A killing commanded by Islamic law - (not for the faint hearted)

JIHADWATCH.ORG ^ | MAY 6, 2005 | ROBERT

[HitmanLV]

Of course, but the penalty for breaking a marriage vow is dissolving the marriage, not physically harming either party.

[Gondring]

Absolute barbarians.

EXACTLY! I mean, it's not like the woman was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day! </sarc>

"³²And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
³³And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
³⁴And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
³⁵And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
³⁶And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."                                    --Numbers 15:32-36 (KJV)

So the question is...is God a barbarian for ordering such a barbaric practice? Is it anti-Semitic to criticise the practice? Is it admirable for members of a religion to follow their scriptures/commandments or not? Were the people of Israel barbarians for following what God commanded of them?

Jesus seems to have gotten it a lot more right, IMHO, but while I certainly don't mean that as a disparaging comment on those who are not Messianic, it does raise some interesting questions, doesn't it? Will people look back and call AD 2005 conservative Christians "barbarians" for not ignoring scriptural references against homosexuality, for example?

[Gondring]

"She's so lucky she doesn't have to shave; I'm so lucky I'm not doubled up in pain," said Squeeze... but I think testosterone might be a worse curse.

Personally, an unwilling and/or disinterested partner--or one that's not a human female--doesn't really entice me, so it's difficult to imagine why someone would find these behaviours tempting, but I suspect it's also a bit of inferiority and insecurity and a craving for possession and power.

I'm certainly not one of those leftie feminist types who say "rape is only about power, not sex" but I do think that in this case, there's quite a mix of both involved. I'm glad that most people are able to rise above their animal desires and turn from religions that encourage barbarism. Of course, I might be crushed like a bug, since who am I to criticize a god, but I think if I was told to act that way by a god, I'd have a hard time biting my tongue.

[paul51]

I was so shocked, and my Islamic dignity was so offended

LOL. Not only that, the whole episode took me away from my scheduled be-headings and blowing up innocent woman and child. Sick bastards

[RS]

I like this little caveat -

"... or possibly because the stoning never happened."

I guess that covers the Washington Post "reporter" N.C. Aizenman dosen't it.

I suppose Dan Rather could have just said " if THESE ARE REAL " and been covered also.

[Gondring]

Good point. Of course, I doubt they would let me go over and check out the soil profile for evidence of disturbance. As soon as they heard me coming, they'd be out there a-diggin'! It's quite an out for the "reporter"...

...but do you think these events do not occur? I thought that it was pretty well accepted that they do.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... So the question is...is God a barbarian for ordering such a barbaric practice? Is it anti-Semitic to criticise the practice? Is it admirable for members of a religion to follow their scriptures/commandments or not? Were the people of Israel barbarians for following what God commanded of them?"

Here's my answers:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Sometimes.
4. Yes.

How did I do, professor?

[RS]

"...but do you think these events do not occur? I thought that it was pretty well accepted that they do. "

Sure... there are nuts everywhere, I just thought that line where the reporter is not sure if it happened or not was interesting.

[Psion]

What the tribes of Israel believed or did, four thousand years ago is hardly relevant to our world today. As Bronze-agers go, the Israeli tribes were more "civilised" than most. At least they did not offer human sacrifices to their singular God.

In the 21st century it is difficult to accept the savagery of the Muslims, even more than [religious] Jews avoidance of yummy ham and cheese sandwiches!

Kol tuv

[Gondring]

...I just thought that line where the reporter is not sure if it happened or not was interesting.

My standards have gotten so low that I'm giving him credit for even bothering to mention it might not be real.

[Paul_Denton]

But... But... Islam is a religion of peace! (/sarcasm)

[Gondring]

How did I do, professor?

Heck, I'm not even the TA! There's only one exam, and that's post-mortem. I guess then we'll find out (or not) who was right and who was wrong!

[MarkL]

Many other people think that one party's adultery forfeits their claim to their (otherwise) legitimate share of marital property.

Among other things, marriage is a contractual obligation between two people. Part of that obligation is monogamy. Another part is fiscal. If someone begins thinking about adultery, then it's time to end the marriage properly, with a divorce. At that point, the property can be distributed equitably.

Once a person cheats, I think that they've broken that contract, and at that point, forfeit any claims to property.

It's that simple, when you cheat in a marriage, you SHOULD lose everything.

Mark

[HitmanLV]

Nope, that's completely unfair, and gives way too much credit to a non-cheating spouse (in other words, it assumes their hands are clean, and there's no reason to take that for granted).

[MarkL]

Nope, that's completely unfair, and gives way too much credit to a non-cheating spouse (in other words, it assumes their hands are clean, and there's no reason to take that for granted).

Once you've cheated, fair has nothing to do with it.

If you're not happy in a marriage, then get out. If you want "fairness," get a divorce. If you've got a problem that your spouse is driving you away, then get a divorce. If you're pissed off that your spouse keeps eating crackers in bed, then get a divorce. End the marriage the right way. But once you cheat, you SHOULD lose everything, in no way profiting from the marriage.

For example, let's say that a man & woman marry. The woman works, supporting the family so the man can go to college full time, getting a medical degree. Then she quits her job to become a "stay at home mom," raising the family. Later on, he cheats on her. She should get everything. She put him through school, allowing him to attain the income level where he is at the time of the cheating. He should have to start over. But it's not equal, since he's gained the extra value of a medical degree.

If he was unhappy with her, he shouldn't be cheating, he should be filing for a divorce!

Mark

[HitmanLV]

I agree with you that an unsatisfied spouse should seek a divorce rather than cheat. but I also know that it is seldom that simple.

Cheating almost never has to do with a conscious decision, nor even trustworthiness. It has much more to do with opportunity - the decision to go with another person for a fling, a night, or whatever really does seem like a good idea at the time to the person, even though it's a bad idea.

Fairness always has something to do with it.

Your problem, and its a common problem in this area, is that you fail to recognize that both people own each other's property when they get married - it's contingent on the marriage, not on staying loyal to the vows.

A cheater doesn't 'profit' - they get their fair share of the property that they owned when they got married. Getting what is yours isn't undue profiting.

In the example you gave, the genuinely fair solution is for each party to get a fair share of the marital property they owned together. Since she contributed to his increased earing power (and since he benefited from her being a stay-at-home mom) that can and should be worked out with alimony. Of course, he should pay child support.

Like I said, in condemning the cheater (and like I said, anyone can find themselves in circumstances where they would cheat), you give too much credit to the noncheater.

Your desire to punish a cheating party is fundamentally unfair - the property that each party owns in a marriage is theirs when they got married, and they still have their share when EITHER party cheats. They each own it before, and each own it after. Cheating has nothing to do with the property ownership - a woman who cheats should be divorced (if you ask me), but to think that her behavior should automatically benefit her cuckolded spouse (who like I said may not have his hands clean) is just childish and silly.

Fair is fair - each party owns what they always owned once they got married. This benefits each spouse (each is free to cheat and not jeopardize their share of the property) - part of the definition of 'fairness' is that each party gets the same benefit. As I see it, they do. As you prescribe it, they don't.

I'm glad that a very small minority of the population shares your view on this - the rest of us rejected it a while back, and rightfully so. Financial 'Sudden Death' over a spouse's head just isn't wise.

[jan in Colorado]

Well, at least for now, in this Country we can argue over property rights ...if CAIR succeeds and Islam takes over the United States,(and that IS the intent) then it will be stoning for the women and the property she owns won't really matter!

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." -Omar Ahmad

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

...the penalty for breaking a marriage vow is dissolving the marriage, not physically harming either party.

I'm not advocating stoning, but you seem to support society's current position in this country of rewarding infidelity financially. The concept of no-fault divorce is certainly immoral and rewards anyone who chooses to unilaterally violate or terminate his or her marriage vows. Furthermore, why someone who would choose to behave in an immoral manner should be additionally rewarded by being granted half (or more) of the community property, ongoing financial support, or controlling custody of children is a puzzle. But when you subsidize behavior you get more of it, and this country subsidizes immoral behavior and the flauting of marital vows big time.

[Gondring]

Absolute barbarians.

Compare to SIX Muslims are dragged from the back of a lorry by Serbian paramilitary policemen, tortured and shot dead at the side of the road.

Sick world we're in.

[Gondring]

I'm not advocating stoning, but you seem to support society's current position in this country of rewarding infidelity financially. The concept of no-fault divorce is certainly immoral and rewards anyone who chooses to unilaterally violate or terminate his or her marriage vows.

Actually, it was MarkL who wrote: "If you're not happy in a marriage, then get out."