Iran & Death Penalty (9 to be stoned; stoning practice suspended)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mpw, Jul 20, 2008.

  1. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #1
  2. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #2
    Nobody was calling for Sharia law, just mentioned by the Arch Bish. Even then, it wasn't the twisted version that the Iranians use which is very selective and unforgiving.

    It was something to do with marriage. There are similar legal exemptions for other faiths in the UK.

    EDIT: Editing in some condemnation of stoning. Horrific.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Using it for some situations could prove to be useful, though obviously not for others such as allowing punishments like this.
     
  4. mpw thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #4
    Well it was the Arch Bishop who started the debate, but there was support for the idea and I heard it debated at the time in all seriousness on BBC Radio 4 by lawyers and politicians etc.

    The idea that any section of society based on religion should be able to opt in and out of any section of law that they feel appropriate is ridiculous, regardless of religion.
     
  5. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #5
    you taking what the Arch Bishop said totally of out context.

    I'm totally against the death penalty in every form but there is no difference in stoning somebody to death and sticking them in the electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection, hanging or beheading.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    Firstly, this is barbaric.

    Secondly, the talk of Sharia Law was mainly to do with civil contracts, which under English law have always been permissible under any mutually agreed and equitable terms. Hence the Shin Bet (Jewish) courts, which for a long time have been available to Jewish parties to any contract. Sharia Law is similarly a system which has always been available to agreeable parties.
     
  7. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #7
    I read this twice before realising you were not actually talking about stoning. :D
     
  8. mpw thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #8
    The debate I heard on the subject did include talk of taking it further, including the sentencing of young people in the islamic community for stuff that they would currently be getting ASBOs for, which I still think is ridiculous.

    Contracts I guess I wouldn't have an issue with, except I still think it would bother me to buy and use an Apple computer for example if Apple decided to base the license agreements on Sharia Law.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    It depends whether it breaks the spirit of English law, and how it compares to using Jewish law in certain cases.
     
  10. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #10
    Thankfully we've got a little plot of land ready abroad just incase the country does go mad and adopt an Iranian-flavoured Sharia Law.
    Off with his hands, and head.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    ^^ There is absolutely no way our country will adopt Iranian or Saudi or one of the other more extreme Islamic states with sharia law.
     
  12. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #12
    We (speaking for non-Muslims) won't have to live by it anyway. The whole thing has been blown so far out of proportions.

    Amazing how many believe this sort of scaremongering in the papers. I've even heard people saying they will move abroad because they don't want to live in a country where there children might get their hands cut off for stealing a sweaty from the shop.

    Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
     
  13. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #13
    C'mon, it's all just Iran being misunderstood due to the rampant xenophobia by U.S. citizens...
     
  14. mpw thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #14
    Of course the first 12post in the thread (prompted by a story on the British Broadcasting Corp.) are from Brits:)
     
  15. Gray-Wolf macrumors 68030

    Gray-Wolf

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Location:
    Pandora, Home Tree
    #15
    Islamic countries have barbaric laws. That said...

    We don't have the right to interfere with their country. As hard as it is for me to say that, if it were done in this country, the men responsible would not need worry about a trial.

    And they say the world is becoming more enlighten.
     
  16. Sesshi macrumors G3

    Sesshi

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Location:
    One Nation Under Gordon
    #16
    Yeah. There are times when religion really gets in the way of justice. Islamic law in some states needs to speed up and embrace the electric chair, lethal injection, and 'oh he fell down the stairs'. Or perhaps they could leapfrog it by developing the Mother of All Spud Guns to modernise this stone-throwing business.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    What? So the our reaction to stoning is just a misunderstanding? Oh, OK. Gee, so sorry about that. :rolleyes:
     
  18. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #18
    Would some of our UK friends please explain this? I used to try and stay current with UK news, but that has taken a second level priority over the past 2-3 years. It takes all my time to keep up with what is happening on this side of the pond. I glean, from the comments here, these is some support to bring Islamic law into the UH"? Is this correct? If so, why would anyone want to do that? Islamic law is mainly theocratic, is it not? What is wrong with good old British law?
     
  19. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #20
    My first inclination was to look at this philosophically; different people, culture and laws. Yet, I cannot bring myself to shrug it off. It is barbaric, end of story. However, with that being said, Americans are hardly in a position to 'get on their high horse' about this. Our entire history is littered with acts of barbarism. We do not have to look too far back to find it either. It is happening everyday, in places like Gitmo and the prison execution rooms. We are not the high and noble enlightened Country, we pretend to be. Before we start condemning the actions of others, we need to get our own house in order. We are a long ways away from achieving that. These comments might piss-off some of my countrymen, but facing up to the brutal truth is seldom pleasant.
     
  20. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #21
    I'm utterly perplexed. How on earth have you come to that conclusion from my post.

    If you've read anything I've written in this thread then you'll notice I'm saying nothing of the sort, I've not even said anything that can be misconstrued as that.
     
  21. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #22
    It was never a case of out with the current law; in with sharia. As soon as something was mentioned, every idiot and their dog was rushing around with comedy jazz hands because (through ignorance) they believed that people's heads were going to get cut off and have public executions.

    At the time there was a huge over reaction to what had been suggested.


    It's not really the end of the story, SMM. There is much more to the story than that. We need to be really careful not to take the most extreme forms of Islam that are being pushed by countries like Saudi Arabia, and turn them into the rule for the entire Islamic faith and the law that is implemented.
     
  22. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #23
    Well I am sure you'd be happy to tell us what more there is to this story then…
    9 people may be stoned to death
    Yet you would have us believe there is more to the story? Something that would make it OK for 9 people to die a barbaric death?

    I agree with your point about not taking the extreme interpretations of Islamic law as the rule.

    But your comments are confusing none the less… :confused:
     
  23. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #24
    Please, read it in context. I replied to Sharia Law being 'barbaric, simple as that'. Not this story. This story and this implementation of Sharia is barbaric and utterly contemptible

    "There is no strictly static set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit, based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad and his companions), Ijma (consensus), Qiyas (reasoning by analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."

    Iran and Saudi Arabia choose to twist and implement some teachings but ignore vital other parts (like forgiveness to people that are truly sorry). They even give people altered Qur'ans with a few words altered to skew their meaning.

    I'm against the death penalty, be it in Iran or Texas.

    Hadn't you noticed, Iran is pretty ***** extreme ;)

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of much of Sharia law. I don't really like any law that is based on religion and interpretation but we need to be careful that when we're told about Iran cutting heads off and stoning that we don't, through lack of knowledge, judge the entire thing.
     
  24. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #25
    I did read it in context — read SMM's post again… you will notice he is refering to the 9 being stoned — not Shariah law. That was your interpretation. ;)

    Again, I agree with you. :confused:

    Please understand I am not singling you out here… :eek: I just don't get apologists for the indefensible.
     

Share This Page