Death Penalty for Murders
-
Hello David,
So any killing is wrong to you?
The question was is human life SACRED. The answer it seems to be a resounding YES. Then SOCIETY as whole should either uphold this principle or it should not.
If you have a bacterial infection, would you take antibiotics?
What about if you had mold in your bathtub, would you remove it, or does it deserve to live?David, David we have been discussing free willed human life here as opposed to bacterial cells that happened to infect your bath-tub or your armpit! If you can show that bacteria are conscious free willed spiritual organisms and thinks about transcendent God and then hey yes you can say use of antibiotics on them is wrong! -)
I find it interesting that someone who opposes seeing things as ?black and white? would hold the position that ?all life is sacred? and that any killing is wrong?no exceptions.
Perhaps David you should contemplate and reflect on the nature of free willed human LIFE, perhaps you could see the sanctity of human existence...
Regards,
-
Just to see if I undertsand the point of not killing a murderer...Some would say that having a person rot in jail for their entire lives is more 'merciful' than killing the murderer?
No. Some people are saying that society either upholds life as sacred or it does not. Some people are saying that we should not justify one murder with another murder because that will be lowering ourselves to the level of the murderer. Some people are saying that human justice is fallible and therefore as result of this innocent lives will be lost because of the Death Penalty.
If I had murdered someone and I was given the option to be executed immeditaly or rot in jail for the rest of my life, I would without hesitation take the first option (it is more merciful and more humane).
If God gave you life - why should another human being take it?
You find Prison unmerciful?
That is why it is called a punishment and not a holiday! In my view living with consquences of your actions is True Punishment. Choosing execution is a cowards way out!Regards,
-
Peace sis Marie and everyone,
We cannot generalize or apply the same punishment because it depends on each case.
Why don't we try to be 'judges' for the cases I put earlier, and some other cases that has been proposed here, as examples? They are
-
A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
-
A person who kills in self defense
-
A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
-
A person whose orders result in a lot of killing
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
For argument's sake let's suppose all of these persons have been found guilt beyond reasonable doubt (thereby eliminating the possibility of innocence excuse).
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
None. If these individuals are danger to themselves and other individuals and to the society they live in then they should remain in prison indefinatley...
Regards,
-
-
peace lote tree
You seems to talk nonsense like the way you did on the "Why muslim shouldn't drink thread" because you think alcohol is flammable.
So by using your way of turning my words, alcohol is not flammable is that what youre saying? Besides that, i didnt claim that people shoudnt drink because its flammable, i said that I wouldnt do it. The title of the thread was obviously (or rather less obviously apparently) ironic if you looked at the videolink posted.
And I ask you again - are mentally deficient individuals responsible for their actions?
No they are not
2 entries found for simpleton.
sim?ple?ton Audio pronunciation of "simpleton" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smpl-tn)
n.A person who is felt to be deficient in judgment, good sense, or intelligence; a fool.
and that is not by default the same as some one who is
re?tard2 Audio pronunciation of "retards" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rt?rd)
n. Offensive Slang- Used as a disparaging term for a mentally retarded person.
- A person considered to be foolish or socially inept.
I used the word simpleton to describe a fool, defying the law of God. By slaying unjustly.
And have you read history of fascism? and the Nazies, and what they did to the mentally retarded and physically deformed individuals?
Yes i have, but i fail to see what it has to do with
1734 And do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice. And whoever is killed unjustly, then We have given his heir authority, so let him not transgress in the taking of a life, for He will be given victory.
If you allow mentally deficient individulas to be killed this way then anything possible.
I dont, i was using a term that you bend around the auger to make a standpoint out of.
Are not human life sacred to you? Are we equal before God or some individuals more equal than others?
1734 And do not kill, for God has made this forbidden, except in the course of justice... there is no way around this one, along with
535 It is because of this that We have decreed for the Children of Israel "Anyone who kills a person who has not committed murder, or who has not committed corruption in the land; then it is as if he has killed all the people! And whoever spares a life, then it is as if he has given life to all the people." Our messengers had come to them with clarification, but many of them are, after this, still corrupting on the Earth.
A person who has not comitted murder, i dont see God withdrawing this anywhere. Justice is selfdefence, and in the case of murder, but its up to the kin of the murdered to decide. If forgiveness (prefered) is chosen, the man is forgiven, no ifs or buts, and will have his with God. He still have his life to live and a chance to make up for what happened, if he does it again, a new set of kin will his story given perhaps not be so kind.
But I told you. Human justice is fallible and because of this fallibility
innocent lives will be lost because of the Death Penalty.If applied in the system as it is i agree. But that is hardly the point. this system needs to change not Gods. Gods system is perfect, and yet unaplied. Besides what does he have to loose if he is killed unjustly. A heavenly reward, OMG!! we better not go there. God is just, and when we make err that is no exception.
Im sorry to come of as rude, but i took offence to your focus on a word, rather than a text. And from where im standing it looks as if your tying knots on yourself to get around what the Quran says about justified killing. But that hardly makes me a nazi, or ??
Regards
Noah -
peace
to make sure i get the message through. Killing the killer is not applied by default, but a right to seek justice the next of kin has. Though forgiveness is looked higher upon.
Regards
Noah -
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
None. If these individuals are danger to themselves and other individuals and to the society they live in then they should remain in prison indefinatley...
Regards,
Okay, that's one predictable answer from you. Good.
How about the others, anyone willing to offer their judgement? Noah? Saladin? Sis Marie? anyone?
The cases are
-
A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
-
A person who kills in self defense
-
A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
-
A person whose orders result in a lot of killing (ie. a leader who orders an invasion to another country/people)
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
-
-
Peace
- A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
I honestly dont know, and this would altso invovle a debate on the ethics of keeping people alive with machinery at all. Im completely split on this matter.
- A person who kills in self defense
Should go free
- A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
If he survived, id vote for removing that person from the genepool.
This is altso a place where it gets tricky with applying the next of kin rule. Because there might be 100's of next of kins, and theres no saying if they are going to agree or not. However someone with that state of mind, and the criterion given that it is absolutely beyond doubt that the person did it, should be removed by the state for the protection of others, and without being a lifelong burden to others. That person has done enough!.- A person whose orders result in a lot of killing (ie. a leader who orders an invasion to another country/people)
Same as above if invasion. Opposite if defense. Both as country and as individual.
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
The first next of kin, then the next, then etc.
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
The first of kin, then the next of kin then etc.
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
Tyranny is worse than murder. However. If someone is tyrant towards you, leave. if the person follow you, warn. If you are cornered and fell threatened srtike. If your life are but in danger, smite. As a society at the first glimpse of a tyrant raising, warn, then strike to kill.
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
Unless something is done to one of mine, i wont be. thank God. Because one thing is what the scriptures teaches, another is having the guts to take it to the bank. Im not sure i would have the guts to kill a person. But im not blind to how angered someone would be if the one they love the most are unjustly killed, and then revenge is permitted, though forgiveness is better. But in the case of murder, who would honestly say that they wouldnt want to apply eye for an eye. The right way to do it must be that the person demanding eye for an eye, do it him/herself.
You want justice, go and claim it.Regards
Noah -
If applied in the system as it is i agree. But that is hardly the point. this system needs to change not Gods. Gods system is perfect, and yet unaplied. Besides what does he have to loose if he is killed unjustly. A heavenly reward, OMG!! we better not go there. God is just, and when we make err that is no exception.
Innocent people have LOTS to lose if they have wife and kids and a loving family!
In a society of individuals with different beliefs we can't excuse the murder of innocents in hope of heavenly rewards!
Im sorry to come of as rude, but i took offence to your focus on a word, rather than a text.
First of all I am sorry to offend you. It was nothing personal. I picked on a word but since then you have clarified your position on how you used that word. Secondly this is a forum and we are here to debate so don't take anything personally...
And from where im standing it looks as if your tying knots on yourself to get around what the Quran says about justified killing. But that hardly makes me a nazi, or ??
First of all Noah, I don't take Quran as the whole truth or absolute truth. In fact I don't take any scripture to be the whole truth or absolute truth. I use my God-given reason. I don't make SCRIPTURE my REASON. And no, it does not make a nazi and I did not say you were, you have clarified your position...
Regards,
-
How about the others, anyone willing to offer their judgement? Noah? Saladin? Sis Marie? anyone?
The cases are
-
A person who puts down a terminally ill/injured person (euthanasia/mercy killing)
-
A person who kills in self defense
-
A person who bombed a crowded place, killing many people
-
A person whose orders result in a lot of killing (ie. a leader who orders an invasion to another country/people)
5a. A serial killer (without mental problems--kills intentionally)
5b. A serial killer (with mental problems--kills unintentionally)
- A person killing someone who oppresses him/her
If you are a judge, whom among those people will receive a death penalty?
salam Andya and all .
-
my opinion is that one should not kill a seriously ill or injured person . like in verse 1731 God commands not to kill our children for fear of want . God is able to do the impossible . he can give health to that injured person .
-
i would put no blame on him. he should not be punished in anyway .
-
should be killed.
-
should be killed.
5a. should be killed.
5b. should be sent for rehabilitation .
- should not be blamed . he should be free .
salam.
-
-
First of all Noah, I don't take Quran as the whole truth or absolute truth. In fact I don't take any scripture to be the whole truth or absolute truth.
salam Lotetree.
which part of the koran do u consider to be true("A TRUTH") ?
i have asked u this question before too , but u didnt reply . -
Hello LoteTree,
The question was is human life SACRED. The answer it seems to be a resounding YES. Then SOCIETY as whole should either uphold this principle or it should not.
Human life is sacred by default. This sanctity can be lost.
David, David we have been discussing free willed human life here as opposed to bacterial cells that happened to infect your bath-tub or your armpit! If you can show that bacteria are conscious free willed spiritual organisms and thinks about transcendent God and then hey yes you can say use of antibiotics on them is wrong!
I was responding to Elena.
Perhaps David you should contemplate and reflect on the nature of free willed human LIFE, perhaps you could see the sanctity of human existence...
Perhaps Lotetree, you should reflect on God's words, perhaps you would see that it is a mercy and a guidance.
A couple questions for you
Would you kill in self-defense?
Do you believe in an afterlife?peace
-
First of all Noah, I don't take Quran as the whole truth or absolute truth. In fact I don't take any scripture to be the whole truth or absolute truth.
salam Lotetree.
which part of the koran do u consider to be true("A TRUTH") ?
i have asked u this question before too , but u didnt reply .As I have said before - All religions assert that God is beyond Reason and Language. So how do you describe with words something that is beyond language and reason? How do you describe the truth of colour to someone who is born blind? or truth of music to someone who is born deaf? You can't, not with words. They have to experience this truth for themselves to "know" that it exists. Some truths, have to be experienced and can't be described with words. The Truth of Divinity is one of them. But this has not stopped human beings in trying to describe this ineffable experience with words. Scriptures therefore, are the attempts to describe this ineffable experience of God in human language. Therefore scripture is an "interpretation" of a reality that is beyond words and reason. And there is no "this bit is true" and "this bit is false", all of it is an "interpretation" in human language. And the language of the scripture is that of the 6th Arabia, the Morality of the scripture is the morality of the 6th century Arabia. That is why you get "spoils of war" being distributed amongst the victors. That is why the victims of war becomes your "Right Hand" possesion that can be made into slaves and concubines. This kind of Morality is unacceptable in this century.
You may disagree with this and that is ok, I don't mind because scripture is not important to me. Only thing that matters is understanding God. And I am applying my God-given reason, intutions and imaginations in this endevour.
But if you want to understand the nature of "A TRUTH" then I urge you to study and practice meditation then you might grasp something of the wordless reality that is God...
Regards,
-
Peace LoteTree,
I would like to remind you that at this very moment in time, you can find people living in "prehistoric age", "stone age"..."medieval age".... until "modern age or information age".
So basically, if you consider humanity as a group, you'll need a set of laws that can deal with all this spectrum independantely of the developpement factor, since humans are the same at any and every level.
And even in the same society, you can find this same spectrum in its mosaic of people, from less to more developped.
--
-
Perhaps Lotetree, you should reflect on God's words, perhaps you would see that it is a mercy and a guidance.
I have David. That is why Scripture is A GUIDE to me. God is not the SCRIPTURE. Scripture is a GUIDE to God. But you can argue with me that this is a better guide...
A couple questions for you
Would you kill in self-defense?
Do you believe in an afterlife?The question was should we kill the murderer. I said no and I have given my reasons for it. This about punishment. Death Penalty being the final punishement. But the broader implication to this question is should society practice Death Penalty. I said No again and I have given my reasons for it.
Now you are asking me should I kill in self-defense? There is a biological urge for self-preservation. This is different from wanting to kill the murderer as a pracitice by society that you live in.
Do I believe in an after-life? I don't accept literal description of after-life in the scripture. I would like to see descriptions of after life in a symbolic and metaphoric sense. Dancing around rivers of Wine and Honey in paradise as recounted in the scripture doesn't appeal to me...
Regards,
-
Peace LoteTree,
That is why Scripture is A GUIDE to me
I don't think it is "a guide" to you, at least not all of it. Based on your position, I think it would be more accurate for you to state "some of Scriputre is a guide to me".
When I asked
So any killing is wrong to you.
You stated
The question was is human life SACRED. The answer it seems to be a resounding YES. Then SOCIETY as whole should either uphold this principle or it should not.
So I asked
Would you kill in self-defense?
and now you state
The question was should we kill the murderer. I said no and I have given my reasons for it. This about punishment. Death Penalty being the final punishement. But the broader implication to this question is should society practice Death Penalty. I said No again and I have given my reasons for it.
Your premise is that the death penalty should not be applied because all human life is sacred. Thus my question about self-defense is perfectly valid. In fact, any scenario I bring forth which involves the killing of another person is valid given your premise.
Now you are asking me should I kill in self-defense? There is a biological urge for self-preservation. This is different from wanting to kill the murderer as a pracitice by society that you live in.
Biological urge? I hope you are not saying that we base morality on biological urges? As I?m sure you are aware, many mystical writings try hard to separate the soul from the body through asceticism.
So my question still stands, ?Would you kill in self-defense??
(I'm sure you can see where this is leading)peace
-
Biological urge? I hope you are not saying that we base morality on biological urges? As I?m sure you are aware, many mystical writings try hard to separate the soul from the body through asceticism.
Come on David, there is biological instinct, there is a biological imperative for self-preservation when attacked. You can't do nothing about it. It is an innate reaction. It is an impulse as opposed to sitting down and saying murderer should be murdered for his murder. And yes life is sacred and therefore as a society it either uphold this principle or it does not. Killing in self-defense is tragic because you did not intend to kill...
Regards,
-
Hello Saladin,
God is beyond reason , so why are u trying in vain to use your REASON to understand God ?
Ah Saladin. Now you come to the point. Reason is very important. REASON takes you to the limits of human undertanding and no more. But God has given us the gift of INTUITION and IMAGINATION. Intuition and imaginations allows us to see beyond REASON and LOGIC and grasp some understanding of the God who is beyond language and reason. This is the insight that all the great seers, sages, prophets and mystics have arrived at independently...
and where does the koran say that God is beyond language ?
Our REASON is tied to our language. Read Heidegger, Saladin.
the best way to teach humans is by language
That is true. But to understand God reason is not enough because God is beyond reason. Reason will take you so far but at the final encounter with the Divine, REASON is "trascended".
so u agree that Koran was revealed to Muhammad , but Muhammad might have misinterpreted it ?
I believe that Muhammad did encounter the Divine but he had no choice but interpret his encounter with the limited capabilities of language of his day. But Language does not justice to the reality he was trying to convey. I would not say misinterpretation but rather language is inadequate to describe the wordless reality that is God...
Regards,
-
Hi,
I have skimmed through the posts under this thread and there is one serious point missing. Without this we can not judge.
God is very impersonal of nature, and the system God has given us to live by, is based on the best possible, balanced, way for all creatures.
Criminal acts are not punished as a revenge towards the perpetrator, it?s first and foremost function, is to rectify a situation caused by an act that has damaged anyone and/or anything.In the case of theft, the thief is responsible towards the sufferer to replace what he/she has stolen, and it may be that the community has to be protected against the perpetrator.
In case somebody, unlawfully, takes a life of a human being, there are a number of circumstances to be taken into consideration in order to minimize the problem this has created for individuals, a community or part of a community.
First of all, the murderer has a debt with God, which he can never settle. He/she has taken away something sacred. The murdered person can not be brought back to life; therefore total rectification is out of the question. It does not matter what the perpetrator does for the rest of his/her life, he/she can not fully compensate for taking a human life.
Next, who was at loss due to the act and how to make good this loss?
If the murdered person was a breadwinner that one or more individuals relied on, either personally, as a group, or as a part of a community, the economic loss may be demanded compensated, as per a common evaluation.
The emotional loss, what to do? In its extreme there may be a demand of killing the murderer. And it may also be justified.
But there is one question that is taken far too lightly by courts where death penalty is exercised, who is going to execute the sentence?
The only person who may rightfully do this is the person having the right to demand the penalty.
To have a professional executioner is not according to God. You can not lawfully take a human life by proxy.The same goes for medical personnel in the case of so called mercy-killing, they are not allowed to do that, only person(s) directly affected. They have to bear the consequences of their decision and their action.
Here is another question ?Who has the right to decide?? Husband/wife, mother, father, siblings, children etc.There are ?thousand and one? questions to be answered in each individual case, and therefore impossible to set up absolute rules as per the questions asked in this thread.
There may also be people behind the person performing the physical act of killing a human being, who are to be counted in as responsible for the act.
We have seen many cases of humans killing humans in many areas of the World, where the ones executing the murders are brainwashed by others into believing they are doing what is right. The brain ?guiding the weapon? may be far away from the actual scene of crime. How to judge in such a case? Who is the actual killer?First and foremost, we should strive to bring a situation back towards as much balance as possible. This is what God?s system is telling us, not to seek revenge but to make the existence for everything, and every one, best possible.
Or, in other words, keep the best possible balance.Regds
Ali Omar
-
If the whole system was developed to serve and save souls than I dont see the logic behind any rule to kill another soul. One killing cant justify another killing because they both are taking souls which no humans can create.
peace