[Quranic Reflection]: Quran vs Hadith- why the Hadith is false

[Astreja]

You misunderstood me; I'm actually "embracing the faith of Islam & taking the Quran to be my constitution", and no need to take the high moral horse by you in this discussion...

Then speak out against dismemberment punishments like hand amputations for theft -- now -- or STFU about "the high moral horse [sic]."

Western countries practice severe cruelties to people, you are lucky to be born in Canada, others like me who were born elsewhere see the "actual religion" of the west, we are the sitting ducks that you blow your ammunitions on.

Winter, your "Oh poor me; the Evil West is killing us all" shtick is getting really old. I, for one, am not the "you" in "that you blow your ammunitions on." I live in a nation of peacekeepers who risked and often lost their lives trying to protect Muslims from other Muslims in Afghanistan. My dad landed on Juno Beach in 1944 to help liberate Europe from the Nazis. You dishonour their memories, and dishonour your beliefs even more, with your words.

[GUBU]

Vikings created the city of Dublin 

We still haven't forgiven them for that.

[R00tKiT]

x doesn't really have the right to complain, since x is not really in charge of the universe.

Might makes right. Congratulations to being completely immoral.

Your remark is off-topic (and wrong). We're not discussing whether it's moral for a deity to do x, divine command theory is an entirely different topic. Simply put, atheists are human beings with cognitive limitations, and as such are not very well-placed to second-guess a deity without looking like fools.. a deity is purportedly omniscient remember ?

If an omniscient being threatens us with hell we simply have to bow our head humbly and follow His rules, instead of trying to come up with some contrived objection using our tiny little frontal lobe

Yes; actually I oppose the view of most Islamic institutions because the majority is not right in many times. To be honest the Quran taught me so:

Okay, and what Islamic institutions do you agree with... if any ?? 

The religious monks of Sunnies and Shiites led so many nations to death, destruction, darkness and defeat. 

Fallacy of appeal to consequences. Congratulations for proving once more that your understanding of Islam is completely fallacious.

---

Whenever you rationalize inhumane punishments like cutting off hands for theft, that's exactly what you're doing.

What's your criteria for humane punishments? Throwing someone in jail isn't punishment, it's just putting them with like-minded individuals [sic], it doesn't really discourage one from stealing, unlike cutting off hands.

Yes, cutting off one's hands is harsh and horrible. But isn't a proper punishment supposed to be horrible?

[Deesse23]

Might makes right. Congratulations to being completely immoral.

Your remark is off-topic (and wrong). We're not discussing whether it's moral for a deity to do x, divine command theory is an entirely different topic. Simply put, atheists are human beings with cognitive limitations, and as such are not very well-placed to second-guess a deity without looking like fools.. a deity is purportedly omniscient remember ?

If an omniscient being threatens us with hell we simply have to bow our head humbly and follow His rules, instead of trying to come up with some contrived objection using our tiny little frontal lobe

First you deny that you adhere to "might makes right", and then you repeat how you adhere to "might makes right". I have nothing to add.

[Astreja]

If an omniscient being threatens us with hell we simply have to bow our head humbly and follow His rules, instead of trying to come up with some contrived objection using our tiny little frontal lobe.

Let me know when an omniscient being actually shows up, Klorophyll. (Hint: Stories about omniscient beings don't count.)

What's your criteria for humane punishments? Throwing someone in jail isn't punishment, it's just putting them with like-minded individuals [sic], it doesn't really discourage one from stealing, unlike cutting off hands.

Loss of one's freedom is indeed punishment. Forcing a thief to pay restitution for the theft is better, in my opinion.

Yes, cutting off one's hands is harsh and horrible. But isn't a proper punishment supposed to be horrible?

No, no, a thousand times no. To think in terms like "must be horrible" is to succumb to childish, primitive and simplistic ideas of justice that do vastly more harm than good.

A proper punishment is one that corrects the problem in the simplest way possible without causing other problems. A man deprived of one or both hands becomes a burden upon society because he can no longer work. The goal of rehabilitation and restitution has been abandoned in favour of atavistic bloodlust, the very antithesis of justice.

[Deesse23]

What's your criteria for humane punishments? Throwing someone in jail isn't punishment, it's just putting them with like-minded individuals [sic], it doesn't really discourage one from stealing, unlike cutting off hands.

Yes, cutting off one's hands is harsh and horrible. But isn't a proper punishment supposed to be horrible?

Congratulations on agreeing that you are just as immoral as the other Islamist. That makes now at least two uncivilized brutes in this forum. Good to know.

The funny* part is everytime you two are bickering about who has the correct way of barbarism. Like two thieves in front of a court arguing who is better at theft.

*on second thought rather depressing, considering there are literally (hundreds?) of millions as immoral, ignorant and uncivilized as you are.


Isnt a proper punishment supposed to be horrible? Lets see, shall we? Robert Damiens tried to assassinate French King Louis XV, but failed. According to the french law, he was sentenced to death for regicide.

On the morning of 28 March 1757 the execution started. He was first subjected to a torture in which his legs were painfully compressed by devices called "boots". He was then tortured with red-hot pincers; the hand with which he had held the knife during the attempted assassination was burned using sulphur; molten wax, molten lead, and boiling oil were poured into his wounds. He was then remanded to the royal executioner Charles Henri Sanson who, after emasculating Damiens, harnessed horses to his arms and legs to be dismembered. But Damiens's limbs did not separate easily: the officiants ordered Sanson to cut Damiens's tendons, and once that was done the horses were able to perform the dismemberment. Once Damiens was dismembered, to the applause of the crowd, his reportedly still-living torso was burnt at the stake. (Some accounts say he died when his last remaining arm was removed.)

150 years earlier, Francois Ravaillac successfully assassinated Henry IV. He also was sentenced to death for regicide. Guess what happened?!

On May 27 he was taken to the Place de Grève in Paris and was tortured one last time before being pulled apart by four horses, a method of execution reserved for regicides. Alistair Horne describes the torture Ravaillac suffered: "Before being drawn and quartered... he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then being torn by pincers." Following his execution, Ravaillac's parents were forced into exile, and the rest of his family was ordered never to use the name "Ravaillac" again.

Harsh and horrible, wasnt it? But isn't a proper punishment supposed to be horrible? Considering that Damiens most probably knew about Ravaillac, but still attempted regicide, maybe Ravaillacs punisment wasnt horrible proper enough?

[no one]

The omniscient being that threatens, or demands of me, can pick the corn out of my shit and fuck off!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Might makes right. Congratulations to being completely immoral.

Your remark is off-topic (and wrong). We're not discussing whether it's moral for a deity to do x, divine command theory is an entirely different topic. Simply put, atheists are human beings with cognitive limitations, and as such are not very well-placed to second-guess a deity without looking like fools.. a deity is purportedly omniscient remember ?

If an omniscient being threatens us with hell we simply have to bow our head humbly and follow His rules, instead of trying to come up with some contrived objection using our tiny little frontal lobe

Yes; actually I oppose the view of most Islamic institutions because the majority is not right in many times. To be honest the Quran taught me so:

Okay, and what Islamic institutions do you agree with... if any ?? 

The religious monks of Sunnies and Shiites led so many nations to death, destruction, darkness and defeat. 

Fallacy of appeal to consequences. Congratulations for proving once more that your understanding of Islam is completely fallacious.

---

Whenever you rationalize inhumane punishments like cutting off hands for theft, that's exactly what you're doing.

What's your criteria for humane punishments? Throwing someone in jail isn't punishment, it's just putting them with like-minded individuals [sic], it doesn't really discourage one from stealing, unlike cutting off hands.

Yes, cutting off one's hands is harsh and horrible. But isn't a proper punishment supposed to be horrible?

You are invited get yourself sent to prison. Then - and only then - will you be able to decide whether or not prison is punishment.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

Loss of one's freedom is indeed punishment.  Forcing a thief to pay restitution for the theft is better, in my opinion.

That's precisely the problem, isn't it? Everybody has an opinion about how best to punish a thief. Again, don't you think it's even better to listen to the wise opinion of an OMNISCIENT being?

Let me know when an omniscient being actually shows up, Klorophyll.  (Hint:  Stories about omniscient beings don't count.)

This is not a thread about proving theism. For the purpose of this thread, assume there is an omniscient being, now would you rather follow your opinion or the commands of the purported omniscient being?n.

No, no, a thousand times no.  To think in terms like "must be horrible" is to succumb to childish, primitive and simplistic ideas of justice that do vastly more harm than good.

Punishing a handful of thieves according to Islamic law will drastically decrease the occurence of robbery/burglary given the harsh nature of the punishment. That's the point of Islamic law, after all.

A proper punishment is one that corrects the problem in the simplest way possible without causing other problems.  

Thank you, excellent definition. The simplest way to stop a thief from stealing: cut off the hands he steals property with. This way, he won't cause more problems to other members of society. And one man's inability to work (oh, and thieves aren't motivated to work, in general) is outweighed by the overall decrease of thievery as a result of enforcing Islamic law. It seems Islamic law fits your definition perfectly. Again, thanks!

  A man deprived of one or both hands becomes a burden upon society because he can no longer work.  The goal of rehabilitation and restitution has been abandoned in favour of atavistic bloodlust, the very antithesis of justice.

A man in jail is also a burden for society, the cost of incarceration is very high, too. Again, enforcing a harsh punishment will cause an overall decrease of thievery because it's dissuasive. Prison time isn't dissuasive.

On May 27 he was taken to the Place de Grève in Paris and was tortured one last time before being pulled apart by four horses, a method of execution reserved for regicides. Alistair Horne describes the torture Ravaillac suffered: "Before being drawn and quartered... he was scalded with burning sulphur, molten lead and boiling oil and resin, his flesh then being torn by pincers." Following his execution, Ravaillac's parents were forced into exile, and the rest of his family was ordered never to use the name "Ravaillac" again.

Harsh and horrible, wasnt it? But isn't a proper punishment supposed to be horrible? Considering that Damiens most probably knew about Ravaillac, but still attempted regicide, maybe Ravaillacs punisment wasnt horrible proper enough?

I said harsh and horrible, not psychopatic or sadistic. One can think of all kinds of inventive ways to punish a human being, after all. It's good to know that cutting a thief's hand is not applied in all circumstances. Someone stealing food because otherwise he will die of hunger won't get his hands cut off, according to Islamic jurisprudence. The harsh penalty of cutting hands is only for those who didn't really need to steal and could've found a legit source of income.

---

You are invited get yourself sent to prison. Then - and only then - will you be able to decide whether or not prison is punishment.

Boru

I have a TV screen and an internet connection, you know. I know what prisons look like from the inside. I also know for a fact that some prisons are extremely comfortable.

A criminal suffering from inhumane conditions at Bastoy Prison, Norway:



The average recidivism rate in the U.S. is a startling 43%. They don't seem to have learnt much now do they?

---

A private cell in Sollentuna Prison, Sweden:

[The Grand Nudger]

You think that recidivism is high in the us because prisons aren't horrible enough, and to drive this point home you have a picture from norway, and sweden. It would be funny if it wasn't so profoundly stupid and entirely likely to lead to human rights abuse in any nation full of like minded people.

One thing making prisons more horrible here, or thinking they should be, certainly won't lead to is any reduction in crime. I'll let you ponder over the crime rates back through time and wonder if prisons were better or worse than today year over year - see if you notice a relationship. Idle speculation is all well and good, but this isn't a vague unknowable. If you wanted to see if reality matched your conjectures the numbers are publicly available and easily found online - be that the cause of high recidivism in the us, or the relationship between prison conditions and recidivism in the us.