I'd be interested to here Muslims' views on the punishment of stoning for adultery.
Do you think it is applicable today? If so, why? Are there other less-drastic punishments for this crime? Who has the right to impose this punishment? Who has the *responsibility* to impose this punishment?
I'd like to keep this a purely religious discussion please, not about culture, because I do know that has a lot of influence. I want to know how Islam deals with adultery and stoning, irrespective of cultural influences. Thank you.
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
Thank you Humanized. It answered many of my questions but also raised more.
1. There are verses that have been abrogated from the Qur'an? Why and by whom?
2. If they are abrogated in word, why is their *ruling* not considered abrogated?
3. Whose responsibility is it to inflict this punishment?
4. What is the rationale behind adultery being such a horrific crime that a human must pay for it with his life?
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
in the end of the same page 5 questions/answers. try them
may i ask you 2 little questions ! what is justice? and why there is Punishment in the first place? (in general )
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: in the end of the same page 5 questions/answers. try them
may i ask you 2 little questions ! what is justice? and why there is Punishment in the first place? (in general )
You can ask me anything, Humanized.
IMO, justice is the upholding of what is fair. Fair treatment in accordance with laws. Reward that equals the circumstances or punishment that equals the circumstances. Usually based on a moral or legal code.
Why is there punishment? That is a good question. You punish someone so they don't commit the same offense. You perhaps hope that the threat of a punishment will prevent people from committing a particular offense. You punish out of the need for retribution.
And what I'm about to say is pure reflection of my American upbringing. But I believe the only punishment that should be meted out to people who break the law is the removal of that person from society. Practically speaking, that means prison. This protects society from the criminal as well as deprives the criminal of all the benefits he got from society.
Other than that, I think all judgment, reward, and punishment for moral behavior is solely God's jurisdiction.
Posted by kafir 4ever (Member # 9556) on :
Amnesty International is unconditionally opposed to the death penalty and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and campaigns for these to be removed from all penal codes without exception. The organization takes no position on the ideological or religious basis of any penal code. Posted by Kamal211 (Member # 7854) on :
who are Amnesty Internation Are they orginally german?
Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kamal211: who are Amnesty Internation
History of Amnesty International
Amnesty International was founded in 1961 by Peter Benenson in England. Benenson had long been active in the area of human rights. In 1959 he had founded Justice, an organization of British lawyers who advocated observation of and adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In November 1960, two Portugese students were arrested by the Portugese dictatorship and sentenced to seven years in prison for the crime of raising glasses in a public toast to freedom. Benenson was very bothered by this incident, and decided that the only way to make a difference for these "prisoners of conscience" would be to bombard the Portugese goverment with letters. By the beginning of 1961, this initiative was launched into a full fledged campaign on behalf of all religious and political prisoners.
Two men joined Benenson in his mission: Eric Baker and Louis Bloom. They called their campaign "Appeal for Amnesty" and their basic goal was to promote freedom of opinion.
On May 28 of that year, Benenson published a soon to be famous article in the London Observer. It was entitled "The Forgotten Prisoners" and resulted in a worldwide call to arms for this cause. Within several days, similar or identical articles were printed in France, the U.S., Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Italy, South Africa, Belgium, Ireland, and India. Letters and donations began to pour in.
The original system was that people who wished to get involved would "adopt" a specific prisoner. In addition to writing letters to the government involved on the prisoner's behalf, they would also correspond with the prisoner and his family.
Benenson eventually changed the name of his organization to "Amnesty International." He had a British artist design an emblem-- a candle encircled by barbed wire. The inspiration for this emblem was the Ancient Chinese proverb, "Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." By the end of 1962, Amnesty International had branches throughout Europe, as well as in Australia and the United States.
By the early 1970's, Amnesty International had changed. Benenson was no longer affiliated. The focus was still prisoners of conscience, but the impact was far greater. Human rights had now become a valid issue in the eyes of the whole world. Amnesty International's position was reaffirmed when Jimmy Carter ran for president and made human rights issues the focus of his presidency.
Today, Amnesty International's main office remains in London. The Secretary General is presently Pierre Sane. There are more than one million members worldwide.
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: in the end of the same page 5 questions/answers. try them
may i ask you 2 little questions ! what is justice? and why there is Punishment in the first place? (in general )
Why is it always women who get stoned? Why is only women who get punished for adultry?
Somehow men are not held accountable for adultry, is this because they are allowed to have more than one wife, so its considered "try before you buy"?
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
quote:Originally posted by sonomod:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: in the end of the same page 5 questions/answers. try them
may i ask you 2 little questions ! what is justice? and why there is Punishment in the first place? (in general )
Why is it always women who get stoned? Why is only women who get punished for adultry?
Somehow men are not held accountable for adultry, is this because they are allowed to have more than one wife, so its considered "try before you buy"?
did i ever mention that stoning for women only??
In Islam all laws/punishments are talking about Men and Women equally.
Posted by sonomod (Member # 3864) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by sonomod:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: in the end of the same page 5 questions/answers. try them
may i ask you 2 little questions ! what is justice? and why there is Punishment in the first place? (in general )
Why is it always women who get stoned? Why is only women who get punished for adultry?
Somehow men are not held accountable for adultry, is this because they are allowed to have more than one wife, so its considered "try before you buy"?
did i ever mentione that stoning for women only??
In Islam all laws/punishments are talking about Men and Women equally.
No you didn't mention it, and I find that suspect.
And in reality the Quran has little to do with how punishments are doled out in a community.
I believe the Quran is divine law (for the right people) but I don't believe Quranic law is administered equally.
Posted by kafir 4ever (Member # 9556) on :
There is a reference to this punishment in the Bible, for instance. It reads: "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." (Deuteronomy 22: 22) and also in Leviticus, we find the following verse:"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Leviticus 20: 10).
quote:
Jesus fulfills the punishment aspect of the old law. He also shows a new path in dealing with these sins in two ways. This clear and better path goes to the human heart, the root of the sin.
First, Jesus zeros in on the root cause of adultery. In the famous Sermon on the Mount he says this about adultery and lust:
5:27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Immediately, this raises the stakes so high that all corporeal punishment is removed; otherwise, all of humanity would kill each other with legalized stoning. These two verses say that sexual sin is no longer a civil crime or any kind of crime. As usual with Jesus, he goes to the heart of the sin. Adultery and other sexual sins begin in the mind, so the solution to them must also begin in the mind.
Muhammad, on the other hand, believes in imposing sexual holiness from the outside of a person’s mind by flogging and stoning. But this has never worked throughout human history because sexual sin is too deeply entrenched in human nature. Moreover, Muhammad’s harsh punishments do not bring healing to a family and subsequently to society, but they tear the family and society apart. Also, it is only logical that such punishments would drive the sin underground; indeed, according to reliable hadiths that Maududi cites, Muhammad encouraged his early followers to keep their sins or "crimes" a secret. This is no long-lasting solution, either.
Second, Jesus goes beyond pointing out the spiritual root cause, and offers a spiritual solution, which is clarified in the Gospel of John 8:1-11. This passage says that some religious leaders, wanting to trap Jesus between his message of love and forgiveness and his respect for the Torah, brought a woman caught in adultery and made her stand in their midst. They reminded Jesus that the law of Moses orders that she should be stoned. He stooped down and wrote in the dirt, contemplating. They kept questioning him, perhaps stones in hand. What would he do? He then spoke the famous lines: "He who is without sin should throw the first stone" . One by one, from the oldest to the youngest, the accusers left. Alone with her, Jesus straightened up and asked her: "‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,’ she said. ‘Then neither do I condemn you.’ Jesus declared, ‘Go and leave your life of sin’". The spiritual solution is forgiveness without condemnation. Jesus never intended to reinstitute the punishment of stoning sinners, or even their flogging, as Muhammad would like to reinstitute an old-new law. Jesus intended to rise above such shallow solutions. web page Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
What was abrogated? How did we know it was abrogated?
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
quote:Originally posted by sonomod:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by sonomod:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: in the end of the same page 5 questions/answers. try them
may i ask you 2 little questions ! what is justice? and why there is Punishment in the first place? (in general )
Why is it always women who get stoned? Why is only women who get punished for adultry?
Somehow men are not held accountable for adultry, is this because they are allowed to have more than one wife, so its considered "try before you buy"?
did i ever mentione that stoning for women only??
In Islam all laws/punishments are talking about Men and Women equally.
No you didn't mention it, and I find that suspect.
And in reality the Quran has little to do with how punishments are doled out in a community.
I believe the Quran is divine law (for the right people) but I don't believe Quranic law is administered equally.
I agree, it is hundereds of years of ignorance that made this sonomod. yet I am not talking about the way of stoning .. I really don't know about whether it is different for men than women, it needs quite a research. however your word are very true according to todays administration.
Posted by Kamal211 (Member # 7854) on :
quote:Originally posted by sonomod: I believe the Quran is divine law (for the right people) but I don't believe Quranic law is administered equally. [/QB]
sa7...
yes i agree too....
you do beleive the Quran to be divine in law......wat u mean for the "right people" Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kamal211:
quote:Originally posted by sonomod: I believe the Quran is divine law (for the right people) but I don't believe Quranic law is administered equally.
sa7...
yes i agree too....
you do beleive the Quran to be divine in law......wat u mean for the "right people" [/QB]
According to fiqh it is people that chooses to make god's law dominate for example stoning, should never be done in any place that doesn't put islam laws as there law even if someone wants to be stoned he shouldn't (any other muslim should never stone'em) because the laws are not choosen by the people as a penelty also only the governer can excute or put the penality , yet this doesn't mean that he had paid his dues, this is so people don't go and do whatever, there is dues that will be paid in the end of days. "yet repention can be salavation always" and this is god's merci Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
What was abrogated? Who did we know it was abrogated?
One may ask “What is abrogation?” Abrogation means removal. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is a great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather, all its teachings and rulings were set gradually. In addition, when abrogating the words of a verse but not its ruling, this serves as a reminder that not all the Divine messages are to be through one channel, i.e. a direct revelation. Rather, part of these messages is to be clarified through the practice and tradition of the Prophet sent to deliver the message.
So the point here is: the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is itself a part of revelation. Almighty Allah explains this saying: (And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal.) (Al-Hashr 59: 7) Also Allah says: (…then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them) (An-Nur 24: 63).
According to eminent Qur’an exegetes, this verse serves as a strong warning against deviating from the Tradition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Imam Ibn Kathir says: “The words ‘the messenger’s order’ refer to his Path, teachings, laws and tradition. Thus, all words and deeds should be weighed according to the words and deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the sense that whatever correspond with his words and deeds are accepted and whatever contradicts that should be rejected.”
The abrogated verse stated that “A married man and woman, if they commit adultery, stone them to death.”
This verse states clearly that the prescribed punishment for adultery, which means an illegitimate sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman married to another man is stoning to death. But this offense must be proven either through a confession made voluntarily by the accused or by the testimony of four witnesses who state under oath that they have witnessed the commission of the crime. It's only after this legal procedure that the accused will be punished by lapidation. This punishment is agreed upon by scholars and there is no question about it. In citing proofs for this punishment, scholars of Hadith quote `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as saying that he would have written this verse if not for the fear that it would be viewed as tampering with Allah's book.
So we are to bear in mind that the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is a part of the Divine Revelation, indicating that many things were revealed to the Prophet either through inspiration or instruction. Allah tells us in the Qur'an that the Prophet (does not speak out of his own fancy. It is all an inspiration sent down to him.) (An-Najm 53: 3-4) Therefore, what the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, teaches us is part of our religion. It is not something that he has determined by himself. It is certainly revealed to him.
In the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence, we read the following:
Ibn Qudamah wrote: “Muslim jurists are unanimous on the fact stoning to death is a specified punishment for married adulterer and adulteress. The punishment is recorded in number of traditions and the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stands as an authentic source supporting it. This is the view held by all Companions, Successors and other Muslim scholars with the exception of Kharijites.”
Al-Bahuty said: “The authentic practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) supports stoning to death as a punishment specified for adultery. In addition, the verse commanding this punishment was revealed in the Qur’an. Later, it was verbally abrogated but its ruling is still binding. `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Almighty Allah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) with the truth and revealed unto Him the Qur’an. Among the revelation (brought by him) was the verse stipulating that married adulterer and adulteress should be stoned to death. We read, comprehended and understood it. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) acted in accordance with that and so did all of us. I fear, by the passage of time, that some people will say: ‘We do not find this verse in the Qur’an’, and thus they go astray abandoning an obligation given to them by Allah. Stoning to death is a Divine obligation and punishment specified for any married adulterer or adulteress once there is four witnesses or the confession of the accused.”
In another narration, `Umar added: “By the One in Whose hands is my soul, had it not been that people would say: ‘`Umar added to the Book of Allah, I would have reinserted it. It (the verse) read: “A married man and woman, if they commit adultery, stone them to death. This is a punishment from Allah. Allah is Almighty and Wise.”
Finally, we would like to note that there are many incidents in the Sunnah and the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in which the Prophet stoned the married adulterer and adulteress to death. This happened in the case of Ma`iz and the Ghamidi woman. All this makes it clear that the punishment is proven and authentic and is not debatable.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
Thank you for the additional information on this, Humanized. I have done some research myself on this and understand the basics of abrogation. It is very clear that later verses of the Qur'an dealing with the exact same subject may abrogate earlier verses when a disagreement occurs. I understand the Qur'an was revealed over many years and circumstances can change. Such as verses about alcohol.
I am having trouble however, understanding why the verse dealing with stoning was physically removed from the Qur'an, but the legal force of that verse remains. ?? naskh al-tilāwa dūna al-hukm.
I understand that hadith and sunna can make this ruling part of Islamic law, but what were the circumstances surrounding the removal of this verse in the first place? The only thing I can find about it is on anti-Islamic sites and I don't trust the objectivity until I can compare it to pro-Islamic sites.
I don't understand full removal/abrogation from the Qur'an. Was the Prophet (pbuh) told by God to remove this verse? If so, why? When? Before, during, after people documented that the Prophet (pbuh) stoned many people to death for adultery?
Posted by sonomod (Member # 3864) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kamal211:
quote:Originally posted by sonomod: I believe the Quran is divine law (for the right people) but I don't believe Quranic law is administered equally.
sa7...
yes i agree too....
you do beleive the Quran to be divine in law......wat u mean for the "right people" [/QB]
Meaning as a Christian Quranic law and punishments resulting from it isn't right for me.
But its right for you because you are a Muslim.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
Abrogated??? How sensible, so he/she/it abrogates "instructions" when they don't fit? a good flexible god that is. I would like to abrogate many a passage from the "holy"books..can I do that? If I can, I may perhaps feel more comfortable with your religions and start believing in a good loving "power" that doesn't waste his/her/it's time with trivial earthly matters all the time or keep a huge library of books for each one of us and has thousands of accountants marking "points" every time we do something good !!
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin: Thank you for the additional information on this, Humanized. I have done some research myself on this and understand the basics of abrogation. It is very clear that later verses of the Qur'an dealing with the exact same subject may abrogate earlier verses when a disagreement occurs. I understand the Qur'an was revealed over many years and circumstances can change. Such as verses about alcohol.
I am having trouble however, understanding why the verse dealing with stoning was physically removed from the Qur'an, but the legal force of that verse remains. ?? naskh al-tilāwa dūna al-hukm.
I understand that hadith and sunna can make this ruling part of Islamic law, but what were the circumstances surrounding the removal of this verse in the first place? The only thing I can find about it is on anti-Islamic sites and I don't trust the objectivity until I can compare it to pro-Islamic sites.
I don't understand full removal/abrogation from the Qur'an. Was the Prophet (pbuh) told by God to remove this verse? If so, why? When? Before, during, after people documented that the Prophet (pbuh) stoned many people to death for adultery?
hi snoozin
i didnt bring anything new , it was in the same page i gave to you earlier .
"The abrogated verse stated that “A married man and woman, if they commit adultery, stone them to death.”
This verse states clearly that the prescribed punishment for adultery, which means an illegitimate sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman married to another man is stoning to death.But this offense must be proven either through a confession made voluntarily by the accused or by the testimony of four witnesses who state under oath that they have witnessed the commission of the crime It's only after this legal procedure that the accused will be punished by lapidation. This punishment is agreed upon by scholars and there is no question about it. In citing proofs for this punishment, scholars of Hadith quote `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as saying that he would have written this verse if not for the fear that it would be viewed as tampering with Allah's book"
Posted by sonomod (Member # 3864) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Abrogated??? How sensible, so he/she/it abrogates "instructions" when they don't fit? a good flexible god that is. I would like to abrogate many a passage from the "holy"books..can I do that? If I can, I may perhaps feel more comfortable with your religions and start believing in a good loving "power" that doesn't waste his/her/it's time with trivial earthly matters all the time or keep a huge library of books for each one of us and has thousands of accountants marking "points" every time we do something good !!
Always nice to see a post from Primak.
I kind of forgot about this stipulation on "updating" oneself.
Mind you there is a swarm of hell-bent, right-wing, illiterate scumbags in my neck of the woods I'd like to personally update.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: This verse states clearly that the prescribed punishment for adultery, which means an illegitimate sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman married to another man is stoning to death.But this offense must be proven either through a confession made voluntarily by the accused or by the testimony of four witnesses who state under oath that they have witnessed the commission of the crime It's only after this legal procedure that the accused will be punished by lapidation. This punishment is agreed upon by scholars and there is no question about it. In citing proofs for this punishment, scholars of Hadith quote `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as saying that he would have written this verse if not for the fear that it would be viewed as tampering with Allah's book"
Oh, Humanized, I'm probably being really dim on this. But if it was abrogated from the Qur'an, that means that at one time, it was part of the Qur'an, right??? And if it was there, how did it get removed and by whom?
I'm more interested in the history of the development of this verse than what the Sunnah prescribes. Does that make any sense? Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
by whom??? by god/allah/elohim/yahve/ of course! He decided he had made a mistake and sent out a winged weirdo to mo and asked him to remove it from the book ( he had not yet written) or to wipe it out of his memory, or something. Did you like the adventures of sindbad??
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: This verse states clearly that the prescribed punishment for adultery, which means an illegitimate sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman married to another man is stoning to death.But this offense must be proven either through a confession made voluntarily by the accused or by the testimony of four witnesses who state under oath that they have witnessed the commission of the crime It's only after this legal procedure that the accused will be punished by lapidation. This punishment is agreed upon by scholars and there is no question about it. In citing proofs for this punishment, scholars of Hadith quote `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as saying that he would have written this verse if not for the fear that it would be viewed as tampering with Allah's book"
Oh, Humanized, I'm probably being really dim on this. But if it was abrogated from the Qur'an, that means that at one time, it was part of the Qur'an, right??? And if it was there, how did it get removed and by whom?
I'm more interested in the history of the development of this verse than what the Sunnah prescribes. Does that make any sense?
its exactly like whats happening right now!! we are more concerned with the Stoning more than the very strict conditions concerning the stoning.
the verse shows that the deafault punishment for adultery for married people is stoning. while other verse which is not abrogated explaining the conditions and the difference between lashing and stoning and the reasons for both. i hope its clearer now Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
I don't know how I ever lived without you Primak.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
Hi sonomod.Had a hellish week.
Do you think they have a large "bic" factory up there? where do they get the ink from?or the paper for that matter? Who does their binding..I know a very good binder on sharia sherif who would be thrilled to get their contract.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: its exactly like whats happening right now!! we are more concerned with the Stoning more than the very strict conditions concerning the stoning.
the verse shows that the deafault punishment for adultery for married people is stoning. while other verse which is not abrogated explaining the conditions and the difference between lashing and stoning and the reasons for both. i hope its clearer now
No, it doesn't make it any clearer to me, I'm sorry. I know that's how the law is interpreted and/or applied, but I am looking for the fact pattern upon which the interpretation is based.
This issue is bothering me so much it's making me physically ill. If I cannot learn everything there is to know about it so that I can come to my own peace about the issue, I'm giving up. Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
What was abrogated? How did we know it was abrogated?
One may ask “What is abrogation?” Abrogation means removal. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is a great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather, all its
I did not ask What is abrogation. What I would like to know is which verses were abrogated and how we knew about them. How did it all happen.
I would advise to be cautious this time and avoid what you did with the FGM thread. If you don't know..don't answer.
Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: This verse states clearly that the prescribed punishment for adultery, which means an illegitimate sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman married to another man is stoning to death.But this offense must be proven either through a confession made voluntarily by the accused or by the testimony of four witnesses who state under oath that they have witnessed the commission of the crime It's only after this legal procedure that the accused will be punished by lapidation. This punishment is agreed upon by scholars and there is no question about it. In citing proofs for this punishment, scholars of Hadith quote `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as saying that he would have written this verse if not for the fear that it would be viewed as tampering with Allah's book"
Oh, Humanized, I'm probably being really dim on this. But if it was abrogated from the Qur'an, that means that at one time, it was part of the Qur'an, right??? And if it was there, how did it get removed and by whom?
I'm more interested in the history of the development of this verse than what the Sunnah prescribes. Does that make any sense?
its exactly like whats happening right now!! we are more concerned with the Stoning more than the very strict conditions concerning the stoning.
the verse shows that the deafault punishment for adultery for married people is stoning. while other verse which is not abrogated explaining the conditions and the difference between lashing and stoning and the reasons for both. i hope its clearer now
Which verse, can you post it?
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
What was abrogated? How did we know it was abrogated?
One may ask “What is abrogation?” Abrogation means removal. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is a great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather, all its
I did not ask What is abrogation. What I would like to know is which verses were abrogated and how we knew about them. How did it all happen.
I would advise to be cautious this time and avoid what you did with the FGM thread. If you don't know..don't answer.
hi Auto i havent written anything and i wont after what happend on FGM
you have the web site and you can ask the Moftis there though it was very clear in the fatwa - posted on islamonline.
Posted by sonomod (Member # 3864) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Hi sonomod.Had a hellish week.
Do you think they have a large "bic" factory up there? where do they get the ink from?or the paper for that matter? Who does their binding..I know a very good binder on sharia sherif who would be thrilled to get their contract.
Hmm you are in somewhat luck. My grandfather was the Vice President of a papermill in Ashland before Boise Cascade bought them out and shut down the plant.
Detroit still does alot of paper business. Getting most paper from Canada.
And I think Bic is a Mexico/Asia operation. Not in the USA for the most part except for corporate offices.
Posted by sonomod (Member # 3864) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
What was abrogated? How did we know it was abrogated?
One may ask “What is abrogation?” Abrogation means removal. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is a great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather, all its
I did not ask What is abrogation. What I would like to know is which verses were abrogated and how we knew about them. How did it all happen.
I would advise to be cautious this time and avoid what you did with the FGM thread. If you don't know..don't answer.
hi Auto i havent written anything and i wont after what happend on FGM
you have the web site and you can ask the Moftis there though it was very clear in the fatwa - posted on islamonline.
islamonline has some of the worst sheiks in the universe issueing fatwas.
many are from Sudan and have backed the government on their genocide in Dafur.
And one of the worst Sheiks of all time is Kutty who is based out of Toronto. Lets put it this way Kutty remarks are being used as a guideline for Rand, Middle East forum, and other rightwing think tanks in Washington, policies. That isn't a good resume builder.
Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized:
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
What was abrogated? How did we know it was abrogated?
One may ask “What is abrogation?” Abrogation means removal. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is a great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather, all its
I did not ask What is abrogation. What I would like to know is which verses were abrogated and how we knew about them. How did it all happen.
I would advise to be cautious this time and avoid what you did with the FGM thread. If you don't know..don't answer.
hi Auto i havent written anything and i wont after what happend on FGM
you have the web site and you can ask the Moftis there though it was very clear in the fatwa - posted on islamonline.
So it is fair to say that none of the people replied in this thread have solid knowledge of the facts regarding abrogation in Quran. The Internet is full of contradictory statements and ideas.
I read the article posted on islamonline and I was not impressed at all. I, like snoozin, like specific answers.
One more thing I didn't notice till now. They are actually issuing fatwas on that website. I thought it was just general questions answered by some scholars in a form of discussion. But Fatwas! Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
Snoozin,
try " newcomer"...she/he seems to be quite learned on the subject.
You can also get some incredible explanation from gana or bibo and as a bonus a detailed description of hell!
worried of what might happen to you if you decide to flirt a bit in cairo?? don't. we do not apply these barbaric laws here.
Posted by sonomod (Member # 3864) on :
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People: But Fatwas
Yes Sheik Cutty has a personal phone like to Allah.
Actually he has a butt plug hooked up remotely to Bin Laden's cell phone.
Nice to know someone else enjoys gentle jolts to the spinctor. Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Snoozin,
try " newcomer"...she/he seems to be quite learned on the subject.
You can also get some incredible explanation from gana or bibo and as a bonus a detailed description of hell!
worried of what might happen to you if you decide to flirt a bit in cairo?? don't. we do not apply these barbaric laws here.
Yeah, by asking these questions means I'm a serial adulterer and I'm looking for a way to save my eyes and chunks of skin flying off as I'm buried above my breasts in the dirt so that they don't become exposed as I'm being killed by an entire community.
You'd be really happy Primak....my Western feminist mentality probably has no chance of coming to terms with this issue....
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
LOL
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
Does your "Western feminist mentality" ever ask you why women don't seem to be promised some sort of paradise in islam? unless you consider being one of 70 concubines -sharing a man- some sort of reward for being a good believer-ess.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
is that the only issue in islam that triggers your "western feminist mentality"???? What do you think of inheritance laws?? Wake up...western feminist dozer..you should switch your snoozer "on"!You are lucky to be with a relaxed guy who doesn't give a damn about that BS but you still insist - and are obsessed - with pulling him down to the dark ages with you.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Does your "Western feminist mentality" ever ask you why women don't seem to be promised some sort of paradise in islam? unless you consider being one of 70 concubines -sharing a man- some sort of reward for being a good believer-ess.
Couldn't you just be happy gloating on the first issue without trying to dig with a second? Do you have *any* heart in there? Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
next you'll ask him to move to saudi with you - the poor guy - and maybe spend your fridays looking at public lashings or perhaps stoning!! hope you get lucky and get to see a decapitation, yeah ...with a sword!!! like in the movies.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: You are lucky to be with a relaxed guy who doesn't give a damn about that BS but you still insist - and are obsessed - with pulling him down to the dark ages with you.
You've got me confused with someone else. Get your reverts straight Primak. Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
good night.
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Snoozin,
try " newcomer"...she/he seems to be quite learned on the subject.
An interesting referral there! Not quite sure how to take it though seeing the source of it!?
Although this is a subject I do have some personal views on, I didn't join the discussion earlier as there are some technical details I am not sure about on this issue and so I didn't want to say anything that could be misleading.
But the way I understand the issue (that of a physical punishment/stoning for adultery, with a more severe punishment for a married person as they have a legitimate way to have sexual intercourse) is that it is looking at society as a whole and the needs of society, and its not at individuals, and this is what makes it more difficult for someone with a western frame of reference to grasp. It is looking at preserving the cohesion of the society and the structure/preservation of the family, and that is being put as a priority over the needs/desires/weaknesses of the individual. The punishment is there more in a deterrent role to indicate the severity of the crime on the fabric of society. However the conditions for the punishment, being witnessed by four trustworthy witnesses, makes it virtually impossible to carry out as it would mean that the act was being committed in such a public place for it to be described as an obscenity in many eyes. In a way I suppose it can be compared to the level that has been sunk to in Britain that I was reading about, that I think they said was called "dogging", where people actually go out deliberately to have sex in public parks, and places like that, so they can get the additional "thrill" of maybe being observed by casual passers-by!!!!
The other aspect is that Islam teaches that, due to its inherent justice, sins will be punished in some form or other, in this world or the next, and so a punishment in this world gives a person reprieve from a punishment in the Hereafter. And this would be a reason that could encourage some people to confess to their sin to avoid what may come after, as was shown in the Hadith when the woman repeatedly came to the Prophet confessing her sin and he kept on telling her to go away until after she had delivered her baby, then until after she had breastfed it for the required two years. But she still came back confessing to her sin and she was given the stipulated punishment.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
well, you really seem to know what you're talking about and also seem quite convinced -although this is beyond my understanding in view of your obvious intelligence.
However, you have not really answered Snoozin's question have you? Voila , quoting Snoozin : "I don't understand full removal/abrogation from the Qur'an. Was the Prophet (pbuh) told by God to remove this verse? If so, why? When? Before, during, after people documented that the Prophet (pbuh) stoned many people to death for adultery? "
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: well, you really seem to know what you're talking about and also seem quite convinced -although this is beyond my understanding in view of your obvious intelligence.
However, you have not really answered Snoozin's question have you? Voila , quoting Snoozin : "I don't understand full removal/abrogation from the Qur'an. Was the Prophet (pbuh) told by God to remove this verse? If so, why? When? Before, during, after people documented that the Prophet (pbuh) stoned many people to death for adultery? "
Hi primak!
I guess I could say the same about you...despite your obvious intelligence, I can't understand how you don't see the truth in Islam...so I guess we're at stalemate, for the time being any way
The reason I didn't try to answer the question was because I don't know the answer! As I said, there are some technical details about the issue I am not sure of, but I just wanted to contribute some points to the general discussion.
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Snoozin,
try " newcomer"...she/he seems to be quite learned on the subject.
You can also get some incredible explanation from gana or bibo and as a bonus a detailed description of hell!
worried of what might happen to you if you decide to flirt a bit in cairo?? don't. we do not apply these barbaric laws here.
primak, you are back, but why do u think that god had made towrah, bible and Quran and everyone is not like the other, god had changed religion over the yrs it is true that even towrah had changed throughout years due to prophets. I am sure you don't believe in any so why do u argue here. you are a man with no believeth so why do u argue with people whom believe, what is your point .. you believe in no god .. so why do u bother yourself with others believes "soon they will die and they won't come back" why do u need to argue, u don't even care .. !! why should we listen to your great wisedom.
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin:
quote:Originally posted by Humanized: its exactly like whats happening right now!! we are more concerned with the Stoning more than the very strict conditions concerning the stoning.
the verse shows that the deafault punishment for adultery for married people is stoning. while other verse which is not abrogated explaining the conditions and the difference between lashing and stoning and the reasons for both. i hope its clearer now
No, it doesn't make it any clearer to me, I'm sorry. I know that's how the law is interpreted and/or applied, but I am looking for the fact pattern upon which the interpretation is based.
This issue is bothering me so much it's making me physically ill. If I cannot learn everything there is to know about it so that I can come to my own peace about the issue, I'm giving up.
I like a lot your frank response, well abrogation happened for example, the punishment for wine drinking wasn't straight forward, first of all god said: [2.219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit. And they ask you as to what they should spend. Say: What you can spare. Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications, that you may ponder then god forbidden praying while stoned from wine, [4.43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, nor when you are under an obligation to perform a bath-- unless (you are) travelling on the road-- until you have washed yourselves; and if you are sick, or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.
Afterwards he forbid it after this cames the punishment: [5.90] O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. "the third verse that forbid drinking wine, is called its abrogation (the first one abrogation)", this happens in many verses like in fasting, the way of fasting has changed also anyhow I don't know all of the abrogated verses in the quran but this is the most obvious one. whoever god said in the Quran: [2.106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978:
quote:Originally posted by primak: Snoozin,
try " newcomer"...she/he seems to be quite learned on the subject.
You can also get some incredible explanation from gana or bibo and as a bonus a detailed description of hell!
worried of what might happen to you if you decide to flirt a bit in cairo?? don't. we do not apply these barbaric laws here.
primak, you are back, but why do u think that god had made towrah, bible and Quran and everyone is not like the other, god had changed religion over the yrs it is true that even towrah had changed throughout years due to prophets. I am sure you don't believe in any so why do u argue here. you are a man with no believeth so why do u argue with people whom believe, what is your point .. you believe in no god .. so why do u bother yourself with others believes "soon they will die and they won't come back" why do u need to argue, u don't even care .. !! why should we listen to your great wisedom.
you're too thick to understand that - although an agnostic - I could be interested in the subject. It's either black or white for you Bibo, isn't it? this is so unfortunate, shedd heylak, you're such a bigot that your posts are sad.
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
you think I am bigout, why? I always want to know what other thinks, I am not forcing you to believe what I am saying. It is not black or white, we can have different opnions, did I ever said you are wrong, I am only stating my opnion, I have nothin against you, truely .. I was wondering why do you bother yourself why should you be interested, why do you wanna waste your time by trying to convince anyone that he should be agnostic? or that there is no god .. why truely .. the last time I made conversation with you, you didn't show up .. now you are just shooting at me. I wanna know the reason truely I am not attacking you, why do people think I am.
Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: abrogation happened for example, the punishment for wine drinking wasn't straight forward, first of all god said:
Can you do the same with the issue of stoning? Can you post the exact verse that dealt with stoning and the verse that came after it.
The problem I'm having is that in the case of stoning, the claim is that the verse was "abrogated" in the sense that it was completely removed from Quran. It is no longer there! The argument is that the "words were abrogated but not the ruling". If the verse is no longer there how do I know what it stated?
Your example of abrogation contained all verses in Quran. Anyone could see for themselves the progression in banning Alcohol. With stoning I would have to rely on Hadith.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
You guys want to know what I've read about it?????
That the actual verse was eaten out of a copy of the Qur'an..... (yes, by a goat).
See why I want to know the truth? I cannot find it....all I read is that the words were abrogated but the ruling stays.....so why would the words be removed? Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin: That the actual verse was eaten out of a copy of the Qur'an.....
By a goat? Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
The part about forbidding wine and gambling is also worrying...was god unable to decide if gambling and drinking were not allowed, in one go?he had to do it in "stages"?? strange.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia: By a goat?
Yes! and this was on a pro-Islam site, with the writer defending this saying a goat is a holy animal and if this is how God wanted to abrogate a particular verse, then who are we to judge??? Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Look, I've had rocks thrown at me a few times as well.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
you can't be serious... Newcomer....see what I mean...a goat??gobbling up a particular verse? how god "wanted" it?? B E Y O N D!!!!
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: you think I am bigout, why? I always want to know what other thinks, I am not forcing you to believe what I am saying. It is not black or white, we can have different opnions, did I ever said you are wrong, I am only stating my opnion, I have nothin against you, truely .. I was wondering why do you bother yourself why should you be interested, why do you wanna waste your time by trying to convince anyone that he should be agnostic? or that there is no god .. why truely .. the last time I made conversation with you, you didn't show up .. now you are just shooting at me. I wanna know the reason truely I am not attacking you, why do people think I am.
why the sudden " wimpiness"?? read your previous post again, you'll find out .
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Look, I've had rocks thrown at me a few times as well.
If you escaped, I believe you are forgiven for your sin. ?? ??
But I'm sure you have more than that to deal with. Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: you can't be serious... Newcomer....see what I mean...a goat??gobbling up a particular verse? how god "wanted" it?? B E Y O N D!!!!
First find me the solid evidence that that was true, then we can discuss it ...just because it was written on a pro-Muslim site by a Muslim does not mean its true any more than everything that is written on an anti-Islam site is a lie! Some Muslims write rubbish too!
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
-القرآن الكريم محفوظ قبل وبعد النسخ (يَمْحُوا اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاءُ وَيُثْبِتُ وَعِنْدَهُ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ) (الرعد:39)
- وقد قسّم العلماء النسخ في الكتاب العزيز إلى ثلاثة أقسام :-
1. نسخ الحكم دون التلاوة، أي بقاء الآيات القرآنية مع إبطال حكمها الأول بحكم جديد في لاحقة ، وهذا هو القسم الذي نطق به محكم التنزيل ، وهو المشهور بين العلماء والمفسرين ، وهو أمر معقولٌ مقبولٌ، حيثُ إنّ بعض الأحكام لم ينزل دفعةً واحدةً، بل نزل تدريجياً لتألفه النفوس وتستسيغه العقول، فنسخت تلك الأحكام وبقيت ألفاظها، لأسرارٍ تربويةٍ وتشريعيةٍ يعلمها الله تعالى.مثل آية تقديم الصدقة أمام مناجاة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم )يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا نَاجَيْتُمُ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدِّمُوا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ نَجْوَاكُمْ صَدَقَةً ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ وَأَطْهَرُ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ) (المجادلة:12) وآية )أَيَّاماً مَعْدُودَاتٍ فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ مَرِيضاً أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ فَمَنْ تَطَوَّعَ خَيْراً فَهُوَ خَيْرٌ لَهُ وَأَنْ تَصُومُوا خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ) (البقرة:184)
2. نسخ التلاوة دون الحكم، وقد مثّلوا له بآية الرجم، فقالوا: إنّ هذه الآية كانت من القرآن ثمّ نسخت تلاوتها وبقي حكمها. ودليله ما صحت روايته عن عمر ابن الخطاب وأُبَيّ ابن كعب أنهما قالا : " كان فيما أنزل من القرآن : الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتّة " وهذه الآية لا وجود لها في القرآن الكريم ولكن حكمها باقٍ لم يُنسخ . ويدل على وقوعه أيضاً ما رُوي عن عمر وأُبي بن كعب وعكرمة مولى ابن عباس: "أنّ سورة الأحزاب كانت تقارب سورة البقرة، أو هي أطول منها، وفيها كانت آية الرجم".
ويدل على وقوعه أيضاً ما صح عن أبي موسى الأشعري أنهم كانوا يقرءون سورة على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في طول سورة براءة ، وأنها نُسيت إلا آية منها وهي : " لو كان لابن آدم واديان من مال لابتغى وادياً ثالثاً ، ولا يملأ جوف ابن آدم إلا التراب ويتوب الله على من تاب " . ويدل عليه أيضاً آية الرضاع في القسم الثالث .
3. نسخ التلاوة والحكم معاً، وقد مثّلوا له بآية الرضاع. ويدل على وقوعه ما ورد عن أم المؤمنين عائشة رضي الله عنها أنها قالت " كان فيما أُنزل من القرآن عشر رضعات يحرمن ، ثم نُسخن بخمس معلومات ......
في صحيح البخاري : كتاب الحدود : باب رجم الحبلى من الزنا 8/28
عن الخليفة عمر رضي الله عنه أنه قال و هو على المنبر : إن الله بعث محمداً (ص) بالحق ، و أنزل عليه الكتاب ، فكان مما أنزل الله ( آية الرجم ) فقرأناها و عقلناها و وعيناها ، و رجم رسول الله و رجمنا بعده ، فأخشى إن طال بالناس زمان أن يقول قائل : و الله ما نجد آية الرجم في كتاب الله ، فيضلوا بترك فريضة أنزلها الله . و الرجم في كتاب الله حق على من زنى إذا أحصن من الرجال و النساء إذا قامت البينة ـو كان الحبل و الإعتراف .
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
Naskh (exegesis) Naskh, an Arabic language word usually translated as "abrogation" and alternately appearing as the phrase al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh ("the abrogating and abrogated [verses]"), is a technical term for a major genre of Islamic legal exegesis directed at the problem of seemingly contradictory material within (as well as between) the twin basises of Islamic holy law: the Qur'ān and the Prophetic Sunna. In its application, naskh typically involves the replacement (ibdāl) of an earlier verse/tradition (and thus its embodied ruling) with a chronologically successive one. The complete suppression (ibtāl) of a regulation so that not even its wording remains is recognized as well, though only in the case of the Qur'ān.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(exegesis)] please use the above link for the rest of exegesis
God knows best
Posted by gana (Member # 9062) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Snoozin,
try " newcomer"...she/he seems to be quite learned on the subject.
You can also get some incredible explanation from gana or bibo and as a bonus a detailed description of hell!
worried of what might happen to you if you decide to flirt a bit in cairo?? don't. we do not apply these barbaric laws here.
Ok primack i miss u and u miss my incridible explantion,thanks,but how u know they use sword in sudia,as u said u are unbeliver so u canot enter saudia they will kick u before airplane,or u are liar and u believe but try to be anotherone so u can enter saudia but also u canot go to MECCA OR MEDINA because u are REJS and u never see .primack no hell today but tomorrow u will see who loose.
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: why the sudden " wimpiness"?? read your previous post again, you'll find out .
It is not my problem that you don't appreciate a discussion, this reply show how shallow your mind is .. sorry but this should be the right reply to someone whom doesn't respect himself by respecting the opnonent.
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: abrogation happened for example, the punishment for wine drinking wasn't straight forward, first of all god said:
Can you do the same with the issue of stoning? Can you post the exact verse that dealt with stoning and the verse that came after it.
The problem I'm having is that in the case of stoning, the claim is that the verse was "abrogated" in the sense that it was completely removed from Quran. It is no longer there! The argument is that the "words were abrogated but not the ruling". If the verse is no longer there how do I know what it stated?
Your example of abrogation contained all verses in Quran. Anyone could see for themselves the progression in banning Alcohol. With stoning I would have to rely on Hadith.
Stoning is valid from sunnah, I read this abrogation and what you said is valid there was a stoning verse in Quran and it was abrogated, this happens. however I never heard about the goat story, and it seems as if it is an unvalid story because actually quran was never written on paper except after Mohammed's (PBUH) death, he ordered people not to write quran so it doesn't get mixed with the sunnah, however the quran was written afterwards in Othman ibn affan's days.
Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: actually quran was never written on paper except after Mohammed's (PBUH) death, he ordered people not to write quran so it doesn't get mixed with the sunnah
Excuse me! Can you expand on that.
He "ordered" people not to write the Quran so that it does not get mixed up with what?
And, why are we stoning people based on sunah after we completely ignored an "order" not to write down Quran?
Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People: He "ordered" people not to write the Quran so that it does not get mixed up with what?
I've read the opposite – that Mohammed ordered people not to write down the ahadith attributed to him so they wouldn't get mixed up with the Qur'an.
"The prophet said: 'Do not write anything from me except Quran. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbel3/12,21,39)
(Don't know whether this one is sahih or not, still interesting ....)
Posted by Troubles101 (Member # 4543) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia:
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People: He "ordered" people not to write the Quran so that it does not get mixed up with what?
I've read the opposite – that Mohammed ordered people not to write down the ahadith attributed to him so they wouldn't get mixed up with the Qur'an.
"The prophet said: 'Do not write anything from me except Quran. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbel3/12,21,39)
(Don't know whether this one is sahih or not, still interesting ....)
Sahih but if you read the full narration in "Muslim" , the prophet clearly disallowed WRITING but allowed NARRATING his words and warned those who lie about him intentionally. Later the prophet himself requested some of his words be written down in messages. It's clear that this writing ban was for a period when the Quran was being written down and the prophet wanted to secure it from any additions or confusion, also for the same reason he discouraged Umar ra from reading Jewish scriptures but then Muslim read other scriptures and wrote down the Hadith after Qur'an was fully written, compiled and memorized.
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
let's go back to the discussion of the abrogation, well from my point of view ,it all comes wether you believe in god or not people like primak or kafir4ever wouldn't understand anyhow , it is like why god made the world in 6 days, it is his will and he wants things to happen as he wishes didn't god say:Those who reject Faith say: 25:32 "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually" This is god's will, for example one might ask why did god make adam live in heaven then he through him out of it, also someone might ask if god knows our end why do we live, if our end will be to heaven or hell, it is god's will God had made us and we have our will to choose, the problem is that people think that time can be judgingg god well, I think and I know that god is not bounded by time, he made this life from time and distance, this is valid true that there was no time before the universe exist maths says so .. and I am sure that god is not bounded with anything this I can prove from the quran but I don't remember the verse, now.
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
hi bibo i guess the discussion was about stoning and not abrogation. it's strange when people ask and follow Quran while ignoring the Sunnah of Mohamed (pbuh) - forgetting that Quran was revealed to mohamed (pbuh)in the first place.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
Does anyone know the story behind the abrogation of the stoning verse?
I understand the difference between sunnah and Qur'an. And I understand what abrogation is.
I just want to know the events that took place to cause the abrogation of this verse. A complete removal of words from the Qur'an.
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
hi snoozin i didnt mean you by my last post but even here in egypt there are many people who accept the Quran and reject part or all the sunnah. and im talking about general rules.
and there is no harm at all to ask about religion but if you are serious about your question then you need to ask scholars studying revelation history of Quran. Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: let's go back to the discussion of the abrogation,
OK
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: well from my point of view ,it all comes wether you believe in god or not people like primak or kafir4ever wouldn't understand anyhow , it is like why god made the world in 6 days, it is his will and he wants things to happen as he wishes didn't god say:Those who reject Faith say: 25:32 "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually" This is god's will, for example one might ask why did god make adam live in heaven then he through him out of it, also someone might ask if god knows our end why do we live, if our end will be to heaven or hell, it is god's will God had made us and we have our will to choose, the problem is that people think that time can be judgingg god well, I think and I know that god is not bounded by time, he made this life from time and distance, this is valid true that there was no time before the universe exist maths says so .. and I am sure that god is not bounded with anything this I can prove from the quran but I don't remember the verse, now.
That has nothing to do with the discussion. The questions were and still are quite specific.
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
Snoozin....
The reason behind abrogation in the Quraan is clear. In the example of Alcohol consumption, the prohibition had to occur gradually, because Allah, the Creator, understood that a sudden prohibition would have been hard to implement for the companions. Narrated Aisha in an authentic hadith "If the first thing that had come down in the religion of Mohamed was to stop drinking alcohol, nobody would have stopped it". The first 10 years of Islam were spent teaching Islamic monotheism....establishing the seeds of faith in the heart of the people....hence no acts of worship were prescribed (no fasting, prayer, hajj, zakat etc). However, once the faith has been established, it becomes easier to do things for the sake of your Creator.
When the Prophet (SAWS) send Muadh ibn Jabal to Yemen to invite the people to Islam he (SAWS) said " You are going to a people who do not believe in Allah. So teach them that there is no God but Allah and that Mohamed is his messenger. And if they believe, then tell them that Allah has prescribed 5 daily prayers. And once they establish the prayers, tell them that Allah has made compulsory the paying of charity (zakat).' This hadith indicates that Islam, and the practicing of the religion is something that must come about gradually.....you dont invite people to Islam by saying 'Believe in Allah and pray otherwise you are doomed to Hell"....there is Islamic etiqutte in our invitation to Islam.
Regarding stoning in the Quran....the original verses, which are still in the Quran, mentioned different punishments for the male and female.... that if a female was guilty of adultery then she would be locked in her house (under house arrest) until death overcame her, and a lighter punishment for the male. Later, another verse was revealed stating that the female and male adulterers are both to be stoned. Note there that the stoning is for the married man or woman who commits adultery, because as they are married it is considered a greater crime because 1. They are married and have legal access to a sexual relationship, and so to seek sexual contact outside the relationship is not excusable. 2. The honour of their spouse and family unit has been destroyed. Note the difficult conditions in enforcing this punishment. If someone comes and claims that a man and a woman have committed adultery, then he must bring forth 4 witnesses who have seen the act committed. Not seen them kissing, hugging, or even entering a hotel together....must have seen them in the actual sexual act. You can understand how difficult it is to prove this, and given the punishment, such a strict requirement is necessary. If a person accuses someone of adultery and does not have the evidence necessary, then they are the ones lashed, and their testimony in an Islamic court is never to be accepted.
The unmarried men and women committing fornication are to be lashed only.
Although so many Westerners may view this law as being outdated, it serves an important purpose of protecting the sanctity of marriage. Men in particular have no excuse to commit adultery as they have been given concessions in regards to polygamy. And before anyone criticises polygamy.....which is better, for a man to have a mistress, girlfriend and a wife....the former two of which have no claim to maintenance and their children will be considered illegitimate, or a man who marries 2 or more women, supports each one financially, shows equality in terms of time and money spent on each, and is a legitimate father figure to all their children.
Primak: Ignorance is not bliss. Women inherit less than men in Islam because they are not required to spend a single cent to maintain their families....it falls upon her husband, father, brother, son etc. For the women in Islam, tts a case of whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours!
S....
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
Also....
Allah SWT says in the Quran "We do not abrogate or cause verses to be forgotten, except that We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? "
So although you or others may struggle with the concept of abrogation, it is something which Allah has done in His own Wisdom.
Posted by Automatic For The People (Member # 7160) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Regarding stoning in the Quran....the original verses, which are still in the Quran, mentioned different punishments for the male and female.... that if a female was guilty of adultery then she would be locked in her house (under house arrest) until death overcame her, and a lighter punishment for the male. Later, another verse was revealed stating that the female and male adulterers are both to be stoned. Note there that the stoning is for the married man or woman who commits adultery, because as they are married it is considered a greater crime because 1. They are married and have legal access to a sexual relationship, and so to seek sexual contact outside the relationship is not excusable. 2. The honour of their spouse and family unit has been destroyed. Note the difficult conditions in enforcing this punishment. If someone comes and claims that a man and a woman have committed adultery, then he must bring forth 4 witnesses who have seen the act committed. Not seen them kissing, hugging, or even entering a hotel together....must have seen them in the actual sexual act. You can understand how difficult it is to prove this, and given the punishment, such a strict requirement is necessary. If a person accuses someone of adultery and does not have the evidence necessary, then they are the ones lashed, and their testimony in an Islamic court is never to be accepted.
What was the verse? How did we come to know about it and it's abrogation? Who decided to abrogate the verse but not it's ruling? What is the purpose of abrogating a verse and maintaining it's ruling?
Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Men in particular have no excuse to commit adultery as they have been given concessions in regards to polygamy. And before anyone criticises polygamy.....which is better, for a man to have a mistress, girlfriend and a wife....the former two of which have no claim to maintenance and their children will be considered illegitimate, or a man who marries 2 or more women, supports each one financially, shows equality in terms of time and money spent on each, and is a legitimate father figure to all their children.
That is very faulty logic. The permission of polygamy is about orphans and just treatment of orphans, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the satisfaction of men's desires.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
Primak: Ignorance is not bliss. Women inherit less than men in Islam because they are not required to spend a single cent to maintain their families....it falls upon her husband, father, brother, son etc. For the women in Islam, tts a case of whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours!
This is exactly what I define as "medieval".
Posted by Mrs. Doubtfire (Member # 9731) on :
Goodness me, dears. Isnt it a good thing that nobody takes any notice of this ancient belief now, or we should all have to be stoned, and there wouldnt be anyone left to do the washing up.! Posted by MaliG182 (Member # 8227) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Primak: Ignorance is not bliss. Women inherit less than men in Islam because they are not required to spend a single cent to maintain their families....it falls upon her husband, father, brother, son etc. For the women in Islam, tts a case of whats mine is mine, and whats yours is ours!
This is exactly what I define as "medieval".
Don't call Allah's laws "medieval". Rise to the occasion and support your female relatives financially like you should. You only really have to support your mother and wife. Who else do you suppose will take of them?
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
My mother, my wife and the majority of women in my family are capable of supporting themselves ,thank you. They certainly do not need my support nor would any self-respecting woman ever accept to be "supported" by a man as a result of some medieval outdated barbaric laws . It should also be noted that in my family, the inheritance laws are definitely never followed, inheritance is EQUALLY divided between a brother and his sister , between men and women, both considered "complete" human beings who do not expect to be "supported" by anybody.
It should also be noted that the inheritance law is not followed by most civilized muslim people I know , if it is , it is only dictated by greed.
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
Dalia, with all due respect dont make claims about Islam which are not true. Polygamy is not only about orphans. How many of the wives of the prophets, or the sahaba were orphans????
And primak.....what you call 'medieval' I call dignifying. I certainly feel sorry for any women in your family.....is your mother supposed to go out and work throughout her golden years to support herself?? Does she have no self-respect if she relies upon you or any other of her children to take care of her after she had to put up with you as a baby??
Shame on you! Just because you have no feelings of protectiveness over the women in your family doesnt mean that is the right mentality to have.
Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Polygamy is not only about orphans.
One of the most wide spread myths that has been associated with God's religion over the centuries is the issue of "Polygamy". It is customary for people when they think of Islam, or even when they embrace Islam, that they automatically have a license to marry more than one wife (upto a maximum of 4).
Men tend to fantasize that this is due to the high sexual libido that God has given them and that it is part of their Homo-Sapien right of male domination.
Even women in the Islamic world have come to accept the idea of Polygamy as being ordained by God and therefore not open for debate or questioning. The woman in Islamic society may not like the idea of sharing her husband with other women, but it is a fact of life she has been taught to accept and respect.
Did the Lord of the Universe realize that Muslim men were hormone driven animals that needed the sexual satisfaction of more than one mate? Or is it us who as usual interpret God's revelations with our desires rather than our brains?.
Where in the Quran can we find this command that justifies Polygamy?
"You shall hand over to the ORPHANS* their rightful properties. Do not substitute the bad for the good, and do not consume their properties by combining them with yours. This would be a gross injustice. If you fear that you will not be equitable towards the ORPHANS*, then you may marry their mothers. You may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship." (4/2-3)
"They consult you concerning women: say, "GOD enlightens you regarding them, as recited for you in the scripture. The mothers of ORPHANS* that you wish to marry but do not give them their due dowries, you shall be just. The rights of young boys must also be protected. You shall treat the orphans equitably. Whatever good you do, GOD is fully aware thereof." (4/127)
* Orphans in Arabic (Yatama) is used for a child who has lost his father. A child who has lost his mother is not considered an Orphan in Arabic.
Any reader of the above verse does not have to be a genius to understand that Polygamy is CONDITIONAL that a person wants to be equitable towards the ORPHANS!.
But WHO are these ORPHANS that we are responsible for yet it is likely that we will not treat them favorably?.
Again, we do not have to look beyond the tip of our noses for the answer:
"Do not give those who are immature the money which God has ENTRUSTED you with. You shall provide for them from it and cloth them, and say to them what is just. You shall test the orphans when they reach puberty. As soon as you find them mature enough, GIVE THEM THEIR PROPERTY..." (4/5-6)
You must be the GUARDIAN to these Orphans and caretaker to their inheritance BEFORE even considering Polygamy. It is not just for a man to just pick children off the street and claim that he will marry their mother. The man must be the Guardian to the children appointed by their deceased father or because they (the Orphans) are from his blood.
After laying out the rules in which Polygamy is allowed, we are also dealt with more restrictions in the Quran:
"You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging. If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (4/129)
So, as we have it DETAILED in God's Book:
1. Orphans placed in our guardianship are to be treated fairly. 2. If we fear biased-ness or unfairness in treatment, we MAY marry their mother. 3. We MUST pay their mother her dowry as in the case of a normal marriage. 4. We MUST NOT be biased in our dealings with either wife.
Under these circumstances it becomes very clear how God's perfect system will be a shield for children who have lost their fathers and need protection in this world, rather than a license for sexual fantasies as most are led to believe.
May the Lord grant us His mercy for all the wrong we have done.
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Dalia, with all due respect dont make claims about Islam which are not true. Polygamy is not only about orphans. How many of the wives of the prophets, or the sahaba were orphans????
Re: the 'Polygamy/orphan' thing: If a religious text claims to want to govern all of humanity, shouldn't it be relevent to the situation of every country, and not just Arabia? And why don't men have to dress in the burqua to contain female or homosexual lust?
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: And primak.....what you call 'medieval' I call dignifying. I certainly feel sorry for any women in your family.....is your mother supposed to go out and work throughout her golden years to support herself?? Does she have no self-respect if she relies upon you or any other of her children to take care of her after she had to put up with you as a baby??
Shame on you! Just because you have no feelings of protectiveness over the women in your family doesnt mean that is the right mentality to have.
”Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded.”
The above verse reduces woman into the livestock of man giving him the authority to maintain her as if she were his donkey or camel. Sadly, Khadija, the first wife of the Prophet, did not live long enough to remind her beloved husband that when he married her, she was the maintainer of him who spent out of her property. This shows the parasitic nature of Mohammed who married his employer so that he can live a rich life without putting in a single day's work.
quote:Originally posted by Fran: The above verse reduces woman into the livestock of man giving him the authority to maintain her as if she were his donkey or camel.
Hi Fran,
if you have time I suggest you read this interpretation of the above verse ... maybe it can change your mind.
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Dalia, with all due respect dont make claims about Islam which are not true. Polygamy is not only about orphans. How many of the wives of the prophets, or the sahaba were orphans????
Re: the 'Polygamy/orphan' thing: If a religious text claims to want to govern all of humanity, shouldn't it be relevent to the situation of every country, and not just Arabia? And why don't men have to dress in the burqua to contain female or homosexual lust?
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: And primak.....what you call 'medieval' I call dignifying. I certainly feel sorry for any women in your family.....is your mother supposed to go out and work throughout her golden years to support herself?? Does she have no self-respect if she relies upon you or any other of her children to take care of her after she had to put up with you as a baby??
Shame on you! Just because you have no feelings of protectiveness over the women in your family doesnt mean that is the right mentality to have.
”Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded.”
The above verse reduces woman into the livestock of man giving him the authority to maintain her as if she were his donkey or camel. Sadly, Khadija did not live long enough to remind her beloved husband that when he married her, she was the maintainer of him who spent out of her property. This shows the parasitic nature of Mohammed who married his employer so that he can live a rich life without putting in a single day's work.
Shattering Illusions - Western Conceptions of Muslim Women "Islam in its original state gave women privileges and imposed no harsh restrictions or double standards upon them.," says Saimah Ashraf, a 1997-98 winner of the Stanford University Boothe Prize for Excellence in Writing.
"Rose Hamid is as American as they come. She drives a Ford station wagon, leads a local Girl Scout troop, shops at the Gap and just attended her 20-year high school reunion" writes Laurie Goodstein in a recent New York Times article (A1).
From this brief description of Rose, readers may have formed a particular picture of her in their minds. If they were told, however, that "Rose Hamid wears a head scarf in keeping with her Muslim faith,'" that picture might take a drastic turn (Goodstein A1).
She's Muslim? Images of suppressed, meek, black-enshrouded women submitting to the demands of their dominating husbands race through some readers' minds. But why is this the case? Would we see Rose any differently if she were Christian or Jewish? The answer is probably no, but since she is a Muslim woman, it is difficult not to have some preconceptions of her.
I don't understand why, in the West, Muslim women are clumped into one large group and viewed as homogenous clones of one another, while their Christian and Jewish counterparts are rarely ever stereotyped in this way. Many people don't realize, due largely to biased media interpretations, that there are a large variety of Muslim women around the world, from areas such as the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia, Yugoslavia, Northern Africa, and the Southern parts of the former USSR, just as there are Christian and Jewish women in various countries. For instance, one probably wouldn't classify a Mexican woman with a French woman, though both may be Roman Catholics and hold the same beliefs. In the same way, American Muslim women are different from Pakistani Muslims, who are different from Saudi Muslims. In these three countries, women are accorded different rights and privileges because of the government and customs in the area. For example, many American Muslim women are discriminated against because they cover their heads; Pakistani women have political rights but are often exploited by men; Saudi women have no public role, yet they are "protected" by Saudi men.
The negative stereotypes of Muslim women probably arise from this varying treatment of women. The Western media, for some reason, latch on to a few examples of unjust behavior in the Islamic world, brand Islam as a backwards and "fundamentalist" religion, especially in its treatment of women, and ignore that it was the first religion to accord women equal rights. While Christian and Jewish women were still considered inferior, the originators of sin, and the property of their husbands, Muslim women were being given shares in inheritance, were allowed to choose or refuse prospective husbands, and were considered equal to men in the eyes of God. However, through time, slowly changing customs, and the rise of male-dominated, patriarchal nation-states, Muslim governments began placing restrictions on women which had no grounds in the Quran, the Islamic holy book; or the hadith, the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. On the other hand, Christian and Jewish women in the West have slowly been awarded rights not called for in the biblical tradition.
Traditionally, Judeo-Christian women were thought to be inferior to men and were given a low status in society. These negative attitudes toward women arose because Judaism and Christianity placed such a heavy emphasis on Eve's role in the expulsion from Paradise. Because Eve, rather than Adam, was the first to be seduced by Satan and eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she supposedly caused the fall of mankind. Therefore all women, as the descendants of Eve, were thought to be evil and morally weaker than men (Sherif 2). In the Bible, there are several references to women in this uncomplimentary light: "I found more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28). "No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman. . . .Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiastes 25:19,24). Early church fathers such as St. Tertullian reiterated these negative concepts of women by making statements such as, "Do you know that you are each an Eve?. . . . You are the Devil's gateway. . . .You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die." In Christianity, women carried the extra burden of causing the death of Christ, as Tertullian points out (Sherif 2). Because Adam and Eve passed on their sin to all future generations, Jesus had to purge humankind from this "original sin" by sacrificing his life (Sherif 2). Thus, by causing the fall of man, Eve also caused the death of Christ. In the Jewish tradition, women receive no less harsh treatment. Because of Eve, all women have to face punishment on Earth including pregnancy, pain in childbirth, menstruation, and subjugation to men (Sherif 3). Orthodox Jewish males still recite in their daily prayers: "Blessed be God King of the Universe that Thou has not made me a woman . . . . Praised be God that he has not created me woman" (Menahot 43b)
These early prejudiced attitudes gave rise to discriminatory treatment of women. Because the Judeo-Christian tradition spans such a vast amount of time, it is difficult to deal with the condition of women in any specific period. Therefore I will deal with women mostly as they are referred to in the Bible and by influential church fathers and rabbis. Often, the discrimination against females began immediately upon birth since baby girls were thought to be shameful, a view found several times in the Bible: "The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3). Jewish rabbis also expressed displeasure at the birth of a female, saying that boys brought peace into the world, whereas girls brought absolutely nothing (Sherif 4). This unhappiness at a female's birth arose partly because of the large dowry that had to be given to a Jewish or Christian girl's husband upon marriage, a tradition adhered to until recently (Sherif 8). Hence, a girl was often thought to be a "liability and no asset" (Sherif 8).
Additionally, as Kevin Harris, senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, puts it, "women are portrayed in the bible quite consistently as appendages of men; as possessions of men; as goods which may be sold, disposed of, given away, traded, or just ordered about by men" (30). One section in the Bible which is a testament to this view is Exodus 21.7, which expressly condones a man selling his daughter into slavery or concubinage: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." A man also controlled the sexuality of his daughter, as can be seen in the case of Lot (among many others), who offered his virgin daughters to the homosexual men of Sodom in Genesis 19.8: "I have two daughters who have not known a man. . . . do to them as you please." When a woman was married, in which she usually had little or no say, she became the property of her husband rather than her father, and he then had the right of "purchasing and selling" her (Schmidt 127). He owned not only her person, but also all of her property. "The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table [were] his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband" (San. 71a, Git. 62a). A woman could regain her property only upon divorce or her husband's death, but she was never allowed to inherit any of his property (Sherif 8). In fact, Western women had no property rights at all until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Because of the inferior status of women in the Judeo-Christian tradition, there often existed a double standard between men and women, especially in areas of sexuality. For example, if a woman was not a virgin at marriage, she could be taken to her father's house by her husband and stoned to death (Schmidt 112). The man, on the other hand, was never subjected to this punishment or indeed to any codes of conduct governing his sexuality (Schmidt 112). In fact, even if he raped or deflowered a virgin, he was not put to death but was instead forced to marry her and give money to her father, which seems more of a punishment for his female victim than him! (Harris 57). After marriage, a Hebrew male could arbitrarily accuse his wife of adultery, even with the slightest suspicion, and make her take the humiliating "bitter-water" test to determine her innocence or guilt (Schmidt 121). If she was found guilty of having slept with another man, regardless of his marital status, she would be stoned to death (Sherif 6). A Hebrew man, whether married or not, on the other hand, was only said to have committed adultery if he slept with a married woman (Schmidt 118). As Vern Bullough, author of Subordinate Sex, explains, "Adultery was not a sin against morality, but a trespass against the husband's property" (Schmidt 118). Since the wife was the husband's property, she could not be violated without his permission. This view of adultery changed with the advent of Christianity, when Jesus introduced the idea that adultery could be committed against a woman also, but later many of the church's theologians "reverted to the patriarchal understanding of adultery" (Schmidt 122). In present-day Israel, however, the old law still pertains. A married man can have an affair with an unmarried women and have children that are considered legitimate (Sherif 6). If a married woman, on the other hand, has an extramarital affair, her children "are considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except converts and other bastards" for ten consecutive generations (Sherif 6).
Judeo-Christian practices also often ignored women's rights in cases of divorce. In original Christianity, divorce was expressly forbidden, and Jesus supposedly said that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). This harsh view failed to take into account the possible incompatibility of a man and woman and condemned unhappy couples to stay together against their wills. This situation was especially difficult for women because society did not allow them extramarital relations but condoned the relations of married men with prostitutes and other single women (Schmidt 50). In Judaism, divorce was allowed and even encouraged at times. Early Jewish scholars disagreed over the reasons a man could divorce his wife, and their views can be found in the Talmud: "The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel say [sic] he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she" (Gittin 90a-b). The Hillelite law predominated among the Jews and now Jewish men can divorce their wives for any reason whatsoever. The Talmud even obligates divorcing a woman if she "ate in the street drank greedily in the street suckled in the street" or if she does not bear a child within ten years of the marriage (Sherif 9). A Jewish woman, however, could not and cannot divorce her husband. He must give her a bill of divorce voluntarily and even the courts have no power to make him do this (Sherif 9). A man may desert his wife, marry another woman or simply live with one, and have legitimate children, while his first wife is trapped because she cannot have extramarital relations (Sherif 9). This sort of woman is known as an agunah (chained woman); there are approximately 1000 to 1500 Jewish agunah women in the United States today and around 16,000 in Israel (Sherif 9).
Suffering such blatant discrimination, it seems amazing that most Judeo-Christian women have overcome the odds and achieved equal rights with males. However, this has been a fairly recent development, largely occurring in this century. Within the past hundred years, women began to be considered citizens of states, were given voting rights, property rights, and easier access to divorce. Now many Muslim women hold the former position of Judeo-Christian women, but generally all they receive from the latter is scorn, derision, misunderstanding, or pity. It is ironic that the religion which significantly improved the status of women as compared to both Judaism and Christianity, and indeed was the first religion to grant women equal rights in all areas of life, including religion, sexuality, inheritance, and law, is now regarded as one that oppresses women.
One of the basic principles of Islam is justice for all humans and equality in the eyes of God. Women are considered no less than men in aspects of religion and are not denigrated anywhere in the Quran. First of all, in the Quranic Creation story, Eve is not mentioned as being seduced by the Serpent and taking the first bite of forbidden fruit. Rather, it says: (my italics) "by deceit he [Satan] brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them (7:19:23). Both Eve and Adam were held equally responsible. Hence, women in Islam do not bear the stigma as the daughters of a sinful Eve nor are they to be blamed for corrupting innocence (Sherif 3). Nor were women created as inferior to men, or solely for pleasure and procreational purposes as the Judeo-Christian scriptures sometimes imply "the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (Corinthians 11:3-9). In contrast, the chapter in the Quran entitled "Women" begins with the passage saying, "O humanity, be reverent to your Lord who created you from one soul and created its mate from it, and from these two disseminated many men and women." Here, in very blatant terms, it is stated that women and men are made from the same soul, and therefore, how could one gender possibly be inferior? In fact, neither gender is inferior, as the Quran states: "And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members of one another" (3:195).
This concept of gender equality in Islam begins immediately upon birth. When baby girls were born in Pre-Islamic Arabia, they were often buried alive to prevent shaming the tribe or family. In response to this infanticide, the Quran forbade treating a female child as disgraceful and states that both baby boys and girls are equally a blessing from God: "To Allah belongs the domination of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (42:49). Prophet Muhammad even guaranteed Paradise to those fathers who bring up their daughters with "benevolent treatment" and also encouraged both males and females to pursue knowledge and education (Bukhari, Muslim).
Furthermore, in Islam girls are not considered the property of their fathers and have complete control over their sexuality, in contrast to the Judeo-Christian tradition (Sherif 8). A free woman can never be sold it would be abhorrent for a father to sell his daughter as a concubine nor can she be married against her wishes, or the marriage can be annulled. After the marriage, a woman does not become the possession of her husband and is supposed to retain her own name and identity. "An American judge once commented on the rights of Muslim women saying: A Muslim girl may marry ten times, but her individuality is not absorbed by that of her various husbands. She is a solar planet with a name and legal personality of her own'" (Sherif 8). Additionally, Islam does not imply that a woman is made entirely for the pleasure of her husband but refers to spouses as equal partners: "They are your garments and you are their garments," the function of garments being to protect, cover, and adorn (Quran 2:187). Today, Western media often convey the idea that Muslim women are completely submissive to their husbands, but in fact, even the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (the most important and noble man in Islam) used to fight with him if they didn't get their way; they were far from the submissive, meek stereotypes of Muslim women today.
Another area in which Muslim women had greater rights than those of Judeo-Christian women is property. In an Islamic marriage, rather than paying the husband a dowry, the wife receives a substantial gift from him which then remains under her control, not his or her family's, even if she is later divorced. "In some Muslim societies today," Dr. Mohammed Sherif, author of the published essay entitled "Women in Islam Versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth and The Reality" says, "A marriage gift of a hundred thousand dollars in diamonds is not unusual" (8). Any other property a woman may happen to own at the time of the marriage is also exclusively hers and the husband has no right to use it. Even if she earns her own income, it is the husband's responsibility to maintain her and the children, and she has no obligation whatsoever to provide for the family. Furthermore, a woman in Islam can inherit money or property from any one of her relations, including her husband.
In the early years of Islam, a woman's rights were also protected concerning sexuality and divorce; a double standard did not exist between males and females. According to Islam, both genders are supposed to remain chaste until marriage, not just the women, and adultery consists of any married person engaging in sexual intercourse with someone other than a spouse. The punishment for both men and women who commit adultery, if the actual act is witnessed by four other people, is death by stoning. If a husband arbitrarily accuses his wife of being unfaithful, they both take an oath upon God, and if the wife swears that she is innocent and the husband swears that she is not, the marriage is irrevocably over and the woman is not considered an adulteress. However, throwing loose accusations around about any woman is highly discouraged in Islam. A woman's dignity should not be toyed with and one should not, under any circumstances, speculate about her sexual conduct without very secure evidence (Quraishi 299). The Quran sets forth a very harsh punishment for those people who do: "Those who defame chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards, for they are profligates (24:4). Asifa Quraishi, author of "Critique of the Rape Laws of Pakistan," writes that, "In the face of any hint of a woman's sexual impropriety, the Quranic response is: walk away. Leave her alone. Leave her dignity intact. The honor of a woman is not a tool, it is her fundamental right" (299).
A similarly just attitude prevails in cases of divorce. First of all, divorce is not at all encouraged in Islam but allowed under compelling circumstances, and both men and women are allowed to obtain one. The Prophet said that "among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God" (Abu Dawood). Couples are told in the Quran to live with one another in kindness: "Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good" (4:19). In the hadith, this view is reiterated: "The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character and the best of you are those who are best to their wives (Tirmidthi). However, in some cases, divorce is inescapable, and Islam attempts to make it as amicable as possible.
The last way I will mention that Islam uses to protect women is the hijab, or the veil. This is ironic because Western media often portray the Muslim veil as a suppressive force in a woman's life. Every Muslim woman is required to wear a scarf or some sort of head-covering and loose-fitting, modest attire. This is not a means of controlling a woman's sexuality or suppressing her but rather, is used to protect her. It is hoped that by dressing this way she will not be seen as a mere sex symbol but will be appreciated for her mind. Furthermore, it will not subject her to unwanted sexual advances or harassment. It is interesting to note that the head-covering for women is not an Islamic innovation but was practiced by Judeo-Christian women centuries earlier, and yet is scoffed at by the West today (Sherif 15). Dr. Sherif says: "It is one of the great ironies of our world today that the very same headscarf revered as a sign of holiness' when worn for the purpose of showing the authority of man by Catholic Nuns, is reviled as a sign of oppression' when worn for the purpose of protection by Muslim women" (16).
Hence, Islam in its original state gave women privileges and imposed no harsh restrictions or double standards upon them. However, with the progression of time, the rights of Muslim women began deteriorating, and today, very few Muslim countries adhere to the Islamic ideal in their treatment of women. This deviance from Islam can be seen when evaluating the rights that women possess in different countries. The three main countries I will deal with are the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia simply because I am familiar with them, having either lived or visited each extensively.
Though the United States is not a Muslim country, it is supposed to be the "land of freedom," and it is interesting to see how Muslim women are treated here. A Muslim woman is allowed to practice Islam without restrictions placed upon her by the government. As an American citizen, she has the rights of any woman to vote, to voice her opinions, and to move around as she pleases. Rose Hamid, the woman mentioned earlier, is one such American Muslim. This is not to say, however, that American Muslim women do not face prejudice, and Hamid is a good example of this. When she began wearing a headscarf recently, she was promptly fired by her company of ten years. Anjum Smith, another American Muslim, faced this same problem as did Shabana who was fired from her job at The Gap because, with her headscarf, she was an "undesirable" saleslady. There have been reports that women with covered hair have been "spit on, denied service, and [had] their scarves pulled off" (Goodstein A1). Goodstein reports that "Recently, on a highway near Orlando, Fla., one driver in a head scarf was stopped and berated by a state trooper who later formally apologized" (A1). This discrimination, even if unintentional, is rampant in the US; people just don't treat you the same once you start covering your hair: "They try and cheat me out of change. They think I'm a foreigner, and I've been here a long time. I wear American clothes, but I wear a scarf. The scarf changes everything," says Tayyibah Taylor, editorial director of Sisters! A Magazine of Dialogue Among Muslim Women (Goodstein A14).
In contrast, Saudi women are compelled by law to cover their hair, and they are instructed to wear a black cloak known as the abaya to cover their bodies. Saudi Arabia is one of the most "fundamentalist" Islamic nations in the world, and it supposedly implements Islamic law to ensure peace and justice. Yet, many of their laws, especially those geared at women, are unjust and stem from patriarchal customs. For example, the covering of a woman's face is not a requirement in Islam, yet many times women are harassed by the mutawa, or "purity police," for not doing this. Furthermore, women are not allowed to sit in the front seat of a car or walk alongside a man if he is not her husband or close relative; nor are women allowed to drive. Havva Kurter, author of the essay "An Outline History of the Oppression of Women," exclaims, "The Saudis think that women will go make sin if they drive a car! Now some non-Muslims may think of this as part of Islam" (116). But to give the Saudis some credit, women there are given certain privileges not awarded to Muslim women of other countries. First of all, Saudi women are almost never harassed (it is usually the foreigners who encounter this) and are extremely protected by their families and government. Additionally, in accordance to Islamic law, they are offered dowries, often very high ones, and are entitled to keep their own wealth.
This is hardly ever the case in Pakistan. Most women have virtually no control over their own property and are usually accorded minimal dowries unless they are of the upper classes. What is usually the case is that the bride's family has to provide all sorts of gifts to the husband and his family. These gifts, which range from money to cars to houses, are often what determines the choice of a bride. This obviously is not an Islamic practice but one that stems from the Hindu culture of nearby India. Moreover, women in Pakistan are often exploited by the law, sexually harassed, or raped, many times by police officers and other influential government officials (Quraishi 291). It is ironic, then, that Pakistan has surpassed even the United States in gender equality in that it has had a female head of State: the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. In fact, there are quite a few influential female politicians in Pakistan. Among other rights Pakistani women retain is their freedom of dress; most Pakistani women don't cover their hair and no type of dress code is enforced upon them, but this is not to say they won't be harassed if wearing revealing clothing in public. Additionally, women are allowed to drive, vote, attend co-educational universities, and hold paying jobs. However, this blend of restriction and privilege still does not make Pakistan's treatment of women very Islamic.
In fact, I can't think of any country that really treats Muslim women the way they are supposed to be treated as stipulated in the Quran and hadith. Most Muslim countries' approach to women falls between the two extremes of complete oppression and encouragement to behave like Western Judeo-Christian women, which is certainly not what Islam intended. I have dealt, to some extent, with the former case and believe that most people who read this paper will sympathize with the plight of these Muslim women. Their solutions might involve the "modernization" or "Westernization" of these women, but this is not at all what I am advocating. It's true that Western Judeo-Christian women have achieved freedom and independence for themselves, but has this necessarily been beneficial for them or society? One look at the ever-rising statistics for rape, sexual harassment, divorce, broken homes, latch-key kids, teenage pregnancies, and AIDS cases in the West indicates that something is definitely not right in society. Is it just coincidental that many of these issues became actual problems only after the Sixties' Sexual Revolution and feminist movement arose? Are these social problems just part of a growing trend in modern society or do they have some direct correlation to "women's liberation?" These are some questions we need to ask ourselves before we prescribe the "Western remedy" to any other society. The last thing Muslim women need to add to their problems at this point is more problems. Rather, the solution for achieving true freedom, independence, and happiness must come from within from the teachings of the Prophet, from the depths of the Quran, and from the wealth of rich Islamic tradition.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Dalia, with all due respect dont make claims about Islam which are not true. Polygamy is not only about orphans. How many of the wives of the prophets, or the sahaba were orphans????
And primak.....what you call 'medieval' I call dignifying. I certainly feel sorry for any women in your family.....is your mother supposed to go out and work throughout her golden years to support herself?? Does she have no self-respect if she relies upon you or any other of her children to take care of her after she had to put up with you as a baby??
Shame on you! Just because you have no feelings of protectiveness over the women in your family doesnt mean that is the right mentality to have.
I cannot answer you back, you can't be serious. You must have a herd of dromadaries in your backyard and keep a harem ; we're on totally different wavelengths ya abu kheyma!
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
Primak: Presumptions, ya Abu Jahl. Re: harem....LOL..... I am female....and suprise suprise, born and living in a western country.....and I can tell you I LOVE the fact my husband/brothers/father are TRUE men who financially and emotionally support their families.....
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
well, another masochist "kept" woman, I suppose there are many in this world. And do you slave for them in return?
Posted by Tiger1225 (Member # 9196) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: well, another masochist "kept" woman, I suppose there are many in this world. And do you slave for them in return?
No need to get personnal...just state your openion..if you have one...without insulting anyone..if you want them to listen....
I thought the topic was Stoning....not a contest for the filthiest mouth... Posted by Tiger1225 (Member # 9196) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin: I'd be interested to here Muslims' views on the punishment of stoning for adultery.
Do you think it is applicable today? If so, why? Are there other less-drastic punishments for this crime? Who has the right to impose this punishment? Who has the *responsibility* to impose this punishment?
I'd like to keep this a purely religious discussion please, not about culture, because I do know that has a lot of influence. I want to know how Islam deals with adultery and stoning, irrespective of cultural influences. Thank you.
Men and women who commet audltery are equally punished with it if they are both married...but if they are not married as far as I remember it is Striking 100 times on the back with a leather belt..in front of people in a common place.. Stoning it is not about stoning as much as it is about pervention...or redemtion...
yes it is applicable today..who is responsible it will be the authority with coordination with the mosque...
and there will not be less drastic punishment since Islam take the issue very seriously...for the sake of family..for the sake of health...for the sake of offsprings....for the sake of dignity...for the sake of Man and Woman...equally....It was meant to be both cruel and undignifing for a reason....
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tiger1225:
quote:Originally posted by primak: well, another masochist "kept" woman, I suppose there are many in this world. And do you slave for them in return?
No need to get personnal...just state your openion..if you have one...without insulting anyone..if you want them to listen....
I thought the topic was Stoning....not a contest for the filthiest mouth...
I suppose you're right. apologies, but it was hardly filthy though. Well the question to the lady is basically : " do you believe that the laws of inheritance in islam are fair to women in 2005?" yes or no.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
Are they *fair?*
No.
Posted by K7 (Member # 7854) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: do you believe that the laws of inheritance in islam are fair to women in 2005?" yes or no.
There are no islamic "inhertinace law" of 2005??
[btw did any other civilasation have women inheritcane law, or women right to own wealth with NONE belongin to husband, BEFORE islam ]
Please do not ask stupid question, you will only confuse others:(...
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
I think Primak meant that since life is soooo different from when Islam first implemented inheritance laws, are those laws still fair to women today?
In my opinion, while they were cutting edge for their time and did a lot to protect women's property rights and wealth, they are not particularly fair today with so many women working outside the home. Or due to the fact the family units are not so traditional anymore.
For example. Let's say a man has a son and a very handicapped daughter. The man is old but knows his son is a real flake. Can't hold a job, really selfish...in other words, if something happens to the father, the son is not going to take care of the disabled daughter properly. In that case, the father might want to leave most of his wealth in a trust for his daughter, to provide for her food and shelter after he is gone.
Shouldn't the father be allowed, after death, to continue to care for his daughter in the only way possible, through money/inheritance?
Posted by K7 (Member # 7854) on :
OK im not a scholar in these rules...
There are many complication in rules. And rules should be imposed by the Leader an islamic one... so there are always exception, based upon the sunnah....
I think you need to get out if this mentalilty, about "times are changing and we need to keep up" or "modernisation", this is just a term coined by the West/zionist;) It dont mean anything. We ar still humans, we are still man or women, have families, we still need to work for health and wealth.
The core of humanity has not modernised or changed at all. And Islam governs or guides just that, the core of our society, therfore the religion does not need modernisatoin
When I read your post I can understand your mentalilty, and your views, how you see Islam and society. If you take a step back, and see Islam in its true form, forget about change, poltics, current times, you would benefit alot..
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
and do you think that "stoning" is a "fair" punishment for adultery in 2005 or for whatever /whenever?
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by K7:
quote:Originally posted by primak: do you believe that the laws of inheritance in islam are fair to women in 2005?" yes or no.
There are no islamic "inhertinace law" of 2005??
[btw did any other civilasation have women inheritcane law, or women right to own wealth with NONE belongin to husband, BEFORE islam ]
Please do not ask stupid question, you will only confuse others:(...
Who is that twerp?
Posted by Sadeeqy (Member # 9759) on :
Well i think that the true power of religion it's offered by those motionless stenght roots. Whenever we're talking about Islam or Christians, the rules must not change, only sometimes the meanings are differently understood. If you remember a saying "the one whose spotless should throw the stone first!" We don't stone unfaithful women anymore, but.... what do you think it would pe a "fair" punishment for adultery?
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak:
quote:Originally posted by K7:
quote:Originally posted by primak: do you believe that the laws of inheritance in islam are fair to women in 2005?" yes or no.
There are no islamic "inhertinace law" of 2005??
[btw did any other civilasation have women inheritcane law, or women right to own wealth with NONE belongin to husband, BEFORE islam ]
Please do not ask stupid question, you will only confuse others:(...
Who is that twerp?
Aha...yes...the "djinns exist" lady..now i understand. Djinns??? really..!!
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sadeeqy: Well i think that the true power of religion it's offered by those motionless stenght roots. Whenever we're talking about Islam or Christians, the rules must not change, only sometimes the meanings are differently understood. If you remember a saying "the one whose spotless should throw the stone first!" We don't stone unfaithful women anymore, but.... what do you think it would pe a "fair" punishment for adultery?
How about going through a civilized court of law? maybe divorce?I am not a lawyer , but STONING???
Posted by Sadeeqy (Member # 9759) on :
I didn't said a agree that stoning could be fair, but could you explain to me why, with the softened rules we are having now, adultery blossom? And believe me, if you already felt the urge to cheat on your partner, the divorce it would be a relief, not a punishment!
Posted by K7 (Member # 7854) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: How about going through a civilized court of law? maybe divorce?I am not a lawyer , but STONING???
Hello, they do that already..... Why else you think adultery is on the increase, cos people have no shame or fear of anything to prevent them to stop....
i would vote for... the return of stoning ... This way people will have fear of committin such actions, and further corrupting society.
Anyway, we are all good humans right?? we are smart intelligent...so what is the problem in brining back stoning? it not as if you have planned to commit adultery is it now?
Posted by K7 (Member # 7854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sadeeqy: I didn't said a agree that stoning could be fair, but could you explain to me why, with the softened rules we are having now, adultery blossom? And believe me, if you already felt the urge to cheat on your partner, the divorce it would be a relief, not a punishment!
your a very nice non-muslim woman, i have ever met. Are all christian in romania think like you? Do you have types of christianty like Catholic or protestant..?
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sadeeqy: I didn't said a agree that stoning could be fair, but could you explain to me why, with the softened rules we are having now, adultery blossom? And believe me, if you already felt the urge to cheat on your partner, the divorce it would be a relief, not a punishment!
Well, I suppose stoning is still applied in saudi arabia as punishment for adultery..frankly, do you believe adultery is not blossoming there?
Still, I disagree with stoning as a punishment to anything..whatever the crime may be.
Posted by K7 (Member # 7854) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: Still, I disagree with stoning as a punishment to anything..whatever the crime may be.
so what do u suggest for adulters? or you think they shud not be punished?
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by K7:
quote:Originally posted by primak: Still, I disagree with stoning as a punishment to anything..whatever the crime may be.
so what do u suggest for adulters? or you think they shud not be punished?
I am discussing the "means" of punishment here, not the fact that adultery is punishable.
Posted by Sadeeqy (Member # 9759) on :
quote: your a very nice non-muslim woman, i have ever met. Are all christian in romania think like you? Do you have types of christianty like Catholic or protestant..?
//// We have all kinds of Christians here, Ortodox, Catholics, Protestants, and much more. No, not all the Christians are like me, we are all unique individuals, each one with different level of beliefs and faith. Thank you for your compliments, i post yesterday on "objectives" topic something about that. And about being a non-muslim woman, did you see my test? I scored as 50% Islamic!
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by K7:
quote:Originally posted by primak: How about going through a civilized court of law? maybe divorce?I am not a lawyer , but STONING???
Hello, they do that already..... Why else you think adultery is on the increase, cos people have no shame or fear of anything to prevent them to stop....
i would vote for... the return of stoning ... This way people will have fear of committin such actions, and further corrupting society.
Anyway, we are all good humans right?? we are smart intelligent...so what is the problem in brining back stoning? it not as if you have planned to commit adultery is it now?
We're not all "good humans" nor are we all "smart intelligent"- If you want to bring back stoning, you can, in my opinion , be neither "good" nor "human". By the way, stoning is still there if you want it..it is applied in many countries, you could go and live there if you like.
Posted by K7 (Member # 7854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sadeeqy: And about being a non-muslim woman, did you see my test? I scored as 50% Islamic!
lol yea, elhamdulilha... that test looks like it was a project done by a student.
well if you plan to stay here on ES for long, just be cautious:eek: people get hurt here, some change, and leave and many other things all the best
Posted by K7 (Member # 7854) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: QUOTE]I am discussing the "means" of punishment here, not the fact that adultery is punishable.
whicch meaans is appropitate you think in ur opinon Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak: By the way, stoning is still there if you want it..it is applied in many countries, you could go and live there if you like.
quote:Originally posted by primak: QUOTE]I am discussing the "means" of punishment here, not the fact that adultery is punishable.
whicch meaans is appropitate you think in ur opinon
ask the djinns..they'll tell you. But I would suggest that you check your local court of law and check the answer .
Posted by Morgan (Member # 6662) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Dalia, with all due respect dont make claims about Islam which are not true. Polygamy is not only about orphans. How many of the wives of the prophets, or the sahaba were orphans????
And primak.....what you call 'medieval' I call dignifying. I certainly feel sorry for any women in your family.....is your mother supposed to go out and work throughout her golden years to support herself?? Does she have no self-respect if she relies upon you or any other of her children to take care of her after she had to put up with you as a baby??
Shame on you! Just because you have no feelings of protectiveness over the women in your family doesnt mean that is the right mentality to have.
Most wemen have a pension when they getting old (u backward idiot) Shame on you living liek a slut'
2 kamel= 1 young woman 1 goas = 1 old woman Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by K7: Why else you think adultery is on the increase, cos people have no shame or fear of anything to prevent them to stop....
The threat of stoning will not stop people from committing adultery just like the threat of the death penalty here in the US does not stop people from committing murder.
People who are in the heat of passion -- whether it is love that causes them to cheat or anger/hatred that causes them to murder -- they are not rational and are not thinking of future consequences.
Posted by Morgan (Member # 6662) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tiger1225:
quote:Originally posted by primak: well, another masochist "kept" woman, I suppose there are many in this world. And do you slave for them in return?
No need to get personnal...just state your openion..if you have one...without insulting anyone..if you want them to listen....
I thought the topic was Stoning....not a contest for the filthiest mouth...
the truth hurt Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The People:
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: let's go back to the discussion of the abrogation,
OK
quote:Originally posted by bibo1978: well from my point of view ,it all comes wether you believe in god or not people like primak or kafir4ever wouldn't understand anyhow , it is like why god made the world in 6 days, it is his will and he wants things to happen as he wishes didn't god say:Those who reject Faith say: 25:32 "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually" This is god's will, for example one might ask why did god make adam live in heaven then he through him out of it, also someone might ask if god knows our end why do we live, if our end will be to heaven or hell, it is god's will God had made us and we have our will to choose, the problem is that people think that time can be judgingg god well, I think and I know that god is not bounded by time, he made this life from time and distance, this is valid true that there was no time before the universe exist maths says so .. and I am sure that god is not bounded with anything this I can prove from the quran but I don't remember the verse, now.
That has nothing to do with the discussion. The questions were and still are quite specific.
Automatic for the people I was just stating the idea only I don't know if you got it .. yet thanks anyhow
Posted by bibo1978 (Member # 9287) on :
I think that you people here forgot that stoning is not the punishment in the way that adultry can never be validated as we explained hundered of times before .. Remember GUYS, GIRLS.. it is a mean of repentance .. you don't want it, then it is actually your call "for whom those commit adultry" .. that's it , I dunno if this satisfies you primak ..
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
quote:Originally posted by K7: i would vote for... the return of stoning ... This way people will have fear of committin such actions, and further corrupting society.
So how do you explain the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the most corrupted countries in the world? The truth is that religiously ruled societies are far more corrupt than the secular societies.
But then again, that's not the kind of corruption you had in mind. When Muslims say Islam fights corruption, they mean freedom of thought. This is the greatest corruption as far as Islam is concerned.
The fear of the society and the fear of the afterlife are two main reasons Islam has endured so long.
Socially, Islam contributes to the deindividuation of the believer. Deindividuation is a technical term for sheep mentality. This is a psychological state where sheep mentality is aroused when individuals join crowds or large groups.
Deindividuation is characterized by diminished awareness of self and individuality. In Islam individuality is completely denied and the individual's life is fused with Ummah. He is not only reduced to a virtual slave, he is actually called by that name. People, are called Ibaad, which literally means slaves.
Deindividuation reduces an individual's self-restraint and normative regulation of behavior. It contributes to collective behavior of violent crowds, mindless hooligans, and the lynch mob. Such behavior is particularly noticeable when the Ummah gets into the mosque and is roused by red faced speeches of the imams and mullahs calling upon them to curse the Jews and the infidels for “oppressing” the Muslims.
The individual is not allowed to question why. What is the proof of that oppression and why he should hate the Jews and the infidels? If a child ask that question he will be slapped on the face so he can learn this is an inappropriate question, but if an adult asks that question he could be in big trouble.
Deindividuation has been also associated with other social phenomena such as genocide, stereotyping, and disinhibition. This explains the behavioral pattern of the believing/practicing Muslims. The mob lynching of the American contractors in Fallujah and the evisceration of the Israeli soldiers and gnawing on their hearts in Ramala are just two cases that were brought to public light because the victims were Americans and Israelis. But this behavior is not uncommon in Islam. In Iran thousands of Baha’is lost their lives to mob lynching. In Pakistan the same happens to those accused of violating the blasphemy law and insulting Muhammad. Muslims are often roused to hysteric levels, after listening to the sermons in their mosques, and become ready to commit murder.
Ironically it is the brutality and the repressive nature of Islam, in conjunction with its absolute irrationality that has made this doctrine a successful religion and has allowed it to survive this long.
Islam cannot stand scrutiny. Muhammad knew perfectly that he is unable to answer the questions raised by his critics. Therefore he saw to it so no one dare question him ever.
quote:
Posted by Tiger1225 (Member # 9196) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak:
quote:Originally posted by Tiger1225:
quote:Originally posted by primak: well, another masochist "kept" woman, I suppose there are many in this world. And do you slave for them in return?
No need to get personnal...just state your openion..if you have one...without insulting anyone..if you want them to listen....
I thought the topic was Stoning....not a contest for the filthiest mouth...
I suppose you're right. apologies, but it was hardly filthy though. Well the question to the lady is basically : " do you believe that the laws of inheritance in islam are fair to women in 2005?" yes or no.
The answer is different when it comes to God compared with traditional Islam. Every Westerner thinks that Islam is very chauvinistic and oppressive towards women. In Islam of today as practiced by most traditional sectarian Muslims, this is very true. However, in true Islam (Submission), as revealed in the Quran, nothing could be farther from the truth.
God treats men and women as spiritual equals., Quran 3:195 tells us :
"Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you MALE OR FEMALE, YOU ARE EQUAL TO ONE ANOTHER........."
Many of the Muslim countries who claim to follow Islam are treating women as a second class citizens, and some of these women accepted this situation thinking that is what Islam (Submission in English) is advocating. As mentioned previously, God, in the Quran made a complete spiritual equality between men and women, See 3:195.
Most of the degrading, humiliation and poor treatment in these Muslim Countries for women, came from the desertion of the Quran , and refusal of the word of God in favor of some fabrications written in Hadith books that put women on the same level with animals, monkeys , asses or dogs.
The total respect and rights guaranteed by God for the Muslim women can not be taken away by a lie written in another man-made book. While God made men and women spiritually equal as seen in 3:195 the traditional Muslims who prefer Hadith over Quran always remind the women of this alleged Hadith:
"Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective". (Bukhary).
That is what Bukhary writes not what God says, not what the prophet who represents the message of God could have said, since this statement is totally against the Quran. Because women usually do not have the physical strength of man, hadithists see them as "naturally defective". They forget that women have other natural qualities in which they are superior to men, like their ability to endure pain, the ability to bear children, etc.
Hadithists see women as "morally defective", conveniently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of individuals jailed for murder, rape, child abuse, etc. are men. And hadithists claim that women are "religiously defective" but it is they (not God in the Quran) who forbid their daughters from praying and fasting during their menstrual periods and it is they (not God) who discourage the women from going to the mosque, even for Friday prayers.
Their problem is that they have taken the words of men instead of the words of God. After making it all but impossible for a woman to practice her religion for about 25% of her life (the amount of time most women have their periods), is it any wonder that hadithists claim that the majority of people in Hell are women????!
However what God revealed in the Quran is very different. The spiritual equality between men and women is reiterated in 4:124, as follows:
"As for those who lead a righteous life, MALE OR FEMALE. while believing, t hey enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice"
and again in 16:97:
" Anyone who works righteousness, MALE OR FEMALE, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense for their righteous works."
and yet again in 40:40,
[40:40] Whoever commits a sin is requited for just that, and whoever works righteousness - MALE OR FEMALE - while believing, these will enter Paradise wherein they receive provisions without any limits.
I believe it is time to go back to the Quran, and believe God, before a day comes when the messenger will complain to God, that the Muslims deserted the Quran, 25:30
By L.S.
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin:
quote:Originally posted by K7: Why else you think adultery is on the increase, cos people have no shame or fear of anything to prevent them to stop....
The threat of stoning will not stop people from committing adultery just like the threat of the death penalty here in the US does not stop people from committing murder.
People who are in the heat of passion -- whether it is love that causes them to cheat or anger/hatred that causes them to murder -- they are not rational and are not thinking of future consequences.
it's unfair to compare Human law with God's law. human law seeks public and community safety. while God's law gurantees community safety and redemption. find another way for redemption first then we can stop stoning.
Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
But who can safely say what is God's law and what is invented by humans?
We're three pages into this thread and nobody has yet come up with a verse from the Qur'an that says adulterers are supposed to be stoned by death, instead we have a story of a goat eating a verse from the Qur'an – a book that God has claimed to protect!!!
Posted by Humanized (Member # 8471) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dalia: But who can safely say what is God's law and what is invented by humans?
We're three pages into this thread and nobody has yet come up with a verse from the Qur'an that says adulterers are supposed to be stoned by death, instead we have a story of a goat eating a verse from the Qur'an – a book that God has claimed to protect!!!
and as many muslims told you before that sources of Islam are :quran and sunnah , and you wont be a muslim untill you believe in both.
Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
whats next - should we stop Praying-Salat , because it was never mentioned in Quran , how should we pray!!!
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
Morgan: I am not going to address someone who is ignorant and rude. All I will say to others reading this....not all countries have pensions available to its citizens when they get older....not everyone has the luxury of receiving superannuation or government sanctioned allowances....so are these people supposed to just beg in the streets??
In regards to the question posed earlier about the man with a disabled daughter and a worthless son.....the Quran states that the daughter is to have half the amount of the son from the estate after any bequests and debts have been settled. So if the father bequests more money for his daughter, to ensure her comfort and survival, a share greater than the son, then that is permissable in Islam.
And as to the question "do I agree with stoning?" well the answer to that is that I agree with anything which Allah (SWT) and his messenger (PBUH) have ordered us to do. As a Muslim, I cannot have any hatred in my heart towards anything in this religion because Allah SWT states in the Quran " It is not for any believing man or woman, once Allah and His Messenger have decreed in a matter, that they should have any opposition to it". Also Allah SWT states "It may be that you hate a thing and in it is much benefit, or that you love a thing and in it is much harm". Islam comes from the word 'istislaam' meaning 'submission to the Will of the Creator'. How can I eat of His Sustenance, see with my eyes, breathe with my lungs and then disobey Him, not submit to Him??? Stoning is a deterrent.....dont do the deed and you wont be subject to it! Respect the vows of marriage and be faithful and there would be no stoning....its that simple.
Islam doesnt need modernisation....it is a religion which is as relevant today as it was over 1400 years ago. Thats why it is the fastest growing religion in the west. And suprise suprise, the majority of reverts to Islam in the West are women.......so despite all the feminist mumbo jumbo, women are making their own minds that islam is not repressive, its not antiquated and yes....it provides dignity to the woman. Any problems which you believe stem from Islam actually stem from the people who do things in the name of Islam.
And despite hate mongerers like Fran or Morgan or Primak, who slander and defame the muslims on this board with lies and distortions regarding our religion, Islam is here to stay and will continue growing despite you!
s...
Posted by newcomer (Member # 1056) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: In regards to the question posed earlier about the man with a disabled daughter and a worthless son.....the Quran states that the daughter is to have half the amount of the son from the estate after any bequests and debts have been settled. So if the father bequests more money for his daughter, to ensure her comfort and survival, a share greater than the son, then that is permissable in Islam.
A slight correction there...Islamic law says that you canot make a bequest to anyone who will inherit. Bequests can only be made to parties who are not from those people who are entitled to the legitimate shares of the inherited property. So money could be left to a named person or organization who would look after the disabled daughter, but she herself could not be given any more than her stated legal share.
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
''Islam doesnt need modernisation....it is a religion which is as relevant today as it was over 1400 years ago.''
How is it relevant today? Is it compatible with Human Rights? Is stoning, flogging etc compatible with the modern world? Please wake up and do not live in the past. Look around yourself TODAY. All the other nations have learned to leave aside their religious bigotry, have embraced humanism and secularism except Muslims who decline to part form the 7th century mindset.
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights explicitly demand that no one should be subject to unreasonable punishment. Death by stoning is an unreasonable and barbaric act.
In an article entitled Islam and Human Rights the Internet site ntpi.org writes:
“Whilst many Islamic countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia singed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, many of them have since modified their stance. For Abu’l A’la Mawdudi there was a clear conflict between the rights of women as enshrined in the UDHR and the need to protect and preserve the chastity of women. Muhammed Naceri, a member of the Morocco Council of Religious Scholars has said:
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was for complete equality for man and women. For us, women are equal to men in law, but they are not the same as men, and they can’t be allowed to wander around freely in the streets like some kind of animal”.
But men can, presumably. So much for equality!”
This site http://www.ntpi.org/html/uidhr.html explains that there are two versions of Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981; one in Arabic and one in English. In the English version there is a provision saying that the Arabic version is definitive. However, the differences between the Arabic and English texts are substantial. The English version has been watered down for western consumption while the definitive Arabic version has a much more conservative tone.
This Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights not only hampers the rights of women, it also denies the rights of non-Muslims and disregards their freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief.
Islam is indeed as relevant today as ever: That is why the Islamic countries today are the poorest and most backward in the world. The average growth rate of the per capita income during the preceding 20 years in the Arab world was only one-half of 1 percent per annum, worse than anywhere but sub-Saharan Africa."
''Thats why it is the fastest growing religion in the west.''
That is because Muslims are the fastest breeding people in the world. Poor people breed more. Don't confuse that with Islam being the fastest growing religion. Islam itself is in demise. Everyday thousands of enlightened Muslims leave Islam, though they do that quietly and without fanfare for obvious reasons. Islam is total darkness that has maintained itself by silencing the voices of opposition, killing them and banning and burning the books that would expose it. As long as Islam can maintain this rein of terror, it will endure. But the technology has caught up with it. Today for the first time we can unveil the ugly face of this cult and the no one can stop us. Those of us who see the truth of Islam are coming together and our number is increasing day by day. This is becoming a movement that will eventually slay this snake that is strangulating our people, keeping our nations in darkness, poverty and ignorance.
'Any problems which you believe stem from Islam actually stem from the people who do things in the name of Islam.'
The more a country becomes Islamic the more hellish it gets
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
As for morality, know that morality is not the domain of religions. One needs no religion to be a moral person. We humans invented the morality and we can keep it even without religions. As a matter of fact morality is relative. The morality of religions is the morality of ancient people that is no more moral in our days. In fact living the morality of the religions as it is prescribed in the Bible or the Quran is immoral and even illegal.
Even Atheists have values. Whoever told to the contrary was misinformed. But you need not be an atheist to denounce religions. Many people continue to believe in a god despite the fact that they do not believe in any religion. I am not an atheist either. I am an Ethical Humanist. I have many values. But my values are not the same values taught by religions.
In all religions women are worth less than men. In Islam you can even beat your wife. My values are very different. I consider women as equals. In Islam it is okay to lust after other women even if you are already married. You can marry up to four wives and have concubines. I believe in monogamy. Muslims are taught to believe that those who do not share their beliefs are inferior and will go to hell. According to my values the worth of an individual is in his spiritual, Intellectual and emotional maturity not in his beliefs. Islam teaches religious apartheid I believe is unity of human kind. Islam teaches the importance of faith without questioning. I think this is the most stupid thing one can do. The worth of a human being is in his or her ability of doubting, questioning and reasoning. As you see we Humanists have a lot of values but we do not subscribe and do not agree with the outdated and unjust values of religions. Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
A slight correction there...Islamic law says that you canot make a bequest to anyone who will inherit. Bequests can only be made to parties who are not from those people who are entitled to the legitimate shares of the inherited property. So money could be left to a named person or organization who would look after the disabled daughter, but she herself could not be given any more than her stated legal share.
You are correct newcomer....but my point is that she can be provided for even in the event of her father dying, without her share being compromised. Jazakullahu Khayran
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
You would thing that a self proclaimed 'humanist' would respect a little concept called self-choice. You dont want to believe in religion, thats up to you! I personally believe that will be a huge source of regret for you one day if you persist. But dont put down people who do follow a religion and believe that there is more to this existence than eating, drinking, procreation and dying.
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: And despite hate mongerers like Fran or Morgan or Primak, who slander and defame the muslims on this board with lies and distortions regarding our religion, Islam is here to stay and will continue growing despite you!
s...
As a mater of fact I do not have any hate in my heart. The reason I speak out against Islam is because it is a hatemongering doctrine. To hate hateful doctrines is to love people. In my sight all people are the same. I see humanity as one family. I have many Arab friends, on line and off line. I see prejudice, labeling and discrimination against all humans an evil thing that stems from the ignorance. One of the reasons I oppose Islam is due to the fact that Islam instigates hate, promotes discrimination and even violence against virtually all those who choose not to submit to the whims of its sick founder. If you have read the Quran you must have seen that it is full of hate filled verses. Yet I challenge you to find one sentence were I call people so flagrantly as Quran does to kill, crucify, maim, chop the hands and feet of those who disagree with me. It amazes me to see people are so blindfolded with prejudice that they read the Quran and are incapable to see that this book is loaded with hate verse after verse.
My whole purpose in writing is to help Muslims to wake up from their slumber and realize that Islam needs to be reformed and that the teachings of Quran in this day and age are not conducive to any good.
The humanistic values are based on the Golden Rule, though nothing is absolute we can be very safe if we follow this rule. The very fact that the rules change is a positive thing because laws must be at the service of humanity and not vice versa. The society is constantly changes and so should it laws. The so called divine laws are not divine at all but are made by a maniac who lived eons ago. Those rules are not practical anymore. Many of them are inhumane and oppressive but above all those so called divine rules puts men at the service of the rules which is completely contrary to the very purpose of law that must serve the society and ease the life of the people. There is nothing more dangerous than having a fallible manmade law and believing that it is infallible and divine.
Humanistic laws are made by people, everyone can criticize them, suggest alternatives and improvements. Religious laws are cast is stone, no one can oppose them without suffering the consequences or even lose his or her life. Human society is changing constantly, the laws that were good a hundred years ago are no more applicable. Trying to impose the laws of a 7th century primitive society in the 21st century were the world has changed so much that every human being can communicate and interact with everyone else throughout the globe is anachronistic and anti progressive. No wonder Islamic countries are so backward. The very fact that Islam is based on unchangeable laws makes Islam obsolete and unpractical. Laws are made for the well being of humans not vice versa. The human society is alive evolving and progressing and so it laws must keep with the times. Religious laws are dead fossils. The fact that they cannot change renders them useless. Take the example of traffic by-law, one hundred years ago the traffic was the traffic of horses and carriages. Can we use the same traffic by-laws of a century ago in the metropolis of today?
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: You would thing that a self proclaimed 'humanist' would respect a little concept called self-choice. You dont want to believe in religion, thats up to you! I personally believe that will be a huge source of regret for you one day if you persist. But dont put down people who do follow a religion and believe that there is more to this existence than eating, drinking, procreation and dying.
I do not put down people who believe that there is more to this existence than 'eating, drinking etc.' because I too, believe in God. But we have to be reasonable too. Just because no one has a definitive answer to the teleological question of existence, it does not mean we should accept any crazy explanation. You talk about respecting a little concept called self-choice, and I do. Can you do the same? Believers can believe in whatever they wish, that does not make their belief true nor give them the right to impose it on those who do not believe. Muslims are not the only group who believe that their belief is the only true belief. Virtually every believer in the world believes that his or her religion is the true one. That does not give them license to try to impose their belief on others. We the humanists say, keep your beliefs to yourself, practice it in the privacy of your homes, but in the society we follow the rules defined in the charter of Human Rights and respect the life, the rights, the freedom of faith, and the freedom of expression of every human being irrespective of his or her beliefs.
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
We the humanists say, keep your beliefs to yourself, practice it in the privacy of your homes....
but in the society we follow the rules defined in the charter of Human Rights and respect the life, the rights, the freedom of faith, and the freedom of expression of every human being irrespective of his or her beliefs.....
What a contradiction!! Did u actually proof read this before you hit the Add Reply button. Dont be a hypocrite and state that you respect every expression of humans and then turn around and say that that my religion should be 'kept to myself' and practiced in the 'privacy of my own home'.
You so called humanists have no problem with homosexuality being openly expressed, adultery and fornication being rampant...because this is freedom of all expression......but u have a problem with a person who decided to wear the hijaab, pray and worship their Creator?? Get off your soap box and get consistent.....because this smacks of bigotry and blantant hypocrisy
And in reply to your comment about religion, I offer you these words.
" Say to those who are deniers of Allah, I will not worship what you worship, Nor will you worship what I worship Nor will I worship what you worship, To you is your way of Life, to me is Mine" Surat al-Kafiroon
"There is no compulsion in religion..."
S..
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
''We the humanists say, keep your beliefs to yourself, practice it in the privacy of your homes....''
As long as you respect my human rights too, not treat me as dhimmi, naji (filthy) and inferior.
''You so called humanists have no problem with homosexuality being openly expressed, adultery and fornication being rampant...because this is freedom of all expression......but u have a problem with a person who decided to wear the hijaab, pray and worship their Creator??''
FYI, homosexuality, adultery and fornication is rampant in Islamic countries as well. The difference is that it happens underground. It is a fact that religiously ruled societies are far more corrupt than the secular societies. For example do you know that the wealthy Arab sheikhs routinely travel to India, buy young Indian girls for sex and return home?- all under the auspicious of Islam. In Islamic countries, corruption and immorality are swept under the carpet, that's the only difference.
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
FYI, homosexuality, adultery and fornication is rampant in Islamic countries as well. The difference is that it happens underground. It is a fact that religiously ruled societies are far more corrupt than the secular societies. For example do you know that the wealthy Arab sheikhs routinely travel to India, buy young Indian girls for sex and return home?- all under the auspicious of Islam. In Islamic countries, corruption and immorality are swept under the carpet.
Havent u figured it out yet???/ the fact is is underground or not....doesnt make it acceptable in Islam.
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
And what makes you think it is acceptable in the West? The fact that they don't chop off their hands and maim them, in order to ''repent''?
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fran: And what makes you think it is acceptable in the West? The fact that they don't chop off their hands and maim them, in order to ''repent''?
Permitting civil unions/marriages and providing things such as health insurance benefits to gay partners when such things were commonly reserved for married heterosexual partners.
Adultery is no longer a crime in many states in the US, and even if it is still on the *books,* it isn't prosecuted. And fornication is legal as well.
If that is not *accepting,* I don't know what is.
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
Adultery is a 'sin of conscience'. The reason it is not prosecuted is not because it is ' acceptable' but because empirical experience shows that punishment as detterant for that particular 'crime' has no effect.
As for gays, in what way they affect you or harm you? No one is forcing you to marry one.
Posted by Snoozin (Member # 6244) on :
I don't have any problem with gay people. I merely answered your question about whether it was acceptable in the West, and it generally is. The tone of your question implied you think otherwise.
Adultery is not only a sin of conscience, but was also a crime because very few property and inheritance rights were conferred on illegitimate children.
But inheritance laws have changed, there are DNA tests that prove paternity, and child support laws that require parents to be responsible for any and all children. For these reasons, adultery itself is not seen as a criminal act any longer. Bastardy has been taken off the books in most states as well.
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
" I personally believe that will be a huge source of regret for you one day if you persist..."
Typical religious idiotic statement...Fran, what you don't seem to understand is that they are all "threatened" with hell, totally believe in "hell" with demons/fire/physical pain and stuff How can you discuss anything with a chap that feels constantly threatened? better be the threatening party, even if it is totally un-realistic than with the obvious reality..one never knows. Sad.
Posted by yuyuandmarmar (Member # 9714) on :
Primak....on the contrary you are the one threatened by the rise of Islam....you are the one who feels compelled to frequent Islamic message boards and vilify Muslims......
For your information Muslims perform all their obligations not only out of fear of punishment, but out of hope of Allahs mercy, and also from love. I doubt you would understand....but when you love someone, you would do anything for them. By loving our Creator, it becomes a joy and an honour to do the things that please the Creator most!
The only threatening thing on this forum is your continued arrogance and ignorance regarding Islam.
Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
The mere thought of stoning a human to death just because she had the liberty to use HER own body, not anyone else's, is a total disgrace to humanity, let alone the privecy. I can not imagine anybody with a triffle of humanity lingering there, that would stand the same being done to even a stray dog or a homeless cat. I'm not against punishment, but comeon, have some compassioin.
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: And in reply to your comment about religion, I offer you these words.
" Say to those who are deniers of Allah, I will not worship what you worship, Nor will you worship what I worship Nor will I worship what you worship, To you is your way of Life, to me is Mine" Surat al-Kafiroon
"There is no compulsion in religion..."
S..
How can you reconcile what you said about Islam with these verses:
'If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)' http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085
''And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.'' web page
''Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Sahih Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64.
No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection." http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.064
we see the talk of reward (read: heaven) for killing a murtad.
Saying that a particular punishment is too barbaric or otherwise, is basically giving a value judgment about that punishment. If that punishment is fixed by Allah or any of His prophets, it is the belief of all Muslims that then that punishment, whether severe or soft, serves justice.
That brief answer crystallizes the pig-headed thinking of most Muslims: If the Quran or Hadith specify a certain action, then that activity is right. End of debate.
Let's see the prescription of Islam Online for a murtad:
If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. Islam Online
Note that Sharia is not confined by geographical boundaries. If it is just to kill a murtad in Saudi Arabia, then so it is in America, Australia, Europe anywhere and everywhere.
That is why so many countless apostates keep their thinking to themselves. If caught, their only recourse is to profess maniacal allegiance to Islam. Otherwise, a tight noose or a sword welcomes them.
Muslims are immensely proud of their timeless religion. The Quran is respected and revered instead of being recognized for what it is a glorified encyclopedia of asininity. Islamic laws such as punishments for stealing, adultery, murder, rape, and apostasy remain the same across time and space. These laws are unreformable by definition.
The only hope is for Muslims to ignore such laws. Sadly, the past fourteen centuries don't offer much in that direction. Terror, both psychological and physical, is the very soul of Islam. For what would you say to "continue to believe or die"?
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Primak....on the contrary you are the one threatened by the rise of Islam....you are the one who feels compelled to frequent Islamic message boards and vilify Muslims......
For your information Muslims perform all their obligations not only out of fear of punishment, but out of hope of Allahs mercy, and also from love. I doubt you would understand....but when you love someone, you would do anything for them. By loving our Creator, it becomes a joy and an honour to do the things that please the Creator most!
The only threatening thing on this forum is your continued arrogance and ignorance regarding Islam.
"threatened" by the "rise" of islam? wake up lady, you are living in la-la land. Religions control dumb human beings like you by threatening them with hell ; the various descriptions of hell in all your books are quite obvious.
And by the way, nowhere does it say that Egyptsearch is an "islamic " forum , nor does it state anywhere that its religious section is islamic in any way. I vilify idiotic thought. Any religion is idiotic in my view, all religions are man made for the control of man by a bunch of lunatics.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein.
Posted by Sadeeqy (Member # 9759) on :
Change me
Dear Lord change not Thy will in my life, Or trial and sorrows to be; Renew my faith and make me strong, Change not Thy will, change me.
Though teardrops fall when trouble comes, Like storms on a rolling sea; Let Thy beacon guide my ship to port, Change not the storm, change me.
When Thy Holy Word I don't understand And Thy glory I cannot see; Teach my eyes, give me sight and wisdom, Change not Thy Word, change me.
If the fruit Thou hast given me to eat, Taste bitter and sour, I plea; Let not my will but Thine be done, Change not the fruit, change me.
If sometime I murmur and grumble, dear Lord, About the cross I carry for Thee; Keep it firm on my shoulders, but hold my hand, Change not the cross, change me.
If You change Thy ways to please me, dear Lord, I would soon grow cold and turn from Thee; That You may hear my prayers, dear Lord, Change not Thy ways, change me.
There's a valley that I must cross, Someday Thy face to see; Lest I forget what power is Thine, Change not the valley, change me.
Anonymous
Posted by Troubles101 (Member # 4543) on :
quote:Originally posted by primak:
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
[/QB]
Primak seems very into quotes, So I will give him something different :
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....." James M. Gillis
"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability....." Voltaire
"An atheist’s most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something,but can’t think of anyone to thank for it...." Mary Anne Vincent
Posted by primak (Member # 494) on :
A theologian is like a blind person in a dark room searching for a black cat which isn't there -- and finding it!
Posted by Troubles101 (Member # 4543) on :
speaking of dark:
"Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misaprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark,will sing or whistle to keep their courage...."
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
"Where's your oldest daughter?" she heard a voice demand. It was the senior elder of their village Within an hour, the entire village would learn that the 25-year-old married woman had been discovered in a darkened nearby hut with her lover.
Within two days, Amina was dead -- killed by her fellow villagers April 20 after the men of the community ruled that she had violated Islamic law by having an affair with a neighbor. "There was no option. This is what Islam commands us."
Oh yes, where do I sign up for this most loving and compassionate religion ? A religion that can twist a parents love for their child into killing them.
[/QB][/QUOTE]Primak seems very into quotes, So I will give him something different :
"Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....." James M. Gillis
"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability....." Voltaire
"An atheist’s most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something,but can’t think of anyone to thank for it...." Mary Anne Vincent [/QB][/QUOTE]
Here's one more quote for you:
I worship humanity. All people are humans. Humanism is the way of the present and the future. Posted by Troubles101 (Member # 4543) on :
"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists"
"I always admired atheists. I think it takes a lot of faith." -------------------------------------------------
"When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?"
LOL Posted by Troubles101 (Member # 4543) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fran:
Here's one more quote for you:
I worship humanity. All people are humans. Humanism is the way of the present and the future.
sucks Posted by dwgendy (Member # 8693) on :
Finally someone well informed and read well ( Polygamy)... I knew this interpretation and believe in it but never had it translated in English. It is quite obvious and doesn't need someone to explain it. Anyone who can read plain Arabic can read the Qur'an and understand it. it is very simple, but people never take time and do it. THANK YOU DALIA.
Sorry,I'm in a real hurry and just wanted to write a quick word.
Tahnks again Dalia.
PS. Women inherit 1/2 what the man inherit only in 2 occaions, The daughter and another situation,,, I don't wanna state it out of my head right now, but I'll check and have it documented. In all the other stuations women inherit just as much as men, Equal.
quote:Originally posted by Dalia:
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: Polygamy is not only about orphans.
One of the most wide spread myths that has been associated with God's religion over the centuries is the issue of "Polygamy". It is customary for people when they think of Islam, or even when they embrace Islam, that they automatically have a license to marry more than one wife (upto a maximum of 4).
Men tend to fantasize that this is due to the high sexual libido that God has given them and that it is part of their Homo-Sapien right of male domination.
Even women in the Islamic world have come to accept the idea of Polygamy as being ordained by God and therefore not open for debate or questioning. The woman in Islamic society may not like the idea of sharing her husband with other women, but it is a fact of life she has been taught to accept and respect.
Did the Lord of the Universe realize that Muslim men were hormone driven animals that needed the sexual satisfaction of more than one mate? Or is it us who as usual interpret God's revelations with our desires rather than our brains?.
Where in the Quran can we find this command that justifies Polygamy?
"You shall hand over to the ORPHANS* their rightful properties. Do not substitute the bad for the good, and do not consume their properties by combining them with yours. This would be a gross injustice. If you fear that you will not be equitable towards the ORPHANS*, then you may marry their mothers. You may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship." (4/2-3)
"They consult you concerning women: say, "GOD enlightens you regarding them, as recited for you in the scripture. The mothers of ORPHANS* that you wish to marry but do not give them their due dowries, you shall be just. The rights of young boys must also be protected. You shall treat the orphans equitably. Whatever good you do, GOD is fully aware thereof." (4/127)
* Orphans in Arabic (Yatama) is used for a child who has lost his father. A child who has lost his mother is not considered an Orphan in Arabic.
Any reader of the above verse does not have to be a genius to understand that Polygamy is CONDITIONAL that a person wants to be equitable towards the ORPHANS!.
But WHO are these ORPHANS that we are responsible for yet it is likely that we will not treat them favorably?.
Again, we do not have to look beyond the tip of our noses for the answer:
"Do not give those who are immature the money which God has ENTRUSTED you with. You shall provide for them from it and cloth them, and say to them what is just. You shall test the orphans when they reach puberty. As soon as you find them mature enough, GIVE THEM THEIR PROPERTY..." (4/5-6)
You must be the GUARDIAN to these Orphans and caretaker to their inheritance BEFORE even considering Polygamy. It is not just for a man to just pick children off the street and claim that he will marry their mother. The man must be the Guardian to the children appointed by their deceased father or because they (the Orphans) are from his blood.
After laying out the rules in which Polygamy is allowed, we are also dealt with more restrictions in the Quran:
"You can NEVER be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging. If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (4/129)
So, as we have it DETAILED in God's Book:
1. Orphans placed in our guardianship are to be treated fairly. 2. If we fear biased-ness or unfairness in treatment, we MAY marry their mother. 3. We MUST pay their mother her dowry as in the case of a normal marriage. 4. We MUST NOT be biased in our dealings with either wife.
Under these circumstances it becomes very clear how God's perfect system will be a shield for children who have lost their fathers and need protection in this world, rather than a license for sexual fantasies as most are led to believe.
May the Lord grant us His mercy for all the wrong we have done.
quote:Originally posted by dwgendy: PS. Women inherit 1/2 what the man inherit only in 2 occaions, The daughter and another situation,,, I don't wanna state it out of my head right now, but I'll check and have it documented. In all the other stuations women inherit just as much as men, Equal.
That would be very interesting to read, DWgendy, if you get a chance.... thanks!
Posted by Dalia (Member # 1230) on :
quote:Originally posted by dwgendy: I knew this interpretation and believe in it but never had it translated in English.
I thought that was a very common interpretation.
There are lots of translations and articles about this in English ... this one, which I posted before, is very interesting as well:
Many Muslim nations which now consider polygamy unconstitutional have justified such changes in legislation on the basis of the overall Qur'anic perspective on marriage, as well as on modern Islamic perspectives of marriage. The marriage of subjugation at the time of revelation was premised on the need for females to be materially provided for by some male. The ideal male for a female child was the father, and for the adult female, the husband. This economic perspective of marriage - as indicated by several verses discussed above - will also be reviewed here with regard to polygamy.
If you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, three or four. But if you fear that you will not be able do do justly (with them),then only one, ... to prevent you from doing justice. (4.3)
First, this verse is about treatment of orphans. Some male guardians, responsible for managing the wealth of orphaned female children, were unable to refrain from unjust management of that wealth. (4:2). One solution suggested to prevent mismanagement was marriage to the female orphans. On the one hand, the Qur'an limited this number to four, and on the other hand, the economic responsibility of maintaining the wife would counterbalance the access to the wealth of the orphaned female through the responsibility of management. However, most proponents of polygamy seldom discuss it within the context of just treatment of orphans.
In fact, as far as they are concerned, the only measurement of justice between wives is material - can a man equally support more than one wife? This is an extension of the archaic idea of marriages of subjugation, because fairness is not based on quality of time, equality in terms of affection, or on spiritual, moral, and intellectual support. These general terms of social justice are not considered with regard to just treatment with wives.
It is especially clear that this verse is concerned with justice: dealing justly, managing funds justly, justice to the orphans, and justice to the wives, etc. Justice is the focus of most modern commentaries concerned with polygamy. In the light of the verse 4:129 - "You are never able to be just and fair as between women ..." - many commentators assert that monogamy is the preferred marital arrangement of the Qur'an. Surely, it is impossible to attain the Qur'anic ideal with regard to mutuality ("They (feminine plural) are raiment for you (masculine plural) and you are raiment for them" (2:187)), and with regard to building between them "love and mercy" (30:21), when the husband-father is split between more than one family.
Finally, with regard to three common justifications given for polygamy, there is no direct sanction in the Qur'an. One is financial: in the context of economic problems such as unemployment, a financially capable man should care for more than one wife. Again, this assumes that all women are financial burdens: reproducers, but not porducers. In today's world a lot of women neither have nor need male supporters. For one thing, it is no longer accepted that only men can work, do work, or are the most productive workers, in all circumstances. With regard to work outside the home, i.e. paid employment, the market is based on productivitiy. Productivity in turn is based on a numer of factors, and gender is only one of them. Surely, polygamy is no simple solution to complex eoconomic problems.
Another rationale given for a man having more than one wife centres on the woman who is unable to have children. Again, there is no mention of this as a rationale for polygamy in the Qur'an. However, the desire for children is natural. Thus, consideration for the barren man and the barren woman should not exclude either from the chance of marriage, nor from the care and upbringing of children. What possible solution is mutually available when the wife or husband is sterile and the couple cannot have their own children?
In a world of war and devastation, there are still orphaned Muslim (and other) children who would benefit from the love and care of childless couples. Perhaps caring for all of the earth's children might be practised by Muslims in the light of global catastrophes still unresolved. One's own blood relations are important, but perhaps not in terms of the final judgement of one's ability to care and nurture.
Finally, the third rationale given for polygamy not only has no sanction in the Qur'an but is clearly un-Qur'anic as it attempts to sanction men's unbridled lust: that if a man's sexual needs cannot be satisfied by one wife, he should have two. Presumably, if his lust is greater than that, he should have three, and on until he has four. Only after this fourth are the Qur'anic principles of self-constraint, modesty, and fidelity finally to be exercised.
As self-constraint and fidelity are required at the onset for the wife, these moral virtues are equally significant for the husband. It is clear that the Qur'an does not stress a high, civilized level for women while leaving men to interact with others at the basest level. Otherwise, the mutual responsibility of khilafah (trusteeship) would be left to one half of humanity while the other half remains near the animal state.
Amina Wadud: Qur'an and Woman. Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's perspective Posted by Sub-zero (Member # 9691) on :
quote:Originally posted by yuyuandmarmar: on the contrary you are the one threatened by the rise of Islam.
yuyu & marmar
Don’t take this the wrong way, I think we as Muslims should try to find a footstep in the current world by facing facts and not by being defensive or live in denial. While I’m not suggesting that you personally are doing so, but rather it is a common behavior that is associated by most Arabs and Muslims.
I’m not going to indulge in a religious/religious debate, but I’m commenting on the term “Rise” that you have kindly used in your post. “Rising” in my opinion includes, and is not limited to, technological, social, economical, military, and scientific achievements that seriously “elevates” the standards of living. One look around on what we have today in our lands compared with what others achieved is rather saddening. It is saddening because instead of this differences acting as a tremendous spur for us to really rise, we brush it aside and consider that the only counted for “rise” is the rise in faith, practised rituals and the quantity of believers making the Haj every year. A pity in the best of cases if you ask me. Rise in quantity doesn’t necessary mean rise in quality.
The only good rising that we have done so far, is rising our poor population, rising the percentage of illiteracy, rising the tensions in the world, rising the death tolls of sick people due to deficiency of medical care, rising consumption of food that led to depts, rising the toll of death of innocent people with suicide bombings, rising the price of oil because that led to a considerable “rise” for Exxon earnings for all I care! Rising the hatred and animosity with the rest of the world, and that latter one gets me. Why do we hate others that much? The west in general invented what we Muslims use freely today while taking it for granted, if those people were devious, they wouldn’t have shared penicillin with our sick people and children but would have kept it for their own children, they wouldn’t have shared with us the technology that me and you use today so freely to blemish them.We live in their countries and use their freedom to curse them while they don't ask as to convert to their religions, nor lock their cities for our visits.
I believe that if we continue our hatred to the world, then the world is entitled to hate us back. But if we shared compassion and seeked the brotherhood of mankind, we would surely have the same coin back. My belief is that every society in the world has its flaws. I’m not an advocate for the west, as they have their problems as well, but we have to understand that every religion assumes exclusivity of heaven. If we are true to ourselves, we should acknowledge the facts that are existing today on the ground of reality and try to rectify them and deal with them while keeping an even eye to the rest of the world.
Posted by MohdAnwar (Member # 5528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snoozin: Thank you Humanized. It answered many of my questions but also raised more.
1. There are verses that have been abrogated from the Qur'an? Why and by whom?
2. If they are abrogated in word, why is their *ruling* not considered abrogated?
3. Whose responsibility is it to inflict this punishment?
4. What is the rationale behind adultery being such a horrific crime that a human must pay for it with his life? abrogated
Hello Snoozin first of all there is a kind of different openions in word abrograted. u can say the abrograted rules it is just not suitable for some situations for our days now but still vaild for other situations in future or in past. u just don't know when cause god create time so god aware with what happend had happend and what happening what will happend.
in the point of who suppose to inflict the punishment with a modern word the (goverment)
let me say some words about the adulty :-
before we talk about the punishment we must talk about how u prove this person do adulty or not. god give us the rules about that. 1- he and she must be married 2-it must be 4 wittness togther seeing them with no void ..... if they are only 3 wittness it is not valid in contrary if 3 wittness talk about that and they are not 4 they will be punished cause they talking about thing not proved.
so now let me ask u something. can u imagine any married person woman or man do adulty and let 4 wittness seeing him or her do adulty. can that be happend in the normal people ? ????? i will answer instead of u NO. it happend only for the people who publish their cheating and their adulty or may be in the house of adulty and that really what Quran fight.
Islam don't want the Adulty to be normal thing between musliums so it make the punishment very hard to make u think twice before u do it and apply this punsihment in the ppl who publish their sexual life (cheating) and in my openion they deserve that specially if they are married
BEst Regards mohamed
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
Huda Al-Husseini, a correspondent for the Saudi owned London Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, conducted an extensive interview with Saudi Ambassador to London Ghazi Al-Qusaibi.
quote:
Flogging, Stoning, and Amputations Are in Muslim Eyes "The Core of the Islamic Faith" "On the other hand… democracy in Britain can do what it wants. In law school, we learned that the English Parliament can do anything except make a male into a female and a female into a male. Now it can do that too. In contrast, according to the Islamic view, no one – the nation cannot, 1,200,000,000 Muslims cannot –make the forbidden permissible and cannot make the permissible forbidden. [In Islam] punishments have been set, and no matter what we say, the West will see them as barbaric and primitive. According to the Western view, flogging is illogical. Execution is unacceptable, and the same goes for amputating hands and stoning. These are things that in Muslim eyes are at the core of the Islamic faith."
He also mentions how he would like to be a martyr but 'unfortunately' his age (or weight) deprives him of the pleasure.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
What he needs is a long long stay in a mental institution.
Posted by Fran (Member # 9740) on :
Dr. 'Adel Sadeq, chairman of the Arab Psychiatrists Association and head of the Department of Psychiatry at 'Ein Shams University in Cairo. - a recipient of the 1990 Egyptian State Prize,
quote:"When the martyr dies a martyr's death, he attains the height of bliss. As a professional psychiatrist, I say that the height of bliss comes with the end of the countdown: ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. And then, you press the button to blow yourself up. When the martyr reaches 'one,' and then 'boom,' he explodes, and senses himself flying, because he knows for certain that he is not dead. It is a transition to another, more beautiful world, because he knows very well that within seconds he will see the light of the Creator. He will be at the closest possible point to Allah.."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)