11-07-2003, 08:07 PM
A good post Dan but I would like to pick up a couple of points in it and just prompt you some more on things you didn't address in my earlier post.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b>Bismillah</b>Well I am not sure what other context it could be put in but I see you have tried to put it into a context.
Unfortunately, you hear about stonings and other aspcects of Shariah from nonmuslims or even muslims who do not know in what context these type of punishments should be meted out.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>Well I tend to look at countries like Iran, Saudie and Afghanistan. As we know the Taleban were ousted. Never the less, there were some unsavourey aspects of that government/regime. It's implementation of Islamic law to women, to me, seemed in line with what I had read in hadith and qu'ran, except for the exclusion for education for women.
First of all, there is no Islamic government on Earth. None. Not a single country with muslims in it has a leader or leaders who impliment the Islamic laws. As is the case of most leaders, they are only staying in power by however they need to.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>If I remember correctly Dan, you are a convert to Islam ?
In the example of stoning for adultery, this seemed extreme to me. Yet once I learned in what context it is implimented, it did not seem as it did before. First four witnesses must observe the act. The observation of that act must be the equivelent of the bucket decending into the well. We are talking about a type of observation that will not happen under any circumstances, unless there are some serious defects of character in all the parties involved and then they are not really that great of witnesses.
Anyway, this rationalisation you have of the stoning is a worry to me. In 1930s Germany, Hitler over a period of time dehumanised the Jews, marginalised them, reared a generation of people who could identifiy that the Jews unhuman, unfit to live with the great Aryan race and before we knew what was happening, well, you probably know the rest. You have fallen into the same pattern, you somehow see reason in something there is no reason for. For hundreds of years illegitemit children were persecuted, demeaned and hidden away, why ? Well who knows but there was a rationale behind it at the time.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>Again you rationalise the barbaric punishment (primaraly against women) in dogma. How would you feel if your sister, mother, aunt or another relative known to you were to be treated in such a way ?
If one person comes across people in this act then it is their job to cover up their shame. As muslims were are supposed help hide the shame of one another from others. It allows people to repent to Allah and not be labeled as a fornicator. If you have ever been labeled by others with an unpleasant name, you know how hard it can be to shake that stigma.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>I have read these stories and I am not impressed that this is a display of benevolence. All I see is a child orphaned. Those were barbaric times Dan, I'd like to think that humanity has moved on from that.
A scholar of Islam was talking about two incidents of stoning that occurred in the lifetime of the Prophet.
First: A man committed adultery and felt guilty so he went to talk to a companion of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, and told him what he did. Abu Bakr asked if he had told anyone. The man replied in the negative. Abu Bakr said to not tell anyone else and make repentance to Allah. The man was unsatisfied with this answer so he went to another close companion of the Prophet, Umar.
After hearing his story, Umar asked if he had told anyone. The man said, \"Yes. Abu Bakr.\" Umar asked the man what Abu Bakr said. \"He said for me to make repentance and not tell anyone,\" the man replied. \"Then why are you telling me?\" Umar asked. \"Do not tell anyone else and make repentance.\"
The man's heart was still uneasy so he went to the Prophet who according to the laws of Allah had the punishment carried out.
A woman had a child by adultery and raised the child for two years. Finally guilt got to her and she went to the Prophet to have the sentence carried out. After she was dead, a person made a comment about her lack of morals. Muhammad replied, \"Don't do that. If this woman's blood was spilt all over the city, everyone would be forgiven.\" Meaning that if everyone made repentance like she did then all their sins would be forgiven.
In each case, the people who committed the sins sought out the punishment on their own accord. Even those closest and dearest to the Prophet wanted to help these people make repentance.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>Again you rationalise it with dogma. I think we must be reading different law books because the stoning in Iran has the woman buried up to her neck and I recall the man is buried up to the waist.
When stoning is carried out, the person enters the circle of thier own accord and are not tied up. If at any point, the person leaves the circle then the stoning stops.
Also, when a person is stoned here on earth, then the punishment in the Afterlife for that sin is not applied. The person was already punished for that sin. That was a reason why the people sought out that punishment. They did not want to suffer in the Afterlife.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>AGREED ! Qu'ran is pro womens education.
In Afganistan, which was allegedly an Islamic government, many problems and conflicts with Islamic laws arose in that situation as also. Women were refused the right of education which has no place in Islam.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>But even reading the basics I still say with a bit of reform you have a pretty decent religion. I read enough to come to the conclusion that Islam is not the religion of peace it is proclaimed to be by some. My opinions on the Prophet I will keep to myself... for now.
The Prophet made specific time, I guess what we would call class time or school, for women to get educated.
In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive. I do not know where this come from? Women rode camels at the time of the Prophet. I can continue but the ways in which Islamic law is not followed is quite extensive in every country.
By reading some Qur'an and some hadith, this makes no one a scholar of Islamic law. Just as there are lawyers so does Islam need people educated in the Shariah in order to fully understand the particulars.
I am in no way qualified to give extensive answers on fihq or shariah.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>Man's inhumanity to man knows' no bounds. I certainly don't lump all Muslims as terrorists, I never have. I don't lik ethe catholic church and protestants is just a made up religion so Henry VIII could bang more chicks. But anyway, that's neither here not there.
<i>\"I see it being used as an excuse to deny women their basic human rights specifically and human rights in general. It is totally backward and incompatable with a modern world, freedom and democracy.\"</i>
When practiced correctly it does not. What religion on earth has not had some leader or leaders use it for their own advancements? It does not make the religion wrong but rather the people. I do not label protestants and catholics as violent just because a few of them decide to kill one another in Ireland. I do not think that all christians are anti-government and terrorists when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrel Federal building in Oklahoma City. I do not think that all christians are for genocide when the Serbs decided to erradicate the Muslim population in the area. I do not think all Germans want to take over the world because of Nazi Germany's actions.
Quote:<i>Originally posted by Dan </i><b></b>Can you honestly say, knowing what you do that Islam has no "dirt", that the Prophet Mohammad lead a perfect life ? I think that if you read up a bit more on the history of the times that the Prophet was capable of unsavourey stuff, slavery for example. Are we to recind the laws about slavery now ? I don't get it Dan, I really don't.
There is a professor of religions who said that it is analitically incorrect to make a statement about a religion that its adhearants would not agree with. Obviously. If I are saying that a religion is one way and the believers are saying no it is not like that, who am I to say that I know better. Do I know what your house looks like on the inside by seeing it from the outside? I would need you to invite me in and show me around. I would also have to leave my preconcieved notions at the door. If I think that the house is going to be dirty, then I am going to be looking for dirt as soon as I step in the house. If I leave my expectations at the door, then I am more inclined to be appreciative of your house.
I keep getting the feeling that you come to our house looking for dirt instead of giving us a chance. But if you have made up your mind then I know that I am not going to convince you. I lack the educational knowledge about certain aspects that you have questions about. Once again, this website cannot be your only Islamic source. If you do not want to read books then maybe check out www.islam.com. It has short articles ( I know your repelence for reading) by scholars of Islam that may answer questions you have.
Now, would you care to rationalise Prophet Mohammads marriage to a 6 year old girl ? Now, to be fair, in the context of the times that this took place it was maybe not such an issue, however, "modern day" Iran still has laws in place that would allow this. Do you think that this is appropriate in today's modern world ? Whether it be an Islamic country or a democracy ?
Thanks for the dialogue Dan, I really appreciate it.