Poll: ~75% of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan favor stoning people for adultery

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by Mdv2

 

These laws are truly barbaric. Almost as barbaric as the US federal government invading Iraq and killing 200,000 civilians in the process, but not quite. The US government would have been *much* more kind had they stoned 5,000 Americans to death for adultery, instead of killing 200,000 Iraqis for oil contracts for their favorite corporations.

edit on 7-12-2010 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)

On that basis you should be applauding the US invasion on the grounds that Saddam was killing his own people at a rate of 300,000 per yr - not including the 8 million who died during the Iran/Iraq war.

Like I said earlier,

You are right

I am surprised when people say that there has been no Muslim country that has invaded another non-Muslim country in recent history.

You want to know why?

Because they CAN"T!!!

They lack the military and diplomatic strength needed to invade another country.

If any Islamic nation became a superpower (highly unlikely) then you bet your @$$ that they would be spreading Sharia law to all corners of the world.

Saying otherwise is being naive and ignorant

reply to post by Mdv2


Let's try to be scientific on this issue. What if the extramarital affair saved the man or the woman from infertility?
Because of many reasons one of the couple may not be able to produce. Better yet, what if the extramarital affair introduced a much better combination of the genes and produced a super genius or a super human for that matter in such a way that he/she will contribute greatly to the humanity. I'm not an advocate of adultery but God may have better plan than meager humans can conceive. By the way, wasn't King Solomon one of such cases? What would have happened if King David didn't...? How about the mystical birth of Jesus Christ?

Well, humans are inherently fallible. Don't try to be the first to cast the stone.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Doujutsu
So people who want to follow something thats a 1000 year old shouldn't be allowed to because you don't agree with it?

Again you deflect and twist to make a subject unrecognizable. It's got nothing to do with disagreeing with a religion, no matter how hard you try to make it seem like it. It's called EVOLUTION and BEING CIVILIZED.

In regards to this thread topic ... In an evolved and civilized world -
NO ONE should be able to stone a woman who is accused of adultry.
That's barbaric and it's murder.
NO ONE should be able to take a woman's right to a fair trial away.
That's ignorant and it's just men exercising power over women.
NO ONE should put a person on trial for adultry anyways.
That's a private matter.
NO ONE should whip a rape victim and claim she led a man astray.
That's beyond ignorant and uncivilized.

Let them do what they want in their own lands, why's is it bothering you?

Let Hitler mass murder 6 million Jews, Catholics, and physically disabled people.
Why should it bother anyone? :shk:

Read my last reply to you on the other thread and lets see how you counter that.

Your remarks on that thread are deflection and off topic.
You continue to try to deflect the subject and defend the undefendable.

i am sick of people double standards and hypocrisy.

I'm sick of idiots bowing to politically correct language and thinking that the mistreatment of women at the hands of an ancient misogynistic cult - which was started by a mass murdering thief and liar - is somehow something that should be respected and tolerated.

I completely agree with this. There is absolutely no reason these things should be happening in a civilized world. The political correctness of today has gone too far..why should anyone allow women to be mistreated like this? Its somehow ok because its in their country and culture? But isn't it known that many of these people want to spread their culture far and wide..it is one of the tenets of islam to spread islam, is it not? They do have many more children than couples in the western world, and while most muslims here are much more moderate, when do we put our foot down?

I think when they come to our countries, to visit or to live, they should adhere to OUR cultures and respect them, just as we should respect theirs going into their countries...EXCEPT when it comes to hurting and discriminating against people. That is just not acceptable in the modern civilized world.

reply to post by Mdv2


This thread was obviously intended to be inflammatory. What you fail to consider is that our own history isn't very pleasant. In 18th Century England, the crime for all felonies, including theft, was death. The US inherited this tradition. In both countries, those executions were often public, spectator events until mid-19th century.

If based on this article, you would like to see Muslims wiped from the face of the earth, you might ask where you would be if your own ancestors were wiped out for being too violent.

Finally, many countries in the world have abolished the death penalty altogether. They see the United States as primitive and cruel. Everything's relative.

True democracy hasn't taken off in the middle east, likely due to outside interference - CIA overthrowing democratically elected governments and backing oppressive monarchies. George Washington was offered the job of King after the American Revolution. Imagine if England had assassinated George Washington and the next person in line decided he'd like to be a king. Imagine if some European power sent all their troops to back the confederacy during the civil war. The US might be a much different place.

The discovery of Oil in the middle east brought endless money, interference, and corruption to the region. Real Democracy would have been a hindrance to maintaining western control from the outside.

If you want progress in the middle east, you've got to stop looking for new reasons to hate and alienate them. You need to find common ground and understanding. You can't install democracy using a gun. People have to want it and they need to choose it for themselves.

.....ANYWAY....

I couldn't find the info on the demographics of the ones who were polled. I know the title said 75% of Muslims. but what I'm referring to is their age, SEX, Educational status etc.

I think that would have been more revealing.

Im a mid 30s caucasion (sp?) male living in north america with roots from Europe.

Id want rocks thrown at my wife/spouse/partner if she cheated on me too! SHOCK!

All these high and mighty self rightous keyboard activists would most likely react the same way and want the same thing...

I love how the slow people in here bring up the U>S atrocities like it makes stoning any less of a crime.


Stoning is horrible, no matter whose doing it.

Here is more complete article, with other interesting statistics about muslim opinions from the poll:

pewglobal.org...

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by Mdv2

 

This thread was obviously intended to be inflammatory. What you fail to consider is that our own history isn't very pleasant. In 18th Century England, the crime for all felonies, including theft, was death. The US inherited this tradition. In both countries, those executions were often public, spectator events until mid-19th century.

If based on this article, you would like to see Muslims wiped from the face of the earth, you might ask where you would be if your own ancestors were wiped out for being too violent.

Finally, many countries in the world have abolished the death penalty altogether. They see the United States as primitive and cruel. Everything's relative.

True democracy hasn't taken off in the middle east, likely due to outside interference - CIA overthrowing democratically elected governments and backing oppressive monarchies. George Washington was offered the job of King after the American Revolution. Imagine if England had assassinated George Washington and the next person in line decided he'd like to be a king. Imagine if some European power sent all their troops to back the confederacy during the civil war. The US might be a much different place.

The discovery of Oil in the middle east brought endless money, interference, and corruption to the region. Real Democracy would have been a hindrance to maintaining western control from the outside.

If you want progress in the middle east, you've got to stop looking for new reasons to hate and alienate them. You need to find common ground and understanding. You can't install democracy using a gun. People have to want it and they need to choose it for themselves.

You have simply bought into the multicultural PC lie that white =oppressor and therfore everything brown people do can be excused and blamed on whites.

The problems with the M.E are the fault of Islam and Arabic culture alone - but mostly Islam, it is a retrograde force that is inherrently incapable of ever being reformed, due to it supposedly being the direct revelation of Allah - the only and complete truth of all things for all time.

Fact is it was irresponsible of us to allow such a primitive culture to recieve all that unearned oil wealth - it was like giving monkies machine guns.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Never they cant accuse the husband of adultery if they do its considered being a traitor and ull get stoned instead only way u can get away from ur husband over there is if he tries to put it in ur a** lmao

reply to post by Joehio


Then why are u posting on this thread if u dont care, it effects everybody well atleast humans which u are lackin in some sorts by ur words

reply to post by Joehio


Then why are u posting on this thread if u dont care, it effects everybody well atleast humans which u are lackin in some sorts by ur words

oops...delete this post plz i posted twice

if we stoned adulterers in america, we would run out of rocks.

second line.

Originally posted by stormson
if we stoned adulterers in america, we would run out of rocks.

second line.

Second line.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sakokrap

There is a very long road from prisoners working at least to pay for their prison to slave state and I dont think it will progess that way. Either way, better to live in a moderate slave state than in a state that does not respect basic human rights and allows for barbaric punishments.

I believe your slave state comes from the socialist policies, where one man is enslaved to his neighbor... to pay for their prison, to... as you put it, "...receive benefits for the rest of his life...". This is slave-making. This is the same idealism that will force physical exercise, diet management, safety management (seat belt, OSHA, etc) upon the whole of the society specifically because of your socialist direction where one man is enslaved to his neighbor.

...huge economic loss caused disability...
...the huge economic loss caused by stoning...

To me, your valuation of people and their conditions merely summed up as an economic factor evidences a totality of the human being in your eyes as little more than some slave labor for the purpose of generating economic gain. While your ideas are common amongst most human farmers, I myself do not count myself among that ideology and believe people have values beyond (and in no way connected in any way whatsoever) with money, economy, or how much toil, labor, or products they will produce for the ruling class (or even themselves) in the future.

While I respect your courage to share these views in public, I do find these principles of slavery abhorrent to my very core.

Socialism means common ownership of the means of production. You can have fully capitalist state (private ownership) with some form of welfare system.

Forgive me, but I believe we're using different words with different meanings. I understand Communism as the ownership of the means of production, and socialism as the political expression of the value: "The collective is responsible for the collective and the individual" (as opposed to the value: "I am responsible for my own actions" or "I am responsible for the collective"). As I understand it, Socialism manifests itself as policies known as "social welfare" or "social justice".

Please allow me to be much more specific for the sake of avoiding miscommunications:

I believe the application of your philosophies would create an overt slave-state because:

1. You support forced labor camps
2. You sum a human's value as an economic loss/gain
3. You's enslave each man to this neighbor through socialist policies

(further as evidenced in your replies to others)
4. You support the slaughter of people considered "other" to you without regard to innocence/guilt
5. You support the United Nation's socialist overlay of Human Rights (odd too, since it contradicts #4) which is abhorrent to the concept of individual liberty (as commonly understood in the US Declaration of Indep).

And it was immoral IMHO. Crime is perfectly all right if the alternative is death or life threatening situation. Thats why you can kill someone who threatens others (defense), thats why you can steal from those who will not be threatened by it to provide basic resources for those who would otherwise be threatened (welfare) - not providing urgent help while being easily able to do so is also a crime.

Truly, I'm surprised you haven't considered moving to either Pakistan or Egypt. Common among Muslim countries is the principle of being "my brother's keeper" where the tribe/clan become responsible for the standing of each individual. I think you should investigate life in these countries for potential emigration and could find wonderful fraternity there.

If other citizens decide to voluntarily help them, then my point still stands - they are using money to support them which they could otherwise use for other things, from the economic POV it does not matter if its voluntary or not.

So, you see no difference between charity and robbery? Hmm... I can really understand your unease with thieves getting their hands cut off ;-)

reply to post by sakokrap

To me, your valuation of people and their conditions merely summed up as an economic factor evidences a totality of the human being in your eyes as little more than some slave labor for the purpose of generating economic gain.

I only evaluated the example from economic POV because you started that here:

Imagine the potential space the taxpayers would need in their wallets when the funds plundered to feed, house, guard, tend and entertain the largest prison population, were returned to the wallet.

I would say I am exactly the opposite of what you are claiming - If I valued people only as an economic factor and slave labor for gererating income, why would I support welfare for disabled people, which is clear economic loss? I would say it is actually your anarcho-capitalist philosophy that devalues people to generators of economic gain, and even openly admits that people who are unable to do so should die off (!). Your quote here:

Has it ever occurred to others that people must take personal responsibility for their actions and live (or die) by the consequences thereof? Seems to me that this has been happening for millennium, and imho it is unwise to change it.

1. You support forced labor camps

I support motivating prisoners to work (or educate themselves), instead of just sitting in their cells while being imprisoned. There is a huge difference between that and slave labor camps for example in Soviet Union.

2. You sum a human's value as an economic loss/gain

I think I have debunked that above, anarcho-capitalism sums human value only as an economic loss/gain much more than social democratic capitalism.

3. You's enslave each man to this neighbor through socialist policies

If all people are enslaved to each other, then who is the master? And who is the slave?
Ensuring that those who are easily able to provide help for those who urgently need it do so is not enslavement, its basic humanism and compassion. The failure to ensure that would be barbarism, and humans will be no more than wild animals.

4. You support the slaughter of people considered "other" to you without regard to innocence/guilt

Where did I said that? If you mean this post, it was obviously only a stretch to show the absurdity of opponents logic. I didnt mean it for real of course.

5. You support the United Nation's socialist overlay of Human Rights (odd too, since it contradicts #4) which is abhorrent to the concept of individual liberty

Yes I support it and yes I think individual liberty should not be absolute - you cannot have liberty to do something which threatens others, and you also cannot have liberty to endanger others by NOT doing something that prevents the threat they face, while being easily able to do it (hospital emergency, basic welfare etc..).

Truly, I'm surprised you haven't considered moving to either Pakistan or Egypt. Common among Muslim countries is the principle of being "my brother's keeper" where the tribe/clan become responsible for the standing of each individual. I think you should investigate life in these countries for potential emigration and could find wonderful fraternity there.

Yes, that is one of the few positive things we can learn from the muslim culture - they take care about each other. Untill you dont break their crazy laws, of course, then they turn around 180.

So, you see no difference between charity and robbery? Hmm... I can really understand your unease with thieves getting their hands cut off ;-)

You have taken my reply out of context - I said from economic POV it does not matter. And it does not - whether people support the disabled from voluntary charity or mandatory welfare, they would need to put down cca the same amount of resources (money) to achieve the same effect. Of course from moral POV its much more noble if people would support them voluntarily as opposed to mandatory welfare. But I dont think they would, certainly not that efficiently and reliably than welfare system.

reply to post by Mdv2


75% of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan favor stoning people for adultery....

Makes sense as that's the way they get their rocks off.....

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sakokrap

 

Under your solution, you end up with a slave state, imho.

Oh, and to hear this from someone who wants to stone adulterers is absurd..

Lol! In a slave state everyone is a criminal. If a collective wish to define moral values to the enfranchised and articulate punishments for violations, that's called a "justice system". These are, understandably, foreign to you as you are not enfranchised, but in that system not everyone is a criminal (as in your slave-state model).

I find your hypocrasy humorous. While you think my comment about criminals and slaves is devoid of merit... you give me a smile bringing up my support for a system that stone's adulterers while you would kill them along with their children too (your "easy solution" for the problem ;-) lol!

Originally posted by Maslo

I only evaluated the example from economic POV because you started that...

Fair enough.

I would say I am exactly the opposite of what you are claiming - If I valued people only as an economic factor and slave labor for gererating income, why would I support welfare for disabled people, which is clear economic loss?

It is exactly because you support welfare for disabled people you see people as an economic factor. Really, here is the dillemma every proponent of socialism must eventually face:

1. The Egyptian convicted criminal who had his hand hacked off is not as efficient at manual labor as a two handed fella. To enslave his neighbors to feed, cloth and support him (from minimal support to fully supported) you need several elements:

a: someone willing to work
b: someone willing to forcibly take the workers resources for redistribution

Both a & b require violent force enforcement. If the neighborhood says, "you know what, I'm not going to go to work so that you can steal from me and give it to criminals," you're going to have that labor camp you've been talking about. Convict them all of unEgyptianism, and sentence them to life in a labor camp= Violence & Slavery for economic gain.

As you have stated, there is no difference between charity and slavery, you have people working and willing to get plundered to support your disabled criminal, but you cannot fully enforce the redistribution scheme without the brutalizing class: enforcers. These are your prison guards, your secret police, your uniformed tax collectors and your intelligence network.... Now, they too need to be supported and where you had a neighborhood supporting only a disabled criminal, now they have to support the brutalizers as well.

I would say it is actually your anarcho-capitalist philosophy that devalues people to generators of economic gain, and even openly admits that people who are unable to do so should die off (!). Your quote here:

"Has it ever occurred to others that people must take personal responsibility for their actions and live (or die) by the consequences thereof? Seems to me that this has been happening for millennium, and imho it is unwise to change it.

Lol! This coming from a fella who suggested killing every man, woman and child because of super firepower?! Lol! At least I'm willing to give them a shot at making it. You're right in some way though. I do believe that each and all deserve the fruits of their labor/talent (no matter how little or how much). I believe the economic point you're missing though, is that I do not concern myself with the economic viability of others in any way. I have nothing to gain from their gain, nor anything to lose at their loss, so I do not hang a noose of economic generation/degeneration around their necks.

I do see a difference between charity and slavery, and I think you're missing a wonderful element of your life being blind to this. In an "anarcho-capitalist philosophy" I can see the wonderful experience someone is having and choose to share the fruits of my labor with them for no other reason than my own selfish enjoyment of their success. Pretty cool!

I support motivating prisoners to work (or educate themselves), instead of just sitting in their cells while being imprisoned. There is a huge difference between that and slave labor camps for example in Soviet Union.

You're opening a huge can of worms with that statement. Are the products/services created by the prisoners for sale on the common market? If so, are there price controls? Do slaves earn a wage/salary? Who enjoys the profits? I believe your model is exactly like those in China or the USA of the Soviet Union. Good produced by slaves are sold on the common market, prisons are privatized or profits are shared by the Inner Party Members.

I define slavery as forced labor for the benefit of another.

Even in Pakistan and Egypt, the car thief doesn't have to suffer slavery. Personally, I'd rather lose a hand than spend time in your suggested Gulag.

If all people are enslaved to each other, then who is the master? And who is the slave?
Ensuring that those who are easily able to provide help for those who urgently need it do so is not enslavement, its basic humanism and compassion. The failure to ensure that would be barbarism, and humans will be no more than wild animals.

I think I answered the slavery/master thing above. Odd that you believe humans are not wild animals- especially after promoting wholesale genocide, resource wars, enslavement and parasitism. Odd or funny, which ever strings the cord! lol!

You do understand that your use of the word "ensure" is violent in nature. Just like Egypt "ensuring" adulterers are brought to justice. Wouldn't your "ensure" also be synonymous with "barbarism"?

4. You support the slaughter of people considered "other" to you without regard to innocence/guilt

Where did I said that? If you mean this post, it was obviously only a stretch to show the absurdity of opponents logic. I didnt mean it for real of course.

Certainly, I can't read your sarcasm unless you're going to use the

liberally

Yes I support it and yes I think individual liberty should not be absolute - you cannot have liberty to do something which threatens others, and you also cannot have liberty to endanger others by NOT doing something that prevents the threat they face, while being easily able to do it (hospital emergency, basic welfare etc..).

Sounds a lot like what is happening in Egypt and Pakistan...

You have taken my reply out of context - I said from economic POV it does not matter. And it does not - whether people support the disabled from voluntary charity or mandatory welfare, they would need to put down cca the same amount of resources (money) to achieve the same effect. Of course from moral POV its much more noble if people would support them voluntarily as opposed to mandatory welfare. But I dont think they would, certainly not that efficiently and reliably than welfare system.

Your world, like Egypt and Pakistan, would have seemingly drastic punishments and plenty of police to "ensure" the proper function and role of the proletariat. Hey man, it's kind of still a free country, so I'm glad you're getting a chance to share your vision, but personally I would be forced to take up arms against a regime that would either throw me and my family in a labor camp for just being alive... either that, or I'd have to move far, far away and watch the smoke on the horizon.

I still think you'd like Egypt. Maybe the KSA too.