Name is Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani. A woman who is accused and convicted of adultery and her punishment is stoned to death. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.stoning/index.html?fbid=W4FT-_c5I7d I bet the defenders of religion will find another smelly excuse for Iran or for their belief system and justice. Or they will come up with other barbaric examples around the world or even maybe from history. They will keep shouting "Allah is great, infidels will burn in hell". You know what, nothing changes the fact that this woman will be stoned to death, and this is happening right here on this planet, right now and no bullshit has any chance to make it acceptable.
"Among them is a group who distort the Book with their tongues so that you think it is from the Book when it is not from the Book. They say, 'it is from Allah', but it is not from Allah. They tell a lie against Allah and they know it."-Al-Imran, 3:78, al-Qur'an.
What does that mean? I couldn't care less what their religious book tells them and how they interpret it. All I can see is this regime is committing this atrocity in the name of their belief system. Advocating Qur'an will not save this woman.
There's no such thing as a religion separate from the people who worship it. Anyone who says they practice "the true Islam" is speaking nonsense, because no such "true form" exists, there is only the multitude of varying interpretations ascribed to each individual.
Hilarious. Do you actually think this is about religious text and what you believe compared to what they believe?
List of common misconceptions # It is commonly claimed that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from the Moon. This is false. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any man-made object from the Moon. The misconception is believed to have been popularized by Richard Halliburton decades before the first moon landing. # Black holes, unlike the common image, do not act as cosmic vacuum cleaners any more than other stars. When a star evolves into a black hole, the gravitational attraction at a given distance from the body is no greater than it was for the star. That is to say, were the Sun to be replaced by a black hole of the same mass, the Earth would continue in the same orbit (assuming spherical symmetry of the sun). Due to a black hole's formation being explosive in nature, the object would lose a certain amount of its energy in the process, which, according to the mass–energy equivalence, means that a black hole would be of lower mass than the parent object, and actually have a weaker gravitational pull. # When a meteor lands on Earth (after which it is termed a meteorite), it is not usually hot. In fact, many are found with frost on them. A meteor's great speed during entry is enough to melt or vaporize its outermost layer, but any molten material will be quickly blown off (ablated), and the interior of the meteor does not have time to heat up because rocks are poor conductors of heat. Also, atmospheric drag can slow small meteors to terminal velocity by the time they hit the ground, giving the surface time to cool down. there might be a point somewhere to all that
I have no idea what it meas either. But I disagree - we should care what their religious book tells them, because they want to impose it on the West. The Islamic belief system revolves around Sharia Law. Sharia Law is believed to be the law of God and therefore, immutable, perfect, and binding upon all of Mankind. It must supersede all man-made laws, including any constitution. All 57 states of the OIC practice Sharia Law to one degree or another. There is no such concept as "separation of church and state." Modern Sharia Law is no different that it was in the 7th century. According to the modern mainstream Sunni manual of jurisprudence, “The Reliance of the Traveler”, fornication, including adultery and sodomy, is today punishable by stoning to death. (Section 12). So is apostasy. This manual of jurisprudence is backed by the Al-Azhar University, a “beacon of learning” as Obama put it when he gave his speech there. Every imaginable facet of human behavior is governed by Sharia Law. From marriage to sitting on the toilet. Because Sharia Law is the law of God, no Muslim politician could, in all honesty, pledge allegiance to a man-made constitution.
No, I mean that just because someone whom claims to be Muslim does something and says it's in the name Islam doesn't mean that what they are doing is condoned by Islam and is not infact going against the teachings of Islam. Nor does this mean that what they are doing is the correct practical application of Islamic jurisprudence.
Don't worry, people understood your intention. That's why CptBork gave you this answer above: Islam is nothing other than the sum of its followers. There is no Islam without its believers, they are the face of Islam: True face or Wrong face discussion doesn't make any contribution and/or change to what we practically have.
I disagree in that we can objectively discuss whether or not a certain action is within accordance to proper Islamic jurisprudence. There is those whom oppose various practices, why are we never given any consideration? If Islam is only it's believers (which is ridiculous to say so, but let's assume), then why aren't the believers whom disagree and who, like Imam Muhammad Hussaini Shirazi (RA) and the Shirazi family, were silenced, why aren't we given equal recognition? In my opinion, it says more about the opressive nature of the state appartus than Islam or Islamic jurisprudence.
What does it make you think religion can be discussed "objectively"? What is your standards or criteria for "objectivity"? Is there any "non-human" judging body unbeknown to us? You mean subjective interpretations. Could it be because of human to human subjective disagreements? "In your opinion"? You mean subjective I assume.
No, we can very easily discuss Islamic jurisprudence and see whether or not X action is halal or haram and whether or not it's accordance with the teachings of Islam. We can do this given the Islamic texts such as al-Qur'an, the hadiths, works written by the ulema, etc. etc. Oh, but of course, those are just "subjective," interpretations? hmm? Nice way to sweep all my comments to the side. "Oh, subjective, subjective subjective, subjectiveeeeeee!!111!!!!!!!!!!one!!!!" Of course this can't say something about the state apparatus or any other secular, political, cultural, etc. etc. considerations, the problem must inherently be with religion, correct?
Then why can't the Islamic world get its story straight, if it's so easy, obvious and direct to interpret all the scriptures? I've heard many Sunnis call the Shiites nuts, I've heard it the other way, and everyone blames someone else for whatever defect is being discussed. Most of us do acknowledge there are many liberal Muslims out there whose views are compatible with the core values found in the West. That doesn't mean they alone hold the one "true" meaning and understanding of what Islam is and how it's supposed to be interpreted.
And, who are you to judge other Muslims on what is and what isn't Islamic jurisprudence? Perhaps, it is you who goes against the teachings of Islam?
I don't think so. An example for you: Now I will give you an Islamic source (an hadith from Bukhari on stoning to death for adultery cases: -this passage is extracted from: http://www.guidedones.com/metapage/gems/adultery.htm Guess what? You will not accept this hadith as a valid authority. But if we were discussing other topic, you would use Bakhari as Sahih source. I witnessed some discussions where Muslims can even refuse Qur'anic verses in the name of defending their religion. About my insist upon subjectivity... Go back and read your post: The concept of "objectivity" is first brought by yourself. And I asked for the criteria, definition or source for objectivity. You are still shy to provide anything other than repeating some names of Islamic sources. And guess what: The rest of the humanity do not use Islamic sources for their understanding of justice. Just as Muslims doesn't give a shit about non-Islamic values of the rest of the humanity, same is true for non-Islamic people. They don't care if "real Islam" -whatever it is- includes rejm or not, it's not their problem. They see an inhuman incident and they criticise it. Also many who had discussion on these issues are very much familiar with hypocrisy used by the defenders of Islam. Why do all these punishment models exercised by Islamic states fit the historical text and tradition of Islam? Could it be coincidence? No, because this is exactly what Islam really is. It is known to everyone how Islam degrades woman, there is nothing new under the sun. Playing with words and trying to find unsubstantiated excuses for Islam, or failing to come up with any evidence to display what real Islam is, people will keep considering Islamic mentality as the main source behind these inhuman events.
