|
|
In the Name of God بسم الله
Arabic / العَرَبِية
1,603 topics in this forum
-
- 0 replies
- 105 views
-
- 7 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 27 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 286 views
-
- 1 reply
- 194 views
-
- 2 replies
- 650 views
-
- 2 replies
- 962 views
-
- 3 replies
- 681 views
-
- 1 reply
- 625 views
-
- 3 replies
- 618 views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 447 views
-
- 3 replies
- 818 views
-
- 3 replies
- 812 views
-
- 16 replies
- 967 views
-
- 2 replies
- 848 views
-
- 3 replies
- 605 views
-
- 1 reply
- 384 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 250 views
-
- 2 replies
- 764 views
-
- 1 reply
- 404 views
-
- 2 replies
- 356 views
-
- 4 replies
- 630 views
-
- 2 replies
- 460 views
-
- 6 replies
- 630 views
-
- 6 replies
- 521 views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 3 replies
- 579 views
-
- 2 replies
- 352 views
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events found -
Posts
-
It's strong as far as comparative arguments go. I was trying to get at the idea of recognition of human dignity. There seems to be much more reverence for human rights now, and I reckon there would be quite an outcry if people started associating disabilities and crime in such large societies where there would be more crime, in general, and where countries are under constant surveillance and check. It also begs the question, if identification of a criminal was the end goal (as someone might argue), don't we have a substitution for that now with databases doing the job? So a hadd punishment was utilized before a discretionary punishment? Or was jail not considered ta'zir? I'd like to look into that. Any source? No, it would be out of the norm. Prisoners of war weren't serving unusually long sentences. Prisoners of war were not being punished either, they were simply being temporarily detained until they could find some other place to be. Most of the time, this would only last a couple of days or weeks. No one saw imprisonment as "punishment" in pre-Islamic or early Islamic Arabia. This is nowhere to be found. Putting a roof over someone's head, providing him a set of clothes, and feeding him, all while he gives little to no output, was never going to be considered a punishment in that sort of society where everyone was really just out for themselves and where there is no recorded instance of resource surplus until much later. Most societies did not propose imprisonment as a solution for a reason. It was extremely counterproductive. I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if lashing was a good enough deterrent at the time of the Prophet (s)? To that, yes, I think it probably was. Mosaic law was good for that purpose overall. It wasn't unusual either; I know the Assyrians would impale women and the Chinese had castration and the Romans would do all sorts of bizarre shows, so it's safe to assume the Arabs would have been following that same trend. Not necessarily. It was makruh to cut bread with a knife because it resembled the ways of the kuffar. Namely the Persians ('ajam), as it says in the tradition. Sure, we don't need to know the reasons, but they are out there for those who want to find out. I'm not sure why this verse would be used to negate 'logic'. Allah and his Messenger are deciding matters by some sort of reason, not on a whim. Trying to understand that reasoning is not the same thing as disobeying it and straying into error. So how the traditional "well, we don't need things to make sense" is somehow even slightly related to this verse is not clear to me. How would you reconcile that with some of the narrations we have, though? I believe there was one in al-Kafi where a man was to be punished for having sexual intercourse with another man, but he ended up repenting at the very moment of his punishment, leaving 'Ali b. Abi Talib in tears. And he was not punished thereafter. The Prophet (s), similarly, would often delay punishments and pretend to not understand people's own confessions at times. Sure, they can stay in their rigid format. For one, they might help some people in acknowledging the fact that these sins are not to be taken lightly, since they were worthy of corporal punishments at some point in our history. Other than that, if they are to stay in their old format, I'm afraid they are not tuned to modern society anymore and, if anything, do the opposite of creating a civilized society - which was the entire point of shari'a in the first place. -
By Hasani Samnani · Posted
I will try to give you a different perspective, especially among sunnies. My father was sunnies and and so was my paternal grandfather. Our paternal grandmother was Shia. My father became convinced once he started reading and listening to Islamic history. Once you also realize that all 4 sunnie madhab leaders were either directly or indirectly student of Imam Jaffar e Sadiq ( AS ) it changes your perspective. The reason was that many non Shia gained immensely from his father's and his lecture series given on a huge variety of topics from Science, astronomy, medicine, jurisprudence, logic, Philosophy etc....this was the beginning of the Islamic Enlightenment period and fostered the likes of Ibn Sina, Razi, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn tufail, ibn al nafees, Khawarizimi, Omar Khayyam, al Kashi...among many others. If you read Peshawwar Nights, I am sure most of your doubts will be quickly erased. I also suggest , then i was guided by Sheik Tijani, who we used to meet in Dar Al Hikmah in Dearborn. He is a bit of polemic, and is often the case with sunni to Shia converts...quite anti sunni. I don't agree with that perspective, most sunnies are not really anti Shia, their just misguided by their leaders. However, salafis and wahabis are close to kuffar and munafiqueen than muslimeen , unfortunately for them. The problem is that the Saudi regime has Been paying lots of money for the pro ibn tammiya, ibn kathir, sheikh albani and propagating wahabi sheiks to take over the sunni world. -
I understand why they feel furious, because they see this as part of a 'class system' where some have privileges that others don't have. If that is truly the case, i.e. that they are 'trading in influence' in order to give their children an unfair advantage over other Iranians, I would agree that is wrong, and if they are doing this they should be punished in some way. At the same time, this isn't always the case. In every country on earth, you have a group of wealthy people. Some gained their weath in legitimate ways, some in illegitimate ways. The U.S. government will give almost anyone (so long as they don't have ties to organizations that they deem 'terrorist') if they can show that they have 1 million dollars in cash in a US or European bank. That amount might be slightly higher now (I haven't checked in a few years), but basically that is the only requirement. So if they don't have that, they have to meet other requirements (like relationship with a US Citizen, etc). That is how the system works. It's an unjust system, but that's how it works So it is the wealthy Iranians who come to the US. Yes, some also increase their wealth once they are here, but they had this wealth to begin with. I would say 80% of the Iranians who came here (1st generation immigrants) came here in the late 70s, early 80s and used the wealth they stole from the people of Iran via their connections with the previous govt in order to secure a visa. Most of them live in Los Angeles (the Shahs of Sunset, et. al). The ones who live in Michigan are not from that group (at least I haven't met any of them here). They earned their money in other ways. Many bought real estate in Tehran after the revolution (in the early 80s) and sold it so they made money that way. That is what I know, and there is alot I don't know about this subject. I have not met anyone yet (here in Michigan) who is actually connected to the Iranian govt. As you know and have mentioned, the Iranian govt is under very severe sanctions by the US govt and I doubt that they would give a visa to any Iranian govt official or someone who has an official connection, or any of their children, if they knew that they were their children. The only place where their are govt officials from Iran is in New York, at the UN. Even there, the only ones they give visas to are the ones they are required legally to let in, so that they can participate in meetings at U.N. Headquarters. Most of the children of govt. officials go to Canada or Europe, where the sanctions are not as severe. The Iranians here in the US, and their children, are private business people, not govt officials, from what I know. -
I have been observing very carefully far rights in Finland and they really don't want to have any migrants at all if any possible, they are very pro nationalistic and very racist. -
Yeah. That's hypocrisy and I can definitely anticipate that it might be happening on the ministerial level. IR leadership should keep a strict check on such people and stop them from entering high ranking government positions. Actually, there are loopholes, who denies that but the solution is not riots. Solution is not western propaganda. Solution is not attacking the entire Islamic Republic ideology. In India, there maybe rarely one or two people in the parliament who aren't corrupt. Top to bottom the entire politics is based on corruption. But Indians don't tear down their constitution to bring a change.
-