Opponents of Death Penalty should read this!!!

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

With all due respect to Usman11 who puts some interseting points I always believe in religious matters it is better to promote the strong points of your own religion and look for the strong points in other people's religions rather than seek to find faults. That surely is the sort of "charity" that Jesus would agree with.

• Tweet

[Maqari]

Gentlemen

I have but very little time in my possession, so I will try to speed through my response as thoroughly as what of time I've got allows.

Waziri

 I of course am not as naive as to so recklessly claim that ?issues dealing with faith cannot be intellectualised.?(Theology is a science that busy itself with just that) In fact what I said was:
?As its true of all topics of such nature to command a great deal of emotional uproar, repression, good faith, and loyalty, not understanding (thus unfit for intellectual discourse which denounces both the personal opinions of a religious enthusiast or the dreamlike ramblings of an inconsequential visionary)?

And this I have said in reference to ?the question of Prophet Mohammad?s (PBUH) domestic affairs?. And the only other reference I can extract from my posting of a similar function is:

?Trouble is when ?Religion? figures as the corner stone of one?s reasoning it subsequently and inevitably becomes impossible to communicate his/her thoughts to an audience whose belief system is constituted of different sets of ethics.?

This however does not imply that: ?issues dealing with faith cannot be intellectualised.? Rather indicates the repetitive incompatibility of arguments that are centred along the fault lines of faiths, as yourself so eloquently put it ?But yet it true that two people may not find it easy to agree on one thing in one issue?.

As of limitations within intellectual fields and sciences there exist many. Be it due to lack of substantial evidence concerning their nature or means of discovering it. The point lies in: with assigning the title of ?intellectual? to anything comes the responsibility to explicitly seek for the triumph of the rational and when those ?acute limitations.? Are encountered they must be met with persistent investigation. And since Religious ( not theological ) answers are often final, divine, and by definition disprovable, those ?acute limitations? are warranted  no further reasoning. This contradicts the very goal of ?Intellect?.

Concerning the reading of past discussion on the case of Amina Lawal?, I must point out that I do not wish to further exhaust us with her case nor ?debunk? any earlier points. The case bears the remotest interest to me anymore. The woman had her justice and ?nuff said.

My statements about the woman ware aimed specifically at Myadudu and his inconceivable comparison of her to a certain convicted war criminal, and his grounds on it. With Exclusivity only to this thread none other. And that is a task that requires No review of any past sessions.

Usman11

 I?m hardly reputed to be an enthusiastic advocate of religious doctrines, any religion that is. I however am compelled to remind you that the issue of science contradicting religion is that of an Immense abstraction and does not spare any religion known to the modern man. And I?m certain that you will find many willing volunteers in this forum to provide you with a handful of examples. From the Darwinian Theory and the book of geneses, approximate age of the planets, to the contradiction of biology of the Koran account on the navigational system of ants in ?Suratul-Naml?. And for every one of those examples there exist another that perfectly corresponds with science. But isn?t such the nature of things when there is a fundamental difference of aim? When one asks ?how??, and the other ?why?.


my personal question to you is:
Has mankind ever found a solution along a fault line ?

• Tweet

[lionger]

Salam All:

Maqari, Lionger and Usman11,

I have provided all with two links earlier on in which the item of discourse here has been thoroughly exausted including this issue of adulteress as contained in the Bible. Sincerely speaking, I don't see you coming close to debunking the points many raised including my humble self in the links referred. For the sake of humanity why not please go back and read these links in order to understand fully the import of our position?

Here is another link in which I dealt with the issue of adultery in the Bible specicifically I titled the thread:
 
Leviticus 20:10, Jesus And The Story Of The Adulteress In John 8
 

http://www.hausafulani.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=127

Please I do not expect you to dodge the prufundity of my arguments by choosing not to refer to it entirely.

Ah-ah, my friend, I am surprised you did not notice that our discussions on the Christian position on adultery have taken off from exactly where they left off. Have you read through the thread you just posted ? Here is part of your last response on the thread:

But yet there are sins like murder, adultery and other things which when committed poses a serious threat to the social structure and as such God prescribed a physical punishment for them as in the Ten Commandments and these were carried out by the Prophets, being them, many at times the spritual and secular leaders of their ppl. They left these laws as a constitution and a guide to us. We grow to operate and use them upon all the inside-out cleansing we are doing.

Emphasis added.

Now, Waziri, if the bolded portion were the complete picture, then why does God let David live, as recorded in the Torah? David commited two capital offenses! Is God contradicting His own law?

Secondly, do you see a similarity b/w Jesus' response with the adulterous woman in John 8, and God Almighty's response with David in II Samuel 12? Since you claim that Jesus contradicted the law in John 8, can you also claim that God also contradicted his law in David's case (a claim that would certainly be much weighter from your point of view)?

The only other conclusion is that ur supposition as highlighted is not completely true. Let's look at David's prayer of repentance for this sin of adultery, as recorded in Psam 51.

Psalm 51:1-4
' Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak, and justified when you judge.'

Now in the highlighted portions (verse 4) we find two very important lessons.
1) David says his sin is, first and foremost, against God. The idea that God prescribed such punishment because, as you say, they were serious crimes against the society is not nearly correct. After all, cursing God's name was also a capital offense, but you can't really describe that as a crime against society. No, sin is committed primarily against God, which is a very important point because as verse 4 also states,
2) it means that God is justified in his judgement! You cannot question God's decision to be merciful, because the offense was committed primarily against Him, not you, not even Bathsheba or Uriah! Therefore, it is God's sole preserve to be merciful or not! God could have struck David dead on the spot and still would have done no wrong. Just as He could have chosen to wipe us all off the earth, for we have all sinned against Him. Yet for some inexplicable reason He chooses to be merciful and takes our punishment upon himself in the person of His Son. This is the reason for our hope in Christ.

You should also notice, Waziri, that this line of reasoning will directly lead you to what mallamt and usman11 have been saying all along; i.e. that it is God's law, not yours, and therefore no one of us is worthy of sitting in judgement of one another over God's law. This is the Christian perspective.

I also hope this exercise does its bit in showing the union between the Torah and the New Testament, in reaffirming the Godly nature of Christ, and in dispelling doubts on the authenticity of the Gospel message.

lionger

• Tweet

[mallamt]

_waziri_
Please I am still waiting for your response on my questions kindly do not pretend that they were not asked.  I believe you are an honourable man and you will answer my question truthfully incase you want the question again here

You indicated that whenever you try correcting me I say you hate me. Can you kindly let us (me) know how many times constitutes "whenever"? Also may you remind let us (me) know the context I used the term "hate" when refering to what you have said? I am assuming you are an honorable person who would not make accussations or comments that are not grounded in facts, so it will be important for us (you and I) to clear the questions I have raised or else it will be like you are just churning out factless comments.

Please qoute all those instances that constituted "whenever", it will only be fair and just.

_waziri_ wrote

This is in total absoluteness an uninformed opinion. No Shari'a law can be promulgated that is not within Shari'a legal system. Unless if it is not a Shari'a law.

This is precisely the point I was trying to make _waziri_ and myadudu see.  In the case of sharia we know that you can not promulgate the laws yet we also know that the laws are applied differently in different countries, if we are to agree that sharia law is from God, does that not already suggest that God is unjust? Does that not mean God sets different standards for same sin? Secondly when a judgment is given it is an opinion based on the facts and evidence produced so how does that relate in the case of sharia? Whoes opinion are we hearing? Surely God will not give an opinion he purnishes if their is a sin so we can conclude that it is not God's opinion and we are left to accept that it is the judges opinion and if it is the judges opinion how can we then say it is God's sentence or purnishment that is being meted out?  It is precisely for the point _waziri_ made about sharia that makes the sharia a very uncomfortable choice of a legal system to many including some muslims.

• Tweet

[mallamt]

myadudu
I am sure you are shaking your head in disbelieve - How on earth did we get here!!!!.

• Tweet

[usman11]

Dave,  point well taken. I apologize if my last post appeared offensive to anyone. That was not the intent. We are supposedly having an intellectual discourse here, and I write not as a religious person, but as a knowledgeable observer on this subject.  And so you know, this is not about one religion being superior to another, and I centainly am not superior to anyone on this forum. We often insist that our goal as Nigerians is to co-exist peacefully as people of one nation. When talks of cessation pops up, some opponents of such 'extreme' idea become very critical, but then again, we need to sit down and identify the reasons why many people despair about our Union as one country. The truth of the matter is, Religion has become a major dividing or unifying factor in the scheme of things. It is not just religion, because our constitution recognizes religious freedom.

This freedom however has taken a different route.  There are people who now abolish the constitution and adopt religious laws as laws of the land, just like that.  Those who have done this, maintian a very rigid and uncompromising stance. So what we have in one country are two sets of laws. How practical is that? The power to execute people (criminals found guilty of serious offenses) is of course the jurisdiction of the govt as recommended by the Federal constitution only.  Now, these states that have adopted their own laws insist on executing people found guilty of the religious statutes contained in Islam. When challenged with reason, Muslims often respond that they are being merginalized and that they are not allowed to practice their religion. That sentiment in itself is muddying up everything as usual. The truth is, nobody has closed down Mosques anywhere in Nigeria. Nobody has passed a law barring Muslims from worship. Muslim mount public address systems on their roof tops in residential and even business areas and freely worship out loud to the hearing of everyone and the government, local, state, and Federal is fine with that. On fridays, Muslims can block off main roads for Jumat prayers,  and traffic remains at a stand still during that process.

Muslim holidays are observed like Christian ones are, and the list goes on. So how exactly is anyone being denied the right to practice their religion?
It comes right back to the adoption of Sharia and by extension the most controversial part of the argument, which is death penalty for adultry.  So this discussion carries greater implication because when one religion is forcefully adopted as law in a Multi-religious society and it becomes a show stopper, we begin to realize that we cannot around several things. For instance if any new initiative is to take effect,  Muslims might decide that such an idea is 'against Islam'. Once that line comes in, that is it. Nothing gets done from that point.

I remember when the long over due idea of a national identity card was initiated.  A good idea for several reasons however the administration part of it met with all kinds management and implementation problems coupled with fraud.  However, before the idea even took effect, several Muslims/northern leaders had began expressing the sentiments that the initiative is against the north, and by extension Islam. The question is, how do you function as one corporate entity when people are so determined to oppose anything and everything based on religious sentiments?

Let us not forget that Islam and Christianity are not the only religions in Nigeria. There are animists, traditionists, etc, all with their own values and ways and statutes for worship. What if they all adopted their rituals as laws  and insist on observing those 'heathen' laws? Just imagine what type of place Nigeria would be if every religion decides to adopt the laws of their religion as laws of the land.

It come to a point that people really need to sit back and reason outside their comfort zone.  Religion was made for man and not vice versa

• Tweet

[Maqari]

Usman11. thank you oceans. now only if others will follow your example and bring to a halt their 'crusader' wagon , we may be able to have real "intellectual" discussions.

• Tweet

[_Waziri_]

Salam All,

Very interesting responses we have up there. My comments will be very brief and straight to the point addressing only seemingly new points I have not addressed in the threads I referred all to. This due to the fact that I do not have much time at my disposal now as I used to have when those discussions took to crest. Two, I bank on the assumption that your intention in this discourse - despite the grudges some of you may harbour against my person - is pure and unadulterated. Three, we are not in a school and as such points that appear too elementary and do not merit attention will conveniently be overlooked.

First I start with Usman11 who asked the question:

A couple of things I want to point out here, and I believe Waziri has illustrated this chapter and verse to reference the punishment for a person guilty of adultry. Of course, it does say "they shall be put to death". Questiion is, BY WHOM? WHO shall be responsible for putting thos guilty persons to death? Did he say who? Did he command anybody to execute that judgement? Did he say, "You people of Isreal shall put the offenders to death"? NO! So how can this be interpreted to mean humans possess the explicit authority to execute adulterers? And in case anyone is thinking in his/her heart saying....."well who else will do it if not people"?,

Actually the question of who implement these laws does not arise here. Very good students of Jewish history, religion and life will know that apart from the old testament they use, they also hold in high esteem other two books: Talmud and Midrash which they understood to be carrying broader interpretations of the Torah. Anyone reading these and the works of authorities in Jewish life will tell you about how their leaders always carry home these punishments on every production of clear-cut evidences. I have made the arguments that Jesus did not execute these punishments only because the evidences were cagey and incomplete. Even apostle John was quick to let us know that the sole intention of those “showcasing” the adulteress was only to tempt the “Lord”. Even then the mere action of bringing the adulteress to Jesus proves further the fact that the practice then was the key to the realm of executing such punishments lies with the leaders alone.
   
Now let me take the other sentiment shared by Lionger and Usman11 concerning the case of King David who was said to have committed adultery.  Here, I think I have made it clear in the other links I have provided that Muslims take from the Jews or Christians, New Testament or Old Testament only what Islamic sources did affirm or did not repudiate. In this you will see that from the outset that Qur’an in its context did not even agree that Prophets of God do commit such sins.

Okay suppose we agree that David (Peace be with him) really committed the adultery in broad daylight and that there were required witnesses that warrant for the punishment to be carried out, but on his part chose not to give himself to be punished. Just like in our contemporary world where OBJ would not submit to the charges of corruption even when there is clear-cut evidence that he committed such crimes. Then we cannot help but to subscribe to the reality that David did not obey God, he did not do as God commandeth so such judgment will be left to God alone as rightly observed subtly in the passages quoted by lionger.

But one reality remains that adultery and fornication are sins in the sight of God and against societies. If any person should commit any and is caught with sufficient evidence then the punishment is meted on him as required in Shari’a law. But if any should commit the atrocity but is not caught or the evidence against the person is  not ventilating enough, then the physical part of the punishment will be shed and the spiritual part of it will be left to God to handle. If any should commit the atrocity with all the ventilating evidences, assuming that was the case of King David, but the punishment is not executed on the person then we also conclude that God one day will stand to judge him in His unavoidable litigation.

I will here still refer you to those links in which I delineated on the logic behind these postulations.

Also Usman11 tried to bring to fore a scenario where he said Prophet Muhammad slept with his daughter in-law. This is absolutely not the exact representation of what happened then.  As Maqari rightly pointed out, in the Qu’ran we read that Zaid the husband of Zainab was not the biological son of the Prophet but adopted son and it was in the quest to abolish the concept of adopted children assuming the legal right of biological children that the incident was made to happen. I am sorry to say please. This is not a case that brought any controversy in Muslim family and social laws.

Also I noticed Maqari commenting thus:

My statements about the woman ware aimed specifically at Myadudu and his inconceivable comparison of her to a certain convicted war criminal, and his grounds on it. With Exclusivity only to this thread none other. And that is a task that requires No review of any past sessions.

Yes, actually I share the sentiment of Amin who think of adulterers to be war-criminals-like and because I saw you disagreeing with him I thought it fair to refer you to the past sessions perchance my arguments to that effect may carry resounding values forming superior argument of which I believe you always seek to defer to.


Still here I will  be inclined to beg for Usman11 to like initiate a new thread containing those interesting points he raised to have attracted the attention of one of our fathers here, Mr. David Hill, so that we can treat them fairly. Lets live this particular thread to the discussions of death penalty only. I also must note the kind and polite tone with which he pursues discourse. I believe are bound to have a smooth ride if this attitude is maintained.

Finally, Christians and Muslims all will do well to understand that Shari’a in Nigeria or anywhere in the world if implemented successfully does not mean the ultimate triumph of Muslims over Christians or of the faiths themselves respectively. For Muslims it does mean the end of iniquity. On the other hand also it does not mean that for Muslims no access to paradise until they implement Shari’a.  But there is one reality; I believe Christians will benefit from if Shari’a is implemented fully. There is the Shari’a wing of economics that deals a deathblow to usury, which if structures are properly put all - as many Christian intellectuals worldwide agree – will find more meaning to modern business for the benefit of humanity.

Even at the level of capital punishments the point is not made when people are executed when they committed adultery. No. The point is made when the whole society grow to view adultery as something very heinous an act that I s even at par with murder and other capital offences. This will definitely make members of families in a society to grow with a higher sense of obligation and respect to one another and to be more responsive to positive healthy sexual behavior.

In northern Nigeria today after having practiced Sharia in the past 150 years still you find the preponderance of young men graduating with their chastity against physical immorality intact. You find women still keeping their virginity even at the age of 18 years of age. A model of this type of society represents a virtuous one in any religion. Even at secular level an army of youths with good moral; psychological and emotional discipline to resist the opposite sex is a sure team that can deliver even at other levels of interactions where social justice is required. This is of course the reason why today in Northern Nigeria you will find that politics in spite of its dirty attribute is still cleaner than the other parts of the country. The leaders being them the product of the legal and social structures are more compassionate - in the discharge of their duties - compared to their counterparts in the other parts of the country. An easy example to hold is the example of NigerDelta area where one state gets the sum total of what six states get in the Northeastern part of the country as Federal Government allocation. But as at the time of this writing if you were to visit Niger Delta area you will find that the physical developmental projects accomplished do not equal those of any one state of the North.

This is why I think even Christians who do not believe in Islam can reap the benefit of Shari’a and even choose to implement it without Muslims around them and succeed from its choice commands of impeccable moral astuteness. Shari’a is not the God the ultimate, but in spite of its ability to giving all the right social order it also increases the chances of those who practice it in securing the all desiring ticket to nirvana. Shari’a should not be a problem to Christians.

• Tweet

[usman11]

Waziri, please answer this question, and I do not want any twisting response. If aetheists and animists in Nigeria insist that the country adopt their laws as constituition arguing that Islam and Christianity are not African religions anyway, but were brough to the region by foreigners not native to the region. As such, that the proper thing to do is abolish the laws that tie into those two religions and go back to beliefs and laws of our ancestors, what would you say to that?

The reasaon why I ask this is because you seem to think sharia should be binding on all Nigerian because you think it is suitable for you.  I will come to this later. For now, let me address some of the issues you raised.

The issue of who should implement the laws in question does arise.  Mallamt, Lionger and myself, have explained very clearly to you that there is a difference between God's laws and man's laws. I am not sure if you missed it, but in my assessment, the explanation made perfect sense, and left little room for countering.  Your response to my point that that God never in Leviticus, direct anyone to enforce his law was a reference to some jewish literature in which you claim carry a broader interpretation to the Torah.  You failed to explain or outline the broad interpretation but went on and on about how the books contain authority.

Just so you know, in Judaism, the Torah is the ultimate authority on God's spoken words and statutes.  In Christianity, the Bible is the final authority. It is very different from Islam where you have to supplement the Koran with the Hadith. The same is not true for Judaism or Christianity. I know this because my neighbor is a Rabbi in the community synagogue.

Again, you misrepresent the story of David because you are still thinking Sharia. No witnesses were required here to prove David's guilt.  David went the extra mile to cover up his actions, but saw the secrecy of his actions and exposed this through the prophet Nathan.  You asked what if David chose not to give himself up for punishment.  I ask you this, how can he hide from God's punishment? And that is the point you keep missing. The law transgressed is not man's law, but God's.  And when you transgress God's law, where do you run to, to  escape punishment? And when you claim that Obj will not submit to the charges of corruption, I should also remind you that Gov. Sanni Yerima who introduced Sharia to Zamfara was indicted for illegally receiving bribes in that totalled several millions of dollars and or Naira, but was never held accountable. Same with IBB, and Abdul-Salaam, and even Buhari, all of whom showed contempt for the law when a grand jury summoned to appear before a Federal court.

But to get back to the discuss, you claim that I misrepresented Prophet Mohammed's relationship with Zainab. Magari, a fellow Muslim, does not think so however. In fact, I much respect his honesty in acknowledging the difficulty of the subject rather than trying to offer some hogwash explanation.  Your own explanation baffles me.  So you are saying it is ok for a man to marry his adopted son's wife?  Am I hearing you right? Was there a shortage of women?  Even your attempt to explain this away makes absolutely no sense.   Ok, just so I understand your logic.......in order to prevent my adopted son (which I adopted out of love and perhaps from infancy) from assuming legal right over my own biological son, my recourse would be to marry my adopted son's wife? Ok, that is as strange as it gets.  That is atrocious and scandalous however you look at it in any religion, even in heathenism. To therefore sit and offer such a strange explanation is baffling, and there is no way, and I mean absolutely no way, that God would have appoved of such a scandal.  Let us be logical here for a second, and see things for what they really are.

So coming back to the Sharia concept, Waziri said Chistians would benefit from Sharia in implemented. What if non Muslims do not give a damn? Have you looked at things from that angle?  We have Federal laws that is supposed to be supreme, but now some people with mischief decide to bypass those laws and adopt one more in line with their prefered belief system, and then turn around to lecture others that such laws may benefit them.  When people begin changing laws and establishing news ones which suit them, they should also know that such moves are cessasionist in nature because you cannot have two seperate laws in one country. It is not practical in fact it is foolish and a total disregard for the constitution. Therefore, these people well go ahead and declare a seperate republic , and all those in favor of sharia constitution go along with it  so they can freely practice it and live righteously amongst themselves without any contact with sinners. Would that not be the ideal thing to do?

• Tweet

[lionger]

Waziri

Hmm I think you have made a few wrong assumptions,  which have allowed you to bypass the questions I asked and the point I'm trying to make about God's and Jesus' judgement.  Let's start with Jesus:

I have made the arguments that Jesus did not execute these punishments only because the evidences were cagey and incomplete. Even apostle John was quick to let us know that the sole intention of those ?showcasing? the adulteress was only to tempt the ?Lord?. Even then the mere action of bringing the adulteress to Jesus proves further the fact that the practice then was the key to the realm of executing such punishments lies with the leaders alone.

Let's actually read the account of John 8 on this issue. Once again, pay attention to the bolded portions.

John 8:3-11
' The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she answered.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

It is interesting to observe the 'metamorphosis' of your opinion on Jesus' words here in this thread and the previous one. In the previous thread, you at first made the correct assumption that the question posed to him was a trap, because on the one hand the Jews did not have the power to exact capital punishments; and on the other hand, Jesus would be breaking the law if he let her go. This stance inherently assumes that the woman's guilt was firmly established. But now you have thrown away that inherent assumption, thereby making the Pharisees' question very rudimentary and their trap toothless. Where is the trap if the woman can't even be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt? And how come Jesus does not ask for her partner in crime, a question that would have been so obvious?

Both times, however, you fail to give proper analysis to the words of Jesus himself, which makes your final conclusion incorrect.

That the woman committed adultery is beyond question. In the first highlighted portion, the apostle John notes that the woman WAS caught in adultery! So there was no such confusion as to her guilt. And why would Jesus say to her, "go and stop living in sin" if indeed there was a chance that she might be innocent? She was guilty. But take note of this, my friend: Jesus' words to the accused and her accusers were not just a moment of divine inspiration, they contain the crux of his mission on earth: not to bring condemnation, but to offer love and forgiveness to all. As such Jesus does not even bother to inquire about the whereabouts of her accomplice; that is not important. Stoning the woman would not not by any means complete his goal of reconciliation. I once again beseech you to read the entire gospel of John. Don't you think Jesus would have been acting completely out of character if he decided to stone her?

Okay suppose we agree that David (Peace be with him) really committed the adultery in broad daylight and that there were required witnesses that warrant for the punishment to be carried out, but on his part chose not to give himself to be punished. Just like in our contemporary world where OBJ would not submit to the charges of corruption even when there is clear-cut evidence that he committed such crimes. Then we cannot help but to subscribe to the reality that David did not obey God, he did not do as God commandeth so such judgment will be left to God alone as rightly observed subtly in the passages quoted by lionger.

But one reality remains that adultery and fornication are sins in the sight of God and against societies. If any person should commit any and is caught with sufficient evidence then the punishment is meted on him as required in Shari?a law. But if any should commit the atrocity but is not caught or the evidence against the person is not ventilating enough, then the physical part of the punishment will be shed and the spiritual part of it will be left to God to handle. If any should commit the atrocity with all the ventilating evidences, assuming that was the case of King David, but the punishment is not executed on the person then we also conclude that God one day will stand to judge him in His unavoidable litigation.

Emphasis added.

Before I touch this quote I will say a few words concerning your belief that prophets of God did not commit such sins. We will have to respectfully disagree on that. As a Christian my position is that they were all sinners. They had a heart for God, nevertheless, and God used them despite their blemishes. The only man who never sinned is the man from heaven, Jesus Christ.

Usman is right, you are still looking at it from a Sharia perspective. While your analysis is correct, you created a hypothetical situation that frankly ignores the reality of what happened as Scripture records it. David freely confessed his guilt and became a witness against himself. He did not run away or try to avoid his judgement. So where is the need for producing witnesses? And as Usman asked, how could he have run away from God's judgement anyways?  So the question still remains, Waziri: Why did God, in His judgement, spare David's life? Why didn't He refer to the law and ask the people to kill David, or do the job Himself, as He is perfectly capable of doing? Please read again what I said on this matter in my previous post; this is the Christian perspective.

My objective in making these arguments is not even to condemn Sharia, but to spell out clearly the Christian position on these matters and counter claims by Muslims on this forum that the Bible supports their actions and that Christians are not following their own scriptures. Muslims are therefore in grievious error when they start quoting the Bible to validate their arguments in this regard. No true Christian will ever support a religious law that condemns adulterers to death. We do not even believe it is a solution to the real issues of sin. Jesus set us an example and that is the example we must follow!

lionger

• Tweet

[_Waziri_]

Waziri

Hmm I think you have made a few false assumptions

 Ah! lionger it is this kind of submission that will make me doubt your intentions. Please do not say I made false assumptions but say I made wrong assumptions. It is most polite. Please if you find any of this type of statements in my earlier input know that I regret it.

I have no time now, will conviniently respond to you two later.

Until then remain blessed in the love of Christ.

• Tweet

[SAAHIB 92]

assalam

usman pls send more of this very educating thread.

ma'assalam[/b]

• Tweet

[lionger]

hehehe Waziri,
oops I'm truly sorry about that; honestly when i wrote that i did mean 'wrong' as compared to 'false'; I wasn't trying to accuse you of being deceitful or anything. I have changed the wording and I hope we can continue our custom of respectful correspondence.

Peace!

• Tweet

[mallamt]

The problem with the likes of _waziri_ in a discussion or debate is that they are persistently trying to move focus and raising issue after issue without even answering questions put to them.  Now they tend to posit that a discussion is "intelligent" only if they raise all the "logical" questions and you do not ask or you ask they do not answer.  If this thread is followed from the beginning that is the trend you will find, when issues or points are raised the focus is shifted again to a peripherial matter which then takes focus.

_waziri_
I asked a question about an assertion made by you, instead of answering after my persistence you decide to make some inconsistent ramblings accussing some of having grudges against you and make reference  to not responding to "elementary" points.  How convenient!! You duck away from the question make skimpy/silly remarks meanwhile the question remains unaswered.  Well i believe _waziri_ has been unmasked as a peson unable to look himself in the mirror and the silence on the question speaks millions.

• Tweet

[usman11]

Here are quotes from the Koran:

What has come over you that you so judge?" ('The Koran' 10:35)

"He that fights for God's cause fights for himself. God needs no man's help." ('The Koran' 29:6)

Question: Do the Muslims that go on rampage chanting  'Allah U Akbar' and causing mayhem thinking they do this for God not know of this verse in the Koran?

Also, do those that insist on killing adulterers not know from this verse that God can handle his own business?

Please enlighten me!

• Tweet