Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[banjo]

Mohsin:

I told you that I am not well versed in this subject, I am not a scholor, not even had any proper education in this matter. Only heard and read acticals and lectures and Alhumdulillah(praises to Allah) have obtained some useful knowledge. Just because you do not know how it(the Sharia criminal law) works and I do not know it, does not mean that it is wrong.

Well, Mohsin, I do not want to give you a hard time. I'm just trying to point out some (fairly obvious) facts about certain things eg that you don't need four witnesses to prove a rape.

You ask a well versed scholor, start a thread about this in some Muslim controlled forums. Unfortunately, there are'nt many Muslims here to satisfy your doubts, but you might find good answers there.

We don't need to ask any scholars because the answer is obvious. If English law thought that four witnesses were required for a crime (such as rape) then English law would have a four witnesses rule.

Unlike sharia, secular law has no problem with changing itself if it seems necessary. The fact that secular law hasn't changed itself to require four witnesses shows us that four witnesses are not required. But also, common sense tells us that four witnesses are not required. And also, the points I have brought up in this thread tells us that four witnesses are not required.

Keep in mind that this was the same law, followed even more strictly when the Muslims were on the top. During the dark ages, there was peace and order in the Muslim controlled states while the Europians where struggling deeply. If there had been no explanation to your initial doubts, this would not have been possible.

Don't worry about the dark ages, we don't live there now. We live now, not then. A muslim scholar would not be able to answer my question any more than you can, simply because there is no answer to my question. We could summon a thousand muslim scholars and none of them would be able to answer my question. There is no answer.

Well, there IS an answer and that answer is that islam contains a mistake. You don't need four witnesses to prove a crime (such as rape) but islam says that you do.

This has quite important consequences because it is part of muslim belief that the quran cannot contain any mistakes (since it is the word of God). If it contains even one mistake then it cannot be the word of God. I have proven to you that it does indeed contain (at least) one mistake.

I could point out other mistakes but I chose to focus on one in this thread in the interests of clarity.

Think of it this way, Mohsin: I have now proven to you beyond any doubt that islam cannot be the word of God. I have freed you from having to follow the rules of islam. Go forth and start your new life with your eyes wide open and be happy.

If you want my advice, don't worry overmuch about all this religion horse**** - nobody knows what God wants us to do. And the people who claim to know - they know even less than the rest of us, they just have bigger mouths.

[StrangeQuark]

Originally Posted by banjo

This has quite important consequences because it is part of muslim belief that the quran cannot contain any mistakes (since it is the word of God). If it contains even one mistake then it cannot be the word of God. I have proven to you that it does indeed contain (at least) one mistake.

I am not a Muslim and I still think this is an unfair statement. It may be true that Muslims believe there are no mistakes in the Quran, and you may have shown that this isn't true. There are certainly plenty of Christians who feel the same way about the Bible. I don't believe the Bible is "fundamentally true" but I do believe that the Word of God is contained within it. It just isn't literal. Very often it is metaphorical. I also believe that God's Word can be found in other sacred texts. Why not?

I also will not tell a fundamentalist Christian that he is wrong for believing the Bible literally. That's fine, it's just when they insist on pushing it on me that I have a problem with it.

I believe that God can and does work through people, and that people, with their imperfect understanding, can misrepresent what God revealed to them. I'm sure that many people who believe their sacred texts are infallible would not agree--but that's fine, too. So just because the text is not perfect does not mean God's Word cannot be found within it.

Think of it this way, Mohsin: I have now proven to you beyond any doubt that islam cannot be the word of God. I have freed you from having to follow the rules of islam. Go forth and start your new life with your eyes wide open and be happy.

If you want my advice, don't worry overmuch about all this religion horse**** - nobody knows what God wants us to do. And the people who claim to know - they know even less than the rest of us, they just have bigger mouths.

Why will you tell someone not follow his religion just because his sacred text isn't perfect? You still cannot prove to him that Allah does not exist, and you still cannot remove from his heart what his religion has given him.

[samabudhi]

I think I've said it before somewhere in this forum, in refuting someone's claims, you should really offer an alternative. If you don't, they'll be in a worse place than when they started. They probably won't change their beliefs anyway.

[Mohsin]

Regards to all.

Originally Posted by banjo

Mohsin:
Don't worry about the dark ages, we don't live there now. We live now, not then. A muslim scholar would not be able to answer my question any more than you can, simply because there is no answer to my question. We could summon a thousand muslim scholars and none of them would be able to answer my question. There is no answer.

You have disappointed me Banjo. I told you to ask someone who knows and you are again rushing towards making judgements without listening to them. May be faith has got a lot to do with sharia as well, but this may be something that you are not going to understand. You are neglecting the fact that it was a practical law in the past and also had been in several places. You are not concidering that. Why? If you were true, that there is no answer, then the crime rate in the places where sharia is and was active would have been sky high. Why is this not the case?
You are by you claims encouraging me to learn about the sharia law for myself, and may be I would, although I am not eager in learnig about criminal law or doing crime.

Originally Posted by banjo

Think of it this way, Mohsin: I have now proven to you beyond any doubt that islam cannot be the word of God. I have freed you from having to follow the rules of islam. Go forth and start your new life with your eyes wide open and be happy.

Lets take it to another way. By pointing out many verses with scientific value, and many other points which hold that Islam is true, are you going to accept that because of one of these several reasons that Islam is true and that Qur'an is a word of God(even if curropted(God forbidding)). Although this has worked for many people and they have entered into Islam, but what about you?
There are several reasons by which I can state that Islam is true but just because you think that you have pointed out an error, which you have actully not proven, you are saying that Islam is not true. Like StrangeQuark said,

You still cannot prove to him that Allah does not exist, and you still cannot remove from his heart what his religion has given him.

Please do not rush to making judgements without knowing the truth. Holy Qur'an in Surah Furqan, Ch. No. 25, Verse 59, which says… ‘if you are in doubt, ask the person who knows - ask the person who is knowledgeable’.
Follow that for a change and ask a scholor how it works. And if you think that you can hold your claims strongly, start a thread in Muslims controlled forums. Take you advise there as well. See what responce you get from there.

[samabudhi]

Please do not rush to making judgements without knowing the truth.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by banjo

Think of it this way, Mohsin: I have now proven to you beyond any doubt that islam cannot be the word of God. I have freed you from having to follow the rules of islam. Go forth and start your new life with your eyes wide open and be happy.

LOL!! Possibly one of the most audacious statements I have ever seen!

I guess you're going to declare a definitive proof upon the existence, or not, of God, next?

[Mohsin]

Originally Posted by kkawohl

I agree that from the 8th to the 12th century- the discoveries the Muslim Scientists made - were extraordinary...but, it was because they were scientists, not because they were Muslim.

Can you tell me that why was there no sufficient scientific work there in the other regions of the world. One reason can be that there were several wars and conflicts, or the one by which the Church banned and rejected some while killed other scientists. Yes, they were scientists, but they were Muslims as well (some may be non-Muslims as it was a rather tolerant community and people use to come there for education). They concidered the Qur'an and they got inspired by some of the several verses that have scientifc value. An example is that of Ibn-e-Nafees who wrote many scientific books regarding Biology and the verses have been reffered that he was inspired from for some of his works. Thus Islam has got a compatability with science which is why the scientific knowledge was gathered from many parts of the world.

Originally Posted by kkawohl

God, (the spiritual existence) allows us to draw inspiration therefrom. It is a divine influence upon the human mind...but to say that the Qur'an and the Bible, which were written by fallible humans centuries ago...has scientific value today...is stretching the truth to extreme limits.

Kurt, you have kept on speaking about this one point, Qur'an and Bible were written by fallible humans. This is not true. I am going to speak for the Qur'an. Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) was an illetrate, he(P.B.U.H) did not know how to read and/or write. If it was only inspiration, there would have been many contradictions. Also, the Qur'anic Challange to produce something like it had never been completed. The original text of the Qur'an is present. You can ask the millions of non-Muslims living in the Arab states to accept this challange. Even the biggest poets of Arabic could not complete this challange, how can you say that it is written by fallible humans. Why do you not concider the way by which the Qur'an was revealed, present in the Qur'an?

I asked you earlier that can God make an error and you said no. Concider these verses of the Qur'an.

[2.23] And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.
[2.41] And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should you fear.
[3.3] He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.
[3.84] Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.
[4.166] But Allah bears witness by what He has revealed to you that He has revealed it with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness (also); and Allah is sufficient as a witness.


Thus, the Qur'an also verifies that an actual Bible was also revealed from Allah(the Almighty God). Keep in mind that translation is not the actual revelation. The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic. The language is still alive. Also, there are millions of Muslims who know the Qur'an by heart. Also keep in mind that the Qur'an is the same as when it was revealed. Even the greatest critics of the Qur'an agrees with that.
I do not think that this goes relevant here but I have come across some people who are a little phycologically frustrated because they have some questions which their religion does not permit them to ask. That is Almuhdulillah(praises to Allah) not in Islam. If I have an odd question like that, I can convince myself with a satisfying answer. To believe in something(especially religion) and not entirely, go against it, but still believe so much so that you give yourself an identity of that belief, in Islam we call this as an act of hypocrisy.

About Qur'an and science, just read, or better yet, see the scientists giving their comments from the following link. http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm . Keep in mind that earlier was the age of literature, Qur'an was regarded as the best form of literature. Now is the age of science, Qur'an is showing a great compatability with it. And unless you were living under a rock, you would have come to know how deeply this compatability goes and how much scientific value Qur'an has from the several posts that I have made earlier.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Can you tell me that why was there no sufficient scientific work there in the other regions of the world. One reason can be that there were several wars and conflicts, or the one by which the Church banned and rejected some while killed other scientists. Yes, they were scientists, but they were Muslims as well (some may be non-Muslims as it was a rather tolerant community and people use to come there for education).

Indeed - Islam specifically advocates education and the gathering of knowledge, thus learning centers were established all over the Islamic world. When the concept finally travelled over to Europe a few centuries later, we called them universities...but even then, the Islamic World didn;t feel threatened by scientific endeavours.

[kkawohl]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

I asked you earlier that can God make an error and you said no. Concider the verses of the Qur'an.

Now is the age of science, Qur'an is showing a great compatability with it. And unless you were living under a rock, you would have come to know how deeply this compatability goes and how much scientific value Qur'an has from the several posts that I have made earlier.

Dear Mohsin,

I do not dispute the compatability and how much scientific value the Qur'an has.

I unequivocally state that the spirit of Muhammad was inspired to dictate the Qur'an...but this inspiration was translated by his mind...and Muhammad's mind, like the minds of ALL men, is fallible. God did NOT dictate the Qur'an. When man's spirit interacts with the Spirit of God it is like "tapping into a spiritual unity; the mind of God". Muhammad is now a part of God; my spirit bears witness thereof.

The Scenario


The souls of a Rabbi, a Christian minister, and a Islamic cleric appeared at the gates of heaven at the same time and they eye each other suspiciously. St. Peter (the gatekeeper) asked if there is a problem.

The Rabbi tells St. Peter , "Ours is the true religion. We have the word of God that this is so and it is written in the Torah that God said that we are the chosen children of God, not the Christians or the Muslims."

The Christian minister says, "Jesus told us that he is the son of God and that the only way to God was by following his teachings and that unless one is born again, one would not get into heaven. What Jesus said is the word of God and it is written in the holy Bible".

The Muslim cleric says, "God has told Muhammad that he was the last true prophet and that everything that God told him was written in the Koran and that those who did not follow what was written there, would not get into heaven".

Other souls appeared and some sided with and gathered around each of their leaders, while some other souls who sided with no one entered directly through the gates of heaven.

St. Peter told the souls who had gathered around the souls of their clerics, "In heaven there can be no disagreement and until you all are in agreement, you have to move to the Purgatory area".

No agreement was reached and eventually the souls died (Hell) because souls who were not with God could not exist.

The lesson is: Having tunnel-vision or being closed-minded, without compassion for the belief of others around you can be bad for the body and suicide to the soul.

Namaste,
Kurt

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by kkawohl

The lesson is: Having tunnel-vision or being closed-minded, without compassion for the belief of others around you can be bad for the body and suicide to the soul.

and so you have posted 3 times now on this forum, and at no point do you appear to have applied this to yourself.

I agree with your comments on the fallibility of men - but Faith sometimes requires a leap of acceptance otherwise. Where people have made such a Leap of Faith it is rather insulting to the entire religious community to tell them that they are all wrong because your "spirit bears witness" otherwise.

[banjo]

Brian said:

I guess you're going to declare a definitive proof upon the existence, or not, of God, next?

Maybe later but, for now, let's take it one step at a time, one religion at a time.

Mohsin said:

May be faith has got a lot to do with sharia as well, but this may be something that you are not going to understand.

Faith has no place in law. Law is all about logic and reason. We want to catch the maximum number of criminals possible and we want to punish them in the most effective way possible. Nothing to do with faith.

You are neglecting the fact that it was a practical law in the past and also had been in several places.

I would argue that it wasn't an effective law in the past. It was still wrong even then. It's just that people didn't have the mechanisms whereby they could affect the government in the past like they do now ie democracy and the separation of powers so there was nothing they could do about it.

Requiring four witnesses to a rape was almost as unnecessary back then as it is now. It's even less necessary now because we have things like DNA evidence and forensic evidence but even then four witnesses was too many.

You will never get four witnesses to a rape. By requiring four witnesses to a rape you effectively nullify the crime of rape altogether. You are effectively saying that rape is not a crime. By raising the evidential bar so high you pretty much ensure that you will NEVER get a conviction for rape. This is the same as saying that rape is not a crime.

You might get four witnesses to a rape in the case of, say, a gangbang but then all the witnesses would also be rapists so they wouldn't be much use as witnesses. You will never get four independent witnesses to a rape so you might as well remove the crime of rape from the statute books altogether.

If you were true, that there is no answer, then the crime rate in the places where sharia is and was active would have been sky high. Why is this not the case?

There probably were (and are) lots of rapes but since each one requires four witnesses then they are not technically crimes - no one ever gets found guilty. So, in the case of rape, there is no way of knowing what the crime rate is because no one is ever going to be found guilty.

If you are going to argue that four witnesses to a rape is a good idea then what you are in fact saying is that God thinks rape is ok. If God wants the evidential bar to be set so high then God must think that rape is a very trivial crime (if a crime at all).

You are by you claims encouraging me to learn about the sharia law for myself, and may be I would, although I am not eager in learnig about criminal law or doing crime.

Please do learn about sharia. I would encourage you to. But one thing I would say is try and look at it through the eyes of a lawyer rather than through the eyes of a muslim. Put yourself in the position of both the rapist and the raped and consider it from both angles. If you were the raped, what kind of laws would you want in place to help you convict the accused? If you were the rapist what kind of laws would you most fear?

Also, put yourself in the position of society at large and consider what seems the fairest laws to have? What laws are the most do-able, the most practical? You need to consider public policy issues here.

Think like this and then you will be starting to think like a lawyer.

Lets take it to another way. By pointing out many verses with scientific value, and many other points which hold that Islam is true, are you going to accept that because of one of these several reasons that Islam is true and that Qur'an is a word of God(even if curropted(God forbidding)). Although this has worked for many people and they have entered into Islam, but what about you?

This science stuff wouldn't convince me for many reasons but, as I said before, I don't want to get into it because I think it is getting us off the topic. I want to stay focussed.

There are several reasons by which I can state that Islam is true but just because you think that you have pointed out an error, which you have actully not proven, you are saying that Islam is not true.

I have proven it. Islam says you need four witnesses for a rape. I have proven that this is unnecessary (you can prove a rape without any witnesses) and impractical (it will never happen in real life).

The quran is supposed to be the infallible word of God - I've shown you that the infallible word of God is, in fact, fallible. This means islam is wrong on at least one occasion but God cannot be wrong ergo islam cannot come from God.

Please do not rush to making judgements without knowing the truth. Holy Qur'an in Surah Furqan, Ch. No. 25, Verse 59, which says… ‘if you are in doubt, ask the person who knows - ask the person who is knowledgeable’.
Follow that for a change and ask a scholor how it works. And if you think that you can hold your claims strongly, start a thread in Muslims controlled forums. Take you advise there as well. See what responce you get from there.

I don't need to start a thread anywhere, I know for a fact that you don't need four witnesses to prove a rape and that requiring four witnesses is setting the evidential bar too high because it will never happen.

There is nothing anybody could say that could make the "four witnesses to a rape" rule right. In order to prove to me that you do, in fact, require four witnesses to a rape someone would have to prove to me:

1. that three witnesses (plus other forensic evidence) are not sufficient for some reason

2. that three witnesses alone (without forensics) are not sufficient for some reason

3. that two witnesses (plus forensics) are not sufficient for some reason

4. that two witnesses (without forensics) are not sufficient for some reason

5. that one witness (with forensics) is not sufficient for some reason

6. that one witness (without forensics) is not sufficient for some reason

7. that no witnesses (plus forensics and other evidence) is not sufficient for some reason

8. that even without any witnesses or other evidence it would be impossible to reasonably conclude that a rape took place

So, do you now understand what a mammoth task it would be to get me to a position whereby I would agree with the four witneses rule? And yet all the above would have to be proven to me to get me anywhere near that position. It's unlikely, to say the least.

I would, of course, listen to what anyone had to say with interest. I will listen to what anybody has to say - this is in fact a very important legal skill, listening to what people have to say. But you can see the size of the legal mountain which they would have to climb in order to convince me.

It's not that I'm not willing to listen, it's just that I know that you don't need four witnesses to prove a rape. And I also know that if you did require four witnesses to prove a rape then you would effectively be legalising the act of rape, or at least decriminalising it.

I don't think that islam wants to go down this road - legalising rape. I think that you think that rape is wrong as much as I do. So therefore we need to have a sensible way of proving it when it does happen. Requiring four witnesses is not sensible. You know that and I know that so why do it?

You know that four witnesses is excessive and I know four witnesses is excessive but islam insists it's necessary. Islam is wrong. Therefore it can't come from God.

QED.

[samabudhi]

So where did it come from?

[kkawohl]

Originally Posted by banjo

Faith has no place in law. Law is all about logic and reason.

Please do learn about sharia. I would encourage you to. Also, put yourself in the position of society at large and consider what seems the fairest laws to have? What laws are the most do-able, the most practical? You need to consider public policy issues here.

The quran is supposed to be the infallible word of God -

You know that four witnesses is excessive and I know four witnesses is excessive but islam insists it's necessary. Islam is wrong. Therefore it can't come from God.

QED.

I agree with you, but...just a few points for the sake of clarification.
1. Faith has a place in law? Faith also means trust, confidence & loyalty. Religion has no place in law.
2. Sharia is Islamic law & is considered fair by most Muslims. Religious laws should have no place in government. The most doable, the most practical laws are secular.
3. None of the so-called "Holy Books" are "the infallible words of God"; they were written by fallible men.
4. Four witnesses to rape is excessive...that does not make (all of) Islam wrong...it makes one statement therein incorrect. Islam, like most monotheistic religions, supposedly came from God (a spiritual unity) via God's inspirations or messengers.

Namaste,
Kurt

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Mohsin

.
Also in present time, when the verses about embroyology were brought in front of Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore (the head of Anatomy), he confirmed them to be 100% true.

Sincerely,
Mohsin

Namaste Moshin,

thank you for the post.

interesting point...

do you find it at all curious that the text that he taught from contained no Islamic or Qur'anic verses? in fact, do you not find it at all interesting that, despite his quotes, he's still not a Muslim? how "impressed" could he have really been if he's still not a Muslim?

further, when Dr. Moore writes about embroyological matters, there are no references to Qur'anic material. heck... Galen had a more detailed explanation of embroylogical than the Qur'an does.. and Galen lived thousands of years before the Qur'an was received...

very curious... to my way of thinking at least.

[I, Brian]

Seems like this is turning into one of those "look how great American secularism is!" sort of discussions. After all the flag-waving and back-slapping perhaps we should have a good ol' critical discussion about that after.

Supplanting one expression of Faith for another.