Burning prisoners to death, a punishment sanctioned in Islam

[Nosmo King]

Incidentally, bundles of sticks thrown upon the fire were called faggots.

Once the mob had a person tied to the stake, they would not be pleased by 'the main event' as it were. Homosexuality was a capital offense and accused homosexuals would be bound and tossed into the fire along with those bundles known as faggots. Hence the epithet.

 

[Roudy]

Everybody who makes these disgusting , ignorant comparisons is only helping the enemy by being a useful donkey for radical Islam.

Unfortunately the case still has yet to be made, from the beginning here, that it IS "Islam". As opposed to just another Composition Fallacy.

That's what we've been waiting on the whole time. Without it, the entire premise in the thread's very title falls to the ground.

No it's not Islam, ha ha ha, it's one Muslim group after another committing the most henious barbaric medieval acts, waving an Islamic flag, screaming ALLAH AKBAR and reciting verses from the Koran while doing it, claiming that it's in the name of Islam, but...it's not Islam, sure sure. There's maybe 10 people in the US that actually believe that ISIS has nothing to do with it, and they're all probably mentally ill.

 

[Pogo]

Everybody who makes these disgusting , ignorant comparisons is only helping the enemy by being a useful donkey for radical Islam.

Unfortunately the case still has yet to be made, from the beginning here, that it IS "Islam". As opposed to just another Composition Fallacy.

That's what we've been waiting on the whole time. Without it, the entire premise in the thread's very title falls to the ground.

No it's not Islam, ha ha ha, it's one Muslim group after another committing the most henious barbaric medieval acts, waving an Islamic flag, screaming ALLAH AKBAR and reciting verses from the Koran while doing it, claiming that it's in the name of Islam, but...it's not Islam, sure sure. There's maybe 10 people in the US that actually believe that ISIS has nothing to do with it, and they're all probably mentally ill.

Still no source. 162 posts later.

Ergo, fallacy.

They're all here -- Composition, Blanket Generalization, Biased Sample and let's welcome our newest member, Argumentum ad Populum, the old "Everybody Knows". It's like a convention without the name badges.

 

[Alex.]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions----
I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging----
there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)---
he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen--
which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis
did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time----
he actually felt the BURNING

Your post gave me a hotfoot. Burning in an oven, at a stake, by accelerant or any other manner is still burning to death.

 

[irosie91]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions----
I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging----
there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)---
he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen--
which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis
did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time----
he actually felt the BURNING

Your post gave me a hotfoot. Burning in an oven, at a stake by accelerant or any other manner is still burning to death.

not really-----in some cases it is asphyxiation. What do you
imagine death by HANGING really is??? (keep your
feet out of the fire.)

 

[Pogo]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions---- I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging---- there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)--- he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen-- which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time---- he actually felt the BURNING

Without having experienced it I'm pretty sure anyone burned alive feels it plenty, oxygen or no oxygen.

The Wiki link to death by burning I posted yesterday includes this entry:

The manner in which Johannes Thomas[55] was executed is described as following, 13 July that year. Some feet above the actual pyre, attached to a stake, a wooden chamber had been constructed, into which the delinquent was placed. Pipes or chimneys, filled with sulphuric material led up to the chamber, and that was first lit, so that Thomas died from inhaling the sulphuric smoke, rather than being strictly burnt alive, before his body was consumed by the general fire. Some 20.000 people had gathered to watch Thomas' execution.[56]
​

This was 1804 by the way, and a civil penalty-- not even related to religion.

I have no idea what "sulphuric smoke" does to anyone---
what he probably inhaled was------NOT ENOUGH OXYGEN.
---sulphur in the air is simply the smell of rotten eggs-----
in traditional thinking it is the smell of HELL----which is probably the issue that the nuts had in mind. What had
THOMAS done? ------------uhm----keep in mind----
the Europeans brought the INQUISITION to the USA----
<<<< a rarely recognized factoid. "civil penalty"??? no
crime?

He was convicted of arson apparently. I'm just saying here's a burning that has nothing to do with Christianism, Islam, or any other religion. The OP seems to think it's some kind of Muslim invention. Your comment about oxygen deprivation reminded me of it.

But it's equally instructive about human psychology in the last line -- "some 20,000 people gathered to watch". That might say more about the human psyche than all those histories. I don't really get the attraction but it reminds one of this sort of thing:

Different execution method but again it's the same mob mentality hysteria the OP is going for. Which is, again, why I call bullshit on this sort of thing.

Further reading -- it's too disgusting to post the pictures here but check out this event... 20th century burning in Nebraska. Again, as in all the previous examples, this is where mob mentality leads.

 

[irosie91]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions---- I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging---- there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)--- he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen-- which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time---- he actually felt the BURNING

Without having experienced it I'm pretty sure anyone burned alive feels it plenty, oxygen or no oxygen.

The Wiki link to death by burning I posted yesterday includes this entry:

The manner in which Johannes Thomas[55] was executed is described as following, 13 July that year. Some feet above the actual pyre, attached to a stake, a wooden chamber had been constructed, into which the delinquent was placed. Pipes or chimneys, filled with sulphuric material led up to the chamber, and that was first lit, so that Thomas died from inhaling the sulphuric smoke, rather than being strictly burnt alive, before his body was consumed by the general fire. Some 20.000 people had gathered to watch Thomas' execution.[56]
​

This was 1804 by the way, and a civil penalty-- not even related to religion.

I have no idea what "sulphuric smoke" does to anyone---
what he probably inhaled was------NOT ENOUGH OXYGEN.
---sulphur in the air is simply the smell of rotten eggs-----
in traditional thinking it is the smell of HELL----which is probably the issue that the nuts had in mind. What had
THOMAS done? ------------uhm----keep in mind----
the Europeans brought the INQUISITION to the USA----
<<<< a rarely recognized factoid. "civil penalty"??? no
crime?

He was convicted of arson apparently. I'm just saying here's a burning that has nothing to do with Christianism, Islam, or any other religion. The OP seems to think it's some kind of Muslim invention. Your comment about oxygen deprivation reminded me of it.

But it's equally instructive about human psychology in the last line -- "some 20,000 people gathered to watch". That might say more about the human psyche than all those histories.

oh------ok I have not seen anyone on this thread insist that
muslims INVENTED execution by burning------I believe that
roudy has indicated that burning has been used as a means
of execution by muslims----ie. it is part of Islamic jurisprudence--------I do not know----but he seems to know

 

[Pogo]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions---- I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging---- there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)--- he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen-- which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time---- he actually felt the BURNING

Without having experienced it I'm pretty sure anyone burned alive feels it plenty, oxygen or no oxygen.

The Wiki link to death by burning I posted yesterday includes this entry:

The manner in which Johannes Thomas[55] was executed is described as following, 13 July that year. Some feet above the actual pyre, attached to a stake, a wooden chamber had been constructed, into which the delinquent was placed. Pipes or chimneys, filled with sulphuric material led up to the chamber, and that was first lit, so that Thomas died from inhaling the sulphuric smoke, rather than being strictly burnt alive, before his body was consumed by the general fire. Some 20.000 people had gathered to watch Thomas' execution.[56]
​

This was 1804 by the way, and a civil penalty-- not even related to religion.

I have no idea what "sulphuric smoke" does to anyone---
what he probably inhaled was------NOT ENOUGH OXYGEN.
---sulphur in the air is simply the smell of rotten eggs-----
in traditional thinking it is the smell of HELL----which is probably the issue that the nuts had in mind. What had
THOMAS done? ------------uhm----keep in mind----
the Europeans brought the INQUISITION to the USA----
<<<< a rarely recognized factoid. "civil penalty"??? no
crime?

He was convicted of arson apparently. I'm just saying here's a burning that has nothing to do with Christianism, Islam, or any other religion. The OP seems to think it's some kind of Muslim invention. Your comment about oxygen deprivation reminded me of it.

But it's equally instructive about human psychology in the last line -- "some 20,000 people gathered to watch". That might say more about the human psyche than all those histories.

oh------ok I have not seen anyone on this thread insist that
muslims INVENTED execution by burning------I believe that
roudy has indicated that burning has been used as a means
of execution by muslims----ie. it is part of Islamic jurisprudence--------I do not know----but he seems to know

Well it isn't. It's unknown in the contemporary Middle East - I linked that earlier -- which is one reason the rest of the Islamic world is outraged by it.

This is brought forth from post 131:

"Islam prohibits the taking of an innocent life," al-Tayeb said. By burning the pilot to death, he added, the militants violated Islam's prohibition on the immolation or mutilation of bodies — even during wartime.

Under many Mideast legal systems, capital punishment is usually carried out by hanging. In Iran and Pakistan, stoning to death as punishment for adultery exists in the penal code but is rarely used. Beheadings are routinely carried out in Saudi Arabia, and Gaza's militant Hamas rulers have on occasion publicly shot to death Palestinians suspected of spying for Israel.

But burning to death as a punishment proscribed by an Islamic court — such as the self-styled tribunals set up by the Islamic State militants in areas under their control — is unheard of in the contemporary Middle East. The IS extremists captured a third of both Iraq and Syria in a blitz last year, proclaimed their caliphate and imposed their harsh interpretation of Islamic law.

In Saudi Arabia, prominent cleric Sheik Salman al-Oudah cited on Wednesday a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, which reserves for God alone the right to punish by fire.​

 

[irosie91]

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions---- I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging---- there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)--- he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen-- which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time---- he actually felt the BURNING

Without having experienced it I'm pretty sure anyone burned alive feels it plenty, oxygen or no oxygen.

The Wiki link to death by burning I posted yesterday includes this entry:

The manner in which Johannes Thomas[55] was executed is described as following, 13 July that year. Some feet above the actual pyre, attached to a stake, a wooden chamber had been constructed, into which the delinquent was placed. Pipes or chimneys, filled with sulphuric material led up to the chamber, and that was first lit, so that Thomas died from inhaling the sulphuric smoke, rather than being strictly burnt alive, before his body was consumed by the general fire. Some 20.000 people had gathered to watch Thomas' execution.[56]
​

This was 1804 by the way, and a civil penalty-- not even related to religion.

I have no idea what "sulphuric smoke" does to anyone---
what he probably inhaled was------NOT ENOUGH OXYGEN.
---sulphur in the air is simply the smell of rotten eggs-----
in traditional thinking it is the smell of HELL----which is probably the issue that the nuts had in mind. What had
THOMAS done? ------------uhm----keep in mind----
the Europeans brought the INQUISITION to the USA----
<<<< a rarely recognized factoid. "civil penalty"??? no
crime?

He was convicted of arson apparently. I'm just saying here's a burning that has nothing to do with Christianism, Islam, or any other religion. The OP seems to think it's some kind of Muslim invention. Your comment about oxygen deprivation reminded me of it.

But it's equally instructive about human psychology in the last line -- "some 20,000 people gathered to watch". That might say more about the human psyche than all those histories.

oh------ok I have not seen anyone on this thread insist that
muslims INVENTED execution by burning------I believe that
roudy has indicated that burning has been used as a means
of execution by muslims----ie. it is part of Islamic jurisprudence--------I do not know----but he seems to know

Well it isn't. It's unknown in the contemporary Middle East - I linked that earlier -- which is one reason the rest of the Islamic world is outraged by it.

I'll go fetch that link.

"contemporary middle east" -----you want to define that term?
-----as to the OUTRAGE in the middle east on the part of
muslims-------of course they are outraged-----the man executed was a MUSLIM and the manner in which Isis executed a MUSLIM was contrary to Islamic law-------
the guy was not a Christian, jew or hindu-------he was a MUSLIM. He was not even executed for a breach of
shariah law-------he was executed as if he were a non muslim
fighting MUSLIMS (I hope you can grasp these facts)

 

[Alex.]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions----
I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging----
there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)---
he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen--
which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis
did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time----
he actually felt the BURNING

Your post gave me a hotfoot. Burning in an oven, at a stake by accelerant or any other manner is still burning to death.

not really-----in some cases it is asphyxiation. What do you
imagine death by HANGING really is??? (keep your
feet out of the fire.)

The manner of death includes the mental image for the rest of the folks who may be next. This is a means of control directed the subject audience.

 

[irosie91]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions----
I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging----
there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)---
he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen--
which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis
did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time----
he actually felt the BURNING

Your post gave me a hotfoot. Burning in an oven, at a stake by accelerant or any other manner is still burning to death.

not really-----in some cases it is asphyxiation. What do you
imagine death by HANGING really is??? (keep your
feet out of the fire.)

The manner of death includes the mental image for the rest of the folks who may be next. This is a means of control directed the subject audience.

you did not address the question. There are issues related to "HUMANE" execution vs inhumane execution-----regardless of how gruesome or not gruesome it looks-----
The guillotine was designed to be humane-----looks damned
gruesome. I agree that how it looks is an issue on----one side------but I was addressing ----the other issue----how it really is for the "subject". An expertly done hanging is
actually very humane. Never looks all that nice----whether it is done well--------or really badly in which case it is very
inhumane

 

[Pogo]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions----
I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging----
there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)---
he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen--
which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis
did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time----
he actually felt the BURNING

Your post gave me a hotfoot. Burning in an oven, at a stake by accelerant or any other manner is still burning to death.

not really-----in some cases it is asphyxiation. What do you
imagine death by HANGING really is??? (keep your
feet out of the fire.)

The manner of death includes the mental image for the rest of the folks who may be next. This is a means of control directed the subject audience.

Absolutely it is. Burning is hardly the most efficient execution method. It's all about propaganda. That is, the part left over that's not about raw sadism.

 

[irosie91]

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions---- I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging---- there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)--- he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen-- which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time---- he actually felt the BURNING

Without having experienced it I'm pretty sure anyone burned alive feels it plenty, oxygen or no oxygen.

The Wiki link to death by burning I posted yesterday includes this entry:

The manner in which Johannes Thomas[55] was executed is described as following, 13 July that year. Some feet above the actual pyre, attached to a stake, a wooden chamber had been constructed, into which the delinquent was placed. Pipes or chimneys, filled with sulphuric material led up to the chamber, and that was first lit, so that Thomas died from inhaling the sulphuric smoke, rather than being strictly burnt alive, before his body was consumed by the general fire. Some 20.000 people had gathered to watch Thomas' execution.[56]
​

This was 1804 by the way, and a civil penalty-- not even related to religion.

I have no idea what "sulphuric smoke" does to anyone---
what he probably inhaled was------NOT ENOUGH OXYGEN.
---sulphur in the air is simply the smell of rotten eggs-----
in traditional thinking it is the smell of HELL----which is probably the issue that the nuts had in mind. What had
THOMAS done? ------------uhm----keep in mind----
the Europeans brought the INQUISITION to the USA----
<<<< a rarely recognized factoid. "civil penalty"??? no
crime?

He was convicted of arson apparently. I'm just saying here's a burning that has nothing to do with Christianism, Islam, or any other religion. The OP seems to think it's some kind of Muslim invention. Your comment about oxygen deprivation reminded me of it.

But it's equally instructive about human psychology in the last line -- "some 20,000 people gathered to watch". That might say more about the human psyche than all those histories.

oh------ok I have not seen anyone on this thread insist that
muslims INVENTED execution by burning------I believe that
roudy has indicated that burning has been used as a means
of execution by muslims----ie. it is part of Islamic jurisprudence--------I do not know----but he seems to know

Well it isn't. It's unknown in the contemporary Middle East - I linked that earlier -- which is one reason the rest of the Islamic world is outraged by it.

This is brought forth from post 131:

"Islam prohibits the taking of an innocent life," al-Tayeb said. By burning the pilot to death, he added, the militants violated Islam's prohibition on the immolation or mutilation of bodies — even during wartime.

Under many Mideast legal systems, capital punishment is usually carried out by hanging. In Iran and Pakistan, stoning to death as punishment for adultery exists in the penal code but is rarely used. Beheadings are routinely carried out in Saudi Arabia, and Gaza's militant Hamas rulers have on occasion publicly shot to death Palestinians suspected of spying for Israel.

But burning to death as a punishment proscribed by an Islamic court — such as the self-styled tribunals set up by the Islamic State militants in areas under their control — is unheard of in the contemporary Middle East. The IS extremists captured a third of both Iraq and Syria in a blitz last year, proclaimed their caliphate and imposed their harsh interpretation of Islamic law.

In Saudi Arabia, prominent cleric Sheik Salman al-Oudah cited on Wednesday a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, which reserves for God alone the right to punish by fire.​

In all cases they are referring to sentences past on
MUSLIMS ----not on non muslims. There is a loophole.
One can declare the victim a "NON MUSLIMS" by a declaration of TAKFIR

 

[Pogo]

Without having experienced it I'm pretty sure anyone burned alive feels it plenty, oxygen or no oxygen.

The Wiki link to death by burning I posted yesterday includes this entry:

The manner in which Johannes Thomas[55] was executed is described as following, 13 July that year. Some feet above the actual pyre, attached to a stake, a wooden chamber had been constructed, into which the delinquent was placed. Pipes or chimneys, filled with sulphuric material led up to the chamber, and that was first lit, so that Thomas died from inhaling the sulphuric smoke, rather than being strictly burnt alive, before his body was consumed by the general fire. Some 20.000 people had gathered to watch Thomas' execution.[56]
​

This was 1804 by the way, and a civil penalty-- not even related to religion.

I have no idea what "sulphuric smoke" does to anyone---
what he probably inhaled was------NOT ENOUGH OXYGEN.
---sulphur in the air is simply the smell of rotten eggs-----
in traditional thinking it is the smell of HELL----which is probably the issue that the nuts had in mind. What had
THOMAS done? ------------uhm----keep in mind----
the Europeans brought the INQUISITION to the USA----
<<<< a rarely recognized factoid. "civil penalty"??? no
crime?

He was convicted of arson apparently. I'm just saying here's a burning that has nothing to do with Christianism, Islam, or any other religion. The OP seems to think it's some kind of Muslim invention. Your comment about oxygen deprivation reminded me of it.

But it's equally instructive about human psychology in the last line -- "some 20,000 people gathered to watch". That might say more about the human psyche than all those histories.

oh------ok I have not seen anyone on this thread insist that
muslims INVENTED execution by burning------I believe that
roudy has indicated that burning has been used as a means
of execution by muslims----ie. it is part of Islamic jurisprudence--------I do not know----but he seems to know

Well it isn't. It's unknown in the contemporary Middle East - I linked that earlier -- which is one reason the rest of the Islamic world is outraged by it.

This is brought forth from post 131:

"Islam prohibits the taking of an innocent life," al-Tayeb said. By burning the pilot to death, he added, the militants violated Islam's prohibition on the immolation or mutilation of bodies — even during wartime.

Under many Mideast legal systems, capital punishment is usually carried out by hanging. In Iran and Pakistan, stoning to death as punishment for adultery exists in the penal code but is rarely used. Beheadings are routinely carried out in Saudi Arabia, and Gaza's militant Hamas rulers have on occasion publicly shot to death Palestinians suspected of spying for Israel.

But burning to death as a punishment proscribed by an Islamic court — such as the self-styled tribunals set up by the Islamic State militants in areas under their control — is unheard of in the contemporary Middle East. The IS extremists captured a third of both Iraq and Syria in a blitz last year, proclaimed their caliphate and imposed their harsh interpretation of Islamic law.

In Saudi Arabia, prominent cleric Sheik Salman al-Oudah cited on Wednesday a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, which reserves for God alone the right to punish by fire.​

In all cases they are referring to sentences past on
MUSLIMS ----not on non muslims. There is a loophole.
One can declare the victim a "NON MUSLIMS" by a declaration of TAKFIR

They make no such qualification. The words are right there.

 

[Alex.]

Burning someone alive is atrocious and savage, it does not compare to a biblical or philosophical metaphor. Anyone who burns someone alive is an animal and should be dealt with accordingly.

somewhere----long ago-----in discussions about executions----
I recall (vaguely) after the discussion of death by hanging----
there came to be a discussion of death by burning. If the person is placed on a pile of burning wood (Inquistion style)---
he actually suffocates very quickly----dying of lack of oxygen--
which really does not take all that long. (well----ideally)---

dousing a person in an accelerant as the animals of isis
did is a real horror----------takes a relatively long time----
he actually felt the BURNING

Your post gave me a hotfoot. Burning in an oven, at a stake by accelerant or any other manner is still burning to death.

not really-----in some cases it is asphyxiation. What do you
imagine death by HANGING really is??? (keep your
feet out of the fire.)

The manner of death includes the mental image for the rest of the folks who may be next. This is a means of control directed the subject audience.

you did not address the question. There are issues related to "HUMANE" execution vs inhumane execution-----regardless of how gruesome or not gruesome it looks-----
The guillotine was designed to be humane-----looks damned
gruesome. I agree that how it looks is an issue on----one side------but I was addressing ----the other issue----how it really is for the "subject". An expertly done hanging is
actually very humane. Never looks all that nice----whether it is done well--------or really badly in which case it is very
inhumane

Burning someone to death is inhumane.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What a sick, perverted, barbaric religion Islam is:

Outrage in Mideast over IS killing of Jordan pilot - Yahoo News

However, Hussein Bin Mahmoud, an Islamic State-linked theologian, claimed that two of the Prophet Muhammad's revered successors ordered similar punishment for Arab renegades in the seventh century.

While acknowledging the prophet's saying that God alone punishes by fire, Bin Mahmoud cited a Quranic verse that requires Muslims to punish their enemies in kind. Since U.S.-led airstrikes "burn" Muslims, he argued, the IS group must burn those behind the raids.

it is called inshallah

which makes it acceptable to burn people alive

That's not even vaguely remotely close to what insha'Allah means.
As I said -- bullshit thread. Summa y'all just trot out your ignorance like it's some kind of badge of honour. That's just weird.

fuck you

inshallah means allah willing

even if it is evil in nature

Inshallah - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Yes, that's what it means. Which says as much about "burning" as a recipe for angel food cake says about the rings of fucking Saturn.

So no --- fuck YOU.

you are one dense chick

it refers to "anything" as in "God willing" or "if Allah wills"

as in maktub (that everything is written)

 

[Slyhunter]

No, actually it's logic. If you assert a fact you have to back it up. And that hasn't been done.

We had the same Composition Fallacy bullshit trotted out not long ago with bride burning and female genital mutilation. They didn't work either. And it's because they can't be proven to have origins in religion at all, and can be proven to have previous origins in cultural history. Which both Coyote and I did.

At some point one has to come to terms with the fact that an OP may be lying to everybody and that just because somebody creates a thread it doesn't mean they've created a fact.

I don't give a fuck if it's cultural or religious the Muslims are doing it in the name of their religion. They are the ones who say it's religious motivation whether it's actually is cultural or not is really immaterial. Make it stop. Kill them until there is no one left alive that thinks the way they do.

And as noted before, the Scott Roeders and Eric Rudolphs do what they do in the name of their religion too. Doesn't make it a valid source and it doesn't make their read correct.

Cherrypicking a loose association and extrapolating a cause-and-effect ..... and no less, taking the word of a terrorist group as gospel in order to make it work.... is a fallacy. And until somebody document's the OP's premise, that's all it remains.

So no, it's hardly "immaterial". It's the entire basis of this thread.

It's real simple ALL Muslims want to conquer the world and establish their religion onto everyone. Some are willing to use violence. But they are all wanting to do it. We can't allow them to succeed.

 

[Pogo]

What a sick, perverted, barbaric religion Islam is:

Outrage in Mideast over IS killing of Jordan pilot - Yahoo News

However, Hussein Bin Mahmoud, an Islamic State-linked theologian, claimed that two of the Prophet Muhammad's revered successors ordered similar punishment for Arab renegades in the seventh century.

While acknowledging the prophet's saying that God alone punishes by fire, Bin Mahmoud cited a Quranic verse that requires Muslims to punish their enemies in kind. Since U.S.-led airstrikes "burn" Muslims, he argued, the IS group must burn those behind the raids.

it is called inshallah

which makes it acceptable to burn people alive

That's not even vaguely remotely close to what insha'Allah means.
As I said -- bullshit thread. Summa y'all just trot out your ignorance like it's some kind of badge of honour. That's just weird.

fuck you

inshallah means allah willing

even if it is evil in nature

Inshallah - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Yes, that's what it means. Which says as much about "burning" as a recipe for angel food cake says about the rings of fucking Saturn.

So no --- fuck YOU.

you are one dense chick

it refers to "anything" as in "God willing" or "if Allah wills"

as in maktub (that everything is written)

NONE of which refers in any way to "burning" anything.

Are ya fucking dense???



"chick"?
Yeah you are fucking dense.

 

[Coyote]

You naive, strange people who are continuously racking your small brains. looking for moral equivalence of reprehensible Islamic actions, are beyond normal comprehension.

All you are doing is trying to change the subject thereby helping these foul radical savages!

There is no logic whatsoever in your actions.

Instead of looking for excuses for this monstrous burning, why not concentrate on the present, which is the danger of radical Islam as has been proved without a doubt time and time again.


Stop making excuses by attempting to compare actions that are beyond any rational comparison.

Have the courage, decency and common sense to aknowledge these Islamic horrors for what they are instead of always being a willing donkey for radical Islam!

All you are demonstrating is that you seem to have hidden sympathy for all these horrible actions!

Shame on you!

Shame on you?

Shame on you.

Religious extremism sucks. Those that don't recognize it cry "moral equivalency".

African Christians are burning witches and excorsizing kids with acid. Sweet.

Your answer is completely without logic and once again you are descending to moral equivalence, which means you are attempting to change the subject and gloss over its seriousness

Even if your babble about African witches is true ...what possible comparison is there to the Islamic Caliphate State whose religious aim is to dominate the whole world under Sharia Law and maintain its barbaric practices.

Your babble is completly irrelevant!

People who use this moral equivalence garbage, seem to be condoning the actions of radical Islam by saying - "Well so what , a lot of others are doing it, so why shouldn't they?" -

Everybody who makes these disgusting , ignorant comparisons is only helping the enemy by being a useful donkey for radical Islam.

You can be sure that the enemy is fully aware of these "moral equivalence" comments and is greatly encouraged by them.

They are no doubt amazed by all the sympathy they get from the enemy, in other words the enemy is in the necessary state of submission like so many in this thread.

sky----the word "ENEMY" is relative ----relative to the person being considered. Al Qaeda may be YOUR enemy----but it
is not the enemy of coyote----nor is "isis" Placing a young pilot in a cage and setting him on fire may seem
like an atrocity and a crime to YOU-----but it is not so for coyote RELATIVE to WHO is doing the 'setting on fire'
and to what end. Your problem, sky----is that you do not
enjoy obscene sophistry

Speak for yourself you obscene creature. You only care if atrocities are committed by Muslims. Anyone else, well...it's just an aberration according to you and Skye - or perhaps it just doesn't count if it's not Muslim.

 

[Coyote]

Back when Christians burned folks at the stake, occasionally they would take mercy on the condemned and hang a bag of gunpowder around the neck.

Most of the people accused of witchcraft in 1692 Salem Massachusetts were hanged. One was placed under a plank and stones were added atop said plank until the victim was crushed. These were executions carried out in America and part of our history.

all true-----but now it is a crime. One of the arguments
often presented regarding Islamic barbarity is----"think of
muslims are being 600 years behind Christians in
civilization"
Because I have interacted with muslims in the USA for
a very long time (more than 45 years)---I assure I do
know that muslims do not consider themselves "less
civilized" than anyone on earth----in fact FAR AHEAD.
The subjects of their weekly Khutbah Jumaat feces
fling "sermons" in mosques generally consist of
assertions that islam is THE MOST CIVILIZED and
ADVANCED religion the world has every known----
and actually muhummad INVENTED such concepts
as "women's rights" and "ending slavery" etc etc.
Poor King Abdullah----was so stuck ----he clearly felt
compelled to say "that was not islam...." ------but then
his mother was an English lady... he may not know

Oh goodie. More Rosie stories