Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by banjo

Schizo,

I also like things to be simple. I hate it when people overcomplicate things - there's rarely any need.

That's good. I like to keep things short, simple and to the point, too.

I see no reason to bring the different practices of some countries into the discussion, when discussing Islam, lets look at it as an ideology/faith.

What muslims do has no bearing or relevance to Islam as a religion. The whole world muslim population could start worshipping a tree or a satellite in space, for all I care. It holds no weight with me when it comes to Islam.

The shariah has defined punishments for 4 major offenses. Such as murder/bodily harm, theft, fornication and qazaf (i.e. to wrongly accuse of zina). There are other crimes where the sharia does not prescribe punishments. In such cases, it is left to the collective muslim body to determine the punishment depending on various circumstances, like the intention, level of awareness, nature of crime etc..

Only in the case of murder or Fasaad fi al-ardh (to create unrest or anarchy in the land), can capital punishment be employed.

Fasaad fi al-ardh can cover a wide range offenses, and sometimes rape, depending on the different factors, can fall under this category. Also, the offender could have a minimum punishment of flogging, for he commited a sexual act outside of wedlock, plus more harsher punishment for taking a woman against her will etc..

All this is left to the ruling collective muslim body to deal with, depending on the circumstances and different factors that come into play. I don't see why you are trying to fit it into any one category where punishment is defined, when there are other crimes that the sharia is silent on when it comes to punishment.

[banjo]

schizo,

I think you misunderstood my last post. I'm not talking about punishment, this has nothing to do with punishment. I'm talking about evidential requirements. You have to put rape into either zina or hiraba - sexual misconduct or armed robbery.

These two have different evidential requirements. Zina requires four witnesses whereas hiraba doesn't. Forget about punishment, that's irrelevant. We're talking about what is required to prove guilt. Punishment comes later.

What other countries do is relevant in the sense that it can help you to understand the issues involved. Even if these other countries are wrong it helps to understand why they do what they do. The reason they do it is because rape has to fall under either zina or hiraba and they chose zina.

If you think you are a muslim then you too have to decide what category to put rape into. So that you know what evidence is required to prove a rape.

What muslims do has no bearing or relevance to Islam as a religion. The whole world muslim population could start worshipping a tree or a satellite in space, for all I care. It holds no weight with me when it comes to Islam.

Well, I don't think you can go that far. Islam does not exist in complete isolation from it's followers. As you say it is an ideology. It was supposedly given by God. If all the muslims that have ever lived in all the world have got it wrong then this implies that God didn't do a very good job of getting his message across.

And, in fact, getting the message only slightly wrong seems to result in some very nasty practices (eg four witnesses to prove a rape). This would be an argument against the divine origin of the quran. The fact that no one understands what it says and if you get it slightly wrong then evil consequences ensue.

God is all-powerful. If he wanted us to understand his message then he would have given it to us in such a way that we would all understand it. If it is the case that no one understands it properly then that must be what God wants. This would imply that God is trying to confuse us. But this can't be so because the whole point of religion is to enlighten not to confuse.

So if a religion confuses then it's probably not divine. Islam isn't like communism. Communism is an ideology but no one claims that it comes from God. So you could argue that no communist countries have put communism into practice correctly. This would be understandable since we all agree that communism is a man-made theory, so we can understand why people argue about the correct interpretation. However islam isn't man-made therefore there should be no doubt or confusion as to what it means.

If there is doubt and confusion then this is an indication that it was invented by men (as with other man-made ideologies).

[SchiZo]

With all due respect banjo, I don't think you have proper knowledge of Islam.

Why must rape be put under zina or hiraba for evidential requirements?

Where does it say in Quran that you must use evidence as defined by the Book and no other?

What evidence is required for a parking ticket? lol

Rape and fornication, besides having sexual intercourse in common, are two radically different crimes.

When you steal something.... who will report you to the police? the person you stole from right? So in a case of theft, there is an actual real live person that has been wronged. Someone to bring the crime to the attention of the relevant authorities.

So who is going to report or press charges when 2 individuals mutually and willingly participate in an act when no one has been wronged except the state? a third party?

I am sure you know where I am going with this.

The 4 witnesses rule was only for the protection of women... basically meaning... if you want to press charges against a woman for indecency, you must have 4 witnesses willing to testify in a court with sound testimony, or else you yourselves get punished in the process.

The shariah is silent when it comes to giving strict guidelines for proving any other crimes. The reason for this should be quite obvious, as humans develop and the sophistication of forensics increases.

What some countries do, means nothing to me. I don't care if they are relying on muslim jurists that have inaccurately applied or understood the relevant verse of Quran. I think they should really be focused on educating themselves and improving their societies before they attempt to understand and implement an islamic model for a state.

Even Communism is a decent ideology and can work if the people governing it are sincere and have the peoples interest at heart. Just like any other ideology.

Islamic ideology is no different when it comes to that, if it is run by sincere people who understand what they are doing, then it can and will work. It has been put into practice before also, during the time of Prophet and the rightful Khalifa's and their successors like the Abbassids etc..

I don't care if you believe it is of Divine Origin or not, to each his own. I never tried to shove it in anyones face like that.

[Mohsin]

Regards to all.

A delayed responce to Banjo's comments, but was busy and should have made it earlier.

Back then, people knew religious stories as oral traditions. Mohammed will have known about the christian oral traditions of the time. He had no need to write anything down whether he was illiterate or not.

Do you think that it is possible to know so much in so much detail just by oral traditions, and they too being greatly correct? There are even some verses telling things about the early prophets and their stories that are not even present in the Bible. Like the discovery of the body of Pharon(Ramases) of the time of Moses(P.B.U.H), it's body was found by a French scientist named Dr. Mooris. When he was told that this was the body of the Pharon whose story is present in the Bible, he got very excited. But when he came to know that the Qur'an goes one step further and says not only about Pharon, but also says that his body would be found and would be as an example, thus preserved(mentioned in Qur'an[10.92]), and that is all true. The body of the Pharon even after being in the water for more then 3000 years has been still preserved but it's not a mummy. I have got it's pictures and will give a link for them InshAllah(by the will of Allah) shortly. Dr. Mooris was shocked, learned what he had to about Islam and he embraced it.

So we are left with the choice:

Either this common message came from the fact that they were all copying from each other or the common message came from the fact that they all spoke to an invisible "God" in the sky.

Which one sounds the most rational?

I have made many points in other threads that are sufficient enough to say that the Qur'an is a devine revelation, atleast enough to say that there is devine involvement in the Qur'an. Even many scientists have openly admitted that. There are many things that have got nothing to do with the Bible. Also, speaking about being rational, do you think that Moses(P.B.U.H) recieving the commandments and the Torah from God was rational or even he(P.B.U.H) coppied from somewhere? Also speaking about being rational, would it be rational to believe that someone can be born of a virgin? Would it be rational to call Jesus(P.B.U.H) as God or son of God and in the end saying that God(a part of God or something) died?(Don't want to start a long conversation here, just trying to point something out. I appologize in advance to anyone who finds my statements as offending)

This is the official muslim position but unfortuately it is not supported by the evidence. All the evidence we have suggests that the bible (both OT and NT) are exactly the same as they have always been. The dead sea scrolls date from before the time of Jesus. They contain all the books of the OT except one and the versions of the OT found in the dead sea scrolls are exactly the same as the ones we have now.

The oldest copy of the NT is a copy of the gospel of John. It dates to not long after Jesus died and it is exactly the same as the gospel we have now.

What evidence can you give me that any of the books of the bible have been changed from their original form?

Excuse me, ' bible (both OT and NT) are exactly the same as they have always been ', tell me, did Jesus(P.B.U.H) or Moses(P.B.U.H) spoke English? You have got so many versions of the Bible, and yet none of them are exactly the same. You do not resort to the original text, you go to the translations, which are bound to have more errors then the original text itself.

The idea that the fact there are errors in the bible is some kind of criticism. Only orthodox jews and some fringe christian groups think that the bible is the inerrant word of God (like the quran is thought of by muslims).

In the bible, God speaks to men and then men later write it down. Or the stories are just poems and songs, or they are historical. There is plenty of scope for error in the bible (scientific and otherwise) because it is all written by ordinary men. The quran, on the other hand, is God speaking through Mohammed (via Gabriel) so it's different.

Very few christians and jews think that the bible is the word of God. It's more the will of God.

Well, you yourself agree that the Bible is not directly from God but written by ordinary men. Is that not evidence enough that the Bible is not in it's original form. You by your own claims have said that there is plenty of scope for errors in the Bible, so what if God said onething and it was written as another? How are we to know what was the real message and whether it was written correctly or not? There are many things that are concidered as contradictions but are about the beliefs of Christianity. Many came about several hundred years after the death of Jesus(P.B.U.H) with the Romans entering into Christianity like 'trinity' which is not even present in the Bible. What have you got to say about that? Also, among many points that are different/contradicting between the Torah and the Injeel, one point that Kurt stressed on, the Jews say the the heaven/paradise is only for them, but the Christians say that you must believe in Jesus(P.B.U.H) to recieve salvation. You decide which is correct, the OT or the NT? Also by believing in Jesus(P.B.U.H) as God or praying to him(P.B.U.H), you are going against many commandments in the OT. Again, which one would you concider the one correct, the OT or the NT? You might take the easy way out and say that these were not correctly written by men who wrote the Bible, but what do you believe then?

Mohammed said that Jesus and Moses were prophets of God but so what? He could hardly have kept them quiet, everyone knew about them. He just changed their importance to make himself more important than them (in the sense that he made himself the final prophet).

The fact that Mohammed kept the Jesus and Moses stories doesn't prove he didn't copy, it just shows that he kept them in because it made his stories all the more powerful by relating them to already understood and accepted religious concepts.

Do you know that it is more important for us Muslims to believe in the early Prophet including Moses(P.B.U.H) and Jesus(P.B.U.H) then even the Jews and the Christians, and that they had many miracles given by God. Infact, Islam is the only non-Christian religion which believe in Jesus(P.B.U.H) as one of the strongest prophets of Allah(the Almighty God). No Muslims is a Muslim until he believes in the early prophets mentioned in the Qur'an. Many things about them even some modren Christians do not believe but we Muslims believe in them more. We Muslims show great respect to them and write(peace be upon him) with every prophet's name. There are many things that the Bible does not speak about but Qur'an does. Some archiological discoveries are found only using the Qur'an, some the Bible and many are common. Also, Bible did not close the doors for further Prophets to come. Some say that their are prophacies in the Bible indicating that Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) will come, check it out from this link http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-3.htm . Many jews in the time of Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H) concidered the prophecies in the Torah and several accepted Islam because of that. Jesus(P.B.U.H) also said that someone will come after him(P.B.U.H). You might point it at the Holy spirit(Gibrael), but it was already there, already came earlier. But whats the use? You will either point it to someone else or say that it is another error in the Bible because according to you there is plenty of scope for errors in the Bible.

About contradictions in Qur'an, well, there are none. Just because people could not understand the conditions of the Sharia law, does not mean that it is wrong. Your points are not contradictions but conditions. I do not know about the law and thus won't argue much. You should however mention this question of yours in some Muslim controlled forums. You might get some good replies there like those being given by SchiZo. Please note that you should not concider what the followers do as what the religion teaches. If they do not follow it correctly, why do you blame the religion. Do not mix culture and cultural traditions with the teachings of religion. You are educated enough to understand what I mean.

Yes, this is a famous challenge but really it's too vague to take seriously. What does it mean - to produce one chapter like it? It certainly can't be taken seriously as a proof of the divine origin of the quran.

I could not produce one play like William Shakespeare wrote yet I don't think Shakespeare was God (although pretty close).

Ah yes, the great challange of the Qur'an, to produce one chapter like it. One chapter, the smallest one has got only three verses. The challange came especially for the Arabs who made claims like you did that Qur'an has been self written(coppied). The Arabs of that time were good in poetry and literature, and they concidered any non Arabic speaker as someone who cannot speak at all. This was a challange acctully to them and still on by the way(only for Arabic, the actual language of the Qur'an), and they understood it and some tried it as well, but failed miserably. Just by listening to the Qur'an, they accepted that it cannot be from any human being. Concider this, many Hadiths with similar messages are present, but anyone can easily diffenentiate between the Hadiths and the Qur'an. The quality of the literature of the Qur'an is unmatched. No man can produce something like it, how do you expect Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H), an illetarate, to write/produce the Qur'an by himself. Some details are mentioned here http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-2.htm .
As for Shakespeare and concidering your examples, well, you continue to disappoint me with the irrational statements that you make. May be you cannot copy Shakespeare but there can be many people who can do that. I bet even Shakespeare cannot produce a chapter like the Qur'an even if he knew Arabic.

[banjo]

Schizo:

With all due respect banjo, I don't think you have proper knowledge of Islam.

Well, I'm always willing to learn. I think I said that to Mohsin earlier on. But I'm not entirely sure where I have got anything wrong.

Why must rape be put under zina or hiraba for evidential requirements?

Where does it say in Quran that you must use evidence as defined by the Book and no other?

Islam considers itself to be a complete guide for life. It encompasses a wide variety of things from personal behaviour to society's behaviour. It also has many verses that deal with legal issues. Islamic law has a number of sources. The primary source is the quran and the secondary source is the sunna (traditions and sayings of Mohammed). After that come other sources such as reasoning by analogy. This source comes into play if an area of law comes up that is not specifically dealt with by the other two sources. However the reasoning used in this source is to try and deduce what the correct quranic interpretation would be.

This source is therefore known as a "dependant source" ie it still has to relate to the quran as far as possible and certainly cannot contradict the quran. A further source is the consensus of scholars. Mohammed said that "Muslims will never agree on a wrong matter." Based on this quote, the consensus of scholars is an acceptable source of law in islam but only if there is no already existing quranic provision (or a provision taken from the sunna).

The consensus of scholars also has to be as "quranic" as possible. But of course it always will be - if you get a group of religious scholars together and ask them to pronounce an opinion on any matter they will always define things from a religious viewpoint (in this case, islam).

So basically all sources of islamic law relate back to islam. I don't think that there is any specific provision in the quran that says that you must only use evidence as specified in the quran but it is a general provision of islamic law that law must come from islamic sources wherever possible. If there is an islamic source available then that source must be used in preference to a source that is not islamic.

Now I know that there is dispute within the muslim world as to how far to take this principle but there is no dispute that the principle exists. Even your parking ticket example could have an answer depending on how you look at it.

Obviously there is no verse in the quran that says:

"And Lo! Parking tickets shall be issued to those who transgress my parking restrictions"

But if you look at parking tickets as a penalty imposed by the ruling body then, in a way, parking tickets are no different to capital punishment. They are both penalties imposed by the state. They differ in terms of degree rather than in terms of kind. So the relevant question is:

Does the state (assuming we are talking about an islamic state) have the power to impose punishment? Obviously, according to the quran, it does because the quran lays out various types of punishments to be carried out on various criminals. So the quran forsees a type of political-legal system whereby punishment can be meted out by the state or by the people or whatever.

So the crime of rape has to be dealt with as islamically as possible (like every other crime). The most islamic way to deal with it is to put it under either zina or hiraba. You may disagree with this but if you do then what is your solution?

Do you think we should use secular law to deal with it when there are provisions in the quran dealing specifically with sexual misconduct? I know that the sexual misconduct provisions seem to deal more with adultery but that is the whole problem. This highlights the problem - what to do when islamic law is lacking or unclear. Do you go the secular route and risk upsetting God or do you play it safe and go the islamic route (even though it's patently mad)?

Many muslim states choose to go the islamic route. This shows you the dangers inherent in using religious law at all. If you didn't use religious law at all we could come up much better laws ourselves - we don't need religious law. We know what needs to be done and we know how to do it. We want to catch as many criminals as possible and punish them as effectively as possible, we don't need any religious books to tell us how to do this.

Rape and fornication, besides having sexual intercourse in common, are two radically different crimes.

Of course, but all crimes need to be dealt with according to islamic law (according to islam). And the closest islam comes to dealing with rape is when it talks about sexual offences.

When you steal something.... who will report you to the police? the person you stole from right? So in a case of theft, there is an actual real live person that has been wronged. Someone to bring the crime to the attention of the relevant authorities.

So who is going to report or press charges when 2 individuals mutually and willingly participate in an act when no one has been wronged except the state? a third party?

I am sure you know where I am going with this.

The 4 witnesses rule was only for the protection of women... basically meaning... if you want to press charges against a woman for indecency, you must have 4 witnesses willing to testify in a court with sound testimony, or else you yourselves get punished in the process.

OK lets assume that this provision is only referring to adultery or sex before marriage or a woman acting indecently. So you need to have four witnesses actually see the woman having sex before the crime can be proved. Can you explain to me in what situation you will see a woman having sex in front of four witnesses?

As you say, it can't really refer to adultery because you will never get four witnesses, it can't refer to sex before marriage because again you will never get four witnesses so it can only refer to a woman and a man having full sex in a public park. But this never actually happens in real life so why does the quran bother to ban it?

It's a pointless verse because, if one interprets it as you do, then it will never happen. If however, one interprets it more widely to refer to sexual offences in general then it makes (slightly) more sense because at least then it talks about things that might actually happen in reality.

The only problem then is that it goes too far the other way and sets up much too high evidential standards. So either way it doesn't work.

If you define it as you want to define it then there's no point to it, if you define it as Pakistan defines it then it doesn't work.

So it's wrong either way.

What some countries do, means nothing to me. I don't care if they are relying on muslim jurists that have inaccurately applied or understood the relevant verse of Quran.

You seem to be saying that you are cleverer than all the muslim jurists and scholars. These people have spent their lives studying the quran and interpreting it and, after considering all the factors, have arrived at their conclusions. Several large, major muslim countries have adopted their findings but you dismiss all this because you don't like it.

If all these highly intelligent people can spend their lives studying islam and still come up with bogus conclusions, is there even a small part of you that wonders whether islam itself must be bogus and unworkable?

Islam must take the prize for being the clearest religion there is in many ways because we have God's word written down right there in front of us and yet even so there is all this confusion. And muslim countries have abysmal human rights records so it seems that if you get islam wrong then awful consequences ensue. And yet islam should be clearer than all the other religions. And yet it's not - there is as much disagreement within islam as within any other religion.

Doesn't this make you wonder whether it comes from God at all? I think that if God spoke to us there would be no doubt about it. Why would God want us to disagree and fight amongst ourselves?

If God sent islam to clarify previous revelations and make everyone happy then it didn't work. All it's done is create more conflict by throwing yet another religion into the mix. It hasn't clarified anything, all it's done is confuse things more.

Muslims themselves don't agree on what islam is and yet the quran is the unadulterated Word Of God. How much more clear could God be? And yet it didn't work. The fact that it hasn't worked can only mean that it's not, in fact, the word of God after all.

The word of God would work. It would have to, by definition, since it's the word of God and God is all-powerful and doesn't make mistakes. Unless maybe God wants us to fight each other, to toughen us up maybe?

I think they should really be focused on educating themselves and improving their societies before they attempt to understand and implement an islamic model for a state.

I agree with this.

Even Communism is a decent ideology and can work if the people governing it are sincere and have the peoples interest at heart. Just like any other ideology.

Islamic ideology is no different when it comes to that, if it is run by sincere people who understand what they are doing, then it can and will work. It has been put into practice before also, during the time of Prophet and the rightful Khalifa's and their successors like the Abbassids etc.

Sincerity is important, I agree. But it's also important that everyone agrees what we are being sincere about. Take democracy, for example. Democracy needs sincerity in that the majority of the people have to want democracy for it to work. If there are powerful groups that constantly try to seize power then democracy probably won't work. So it does need sincerity.

But at least everyone pretty much agrees on what democracy is even if they don't want it.

Islam, on the other hand, also needs sincerity but it falls behind democracy in that not everyone is agreed on what islam is.

So if you were to look at democracy and islam unemotionally and dispassionately ie look at them purely as ideologies then what difference would you see? Imagine you are an alien who has never heard of either concept and you are being asked to judge.

You would see that democracy requires sincerity but at least the earthlings all agree on what it is. And you would see that islam requires sincerity but the earthlings have major disagreements about what it even is.

Looked at like this, I would say that democracy probably has a better claim to come from God than islam does.

I don't care if you believe it is of Divine Origin or not, to each his own. I never tried to shove it in anyones face like that.

I know you're not trying to shove it in my face but this is a debate forum and we are debating. It doesn't bother me, I've got nothing better to do. Maybe neither of us will ever convince the other but who cares?

It's just a message board. Argue if you want, don't if you don't want to. Whatever. I don't mind. Don't worry about offending me, I'm un-offendable. There is nothing you could say that would offend me.

Unfortuately, I do have the bad habit of assuming that everyone is like me and I can sometimes say things that may cause offence. I don't mean to, I just say what I think. I'm sorry if I cause offence to anyone, it's not intentional.

[banjo]

Mohsin:

Do you think that it is possible to know so much in so much detail just by oral traditions, and they too being greatly correct?

Yes. Some muslims can recite the quran word for word even nowadays when they don't have to. Back in Mohammed's time it was much more important to be able to pass on oral tradition - this was the only way. Most people couldn't read or write, there were no books, no internet, no libraries.

Oral tradition had an importance back then that we cannot imagine now.

I have made many points in other threads that are sufficient enough to say that the Qur'an is a devine revelation, atleast enough to say that there is devine involvement in the Qur'an.

Proof of divine intervention is a big thing, a massive thing. It's not the kind of thing that you can "prove".

Also, speaking about being rational, do you think that Moses(P.B.U.H) recieving the commandments and the Torah from God was rational or even he(P.B.U.H) coppied from somewhere?

Yes, it was all copied. Religious myths go back a long way. The Jesus story is almost exactly the same as the Horus story in Egyptian mythology - even down to the virgin birth.

These stories go back thousands of years and their roots are somewhat misty. It is almost certainly the case that Moses never existed nor Abraham nor Noah. None of these people ever really existed.

The quran gets the date of the exodus wrong by about a thousand years. But, in a way, this doesn't matter because the exodus never happened. They've done archeological digs and found no evidence of Jewish settlements where they ought to be.

Also speaking about being rational, would it be rational to believe that someone can be born of a virgin? Would it be rational to call Jesus(P.B.U.H) as God or son of God and in the end saying that God(a part of God or something) died?(Don't want to start a long conversation here, just trying to point something out. I appologize in advance to anyone who finds my statements as offending)

No it would not be rational to say that someone was born of a virgin birth. But it is equally irrational to say that Mohammed spoke to God (or Gabriel or whatever).

Excuse me, ' bible (both OT and NT) are exactly the same as they have always been ', tell me, did Jesus(P.B.U.H) or Moses(P.B.U.H) spoke English? You have got so many versions of the Bible, and yet none of them are exactly the same. You do not resort to the original text, you go to the translations, which are bound to have more errors then the original text itself.

The versions of the OT found in the dead sea scrolls are the same basic versions as we use now. People have translated them differently but the hebrew versions from which they are taken are the same.

There may be small differences but these don't matter in christianity and judaism as much as they matter in islam. In islam it's quite important because the quran is (allegedly) the word of God. But I explained to you earlier that the bible isn't the word of god like the quran is, it was written by men - it's more the will of God. Small differences don't matter as much as they do in islam.

You need to free yourself from this "muslim-mindset" where you attach too much importance to the written word being exactly as it always was. It's only islam where this is important. The bible isn't the quran.

I know that muslims are very proud of the way they have preserved the quran and rightly so. They have done a very good job of preserving the quran. But this is only important because the quran is (in islam) the direct word of God. I'm not saying that it's not important to preserve the bible as best we can - it is of course. But remember the bible is many thousands of years older than the quran. It has been preserved pretty well, all things considered but in any case, it's not so important as it is in islam. As long as it's generally the same as it was, that's good enough.

It's not the direct word of God anyway.

The NT is of course much newer than the OT and all indications are that it has also been preserved pretty much as it was when it was first written. Early christians didn't do as good a job as early muslims but I think that the muslims saw all the incorrect versions of the NT flying around and learnt from the christian's mistakes. They decided to not let that happen with their holy book so they made a big effort to keep it the same.

The reason why early muslims were so keen on preserving the quran was partly because they saw what happened with early christian texts - there were all kinds of distortions flying around in the early days.

But the four gospels that we have now - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are definitely the earliest written. And the versions we have now are definitely the same as when they were written. And that's all that matters.

The only question mark is over the very end of Mark's gospel where someone seems to have added a bit. But this doesn't change much and the added bit is in all the early versions of the gospels anyway so it must have been added not long after it was written. But you can ignore that bit if you want and it doesn't make much difference to the general principles of christianity.

Well, you yourself agree that the Bible is not directly from God but written by ordinary men. Is that not evidence enough that the Bible is not in it's original form. You by your own claims have said that there is plenty of scope for errors in the Bible, so what if God said onething and it was written as another?

Maybe. Who knows?

All we have is the bible as it has come down to us now. Maybe God did say something different. The only problem is that, if God did say something different, then we have no way of knowing what that was because it is now lost forever.

Although if you believe that God gave us the bible then you have to assume that God would not allow it to be corrupted. God is God. He is all-powerful. If he wants the uncorrupted version of the bible to remain then he will cause the uncorrupted version of the bible to remain. Man will not be able to defeat God and cause a corrupted version of the bible to prevail.

So the only assumption you can make (if you think that the bible came from God) is that the bible is as God wants it to be.

If it is not as God wants it to be then that means that man defeated the wishes of God which is impossible.

The other possibility is that Satan interfered and caused the bible to be corrupted but this argument doesn't work because one could make the same argument about islam and say that Satan saw that man was following the bible so he introduced the concept that the bible was false by introducing the quran.

It's the same argument and it doesn't really work in either case.

Maybe the bible is corrupted and maybe it's not. Who knows? If it is, we have no way of knowing what the uncorrupted version said. But, based on the evidence, we have no rational reason to think that it is corrupted.

How are we to know what was the real message and whether it was written correctly or not? There are many things that are concidered as contradictions but are about the beliefs of Christianity. Many came about several hundred years after the death of Jesus(P.B.U.H) with the Romans entering into Christianity like 'trinity' which is not even present in the Bible. What have you got to say about that?

Well, a christian would argue that Jesus never denied his own divinity despite the fact that he was asked directly about it and much of what Jesus said and did (eg the miracles) would point to the fact that the he must have possessed some kind of supernatural powers.

So if Jesus was, in some way, connected to God then that gives us two faces of God. God in heaven and Jesus on earth. And then Jesus spoke about the holy spirit which gives us the third component. So the trinity isn't really a roman concept - you can deduce it simply from what Jesus said and did.

Also, among many points that are different/contradicting between the Torah and the Injeel, one point that Kurt stressed on, the Jews say the the heaven/paradise is only for them, but the Christians say that you must believe in Jesus(P.B.U.H) to recieve salvation. You decide which is correct, the OT or the NT? Also by believing in Jesus(P.B.U.H) as God or praying to him(P.B.U.H), you are going against many commandments in the OT. Again, which one would you concider the one correct, the OT or the NT?
You might take the easy way out and say that these were not correctly written by men who wrote the Bible, but what do you believe then?

I think that it was all correctly written and it has all been correctly preserved but I don't think that any of it came from God.

I'm not going to defend any contradictions. There's lots of contradictions in the bible (and in the quran). The reason for this is that none of it came from God, it was all written by men.

Most of the "prophets" from the old testament didn't exist. Most of the stories never happened. They are nice stories and I like them for that reason but that's it. Mohammed never went anywhere near Jerusalem in his whole life. He certainly didn't go to the dome of the rock and fly up to heaven to speak to God.

None of this stuff is true.

About contradictions in Qur'an, well, there are none. Just because people could not understand the conditions of the Sharia law, does not mean that it is wrong. Your points are not contradictions but conditions.

Look, the quran is a completely different thing to the bible. The two are not remotely comparable. The quran is a very short book written in about 23 years by one person. The bible is a whole library written over the course of two thousand years by many people. Of course there may be seeming contradictions in the bible. Of course the quran may be more self-consistent.

You cannot compare the two, they are completely different things.

As for Shakespeare and concidering your examples, well, you continue to disappoint me with the irrational statements that you make. May be you cannot copy Shakespeare but there can be many people who can do that. I bet even Shakespeare cannot produce a chapter like the Qur'an even if he knew Arabic.

You misunderstood my point.

There is no one who can produce a play like Shakespeare. No one has ever been able to. Other writers of the time, like Marlowe, could write similar stuff but it was still completely different and nowhere near as good.

Nobody has ever written anything remotely like Shakespeare. I've studied Shakespeare and I can recognise it a mile off. It is a thousand tims better than anybody else who has written anything similar. It has it's own style. I can recognise Shakespeare's style. It is like no other style before or since. When you say:

May be you cannot copy Shakespeare but there can be many people who can do that.

You are quite simply wrong. There is no one who can produce a play like Shakespeare wrote. There has never been anyone who could write like Shakespeare did. His style stands out.

There were other writers of the time who wrote similar stuff but (trust me, I've studied this) they are completely different to Shakespeare. Every word of Shakespeare has several different meanings, every line and it's all intentional.

But then ALL writers have their own style. You could give me a book by, say, Jane Austen and I would be able to tell you that it was by Jane Austen even if I had never read it before. I would recognise her style, it's unmistakeable. Same with Charles Dickens or any writer.

All writers have their own style and they are all very hard for someone else to copy.

Maybe Shakespeare couldn't produce a chapter like the quran but then the writer of the quran couldn't produce a play like Shakespeare. You're getting things back to front. The fact that someone can't imitate another writer's style means nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that that writer is God.

Nobody has ever been able to imitate another writers style.

Art experts can tell an art forgery just by looking at a painting and judging the style. Even if the forger copied the painting directly from the original, a good art expert can tell it's a forgery.

The fact that no one can imitate the quran's style means nothing. You couldn't imitate my style of writing just on this message board from the few messages I have posted. I couldn't imitate your style.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by banjo

I know you're not trying to shove it in my face but this is a debate forum and we are debating. It doesn't bother me, I've got nothing better to do. Maybe neither of us will ever convince the other but who cares?

It's just a message board. Argue if you want, don't if you don't want to. Whatever. I don't mind. Don't worry about offending me, I'm un-offendable. There is nothing you could say that would offend me.

Unfortuately, I do have the bad habit of assuming that everyone is like me and I can sometimes say things that may cause offence. I don't mean to, I just say what I think. I'm sorry if I cause offence to anyone, it's not intentional.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaamen.

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by banjo

Schizo:

Well, I'm always willing to learn. I think I said that to Mohsin earlier on. But I'm not entirely sure where I have got anything wrong.

I didn't mean that in a disrespectful way, if thats what you thought. Non-muslims generally tend not to understand the Quran because they have not read it completly as a muslim would, and more importantly to understand the essence of it all.

Islam considers itself to be a complete guide for life. It encompasses a wide variety of things from personal behaviour to society's behaviour. It also has many verses that deal with legal issues. Islamic law has a number of sources. The primary source is the quran and the secondary source is the sunna (traditions and sayings of Mohammed). After that come other sources such as reasoning by analogy. This source comes into play if an area of law comes up that is not specifically dealt with by the other two sources. However the reasoning used in this source is to try and deduce what the correct quranic interpretation would be.

Overall that is right, yeah. When the sharia is silent on a topic, Ijtehad comes in to play.

This source is therefore known as a "dependant source" ie it still has to relate to the quran as far as possible and certainly cannot contradict the quran. A further source is the consensus of scholars. Mohammed said that "Muslims will never agree on a wrong matter." Based on this quote, the consensus of scholars is an acceptable source of law in islam but only if there is no already existing quranic provision (or a provision taken from the sunna).

Can you tell me a reference number for that hadith? because I am fairly certain that it is taken out of context and does not apply to what you are saying.

It could mean a number of different things:

1. Muslims will not declare lawful what is unlawful.
2. A Muslim will not agree to do a bad thing or something that is wrong.
3. basically Muslims will do good, and not opt for what is against Quranic teachings.

It does NOT mean that:

1. Muslims are infallible.
2. Muslims will be right if they agree on any matter.

So I need some context to that hadith to assess what it really meant.

Does the state (assuming we are talking about an islamic state) have the power to impose punishment? Obviously, according to the quran, it does because the quran lays out various types of punishments to be carried out on various criminals. So the quran forsees a type of political-legal system whereby punishment can be meted out by the state or by the people or whatever.

The Islamic state does have power to impose punishment, yes. Usually it is only the duty of the state to implement such laws and carry out punishments, not the general populace.

So the crime of rape has to be dealt with as islamically as possible (like every other crime). The most islamic way to deal with it is to put it under either zina or hiraba. You may disagree with this but if you do then what is your solution?

Rape is a kind of zina, you can say it is remotely similar, but that does NOT mean you MUST HAVE 4 witnesses.

That is why I said in my previous post, that there is a category known as Fasaad fi al-ardh. This category is very broad, and cases of rape can fall under this category. Punishments are generally of four different degrees, but I won't go into all the details. It ranges from capital punishment, amputation, banishment, compensation money, cautions and even forgiveness. I did not bring it up in an earlier post for no reason, but I think you misunderstood my purpose. No worries.

Even IF we put rape under the zina category, it STILL doesn't mean we need 4 witnesses. I will show you in a second, the verse, and the wording of it.

OK lets assume that this provision is only referring to adultery or sex before marriage or a woman acting indecently. So you need to have four witnesses actually see the woman having sex before the crime can be proved. Can you explain to me in what situation you will see a woman having sex in front of four witnesses?

Most likely, there will hardly ever be a case where a woman was seen having sex by 4 witnesses. And that is the whole point. It is for the protection of women, from false accusations/charges.

[continued next post..... too many characters].

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by banjo

As you say, it can't really refer to adultery because you will never get four witnesses, it can't refer to sex before marriage because again you will never get four witnesses so it can only refer to a woman and a man having full sex in a public park. But this never actually happens in real life so why does the quran bother to ban it?
It's a pointless verse because, if one interprets it as you do, then it will never happen. If however, one interprets it more widely to refer to sexual offences in general then it makes (slightly) more sense because at least then it talks about things that might actually happen in reality.
The only problem then is that it goes too far the other way and sets up much too high evidential standards. So either way it doesn't work.
If you define it as you want to define it then there's no point to it, if you define it as Pakistan defines it then it doesn't work.
So it's wrong either way.

That is the crux of the matter. You don't understand the purpose of such a verse, and then you declare it pointless or wrong without proper knowledge.

Islam is a family oriented religion. It places great importance and emphasis on the family unit, which inturn makes up the foundation of society.

Here are some points/reasons as to why punishment is defined for a crime, and why the 4 witnesses is needed in *some* cases. In no particular order;

1. Warning muslims to the seriousness of the crime.
2. Prevent muslims from having sex in a public setting like a park, where families and children may be around. (it does happen).
3. Gives preference to the 'sinner' to repent and ask for forgiveness personally with God, instead of punishment from the state.
4. Protects women from false slander/accusations etc.. etc..
5. Deterrant to teens and others, ultimately preventing unwanted pregnancies..... teen & otherwise. Also, there is no or minimal spread of sexually transmitted diseases/infections etc...

Now these are just a few of the reasons, you can deduct from the above, that less orphans, cleaner societies, and less indecency on the streets would ensue.

Are these enough reasons to satisy your "pointless verse" claim? lol

You seem to be saying that you are cleverer than all the muslim jurists and scholars. These people have spent their lives studying the quran and interpreting it and, after considering all the factors, have arrived at their conclusions. Several large, major muslim countries have adopted their findings but you dismiss all this because you don't like it.

I never claimed to be superior in intellect, nor did I ever purposely imply that I am, subtley or any other way.

No one, absolutely no creature on this earth is an authority on Islam, only God is.

However, I dismiss them because their reasoning is flawed. It is my God given right, and even command, to follow what is right and truthful. If someone could show me flaw in my own reasoning and prove to me otherwise, I would change my stance accordingly. However, when I know I am right, the universe will collapse and I still would not budge from my stance. lol

If all these highly intelligent people can spend their lives studying islam and still come up with bogus conclusions, is there even a small part of you that wonders whether islam itself must be bogus and unworkable?

Islam is not bogus. I told you before that I don't care what muslim opinions are. If you want to discuss Islam with me, then lets look at the facts, the scripture.

Prove me wrong, use the Quran, and authentic hadith if need be. Show me the flaw in my reasoning and position. Bring a muslim scholar with you for your aid if you wish, I will teach him a lesson too. lol

Islam must take the prize for being the clearest religion there is in many ways because we have God's word written down right there in front of us and yet even so there is all this confusion. And muslim countries have abysmal human rights records so it seems that if you get islam wrong then awful consequences ensue. And yet islam should be clearer than all the other religions. And yet it's not - there is as much disagreement within islam as within any other religion.

You cannot attribute poor human rights records with a religion. Unless you show me from Quran where it promotes such behaviour.

I know Sudan is in a bad state, but they are not following Islam. They are racist arabs.

There are many other muslim countries, and yeah I admit there standards of living and rights are not as good as USA or the UK, but it has nothing to do with their religion. It is their own culture and background, much of them are not as socially evolved societies. For example, some of them have horrible and barbaric practices like female genital mutilation. That does not mean they got something wrong in their religion, it just means they were f*ked up to begin with.

Doesn't this make you wonder whether it comes from God at all? I think that if God spoke to us there would be no doubt about it. Why would God want us to disagree and fight amongst ourselves?
If God sent islam to clarify previous revelations and make everyone happy then it didn't work. All it's done is create more conflict by throwing yet another religion into the mix. It hasn't clarified anything, all it's done is confuse things more.
Muslims themselves don't agree on what islam is and yet the quran is the unadulterated Word Of God. How much more clear could God be? And yet it didn't work. The fact that it hasn't worked can only mean that it's not, in fact, the word of God after all.

Whatever disagreement there is, it is mainly on some interpretation or other times, on minor issues. Islam is not as divided as lets say Christianity. Our fundamental principles are clear. We share and unanimously agree that Quran is complete, intact and unadulterated word of God. We bear witness to the Oneness of God, and that Muhammad was His last and final messenger.

Quran was not sent to convert the whole world. It is all His will. He says that if He so desired, He could have guided us all and made us one nation.

The good values of the Quran are universal and do not change. Their implementation does vary for different times. That is the difference.

Lets just assume for a minute that rape must be classed under zina. That still does not mean a woman needs 4 witnesses to prove it. Remember the verse states :

"And those who accuse chaste women;- (must produce 4 witnesses)"

So still, it refers to a third party that brings the charges forward. Not the woman itself.

Sincerity is important, I agree. But it's also important that everyone agrees what we are being sincere about. Take democracy, for example. Democracy needs sincerity in that the majority of the people have to want democracy for it to work. If there are powerful groups that constantly try to seize power then democracy probably won't work. So it does need sincerity.
But at least everyone pretty much agrees on what democracy is even if they don't want it.
Islam, on the other hand, also needs sincerity but it falls behind democracy in that not everyone is agreed on what islam is.
So if you were to look at democracy and islam unemotionally and dispassionately ie look at them purely as ideologies then what difference would you see? Imagine you are an alien who has never heard of either concept and you are being asked to judge.
You would see that democracy requires sincerity but at least the earthlings all agree on what it is. And you would see that islam requires sincerity but the earthlings have major disagreements about what it even is.
Looked at like this, I would say that democracy probably has a better claim to come from God than islam does.

Well you see, even democracy can cause such disagreements and problems. Try getting a chunky book that explains democracy and hand it to the arabs. Let them govern themselves by it. Don't tell them from experience on what and how to administer things. Let them read it by themselves and figure it all out by themselves. Throw in some poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, no voters, etc.. in to the mix, and you got just as much of a misguided and mishandled nation.

The somewhat same thing is happening with Islam. They can barely govern and educate themselves to survive and live in decent standards, and they are trying to implement a system they have not studied or understood properly.

A muslim does not need an islamic state to be a good muslim. One can follow all the directives without all that.

Islamic ideology has worked in the past beautifully. It can/will work again in the future.

All it is today, is that there has been a rise in extremism, and radical views on interpreting Islam. This is due to many factors. There is alot of pent up anger, and extremists have exploited it.

The Wahabbi school of thought that is showing up nearly everywhere is being funded by the petro-dollar of KSA (Saudi Arabia). So we have them to thank, for their views of offensive Jihad unjustly, and strict behaviour. They many times, even brand you an infidel if you disagree with their views. That is a sin in itself, to accuse wrongly like that.

Anyway, storms come and go, so things will change...

I know you're not trying to shove it in my face but this is a debate forum and we are debating. It doesn't bother me, I've got nothing better to do. Maybe neither of us will ever convince the other but who cares?
It's just a message board. Argue if you want, don't if you don't want to. Whatever. I don't mind. Don't worry about offending me, I'm un-offendable. There is nothing you could say that would offend me.
Unfortuately, I do have the bad habit of assuming that everyone is like me and I can sometimes say things that may cause offence. I don't mean to, I just say what I think. I'm sorry if I cause offence to anyone, it's not intentional.

Well no offense taken on my part. This is the internet, so there is no need to take things too personally. I can appreciate civil and respectful tone throughout disagreement. Unecessary insults can be frowned upon, but still no sweat. I don't think either of us have done that, so it's cool.

I don't mind debate, but I like to keep things simple as possible. I don't have a liking for writing very long posts. Sometimes arguments can be dragged endlessly.

Originally we were discussing the requirement of witnesses for rape, and wether it was true or not. Somehow we end up on this topic of wether it is divine or not, and what muslims are doing. Anyway

[banjo]

Schizo:

Originally we were discussing the requirement of witnesses for rape, and wether it was true or not. Somehow we end up on this topic of wether it is divine or not,

It's because this is what we were talking about before you came along. I was positing that the position of islam on rape has to disqualify islam from being divine because it doesn't make sense, however you try to define it.

Can you tell me a reference number for that hadith? because I am fairly certain that it is taken out of context and does not apply to what you are saying.

Here's a couple of pages that discuss it:

Link

and

Link

It could mean a number of different things:

1. Muslims will not declare lawful what is unlawful.
2. A Muslim will not agree to do a bad thing or something that is wrong.
3. basically Muslims will do good, and not opt for what is against Quranic teachings.

It does NOT mean that:

1. Muslims are infallible.
2. Muslims will be right if they agree on any matter.

I don't think it really means any of those things. I think it just means that if the overwhelming majority of muslims agree on something then that will probably not be in error.

If 99% of muslims agree on a particular point and 1% disagree then, according to ijma, the 99% will be right and therefore it is safe to base a legal principle on it without fear of that principle being wrong.

You don't understand the purpose of such a verse, and then you declare it pointless or wrong without proper knowledge.

It's not that I don't understand it. I declare it pointless because it is. I'll explain to you what I mean more clearly:

Islam is a family oriented religion. It places great importance and emphasis on the family unit, which inturn makes up the foundation of society.

Yes the family makes up the foundation of society. The basic unit of humanity is the individual but the basic block of society is the family. I don't think there is any culture, religion, country or political system that would disagree with this. This isn't unique to islam. Everyone agrees with this.

After that things get more confused. What is the next "block" up after the family? Is it the local neighbourhood? the country? the working class? fellow co-religionists? Different people would say different things depending on their religion, their culture, their politics. For example, a communist might say it's the class to which a person belongs. A muslim might say it's the religion to which a person belongs. A nationalist might say it's the country and so on.

But we all agree that first comes the individual and then the family.

Here are some points/reasons as to why punishment is defined for a crime, and why the 4 witnesses is needed in *some* cases. In no particular order;

Taking your points one at a time to show you that they are meaningless:

1. Warning muslims to the seriousness of the crime.

Remember that we are talking law here. Law doesn't really get involved in warnings. Everything happens for a reason - if four witnesses are required then four witnesses are required. You may be correct that this would act as a warning in some way but we aren't really interested in this aspect of it. What we are interested in is the actual legal consequences of things.

From a religious angle, warnings are relevant. From a legal angle, they're not. This verse does, of course, have a religious context to it but it also has a legal context to it. We are interested in the legal aspect because the verse is used as a basis for islamic law.

Law (even islamic law) is a separate thing to religion. It is a study field all of it's own. Punishment is usually a better indicator as to the seriousness of a crime not evidential standards. For example, in islamic law there are certain punishments laid out in the quran - these are usually quite serious punishments (amputation, flogging, banishment etc) and they all attach to specific crimes.

These punishments indicate that the crimes to which they attach are considered serious crimes. Whether or not I agree with the punishments doesn't matter, whether or not I agree that the crimes listed are serious doesn't matter - I can see that certain crimes are considered "bad" and therefore have "bad" punishments. This is legal thinking. The quran sets a precedent - it gives severe punishments for "bad" crimes. The four witnesses thing breaks this mould, it's different.

Zina has a severe punishment (flogging) so that ascertains that it is considered a serious crime. We don't need four witnesses to reinforce that point. We know that zina is "bad" because of the punishment. The four witness requirement is redundant, unnecessary if all it is there for is to tell us that it is a "bad" crime.

So the four witness rule must be there for some other reason. At least, for some additional reason to just being a warning. The only other reason possible is as an evidential standard.

2. Prevent muslims from having sex in a public setting like a park, where families and children may be around. (it does happen).

It happens, but hardly ever. Certainly not often enough to warrant getting a mention by God in his (very short) holy book. All the other things that get specifically banned in the holy book are big things that happen all the time - robbery, adultery, etc.

Banning public sex in a park is out of place. It doesn't fit in with the others. I'm sure that it hardly ever happened even before islam so there was no need to specifically ban it - it wasn't a problem anyway. Certainly not a major public problem. It seems odd that the quran would ban all these other things that are major things, that happen all the time and then suddenly ban something that never happens anyway.

Not only that but what you are saying is that the quran bans public sex in a park but ignores rape. Rape is a very major crime. It has always been with us (unfortunately). For as long as there have been men and women, there has been rape. If your interpretation is to be believed then the quran makes a big issue out of banning something minor (that never happens anyway) like public sex in a park and ignores something major (that happens all the time) like rape.

Also, assuming it really is referring to public indecency then it doesn't do a very good job of that. Four witnesses are required in order to prove this indecency but public indecency doesn't always involve four witnesses. Often it may be a flasher - some guy getting his willy out and showing it to a girl. This would fail for lack of witnesses and yet is a far more common form of public indecency than two people getting it on in a park.

Also, it seems to be saying that full sex in front of three witnesses is ok but full sex in front of four witnesses is a no no.

Your interpretation doesn't really solve the problem, it just kind of shifts it onto a different offence. We still have the four witnesses problem, just relating to a different offence. What's the big deal about four witnesses? What can four witnesses prove that three witnesses can't?

3. Gives preference to the 'sinner' to repent and ask for forgiveness personally with God, instead of punishment from the state.

This is more valid than your other points. What you are saying is as follows: The quran is saying that adultery is a very serious thing but in order to stop everyone accusing everyone else it places a very high standard of evidence.

Only problem here is that the standard of evidence is unbelievably high. You will never get four witnesses to an adultery. Never. Adulterers would have to be incredibly stupid to do it in front of four witnesses, especially since (if they do get caught) they will get 100 lashes.

Adulterers in the west rarely get caught because they are so careful even though they know they won't be punished with lashes. How careful will muslim adulterers be knowing that 100 lashes await them?

They will be ultra-careful. So it seems unlikely that the quran really is banning adultery with this particular verse. If adultery is such a bad crime, why place impossible evidential standards on it? No adultery will ever be proved.

So it seems that the verse isn't banning rape (as you agree), it isn't banning adultery (because of the evidential requirement) so the only thing it can be banning is public indecency (which is such a minor crime, it's not worth specifically banning). And even if it is banning public indecency, it doesn't do that very well because it only bans one very narrow type of public indecency - full sex in a park in front of four witnesses. It doesn't ban the far more common forms of one on one indecency.

It's a pointless verse.

4. Protects women from false slander/accusations etc.. etc..

Yes while ignoring rapists, flashers etc. The only reason why woen need to be protected from false accusations is because the public punishment for sexual "misconduct" in an islamic state is so severe. If you didnt have public rules about adultery etc then women wouldn't need to be protected from false accustaions.

So islam creates it's own problem. Because it bans adultery and has such severe punishment for it, it needs to give high standards of protection.

I'm not defending adultery. Of course it is wrong. I'm just questioning whether it is the place of the state to have official punishments for it. I think it's best left as a private matter. When an adulterer gets caught they suffer punishment anyway in terms of social disapproval, spousal problems, family problems, possible divorce, personal guilt etc. There's no need for the state to get involved.

Another point I would make (although you would no doubt argue with this) is that polygamy creates a situation where adultery is more likely. In the muslim world, a married man is allowed to take some young girl out for dinner, to the cinema, whatever as long as he doesn't have sex with her. He can date a girl with a view to marrying her.

Banning adultery but allowing polygamy creates an imbalance. It creates a situation where adultery is more likely to happen because it allows the man to take young girls on romantic dates even when he is married. In a monogamous society, the man has no reason to take young girls on romantic dates at all. Polygamy puts temptation in the way of the man.

5. Deterrant to teens and others, ultimately preventing unwanted pregnancies..... teen & otherwise. Also, there is no or minimal spread of sexually transmitted diseases/infections etc...

It's not a deterrant because you still need the four witnesses. If you are going to require four witnesses before anything can be done, you might as well not have the law at all. It's a pointless law.

Are these enough reasons to satisy your "pointless verse" claim?

No because, as you can see, all your reasons have flaws. The verse still seems pointless to me.

OK, this post has been long enough. Maybe I'll address some of your other points later if I get time.

Unecessary insults can be frowned upon, but still no sweat. I don't think either of us have done that, so it's cool.

I agree. We've both stuck to the point. I don't like unnecessary insults either. I am never rude so you don't have to worry about me.

[SchiZo]

Banjo

Originally Posted by banjo

I don't think it really means any of those things. I think it just means that if the overwhelming majority of muslims agree on something then that will probably not be in error.

If 99% of muslims agree on a particular point and 1% disagree then, according to ijma, the 99% will be right and therefore it is safe to base a legal principle on it without fear of that principle being wrong.

Ijma is basically the consensus of muslim jurists during a certain time period, which forms the law. It does not necessarily mean that muslims will never get it wrong.

That hadith means that the whole ummah will not be misguided totally. i.e. there will always be a number of people/group that will be following the correct way, and preserving His religion.

Remember that we are talking law here. Law doesn't really get involved in warnings. Everything happens for a reason - if four witnesses are required then four witnesses are required. You may be correct that this would act as a warning in some way but we aren't really interested in this aspect of it. What we are interested in is the actual legal consequences of things.

From a religious angle, warnings are relevant. From a legal angle, they're not. This verse does, of course, have a religious context to it but it also has a legal context to it. We are interested in the legal aspect because the verse is used as a basis for islamic law.

Law (even islamic law) is a separate thing to religion. It is a study field all of it's own. Punishment is usually a better indicator as to the seriousness of a crime not evidential standards. For example, in islamic law there are certain punishments laid out in the quran - these are usually quite serious punishments (amputation, flogging, banishment etc) and they all attach to specific crimes.

I did state that the punishment of flogging was the indicator of the seriousness of the crime, not the evidential requirement.

While you want to isolate and only view the legal aspect, that would lose alot of the meaning and purpose. You have to keep in mind that this pertains to muslims, and the muslims must be a majority of the population in the country they reside if they are going to get an Islamic state. So the religious aspect of it is also very important.

So the four witness rule must be there for some other reason. At least, for some additional reason to just being a warning. The only other reason possible is as an evidential standard.

The punishment details are a warning, not the witnesses rule. The 4 witnesses is required if a 3rd party is launching the charges. A spouse can also launch the charges and the 4 witnesses rule does not apply.

It happens, but hardly ever. Certainly not often enough to warrant getting a mention by God in his (very short) holy book. All the other things that get specifically banned in the holy book are big things that happen all the time - robbery, adultery, etc.

Sex in a park or public place is not mentioned explicitly in that verse, but it can be derived from that.

You would be surprised how often it does happen. I have seen it myself many times lol. Most often it is at the beach, or park... sometimes on the side of a hill. You can read some accounts of people having a romp in public, if you look online.

Not only that but what you are saying is that the quran bans public sex in a park but ignores rape. Rape is a very major crime. It has always been with us (unfortunately). For as long as there have been men and women, there has been rape. If your interpretation is to be believed then the quran makes a big issue out of banning something minor (that never happens anyway) like public sex in a park and ignores something major (that happens all the time) like rape.

It does not ignore rape. Taking a woman against her will is a major sin. Rape can be put under the Fasaad fi al-ardh category, which has a wide range of punishments, such as a painful death among others, which I mentioned in my earlier post.

The punishment is left to the ruling body, due to the varying severity of the crime. Just as homosexuality is punishable, it does not outline the punishment, but leaves it to the state to decide what is reasonable.

Also, it seems to be saying that full sex in front of three witnesses is ok but full sex in front of four witnesses is a no no.

Your interpretation doesn't really solve the problem, it just kind of shifts it onto a different offence. We still have the four witnesses problem, just relating to a different offence. What's the big deal about four witnesses? What can four witnesses prove that three witnesses can't?

I understand what you're saying, but zina is not a [serious] crime like murder.

4 witnesses to protect women from false charges made by a 3rd party.

The punishment is a warning/deterrant to dissuade people from taking part in the act. Atleast publically. If you want to have sex inside your own home, fine... you can do that, but if you get pregnant or cause problems for the state, and get caught, then you get punished. Homosexual intercourse is also banned in Sharia, and the same can apply, i.e. do what you want inside your house, just don't go out to flaunt it. Keep private matters where they belong.

I'm not defending adultery. Of course it is wrong. I'm just questioning whether it is the place of the state to have official punishments for it. I think it's best left as a private matter. When an adulterer gets caught they suffer punishment anyway in terms of social disapproval, spousal problems, family problems, possible divorce, personal guilt etc. There's no need for the state to get involved.

Well adultery will most likely cause personal punishment like guilt and spousal problems, yeah, but fornication is different.

Besides, its not all about punishment. If the offender is truly repentant and asks for forgiveness, s/he should be forgiven.

Another point I would make (although you would no doubt argue with this) is that polygamy creates a situation where adultery is more likely. In the muslim world, a married man is allowed to take some young girl out for dinner, to the cinema, whatever as long as he doesn't have sex with her. He can date a girl with a view to marrying her.

Banning adultery but allowing polygamy creates an imbalance. It creates a situation where adultery is more likely to happen because it allows the man to take young girls on romantic dates even when he is married. In a monogamous society, the man has no reason to take young girls on romantic dates at all. Polygamy puts temptation in the way of the man.

That is false. Men and women are not allowed to date like that. When would-be couples meet they must be in the presence of a mahram (guardian/relative).

[banjo]

Schizo:

Ijma is basically the consensus of muslim jurists during a certain time period, which forms the law. It does not necessarily mean that muslims will never get it wrong.

That hadith means that the whole ummah will not be misguided totally. i.e. there will always be a number of people/group that will be following the correct way, and preserving His religion.

Hmm...not sure I quite agree with you there.

I don't think it means that there will always be a certain number of muslims following the correct way, otherwise how could you base a law on it?

Suppose this group of muslims who are following the correct way were some small little-known tribe in a forgotten corner of Africa? How could islamic law then use ijma as a basis for law? Ijma is one of the sources of islamic law. I think it means that if a large number of scholars (and muslims generally) are able to reach a consensus on a particular point then that consensus can be construed as being the correct islamic interpretation.

Therefore it is safe to base a law on that consensus. If it meant what you say then it wouldn't be possible to use the principle of ijma in a practical way - to use it as a basis for a particular law.

I think it has to mean more than what you say otherwise it wouldn't be of any practical use. But, in any case, I don't think this is all that important a point. It doesn't really have anything to do with my main argument in this thread so I don't see the need to get too bogged down by it.

Sex in a park or public place is not mentioned explicitly in that verse, but it can be derived from that.

You would be surprised how often it does happen. I have seen it myself many times lol. Most often it is at the beach, or park... sometimes on the side of a hill. You can read some accounts of people having a romp in public, if you look online.

Yes it happens but it's hardly a major public menace. I think I've seen it happen once in my life - a couple of horny teenagers waiting at a bus stop decided to go down some side road and go at it, I happened to walk past.

Are you saying that this verse in the quran is intended to stop that kind of thing? You must be because it can't mean anything else.

I understand what you're saying, but zina is not a [serious] crime like murder.

4 witnesses to protect women from false charges made by a 3rd party.

Yes but there will never be four witnesses so what's the point of the verse?

The punishment is a warning/deterrant to dissuade people from taking part in the act. Atleast publically. If you want to have sex inside your own home, fine... you can do that, but if you get pregnant or cause problems for the state, and get caught, then you get punished. Homosexual intercourse is also banned in Sharia, and the same can apply, i.e. do what you want inside your house, just don't go out to flaunt it. Keep private matters where they belong.

If something is wrong, it is wrong. Islam frowns on adultery and homosexuality. You seem to be saying that islam is saying that adultery and homosexuality are ok as long as you don't get caught. This seems to be a dodgy position morally. Either adultery is wrong or it's not. You can't say that it's ok as long as you don't get caught.

That is false. Men and women are not allowed to date like that. When would-be couples meet they must be in the presence of a mahram (guardian/relative).

Even if there are restrictions on how married men may date women, the fact is that married men are allowed to date women. The fact that this exists at all encourages adultery.

Maybe not all muslims are quite so fastidious in following strict islamic guidelines with regard to guardians etc. Maybe the woman's guardian is a close friend of hers who is cool with turning a blind eye if the woman wants to get it on. Maybe the woman doesn't have a suitable relative because she comes from a small family.

Maybe this, maybe that. The bottom line is that if you didn't allow married men to go on dates at all then there would be no need for guardians because the man wouldn't be playing the field any more after he has got married.

I'm not a woman but if I was I would hate the idea of my husband constantly keeping an eye out for the next bit of hot stuff to come his way.

[SchiZo]

I don't have much time, so here is a short and quick reply....

1. Ijma is basically forming a law, when most agree on a given principle. It does not mean that they can't be wrong about it. All great scholars of past have said that if you see a mistake or somewhere I have gone wrong.. don't follow it. You were initially arguing that because some countries have 4 witness rule for rape, that it is somehow correct. But that is not true.

2. I have stated why there is punishment for Zina numerous times in the previous posts. Some of which are public decency, STD's minimization, unwanted pregnancies, burden on the state etc.. read back you will find them.

3. You state it is pointless because you think 4 witnesses are needed in all cases.... which is not true. 4 witness rule only applies if it is a third party launching the charges. the husband/wife doesn't need 4 witnesses. if a woman is pregrant and not married, then that is proof. if there is video tape then that is proof. the 4 witness rule is a guideline, to prevent 3rd parties launching false charges and staining an honorable and pious woman's reputation.

4. Homosexuality is wrong. It is punishable by the state if you flaunt it in the public. However if you do it inside the privacy of your home, then it is between you and God, not the state. That was my point.

5. Dating is not allowed in Islam. I don't know where you got that from. There are some exceptions to that rule, but even then, your argument is flawed. Talking to a possible candidate is OK aslong as the girl is accompanied by a mahram, but if that mahram is going to turn a blind eye, then that is his problem, and it is between the parties involved not to get up to any frisky business. It is expected of the muslim believers, if they want to go against it, thats fine, its between them and God. a sincere muslim will not get physical, and a non muslim... well it doesn't apply there does it..

a muslim is commanded to marry only one wife. it is only in certain circumstances that he can marry more. a sincere muslims doesn't go around oogling other women, it is against his faith, as God commanded to lower your gaze.

so I don't know where you are coming up with this stuff, but its amusing.

[banjo]

Schizo:

1. Ijma is basically forming a law, when most agree on a given principle. It does not mean that they can't be wrong about it. All great scholars of past have said that if you see a mistake or somewhere I have gone wrong.. don't follow it. You were initially arguing that because some countries have 4 witness rule for rape, that it is somehow correct. But that is not true.

Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly enough. Maybe I've not been precise enough. I'm not arguing that because some countries use the four witnesses rule then that is somehow correct. I agree with you - these countries are almost certainly in error (even from an islamic perspective).

And I'm not saying that if most agree on something then they cannot be in error.

What I am trying to say is similar to what you are saying but slightly different. But I don't think the difference is all that important so it's not worth arguing about.

I agree with you that ijma means that will always be truth hidden somewhere in the islamic community. However, in order to make any practical use of this concept (ie in order to be able to use it as the basis for a legal principle) we need to be able to find this truth.

Finding this truth is a difficult thing. Who knows where it is? We could have a philosophical discussion for hours on the subject but it wouldn't get us anywhere on a practical level.

Law needs a practical level in order to be able to work. This is something that all types of legal systems have in common (even islamic law). The Truth, on a metaphysical level, can be a hard thing to define. Defining truth on this level is very interesting and can lead to absorbing conversations but it's not much use to law. Law needs clearly defined truths.

Therefore, in a legal sense, ijma has to mean something. It has to mean something definite, something that can be used. The most obvious way to extract meaning out of ijma is to say that you add together the consensus of the most eminent scholars and the general feeling of most the umma and call that "The Truth".

Of course, it may not really be the truth. It may not objectively be "The Truth". It's possible they were wrong. But in order to function on a day to day level we have to reach a working definition of what is generally considered to be "The Truth" at any one time.

The consensus of scholars would seem to be the most effective way of determining what is currently considered to be "The Truth".

But only for legal purposes. Remember legal purposes are different to metaphysical purposes or religious purposes or philosophical purposes. Legal purposes need to have something definite to attach to, even if it is only the temporary opinion of most scholars.

This may have flaws but it's the best we've got. You can't base law on vague metaphysical or religious discussions because they don't reach any firm conclusions.

So I think I'm pretty much agreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that I didn't mean what you said I meant.

2. I have stated why there is punishment for Zina numerous times in the previous posts. Some of which are public decency, STD's minimization, unwanted pregnancies, burden on the state etc.. read back you will find them.

Yes but I'm not talking about the punishment, I'm talking about the four witnesses. Forget about the punishments. What is the crime which requires four witnesses?

3. You state it is pointless because you think 4 witnesses are needed in all cases.... which is not true. 4 witness rule only applies if it is a third party launching the charges.

What charges? What crime did they commit that requires four witnesses to prove it? Can't be just straight adultery because there will never be four witnesses.

the husband/wife doesn't need 4 witnesses. if a woman is pregrant and not married, then that is proof.

Not necessarily. With the advent of things like artificial insemination and so on, pregnancy can be no longer taken as an prima facie indicator of extra-marital sex. I think most muslim countries take this view nowadays.

the 4 witness rule is a guideline, to prevent 3rd parties launching false charges and staining an honorable and pious woman's reputation.

It can't be a guideline for the reasons we've discussed in this thread:

- it's not a warning. We both agreed that the punishment sections of the relevant verses are the "warning" sections. Punishments are warnings, evidential standards are legal things.

- if the verse carries an evidential standard of four witnesses then there must be a crime to which this standard is attached.

- the crime can't be adultery because you will never get four witnesses and it can't be rape because you will never get four witnesses so it can only be public sex in a park.

- it has to mean something. It can't mean nothing. It's the word of God for God's sake. You reduce it's meaning to almost nothing while in Pakistan they extend it's meaning all the way up to rape.

- They may be going too far in one direction but if one goes in your direction then you have to believe that God gave us one short holy book packed to the brim with essential instructions and found time to make a really big deal over banning full sex in a public park in the middle of the day - possibly one of the least common "crimes" ever known to mankind.

- is it any surprise that some countries try to give it a bit more teeth and extend it to include much more serious crimes? God obviously thought it was pretty important - important enough to specifically ban anyway.

5. Dating is not allowed in Islam. I don't know where you got that from. There are some exceptions to that rule, but even then, your argument is flawed. Talking to a possible candidate is OK aslong as the girl is accompanied by a mahram, but if that mahram is going to turn a blind eye, then that is his problem, and it is between the parties involved not to get up to any frisky business. It is expected of the muslim believers, if they want to go against it, thats fine, its between them and God. a sincere muslim will not get physical

All this is great but there's a slight flaw. You keep saying "a muslim will do this, a muslim will do that..." as though all muslims are completely perfect human beings. As though they all obey these rules. Yes a muslim SHOULD behave appropriately but not all muslims are perfect.

Some may fall prey to temptation like anyone else. Allowing polygamy removes one very major obstacle to temptation. A western guy thinks..."Well, she's hot but I'm married so it's look but don't touch", a muslim guy thinks..."Well, she's hot but I'm married, but so what? I can date her (appropriately) for a month or two and then marry her and get my shag then.."

Islam removes the barrier - it makes married men have real designs on other women after they are married. Not just harmless fantasies - they really can go after that new woman in their lives and attempt to shag her. They just have to go through the boring formalities of wooing and marriage first.

And when they get bored with her, they can go look for another one - hey, they're allowed up to four. And if they keep divorcing them along the way so that they never go over the four mark they can pretty much never stop wooing all their married life.

Yes, a man is commanded to marry only one wife but he doesn't have to stop there if he doesn't want to. And the circumstances you refer to are that he has to spend equal amount of time with each wife and treat them all the same. As long as he thinks he can comply with these strictures then he is free to keep marrying and dating other women.

a sincere muslims doesn't go around oogling other women, it is against his faith, as God commanded to lower your gaze.

Yeah right and male muslims NEVER oogle women in real life. I know that you think Islam is great in theory but just doesn't get implemented properly but I think you also need to temper some of your views with reality checks every now and again.

[Mohsin]

Regards to all.

Banjo, before I could get into more discussions with you, can you please answer these question for me, real short real simple, what are you? I mean, you are not following any religion, that is evident and you yourself said that, so where do you fit yourself. Also, what do you think you will be in future?