Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[Mohsin]

Regards to you Brian.

Ah, but then you imply that Allah creates men to be deaf to His word, simply so that He can torture them for fun. There is a similar argument from certain Christian circles, and it tends not to convince there either. After all, there are probably a few thousand different Christian and Islamic denominations all promising hell-fire to those outside of themselves in their own special way.

According to the Qur'an, only those may prosper who will not associate false gods with Allah. Allah says in several places that
[4.48] Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.
[4.116] Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and He forgives what is besides this to whom He pleases; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into a remote error.
I am not claiming this, it is in the Qur'an. You yourself know that there are several commandments like:
Exodus, Ch. No. 20, V. No. 2, says… Thou shalt have no other God besides Him. Thou shalt not make any graven things of thee, of the likeness in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, and the water beneath the earth. Thou shalt not serve them, nor bow down to them, for thy God, is the jealous God.

So the message is somewhat the same. Yes, I do know that people promises hell-fire to those who are outside of themselves. I am not going to comment on that because as the Qur'anic verses say "Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with Him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases;"

About the verse that I placed earlier in my post, yes, it is not in every persons fate to become a believer. Even a few believers go astray like I mentioned about Salman Rashdi(India) and Tasleema Nasreen(Bangladesh). Being blind and deaf is as if one sees and hears the signs but choose not to see and hear them. This may be because Allah had sealed their intelligence. Again, it is Allah's will. I am sure that Samabudhi would not be offended because he is not a believer and from the looks of it, he is never going to. If he really thinks that way, well, he would have second thoughts.

I sure wish that I am able to satisfy the comment you placed. I am not as well experianced as you guys. I mean, I have heard a lot of articals and lectures and I gained a lot of knowledge about comparative religion. There can be better comments from other Muslims but I do not find any around here.

 

[samabudhi]

I just could not help resist noticing that when you say nitpicking at religious dogma, you are actually mainly criticising Islam only. Can you tell me why?

I used to be on Christianities case. But then I realised that I didn't need to be. There are enough people fleeing the sinking ship and people in Christian countries are very well educated these days. They've worked it out for themselves. Islam is different since it is so very dogmatic about being right. The majority of Christians are moderate people and not really interested in religion. Muslims are very much into their religion. The bubble is yet to be broken, though I see it happening in ex-pats to western countries, Egypt, other Arab countries that are developed enough where the population is well educated and reforms are in motion, and indeed in my own country, South Africa.

I'm bored of arguing with Christians. I'm bored of arguing with Muslims, though every now and then I return just to see what people are arguing about, and then I get caught up in the whole thing again. Probably some misplaced desire to be right and 'prove' it.

I'm equally hard on all dogma. Theres dogma in Buddhism. I've run into Buddhists about this a couple of times. But there's an awlful lot of it in Islam.

It fits completely on you. No matter what I do, you will continue to disbelieve.

You know, I would never say that to someone outside Buddhism. The reason is that if I did, then people would think this: 'I don't believe it. I don't think I ever will, and even the people inside the religion don't believe I will, so what's the point in me trying if I'm only going to be greeted by scepticism anyway.'
A big reason why people stick to their religion when they have such doubts about it is because they can't see any alternative. If other religions say, 'You'll never believe', it's hostile. How can someone feel welcome if that's the message they hear. Nothing is certain anyway. 'You'll never believe in plain conjecture, and if you have such faith in your religion, then why is it so hard to imagine that I might change?'

 

[Mohsin]

I used to be on Christianities case. But then I realised that I didn't need to be. There are enough people fleeing the sinking ship and people in Christian countries are very well educated these days. They've worked it out for themselves. Islam is different since it is so very dogmatic about being right. The majority of Christians are moderate people and not really interested in religion. Muslims are very much into their religion. The bubble is yet to be broken, though I see it happening in ex-pats to western countries, Egypt, other Arab countries that are developed enough where the population is well educated and reforms are in motion, and indeed in my own country, South Africa.

I will agree that there are many basic questions about Christian beliefs that cannot be concidered logical and cannot be well supported. When you say that due to education, people are getting away from Islam, I will not totally agree with you. There are many well educated people that I know of and they are very proud of Islam and calling themselves Muslims. If you analyze, it is because of the advancement of science and education, Muslims are getting more attached to Islam. If you come across newly converted Muslims, they are more towards following the teachings of Islam. Yes, I do agree that many people take religion for granted. I mean, when born in an Islaminc society, they tend to not to follow the teachings completely. Also I would like to say that it is due to the advancement in education we have come to know that even small teachings when properly followed can have great uses. Like the one I mentioned about wazoo(a process by which Muslims wash themselves before offering their prayers). It is made essential for us to do wazoo before the prayers. When looking to the outcome of this practice, I mentioned about the plauge called Black Death during the dark ages and Muslims in Spain were protected from it because of this practice which improves hygine. Also during wazoo, we deeply wash our nose. It has been found today that many disease spreading germs germinate in the nose, anthrax being one such disease. Also, many questions are asked about many things which are disallowed for us Muslims. For example, the use of pork, alcahol, the practice of polygeney e.t.c. and when they are scietifically answered, the Muslims tend to believe more.

You know, I would never say that to someone outside Buddhism. The reason is that if I did, then people would think this: 'I don't believe it. I don't think I ever will, and even the people inside the religion don't believe I will, so what's the point in me trying if I'm only going to be greeted by scepticism anyway.'
A big reason why people stick to their religion when they have such doubts about it is because they can't see any alternative. If other religions say, 'You'll never believe', it's hostile. How can someone feel welcome if that's the message they hear. Nothing is certain anyway. 'You'll never believe in plain conjecture, and if you have such faith in your religion, then why is it so hard to imagine that I might change?'

All I can say is that there are many signs, I mean you youself said that you read the Qur'an, many people have good thoughts about Islam after that and after learning more about Islam, some even embrace it. I said that because you are constantly offending Islam. The invetation to Islam is always there. If you think that you are not among those unbelievers mentioned in the Qur'an then for once think positive about Islam. This verse was revealed when the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was becoming tired of inviting several people into Islam and they after even concidering many clear signs, continued to reject. Allah told the state of such many unbelievers by this verse.

 

[samabudhi]

Also during wazoo, we deeply wash our nose. It has been found today that many disease spreading germs germinate in the nose, anthrax being one such disease.

Anthrax! HA! How ironic.

Also, many questions are asked about many things which are disallowed for us Muslims. For example, the use of pork, alcahol, the practice of polygeney e.t.c. and when they are scietifically answered, the Muslims tend to believe more.

How about the use of violence. You don't need science to show you the drawbacks.

All I can say is that there are many signs, I mean you youself said that you read the Qur'an, many people have good thoughts about Islam after that and after learning more about Islam, some even embrace it. I said that because you are constantly offending Islam.

You've mentioned something quite interesting, and important.
You speak of Islam as a living entity; a separate being; of me being able to offend it. This is a very dangerous situation indeed. No longer is it about the people. Oh no. The people invest there power in some abstract idea and give life to it. It takes on a life of it's own and, you're gonna love this, evolves in order to survive. It cannot survive in those who do not rely on it. It spreads from host to host and only survives where the host can be deluded into thinking that it is of use and that it truly exists. A religion as a meme. I'm sure this thread is still somewhere on the forum. Take a look. You'll be surprised at the similarities ideas share with primitive life forms. Scary stuff actually.

The invetation to Islam is always there. If you think that you are not among those unbelievers mentioned in the Qur'an then for once think positive about Islam. This verse was revealed when the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was becoming tired of inviting several people into Islam and they after even concidering many clear signs, continued to reject. Allah told the state of such many unbelievers by this verse.

It's going to take more than a couple of signs to convert me. Like those who wouldn't convert in the past, I can't get past the logical barriers. It was ridiculous and naive by Muhammad to think that signs would be all that was necessary to convert people. The 'infidels' were endowed with logic. And then he loses his rag because they use it. A see no patience, compassion or understanding in this man or his religion. So for me, not only does Islam lack logic; it lacks any good representatives. If Muhammed was the most pious there was/is, then I'm sorry, but my vote lies elsewhere and no amount of threats of burning hell and eternal damnation are going to force me into ignorance and blind worship.

 

[Mohsin]

Can you, in clear terms, point by point, tell me what do you not like about Islam?

 

[samabudhi]

I will give my top three:

1. It is aggressive to people outside the religion.
2. The people inside the religion are not happy.
3. It's religion is not built on solid foundations. What I mean is, how would you start telling someone about Islam. You'd start by saying that it was a revelation from God and go from there. First I would have to believe in God however, and the logic of this is never accurately proven, so the entire argument goes out the window.

I'll demonstrate by comparing my religion, Buddhism with yours (something I'd really rather not do, but here it is anyway.)

Islam starts like this: 'God said such and such and so you must obey.'
Buddhism starts like this: 'There is suffering. In order to stop it you should do such and such.'

Why do people come to religion? Because they've heard that it is divine revelation or because they hear it can help them?
The latter I'm sure you'll agree.

That's it, in a nutshell.

 

[iBrian]

I will give my top three:

1. It is aggressive to people outside the religion.
2. The people inside the religion are not happy.
3. It's religion is not built on solid foundations. What I mean is, how would you start telling someone about Islam. You'd start by saying that it was a revelation from God and go from there. First I would have to believe in God however, and the logic of this is never accurately proven, so the entire argument goes out the window.

To be fair, those do seem quite antiquated - even ignorant - objections, though. To make a blanket statement that Muslims are not happy with their belief seems a rather extraordinary claim.

Also, the notion of aggression - Islam historically had an extremely good relationship with Judaism and Christianity - certainly until the Crusades, when the Papacy used Islam as a scapegoat and point of political and religious unity - very much how it is being used in the modern world.

As disputing the foundations - you don't believe in God, therefore are you saying there can be no worth in Islam? Again, this does seem rather extraordinary - a simple empty argument.

I'll demonstrate by comparing my religion, Buddhism with yours (something I'd really rather not do, but here it is anyway.)

Islam starts like this: 'God said such and such and so you must obey.'
Buddhism starts like this: 'There is suffering. In order to stop it you should do such and such.'

As for the comparison - really, it should be impossible to compare the two directly because they are extremely diverse in their world view and cultural formation and expression.

But what is given is not at all a comparison, as much as a point of bias. It could very easily be re-worded thus:

Buddhism starts like this: 'Buddha said such and such and so you must obey.'

Islam starts like this: 'There is suffering. In order to stop it you should do such and such.'

It is simply a matter of perspective.

Why do people come to religion? Because they've heard that it is divine revelation or because they hear it can help them?
The latter I'm sure you'll agree.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Alas, again very much an oversimplication. You simply project your own biases and imagine that the logic extends beyond your personal experience as a truth of sorts. And it has to be said, such a perception of religion is indeed rather ignorant.

 

[samabudhi]

Firstly, I really hate these open ended questions. They're like bear traps. Someone asks me to express my opinion, and then I get repremanded when I do.

To make a blanket statement that Muslims are not happy with their belief seems a rather extraordinary claim.

I said they are not happy in general, not unhappy with their religion.

Also, the notion of aggression - Islam historically had an extremely good relationship with Judaism and Christianity - certainly until the Crusades, when the Papacy used Islam as a scapegoat and point of political and religious unity - very much how it is being used in the modern world.

If you include fanatics in the religion, as I do, then they're aggresive. If you don't, then fine, they're not. But as soon as someone becomes an extremist in Islam, they disown them and say they are not part of Islam. This is just like the Americans saying that those idiot troops in Iraq do not represent Americans. Hello?!? They've been chosen to represent America. What a croc.

As disputing the foundations - you don't believe in God, therefore are you saying there can be no worth in Islam? Again, this does seem rather extraordinary - a simple empty argument.

And a generalisation to boot. Who said I don't believe in God, and I never said there was nothing good in Islam, I just think there are much, MUCH better ways of going about one's life.

As for the comparison - really, it should be impossible to compare the two directly because they are extremely diverse in their world view and cultural formation and expression.

As I said, I hate to make comparisons, but this is comparative-religion.com is it not?

But what is given is not at all a comparison, as much as a point of bias. It could very easily be re-worded thus:

Buddhism starts like this: 'Buddha said such and such and so you must obey.'

Islam starts like this: 'There is suffering. In order to stop it you should do such and such.'

It is simply a matter of perspective.

Getting back to the Kalamas of Kesputta, the Buddha said we should examine everything for ourselves and then decide. His purpose is simply as a guide. As for Islam, despite how ambiguous the language is, it is clear that the word 'must' is prefered over it's euphemism, should. Read the Qu'ran and tell me whether you think Allah/Mohammed is appealing to our intellect or our blind belief. He wouldn't care less if you didn't use your intellect to arrive at Islam. It's a completely different story with Buddhism. As for Islam starting off at 'There is suffering', this is simply not true. It begins up in the clouds with divine revelation. It does not proceed from our present plight.

Alas, again very much an oversimplication. You simply project your own biases and imagine that the logic extends beyond your personal experience as a truth of sorts. And it has to be said, such a perception of religion is indeed rather ignorant.

So we're just supposed to remain in limbo over what's true and what's not. I've tried sitting on the fence and it never works out. If you chose to come to religion, what was your reason? I don't think my conclusions were that off?
I'm Sorry if I'm not contributing to your ideal of a nonconfrontational comparative-religion. That question was just too open in my mind. I shouldn't have answered it.

 

[iBrian]

Heh, we are simply discussing opinion.

You wanted to take Mohsin to task for his opinions, I merely returned the favour for yourself.

Ultimately, it is all a part of discussing religion in general and there is nothing wrong with it. Although some of the wording has been somewhat strong to my own mind, there has been no reprimand, excepting in the spirit of debate and discussion.

Btw - I took the liberty of fixing a broken quote tag in your post, as it pretty much hid your comments on Buddhism in relation to Islam.

 

[Mohsin]

Firstly, I would like to say that Brian gave good comments satifying your initial quries. I realize that this discussion is getting a little to the extreame, but as long as it is logical, I have no problems. We best show good tolerance.


Coming to the claims made that we should judge for ourself and them accept, I would have to say that what if we are not wise enough. I mean, a difference in opinion may cause many huge differences in the religion and thus may cause deviations and separations in it. It is this fact that we observe the commantdents/orders as strictly from Allah(SWT) that we follow it without questioning that has kept us together and close to the religion. If you analyze, Islam is the only religion that covers almost all the aspects of life. Again, we may not initially know how beneficial these may turn out to be, but they are very good. These laws were the same when followed by the Muslims, even more strictly, when they were very advance, i.e. the past history, the European dark ages e.t.c. Infact, it was due to the following of these commandments/orders that they were successful. Do you think that they were more concerned with the earthly benefits of these commandments/orders then the fact that Allah(SWT) had told us to follow them. There are many hidden benefits for every commandment/order and the fact that Allah(SWT) had made it as an order, we have a spiritual feeling about obeying them whether we like it or not. The point that you miss out is that they are beneficial for us in many ways.

Concider a few examples.

Salath(prayer): We Muslims have to pray five time a day. For it, we first have to clean ourself with performing wazoo(the benefits of wazoo were declaired earlier). Then, we perform Salath(prayer) making certain postures. It is argued among many people that this Salath(prayer) is a great form of exercise. A friend of mine was told by a doctor to perform Salath(prayer) regularly as it is a good for the heart. Tell me, would we have come up with a better way to worship then this. I do believe that Islam may be the only religion that completely tells us how to pray.

Fasting: A commandment/order which was for the Jews and Christians as well. We(Muslims) do not eat or drink from dawn till dusk. Also, we abstain ourself from many things. This is not only concidered as a great practice for our health, but also teaches us self control.

Zakkat: A commandment following which the poor and needy can be helped. When Allah(SWT) says that you should help these people, we help them mainly because we are respecting the commandment of Allah(SWT).

Many kinds of food and drinks are made unlawful for us. It you analyze, all these are unhealthy. Who among us all will say that alcahol/toxicants/drugs are good for a person's health? No one. When it turns out that Allah(SWT) had commanded us to not to eat or drink such foods, we will stay away from them whether we like it or not.

Lastly, concider this example. There is a famous saying of the Prophet Muhamad(P.B.U.H) which translate as : "No Arabic is better then a non-Arabic, neither a non-Arabic is better then an Arabic. No white person is better then a black person, neither a black person is better then a white person. The best amongst you near Allah(SWT) is the one who is best in deeds. You have been divided into different tribes so that you may recognize yourself." When people realize that only our deeds are valued in the sight of Allah(SWT), then they focus more in doing good deeds rather then apperance. This kind of teaching impressed many people into embracing Islam who were concidered as one of the lowely class and there rights were taken away just because of their appearance or for no good reason.

Again, we only have limited knowledge and it grows by time. Islam gave the women right of inheritance, propety ownership and disownership 1400 years ago while the west did it sometime in the eighteenth century. So, it is Allah(SWT) who knows best and by making such acts as a commandment, Allah(SWT) has made it essential for us to follow them.

I hope that this clerifies many doubts.

 

[Mohsin]

About tolerance, I heard yet another lecture based on which I have gathered a few points and I hope that it will turn out to be a good article.

Islam and Tolerance

As I said earlier that it is important for every Muslim to practice tolerance and patiance. In the Holy Quran, the critaria for salvation and/or success is given in Surah Asur, Chapter no. 103, Verse no. 1 to Verse no.3... 'Swear by the time, most surely man is in loss, except those who believe and do good, and enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patiance'. Thus, according to the Qur'an, every person should have patiance/tolerance if he/she wants to be successful.

If you see the life of Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H), you will come to know the best examples of tolerance that you can ever find. When coming to the later Muslims, there are several examples again showing great tolerance. For example, when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they practiced open killing and not even spared several Christians they came across. After some time, the locals(Muslims) made treties, but they were broken by the Crusaders one sidedly. When Salauddin Ayubi(also known as Saladdin) drove the Crusaders out and took back Jerusalem, not even a single worshiping place was even scratched and no innocent killed. He told the non-Muslims that either they can leave peacefully with their properties/belongings, or they can continue to live with total religious freedom. On the other hand, in Spain, which the Muslims ruled for about 800 years. As it was a great learning centre, many non-Muslims from other parts of the world also came and lived there. There was peace, there was tolerance, every thing was fine. Later when Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims, there was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

I can give you several other examples where Muslims have been very tolerant, even more then the non-Muslims. Muslims today are also showing great tolerance, but at many times, tolerance cannot be practiced. When a person abuses/criticises other peoples religion and religious figures openly, when there is no justice and when the rights are taken away, one cannot be tolerant. Also, every religious discussion should be made on logical basis and friendly environments, like the one we are having here. By the way, do not expect from any Muslim to make abusive statements for any of the Prophets, e.g. Jesus(P.B.U.H), Moses(P.B.U.H) e.t.c. as they all are holy to us aswell.

Difference between Tolerance and Cowardity:
There are also times when too much tolerance becomes cowardity. For example, there was a news in an Indian news paper that a girl was raped in a train by a hooligon. The news also said that there were five young men there as well. None of them tried to stop the hooligon. One just said that you should not do it. That was it. This is not tolerance, this is cowardity. I mean, look at the odds, five young men could not take a drunk person.

Labeling and assumptions:
There are black sheeps in every community, but we do not blame the entire community for the acts of these few. This practice has been seen when regarding terrorism with Muslims. It is totally wrong. Islam does not teaches that. If you hold such thoughts as true, then you should also realize that every evolutionest is a racial terrorist, because that is what people like Stallin and Hittler were and followed. Also I heard that Hittler was a Christian. If it is true, then according to the claims made, Christianity is the biggest terrorist religion in the world (no offence, only assumption).


Again, I hope that many of the doubts are removed.

 

[samabudhi]

Firstly, I would like to say that Brian gave good comments satifying your initial quries.

Please!
No disrespect to Brian, but he said himself, he was simply balancing the ship for opinion, which I agree is most heavily unbalanced in this argument. In whose favour, I will refrain from sensationalising. Nudge nudge. Wink wink.

It is this fact that we observe the commantdents/orders as strictly from Allah(SWT) that we follow it without questioning that has kept us together and close to the religion.

The declaration of no logic. It had to happen sooner or later.
I can't believe you've seriously considered this statement enough to say it in public. I mean, it's well known this is what you think, but 'damn' if that isn't a nail in your own coffin.
I leave the keyboard flabbergasted, swaying from side to side, squint in bewilderment as if kissed by Helen of Troy herself. 'Enough! Enough I say! I just can't take it any longer!'

 

[Mohsin]

Tell me one thing, where is the no logic in that. I told you that the commandments from Allah have got hidden benefits. We hold the will of Allah more dear to us then these benefits. Even if we tried to examine the commandments as you claim,

we should examine everything for ourselves and then decide

we would have ended up having different opinions and our religion would have been divided into several beliefs. Islam covers almost every aspect of life. It comes with a complete law, something which only Islam has. I gave you good examples, like the rights of inheritance, ownership and disownership of property for women, something which the west concidered in the eighteenth century. Read the article again and with concideration.
You have shown that you will remain what you are, a blind critic. You are not a person who like to believe strongly in a religion, it is either your fault or what you believe in. Sorry if offended. Keep in mind that there are'nt many Muslims here and I am being tolerant, but there are other Buddhists here and I do not want to offend them.

 

[samabudhi]

Can you, in clear terms, point by point, tell me what do you not like about Islam?

I've been having a think, and come up with my true number problem with Islam. It is a fundamental behaviour which is accepted and endorsed by just about Muslims.
The idea of and eye for an eye.
I don't expect this to turn into a conversation, but I'd just thought I'd share it since you did ask.

 

[Mohsin]

Just so you know, the law of an 'eye for an eye' was brought forward by Moses(P.B.U.H) and is present in the Torah. It was a good law for its time as there were no courts. Anyone takes your eye, you can take his. When Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) came, the law was changed. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthews, Ch. No. 5, V. No. 38 to 41, It is said of the old times, that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you… whosoever slaps your one cheek, offer him the other. Whosoever asks you for a shirt, give him your cloak. If he asks you to walk for one mile, walk two miles .
It’s a remedy… it’s a remedy - that people took the law of Torah literally. That… if a person playing with a stick or a stone, if he hurts somebodys eye… naturally its by mistake. You can’t take that eye of that person, who by mistake hurt your eye. So Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) brought a remedy, which again was right at that time.
Now, the Qur'an takes the moderate route. It comes with a law according to which, if a person did something, you can get the case to the court and the decission will be according to the situation.

 

[banjo]

Hi,

Religious criticism is, of course, a field unto itself. All religions can be criticised for various aspects of their theology. I myself follow no religion although I think that there may possibly be a God.

It's quite surprising when muslims think that there is no case to answer as regards their religion because there would appear to be numerous practical and logical objections to islam. There are so many objections in fact that I would say the theory has more holes than a fishing net.

Consider sharia.

Sharia mandates that there be four witnesses to a crime. In actual fact it mandates that there be four male witnesses or eight female witnesses. Already islam is discriminating between the male and the female in terms of trustworthiness. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that males are more trustworthy than females. In fact, if anything, the evidence suggests the exact opposite. The vast majority of crimes are committed by men. Men are the criminal class. So it would appear that women are actually MORE trustworthy than men, if the evidence is anything to go by.

But anyway, we'll ignore that for the moment. So for the crime of, say, rape islam requires that there be four witnesses before it can be proved. This is nonsense for a few reasons.

Firstly, a rapist will obviously always try to carry out his crime in a place where there are no witnesses. He doesn't want witnesses around because they might try to stop him or they might call the police or they might testify against him in court or whatever.

So to expect there to always be four witnesses to a rape is just plain silly from a purely practical standpoint.

Secondly, the whole idea of requiring four witnesses is silly. What's the difference between four witnesses and three witnesses? Or two witnesses? Or even one witness? What's so special about the number four?

Thirdly, since the advent of DNA testing and forensic evidence, it is possible to prove a rape without ANY witnesses. You don't need ANY witnesses to prove a rape nowadays. So this whole notion of requiring witnesses to prove a rape is outdated. It seems that God didn't foresee the progress of science when He wrote the quran.

I've just picked at one thing here but there are a whole multitude of common sense objections to islam (and sharia). For example, sharia mandates that a thief's hands be cut off. What happens when you discover a few months later that the thief is in fact innocent? This happens under every type of legal system, sharia or not. So what do you do? Give him a bionic hand? What?

Under our present legal system we can release the guy from jail, say sorry and give him some money. What are you going to do if you've cut his hands off? Especially for such a minor offence as theft.

And then what do you do with the thief once you've cut his hands off? He can no longer be rehabilitated into society and work productively because he's got no hands. You have doomed him to a life of begging or petty crime.

Cutting off the hands of thieves satisfies a short term desire for revenge but in the long term it is both silly and counter-productive.

I could go on all night but I'll stop here because I dont want to bore people.

 

[iBrian]

As with all the more ancient legal systems, witnesses to an event were crucial to proving it occured. You seem to fail to appreciate that, in the ancient world, it would be impossible to distinguish a genuine claim or rape against a malicious claim of rape if no witnesses were required. Same with any other crime. The Bible I believe demands a minimum of 2 witnesses somewhere, but I figure the Koran is simply being more thorough in trying to eliminate co-option of false witness - ie, that it is harder to bribe or coerce 4 people than 2. Of course, such a system is always going to have its limits - but anyone who claims that even a modern legal system is somehow free of errors and biases and just plain "law is an ass"-ness perhaps doesn't read very much.

There are also great limits to genetic testing - firstly, with erroneous results, but also the notion of motivation. A genetic test in a rape case can only show that a couple had sex - it alone does not support the claim of rape.

 

[bananabrain]

i forget if i have been into it on this board, but the "eye for an eye makes everybody blind" argument is a real old chestnut. the first question the rabbis asked was: "what happens if a blind man pokes your eye out?" - in which case, of course, obviously you can't poke his out in return. this was the basic problem with the Written Text alone, which was resolved by saying "it must, therefore be the *value* of the eye in monetary compenation" - which is a rule that is translated into the various different contexts of gruesome physical penalty that a literalist reading of the Text implies. this issue is further compounded by the effective impossibility of achieving a sentence of capital punishment under halacha, despite its apparent ubiquity. FYI, the standard of proof requires TWO witnesses (both of which have to be of unimpeachable religious stature and integrity) BOTH of whom must warn the prospective capital-crime-committer of the penalty BEFORE HE COMMITS THE CRIME - and he must then VERBALLY ACKNOWLEDGE *both* the gravity of what he is about to do and state that he doesn't care and he's going ahead anyway, then proceed IMMEDIATELY to the act BEFORE THE UNOBSTRUCTED VISION of both witnesses and WITHIN A TIME LIMIT beyond which the warning doesn't count. not only this, but a jewish religious court that passes a death sentence more than once every 75 years (are you listening, texas and florida?) is considered a "murderous" court and must be disbanded.

so, when is a death sentence not a death sentence in the bible - actually, effectively all the time. the various death sentences (stoning, burning, strangling and beheading) and the various numbers of lashes you can get for a non-capital crime indicate the relative seriousness of each crime, not the actual punishment.

so, please, let's not have any more of this "oo, isn't the bible bloodthirsty" nonsense, because it is in no way reflective of what Torah actually requires.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[banjo]

Hi Brian,

You said:

As with all the more ancient legal systems, witnesses to an event were crucial to proving it occured.

Of course witnesses are crucial, and not just in ancient legal systems. Witness evidence is the best evidence you can get even under our current legal system. However, my point is that sharia mandates that there be four witnesses before a crime can be proven, regardless of other evidence. This is simply unnecessary.

You seem to fail to appreciate that, in the ancient world, it would be impossible to distinguish a genuine claim or rape against a malicious claim of rape if no witnesses were required. Same with any other crime.

Stop talking about the ancient world. The quran is considered to be the guide for all time so the rules of sharia are just are relevant today as they ever were. In Pakistan, for example, this rule (that there be four male witnesses to a rape or eight female witnesses) is current law.

And of course I am not saying that you should not require any witnesses. If you have a witness then great. If you have two witnesses then even better. If you have three witnesses then break out the champagne. What I am saying is that witnesses are not necessarily required to prove a crime if there is sufficient other evidence.

Islam is saying that four witnesses are required before you can even go to court. Therefore islam is wrong.

The Bible I believe demands a minimum of 2 witnesses somewhere, but I figure the Koran is simply being more thorough in trying to eliminate co-option of false witness - ie, that it is harder to bribe or coerce 4 people than 2.

I don't know where the bible says that two witnesses are required but even if it does say this then it is irrelevant because christianity doesn't attempt to impose a legal code to be followed in the modern day like islam. If christianity did try to claim that two witnesses should always be required then it would be just as wrong as islam is.

Since christianity doesn't claim this then it's not a problem. It is however a problem with islam because it tries to carry this ridiculous notion through into the modern day. Witnesses are great if you have them but they aren't necessary if you have other evidence. And there is certainly no need to always need four witnesses rather than three or two or whatever.

Of course, such a system is always going to have its limits - but anyone who claims that even a modern legal system is somehow free of errors and biases and just plain "law is an ass"-ness perhaps doesn't read very much.

I wouldn't claim that the modern legal system is free from errors but I would claim that it is much less prone to error than sharia. How many rapists must have walked free in the islamic world because there weren't four witnesses?

There are also great limits to genetic testing - firstly, with erroneous results, but also the notion of motivation. A genetic test in a rape case can only show that a couple had sex - it alone does not support the claim of rape.

Actually DNA testing is pretty much 100% reliable but you are correct that it merely shows that a couple had sex. This can still be sufficient though in particular circumstances. Suppose a burglar breaks into a house and finds a woman inside and rapes her. He later gets caught and there is enough evidence to prove that he burgled the house. It would be a stretch to suggest that the woman had consensual sex with a random burglar so the charge of rape would probably be proved with DNA evidence and the womans word. No witnesses are required - the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Under sharia there would have had to be another four people present in the house to witness it.

It's so silly I don't even know why we're arguing about it.

 

[iBrian]

Stop talking about the ancient world.

The ancient world actually forms the basis of our culture, and Christianity itself formed a very major part of the foundation of English law. Where do you think the requirement for witnesses comes from? It didn't spontaneously arrive from the Enlightenment.

Actually DNA testing is pretty much 100% reliable

Actually, it isn't. There was a good piece in New Scientist a few weeks back.

It's so silly I don't even know why we're arguing about it.

We're actually arguing the perception of Islamic law - you seem to be setting up some rather obvious strawmen - but, unfortunately, I am neither Muslim nor a lawyer, and will not be able to create a proper and authoritive answer to your comments.