Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    22 Oct '13 13:01
    The code - to apply only to Muslims - is expected to introduce death by stoning for adulterers and the severing of limbs for theft.

    Brunei already adheres to a stronger form of Islamic law than neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia, banning the sale and consumption of alcohol.

    The new code, to be enforced in six months, will strengthen that policy.

    Punishments could also include flogging for such crimes as consumption of alcohol or abortion, according to a copy of the code seen by news agency AFP.

    'Near zero'
    Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, 67, who is one of the world's wealthiest men, introduced the code, calling it "a part of the great history of our nation".

    The sultan had already made religious education compulsory for Muslim children and ordered businesses to close during Friday prayers.

    But until now, Brunei's Sharia courts were limited to family matters like marriage and inheritance.

    Its civil courts are based on British law, a leftover from the sultanate's days as a British protectorate.

    Brunei's citizens have one of the highest standards of living in Asia, thanks to revenues from oil and gas, and enjoy free medical care and education.

    The sultan pledged the new code would not change his country's policies and officials have said in the past judges would be given discretion in sentencing.

    The code is to be applied only to Muslims, who make up about two-thirds of a population of 420,000.

    Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, told AFP the situation shows "respect for basic civil and political rights is near zero in Brunei".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24624166

    Is this a human rights issue? Is there anything the international community can or should do about it?
  2. 22 Oct '13 13:20 / 9 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    [quote]The code - to apply only to Muslims - is expected to introduce death by stoning for adulterers and the severing of limbs for theft.

    Brunei already adheres to a stronger form of Islamic law than neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia, banning the sale and consumption of alcohol.

    The new code, to be enforced in six months, will strengthen that policy.
    ...[text shortened]... s a human rights issue? Is there anything the international community can or should do about it?
    if they actually stone someone no ones going to go their, i'd rather buy oil from a Russian bear.

    I read about yazidi group stoning someone, then loads of them got killed for it, seems about right to me...

    edit here's the story
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad

    800 people died for that,
  3. 22 Oct '13 13:42
    Originally posted by e4chris
    if they actually stone someone no ones going to go to their, i'd rather buy oil from a Russian bear.

    I read about yazidi group stoning someone, then loads of them got killed for it, seems about right to me...

    edit here's the story
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad

    800 people died for that,
    ok that almost made me physically sick.
  4. 22 Oct '13 13:55
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok that almost made me physically sick.
    it happened, I don't have a problem with Muslim laws, just the harsher punishments to me seem to promote anarchy, we had public hangings and jack the ripper about the same time, its not good for a country's mental health...
  5. 22 Oct '13 14:35 / 2 edits
    This is barbaric!!

    We only kill if we are after oil, regime change, if they use WMD's, if they are suspected of having WMD's, if they are unborn and unwanted, or if they have been identified as enemies of the state.

    Then we set murders and thieves loose in society so they can continue to steal and kill.

    In addition, we when we do kill, we only kill with explosives, something much less painful and less barbaric than stoning.
  6. 22 Oct '13 14:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    This is barbaric!!

    We only kill if we are after oil, regime change, if they use WMD's, if they are suspected of having WMD's, if they are unborn and unwanted, or if they have been identified as enemies of the state.

    Then we set murders and thieves loose in society so they can continue to steal and kill.

    In addition, we when we do kill, we only kill with explosives, something much less painful and less barbaric than stoning.
    I think violent punishments seeds violence in the minds of the people - e.g jack the ripper in the UK, why I wish Muslim countries wouldn't use them, its a shame because they are supposed to be rational places.
  7. 22 Oct '13 15:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by e4chris
    I think violent punishments seeds violence in the minds of the people - e.g jack the ripper in the UK, why I wish Muslim countries wouldn't use them, its a shame because they are supposed to be rational places.
    ok, i have thought about this deeply for a number of years, the whole problem with Islam and sharia law is that it prevents the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and as a direct consequence atrocity like the one you cited is permitted. Who in their natural state could stone a 17 year old girl to death? and approve of it? its monstrous. The exact same thing happened under the National socialists of the 1930's, you had persons like Mengele doing horrific things to children and stating that society would thank him for it, what has transpired is that the natural exercise of his conscience was supplanted by an ideology and he began to justify his horrific acts. Islam provides very little room for the exercise of conscience and thus people, through a lack of exercise of the conscience, have the conscience supplanted by an ideology which is essentially inhumane. How else are we meant to understand it?
  8. 22 Oct '13 15:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok, i have thought about this deeply for a number of years, the whole problem with Islam and sharia law is that it prevents the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and as a direct consequence atrocity like the one you cited is permitted. Who in their natural state could stone a 17 year old girl to death? and approve of it? its monstrous. ...[text shortened]... upplanted by an ideology which is essentially inhumane. How else are we meant to understand it?
    Yet we allow monsters like Dr. Gosnell to kill some 50 million unborn children?

    It seems the hypocrisy and an air of self righteousness is what makes us human.

    It's like the US trying to spread democracy around the globe, this coming from a nation with a Congressional approval rating of only 5%?
  9. 22 Oct '13 15:39
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yet we allow monsters like Dr. Gosnell to kill some 50 million unborn children?

    It seems the hypocrisy and an air of self righteousness is what makes us human.

    It's like the US trying to spread democracy around the globe, this coming from a nation with a Congressional approval rating of only 5%?
    Indeed, but there are again attempts made to rationalise it, mostly on the basis of personal freedom.
  10. Subscriber Proper Knob
    Cornovii
    22 Oct '13 16:38
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok, i have thought about this deeply for a number of years, the whole problem with Islam and sharia law is that it prevents the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and as a direct consequence atrocity like the one you cited is permitted. Who in their natural state could stone a 17 year old girl to death? and approve of it? its monstrous. ...[text shortened]... upplanted by an ideology which is essentially inhumane. How else are we meant to understand it?
    Was the condemning of people to death by stoning and other such heinous ways as detailed in the Mosaic Law's 'monstrous'?
  11. 22 Oct '13 16:39
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    ok, i have thought about this deeply for a number of years, the whole problem with Islam and sharia law is that it prevents the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience and as a direct consequence atrocity like the one you cited is permitted. Who in their natural state could stone a 17 year old girl to death? and approve of it? its monstrous. ...[text shortened]... of the conscience, have the conscience supplanted by an ideology which is essentially inhumane.
    I get the impression that people on this thread don't realise that the Yazidi (who committed the stoning in this case) are not in fact Muslims, but a small religious group that has preserved pre-Islamic beliefs. Many Muslims look on the Yazidi with hostility, while the Yazidi try to shun contact with members of other faiths. The girl in question, Du'a Khalil Aswad, was murdered because she had fallen in love with a Muslim boy; Yazidi doctrine prohibits marrying out. But this also took place against the background of sectarian tensions within Iraqi Kurdistan. Unsurprisingly, the events triggered violent reprisals by Muslims against their Yazidi neighbours.
  12. 22 Oct '13 18:41
    Originally posted by sh76
    [quote]The code - to apply only to Muslims - is expected to introduce death by stoning for adulterers and the severing of limbs for theft.

    Brunei already adheres to a stronger form of Islamic law than neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia, banning the sale and consumption of alcohol.

    The new code, to be enforced in six months, will strengthen that policy.
    ...[text shortened]... s a human rights issue? Is there anything the international community can or should do about it?
    If they arent using nuclear weapons, depleted uranium munitions, or killing in the contolled sterile environment of a doctors office, we should seek the international communities involvement in these cases. If other nations will not back us on this, then we should go it alone. Whomever is not with us is with the stoners!!!!
  13. 22 Oct '13 19:26 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    I get the impression that people on this thread don't realise that the Yazidi (who committed the stoning in this case) are not in fact Muslims, but a small religious group that has preserved pre-Islamic beliefs. Many Muslims look on the Yazidi with hostility, while the Yazidi try to shun contact with members of other faiths. The girl in question, Du'a Khal ...[text shortened]... surprisingly, the events triggered violent reprisals by Muslims against their Yazidi neighbours.
    Yes the Yazidi are not Muslims and Freddy Mercury was supposed to be one.

    I wish Brunei Leaders would aim for secular, the article posted said it doesn't apply for non Muslims, not sure how that will work? Its stealing defeat from the jaws of victory implementing stone age laws in a modern country. I suspect the laws might never be used, hope so. If you look at what's happening in Syria and Egypt their seems to be a desire for much less authoritarian rule. In those 2 countries you seem to have 25%(?) devout Muslims, who want a say in politics but the upheaval is much more the younger online generations who don't want Sharia law.
  14. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    22 Oct '13 20:07
    Originally posted by sh76
    [quote]The code - to apply only to Muslims - is expected to introduce death by stoning for adulterers and the severing of limbs for theft.

    Brunei already adheres to a stronger form of Islamic law than neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia, banning the sale and consumption of alcohol.

    The new code, to be enforced in six months, will strengthen that policy.
    ...[text shortened]... s a human rights issue? Is there anything the international community can or should do about it?
    Interesting question, but I don't think this should be a human rights violation. If these people have this law enacted and choose to live under it, so be it. I don't think the international community has the right do away with laws in this way. I may be wrong here, but would rather err on the side of letting countries pass and enforce their own laws.
  15. 22 Oct '13 20:12
    Originally posted by bill718
    Interesting question, but I don't think this should be a human rights violation. If these people have this law enacted and choose to live under it, so be it. I don't think the international community has the right do away with laws in this way. I may be wrong here, but would rather err on the side of letting countries pass and enforce their own laws.
    If it is a human rights violation, when does Obama send in the troops?