Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[Mus Zibii]

You elaborated for me. We were on the same line of thought. I just couldn't express myself properly.

If one doesn't agree with it, they don't become a muslim. That simple.

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

You elaborated for me. We were on the same line of thought. I just couldn't express myself properly.

Hrmm ok. Well I don't know if I am supposed to respond with an explanation, since I don't know if you are asking a question or not.

Either way, I have to go now. I might come back tomorrow and expound on the topic.

[Mus Zibii]

No, no. I was just stuttering over myself. I guess scarves aren't compulsory if one ignores the side-effect of being at odds with the popular brand of the faith. Or that multiple wives is a good idea if the chicks in question like being counted as (some may see it) property... or just likes being one of many wives. At least in the countries that don't enforce laws demanding suchs things, which is a whole 'nother political discussion.

As a Christian in America, I accept that as a man my long hair would be unwelcome in many churches. I personally consider that too a compulsion of virtue.

[banjo]

Mohsin said:

I do recall people saying that God cannot make mistakes. What if God wanted to because God can do it easily?...... Heh, God cannot make mistakes, cannot do any unjust act and cannot do anything that will not make Him God anymore, and this includes taking an imperfect form of a human or something else. By the way, the point on Jesus(P.B.U.H) himself claiming devinity, many poeple are saying that he(P.B.U.H) never himself did that.

Jesus never denied his divinity either, even when directly asked about it. In John 20:28, Jesus lets Thomas call Him "my Lord and my God" without correction or clarification.

As regards the trinity idea, the understanding is that Jesus as God the Son is eternally begotten of God the Father, and therefore the Son derives being from the Father, but has done so forever and that the Son's being is as much Divine as is the Father's (think of an Eternal Mind which has Eternally Thought- the Mind represents the Father & the Thought represents the Son). Also, by His Incarnation in a human body, God the Son has become a created being of God the Father. Thus, both by His eternal begettal & His temporal incarnation, Jesus while being fully of God-nature can regard the Father as His God. Thus, in John 20:17, Jesus says "I go to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Bear in mind, I'm not a christian. This is just how (I think) they think about it.

you keep in mind the statement you made, 'who are we to question God's actions? God does whatever he wants even if we don't understand the reasons for it.' I will use it in future in reply to your statements.

Don't bother quoting that back to me. When I used that phrase, I was just paraphrasing a common religious argument. It's not what I think myself. Personally I think that is too vague an argument to mean anything at all.

You can justify anything if you start using that argument.

Yeah, I know. But that is why we do not call them Muslims. They are called Qadiyyanies(spelling) and other stuff, mainly 'munkir' or 'munafiq'. For a Muslim, it is important to believe in Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) as the last and final Prophet. It is written clearly in the Qur'an and in several authentic Hadiths. For a Muslim, believing in the Qur'an is very important, especially the beliefs section. If not, the person is not a Muslim. Kurt should note this point as well. (Bananabrain, you were right on the PMs, people do know very little about what Islam is and teaches and what some people follow.)

No, I've met mainstream well-educated (al-Azhar) muslims who raise a slight question about this. Not saying they don't believe it, just that there is apparently room for argument.

Schizo said:

4 witnesses are only required, if a 3rd party is making the accusations.

It doesn't matter who is making the accustaions - you will never get 4 witnesses to a sexual act.

That means, if you were to accuse the lady down the street of fornication/adultery, it would be incumbent upon you to provide solid evidence.

4 witnesses is not solid evidence. 4 witnesses is impossible evidence. You might as well not have the offence at all, because you will never get 4 witnesses. The only way you would get 4 witnesses is if the two people had sex in a public park in the middle of the day, which never happens. So it's a non-crime.

So why does the quran bother to mention it (since it is such a rare, minor crime - adulturous sex in front of 4 witnesses.)?

Islam is saying that adultery is wrong and punishable by the authorities (to the tune of 100 lashes). Suppose I think that the lady down the street is committing adultery. Suppose I have evidence - 3 witnesses, DNA evidence, photos, etc. My case would fail because I haven't got enough witnesses. And yet, by any objective criteria, I have proven the adultery beyond all reasonable doubt.

It's a non-crime because no one will ever be able to produce 4 witnesses. So there's no point in even having it on the statute books.

I mean what I say. Go read over my post again, I specifically wrote a SINCERE Muslim will not do them things.

Well great, then islam is useless because it will only work if everyone is sincere. It doesn't work on the non-sincere people.

Your knowledge of Islam and polygamy is limited. You think Muslims can go around freely dating, but that is all bollocks.

I'm not saying this, I'm saying that islam gives them the right to do this.

Not every guy is out looking for mutliple wives.

I know. Agreed.

Look, I'm a lawyer. I look for loopholes. I'm not saying that muslims go around dating and seeking out other women. I'm saying that if they want to do this, islam would let them. It would not place any objections in their way.

So it morally sanctions this behaviour for those people who wish to abuse the system.

Theoretically one could marry one's first wife. Then after a year or so (once the honeymoon period has worn off) go out looking for wife number 2. As long as the man can afford to keep 2 wives then islam has no problem with this.

After a year or two with wife number 2 he can start looking for number 3. He always has the option of divorcing wife number 1 at any time if things get difficult. As long as he can afford to pay her off then theres no problem.

And it's not just the ultra rich who take two wives. Plenty of muslims do it.

Also is it not the case that he can divorce wife number 1 by saying "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" and that's it. He just walks away. Doesn't matter if there's kids or whatever. He may have to pay some money (return of dowry etc) but the actual divorce itself, in terms of legal requirements, is just a matter of saying I divorce you three times.

bananabrain said:

the statement you are making here is a universal assertion of truth, which you do not appear to offer anything else than "because i say so" to justify. i am not saying emotional commitment is not a part of marriage, but it is an implied term rather than an explicit term of the contract.

Doesn't matter what kind of term it is, it's still there and my point (originally) is that, in polygamy, the man is only making a partial emotional commitment whereas the woman is making a total emotional commitment.

and i think it is rather specious of you to ignore the fact that a large number of marriages have been based on convenience - and have stayed that way. i mean, there's enough literature about precisely this problem, jane austen being a case in point - take charlotte lucas and mr collins in "P&P" for a start.

Doesn't matter what kind of a marriage it is. You still have to live with this person for the foreseeable future. So the emotional aspect is stil there.

the thing with love is that it is undoubtedly unusual to remain emotionally distant from someone you have a child with; thus it would be unusual if some form of emotional attachment, whether it be love or at least friendship did not appear at some point. in other words, it's not legislated, but it is kind of built in.

I'm talking about at the time you actually marry them.

At this point in time (the wedding day) you are commiting for life - or at least the foreseeable future. The difference is that (under polygamy) the woman is committing herself totally to this one man whereas the man is saying "I commit myself totally to this woman, until I meet someone else".

Partial commitment.

of course ideally that would happen, but the point i am making is that it can only remain an aspiration - it seems like you are deliberately avoiding the fact that this is an ideal.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It's not an ideal, it's the norm. At the time you get married you are making a long term commitment.

AT THE TIME YOU GET MARRIED.

Whether it works out in the long run is irrelevant. AT THE TIME YOU GET MARRIED you are making a long term commitment.

Or at least the woman is, the man isn't (under islamic polygamy).

er.... how can you possibly make such a categorical assertion? what about people who are getting married to inherit money, or get a green card, or whatever?

These are rare exceptions, we can ignore them for the purposes of this argument. I'm talking about the general rule of thumb for marriage.

the point i am making about marriage is that it provides social protection and position that falling in love with someone doesn't.

Yes and it's still a long term (lifelong) commitment. Under monogamy it's a long term commitment for both partners to each other (for whatever reason). Under polygamy, it's only a lifelong commitment for one of the partners (the woman).

really? what about all the people who live separate lives whilst remaining married? don't be naive!

Again, I'm not talking about how married life turns out, I'm talking about the commitment you make when you marry someone.

In the vast majority of cases, people don't get married in order to live separate lives.

it's still not an emotional commitment *alone*. it's a legally binding, actionable agreement with consequences if you break it.

I never said it was an emotional commitment alone. It is a commitment on various levels - financial, social, etc. I'm just talking about the emotional component of it.

The emotional component is probably the most important in most marriages. This is just de facto truth - if you are going to live with someone for the rest of your life you are making an emotional commitment, doesn't matter why you married them.

They aren't your business partner. You're going to sleep with them, have kids with them, share the good times and the bad.

in jewish tradition, it just says that people got married. it doesn't say *why the tradition of marriage was invented*.

This may be what jewish tradition teaches but are you incapable of thinking outside of jewish tradition? Why do you think people pair off and marry? Never mind jewish tradition, what do you think?

by the same logic, the aztec religion affects me (which it doesn't) because G!D made the aztecs as well.

YES, now you're starting to get it. The Aztec religion does affect you. As much as any other religion. As much as judaism affects me.

"the righteous amongst the nations inherit a portion in the world to come" - which judaism understands as you obeying the "seven noachide laws", which most people do, without ever having heard of them. these are the only commandments that apply to you. the "ten commandments" do not all apply to you, in fact - you have no obligation to keep the sabbath, for example.

Exactly, so there are certain things I need to do. What if I follow a religion that outlaws all these things?

The original UK religion was paganism which was quite big on human sacrifice (which is basically murder). So suppose I'm a pagan - that means I agree with murder. According to judaism, I'm in trouble if I murder people. According to paganism, I'm pleasing God if I murder people.

Which is correct?

because without doubt, religious people are terribly terribly dangerous - as we are currently experiencing all over the world from the sort of people that are certain they are in possession of the exclusive truth.

If God wrote his message across the sky in letters of fire then there wouldn't be different sects claiming to have the exclusive truth. We would all be one sect (the correct one).

God could say, for example:

"Sects A, B, C, and D are wrong. Sect E are closest but they are still slightly wrong. Here's where they are wrong.... etc"

If God did this every 100 years or so we would gradually get rid of all the wrong ones and narrow it down. After a couple of thousand years we'd probably have it about right.

firstly, i'm not only talking about women, which should be pretty clear by now. secondly, why has it got to have only one correct answer? why does everyone have to agree? and, moreover, why does everyone have to agree with *you*?

Look, the question is:

"What is the correct degree of modesty we should show?"

There is only one correct answer. The correct answer is:

"That level of modesty which God requires."

Tribes in Africa and South America reckon God requires hardly any modesty. Muslims reckon God requires a lot of modesty.

They can't both be right. There is a definate answer, it's just that we don't know what that correct answer is.

I don't want you to agree with me - there's nothing to agree with. I'm not making any statements. I don't know what the correct level of modesty is. I don't speak to God very often. But there MUST be a correct answer.

Since the religions of the world cover the whole spectrum of opinion on the subject, one of them is probably right (just by chance) but we don't know which one that is. So in probability terms they are all as correct as each other.

So you might as well follow one as another, it doesn't make any difference. You're as likely to be right whichever one you follow. The more likely response though is that none of them are right. Or, if one is, then it's only by chance.

Schizo said:

Hijab is not the same thing as a head covering or scarf. Modesty and hijab is a command which is to be observed by muslims. It is not social law. If one doesn't agree with it, they don't become a muslim. That simple.

What if one is already a muslim (by birth for example). They don't have the choice of not becoming a muslim. Many interpretations of islam think that the penalty for apostacy is death.

Personally, I would never join a club that wouldn't let me leave.

[bananabrain]

Well great, then islam is useless because it will only work if everyone is sincere. It doesn't work on the non-sincere people.

nor does judaism, christianity, secular humanism or vegetarianism. it's a problem with humans, not religion particularly.

my point (originally) is that, in polygamy, the man is only making a partial emotional commitment whereas the woman is making a total emotional commitment.

oh, i must have missed that. well, i suppose if, as i have been arguing, the man is not necessarily making an emotional commitment, one can hardly expect the woman to be. as indeed i believe the case has been in many times.

You still have to live with this person for the foreseeable future.


The emotional component is probably the most important in most marriages. This is just de facto truth - if you are going to live with someone for the rest of your life you are making an emotional commitment

i think you're purposely ignoring the "separate lives"/"marriage of convenience" issue by claiming it's a "rare exception" - in which case you're now falling back onto statistical generalisations which you can't back up without data that you couldn't possibly have access to. you were also (at least originally) arguing about the *origin* of marriage and the *history* of marriage - and although nowadays i agree the majority of people in western societies probably consider the emotional commitment and mean it to last forever when they get married, 'twas not always thus and in other parts of the world, still isn't. my issue is with your post-enlightenment eurocentric generalisations being used to justify universalist validations, which they don't, especially about modern islam or, indeed, judaism.

This may be what jewish tradition teaches but are you incapable of thinking outside of jewish tradition? Why do you think people pair off and marry? Never mind jewish tradition, what do you think?

leaving aside my "incapabability" of thinking outside judaism and the implication that such a thing is necessarily better (individual-centred reason again, there), i don't see why it's relevant. assuming we establish that "under lab conditions, 59% of human beings will mate for life", what the arse does that prove? what do we learn? i haven't got where i am today (wherever that is) by doing exactly what all my various impulses tell me to do whenever they tell me to do it. neither have you i dare say.

YES, now you're starting to get it. The Aztec religion does affect you. As much as any other religion. As much as judaism affects me.

NO, now we're starting to really disagree. i don't agree that the aztec religion affects me in any appreciable way other than by being pleased it isn't around any more, because i think there is enough murder done in the name of religion. what you are effectively arguing is that by the creation of a system of thought, people who aren't aware of it are affected - now that may be an argument for going to the middle of the amazon and missionarising to people who would never otherwise have heard of hell or salvation, but judaism doesn't agree with that. i have no idea why you would think i care what the aztecs would think of me.

Exactly, so there are certain things I need to do. What if I follow a religion that outlaws all these things?

you'd be an idolater, a fascist, a murderer, a thief, an incest-committer, an anarchist and someone who eats bits of animals while they're stil alive. so it doesn't actually apply to all that many people, in fact.

The original UK religion was paganism which was quite big on human sacrifice (which is basically murder). So suppose I'm a pagan - that means I agree with murder. According to judaism, I'm in trouble if I murder people. According to paganism, I'm pleasing God if I murder people

assuming it was as simple as that (which it isn't) then i leave it to you to choose which side you prefer.

If God wrote his message across the sky in letters of fire then there wouldn't be different sects claiming to have the exclusive truth. We would all be one sect (the correct one).

well, actually, that's what a lot of religions started out trying to be; christianity, islam, sikhism and ba'hai, for a start. however, it does run up against a general problem, which is that humans tend to disagree whenever possible and have a tendency to divide into mutually antagonistic groups rather than all pull together. if you are proposing an imposed solution to this problem, though, i would have to ask you one question:

all together now...

are you kawohl, are you kawohl, aaaare you kawohl in disguiiiiise?
are you kurt kawohl in dis-guiiise?

Look, the question is:

"What is the correct degree of modesty we should show?"

There is only one correct answer. The correct answer is:

"That level of modesty which God requires."

actually, in judaism, that's not the answer. the answer is "these and those are the words of the Living G!D - but the halacha is in accordance with the school of hillel".

in other words, ultimate Truth is not within the grasp of human perception and the best we can do is approach things heuristically, on the basis of the best answers we have available - to which i would respectfully add: the best answers do not include human sacrifice or running around the streets with your todger hanging out.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[SchiZo]

Banjo,

Hear me out. Some of what you say has some validity behind it..... from your perspective. However, your perspective is not entirely correct, and its not really your fault. You see, administering an Islamic state is not easy... one needs to be qualified with proper understanding. When you look at certain concepts and topics in Islam, you view them individually without context and taking into account the entirety of the Quran and Islamic teachings.

Islamic ideology means Islamic scripture, and Islamic law, implemented in an Islamic state, from the perspective of Islam.

You look at Islamic rules and laws, and more importantly, their implementation from the British court house standpoint. You also speak of it as a non-Muslim, whereas I talk on the subject, complementing the information with the spirit or essence of Islam. Let me put it another way.... we have 2 copies of the Quran, one for you and the other for me. We both go to seperate lands and become the rulers. Our duty includes implementing Islamic teachings and laws.... now I don't think I need to explain what would happen, or the difference it would make between us.

Islamic law and British law are very different in certain aspects. For example, in some cases, the British police have to prosecute once they have been notified even if the one who brought it up wants to drop the charges.

If someone murdered you, and even if your family did not want to have the perpetrator sent to the slammer, chances are he would still get sent down. Contrast this with what would happen in an Islamic state; the attitude would be thus: "He's [dead &] gone now, what is done is done... we can't change that, his affair with the murderer is between them and God now. The only thing we can deal with, or give justice to in this world, is the family of the victim". According to Islam (and even Judaism), the slaying of an innocent is like murdering the whole of mankind. So when Judgement Day comes, that soul is in for some serious recompense and will suffer terribly (unless his victim shows forgiveness). Now the family has a choice while the perpetrator is still on earth; to either punish with anything up to execution, or to forgive. Sometimes the grieving family need justice to put their hearts at rest, and capital punishment may be employed. However, God commands according to Quran, that you should show mercy and forgive, as it's a noble and pious thing to do. Provided that the perpetrator is not a serial killer, shows remorse and is genuinely repentant, vowing to amend his conduct. When Muslim's show mercy and forgive in such a case, it is in the ultimate sense, the mercy and forgiveness of Allah. The wise soul which is most nearest to God, understands this reality and will forgive solely because it is a good soul. However, those who don't possess this understanding, are given an incentive.... God says that those who show mercy and forgive others because of their faults, so too will God show mercy and forgiveness, overlooking your faults on Judgement Day.

You are probably wondering why I am going on about murder and such, but the point I am demonstrating here, is that; the essence and implementation of British and Islamic law is different in certain aspects, where forgiveness & mercy is emphasized greatly in Islamic law. Allah says; "My mercy prevaileth over My wrath".

Before I comment on the issue of Zinaa, lets first look at the misconception you brought up about divorce... Saying "I divorce you" 3 times in succession and walking away is a crock of horse manure. The Islamic model for life, for society, has its foundations deeply built on the family unit. Without a strong, stable and secure family structure, the society is doomed and destined for failure. This has been emphasized many times throughout Islamic teachings. God says that divorce is the only hateful act in His sight which He permits... due to the nature and psyche of humans, in practical and realistic terms. There have to be some legitimate reasons for a divorce to be justified. The Sharia has prescribed the pronouncement of divorce three times, for some specific reasons, and they are to be observed over an 'Iddah' (waiting period of 3 months). One may say it out of spite and anger, but what matters here is the intention. This waiting period is prescribed so that the situation can be reviewed, and if possible; resolved. Divorce should ultimately be the last resort when all else has failed. There can be some exceptions to this, depending on the circumstances, but the court would have to handle it.

Regarding polygamy; as explained before... there is an allowance, it is neither prohibited nor advocated, because the ideal is a union betwen one man & woman. However, there are certain cases where the ideal can be modified slightly for the betterment of society. Originally, the polygamy provision was made so that orphans and widows would benefit from it. I know that some will try to abuse the system, sure, but they would do it regardless of any religion or rules. The good outweighs the potential bad, so it is worth it.

That doesn't mean women will be at the whims of their husband's sexual desires.

004.024 ....seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, - desiring chastity, not lust,

Al-Qur'an, 004.024 (An-Nisa [Women])

The above verse shows what the intention should be. In another verse, God commands believers to; "fulfill your obligations". i.e. stand true to your oaths, contracts, etc.. meaning live up to the deal when you married your wife. So if a man desires a second, and it does not fall in the category of special circumstances, then he must have his first wife's go ahead and well being at heart. If he upsets his wife in trying to acquire a second, then he is not dealing justly with her, thus he is forbidden to do so. He must prove that his reasons are socially and morally justified.

Besides why should it be a big deal? if one happens to disagree with the reasons behind it, then don't become a Muslim nor marry one, and you will be fine. lol

Anyway, lets get on the topic of Zinaa. As I have explained above, with the example of murder, and how forgiveness is preferred. How does sex between two consenting adults compare to the murder of an innocent? and do you think forgiveness & mercy comes before punishment in such a case, in light of the former supposition?

The evidential bar is purposely set high, for 3rd party accusers. It protects the women from false slander. However if you get teen pregnancies, then you know something is up. They risk punishment, and as such it becomes a deterrant. Even then, in such a case, they should be forgiven. So the 4 witnesses rule only applies to third parties. It does not, however, and let me repeat, it does not apply to the husband or wife. In that case, only their single testimony is enough. I said this before, and I am saying it again, I hope it doesn't fly over your head. The husband or wife does not need 4 witnesses, but only their own single one and only testimony!!

So what has happened here is this; no one can accuse a woman of Zinaa unless he/she is a spouse, because really it is none of their damn business, and it will only matter if the woman becomes pregnant and a burden on the state, in that case... such a person should fear the consequences. In the case of adultery, the husband or wife can divorce if one of them is guilty of lewdness. No need for witnesses, only your own testimony, and if you lie... you risk severe punishment from God, but the state will leave you alone... and you have a reason to dissolve the marriage.

Again, even with all this in place, forgiveness and mercy is always preferred. For example, a woman came to the Prophet, asking to be punished for her act of Zinaa, but the Prophet replied; "Woe to you! Go back to where you came from, and repent to Allah. He will forgive you." There are many other such similar cases, and the Prophet would either turn his face away in disapproval and send them away.

As for the death penalty for Apostasy; there is nothing in the Quran to that effect. I realize that comes from a hadith whose authenticity is disputed and suspect. I can prove with verses of Quran that there is no compulsion in religion, and commands to say "To you be yours, and to me.. mine". i.e. religion. I don't think it is necessary though.

Ok I think I have answered all your points. I have a flu/cold developping so my mind is a little blocked, and I may have missed something out. Theres not much more to add right now, I've typed enough for one post today. I don't feel like dragging the argument senselessly, as I have explained, all these Islamic teachings are interwined and deeply connected. It is not easy to write everything out, one would have to write a big thesis to even come close to explaining things properly. I'm not interested in doing that.

I know some Arab countries have some questionable practices, but they are not really educated or qualified to govern a proper Islamic State. Silly Arab's would be lucky if they could operate a gas/petrol station on their own. lol

[bananabrain]

<mod>
much as i agree with your approach to islam and appreciate your knowledgeable contributions, schizo, i don't think general derogatory remarks about arabs are appropriate here.
</end of mod>

b'shalom

[banjo]

bananabrain said:

nor does judaism, christianity, secular humanism or vegetarianism. it's a problem with humans, not religion particularly.

Islam is unlike those other things though because it has a wider scope. It seeks to implement a universal legal system that applies to all who live under it's jurisdiction (both muslims and non-muslims).

Therefore if it's gonna propose a legal system, it had better be a damn good one. At the very least, better than the one we've got now.

Far as I can see, it fails this test because of the stuff I've talked about in this thread. It's got redundant/potentially dangerous stuff in it such as the 4 witnesses rule. If you interpret it how Schizo does then it's pointles coz you will never get four witnesses to adulturous sex - so it's surplus to requirements, unnecessary. Don't need it on the statute books.

If you interpret it how Pakistan does then it's dangerous - four witnesses to a rape will never happen.

Either way, it doesn't work but whatever definition you agree on you can never change it because it's "what God wants".

Under our current legal system if we come across an outdated or just plain crap law we just get rid of it and bring in a better one.

I think you're purposely ignoring the "separate lives"/"marriage of convenience" issue by claiming it's a "rare exception" - in which case you're now falling back onto statistical generalisations which you can't back up without data that you couldn't possibly have access to.

The idea of marriage is that it is a long term commitment.

This is true under islam - when you get married in islam you are expected to stay married (even if you do subsequently marry someone else)..

It's true under christianity - marriage is a promise to remain married for life

It's true under judaism.

It's true under hinduism.

It's true under the secularist ceremony of marriage.

Under what system of marriage is it not expected that you will stay together for the foreseeable future?

Which system of marriage (apart from the temporary marriages in shia islam I mentioned earlier) specifically envisages that particular marriage being a temporary thing whilst the actual wedding is taking place?

All weddings are long term commitments. At least officially, under whatever system they happen to take place under.

Why do you think the shia "temporary marriage" thing raises eyebrows? Because it is the only system in the world that envisages the idea of a marriage that isn't forever.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my "cultural prejudices". All systems of marriage - christian, judaic, islamic, hindu, secular - all think that on your wedding day, you are committing for life.

Divorce is allowed as a mechanism for when it doesn't work out that way. But the original idea under all belief systems is that marriage is forever, not just a temporary arrangement.

Stop accusing me of cultural biases and whatnot. My argument has nothing to do with that. I'm arguing facts - all systems of marriage under all religious and secular systems envisage a permanent arrangement. The shia temporary marriage is the ONLY exception in the world.

That is an exception because it specifically envisages that the marriage will only last for a short time and it does this on the wedding day itself. Everything is up front when you get married.

Maybe two people get married but privately they intend to get divorced soon after - this is irrelevant. As far as the church or synagogue or registry office or whatever are concerned, you are going through a normal marriage according to their principles. Normal marriages involve getting married without the intention of getting divorced soon after.

This is the case with all religious systems and even the case with secular systems - you are not allowed to get married just to get a green card or just to get nationality. That is illegal.

The fact that people do this anyway does not affect it's legality one iota.

I don't know how many different ways I can to explain this to you. It's nothing to do with my cultural biases, such as they are, it's the law. Or, if it's not the law, it's the religious system you live under. Doesn't matter - the law and religious systems are as one on this point. When you get married, it is supposed to be forever.

And marriage is only recognised by the law and by religious systems so they are all that matter.

[banjo]

bananabrain said:

leaving aside my "incapabability" of thinking outside judaism and the implication that such a thing is necessarily better (individual-centred reason again, there), i don't see why it's relevant.

The first human who ever picked up a rock and fashioned it into an axe was using individual-centred reasoning. It's not a new thing. The world is made up of lots of individuals.

Crowd mentality isn't any better than individual mentality. 2 billion people believe christianity, 1 billion people believe islam. One of those crowds must be wrong.

The number of people that believe something is not an indicator of it's correctness. God made us with individual brains so that must be for a reason. The more we neglect our individuality, the more we are fighting against what God gave us.

Even when it comes to religion we still need to use our individuality. All religious systems argue that we have free will - we can choose whether to accept the prevailing religion or to reject it. Even islam (which gives some dire consequences of rejection) still accepts that people have free will and may choose to reject it.

Free will is an integral part of all religious systems. Free will basically equals individuality.

Denying individuality is denying God.

if you are proposing an imposed solution to this problem, though, i would have to ask you one question:

I'm not proposing an imposed solution. Even if God wrote his message in fire across the sky there would still be smartarses (like me) who would think it was aliens trying to mess with our minds. We would still have free will, whether to accept or reject.

We'd just have a bit more evidence to work on is all. The evidence we've got now is, quite plainly, not very good (considering we're dealing with an all-powerful God an' all)

When you think what he could do if he really wanted to, and it would save so much bloodshed as well if he at least gave us a few clues, stronger than immensely disputable 2000 year old appearances.

Maybe he actually wants us to fight each other to "toughen us up"? Well, he'd better turn up again soon because we're all going to be dead in a nuclear holocaust soon (probably), providing we manage to avoid the asteroids.

[Mus Zibii]

Did the Koran foresee PlayStation? No? Then shut up. LOL Sorry, I've been watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Now to try to validate this post with observations on the painfully obvious:

The error in Sharia law and all religious law, is that it claims the authority of God even while containing human flaw. In secular legality, there's constant reform and debate, and - in theory - potential for inclusive society. The scholarly apologetics for Sharia law is that it united the various Arabian tribes under a single set of rules creating unity and peace. Well, if that contention hasn't been shot to hell, I don't know what is.

[bananabrain]

incidentally, banjo, i'm rather enjoying this thread. don't let my possibly rather acid tone put you off.

Originally Posted by banjo

Islam is unlike those other things though because it has a wider scope. It seeks to implement a universal legal system that applies to all who live under it's jurisdiction (both muslims and non-muslims)

you're surely not suggesting that, say UK law does not apply to people in the UK who are not UK citizens? it's hardly much different.

Therefore if it's gonna propose a legal system, it had better be a damn good one. At the very least, better than the one we've got now

*grin* if you're american or even british, sharia and certainly halacha predate the legal systems of both these countries, isn't the onus on the later systems?

If you interpret it how Schizo does then it's pointless coz you will never get four witnesses to adulterous sex - so it's surplus to requirements, unnecessary. Don't need it on the statute books.

OK, i am not an expert on adultery within sharia, so it's not for me to argue that, but in reference to surplus laws still on the statute books, firstly, there are quite a few of those on the US, UK and european books, such as the 1290 law that says jews aren't allowed to live in england, which has never been repealed, for example. secondly, a religious law which appears surplus or unnecessary always belongs at least in jewish law (i don't know about sharia) to the category of a) laws which applied to groups who no longer exist, such as the amalekites b) laws which only apply under certain circumstances, such as the laws of the shemitta year which only apply in the land of israel and c) laws which are apparently arbitrary and will not be explained until the messiah comes. either way, what we do with them is use them for educational purposes and to learn new things.

If you interpret it how Pakistan does then it's dangerous - four witnesses to a rape will never happen.

which is one of the reasons why (and i quote an islamic theologian) that there is "no islamic state currently existing in the world". pakistan can't be truly islamic due to a) tribal law and b) corruption.

Either way, it doesn't work but whatever definition you agree on you can never change it because it's "what God wants".

on the contrary, there are loads of laws in judaism that are interpreted apparently in complete contradiction of the Written Text, such as the law of "an eye for an eye", which is interpreted into financial damages. there is a principle of religious law in judaism which is called "it is not in Heaven", which means that human interpretation is valid and can, under certain circumstances, interpret "out" or "in" the plain meaning of the text, while still retaining the "what G!D wants" element.

Under what system of marriage is it not expected that you will stay together for the foreseeable future?

Which system of marriage (apart from the temporary marriages in shia islam I mentioned earlier) specifically envisages that particular marriage being a temporary thing whilst the actual wedding is taking place?

i think we've already established that *unless it is a marriage of convenience or other exception*, then the expectation would be as you suggest. i was simply trying to get you to realise that you were making generalisations about things which are actually quite complex and then making value judgements based on them, which is what i took issue with. and, yes, the *system* expects a commitment but, as i said, this commitment may not be as straightforward as you think it is, particularly in respect of what marriage is actually considered to be at least in judaism. you are now saying that you're only talking about what is in people's mind at the moment they say "i do" or whatever, which is a much more specific point and specifying the perspective of the couple and the minister concerned. and when you restrict it to what you say you're actually referring to, i don't see a terribly big insight, other than "people ought to mean it when they get married" - with which i agree wholeheartedly.

The first human who ever picked up a rock and fashioned it into an axe was using individual-centred reasoning.

er... how do you know? were you there? have you heard of the "privacy of thought" problem in philosophy? i think this is another general assertion.

It's not a new thing. The world is made up of lots of individuals.

now you sound like mrs thatcher. actually, i think you'll find that groups and social structures play a certain role too. and yes, individuals exercise free will when choosing which social and group rules to abide by, but that doesn't change the issue.

2 billion people believe christianity, 1 billion people believe islam. One of those crowds must be wrong.

sheesh, this is what i keep running up agin. from my perspective, me being right doesn't necessarily make you wrong. about some things, differing perspectives may be mutually exclusive but the point i am trying to get across here is that imposing One Right Answer has been the strategy of totalitarian philosophies and power structures across the centuries - and one that continually runs up against the human need for DIVERSITY, DIFFERING OPINIONS and RELATIONAL CONTEXT. if you can't see that this operates within religion i don't see how on earth you expect to engage in dialogue with people who have differing opinions from your own.

We'd just have a bit more evidence to work on is all. The evidence we've got now is, quite plainly, not very good (considering we're dealing with an all-powerful God an' all)

i think it's more a question that you demand a different type of proof than i do. i think the evidence is perfectly satisfactory. and as for your "saving the bloodshed" argument, it is absolute bollocks. to paraphrase terry pratchett, if the Creator was about to say "let there be light" nowadays, the phrase would have been drowned out by all the people demanding to know what colour it was going to be. see also my comment above about "sometimes you have to let your kid stick his finger in the socket, because pain is the only way he's really going to learn this particular lesson." i think your problem is theodicy, not religious law, mate.

Originally Posted by mus zibii

The error in Sharia law and all religious law, is that it claims the authority of God even while containing human flaw. In secular legality, there's constant reform and debate, and - in theory - potential for inclusive society.

well, we also debate in religious law, don't we? it's hardly as monolithic as it is sometimes presented. anyway, fair enough, we can at least agree that the secular law can be just as big an ass as religious law can be. the essential difference is whether you consider reform to be the ability to discard - whereas i suppose in religious law the things is that you never throw anything away, but rather recycle it, if you see what i mean. either way secular law doesn't seem to me as particularly more valuable for its ability to discard bits, which is what i have been saying from the beginning - those who argue that secular law is intrinsically more valuable, equitable and so on than religious law are just as biased as those they seek to condemn.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Mus Zibii]

Well, in religious law, questioning religious law is in fact an infraction of religious law. LOL Thus the virtue of the godless rule of the land.

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by banjo

If you interpret it how Schizo does then it's pointles coz you will never get four witnesses to adulturous sex.

Hahahaha I see you intentionally ignored everything I wrote in my post.

I knew from the very beginning that you weren't interested in discussing the topic with a genuine desire to learn or understand. I have repeated the explanation for it many times, but its either flying over your head, or you don't have it in you to acknowledge that you assumed incorrectly about Islamic doctrine.

You will still try to argue it senselessly, but thats fine, I understand perfectly.

Only ego at play.

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

<mod>
much as i agree with your approach to islam and appreciate your knowledgeable contributions, schizo, i don't think general derogatory remarks about arabs are appropriate here.
</end of mod>

b'shalom

Ok I understand. It could have done without. I didn't mean that in a bigotted or racist way. I once heard it from an acquantaince, it raised an eyebrow, but then the more I thought about it, the more I realized it wasn't totally unfounded in reality. For example, if you look at Saudi Arabia, there is about 1 foreign worker for every 2 Saudi nationals. The employment, and the general state of it there is pretty bad. lol

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Did the Koran foresee PlayStation? No? Then shut up. LOL Sorry, I've been watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Now to try to validate this post with observations on the painfully obvious:

That is a rather weak logic. What is that supposed to mean?

Good values are universal, they apply throughout all times. Why would time affect the goodness of morality?

The error in Sharia law and all religious law, is that it claims the authority of God even while containing human flaw. In secular legality, there's constant reform and debate, and - in theory - potential for inclusive society. The scholarly apologetics for Sharia law is that it united the various Arabian tribes under a single set of rules creating unity and peace. Well, if that contention hasn't been shot to hell, I don't know what is.

The only absolute Sharia is based on the Quran. For example, a crime of murder can be punished with anything up to execution, or forgiven. Then there are other rules and laws, which may not be derived solely from the Quran, but rather by example of some of the early muslim jurists. They employed whatever means worked for them [in their time and setting], and they would consult the Quran as a guideline. It does not mean their words and rulings are eternal or infallible.