PDA

View Full Version : Puritan Christians in North America punished Adultery Fornication and Homosexuality w



truthseeker63
01-30-2012, 01:21 AM
Puritan Christians in North America punished Adultery Fornication and Homosexuality with Death if there were Witnesses and punished Fornication in Public my question is why do Christians try to say Islam is a bad religion for punishing these things when Christians in the past did punish these before the idea of separation of church and state and secular laws took over the West and other Christian Nations ?

Puritan Society Laws

By Katy Willis, eHow Contributor

The Puritan movement began to gather momentum in the 1600s, first in England, basing much of their legal and belief systems on Calvinism, which took hold in parts of Europe such as Geneva, and was a fundamentalist Christian movement. Many British Puritans moved to America, with the largest numbers settling in the New England region. Puritanism was a Christian movement that sought major reforms within the Christian church, wanting to rid both Catholicism and Protestantism of extravagance and ceremony, and wanting all aspects of life, including the government and the economy, to submit to the teachings of the Bible.


Read more: Puritan Society Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6868681_pur...#ixzz1ktpmAZdD

Sexual Transgressions

Puritans believed the human body and condition to be unclean, unholy and depraved. No pleasure was to be taken from sexual relations. Sex was merely a means of reproducing. Spouses displaying affection toward one another was considered lewd and unseemly. It is recorded that a Captain Kimble, after returning home from a three-year military tour, kissed his wife on the doorstep of their home and was promptly placed in the stocks for two hours as punishment. "Fornication," which meant intimate relations between unmarried people was heavily condemned, with a range of punishments from a large fine to a public whipping for both parties, or even execution for repeat offenders. Adultery was also punishable by death in many Puritan communities, although in more moderate areas, the punishment for adultery involved public humiliation via a public whipping and being forced to wear a large, scarlet letter "A," so that everyone was aware of the offense.


Read more: Puritan Society Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6868681_pur...#ixzz1ktpolyVr

http://www.ehow.com/list_6868681_pur...iety-laws.html
The Scarlet Letter Summary and Analysis

by Nathaniel Hawthorne

Thus, regardless of Chillingworth's desires, Hester and Dimmesdale deserve to be killed in accordance with community vengeance. In Puritan society, adultery was not seen merely as a matter between the two parties but as a breach of contract between those individuals and the community. Even if a husband wanted his adulterous wife to be saved, she could be sentenced to die as a result of the community's obligations to its moral and legal statutes.

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-scarle...uide/section8/

Finally, when, during the Reformation, King Henry VIII became the head of the English church, he took over some of its jurisdiction and turned various religious offenses into secular crimes. Thus, homosexual acts and sexual contact with animals, for example, which before had required only penance, were declared to be felonies. Offenders were executed and all their possessions confiscated. Queen Elizabeth I even appointed a special Court of High Commission which punished moral and spiritual offenders with fines and imprisonment. This court, however, soon became completely corrupt and turned into a kind of Protestant Inquisition. Therefore it was abolished in 1640.

The Puritan Heritage


When Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans came to

power in England, they greatly intensified the persecution of sexual deviants.
Cromwell himself never tired of demanding more zeal on the part of prosecutors.
In 1650 Parliament passed the so called Puritan Act "for the suppression of the
abominable and crying sins of incest, adultery, and fornication, wherewith this
land is much defiled, and Almighty God highly displeased." Thus, the religious http://www.ehow.com/about_4570042_pu...-adultery.html





basis of Puritan sex legislation was made unmistakably clear. The prescribed
penalties were the same as those used in biblical times. For example, just as in
ancient Israel, adultery was punished by death.


While the Puritan
rule soon came to an end in England, it experienced a second flowering in
America. The Puritan colonies of New England were, in fact, totalitarian
religious states. Most of their sex laws were based on the laws of Moses. The
Massachusetts colony, for instance, directly copied the Old Testament when it
passed legislation demanding death for adultery, homosexual acts, and sexual
contact with animals. Fornication posed a rather difficult problem, because the
ancient Israelites had never condemned it as such. Nevertheless, Christians had
learned to regard it as a grave sin. The Puritans eventually developed their own
approach and specified various forms and degrees of punishment. Fornicators
could be enjoined to marry, they could be fined, or they could be pilloried and
publicly whipped as a warning example to others. Sometimes all three penalties
were combined. In later, more lenient times it also became customary to force
fornicators to wear the letter "V" (for Vncleanness) conspicuously displayed on
their clothing. Punishment for adultery was then signalled by the letters "AD"
or simply by "A." (See also Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel The Scarlet
Letter.)


In spite of these strict laws and harsh penalties, however,
sexual deviance remained quite common among the New England Puritans. Many
contemporary reports leave not doubt that illegitimate births were frequent and
that homosexual behavior was fairly widespread. This latter fact is, of course,
hardly surprising, since the community concentrated its efforts on the
prevention of all nonmarital heterosexual contact.

Modem Law


The sex laws in most states of the U.S. today still follow
the Puritan model. As the American population moved westward across the
continent, the New England penal codes were simply carried along and copied in
every new state. Most settlers were content with preserving the legal traditions
to which they had been accustomed on the East Coast. Unlike the inhabitants of
the Old World, they were not interested in new legal theories or fundamental
reforms. Western and Southern Europe had, in the early 19th century, liberalized
their sex laws at the command of Napoleon I. The Napoleonic code, which
legalized practically all consensual sex between adults in private, had an
influence reaching well beyond the French national borders. It was either
adopted or used as a model in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands,
and all of Latin America. Thus, most of the world's Catholic countries entered
the new Industrial Age with a sensible minimum of modern sex legislation, while
the Protestant countries of Central Europe and North America remained tied to
the past. Most of their ancient and medieval sex laws were preserved intact. The
only real change was a gradual reduction of penalties. For example, while
adultery continued to be a crime in Massachusetts, the death penalty was
relatively soon replaced with a public whipping, a fine, and imprisonment. Then
the whipping was omitted, leaving the fine and the prison term on the books.
Finally, even these reduced penalties were considered too severe. However,
instead of changing the law, the authorities simply ceased to enforce
it


Another, even more telling example is provided by the case of New
York which, unlike Massachusetts, at first did not have a law against adultery.
Then, in 1907, a group called "The National Christian League for the Promotion
of Purity" pressured the legislature into adopting such a law. From that time
on, adulterers could be fined or imprisoned, or both. Nevertheless, almost from
the start, there was virtually no attempt at enforcement. The situation was
especially grotesque because in the state of New York adultery was the only
recognized ground for divorce. Every year the courts routinely granted thousands
of divorces on this ground, but also routinely failed to prosecute the guilty
parties. It was not until a few years ago that this official exercise in legal
hypocrisy finally came to an end when the legislators faced up to their initial
mistake and repealed the anti-adultery law that they should never have enacted
in the first place.


Unfortunately, to this day, the reform of
antiquated sex laws has not made much progress in the U.S. The vast majority of
states still insist on legislating and overlegislating morality and thus
continue to create for themselves a host of unnecessary social problems. (For a
more detailed discussion of some of these problems see below under "Current Sex
Laws in the U.S.".)

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/AT...d_the_law.html

II. Capital Offences: Sodomy

Only one clear case of sodomy appears in the court records of Plymouth colony. The case was heard on March 1, 1641/1642 and involved three men, Edward Michell, Edward Preston, and John Keene. The first two men were presented on charges of "lude & sodomiticall practices tending to sodomye" with one another. The third, John Keene, was propositioned by Edward Preston, but "he resisted the temptacion, and vsed meanes to discouer it." Neither Michell nor Preston was sentenced to death for his crime, even though the 1636 laws clearly list sodomy as a capital offence. Both men were sentenced to a double whipping, once at Plymouth and a second time at Barnestable. John Keene, since he resisted the temptation and apparently brought the crime to the knowledge of the court, was "appoynted to stand by" while the other two men received their punishment. Upon first reading, this seems like a strange ruling on the part of the Court. Why did they particularly want Keene to be present? The answer may lie in the final phrase of John Keene's ruling -- "though in some thing he was faulty"(PCR 2:35-36). Perhaps the means used to discover the crime involved a lesser degree of immoral behavior, and the Court's ruling was a punishment. While the Court recognized Keene's desire to bring this crime to justice, they did not disregard his actions.

The second case is the August 6, 1637 ruling involving John Alexander and Thomas Roberts. While not directly labeled in the records as a case of sodomy, it is clearly an act of homosexual behavior. The Oxford English Dictionary defines sodomy as "an unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another." The definition is ambiguous, but since this case is clearly an act of unconventional sexual relations between two men, I feel justified in including it here. The text of the record reads as follows:
John Allexander [and] Thomas Roberts were both examined and found guilty of lude behavior and uncleane carriage one w[ith] another, by often spendinge their seede one vpon another, w[hich] was proued both by witnesse & their owne confession; the said Allexander found to haue beene formerly notoriously guilty that way, and seeking to allure others therevnto. The said John Allexander was therefore censured by the Court to be seuerely whipped, and burnt in the shoulder w[ith] a hot iron, and to be perpetually banished the gouernment of New Plymouth, and if he be at any tyme found w[ith]in the same, to bee whipped out againe by the appoyntment of the next justice, et cetera, and so as oft as he shall be found w[ith]in this gouernment. W[hich] penalty was accordingly inflicted.
Thomas Roberts was censured to be severely whipt, and to returne to his m[aster], Mr. Atwood, and to serue out his tyme w[ith] him, but to be disabled hereby to enjoy any lands w[ith]in this gouernment, except hee manefest better desert. (PCR 1:64)
The punishment inflicted on John Allexander -- severe whipping, branding, and banishment -- speaks to the severity of his crime in the eyes of the Court. However, he was not put to death. Roberts' punishment resembles that of Michell and Preston. While he was not whipped a second time, his prospects for owning land after his time of indenture were placed in jeopardy.
David Hackett Fischer traces the Puritan disdain for sodomy (and all forms of "unnatural sex" to a passage in the book of Genesis, "where Onan 'spilled his seed upon the ground' in an effort to prevent conception and the Lord slew him." Fischer relates that "seed-spilling in general was known as the 'hideous sin of Onanism'" in Massachusettes (1989:93). The story from the book of Genesis explains why both sodomy and buggery might have been listed as crimes punishable by death. The ruling for John Allexander seems to rank very high on the list of criminal punishments. I have encountered only one criminal punishment that was more severe, that being for buggery (see below). The punishment inflicted on Edward Michell and Edward Preston was severe, but nowhere close to a death sentence. As I will show below, some cases of adultery -- a crime "to be punished" -- were punished more severely than this particular instance of sodomy.


V. Adultery

Leviticus 20:10 reads, "the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Here again, the laws of Plymouth reflect an ideal set forth as the law of God -- adultery was punishable by death. However, why was the law qualified with the phrase "to be punished?" The twenty-second chapter of Deuteronomy restates the law of Leviticus, but proceeds to qualify that law. I believe that the following verses may explain the confusion reflected in the 1636 codification of laws.
22. If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24. Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
According to the Bible, betrothed women who were raped and protested could not be put to death for an act of adultery. The passage does not specify what should happen to a married woman if she cries out.
Like Hebrew law, seventeenth century Puritans defined adultery as any act of fornication with a married or betrothed woman. The definition has serious implications not only for the people living under the law, but also for the interpretation of the Plymouth court data. Married men who had sexual intercourse with single women were punished for fornication, not adultery. Therefore, examination of the cases of adultery within the colony is not a true reflection of the degree of infidelity in Plymouth. John Demos points out that "the chief concern, the essential element of sin, was the woman's infidelity to her husband" (1970:97). The element that sets adultery cases apart from acts of fornication is the crime done to the husband. As I shall soon show, adultery was one reason a husband could be divorced from his wife. The double standard reflected in this particular crime will be discussed in greater length in another section.
Nine cases in the Plymouth court records refer to adultery in some form. Three of these cases result in a punishment much like that presented in the 1658 codification of laws. Interestingly, all three of the cases appear before the court prior to 1658, which leads one to believe that the 1658 enactment was in response to a precedent that had been set. The second case to appear before the court most closely conforms to the law outlined in 1658. On December 7, 1641, Thomas Bray and Anne Linceford both confessed to committing adultery in the absence of Anne's husband. Their punishment included an immediate severe whipping at the public post in Plymouth, a second whipping at the public post in Yarmouth (where the act was committed), and the wearing of "two letters, namely, an AD, for Adulterers, daily, vpon the outside of their vppermost garment, in a most emenent place thereof" for as long as they remain in the colony (PCR 2:28). Failure to wear the letters would result in another whipping. This is the only case in which both parties receive identical punishments.
The first case, involving Mary Mendame and Tinsin, an Indian, was sentenced in the court on September 3, 1639. Mary was sentenced to be "whipt at a carts tayle" and "weare a badge vpon her left sleeue." However, Tinsin was to be "well whipt with a halter about his neck at the post" (PCR 1:132). According to Eugene Aubrey Stratton, "whipping at a cart's tail while the cart was drawn through town was considered a more severe punishment than whipping at the post" (1986:196). Stratton cites only two other instances of this particular punishment, one for committing "uncleanes" and one for *****dom (See PCR 1:132, PCR 4:106). The "lighter" sentence for Tinsin was rationalized "because it arose through the allurement & inticement of the said Mary, that hee was drawne therevnto" (PCR 1:132). This ruling reminds me of the rational for the lighter sentence inflicted on Sam and his apparent rape of Sarah Freeman. Is Tinsin given a break because he is "but an Indian" with "an incapasity to know the horiblenes" of his actions (PCR 6:98)?
The case between Katheren Aines and William Paule ended with an unusual conviction. The case was first brought before the Court of Assistants on February 3, 1656 (PCR 3:110-11), but for want of more information, it was referred to the next General Court on March 5th of that year (PCR 3:111-12). The two were not clearly convicted of adultery, but they were sentenced for "vnclean and laciuiouse behauior." William was publicly whipped and, as an additional punishment, he was forced to pay the costs of his brief imprisonment. Katheren was whipped once at Plymouth and once at Taunton and forced to wear a red B on her right shoulder for the remainder of her time in the colonly. However, the most unusual part of the ruling was the punishment inflicted on Alexander Aines "for his leaueing his family, and exposing his wife to such temtations, and being as baud to her therin." He was sentenced to pay the fee for his wife's imprisonment and sit in the stocks while she and William were whipped. The records do not indicate how long Aines was absent from his family, but abandonment was grounds for divorce in the colony.
On October 29, 1671, Mary Attkinson and John Bucke appeared before the court to answer for their adultery that resulted in a child. Curiously, the jury was not in doubt as to whether or not the couple committed fornication, but whether or not Marmeduke Attkinson, the former husband of Mary, was alive at the time the act was committed. Since the jury could not be sure, Mary and John were found guilty of fornication and given the choice of paying a ten pound fine or being whipped. Not surprisingly, they chose the fine (PCR 5:81-2). On June 10, 1662, Thomas Bird was sentenced to be whipped for "seuerall adulterouse practices and attempts" with Hannah Bumpas (PCR 4:22).
The three remaining court references to adultery appear not when the guilty parties are brought before the court, but when the husbands of the women involved appear before the court to petition for a divorce. On July 4, 1673, John Williams is granted a divorce from his wife, Sarah owing to her "violat[ing] her marriage bond by committing actuall adultery with another man, and hath a child by him" (PCR 5:127). Samuell Hallowey appeared before the court several times pleading for a divorce from his wife, Jane. Jane insisted, "shee hath committed adultery with diuers persons" (PCR 5:32, 41-42). In June of 1689, John Glover petitioned the court for a divorce from his wife. Mary Glover, who "violat[ed] the marriage covenant by entertaining some other man or men into bed fellowship," later infected her husband "with that filthy & noysome disease called the pox" (PCR 6:190). I think it is interesting that in at least two of these cases (I am unsure about Hallowey) a divorce was granted, but the wife was never punished for her actions. Did the court consider the divorce to be a punishment in itself?
Adultery was a difficult crime to prove. Since all cases involved a married woman and Puritans did not use contraception, an illegitimate child would be hard to separate from all the rest. Evidence of this is reflected in the case of Robert Badston who accused Charles Wills, "that hee had lyen w[ith] his wife, the Court, haueing examined the euidences respecting the case, did not find him guilty of that fact . . . because the said Robert Badston hath frequently companied with his said wife by beding with her, both before and after the child was borne" (PCR 5:253). It is possible that adultery happened far more frequently than we see evidence of in the records. However, the low frequencies of other capital offences may indicate a harsh legal and moral code that was well respected by the people.
VI. Fornication

Fornication was by far the most common sexual offence to come before the Plymouth courts. Between 1633 and 1691, sixty nine cases of fornication were presented. I include "carnal copulation," "uncleans," and births of illegitimate children with fornication. The enactment of 1645 that outlined the punishment for crimes of fornication distinguished between acts committed before and after the time of marriage contract. The fine for fornication after contract was only five pounds per person -- half the fine for fornication before contract. Interestingly, only four of the sixty nine cases clearly occurred during the period of marriage contract. The chart below shows the percentages of fornication cases that occurred during the period of contract, before contract but between couples who eventually married, and completely outside of intended wedlock. The split between eventually married and never married couples is a near fifty-fifty division.

http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/Lauria1.html
History

The Puritans were a devout Christian group who dissented with the Church of England. Persecuted for their beliefs, they came to America. They believed absolutely in the words of the Bible and felt that the Church had become corrupt. They were called the Puritans because they wanted to purify and cleanse both the Church and their own lives, and devoted themselves to religious, social and moral reform.
Upon migrating to America, the Puritans settled into the New England area and lived strictly pious lives, in which the family and the bonds of marriage were the basis of societal order.


Read more: About the Puritan Belief on Adultery | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4570042_pu...#ixzz1ktrVmWZA
http://www.ehow.com/about_4570042_pu...-adultery.html
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
UUSeeker
02-02-2012, 07:14 AM
As someone who belongs to one of the faiths that evolved from the Puritans, perhaps I have an answer.

The Puritans left Europe because their draconian beliefs were rejected and, in fact, they were persecuted.

They came to the "New World" to establish a colony governed and operated using their religious tenets.

Their zealousness came to no good end, however. After the witch trials, their belief system was discredited.

When the United States was first formed, one of the founding rights was the freedom of religion, or, that the government cannot impose any religion on the people.

In this long-winded fashion, what I am trying to say is Christians, for the most part, have abandoned corporal punishments for religious transgressions.

By the way, the two religious communities that evolved from Puritan beginnings were the Congregational Churches, which are still Christian and trinitarian, and the Unitarian Universalism, to which I belong.

The bottom line here is that many Christians, and others who are not Christian, view the punishments imposed under Islamic law as overly harsh and unjustified.

Also, I have heard discussion that the Islam of today doesn't resemble the Islam that existed prior to the Mongol invasion, that the Mongols were responsible for the harshness of Islamic law.

I don't know if that can be verified, but I found it interesting.

Peace,

Seeker
Reply

Sothis Girl
02-08-2012, 01:29 PM
even I don't condone homo, I still think it's inhumane to give death sentence to gays - whether it's done by islam, non-islam, or a country.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-08-2012, 04:46 PM
Originally Posted by arachnide
even I don't condone homo, I still think it's inhumane to give death sentence to gays - whether it's done by islam, non-islam, or a country.
Can you please provide evidence how homos and gays are to be sentenced to death in Islam?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Darth Ultor
02-08-2012, 04:58 PM
^ I can't find any Hadith or Ayah that says that but death for homosexual acts are punished by death in Islamic countries. The Saudis do it.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-08-2012, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Darth Ultor
^ I can't find any Hadith or Ayah that says that but death for homosexual acts are punished by death in Islamic countries. The Saudis do it.
Shouldn't we go back to what is actually taught by Allah (swt) and examples by prophet Muhammad (saw)?

What is clear is that a crime punishable by death is adultery (by married persons), whose actual intercourse is witnessed live by four witnesses.
regardless if the act is heterosexual or homosexual.

in jewish scriptures, many more crimes are punishable by death, unless current jewish rabbis have changed them to suit modern times.
Reply

Darth Ultor
02-08-2012, 05:07 PM
Four witnesses who actually have to peer in through the window of another person's house. Isn't there also a law against violating another person's property (if there was no adultery committed)?
Reply

Burninglight
02-13-2012, 02:47 AM
Originally Posted by arachnide
even I don't condone homo, I still think it's inhumane to give death sentence to gays - whether it's done by islam, non-islam, or a country.
What do you think should be done with them? Keep in mind They do want to impose their belief or way of life on the world. They won't stop until they get our children converted to their life style. I think it should be outlawed; IOW, prison for those caught with solitary confinement; otherwise, it might not be a punishment for them. They need to go back in their closets
Reply

UUSeeker
02-14-2012, 05:14 AM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
What do you think should be done with them? Keep in mind They do want to impose their belief or way of life on the world. They won't stop until they get our children converted to their life style. I think it should be outlawed; IOW, prison for those caught with solitary confinement; otherwise, it might not be a punishment for them. They need to go back in their closets
I find this argument to be ludicrous. People cannot be converted from one sexuality to another.

For a faith supposedly founded on love, Christians often seem to be full of anger.

In my faith, we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all people, including gays and lesbians, and, because of this belief, we accept all people in our congregations, including gays and lesbians.

In that respect, we are like liberal Quakers, except we are not Christian.

While our heritage may stem from the Puritans, our faith has evolved.

Peace,

Seeker
Reply

Burninglight
02-16-2012, 05:01 AM
Originally Posted by UUSeeker
I find this argument to be ludicrous. People cannot be converted from one sexuality to another.

For a faith supposedly founded on love, Christians often seem to be full of anger.

In my faith, we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all people, including gays and lesbians, and, because of this belief, we accept all people in our congregations, including gays and lesbians.

In that respect, we are like liberal Quakers, except we are not Christian.

While our heritage may stem from the Puritans, our faith has evolved.

Peace,

Seeker
Why is it ludicrous? And who said they wouldn't be accepted in my Church? Who said they should't be treated with dignity? To do all these things we don't have to accept their life style. And if they try to promote it to our children, it should be rejected and there needs to be some consequence suffered so the offense might not be repeated by them. You of an other religion might accept their life style, but Muslims and Christians don't accept that life style as being pleasing to God. IT IS SIN
Reply

GodIsAll
02-17-2012, 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by arachnide
even I don't condone homo, I still think it's inhumane to give death sentence to gays - whether it's done by islam, non-islam, or a country.
I agree.

Contrary to popular belief, in MOST of western society, homosexuality is not condoned. The general attitude is that these actions are an issue that is between two people and God; therefore, not punishable by the state.
Reply

UUSeeker
02-19-2012, 08:14 AM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
Why is it ludicrous? And who said they wouldn't be accepted in my Church? Who said they should't be treated with dignity? To do all these things we don't have to accept their life style. And if they try to promote it to our children, it should be rejected and there needs to be some consequence suffered so the offense might not be repeated by them. You of an other religion might accept their life style, but Muslims and Christians don't accept that life style as being pleasing to God. IT IS SIN
Yes, it is ludicrous because, as I mentioned, you cannot change a person's sexuality because it is not a choice.
Also, not everyone accepts the idea of sin, or of having to accept a dogma or a set of doctrines to earn a reward in the afterlife.
And, as for my faith, you might call us post-Christian, because we have come to understand that the divine is too large to fit into any single belief system. We do accept that all faiths may allow us to glimpse a portion of what we humans call God, but that none can provide a complete picture.
We also believe that science helps us to understand the divine as well, as does humanism.
This combination allows us to accept everyone as they are, without derision or equivocation.

Peace,

Seeker
Reply

Burninglight
02-19-2012, 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by UUSeeker
Yes, it is ludicrous because, as I mentioned, you cannot change a person's sexuality because it is not a choice.
Also, not everyone accepts the idea of sin, or of having to accept a dogma or a set of doctrines to earn a reward in the afterlife.
You are not making sense. I never said anyone can change another's sexuality; moreover, I know not everyone accepts the idea of sin, but that can also be the case for those who molest your children. People don't believe homosexuality is wrong because it is being tolerated and taught as an alternate life style. From a Biblical perspective it is wrong and must be dealt with. I think Muslims feel the same whether you like it or not.
Originally Posted by UUSeeker
And, as for my faith, you might call us post-Christian, because we have come to understand that the divine is too large to fit into any single belief system. We do accept that all faiths may allow us to glimpse a portion of what we humans call God, but that none can provide a complete picture.
We also believe that science helps us to understand the divine as well, as does humanism.
This combination allows us to accept everyone as they are, without derision or equivocation.
I never heard of post-Christians. Why don't you say the name of your religion? Well, science says a man and a woman are needed for procreation and religion says God created Adam and Even not Adam and Steve!
Peace
:)
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
02-19-2012, 11:14 PM
The Christian position on this and any other matter is clear. You can commit the worse crimes imaginable but as long as you believe Jesus is your saviour then you will be saved. Basically it is a free ticket for anyone to commit any crime and sin they want to commit. But the fact is that such a ludicrous concept is unfounded and not supported by the teachings of God and Christ but it is found in the gospels which were written by random unknown men at an unknown time in history. That is where the Christians like Burninglight take their faith from.
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
02-19-2012, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Darth Ultor
Four witnesses who actually have to peer in through the window of another person's house. Isn't there also a law against violating another person's property (if there was no adultery committed)?
Greetings,

The following explains the ruling on witnesses further:

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,


Fornication (zina) and that which leads to fornication is completely unlawful and considered a major sin. The Qur�an and Sunnah are quite clear about this.


Allah Most High says:


�Do not come (even) near to adultery, for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road to other evils.� (Surah al-Isra, 32)


Thus, fornication and whatever that leads to it, such as touching, kissing, embracing, informal interaction are all considered to be major sins, hence must be avoided at all times.


As far as the Islamic legal punishment for fornication is concerned, the Hanafi jurist (faqih), Imam al-Mawsili (Allah have mercy on him) states:


�It (legal punishment) is established by evidence and confession. Evidence is that four people give testimony against a man and woman that they committed fornication. When they testify (in the courts), the judge (qadhi) will inquire from the witnesses the particulars and details of what took place, the place of incident, the time of incident, and the identity of the woman involved. When they give details of all of this and they state that the woman was unlawful upon the man in every way, and that they testify the observing of sexual intercourse taking place like they see a Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle, and the four witnesses are considered upright both privately and publicly, then the judge will give the order for the legal punishment to be enforced upon the perpetrators.� (See: al-Ikhtiyar li ta�lil al-Mukhtar, 2/312-313)


We can see from the above text (and other such texts in the books of Fiqh) that there are detailed and stringent conditions for the legal punishment of fornication and adultery to be enforced upon an individual. If these conditions are not met, the punishment will not be enforced.


One should always keep in mind the objective and spirit of Shariah concerning the various legal punishments. The idea is not to enforce the punishment and make people suffer; rather the objective is to prevent harm, corruption and immorality in the society. Thus, legal punishments act as deterrents more than actually get people punished.


Allah Most High says:


�In the law of retaliation there is (saving of) life to you, O you men of understanding.� (Surah al-Baqarah, V: 179)


An example of this which comes to mind is that we see speed cameras being placed on many roads and streets (especially here in the UK!) in order to deter people from speeding in their vehicles. The idea behind these speed cameras is not to catch people speeding, rather to prevent people from speeding and causing accidents. If the aim was to catch people speeding, there would be no warning signs indicating that a camera is present. However, we see that whenever a speed camera is placed, many warnings are given that �beware this road has a speed camera�. Many of the times, the camera is not even in operation, hence, the idea is to stop people speeding rather than catch and punish them.


The same is with the various legal punishments prescribed by Shariah, in that they are prescribed to prevent people from committing unlawful actions and corrupting the society, yet the rules and conditions for a legal punishment to be enforced are so stringent that very rarely would an individual be punished. The legal punishment is considered a deterrent, but if an individual did involve him/herself in some unlawful activity, the objective now is not to get the individual punished rather to save him/her from the punishment.


This will become more evident with the following incident that took place in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace):


Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) narrates: �A man from amongst the people came to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) while he (the Messenger of Allah) was sitting in the Masjid, and addressed him, saying: �O Messenger of Allah! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse.� The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) turned his face away from him. The man came to that side to which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had turned his face, and said: �O Messenger of Allah! I have committed illegal intercourse.� The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) turned his face to the other side, and the man came to that side. When he confessed four times, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) called him and said: �Are you insane?� He said: �No, O Messenger of Allah!� The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Are you married?� He said: �Yes, O Messenger of Allah!� The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said (to the people): �Take him away and stone him to death.� (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 6439)


The above incident shows the importance of trying to avert a legal punishment as much as possible. The man came and confessed to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) that he had committed unlawful sexual intercourse, yet the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) ignored him, in order that he may change his mind.


Similarly, Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that When Ma�iz ibn Malik came to the Messenger of Allah (and confessed that he had committed adultery), the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to him: �Probably you have only kissed (the woman), or touched, or looked at her?� He said: �No, O Messenger of Allah!� The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), using no euphemism, said: �Did you have sexual intercourse with her?� The narrator said: At that moment, (i.e. after he confessed that he had sexual intercourse), the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) ordered that he be stoned.� (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 6438)

This famous incident of Ma�iz ibn Malik also gives the same message, in that the Imam should try his best to avoid the legal punishment. This is the reason why it is recommended to say to the one who confesses committing fornication that �You may only have touched, you may only have kissed, are you sure you had sex, think again properly of what you are saying and think of the consequences of your confession, and other such things.


This (trying to avert a legal punishment) has been explicitly mentioned in one Hadith. Sayyida A�isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Keep the Muslims away from punishments as much as possible. If there is any way out for an offender to escape punishment, acquit him. It is better for a judge to make an error in acquittal than in conviction.� (Sunan Tirmidhi, no: 1424)


Due to the forgoing, the Fuqaha have laid down (based on the guidelines of the Qur�an and Sunnah) certain strict rules and conditions in order for a punishment to be established or enforced. These strict conditions can be seen in all of the various penalties that have been imposed. The following are certain rules and conditions for the punishment of committing adultery to be enforced, as mentioned in the books of Hanafi jurisprudence:


1) It is actual vaginal sexual intercourse (and not anal or oral intercourse) that takes place between a man and a woman.


2) The man and woman involved in this unlawful sexual intercourse are not married; neither is the woman a slave-girl of the man.


3) It is proven by four people testifying that they clearly observed the couple engaged in unlawful sexual intercourse without any doubt or ambiguity. They are able to say that they saw their private parts meet like the Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle. The judge would ask them all the various details concerning the time and location of the incident, and who were the people involved and other such matters, in order to remove any doubt.


4) If the four witnesses take back their testimony before the actual punishment is enforced, then the punishment will be abandoned, and they (witnesses) will be punished for the crime of false accusation.


5) The witnesses are not allowed to delay their testimony from the time of the incident to the time of testifying. If they delayed testifying in the courts, the punishment will not be enforced, unless they were very distant from the Imam hence the delay was due to them travelling to the Imam.


6) The punishment of adultery is also proven if the perpetrator him/herself confesses to be guilty of the crime. He/she must be sane, mature (baligh) and must confess four separate times in four separate sessions that the crime was committed. The Imam will try to wave away the punishment as much as possible by saying to the confessor that �you may have only touched or kissed� and other such statements. The Imam will also inquire about the various details of the incident, and when the confessor explains everything without leaving any doubt or ambiguity, the punishment will be enforced.


7) If the confessor takes back his words before the punishment is enforced or during the punishment, he/she will be released and set free. (See: al-Ikhtiyar li ta�lil al-Mukhtar, 2/311-316 & other major Hanafi Fiqh references)


The legal punishment:


If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who is sane, mature, Muslim and is married to a spouse who is also sane, mature, Muslim, and that their marriage is consummated, then the legal punishment is that he/she will be stoned to death (rajm). The Imam, witnesses and other Muslims would take part in the stoning. If the witnesses refuse to take part in stoning the perpetrator, the punishment will be dropped, as this would be considered a sign of them taking back their testimony.


If the crime of fornication is carried out by an individual who does not qualify to be in the above category, then the punishment is that he/she will be given 100 lashes. These whips and lashes will be spread out over the body, avoiding the head, face and the private parts. A pregnant woman will not be whipped until she gives birth to her child and after her post natal bleeding (nifas). However, if she is to be stoned, then this may be carried out straight after giving birth.


Finally, one should remember that it is not necessary in order for one�s sin to be forgiven that he/she receives the legal punishment (hadd) for the sin committed. The reason being is that one is not obliged to confess that he/she committed adultery; hence one may keep the sin hidden and not inform the Islamic judge about it. Also the various Islamic legal punishments (hudud) are only carried out in an Islamic state (dar al-Islam) by the Imam, thus repenting to Allah Almighty will be sufficient.


The above are just some of the necessary elements concerning the legal punishment of fornication and adultery. There are other details also, but time does not allow me to discuss them, hence the above should be sufficient for now, Insha Allah.


And Allah knows best


Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK

Source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=4208&CATE=42
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
02-20-2012, 02:21 AM
Originally Posted by UUSeeker
As someone who belongs to one of the faiths that evolved from the Puritans, perhaps I have an answer.

The Puritans left Europe because their draconian beliefs were rejected and, in fact, they were persecuted.

They came to the "New World" to establish a colony governed and operated using their religious tenets.

Their zealousness came to no good end, however. After the witch trials, their belief system was discredited.

When the United States was first formed, one of the founding rights was the freedom of religion, or, that the government cannot impose any religion on the people.

In this long-winded fashion, what I am trying to say is Christians, for the most part, have abandoned corporal punishments for religious transgressions.

By the way, the two religious communities that evolved from Puritan beginnings were the Congregational Churches, which are still Christian and trinitarian, and the Unitarian Universalism, to which I belong.

The bottom line here is that many Christians, and others who are not Christian, view the punishments imposed under Islamic law as overly harsh and unjustified.

Also, I have heard discussion that the Islam of today doesn't resemble the Islam that existed prior to the Mongol invasion, that the Mongols were responsible for the harshness of Islamic law.

I don't know if that can be verified, but I found it interesting.

Peace,

Seeker
Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam has remained the same from revelation until this very day. We do not forsake the commandments and laws of God for a cheap price like the Christians have done and still do to this very day. What you have to realise though is that the objective and spirit of Shariah concerning the various legal punishments is not to enforce the punishment and make people suffer; but rather the objective is to prevent harm, corruption and immorality in the society. Thus, legal punishments act as deterrents more than actually get people punished. That is why voilent crimes and murder etc in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi and UAE (Where many aspects of Shariah are implmented but not all) are non existent. People leave there car doors and house doors unlocked. You can walk around all day and night and you wil never have anything to worry about. That is because the harsh punishments act as an effective deterrant. Whereas in the west like in the UK and US crime such as murder and voilent crime is rapidly increasing everyday. So much so that it really is not very safe anymore.

Ask any victim of crime and they will tell you that they want the same thing to happen to the purpotrator of the crime that happened to the victim. You only have to be related or know a victim to realise how it is necessery to implement harsh punishment. Othrwise people will not hesitate to commit crimes. Prisons here in the UK are better than most hostels. Is that going to deter anyone?
Reply

Burninglight
02-20-2012, 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by Hamza Asadullah
Unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam has remained the same from revelation until this very day. We do not forsake the commandments and laws of God for a cheap price like the Christians have done and still do to this very day.
Muhammad never said the Bible was corrupted or that the Christians corrupted it. You are making an inference. Muhammad never criticized the script just the people and he didn't say it was Christians. Why would Allah tell Muhammad to refer to corrupted Scriptures and the people of the SCRIPTURES if they were corrupted? Quran 10: 94
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
02-20-2012, 03:01 AM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
Muhammad never said the Bible was corrupted or that the Christians corrupted it. You are making an inference. Muhammad never criticized the script just the people and he didn't say it was Christians. Why would Allah tell Muhammad to refer to corrupted Scriptures and the people of the SCRIPTURES if they were corrupted? Quran 10: 94
The Noble Quran came to confirm Truth that exists in the Manuscripts in the different canons and to filter out Truth from falsehood in them. Allah Almighty never claimed that the bible is fully and 100% Divine. Islam is a witness on the Bible. It filters out the truth from falsehood and corruption in the Bible. The Noble Quran only recognizes the Bible as a HISTORY BOOK with errors and man's alteration in it. Anything that agrees 100% with Islam is valid, and anything else that has even the slightest disagreement with Islam is discarded:

"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper. (The Noble Quran, 7:157)"

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment be tween right and wrong). (The Noble Quran, 3:3)"

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; (The Noble Quran, 5:48)"

"That which We have revealed to thee of the Book is the Truth,- confirming what was (revealed) before it: for God is assuredly- with respect to His Servants - well acquainted and Fully Observant. (The Noble Quran, 35:31)"

That is why we Muslims believe in only the parts of the Bible that agree with the Noble Quran. The parts that contradict the Noble Quran are not the Truth:

"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them. (The Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"


Allah Almighty here declares that Christianity is no more than a man-made conjecture. And conjecture is forbidden in the Glorious Quran.



Conjecture is forbidden in the Glorious Quran:

"But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth. (The Noble Quran, 53:28)"

"And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. (The Noble Quran, 2:78)"

"Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of God. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie. (The Noble Quran, 6:116)"

"Those who give partners (to God) will say: "If God had wished, we should not have given partners to Him nor would our fathers; nor should we have had any taboos." So did their ancestors argue falsely, until they tasted of Our wrath. Say: "Have ye any (certain) knowledge? If so, produce it before us. Ye follow nothing but conjecture: ye do nothing but lie." (The Noble Quran, 6:148)"

"And they say: "What is there but our life in this world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us." But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture: (The Noble Quran, 45:24)"

"These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which God has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! (The Noble Quran, 53:23)"


"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:77-79)"

"O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, 'If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!' If any one's trial is intended by God, thou hast no authority in the least for him against God. For such - it is not God's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment. (The Noble Quran, 5:41)"

"But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind. (The Noble Quran, 5:13)"

"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).' (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"

Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)"
Reply

Ramadhan
02-20-2012, 03:11 AM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
Muhammad never said the Bible was corrupted or that the Christians corrupted it
You keep making false statements about Islam.

I have given you a week ago evidence from the hadith that Muhammad (saw) did indeed say that bible was corrupted.


Either you are:

1. liar

2. you never read our comments

3. you read our posts but never take anything seriously.

I believe you are all three.
And you are not the brigthest lightbulb on a christmas tree if you think we don't know you were evangelist who got banned earlier here and in ummah. This is another evidence that you are a liar.
And of course it is another proof that you are not the follower of Jesus (pbuh) as Jesus commanded against dishonesty, while saul of tarsus proposed that lying should be used when spreading christianity.

I am now giving you infraction points as I have promised, as this is the third time you disregarded my warning not to make false statements about Islam without giving any evidence.
And it is now clear that you are here not in the best intention at all, you are here not to have discussions.

so Goodbye. May Allah SWT guide you to the straight path, not the path of devil worshiper and man-worshiper.
Reply

Darth Ultor
02-22-2012, 06:21 PM
That guy who got warned just made me think of something even though he was wrong. Does it say in Islam where the corruptions and modifications are and what the original verses said? For Judaism, the explanation I heard was that we don't have many of the practices in the Torah anymore because we don't have the temple anymore. So for example, we cannot offer sacrifices these days. Nor do we have the religious courts so we can't judge people for religious infractions. And before any of you bring up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict again, I want to remind you that the government of the current state of Israel runs under a mix of Zionism and Socialism, not the Torah and there are Jews outside the government of Israel (not to mention the country itself).
Reply

Al-manar
02-23-2012, 11:35 AM
Originally Posted by Darth Ultor
That guy who got warned just made me think of something even though he was wrong. Does it say in Islam where the corruptions and modifications are and what the original verses said?

Greetings ,I think for answering that Question ,we need to know, EXACTLY, how the Quran defines Torah & Injeel ....


Originally Posted by Al-manar

Torah?


1- A scripture was revealed only to Moses :

the Quran - 2:5 And when We gave unto Moses the Scripture and the criterion (of right and wrong), that ye might be led aright.


the Quran - 6:91 And they do not assign to Allah the attributes due to Him when they say: Allah has not revealed anything to a mortal. Say: Who revealed the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men.

the Quran - 17:2 And We gave Musa the Book and made it a guidance to the children of Israel, saying: Do not take a protector besides Me.

the Quran - 11:110 We have given Moses the Scripture, yet they disputed in it.

the Quran - 28:43 And We verily gave the Scripture unto Moses after We had destroyed the generations of old: clear testimonies for mankind, and a guidance and a mercy, that haply they might reflect.


for what?

the Quran - 32:23 And certainly We gave the Book to Musa, so be not in doubt concerning the receiving of it, and We made it a guide for the children of Israel.

It remained a guide for the children of Israel ,after the departure of Moses:

the Quran - 40:53 and We verily gave Moses the guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture

the Quran - 42:14 And they did not become divided until after knowledge had come to them out of envy among themselves; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord till an appointed term, certainly judgment would have been given between them; and those who were made to inherit the Book after them are most surely in disquieting doubt concerning it.


Even the prophets after Moses,the Rabbis, and the Priests would judge with it ...they weren't supposed to add new scripture to the corpus of the Torah...


the Quran - 5:44 We have sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light; the prophets who have surrendered judged with it for those who are Jews, as well as the Rabbis, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of God's Scripture, and they were witness over. So do not fear the people but fear Me; and do not purchase with My revelations a cheap price. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.


The Quran gets 2 cases of a scripture after Moses :

1- Zabur (some of the psalms):

The holy Quran 17:55 We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms.

the Quran - 21:105 Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth."

that verse is really there in the psalms ; Psalms 37:29 "The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever,"

To note ,the psalm was revealed as words of wisdom ,not a law as the Torah.......

2- Injeel (the saying parts of the 4 gospels):

the Quran - 3:48 And He teaches him(jesus) the Scripture and the Wisdom and the Torah and the Injeel.

Again ,the gospel was intended as words of wisdom and ,again, not a law as the Torah ,yet would modify some hard laws.


In a word ,what is the word (scripture) in the Quran could refer to,while refering to an existing written work?

It is some of the contents of :

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ,Deuteronomy,Psalms,gospel

and fully to the content of :

The Quran ...

what about the other books eg; Judges ,jonah Ruth ,Micah,First Samuel ,Ecclesiastes ,Nahum ,Song of Solomon,Isaiah , Jeremiah and Ezekiel ec....etc.....

well ,They could have true traditions (beside false ones) ,but they would never be called scripture .......



Injeel ?


1- A revelation was sent to Jesus, as a guidance and light, confirmation yet modifying few items of the Law that had come before him, to make clear to Jews some of the (points) on which they dispute, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God, verses 5:046,3:50 ,43:63 ...

2 - It HAS TO BE mostly the saying parts of the the synoptic gospels

[007:157] "Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Torah and the Injil;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

the Quran though tells that both the books were tampered with(we have exposed that in previous posts),yet most the truth has remained therein .....
the verse is not telling christians,Jews to go look up a passage (s) in a lost gospel .....

the Injeel is mostly within the new testament .... why mostly?

The Quran quotes the Injeel (besides the torah),directly ?

[009:111] God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Torah, the Injil, and the Quran'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God?


Holy Quran [048:029] Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Injil is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. God has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.

Are such promise & proverb to be found in the Old and New Testament?

if they are not there, then the Saying gospel (which is within the New testament) is missing some parts.....

If the following modifications of the Law were parts of the Injeel, and no mention about them in the saying gospel, then we can be assured of missing parts in the saying gospel that are parts of the Injeel .....


Holy Quran 3:50 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

Holy Quran 43:63 When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.

that is why I said the Injeel is MOSTLY within the saying gospel ,. not written text .....
looking for lost Injeel?

If you keep searching for it ,well ... the Quan tells you it has to be mostly within the New Testament .............

It has to be mostly the saying gospel (call it Q or whatever you like ) that is within the new testament ..... if there is something missed from it ,the Quran has already mentioned it (proverbs and what laws been modified)...in other words there is no Injeel secrets that is hidden from you ..... the Injeel is already available within the new testament and the Quran.......
the Quranic definition to Injeel won't exclude any discovered saying gospel ,in condition to be the same ideas of the Saying gospel within the new testament ....

I prepared a detailed post(for some future time inshallah) ,filled with quotations from old & new testament ,showing :

1- The must be Torah or Injeel.

2- the possible to be Torah or Injeel.

3- the impossible to be torah and injeel ..

some readers will be surprised of some quotations that they used to believe as parts of the true Torah and Injeel,while they can never be ones (in light of how the Quran defines the torah and injeel) ...


Originally Posted by Darth Ultor
And before any of you bring up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict again, I want to remind you that the government of the current state of Israel runs under a mix of Zionism and Socialism, not the Torah and there are Jews outside the government of Israel (not to mention the country itself).
I agree with you ,some wise Jews disagree with zionism .... but they are few ! ....
Reply

UUSeeker
03-15-2012, 02:52 PM
Very interesting. I, too, have wondered what parts of the Christian Bible Muslims believe to be corrupt.

For myself, I view the Bible as a book with some good moral teachings, but I don't consider it divine in nature.

I have not yet read the Quran, but I do plan to read it.

But the penultimate post here reminded me of a version of the Bible "edited" by Thomas Jefferson. He went through and cut out all the parts that were not actual quotes from Jesus. It was a very thin book.

Peace,

Seeker
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!