Nigerian State Says Miss World Reporter Should Die

Society Religion & Philosophy
61

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *

Blasphemy against God's Name, for example, is punishable by being stoned to death according to the Old Testament.

[/quote]
I agree that the Old Testament is full of outdated punishments for things that are no longer crimes. I only talk of what Jesus preached.

[quote]

According to some interpretations, the excommunication of the blasphemer was substituted as a punishment for the death penalty. But that doesn't negate the fact that stoning was once the law according to the Bible.
[/quote]
Stoning is a fine example of what once used to be accepted practice. Times change, laws change, man evolves (hopefully), societies evolves. That's what is wrong with basing law on 2000 year old scriptures that don't change. Laws and rules that applied to nomadic sherp herders wandering through the desert 2000 years ago do not necessarily apply to newspaper columnists today.

[quote]
In fact, as per the New Testament, Jesus himself was killed for what others understood to be blasphemy (God forbid!!). The high priest, elders and scribes agreed that he should be put to death on that basis (Matt. 26:65-66).
[/quote]
Those were Jews and Romans that implemented that sentence. Jesus was a sacrifice to change those barbaric practices that he endured.

[quote]
Jesus didn't reply by saying that the death sentence no longer applies to blasphemy and so the priests should choose another form of punishment.
[/quote]
Jesus was killed for challenging the establishment. Christians believe he died willingly for man's sins (which did not include the "blasphemy is permissable" defense.)
[quote]
In fact, with the exception of some dietary laws, Jesus abrogated little or nothing from the OT.

[/QUOTE]
Most Christians would disagree. They believe that Christ represents the new convenant.

62

Faisal: How does Adultery affect public decency? There are other places that regulate prostitution and have no bearing on their societal norms. Netherlands for example. Also there is no correlation between Adultery and prostitution. Another difference is that in prostitution money is provided for services rendered. Adultery is more an affair of the heart or carnal desire. If monies were exchanged for service it would be prostitution.

Now let's look at the punishment. In a male dominated world of the 7th century arabia, the punishment of stoning or fleecing or whatever is gravely against the woman. Also let's look at extrapolation of this. Rapes under islamic law are treated as adultery. (some resident scholar can correct me on this). The onus is on the woman to provide four witnesses or something like that. This can only mean two things. Either the rapes that occured usually had three guys in the gallery or the woman is lying everytime (his word against hers) And we all know how the male jury would decide.

Adultery was a crime in the 7th century. The punishments were draconian and were for the 7th century life in the desert. It has no place or bearing in year 2002. The same goes for the awefulness of blasphemy laws or the idiocy of the Islamic banking system. God has given us a brain to use it not blindly follow what we "perceive" to be divine judgement.

The situation in Nigeria is a perfect example of this. No matter how much people can try to justify the fatwas or the judgement. It is simply a clear cut case of anachronism.

63

Chaltahai,

First decide what are we discussing.

  1. Are we talking about the rightful punishment for blasphemy? And what is our opinion on the recent events in Nigeria.

  2. Are we talking about why or why not adultery is prohibited in Islam (and in all divine religions)?

  3. Or are we talking about whether Islamic (and by inference all divine faith-based religions judaism and christianity included) have prohibitions which are out-dated and need to be either revised or discarded in the present time?

If its #1, then so far I have not read in this thread a satisfactory answer that this is punishable by death. I may be wrong though. So, at this point, I consider it an issue which is mis-represented by the folks in Nigeria for their own reasons.

If its #2, then it is not related to this thread. If its #3, then again its an extention of the discussion, but it is a huge topic in itself. You might want to start a different discussion to get more responses. I can also add my two cents in such discussions.

64

faisal which undivinly religen allows adultery? laws may be milder
or simply both couple may divorce thus humanly handling
children's welfare.
there are non-muslims who dont drink alchol or comiit adultery
and there are muslim do both. so dont generalise and think you have monopoly over morality.

65

Keeping aside the fatwa, the author was in fact one of the reasons of the riots that followed, which have resulted in more than 100 deaths. Nigeria, although an Islamic country officially, but the proportion of muslims and non-muslims are almost equal there, and it shows that how much the writer was indifferent to the sentiments of muslims living there.

66

Iqbal,

The verses of Surah Taubah talk about the hypocrites, and mentions that they are two folded in their beliefs & stress on the fact that Allah is all knowing of what's in their hearts. Yet, no punishment is prescribed for them other than what Allah has in stored for them in this life & after. No individual or state has been sanctioned to act against them on grounds of their hypocrisy. The article proves from the verses that those who claim to be Muslims but slander the Holy prophet are hypocrites (quiet true) & as they are not among the believers, so they must be the disbelievers. But goes on further & stretch out the point that they should be punished, which is nothing more than a leap in the author's imagination. As according to the sunnah of the Holy prophet, not a single person was prosecuted in his time for being a "so called Muslim" or a "hypocrite". Even though the hypocrites of his time use to slander & conspire against him often & relatively openly. They were the ones who didn't join Badr, were the first to run from Uhud & went as far as to slandering against Hazrat Ayisha. Yet the history is evident that AnHazoor (saw) never took any action against them either personally or as a group. Only a mosque which they used as the center for conspiracy was pulled down, which in turn made the hypocrites come pray & be with the believers. Even that was done after AnHazoor (saw) received a revelation from Allah.

The Hadiths that the article mentions are open to debate not only on the context they are taken but also on their authenticity.

To say that the Holy Prophet forgave "some" is a gross understatement. His forgiveness of the transgressors from the time in Mecca or Medina is so profound & enormous that one cannot glance away from it (like the article did in order to prove their point). From the trash throwing evil tongued Meccans to the envious ill mannered tribes of Medina, he never took avenge of what was said or done against him personally. One of the incidents recorded in Sahih Muslim point out that even after the Fall of Mecca, a man named Dhu'l Khuwaisire openly called him (Naozobillah min zaliq) unjust & corrupt in distributing the booty because he was unhappy with his share, to which the Sahaba's blood boiled but AnHazoor (saw) calmed them down & only replied that he had done it according to what he thought was a just treatment to all. Here is the ruler of Mecca & Medina, who has just won a major battle, with followers who would die for him ... yet he is so humble & forgiving.

[quote]
the web page does go on to say that the Prophet (s) forgave some of those who insulted him but that after his death his forgiveness is no longer possible and therefore the penalty has to be applied to everyone.
[/quote]

If the above argument of their's should be taken true than it will shake the very fundamentals on which the Islamic jurisprudence is founded. That will mean after the death of the Holy Prophet everything is fair game, which is totally unacceptable.

Anyway, It's very common for followers of a religion to boil & burn when their beliefs are offended & if they are in power they can prescribe a punishment that they may chose to do so. The problem comes when they pull the trigger putting the gun on the shoulders of Muhammad Rasol'Allah! In my opinion, their twisting & turning the facts to come up with justification of their killing in the name of Allah is far more blasphemous & if they truly believe in their jurisprudence than they should gladly commit suicide.

67

Seminole,

I understand your point of view on the old testament & how from a Christian point of view Jesus’s (may peace & blessings of God be upon him) interpretation abrogates all that were done before him. But canon law or the law of church which supposedly was inspired by the teachings of Jesus does not spare the life of the blasphemer either.

They go on as far as punishing those who deny “the savior” or fail to recognize the “holy trinity” or consider someone else as their provider than God. Which in simple terms makes everyone punishable who is not a Christian & in medieval times such practices were quiet common & usually death was the sentence.

The laws in a Christian domain are at times inspired by Old testament, at others by the teachings of Jesus but mostly from the apostles who are considered to be divinely guided. Which is not very different from many jurisprudence practices in the main stream Islam these days which rely mainly on Maulanas, Sheikhs & Mullahs of present or past centuries.

Even in a secular state, such as United States; Blasphemy had penalties:

The United States once had many penal statutes against blasphemy, which were declared constitutional as not subversive of the freedom of speech or liberty of the press (Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. IV, 582). In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that “Christianity being recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures are punishable at Common Law”, Accordingly where one uttered the following words “Jesus Christ was a ******* and his mother was a *****”, it was held to be a public offence, punishable by the common law. The defendant found guilty by the court of common pleas of the blasphemy above quoted was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars. Source

68

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *

The article proves from the verses that those who claim to be Muslims but slander the Holy prophet are hypocrites (quiet true) & as they are not among the believers, so they must be the disbelievers. But goes on further & stretch out the point that they should be punished, which is nothing more than a leap in the author's imagination.
[/quote]

The point is that Muslims who do this have apostated and so the rule of apostacy is applied - but i guess that's another debate.

[quote]
To say that the Holy Prophet forgave "some" is a gross understatement. His forgiveness of the transgressors from the time in Mecca or Medina is so profound & enormous...
[/quote]

It doesn't necessarily prove that all were always forgiven, either prior to the conquest of Makkah or thereafter. But it may prove that forgiveness was the norm and that anything to the contrary was rare. Allah knows best.

[quote]
one cannot glance away from it (like the article did in order to prove their point).
[/quote]

Similarly, one shouldn't just dismiss other hadith when they disagree with our own point of view.

[quote]
If the above argument of their's should be taken true than it will shake the very fundamentals on which the Islamic jurisprudence is founded. That will mean after the death of the Holy Prophet everything is fair game, which is totally unacceptable.
[/quote]

What the article was getting at was that during his lifetime the Prophet (s) forgave some (or even most), however, after the Prophet's (s) death he's no longer here to offer his forgiveness and so everyone who defames him should be penalised.

However, as i stated in my earlier reply, if the norm was that the Prophet (s) always forgave or forgave most of the time, then one could reasonably assume that he would forgive all future defamers as well. It may then be safer to err on the side of a general rule which states that such individuals should always be forgiven so long as they repent and the State allows this. Perhaps some scholars have already discussed this from this angle, but it is for them to decide and not for us to assume or formulate our own religious rulings based on one or two readings in Islamic history.

[quote]
Anyway, It's very common for followers of a religion to boil & burn when their beliefs are offended & if they are in power they can prescribe a punishment that they may chose to do so.
[/quote]

No. It is not for anyone, whether in a position of power or not, to prescribe whatever punishments they see fit. If a punishment is established through an authentic religious text, either through the Qur'an or the Prophet's (s) example, for a specific crime then such is binding and it is not for anyone to dismiss it just because others are finger pointing. In the same way, if no punishment is prescribed in religious text for a particular sin, then it is not for anyone to invent one just because they feel aggrieved.

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

69

Seminole,

"Most Christians would disagree. They believe that Christ represents the new convenant."

Precisely.

One can take any section of the Bible, or any other Holy book and take it too literally or out of context. The overriding principals of Christianity, God's love of Man, Jesus gifts to man, the concept of forgiveness, far outway outdated and strict interpretations of histroric law. Ultra literal interpretation of any writing, over applied to circumstances that beg overreaction is a warping of the intent of the religion.

Here is my belief on the situation in Nigeria. The writer is apparently a female style editor who was recently hired. She is a Christian, and obviously not very knowledgeable about the sensitivities of Islam. The way that I read the article, she was trying to explain that in essence these were good women, and certainly not women to be ashamed of...

Now one could argue that she did not understand the cultural imperative to me a modest Muslim women, and certainly the implication regarding marriage is pretty stupid. But this does not seem to be blasphemy in the sense that she was knowingly and willfully insulting or denouncing the religion, it's followers and it's Prophet. I would call this ignorance and stupidity and insensitivity rather than blasphemy.

Whatever we choose to call it, there was a rapid resignation, an apology, and that in my judgement call for forgiveness. How one can conclude that this should lead to the murder of hundreds, the displacement of thousands, and the injury of countless others is a complete mystery to me. To me, it is a disgrace.

Let's face it, there is a huge history of tribal and ethnic tensions in Nigeria. This article simply became the latest excuse, in a long history of excuses, to kill each other.

70

Iqbal,

[quote]
The point is that Muslims who do this have apostated and so the rule of apostacy is applied - but I guess that's another debate.
[/quote]

The term kafara is used in the verse that talks about them disbelieving after they believed. Kufar ~ apostasy, in legal terms has different meanings, which does not take into account for pretending to believe but not believing in heart. IMO, they are disbelievers in Allah’s eyes as ONLY He knows what’s in their hearts. Anyway, most scholars agree that these verses were directed towards the people present in Holy Prophet's time. If the Holy prophet (saw) understood these verses as the article mentions, he must have punished them accordingly (that is if it is to be believed that there is a punishment for apostasy), so where are the Hadiths, Sahih or otherwise, regarding that part of history?

[quote]
Similarly, one shouldn't just dismiss other hadith when they disagree with our own point of view.
[/quote]

The issue of authenticity of Hadiths is complex & in my belief Sahih does not equate proved authentic, especially when they are not supported by the belief prescribed in Qur'an.

Even if these Hadiths are to be taken as facts, the argument still goes that after the one or two incidences mentioned in these Hadiths, the Sahabah did not take it as a license to kill the blasphemous. If they had, then sure enough all the hypocrites should have been executed, which obviously wasn’t the case.

Another point is that if it is believed from these Hadithes that an old Jewish lady & a concubine where the only two people in the 23 years of prophet hood of AnHazoor (saw) that slandered against him, then relatively speaking he was respected by most. Which boggles ones mind that how the barbaric tribes of Arabia can be respectful to the person they were head over heals to kill?

A more intellectual argument is what broke the law of the Church & it applies here too. Those who do not believe in Muhammad (saw) as the prophet of God must believe in the opposite. Which means that they consider him (Naozubillah) a liar who made up stuff in the name of God, or worse a crazy person who didn’t knew what he was talking about. And there you go; you have a prime suspect of blasphemy right there!

71

Just one more point!

[quote]
- 2a. The sentence/penalty - whatever form it might take - for insulting the Prophet (s) has to be presided over by an Islamic State. It is not for individuals to go around inflicting capital punishments on citizens as they see fit.
[/quote]

If the Hadiths that are mentioned are taken to be authentic, than it gives the right to all Muslims to inflict the capital punishment as they seem fit. Because the people mentioned in the Hadiths did not ask for State's (or Prophet's approval) before killing the blasphemous. Instead, it was after the fact that the incidents were reported to AnHazoor (saw). Which means that you will have to believe that the rioters did the right thing.

72

STOP PLAYING GOD!

[9:61] And there are some of them who molest the Prophet and say: He is one who believes every thing that he hears; say: A hearer of good for you (who) believes in Allah and believes the faithful and a mercy for those of you who believe; and (as for) those who molest the Messenger of Allah, they shall have a painful punishment.

[9:62] They swear to you by Allah that they might please you and, Allah, as well as His Messenger, has a greater right that they should please Him, if they are believers.

[9:63] Do they not know that whoever acts in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, he shall surely have the fire of hell to abide in it? That is the grievous abasement.

[9:64] The hypocrites fear lest a chapter should be sent down to them telling them plainly of what is in their hearts. Say: Go on mocking, surely Allah will bring forth what you fear.

[9:65] And if you should question them, they would certainly say: We were only idly discoursing and sporting. Say: Was it at Allah and His communications and His Messenger that you mocked?

[9:66] Do not make excuses; you have denied indeed after you had believed; if We pardon a party of you, We will chastise (another) party because they are guilty.

[9:67] The hypocritical men and the hypocritical women are all alike; they enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands; they have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them; surely the hypocrites are the transgressors.

[9:68] Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.

73

PA, and your point is what?

Iqbal

74

The point is lost on those who refuse to judge by what Allah has revealed.

Punishments for mocking Allah or his messenger is upto Allah, not humans or the state or khilafah.

So is the punishment for those who disbelieve after they have believed.

75

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *

I agree that the Old Testament is full of outdated punishments for things that are no longer crimes. I only talk of what Jesus preached.
[/quote]

Jesus also preached the OT. He even reportedly said:

"Do not think that i have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; i have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matt. 5:17-18)

Unfortunately, in the next few verses Jesus describes exactly what many of today's Christians are doing:

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matt. 5:19)

Interestingly, Jesus also said:

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matt. 5:30)

Am i reading this too literally?

[quote]
*Stoning is a fine example of what once *used to be accepted practice. Times change, laws change, man evolves (hopefully), societies evolves. **
[/quote]

But first, do you believe the crime itself is timeless. For example, the OT punishment for adultery or blasphemy or whatever - do you still believe that such things should be punished today? We might disagree how that punishment should be administered, but does God require such individuals to be punished?

[quote]
That's what is wrong with basing law on 2000 year old scriptures that don't change.
[/quote]

It's certainly not impossible for God to reveal laws that are applicable across all space and time.

[quote]
Laws and rules that applied to nomadic sherp herders wandering through the desert 2000 years ago do not necessarily apply to newspaper columnists today.
[/quote]

Why not? Do not steal, do not commit murder, do not defame others etc. etc. why can't this apply to ancient shepherds as well as newspaper columnists? Are we all necessarily better than people of years gone by and more civilised? Are we better than Moses, for example?

[quote]
** Jesus was a sacrifice to change those barbaric practices that he endured.**
[/quote]

If they were in the OT then they can't be described as barbaric. As a Bible reader you can't have it both ways.

[quote]
Christians believe he died willingly for man's sins
[/quote]

Even the Bible says he didn't die willingly (see the Gethsemane narrative). Interestingly, Jesus' dialogue with God at Gethsemane is, from the Bible itself, one of many proofs against those who view Jesus as God.

Iqbal

76

Interesting how within the context of a discussion on mocking Allah and His Messenger (s), PA takes to mocking others as well. He does this to convince himself that everyone but him “refuse[s] to judge by what Allah has revealed.”

Iqbal

77

Just including very short excerpts from a brief article. i do not believe this will receive as much media attention as the fatwa itself.
Ignore fatwa, say clerics, The Guardian, 29 November 2002

A group of Islamic scholars yesterday rejected calls for the death of a Nigerian journalist blamed for sparking deadly Muslim-Christian riots with an article about the Miss World contest.

“The Zamfara state government has no authority to issue a fatwa, and the fatwa issued by it should be ignored,” the Jama’atu Nasril Islam said. The group includes leading Muslims from across Nigeria.

78

That bitch journalist needs to die. It doesn't matter what Quran says, she insulted the great prophet and because of here many lives were lost, she should die, get stoned.