deter the hard core and the naturally born evil prone.
The insistent on Sharia and Hudud are merely to soothe the psychological nerves of the desperate who are infected with terrible existential terrors within them.
As some one stated, these evil prone and desperadoes do feel and sense of ease and euphoria when Sharia is implemented without giving a damn about its consequences to the human beings who are victimized by it.
If properly followed Shariah renders it impossible to use the death penalty or other forms of physical punishment.
The first duty of a Sharia judge is to find reason to dismiss the charges.f that can not be done his duty is to find reason to try it as a lesser crime. In the event oes to trial as a hadud crime,the proof of guilt is impossible to be met.
The purpose of the Hadud laws is to give a statement and reminder that no matter how severe man made laws are, the punishment of hell is worse.
To go into a lengthy discourse about the proof of quilt for each Hadud law under each Madhab would be very lengthy.
But for example:
Typically there must be a minimum of 4 eye witnesses (The witnesses must be PIOUS and trusted members of the community),each seeing the very same thing at the same time. The 4 testimonies are to be fully detailed, down to the smallest action and each witness must relate the exact same details. If even one witness differs even slightly on one detail,the accused is to be freed and the witnesses executed for giving false testimony. (Makes for a strong incentive for witnesses to not come forth)
If properly followed Shariah renders it impossible to use the death penalty or other forms of physical punishment.
Who said that and on whose authority?
Quote:
The first duty of a Sharia judge is to find reason to dismiss the charges.f that can not be done his duty is to find reason to try it as a lesser crime. In the event oes to trial as a hadud crime,the proof of guilt is impossible to be met.
The purpose of the Hadud laws is to give a statement and reminder that no matter how severe man made laws are, the punishment of hell is worse.
To go into a lengthy discourse about the proof of quilt for each Hadud law under each Madhab would be very lengthy.
But for example:
Typically there must be a minimum of 4 eye witnesses (The witnesses must be PIOUS and trusted members of the community),each seeing the very same thing at the same time. The 4 testimonies are to be fully detailed, down to the smallest action and each witness must relate the exact same details. If even one witness differs even slightly on one detail,the accused is to be freed and the witnesses executed for giving false testimony. (Makes for a strong incentive for witnesses to not come forth)
In the first place there should not be any immutable Sharia Laws that is enforceable on the claim that such Laws are from Allah.
I agree certain judiciaries [less modern, tribal and rural] they may use the Quran and Ahadiths as a guide, but those barbaric laws that are below the basic dignity of human beings should be banned, e.g. flogging for alcohol, stoning to death for adultery, hijab for Muslimah and others.
Whatever process they adopt for their judiciary and Laws, they must be opened to change and not made immutable because it is claimed to be from Allah.
In the first place there should not be any immutable Sharia Laws that is enforceable on the claim that such Laws are from Allah.
I agree certain judiciaries [less modern, tribal and rural] they may use the Quran and Ahadiths as a guide, but those barbaric laws that are below the basic dignity of human beings should be banned, e.g. flogging for alcohol, stoning to death for adultery, hijab for Muslimah and others.
Whatever process they adopt for their judiciary and Laws, they must be opened to change and not made immutable because it is claimed to be from Allah.
No where does the Qur'an or Shariah provide for any form of punishment for not wearing a Hijab.
Out of 49 Islamic Nations and one separatist province The "Barbaric Laws" are only found in Saudi, Iran,Afghanistan and the province of Aceh. (although there are illegal vigilante groups that enforce what they call Sharia in various parts of the world)
No where is caning mentioned as a legal form of punishment in the Qur'an or Ahadith. However under Shariah the punishment for deliberately drinking alcohol is left up to local tradition.
Caning for drunkenness seems to have been quite popular throughout the Far eastern nations while the more "civilized" Western nations used the very kind, and quite amusing punishment of placing the villain in stocks for public exhibition and molestation by the public.
Currently 33 Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judici...ral_punishment) have caning on their books as a form of legal punishment, at least 18 of those nations are not Islamic. In the past up until the 1950s it was widely used in western schools in all of the Western nations and very popular in the UK and USA. People my age can recall some of the "Whoop'ens with a blackboard pointer" on bare butts in front of the class.
You will find caning to be much more common in Singapore than in all the Muslim nations combined.
No where does the Qur'an or Shariah provide for any form of punishment for not wearing a Hijab.
Out of 49 Islamic Nations and one separatist province The "Barbaric Laws" are only found in Saudi, Iran,Afghanistan and the province of Aceh. (although there are illegal vigilante groups that enforce what they call Sharia in various parts of the world)
No where is caning mentioned as a legal form of punishment in the Qur'an or Ahadith. However under Shariah the punishment for deliberately drinking alcohol is left up to local tradition.
Caning for drunkenness seems to have been quite popular throughout the Far eastern nations while the more "civilized" Western nations used the very kind, and quite amusing punishment of placing the villain in stocks for public exhibition and molestation by the public.
Currently 33 Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judici...ral_punishment) have caning on their books as a form of legal punishment, at least 18 of those nations are not Islamic. In the past up until the 1950s it was widely used in western schools in all of the Western nations and very popular in the UK and USA. People my age can recall some of the "Whoop'ens with a blackboard pointer" on bare butts in front of the class.
You will find caning to be much more common in Singapore than in all the Muslim nations combined.
But a single caning in a "Radical breakaway province" is portrayed as representing Islam. Aceh does not Represent Indonesia, Islam or Sharia.
I did not say that one incident represent Islam, but it does arise from Islam.
Note there are many barbaric punishments that had taken place arising from Islam when acted upon by [not all but]SOME evil prone Muslims.
It is true no punishments are specified for a Muslimah who did not wear the hijab.
However it is a fact that the conditions of Islam as it is influenced SOME evil prone Muslims via the Ahadith to punish Mulimah who do not wean the hijab. This is why it is one task of Muslims to defang the Ahadith from the practice of being a Muslim, i.e. declare the Ahadith has no divine authority at all for any Muslim.
Note 80% and 15% of Muslims are Sunni and Shia respectively and they abide by the Ahadith as having divine authority. As long as the Ahadith taken as divine, the barbaric practices will arise from Islam via SOME evil prone or very zealouos Muslims.
I did not say that one incident represent Islam, but it does arise from Islam.
Note there are many barbaric punishments that had taken place arising from Islam when acted upon by [not all but]SOME evil prone Muslims.
It is true no punishments are specified for a Muslimah who did not wear the hijab.
However it is a fact that the conditions of Islam as it is influenced SOME evil prone Muslims via the Ahadith to punish Mulimah who do not wean the hijab. This is why it is one task of Muslims to defang the Ahadith from the practice of being a Muslim, i.e. declare the Ahadith has no divine authority at all for any Muslim.
Note 80% and 15% of Muslims are Sunni and Shia respectively and they abide by the Ahadith as having divine authority. As long as the Ahadith taken as divine, the barbaric practices will arise from Islam via SOME evil prone or very zealouos Muslims.
The 12er sect of Shi'a (Which is essentially all of Iran) place the Authority of an Ayatollah above Shunnah and Ahadith.
Also note that Sunni and Shi'ite differ as to what is accepted as Ahadith. There are very few Ahadith collections that are mutually accepted. Although the Shi'a do accept some portions of Bukhari,and Muslim they do not accept all and do not consider Bukhari and Muslim to be Sahih. In addition to parts of the 6 Ahadith compilatiof the Sunni the Shi'ite also accept the additional Ahadith compilations
Kamil al Ziarat[1] by ibn al Qummi (collection of hadiths and ziarats regarding the visitation of the Imams (as) and Karbala)
Nahj al-Balagha- Collected sermons of Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib by Sayyad Razi.
Kitab al-Kafi of Kulayni (divided into Usul al-Kafi, Furu al-Kafi and Rawdat al-Kafi)
Man la Yahdhuruhu'l Faqih of Shaikh Saduq
Tahdhib al-Ahkam by Abu Ja'far al-Tusi
Al-Istibsar by Abu Ja'far al-Tusi
The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays —by Sulaym ibn Qays
Wasael ush-Shia — 1600s by Shaikh al-Hur al-Aamili. A 20 volume collection, meant to include all 'authentic' Hadith from the available Shia hadith books, checking their authenticity on the strict principles of Ilm-ur-Rajjal.
Mustadrak al-Wasael by Mirza Hussayn Nuri
Bihar al-Anwar — 1600s by Allama Majlesi. An encyclopedic, 100 volume collection, meant to include all Hadith current at the time of compilation as well as his opinions regarding their authenticity
Haqqul Yaqeen by Allama Majlisi
Mir'at-ul-Uqool fi Akhbar aal al-Rasul (Shahr Usul al-Kafi) — by Allama Majlesi
Ilal-Alshraiy — Shaikh Saduq
Hulyatul Mutaqeen — Allama Majlesi
Maeny Alakhbar — by Shaikh Saduq
Aamali — by Shaikh Saduq
Aamali — by Sheikh al-Mufid
Al-Khisal - by Shaikh Saduq
Uyun al Akhbar ar Reda - by Shaikh Saduq
Daim al-Islam - by Al-Qadi al-Nu'man
Ghurar al-Hikam wa Durar al-Kalim
Qalam-e-Mowla[2] is a Nizari Ismaili Shi'a Muslim book that has speeches by the first Shi'a Imam, Ali. It is a poetic translation of Shi'i teachings into South Asian languages.
Some more info about the Twelvers which are the dominate branch of Shi'ia in Iran and the only Shi'ite sect that has any political impact. (Nearly 50% of the World's Shi'a live in Iran which is nearly all of the 12ers)
The 12er sect of Shi'a (Which is essentially all of Iran) place the Authority of an Ayatollah above Shunnah and Ahadith.
Also note that Sunni and Shi'ite differ as to what is accepted as Ahadith. There are very few Ahadith collections that are mutually accepted. Although the Shi'a do accept some portions of Bukhari,and Muslim they do not accept all and do not consider Bukhari and Muslim to be Sahih. In addition to parts of the 6 Ahadith compilatiof the Sunni the Shi'ite also accept the additional Ahadith compilations
<snip>
The Majority of Shi'a do follow a central religious leader who seems to be considered equal to Muhamma(saws) and is Muhammad(saws) successor
My point is whether it is Sunni or Shia anything other than the Quran, i.e. 'Ahadith' Sunnah or any Ayatollah's Fatwas, should be not taken as having any divine authority.
If they do then we have barbaric practices within the Islam as recognized by them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
