Stoning!

[Ramadhan]

then wouldn't that mean they were driven away out of fear from the HUMANS and not from God

You see, Islam is for everyone. It is for the morally strong and morally weak, it is for those strong in faith and weak in faith. It is for the self-disciplined and the unruly. It is not just for those who already have fear from God.
And Islam provides means to hold familial and societal bonds and to prevent its breakdowns.
Some people may already have inclinations to have fear from God and to obey his rules, but these are very few. As Allah SWT states in the Qur'an: men are created weak.

Jesus (pbuh) observed mosaic laws and that included stoning for convicted adulterers. However, most early christians did not like this, and the roman christians certainly did not, so they fabricated a passage and introduced the infamous "pericope adulterae" (john 7:53-8:11) which never existed even in the oldest bible manuscripts and only made it in the latin vulgate (6 to 7th century). This is the passage where Jesus (pbuh) supposedly said "those without sin cast the first stone" and cited often and much by christians to show that Jesus (pbuh) abolished stoning for adulterers and to tolerate sinful behaviour, and as you can see the western countries which are founded by the principles of tolerating adultery have become the place of highest divorce rates, out of marriage children, unmarried couples, pornography, homosexual/incestuous sexual relationships etc.

Do you think that those are because the westerners/europeans are naturally weaker in faith than say muslims?
no, of course not, Allah is just and he made us equal. That is because the christians (and the jews) did away the laws from God that they are supposed to uphold and think their own man-made laws are better and/or more "humane".

 

[Ramadhan]

Also, keep in mind that those people who label shariah as barbaric are the same people who do not even blink when dropping the bombs on thousands of innocent women and children and old people.

 

[SafaAuditore]

also, keep in mind that those people who label shariah as barbaric are the same people who do not even blink when dropping the bombs on thousands of innocent women and children and old people.

soooo true!!

 

[AlbertWesker]

Not only Islam, but Judaism and Christianity too.

I have to disagree with that.

John 8:7 says: When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Romans 3:12 says: All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

So, Christianity does not justify stoning!

 

[Ramadhan]

I have to disagree with that.

Jesus (pbut) followed the mosaic laws. Here's what he said:

Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill.

Unless you believe Jesus (pbuh) was lying, it is clear that he was sent to uphold the mosaic laws, and not to end/abolish/destroy/reduce.

John 8:7 says: When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Did you not read my previous post:

Jesus (pbuh) observed mosaic laws and that included stoning for convicted adulterers. However, most early christians did not like this, and the roman christians certainly did not, so they fabricated a passage and introduced the infamous "pericope adulterae" (john 7:53-8:11) which never existed even in the oldest bible manuscripts and only made it in the latin vulgate (6 to 7th century). This is the passage where Jesus (pbuh) supposedly said "those without sin cast the first stone" and cited often and much by christians to show that Jesus (pbuh) abolished stoning for adulterers and to tolerate sinful behaviour, and as you can see the western countries which are founded by the principles of tolerating adultery have become the place of highest divorce rates, out of marriage children, unmarried couples, pornography, homosexual/incestuous sexual relationships etc.

Or do you actually not know that all bible scholars have agreed that John 7:53-8:11 aka "pericope adulterae" is actually fabricated and inauthentic?
Pericope adulterae was not in any oldest bible manuscripts, not found in any place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It only started to show up later in latin vulgate (latin translation) bible.

Maybe you also not know that almost all scholars have also agreed that Mark 16:9-20 is also fabrication?

It's sad that christians do not actually read their own bible, but to not know that their own bible scholars have even proven passages as being fabrication is even more pathetic.

So, Christianity does not justify stoning!

I have to agree with you. Christianity as taught by Saul/paul of tarsus may not justify stoning (because it wouldn't have been too appealing to the pagan roman communities who were fond of their sexual decadence, not unlike the current western communities), but Jesus (pbuh) certainly upheld the stoning punishment for adultery.

 

[Who Am I?]

Here in the US, our "justice system" has become so corrupt and ridiculous that the accused criminals have more rights in court than the victims of their crimes. More often than not, the victim ends up being the one on trial, because the defense attorneys will question their moral character and accuse them of lying.

 

[GuestFellow]

Here in the US, our "justice system" has become so corrupt and ridiculous that the accused criminals have more rights in court than the victims of their crimes. More often than not, the victim ends up being the one on trial, because the defense attorneys will question their moral character and accuse them of lying.

:wa:

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The person that claims to be the victim could be a liar.

 

[Salahudeen]

:wa:

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The person that claims to be the victim could be a liar.

While you have a point, I also understand what king of nines is saying, I was on jury service a few years back and on every case the barrister was twisting the words of all the witnesses and victims and making them look like liars with ulterior motives, in the cases that weren't clear cut, it made it very hard to determine who was guilty and who wasn't, I don't like the system at all cos the truth can be manipulated with a good barrister, but I guess yours is the counter argument.

 

[GuestFellow]

While you have a point, I also understand what king of nines is saying, I was on jury service a few years back and on every case the barrister was twisting the words of all the witnesses and victims and making them look like liars with ulterior motives, in the cases that weren't clear cut, it made it very hard to determine who was guilty and who wasn't, I don't like the system at all cos the truth can be manipulated with a good barrister, but I guess yours is the counter argument.

Counsel's pay very close attention to wording. Witnesses and victims must be careful when they explain their version of events. If they have not worded it correctly or if something does not make sense, the counsel will point this out. Most of the time, witnesses and victims can be intimated and have difficulty expressing themselves in court.

 

[Who Am I?]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a joke. Most people already have their minds made up on someone's guilt or innocence before the trial ever begins.

 

[GuestFellow]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a joke. Most people already have their minds made up on someone's guilt or innocence before the trial ever begins.

:wa:

How do you know this? :

 

[Futuwwa]

Ramadhan, don't you ever feel even at least a little bit silly about lecturing people of other religions on what they believe in?

 

[Futuwwa]

When it comes to crime, draconian punishment and social justice are two opposite approaches on how to deal with it. Many people are dogmatically in support of the one but scoff at the notion that the other one would work. They are, however, both at their most efficient when used together. Draconian punishment alone doesn't deter people who have been pushed to the fringes of society and who have little other choice than crime. Nor does it offer encouragement for betterment, as the alternative offered is to live as a dog and slave on the bottom of society. Social justice, on the other hand, doesn't do that. Alone, however, it cannot change the fact that crime pays. For that, punishment is needed.

Saudi Arabia does both draconian punishment and social justice. The Soviet Union did it during its time. Both societies have some of the lowest crime rates ever.

 

[Ramadhan]

Ramadhan, don't you ever feel even at least a little bit silly about lecturing people of other religions on what they believe in?

If what you call showing facts is silly, then I'm guilty of charge.

Had you lived during prophet Muhammad SAW when he told off the polytheistic Quraish about how wrong their religions were and lecturing them on what they believed in, then by your current attitude, you would have also called Muhammad SAW silly.

More importantly, as a muslim I believe that prophet Jesus (pbuh) is one of the most noble prophets of Islam, and if someone falsely accuse him of something (in this case christians falsely accuse him of ending the stoning punishment for adultery), I feel that it is my right to refute them. Maybe you feel otherwise, but please spare me your snide remark.

 

[GuestFellow]

Ramadhan, don't you ever feel even at least a little bit silly about lecturing people of other religions on what they believe in?

I think it is just you. :

 

[Futuwwa]

False analogy. You tried to tell Albert what he should believe in to be a proper *Christian*, to be what he self-identifies as. Muhammed didn't lecture the Quraish on how they should be proper Pagans.

 

[Ramadhan]

False analogy. You tried to tell Albert what he should believe in to be a proper *Christian*, to be what he self-identifies as. Muhammed didn't lecture the Quraish on how they should be proper Pagans.

First of all, to be a proper *Muslim*, to be what one self-identify as a muslim, one should send salam and salawat after mentioning the name of prophet Muhammad SAW.
Of course a *christian* may not want to send salam after prophet Muhammad SAW. And only those who hate prophet Muhammad SAW do not want to send salam and salawat salutation after mentioning his name. Likewise, a *muslim* should also send salam to any other prophets of Allah SWT.
If you have doubt over what I am telling you, here's what Allah SWT says:

Indeed, Allah confers blessing upon the Prophet, and His angels [ask Him to do so]. O you who have believed, ask [ Allah to confer] blessing upon him and ask [ Allah to grant him] peace. (QS. Al Ahzab: 56)

It was narrated that Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said: “Allah has angels who go around on earth, conveying to me the salaam of my ummah.” [Sunan Nasaa'i, Saheeh Al-Albani]

Abu Hurayrah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said, “There is not one of you who sends his greetings upon me except that Allah returns the soul to my body (in the grave) and I return his greeting.” [Abu Dawood, Saheeh Al-Albani]

Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam said, “The miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned but he does not send salam for me.” [At-Tirmidhi, Saheeh Al-Albani]

Secondly, where in this thread did I tell Albert what he should believe in order to be a proper *christian*?
The only post I made for Albert in this thread is post #45, and I've been re-reading it again, but I cannot find the part where I told Albert what he should believe in to be a proper *christian*

I am actually quite impressed how you managed not to send salam and salawat to prophet Muhammad SAW AND falsely accusing your own brother in Islam in a single sentence, that is if you consider me brother in Islam.

Also, I'd suggest you read some good and complete sirah nabawiyyah to fully understand the kinds of conversations that prophet Muhammad SAW conducted with the polytheistic Quraish.

I hope you don't mind me trying to tell you what you should believe in to be a proper *Muslim*.

wa salam.

 

[Who Am I?]

:wa:

How do you know this? :

Well speaking for myself personally, I usually have a pre-conceived notion. For example, OJ is guilty. I don't care what the jury said, he killed his wife. Casey Anthony is guilty. She killed her daughter, and I don't care what the jury said.

 

[GuestFellow]

Well speaking for myself personally, I usually have a pre-conceived notion. For example, OJ is guilty. I don't care what the jury said, he killed his wife. Casey Anthony is guilty. She killed her daughter, and I don't care what the jury said.

But the jury don't say anything. They simply listen to the evidence. I agree with you that the jury may already have decided whether the defendant is guilty based on his appearance.

There are cases where the jury do not reach a decision and there has to be a new trial....

 

[Who Am I?]

But the jury don't say anything. They simply listen to the evidence. I agree with you that the jury may already have decided whether the defendant is guilty based on his appearance.

There are cases where the jury do not reach a decision and there has to be a new trial....

This is true. There have been cases unfortunately where race is a factor and the jury may have a pre-conceived notion of guilt or innocence based on a defendant's race.