Re: the difference between islam and christianity .... (OP)
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
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.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
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....
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....
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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...
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.
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.
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.......
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
[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.
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....
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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.
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.
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
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
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.
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?
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character" [Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik]
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 got it!................................:thankyou:
You understand!........................:smile:
Whoo!.....................................
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.......
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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!
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?????......
Last edited by جوري; 07-24-2006 at 05:52 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks