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
