In theory, which religion has better human rights?

Post Reply New Topic

and i told you already.... im not going to take part in this debate any longer...

Sono annoiato. Io vado a parlare in italiano per un po ', con l'aiuto di Google Traduttore

Google Translate can really come in useful on occasion.

Remember when Anders Breivik killed a bunch of kids in Norway in 2011? I was already a bit familiar with Norwegian law and knew that their longest prison sentence is 21 years. (Actually, it can be a bit more under very narrow circumstances of which the mass murder did not fit.)

On another forum, I said as much and someone replied by posting a link to the Norwegian penal code, except that they were in Norwegian.
I had fun with that.
So I used Google Translate to locate those portions that applied and posted them (in the original Norwegian) with my comments of why and how they applied to the case at hand.

The guy who posted the link commented something to the effect that it didn't go as expected.

I never did explain that I was using Google Translate. I just let them assume that I can speak and read Norwegian.

For what it's worth, while Anders Breivik was only sentenced to 21 years, he may easily spend the rest of his life in prison. There are provisions in the law that permit the prosecution to ask for an additional period of time to be added when they are within a certain period of the end of the sentence. That procedure can be repeated as often as necessary.

Google Translate in grado di tradurre frasi comuni e semplici parole con facilità, ma quando è venuto il discorso più complesso, non può fare bene come un traduttore umano.

I'd like to point out that unless you're a Shia, laypersons are expected to make their own interpretation of the scriptures, so MC's complaint about anyone elses lack of expertise is entirely invalid. Even so called Sunni scholars are still only laymen.

You know, people don't want to make a choice between these things because both lists of laws are pretty vomit-inducing. It's like asking someone what they'd rather have, bubonic plague or cholera.

Why don't you take the good things from Islam, mind your prayers and give to charity, and ignore the nasty stuff? You are 16, you don't need to be a religious expert.

Neither Judaism or Islam has anything to brag about when it comes to Human rights. My vote would be for Quakerism or Unitarian Universalist.

not at all true.... deobandis and many others believe in Taqlid, or blind imitation, where you only follow what scholars of one madhab (denomination) say...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqlid

And what criteria do you use for deciding which denominations scholars you follow, and what do you do when scholars within a denomination contradict each other? My point is that Shia muslims basically believe in fate and that their path is set, and that they should obey the authorities in the faith they were born into, while Sunnis either interpret for themselves or pick who they obey on other criteria. Also, am I wrong in thinking that Sunni scholars offer advice rather than commands? In which case it's still down to the individual.

None of them, human rights don't come from organized religion.

It depends more on the people practicing the religion, both in theory and in practice, than on the religions themselves.

Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, in their generalized states, are actually quite similar to each other. The only difference, really, is the rank of various prophets.

Both sunnis and shias believe in fate.... sunnis typically follow the fatwas of ulema, muftis, or sheikhs, and scholars often only follow one madhab... if not, the individual only follows the scholar or institution he deems respectable, or that he trusts... scholars give commands.... it is not for a layperson to interpret the Qur'an, that job is left rto the ulema, muftis, and shaikhs.....individual scholars typically follow only one madhab.... and even the salafis who are more lenient on people interpreting the Qur'an also take context into account for verses, unlike what people here are doing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUIHs6yeZ3w

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 09 Nov 2015, 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In a way, but they have rather differing views on the concept, don't they?



But see, here is a problem; being commanded would mean to be compelled to obey or face some punishment, but if the person being commanded is the one who decides which scholars are respectable and trustworthy, then the power is with them, not the scholars. So if a scholar issues a command that an individual muslim would deem unacceptable, would they do it anyway because of their respect for the scholar, or lose respect for the scholar because they disagree with the command given?



What you don't seem to understand is that there is no context that could ameliorate the sort of vitriol being quoted. You can't take something like "kill the infidels wherever you find them" or "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" and turn it into "only kill them in self defense, and only these specific ones because they persecute us."

Those of us who are not Islam are free to interpret it ourselves.

The Qur'an doesn't say "kill the infidels wherever ye may find them," it says "kill THEM wherever ye may find them, for surely fitnah is worse than killing," and fitnah is a word which here refers to corruption or oppression..... it is referring to those who persecuted the Muslims and were attacking them... as for the verse about striking terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, perhaps either the Qur'an is being figurative and is trying to rile up the Muslim soldiers against the idolaters, or it is referring to those who disbelieve in good morals (like not killing people for preaching monotheism) or it is referring to striking terror into them not BECAUSE they disbelieve, but striking terror into THOSE WHO disbelieve, and may also be referring to an other-wordly punishment, like hellfire.... i dont know of a verse which says "chop off their heads and strike off their fingertips" and the consensus of scholars in Islam is that you are not to mutilate bodies of enemy soldiers, and you are not to kill prisoners of war, and you are supposed to treat them kindly and feed them and clothe them well (no, I'm not joking... look up Islamic ethics), and the consensus (ijma) of scholars is that fighting is only in self defense. also, in some countries, like saudi arabia, iran, yemen, qatar, and egypt, the fatwas of the ulema are binding because shariah is part of the legal systems.... in other societies, it is exactly the same as a Christian relying on his minister or a Jew relying on his rabbi for advice....