Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]

[Mark Fulton]

(24-04-2012 06:42 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  Firstly, I want to point out that the punishment of stoning to death for committing adultery is not found in the Quran. However, Muslims believe that it is indeed one of the injunctions of of Shariah (or Islamic law), because it is mentioned in many of the authentic hadiths (or Prophetic narrations) although it is not mentioned in the Quran. And death for adultery is not something that is exclusive to Islam only, by the way, as it is also mentioned in the Bible (Leviticus, 20:10).

What the Quran does include is a punishment for fornication (which is lashing them a hundred times) in Chapter 24:02. So, this means that the stoning is a punishment for adultery for those who are married and the lashing (as mentioned in the Quran) is a punishment for sexual penetration between partners who are not married.

Now, your question is, do I think that this is a good thing? Well, I certainly feel a sadness for anyone who undergoes such a type of death. I don't want this to happen to anyone. But, on the other hand, I do believe that adultery is a sin, and I do not know the weight of this particular sin as God does (nor the weight of any other sin), and that's why cannot judge exactly how evil the sin is from His point of view. The only thing I believe is that He gave some of us a penis, and others a vagina, and it feels really good to use them, but they also come at a price because He attached certain laws to them. And He has the right to do that since He is the one created them in the first place. If we break those laws, then we will have to get punished for them in the manner that He prescribed.

At a larger scale, the laws in Shariah are also social and communal in practice, and the society revolves around the strong base which is the family, and it tries to uphold and strengthen the society with this base in mind. Relationships between males and females at the intimate level is only permitted between the husband and wife, the marriage contract is a legal entity in the form of contractual obligations which are upheld and maintained under the Islamic law. This means that sexual activities between couples who are not married are illegal and are not acceptable by the law. Therefore, is that the death penalty is there to ensure the safety of the society so that adultery occurs less frequently.

If a person chooses to sin in privacy, whatever that sin is, even homosexuality/adultery, then it is between him and God, and the sin can be erased if he repents. He is even allowed to lie about his adultery and it would not be a sin. However, the moment his adultery becomes publicized, or the moment he confesses his adultery - a death penalty is to be enforced upon the sinner even if He repents to God - and it depends on the crime, evidence, and the number of witnesses. And, again, This punishment is enforced upon the sinners mainly for the safety of the society in the long run.

Also, in all cases of adultery and fornication, for a death penalty to be applied, there has to be at least four eyewitnesses who testify in court that they have all seen the same act of vaginal penetration by those committing the adulterous act. In other words, the death penalty for adultery/fornication can be applied under two conditions: The existence of four witnesses, or the confession by the person who committed the sin. If there are no witnesses nor a confession, then there is no punishment. So, this makes the death penalty much harder to carry out (i.e because the sin of adultery requires proof) - but at the risk of being proven once - the extreme severity of the punishment should make people more cautious about committing such a sin.

Here's a long article on this topic:
Anti-Sex Laws of Islam: Not as Simple as You May Think


There are some countries which do carry out a death penalty for apostasy, such as Egypt and Turkey, for example.

However, there is a clear consensus among Muslims today that there is to be no death sentence for leaving Islam and converting to another faith (nor becoming an atheist). According to my knowledge, the death penalty was imposed in Muhammad's time only when apostasy was combined with hostility and treason, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against a Muslim state (after leaving Islam) and thus endangering the safety of the Muslim citizens. In other words, the rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  In a nutshell, the argument is that it is totally against Islam to apply a death penalty for one's apostasy because: (1) it contradicts with a verse in the Quran which says "Let there be no compulsion in religion," and any hadith which contradicts the Quran should be automatically discarded because the Quran is the first and most important source of Shariah, (2) there is no report that the Prophet Muhammad ever ordered a death penalty on someone just for leaving Islam, and (3) the majority of scholars agree that the ruling on apostasy should applied if there are treasonous acts involved, which is, when the apostates try to cause harm or damage to the citizens of the state.

For example, Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish Muslim writer, said: "In the early Muslim state, apostasy became regarded as a crime because it was seen as a rebellion against the state. In other words, the real consideration was political and, by time, this turned into a religious rule as well. This is, of course, a deviation we Muslims should rid ourselves today."

You can learn more about this topic at the links below:
100+ Notable Islamic Voices on Apostasy
Preserving the Freedom for Faith
Affirmation of Freedom of Expression and Belief in the Quran


Thanks for splitting it, FSM.
Now I don't have to make a separate Q&A thread as Zephony suggested earlier.

---

The questions are coming in faster than I can reply to them, but I will come back to answer the rest of the questions later (either by today or tomorrow).

Nonetheless, keep them coming.

WAIT A MINUTE. You just wrote

1. "What the Quran does include is a punishment for fornication (which is lashing them a hundred times) in Chapter 24:02. So, this means that the stoning is a punishment for adultery for those who are married and the lashing (as mentioned in the Quran) is a punishment for sexual penetration between partners who are not married."

You seem to be promoting the Qu'ran as the truth, so you agree with this? If so, you are EVIL and IMMORAL. Sex is a natural, healthy part of being human, and, when enjoyed between consenting adults, it is none of Allan's, Mohammed's or a priest's business. Lashing is an offence against humanity and secular law.

(24-04-2012 06:42 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  2. Re "At a larger scale, the laws in Shariah are also social and communal in practice,"

NO THEY ARE NOT MATE. YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY MULLAHS. The laws are there to control people like you. They suppress women and homosexuals, and hold your communities back.

3. Re "However, there is a clear consensus among Muslims today that there is to be no death sentence for leaving Islam and converting to another faith (nor becoming an atheist). According to my knowledge, the death penalty was imposed in Muhammad's time only when apostasy was combined with hostility and treason, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against a Muslim state (after leaving Islam) and thus endangering the safety of the Muslim citizens. In other words, the rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion."

BULLSHIT. The laws were written to stop people leaving the cult. Believe what I do, do as you're told, or else pay me a tax, or you're dead! These rules are not applied today because it is impossible, and obviously immoral, to do so, although many of your more radical mates still try to apply them.

(24-04-2012 05:47 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  Here are the three main reasons I believe in Allah, which are:
(1) the teleological argument; (2) the concept of Allah as portrayed in the Quran; and (3) what we know about the history of Islam.

The first one is basically a philosophical matter. Although there is no hard evidence for the existence of God (or Allah), I believe in Him especially because of a kind of inductive reasoning by looking at the world around me, and I feel that there is some kind of an intelligence operating behind the universe when I look at the beauty and complexity of the stars, galaxies, animals, our planet, the human brain, self-awareness, and many other things. I find it unlikely that all of this would come about simply as an accident or as a by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. That's why I believe that there is a Creator.

Why do I specifically believe in Allah as opposed to other gods? Well, first I would like to point out that I do not differentiate the words "Allah" and "God" as two different things. They actually mean the same thing, but only in a different language. And it's not the name of a god that matters, but the concept behind it. For example, the oneness and the indivisible nature of Allah is one of those things that makes it seem like a valid concept. The reason I reject other gods because the essential nature and the attributes of those particular gods are just less believable to me (or more unlikely to be true). Also, as I wrote in the OP in this thread, I believe that Allah is the same god as that of all the three Abrahamic religions. It's just that there is a different name assigned to Him, and the religions have a different set of revelations or scriptures although the messages are pretty much the same since they came from the same god (regardless of having different names).

The third reason is the accuracy of the historical information about Muhammad's life that are known to us, the history of Islam, and the history of the Quran. Even from a scholarly perspective, we know more about Muhammad than we know about Jesus, Moses, Noah, or any other prophet because he was the last one. The life of Muhammad is a well-documented life unlike the life of other prophets. There are many historians and scholars who have written about him with a great amount of detail and accuracy in their biographies. But still, no one was able to prove that he told a lie, or that he was hiding a foreign book in his house, or that he was being educated by someone, or that he went to a different country to get access to books from a library, etc. On the contrary, there is more evidence that he was an honest and faithful person according to the most authentic reports about him.

Some people might say the Quran is just a plagiarism of the Bible or some other scriptures. However, I think that is not true. Why? Because the Prophet was illiterate, and the people who lived during his time knew that this was true, and that's why he wouldn't be able to read the Torah nor be able to write an entire book all by himself. If he was being taught by someone, however, then people would have doubted him as a prophet because then he would be able to read the Torah, and sooner or later, most likely he would've been exposed as a liar because he was surrounded by the pagans, Romans, Christians, Jews, non-believers, and many other enemies who were always trying to to discredit him as a truthful person. Yet, there is not a single report from anyone who lived during his lifetime that he told a lie or that he was untruthful.

During my pursuit of learning about Islam, when I went back to the original sources and the time period in history when Islam was revealed, I learned that it presents a very simple concept: That there is one God who is the source of all creation, and that He has created mankind as His representative on earth for the purpose of growing through learning and experience into righteous individuals, and to assist mankind is achieving this goal, there are the five pillars of Islam. We believe that the Quran is only one of the many other scriptures that were sent to his prophets, but it is the last and final one.


Well, I think the reasons are pretty much the same as any man would. Also, a woman can have intelligence and self-respect regardless of her faith.

What I want to say is that, In Islam, men have their own roles and women have their own roles. Men have been given a role that they are more capable of doing, and women have been given a role that they are more capable of doing. Neither of these roles is inherently better than the other or "looked down" upon in Islam. For a Muslim, equality is a religious and spiritual equality which means that when we do good deeds, whether a male or a female, we are both rewarded equally. And this is the meaning of equality in Islam. Women have to prove their worth in the sight of God, not in the sight of men. And the same goes for men.

Islam ensures equality between men and women. What it does not provide is identicality. Modern cultures enforces identicality on men and women. But, in my opinion, men and women are not identical. They are different, have always been, and will always be different. The psychological pressure that modern society leverages on women to mimic men and become identical to them has destroyed many a women's life by forcing them into situations that are against their very innate nature. So, the point is that Islam ensures that there is equality between sexes even though the roles may be different. It ensures that in areas where women are natural leaders, men play a supporting role and it ensures that in areas where men are natural leaders, women play a supporting role.

And here's a nice article about Muslim women's equality:
The Status of Women in Islam

Speaking of Muslim women, there are also many people who think that Islam requires women to cover their entire body with a long garment as well as their faces. And that is one of the most common reasons they think that Muslim women are encouraged to be 'oppressed' in Islam or made 'inferior' to men. However, in my opinion, and according to many knowledgeable scholars, the wearing of this special garment (known as a "burqa") is actually a tribal and cultural practice that began centuries before the time of Islam, and has no authority in the Quran.

According to my knowledge, the thing is that the pre-Islamic Arabs were a people that were not fully developed in terms of clothing. As with most people in their time, Arabs had nobleman, commoners, and slaves. The female commoners and slaves wore few clothing just like in Africa, and some women used to go around only wearing a loincloth, with their breasts uncovered/visible to others, while a headcovering or a full body covering was the way that noblewomen dressed. But many of the Arabs at the time were a bestial people, and thus oftentimes they would harass any women they knew was not of a noble heritage, and since commoners and slaves did not wear a full-body covering, they would frequently harass them or rape them. This was something that Muhammad himself was said to have been witness to. So, that is when the Quran directed all the Muslim women to "draw over their veils (khimar)" so that it covers their chest (Chapter 23:41).

However, the emphasis of that particular verse is on covering the chest/breast only, not their hair or their faces, because many of them used to wear headcovers anyways except that sometimes they would have their breasts in the open. It is in that context that the verse was revealed. As I said before, the exact nature of the burqa/niqab/hijab is primarily a social one, and the practice of wearing them started way before the rise of Islam. In the Quran, too, there is no real instruction that a Muslim woman should cover her head, face, nor the rest of her body. You can read more about the historical background of the subject matter at the article below:

Is it Obligatory for Women to Cover their heads?

That being said, I do know that there are many Muslim women who are intelligent and have respect for themselves. One of the most famous example of this today is Queen Rania of Jordan. Many people have said that she is a smart, brave, and a compassionate leader. If you want, you can read a transcript of her interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show where she intelligently answered questions about her views on Islam, freedom, and Muslim women at the link below:

Transcript: Queen Rania on Oprah Winfrey Show

_______________
Post numbers in which questions and/or comments are still pending: #s 15-22; 25; 27; 28
Approximate time for completion: 24 to 48 hours

WHOA THERE!

Re "What I want to say is that, In Islam, men have their own roles and women have their own roles."


THIS IS NOT RIGHT/GOOD/SENSIBLE/MORAL. We should never allow priests or Mullahs, God or Allan, to tell people what "their role" is. In our modern world we can choose for ourselves. Stereotyping people and forcing them to conform is all about controlling the individual to profit certain groups.

Re "That being said, I do know that there are many Muslim women who are intelligent and have respect for themselves."

Really! An intelligent woman? A woman who respects herself? Are you sure? Fancy! And you worked this out without consulting the Qu'ran to see if such a thing was possible! Gosh, you are in touch with the modern world after all!

---

I'll try again...

Re .."Now, your question is, do I think that this is a good thing? Well, I certainly feel a sadness for anyone who undergoes such a type of death. I don't want this to happen to anyone. But, on the other hand, I do believe that adultery is a sin, and I do not know the weight of this particular sin as God does (nor the weight of any other sin), and that's why cannot judge exactly how evil the sin is from His point of view."

What you are saying is you don't have any real problem with one of your fellow humans being stoned to death because an illiterate, psychotic (literally) camel herder, or his nasty friends, who thought he was talking to god, gave it the ok. Do you have any grounded appreciation of morality, of what is real and true, or are you !00% a product of your upbringing? Shame on you for being so STUPID! I'll say it again...and again....if necessary....your "God" is an evil fiction, a product of primitive people in barbaric times. "He" is giving you licence to sprout and promote pure evil. Get a grip on reality!

[Mr Woof]

I find your argument relating to God's rights over billions of penises and vaginas repugnantly fascinating.

This I imagine rests on the assertion that Allah made women inferior, lustful and stupid. I imagine this is also the reason that clitorectomies are performed on infants, using rusty razor blades, inflicted by old hags, often killing the child.
Dead children of course cant be promiscuous, and a woman without a clitoris is seen as being less lustful and more subservient. The fact that some Islamic men enjoy non reciprocal sex is akin to rape.
One only has to read of "Paradise" where the numerous 'martyrs' awarded virgins, which, if not bad enough, keep on becoming virgins and enduring pain, to see an extremely ugly aspect of at least some male Muslim sexuality.

As for Allah having these rights over people, or indeed any right how is this justified, other than by puerile ad hominem arguments..........

[Mark Fulton]

I hope the only reason only Mr Woof and I have responded to Internet Mullah is because of the time zone differences. He wrote

"Also, in all cases of adultery and fornication, for a death penalty to be applied,
there has to be at least four eyewitnesses who testify in court that they have
all seen the same act of vaginal penetration by those committing the adulterous
act. In other words, the death penalty for adultery/fornication can be applied
under two conditions: The existence of four witnesses, or the confession by the
person who committed the sin. If there are no witnesses nor a confession, then
there is no punishment. So, this makes the death penalty much harder to carry
out (i.e because the sin of adultery requires proof) - but at the risk of being
proven once - the extreme severity of the punishment should make people more
cautious about committing such a sin."

You are FUCKING SICK! This is not excusable. This is a prime example of gross immorality wrapped in a religious cloak and presented as legitimate. And you claim to be a moderate Muslim! Is it any wonder Islam has a bad reputation all around the world! Do you really honestly think people like yourself should be welcome or even tolerated in any peaceful democratic society? Why would any person feel safe or comfortable living next door to you? Should I be tolerant of your religious beliefs? FUCK NO! Not when you are threatening to kill people for having sex.

[ALovelyChickenMan]

Why are battles contained in the Quran?

Like surah 8 or 9. I can't remember what they're called but they're quite violent and I'm just wondering why they're in there in the first place.

Furthermore, I saw you answer a question about not being able to plagerise things. That's a lie and you probably know that as well. The main method of learning at that time was oral recitation. He'd only have to learn a few facts every month if it was written over 23 years.

Is Abu Bakr important in Islamic history?

[arbmouser]

To get this thread on track I would like to point out to the questioners that the things you are asking about are the same atrocities that we use to show the Bible is horrible. We know the Quran, just like the Torah and New Testament, is full of immoral stuff. We have a pretty cool opportunity to ask questions, and I don't think we should scare Mullah off by asking the obvious ones that we already know the answer to.

With that, I would like to /bump my original question from the first page about freedom of speech and the Muslim community. Please answer that one Mullah. Thanks.

[houseofcantor]

(24-04-2012 09:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  What you are saying is you don't have any real problem with one of your fellow humans being stoned to death because an illiterate, psychotic (literally) camel herder, or his nasty friends, who thought he was talking to god, gave it the ok. Do you have any grounded appreciation of morality...

That is morality, dumbass.

Ever stone anyone to death? I wuz gonna do this guy who dissed the church of gwyneth paltrow and all mankind. Did it in simulation with such clarity I did not have to do in actuation. Achieved total moral victory in two confrontations - all by state of mind. Fucknut.

Thing is, morality ain't a we statement, it's an I statement. We need ethics. I need to love my Gwynnies. Life goes on. Tell me not to love my Gwynnies... well, life kinda ends there.

[Internet Mullah]

Mark Fulton and Mr. Woof, it seems that you guys are getting a little too upset about my views on sex and adultery. I'm sorry for that, and that was not my intention. However, as I said earlier, my opinion on adultery is primarily due to my belief in Islam and that's why I think that adultery is a sin, and that it is a crime. You don't have to agree with me, though. I was just explaining to you why the action is condemned in Islam and what is the punishment for it.

The basic point is that the higher aim of the Islamic Law is to sanctify wealth, honor, and property of the community and it is from this aspect that the general well being of the community outweighs the well being of a single person. And the rehabilitative structure of our system is rooted in the spiritual aspects of Islamic doctrine. However, when the soul is corrupted to the extent of it being unpurifiable, then the penal code is in place to ensure that the rest of the community is not harmed by the evil action of such individuals. And with that said, here's a short article that I read which talks about some of the harms of committing adultery.

I have pretty much said everything that I wanted to say on this topic. I don't know what else to add to it. You guys also stated your opinions on this topic. So, even though you guys made a lot of harsh criticisms about this and even insulted my intelligence, thank you for your input anyways.

Now, I'm going to go back to some of the previous questions raised in this thread. I know that there are still more questions that haven't been answered, and thank you for sending them, but don't think that I'm ignoring them. Actually, I'm very eager to answer them, but I'll be coming to each and every one of them slowly. It's just that typing out all these responses is taking me a fair amount of time. So, please be patient, and I'll try to answer everyone's questions as soon as I can.

(22-04-2012 07:24 PM)Crusher Wrote:  Why do alot of muslims get offended so easily when it comes to their religion?
You seem pretty relaxed about it all and I know some pretty offensive stuff has been published about Muhammed but even when seemingless harmless things happen some muslims still get upste like for example: I told my gf (she's turkish and muslim) that Muhammed is to islam like Ataturk was to turkey namely being the "architect" of it. I figured since turks are pretty nationalistic she might agree but instead she got angry at me. Telling me I can never compare the two. Not saying my comparison is without flaws but nothing to be upset about I would imagine.

I wouldn't be too upset if someone told me that (or maybe a little), although I do not agree with that.

Why do a lot of Muslims get offended so easily when it comes to their religion? Well, I think that the answer is an obvious one, and the reason is basically because they don't like it when someone says something as an insult or an attack on their religious beliefs. The same thing with Christians and other groups of faith. They all value their religion, and they respect their God, and religion is an important part of their daily lives.

But, of course, the fact is that not all Muslims behave that way, and you probably know that. I mean, there are over one billion Muslims in the world today and they come from various ethnic, cultural, and linguistic communities in Asia, Africa, Europe, America, and Australia. They speak many different languages such as Arabic, Persian, English, Chinese, Urdu, Spanish, Japanese, German, Russian, etc. It is impossible that all these people would think, behave, and act exactly in the same way, even as Muslims

(22-04-2012 08:53 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Is it not the case that the history and mythology of all the religions of the Book, along with the zealots, make the perpetrators of such writings, albeit 'misunderstood' on some instances, make the Koran dangerous ,if only by the mismanagement of crazed god obsessed fanatics linked to militarism and politics? Thank you.

I do not think that the Quran is dangerous, but it's just that some people interpret it the wrong way, and perhaps they even do so willingly to justify their own evil actions. Also, it is my contention that most of the acts of violence that are attributed to Islam are better attributed to political and historical circumstances. For example, suicide bombing was started off by certain radical Muslims as a political and a psychological strategy, and it is evil indeed, but truth be told, this is not something that is in agreement with the teachings of the Quran because it says that suicide is a major sin in Islam: "And do not kill yourselves, God is merciful with you. And whosoever does that (kills self) with aggression and inequity, we will make them suffer in Hell fire, and this is easy for God to do" (4:29-30). However, the western media will often quotes verses from the Quran and Hadiths out of context in an attempt to show everyone that suicide is encouraged in Islam, which is certainly not true.

Similarly, I have also noticed that there are many websites today that are created simply to ridicule Islam and to take verses out of context regarding the use of force in an attempt to prove that Islam justifies aggression toward non-believers, which is not true. So, my advice is that, instead of going to the hate sites and the hate books, you guys should read things which are from peer reviewed and academic sources, not from self-proclaimed sham artists who are milking the current anti-Muslim climate for making their own book deals and TV interviews.

Furthermore, I think that many of the acts of violence being done in the name of Islam has increased only in the last couple of decades. These things started happening quite recently. For example, Hamas and the people of Palestine didn't start strategic terror attacks until the early 90's. The thing is that the recent events tend to stick out more in our minds and thus we give less significance to all the other acts of violence done in the past by non-Muslims. It's a historical fact that the major wars between the European nations during the past 100 years have caused a lot more damage to the world than the Muslims did, the only difference being that they didn't do it specifically in the name of religion.

As I said earlier, it seems to me that many of these 'religious' violence are actually a form of state violence that are instigated by extremist Muslims. If you want to know more about this, here's an excellent article written by a non-Muslim that explains that all these suicide attacks, killing, and terrorism that we hear about these days are entirely a new phenomenon amongst Muslims and that these are not a true representation of Islam.

When religion and culture part ways (by Oliver Roy)

(22-04-2012 08:53 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Some time ago a Mullah here in Australia described some young women as "RAW MEAT", relevant to their dress as related to a rape case.
When asked if Australia should be become a Moslem nation he replied ....."yes a very good idea" Do you agree?

No, Mr. Woof, I don't think it would be a good idea to make Australia a Muslim nation. I don't want to force religious rituals and laws onto a people who are not willing to assent to them. They should have the right to practice their own faith or their own way of life. However, if it is the case that the people living in that country want it to be a Muslim nation, and many of the accept Islam, then that's a different story. I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

To me, the main issue for Muslims in Australia is not whether Australia is a Muslim nation or not. Rather, it is whether Muslims have equal rights and responsibilities with others, and whether they have the freedom to practice and teach their religion to others, and Australia is a country that already gives them this freedom. I think that Muslims play an important part in making Australia a multicultural and multi-faith society and, if I remember correctly, they are the third largest faith community after Christians and Buddhists.

Fortunately, most Muslims in Australia appear to be comfortable with the legal system there, and there is no legal barrier to stop them from practising the mandates of their religion. It is primarily in the family law area that Muslims have some difficulties (such as questions of divorce, child custody, intestacy, and so on) but the Australian law, on the whole, already accommodates some of those needs for them. Again, this is not a matter of Australia being a Muslim nation or not. Most of the Muslims do not call for implementing Islamic law in Australia nor do they call for having a separate system of law for the Muslims living there. Their main interest is freedom to practice their religion, and this is already provided in Australia. To me, that is good enough.

(23-04-2012 02:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please double click on the attached photo I took a few days ago at the world atheist conference in Melbourne. What were these loud, angry, threatening Muslims doing protesting at a peaceful atheist conference? Why are they threatening to burn Ayaan Ali Hirsi? Why did this beautiful, articulate, intelligent lady need to turn up at the conference in an armoured car with multiple bodyguards?

I have seen the attached photo. I saw Muslims holding up signs to threaten her. And I don't think they should have done that. However, the thing to remember is that this picture does not represent the behavior of the majority of the world's Musilm population. To use an example from my own life, I can tell you that my parents, friends, family, grandparents, cousins, and all my relatives that I know are just as peaceful as many of you guys in this forum even though they are Muslims. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I honestly feel about them.

The main threats come from extremists, be it religious extremists or political extremists. And, again, remember that there are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and the media and self-interested parties will tend to focus only on the handful of crazy Muslims they can find to justify their own agenda of hate and division. So, in my opinion, it would be far more conducive to focus on the views of the mainstream Muslims. And I'm sure that most of them are not dangerous. They are decent people just like many of the Christians living there.

And at a human level, there are a lot of things that can be said about people from different religions and nationalities. The fact still remains that no matter what the nationality, or religion, or the skin color of a terrorist is, it is not those things, but rather it is the person who commits the crime. Also, many of the violent acts committed by Jews and Christians are not necessarily an indication of the evilness of Christianity nor Judaism. The same is true for Islam.

(23-04-2012 01:39 PM)arbmouser Wrote:  I am skeptical about asking you, Mullah, and getting an honest answer. I'm not saying you would deceive on purpose, but there does seem to be a witholding of explanation on religious matters to non-Islamic people from members of the Islamic faith. Over and over I hear the phrase "religion of peace", but that is clearly not the case when Muslims are offended. The call for Salman Rushdie's death for writing a fiction novel, the threats on journalists and then on all Dutch citizens for reprinting cartoon images of Mohammed, and many more incidents are evidence to the contrary. It has been very clear to many that outsiders don't hear a complete message, and Muslims are quick to deny, twist, or marginalize facts about the Quran when asked sensitive questions.

I am not trying to hide or withhold anything about Islam, arbmouse. I am presenting whatever my beliefs are to the best of my ability.

That being said, I do believe that Islam is a religion of peace even though it includes laws to punish and/or execute criminals. One of the reason is because Islam prohibits the killing of any innocent person, Muslim or non-Muslim. According to the Quran, killing an innocent person is like killing the entire community of human beings. According to the Quran, "He who kills a person without (the latter) having killed another person, it is as if he has killed all of humanity, and he who makes one person survive, it is as if he has caused all humanity to survive" (Qur’an 5:32). Where someone deliberately kills another, Islamic law imposes capital punishment as a deterrent.

The only problem is that, as in any religion, there are Muslims who use violence to achieve certain social and/or political objectives. However, in my experience, the vast majority of Muslims do not advocate violence, but wish to live peacefully with everyone else. I think it is unfair to label all Muslims as violent or as aggressive because of the actions of a few extremists. There are also violent or fanatical groups among Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists, for example, and that the majority in those groups should not be blamed for the actions of the minority. In my view, the same should apply to Muslims.

(23-04-2012 01:39 PM)arbmouser Wrote:  But despite all that, I do have a question. Regarding the right to freedom of speech: Why do you think the Islamic faith gets a pass on open ridicule for the ideas it professes, or its dogma that followers adhere to? And, do you think Islam should be an open subject of free speech as much as any other without the speakers feeling afraid or stigmatized as insensitive?

Honestly, I do not think that the Islamic faith has a pass on open ridicule for the ideas it professes. Why? Because I haven't come across anything solid or objective that supports that notion. I mean, people can say whatever they want about Islam, and although many Muslims do get offended by such remarks, or even retaliate sometimes, it doesn't mean that their religion actually justifies such behavior.

To your second question, my answer is yes. I think that Islam should be open to free speech as much as any other religion without the speakers feeling afraid or stigmatized as insensitive. In fact, I know that there are also peaceful Muslims who talk about the immorality and the wrongness of some of the people of their own faith (i.e. the violent ones). To prove that, here's one of those examples at the link below:

An Open Letter to Violent Muslims Protestors
____________
Post numbers in which questions and/or comments are still pending: #s 16; 20; 21; 22; 25; 27; 34
Approximate time for completion: 24 to 48 hours

[NoahsFarce]

I am looking for a response rather than asking a question. And rather than typing out a wall of text, I'll post a video of Neil deGrasse Tyson giving a speech on the subject matter:





I've always wanted to discuss this with a muslim.

[germanyt]

(25-04-2012 10:15 AM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  So, please be patient, and I'll try to answer everyone's questions as soon as I can.

Book of Mormon?


NOW!!!!!

[ShirubaDangan]

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  

(20-04-2012 12:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  What about condemning women to death by stoning for adultery? Good, bad or utterly evil?

Firstly, I want to point out that the punishment of stoning to death for committing adultery is not found in the Quran. However, Muslims believe that it is indeed one of the injunctions of of Shariah (or Islamic law), because it is mentioned in many of the authentic hadiths (or Prophetic narrations) although it is not mentioned in the Quran. And death for adultery is not something that is exclusive to Islam only, by the way, as it is also mentioned in the Bible (Leviticus, 20:10).

After getting that out of my system. Stoning is a very cruel and horrific way to die. It bothers me that something that is supposedly something so peaceful spends a ridiculous amount on violence. My question to you is, what do you personally believe about religion being the most effective weapon mankind has ever created? Very few religions have ever preached peace and most have always waged war.

Didn't Jesus himself once say: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." What is the point of a prophet when people so blatantly ignore him?

I have already posted this before but I want to show it once again.





Religion can justify such stupidity and evil that I believe no normal sensible person would ever do such vile things unless it was dictated by some false higher being. It is just pure insanity.





Well at least they are peaceful, right? Do you truly believe it is rightful to murder someone for something so petty?

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  What the Quran does include is a punishment for fornication (which is lashing them a hundred times) in Chapter 24:02. So, this means that the stoning is a punishment for adultery for those who are married and the lashing (as mentioned in the Quran) is a punishment for sexual penetration between partners who are not married.

Again, lashing is a degrading and an animalistic form of punishment. I see these as more of entertainment in these areas as it seems men are greedy enough to step in and offer help in these abuses. People even come all around just too watch such a cruel practice in motion. You can't honestly believe this to be divine at all with such being displayed as a show.

You can even see a man smiling and laughing before he joins in. It shows no sign of love or sympathy just a disgusting show of unintelligence.

I honestly believe human beings are much better than this and sex seems to be another way of controlling these individuals who are already harshly mistreated.

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  Now, your question is, do I think that this is a good thing? Well, I certainly feel a sadness for anyone who undergoes such a type of death. I don't want this to happen to anyone. But, on the other hand, I do believe that adultery is a sin, and I do not know the weight of this particular sin as God does (nor the weight of any other sin), and that's why cannot judge exactly how evil the sin is from His point of view. The only thing I believe is that He gave some of us a penis, and others a vagina, and it feels really good to use them, but they also come at a price because He attached certain laws to them. And He has the right to do that since He is the one created them in the first place. If we break those laws, then we will have to get punished for them in the manner that He prescribed.

I'm glad you find sadness because it reveals that you find it wrong. I find it extremely terrible that this occurs and such a waste of human life.

Now I find your next point a bit hilarious. I didn't realize our genitals had laws and am now relieved that God has his highest priorities taken care of. Our sex lives are much more troublesome than the dying infants in Africa.



Thank you Germanyt I still remember this image and although I understand you are upset with the outcome I believe this picture is very important in revealing tragedies in our history.

It seems God only created those body parts too have another reason to damn us. Their is no other reason. God could have made it mundane but it seems he goes through all this trouble to ensure some more people go to hell.

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  At a larger scale, the laws in Shariah are also social and communal in practice, and the society revolves around the strong base which is the family, and it tries to uphold and strengthen the society with this base in mind. Relationships between males and females at the intimate level is only permitted between the husband and wife, the marriage contract is a legal entity in the form of contractual obligations which are upheld and maintained under the Islamic law. This means that sexual activities between couples who are not married are illegal and are not acceptable by the law. Therefore, is that the death penalty is there to ensure the safety of the society so that adultery occurs less frequently.

Why does it sound much more of a dictatorship or some form of total rule? Isn't death such an extreme measure? It seems that the punishment for anything is death which doesn't surprise me if people truly want to control others. Which they do.

Now what I ask is that the Prophet Muhammed had many wives. Doesn't this reveal lust and sexual desire? In the end, even if you want to justify this with your holy book, it reveals that your prophet had slept with multiple women and that marriage is more of a sex license than something holy. If he wanted to be holy under the eyes of God wouldn't he have remained a virgin which God seems to pride so much in?

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  If a person chooses to sin in privacy, whatever that sin is, even homosexuality/adultery, then it is between him and God, and the sin can be erased if he repents. He is even allowed to lie about his adultery and it would not be a sin. However, the moment his adultery becomes publicized, or the moment he confesses his adultery - a death penalty is to be enforced upon the sinner even if He repents to God - and it depends on the crime, evidence, and the number of witnesses. And, again, This punishment is enforced upon the sinners mainly for the safety of the society in the long run.

Yes because Homosexuality is much more threatening than an airplane crashing into a large building.

<--This vs This -->

So telling lies about a wrong act is much more honorable than coming forward and apologizing? I like how they try to live in a fear driven society where, again, death seems to be the only option and not apologizing, making amends, and trying to right what was wrong.

Don't you see how unfortunately sad this situation is? A person who may have been truly sorry for what he may have done is only given death because second chances seem to allude people. It takes a bigger person to admit their wrongs and it reveals such cowardly acts that they don't forgive. Again, this is a religion of peace.

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  Also, in all cases of adultery and fornication, for a death penalty to be applied, there has to be at least four eyewitnesses who testify in court that they have all seen the same act of vaginal penetration by those committing the adulterous act. In other words, the death penalty for adultery/fornication can be applied under two conditions: The existence of four witnesses, or the confession by the person who committed the sin. If there are no witnesses nor a confession, then there is no punishment. So, this makes the death penalty much harder to carry out (i.e because the sin of adultery requires proof) - but at the risk of being proven once - the extreme severity of the punishment should make people more cautious about committing such a sin.

People should happily choose not to do wrong. Not be placed by such fear to put them under control. It reveals a rule of a tyrannical despot.

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  Here's a long article on this topic:
Anti-Sex Laws of Islam: Not as Simple as You May Think

Why accept these laws and not make new ones? Why do all religions keep such insane acts in their books and not try to modernize and remake them? You may argue its the word of God but plenty of writers had written these books over the span of hundreds of years. Why can't we have a modern writer do the same?

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  

(20-04-2012 12:01 PM)morondog Wrote:  What about apostasy - conversion to another faith from Islam? I have heard that this is punishable by death in Egypt for example (probably not an official law, but one of us in Egypt said it was a genuine concern for him).

There are some countries which do carry out a death penalty for apostasy, such as Egypt and Turkey, for example.

This is why I don't believe any faith is one of peace.

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  However, there is a clear consensus among Muslims today that there is to be no death sentence for leaving Islam and converting to another faith (nor becoming an atheist). According to my knowledge, the death penalty was imposed in Muhammad's time only when apostasy was combined with hostility and treason, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against a Muslim state (after leaving Islam) and thus endangering the safety of the Muslim citizens. In other words, the rulings on apostasy were similar to those for treasonous acts in legal systems worldwide and do not apply to an individual's choice of religion.

I believe moderate Muslims like moderate Christians, Jews, Hindu's, Buddhist's or any other sect can be very nice people but whenever it turns to radicalism and fundamentalism that we ever have these issues. What do you think of radicalism and what should be done?

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  In a nutshell, the argument is that it is totally against Islam to apply a death penalty for one's apostasy because: (1) it contradicts with a verse in the Quran which says "Let there be no compulsion in religion," and any hadith which contradicts the Quran should be automatically discarded because the Quran is the first and most important source of Shariah, (2) there is no report that the Prophet Muhammad ever ordered a death penalty on someone just for leaving Islam, and (3) the majority of scholars agree that the ruling on apostasy should applied if there are treasonous acts involved, which is, when the apostates try to cause harm or damage to the citizens of the state.

For example, Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish Muslim writer, said: "In the early Muslim state, apostasy became regarded as a crime because it was seen as a rebellion against the state. In other words, the real consideration was political and, by time, this turned into a religious rule as well. This is, of course, a deviation we Muslims should rid ourselves today."

You can learn more about this topic at the links below:
100+ Notable Islamic Voices on Apostasy
Preserving the Freedom for Faith
Affirmation of Freedom of Expression and Belief in the Quran

Now I agree it was political and many countries earlier and even later considered it treason if you betrayed their Gods.

(24-04-2012 03:03 PM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  

(22-04-2012 05:49 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Thread split and moved from intros. Lets see if we can get some competition for KC's ask a theist thread

Thanks for splitting it, FSM.
Now I don't have to make a separate Q&A thread as Zephony suggested earlier.

---

The questions are coming in faster than I can reply to them, but I will come back to answer the rest of the questions later (either by today or tomorrow).

Nonetheless, keep them coming.

Welcome to the forum!! Now sorry if I sound so critical and even if I sound rude but the fact of the matter is. I had people die in my family for such idiotic things as you stated above. I believe it to be disgusting but that has nothing to do with you. I respect your opinions and views but I will definitely question.

I believe we all will!