Polygyny Questionnaire for Brothers-NEED YOUR HELP!!!

[Hadji]

Therefore, you believe that all married Christians must be buried up to their necks in dirt and killed by having rocks smashed into their faces.

Haha! No. Interesting argument though. =)


I have a friend from Egypt who would act like his hand was a gun and would pretend to shoot people from his window. One day, he "shot" a construction worker, who coincidentally fell off the building that he was working on.


He went to his mother and confessed that he killed someone.


Just in case it didn't sink in yet, one isn't punishable for actions they didn't commit. In our books, Christians that having had pre-marital sex aren't adulterers.


---------------------------

You are correct. The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John do not contain this passage. For the first few centuries after the death of Christ, this story was circulated as a separate tradition (in both oral and written form). In later centuries, copyists tried inserting this passage in various places in the gospels including here, at the end of the Gospel of John, or after Luke 21:38.

Fair enough. I'll assume that the verses are reliable for the sake of the discussion. In any case, I disagree with your interpretation of the verses.


First of all, we must know the intentions of the Pharisees. I'm sure that you are aware that they came to Jesus not seeking justice, but to make him fall into their trap. The verses say: <i> They put the question as a test, hoping to <b>frame a charge against him.</b></i>


The reason that this is a test is because Jesus cannot judge against her or for her. If he lets her free, then he will be going against the law of Moses. If he judges against her, then the Pharisees will inform the Romans of the action of Jesus.


Let me remind you that the Romans didn't allow the Jews to practice their laws when it came to putting people to death.


In any case, Jesus knew that he didn't have the authority to order this. Also, in another instance, he was asked:


Luke 12:13-14 "Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him,<b> "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?"</b>


Adding onto this, there is a good chance that the man that was conducting sexual relations with her was known to the Pharisees. For they said, "Master, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery."


How could they not know who the man is if they came the woman in the act?


Jesus, finally responds to their trick question by stating that whoever is faultless should cast the first stone. Let us not forget, that according to the Old Testament, a witness is supposed to cast the first stone.


There are a number of interpretations that can be made at the moment. What is meant by Jesus when he says, "That one of you who is faultless shall throw the first stone"?


Faultless or sinless, according to whatever version you are using can either be interpreted to meaning sinless in general or specifically to this situation.


Now, if we are to take it that it is specific, then it would make perfect sense:


Deu 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.


Interestingly, the witness is supposed to cast the first stone, yet, he isn't sinless. In fact, he was the adulterer. The trick question that was presented to Jesus was responded by a tougher dilemma that resulted in the backing out of the rest of the group. Also, take note that Christ didn't claim to be sinless and throw the first stone.


To further prove that Christ was only applying the law of Moses, we need to look into what happens after they all leave.


"Where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She answered, 'No one, sir.' Jesus said, 'Nor do I condemn you. You may go; do not sin again."


Why doesn't he condemn her? It is because there aren't any witnesses. If he were to condemn her, then he would be going against the law.


This is if the meaning of sinless is to be taken as something specific to this situation. If we were to take it out of context and believe that this is something to be looked at generally, then we would have a few problems. The first and most important one is that Jesus would be going against the will of God according to the following verses:


Deu 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. <b>So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.</b>


Deu 22:22 If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. <b>In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil.</b>


I truly don't understand why you would want to believe in this, especially since it would mean that God doesn't care enough for us that he wouldn't mind if evil dwelt within our midst.


Also, if we were to take that interpretation would we have to believe that Jesus contradicted himself by saying:


Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets: I have come to fulfill them."


Sadly, there are some Christians that wouldn't mind <b>believing</b> that they have a careless God or a contradictive Jesus if that means that they can live their lives without punishment or correction.


The ball is in your park.

[reepicheep]

<b>Hadji wrote: The ball is in your park.</b>


<i><b>"If a man looks on a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart". Matthew 5:28</b></i>


As the above passage shows, in the eyes of God, there is no difference between "physical adultery" and "adultery in the heart". If, as you claim, it is the will of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful that all Christians who commit physical adultery be buried up to their necks in dirt and killed by having rocks smashed into their faces, then clearly it is also the will of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful that all Christians who commit "adultery in the heart" must also be buried up to their necks in dirt and killed by having rocks smashed into their faces.


If you feel this strongly about killing adulterous Christians, then I recommend you put your faith into practice. You must know at least some married Christians that you can kill in the name of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful. Why don't you go out, pick up some rocks, and commit this glorious act of worship, as commanded by your God?


****************************


What is the muslim definition of adultery? If a muslim male who leers at a woman (not his wife) has NOT committed adultery, then obviously muslims have a much more relaxed view of what adultery is than do Christians. Do you believe this makes Muslims better human beings than Christians?

[Hadji]

Your last post shows how much you know about Islam. The authentic narration states that:


Abu Huraira 'narrated from the Prophet who said "Allah has written for Adam's son his share of adultery which he commits inevitably. The <b>adultery of the eyes</b> is the sight (to gaze at a forbidden thing), the <b>adultery of the tongue</b> is the talk, and the inner self wishes and desires and the private parts testify all this or deny it."


You see, in Islam, we do believe in different types of adultery. Yet, the only one that is punishable in this life is physical adultery. There is no mention in any verse from the Qur'an or narration that the adulterer of the eye or tongue should be punished.


Yet, you folks, combine a clear verse that says:


Matthew 5:29 "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away."


and


John 8:7 "Let him who is without a sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."


With these two verses, you come to the conclusion that an adulterer should never be punished at all. Interestingly, you deny the verse that is an order from Jesus. Then, you accept a misinterpretation of the second verse which allows you to commit as much adultery as you like.


You have opened a pandoras box upon yourself and another for all the Christian rapists out there. I hope you are proud of yourselves.

What is the muslim definition of adultery? If a muslim male who leers at a woman (not his wife) has NOT committed adultery, then obviously muslims have a much more relaxed view of what adultery is than do Christians.

Relaxed view my foot. How is your view anything but relaxed when you are the ones that promote adultery?!


Your response of silence to my previous posts screams in many volumes. You have affirmed my belief that Christians don't mind having a careless God or a contradictive Jesus.


Allah (swt) says in his uncorrupted book:


Al-Imran 3:70-71 "O People of the Scripture! Why confound ye truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the truth?"

[reepicheep]

<b>Hadji wrote: You come to the conclusion that an adulterer should never be punished at all. </b>


No, we come to the conclusion (based upon the bible) that the punishment for adultery (or for committing any other sin) is eternal damnation. Since Christians already face eternal damnation for being sinners, it seems kind of pointless for us to inflict Earthly punishment on each other as well.


<b>Hadji wrote: ...allows you to commit as much adultery as you like.</b>


The belief that people no longer have to follow "the law", because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, is known as Antinomianism. Antinomianism is clearly condemned in the bible, for example:


<i><b>What then? Are we to sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Romans 6:15</b></i>


So, you are quite mistaken when you claim Christians believe we can commit as much adultery as we like.


************************


Can you define for me, from a Muslim viewpoint, what the term "physical adultery" means?

[Hadji]

Mmm... Romans for me is probably the toughest book in the Bible. I have a few questions about the verse that you brought up.


Even though "by no means" are we to sin, Paul, in the next verse notes that there are two types of slaves. A slave of sin and a slave of obedience.


What does this mean? Since all Christians still keep on sinning, aren't they all slaves of sin?


This whole idea of not being under law is very unpractical, because it only leads to more sin.


Also, in Romans 7:3, Paul says. "Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if he lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husbnd dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."


So, as you can see, not everyone is an adulterer or an adulteress, even according to Paul.

Can you define for me, from a Muslim viewpoint, what the term "physical adultery" means?

Sexual intercourse.

[reepicheep]

<b>Hadji: Since all Christians still keep on sinning, aren't they all slaves of sin? </b>


Yes, since all Christians sin, we are all slaves of sin. But Christians believe we must do our best to not sin and therefore at least try to become slaves to obedience.


<b>Hadji wrote: This whole idea of not being under law is very unpractical, because it only leads to more sin. </b>


No. To repeat what Paul wrote in Romans 6:15 - <i><b>"What then? Are we to sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not!"</b> </i>


<b>Hadji (quoting from the book of Romans) said: "Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if he lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husbnd dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."</b>


Paul is saying two thing in this passage:


1) if a married woman lives with a man who is not her husband, then she is committing adultery.


2) if a married woman's husband dies, and the woman takes a second husband, then the act of taking a second husband is not adultery.


Do you disagree with either of these two statements?


*****************************


How do muslims define the term "sexual intercourse"? For example, if a married man performs oral sex on another man's wife, then has the man committed adultery? How about the woman, has she committed adultery?

[Hadji]

Yes, since all Christians sin, we are all slaves of sin. But Christians believe we must do our best to not sin and therefore at least try to become slaves to obedience.

Once again, even though this is how things should be, we cannot deny that this is the way it is. Paul's idea is correct in a perfect society, yet the same can be said about communism, unfortunately, human nature contradicts Paul's beliefs.

Do you disagree with either of these two statements?

On the contrary, I agree with both statements. I think you are missing my point though.


Paul says that a married woman that lives with another man <b>is</b> an adulteress.


You say that <b>all</b> women are adulteresses.


Paul says that a woman that takes a second husband after her first husband dies <b>isn't</b> an adulteress.


You say that women that take a second husband after her first husband dies <b>is</b> an adulteress.

[reepicheep]

<b>Hadji wrote: Paul says that a woman that takes a second husband after her first husband dies isn't an adulteress.</b>


True. The act of "taking a second husband after the first husband dies" is not a sin and is not adultery.


<b>Hadji wrote: You say that women that take a second husband after her first husband dies is an adulteress.</b>


Taking a second husband is not adultery. But according to Christian belief, if the woman then (for example) looks at another man and thinks to herself "boy, is he ever good looking", then the woman is guilty of adultery. No doubt all married men and women have such thoughts (I certainly do), so all married people are guilty of adultery.


I suspect that most and probably all married people commit adultery before their wedding day is over.

[Hadji]

How do muslims define the term "sexual intercourse"? For example, if a married man performs oral sex on another man's wife, then has the man committed adultery? How about the woman, has she committed adultery?

According to various scholars, the term "sexual intercourse" requires the coming together of the genitals.


Please note that oral sex wasn't as infamous as it is during these times. I have my serious doubts that it was even practiced.


Specific sins like kissing, oral sex, touching non-mahrams, or other sexual activity don't have specific rulings that are set into stone. Similarly, you will not find statements from the Prophet (pbuh) or from the Qur'an that prohibits present day inventions like smoking. In the same sense, you will not find a list of every single permissable food in the Qur'an. The Qur'an isn't a menu. It is a book of guidance.


Oral sex is without a doubt prohibitted. Yet, there is no specific legal punishment. However, there is a concept in Islam called "ta'zeer". In a narration, the Prophet (pbuh) states:


“Come to the aid of your brother, whether he wrongs another or the one being wronged.”


Upon hearing this, the people said: “O Messenger of Allah! We understand that we should come to the aid of one who is wronged, but how shall we come to the aid of the wrongdoer?”


The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: “<b>Prevent him from doing wrong. That is how you come to his aid.</b>” [sahîh al-Bukhârî (6952) and Sahîh Muslim (2584)]


This narration allows judges to make rulings against those that perform sexual actions according to the degree of the sin to prevent from falling into the same mistake again. Be aware that in Islam there are different degrees of sin.


There are some scholars who see oral sex as a form of sexual intercourse. They choose to punish those who commit it to the same degree as those that commit sexual intercourse.

No doubt all married men and women have such thoughts (I certainly do), so all married people are guilty of adultery.

Is Paul wrong? He says that a married woman isn't an adulteress. I hope you see the contradiction in your statement.

[reepicheep]

<b>Hadji wrote: Is Paul wrong? He says that a married woman isn't an adulteress. </b>


What Paul wrote:


<b>But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.</b>


You are claiming the following is what Paul meant:


<b>"If a woman's first husband dies, and she takes a second husband, then the woman can have sex with any man she wants, and under no circumstances will she be guilty of adultery."</b>


Correct?


*********************


If adultery requires "penetration of the male sex organ into the female sex organ", then muslim males can engage in oral sex with any woman they want, and not worry about being found guilty of adultery. Correct?