Either Jesus knew what he was talking about or he did not. Did he at any point say the OT is wrong?
Either Jesus knew what he was talking about or he did not. Did he at any point say the OT is wrong?
No, but he did say that if the people truly followed Abraham, they would've followed him....
39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God"
There are quite regular imams in operation, as I expect you know. Does the kitchen boy have the right to command fatwas and issue law for the community of believers? That strikes me as an even more unbelievably dangerous than the former.
I fiqhing hope so.
I also find that to be an incredibly dangerous proposition. But, as ye will.
OMG - did I just read correctly? Did ,, did .. did you ... just ... now *dare I say* .. ANSWER a direct question?!?!?!?!?
Shoooo woman - - now I needs me a chicken-potpie and a beer!!
Michael
So, on topic, is it ever justifiable to kill someone?
If it is justifiable - under what circumstances is it acceptable?
(I should expect that, if it is as you have previously claimed, that the Qur'an should readily provide this answer.)
PS: My paper was accepted
Does any imam?
I'm sure you've thought it through, the way you do everything else.
OMG - did I just read correctly? Did ,, did .. did you ... just ... now *dare I say* .. ANSWER a direct question?!?!?!?!?
Shoooo woman - - now I needs me a chicken-potpie and a beer!!
Michael
So, on topic, is it ever justifiable to kill someone?
If it is justifiable - under what circumstances is it acceptable?
(I should expect that, if it is as you have previously claimed, that the Qur'an should readily provide this answer.)
PS: My paper was accepted
Under Islamic law, only under circumstances of murder or terrorism may a legal authority pronounce the death sentence. But forgiveness and compensation should be tried first.
I will have to say I have never had a near and dear one brutally murdered or killed in a terrorist attack. I hope I can be magnanimous, but I most likely would prefer to see the SOBs hang.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gee, I've no idea. I guess they never make any pronouncements to the press, or commandments to the faithful. Like that Imam in Australia.
Ad hominems all around! :bravo: Do ye be harsh with the unbeliever - let them find harshness in you! I'm sure I read that somewhere. But no abuse, or I swear, we're turning this pilgrimage right around.
Now I do apologize if I've seemed harsh; yet, my points are quite real. Handing punishment over to the whim of a victim's family strikes me as an opportunity for abuse.
PS: My paper was accepted
Nice! What was it on? You can just PM if you want, no need to put details on the thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah and how all the Muslims rally around them, umm, right?
You mean holding yourself personally responsible for someones punishment is likely to make you a bad person? Remember, most of them opt for the monetary compensation, which means very few people even go to prison.
Oh! and apostacy. That one too. But is that considered under the umbrella of terrorism or murder? Has one killed the self by rejecting islam, or does one threaten the state by rejecting islam?
I think you'd have to show how much of it is actually carried out; in my opinion, the apostacy charges are usually secondary to other grievances.
Well, umm, 5000 did come to a rally of his. Maybe he was holding a bake sale and they all came for the shiskabob. But you're right; no one ever listens to an imam. That's why he's there to give sermons, for the express purpose of not being listened to. Mosques are of course led by the direct hand of God himself. I mean, he controls all the particles and everything.
The penalties for a given crime should be standard, not subject to the whim of second parties. 'Blood money' is a ridiculous concept, and a Wahhabi favourite, I'm given to understand - how much shall we pay for this man? Half for his wife? A quarter for his child? Nothing for the kufr? Such is the roll of blood money. And should not murderers be put in jail? Might they not kill again? How is that a good idea, societally?
"Religious crime" is indeed punished, sam. People are charged, go to prison, lose jobs, lose lives. It has not the slightest relevance to whether the charges are secondary; the motivation is disbelief and a hadith that some people like to pretend doesn't exist. It is repugnant in the extreme that you would defend this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boy you do like to spread misinformation don't you? You should apply for a job at robertspencer.com.
They come to the mosque to pray. If they were massing at his house, you'd have a point.
Standard? Like in Western society? Where prisons are overflowing and people arm themselves, lock their doors and fear for their children?
So you don't believe in forgiveness then?
And the imam does nothing. Says nothing. Has no opinion to share with his mosque's congregation. When the Brits talk about "training imams", they're just being silly because no one derives their opinions about matters from imams. That guy in Australia? The titular "head of the mosque"? He's just a janitor. No power. No influence. The 5000 people who came to his rally were just lost.
I thank you for your kind compliment; Spencer seems capable of more logical consideration than...some people. But not imams, apparently, because imams don't think, or express opinions.
Tu quoque, and not very good tu quoque, either. Religious minorities live in terror all across the islamic world. Women live in terror too; there are thousands of "honour killings" (which are done apparently to prove one has no honour) all across Pakistan every year. Homosexuals fear exposure for they, along with apostates and wayward women, might well be killed, and quite legally too. I suppose the advantage in those situations is that there's no need to lock your doors; if the state wants you imprisoned or dead, well, what can one do? But if you're saying that overflowing prisons are a problem in the West, I might agree with you. We have freedoms, but they must be protected. We are not, after all, a homogenous community of common believers, but a free society where not everyone gets along. As to the prisons: if they are overflowing it is very unfortunate. Socialism is the answer, but no one wants to be convinced of that. Eradicate the need for the crime.
My word: I had no idea you were so willfully naive. They came to a rally for him, in support of his public comments, including the "cat meat" one. I suppose you think groupings of people otherwise occur in some random Brownian way.
Of course; and punishment.
Last edited by a moderator:
The imam does his job, his job is to provide the prayer guidelines
He can sermonise or not, its not required. There are ijtema/majlis for that, most imams provide khutbas on Friday and these usually deal with something happening in society and their viewpoint on it; all imams are not required to share the same viewpoint, but all are free to express theirs.
Also khutbas can be provided by anyone, not necessarily just the imam
There is more paranoia among Americans than any other people in the world.
Yawn. I know a lot of Muslim men; I've been involved in Muslim committees and societies. Forgive me if I say that I am aware to a greater degree of what Muslim thought and practice is; even in Saudi Arabia, hardly anyone pays attention to the sermons or you wouldn't need the muttawwas; politics is more popular than social rules and regulations, but even that is regulated in mosques, you'll find more discussion at the tea sessions and in the marketplace.
Amazing, and people having no say it, governments should be free to decide on their own; that should take care of justice served. In India, we abolished the jury system because juries are not accountable; you understand that if you select a punishment and are later proved wrong you are accountable and you can be held accountable by the criminal or his family
Perhaps Zak could add the perspective in England; I'd be interested to know how it differs from the Middle East.
Last edited by a moderator:
hi Sam,
thank you for asking my perspective from england,it may not be the general mulsim perspective of imams in England though.
Basically whenever i go to the mosque and that is usually only on a friday or a maybe Saturday or sunday eveniing prayers, its only friday where their is any sort of sermon.
A few years back i used to go to langley green mosque in crawley, its now quite a famous mosque, not becuase of its grandness or anything but because of those Pesticide bombers who got caught with pesticides. but anyway, i actually could not udnerrstnad the sermon on Friday as the imam was talking in what i image was Urdu. that is why i dont go their anymore cos, i find it quite insulting that the imam could not or did not want to do his sermon in English.
Now i go to the other mosque in Crawley called the broadfield mosque, i have heard the sermons as they sometimes sepak them in English, but to be hionest they bore me to tears and the imams usually lack any sort of charisma.
What we need to be more careful of is the little groups which get to ether after the main prayer to discuss religion in more "detail", and then of course they talk politics intertwined.
Its very strang e as these little groups dont get together after the prayers in Mauritius, or when i went to Tuisia or Egypt.
However i can understand that an imam who preaches controversal things will ahve an audience, espiciallly from the 18-25 yr olds who ahve their brains in their backsides.
Anyway thats about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak
Essentially exactly what I was saying. Thankyou for trolling that one out as long as you could.
Oh, really? Are they executing people who convert away from Christianity or Judaism? That would seem to be the height of paranoia to me. I asked a related question to DH once: "what would you do if all Pakistan became Christian? What would it matter?" His response, as I recall, was something to the tune of "well, I would fight it, because it wouldn't be Pakistan any more". That, Samwise, is the height of paranoia and xenophobia. Not because he thought the eeeevil unbelievers would wreck things and destroy lives, but because they would be different. Great. Next.
Yawn. Religious minorities are regularly rounded up and thrown in jail even when their worship is kept out of the public eye. That's not something that can be ameliorated with a little tea and some sitting around by people who obviously couldn't care less what happens to unbelievers. Unless you think their lofty talk will set free those people, make islamic society fair?
That's great, but I think that the perspective of guilt or innocence is best determined by a committee rather than a single judge, and that punishment should be standardized within reasonable margins. Your jury issue isn't related to standardized punishment. It is far easier for a single judge to be corrupted than 12 men and women, "fair and true". (Or whatever it is that's said about that.) The "people's say" comes at election time. Let's use an example: I'll keep it direct so that you can follow along.
Take the case of Ahmad al-Fiction. Now, Ahmad can be a tempermental sort of fellow; he's opinionated and doesn't always get along with his dad and the rest of his family. He disagrees with some of them, and some of them with him. Now let's add Naseem al-Fiction. The fard of her father's eye, she is sweet and never has personal issues with anyone, because she has the intellectual consistency of tissue paper. Both these individuals, sadly, are brutally killed one day when someone plants a shiskabomb in their knapsacks. The culprit - a fellow named Levi al-Yahood, naturally - is duly found by the relevant authorities and confesses after some time to reflect on the nature of splinters under the fingernails and the generally comfortable conditions of prison in the islamic world. Now: which of these two murdered people is worth more to their family? The man, for being a man? The woman, because she's not such a dick? How much blood money (and, I can't believe I'm actually arguing this with another human capable of typing and thinky-style ponderings; completely unbelievable) is each worth?
Or, as human beings first and foremost, are they, just perhaps, each worth the same and not in mere dollar amounts? It is the height of absurdity to endlessly proclaim "No blood for oil!" (something which I have done) and then turn around and say "But money for blood? That's ok."
Insane.
:crazy:
They have juries. I'm from there, as you may recall. No blood money. We sort of gave that up when we decided to stop "viking" around.
No, its not, but you wouldn't get it.
No they have merely been killing people wholesale for the last 200+ years, essentially those who belonged to ethnic or religious minorities. In fact they are still doing it, however, even when THEY say, God is with us, its not a religious thing.
I believe this is the case with all religious minorities even in the West; i.e. they are over represented in prisons, however being Muslims/Hispanic Catholics/blacks they are not significant.
Really? You mean people are safer in the US, with lower crime rates and greater confidence in the justice system?
After all, what better criteria for a legal system than that it WORKS?
I think they would opt for a death sentence. I would. As would colonel Yahtzee in the US or Levi Strauss in Israel, if al-Yahood was called Mohammed Osama. The thing about "confessions" being of course that no evidence is required . /sarcasm
The blood money would be more if a man was killed, because he would be supporting a family; in the case of a dead girl, most would opt for a death sentence (IMO).
However, being as this was a terrorist attack and not a personal one, they would not be asked, it would be upto a committee to decide the fate of the man.
In that case, one can also say, I forgive and walk away. However being that most criminals are men and support families (marriage still being in fashion among Muslims), a practical woman with low financial expectations would opt for enough money for self/child support over a period of time, since a dead killer would be of no personal benefit besides revenge.
No merely if thought emotionally not logically.
That explains why they have NATO in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq. Not to mention insanely high prison populations, domestic abuse, and crime rates.
Last edited:
Thank you Zak, that sounds similar to what I heard from Egyptians, Saudis, Morroccans, Tunisians, Syrians and Sudanese guys
Dear geoff,
i hope you are well.
I think Sam just asked me to give a perspective of what a muslim guy thought about sermons preached by imams in Mosques.
the real problem i have with some imams in england is the ones who come from a little village in apkistan and start preaching there small minded approach here in england and dont actually open their eyes to what is happening around them, i n terms of soecity and change.
But thanks for brushing my opinions to one side anyway, well at least i now know and it has been confirmed that you are from the UK after 18 months of being on these forums.
~~~~~~~~~~
Take it ez
zak
He is in the US, actually