Rebuttal to James Arlandson
"Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies"
By
Introduction
This article is in response to James Arlandson’s article “Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies”, which can be accessed here http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_sharia.htm.
As you will see,
most of the responses are not of my own. I quote and offer links to other websites that
already have addressed the issues at hand. Most of these charges have already been
answered already. I just want to thank James for giving us a comprehensive article filled
with anti Islamic charges so that I would be able to provide a comprehensive rebuttal to
all those charges.
A lot of the
arguments posed could actually be used with greater force against the bible, however he
keeps sliding away from these arguments by saying that Jesus abolished the Old Testament
laws. Something that he did not do (Mark 7:6-13, 10:10-12, Matthew 15:3-8, Luke 5:14, 35)
Lets begin..
James
said:
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.
In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of the mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.
After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90-91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. This poor "criminal" was brought to Muhammad who became angry: The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad’s presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774-6775)
My Response:
James puts the word criminal in quotation marks in order to
sarcastically show that the person did not commit such a huge crime. Well he did, because
he broke the law of God (no drinking and gambling allowed) and the law of the Islamic
state, which clearly prohibited the consumption of alcohol and gambling. Where did the men
get the alcohol? They must have illegally
made it.
Now instead of throwing the man in jail just like what was
done during the time of Prohibition (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html), which actually doesn’t
help, the man was beaten. He was also beaten while he was in the state of drunkenness and
probably did not feel that much pain. But he surely deserved such a punishment. This
method proved to be a successful method of alcohol prohibition.
Taken from http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/nc2a.htm
Notwithstanding the various patterns of regulation, Senator
Arthur Capper's words of the 1930's still seem to be correct:
We can repeal prohibition, but we cannot repeal the liquor problem (Peterson, 1969: 126).
Only Islam can.
It is surprising that we do not see any condemnation of
gambling anywhere in the bible, despite it’s horrible effects http://www.tuh.com.au/content/index.cfm?id=107
Consumption of alcohol has its harmful effects on society
and is not a joke as some people might think http://www.ccri.edu/advising/health_and_wellness/alcohol.htm.
Alcohol and gambling can have harmful effects on the
society, therefore it is a crime punishable by the Islamic society it self.
James said:
Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic, when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he always seem to go immediately to corporal punishment?
The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.
It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.
My Response
As Christians and Muslims and probably even every human
being alike knows, every man is born and inclined to sin. No matter what laws are ever
instituted, there will always be people to break it. Muslims are not saying that when
Islamic law is implemented there will be zero crime. No, there will always be crime when
the devil is around whispering into people’s ears to sin. However, when Islamic law
is applied, crime drops significantly as to when compared with the other man made laws.
Taken from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/23829.htm
Reports from South Sulawesi indicated that crime rates did, in fact, drop sharply following the introduction of
stricter Islamic practices. However, there was energetic opposition to the new policies.
Some legal experts warned that the regulations contradict the country's Constitution,
while some residents, both Muslims and non-Muslims, complained that the Government was
meddling in citizens' private lives.
Of course there would be people complaining because they
believed in their country’s constitution. But notice that the crime rates did drop
and at the end of the day that is all that matters.
He asks why Muhammad did not offer any rehabilitation. First
rehabilitation does not always work and it takes a long time to be effective in order for
it to work anyway (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/about/f/faq6.htm). But the Islamic
ruling results in quicker and more effective results.
James
said:
Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It also analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.
My Response
First Prohibition (of sorts): yes and no
Maududi says
that most of Sura 2 was revealed shortly after Muhammad’s Hijrah (Emigration from
Mecca to Medina) in AD 622. The following verse in Sura 2 shows that Muhammad partially or
confusedly permitted or condemned drinking and gambling at that time (Maududi, vol. 1, p.
161, note 235).
2:219 They
ask you [Prophet] about intoxicants and gambling: say, "There is great sin in both,
and some benefit for people: the sin is greater than the benefit." They ask you what
they should give: say, "Give what you can spare."
In no way is this verse a clear and uncompromising edict on the two personal practices of drinking alcohol and gambling. (Islam teaches that all intoxicants are criminal; cf. Bukhari, Drinks, vol. 7, nos. 5579-5589; Muslim no. 7186.) It seems contradictory to call the two acts mostly sinful but partially beneficial. It may be argued that alcohol is sinful in its morality, but beneficial in its health for the body (e.g. helping digestion). However, Allah will later prohibit it completely, so either it is sinful morally regardless of the year on the Muslim calendar, or it is not.
There is nothing contradictory. James answered the question himself. God is saying that there are benefits to it (like you said, eg. Helping digestion), however the evil is greater. Alcohol is not the only solution to better digestion. http://www.apothecaryshop.co.uk/solgar/solgar-natural-help-for-digestion.htm
People even argue that marijuana has
benefits http://www.benefitsofmarijuana.com/benefits.html
but that in no way justifies smoking it.
Allah says that there are benefits so that
people would not go ahead and say “its okay to drink, because it has benefits”.
God knew there would be people who say that. So God is simply saying that the harm is more
than the good. Its like me saying “yes smoking does relieve stress, however
don’t smoke because it can cause lung cancer”. There is no contradiction, as a
matter of fact it is only the wisdom of the quran so that people can better comprehend
that alcohol is indeed harmful to us and we have no excuse for drinking it.
Second
Prohibition: only during prayer
According to the
historical evidence and the content of Sura 4, Maududi says that the sura was revealed
between the timeframe of AD 625 and 627, because various verses indicate different events.
For example, vv. 1-28 speak of the Battle of Uhud in AD 625. Verse 102 indicates a
military expedition in AD 626 during which Muhammad taught his Muslims how to pray while
out on campaign. Verse 43 takes place during another military expedition in AD 627 when he
taught his holy military warriors how to perform ablutions (washings) with pure dust if
water was not available.
Maududi
speculates that the target verse 43 came at the chronological beginning of the entire sura
and therefore early in AD 625 because many Muslims showed up intoxicated for public
prayers "and made blunders in their recitations" of Quranic passages. So
Muhammad had to correct the problem. However, some hadith passages (the hadith is the
reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran) say that some Muslim
warriors showed up at the Battle of Uhud intoxicated and died, but this was before Allah
had prohibited it, so they were not held responsible (Sura 5:93; see Bukhari, Oppressions,
vol. 3, no 2463; Jihad, vol. 4, no. 2815; Commentary, vol. 6, nos. 4618, 4620).
Regardless of
the exact timeframe, for our purposes all we need to know is that Sura 4 was revealed
between Sura 2 (see above) and Sura 5 (see below). Thus, Allah’s "eternal"
revelations on the morality of drinking intoxicants are changing according to external
circumstances.
Because the
Muslims showed up intoxicated for public prayer, "they changed the timings of their
drinking so as not to clash with the timings of their prayers," says Maududi (vol. 1,
p. 337, note 65). So Muhammad prohibited drunkenness only during prayers. This means that
Muslims were permitted to drink some alcohol in between the times of prayers, though the
number of prayers per day would limit drunkenness. However, this further means that after
the nighttime prayer, the final one, Muslims could even get drunk. How were the early
Muslims supposed to sort this out? Was alcoholism so bad in the Muslim community that
Muhammad had to tell them to stay away from prayers, but not prohibit alcohol? It is one
thing if he had told them not to show up for prayers drunk, and then to allow them mild
drinking without intoxication. (After all, the Bible distinguishes between mild use of
alcohol and drunkenness, as we will see, below.) But he already said in Sura 2:219 that
intoxicants have sin in them. Also, Sura 5:90-91 will prohibit intoxicants completely. It
is quite odd that in this confused state of affairs Muhammad did not
completely and absolutely prohibit intoxication at this time, when the Muslim community
needed it most. Quranic revelation on this matter falls short. How is this guidance?
Prohibiting alcohol (and gambling) is a religion’s prerogative, so we should not quibble too much over this. The real issue is how Muhammad and his early companions dealt with drunkenness—excessively, as the sections on the hadith and classical legal rulings show us.
James erroneously
assumes that Allah is changing his mind when it comes to the laws of drinking. You have to
understand the wisdom behind the evolvement of the prohibition of drinking. Allah did not
send down all the laws at one time. The Quran was sent down over a period of 23 years. In
the first 13 years of Mecca, none of these laws were sent down. As a matter of fact, if
you analyze the Meccan Surahs, they all talk about Tawheed, Shirk, Day of Judgment, and
Hell, Heaven etc. This was done in order to first build up the faith of the believers.
Then in Madina, the laws were sent down. This is to teach us that people change gradually
and not just overnight. This is the wisdom
that Muslims even apply today. That if there is a sinner and wishes to turn back to God,
he doesn’t conform to all the of laws and quit all the sins he does over night. His
mind would eventually pop and lose hope of ever changing. But a person is to change
gradually.
Drinking was a part
of the lives of the people at that time and Allah in his divine wisdom had them quit
gradually. This was Allah’s plan the whole time. But if Allah were to completely
prohibit drinking all at once, it would have been very difficult for them to abide by that
law immediately. This simply shows Allah’s mercy and consideration for his creation
In reply,
however, the historical reality behind the words in Sura 5:90-91 contradicts Qutb’s
reading of human nature. In this mid- or late Medinan sura, Allah has to remind the
Muslims not to indulge in idols (Qutb’s translation of v. 90). This can only mean
that some Muslims were engaged in idolatrous practices when this verse was sent down. Yet
according to Qutb, the oneness of Allah and the evils of polytheism must be commanded at
the first without compromise. Something is wrong here. This shows that human nature is
slow to obey divine commands even in abstract matters like the oneness of
Allah—especially in abstract matters. Then how much more are average humans slow to
obey practical commands against drinking and gambling, which are "well-entrenched
social habits" (vol. 1, p. 332)? Therefore, in the progressive revelations of Allah
and his prophet and in Qutb’s defense of them, they misread human nature,
They were
polytheists since the day they were born, you cannot just go up to a person and tell him
that the religion he has been practicing all his life is wrong. Of course it takes time.
Of course the oneness of God is first priority. They needed to change spiritually first
before abiding to the more physical laws (such as not consuming alcohol) and they did. The
reason God is sending down this verse as a reminder could be for several reasons. I will
name 2.
1-
In order to reassure them that
the idols they have been worshipping are false gods just incase they were beginning to
miss worshipping them.
2-
Because of Islamic critics who
keep claiming that Muhammad worshipped idols, therefore this is a clear-cut verse to shut
those critics up.
Also, when the
final revelation came down in Sura 5:90-91, Qutb reports on the miraculous results in
these words:
All the
Muslims stopped drinking. Once the command was given, all wine containers were emptied and
broken throughout Madinah [Medina]. Indeed, those who were in the process of drinking did
not swallow what was in their mouths when they were informed of the prohibition. It was,
thus, a great triumph for the Qur’an and its approach. (vol. 3, p. 155).
Qutb writes
further: "How did it all happen? How was this miracle, unparalleled in human history,
achieved?" (vol. 3. p. 155; cf. vol. 4, pp. 247-50; see Bukhari, Sales, vol. 3, no. 2226,
Oppressions, vol. 3, no. 2464; Drinks, vol. 7, nos. 5582-5583).
Thus, history
demonstrates that the Quranic approach to human frailty is far better than Western (read:
Christian) answers.
The reply to Qutb’s utopian description is not difficult. These last three defenses (the social, psychological and historical) of the Quran’s progressive revelations are contradicted by the brute facts. It may be true that some Muslims stopped drinking instantaneously after Sura 5:90-91 was sent down (though these reports seem exaggerated and counterfactual), but all of the Muslims? Indeed, the hadith and later classical legal rulings (the next two sections) demonstrate that the results were not always and exclusively positive. Muhammad had to whip alcohol drinkers, and so did the first generations of Muslims, that is, the companions of Muhammad, like Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ali. Later jurists then followed their example and decreed the penalty of whipping drunkards and even light social drinkers. Thus, Islam follows the less-than-ideal results in the US during Prohibition, after all.
Not some Muslims
stopped as James said. Look at the quote that Qutb said, he said
All the
Muslims stopped drinking. Once the command was given, all wine containers were
emptied and broken throughout Madinah [Medina]. Indeed, those who were in the process of
drinking did not swallow what was in their mouths when they were informed of the
prohibition. It was, thus, a great triumph for the Qur’an and its approach. (vol. 3, p. 155).
Once the command was
given all the Muslims stopped drinking. But James said that later on drinkers were being
punished. Well Qutb didn’t say “All the Muslims stopped
drinking forever”
Yes, it is true that
later on in the future Muslims did drink but Qutb was talking at the moment.
But only for sake of
argument, lets say Qutb is wrong and James is right and that not everyone quit drinking.
Like I said before, everyone sins. It is the human being that needs to change. However,
Islam offers the best solution. That gradual change is better than any other
rehabilitation programs out there http://www.soberforever.net/
One of the
deficiencies in Islam is that a Muslim must pay for his own sins. Where does this end? How
can he be assured of getting into heaven? Taking a trip to Mecca? What about all the
Muslims who are unable to do this, especially before modern transportation? In
Christianity, per contra, Jesus pays for the sins of his followers by his death on the
cross. All they have to do is believe in him, and then they are on their way to heaven.
However, it is one thing to make material restitution for one’s sins, say, in the
case of theft (restitution is good), but it is quite another to "expiate"
one’s sins by self-effort to ensure access to heaven.
You don’t understand how tempted I am
to respond to this paragraph and actually show how ridiculous this statement is. Show me
where in the Quran that says you can only attain salvation by going to Mecca! If you are
referring to Hajj then it is only for those who are able to do so.
In it are clear signs, the standing place of Ibrahim, and whoever
enters it shall be secure, and pilgrimage to the House is incumbent upon men for the sake
of Allah, (upon) every one who is able to undertake the journey to it; and whoever
disbelieves, then surely Allah is Self-sufficient, above any need of the worlds.
However, this will take us off topic.
All I wanted to do is show this verse from
the bible and now we can move on.
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor
children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Bible, Deuteronomy 24:16, NIV)
Jesus offers to freely help all those who ask him. He does not flog sinners or the needy. Not even the Old Testament, which can impose harsh laws, commands physical punishment for drunkenness.
James does not like
harsh Islamic laws but he is okay with the bible’s harsh laws. Ironic isn’t it?
He is okay with people being executed for cursing their own parents (Leviticus 20:9). This
is a law that Jesus reminded his followers of in Mark 7:10.
James does not have
a problem with this law but he is not okay with Islamic rulings. It is truly ironic.
The Old Testament on alcohol is clear. It allows people to drink, but only in moderation. It condemns drunkenness. Gambling will be analyzed in the section "Application," below.
What do you mean by moderation? http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh23-1/05-14.pdf
Taken from http://mens-health.health-cares.net/moderate-drinking.php
· They recommend the
following people should not drink at all:
· women who are pregnant or
trying to conceive
· people who plan to drive
or engage in other activities that require attention or skill
· people taking medication,
including over-the-counter medications
· recovering alcoholics
· people under the age of
21.
Tell me, who is left to drink?
It has harmful effects as well http://www.athealth.com/Consumer/disorders/womenalcohol.html
Moderate drinkers most likely become heavy drinkers anyway
so why the risk? Islam does not like to take risks. It ensures the safety of society.
There is no necessity at all for drinking alcohol in any way and should be totally
prohibited even if it takes force to do so (just like the fight on drugs).
Additionally a Christian can use the same argument.
“Now if it is okay for me to drink but not get drunk, it is also okay for me to smoke
marijuana and not get high”
Anyways throughout
the rest of the article, James just posts hadith that shows that drinkers are being
punished (by beating) and tries to show that this is cruel. I have just one response to
that.
If someone has the
guts and the nerve to break the commandment of God, to go against the law of the country
and to influence and affect the society with that poison (alcohol) then he certainly
deserves such a punishment and that punishment reduces alcohol consumption better than any
other system.
Now to move on with
the rest of his original article http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_sharia.htm
James
said:
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
In 2004, Rania al-Baz,
who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal
public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women
in the home in Saudi Arabia.
My Response
Well these problems
do not only exist in Saudi Arabia just incase James was trying to make that point. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-24-2003-43341.asp?viewPage=2
James
said:
Saudi television
aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three-fourths
of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods
that husbands may use to hit their wives.
My Response
Lets read what the scholar said,
On
pages 86-87, Mustafa states: "The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind
anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman]." He adds, "It is forbidden
to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and
head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that
must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are
caused." Similarly, "[the blows] must not be hard." [1]
Mustafa
noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some
emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically.
According to him, wife-beating must be the last resort to which the husband turns in
punishing his wife, and is, according to the Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 34, the husband's
third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next,
he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the
husband turn to beating.
I couldn’t say
it better myself. Unlike the bible, the Quran gives solutions on how to stop divorce.
Unlike the high divorce rates in amongst Christians http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40E16FA3C5B0C778DDDA80994DC404482 that don’t have solutions
on how not to reach to divorce, us Muslims have solutions.
James
said:
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If
you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore
them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act
against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an,
Oxford UP, 2004)
My Response:
Lets look at the translation by Yusuf Ali.
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all).
Notice the pattern, first admonish then leave them in bed
then the beating. These all signify emotional punishments. Secondly, Islamic critics might
be stubborn and want to take the literal word daraba as in beating physically. But
lets not forget why God has sent Prophet Muhammad (Surah 16, verse 44) and Prophet
Muhammad has made it clear what is meant by the word daraba in the verse.
James
said:
The hadith says
that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the
context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)
My Response:
Again, the Muslims made mistakes. That does not mean that
the Prophet approved of it. The Muslims at the time did sin. But as the scholar quoted
from above said and as the Prophet said, no marks should be made. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544256
She had a green mark. That is forbidden.
Maybe the Prophet condemned him for that act later on in
privacy. Just because the hadith does not show the Prophet condemning him, it does not
mean that the Prophet approved of it.
James
said:
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride,
Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127: "He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which
caused me pain."
My Response:
Looking at Imam Nawawi’s tafseer (explanation) of this
hadeeth from http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=1&Rec=2119
?( ?????? )
??? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? , ???? ( ?????? ) ?????? ???? ???????? . ??? ??? ????? :
???? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ???? , ????? : ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? , ?????
????? ???? ????? . ?
The explanation basically says that the Prophet either push
her on her chest with an open hand or pushed her on her chest with a closed fist. HE DID
NOT PUNCH HER, HE PUSHED HER with a closed fist. So it probably caused her a little pain.
This is no way shows the Prophet to be a wife abuser.
http://muttaqun.com/abuse.html
James
said:
It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer
incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example,
women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings.
My Response:
And it is true…
James
said:
But these results of fewer incidents of sexual
"crimes" may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the
oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women’s social mobility and rights,
the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.
In Iran, the law oppresses women. For instance, women’s testimony counts
half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
My Response:
As for women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.
That is not an Islamic verdict but Saudi Arabia has its own reasons for not letting women
drive (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=64646&d=31&m=5&y=2005).
The Prophet never prohibited women from riding camels or donkeys. You just quote one
scholar. For god sake that scholar even thinks women are not allowed to show their face
and hands when the Prophet has clearly permitted it http://www.muhajabah.com/niqabdalils.htm.
I am not here to defend Iran Law; I am here to defend
Islamic Law. If Iran abuses or misinterprets Islamic Law then that is not Islam to blame.
It is the Iranians themselves.
The women’s testimony is only during financial
situations. http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/13.php
If more women are being punished for adultery then that
simply means that more women are committing adultery than men. So what is the problem?
Whose fault is that?
James
said:
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal
revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.
In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man
to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiancée.
In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man’s eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.
The Quran says:
5:45 And We
ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth
for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of
charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which
Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali
and Khan, the Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This passage
allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye
for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the
plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge
oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and
later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do
the three modern examples linked above.
Please go here
for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.
Islamic law
calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re-impose the old law of
retaliation—literally, though the evidence suggests that the Torah never intended the
law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates. Muhammad’s
understanding of the Torah was incomplete and confused.
My Response:
I recommend people to read http://www.answering-christianity.com/laws_of_murder.htm
and http://www.shariah.net/
I looked at the article he is speaking of which could be found here http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/retaliation.htm and decided to respond to only what I found needed to be responded to.
James
said:
One of the
oddest traditions, recorded multiple times, says that if someone damages an eye of a
"Peeping Tom," no sin is accrued. Says the prophet: "If someone is peeping
(looking secretly) into your house without your permission, and you throw a stone at him
and destroy his eyes, there will be no sin on you." This rule is not surprising
because Muhammad aimed an arrow at the head of "a Peeping Tom" in order to hit
him. Muhammad also said to another gazer that if the prophet had been sure that "you
were looking at me (through the door), I would have poked your eye with this (sharp iron
bar)" (Ad Diyat, no. 6888; cf. nos. 6889, 6902; Asking Permission, vol. 8, nos. 6241
and 6242; Dress, vol. 7, no. 5924).
At first, this
retaliation may seem deserving or even humorous, but analyzed more deeply, it is serious
and disproportionate. Anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to
Islam must conclude that "destroying" an eye is not equal to looking into a
house without permission. True, the violator should be punished, but excess is never just,
and this punishment is excessive, not equal, as qisas implies. What does this vengeful
violence and destruction say about Muhammad’s capacity to be rightly guided? One
would expect more self-restraint from the Allah-inspired prophet, instead of nearly poking
a man’s eye with sharp iron or with an arrow, though the man’s act was wrong. He
should have been arrested and warned. If he had persisted, he should have spent some time
in jail.
My Response:
Let me respond and rephrase what James said. ANYONE WHOSE
MIND HAS NOT BEEN CLOUDED BY A LIFETIME OF DEVOTION TO CHRISTIANITY AND HATRED TO ISLAM
MUST CONCLUDE THAT ISLAM IS THE TRUE RELIGION OF GOD AND THAT MODERN DAY CHRISTIANITY CAN
NEVER BE.
How does James respond to the fact that millions of people
have converted to Islam in the past century voluntarily? (http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/4.php)
They haven’t been devoted to Islam all their lives. They know about the cutting of
the hand law. They are okay with it. You know why? Because they don’t commit the same
logical fallacy as you. That fallacy is that you reject something just because you
don’t comprehend it. Regardless of it being the truth or not.
How can people justify God commanding the killing of women,
children and animals? (1 Samuel 15:3).
Read http://www.evilbible.com/Evil%20Bible%20Quotes.htm
And section 2 at http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac12.htm
Anyways I am not here to attack the bible but it just amazes
me when all these horrible things are found in the bible and not in Islam and yet
Christians insist on attacking Islam. It is so ironic.
Again, people can say “well wouldn’t it have been
better if this punishment was applied besides that harsh punishment” etc. Islam is
very direct and strict when it comes to crime. If we were to be lenient, crime would climb
to the roof.
Even Jesus said in Matthew 5:29-30
29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And 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.
There are people that really apply this verse http://www.answering-christianity.com/slice_off_penis.htm.
James
said:
Potentially, the law of retaliation is irreversible if
it is wrongly applied. This is seen in the case of two men mistakenly accusing a man of
theft, which is penalized by cutting
off the hand. Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin, accepted the two men’s
testimony and cut off the accused man’s hand. Afterwards, a fourth man stepped
forward and showed that the now disfigured man did not commit the theft. Ali accepted his
testimony, but it was too late. The man’s hand was already cut off. The punishment
could not be reversed. Ali told the two accusers: "If I were of the opinion that you
have intentionally given false witness, I would cut off your hands." This hadith is
found in the context of the law of retaliation, which would have been like-for-like
mutilation of the two accusers. But this second punishment would have been a mistake
compounded on a mistake, even in a courtroom overseen by a competent judge. This is
precisely why the law of retaliation should not even exist, not to mention this unjust
punishment for theft. The actual imposing of the law is irreversible and therefore
excessive (Ad-Diyat, no. 6895).
My Response:
Well you cannot blame Islamic Law; you have to blame the
people that falsely accused the person. How many people have been wrongfully executed for
crimes that they haven’t committed? Does that mean we abolish the death penalty?
Or does that mean it is the fault of the poor police
investigation regarding the case?
James said:
In this section we focus on retaliation (qisas), not on blood-wit or indemnities
(diya). First, the Shafi School is examined.
My Response:
Yes, James wants people to forget that Islam offers the
other two options and only wants to show that Islam is a vengeful religion.
Throughout the article James tries to show that Christians
and Jews have interpreted Leviticus 24:17-22 and Deuteronomy as meaning for it to be an
indemnity. I just love how James said this …
To conclude this section, even if we assume, contrary to the bulk of the evidence, that the law of retaliation was actually and physically carried out when it was first published in Exodus 21:23-25, Judaism later evolved towards the more humane monetary compensation, finding verses in the Torah that pointed in that direction. However, the evidence suggests that the three passages laying out the law of retaliation were not literally carried out; rather, the words stand for equality in punishment and damages.
In other words, Jews stopped following the law sent down to
them and decided to interpret things that best fit them (like Jesus accused them of in
Mark 7:9) and thought they can take things in to their own hands and misinterpret the laws
to what they best see fit (look at Jeremiah 8:8)
James also says that indemnity and forgiveness was
encouraged in the bible, but he forgets to mention that it is also mentioned in the Quran.
Surah 16:126
And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for
those who are patient.
Quran encourages forgiveness so that people can have a
reward from Allah.
Surah 42:40
42:40. The recompense for an injury is an injury equal
thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is
due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.
Islam does not encourage revenge but permits it. It should
be no worse than the affliction caused to the victim as indicated by the Quranic verse
above. This is every person’s right. James did not indicate that clearly enough and
tried to show Islam as a vengeful religion while as a matter of fact it encourages
forgiveness and gives people their rights (right to choose to have revenge on the person
or not).
He tries to show Jesus as a loving person and Muhammad as a
violent vengeful person.
Let me ask you something, I want you to close your eyes and
truly imagine this. Imagine someone gauges your right eyeball out. Are you going to take
Jesus’s so called advice in the bible and let him gauge our your left eye as well or
are you going to practice one of the 3 options that Islam gives you
1-Forgive him
2-Ask for blood money
3-The right to ask for his right eye to be gauged out as
well so that he can understand how you feel.
James
said:
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must
have a hand cut off.
Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should
never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal
word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick
radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.
Warning! This page
has photos of thieves getting their hands chopped off. They also show beheadings.
This news
report shows a man getting his hand chopped off in Nigeria.
My Response:
This is James’s strategy; he wants people to see how
gruesome the punishment is so that they can start sharing his opinion from the very
beginning without hearing the arguments from the other side.
Its like me showing a video of a cow getting slaughtered and
showing how innocent the poor animal is and try to gain the sympathy of the people to not
eat non-vegetarian food again without the people first hearing the benefits of eating
non-vegetarian food (I recommend to watch the debate on http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=50027&TitleName=Zakir_Naik)
James
said:
A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.
My Response:
He does so quite well might I add.
Let me quote Zakir Naik:
2. Example - Islam commands us to
shun robbery and also
prescribes method of eli-minating
robbery
a. Islam prescribes method of
eliminating robbery
All major religions teach that theft
is an evil act. Islam teaches the same. So
what is the difference between Islam
and the other religions? The difference
lies in the fact that Islam, besides
teaching that robbing is evil, shows a
practical way of creating a social
structure in which people will not rob.
b. Islam prescribes Zakat
Islam prescribes a system of Zakat
(obligatory annual charity). Islamic law
prescribes that every person who has
a saving that exceeds the nisab level
i.e. more than 85 grams of gold,
should give 2.5% of that saving every lunar
year in charity. If every rich
person in the world gave Zakat sincerely,
poverty will be eradicated from this
world. Not a single human being would
die of hunger.
c. Chopping off the hands as
punishment for robbery
Islam prescribes chopping off the
hands of the convicted robber. The
Glorious Qur’an says in Surah
Maidah:
by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and
Allah is Exalted in
power, full of wisdom.” [ Al-Qur’an 5:38]
The non-Muslim may say,
“Chopping off the hands in this 20th century.
Islam is a barbaric and ruthless
religion!”
d. Results achieved when Islamic
Shariah Implemented
America is supposed to be one of the
most advanced countries in the world.
Unfortunately it also has one of the
highest rates of crime, theft, and
robbery. Suppose the Islamic shariah
is implemented in America i.e. every
rich person gives Zakat ( 2.5% of
his savings in charity above 85 grams of
gold every lunar year), and every
convicted robber has his or her hands
chopped off as a punishment. Will
the rate of theft and robbery in America
increase, remain same or decrease?
Naturally it will decrease. Moreover
the existence of such a stringent
law would discourage many a potential
robber.
I agree that the amount of theft
that takes place in the world today is so
tremendous that if you chop off the
hands of all the thieves, there will be
tens of thousands of people whose
hands will be chopped off. The point
here is that the moment you
implement this law the rate of theft will decline
immediately. The potential robber
would give it a serious thought before
jeopardizing his limbs. The mere
thought of the punishment itself will
discourage majority of the robbers.
There will barely be a few who would
rob. Hence only a few person’s
hands would be chopped off but millions
would live peacefully without fear
of being robbed.
Islamic Shariah is therefore
practical, and achieves results.
James
said:
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are
male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is
almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God
will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance
before the thief’s hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that
repentance is acceptable only after mutilation.
My Response:
James is incorrect, the man does not need to repent by
turning himself in and get his hand cut off. His hand should be cut off if he is caught.
But he can ask for normal forgiveness and repent if he doesn’t get caught
(3:135-136,4:149, 16:119,24:22, 25:70, 39:53-54,42:37,42:40)
If the man wishes to turn himself in and have his hand cut
off, this is called tawbah nasoooha (Surah 66, verse 8) and is the best of
repentance.
It is the same with the fornicator. He does not have to turn
him self in to get whipped. http://www.islamhelpline.com/view_answers.asp?QAID=8608
If you also look at Bukhari 8:6825, it shows that the
Prophet wanted the adulterer to repent in private. This could also apply to stealing.
James
said:
Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter,
Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would
still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)
My Response:
This is one of the proofs that the Prophet was truly sincere
and was a messenger of God. If he truly was the author of the Quran as critics claimed
then he would not have had the law applied to his loved ones. Especially his daughter whom
he loved so dearly. But this was the law of God and had to be equally applied to everyone.
James
said:
If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article.
My Response:
First I want to make perfectly clear that no other system in
the world can fight the crime of theft better than Islam. All countries are having
trouble.
Taken from http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/prisonRisk1950-2000.php
A negative correlation between the risk of punishment and the rate of crime was taken as support for the theory that an increased risk of punishment leads to a fall in crime. In England and Wales they found strong support for the theory that 'links falling risk of punishment to rising crime'.(Langan, P. and Farrington, D., Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Washington: US Department of Justice, 1998, p. 38)
After 1981 the conviction rate in England and Wales fell and the crime rate (whether based on victim surveys or police records) rose. Similarly, the incarceration rate fell and the crime rate rose. However, the correlations between the severity of punishment and the crime rate were mixed. There was, however, a strong link between the severity of punishment of car thieves and the rate of vehicle theft. After 1981, the proportion of car thieves sentenced to prison, their average sentence, the time served and the percentage of sentence served, as well as the number of days of actual incarceration, all fell. During this time, vehicle theft rose according to both the British Crime Survey and police records.
Conclusions
Is the Blair Government pursuing the right policies? The Government is ambiguous about prison. In its 2002 white paper, Justice For All, it says that it wants to send the 'strongest possible message' to criminals that the system will be effective in 'detecting, convicting and properly punishing them'. So far so good: after many years of being opposed to prison and favouring community sentences, the Government now recognises that prison protects the public more effectively. But prison is to be reserved for 'dangerous, serious and seriously persistent offenders and those who have consistently breached community sentences'. For the bulk of criminals, the Government still hopes to find alternatives to prison that combine community and custodial sentences, including weekend prison and more intensive supervision by the Probation Service.
This shows that greater the punishment the less the crime
rate. Tell me how high would the crime rate be in a country if Islamic Law was instituted?
Taken from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
offenses in States other than the
one where the prisoner served time.
Released prisoners with the highest
rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%),
burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%),
imprisonment and another 744,000
charges within 3 years of release.
motor vehicle thieves (78.8%),
This shows that thieves will continue stealing as long as
they are able to do so. Statistics don’t lie.
Now tell me, how often are the thieves going to steal again
if Islamic law is implemented?
There is no reason at all for the person to steal. The
person can take a loan, or ask the government for help. Why steal? Why are people so
worried about the Islamic punishment for stealing? Why should you steal in the first
place? Who are you to take other people’s property? Someone might argue “well
everyone sins”. Then I can use that same argument for someone who commits murder and
then say “come on, everyone sins, forgive him!”
The truth of the matter is that the Quran is the word of
God. That is what should be debated. You cannot come and disprove the Quran from being the
word of God just because you cannot comprehend a law found in it. Your committing a
logical fallacy and that is that you reject something just because you don’t
understand it.
This Islamic punishment does not make sense to you, but it
makes perfect sense to us Muslims. Now, how are we going to determine whose right? We must
not let our subjective opinions be the judge. We must analyze objectively. Objectively, we
can conclude nothing but that Islamic Law achieves results.
God is the one who has given the human being his hands, God
also has the right to set a law for that hand to be removed if His law is broken with
those very hands.
James
said:
6. Islam commands that highway
robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.
My Response:
I would like to see evidence where Islam permits people to
beat the hell out of people for them to admit something if they don’t have proof.
James
said:
In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). Amnesty International has recorded thirty-three amputations and nine cross-amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.
In 2002, in Iran, a man was sentenced to have his right hand and left foot amputated for theft with special circumstances.
In 2003, in Sudan a sixteen-year-old boy has been sentenced to have his right hand and left foot amputated for highway robbery.
The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33-34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.
See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad’s use of torture.
Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.
For more information on Muhammad’s brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back-up article.
My Response:
The same answers are given regarding the cutting the hands of the thief. Obviously armed robbery is worse. The reason why we cant comprehend why Islamic Law is just because we have never been victims of such brutal crimes. You can never imagine how it feels for a robber to come into your house with an armed weapon and point it at your family and potentially torture or injure one of them (God forbid). I would swear to you, that if we were in that position and we were made judge and had the decision as to what punishment the criminal must endure. We would definitely choose the Islamic punishment.
Let me quote Zakir Naik
5. Every Muslim
should be a terrorist
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment
a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber.
Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such
as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he
should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for
a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a
terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent
people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.
James said:
5. Islam commands that
homosexuals must be executed.
In February 1998, the Taliban,
who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered
a stone wall to be pushed over onto three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be
spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.
In its 1991 Constitution, in
Articles 108-113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.
In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says
homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
On April 7, 2005, it
was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for
"gay conduct."
These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin
and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and
Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . "If you find anyone doing as
Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (Abu
Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that
homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira
reported God’s messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who does what Lot’s
people did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali
[Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr
[Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat,
vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
Though this punishment of a wall
being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their
religion.
If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article The article has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to "Supplemental material").
My Response:
"If
a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their
abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
James says that this is not applicable today. So basically what James is trying to tell us is that the God he believes in, set an immoral law at a specific point in time but not anymore.
He fails to understand there cannot be homosexual Christians
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves,
nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of
God."
I recommend reading http://www.carm.net/issues/homosexuality.htm
James tries to show that Jesus was not fulfilling the Old Testament laws anymore. This is a separate issue. But he appeals to John 8:1-8 to show Jesus abolished the adultery punishment. But look at the side note in the NIV bible.
This was an interpolation by people later on to try to show Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws, while he did not.
James posted this hadith
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported
God’s messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people
did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali
[Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr
[Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (vol. 1, p. 765,
Prescribed Punishments; cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68)
This hadith is false because the Prophet condemned burning people.
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith
Number 260.
-----------------------------------------
Narrated By Ikrima : Ali burnt
some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I
would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't
punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.'
James said:
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
My Response:
The bible also orders adulterers to be stoned
Fornicators (Leviticus 21:9) were to be burned to death.
Jesus did not forgive the adulterous in John 8:1-8, as I
showed above it was an interpolated verse.
See also Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10, Proverbs 6:32,
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
James said:
Fornication:
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.
The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
My Response:
Notice the Quranic verse. Fornicators and adulterers can
only be punished if there are four witnesses (or if the person voluntarily confesses). Can
someone please tell me how two people can get caught in sexual intercourse by four
trustworthy witnesses. The witnesses actually have to see “the penetration”
occur.
Why did Allah make it so difficult for these fornicators and
adulterers to get caught? So that they wont have to go through the punishment and so that
they could repent. There are a lot of cases where fornicators and adulterers are being
punished by not having four witnesses. Well then they are breaking the Islamic Law. The
Quranic verse is very clear.
Now if two people do get caught by four witnesses, they
deserve the punishment. Imagine the nerve of those two people to engage in sexual
intercourse in such a public place. They deserve to be punished for such indecency.
Fornication and adultery are crimes against society http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=506
and therefore need to be punished by society for their crimes.
James said:
According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty-five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.
My Response:
Taken from http://www.jannah.org/morearticles/4.html
Lord Scarman, the
well-known British judicial champion of civil liberties, writes that "it is important
to a civilised system of justice to have humane values at all levels of its
administration"48 and Islam provides for this. Flogging in Islamic law is
"not just a savage beating inflicted capriciously according to the whims of brutal
guards" but it is done "with control, in accord with justice and in the kindest
possible way in the circumstances"49 to the extent that one English writer
says that "the best comparison for Islamic flogging is the caning of children at
school". 50 Even the President of the International Court of Justice at
the Hague in 1967 declared that "certain types of offences call for severe
chastisement, and flogging in the case of such offences cannot be regarded as cruel,
inhuman or degrading".51
James said:
Adultery:
In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.
This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the prophet’s words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
My Response:
If her co- defendant is unmarried then he should be lashed
and not hanged. If he is married then him and the woman should both have the same
punishment. Apparently Islamic Law is not appropriately being implemented. I have my
doubts that they even got 4 trustworthy witnesses against her.
As for the hadith, if you read all of it, you notice that
the woman voluntarily came to the Prophet to be stoned. She knew what was awaiting her. No
one forced her. She came on her own.
How can Muhammad forgive her? It is not Muhammad’s
laws; it is God’s law.
James said:
Here is the back-up article that supports this fourth reason.
My Response:
The article could be found here http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/flogging.htm.
I would respond to what I feel needs to be responded to.
James said:
For the New Testament
section, we ask and answer the simple question: What would Jesus do? The short answer:
forgive, heal and restore the sinner—not flog or stone him to death.
My Response:
Are you kidding me? Where is the justice?!! Forgive?!!
This is an honest question to all the readers out there. I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you go back home and catch some idiot having sex with your daughter, sister or wife?!! You are going to just forgive him? That guy knew what he was doing and he should just be forgiven? Are you kidding me?
How many cases are there when brothers or fathers murder their OWN daughters or sisters or the person she slept with due to their frustrations of catching them in sexual intercourse? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3097728.stm
They murder them because they feel like there needs to be a punishment. But if it was in an Islamic state, they would not resort to murder because they know that the lashing is punishment enough.
What do you mean ‘heal and restore’? Sex can be an addiction, it is more addictive than drugs. Laws must be enforced in order to stop this filth to be spreading through out our community.
Christians erroneously assume that everyone can change spiritually. Not everyone can change spiritually; those who can change spiritually shouldn’t even worry about the law in the first place. But what about those who don’t and are not willing to change spiritually? The Law must be implemented on them. Christians don’t follow their bible and don’t have any laws or solutions regarding fornication. That is why it is so common amongst their societies.
Taken from http://www.daghewardmills.org/books_pdf/Fornication.pdf
But unfortunately, even in Charismatic circles, fornication is commonly found amongst born again Christians. This ‘cancer’ of fornication is rapidly affecting the Body of Christ, because many Christians who get involved in fornication do not know it’s spiritual and physical implications.
They do not know its complications.
Taken from http://www.basedintheword.org/sermons/coveteousness.asp
To lust after
the things of this world, is to worship them. Covetousness, even though it’s
unfortunately common amongst Christians, is classified as a sin that should never, ever
been seen among them!
James said:
This is one of the
paradoxes of Islam. A Muslim judge feels as all reasonable persons do when they hear of
such harsh punishments sent down from Allah. But Allah supposedly feels more compassion
than the human judge, while the deity sends the compassionate human to hell—for
compassionately commuting Allah’s uncompassionate punishment. This is indeed
difficult to understand.
My Response:
Well we are human; of course our emotions can take over us. I mean Christians can feel the same way.
A lot of Christians cannot understand how God can send people to hell for eternity for not believing in Jesus as lord and savior. A lot of them find that too harsh. But that does not mean that they disbelieve in it.
God is just; he sets his laws according to his divine wisdom. That is why God is called the All Just. He does not let his emotions overtake His decision to establish justice.
Plus if we don’t have laws implemented, people might start taking the law into their own hands http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/06/1028157922214.html?oneclick=true
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Front_Page/GF08Aa01.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1641176,00.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1641176,00.html