Interesting Take on Islam and Libertarianism

[9thdoctor]

Traditionally, Jews have been happy to learn from other if they have something worthwhile learing. The source of outside wisdom or knowledge need not be Jewish. R. Moshe ben Maimon (Mainonodes) based an argument support Judaism using the logic and metaphysics of Aristotle. A century later Thomas Aquinas did the same for Catholoicism, using Maimonodes as a guide.

Something this made me think of is that Rand’s statement about the most important philosophers being: Aristotle, Aquinas, Ayn Rand, should really have been Aristotle, Averroes, Ayn Rand. Averroes was an Aristotelian Muslim philosopher from the 12th century that Aquinas studied and who arguably is better deserving of the credit for reintroducing Aristotle to the west. He was contemporary to Maimonides and I think he was an influence on him too.

Trouble here is that Rand’s statement was one of her more cringe inducing one’s to start with, best not to start revisiting it.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Libertarian Muslim]

I was wryly amused by your comment about it being the secular Jews who were behind Zionism; it seems you hvae allied yourself (temporarily? ) with the fundamentalist Jew who would rather live at the mercy of strangers, to await the coming of the Messiah. This is the same person who has been refusing to budge from settlements in Palestine, as you know. This is more proof that the Word of a 'Book' is dangerous.

Actually no. You assume too much. I haven't allied myself with those people. Instead I've allied myself with people like the Neturei Karta, orthodox Jews who stand up against Zionism. http://nkusa.org/

OUR MISSION

Judaism is the faith of the Jewish people. It is predicated upon G-d's existence and His revelation at Sinai.

At Sinai, in the presence of the assembled multitudes of Jews, recently released via Divine miracles from Egypt, the Creator revealed His Torah to the nation.

This Torah contains the basic doctrines of our faith, Divine commandments and the narrative of the earliest Jewish and general human encounter with G-d.

Throughout the centuries Jews pledged their assent to this Torah even when their lives were at stake. They maintained this loyalty with almost unanimous allegiance until the dawn of the modern age. In the three hundred - odd years since the so - called Enlightenment began, Jews and Gentiles throughout European civilization have been losing many souls to its evil clutches.

Today unfortunately there are many Jews who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of, and fail to, practice the basics of their faith. This is a great tragedy for many reasons. Perhaps paramount among them is the falsification of Judaism that results when those unaware of its basic assumptions speak to the general public.

It behooves all Jews loyal to their faith to proclaim to the world the truths of Judaism in as lucid a manner as possible.

Neturei Karta International is dedicated to the propagation and clarification of Torah Judaism.

Its only loyalty is to G-d and His revelation.

One of the basics of Judaism is that we are a people in exile due to Divine decree.

Accordingly, we are opposed to the ideology of Zionism, a recent innovation, which seeks to force the end of exile. Our banishment from the Holy Land will end miraculously at a time when all mankind will unite in the brotherly service of the Creator.

In addition to condemning the central heresy of Zionism, we also reject its policy of aggression against all peoples. Today this cruelty manifests itself primarily in the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people. We proclaim that this inhuman policy is in violation of the Torah.

NKI seeks peace and reconciliation with all peoples and nations. This is especially needed in our relations towards the Islamic world where Zionism has for 53 years done so much to ruin Jewish - Muslim understanding.

We welcome the assistance of all men of good will and stand ready to assist all whose agenda coincides with ours.

Source: http://www.nkusa.org/aboutus/mission.cfm

Still, there is another thread, as you suggest, for discussion of Palestine and Israel.

I'd like to get the ball rolling with this question:-

Do you completely recognise Israel's right to exist?

No. A right to exist in its current form is a right to its creation, as if there was some justification to use military force to take the lands that belonged to other people and occupy that calling it a state. It's a military occupation and not a state, just like the Crusader state initially was.

I will not recognize Israel as a legitimate state until there has been an agreement with the Palestinians on the issue, ie if Israel accepts a peace agreement like the Arab Peace Initiative which is fair and is a two state solution. That would legitimize its existence and I'd recognize it's right, from then on to exist as a state under the auspices of a peace treaty.

[Robert Campbell]

Adonis,

Like xray, I would like to know your views on the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's fatwa exhorting Islamic believers to kill Salman Rushdie.

Yusuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, did in fact call for the murder of Salman Rushdie. I saw him on TV in 1989 doing precisely that. If Mr. Islam has genuinely thought better of his actions 20 years ago, surely he would start by admitting what he did then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/02/yusuf-islam-and-salman-rushdie.html

I also note that you've now referred twice to "Christian law." There never was a Christian law in the sense that there is a Jewish law or an Islamic law. Even when the Catholic church was at the height of its power and often interfered in politics, it acknowledged a distinct sphere for secular law. If you want to say that the prevailing laws in many Christian countries treated women as second-class citizens, that would be accurate.

You have said many negative things about the variety of Islam that is promoted by the Sa'udi royal house and its clerical allies. So what do you think of a prominent Sa'udi imam's proclamation that opposition to slavery is un-Islamic?

What, in fact, is the Islamic case against slavery?

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

The problem is that individuals are denied the right to decide for themselves. If such small things are already controlled, it takes no stretch of imagination to think of which other things will be controlled as well.

Who physically stopped him from shaking your hand? Or was it his own choice because he believed that is what God wanted of him?

I was not thinking of the average muslims, the "people in the street". I was thinking about the leaders in power.

What leaders in power are promoting this?

Are you aware of the Amman message? http://www.ammanmessage.com/ Most leaders and top scholars have signed this.

What about the conflicts between Sunnites and Shiites for example? Which group do you belong to btw?

As I said before, I'm Muslim, that is sufficient, I don't subscribe to the false dichotomy that is the Sunni and Shia divide, the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was a Muslim. I don't even say Sunni or Shia to Muslims.

How many additional years does it take to be not a "new Muslim" anymore?

Depends on the person, some still get stuck in that mindset for years and years, I know one who has been like that for 30 years and still hasn't developed.

To be honest they can have their opinion, as long as they don't act on it and break the law by doing so.

Let's stick to the point of the discussion and not get sidetracked. The issue was about the unequal treatment of men and women, not about "doing justice to orphans". In the passage it says a man can marry up to four women. Women don't have the same right.

Do you know why that is?

I didn't mean to quote this passage explictily; it was part of the page I put there.

Well, what does it mean? Interesting that it says a man is unable to treat all his wives equally fairly, and he is admonished not let the unpreferred one(s) leave "hanging", which I assume means feeling unhappy/uncertain about their situation and the future.

It then continues:

If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

What precisely is meant by "self-restraint" here?

Ah interesting question.. It means that even though you are obligated to treat all of your wives the same in terms of material things, ie if you buy something for one, you have to buy something for all and you have to divide your time between them equally. But you could never love all of your wives the same, no matter how hard you tried. So don't stop seeing one or start treating her bad because you don't love her as much as the others.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah 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 Allah 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):... " (end quote)

The women are clearly not given the same "rights" as the men. Every attempt to explain this away is futile.

What is there not to understand? Stage 1 is mere words ("admonish") stage 2 is refusing sexual intercourse, stage 3 is physical violence.

--------

The issue here is not about removing "silence" from domestic violence, but about a surah in the Koran dealing with domestic violence against women who are not "devoutly obedient".

--------

"Tranlations can mean many things" is too vague. It is about the translation of specific words in a specific passage. I can't listen to the youtube link because my earphones don't work: if the sheik gives "translations" for "admonish" "refuse to share the bed" and "beat" - what are they?

I'm sorry but I'm not going to transcribe the whole 26 minute sermon for you xray, please get some headphones because the points he makes therein are very important. Translation is a very big issue. I won't address anymore points about this until you've watched the full thing so you can understand where I'm coming from.

Keep in mind that things like 'myth-forming', 'legend-forming', can come into play here.

For it is not uncommon for gurus to be presented in a shining light by their followers who write 'hagiographically' about them.

Really? Wouldn't his companions have been so proud of it that they'd have promoted such a thing to justify if they did the same? That is far more likely.

In case you mean 4:11, I have read it.

No, I meant this previous comment about the division of inheritance.

A lot of people say this is unfair but let's take a look at it.

1. In Jewish and Christian law, women have no right to inheritance whatsoever unless there are no sons.

2. Up until recently, common law dictated that a man who marries a woman, automatically owns all of her wealth (An example is that of George Washington who married a rich widow).

Your point being? Does listing other unequalities make the one in question any different?

I disagree about "all the finacial burden in society being on males". We are talking about the here and now, not about the prophet's times. My question is: Does this old structure still apply today, even if the woman can earn her own living?

My point is that in a time 1400 years ago, Islam was providing not only inheritance for women when no one else was, but at the same time her husband couldn't touch her wealth and in addition to that she HAD to be provided for by her husband, that is a legal requirement of the marriage.

Yet in the West, this still is not a requirement of men and women can be obligated to work and the man doesn't have to provide anything for her.

Even if the wife is filthy rich he still has to provide for her. In fact, she could even go so far as to demand payment for breast feeding their children and he'd have to pay her for it.

And Yes.. Muslim men are still obligated to provide for their wives. That's what being a man and husband is, providing for your family and taking responsibility.

I did not mean by "revival" that Islam was nearing death. I meant it to be understood as "rise".

Interesting, you continually talk about how the Qur'anic words should mean what they say in the translation yet you can't seem to make yourself understood without explanation and you're a native speaker of English.

Where does Mohammed say that the husband is to warn his wife that he is coming home?

It's a hadith, I'll try and find it. This is a common thing in Islamic etiquette.

In the Qur'an it also states:

"O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, for some suspicions are a sin. Do not spy on one another, nor backbite one another. Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, you would abhor it, [so similarly, avoid backbiting]. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Qur'an, 49:12]

The not spying has something to do with it also

What about possible tyranny by faith?

Some more questions. I'm a "put your cards on the table" type, so if you would be so kind and answer directly with "Yes" or "No". TIA. Imo an alleged libertarian condoning stoning has some explaining to do.

I won't answer yes or no for all of them simply because you might think by saying yes or no, that I am saying it to what your interpretation of such a thing is. I made this clear earlier on.

- Would you want the sharia to become applied?

Applied where? What is your understanding of Shariah?

- Would you participate as a witness in stoning of defendants found guilty of e. g. adultery ("in public"), or other sexual trangressions warranting the death penalty according to the sharia?

I would participate as a witness of any crime that I saw committed.

- Would you actively participate in stoning?

Depends on the circumstances.

- How about muslim libertarians (if they exist at all, I have my doubts, especially if they are fervent fundamentalists) wanting to liberate islam from e. g. the barbaric practice of stoning? Would you take part in such an initiative?

If not, why not?

Well, I'll say this, I don't believe that we have everything down 100% correct and it may be the case that we're somehow wrong about whether punishments like stoning should be applied today, and as time goes on our understanding of Islam grows with study into the evidences and there may be new evidence that comes to light that shows that this practice isn't allowed in Islam. If this was the case and there was sufficient evidence for it, I'd not only call for it to end but I'd fight against it too. I say this specifically because the punishment for such is not mentioned in the Qur'an and therefore, as hadith it may indeed be inauthentic.

Who is that "enemy"? Do you sympathize with this enemy?

The banks and corporations, specifically the military industrial complex in collusion with their puppets in Government (both Western and Middle Eastern), intelligence organizations who use their assets ie Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to commit horrendous attacks that create a climate of fear and hate that would give public support for perpetual conflict and thus feed the military industrial complex with trillions of dollars so they benefit and become rich and gain yet more control over people's lives, while the people become more poor, more destitute and more enslaved than they were before.

"If the American people ever allow private banks

to control the issue of their money,

first by inflation and then by deflation,

the banks and corporations that will

grow up around them (around the banks),

will deprive the people of their property

until their children will wake up homeless

on the continent their fathers conquered."

- Thomas Jefferson

Do I support them? No.. They're the enemies of mankind..

[Libertarian Muslim]

Like xray, I would like to know your views on the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's fatwa exhorting Islamic believers to kill Salman Rushdie.

I'm against the fatwa. I don't think that's the correct Islamic opinion on the issue at all.

You have said many negative things about the variety of Islam that is promoted by the Sa'udi royal house and its clerical allies. So what do you think of a prominent Sa'udi imam's proclamation that opposition to slavery is un-Islamic?

What, in fact, is the Islamic case against slavery?

Please define slavery including the rights of slaves and conditions etc.

[Libertarian Muslim]

It appears that you guys have become quite popular over at the SOLO forums.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254#comment-83063

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

Ya think it's tough luv?

Nah... Spite is spite...

Be glad those dudes were not born and raised in an Islamist community. There would be more suicide bombers in the world.

If you have ever wondered why there is some kind of schism between this site and that, I wonder if you still wonder.

On another note, do you write fiction? I'm serious. I have an idea sitting on my shelf you might like...

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis,

Ya think it's tough luv?

Nah... Spite is spite...

Be glad those dudes were not born and raised in an Islamist community. There would be more suicide bombers in the world.

If you have ever wondered why there is some kind of schism between this site and that, I wonder if you still wonder.

On another note, do you write fiction? I'm serious. I have an idea sitting on my shelf you might like...

Michael

I agree completely Michael, to be quite frank, I see no difference between many of those people and extremists like Al-Qaeda and the Wahhabis which is why I wrote this http://www.solopassion.com/node/7254#comment-82963.

Do I write fiction? Well as a matter of fact I do just a little. I am thinking of writing a few books myself..

I write a little poetry too believe it or not, it's all on my blog at http://thevitalissue.blogspot.com

What did you have in mind?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What did you have in mind?

Adonis,

A new kind of hero targeting the Muslim market. One that can become a series.

Heroes can carry and present ideas in a manner nonfiction cannot...

Interested in exchanging ideas on this?

btw - I saw the sermon on domestic violence you posted (which, within the context of Islam, I found quite good) and the first 15 minutes of Occupation 101 (but I will finish it). Thoughts coming.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

What did you have in mind?

Adonis,

A new kind of hero targeting the Muslim market. One that can become a series.

Heroes can carry and present ideas in a manner nonfiction cannot...

Interested in exchanging ideas on this?

btw- I saw the sermon on domestic violence you posted (which, within the context of Islam, I found quite good) and the first 15 minutes of Occupation 101 (but I will finish it). Thoughts coming.

Michael

Yes Michael, I would love to exchange ideas on it. I was thinking of making a hero like that too. In fact I was thinking of two different series. One of one hero and the other of a group of Muslims too.

Something targeted towards young adults and adults. Something that will help not only build bridges, but would also inspire young Muslims males to want to engage and not fall into certain traps that the Wahhabi machine can bring about.

I look forward to reading your comments on Occupation 101.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Brant Gaede]

kk

Edited January 8, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Libertarian Muslim]

I'm not a bridge builder myself. The President should just tell the terrorists they had six months to cut out the terrorist shit or all US military jets' fuel would be contaminated by pig fat.

--Brant

Oh yes, great idea Brant.. But the problem is, it'd make your food a source of fuel for the military machine, meaning due to the principles of supply and demand the prices would go up considerably and then that'd cause even more economic chaos in the US.

But... If you all became Muslim, you probably could afford it because you wouldn't be eating the pig as a source of food!

Edited January 8, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[sbeaulieu]

I'm not a bridge builder myself. The President should just tell the terrorists they had six months to cut out the terrorist shit or all US military jets' fuel would be contaminated by pig fat.

--Brant

Oh yes, great idea Brant.. But the problem is, it'd make your food a source of fuel for the military machine, meaning due to the principles of supply and demand the prices would go up considerably and then that'd cause even more economic chaos in the US.

But... If you all became Muslim, you probably could afford it because you wouldn't be eating the pig as a source of food!

Now that's funny!

~ Shane

[Robert Campbell]

Please define slavery including the rights of slaves and conditions etc.

Adonis,

I'll go with the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Slavery is involuntary servitude, excepting the involuntary servitude of prisoners who have been duly convicted of a crime.

A slave is an adult human being who is considered the property of another human being, and is subject to being bought and sold.

He or she may be required to work for no pay. If a slave is allowed to own anything, or to obtain wages and keep any portion of them for him or herself, it is only because his or her master chooses to permit this.

He or she may not go wherever he or she wishes to go, only where the master permits. An escaped or fugitive slave, by law, is subject to apprehension and punishment.

The master is entitled to discipline the slave by beating. In a slave system, there are few legal constraints on a master physically harming a slave. Customary morality may exert further constraints—or it may not. There are few legal constraints on working a slave to death, and there may not be any additional constraints in customary morality.

Slave systems have in many cases automatically relegated all children of slaves to slave status, but this is not a necessary feature.

Some slave systems have appealed to racist doctrines to legitimize them, but this is also not a necessary feature. Most slave systems in ancient times were not predicated on appeals to racial superiority.

I think there is enough detail here to further the present discussion.

Now, here are my questions:

(1) Can an Islamic believer who attributes moral and legal authority to the Qur'an and the hadith make an Islamic case against the legality of slavery as an institution? Against the morality of holding or trading slaves?

(2) If this can be done, can you identify a significant indigenous social or political movement in any part of the Islamic world that actually did it?

(3) Who is the closest Islamic counterpart to William Lloyd Garrison? To Frederick Douglass? To William Wilberforce? To John Henry Newton? To Harriet Beecher Stowe?

Robert Campbell

[Xray]

kk

Remember Brant when you told me numerous times that my stating that all values are subjective would lead to an 'anything goes' attitude? But that boot is on the other foot:

Adonis's Vlahos's posts offer illustrative evidence of the 'objective value' illusion, and it is actually the belief in alleged 'objective' values which will lead to an "anything goes" attitude: for example, to stone those to death who don't behave according to the alleged 'objective' moral code of the (subjective) belief held.

Also, I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that a person acknowledging the fact that all values are subjective would just sit there doing nothing and let all those succumbing to the illusion of objective value "take over".

I hope A. Vlahos stays here long enough so I can demonstrate what it is about. We have just started the exchange, and for specific reasons, I want to put off exposing AV's root premise as false to a later point (he clearly mixes up his subjective highest value (Allah) with objective reality, i. e. by claiming that "orders" of a superior being he believes to exist are to be carried out in reality).

Before getting to the nitty gritty of the root premise fallacy, let's examine what life looks like for people succumbing to the idea that there exists any such thing as "objective morality".

Here goes:

The problem is that individuals are denied the right to decide for themselves. If such small things are already controlled, it takes no stretch of imagination to think of which other things will be controlled as well.

Who physically stopped him from shaking your hand? Or was it his own choice because he believed that is what God wanted of him?

What physically stops people living in fear of punishment to commit an act which they believe will get them into trouble? Their fear stops them. And it was fear which stopped this man. I could see it in his face. Fear of going against Allah's wishes if he shook hands with a woman not related to him.

AV:

Let's stick to the point of the discussion and not get sidetracked. The issue was about the unequal treatment of men and women, not about "doing justice to orphans". In the passage it says a man can marry up to four women. Women don't have the same right.

Do you know why that is?

A 'why' explanation does not qualify as justification. I can also tell you 'why' e.g. the Romans made gladiators fight against lions.

According to the surah, a man can marry up to four women, a woman can't marry up to four men. The issue of the discussion was equal rights.

A man is also allowed to take "captives" as mates, "(a captive) that your right hands possess", the women are not allowed this.

It means that even though you are obligated to treat all of your wives the same in terms of material things, ie if you buy something for one, you have to buy something for all and you have to divide your time between them equally. But you could never love all of your wives the same, no matter how hard you tried. So don't stop seeing one or start treating her bad because you don't love her as much as the others.

Still the patriarchal hierarchy is there.

Xray :"Tranlations can mean many things" is too vague. It is about the translation of specific words in a specific passage. I can't listen to the youtube link because my earphones don't work: if the sheik gives "translations" for "admonish" "refuse to share the bed" and "beat" - what are they?

AV: I'm sorry but I'm not going to transcribe the whole 26 minute sermon for you xray, please get some headphones because the points he makes therein are very important. Translation is a very big issue. I won't address anymore points about this until you've watched the full thing so you can understand where I'm coming from.

I wasn't asking you to transcribe the whole interview; I merely asked you to tell me how he translates "admonish" "refuse to share the bed" and "beat".

I have just listened to it with working headpones, watching him do a tap dance around the issue by elaborating that words can have more "meanings" in Arabic. What he talked about was basically figurative speech; well, every language has that. In English, when I say "strike", it does not have to mean strike physically. For example, I can be "struck" by surprise; the actress X is described as "strikingly" beautiful etc. That's what the sheik was talking about.

How he explained "admonished" and "refuse to share the bed" posed no problem in terms of semantic clarity.

What posed problems was the translation of the word "beat". He approached the issue by listing the many words the Arabic language has for actions involving this kind of physical contact. Again, other languages have it too. In English, "to beat" can be further specified as to slap, kick, bash, knock, trample, to name but a few.

He then stressed that the Arabic word in the surah mostly translated as "beat" in English is something 'light' (where he made a movement resembling a slap). Hence the addition in several translations: "beat them (lightly)".

What he did no question at all was the principal right of the man to do this. Nor did he question the demand in the surah that the wife be "devoutly obedient".

In short, the structure is clearly patriarchal, the same as in Christianism and Judaism. No surprise, since those religions were founded at a time when the societies were ruled completely patriarchally, with a vindictive, revengeful, partial god figure at the top.

Keep in mind that things like 'myth-forming', 'legend-forming', can come into play here.

For it is not uncommon for gurus to be presented in a shining light by their followers who write 'hagiographically' about them.

AV: Really? Wouldn't his companions have been so proud of it that they'd have promoted such a thing to justify if they did the same? That is far more likely.

I don't understand what you mean here. Proud of what? "that they'd have promoted such thing to justify if they did the same?" Did what? `

AV: Even if the wife is filthy rich he still has to provide for her. In fact, she could even go so far as to demand payment for breast feeding their children and he'd have to pay her for it.

I don't know which Western country you have in mind, but where I live (Germany), such laws do not exist.

AV: Interesting, you continually talk about how the Qur'anic words should mean what they say in the translation yet you can't seem to make yourself understood without explanation and you're a native speaker of English.

Wrong inferenece on your part - I'm no native speaker of English. Nor am I continually talking about what Qur'anic words "should" mean.

I had used the word "revival" with a connotation you didn't attach to it (this could be inferred from your post), so I clarified. To be unequivocally clear is important. Keep asking me if anything is unclear. I'll do the same.

Who is that "enemy"? Do you sympathize with this enemy?

AV: The banks and corporations, specifically the military industrial complex in collusion with their puppets in Government (both Western and Middle Eastern), intelligence organizations who use their assets ie Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to commit horrendous attacks that create a climate of fear and hate that would give public support for perpetual conflict and thus feed the military industrial complex with trillions of dollars so they benefit and become rich and gain yet more control over people's lives, while the people become more poor, more destitute and more enslaved than they were before.

"If the American people ever allow private banks

to control the issue of their money,

first by inflation and then by deflation,

the banks and corporations that will

grow up around them (around the banks),

will deprive the people of their property

until their children will wake up homeless

on the continent their fathers conquered."

- Thomas Jefferson

Do I support them? No.. They're the enemies of mankind..

And your solution to the problem is what? Building a "god's state" where an assumed divine creator rules over his slaves? You called yourself "a slave to the creator", so I'm merely repeating your own term here.

More later. Keep going, Adonis. You offer excellent material for demonstration purposes.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, good luck.

--Brant

[Ruth]

Here's some good news from NZ MSM:

Muslim teenagers in New Zealand adapt well to life in New Zealand, a Victoria University study has found.

The study, carried out on 180 Muslim teens, by the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, measured their psychological and social well-being by examining life satisfaction, psychological conditions, school adjustment and behavioural issues, Professor Colleen Ward said.

The study, carried out as part of a 13-country survey of well-being and identity, drew on data from previous studies carried out in New Zealand, on other groups of teens, as comparison.

The findings revealed Muslim youth demonstrated more positive outcomes on all indicators than their Maori and Pakeha peers, Prof Ward said.

Pakeha is a European/White New Zealander. Whether any of the next generation take on any libertarian ideas remains to be seen - in my opinion there is no such thing as an Islamic Libertarian, just as there is no such thing as a Christian Libertarian - quite a few push that particular barrow as well.

But the research shows Muslims here are certainly not "filthy savages" as some would have you believe.

Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/3216195/Young-Muslims-adapt-well-to-NZ

[BaalChatzaf]

But the research shows Muslims here are certainly not "filthy savages" as some would have you believe.

They generally bathe frequently. Some are well washed savages.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

"... why are so many Americans becoming Muslim? It isn't the fastest growing religion in the US simply because we like having babies (although I have to admit, we do love having babies!).

So why are so many people coming to Islam if it sounds so ludicrous?

To conclude from quantity to quality is a non-sequitur. If there were a necessary correlation, coca cola and cheap romance novels would get high quality rankings as well simply because countless people prefer these things.

Millions followed Hitler, swallowing the psychotic ideology of a mass murderer.

In times of crisis, people often are enticed byideologies promising them 'salvation', whether it is the dictature of the proletariat, unbridled capitalism or "god's will".

Xray:

What about possible tyranny by faith? Some more questions. I'm a "put your cards on the table" type, so if you would be so kind and answer directly with "Yes" or "No". TIA. Imo an alleged libertarian condoning stoning has some explaining to do.

AV:I won't answer yes or no for all of them simply because you might think by saying yes or no, that I am saying it to what your interpretation of such a thing is. I made this clear earlier on.

Suppose there were any misunderstanding on my part, what would prevent you from clearing it up openly here? Where is the problem?

Isn't the real reason that you are of course aware that advocating stoning or mutilation as punishements does not mesh with libertarianism, which is why you have no interest in seeing the contradiction exposed too clearly here?

AV:

Xray, on 08 January 2010 - 03:42 AM, said:

- Would you want the sharia to become applied?

Applied where? What is your understanding of Shariah?

I think you know what I'm talking about. For general info on sharia, here is the wikipedia link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

We've had a case in Germany where a German judge (and a woman at that!) actually let a domestic abuser of islamic faith get off lightly, arguing in all seriousness that "their culture" allows men to treat women like that. Insted of judging the offender by the laws here which clearly forbid any form of physical violence, this poor excuse of a judge folded like a wet kleenex. The incident caused quite a scandal. Imo such egregious miscarriage of justice and travesty of law would warrant instant removal from office.

Indeed there are attempts by some muslim groups to introduce the sharia here, and if there are more judges and other law experts as spineless as the one mentioined above, they might even get their foot in that door. This is a very dangerous situation.

AV to R. Campbell:

You're also right, Arabs at that time, and even now have a tendency to blame the victim for crimes committed against her rather than the guilty party. Thus, honor killing.. A wicked and despised act against humanity itself.

I must say, in my opinion, Islam was not brought to the Arabs because they were a great people, it is because they had become so corrupted and were the ones who needed reformation the most.

- Willing to go to war at the drop of a hat, engaging in blood fueds that lasted generations

- Buying and selling women as if they were their property

- Burying their baby daughters alive

- Slavery

- Honor killings

Such atrocities happen in other societies with rigid patriarchal structures as well.

AV:

Xray, on 06 January 2010 - 06:21 AM, said:

Ho do you know your belief the true religion?

How does anyone know this? We as humans can only look at all of the evidence put before us and judge based on our knowledge, understanding and natural expectations of the Creator.

You speak of "evidence".

Through my study of several criminal cases, I have a fairly good idea of what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't.

You asked me back: "How does anyone know this? (that one's belief is the true religion).

I'll take it one step further and ask you point-blank: how can you know that a god exists at all?

Again, you can't know because you have no evidence. None whatsoever. That is where your root premise is exposed as an epistemological fallacy of magnanimous proportions. This is a philosophy forum, so epistemology is basic.

What you claim to be evidence of your god's existence is merely the primary source (the Koran) from which you quote as if it proved anything of the sort.

It is like the Jehova's witnesses who, when I ask them, "How do you know that what is in the Bible is the truth?" quote a passage of the very same source I'm questioning. "In psalm so and so, it says ...." These people are compeletely unable to assume a position outside the source. Which makes them locked in a mental prison where all they can offer is fallacious circular reasoning.

Of course the Koran, like any other item, can can qualify as evidence. But it does not qualify as the type of evidence you have in mind. For example, if I tell you "In the Koran, it says ... and you ask me "Where precisely is that passage?", and I then direct you to this passage, I have proved my claim by providing confirming evidence from this source.

The Koran, the Bible, the Thora can also serve as evidence in scientific studies researching patriarchal, monotheistic religions.

But no way can they qualify as evidence of any "god's will" having been written down there by individuals allegdly divinely inspired by a deity. Therefore it is impossible that these sources provide evidence of a god's existence.

What the various writers believed has no relevance in that context.

To put it bluntly: from the epistemological standpoint, to justify my deeds with god's will is on the same fallacious level as saying "I brush my teeth because it is the tooth fairy's will."

So what is left, Adonis? Check your premises: Mere belief based on no evidence whatsoever is left. So you or other believers can quote from their alleged 'divinely inspired' sources all they like, it is of no relevance to a person rejecting attempts to present subjective beliefs as objective reality.

But sadly, it doesn't stop there. Where the issue does become relevant is when one observes laws imposed affecting people's lives, justifying the laws as being the result of "god's will". Herein lies is the monstrosity:

A being of which there is no evidence is now claimed to have given humans "laws". I'm convinced there is more realism in some fantasy stories.

When argumentation is based on a false premise, the whole thing intellectually goes down the drain.

In controversial discussions on the 'right belief', Person A can quote from the Koran, person B from the Bible, person C from the Thora all they want - it is nothing but one fallacy fighting another because the root premise is wrong: claiming the existence of a god without having a shred of supporting evidence for the claim.

I reject such belief, and if necessary would defend myself against any attempt by others to impose such belief on me.

I also reject any attempt by believers to introduce religion into our laws.

If you want to discuss values with me, Adonis, fine. I can explain to you where I stand, and would like to see how you fare without a plethora of Koran surahs to quote. I want to see where you stand as human individual and how you fare where empathy and compassion are concerned. We don't need any religion to discuss these elementary things. Instead of you quoting "Allah most merciful", I want to find out how merciful YOU are, Adonis Vlahos, who advocates stoning which even several islamic countries have already abolished.

It is true that you have said if stoning isn't in the Koran, you would possibly condemn it as well. Which means that if it were in the Koran, you would accept it, right? And suppose the Koran told the believers to skin non-believers alive, you would accept it because it it says that, right? Truth via authority, another fallacy which has brought unspeakable horrors on humans.

What are your feelings as a human being, Adonis, when you watch those horrendous videos of stonings?

It looks like fervent belief can erase empathy and compassion in people to a dangerous degree.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Holy books have about the same provenance, quality and standing as does Tolkien's -Silmarillion- which is a creation myth parallel to that in Genesis and a lot better written.

Any text which gives an eye witness account of the Creation has to be taken as a Story and not any kind of evidence. Any "miracles" reported in Holy Books which are internally contradictory or flat out at variance with observed fact and cannot be reconciled with any natural cause or process can be dismissed as Stories. These Stories may have a useful moral or not. For example the "miracle" of the loaves and fish or the raising of Lazarus, or the Parting of the Sea of Reeds (which could have had a natural cause, but is regarded as a miracle).

I have no objection to mythical tales that make a point or have a "moral". My response depends on the point being made.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

Please define slavery including the rights of slaves and conditions etc.

Adonis,

I'll go with the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Slavery is involuntary servitude, excepting the involuntary servitude of prisoners who have been duly convicted of a crime.

A slave is an adult human being who is considered the property of another human being, and is subject to being bought and sold.

He or she may be required to work for no pay. If a slave is allowed to own anything, or to obtain wages and keep any portion of them for him or herself, it is only because his or her master chooses to permit this.

He or she may not go wherever he or she wishes to go, only where the master permits. An escaped or fugitive slave, by law, is subject to apprehension and punishment.

The master is entitled to discipline the slave by beating. In a slave system, there are few legal constraints on a master physically harming a slave. Customary morality may exert further constraints—or it may not. There are few legal constraints on working a slave to death, and there may not be any additional constraints in customary morality.

Slave systems have in many cases automatically relegated all children of slaves to slave status, but this is not a necessary feature.

Some slave systems have appealed to racist doctrines to legitimize them, but this is also not a necessary feature. Most slave systems in ancient times were not predicated on appeals to racial superiority.

I think there is enough detail here to further the present discussion.

Now, here are my questions:

(1) Can an Islamic believer who attributes moral and legal authority to the Qur'an and the hadith make an Islamic case against the legality of slavery as an institution? Against the morality of holding or trading slaves?

(2) If this can be done, can you identify a significant indigenous social or political movement in any part of the Islamic world that actually did it?

(3) Who is the closest Islamic counterpart to William Lloyd Garrison? To Frederick Douglass? To William Wilberforce? To John Henry Newton? To Harriet Beecher Stowe?

Robert Campbell

Here is a short explanation on slavery in Islam for you that I found online, it's quite good and explains a lot. Regarding the 3 questions I can say all of the answers are the Prophet Islam,the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the Muslims at that time. If you have more questions please let me know.

---------------

The Condemnation of Slavery in Islam

Shehzad Saleem

Among many other misconceptions about Islamic is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery and permits its followers to enslave prisoners of war, particularly women and establish extra-marital relations with them. We strongly affirm that Islam has not the slightest link with slavery and concubinage. On the contrary, it completely forbids these practices. It is quite outrageous to associate such barbarities with a religion revealed to upgrade humanity.

The point which needs to be appreciated and which, perhaps, is the real cause of the misconception is that Islam had adopted a gradual process to abolish the institution of slavery because of the social conditions prevalent in Arabia at that time. It must be kept in mind that slavery was an integral part of the pre-Islamic Arab society. There were scores of slave men and women in almost every house. This was largely due to two reasons: First, during those times, the standard practice of dispensing with prisoners of war was to distribute them among the army who captured them. Second, there were extensive slave markets in Arabia in that period where free as well as men and women of all ages were sold like animals.

In these circumstances, in which slavery had become an essential constituent of the Arab society, Islam adopted a gradual way to eliminate it. An immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. It would have become impossible for the society to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves, who were, otherwise, dependent on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. A large number among them were old and incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels.

Perhaps, the reason behind this gradual eradication can be understood better if one considers the position which interest occupies in our economy today. No one can refute that our national economic structure is interest oriented. How the parasite of interest has crippled the national economy is apparent to every keen eye. However, there is no denying the fact that without it our present economic system cannot sustain itself. Every reasonable person will acknowledge that today if a government wishes to rid the economy from this menace then, in spite of its utter prohibition in Islam, it will have to adopt a gradual methodology. During this interim period interest oriented deals will have to be tolerated and temporary laws will have to be enacted to handle them, just as the Qur’an had given certain provisional directives about slaves during the interim period of their gradual eradication. An alternative economic framework will have to be steadily incorporated in place of the existing one. A sudden abolition, without another parallel base, will only hasten the total collapse of the economic system, which, of course, will be disastrous for the country.

To avert a similar disaster and to ward off a similar catastrophe, Islam had adopted a progressive and a gradual scheme, fourteen hundred years ago, to do away with the inhuman institution of slavery. Following are some of the measures it took in this regard:

1. In the early Makkan period, it pronounced that slave emancipation was a great deed of piety. The very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could.

2. The Prophet (sws), unequivocally, directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. This, of course, was meant to discourage people from persisting with them.

3. For the atonement of many sins manumission of slaves was divinely ordained.

4. All slave men and women who could support themselves in the society were directed to marry one another, in order to raise their moral and social status.

5. A permanent head in the public treasury was fixed to set free slave men and women.

6. Prostitution, which was largely carried out through slave women, who were mostly forced by their masters do so, was totally prohibited.

7. The affronting names of `abd and amah by which slave men and women were called, were abrogated so that people should stop regarding them as slaves. In their place, the words fata (boy) and fatat (girl) were introduced.

8. Finally, the law of mukatibat provided very easy access for the slaves to the gateway to freedom. Every slave who was capable of supporting himself was allowed by law to free himself, provided that he either gave a certain monetary amount to his master or carried out certain errands for him. After this, he could live as a free man. A special head in the treasury was fixed for this purpose; also, wealthy people were urged to help the slaves in this regard. The net result of this law was that only handicapped and old slaves were left to be provided for by their masters, which not only went in their own favour but also prevented them from becoming an economic burden on the society.

O

As far as the case of prisoners of war was concerned, the Qur’an directed the Muslims to set them free, either as a favour or against some ransom. There was to be no second option:

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind your captives firmly – then grant them their freedom (either as a favour or) against some ransom – until the war lays down its armour. (47:4)

How the Prophet (sws) went about obeying this directive is a golden chapter of Islamic history, and we shall now briefly describe some of its salient features.

It is a well known historical fact that in the battle of Badr – the first main encounter with the Quraysh – about seventy prisoners were captured by the victorious Muslim army. Most of these prisoners were freed against some ransom money, while those who could not arrange for this money were freed if they taught a certain number of children of the tribe of Ansar how to write.

In the battle of Bani Mustaliq, the prisoners captured were either freed in the battlefield as a favour while some others were freed on ransom. The Prophet (sws) brought the remaining prisoners to Medinah and while waiting for their families to procure them, gave them into the temporary custody of his Companions. Among them was Sayyidah Jawairiyah as well. Her father arrived with some camels as ransom. The Prophet (sws) inquired about the two well-bred camels he had hid behind. This astounded him so much – for he knew that there could be no way that the Prophet (sws) could have had knowledge of them – that he accepted faith. At this, Sayyidah Jawairiyah also accepted faith. The Prophet proposed for her to which her father consented. Upon this, the marriage was solemnised. The result of this marriage was that all the remaining prisoners of war were set free by the Muslim soldiers, since they thought that it was not appropriate to keep the Prophet’s in-laws in captivity.

In the battle of Khaibar, after a peace treaty had been concluded with the enemy, the Muslim forces came across Safia binti Huyee – a helpless widow of an aristocratic family. Her father, Huyee bin Akhtab – a prominent leader of the Jews had been killed in the battle of Quraizah. The Prophet (sws) set her free and gave her the option to go to back to her family or to marry him if she wanted. Saffiyah showed her consent to marry the Prophet. The marriage subsequently took place.

In the battle of Hunain, thousands of prisoners were captured by the Muslim army. The Prophet (sws) waited for many days for their people to come and fetch them but they never turned up. At this, the Prophet (sws) returned to Medinah and distributed them among the soldiers. However, after a lapse of many days, their people showed up. The Prophet (sws) said that he had no objection in giving away his share back to them but as far as the other tribes were concerned, he could only appeal to them. Later on, almost all the people surrendered their prisoners when the Prophet (sws), subsequently, offered six camels for each prisoner from the spoils they would obtain in the very next battle. This was enough for them to forfeit their share as well.

Thus the Prophet (sws) throughout his reign followed the Qur’anic directive of setting free the prisoners of war either as a favour or against some ransom. However, there is, perhaps, just one instance in the Prophet’s life which may become a source of misconception in this regard. This was the battle with the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraizah in which all the male prisoners were executed and the women and children were made slaves. An analysis of the whole matter shows that the Muslim army had surrounded their fortress for almost a month. At last, they requested to appoint Sa’ad bin Mu’aaz (rta), the leader of the tribe of Aus, as an arbitrator and promised to willingly accept his decision. They reckoned that since they had remained the allies of the Aus, Sa’ad would be lenient to them in his decision. But Sa’ad bin Mu‘azz, much to their dismay, gave his decision in accordance with the Jewish Shariah. According to the Jewish Shariah, the male prisoners were to be executed while the women and children were to be enslaved1. It is, therefore, clear that the Islamic Shariah could not have come to their rescue in this regard since they were dealt with according to their own law by a person they themselves had appointed as an arbitrator.

During the term of the Rightly Guided Caliphate also, the practical abolition of the institution of slavery continued with full force. However, in spite of all these extensive measures spanning almost half a decade, it is known fact that it was not until the turn of this century that mankind was actually able to rid itself completely of this institution. We believe the reason for this must be sought in the social complexities which exist in a community. It is extremely difficult to eradicate customs and traditions which are deeply rooted in a society. The society, as a whole did not accept the reformation started by Islam. A similar instance can be observed in the case of the political set up envisaged by Islam. It totally condemned the institution of dictatorship in which a despotic ruler and his few henchmen exercised absolute powers. It established a government which was democratic in the sense that it came into power by a majority mandate. Throughout the term of the Rightly Guided Caliphate this principle remained in force for the election of the ruler. However, after the end of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, the Arab society rejected this system and reverted to dictatorship.

Home

1. When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, and children, the livestock and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. (Deuteronomy. 20:10-15)

Source: http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mared95.html

[Libertarian Muslim]

What physically stops people living in fear of punishment to commit an act which they believe will get them into trouble? Their fear stops them. And it was fear which stopped this man. I could see it in his face. Fear of going against Allah's wishes if he shook hands with a woman not related to him.

So the reason why you have a problem with it, is because he fears being punished by God? I'm sorry, but I don't see why that's an issue. Most people don't drive through red lights because they fear being charged with doing so by the police and being punished for their crime by having their license taken away.

That is fear and submission to another human being.

All we fear and submit to is The Creator.

A 'why' explanation does not qualify as justification. I can also tell you 'why' e.g. the Romans made gladiators fight against lions.

According to the surah, a man can marry up to four women, a woman can't marry up to four men. The issue of the discussion was equal rights.

A man is also allowed to take "captives" as mates, "(a captive) that your right hands possess", the women are not allowed this.

Now I understand where you're coming from a bit better.

Sure.. I agree with you, women can't marry more than one husband and men can marry more than wife. In that sense Islam doesn't provide equality.

I have just listened to it with working headpones, watching him do a tap dance around the issue by elaborating that words can have more "meanings" in Arabic. What he talked about was basically figurative speech; well, every language has that. In English, when I say "strike", it does not have to mean strike physically. For example, I can be "struck" by surprise; the actress X is described as "strikingly" beautiful etc. That's what the sheik was talking about.

How he explained "admonished" and "refuse to share the bed" posed no problem in terms of semantic clarity.

What posed problems was the translation of the word "beat". He approached the issue by listing the many words the Arabic language has for actions involving this kind of physical contact. Again, other languages have it too. In English, "to beat" can be further specified as to slap, kick, bash, knock, trample, to name but a few.

He then stressed that the Arabic word in the surah mostly translated as "beat" in English is something 'light' (where he made a movement resembling a slap). Hence the addition in several translations: "beat them (lightly)".

What he did no question at all was the principal right of the man to do this.

Of course, refuse to share a bed is more than one word, and admonish is also pretty self explanatory, however the way you do this can be many ways and we'd have to look at the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's example to see how. Next, regarding the word beat, why does it need more explanation when the others didn't? Well because it can mean many things, that is precisely why we don't just look at the word, we look specifically also at the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's example. He didn't dance around at all, he explained it quite clearly. He also didn't say that it's okay to even lightly tap a woman.

Nor did he question the demand in the surah that the wife be "devoutly obedient".

To whom are wives devoutly obedient?

Keep in mind that things like 'myth-forming', 'legend-forming', can come into play here.

For it is not uncommon for gurus to be presented in a shining light by their followers who write 'hagiographically' about them.

AV: Really? Wouldn't his companions have been so proud of it that they'd have promoted such a thing to justify if they did the same? That is far more likely.

I don't understand what you mean here. Proud of what? "that they'd have promoted such thing to justify if they did the same?" Did what?

You're saying that myth forming and legend forming can come into play, surely if that was the case they'd have made it clear if the Prophet Muhammad pbuh lifted a finger against his wives like that. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf's explanation was good.

AV: Even if the wife is filthy rich he still has to provide for her. In fact, she could even go so far as to demand payment for breast feeding their children and he'd have to pay her for it.

I don't know which Western country you have in mind, but where I live (Germany), such laws do not exist.

I'm sorry I don't understand? What laws don't exist?

Wrong inferenece on your part - I'm no native speaker of English. Nor am I continually talking about what Qur'anic words "should" mean.

I had used the word "revival" with a connotation you didn't attach to it (this could be inferred from your post), so I clarified. To be unequivocally clear is important. Keep asking me if anything is unclear. I'll do the same.

Excuse me for one moment whilst I eat my words. I apologize for my inference.

And your solution to the problem is what? Building a "god's state" where an assumed divine creator rules over his slaves? You called yourself "a slave to the creator", so I'm merely repeating your own term here.

I am a slave to the Creator, I don't deny it. But God is the only being thing I submit to and I do so as I believe God wishes me to do so. As I said, I'm not here to debate the existence of God.

[Libertarian Muslim]

So what is left, Adonis? Check your premises: Mere belief based on no evidence whatsoever is left. So you or other believers can quote from their alleged 'divinely inspired' sources all they like, it is of no relevance to a person rejecting attempts to present subjective beliefs as objective reality.

I see.. Okay.. So eyewitnesses of those events, the miracles and those events who wrote down their experiences aren't good enough for you? If not that's okay, I just would like to know.

I reject such belief, and if necessary would defend myself against any attempt by others to impose such belief on me.

I also reject any attempt by believers to introduce religion into our laws.

Who is trying to impose their beliefs on you? Who is trying to introduce religion into your laws?

If you want to discuss values with me, Adonis, fine. I can explain to you where I stand, and would like to see how you fare without a plethora of Koran surahs to quote. I want to see where you stand as human individual and how you fare where empathy and compassion are concerned. We don't need any religion to discuss these elementary things. Instead of you quoting "Allah most merciful", I want to find out how merciful YOU are, Adonis Vlahos, who advocates stoning which even several islamic countries have already abolished.

It is true that you have said if stoning isn't in the Koran, you would possibly condemn it as well. Which means that if it were in the Koran, you would accept it, right? And suppose the Koran told the believers to skin non-believers alive, you would accept it because it it says that, right? Truth via authority, another fallacy which has brought unspeakable horrors on humans.

What are your feelings as a human being, Adonis, when you watch those horrendous videos of stonings?

It looks like fervent belief can erase empathy and compassion in people to a dangerous degree.

1. There is no 'Islamic Country' in the world because none fit the criteria, in fact the closest thing to it in my opinion is the US as it's values in the Constitution are very similar to that of Islam.

2. I didn't say that if stoning wasn't in the Qur'an that I would condemn it. I said that it ISN'T in the Qur'an and if it was so proven that it was against God's command to use this as a punishment, then I'd speak out against it. Having said that, if it was in the Qur'an then I'd definitely accept it as a punishment for those who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of such a crime, providing that their crime were to fulfill all of the criteria required for that punishment.

3. What if the Qur'an told me to skin non believers alive for not believing in Islam? I wouldn't be Muslim because I don't believe that God would compel us to believe and rather allows us the choice.

4. What are my feelings on the stonings in the videos? I feel upset because I don't for a second believe that the criteria was met within Islamic law for that punishment to take place. For that punishment to take place, as mentioned previously. It would have to be done within the viewing of 4 witnesses, reliable witnesses. I mean even if it were to occur in an orgy in someone's house it still wouldn't be likely to happen because the people who would have witnessed it would have to have been participants to it to be in that house and would then be testifying against themselves which no one would do.

Rather the only possible scenario that could occur is for the guilty parties to have physically done it in public and imposed their perversions on the rest of society which society doesn't deserve to be put through. In addition to that it is also having humiliated their wife or husband with doing so in the view of everyone else. In that case, I don't feel sorry for such a person who cares so little about their wife or husband's dignity and love that they'd be willing to humiliate them so much by cheating on them in public, physically having sex in front of people. I feel empathy for the person being cheated on and humiliated so much in public. Who deserves that? This punishment is a deterrent to prevent the whole of society becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah.

5. Now is your problem with the death penalty as a whole or for it being used in this scenario?

[BaalChatzaf]

I see.. Okay.. So eyewitnesses of those events, the miracles and those events who wrote down their experiences aren't good enough for you? If not that's okay, I just would like to know.

Experiences or hallucinations. And what about second and third party confirmation? I distinguish among:

1. First hand, personal experience

2. Second hand reports from first hand parties several of which agree as to fact. This includes scientific corroberation of experimental results. That is why scientists insist on the replication and confirmation of claimed experimental results by independent parties.

3. Hearsay. The Prophet reports an experience with God (probably madness) and someone writes down what the Prophet said or worse, writes down what someone said the Prophet said. This I discount. I cannot take such things seriously particularly when they clash with first hand experience (mine) as in #1 above or corroberated testimony as in #2 above.

If you want to believe the second hand reports on the ravings of the Prophet, by all means do. We live in a semi free world, which we will continue to live in until you and your Muslim buddies take over ( God forbid!). Then we will either be dead or Dhimmi.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Adonis: "I am not here to debate the existence of God."

But he uses God as the foundation stone for everything else. A discussion with him is acceptance of this premise. He's like a stark naked nudist who comes into your house and requires that everybody take off their clothes for the sake of his comfort zone.

--Brant