Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[Mohsin]

About tolerance, I heard yet another lecture based on which I have gathered a few points and I hope that it will turn out to be a good article.

Islam and Tolerance

As I said earlier that it is important for every Muslim to practice tolerance and patiance. In the Holy Quran, the critaria for salvation and/or success is given in Surah Asur, Chapter no. 103, Verse no. 1 to Verse no.3... 'Swear by the time, most surely man is in loss, except those who believe and do good, and enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patiance'. Thus, according to the Qur'an, every person should have patiance/tolerance if he/she wants to be successful.

If you see the life of Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H), you will come to know the best examples of tolerance that you can ever find. When coming to the later Muslims, there are several examples again showing great tolerance. For example, when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they practiced open killing and not even spared several Christians they came across. After some time, the locals(Muslims) made treties, but they were broken by the Crusaders one sidedly. When Salauddin Ayubi(also known as Saladdin) drove the Crusaders out and took back Jerusalem, not even a single worshiping place was even scratched and no innocent killed. He told the non-Muslims that either they can leave peacefully with their properties/belongings, or they can continue to live with total religious freedom. On the other hand, in Spain, which the Muslims ruled for about 800 years. As it was a great learning centre, many non-Muslims from other parts of the world also came and lived there. There was peace, there was tolerance, every thing was fine. Later when Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims, there was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

I can give you several other examples where Muslims have been very tolerant, even more then the non-Muslims. Muslims today are also showing great tolerance, but at many times, tolerance cannot be practiced. When a person abuses/criticises other peoples religion and religious figures openly, when there is no justice and when the rights are taken away, one cannot be tolerant. Also, every religious discussion should be made on logical basis and friendly environments, like the one we are having here. By the way, do not expect from any Muslim to make abusive statements for any of the Prophets, e.g. Jesus(P.B.U.H), Moses(P.B.U.H) e.t.c. as they all are holy to us aswell.

Difference between Tolerance and Cowardity:
There are also times when too much tolerance becomes cowardity. For example, there was a news in an Indian news paper that a girl was raped in a train by a hooligon. The news also said that there were five young men there as well. None of them tried to stop the hooligon. One just said that you should not do it. That was it. This is not tolerance, this is cowardity. I mean, look at the odds, five young men could not take a drunk person.

Labeling and assumptions:
There are black sheeps in every community, but we do not blame the entire community for the acts of these few. This practice has been seen when regarding terrorism with Muslims. It is totally wrong. Islam does not teaches that. If you hold such thoughts as true, then you should also realize that every evolutionest is a racial terrorist, because that is what people like Stallin and Hittler were and followed. Also I heard that Hittler was a Christian. If it is true, then according to the claims made, Christianity is the biggest terrorist religion in the world (no offence, only assumption).


Again, I hope that many of the doubts are removed.

[samabudhi]

Firstly, I would like to say that Brian gave good comments satifying your initial quries.

Please!
No disrespect to Brian, but he said himself, he was simply balancing the ship for opinion, which I agree is most heavily unbalanced in this argument. In whose favour, I will refrain from sensationalising. Nudge nudge. Wink wink.

It is this fact that we observe the commantdents/orders as strictly from Allah(SWT) that we follow it without questioning that has kept us together and close to the religion.

The declaration of no logic. It had to happen sooner or later.
I can't believe you've seriously considered this statement enough to say it in public. I mean, it's well known this is what you think, but 'damn' if that isn't a nail in your own coffin.
I leave the keyboard flabbergasted, swaying from side to side, squint in bewilderment as if kissed by Helen of Troy herself. 'Enough! Enough I say! I just can't take it any longer!'

[Mohsin]

Tell me one thing, where is the no logic in that. I told you that the commandments from Allah have got hidden benefits. We hold the will of Allah more dear to us then these benefits. Even if we tried to examine the commandments as you claim,

we should examine everything for ourselves and then decide

we would have ended up having different opinions and our religion would have been divided into several beliefs. Islam covers almost every aspect of life. It comes with a complete law, something which only Islam has. I gave you good examples, like the rights of inheritance, ownership and disownership of property for women, something which the west concidered in the eighteenth century. Read the article again and with concideration.
You have shown that you will remain what you are, a blind critic. You are not a person who like to believe strongly in a religion, it is either your fault or what you believe in. Sorry if offended. Keep in mind that there are'nt many Muslims here and I am being tolerant, but there are other Buddhists here and I do not want to offend them.

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Can you, in clear terms, point by point, tell me what do you not like about Islam?

I've been having a think, and come up with my true number problem with Islam. It is a fundamental behaviour which is accepted and endorsed by just about Muslims.
The idea of and eye for an eye.
I don't expect this to turn into a conversation, but I'd just thought I'd share it since you did ask.

[Mohsin]

Just so you know, the law of an 'eye for an eye' was brought forward by Moses(P.B.U.H) and is present in the Torah. It was a good law for its time as there were no courts. Anyone takes your eye, you can take his. When Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) came, the law was changed. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthews, Ch. No. 5, V. No. 38 to 41, It is said of the old times, that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you… whosoever slaps your one cheek, offer him the other. Whosoever asks you for a shirt, give him your cloak. If he asks you to walk for one mile, walk two miles .
It’s a remedy… it’s a remedy - that people took the law of Torah literally. That… if a person playing with a stick or a stone, if he hurts somebodys eye… naturally its by mistake. You can’t take that eye of that person, who by mistake hurt your eye. So Jesus Christ(P.B.U.H) brought a remedy, which again was right at that time.
Now, the Qur'an takes the moderate route. It comes with a law according to which, if a person did something, you can get the case to the court and the decission will be according to the situation.

[banjo]

Hi,

Religious criticism is, of course, a field unto itself. All religions can be criticised for various aspects of their theology. I myself follow no religion although I think that there may possibly be a God.

It's quite surprising when muslims think that there is no case to answer as regards their religion because there would appear to be numerous practical and logical objections to islam. There are so many objections in fact that I would say the theory has more holes than a fishing net.

Consider sharia.

Sharia mandates that there be four witnesses to a crime. In actual fact it mandates that there be four male witnesses or eight female witnesses. Already islam is discriminating between the male and the female in terms of trustworthiness. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that males are more trustworthy than females. In fact, if anything, the evidence suggests the exact opposite. The vast majority of crimes are committed by men. Men are the criminal class. So it would appear that women are actually MORE trustworthy than men, if the evidence is anything to go by.

But anyway, we'll ignore that for the moment. So for the crime of, say, rape islam requires that there be four witnesses before it can be proved. This is nonsense for a few reasons.

Firstly, a rapist will obviously always try to carry out his crime in a place where there are no witnesses. He doesn't want witnesses around because they might try to stop him or they might call the police or they might testify against him in court or whatever.

So to expect there to always be four witnesses to a rape is just plain silly from a purely practical standpoint.

Secondly, the whole idea of requiring four witnesses is silly. What's the difference between four witnesses and three witnesses? Or two witnesses? Or even one witness? What's so special about the number four?

Thirdly, since the advent of DNA testing and forensic evidence, it is possible to prove a rape without ANY witnesses. You don't need ANY witnesses to prove a rape nowadays. So this whole notion of requiring witnesses to prove a rape is outdated. It seems that God didn't foresee the progress of science when He wrote the quran.

I've just picked at one thing here but there are a whole multitude of common sense objections to islam (and sharia). For example, sharia mandates that a thief's hands be cut off. What happens when you discover a few months later that the thief is in fact innocent? This happens under every type of legal system, sharia or not. So what do you do? Give him a bionic hand? What?

Under our present legal system we can release the guy from jail, say sorry and give him some money. What are you going to do if you've cut his hands off? Especially for such a minor offence as theft.

And then what do you do with the thief once you've cut his hands off? He can no longer be rehabilitated into society and work productively because he's got no hands. You have doomed him to a life of begging or petty crime.

Cutting off the hands of thieves satisfies a short term desire for revenge but in the long term it is both silly and counter-productive.

I could go on all night but I'll stop here because I dont want to bore people.

[I, Brian]

As with all the more ancient legal systems, witnesses to an event were crucial to proving it occured. You seem to fail to appreciate that, in the ancient world, it would be impossible to distinguish a genuine claim or rape against a malicious claim of rape if no witnesses were required. Same with any other crime. The Bible I believe demands a minimum of 2 witnesses somewhere, but I figure the Koran is simply being more thorough in trying to eliminate co-option of false witness - ie, that it is harder to bribe or coerce 4 people than 2. Of course, such a system is always going to have its limits - but anyone who claims that even a modern legal system is somehow free of errors and biases and just plain "law is an ass"-ness perhaps doesn't read very much.

There are also great limits to genetic testing - firstly, with erroneous results, but also the notion of motivation. A genetic test in a rape case can only show that a couple had sex - it alone does not support the claim of rape.

[bananabrain]

i forget if i have been into it on this board, but the "eye for an eye makes everybody blind" argument is a real old chestnut. the first question the rabbis asked was: "what happens if a blind man pokes your eye out?" - in which case, of course, obviously you can't poke his out in return. this was the basic problem with the Written Text alone, which was resolved by saying "it must, therefore be the *value* of the eye in monetary compenation" - which is a rule that is translated into the various different contexts of gruesome physical penalty that a literalist reading of the Text implies. this issue is further compounded by the effective impossibility of achieving a sentence of capital punishment under halacha, despite its apparent ubiquity. FYI, the standard of proof requires TWO witnesses (both of which have to be of unimpeachable religious stature and integrity) BOTH of whom must warn the prospective capital-crime-committer of the penalty BEFORE HE COMMITS THE CRIME - and he must then VERBALLY ACKNOWLEDGE *both* the gravity of what he is about to do and state that he doesn't care and he's going ahead anyway, then proceed IMMEDIATELY to the act BEFORE THE UNOBSTRUCTED VISION of both witnesses and WITHIN A TIME LIMIT beyond which the warning doesn't count. not only this, but a jewish religious court that passes a death sentence more than once every 75 years (are you listening, texas and florida?) is considered a "murderous" court and must be disbanded.

so, when is a death sentence not a death sentence in the bible - actually, effectively all the time. the various death sentences (stoning, burning, strangling and beheading) and the various numbers of lashes you can get for a non-capital crime indicate the relative seriousness of each crime, not the actual punishment.

so, please, let's not have any more of this "oo, isn't the bible bloodthirsty" nonsense, because it is in no way reflective of what Torah actually requires.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[banjo]

Hi Brian,

You said:

As with all the more ancient legal systems, witnesses to an event were crucial to proving it occured.

Of course witnesses are crucial, and not just in ancient legal systems. Witness evidence is the best evidence you can get even under our current legal system. However, my point is that sharia mandates that there be four witnesses before a crime can be proven, regardless of other evidence. This is simply unnecessary.

You seem to fail to appreciate that, in the ancient world, it would be impossible to distinguish a genuine claim or rape against a malicious claim of rape if no witnesses were required. Same with any other crime.

Stop talking about the ancient world. The quran is considered to be the guide for all time so the rules of sharia are just are relevant today as they ever were. In Pakistan, for example, this rule (that there be four male witnesses to a rape or eight female witnesses) is current law.

And of course I am not saying that you should not require any witnesses. If you have a witness then great. If you have two witnesses then even better. If you have three witnesses then break out the champagne. What I am saying is that witnesses are not necessarily required to prove a crime if there is sufficient other evidence.

Islam is saying that four witnesses are required before you can even go to court. Therefore islam is wrong.

The Bible I believe demands a minimum of 2 witnesses somewhere, but I figure the Koran is simply being more thorough in trying to eliminate co-option of false witness - ie, that it is harder to bribe or coerce 4 people than 2.

I don't know where the bible says that two witnesses are required but even if it does say this then it is irrelevant because christianity doesn't attempt to impose a legal code to be followed in the modern day like islam. If christianity did try to claim that two witnesses should always be required then it would be just as wrong as islam is.

Since christianity doesn't claim this then it's not a problem. It is however a problem with islam because it tries to carry this ridiculous notion through into the modern day. Witnesses are great if you have them but they aren't necessary if you have other evidence. And there is certainly no need to always need four witnesses rather than three or two or whatever.

Of course, such a system is always going to have its limits - but anyone who claims that even a modern legal system is somehow free of errors and biases and just plain "law is an ass"-ness perhaps doesn't read very much.

I wouldn't claim that the modern legal system is free from errors but I would claim that it is much less prone to error than sharia. How many rapists must have walked free in the islamic world because there weren't four witnesses?

There are also great limits to genetic testing - firstly, with erroneous results, but also the notion of motivation. A genetic test in a rape case can only show that a couple had sex - it alone does not support the claim of rape.

Actually DNA testing is pretty much 100% reliable but you are correct that it merely shows that a couple had sex. This can still be sufficient though in particular circumstances. Suppose a burglar breaks into a house and finds a woman inside and rapes her. He later gets caught and there is enough evidence to prove that he burgled the house. It would be a stretch to suggest that the woman had consensual sex with a random burglar so the charge of rape would probably be proved with DNA evidence and the womans word. No witnesses are required - the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Under sharia there would have had to be another four people present in the house to witness it.

It's so silly I don't even know why we're arguing about it.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by banjo

Stop talking about the ancient world.

The ancient world actually forms the basis of our culture, and Christianity itself formed a very major part of the foundation of English law. Where do you think the requirement for witnesses comes from? It didn't spontaneously arrive from the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by banjo

Actually DNA testing is pretty much 100% reliable

Actually, it isn't. There was a good piece in New Scientist a few weeks back.

Originally Posted by banjo

It's so silly I don't even know why we're arguing about it.

We're actually arguing the perception of Islamic law - you seem to be setting up some rather obvious strawmen - but, unfortunately, I am neither Muslim nor a lawyer, and will not be able to create a proper and authoritive answer to your comments.

[samabudhi]

Actually, it isn't. There was a good piece in New Scientist a few weeks back.

Those magazines are full of theories. They just like to twist things to sell. I remember reading an article about numbers bigger than infinity. What a lot of hoowey.

[banjo]

Brian said:

The ancient world actually forms the basis of our culture, and Christianity itself formed a very major part of the foundation of English law.

Not at all. English Common law is older than christianity. It was already old when christianity hit the shores of Britain and it was relatively unaffected by the arrival of christianity. To claim that christianity forms a major part of English law is quite simply wrong. Christianity forms no part of English Law whatsoever. In fact, there are many non-christian countries that use English Common Law. There's even some muslim countries that use it eg Pakistan, Malaysia.

The reason all these countries are able to use it is because it is extremely versatile. It doesn't matter what the prevailing religion is in the country. Common Law is older than religion (at least christianity and islam) and it is immune to religion.

It may be true to say that certain aspects of christianity found their way into the law over the years but these things didn't form the basis of English law. The basis of English law was formed long before christianity. Any of these "christian aspects" that were made law were just add-ons. And in any case they have pretty much all been removed now or else they are still on the books but never get used (like the blasphemy laws).

Where do you think the requirement for witnesses comes from?

Certainly not from christianity. English Common Law is immensely detailed and multi-layered - this is why religion does not affect it. Any situation you care to think of will have been covered in great detail by English Common Law a couple of thousand years ago or more. It certainly made provision for the idea of witnesses.

Actually, it isn't. There was a good piece in New Scientist a few weeks back.

I should have made myself clearer. DNA testing is almost 100% reliable providing the sample hasn't been contaminated. Unfortuately it is very easy for the sample to become contaminated. It needs to be collected and stored very carefully. But assuming it hasn't been contaminated then it is as reliable a piece of evidence as you are ever going to get.

We're actually arguing the perception of Islamic law - you seem to be setting up some rather obvious strawmen

No we're not arguing the perception of islamic law we are talking about cold hard facts. Islamic law requires four witnesses to a crime, that is a fact. No strawmen. It is true that are lots of different interpretations of islam. Islam is not as monolithic as some people think, there's a lot of variety in there. But this rule of sharia is valid in all interpretations - certainly mainstream islam considers it to be necessary.

Also we are not talking about perceptions because this rule is actually applied in muslim countries around the world - I gave you the example of Pakistan requiring four witnesses to a rape before but other muslim countires use this law as well eg Egypt. So we are not talking about some woolly abstract theological principle, we are talking about something that exists in the real world right now.

but, unfortunately, I am neither Muslim nor a lawyer, and will not be able to create a proper and authoritive answer to your comments.

Well, I'm not a muslim either but I am a lawyer (although not working as one at present). This is why sharia law bothers me. Because it is a case of religion treading on my territory. English Common Law has gradually evolved over thousands of years and is immensely complex. Sharia, on the other hand, is like a sledgehammer.

Religion should stick to religion and stay out of law. Religion has nothing to teach English Common Law that English Common Law doesn't already know. Imagine if islam stuck it's nose into medicine? Doctors would be offended because islam knows squat about medicine. I feel the same way. Islam should keep out of law because it doesn't understand it and has nothing of any value to add.

In fact, islam does stick it's nose into medicine in a minor way - there are hadith about taking honey for various ailments and so on.

[Mohsin]

Regard to all.
I am a Muslim, but not a lawyer. Sorry to say, I am not well versed in the Sahria law, especially the criminal law. I really wish and pray to Allah(the Almighty God) that there would be more Muslims here who are good in this topic. I cannot give you good arguments about the questions you initially posed.

About the practical example of this law, then know this, only some Muslim countries are following it completely. Pakistan is not among those as its law is a mixture of Islamic law, British law and some cultural traditions which go in several rural areas. I will stress on the practical example of Saudi Arab only when talking about the Sharia law. Now, Saudi Arab is among those countries where the crime rate is the lowest, but it follows the Sharia law completely. Some points, maybe they are not going exactly the same, but mostly, the law is there. On the other hand, you take America, it is among the countries with the highest crime rate. The following stats where mentioned in a public debate.

According to a report by the FBI in 1990, in the year 1990… ‘One hundred and two thousand, five hundred & fifty five women were raped’. These are only the reported cases - And the report says… ‘Only 16% of the cases were reported’. If you want those exact figure, multiply 1,02,555 with 6.25, and you get the answer - more than 6,40,000 ladies were raped in America only in 1990. And if you divide this by the number of days, divide by 365, you get a figure of One thousand, seven hundred and fifty six women are raped every day, in America, in the year 1990. And the report of 1991 says ‘Every day 'One thousand, nine hundred ladies are raped’ - And the report which came in Autumn, in 1993, it says ‘Every 1.3 minute, one woman is raped’.

Now, the Sharia law may sound odd when it is concidered theoratically, but there is something in it that by which it is keeping the crime rate low and completes the job. This is something that I do not think any English Common Law is greatly successful in.
I will discuss your initial doubts with some people who are well versed in the Sharia law, especially the criminal law. InshAllah(by the will of Allah) I will get some satisfying answers. Also, if your intentions are to discuss and learn, the answers/arguments will satisfy. If you only want to argue and disagree, you will get nowhere.

About the one where two women are needed in place of one man for witness, that I will InshAllah(by the will of Allah) satisfy.

Two women witness are not equal to one man in all the cases. It is true mainly for the financial cases. This is also because the financial responsibility of the family lies on the shoulder of the man and not the woman. Thus, the woman need not to do any job but only if she wishes to. Also, the salery of hers is for herself alone and she may need not to spend a single penny on the family. Again, she can only do it if she wishes to. Thus, women are not regarded as experianced as men in this field and it is in this field that there are two women required in place of one man. There are several other cases when the verdict of a woman is held more stronger then the verdict of a man, and even if they disagree, the one of the woman will be given prefferance. Thus, in Islam, all rights are not the same between man and woman and the same is not necessary equitable. In Islam, all rights are equitable, each balanced by an obligation.

About the last comment, if you would read my earlier posts and the thread about miracles, you would know how deeply does Islam go when regarded with modren sciences. Also, to get a quick view, go through this link. http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php .

[banjo]

Hi Mohsin,

You are right about Pakistan - it uses a mixture of English Common Law and islamic law as well as tribal councils in the rural Northwest Frontier area. The example I gave before (about requiring four witnesses for a rape) is an example of one of the islamic laws. Incidentally, I think Musharraf wants to change this law but as things stand, it's still there.

You are also right that very few countries actually practice full on sharia law. There is Saudi, as you mentioned and then there is also northern Nigeria. Nigeria has had a few cases of "adulturous" women being sentenced to death by stoning. I think that in at least one of these cases the woman hadn't actually committed adultery, she was in fact raped but because she couldn't produce four witnesses then it was deemed to be adultery (she got pregnant by her rapist).

Now as far as I'm aware, none of these sentences have actually been carried out. They always get overturned by a higher court or the woman gets exiled or something. But still it's an example of sharia in action.

As regards the low crime rate in Saudi, I think there are a few factors you need to take into account when considering this:

First of all, there is crime in Saudi. Beheadings and amputations happen regularly. The main square in Riyadh is known locally as Chop Chop Square.

Secondly, bear in mind that Saudi is a very repressive state. They don't report their true crime figures because they want people to think that everything is rosy. Up until a year or two ago the Saudi authorities maintained that "There are no terrorists in Saudi Arabia". They tend to bury their head in the sand when it comes to these things. This isn't a reflection on islam, just on the Saudi government.

Thirdly, the population of Saudi Arabia is only 15 million and many of these people are pretty wealthy due to the oil. And Saudi Arabia is a huge country so this population is spread out. So you would expect there to not be much crime in a country with such a small, wealthy, insular population.

Fourthly, remember that I said that Saudi is a fairly repressive country. They have secret police and religious police wandering the streets. Countries like the US and the UK may have more crime but then we don't have secret police walking the streets. It's a trade off - you can reduce crime in any country if you are willing to have all your freedoms restricted and have public beheadings and secret police etc. I would rather put up with a certain level of crime and live in a free country.

Fifthly, as we have both mentioned, Pakistan has elements of sharia in their law but Karachi has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Karachi is a pretty dangerous city at the moment (in terms of crime levels).

So in summary, we don't really know for sure whether Saudi really does have a low crime rate or not because we can't trust the government figures but even if it does have a low crime rate, this isn't necessarily anything to do with sharia. It's more to do with the fact that Saudi has a small, rich, insular, well-educated population. ANY legal system would probably result in a low crime rate in a country like Saudi.

As regards the requirement of two female witnesses for every one male witness, you are right that this doesn't apply to every offence but I think you'll find it does apply to most criminal offences including rape.

In fact, in some interpretations of sharia this distinction doesn't just occur between men and women. It also occurs between muslims and non-muslims ie that in a court of law a non-muslims word is worth half that of a muslim. I presume the idea of this is that muslims are somehow more trustworthy. Well, I know a LOT of muslims and let me tell you, they aren't more trustworthy. They are exactly the same as anyone else when it comes to trustworthiness. So this rule is silly as well.

I don't really want to get into all the "science in the quran" stuff. Suffice it to say, I think it is just a case of people reading too much into things. The quran says a lot of things and if you use a liberal interpretation then you can probably make it mean whatever you want it to mean.

As regards this statement you made:

Also, if your intentions are to discuss and learn, the answers/arguments will satisfy. If you only want to argue and disagree, you will get nowhere.

Agreed. As long as you agree to the same rule. I will learn from you as long as you likewise promise to learn from me. I don't want to argue and disagree - I want to agree. The million dollar question is, of course, what we agree on.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Those magazines are full of theories. They just like to twist things to sell. I remember reading an article about numbers bigger than infinity. What a lot of hoowey.

Science is full of theories. Are you seriously telling me that science just likes to twist things to sell? NExt time I read the science news section I'll figure it's just something being twisted to sell.