Iran plans to execute two for consuming alcohol

[HayesStreet]

Originally Posted by ScolaIsBallin Many of the laws in the US are based on the bible. In Iran, their laws are based on Islam. I think that it's just too different of a culture for some people to grasp. While this is extreme it is a law there and if the people want to stay out of trouble, they should follow it. Just like any law here.

That a law is the product of a culture doesn't mean it should be protected or defended. There are many things that particular cultures (including here in the US) have valued in their time that are not ok (see human sacrifice, rape, slavery, child prostitution...), and using religion/culture as an argument to preserve the practices is not ok.

[thadeus]

I'm sure the Imams are tipping back the bottle every night while all the people who want to be "real muslims" are deathly afraid of touching alcohol.

There's no justification for this. It's a ridiculously medieval law.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally Posted by DaDakota And the grapes that make Syrah or Shiraz wine come from Iran - friggen hypocrits. DD

The syrah grape is from France, Rhône specifically.

[Grandpappy]

This is why religion should have no place in government. People that want to follow the teachings of their given religion are free to do so. At no point should every citizen be forced to follow the teachings of any religion.
Unfortunately the people in the government in Iran have religion shoved so far up their collective asses that they have to pray before they take a dump.

[Rocket River]

Originally Posted by A_3PO When you say drinking related deaths, I assume you mean drunk-driving related. I would submit to you a gradual increase in the penalty for DWI (DUI) over a 5 year period would accomplish the same thing. If people knew they wouldn't no longer be able to drive as a result, deaths because of DWI would almost disappear. But as a society, we are not ready to make that decision. The death penalty need not be involved.

Probably.
Seems we maybe too lax
and
they are too extreme in the other direction

Originally Posted by Kojirou We've already seen what happens when you ban alcohol, in case you didn't know. And mcmo's post outclasses anything Hightop has ever written as far as I'm concerned.

As A_3PO points out . . more severe punishment for its abuse is the issue
Maybe not Death Penalty but the slaps on the wrist now aren't working.

When I evaluate these areas and our own
we have to understand we maybe as extreme in the opposite direct
as they are in their direction.
We think their laws and punishments are 'Draconian'
they think ours are non existant

our Prisons are better than most people's homes around the world

While 'draconian' they are somewhat effective
To some . .that is all that matters

Rocket River

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Rocket River As A_3PO points out . . more severe punishment for its abuse is the issue Maybe not Death Penalty but the slaps on the wrist now aren't working. When I evaluate these areas and our own we have to understand we maybe as extreme in the opposite direct as they are in their direction.

You are crazy.

[jayhow92]

Originally Posted by mcmo2789 Drinking makes people act stupid and not like themselves. That is why it is forbidden in Islam. The human race has been blessed with so much intelligence, but instead of using that intelligence it wants to dumb it down. Haven't yall seen want happens to those who drink heavily? They get beer bellies and have problems in life. I know alcohol is not addicting, but how many people do you know who stopped drinking or drink less? On most occasions people start drinking more. How many people have died from drunk drivers? Because someone wasn't smart enough to put the keys down. Don't even get me started on the hangovers that people have the next day. Who wants to spend their morning throwing up in a toilet? Is it really worth it? On the issue of the two deaths, when someone commits a bad enough crime here in the U.S. they may be sentenced to the death penalty. The reason is because they broke a law that was made by the government. In Iran drinking is a crime, and it is one of the worst crimes. But crimes commited in Iran are different then crimes commited in U.S. Crimes in Iran usually disobey the religon of Islam. This is a religious crime so therefore it it deserves a severe punishement. It may not mean much to you all being people who drink all the time. But for someone who follows the religon it is a dispicable act. You have to remember that the Iranian government is made up of Muslims. So to them it is just as bad as a murder or a rape is to you all. So for them it deserves the death penalty. Especially since they had already been warned. Remember, U.S. had probhibition too. If people were caught do you think they would get a pat on the back? No, they would go to jail. But that is a governmental law so it is not as important as a religous law. Since drinking is prohibited in Islam, and it is an Islamic republic, the punishment was in accordance with the sin.

[dmc89]

Originally Posted by R0ckets03 You sir are a moron. I'm a Muslim who drinks moderately. As others have mentioned the Quran was written for people 1400 years ago. And at that time it probably made alot more sense then it does not. It boggles my mind how people can just follow a book written so long ago. Think Prophet Mohammed would condemn you to hell for having a pepperoni pizza and a beer with your friends at home? lol

I disagree with this. I think the Quran still works for today's age. Also, I cannot find anything in the Quran that says having a sip of alcohol will make you technically not Muslim as one poster said on here.

I believe everything in moderation is the key. Using common sense (qiyas, aqal) is a huge component of Islamic jurisprudence. Drinking beer with your friends at home isn't always a problem. It becomes bad when you drink and drive, when you get so drunk you become belligerent, or lose consciousness, etc.

These are the verses (Yuksel's translation) I found in the Quran regarding alcohol. As I interpret them, I see nothing wrong with what you do. Muhammad can't condemn (or judge) anyone so that they go to hell. Only one entity can do that. Here are the verses:

2:219

They ask you about intoxicants and
gambling. Say, "In them is great harm,
and a benefit for people; but their harm
is greater than their benefit." They ask
you how much are they to give, say,
"The excess." Thus, God clarifies for
you the signs that you may think.*

4:43

O you who acknowledge, do not come
near the contact prayer while you are
drunk, until you know what you are saying.
Nor if you have had intercourse,
unless traveling, until you bathe. If you
are ill, or traveling, or one of you come
from the bathroom, or you had sexual
contact, and could not
find water: then you shall seek clean soil
and wipe your faces and hands. God is
Pardoning, Forgiving.*

5:90

O you who acknowledge, intoxicants,
and gambling, and altars, and arrows of
chance are tools of affliction used by the
devil. You shall avoid him so that you
may be successful.*

[bigtexxx]

Iran is such an ass backwards country

[Qball]

Originally Posted by mcmo2789 On the issue of the two deaths, when someone commits a bad enough crime here in the U.S. they may be sentenced to the death penalty. The reason is because they broke a law that was made by the government. In Iran drinking is a crime, and it is one of the worst crimes. But crimes commited in Iran are different then crimes commited in U.S. Crimes in Iran usually disobey the religon of Islam. This is a religious crime so therefore it it deserves a severe punishement. It may not mean much to you all being people who drink all the time. But for someone who follows the religon it is a dispicable act. You have to remember that the Iranian government is made up of Muslims. So to them it is just as bad as a murder or a rape is to you all. So for them it deserves the death penalty. Especially since they had already been warned. Remember, U.S. had probhibition too. If people were caught do you think they would get a pat on the back? No, they would go to jail. But that is a governmental law so it is not as important as a religous law. Since drinking is prohibited in Islam, and it is an Islamic republic, the punishment was in accordance with the sin.

This post is so out there...I dunno what to say. The part is bold is just......bleehhhhhhhhhhhh /brain explodes. You make it hard for me to criticize ATW.

The bottom line is that NOBODY deserves to be executed for drinking alcohol. I don't care if these 2 guys were the stunt doubles for the "THE MOST INTERESTING MAN IN THE WORLD" commercials by Dos Equis. How can anyone from ANY religion some how justify putting the "crime" of consuming alcohol in the same category as murder or rape.

And for those of you still searching for your eyeballs after they popped out of your heads reading the quoted above, make no mistake...the average Muslim does not share this view.

[txppratt]

Shariah law is barbaric, dark-ages fiddle faddle - why do cultures draw from this again?

oh thats right... religion.

[Mathloom]

You are forgetting the after-life punishment, which is far worse for rape/murder. So if you add up the earthly and afterlife punishment, then alcohol can be seen by Muslims as treated less harshly than rape/murder hence the lack of compassion for victims of such laws.

47:15 (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)? http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/047.asp

Of course, it's all figurative. It's interesting how statements are sometimes figurative, and other times not, and the distinction is never clear.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Mathloom You are forgetting the after-life punishment, which is far worse for rape/murder. So if you add up the earthly and afterlife punishment, then alcohol can be seen by Muslims as treated less harshly than rape/murder hence the lack of compassion for victims of such laws.

That "logic" is mind-bogglingly retarded.

[MadMax]

I realize my view is colored by where I grew up..the values I know from that...but I can't imagine justifying this on any level.

What is the value of a faith compelled by the threat of death? What is the virture of the disciplines of faith if you're carrying them out not with the fear of God but the fear of a government executing you? How does that move one closer to God?

I can disagree all day on whether drinking is something that causes you to fall away from faith...I think for some it causes them to be less of a human being than they could be otherwise. I'm also of a faith tradition where the "founder" supplied a wedding with the finest wine. I've had some of the most meaningful conversations in my life over a pint with friends. But the question is not whether it is prohibited in the faith...but whether it should be the law of the land for everyone. So what's the goal...is it to move people closer to God, which would certainly seem to be a logical idea for a theocracy....or is it merely control? Are you really moving people to a position closer to God if you're doing so under the threat of death?

I've read a great deal of the Koran. I'm certainly not a Muslim and I don't profess to be an Islamic scholar...but I'd venture to say that a man/woman who chooses what he/she believes Allah wants from them on his/her own, without government compulsion, is far closer to being a true Muslim than one who is forced to do so looking down the barrel of a gun -- or in this case the blade of a sword.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Mathloom You are forgetting the after-life punishment, which is far worse for rape/murder. So if you add up the earthly and afterlife punishment, then alcohol can be seen by Muslims as treated less harshly than rape/murder hence the lack of compassion for victims of such laws.

I just have to go back to the level of brainwashed idiocy displayed in this post.

So, by the same logic, since the "after-life punishment is far worse for rape/murder" than for a parking violation, even if someone gets the death penalty for a parking violation, Muslims can still see this punishment as being treated less harshly than rape/murder and hence a lack of compassion for a victim of such a hypothetical law is ok.

How completely idiotically twisted does someone's brain have to be to come up with such utter bullcrap?

[Mathloom]

This is how many Muslims think, if we don't understand it (without necessarily having to believe it), then it would be far more difficult to solve these problems.

You seem to be very caught up in how faith-based beliefs are unbelievable to you. Is it really shocking to you? Is this really the most ludicrous faith-based belief in your eyes? There are plenty, this is just another one which we should study, and then approach the subject of altering this view.

I find that a slight increase in education regarding research tends to dramatically reduce the level of blind faith. If you communicate to a Muslim that you and him/her are both seeking to eliminate all blind faith other than that pertaining to the existance of God, they will understand. There is no need to have such faith in disciples, companions, centuries-late books, all sorts of frivelous things. Faith in a supreme being on its own is no detriment to anyone else.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Mathloom This is how many Muslims think, if we don't understand it (without necessarily having to believe it), then it would be far more difficult to solve these problems. You seem to be very caught up in how faith-based beliefs are unbelievable to you. Is it really shocking to you? Is this really the most ludicrous faith-based belief in your eyes? There are plenty, this is just another one which we should study, and then approach the subject of altering this view. I find that a slight increase in education regarding research tends to dramatically reduce the level of blind faith. If you communicate to a Muslim that you and him/her are both seeking to eliminate all blind faith other than that pertaining to the existance of God, they will understand. There is no need to have such faith in disciples, companions, centuries-late books, all sorts of frivelous things. Faith in a supreme being on its own is no detriment to anyone else.

I think what upsets people are faith based laws, not faith based beliefs. Actually, "faith based beliefs" as a concept is nonsensical, with all due respect, "faith" being the basis for religion, any religion, and religion is a belief one has about something larger than his or her self. In my opinion, of course. As someone who's traveled extensively around the world, I think I can safely say, based on my own observations, but also on what I've read (and I read a hell of a lot), that this mad act by authorities in Iran is inexcusable, and will be seen as inexcusable by the overwhelming majority of those who hear about it, wherever they are on this planet. Again, this is my opinion, grounded in my own experiences, extensive interaction with people of different nationalities and cultures, and my own avid interest. I would have left out all the crap about traveling, talking to people of different cultures, etc., and the stuff about me reading a lot, but I'm assuming someone will ask what I'm basing my opinion on.

Honestly, are people actually arguing over the "right and wrong" of this? Seriously? The very idea that it is a topic of discussion, and not just a thread of condemnation, something that happens here from time to time, astonishes me. How could anyone, anyone, be stupid enough to defend this.

"Faith in a supreme being on its own is no detriment to anyone else."

Unless it gets them killed, or gets someone else killed.

[Mathloom]

Originally Posted by Deckard I think what upsets people are faith based laws, not faith based beliefs. Actually, "faith based beliefs" as a concept is nonsensical, with all due respect, "faith" being the basis for religion, any religion, and religion is a belief one has about something larger than his or her self. In my opinion, of course. As someone who's traveled extensively around the world, I think I can safely say, based on my own observations, but also on what I've read (and I read a hell of a lot), that this mad act by authorities in Iran is inexcusable, and will be seen as inexcusable by the overwhelming majority of those who hear about it, wherever they are on this planet. Again, this is my opinion, grounded in my own experiences, extensive interaction with people of different nationalities and cultures, and my own avid interest. I would have left out all the crap about traveling, talking to people of different cultures, etc., and the stuff about me reading a lot, but I'm assuming someone will ask what I'm basing my opinion on. Honestly, are people actually arguing over the "right and wrong" of this? Seriously? The very idea that it is a topic of discussion, and not just a thread of condemnation, something that happens here from time to time, astonishes me. How could anyone, anyone, be stupid enough to defend this. "Faith in a supreme being on its own is no detriment to anyone else." Unless it gets them killed, or gets someone else killed.

I agree with you. But killing someone else for faith requires faith in something beyond a supreme being i.e. faith in "divine" texts, ideological authority figures, etc. The existance of a supreme being does not promp any particular dangerous behavior.

What I was trying to communicate is that, for example, being agnostic is not detrimental to anyone because it does not lend credibility to texts, authority figures, etc. Of course, being agnostic does not necessarily mean you won't be violent and murderous, as we've seen.

Having said that, we must accept the reality that the majority of the world believes in faith-based laws which supercede man-made laws, and since faith-based laws are potentially dangerous to those who don't share that faith, we have to gain a higher understanding of why these beliefs exist and what drives the believers and come up with a framework where infringing on other people's freedoms is as restricted as humanely as possible. It will never be perfect unless one side engages in mass murder to eradicate the vessels which hold those ideas. That's a great example too: the fact that murdering extremists creates more extremism is embedded in Muslim texts and we shouldn't ignore that unless we all agree to ignore that. It's all good and well deciding to ignore it from across the Atlantic when you know that the targets' weapons don't extend past the Middle East. This is why it's paramount for the Middle Eastern people to be on board, especially since Middle Easterners know and understand these beliefs, their consequences, and their application better than anyone else and most of them do not share the beliefs which relate to terrorism.

I am more interested in finding a workable solution which protects people, than I am in being endlessly critical and hateful towards these people. For that reason, I'm willing to understand them, negotiate with them, and even make some sacrifices if I feel there will be a positive return on those sacrifices in the long-run.

But this is not the biggest of my concerns nor do I subscribe to the belief that this is causing the most terror in the world. I believe that people have real grievances and that religion (or any ideology for that matter) is a framework for dealing with questions, grievances, etc. For that reason, I think our time is far more effectively used settling the real underlying grievances. We can attack the framework, destroy it, anihilate it, but the grievances will exist and additional grievances (which should be low priority) are tagged on. New or altered frameworks will emerge for dealing with new grievances.

Have we perhaps considered how many people can be dissuaded from joining terror networks by offering full true sovereignty, growing local industry, by offering universal suffrage so the grievances can be dealt with locally, by creating educational alliances rather than military alliances? These are all small things which we can do to make a significant change IMO and doesn't require us to get into the ambiguous field of fighting part of an ideology that has been re-constructed millions of times over.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Mathloom I agree with you. But killing someone else for faith requires faith in something beyond a supreme being i.e. faith in "divine" texts, ideological authority figures, etc. The existance of a supreme being does not promp any particular dangerous behavior. What I was trying to communicate is that, for example, being agnostic is not detrimental to anyone because it does not lend credibility to texts, authority figures, etc. Of course, being agnostic does not necessarily mean you won't be violent and murderous, as we've seen. Having said that, we must accept the reality that the majority of the world believes in faith-based laws which supercede man-made laws, and since faith-based laws are potentially dangerous to those who don't share that faith, we have to gain a higher understanding of why these beliefs exist and what drives the believers and come up with a framework where infringing on other people's freedoms is as restricted as humanely as possible. It will never be perfect unless one side engages in mass murder to eradicate the vessels which hold those ideas. That's a great example too: the fact that murdering extremists creates more extremism is embedded in Muslim texts and we shouldn't ignore that unless we all agree to ignore that. It's all good and well deciding to ignore it from across the Atlantic when you know that the targets' weapons don't extend past the Middle East. This is why it's paramount for the Middle Eastern people to be on board, especially since Middle Easterners know and understand these beliefs, their consequences, and their application better than anyone else and most of them do not share the beliefs which relate to terrorism. I am more interested in finding a workable solution which protects people, than I am in being endlessly critical and hateful towards these people. For that reason, I'm willing to understand them, negotiate with them, and even make some sacrifices if I feel there will be a positive return on those sacrifices in the long-run. But this is not the biggest of my concerns nor do I subscribe to the belief that this is causing the most terror in the world. I believe that people have real grievances and that religion (or any ideology for that matter) is a framework for dealing with questions, grievances, etc. For that reason, I think our time is far more effectively used settling the real underlying grievances. We can attack the framework, destroy it, anihilate it, but the grievances will exist and additional grievances (which should be low priority) are tagged on. New or altered frameworks will emerge for dealing with new grievances. Have we perhaps considered how many people can be dissuaded from joining terror networks by offering full true sovereignty, growing local industry, by offering universal suffrage so the grievances can be dealt with locally, by creating educational alliances rather than military alliances? These are all small things which we can do to make a significant change IMO and doesn't require us to get into the ambiguous field of fighting part of an ideology that has been re-constructed millions of times over.

What does that rambling post have to do with two people being sentenced to death for drinking alcohol?