My quotes was simply to emphasize that Islam is by no means an "innocent" religion as Islam has as much blood to be accounted for as the other two Abrahamic religions.
who to account to ?
The followers? the hadith makes it clear that they guys themselves came in to get the punishment. And i embrace it so y will it be accountable to anything, you have your own set of rules to live by we have ours, seriously i dont get this condescending view here that islam needs to be accountable or anything. You dont like religions dont follow it i do i follow. Where does the question of accountability comes in here?
The religion and it's institution - as written, interpreted and used through the hands of men - is not innocent and that's always what I'm referring to when I use the name of a religion. The belief itself is innocent but the religion as an institution is most definitely not.
---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------
the hadith makes it clear that they guys themselves came in to get the punishment. And i embrace it so y will it be accountable to anything, you have your own set of rules to live by we have ours, seriously i dont get this condescending view here that islam needs to be accountable or anything.
That's what the hadith says but that's one side of the story. It's the same thing with lawyers. You have facts and then you have the prosecutor and the defense attorney emphasizing certain facts and twisting it to get their view seem like the most 'right' one. That's how it's always been. Some Christians interpret it in one way and start the Inquisition, persecuting Jews and some Christians interpret it another way and give the Jews shelter. I will always view religion based on what it tells its followers and how its followers act. An innocent religion will have innocent followers (see Buddhism). That answer may displease you but I will not retract any of my statements..
---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------
On another note, this discussion is actually quite interesting ^^,
That's what the hadith says but that's one side of the story. It's the same thing with lawyers. You have facts and then you have the prosecutor and the defense attorney emphasizing certain facts and twisting it to get their view seem like the most 'right' one. That's how it's always been. Some Christians interpret it in one way and start the Inquisition, persecuting Jews and some Christians interpret it another way and give the Jews shelter. I will always view religion based on what it tells its followers and how its followers act. An innocent religion will have innocent followers (see Buddhism). That answer may displease you but I will not retract any of my statements..
Here is my take on this now: I don't really care if you bash Islam and I sure as hell don't give a fuck what you think about it. The opinions of unqualifed entities don't matter. Perhaps if you were an expert in te subject I would have another stance.
Here is how I'm going to conduct now: I'm going to practice islam within the boundaries of tolerance. If someone wants to drink, its his fucking buiness. If someone wants to fuck, his business. If someone wants to be gay, his business. I will not give a fuck what other people do.
Like female circumcision, whirling dervishes, maraboutism and 'transgendered' shamanism the practice of honour killing is not Quranic and is only practiced in certain Islamic societies. However its besides the point whether its Quranic or not because religions are evolving systems of values which are adapted and revaluated locally (just think of the things the Bible prohibits or mandates, that devout Christians tolerate or ignore). Even with the Abrahamic 'religions of the book', people claiming something isn't really a part of the religion because it isn't in a holy text are missing the point of how living religion works.
So whilst honour killing isn't Islamic in the sense that its typical of all Moslem societies or justified by the Quran, it is Islamic in the sense that its practiced by Moslem people using a religious rationalisation.
Because he hopes we'd be faithful to him? I never understood why god got mad, like the whole flooding thing where Noah had to build an arc, when he's the one who gave people freedom. His actions have shown he's not as benevolent as people make him out to be, but an egotistical jerk who likes attention and being revered.
Anyway, with what most of what you said in your reply to me, it's basically what I think.
Thats called Hudud which is the capital punishment in Islamic sharia adultery is a heavily punishable crime in Islamic jurisprudence. The execution/ any sort of punishment is carried out publicly.
if i am mistaken and i might be honor killing refers to homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community. (copied)
as such i dont see how the hadith are relevant its talking about the punishment of a crimes(in islamic sharia it is). If that is included as honor killing then i suppose death penalty for killing some one is also honor killing.
but if you are saying that our part of the world think that these are honor killing then you are comparing 2 different ethos and its values and its sense of justice.
Though i am having hard time figuring out how an ex christian knows the hadith that are only find in the hate sites and are mostly taken out of the context and pictures i suppose you did quote the hadith but i need to check the isnad and the fukas explanation to get it for certain. I just gave the general view which is adultry for married person is a capital crime in Islam.
According to the news I've read (I did not get any info about honor killings from the Quran, just the news), it was usually the daughters that got killed. Make no mistake though, I'm not saying all Muslims practice it, just a few. There's even been news of a girl who got killed by three members of her family. Lot of families have different ideas of how dishonor is brought upon family, some may be extremely strict while some are a bit strict.
If the male committed adultery, there wouldn't be as much uproar as there'd be had a woman done it. Though, I'm really speaking about the society and not religion (not limited to Islam).
It's most likely the Muslims using religion as excuse and justification for the killings, but religion is still used.
I find it unfortunate that religion has strayed from its original purpose: to give men the experience of the awe and the sense of humility towards the ultimate mystery. Religion was meant to help people answer questions; it's an explanation, a concept( we're not arguing the truth or falsity of a religion since they all serve the same purpose). The assumption that a certain religion(an ideology) is To blame kind of contradicts how a progressive mind should think. Instead, we should examine the reason why a given ideology is presented this way: Man.
I don't think religion was about that. It was more about controlling things, like a state of government. From what I read, religion and science used to get along in Europe around the Middle Ages or before, or at least before 1500s. Then after wars and turbulent times, the Church (and/or the monarch) made it heresy to defy the Bible, which is when science and religion got split up. I think in history, there has almost always been some kind of religious authority governing or governing alongside the main ruler/s. Of course, I don't know much about history, so it's basically a lack of knowledge and much assuming.
I think man or ignorant man is the root of all problems, though.
Religion from the very start was about explaining the unexplainable and by doing so, comforting the masses. In that sense, it's somewhat of an analog to science and served many of the same purposes. It is also a system of control, but it would be naive to say something like that wasn't beneficial in any way to the progression of a society.
There's an extremely interesting discussion between a couple Abrahamic religious leaders and their view of how religion has been used depending on the political leaders (church=/=state) and how we must act to reach a society where a belief is accepted regardless of what kind - whether it is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or atheism (belief in no god).
Gonn see if I can find it somewhere, I'll keep you updated!
Religion from the very start was about explaining the unexplainable and by doing so, comforting the masses. In that sense, it's somewhat of an analog to science and served many of the same purposes. It is also a system of control, but it would be naive to say something like that wasn't beneficial in any way to the progression of a society.
I think that's how god came from, explaining the unexplainable. Religion came from god and possibly a way to control others and make them live a way of life. But, I have argued for religion and against it. It would be beneficial if people were open minded and not attacked others in any shape or form. Problem is that there are too many people who are devout and refuse to accept others' opinions. If it weren't for that, there wouldn't be a problem between religion.
It's very annoying to see scientists knock down religion as well. Science and religion got along with each other, and many scientists were and are religious/have faith in god. Science shouldn't be about disproving god but about learning more of the universe. Just because there's the theory of evolution doesn't mean there's no god, he could have created a primitive life form, which could have evolved. Science and religion can coexist if people let it.
I don't even know what the topic is about, though, so don't mind me. <_<
buddhism is not a complete way of life, islam includes a jurisprudence economic system and all iota of life to live by, like say even how to act in a war or how to behave with one another and how to open a statement
buddhism is rather an errant and escapist state where the monks have lived off from the pressing situation of life. not to bash or anything but thats what i know of buddhism.
So whilst honour killing isn't Islamic in the sense that its typical of all Moslem societies or justified by the Quran, it is Islamic in the sense that its practiced by Moslem people using a religious rationalisation.
nope, its not islam is what the sharia affirms not what some muslims do. The source of islam is Quran Hadith Ijmaa and Qias
not what some muslims do.
Philosiphically you can say a truck load of stuffs abt religion thats your own pov but when you are questioning a religion please atleast know what its about and its values before tagging it as whats islamic and whats not. Because i seriously doubt that you are an fuka or a sharia scholar to tag anything you like to Islam thank you.
Honor killings is in no way mentioned in the Quran, however, in the Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Al Bukhari there are examples of people who have done wrong and has such, for example, casted shame or committed wrong-doings sexually (adultery or other illegal sexual intercourses).
Two Examples;
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”
Narrated Abu Huraira: A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called (the Prophet ) saying, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." On that the Prophet turned his face from him to the other side, whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side whereupon the man moved to the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and repeated his statement. The Prophet turned his face (from him) to the other side again. The man moved again (and repeated his statement) for the fourth time. So when the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" He replied, "No." The Prophet then said (to his companions), "Go and stone him to death." The man was a married one. Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari said: I was one of those who stoned him. We stoned him at the Musalla ('Id praying place) in Medina. When the stones hit him with their sharp edges, he fled, but we caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died.
(See also Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 63, Number 195.)
I'm confident that a vast, vast majority of muslim believers do not act as the examples above but there's always a group of fundamentals that will, at least in the three monotheistic religions, not bow to use violence like that... No matter how absolutely ridiculous and useless it is to kill in the name of a religion.
---------- Post added at 11:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------
Forced conversion has always been around, it's not like Constantine I convinced the Roman Empire that the ☧ (labarum) and a monotheistic belief (Christianity) was the most logical thing to do and just abolish their old polytheistic pagan believes. Just like Mieszko I of Poland converted to Christianity, Mark the Evangelist or Gustav Vasa broke with the vatican to start the reformation in Sweden. Not to mention the forced conversion of Egypt.
Religion has been used in all kinds of ways, it's not necessarily bad (even though there are tons of negative events / examples throughout history). Religion is used for good: to give people a sense of belonging, to aid people in need, to give comfort, to give strength and to support each other. I could honestly say though that I can find the belonging in other ways than through my personal belief and through my personal belief get strength, comfort and support but not everyone is like that.
In my opinion, religion with it's respective institutions is a way to a) differentiate people and b) control people.
Faith however is a much more powerful tool and even though my mother tried to doctrine me in the ways of the Catholic church I will never blindly believe something someone else tells me. If God is in every one of us and works through every one of us, then we all have our personal God and mine's not a beared man on a cloud, condemning us based on how we wish to live the lives he supposedly gave us... That would be like giving a kid a football and then starting to hit him when he wants to play basketball with it instead.
---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------
If God made man and gave him free will out of all creatures, why would he condemn our choices?
Pushing ideas upon others has always been the way of western religions. It's a "Believe or thou shall perish" mentality that has been around for thousands of years but doesn't really fit with today's modern, secular global society. Religion with it's institutions is a thing of the past whereas faith is something timeless that will always be playing an essential part in all of our lives - whether it's something we welcome or not.
Religion in itself is hypocritical as it asks you to believe something you don't know of but not to allow even the slightest open mind towards other things you don't know of. It tells you to love all while condemn some, tells that men can't sin as they're children of God while saying all of us sin etc.
Biblically speaking, God does not condemn men. Men condemn themselves because man loved darkness more than light. God is just by handing man over to the darkness that man so much desires. Since God honors free will, he'll honor the decisions that a person makes hence the ultimate decisions of free will: life and light or death and darkness.
The Biblical concept is you reap what you sow.
A little correction to the last part. God tells people to love each other and they shouldn't judge others. Whosoever judge, their measure of judgment will be used against them. Therefore, don't judge. I'm just paraphrasing this from the Bible.
Lastly, believers tend to not understand that only God has the power to change a person. A person cannot stop sinning because it would be going against man's nature. You can't go against your nature because it's impossible. But, by God's power, man's nature could be changed from death and darkness to life and light. Of course a believer will still sin but a believer must struggle to move forward with God. So, believers are hypocrites. And this progression from a sinful nature to a non-sinful nature isn't easy, and it's really shameful and hard at times. Those who don't truly strive in Christianity how it truly feels.
Seriously though, where are you drawing all this conclusions from? Assumptions of the Bible? Hearing it or reading it from other people? They're just way off.
Because he hopes we'd be faithful to him? I never understood why god got mad, like the whole flooding thing where Noah had to build an arc, when he's the one who gave people freedom. His actions have shown he's not as benevolent as people make him out to be, but an egotistical jerk who likes attention and being revered.
Anyway, with what most of what you said in your reply to me, it's basically what I think.
According to the news I've read (I did not get any info about honor killings from the Quran, just the news), it was usually the daughters that got killed. Make no mistake though, I'm not saying all Muslims practice it, just a few. There's even been news of a girl who got killed by three members of her family. Lot of families have different ideas of how dishonor is brought upon family, some may be extremely strict while some are a bit strict.
If the male committed adultery, there wouldn't be as much uproar as there'd be had a woman done it. Though, I'm really speaking about the society and not religion (not limited to Islam).
It's most likely the Muslims using religion as excuse and justification for the killings, but religion is still used.
I don't think religion was about that. It was more about controlling things, like a state of government. From what I read, religion and science used to get along in Europe around the Middle Ages or before, or at least before 1500s. Then after wars and turbulent times, the Church (and/or the monarch) made it heresy to defy the Bible, which is when science and religion got split up. I think in history, there has almost always been some kind of religious authority governing or governing alongside the main ruler/s. Of course, I don't know much about history, so it's basically a lack of knowledge and much assuming.
I think man or ignorant man is the root of all problems, though.
All this bashing God and yet have you even took the time to learn more about God? Have you learned about God from other people or from God himself? What does the Bible say about God? What does God say about God? A person has to really read the Bible to understand God. It sounds like a lot of people here who discuss about God is talking about as if they have actually read and studied the Bible. Frankly, God is misunderstood by many here.
I'm not sure where most of you guys get your theology from? Even the understanding of Islam is drawn from the acts of radical Moslems who are actually in need of great help to discover salvation.
If one were to read the Bible about the Flood, especially Genesis, chapter 6, verse 6, it showed how sadden God was and that he was sorry for creating man. He wasn't angry or mad. Out of everyone, Noah gained favor with God. God instructed Noah to build an ark and load it up with a pair, male and female, of every animal. God actually saved Noah and gave earth another chance with a clean new start. Think of it this way: Satan was 8 people away from destroying the entire human race.
The God of the Bible is merciful and benevolent unless you want to be His enemy. Even if you were His enemy, He'll still love you, but you'll only making things harder on yourself.
The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are quite different. The introduction of Jesus into the Bible made the message much more compassionate than it was.
The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are quite different. The introduction of Jesus into the Bible made the message much more compassionate than it was.
I disagree. God is the same yesterday and today. He wasn't any different now as he was back then. Jesus brought a greater revelation of God's love. The things that were different were the covenants between the Old and New. Trust me when I say that you can't understand God fully until you read the Old Testaments particularly the Prophets such as Ezekiel and Jonah. In Ezekiel, God says that he does not delight or take pleasure in the death of anyone. He desires that the wicked repent and live.
Jonah ran away from God not because Jonah was scared. See, Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrians. The Assyrians were total bad-asses that came and conquered Northern Kingdom of Israel. Jonah wanted Nineveh destroyed. God wanted to offer Nineveh one last chance so He sent Jonah to go to Nineveh. People thought Jonah ran because he was scared until you read in chapter 4 verse 2. Jonah confesses, "That is why I fled before to Tarshish; for I knew that thou art a gracious and merciful God, patient and of great kindness, and thou art ready to turn away calamity."
The context that surrounds that verse is Jonah after being spat out by the big fish, went to Nineveh and preached a message of repentance. All of Nineveh repented. Jonah was greatly displeased that God didn't destroy Nineveh. He was basically whining at God saying God, I knew you would not destroy them. That's why I ran off. Why? God is always ready to turn away calamity.
And you know how God answered Jonah back? Jonah sat on a hill overlooking the city hoping something like fire would fall from the sky to destroy Nineveh. It was also hot. So God made a gourd grow to provide shade for Jonah. Jonah became glad at having the gourd provide shade for him. God then made a worm eat at the gourd. Next day, the shade from the day before was gone and Jonah whined again. This was a lesson of itself. God basically responded that Jonah had pity on a gourd that sprung up in a day and in a night was gone so how much more should God have pity upon Nineveh who has 120,000 small children and many livestock?
Nineveh wasn't even a part of Israel, yet God sent one of his prophets to them as a last chance.
That's a nice story, but it's only one out of many. How do you explain Job's story as one of a compassionate God in the Old Testament? Is it simply a fable displaying the "Why do the righteous suffer?" question?
That's a nice story, but it's only one out of many. How do you explain Job's story as one of a compassionate God in the Old Testament? Is it simply a fable displaying the "Why do the righteous suffer?" question?
Ah yes, the story of Job. That was certainly an interesting story indeed. From the way you write it, could it be safe to assume that you are familiar with the Bible? I'm not asking whether you believe or not.
Now, if the story of Job as a fable, there should be many things that one could learn from it, correct? Since a fable is a story that teaches a lesson or lessons, what did you learn xiO? Also, what does it mean to you for the righteous to suffer? From a Biblical perspective, why would God afflict a person or allow the righteous to suffer?
That's a nice story, but it's only one out of many. How do you explain Job's story as one of a compassionate God in the Old Testament? Is it simply a fable displaying the "Why do the righteous suffer?" question?
The concept of a compassionate god is often imposed on the old testament by later day readers. The old testament has multiple sources and it is doubtful that all viewed god as compassionate. As with many ancient peoples they likely feared god and wished to appease him. Life in an ancient, poor desert kingdom such as Judah would not really have suggested a compassionate, caring entity. More likely they would have believed in a cruel, capricious deity. The more compassionate god of the old testament probably came from the wealthier northern kingdom of Israel. The idea that god is all loving, all caring, etc really comes from the Epistles of Paul and has been imposed on the old testament in retrospect.
Ah yes, the story of Job. That was certainly an interesting story indeed. From the way you write it, could it be safe to assume that you are familiar with the Bible? I'm not asking whether you believe or not.
Now, if the story of Job as a fable, there should be many things that one could learn from it, correct? Since a fable is a story that teaches a lesson or lessons, what did you learn xiO? Also, what does it mean to you for the righteous to suffer? From a Biblical perspective, why would God afflict a person or allow the righteous to suffer?
Yes, I was in catechism for years until I got confirmed. I will not badmouth religion for the good it does, that's silly, but it's entire belief system isn't one I can get behind.
I'm not exactly sure what is really learned from Job's story, because it's one of the most ridiculous and puzzling ones in the Bible. God allows his righteous follower to be punished to prove that Job wasn't only faithful to him because of his prosperity. That's all well and good, but Job does break and curses God, so what did God really prove to satan by doing so? That he was wrong? Or is this simply a case of God being infallible? I don't know, it's puzzling.
---------- Post added at 02:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 AM ----------
The concept of a compassionate god is often imposed on the old testament by later day readers. The old testament has multiple sources and it is doubtful that all viewed god as compassionate. As with many ancient peoples they likely feared god and wished to appease him. Life in an ancient, poor desert kingdom such as Judah would not really have suggested a compassionate, caring entity. More likely they would have believed in a cruel, capricious deity. The more compassionate god of the old testament probably came from the wealthier northern kingdom of Israel. The idea that god is all loving, all caring, etc really comes from the Epistles of Paul and has been imposed on the old testament in retrospect.
Ah yes, the story of Job. That was certainly an interesting story indeed. From the way you write it, could it be safe to assume that you are familiar with the Bible? I'm not asking whether you believe or not.
Now, if the story of Job as a fable, there should be many things that one could learn from it, correct? Since a fable is a story that teaches a lesson or lessons, what did you learn xiO? Also, what does it mean to you for the righteous to suffer? From a Biblical perspective, why would God afflict a person or allow the righteous to suffer?
It could mean nothing more that life is often cruel and there is no real rhyme or reason behind it. Job may well be an attempt to say that life is unfair and that to is god's will.
The God of the Bible is merciful and benevolent unless you want to be His enemy. Even if you were His enemy, He'll still love you, but you'll only making things harder on yourself.
Is that why he put one of his followers through torture just to prove the faith his follower had in him? No benevolent person would subject others to cruel life just to prove a point, evne if he does reward them at the end.
If he still loved us, then he wouldn't send us to hell, he'd forgive us for any mistakes and send us to heaven.
By causing the flood, he basically took away free will, something he allowed, even if for few decades or so. He never gave us free will or whatever like he claims, as we go to hell for not believing in him or him being able to kill us if we don't do what he likes.
