American Student goes to Palestine to help only to find out the truth

Only under full Islamic law (Sharia). Which no country currently has so your question is irrelevant but I will answer anyway. Stoning is harsh, it isn't the punishment I would nessicarily chose myself but what can ya do eh, it's keeping society in check. You should take a look at the crime rates in Muslim countries compared to western countries, something like only 7 murders a year and that isn't even with full sharia law!

 

Does that include the number of innocents killed by terrorists in those countries? I guess when you have a different definition of murder, it is easier to classify murders differently.

 

You can always count on Mia to come out with a childish reply!

 

Please don't dance wildly. Please answer directly a direct question put to you.

This isn't "Sharia," exclusive of Hadith. This is Hadith itself. You have indicated that everything - Qu'ran, Hadith, and Sharia - are to be taken literally. I am asking you a direct question. Since it is explicitly prescribed in Hadith, is it to be carried out? To put it another way, since everything is to be taken literally, to choose any other path but stoning to death "offending" adulterers and apostates - is this itself heresy?

If you feel I am putting you on the spot, I am. You have insisted on many things that don't seem logical to me. Because the consequences we are talking about center on the very heart of human justice, in my mind - life and death - this all goes to the very heart of the matter, to me. None of us - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - should shrink from dealing squarely with each other on these fundamental issues.

 

You have quoted Hadith which may not be authentic.

See, Islam is very complex when you want to delve into details...

There are 4 main schools of thought in Sunni Islam,
1. Hanafi
2. Shafi
3. Hambali
4. Maliki

These 4 scholars have compiled thousands of Hadith, of sayings of the prophet, many decades after the Prophet passed away. Most of these scholars were rivals.

I subscribe to Hanafi School f thought. So, most of the hadith you've mentioned may not be genuine.

Shia Islam had its own scholars, and its hadiths. I am not familiar with them.

Most of the hadith are same in all the different groups, but there are some of them which are disputed.

So, I don't believe this "stoning to death" hadiths come from any authentic hadith.

One more thing, I have heard about hadith that talk about people changing their faith from Islam. But is is given in a very different context, of people in those times who cheated the prophet, and betrayed him. That is why it was ordered to remove these people from our midst.

But I am not sure of what is said of people who consciously want to change their religion from Islam. It is left to the interpretation of laws by Muslim judges.

 

Well, two things.

The first is that the Hadith I quoted is from the Sahih Muslim, collected from Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj. As I understand it, this Hadith, translated as "Muslim's authentic collection" (correct?) is one of the 6 major Hadiths of Sunni Islam, and the second most widely used. But I would be hard pressed to consider these heresy, as they are as widely used as they are. Additionally, I have also quoted from the Bukhari Hadith, which as I understand it is the "most trusted" Hadith among a majority of Muslims. This, from the Bukhari Hadith:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html

Stoning in Muslim Hadith, kill by unspecified means, in Bukhari Hadith. Either way - kill a Muslim who changes his mind, this is your belief?

The second is that though he has yet to answer (again, strangely quiet on the subject), Grab doesn't dispute the authenticity for apostate killing, while you appear, like Grab when it came to the killing of "unbelievers," to cloak the prescription in historical context. I have a problem, in any religion, with declaiming that texts are to be taken literally, except when they are not and are to be abandoned to "context" as personal tastes suit. Literal, or not literal. There is no hybrid. As I have said from the beginning.

 

Executing people for choosing whom to make love to -- that's not acceptable.

That's not a world view with which I am willing to co-exist.

 

Muslims are forbidden from changing their religion.
Allow me to tell you the reasons for this...

It was because of a large tribe in Medina, who accepted Islam. But, during one of the battles, reverted back to paganism, and attacked their own fellow brohers-in-arms. It was a terrible blow.

The Prophet was very angry by this betrayal. These were people in whom he had put so much rust. But due to this betrayal, hundreds of Muslims lost their lives in battle.

And that is when God, through Angel Gabriel, commanded that these untrustworthy people be removed from the face of the earth.

That is why you find such verses in the hadith. It is forbidden to change your religion away from Islam.

In today's world, if the person is from an Islamic country, then the punishment would depend upon the interpretation of laws by the Judge..

 

What are you trying to say?

What's the crime of these people?

Making love?

Or is it ADULTERY? Having an illegitimate affair outside marriage?

 

That homosexuality is not a reason to justify murder..

 

Gauharjk, I understood your original post.

Grab has said that historical context is irrelevant - if you'll review his posts to Grim, for instance, you'll see that he said irrespective of context, everything - Qu'ran, Hadith, Sharia - is to be taken literally.

The hadith says apostates are to be killed. Hence, if taken literally, as Grab says Muslims are to do, people who leave Islam are to be killed. There is no equivocation on the subject, no historical context to mitigate the understanding. Yesterday, today, and forever more - kill apostates, kill adulterers.

Grab has grown strangely quiet on the subject - this, despite demanding an instant reply to things he has raised (see Post 321). No answer to this quandary, no answer to whether the hangings shown above are clerical or civil in nature, despite evidence supporting the very view you indicate - that these are based on Shia Sharia, in Iran, and not civil jurisprudence.

You asked me to respond to Gtech's posts, and I did. I now ask for a sincere and direct answer, to a direct question. Are your texts to be taken literally, or not? Do we have a bridge between us, or an impasse?

 

I just want to point out this is the type of discussion I like, especially when it comes to religion. Being truthful and honest, NOT taking things out of context, butchering phrases only to spread your hatred of those who do not believe as you do.

Excellent job Northpoint, I hope those who are muslim take this as an opportunity without fighting to explain your faith. Maybe some of those reading who are unsure, who normally would take the anti muslim answers will understand a bit better if you rationally explain your faith.

All religions have things in them that can be taken badly, to say other wise is simply illogical. Such as Northpoint has stated, you can not have both ways. Just as Christians try to claim the 'old testament' 'parable' etc, just be honest. Times change as to religious views and how people follow them.

 

Agreed, this is extreme. By the way which country was this hanging done at? Human beings should have the right to worship any religion they chose unless they physically harm a person because of it. Where i come from religious faith is a choice not something that can be forced upon someone at sword point.

 

Iran i believe.

 

This is why i have always believed in separation of church and state. When i see this im so glad that im living in a country that allows for freedom of worship. Imagine if america lived by the same extremism that these other countries had under them. No muslim would be able to worship at all in america if this were the case. Im catholic and if someone told me that i couldnt worship in my faith i would be going nuts. Believe it or not both syria and pre war iraq treated each religious sect with respect. bashar assad of syria i heard worships in both a mosque and a church, but he is from a different sect of islam which i believe allows this.

 

It's disappointing to me that while Grab demanded an instant reply to posts he has made, and in PM Gauharjk "insisted" I reply to Gtech's post, both have before them, I think, a very clear dialogue in place, yet have apparently chosen to fly the coop.

Gentlemen, if either of you come back to this, I remain available at anytime to deal with the questions at hand.

 

Murder is forbidden by the koran.

Innocents killed by terrorists is Jihad and is not murder.

 

What about honor killings.

Is the killing of a unmarried female family member justified if it is discovered that she is engaging in sexual intercourse? Is that murder?

 

Correct, you are learning well!

 

You are a good teacher