Humility

[Kris_J]

You will find genuine Christians and NOT interested in joining Islam if that is what you are referring to. To my knowledge, questions have been asked and evaded.

I will ask a question now. How reliable was Mohammed's memory?

He made no mention of non-Muslim people joining Islam. I'm interested in Islam for the sake of having some understanding of it but have no plans in converting - & I am a Christian.

 

[ibn_leroy]

Is the pro-execution of homosexuals aka Muslim Oxyhydro a reliable source of Islamic belief?

Sodomy is a capital offense in the shari'ah, not unlike the Torah. However, prosecuting someone for sodomy is virtually impossible. The accuser would have to provide four reliable witnesses who actually saw penetration to substantiate the charge. Of course, this is a completely unrealistic scenario, unless someone publicly committed sodomy and invited people to come and watch it. Also, the penalty for accusing someone of any kind of illicit sex without the substantial witnesses is very severe (80 lashes). Otherwise, the only way someone could be convicted of sodomy is if they confessed it, and confessions are retractable at any point, including the very last minute.

So, the statute isn't for homosexuality per se, but public sodomy. Big difference. If the activity is kept private, then legally-speaking there's no problem; it's between them and God.

Is pro-multiple wifer Bookofknowledge a reliable source of knowledge regarding Islamic belief?

I don't know what qualifications or experience Bookofknowledge has, so I'm not in a position to speak on his reliability. If your question is whether or not polygyny is allowed in the shari'ah, then the answer is yes. But a legal system allowing polygyny and an individual being a "pro-multiple wifer" are two different things. I personally know some Muslims who shouldn't even think of marrying more than one woman. It's definitely not for everybody.

Is every Muslim member of NCR forum who keeps silent when their fellow NCR Muslims promote the execution of homosexuals & sexually active non-married women a reliable source of information regarding Islam?

I'd like to consider myself reliable, and no I do not "promote executions", even of murderers. And why would anybody single out non-married women? Laws dealing with penalizing fornication/adultery are applicable to both genders.

"Promoting executions"? That sounds crazy.

So far no NCR Muslim has openly denounced those executions - hence IMO they are not reliable source of any understanding of God in any religion, let alone Islam.

I denounce the execution of anyone if it was done unjustly; and given the clearly impractical procedure of prosecuting illicit sex, it's safe to say that if anyone is executed they were either: a) incredibly stupid, or b) not given due process.

But hey, don't worry - there are quite a few "pro-child spanking for disobedience when they are told to pray" - both in the Christian & the Muslim camps.

I was spanked, no whipped, as a child and turned out just fine. In fact, I appreciate my parents' discipline.

 

[Kris_J]

Sodomy is a capital offense in the shari'ah, not unlike the Torah. However, prosecuting someone for sodomy is virtually impossible. The accuser would have to provide four reliable witnesses who actually saw penetration to substantiate the charge. Of course, this is a completely unrealistic scenario, unless someone publicly committed sodomy and invited people to come and watch it. Also, the penalty for accusing someone of any kind of illicit sex without the substantial witnesses is very severe (80 lashes). Otherwise, the only way someone could be convicted of sodomy is if they confessed it, and confessions are retractable at any point, including the very last minute.

So, the statute isn't for homosexuality per se, but public sodomy. Big difference. If the activity is kept private, then legally-speaking there's no problem; it's between them and God.

So do you support the execution of self confessed homosexuals in Islamic countries?

I don't know what qualifications or experience Bookofknowledge has, so I'm not in a position to speak on his reliability. If your question is whether or not polygyny is allowed in the shari'ah, then the answer is yes. But a legal system allowing polygyny and an individual being a "pro-multiple wifer" are two different things. I personally know some Muslims who shouldn't even think of marrying more than one woman. It's definitely not for everybody.

does Sharia law assess the financial status etc of the husband prior to granting multiple wives?

I'd like to consider myself reliable, and no I do not "promote executions", even of murderers. And why would anybody single out non-married women? Laws dealing with penalizing fornication/adultery are applicable to both genders.

"Promoting executions"? That sounds crazy.

So do you condemn the execution of the unmarried yet sexually active people in Iran?

I denounce the execution of anyone if it was done unjustly; and given the clearly impractical procedure of prosecuting illicit sex, it's safe to say that if anyone is executed they were either: a) incredibly stupid, or b) not given due process.

Does incredible stupidity mean that they do not have the right to live? Do you condemn the execution of the unmarried yet sexually active people in Iran?

I was spanked, no whipped, as a child and turned out just fine. In fact, I appreciate my parents' discipline.

I posted "spanked for disobedience by not praying" - are you saying you were spanked/whipped for not praying?

 

[TheListener]

Just a typical muslim approach:

"hey guys, we don't like you exposing our religion as fasle, perverted and demonic. can't we be friends so we can tell you about the 'normal' parts of our religion?"

I for one will not refrain from passing along my findings about islam, take offense if you wish. It's not a personal thing, its discussion.

 

[Islam_mulia]

I for one will not refrain from passing along my findings about islam, take offense if you wish. It's not a personal thing, its discussion.

Very noble of you. You would rather take your time to attack other people's religion, but when your beliefs are questioned, you struggled to reply and when unsuccessful, either say that person is 'quoting out of context', a 'troll', 'not interested in debate', etc.

 

[Montalban]

I for one will not refrain from passing along my findings about islam, take offense if you wish. It's not a personal thing, its discussion.

Very noble of you. You would rather take your time to attack other people's religion, but when your beliefs are questioned, you struggled to reply and when unsuccessful, either say that person is 'quoting out of context', a 'troll', 'not interested in debate', etc.

If the shoe fits

 

[Montalban]

Sodomy is a capital offense in the shari'ah, not unlike the Torah. However, prosecuting someone for sodomy is virtually impossible.

Not according to...

Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/scarves/homosexuality.html

ABHA, 20 August 2004 — Three Saudi men convicted of sodomizing a minor were executed in the Asir region yesterday, the Interior Ministry announced.
Manea ibn Zafer Al-Sharani, Mujri ibn Mohammad Al-Nishawi Al-Bishi and Mohammad ibn Mubarak Al-Nashawi Al-Aklabi were sentenced to death for “stealing a car, consuming alcohol during the holy month of Ramadan, kidnapping a boy under armed threat, taking him out into the desert and sodomizing him after forcing him to drink alcohol with them,” the ministry said in a statement.
http://xrdarabia.org/blog/archives/2004/08/20/three-executed-in-asir-for-sodomy/

More strange was the execution of a witness to an act of sodomy
"Two Saudis beheaded for killing Pakistani who witnessed 'shameful' incident"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005365.php

 

[Osiris]

Very noble of you. You would rather take your time to attack other people's religion, but when your beliefs are questioned, you struggled to reply and when unsuccessful, either say that person is 'quoting out of context', a 'troll', 'not interested in debate', etc.

i understand what you mean, and i have noticed that some members from most religions do this, from christianity to islam to hinduism...

 

[ibn_leroy]

So do you support the execution of self confessed homosexuals in Islamic countries?

If by that you mean people who confess having homosexual attractions, then definitely no. Of course it can be assumed that an openly homosexual person
acts on those feelings, but the statute is not applicable even with inferred knowledge of homosexual activity. Again, an individual would have to formally confess, in a court procedure, that he engaged in a specific act of sodomy. If that is your question, then yes. Though I don't know if "support" is the right word. I mean, it's not like I'm vigilant about it. What people do in their homes is nobody's business but their own. And please note that this is purely theoretical. In reality, no one in his right mind would ever do what I've mentioned above.

does Sharia law assess the financial status etc of the husband prior to granting multiple wives?

Shari'ah law doesn't "assess" anything, because shari'ah law isn't a conscious being.

Okay, I'm silly. It's the prospective spouses who do the assessing. Maybe the question you meant to ask is "does the shari'ah allow women to stipulate their marriage contracts?", and the answer to that is yes. If the woman desires, she can make monogyny a condition of the marriage. It goes without saying that it's at the woman's discretion whether or not she's willing to be the second, third, or fourth wife.

So do you condemn the execution of the unmarried yet sexually active people in Iran?

Fornication is not a capital offense in the shari'ah. So yes, I comdemn any deviation from what is in the shari'ah.

Does incredible stupidity mean that they do not have the right to live? Do you condemn the execution of the unmarried yet sexually active people in Iran?

If an adulterous couple were to go out to a public place; summon at least four people to gather close around them, and proceeded to have sex in a position that made certain the on-lookers get a clear, hard-core visual of penetration, and did all of this with the assumption that the witnesses would report the incident; then there's no doubt in my mind that the guilty party is either mentally retarded or insane. In that case, they're in luck, because the mentally retarded and insane are exempt from the shari'ah.

(The above scenario reminds me of scene in Boogie Nights. Which I saw before becoming a Muslim, mind you!)

As for fornicating Iranians, then the same "never-would-this-really-happen-in-a-gazillion nillian rillian-years" scenario applies to them, too. And like I said previously, fornication is not a capital offense, but rather adultery.

I posted "spanked for disobedience by not praying" - are you saying you were spanked/whipped for not praying?

I was raised a Christian, so no. However I was spanked whenever I whined about going to church.

 

[ibn_leroy]

Not according to...

Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/scarves/homosexuality.html

ABHA, 20 August 2004 — Three Saudi men convicted of sodomizing a minor were executed in the Asir region yesterday, the Interior Ministry announced.
Manea ibn Zafer Al-Sharani, Mujri ibn Mohammad Al-Nishawi Al-Bishi and Mohammad ibn Mubarak Al-Nashawi Al-Aklabi were sentenced to death for “stealing a car, consuming alcohol during the holy month of Ramadan, kidnapping a boy under armed threat, taking him out into the desert and sodomizing him after forcing him to drink alcohol with them,” the ministry said in a statement.
http://xrdarabia.org/blog/archives/2004/08/20/three-executed-in-asir-for-sodomy/

More strange was the execution of a witness to an act of sodomy
"Two Saudis beheaded for killing Pakistani who witnessed 'shameful' incident"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005365.php

That's assuming they actually followed what is required in the shari'ah to be substantial evidence, which is highly unlikely (read: impossible without a confession). If I were placing bets, I'd put my money on these individuals being killed unjustly. In fact, none of these stories seems to involve what I was explaining, i.e. the legalities of prosecuting sodomy.

 

[Montalban]

That's assuming they actually followed what is required in the shari'ah to be substantial evidence, which is highly unlikely (read: impossible without a confession). If I were placing bets, I'd put my money on these individuals being killed unjustly. In fact, none of these stories seems to involve what I was explaining, i.e. the legalities of prosecuting sodomy.

Cool, so your rebuttal is that none of the nations that practices Islamic law are practicing it correctly! A novel argument.

 

[Montalban]

That's assuming they actually followed what is required in the shari'ah to be substantial evidence, which is highly unlikely (read: impossible without a confession). If I were placing bets, I'd put my money on these individuals being killed unjustly. In fact, none of these stories seems to involve what I was explaining, i.e. the legalities of prosecuting sodomy.

Many nations practicing Sharia, strict Islamic law, retain the death penalty for adultery.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Adultery

I'll make an inference from that quote that sodomy is likely so punished... as sodomoy would also be a form of sex outside the bounds of marriage.

 

[ibn_leroy]

I didn't deny the application of shari'ah in certain countries. What I said is that those particular cases you posted are not examples of what I was explaining about the legalities of prosecuting illicit sex (i.e., having four eyewitnesses testify to having seen the act), which is absolutely true. Because of that, an injustice was done to those people who were executed; unless they witnessed against their ownselves, which is not required by shari'ah. In fact, it is an Islamic principle to keep your sins to yourself.

Again, I was not saying that death isn't the penalty for adultery and sodomy. It is. The point I was making is that having four eyewitnesses who clearly see penetration as a necessary condition for conviction (aside from a confession) is virtually impossible. Having four people present as you commit adultery, in a position where they can get a clear view of the actual intercourse is a completely unrealistic scenario; unless of course the adulterers were out of their minds and the witnesses were a little too nosy about other people's sex lives.

 

[Montalban]

I didn't deny the application of shari'ah in certain countries. What I said is that those particular cases you posted are not examples of what I was explaining about the legalities of prosecuting illicit sex (i.e., having four eyewitnesses testify to having seen the act), which is absolutely true. Because of that, an injustice was done to those people who were executed; unless they witnessed against their ownselves, which is not required by shari'ah. In fact, it is an Islamic principle to keep your sins to yourself.

As far as I'm aware, those witnessess are only required in a case of rape. I cited some time ago an un-married Nigerian woman who was raped. She couldn't convict the man, due to the lack of those 4 witnesses (so much for 'justice'), however she fell pregnant from that assualt. She was still not married, and quite obviously pregnant - so the evidence of her having had adulterous sex was there for all to see. Her sentence was death! (again so much for Islamic justice). Only the hue and cry of observes lead to pressure upon the government to let her go.

Again, I was not saying that death isn't the penalty for adultery and sodomy. It is. The point I was making is that having four eyewitnesses who clearly see penetration as a necessary condition for conviction (aside from a confession) is virtually impossible. Having four people present as you commit adultery, in a position where they can get a clear view of the actual intercourse is a completely unrealistic scenario; unless of course the adulterers were out of their minds and the witnesses were a little too nosy about other people's sex lives.

You've simply repeated your opinion that your opinion is correct
A person who is openly gay is openly gay before more than four witnesses. If he self-confessed of having been gay, he'd be put to death - so what you're trying to miss is that if there's no evidence of him being gay, he's allowed to be gay, under Islamic law - which was the same in western nations when sodomy was a crime. That's pretty cool then that you're not going to prosecute him on the basis of not having evidence against him HOWEVER if he's openly gay, he's as good as dead - unlike here in the west where people can be open about their sexuality. Under Islam he has to hide it.

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

..She was still not married, and quite obviously pregnant - so the evidence of her having had adulterous sex was there for all to see. Her sentence was death! (again so much for Islamic justice). Only the hue and cry of observes lead to pressure upon the government to let her go.

and even this they violated the teachings of Islam. You said she was not married, her punishment for the zina she was acused of should have been 100 lashes not death. Anyhow the whole proccess was unislamic. What they did is took Islamic law and applied it the way they wanted to.

 

[Montalban]

and even this they violated the teachings of Islam. You said she was not married, her punishment for the zina she was acused of should have been 100 lashes not death. Anyhow the whole proccess was unislamic. What they did is took Islamic law and applied it the way they wanted to.

What they did was apply it differently from the way you want it. You always offer your own opinion of Islamic law as if it is normative. When dozens and dozens of judicaries apply it pretty much differently from you, they're all wrong!

"Those Muslims who accept stoning penalty for adultery ask with some justification: How could all the varied traditions supporting rajm found in our earliest books of traditions such as those by Muwatta, Ibn Ishaq, Shafi‘i, Ibn Sa‘d, Bukhari, Muslim be inventions? Even if some of these traditions are authentic, the penalty becomes a part of Islam. The supporters of rajm also claim that eversince the times of the Companions (sahabah) and Successors (tabi‘un) there has been a consensus on their position and from this they conclude that their position is consistent with the Qur`an and the Sunnah/Hadith, for otherwise, they argue, it will be impossible for such a consensus to develop, especially in view of the hadith, in which the Holy Prophet reportedly said: “My ummah cannot unite on an error.” All this means to many supporters of rajm that no further or fresh discussion of the issue is necessary on the basis of the Qur`an and the Sunnah/Hadith. Some of them so closely identify their position with “true Islam” that they issue declarations of irtidad (apostacy) against those who oppose rajm or even want to re-examine the issue."
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/StoningIntro.htm

It is universally accepted that there is nothing in the word zina` itself that restricts its application to the unmarried case
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning1.htm


As to homosexuality
Malik related to me that he asked Ibn Shihab about someone who committed the homosexual act (‘amal qawm lut, the deed of the people of Lut). Ibn Shihab said, "He is to be stoned, whether or not he is married (muhsan)." (Muwatta 41/11, reproduced in Ahmad 1297)
http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning5.htm

 

[ibn_leroy]

As far as I'm aware, those witnessess are only required in a case of rape. I cited some time ago an un-married Nigerian woman who was raped. She couldn't convict the man, due to the lack of those 4 witnesses (so much for 'justice'), however she fell pregnant from that assualt. She was still not married, and quite obviously pregnant - so the evidence of her having had adulterous sex was there for all to see. Her sentence was death! (again so much for Islamic justice). Only the hue and cry of observes lead to pressure upon the government to let her go.

This example you cited is a shame, and definitely an injustice to that woman. But the injustice in cases like this is not the issue. Again, I fully acknowledge the fact that death is the penalty for adultery and sodomy. What I was trying to clarify is that the requirements for convicting someone of zina are impractical outside of that individual willfully condemning his or herself. Here are the texts I was alluding to:

"If any of your women commit a lewd act, call four witnesses from among you . . ." (4: 15)

"As for those who accuse chaste women of fornication, and then fail to provide four witnesses, strike them eighty times, and reject their testimony ever afterwards." (24: 4)

Now, is it the case that all those incidents you mentioned met this very strict condition? Probably not; and that's the only point I was trying to make.

You've simply repeated your opinion that your opinion is correct

What is it that you're defining as an opinion? My statement that zina must be substantiated by either four eyewitnesses or a confession? If so, you're wrong, because it is a fact that providing four witnesses is clearly commanded in the Qur'an. If by "opinion" you meant my stating that anyone who openly commits adultery or sodomy in a position where at least four people can see penetration is stupid, retarded, or insane; then yes, that's my opinion.

A person who is openly gay is openly gay before more than four witnesses. If he self-confessed of having been gay, he'd be put to death - so what you're trying to miss is that if there's no evidence of him being gay, he's allowed to be gay, under Islamic law - which was the same in western nations when sodomy was a crime. That's pretty cool then that you're not going to prosecute him on the basis of not having evidence against him HOWEVER if he's openly gay, he's as good as dead - unlike here in the west where people can be open about their sexuality. Under Islam he has to hide it.

You've fallen into some confusion here by equating homosexuality with an act of sodomy. I know of many people who are openly gay, but I've never witnessed anyone having anal sex publicly, and you probably haven't either. If you have, then where were you and what were you doing there? An individual being openly gay is not sufficient for him to be executed. However, if he were to formally confess a specific act of sodomy, for instance, "On January 1, 3000 at 12:01 AM, I engaged in anal intercourse with John Doe," he would be condemned for that act specifically. Condemning someone for just "being gay" in general is not valid. I'll repeat: it's anal intercourse that is prohibited and punishable by the shari'ah, not homosexual attractions.

 

[Montalban]

You've fallen into some confusion here by equating homosexuality with an act of sodomy. I know of many people who are openly gay, but I've never witnessed anyone having anal sex publicly, and you probably haven't either. If you have, then where were you and what were you doing there?

When people are openly gay, they often state that they've had homosexual sex - I have a gay friend who's actually put the hard word on me several times.
If he did this in an Islamic nation, he'd be killed for having admitted to doing the act even if there were no witnessess. A point you missed

 

[ibn_leroy]

When people are openly gay, they often state that they've had homosexual sex - I have a gay friend who's actually put the hard word on me several times.
If he did this in an Islamic nation, he'd be killed for having admitted to doing the act even if there were no witnessess. A point you missed

Put two and two together, Montalban. Since we're talking about a legal issue, I shouldn't have to spell-out that by confessing a specific act of anal sex, I meant a formal, procedural confession in court before a judge. Your gay friend who "actually put the hard word on you" isn't even remotely comparable to what I'm talking about. Common sense should have told you that a conversation between friends isn't a legal confession. Even if a stranger were to randomly run up to your face and scream, "I'm gay and had anal sex last night!", it still wouldn't be a confession. Would this same friend of yours go to a court, report an incident of sodomy in which he was involved, and then proceed to formally witness against himself before a judge? I don't think so. Unless, he was either stupid, mentally retarded, or insane; but that's my opinion.