Blasphemy Punishments in the Bible

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, Jesus refused to stone the adulteress, what do you make of that?

And yet, if Jesus is God he also ordained many punishments in the Old Testament for blasphemy and the like. Christians believe these punishments to be divinely ordained, they just don't believe they are applicable anymore.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

But the 'god' Jesus did, right? Did he not order that those who commit blasphemy are to be executed?

Actually, no.

No?? Have you not read the Bible?

Christians believe Jesus is God; look at what Jesus says here about blasphemers:
Leviticus 24:13-16. Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

And about those who proselytise in the name of other gods:
Deuteronomy 13:7-12. If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.

I believe in another thread Nicola objected to an Islamic punishment by saying more or less "What extreme vanity! Haven't these guys ever heard - sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". Do Christians believe Jesus was also ignorant of this saying when he ordained these punishments?

Regards

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I read that thread as it was being posted, it suffered the same fault as Muslim Knight, along with many Christian arguments, proof is in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry, which thread are you referring to?

Ansar Al-‘Adl, what man in the Old Testament was the word “blaspheme” associated with? Where is the word “Blaspheme” used in regard to man insulting man?

I know the argument you are trying to have here, but there is already a thread started on a different section of this site dealing with that, so I won’t side track this thread with that argument.

If you can provide the link to the other thread, I will move my posts there to avoid derailing this thread.

Regards

[Panatella]

I am no authority on christianity, but I will give it a go. Perhaps Nicola or someone should comment if I am wrong here.
I think the reference to 'Jesus', is God the Son in human form at the time the new covenant was being formed. The verses you have provided are from God under the old covenant. Jesus was delivering the new covenant, and under the new covenant, no, Jesus did not order this.
I am not the best person to discuss the finer points of this with though.

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

[nimrod]

Panatella, for the intents of this thread, what you have posted is correct, I would dispute a single minor point with you, but it would have no bearing on the crux of your post.

Thanks
Nimrod

[PrIM3]

sorry, I just read the title, so I am not sure if this post is something that is needed... but here it is.. Nim should check it.

John, A close desciple of Jesus, wrote that Jesus, was God, so infact that would be a blasphemous to God to.

even many said He was the Christ, what point would He be here for if He wasn't Jesus Christ or Jesus the Christ... according to His name it is annointed Savior or the Savior annointed one... His name would be meaningless unless He came to serve a purpose unless He is, infact, the Son of God, who came here to live and die on a cross or has the scriptures say die on a tree.

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, thanks for breaking this out into a different thread. It is a subject that needed to be broke out, in order to have some sort of thorough discourse on.

You have raised some valid Islamic contrary points of view. I will do my best to get back to this in the next couple of days.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Panatella

I think the reference to 'Jesus', is God the Son in human form at the time the new covenant was being formed. The verses you have provided are from God under the old covenant. Jesus was delivering the new covenant, and under the new covenant, no, Jesus did not order this.

I'm well aware of the new covenant - old covenant distinction in Christianity. But it doesn't negate the fact that Christians believe that these punishments were ordained for God and considered the law for centuries. If Christians wish to argue that Jesus ignorantly prescribed what they consider 'vanity', that is entirely up to them. But it does expose an element of hypocrisy on the part of those Christians who criticise Islamic laws against blasphemy.


Hi Nimrod,
Thanks, I await your response.

[searchingsoul]

Hi Panatella

I'm well aware of the new covenant - old covenant distinction in Christianity. But it doesn't negate the fact that Christians believe that these punishments were ordained for God and considered the law for centuries. If Christians wish to argue that Jesus ignorantly prescribed what they consider 'vanity', that is entirely up to them. But it does expose an element of hypocrisy on the part of those Christians who criticise Islamic laws against blasphemy.


Hi Nimrod,
Thanks, I await your response.

Why do you think the new covenant doesn't negate laws from the old covenant?

I understand that you choose not to believe in the new covenant-old covenant distinction. Suggesting that the Christian belief of the new covenant is hypocritical doesn't make sense to me. :?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hio Searching Soul,

Why do you think the new covenant doesn't negate laws from the old covenant?

Maybe I was unclear. I understand this distinction that Christians make but they still must accept the fact that these were laws that were ordained to be followed before the coming of Jesus.

Regards

[Joe98]

But it does expose an element of hypocrisy on the part of those Christians who criticise Islamic laws against blasphemy.

No, not at all.

You Muslims believe your book is the word of God and that it must be followed without deviation. Therefore a barbaric punishment must be carried out. No deviation from the word of God is allowed.


Christains believe the Bible is a group of stories. Many are fiction to make a point. Many were applicable to those times and people can learn from them. But any barbaric punishments are not applicable today.

Therein lies the difference.

[Umar001]

No, not at all.

You Muslims believe your book is the word of God and that it must be followed without deviation. Therefore a barbaric punishment must be carried out. No deviation from the word of God is allowed.


Christains believe the Bible is a group of stories. Many are fiction to make a point. Many were applicable to those times and people can learn from them. But any barbaric punishments are not applicable today.

Therein lies the difference.

well if a court for the Jewish laws of the bible were re-instated then the punishments would be applicable today.

Your point??

What the bro is saying is that, whether they are used now, is not the case, the fact that G-d prescribed it to people in the past shows that these rules if considered barbaric and ungodly in islam should be seen the same.

WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE IN USE BY CHRIsTIANS.

peace be with you

[Joe98]

Your point??

I am sorry if my grammmar is less than perfect.

Some things written in the Bible, are ignored by today's Christains as not relevant to a modern civilised people. And therefore you cannot judge Christians by everything written there.

…..on the part of those Christians who criticise Islamic laws against blasphemy.

Please list for me anything written in the Koran, which is ignored by today's Muslims, as not relevant to a modern civilised people.

-

[syilla]

every single word in the quran is relevant to any generations (/era) and even to the future generation (which i think will be more modern than us).

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Joe98,

Some things written in the Bible, are ignored by today's Christains as not relevant to a modern civilised people. And therefore you cannot judge Christians by everything written there.

Please list for me anything written in the Koran, which is ignored by today's Muslims, as not relevant to a modern civilised people.

There is no such thing in the Qur'an that is outdated or uncivilized. Christians believe the Old Testament is also inspired by God, and I doubt Christians wish to believe that Jesus was uncivilized and his commands were barbaric before the New Covenant. If Christians are not practicing their religion or claim that the Old Testament laws are no longer applicable, that is up to them, but it does not negate the fact that they believe such laws were ordained by God/Jesus at some point and therefore it is hypocritical for them to criticize the Muslims on such issues.

Since you are an atheist, I would approach the matter differently with you in explaining the penal law of Islam; please see the thread entitled "Shariah law" in the Basics of Islam section.

Regards

[primitivefuture]

When Jesus claimed to be the son of God, did he really mean it literally? Alot of the content in the Bible isnt supposed to be understood literally.

[Joe98]

When Jesus claimed to be the son of God, did he really mean it literally? Alot of the content in the Bible isnt supposed to be understood literally.

He made a point of being cunning and never claimed to be the Son of God. others made that claim.

Considering you believe God a supernatural being, why is it so hard to believe God did a supernatural act? Christains believe he created the baby Jesus in Mary's womb. Ergo, Christains believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Alot of the content in the Bible isnt supposed to be understood literally.

Correct. And when you understand that you will understand Christains and the West. But the central point of Christain belief is that Christ suffered, died and was risen from the dead and then ascended into heaven.

If that one thing did not happen there would be no Christianity.

[Joe98]

Old Testament is also inspired by God....

'Inspired by God" is a the correct phrase. Its not the word of God.

"Shariah law" in the Basics of Islam section.

Do you have a page number as I can't seem to locate the thread.

-

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

'Inspired by God" is a the correct phrase. Its not the word of God.

I'm aware of this Christian belief.

Do you have a page number as I can't seem to locate the thread.

Sorry for not providing the link, here it is:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ariah-law.html
feel free to ask questions or raise objections in that thread.

Regards

[nimrod]

Bump

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I am doing my best to get back to this.

I am right in the middle of a kitchen addition/remodel right now. I have finished the foundation and the rough framing; time is rather limited at the moment.

I just didn’t want your thread to drift too far back on the page list before we had a chance to discuss this topic.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Joe98]

But it does expose an element of hypocrisy on the part of those Christians who criticise Islamic laws against blasphemy.

It’s not the laws that are criticized it’s the punishments.

1,000 years ago the West decided that stoning people to death is barbaric and therefore the Bible is ignored on such matters. And on anything else barbaric.

To Muslims, the Koran is considered perfect and Sharia law is considered perfect. Where a punishment is barbaric Muslims refuse the change the Koran or Sharia.

There is nothing hypocritical about criticizing a barbaric punishment.

-

[Umar001]

I do not know if this is just a two way thing.

When you say The West, and quote Ansar saying Christians you have to see that there is a difference.

You see the hippocracy comes from some Christians, let me xplain it.

Some Christians state that stoning is cruel and barbaric. But at the same time those same Christians claim that the Bible is something to live by, every piece of it.

See, now you come and say the West decided stoning is barbaric so that part of the Bible is ignored. Theres a difference between those peopel in the west that say that, and some Christians who still insist that the bible is perfect in every way.

If it is perfect then stoning is a perfect method ordained by G-d according to those Christians, who in hand are hippocritically stating that Islam is cruel and barbaric for using that same method.

[Joe98]

...those same Christians claim that the Bible is something to live by, every piece of it.

....and some Christians who still insist that the Bible is perfect in every way.

There are no Christains of that type.

Thats why we come to these forums so we can learn about each other. :)

-

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I have reviewed the threads and I never found an answer to this

“Ansar Al-‘Adl, what man in the Old Testament was the word “blaspheme” associated with? Where is the word “Blaspheme” used in regard to man insulting man?”

Perhaps it was there and I just missed it.

It is rather important to the point you are trying to make.

I believe that was the point of Nicola’s post.

As to your reply to Panatella “I'm well aware of the new covenant - old covenant distinction in Christianity. But it doesn't negate the fact that Christians believe that these punishments were ordained for God and considered the law for centuries. If Christians wish to argue that Jesus ignorantly prescribed what they consider 'vanity', that is entirely up to them. But it does expose an element of hypocrisy on the part of those Christians who criticize Islamic laws against blasphemy”.

It isn’t a matter of ignoring scripture, but rather a case of studying it.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, sorry for taking a while to get back to this, I am remodeling the kitchen here at the house.

You are correct when you say the punishments listed under the Old Covenant were directly handed down to man from God.

(I know people are, to a degree, a product of the times and communities that they live in. But I have often wondered if I could have carried out the punishments called for in the Old Testament. It would be a very hard thing for me to throw rocks at someone till I killed them.
I imagine it was am extremely painful way to die. I can however understand that if you were trying to teach people the seriousness of breaking the law, then having them carry out the punishment themselves would make certain they understood it first hand.)

Ansar Al-‘Adl, It appears that you are covering more than one topic with this thread. I am not sure if you are going towards any one of the themes in particular. I will try to mildly address your different points in this post, if you would like to revisit any of them I will do my best to focus on which ever part you wish.

From post #1. Yes you are correct to say Jesus (In Old Testament times) ordered the punishments that are found in the Old Testament. Stoning was the prescribed punishment for adultery as well as blaspheme and such things as cursing your parents.

When you study the Old Testament scripture you will see that, at one point, the Hebrew were told, by God, to quit bringing sacrifices and burning offerings to God. Now if this were taken out of context it would seem to be a contradiction to what Moses had commanded the Hebrew to do.

However taken in context what we see is that there had been a long repeated pattern of God severely punishing the Hebrew till they repented and walked the straight and narrow for a short time and time they fell back into rebellion. The rebellion became worse and worse, for a time, some of the Hebrew even adopted the practice of burning some of their children to the pagan god Molech.

The worship of the pagan god Baal and goddess Asheria was very common for a very long period of time.

This cycle of severe punishment and temporary reform was resulting in a large amount of Hebrew suffering, yet it was bringing the desired results God said he wished for the Hebrew nation.

God said he wanted the Hebrew to be a pure nation of priests to bring his fame and blessings to the rest of the world. God did not allow the Hebrew to fulfill their role (imo) because the Hebrew never quit giving credit, for what God did, to idols.

God say’s that he gets no pleasure from the failure and suffering and death of a man. God prefers that all repent and save themselves from the coming punishment.
At one point God sent one of his prophets to the King of the Hebrew and told the King “Ask for any sign you wish, no matter how large the sign”. The King replied that “Scripture tells us not to “test” God”.

God’s reply is that he will provide a sign himself and that the sign will be a virgin birth.

What that scripture is addressing when taking in context is this:

God had made the kings of Israel a powerful “almighty” ruler to their people as to be able to rule like gods. The kings answered to no man except to the spokesmen (Prophets) of God.

God was saying to that king (My reading between the lines of that scripture and history of what was going on.) “I have repeatedly offered signs and rewards and punishment to your people, yet they keep rebelling and the result is just more and more suffering for the Hebrew people”.
“Now king of the Hebrew, you pick a sign that you think will finally get my message across to your people”

The king replied “It is said not to “test” God”.

(Now I am not sure if #1. the king didn’t fully understand what the meaning was of what prophet had said, or, if #2. the king did understand it completely and was simply refusing to believe that God would provide what ever sign the king might ask for, or, #3. that the king didn’t want to take responsibility setting something in motion that the Hebrew would almost certainly fail at (The recognition that God is the only God and they would have a change of ways that would finally result in the Hebrew fulfilling God’s purpose for them). Judging from the prophet’s reaction to the king’s reply, I suspect the answer is #2 or #3.)

Therefore God choose to make a New Covenant with mankind, Jesus taught and explained the terms of the New Covenant just as he did with the Old Testament.

If a person would expect a new contract to be exactly like the contract it was replacing then they would have to first answer this question:

If you think they should be the same, then why even introduce a second contract?

You introduce a second contract because of changes one party or the other are making to the contract. It is very clear that man doesn’t dictate terms to God, so the changes must have came from God’s part of the contract.

I hope you understand.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Umar001]

There are no Christains of that type.

Thats why we come to these forums so we can learn about each other. :)

-

There sure are some round where I live ;D ;D ;D

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Nimrod,
I've read your post, but I'm afraid it doesn't provide any answers to my question. You've said that the Jews were very rebellious as if to say, "They deserved it!" when it comes to these harsher punishments. And then you've again said that you're under the New Covenant so these punishments no longer apply.

The verses I am speaking about right now are:

Leviticus 24:13-16. Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who BLASPHEMES the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13:7-12. If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.

1. These verses clearly prescribe EXECUTION by STONING TO DEATH for proselytising and blasphemy.

2. Christians believe that these punishments were prescribed by God to be implemented.

3. Yet, some Christians will criticise Muslim punishments which are not nearly as harsh for such offences, and call them 'extreme vanity'! This is clearly hypocrisy.

The New Covenant issue is a red-herring since you still believe that for centuries these punishments were implemented as instructed by God. And the issue about the rebellion of the Jews also doesn't fit because in the first passage it says Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. And at any rate, the continual rebellion of the Jews wouldn't be a sufficient excuse to apply unjust, barbaric punishments, if that's how christians percieve them. I think Christian evangelicals who object to Islamic punishments should reflect on what should be familiar advice:

Matthew 7:3-5. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[Joe98]

These verses clearly prescribe EXECUTION by STONING TO DEATH for proselytising and blasphemy.

Christians believe that these punishments were prescribed by God to be implemented.

In the modern world, Christians do not believe in stoning

In the modern world, nobody in the West believes in stoning.

What people believed 1,000 years ago has no relevance to the people of today.

We believe stoning is barbaric.

The Koran was written more than 1,000 years ago. Muslims believe the Koran is perfect and that any punishments prescribed 1,000 years ago apply to the people of today.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

In the modern world, Christians do not believe in stoning

Christians TODAY believe that these punishments were revealed by a perfect God, and that is what matters here. Whether they have abandoned it today for the new covenant is irrelevant to my argument, so long as they still view it to be revealed by God.

The Koran was written more than 1,000 years ago. Muslims believe the Koran is perfect and that any punishments prescribed 1,000 years ago apply to the people of today.

Absolutely. Justice is neither relative nor bound by time and culture.

[Joe98]

Its clear you have no idea.

The Christains of TODAY do not believe in barbaric punishment.

The Christains of TODAY look at Sharia law and see barbaric punishment.

The Christains of TODAY say that barbaric punishment should be banned.

If you say that is hypocritical it means you are saying: "Christains of TODAY believe in barbaric punishments" which they do not.

The Muslim view is that the Koran is perfect and they conclude that Christains must believe the Bible is perfect. Christains do not believe that.

[Joe98]

Justice is neither relative nor bound by time and culture.

We are talking about punishment. Why do you twist it into justice????

They are very different things.

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, lets deal with first things first.

Did you ever answer this “ “Ansar Al-‘Adl, what man in the Old Testament was the word “blaspheme” associated with? Where is the word “Blaspheme” used in regard to man insulting man?” “.

As far as this, Ansar Al-'Adl “I've read your post, but I'm afraid it doesn't provide any answers to my question. You've said that the Jews were very rebellious as if to say, "They deserved it!" when it comes to these harsher punishments.”

That wasn’t my message at all.

People are people; the Jews have the same faults as you and I. What I showed is the different approaches God used at different times for dealing with those faults.

Your answering the question I posed is important to any discourse concerning the differences between Islamic teachings and Christian teachings.

If that is the direction you wanted to take your topic in, then it will have to be addressed.

If your aim was a simple discussion, of Christian teachings concerning man’s punishment of man for blaspheme under the New Testament verses the Old Testament, then let me know and I will proceed.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Joe98]

.....the New Testament verses the Old Testament.........

You are all ignoring the third way. Modern man uses common sense together with a body of laws that have been built up over the last 250 years.

The New Testament was 2,000 years ago. The laws of the last 250 years are what is relevant today.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Joe98,
Do Christian today believe the Old Testament is from God? Yes, they do. And yes Christians TODAY believe that these 'barbaric' punishments were revealed by God. Simply denying it isn't going to get you anywhere.

Hello Nimrod,
I haven't made the claim that the word blasphemy is associated with man in the Bible. But that's not to say that verbal offences amongst human beings were not punishable with death in the Bible:
Exodus 21:17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

[Joe98]

No, todays peole believe that ancient people believed it was the word of God.

Today's people do not believe it was the word of God. Why would God condone stoning?????

-

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl “I haven't made the claim that the word blasphemy is associated with man in the Bible”.

Then you are comparing apples to oranges in-order to make your argument concerning Islam’s punishment for insulting Muhammad, which IS where your argument started from.

Ansar Al-‘Adl “But that's not to say that verbal offences amongst human beings were not punishable with death in the Bible”. Once again you are comparing apples to oranges.

The scripture you quoted in-order to try and prove your case does not address the issue at hand.

Ansar Al-‘Adl “Exodus 21:17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”

That scripture is addressing the principal of not cursing your Father in Heaven, along with the issue of discord that results when children don’t show respect toward parents or other sources of authority.

Since you brought that scripture into this discussion, I have a question I would like to ask you about it.

Is that the only scripture in the Bible commanding the death penalty for a man insulting another man?

Find me scripture concerning the demands of the death penalty for insulting other prophets, other than Muhammad, and then we can compare apples to apples.

That was the point Nicola was making in her post, that you cited.

Ansar Al-‘Adl “I haven't made the claim that the word blasphemy is associated with man in the Bible”. This part has left me confused.

If this thread isn’t concerning the thread, I started and you moved, that Nicola committed on, then why have you quoted her on this thread?

If you are quoting her because she committed on a thread about people being punished, for simply insulting Muhammad, with the same death penalty as required for Blaspheming God then, yes, you did link blaspheming God to being equal to insulting Muhammad (In a backdoor fashion).

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

Joe “You are all ignoring the third way. Modern man uses common sense together with a body of laws that have been built up over the last 250 years”.

I understand the point you are making, and it is a good one.

If I am reading your posts correctly the point you are making is that:

No ONE today lives up to the standards of the perfect man according to religious teachings.

So there is no point in punishing people for failing to maintain a perfect record. We all fall short.

I agree that the modern man, that is Christian, has advanced to the point that there is separation between church and state. (Considering man’s short comings, that is a very good thing)

As an aside Joe what, if any, teachings of Jesus would you not desire you neighbor to practice?

Thanks
Nimrod

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

No, todays peole believe that ancient people believed it was the word of God.

Okay, let's see about this. Why don't we ask Nimrod for his view,

Nimrod - do you believe the OT verses I cited were revealed by God or do you reject them as Joe98 has suggested? Please answer this.

Ansar Al-‘Adl “I haven't made the claim that the word blasphemy is associated with man in the Bible”.

Then you are comparing apples to oranges in-order to make your argument concerning Islam’s punishment for insulting Muhammad, which IS where your argument started from.

Insulting anything in the religion is prohibited in Islam because blaspheming against God's religion is blaspheming against God. No it is not comparing apples to oranges, because the Christian objections are not on the basis of who the target of the blasphemy is, but the objection was What extreme vanity! Haven't these guys ever heard - sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" Are we to assume that words can not hurt human beings but they CAN hurt God and therefore this is not 'extreme vanity' ??

Never mind the 'slippery slope' as to what constitutes an insult to God, but are you trying to say that stoning someone to death for insulting God is perfectly acceptable and a punishment that is maximum execution for insulting the Prophet pbuh is barbaric?? What is the status of Messengers of God in the Bible?
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Why is it that blaspheming against God merits stoning to death while blaspheming against God's religion or messengers merits no punishment whatsoever?

And does this mean you have no objections to any Islamic punishment for insulting and blaspheming against God?

The scripture you quoted in-order to try and prove your case does not address the issue at hand.

Ansar Al-‘Adl “Exodus 21:17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”

That scripture is addressing the principal of not cursing your Father in Heaven, along with the issue of discord that results when children don’t show respect toward parents or other sources of authority.

The issue is not speaking about god, in black and white the verse states to slay those who curse their parents. Why don't you address this verse and tell me, since you believe that execution is only non-barbaric when applied to thsoe who insult God, why is it prescribed for INSULTING HUMAN BEINGS (not even Prophets!) in this verse?? Please answer this.

Is that the only scripture in the Bible commanding the death penalty for a man insulting another man?

Are you trying to say that if there is only one scripture it is not evidence? Why are you asking me to search for more verses? Let's deal with this one right now:
Exodus 21:17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
In black and white, death has been prescribed in the OT for insulting human beings who do not even reach the status of the Prophets.

Find me scripture concerning the demands of the death penalty for insulting other prophets, other than Muhammad, and then we can compare apples to apples.

Why does it have to be Prophets? You are using whatever excuse you can find to narrow the scope down. What's next? Finding a scripture that demands death penalty for insulting an arab prophet?? Your initial objection was to punishments for insults or blasphemy. Now you have objected to punishments for insults or blasphemy against human beings. And yet the OT unequivocally prescribes a punishment for insulting ordinary human beings.

And with regards to proselytising in another religion, Islam prohibits and places restrictions on it, but the OT explcitly prescribes stoning to death.

[Joe98]

Joe
As an aside Joe what, if any, teachings of Jesus would you notdesire you neighbor to practice?

I live by the teachings of my parents and by the norms of my local society.

I want my neighbors to do so too.

As it turns out most of that started as the 10 commandments, then the teachings of Jesus were added and then over the last 2,000 years it has evolved into what we have today.

I am sure our Muslim friends can find something barbaric he said but otherwise if Jesus lived next door to me he would be a good neighbor.

But I would not allow his many visitors to park in front of my house. :)


-

[Joe98]

but the OT explcitly prescribes stoning to death.

I do not disagree with that phrase.

Connnecting that phrase to hypocricy is where we disagree.

-

[Hawa]

I live by the teachings of my parents and by the norms of my local society.

I want my neighbors to do so too.

As it turns out most of that started as the 10 commandments, then the teachings of Jesus were added and then over the last 2,000 years it has evolved into what we have today.

I am sure our Muslim friends can find something barbaric he said but otherwise if Jesus lived next door to me he would be a good neighbor.




-

you being an atheist somehow I doubt that very much,

[Joe98]

Doubt what?

That he was a man?

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl I have reread the thread to see if perhaps I had misunderstood your postings.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be the crux of what you have posted:

Jesus prescribed certain punishments in the Old Testament for various offences.
Among those are the calls to stone people for Cursing God or their parents or anyone attempting to lead the Hebrew into false god worship.

You have made the point that if anyone finds the punishments found in Islam to be cruel, then all they need to do is to look back at the Old Testament and find the same punishments called for doing the same offences. Therefore those punishments should be carried out today.

That is where I disagree with you.

You state that you understand the differences between the times we are living in (The period of Grace) compared to Old Testament times (The period of the Law). (Never mind that some of Islam's punishments are harsher than even those prescribed in the Old Testament)

What I feel you are overlooking is the point I tried to make to you about God choosing different approaches to dealing with mans short comings at different times.

Not all Laws were written for all men and all times.

I will give you an example of what I am referring to;

In the Old Testament we find that God forbade the intermarriage with certain groups.

White Supremacist, have perverted the meaning of that scripture to mean that there is to be no mixing of the races. All the while they are ignoring scripture just a few verses away that shows that Moses had a black wife.

Anti-death penalty people love to quote the commandment “Thou shall not kill” at an execution, all the while ignoring scripture just a few verses away that call for the death penalty for certain offences.

In post #24, I said it looked to me like you were trying to cover more than one topic with this thread and you are.

I will state this one more time.

Blaspheme does NOT apply to man insulting man. Not even for insulting Islam or Muhammad. (If that isn't the counter-point to your thread then, perhaps you should retitle it.)
When Islam instituted that law and its prescribed punishment, it went beyond any teachings found in the bible.

You seem to be trying to compare biblical teachings to Islamic teachings and make them say the same thing, but they don’t say the same things.

You have cited the scripture that tells the Hebrews to stone people for proselytizing and compared that to Islam’s teachings and implied that both are the same.

Find me scripture in the bible that says that if a Jew or Christian quits believing in God, they are to be stoned.

What are Islam’s teachings concerning an Atheist (Who was once a Muslim.) who repeatedly says in public that there is no God, and that since there is no God then Muhammad was not a prophet but was simply a liar and those who said he split the moon in two were liars.

Jesus’ teaching was that if they refuse to accept the Christian message then I am to simply shake their dust off the bottom of my feet and out of my clothes and move on, even if they are saying those things in my neighborhood.

Your argument equates insulting Muhammad with insulting God.

Jesus said that insulting the man that was Jesus (The Christ) would be forgiven, but insulting the Holy Spirit (That is Jesus God) would not be forgiven.

Jesus never taught what Islam teaches, that insulting a man is equal to insulting God.

Jesus taught to stone a person for:

Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him' (Leviticus 20:2).

A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads (Leviticus 20:27).

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death (Deuteronomy 18:20).

Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him (Leviticus 24:16).

Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people (Exodus 31:14).

Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death (Exodus 21:15,17).

If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death (Leviticus 24:17).

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads (Leviticus 20:13).

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal (Leviticus 20:15).

All of those things were commanded to teach the Hebrew what was right and what was wrong.

The Hebrew failed to carry out those commandments, just the same as you or I would have failed to do so.
The result was God’s continual punishment of the Hebrew, all the while the blessings of God were not being allowed to be spread to the rest of mankind.

God chose to take a different approach to dealing with Mankind. God did that through Jesus the Christ.

That is the meaning of this scripture; Matthew 7:3-5. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”.

The Law didn’t save. The commandment to love your fellow man was lost in all the pious attempts by the Israelites to follow the rest of the Law.

That is why Jesus said “'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell' (Matthew 5:21,22)”.

We are living under a different Covenant today. You may think it is a Red Herring, but that Red Herring is crucial to understand if a person is to understand what Jesus the Christ did.

That is why Jesus said “you don’t pour new wine into old wine skins or they will burst and both the wine and the wine skins will be ruined” and that “no one sews a patch of new clothe on to an old garment because the new clothe will shrink and pull away and both the patch and the garment will suffer”.

Islam’s teachings that try to lead us back into the time of the Law results in exactly the same thing as the arguments between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, one group wanted to claim to more pious than the other. All the while they were ignoring the commandment to love your fellow man as you love yourself.


That is why I started the thread “Your desires or your actions” because it seems to me that carrying around a sign calling for the death of someone, who insults Muhammad, is in direct opposition to what Jesus taught:

Jesus said “'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell' (Matthew 5:21,22)”.

Yes there are things in the Old Testament that I find very hard to accept.

I have never understood what the babies, that God ordered the killing of, were guilty of.

But to say that what Islam teaches should/could not be looked at as cruel or harsh simply because some of those punishments are found in the Old Testament is wrong imo.

The Hebrew failed at fulfilling the intent of the Law just the same as you are I would have.

You have admitted a number of times that Muslims have failed at fulfilling Islamic teachings, is there any reason to believe that they wouldn’t have failed to fulfill the Old Testament Laws?

I am not trying to get into an argument saying that Christians are any better at fulfilling Jesus the Christ’s teachings. All I am saying is that we have all fallen short and if you want to start stoning people for insulting Muhammad and Islam then:

Matthew 7:3-5. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”.

Because you surely missed the meaning of:


“'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell' (Matthew 5:21,22)”.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, if there is something you feel I haven’t addressed then let me know.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, if there is something you feel I haven’t addressed then let me know.

I'm afraid you haven't answered any of my arguments, Nimrod.

If you wish to use the 'new covenant' argument, then you cannot object to the punishments in principle or say that they are bad/unfair punishments - you can only say that you believe they are not applicable today. If you say they are bad or barbaric punishments then you are saying that a perfect compassionate and allwise God prescribed bad barbaric punishments.

The argument "well, it's only for insulting God" misses the mark as well.

1. The Bible prescribes execution for insulting human beings (parents) as well, and the status of the Prophets is the highest for human beings.
2. You eliminate all your objections against punishments for reviling God in Islam.
3. The "slippery slope" of what constitutes an insult to God makes it entirely plausible that an insult to God's Messengers and God's religion merits some form of punishment as well, even if less than the punishment for insulting God directly.
4. The Bible prescribes stoning to death while the maximum Islamic punishment for the one who violates their covenant with the state (by reviling God, the religion or the Prophets) is simply execution. Why is any punishment whatsoever for insulting God's Messengers labelled by Christians as 'extreme vanity' and stoning to death for blaspheming God is considered the best and most appropriate, just not for our times?

Nimrod - do you believe the OT verses I cited were revealed by God or do you reject them as Joe98 has suggested? Please answer this.

Insulting anything in the religion is prohibited in Islam because blaspheming against God's religion is blaspheming against God. No it is not comparing apples to oranges, because the Christian objections are not on the basis of who the target of the blasphemy is, but the objection was What extreme vanity! Haven't these guys ever heard - sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" Are we to assume that words can not hurt human beings but they CAN hurt God and therefore this is not 'extreme vanity' ??

And does this mean you have no objections to any Islamic punishment for insulting and blaspheming against God?

The issue is not speaking about god, in black and white the verse states to slay those who curse their parents. Why don't you address this verse and tell me, since you believe that execution is only non-barbaric when applied to thsoe who insult God, why is it prescribed for INSULTING HUMAN BEINGS (not even Prophets!) in this verse?? Please answer this.

And with regards to proselytising in another religion, Islam prohibits and places restrictions on it, but the OT explcitly prescribes stoning to death.

Peace.

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I am sorry you feel as though I have not answered any of your questions/arguments.

It is not a matter of me “wishing” to use the “New Covenant” argument. I have simply tried to show you the differences that exist between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

A person would not be prudent in ignoring those differences.

You seem to laboring under the false pretense, that I am of the persuasion, that none of the Old Testament decrees were harsh. That would be a false assumption.

I have stated so in my previous post.

Your argument is only valid if you have a time-machine so that you can transport all of us back to Old Testament times to live out our lives in.

Jesus said and did things during his time on Earth. Your argument comes across as though he brought no teachings at all.

If you wish to dispute my understanding of those teachings then all the better.

Let me be plain spoken.

There are things in the Old Testament I have a hard time understanding.

I don’t understand what the babies were guilty of that God ordered their killing.
That being said, it is there, regardless if I understand it all or not.

However I can make sense of some of what is in the Old Testament.

Why have the whole community take part in punishing offenders?

It is a very good way of making sure that everyone understands the seriousness of calling for the Death penalty, it also teaches every citizen the seriousness of their children breaking the Law.

The Old Testament never instructs a man to kill another man for insulting another man, with the minor exception of a man cursing his mom or dad.

That instruction was given in the generic sense, it makes no distinction for insulting a prophet.

Islam goes beyond biblical teachings in that regard, as well as in the punishment for a thief.


As I have stated, if you expect a new Covenant to be a carbon copy of the old Covenant, then why even have a new Covenant?

If you don’t understand the slippery slope of what could be understood to be insulting toward Muhammad or Islam, answer me this:

What EXACTLY could any teaching that disagrees with what Muhammad said be considered?

Your post has left me rather confused, I am assuming you were short of time.

What Exactly, of what I have posted, do you have a problem with?

Thanks
Nimrod

[Woodrow]

Its clear you have no idea.

The Christains of TODAY do not believe in barbaric punishment.

Unless they happen to live in the South and belong to organizations like the KKK. (I will agree with you that those people are not acting like Christians. But, it is equaly erroneosus to identify all Muslims as being the same.)

The Christains of TODAY look at Sharia law and see barbaric punishment.

I will agree that is how many Christians view Sharia law. But, then again you need to keep in mind that the majority of the worlds Muslims do not view Sharia law in the same way as it is practised in the countries that make the news.

The Christains of TODAY say that barbaric punishment should be banned.

All the Muslims I know, believe that also

If you say that is hypocritical it means you are saying: "Christains of TODAY believe in barbaric punishments" which they do not.

The Muslim view is that the Koran is perfect and they conclude that Christains must believe the Bible is perfect. Christains do not believe that.

Perhaps the last sentence needs to be rephrased to "Most mainstream Christains do not believe that." Keep in mind that the typical Christian we come into contact with, is almost always from a Funamentalistic Bible
Denomination.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Your argument is only valid if you have a time-machine so that you can transport all of us back to Old Testament times to live out our lives in.

So you have no concrete objections to Islamic punishments so long as they were implemented before the New Covenant? How exactly does "Old Testament times" differ from modern times? Are you not projecting your Christian beliefs onto Islam when you object that it has prescribed punishments that Christians feel are no longer applicable since the New Covenant? This is an objection based on your religious beliefs, not on reason or evidence.

There are things in the Old Testament I have a hard time understanding.

Then is it not better for you and Christians like you to spend time first trying to understand your own Holy Scripture before making accusations about another religion? This is exactly the hypocrisy I was talking about. Christians point at Islam though their criteria prove even more destructive when applied to their own scriptures.

The Old Testament never instructs a man to kill another man for insulting another man, with the minor exception of a man cursing his mom or dad.

It doesn't matter if you preface the exception with 'minor' or not. I can say that Islam never instructs a man to kill another man for insulting another man with the minor exception of God's Messengers, who are far superior in status to any parents. Cursing one's parents is a sin; cursing God's Messenger is blatant disbelief.

As I have stated, if you expect a new Covenant to be a carbon copy of the old Covenant, then why even have a new Covenant?

Muslims don't believe in this 'new covenant'! This is why it is fallacious for Christians to object to Islamic punishments because in reality they don't have an argument.

I'll answer your questions about Islamic law in the appropriate threads, inshaa'Allah.

What Exactly, of what I have posted, do you have a problem with?

I don't have a problem with what you posted, I just can't understand why you've bothered to post at all in this thread if not to answer my specific questions and challenges to those Christians who object to the Islamic punishments, specifically for blasphemy.

And lastly, for joe's sake, please answer this with a simple yes or no that Joe will be able to understand (he is still under the impression that you reject the OT as barbaric):

Nimrod - do you believe the OT verses I cited were revealed by God or do you reject them as Joe98 has suggested?

Peace.

[Joe98]

This is why it is fallacious for Christians to object to Islamic punishments.....

Some laws in the Bible are barbaric because it was written in ancient times.
But those barbaric laws have been changed.

Some of Sharia law is barbaric because it was written in ancient times.
These barbaric laws have not been changed.

The critisizims against Islam is that barbaric laws have not been changed.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Joe,
Are you familiar with the fallacy known as argumentum ad nauseum? The Christians on this forum do not believe the OT is barbaric. If you can find me a Christian on the forum who believes the Bible is barbaric, then he/she is exempt from my challenge. My argument is against those Christians who do not believe the Biblical punishments to be barbaric.

[Tania]

The islamic countries are based on the shariah laws. I heard even that is not applied 100% (we can't find a pure islamic country)-may be its false.
The other countries are based on constitution and laws made by humans. I think the Church lost his power to influence the politics in this world. Still in the rural areas and even towns the priest have their influence. But they can't apply the Biblical laws because they would be in the end judge by the human laws.

[Joe98]

My argument is against those Christians who do not believe the Biblical punishments to be barbaric.

You didn't state that at the beginning.

And you will not find any such Christains.

Everyone has the view that it was not considered barbaric at theat time but is barbaric today.

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I have done my very best to provide you answers.

The subject that you are trying to address is much deeper than your simply replies imply.

The short answer (In contrast to the long in-depth answers I have been providing you with) is:

Yes all the Old Testament scripture was handed down by Jesus.
Yes I do have concrete objections to some Islamic punishments.
Yes I do believe some of the things in the Old Testament are extremely harsh and just short of sounding like I am trying to be God’s judge, yes they do (To me) sound cruel.

If you understand all that is in the Old Testament then, by all means, enlighten me as to what the babies that God ordered killed were guilty of.

If it God instructed people to be killed for insulting a dead prophet, then show me where.

And IF that is the correct understanding of Islam, then cite for me examples of people being stoned for insulting all the rest of the prophets.

Explain to me why Islam wasn’t rioting in the street when Jesus was insulted much worse by artist than any of the cartoons of recent history concerning Islam.

Perhaps when you attempt to answer that you will begin to understand Nicola’s post that you cited.

My objections to your thread have been posted by me more than once:

The Bible does NOT instruct people to the stoned or killed in any other manner, for insulting a dead prophet.

The Bible never equates the insulting a man to insulting God. (And there is an understanding as to why).

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

Mara, this may sound strange but I feel that except for direct instruction from God concerning current events (Current events, meaning the current events of what ever time span.), that the church should NOT be in charge of political events, faulty men control the churches.

When the church is in charge, you wind up with things like the Christian crusades, or, Saudi Arabia’s style of Islam.

The church controlling the Kings is not the example we find in the Old Testament.

Sorry if this post is off topic a bit.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Tania]

Mara, this may sound strange but I feel that except for direct instruction from God concerning current events (Current events, meaning the current events of what ever time span.), that the church should NOT be in charge of political events, faulty men control the churches.

When the church is in charge, you wind up with things like the Christian crusades, or, Saudi Arabia’s style of Islam.

The church controlling the Kings is not the example we find in the Old Testament.

Sorry if this post is off topic a bit.

Thanks
Nimrod

Is not off topic. :-[. Its quite on topic because thats why we can't see the biblical punishment today. What was quoted:
Exodus 21:17 "Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death. "
If the church would have ruled in our countries- in particular setting up the laws-, i think the biblical punishments would have been applied.
We can't say the Bible its old or its not anymore actual or we are able to comment the Holly Book-thats not good or its good.

[nimrod]

Mara, you have stated a very important point I have been trying to make to Ansar.

God has taken different approaches to dealing with men at different times.

Adam and Eve were subject to only one rule; don’t eat the fruit of one certain tree.

The folks that lived during Noah’s time didn’t have a written law from God that we know of.

Men of different ages are different from men of other ages.

Not all Law, was written, for all men.

God has shown that he adjusts his approach to different times and men of different times.

An important thing to understand is this:

God became more and more harsh and implemented very cruel punishments on the Hebrew as time went on, in order to teach them to quit worshipping false gods.

Once the Hebrew quit that practice, just before Jesus the Christ’s time, God brought the next step into play.

The time of the Law had been fulfilled, and then was the time to show God’s mercy, the time of Grace.

I can understand Islam’s thinking though:

On one hand seemingly, the most perfect thing that could have happened, is for God to have handed one single set of rules to stand for all time.

I am of the opinion that God knew that the modern man would be more advanced in his thinking in all areas, not only his understanding of science but also his understanding of God’s nature.

Just the same as God acted differently toward the Hebrews at different times (depending on if the Hebrews were doing right), God also acts differently toward men and the times they live in.

Now days most folks, that have been raised in a society that doesn’t believe in multiple gods, finds the idea of multiple gods a little nuts.

The need for God to be so harsh toward man kind, in-order to teach mankind that God is One, has mostly passed.

God does not treat all men exactly the same. God knows who he is dealing with and adjusts his approach to fit what needs to be addressed.

The time of the Law has been fulfilled.
If anyone tries to lead you back into the Law, then a person would be well advised as to question why.

Something to ponder, Joseph Smith also used the claim that he was restoring the miss-guided population/church to what God originally intended, the restoration of the Law.

You may find a study of the LDS/ Mormon interesting.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Umar001]

I dont think it is Islam's understanding of having just one law from the begging to end, would be a wierd understanding since prophets had their laws which slightly differed.

[Tania]

The time of the Law has been fulfilled.
If anyone tries to lead you back into the Law, then a person would be well advised as to question why.

Something to ponder, Joseph Smith also used the claim that he was restoring the miss-guided population/church to what God originally intended, the restoration of the Law.

You may find a study of the LDS/ Mormon interesting.

Thanks
Nimrod

I am still not able to talk about Mormons, i never read about them before, but even if they tried, they will fall under the country law, civil or penal law.
I agree with you the humankind its to "modern" in this days. Even the penal laws are changing often in order to can keep the step with this modernisation.
For example, 2 years ago the adultery was punished with jail, in order to protect the family life, off course. Now, this law was replaced with only pecuniary damages, so fall under the civil law. See from criminal law to civil law. Why? Because even the family life begin not look like with was supposed to be.
The same modernisation i have noticed in islamic countries too, when they allowed the myshar marriages - which after me are other sample of modern life with very little connections of the family life.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Nimrod,

Yes I do believe some of the things in the Old Testament are extremely harsh and just short of sounding like I am trying to be God’s judge, yes they do (To me) sound cruel.

Then why don't you go around saying that Jesus advocated the murder of those who insult him (which you've agreed is true)? If you find the issues comparable why do you misquote and protray Islam in a negative light but attempt to offer an in-depth explanation when it comes to Christianity? Why the bias?

If you understand all that is in the Old Testament then, by all means, enlighten me as to what the babies that God ordered killed were guilty of.

I don't believe that God nor Prophet Jesus would ever enjoin the smashing of innocent babies against rocks, so I reject the account of the Old Testament.

If it God instructed people to be killed for insulting a dead prophet, then show me where.

Does it matter if they are dead or alive? The Bible goes much further than the level of Prophets - it says kill the one who insults his parents.

And IF that is the correct understanding of Islam, then cite for me examples of people being stoned for insulting all the rest of the prophets.

There is no stoning for insults in Islam so that's a strawman fallacy.

Explain to me why Islam wasn’t rioting in the street when Jesus was insulted much worse by artist than any of the cartoons of recent history concerning Islam.

I did explain this in much detail in a thread while the cartoons were going on:
http://www.islamicboard.com/176386-post34.html
Jesus is known to the west - insulting him will not threaten the inter-faith bridges by breeding misconceptions and incting hatred towards a minority. I'll be happy to discuss this further in the above thread.

The Bible does NOT instruct people to the stoned or killed in any other manner, for insulting a dead prophet.

But it did instruct them to be stoned to death for insulting Jesus, according to Christian understanding. And it does command execution for insulting one's parents. Both of these are clearly more extreme in my view, than any Islamic punishment.

The fact that Jesus commanded people to be stoned to death for insulting him has been established. Thank you, you've shown what I wanted you to show.

Regards

[duskiness]

Hi Ansar,

The Bible goes much further than the level of Prophets - it says kill the one who insults his parents.

where?

There is no stoning for insults in Islam so that's a strawman fallacy.

as you know it, there is no stoning in Christianity also

But it did instruct them to be stoned to death for insulting Jesus, according to Christian understanding. And it does command execution for insulting one's parents.

wher?
Ansar you are a clever man, so tell why, when you see "beat your wife" in Quran you turn to scholars, Sunna and Islamic law, but when you see something "bad" in Bible you don't look up any commentary?

The fact that Jesus commanded people to be stoned to death for insulting him has been established.

- "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.". That's what i know about stoning...

Ps: i'm going on my "hajj" ;) tomorrow to Santiago (500 km in 20 day by foot - so scared!!!) so i won't be able to answer you till mid August

take care, Ansar
n.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi duskiness,
You may want to read the thread from the start - this thread was created in response to some of the criticism of Christians towards Islamic punishments.

where?

Exodus 21:17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

as you know it, there is no stoning in Christianity also

This is the stoning in question:
Leviticus 24:13-16. Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who BLASPHEMES the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13:7-12. If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.

wher?

As above.

Ansar you are a clever man, so tell why, when you see "beat your wife" in Quran you turn to scholars, Sunna and Islamic law, but when you see something "bad" in Bible you don't look up any commentary?

First off, 'beat your wife' does not occur in the Qur'an, but I suppose you knew that already and were just offering an example of the need research into texts as opposed to misquoting them, offering a superficial presentation of the issue in question, and in the process maligning an entire religion. I agree with you completely. You may not realize that this thread was created in response to the efforts of some Christians spreading negative and shallow presentations on some Islamic laws. I understand that Christians have their way of looking at the Old Testament and examining/explaining the texts. But I can't understand why some of them do not give the same respect to Muslims and they misquote Islamic laws. The sheer hypocrisy in their actions should be evident from this thread.

Ps: i'm going on my "hajj" ;) tomorrow to Santiago (500 km in 20 day by foot - so scared!!!) so i won't be able to answer you till mid August

Have a safe trip! :thankyou:

Regards

[Umar001]

Peace be upon those who follow guidance.

Just wondering Dusk you wrote

where?

I think if you read from the start you will see the quotes, if not then ask again and I will post it.

there is no stoning in Christianity also

Again I think if you read into the thread you will see the point being made by Ansar.

tell why, when you see "beat your wife" in Quran you turn to scholars, Sunna and Islamic law, but when you see something "bad" in Bible you don't look up any commentary?

Just out of curiosity, this is a question for Ansar, but I would be interested if you could provide me with the Sunnah of Jesus please.

"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.". That's what i know about stoning...

Now again if you read into the thread, the point being made is not debating whether Christianity now allows stoning under the new covenant.

But since you have brought this up, just wondering why you quote something which Bibles like the NIV have commented saying

((The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.))

Online Source

And I hope you have a nice time and learn something from your trip.

E'esa

[جوري]

There are no Christains of that type.

Thats why we come to these forums so we can learn about each other. :)

-

before I continue reading along... the KKK considers themsleves christians and they have burnt people at the stake still happens in parts of the country today... not 50 years ago a black woman named Rosa parks was asked to move to the back and give her seat to a white man... and well let's face it... Americans of today are certainly not the indigenous population of 500 years ago... so the question is... how long has the west been civilized and implemented non barberic punishments?
Allah Forgives all sins except for two....

[Joe98]

the question is... how long has the west been civilized and implemented non barberic punishments?

About 200 or 300 years.

When a criminal burns somebody that is not representative of Western culture.

Please advise whether Sharia law is perfect?

[جوري]

About 200 or 300 years.

When a criminal burns somebody that is not representative of Western culture.

Please advise whether Sharia law is perfect?

I believe they are not considered criminals since not only do they Continue to rally with their masks off and in parts of this country continue with their practices..... Please enlighten me if bigotry has been wiped out from the "civilized" world ... 'cause if it made the news I must have missed it..... I don't think you can profess expertise on sharia law ... neither can I... I know it is complicated and lots of things can be forgiven even murder so long as parties agree and some compensation is given.... I am not going to get into a topic of which I have very little knowledge of ... but I do know that we need to perfect society here before we point our blaming finger on the ills of the world ... it is simple ... don't do the crime if you can't take the punishment.... meant to make society decent not morally degenerate....

[Tania]

before I continue reading along... the KKK considers themsleves christians and they have burnt people at the stake still happens in parts of the country today...

Who are the KKK? :-[

[Phil12123]

Ansar and Nimrod,

I have read through this thread from the beginning, trying to see if I can add anything meaningful to the discussion, and I have found that perhaps part of the discussion started in some other thread, so this one seems incomplete. What was originally said that you, Ansar, found hypocritical? It must have been something against punishment under Islamic law for blasphemy of some sort (against the Prophet? or the religion? or what?). And what is that punishment that was being criticized?

I don't want to go off topic, but there seems to be some rather barbaric punishments under Islamic law that you can't point to any similar punishments in the O.T. For example, cutting off limbs of offenders. While, the O.T. does say, "An eye for an eye, etc." it does not say cut off a hand if the person is caught stealing, etc. Maybe that is best left for another or new thread.

One other comment. In the passage where Jesus does not have the adulterous woman stoned, He was trying to make a point. First, the people who brought her to Him were trying get Him to NOT follow the O.T. law so they could have something to accuse Him of. Secondly, His statement that "He that is without sin among you cast the first stone," made His point that none of them were themselves not guilty, probably of the same thing they wanted her stoned for. All of them, under the law, should probably have been stoned too, but of course no one was accusing them, except perhaps Jesus Himself, as He wrote on the ground. So the law could not be carried out against her, properly, without the other guilty party included.

In our age, and in centuries gone by, there has been much abuse when the power of the state is used to enforce religious laws. Separation of church and state is therefore often a very good thing, though in the West that has gone to extremes, imo, when for example some want to take "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance. I believe Islam and the Quran were very much cultural matters that were products of 6th and 7th century cultures and not as universally applicable as New Testament Christianity. That is why some of the punishments seem to us so barbaric in our 21st century culture. Christianity does not have any such punishments, but leaves to the governmental authorities the punishment of evildoers. It is the state, not the religion, that punishes. And the punishment dished out by the state, in a democracy, is voted on and passed as law by the people or their representatives. That's why it may change, as society changes its view of the acceptability of different forms of punishment.

The point Nimrod was making is that God changes His dealings with people from time to time, as He sees fit. Islam's punishments, though some of it is no more harsh than what was in effect in O.T. times, remains culturally stuck in the 6th or 7th century. And so Islam's god, Allah, does not change his punishment for today, based on any change in the culture or people he is dealing with. So, it might be unfair to accuse someone of hypocrisy who, though believing God did indeed command stoning at one time, does not believe He is currently commanding it, or anything comparable to it, under Islamic law or any other law.

Peace

[nimrod]

Phil, this is the thread http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...g-prophet.html that was the cause of this thread.

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

Phil, the closest thing to maiming being used as punishment in the Bible is the command to cut the hand off of a woman that joins her husband in a fight and she then tries to harm the opponent’s ability to father children.

It is an Old Testament command.

Thanks
Nimrod

[جوري]

Who are the KKK? :-[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Too long an article to give you the gist...
There is something called (al7olom) in Islam for the gent who speaks of barbaric.... Punishment is made to fit the crime.... if a person steals because he is hungry ... the punishment ideally should be for the ruler of that place who went to bed on a full stomach while letting people starve as he should question his neglect... and in fact that used to happen... the khalif of the place would screen the city to see who is hungry... Harun Al-rasheed as a prime example... Teddy Roosvelt was called Harun Al-rasheed of the west for doing the same pratice although I am sure for different purposes this of course as opposed to a calculated robbery ... still think some would rather have their hands cut off than go to prison which is an odd punishment in and of itself ... and I am not sure really what deems it civilized?.... same thing for murder.... if it were second degree or else then what to do truly lies with the victims family and most people (pardon) grant (reprieve) but a monetary compensation of some sort is given.... religious laws are meant to make societies just ... and people upright.... the Punishment for an adulterer who is married is different than that of one who isn't married ... there is an in-depth system that neither of us have well an in-depth understanding of... I can call lots of things in the US barbaric today and would myself rather not stray from the topic ... dragging a man to his death ... burning him at the stake ... making dogs eat his genitals while torturing him in a sexual exhibition in a group orgy and taking pictures ... but no need to digress.......

[Tania]

[QUOTE=PurestAmbrosia;415550]
....the KKK considers themsleves christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
QUOTE]
Following the link i discovered they didn't consider themselfs catholics and burning the cross could be considered even like a denying of christians faith.

[جوري]

No I don't think they are catholics but I believe they are a type of protestants... republicans not much different from Bush and company.... needless to say they still continue those practices modern day....

[Tania]

No I don't think they are catholics but I believe they are a type of protestants... republicans not much different from Bush and company.... needless to say they still continue those practices modern day....

They are out of laws. If i understood right KKK appeared because of some political frustations . I would say they have no-religion and their actions are against the christians teachings.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Phil,
Welcome to the discussion.

What was originally said that you, Ansar, found hypocritical? It must have been something against punishment under Islamic law for blasphemy of some sort (against the Prophet? or the religion? or what?). And what is that punishment that was being criticized?

Nimrod has correctly pointed out the major thread which initiated this line of discussion. Some Christian members criticized punishments for reviling the religion or insulting the Prophet in an Islamic state (which is not stoning by the way) saying, "What extreme vanity! Haven't these guys ever heard - sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

I don't want to go off topic, but there seems to be some rather barbaric punishments under Islamic law that you can't point to any similar punishments in the O.T. For example, cutting off limbs of offenders. While, the O.T. does say, "An eye for an eye, etc." it does not say cut off a hand if the person is caught stealing, etc. Maybe that is best left for another or new thread.

This was dealt with in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ariah-law.html

I believe Islam and the Quran were very much cultural matters that were products of 6th and 7th century cultures and not as universally applicable as New Testament Christianity. That is why some of the punishments seem to us so barbaric in our 21st century culture. Christianity does not have any such punishments, but leaves to the governmental authorities the punishment of evildoers. [...]The point Nimrod was making is that God changes His dealings with people from time to time, as He sees fit. Islam's punishments, though some of it is no more harsh than what was in effect in O.T. times, remains culturally stuck in the 6th or 7th century.

The obvious flaw with such an argument is the absence of any objectivity. You mean to say that while it is barbaric to stone someone to death for blasphemy today, it was not barbaric to stone someone to death for the same offense a few thousand years ago? Either the punishment is barbaric or it is not. How is it acceptable that someone may be killed for insulting their parents in the time of Moses but today the notion is abhorrent and revolting? How can one criticize a law as barbaric when they accept that God revealed laws ten times as barbaric in a previous age?

Their are aspects of laws that are culturally sensitive and there are those fundamentals that are not. Blasphemy is just as great a sin today as it was 10 000 years ago.

That's why it may change, as society changes its view of the acceptability of different forms of punishment.

But what if society chooses to reject God's verdicts altogether? What if the society decides that fornication, adultery, blasphemy, and homosexuality are perfectly acceptable? What do you think someone is guilty of when they choose to support a legal system which declares God foolish and mistaken?

Regards

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, correct me if I am wrong, but did Jesus/man not ask the Father/God to forgive those insulting and killing him as he died on the cross?

The command, to quell rebellion in ones own house-hold, is not correctly correlated to insulting a prophet of God. You have been comparing apples to oranges.

You have refused to accept that, the same as I reject your explanations, but, it is what it is.

If a person rejects what is in the Bible, then you are correct, if a person doesn’t, then I am correct.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Ansar Al-‘Adl, correct me if I am wrong, but did Jesus/man not ask the Father/God to forgive those insulting and killing him as he died on the cross?

NT, sure. But in the OT did Jesus/God not decree the stoning of those who insulted him? Indisputable.

The command, to quell rebellion in ones own house-hold, is not correctly correlated to insulting a prophet of God. You have been comparing apples to oranges.

The OT prescribes death for insulting one's parents. That is even more harsh than a punishment for insulting a Prophet of God.

You have refused to accept that, the same as I reject your explanations, but, it is what it is.

What am I refusing to accept?

[Joe98]

The OT prescribes death for insulting one's parents.

Why does it matter? Who cares?

[Joe98]

You mean to say that while it is barbaric to stone someone to death for blasphemy today, it was not barbaric to stone someone to death for the same offense a few thousand years ago?

Correct-a-mundo!......................:loving:

You got it!................................:thankyou:

You understand!........................:smile:

Whoo!.....................................;D

[جوري]

Correct-a-mundo!......................:loving:

You got it!................................:thankyou:

You understand!........................:smile:

Whoo!.....................................;D

tell us what you deem suitable ....I am always impressed with the civilized approach....... I was following the news on a civilized man who slaughtered his innocent wife and unborn son put her in body bags on xmas eve to cheat on her with a saucy concubine... and ironically has his own fan club... thousands of my tax dollar which to be honest in the least and in the most un political manner would rather go to St. Jude children hospital...is going to give him three meals a day put a roof on his head and foster his stay for God knows how many years until he has run out of appeals also out of my tax money.... before someone "injects" him to sleep.... civilized indeed? I always thought justice should be swift... and we are not talking apples and oranges here because this is exactly the sort of crime we are talking about... and punishment should fit the crime.......

[Phil12123]

Phil, the closest thing to maiming being used as punishment in the Bible is the command to cut the hand off of a woman that joins her husband in a fight and she then tries to harm the opponent’s ability to father children.

It is an Old Testament command.

Thanks
Nimrod

You are right!! I had forgotten about that command. It's in Deut. 25:
11. "If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals,
12. "then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

Not sure if she is trying to "harm the opponent's ability to father children," but she certainly is trying to help her husband!

Peace

[Joe98]

tell us what you deem suitable....and punishment should fit the crime.......

Execution is the suitable punishment. What you are really asking is what is my preferred method of execution? Is that correct?

Lethal injection is quick and painless.

Stoning is barbaric.

[جوري]

Execution is the suitable punishment. What you are really asking is what is my preferred method of execution? Is that correct?

Lethal injection is quick and painless.

Stoning is barbaric.

why does he deserve quick and painless?... while I don't even want to think about the last hour of a pregnant woman pleading for her life and her unborn child... He deserves the death penalty and in Islam that is what he would get and it would't be by stoning but it wouldnt waste my tax dollar either on appeals meals and make him into a movie star with a fan club....we are talking criminals here whose acts are barbaric so suffice it to say I don't see why we always seek reprieve (although it is allowed by religious law) for the perpetrator and not the victim?????......

[ABWAN]

Execution is the suitable punishment. What you are really asking is what is my preferred method of execution? Is that correct?

Lethal injection is quick and painless.

Stoning is barbaric.

I think it basically depends on how one looks at punishments. I have feeling that you are looking at it from the perspective of the criminal. A punishment is NOT just meant for the person who commited the crime. More than that, it is a warning to the whole society. Only severe punishments could stop people from committing similar crimes. In that sense, capital punishments should be as severe as possible.

Logically, if I knew that I could die without feeling any pain, that would only encourage me to commit more crime, Isn't it?

[Joe98]

but it wouldnt waste my tax dollar either on appeals .......

Then you are barbaric because you don't understand the law.

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,
At the end it show the hypricrisy of the Chrsitian faith now.

They choose to do what they please but do not do what is "in " their thining is barbaric.

They say "Surely Jesus or God does not want us to do that"..but yet they say the bible is divine and right..

Hyrpocrisy..

[Joe98]

Salaam,
At the end it show the hypricrisy of the Chrsitian faith now.

The Muslim whom started the thread had that "hypocrisy" in mind.

The good news is that I am an Athiest and not a Christian.

The other good news is that the West changes. The West is always changing.

To cut off a hand is barbaric. To stone people is barbaric.

To improve and find a better way to do things - that is the way of the West.

....hypricrisy......

Wrong again. The West does not cut off a man's hand. Other people continue to do so and the West calls it barbaric. Show me the hypocrisy.

[Muslim Knight]

The other good news is that the West changes. The West is always changing.

To cut off a hand is barbaric. To stone people is barbaric.

To improve and find a better way to do things - that is the way of the West.

You can yell that a thousand times and it still won't change the fact that Western countries have the highest crime rates in the world. I don't want to hear more of your yapping. Bootlicking will not change how dangerous your Western lifestyle can be. At one point of time, there's murder every 7 minutes in New York. And US was/is the most powerful nation on Earth.

I want to hear how Western methods have been successful in reducing/preventing crimes, how people can live free and feel secure from crimes.

[Phil12123]

I want to hear . . . how people can live free and feel secure from crimes.

That is a very worthy goal, which all civilized, law-abiding people would like to see reached in this sin-filled world. But that's the rub---this world is full of sinners. How to deal with their sin, in terms of punishment, is the issue. Certainly public stonings, hangings, limb-severings, etc. would put fear in the hearts of the people watching, and that would certainly be a deterrent, as barbaric as it is. And that may have been the reason God commanded it in O.T. times, to keep His chosen people pure, putting down sin in no uncertain terms.

Christianity, however, seeks to deal with the heart of the problem, namely, the sinner's heart. Rather than using fear as a deterrent, Christianity (TRUE Christianity) seeks to convert the sinner to a saint. Paul describes that conversion when he said in 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." The new believer is a new creature with new desires to please his Savior Who died for him. Committing crime is the farthest thing from his mind and heart. That is not to say he is perfect or sinless but he does not willfully and habitually sin. As the Apostle John said in
1st John 3 (Living Bible):
3. And everyone who really believes this will try to stay pure because Christ is pure.
4. But those who keep on sinning are against God, for every sin is done against the will of God.
5. And you know that he became a man so that he could take away our sins, and that there is no sin in him, no missing of God's will at any time in any way.
6. So if we stay close to him, obedient to him, we won't be sinning either; but as for those who keep on sinning, they should realize this: They sin because they have never really known him or become his.
7. Oh, dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: if you are constantly doing what is good, it is because you are good, even as he is.
8. But if you keep on sinning, it shows that you belong to Satan, who since he first began to sin has kept steadily at it. But the Son of God came to destroy these works of the devil.
9. The person who has been born into God's family does not make a practice of sinning, because now God's life is in him; so he can't keep on sinning, for this new life has been born into him and controls him--he has been born again.
10. So now we can tell who is a child of God and who belongs to Satan. Whoever is living a life of sin and doesn't love his brother shows that he is not in God's family;

Peace