Blasphemy law

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

I mean 2 people commiting to each other as partners in life. Not 3 or 5 or 7. Not including animals. Not something arranged. But two people who are in a loving, monogamous relationship. Companions in life. Soul mates. Family. I don't think one needs a civic or government sanctioned ceremony to formalize this status. It's between them and God.

So then how do you define and resolve the legalities and dependencies involved in a relationship, or is a relationship just about sharing the same bed and keep all other matters separate. With all due respect (and I am not saying this to have fun in the argument) this is how things in the wild live. Their relationships are loving as long as they last and then onto the next. There are no other complexities involved. Eat, sleep, live, fight and die.

And under what code should a person only love one person at a time? Why is it wrong to love two people?

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

I belong to the school of thought that most Muslims don’t understand or consider legitimate – scripture are stories and allegories illustrating how to live ethically and authentically in relation to God. I take into account the historical and cultural context in which it was originally written. Scriptural references to war, genocide, slavery, the marginalization of females and homosexuality are not necessarily about God's wishes, but are more about the prevailing cultural opinion at the time of the passages’ writing. In today’s world, the family unit does not necessarily reflect the family of 2000 years ago.

That makes me much less of a hypocrite than the Christians who say they follow the Gospel literally, as ½ of all marriages in the US end up in divorce. Jesus preached that marriage is permanent.

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

So then how do you define and resolve the legalities and dependencies involved in a relationship, or is a relationship just about sharing the same bed and keep all other matters separate. With all due respect (and I am not saying this to have fun in the argument) this is how things in the wild live. Their relationships are loving as long as they last and then onto the next. There are no other complexities involved. Eat, sleep, live, fight and die.

And under what code should a person only love one person at a time? Why is it wrong to love two people?

The same moral and ethical code they should live their entire life by.

Again - an official state sanctioned ceremony does not affect or change a relationship. The complexities that come with a relationship are the same whether the state recognizes you as married or 'domestic partner'.

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

The same moral and ethical code they should live their entire life by.

Again - an official state sanctioned ceremony does not affect or change a relationship. The complexities that come with a relationship are the same whether the state recognizes you as married or 'domestic partner'.

You did not answer my question. Why is it wrong to love more than one person at a time or support more than one person at a time?

[kaashee]

Re: Blasphemy law

No one agrees with everything about a system, that's why in a democracy, unlike in Islam, people can make changes. Freedom of speech and thought is cherised.

Musilms are welcome to practice their faith as they please, but the foundations and ideals on which western democracies were built are in deep/systematic conflict with these ideals. As you say, USResident, if they don't agree with the* basic* ideals of a society, they should leave the state and go to one which coincides with their beliefs or live under the privileges that the system provides.

Why shouldn't these radical ideals be "deemed dangerous to the national security and its existence and ideology or treason" as you say is the case when those who disagree with the fundamentals of an (imaginary) Islamic state are?

We are talking about advocting fundamental changes to societies where Islam has never had any influence -- changing centuries of established laws and culture with a religion and culture that not only has been proven to be unsuccessful, but imposes religious restrictions in a secular society.

i have yet to see a country, which follows the morals that this anti-salafi sees as amazing and wonderful, which doesnt harm its own people and people in neighbouring countries. Any country based on none other than islaam has posed a threat to every single other country. there is no trust through Allaah/God anywhere and yes, it is a shame that this quality is also dwindling in many muslim states.

Remember the apartheid systems in these countries. remember the death camps in communist russia, remember the "hidden jails" of the US. remember the countless breaches of human rights (basic and neccessary) like the right to pure clean water (for free) to all humans that arent even being inmposed in the states that i guess you want islaamic countries to take a good example from ("the west").

Boy, you need to understand that the salafiyyah are all for revolution, except in two ways, no bringing about innoated practivces in islaamic practice and no changes to the word of Allaah, cuz His words are best.

Although (as an example) the US claims to be democratic, remember the general knowledge of its people in the majority not even knowing where the eiffel tower is- Let alone the reason for our existence.

[kaashee]

Re: Blasphemy law

klkj

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

You did not answer my question. Why is it wrong to love more than one person at a time or support more than one person at a time?

Wow, how many directions can one thread go? It is my personal belief that adding additional people to a relationship is not healthy.

But I contend that anyone who advocates polygamy cannot justify why women cannot take more than one husband without quoting dated scripture that has nothing to do with the way life is lived today.

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

Wow, how many directions can one thread go? It is my personal belief that adding additional people to a relationship is not healthy.

But I contend that anyone who **advocates polygamy **cannot justify why women cannot take more than one husband without quoting dated scripture that has nothing to do with the way life is lived today.

Ah! There it is Semi. There is a difference between advocating something and encouraging something. Islam does not encourage polygamy, infact it encourages monogamy. Most people who argue against think that Islam encourages it and are often confusing advocating something does not mean necessarily to encourage it.

The reasons for Islam not permitting a woman having a polygamous marital relationship is based on only an Islamic society and its principles. If you are not muslim you probably cannot relate to it and I can see why you would make such a point but still there are problems even in non-muslim societies that could arise from this. Its really in your definition of morals what you choose to ignore and what not.

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

Its really in your definition of morals what you choose to ignore and what not.

Of couse it is. Unlike you, I don't think God, his prophets or those who wrote down their alleged every word (without error!) outlined every single action in life as moral, immoral, permitted or forbidden.

The Islamic society and its principles you refer to are based on the interpretation of the cultural and historical version of Islam that still exists today. It doesn't make it any more right or wrong then my defnition of morals, outside of the fact that I have thought through mine as an individual instead of going with the monolithic version that was created by those who decided how Islam was going to be practices centuries ago.

This Islamic society existed hundreds and hundreds of years ago. As Muslims move to non Islamic societies, they will eventually escape the historical version of Islam and then they will be on the same level where the Islamic reasons for polygamy don't apply anymore. But even then if they consider polygamy to still be a viable option (if one is widowed because of war or needs support from a spouse), they are as applicable for men as they are to women. Just like slavery, the minimization of women's roles in society, war and homosexuality are not treated the same any more.

That's the danger of treating a religion as a society or culture. It cannot exist unless it is the prevailing cultural norm of a society. Which brings me back to why those who preach wahabism as the form of governance for western countries don't belong in western countries. Let them have their "Islamic societies" in historically Muslim lands.

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

Of couse it is. Unlike you, I don't think God, his prophets or those who wrote down their alleged every word (without error!) outlined every single action in life as moral, immoral, permitted or forbidden.

The Islamic society and its principles you refer to are based on the interpretation of the cultural and historical version of Islam that still exists today. It doesn't make it any more right or wrong then my defnition of morals, outside of the fact that I have thought through mine as an individual instead of going with the monolithic version that was created by those who decided how Islam was going to be practices centuries ago.

This Islamic society existed hundreds and hundreds of years ago. As Muslims move to non Islamic societies, they will eventually escape the historical version of Islam and then they will be on the same level where the Islamic reasons for polygamy don't apply anymore. But even then if they consider polygamy to still be a viable option (if one is widowed because of war or needs support from a spouse), they are as applicable for men as they are to women. Just like slavery, the minimization of women's roles in society, war and homosexuality are not treated the same any more.

That's the danger of treating a religion as a society or culture. It cannot exist unless it is the prevailing cultural norm of a society. Which brings me back to why those who preach wahabism as the form of governance for western countries don't belong in western countries. Let them have their "Islamic societies" in historically Muslim lands.

Given your view there is no such thing as universal morals or timeless morals. Someday we might just condone killing if it becomes a cultural norm.

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

Of course there are universal and timeless morals. But times do change - for instance - slavery and sleeping with the women of conquered soldiers was once considered religiously acceptable. It no longer is. That is an example of a cultural norm that is outdated.

And I'm all for condoning killing as immoral - it always should have been considered as such - but unfortunately there are many who use religion to justify killing.

These are just a couple examples of how religious scripture are an example of the times they were written.

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

Of course there are universal and timeless morals. But times do change - for instance - slavery and sleeping with the women of conquered soldiers was once considered religiously acceptable. It no longer is. That is an example of a cultural norm that is outdated.

And I'm all for condoning killing as immoral - it always should have been considered as such - but unfortunately there are many who use religion to justify killing.

These are just a couple examples of how religious scripture are an example of the times they were written.

It is still religiously acceptable but not socially acceptable. It not being socially acceptable still does not violate religion and should not be a problem. It is things that are socially acceptable that violate religion where the problem lies.

[SlaveofAllaah]

Re: Blasphemy law

i have yet to see a country, which follows the morals that this anti-salafi sees as amazing and wonderful, which doesnt harm its own people and people in neighbouring countries. Any country based on none other than islaam has posed a threat to every single other country. there is no trust through Allaah/God anywhere and yes, it is a shame that this quality is also dwindling in many muslim states.

Remember the apartheid systems in these countries. remember the death camps in communist russia, remember the "hidden jails" of the US. remember the countless breaches of human rights (basic and neccessary) like the right to pure clean water (for free) to all humans that arent even being inmposed in the states that i guess you want islaamic countries to take a good example from ("the west").

Boy, you need to understand that the salafiyyah are all for revolution, except in two ways, no bringing about innoated practivces in islaamic practice and no changes to the word of Allaah, cuz His words are best.

Although (as an example) the US claims to be democratic, remember the general knowledge of its people in the majority not even knowing where the eiffel tower is- Let alone the reason for our existence.

Salamvalekum,

Well said.

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

It is still religiously acceptable but not socially acceptable. It not being socially acceptable still does not violate religion and should not be a problem. It is things that are socially acceptable that violate religion where the problem lies.

Huh? So socially unacceptable trumps religiously acceptable? Sounds like the cultural context of the scripture has changed, my very point.

So it "should not be a problem" to stone adulterers, mutilate, toruture or crucify prisoners, take slaves, execute apostates or have sex with women prisoners of war? Is this the Islamic society and its principles that as a non-muslim I probably cannot relate to? How anxious are you for the return of the Islamic state or will you continue to live in a country that affords modern interpretation to centuries old, culturally-obsolete religious practices?

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

i have yet to see a country, which follows the morals that this anti-salafi sees as amazing and wonderful, which doesnt harm its own people and people in neighbouring countries. Any country based on none other than islaam has posed a threat to every single other country. there is no trust through Allaah/God anywhere and yes, it is a shame that this quality is also dwindling in many muslim states.

The most expansionist period in Islamic history was during the genertaions this movement tries to emulate. So they are going to eat with three fingers but not follow their expansionist ideology?

[quote]
Remember the apartheid systems in these countries. remember the death camps in communist russia, remember the "hidden jails" of the US. remember the countless breaches of human rights (basic and neccessary) like the right to pure clean water (for free) to all humans that arent even being inmposed in the states that i guess you want islaamic countries to take a good example from ("the west").
[/quote]
Fine, don't take your example from the west, but find a way to save Muslims from secret Muslim jails, provide them with education and clean water, save them from genocide from other Muslims. And good luck implementing a 1400 culturally obsolete system in doing it.

[quote]
Boy, you need to understand that the salafiyyah are all for revolution, except in two ways, no bringing about innoated practivces in islaamic practice and no changes to the word of Allaah, cuz His words are best.
[/quote]
Sorry, but going back to the way things were 1400 years ago isn't revolutionary, it's tradionalist and quite the opposite.

[quote]
Although (as an example) the US claims to be democratic, remember the general knowledge of its people in the majority not even knowing where the eiffel tower is- Let alone the reason for our existence.
[/quote]
And remember, however dumb you want to make out the US population to be, it is several tiers above the education and general knowledge in Muslim socieites - yes, even in the ones who want to live life like it was 1400 years ago.

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

Huh? So socially unacceptable trumps religiously acceptable? Sounds like the cultural context of the scripture has changed, my very point.

Nothing has changed. If a socially acceptable practice does not violate a religious injunction, then there should be no harm abandoning it. What we cannot do is outlaw it in the religion. Its not about social versus religious, its about what is permissible in religion and what is forbidden. Everything that is permissible in religion does not need to be practiced at the cost of subjecting oneself to social harm when he is not violating the religion.

So it "should not be a problem" to stone adulterers, mutilate, toruture or crucify prisoners, take slaves, execute apostates or have sex with women prisoners of war? Is this the Islamic society and its principles that as a non-muslim I probably cannot relate to? How anxious are you for the return of the Islamic state or will you continue to live in a country that affords modern interpretation to centuries old, culturally-obsolete religious practices?

You did not understand my point. Let me give brief explanations of my views about the things you stated within the context of our discussion:

1 - Stoning adulterers - This is a controversial subject. Most people who think that ahadith are etched in stone revelations will argue that stoning is indeed prescribed, my opinion is different on this. The punishment is flogging. Now this is not an issue of permissibility, it is a punishment for a crime from the Islamic POV. The methods used to prove this crime can be changed in my opinion from what was the best practice back then. I know it appears barbaric to flog but then what good is a punishment if it does not deter a crime. This is one thing where many traditional muslims will disagree with me however I think a muslim ruler can replace this punishment with something else if the need arises or he is justified in doing so. There are precedents in Islam for such things. One precedent I see in todays world is muslims first need to reform their character according to Islam before being subject to its punishments. Having an institution metting out Islamic punishments will not help reform their character according to Islam.

2 - Mutilate (you probably mean Amputate) - My views on this are the same as what I have for flogging as stated in the before mentioned point.

3 - Torture or crucify prisoners - This is not Islamic or permissible in religion, ofcourse there are exceptions.

4 - Take slaves - It is permissible but not encouraged. It definitely was practiced back then and was socially acceptable. This is the equivalent of POWs today. I think you can put POWs to good use even today. If you fight against someone and get caught, then you are at their clemency and in fact in Islam slaves are treated with the same status of family members. So the negative connotation slavery has to it today is not how it was back then with muslims. POWs today are used to negotiate as they were even back then.

5 - Execute apostates - This is another controversial issue and I believe I have discussed this with you before yet you keep bringing it up.

6 - Sex with women slaves - Again this was socially acceptable back then and religiously permitted. You could not however force yourself on a woman slave. It is not socially acepptable today and I see nothing against it if people do not indulge in it. Again there is nothing wrong with a person living according to societal norms as long as they are not violating his religion. If muslims do not take slaves today they will not be violating religion.

Semi you should understand just because something is permissible does not mean it must happen. There is always a balance. Those who do not understand this balance are the ones who end up extremists.

[hypnotix-2000]

Re: Blasphemy law

Salam bro USR. You were going the right way initially by pointing out flogging as prescribed in the Quran, and not stoning. However: "There are precedents in Islam for such things" and "There are precedents in Muslim History for such things" have different connotation. I'd opt for the second, since it re-inforces that the ruling in the Quran is the one etched in stone, not the ruling of a certain king or scholar...

[Seminole]

Re: Blasphemy law

You did not understand my point. Let me give brief explanations of my views about the things you stated within the context of our discussion

My point is these are your views, not necessarily the views of any future "Islamic state". Mutilation (or amputation), crucifiction, stoning, torturing, executing apostates are all things that can be found in Islamic literature that any future shariah law could possibly implement (your individual opinion notwithstanding.) Just look at the societies that are closest to implementing shariah law today - not too encouraging.

As far as your tacit approval of sex with slaves and slavery itself... it's too bad you try to justify these things which are obviously wrong and will continue to be wrong for the remainder of history. For what reason do we have to say it is still religiously acceptable? To continue the belief that Islam is perfect and nothing that was ever practiced could possibly have been wrong? Can't we just say it was acceptable for its time? Can some Islamic jury come together and issue fatwas that are meaningful - like slavery is no longer permissable and neither is taking the women of your enemies as sex slaves?

All of these things are not socially accepted for a reason - they are wrong by today's standards. Maybe they weren't in the barbaric days of 7th century Arabia, but today they are wrong, plain and simple.

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

@hypnotix-2000

Salam bro USR. You were going the right way initially by pointing out flogging as prescribed in the Quran, and not stoning. However: “There are precedents in Islam for such things” and “There are precedents in Muslim History for such things” have different connotation. I’d opt for the second, since it re-inforces that the ruling in the Quran is the one etched in stone, not the ruling of a certain king or scholar…

Bro

What I am alluding to here is when Umar RA suspended the punishment of amputation for the thief during the famine. This sets a precedent that when muslims rulers have a very good reason they can suspend or even replace Islamic hudood. If the effect of a hud is not what it should be or it is not justified given the situation then it need not be applied. I hope you understand what I meant now.

[USResident]

Re: Blasphemy law

@Seminole

My point is these are your views, not necessarily the views of any future "Islamic state". Mutilation (or amputation), crucifiction, stoning, torturing, executing apostates are all things that can be found in Islamic literature that any future shariah law could possibly implement (your individual opinion notwithstanding.) Just look at the societies that are closest to implementing shariah law today - not too encouraging.

As far as your tacit approval of sex with slaves and slavery itself... it's too bad you try to justify these things which are obviously wrong and will continue to be wrong for the remainder of history. For what reason do we have to say it is still religiously acceptable? To continue the belief that Islam is perfect and nothing that was ever practiced could possibly have been wrong? Can't we just say it was acceptable for its time? Can some Islamic jury come together and issue fatwas that are meaningful - like slavery is no longer permissable and neither is taking the women of your enemies as sex slaves?

All of these things are not socially accepted for a reason - they are wrong by today's standards. Maybe they weren't in the barbaric days of 7th century Arabia, but today they are wrong, plain and simple.

Semi, you keep missing what I am saying or you just don't want to understand and you really don't have to either. Islam does not say go do this and go that that as you are assuming. None of the things you are reacting to are commandments in Islam. When I say religiously acceptable what I mean is they will not earn you sin. I and no one else on earth is capable of or responsible for putting sins on our records or taking them away. Only God can do that. So in short we muslims cannot play God and say this is forbidden in the sense that it is sinful to do it. When something becomes socially unacceptable, there is no need to abandon it, it is already abandoned. Things only become socially unacceptable when they are deemed harmful to the society given the present day setup.

If you choose to live in a Shariah law then you should know what you should not be doing. I am not trying to justify anything here. I have presented things in a balanced view, you just want to win the argument. I am not forcing my set of values upon you but you seem to be forcing yours upon me and want me to change to your opinion. See having slaves, captives, executing punishments does not bring you closer to God. And as for the sex salves, you are talking as if Islam says you can have slaves for the sole purpose of sex, that is absolutely wrong. Islam permits sex with a slave should the slave be willing to (concensus of grown adults as you believe). There is no such thing as sex slave in Islam. Islam does not permit that you take captives so you can have sex with them.

You cannot prove to me anything is wrong by todays standards. Its all relative. Even by todays standards of muslims there is a lot of things wrong in the west, will you accept that and ask for it to be outlawed. You want to live and let live and then ask us to change ourselves so we can please your POV.