KanoOnline.com Forum

Salam

Proceed through this link http://www.dailytrust.com/WeeklyDream/Cover%20II.htm to access the article.

I could not contain myself after reading this horrific and disturbing story. That there are men (beasts is a better description) who will do such a thing leaves me in no doubt that their punishment should be worse than death. They should not be dignified with an Islamic burial because they, in my own estimation, are not Human or Muslims.

I am outraged!

Allah ya isa

May Allah rest her soul in peace Ameen. I heard the incident a day after it happened. Its so touching, disgusting and beyound reasonable sound mind exceptations of reasonable sound mind capacitating people except for the two accused.

They committed an act of felony and in the process committed homicide and they were aiding and abetting the truth by secretly disposing of the victims body. Probably, they will be charged with two offences because their acts set off a chain of events. And for Shua'bu to state that he has no intention will not constitute a defence because he has already committed an act prohibited by shariah law and they have confessed to it. And for both of them to use intoxication by self-induced (drugs) is no reasonable ground for defence. Plus being in possession of a dangerous and illegal drug. Wannan yana daya daga cikin dalilan dayasa aka haramta sha kwayoyi to avoid sound mind people to commit an act they will regret. Su kansu wainnan samari, am sure suna danasani, amman sharin shaidan!

A'a malam myadudu, the anger, pain and sorrow is going through everyone elses mind but obviously duk hukuncin da za'ayi musu za'ayi yadda shariah tace and it is in my view to say that it will be justifiable, amman saying that they should not be buried according to islamic right is not relevant duk da nasan zafin rai yasa ka fadi hakan. Domin ko anyi haka it will not wipe off the crime committed or the end result of the crime itself. Idan an daure musu hukunci rai da rai which I presume they might, they should be disposed as of rights accrued in shariah law. Sannan komai a barwa ubangiji Allah mai girma domin shi kadai zai iya zartar da hukunci shi wanda ya kamaci abun da sukayi akan wa'innan bayi nashi dai dai wa daida. As the deaceased mother said, tabarwa Allah komai. Aiko idan tace haka ta gama komai. To deprive them of their burial rights da ace anbar mutum a hannun Allah, wannene zai zama mishi bala'i?

Allah ya sawake, this should serve as a hinderance for mothers with children. Don Allah a dinga kulawa da yaya mata saboda da mutane marasa hankali kamar su. I have heard so many similar issues of mothers sending off their daugthers unaccompanied to deliver food to male cousin or close relations or yanamta masu aiki su kaiwa maigadi abinci and things like this turning out at the end. A dinga kulawa kuma maza masu irin wannan halin both young and old, rich and poor, married or unmarried da su dinga kulawa, kuma su san if they carry out such an act scott-free in the hereafter there is nothing like freedom to commit a prohibited act.

Allah ya sawake ya kuma kare.

Quote from: "myadudu"because they, in my own estimation, are not Human or Muslims.
I am outraged!

au, kai yau kafara jin zantuka irin wannan na maza musulmai marasa dabi'a da koyin addinin musulunci? Where have you been all these years?

Allah dai ya shirya irinsu

very sad story to think that such could happen in nigeria and in the north!! well this goes to show us that it is not the type of legal system we put in place that stops crime so maybe we should start looking at the causes of crime rather than the effect of crime alone.

The anti-death penalty campaign has always been the baby of western propaganda.

I am having problems accessing the link provided by myadudu, so I do not know the story.  It would appear however that some Muslim or muslims committed some very gory and shocking acts that is drawing condemnation.

In any case,  the issue of the death penalty has resurfaced here.  I am not totally against the death penalty. I am however particular about the type of crime that warrants the imposition of the death penalty.  In Nigeria, the death penalty as most other things became an issue of religious contention, and this creates problems. I believe if the death penalty is to be applied, it should be reserved for hardened criminals who intentionally and brutally murder innocent people without conscience.  These kinds of people who in many cases may be repeat offenders without remorse and deemed by the authority to pose clear danger to society and convicted already on grave crimes against other fellow citizens, would be appropriate candidates for the death penalty. In other words, the punishment has to fit the crime. It would make no sense to take a bugler or a pick pocket who during the comission of a felony caused no harm to the victim, and impose  the death penalty on such a petty offender. Such a penalty would not fit the crime.

What I have noticed in Nigeria where death penalty issue is discussed, is the desire by Muslims to extend that law to people found guilty of adultery.  From my observation, here is where many Muslims advocate the death penalty more than at any other time.  The death penalty does not suit every crime.  The reason why different penalties for violations exist is because the law recognizes that crimes differ in gravity and impact.

In America, the courts uphold the death penalty in many states. In many  cases, the people on death row are those convicted by the courts after exhaustive trials, ample evidence , and proof  that the suspect committed very grave atrocity against another, usually a case of brutal killing, serial homicide , etc.

Many Western European countries reject the death penalty because for one they find it cruel and unnncessary to take the life of a convict because doing so does not bring back the victim.  So they would rather commit the suspect to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Coming back to Nigeria and the death penalty saga, the constitution should be respected and allowed to take its course. People cannot keep trying to amend the Constitution or go around it because it does not suite their religious, tribal, or ethnic beliefs. Doing so is a gross disregard of the law and a mockery of the legal framework that guides the country.

Yes, the death penalty should be upheld by the courts if the constitition allows it, but the constitution also lays down the rules on when to impose it.  We cannot sidetrack the constitution and begin witch hunting adulterers for the fun of executing people thinking we are observing our religious rights because that would be lunacy and high hypocrisy.  When people violate personal trust...(because a relationship between two people is a personal trust union) it is between the person in violation, the disappointed partner, and also Allah. For society to jump in and want to carry action is absurd and hypocritical because we know quite well that many people in support of such penalty commit worse atrocities than the infidelity of an adulterer.

Mallamt wrote:

Quotewell this goes to show us that it is not the type of legal system we put in place that stops crime so maybe we should start looking at the causes of crime rather than the effect of crime alone.

Mallamt,

You see my problem with you is whenever I try correcting you you jump to the claim that I hate you. Sincerely speaking if you should forsake that thought pattern and look at what I will say objectively you will then see how the above comment by you may remain irrellevant to muslim minds.

If we say the type of legal system doesn't matter at all then we can easily conclude that nobody should worry when Muslims say they want Shari'a. We can even say since legal system doesn't matter then all should adopt Shari'a or even abandon any legal system and live a lawless society.

For Usman11,

You have a very nice submission there but I provide below some links that can give you the full backgroud of the item of this discourse here. Have a wonderful reading session as I wait to here from you:

http://www.hausafulani.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=154

http://www.hausafulani.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=125

Thank you once again

Waziri

Quote from: "usman11"I am having problems accessing the link provided by myadudu, so I do not know the story.  It would appear however that some Muslim or muslims committed some very gory and shocking acts that is drawing condemnation.

In any case,  the issue of the death penalty has resurfaced here.  I am not totally against the death penalty. I am however particular about the type of crime that warrants the imposition of the death penalty.  In Nigeria, the death penalty as most other things became an issue of religious contention, and this creates problems. I believe if the death penalty is to be applied, it should be reserved for hardened criminals who intentionally and brutally murder innocent people without conscience.  These kinds of people who in many cases may be repeat offenders without remorse and deemed by the authority to pose clear danger to society and convicted already on grave crimes against other fellow citizens, would be appropriate candidates for the death penalty. In other words, the punishment has to fit the crime. It would make no sense to take a bugler or a pick pocket who during the comission of a felony caused no harm to the victim, and impose  the death penalty on such a petty offender. Such a penalty would not fit the crime.

What I have noticed in Nigeria where death penalty issue is discussed, is the desire by Muslims to extend that law to people found guilty of adultery.  From my observation, here is where many Muslims advocate the death penalty more than at any other time.  The death penalty does not suit every crime.  The reason why different penalties for violations exist is because the law recognizes that crimes differ in gravity and impact.

In America, the courts uphold the death penalty in many states. In many  cases, the people on death row are those convicted by the courts after exhaustive trials, ample evidence , and proof  that the suspect committed very grave atrocity against another, usually a case of brutal killing, serial homicide , etc.

Many Western European countries reject the death penalty because for one they find it cruel and unnncessary to take the life of a convict because doing so does not bring back the victim.  So they would rather commit the suspect to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Coming back to Nigeria and the death penalty saga, the constitution should be respected and allowed to take its course. People cannot keep trying to amend the Constitution or go around it because it does not suite their religious, tribal, or ethnic beliefs. Doing so is a gross disregard of the law and a mockery of the legal framework that guides the country.

Yes, the death penalty should be upheld by the courts if the constitition allows it, but the constitution also lays down the rules on when to impose it.  We cannot sidetrack the constitution and begin witch hunting adulterers for the fun of executing people thinking we are observing our religious rights because that would be lunacy and high hypocrisy.  When people violate personal trust...(because a relationship between two people is a personal trust union) it is between the person in violation, the disappointed partner, and also Allah. For society to jump in and want to carry action is absurd and hypocritical because we know quite well that many people in support of such penalty commit worse atrocities than the infidelity of an adulterer.

Different ppl always had a different ideas.....i believed there's a punishment prescribed both in the so called nigeria's constitution and in our decent penal code system.why the delay ?ppl 'd believed there's law,but when the law has failed you what could be the next line of action?remeber !!! this henious crime was committed against harmless,innocent child.going by the example you placed abt america,do you think those beast will be allows to go scotfree even in america?i doubt!!! but here in nigeria particularly KANO,i feel those ppl should be excuted mercilessly.WHY because they d' open the flood which creates another BAD EPISODE at KURNAR ASABE recently.allah ya kiyaye

Waziri, thanks for the links. I went back and read most of the postings on those links, and it was an exhausting experience. So please forgive me if I do not write a comprehensive commentary this at this point. For some people, this is a touchy issue because sentiments run deep here. Some of the forumites seem to echo my position on capital punishment, while others express undying support for the death penalty.

I seem to view things with reason however. Some offenses may warrant the death penalty while others clearly do not. On those links you provided you can see that even amongst Muslims, there are clear disagreement about interpretation on the application of the death penalty. From this, it shows that we need to be extremely careful in our interpretation of what we believe to be God's injunction. We cannot claim to know God/Allah's mind or intent. Some things in religious books are not completely clear, and so we cannot make assumptions because those assumptions could be erroneous and dangerous.

I am not an authority on religious matters, Islam or Christinity, but I do read, study and research widely.  One contributors in your link named EMTL justified his support for the death penalty for adulterers by quoting a portion of the Christian Bible's Old testament law of Moses. I had to go and check that out. The verse he quoted does indeed say, the adulterer, or one who commits adultery, man or woman, shall be put to death.

When carefully examined, what the speaker (God) never said was WHO should carry out that sentence. This is very important. It does say, the adulterer shall be put to death, but never explicitly gives anyone the authority to carry out that sentence if at all it was sentence.  Now, a lay person will reason saying, "well, who else will do it, if not the community people"? That is wrong because in that same Bible, I noticed several instance where God showed his capability to deal with sinners by himself when he chose, without help from humans.

The case of Sodom and Gomorrha comes to mind right away. The case of Noah's ark and the flood also comes to mind. The cases of Jewish captivity and suffering for disobedience also comes to mind. All these were examples from that same Bible of God's judgement on a defaulting people, and He needed no human input or assistance in carrying out those judgement.

If one goes back to the story of creation as told in the religious books, it is said that God instructed Adam to eat of any plant or fruit bearing tree from the garden of Eden except one. The command was that the day Adam and his wife ate of the tree of Knbowledge, they wil die. The outcome was that Adam and Eve disobeyed that directive and ate of that tree. Did they die right away? No! Does that make God a liar? No! They lived for several hundred years, then ultimately died of old age. So God's word was fulfilled ultimately, though it took several hundred years. And this is a clear indication that we should be careful how we view God's words. He did say to Adam," the day you eat of the tree of knowledge, you will surely die".  


Who knows, if they had obeyed, they may still be alive today and the World's make up may have been different.

My point is however, when God says the adulterer shall die, or put to death, based on the examples above of how He does his things, that statement could mean many things. It could mean, that being unfaithful and having irresponsible sexual affairs may result in people contracting AIDS as we see today and die. And this is happening. It could also mean that, the person that commits adultery would be caught by the spouse of the other adulterer and killed out of rage. The bottom line is that, if people heed the warnings and commandments, they would be clear of trouble, and we should understand, the laws were for guidance purposes mainly.

So we need to be careful as people and apply some reason to our actions.

Sahiib, I think you should re-read my posting carefully before responding.
I never said I was against the death penalty for murderers, vicious killers, serial killers, etc. In those cases, the death penalty should be considered given the heinous nature and viciousness of the crime. What I am against, is death penalty being applied in any other instance.

When some muslim go on rampage during the so called religious riots, and kill innocent people by slicing people's throats with knives, do you think they should be tried and executed? I think so. That is a vicious and senseless crime.

Secondly, I do not understand your reference to America here. In America as I said, the death penalty is upheld by the courts. Serious criminals are condemned and executed. So what is your point here? Again, you failed to carefully read and comprehend what I wrote.

In the case of the law "failing you" in Nigeria..(I am assuming that reference is to Nigeria), please note, the law has not failed.  The laws are not being enforced, that is the problem. We have a constitution, and we have laws, but when certain people posture themselves above the law, what do you think happens thereafter? Chaos!

You cannot break laws, twist them to suit you, and then it ultimately fails to work, you complain about its failure and then want to abandon it and adopt another set of laws. That is the confusion that has pervaded Nigeria.

Usman11,

Interesting comment  you have there. But as you said you always enjoy researching so I will beseech you to like try to read everything in those links and finally give me your final accessment of the issue. It is then we can build up on the discussion. As you can see you have only responded to one claim by EMTL up there.

Perhaps the most interesting instance in the Bible as regards the death penalty was when Jesus came upon some people determined to stone a poor woman to death for adultery he said
"Let the one among you without sin throw the first stone" and they all put their stones down and walked away.
I can see the justification for the death penalty after vicious murders but the desire by some men to stone poor women to death for adultery (while the men walk free) is barbarity and murder pretending to be justice.
In any crowd of cowardly men scrambling to stone a woman to death how many of them would have committed adultery themselves?
I would use the death penalty on any man who stoned a woman to death.

Salam

Excuse my long absence. .....

Mr Hill should have read the news report posted in the first posting that is generating this thread. The matter at hand is not stoning a woman for commiting adultery. No, this deals with punishing people (two men and possibly more) who have commited heinous crimes ( assault, battery, concealing evidence and perjuring themselves in court). Put simply, they raped a  3 year girl to death.

Now, Dave raised a very important point derived from the bible which, quite honestly, confounds me. Let me quickly point out that I do not, even for a second, doubt Jesus' judgement. BUt, doesn't it sound unfair to let a sinner run free just because those going to punish the sinner are sinners themselves? What sort of sins have the punishers committed? Are there not muliple degrees of sin? Isn't sex of wedlock, then and now, considered a mortal sin in christianity?

I mean, should we let Hitler run free simply because the sort of crimes he perpetrated were also commited by others? It sounds preposterous doesn't it?  My understanding of Jesus' proclamation to the 'Kapos' was more a way of dealing with that particular situation than denouncing the punitive consequence of some crimes being death. Why he will do that I dont know.
When you really look at it, this judgement is like the reverse of 'an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind' in that ultimately, no one will be punished for anything because in the end we all are sinners.  

I sense there is some consesus on the need for the death penalty to exist for certain crimes which the society consider 'vicious' or 'barbaric'. But because our world is not perfect and many people have different value systems, who is to define what constitute of vicious crime?

Until such a time when we all agree on who to kill and for what reasons, I think it's best if every soceity chooses for itself what serves them best. That may include putting adulterers to death - Men and Women ( no exceptions).........

Done!

Interesting comment Amin. This is what we always try making others to see. You cannot condemn others for their values.

I am on a journey so I do not have the composure necessary for me to make meaningful input. But will reach across to you soon pls... Bear with me.

_waziri_
you qouted my earlier posting and commented

QuoteYou see my problem with you is whenever I try correcting you you jump to the claim that I hate you. Sincerely speaking if you should forsake that thought pattern and look at what I will say objectively you will then see how the above comment by you may remain irrellevant to muslim minds.

If we say the type of legal system doesn't matter at all then we can easily conclude that nobody should worry when Muslims say they want Shari'a. We can even say since legal system doesn't matter then all should adopt Shari'a or even abandon any legal system and live a lawless society.

Let me respond to you as follows

1.  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.

2.  There is a difference between a legal system and the laws that are made.  I believe as usaul you did not read my comment nor try to understand it before you responded.  It is narrow mindedness to think that a legal system is the same with laws.  In your comment you go further to say that my comment may (or) suggests that we can do away with a legal system, now I am not sure where you got that but that is very far from what I said and again it is a sign that you never went through my comments, it is a gross misrepresentation of what I have said that you are trying to put forward here and it is a dishonest tactics.

3.  You also concluded that from what I am saying then it should be okay if muslims say they want sharia.  And the answer is an emphatic yes, remember the issue people may have with sharia is not the system itself but the type of rules (laws) and punishments prescribed.  Do not forget that nigeria is not the only country in the world were you have sharia, there is in most north african states and yet there is no uproar the way we have in nigeria.  The issue is the nigerian sharia is political, this makes it open to a lot of injustices and unfairness and it is seen today.  Now on the sharia laws we have in nigeria, I am sure if nigerian muslims would agree for the laws to be tested in the public domain and an acceptable tool for the measurement and acceptance of evidence in court no one will have a problem.  What we are seeing today in nigeria (sharia states) is a case of where  talakawa and women are the only ones falling foul of the law.  Let us take for example the case(s) of the women accused of adultery, can we say that they are guilty and the men are not? a logical argument is that if a woman says it is a particular person and the person denies it and the courts believe him then we are left with two positions either it is a miraculous child in which case the woman should be held in high esteem or she has gone through medical process and is just a surrogate mother in which case she was not sexaully penetrated.  Can you imagine that had the case of these women not reached the media the chances are very high that the penalties would have been carried out, because the likely hood that they would have appealed would have been very low.  You should have a look at what the sharia position with respect to this issue is and how the law is applied in countries like Algeria, Morroco, Tunisia etc.  They understand it and apply it completely different from how we do in sharia states in nigeria.  So _waziri_ I do sincerely hope you understand the difference between a legal system and laws and understand the fact that sharia is not the main issue but the sharia laws and how they are understod and applied in nigeria.

Myadudu
I have read all the posts on this topic but the point I am making is that punishment has to be proportionate to the crime and has to be just and applied equally to all.

When I see a news report that a man in Nigeria is to be stoned for adultery I will be prepared to take the issue seriously. As I said in a post last year there would be a heck of a lot of lot of dead men if men were to be stoned for that sin.
The argument for the death penalty for vicious murder of children is a different case and very many people across the world would agree.

myadudu
welcome back!  I believe you are right when you suggest that contributors should try and get a sense of what started a thread before they contribute.  In your comments to Daves posting you said

QuoteNow, Dave raised a very important point derived from the bible which, quite honestly, confounds me. Let me quickly point out that I do not, even for a second, doubt Jesus' judgement. BUt, doesn't it sound unfair to let a sinner run free just because those going to punish the sinner are sinners themselves? What sort of sins have the punishers committed? Are there not muliple degrees of sin? Isn't sex of wedlock, then and now, considered a mortal sin in christianity?

I mean, should we let Hitler run free simply because the sort of crimes he perpetrated were also commited by others? It sounds preposterous doesn't it? My understanding of Jesus' proclamation to the 'Kapos' was more a way of dealing with that particular situation than denouncing the punitive consequence of some crimes being death. Why he will do that I dont know.
When you really look at it, this judgement is like the reverse of 'an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind' in that ultimately, no one will be punished for anything because in the end we all are sinners.

You have to first of all understand the context within which Jesus made the statement and derive the principle.  The issue in this case is the woman is being stoned based on a religious law, so the question is who says adultry is a sin is it man or God? Can man be a judge of those that sin against Gods or does God judge those that sin?  If we believe that God is the judge of all mankind and we believe He is alive and still judges then why don't we let Him judge? or are we saying He is incapable to judge or is unaware of what is going on in the world? The point is all men are sinful and non is clean enough to judge another based on God's law for each man is constantly seeking for forgiveness, so if that is the case how can any man judge another man on their sinfulness?  We can not judge or question God's actions.  You say or suggest it being unfair for a sinner to run free, that is now questioning Gods judgement.  Just remember it is only God that knows all so when someone to us appears to be a sinner it is only God who knows where they will end up since we know that God can redirect the path of a sinner at any stage of a sinners life, man can not.  In christianity sin is sin, there is no small or big sin punishment is left to God. Christianity distinguishes between Gods law and man's law, God's law is infalable, just, pure and no man has those qaulities and no man can judge another based on God's law, man judges actions not the heart which is what God is interested in.  A man of pure and Godly heart irrespective of the circumstances will be godly and obedient.  The separation between Gods law and mans law is a principle contained in the bible, we are made to respect and obey authority, and we know that it is those in authority that formulate laws (in so far as the laws do not in anyway hinder the practise of your faith - christianity) and this authority is justified in punishing us for breaking its law, because we are made to understand even those in authority God put them there for if He did not allow it it will not happen.  I hope this clears and provides some understanding, it is important to understanding the statement and its context, remember as I said there is a difference between mans laws and authority and Gods law when veiwed from the biblical perspective.  So to answer your question on Hitler or the likes of hime, we are not able to judge his spirit for that only God can but based on mans law he has broken it and must face the consequences of breaking mans law, if it were today in some countries he would have been executed and in some he would have been given life imprisonment, whichever is the case he would have had to face the consequence. I am sorry if I have digressed but do hope that some light has been thrown on the issue.

You wrote

QuoteI sense there is some consesus on the need for the death penalty to exist for certain crimes which the society consider 'vicious' or 'barbaric'. But because our world is not perfect and many people have different value systems, who is to define what constitute of vicious crime?

Until such a time when we all agree on who to kill and for what reasons, I think it's best if every soceity chooses for itself what serves them best. That may include putting adulterers to death - Men and Women ( no exceptions).........

I am not sure where the consensus you are referring to is that is are you talking about here on this site, this thread or in the world?  Because obviously there is no consensus on the death penalty in the world and I am not sure even on this site we will have one.  What there is a consensus in the world is that murder is wrong and should be purnished.  Note also the viciousness or barbaric nature of a crime by law is not what determines the purnishment.  So defining vicious crime has not been the issue because purnishment is not dependant on the definition.  For the crime in question here, if the case were taken anywhere in the world it will be a crime however the perpetrators will face different purnishments.  In the same light murderers (even some first time murderers) who kill a 100year old person with a single bullet to the heart instantly are also criminals and will face purnishement for their crime and the purnishment again will differ from country to country.  We must understand murder is murder, rape is rape whether it was vicious or not irrelevant, the reason we have judges is then to also hear mitigating circumstances and decide on the case.  If I may ask consider this scenario - should it be found that this girl was killed by other means and not by these men, and these men were just some deranged men with pschological problems who found took the corpse and tried to have sex with it then realised that they may be accused of killing the girl and decided to throw her body away in the manner that they did what then happens?  

Value systems do not necessary determine purnishments rather they determine the laws.

Myadudu, I believe Mallamt has responded brilliantly to your commentary up there. But let me just add a little something. In your reference to Jesus's judgement on the adultrous woman, you said it was unfair to let a sinner go unpunished, and then asked what sin the crowd that intended on stoning the woman had committed. Well, your question was answered in that same scenario. When Jesus asked anyone in the crowd without sin to cast the first stone, they all stood dumbfounded and then dropped their stones one after another and walked away. That is what is called self conviction, and the crowd knew deep down that they were no better than woman they condemned.

The point is not about letting sinners go free. There is sin and there is crime. Two related but distinct concepts.  For instance, when someone loves money to the point where it consumes him or her, it is regarded as a sin because money has practically become that person's God. In the real World, it is not a crime or even a sin for that matter. In the real World, it will be regarded as being ambitious.

In regards to Hitler, I do not see the comparison to the issue of adultry which is the main point of discourse here. Hitler's actions was responsible for deaths of millions of people. Many of his top lieutenents were tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to death for crimes against humanity. What is the correlation between that and an adulterer? NONE!

What becomes disturbing to me is how many Majority of Nigerian Muslims feel so strongly about killing someone for adultry. As Mallamt rightly said, if this is a sin against God, why not allow God be the judge? Afterall, it is his law that is being broken.

On a related matter however, I would like the Muslims in this forum to clarify or educate me on something.  The legal and even all other religious definition of adultry is when married people become unfaithful.  In the case of the Nigerian woman whose case made headline all over, she was unmarried. I am not sure about the status of her lover. However, despite her single or divorcee status, she was still being accused of adultry which to me is confusing. I heard that in Islam, there is no distinction between adultry and fornication, that as long as a party had been married before, if the person engages in sex thereafter, it is considered adultry.

My question then is this, according to some Islamic story, the Prophet Mohammed is said to have married the wife of his adopted son.  If this is true, does such a thing not raise serious moral questions? History shows he already had multiples wives, why then would he want to marry a woman who had been previously married to his son?

Salam

Usman11 I dont agree with you saying mallamt responded to my inquiry about jesus' behavior brilliantly. What has done, unfortunately, is crop up pseudo-philosophical/spritual mumbo jumbo about contexualizing man's law and the circumstances. No offense mallamt!

Luckily, I took a very well made point out of his write up- which is, God's law is Infalible. Now if I were mallamt, I would summarise my points to one thing. Since in his view Jesus is God, then his ruling in the case of the adulterous woman should be final and beyond reproach. I would respect that.

But my argument is, I find it hard to see the wisdom in letting a 'sinner' , if indeed she commited the crime- which by the action of Jesus not contesting he innocence, I think she did,  go free. Yeah the men may be of questionable character but what the hell.  

Again, I must disagree with you on the issue not being that of letting the sinner go free. I mean, she was left unscathed wasn't she? But I still do see your point differentiating between a Sin and a Crime. In point of fact, adultery, which is a sin in Christianity and Islam, is also a crime. A crime involves causing an infraction on someone who doesn't wish for that infraction brought on him. Having sex is a crime of soiling the honor of the  culprits family- in bibleland and Islamia.

Hitler the Brute. What about him..... Oh yes, you cannot see the connection between him and the slutty woman eh? Ok. It goes like this.
I'll substitute Hitler for some other Nazi, is that Ok with you?....... I can hear you saying yes so i'll go ahead.

Eichman Killed people ------------->  Sinned and a Crime
Woman had sex         ------------->  Sinned + Crime

Note both killing and having illicit sex were forbidden under the ten commandments. If I am not mistaken, the exact verbage of the bible was something like "thou shalt not take advantage of you neighbour's wife"

Eichman         --------------------> Executed
Woman          --------------------> Freed

Need I say more???

Now back to the Sharia question. If I am to be charitable and take mallamt  proposition about God's law being in infallible, then, you and him will agree with me that the punishment under Sharia, being God's law in my opinion, should be unquestionable. But, I wouyld take a different route.

The punishment for adultery, not fornication, is death by stonning. Under what is called ijma- the islamic jurisprudence term for consensus of opinion ( by men or women of knowledge), the hudud (punishment) for capital crimes that involve stonning, amputation and flogging are meant to deter people from committing those crimes.  I am sure you are terrified of stonning which will vindicate the effectiveness of this approach.  

Finally, you sought clarification on why Amina Lawal is punished as a married woman when she is infact divorced.  I cannot honestly tell you why but I assure you if it had been otherwise, then either she, her counsel, the judge or the media would have cried foul and raise the issue.

lastly, prophet Muhammad never had a biological son who got married. It would be nice if you provide us the source of your info and then may be we can uncloud the issue for you. But in the event that that is true, I dont see any legal issue and there certainly wouldn't be any moral issues since he married the woman after his 'son's' death.

I really have much more to say but I have to go write an exam now........

take care.

Quote from: "mallamt"
1.  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.

Okay let me speak factually as you demanded. On a certain Thursday the 31 of March 2005 you wrote the following for the simple reason that I tried to correct you on the use of correct semantics depicting the menace of begging in Hausa land:

Quote from: "mallamt"Now what part of my explanation is it that _waziri_ does not understand? or is it just his utter disgust for me that makes him respond in the manner that he does (that is without thinking)? I assume that _waziri_ is an educated adult who would not stoop soo low to make silly and childish comments just because they do not like an individual.

Mallamt is this not enough evidence that you jump to the claim of hate when I corecct you? If you dare dispute this I will supply more evidences again. I really wonder why sam kai baka da wayo ko kadan. I really wonder why you must fight it on always. Anyway know that I have never had the time in the past or present to view any individual with disgust. I adress issues and whenever you take on to my person I deal with you with maximum penalty.

Also at the risk of intimidating you again that will probably make you insinuate another charge of hate, I will still point another maximum error in your post which postulates that Sharia law can be detached from Shari'a legal system, you said:

QuoteSo _waziri_ I do sincerely hope you understand the difference between a legal system and laws and understand the fact that sharia is not the main issue but the sharia laws and how they are understod and applied in nigeria

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. What may constitute problem is the use of right EPISTOLOMOGY. Check it out please Mallamt you are sized up. If there is problem in the way it is being implemented in Nigeria that does not mean the concept is not correct as you tried to point out in your first post which I commented on. For the rest of your arguments I will refer you to the links I provided up there. Please do check and read them if only you will not start claiming I hate you again.

Quote from: "Dave_McEwan_Hill"

When I see a news report that a man in Nigeria is to be stoned for adultery I will be prepared to take the issue seriously. As I said in a post last year there would be a heck of a lot of lot of dead men if men were to be stoned for that sin.
The argument for the death penalty for vicious murder of children is a different case and very many people across the world would agree.

The emphasized part of your post referred please Mr. David. You know quite alright that Shari'a like any other legal system  is not a jungle system that does not take to consideration procedures. Nodody can be stoned without evidence, clear cut evidence.

Quote from: "myadudu"

But my argument is, I find it hard to see the wisdom in letting a 'sinner' , if indeed she commited the crime- which by the action of Jesus not contesting he innocence, I think she did,  go free. Yeah the men may be of questionable character but what the hell.  

You see Amin, this is the more reason why the story of the adulteress in itself is of doubtful authority. Many Christian clergies have asked the simple question as to why Jesus himself in the very first instant did not ask the Pharisees where is the man that you said she was cought red handed with?


Now the assertion is if Jesus really could forget to ask such a vital question then it is an intellectual deficiency on his part.

NOTE: Revisers of the RSV have underlined the story thinking it to be a farce.

myadudu,  I think you are confusing yourself even further by attempting to unravel the points that have been clearly made to you.  I noticed also that you are not very informed about the account of the Prophet marrying his adopted son's wife. If you are ignorant about this issue which is a sore topic in Islam, how can you then even begin to argue on the subject? Do you not even know anything about the personal life of the Prophet? Please note, I said his adopted son. In Islam is an adopted son not same as a son? I will come back to this later.


In any case,  in referece to the portion of your argument about Jesus letting the woman go free, yes he did. I think you should realize that in Christiandom, Jesus's ministry was about forgiveness of sins and redemption  especially when there is an acknowledgement of wrong doing by the sinner. The adultrous woman in the Bible did not deny the charge against her, however, Christ did not condemn her to death either.  No one is denying the woman's guilt

Here is what you said.....

"Luckily, I took a very well made point out of his write up- which is,  God's law is Infalible. Now if I were mallamt, I would summarise my points to one thing. Since in his view Jesus is God, then his ruling in the case of the adulterous woman should be final and beyond reproach. I would respect that. "

The ruling was indeed final. He forgave her and asked her to go and sin no more, and following your logic, as God, it was his law that was transgressed and he has final authority on judgement. So his final word on that particular instance was the forgiveness of the woman's sin as he alone had the power to forgive and redeem, and that was exactly what he did.  Did you not notice that? So do you see now? Where does this leave your argument?

And again, there is no connection between the crimes associated to Hitler and the adultrous woman in the Bible. None whatsoever. Such comparison lacks logic, I am sorry to say. If you had compared Hitler to Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons to execute kurdish people for instance, I would have seen the sense in your comparison as the Nazis had also used poison gas in WW11 to kill Jews.

So here is what you are failing to realize, when one person is responsible for the brutal deaths of about 6 million people, and another person commited the sin of being unfaithful to his/her partner, is that the same thing? For the adulterer, the  damage is that he/she has broken trust, which in many cases, the relationship can be repaired and as long as the wronged spouse forgives and still loves the unfaithful partner.  And there goes that Word again, FORGIVENESS.  If however, the partner feels the damage is too great, he/she can decide to end the relationship and both parties go their seperate ways.

This is not the case with when one kills thousands or millions of people however.  Murder in this case is the deprivation of life, and when you destroy millions of lives, that is considered genocide, and the impact lasts for generations and even centuries.   And yes, both killing and illicit sex were forbidden in the Ten commandment, but what you fail to realize is that those were God's commandments not man's. Man did not formulate the ten commandment, so men should not enforce laws enacted by a higher authority.  So I ask you these questions Myadudu, and I want simple answers.

1. Who enforces God's law? You or God?
2. Is God incapable of meting out judgement to defaulters?
3. Who enforces man's laws? God or Man?

We already see how people in Nigeria have tried enforcing 'allah's law' (sharia), and already, the exercise is full of hypocrisy as it targets only the poor and down trodden.  Therein lies the problem when insignificant humans decide to legislate what is believed to be God's law.

The old testament law you referenced in relation to adultry is indeed correct to the point that the act is condemned. What you failed to notice is that God did not order anyone, any person, to physcically carry out a judgement on people found in violation of this law.  In case you missed it, I advice you to read the text again over and over, word for word.

So going back to my earlier question about the Prophet and how his relationships with women, some of whom were divorced do not constitute adultry or pose a moral dilemna, here's what I need your clarification on.
Please note,  these information, I have gotten from the books that detail historical texts of the life of the Prophet, and also partly from Al Bakari's account.



Ten years after his first revelation, and at the age of fifty, Mohammed was struck with immense grief.  His dearly loved wife, Khadija, died, and so did his uncle Abu Talib.  This opened a whole new chapter in Mohammed?s life in which he would end up marrying another fourteen women, a new wife for every remaining year of his life.  A partial list of Mohammed?s wives include the following:

1. Sauda:  Within two months after Khadija?s death he married her.  She was a widow.

2. Ayisha:  She was the daughter of his friend, Abu Bakr.  She was only seven years of age when she was betrothed to Mohammed.  They celebrated and consummated their marriage three years later when Ayisha was ten years old.

3.  Hafasa:  She was the daughter of one of the esteemed early converts of Islam named Omar.

4. Zainab:  She was the wife of his own adopted son, Zeyd.

5. Juwariyah: She was kidnapped by Mohammed on one of his raids against local tribes outside of Medina.

6.  Raihana. She was a Jewess, whose husband and relatives Mohammed massacred.  She refused to embrace Islam.

7. Mariam, who was a Christian slave girl sent by the governor of Egypt to Mohammed as a pledge of fidelity to Mohammed.  Moslems say that Mohammed only agreed to take her as his wife when she refused to leave his side.

8. Safiyya.  She was captured from a Jewish settlement, and was fifteen years of age.  The Moslems had agreed to allow the Jews to leave if they left their possessions behind.  The Jewish chief, Kinana, was accused of keeping back some of his treasure and was murdered.  Safiyya was his widow.  Bakari states that, One of Mohammed?s followers begged to have Safiyya himself, but Mohammed was taken with the woman?s beauty and took her into his harem.

9. Um Habeeba.  She was married to a man, who left Islam and embraced Christianity.  Upon his death Mohammed sent her a marriage proposal.  Their marriage was consummated in A. D. 628 when Mohammed was 58 years of age.


10. Maimuna.  She was a Meccan that Mohammed married in A. D. 629

The story of Zainab, the wife of Mohammed?s adopted son Zeyd, has proved especially scandalous to non-Moslems.  The story is related as follows.  Mohammed is said to have received a ?revelation? from God that Zeyd was to divorce Zainab.  Several days later after the divorce, ?another revelation? came to Mohammed that Zainab was to be taken as his own wife.  All this took place immediately after Mohammed had made a visit to Zeyd?s house unexpectedly and has been smitten by a site of Zainab when she was unveiled.  Mohammed was said to have exclaimed upon seeing her, ?Praise belongeth unto God who turneth the hearts of men even as He will.?  Zainab overheard the statement, related it later to her husband Zeyd, who immediately went to Mohammed and offered his wife to the Prophet.


Islamic apologists have long attempted to explain away Mohammed?s prolific polygamy by saying that he married women in order to care for ?old maids and widows and forge important political alliances.  Supposedly the ?only proper way? according to the ?Arab code? for Mohammed to take care of these destitute women was to marry them. As such Mohammed is acclaimed as chivalrous by Moslems.  Non Muslims on the other hand have long wondered why, if the marriages were made for charitable purposes, sexual relations with each wife was included in the package.  If receiving a reward for charity nullifies the charity itself, how can these multiple marriages be considered charitable acts by the Prophet?  Or are we to believe that Mohammed only slept with these women to satisfy them?

The marriage to Zainab has been more difficult for Moslem apologists to justify.  Some Moslems suggest that Mohammed consented to this arrangement in order to alter poor laws concerning adoption.  Christians also find it particularly convenient and peculiar that one of the Koranic ?revelations? that came to the Prophet was the following:

?Prophet, we have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty;  the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you;  and any believing women who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage.  This privilege is yours alone, being granted to no other believer( Koran, p. 297.)

Muslims often quote the Christian Old testament and perhaps hold that part of the torah as the unadultrated part of the gospel.  Let us assume that is so. When you view the other Prophets in that old testament, one finds that the book bears witness to Holy Prophets, who not only were not polygamous, but often lived virginally, such as the Holy Prophet Elias, the Holy Prophet Elisha, the Holy Prophet Daniel, and St. John the Baptist.  Christ Himself, whom Moslems consider to be a Prophet, lived as a virgin.  How is it that the ?Seal of the Prophets? himself lived with so many wives?  How does this recommend his holiness?  How is it that even with this ascetic tradition amongst the Prophets that Islam condemns monastic life?(Islam Revealed, p. 50)

Please enlighten me if I have it all wrong...

_waziri_
I do not want you to beat around the bush I would like it if you answer simple uncomplicated questions.  Please quit the deceitful tactics and be factual.  This is what I wrote

QuoteYou 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.

I believe the questions are very simple and straight forward please ANSWER them no maradona tactics.  And indeed please provide additional evidences where I said you hate me in my response - qoute them.  READ MY QUESTIONS CARFULLY PLEASE AND ANSWER THEM.

Does using the term hate in my response to your comment constitute "whenever"?
Kai ne dai baka da wayo kana son ka kawo rudu
You see part of the problem is you are not answering the question. If in you own terms once equals to several or "whenever" then hmm.

Wow, this thread has been such an interesting read; so much to say, but not much time. I'll briefly address the issue of Jesus and the adulterous woman.
Waziri and myadudu, read carefully the responses of mallamt and usman1, they make a very important point. I'll now post a passage from the Old Testament, which will either confuse u all the more or enlighten u on the truth of God's Law.

The case of King David and Uriah's wife Bathsheba is one of the famous adultery cases in the Bible, and is recorded in II Samuel 11. In chapter 12, Nathan the prophet confronts David about his sin:

'' Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.'
Nathan replied, 'The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die.' " II Samuel 12:13,14.

Not only did David commit adultery with Bathsheba, when Bathsheba became pregnant, he eventually had her husbad killed. Murder and adultery - sins punishable by death.  God did punish David, quite heavily, to be sure - the consequence of this sin followed him for the rest of his life. But God did not kill David. Why?

In addition to the very good contributions of lionger and usman11 let me make some points.  I think myadudu writes without much knowledge of the christian faith but I find interesting the issues he raised for he has uncanningly answered them in a way.  First myadudu must understand that Christ is our intercessor this is carried right from the old testament.  Now one of the most powerful things Jesus showed in this instance is His power to forgive sin - no other person in the world then and now ever had that power!!  I find myadudu comment spot on

QuoteNow if I were mallamt, I would summarise my points to one thing. Since in his view Jesus is God, then his ruling in the case of the adulterous woman should be final and beyond reproach

Jesus gave a finality on the matter in the process let the others also see their own sins.  If myadudu followed the story further in the bible he will also realise the transforming power of Christ as Mary is completely transformed.  Myadudu further wrote

QuoteBut my argument is, I find it hard to see the wisdom in letting a 'sinner' , if indeed she commited the crime- which by the action of Jesus not contesting he innocence, I think she did, go free. Yeah the men may be of questionable character but what the hell.

Again myadudu you have rightly said it "..you find it hard to see the wisdom..."Gods wisdom is not our wisdom so you are dead right!! As I indicated above we see her Christs power to forgive sin that is why He is the redemer and only through him can our sins be forgiven.  If you read further in the story as suggested above, Jesus said to the woman go and sin no more - what do you think that meant?  Christ did not come to condem but to redeem.  It does not matter how highly or lowly placed one is everyone is a sinner and stands condemed but through Christ we are assured salvation - that is what we are seeing in the case of the woman and that is what is still going on till this day.

Again no matter how myadudu may want to twist and turn, there is a difference between sin and crime it is very simple!!  I believe usman11 had some questions in his postings, myadudu should go throuh them, ponder them and answer them.  Who said that adultry is sin?  who said telling lies is a sin?  who said worshiping other gods but God is a sin? who said killing is a sin?  Sin deals with our relationship with God while crime or criminality deals with injury we cause to one another for which we develop laws/rules to regulate our relationships.  In the case of sin we did not have a role in formulating what constitutes sin that was done by God.  Laws and purnishment for crime differ from country to country and community to community as costums and traditions have very strong influence on them.  With sin it does not matter the costum or tradition one follows it remains sin and the purnishment for unrepentant sin is consistent (hell) - otherwise we will be saying God is not real.  Crime may have mitigating factors but sin does not - if we say sin has mitigating factors then we say God is a lair or unjust

Some corrections to myadudd, sex in Christianity is not a crime nor a sin, however sex outside wedlock is a sin.  In secular the secular world generally, sex outside wedlock is not a crime, however some customs and traditions may frown at it.

On equating the adultrus woman and hitler or other ww2 criminals, I think it is silly and childish.  If myadudu takes some time to study the evolution of many or all laws, they were influenced by believes/faiths/religions.  Some years ago (hundreds or thousands) in a tribe in the southern parts of nigeria, if a couple is blessed with twins, one was sacrificed, in central america human sacrifices were offered to gods.  There were other tribes around the world that did human sacrifices.  In both these cases, the sacrifices then were not murder but appeasing the gods, however the acts (sacrifices) were a sin then and even now.  There is a tribe in africa to this day a woman belongs to the community and does not just sleep with her "husband" she sleeps with other men from the community and nobody owns children but the community and the community is equally responsible for looking after the children.  Adultery is not a crime in this community (as in most communities in the world anyway), but it is a sin to God.  So the two (sin and crime) are not synonymous as myadudu tries to potray they are completely indipendent concepts.  

Now Gods law is infallable NO MAN can sit in judgement of another over Gods law for all have sinned!! Now if a man judges another man under Gods law when his own hands are not clean what actually is he judging?  Should he not be removing the speck in his own eyes rather than the log in anothers eye?  There is no man competent in the world to judge anyone on Gods law to do so is for such a person to put themself on the same level with God!!!

NOTE: I wrote the following a few hours ago and didnt have time to post until now so the conversation has evolved farther , but whatever




Comrades

One can hardly argue that laws and ?values? are both topics that merit immense discussion. It would be safe then to assume that they shall be subjected to pristine reasoning.

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.  And since ?values? by definition require more emotional investment than analytic thought, more often than not, the rhetorician might appear victorious over the scientist. However since it?s an ?intellectual discourse? we are pretending to have here why not rid ourselves of the persuasive language and adopt a more logical an approach?  
Ameen
To deem ?sex? a crime on basis that ?it soils the honour of the culprit?s family? is baseless if we take in consideration that honour is subjective by it?s very nature. And what of those persons of whom can be found no living family members, Are they then after being accused to be vindicated of all charges once that fact is established? And talking of ?subjective?, allow me an attempt at a bit of ?subjective? analysis.

The comparison should have ran something like this:

Adolph Eichmann. : Adhered, participated, and oversaw inhumane maltreatment and deportation of Austrian Jews to concentration camps in Poland, advocated the use of Zyklon B and gas chambers  as means of exterminating the Jews of  Europe, Escaped prosecution to settle in Argentina from 1946-60????????. (The rap sheet goes on)

Amina Lawal. : Had sex


Eichmann: = tried and convicted of crimes against humanity
Lawal: = tried and convicted of crimes against??????????????????

There is No denying that ?punishments?????.that involve stoning, amputation and flogging are meant to deter people from committing those crimes.? And I for one will be scared sh*tless to be condemned to such a brutal fate as ?death by stoning?

My frustration however is: do laws function merely as a method of scaring the hell out of a person while denying him/her the basic right to challenge the logic behind them?

Or is the aim of a law: to provide the human kind with a lucid sense of duty, responsibility, and personal integrity in preserving a condition of social order and justice?


Usman11 ( Big ups ! for the guts  :wink: )

On the question of Prophet Mohammad?s (PBUH) domestic affairs, its indeed a very sensitive topic and I will do the best I can to comment without stirring up any unrest, a person of an Islamic background understandbly often finds himself posed in a defensive or apologetic posture when confronted with the topic,
As any dyed in the wool evangelist would for his Christ, or a Communist for his Marx.

But facts remain facts and must be presented since this is an ?intellectual? conversation, which (I?m confident that we can all agree) knows not taboos or boundaries. Besides the question has been raised, thus must be met with an answer however bitter.
     
The instance you made reference to, did in fact take place
The ?adopted son? in question is none other than Zaid (or ?Zayad? depending on the source). Zaid was a servant of the prophet (PBUH) and the divorcee.  
The woman being Zainab, who was indeed married to Zaid,
And the prophet did marry her after her divorce.


There is a brief mention of the event in the holy Qur?an

Sura: 33 (the clans) ayah 36 ? 39
[33.36] And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.
[33.37] And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favour and to whom you had shown a favour: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, we gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed.
[33.38] There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute:
[33.39] Those who deliver the messages of Allah and fear Him, and do not fear any one but Allah; and Allah is sufficient to take account.

The next Ayah however counters that Zaid figures as a son to the prophet.
? wa maa kaana Muhammadun abaa ahadin mi rijalikum wa laakin rasulullahi????????.?
[33.40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things
--------------------------------------
There go the data, how one process it entirely depends on the person

Its critical however to note that for eons the incident has been discussed at length, and although I do not defy the possibility of negation, I doubt that any ?breakthrough? or general consensus on the matter is within reach. 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   )

One can sit and biker over Jesus (PBUH) ?intellectual deficiency?, contradiction, Or tire himself with endless arguments on Mohammad (PBUH) and his marriage to a 7 year old or a so called adopted-step-daughter-in-law at the end of the day these things remain facts to be considered studied and regarded within the time frame.



Al-Maqri III

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.

I also do not subscribe to the claims of Usman ( I mean my brother Maqari not Usman 11) that issues dealing with faith cannot be intellectualised. They certainly can but with acute limitation just like any other thing can be discussed intellectually but with acute limitations. But yet it true that two people may not find it easy to agree on one thing in one issue. At this kind of juncture I always suggest that they all must learn to let each other be. This is to say: If a Christian thinks Shari'a is barbaric let him keep it to himself and allow others who believe it to be the highest form of expression in human civilisational terms practice it without hindrance. If the non-Muslims have not tried condemning Shari'a it would not have generated much debate here. The debate will surely stop when they stop condemning it. But one point has to be made: THE MUSLIM DO NOT PRACTICE SHARI"A BECAUSE THEY WANT BUT ALSO BECAUSE THEY CAN DEFEND THEIR DOINGS EFFECTIVELY.


I remain most grateful

Waziri

wazirii, thanks for your response. Let me put up the passage you posted from the Old Testament book of leviticus. I will go up further and and start from Leviticus 20: verses 7 to verse 12.  Please pay attention.

20:7  Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

20:8  And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

20:9  For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:10  And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

20:11  And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:12  And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

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"?, well that is a completely wrong premise, because there are several instance in the same Old Testament  where God has personally handled his business without human input or assistance. That shows, he does not need humans to enforce his laws. It is that simple.  

But please pay particular attention to Leviticus 20 verse 12. And it says "If a man lies (sleeps, has sex) with his daughter-in-law, they have wrought confusion, and shall be put to death. This verse puts Prophet Mohammed in hot soup right there.

Now, I appreciate Magari's great effort (and he did so very carefully) in responding to the issue about the Prophet's 'domestic' affairs with Zainab.   No real convincing explanation was given for such behavior though, and I understand, as he warned before hand that no explanation may make sense.  My concern now is this, waziri in pointing me to Leviticus 20:10 has opened my eyes to even more scarier revelation. Not only is it very bad to commit adultery with a neighbor's spouse,  it is equally as bad and sinful to sleep with one's daughter-in-law.  In fact, such infraction carries a death sentence from God.

So if Muslims believe in the Torah or the Old Testament laws of Moses, in which those laws or warnings above are contained in, that means the Prophet must have been aware of them also because those are words believed to have been spoken by God. If God then frowns at any kind of improper relationship between a man and his daughter-in-law (infact God calls it scandalous) how is it possible that the Prophet crossed that line, and his followers simply try to explain it away as if it is proper?

Mallamt made some very very interesting points which I found educative  in his analysis of crime and sin.  And like Mallamt pointed out, King David, whom Muslims call a prophet, did infact commit this transgression as well, but was not spared.  David one day sat on his roof top in relaxation and then from that vintage point observed the very sexy wife of Urriah taking a bath. David was so smithen by her beauty and lusted after her.  Besides the fact that he (David) already had several wives and concubines, he could not contain his lust for this woman. He eventually commited adultry with her and even aranged for the woman's hunsband to be killed in battle by stationing his platoon in the hardest fought front of war.

As Mallamt pointed out, his sin and crime did not go unpunished. David, despite acknowledging his wrong, suffered the consequencies of his action for life. He did find redemption, but his Kingdom became torn, his household was in strife, his son waged war against him and exiled him from his own Kingdom, etc.  The list goes on, and it was never the same for David.  But wait a minute, did God not say whoever commits adultry shall be put to death? How come David was still alive afterwards?

My point here again is simple, we cannot sit and legislate God's law. It is his law, made by him.  Humans have no business sitting as judge and jury  over God's laws.  When God uses the word 'Death' or the Phrase "shall be put to death" for instance, how do we know exactly what his intention is, or what is implied in his scheme of things?

He said if Adam disobeyed and ate the one fruit in the Garden of Eden, that Adam and Even would die. They disobeyed, ate the fruit, and did not die, but went ahead to live for hundreds of years.

He then agains says adulterers shall be put to death.  David goes ahead to commit adultry and even murder, but does not die, instead he goes on to live several years more.  So here is a clear indication that people really do not know the mind of God in most cases, and therefore people cannot execute his laws for him as if he is incapable of doing so himself.

My question though is this, how is it that God would punish David whom according to the torah and the Bible, he loved so dearly, then approve of the actions of the Prophet Mohammed and even seem to justify them when the Prophet clearly, at least according to leviticus 20:12 (which waziri so graciously pointed me to) violated his (God's) commandment? God does not even frown at that?  I find this hard to comprehend.  When I review the religious books, the torah , the Bible, Jewish and greek theologies, I see instances where God punishes people, Kings and even prophets for disobedience. In some cases, he punishes a disobedient Prophet and points out the error in case there was doubt and then proceeds to set the person straight.  In the case of Prophet Mohammed, this does not seem to be the case especially in regards to the Zainab issue. There is no condemnation, no chastisement whatsoever, but a justification? I am sorry that is very very inconsistent with how God works.

Folks, I apologise if this is like shifting the focus of this discuss. I just also need further clatification on issues that I have been reading from many of the Muslim writers.

1. For instance, I have heard Muslims remark that science reders Christianity's doctrine false. I am curious because they never mention the specific doctrines that has been rendered false by science. Does anyone know?

2. Muslims also make claims that Abraham, David, some of the older Prophets, and infact Jesus, were all Muslims. Can anyone please address this clearly. Because as I see it, Islam as a religion came into the picture some almost 1700 years after Christ's era. So how could Abraham, and Chris have been members of a religion that never existed in their time?

3. When I read the Koran, I notice that in reference to Christ, a great deal of effort is made by the writer to point out that he (christ) was Mary's son, not God's as the Christians believe.  But then I read the account of Jesus' birth as told by the Koran, and here is what it says in sura 3:45-47

"When the angels said, 'Mary. God gives you good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah Jesus, son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. He shall speak to men in the cradle, and of age, and righteous she shall be.' 'Lord', said Mary, 'how shall I have a son seeing no mortal has touched me? 'Even so' he said, 'God creates what He will.' When He decrees a thing He does but say to it, "Be", and it is.' (3:45-7)"

Now, here is my puzzle. I do not think in the Koran or the Bible, any other human birth, be it prophet or King, has received such prophecy and significance as that of Christ. Furthermore, according to the Koran, he was not fathered my any man. If that is the case, and based on the above verse, who then is the father of Christ? That aside, this man Christ went on to live a sinless life, and perfomed several miracles. If no other human in either religion came close to what he represented as a man of God, how is that Muslims identify with the Prophet Mohammed who was not a a holy man according to him, and whose birth had no significance like that of Christ?

4. The Prophet is quoted as saying the following:

"I am a Prophet of Allah but I do not know what will be my end." (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Chapter "Al-Janaiz")

In one of his sermons calculated to instill the fear of Allah and the Day of Reckoning in the hearts of men, he said, "O people of Quraish be prepared for the Hereafter, I cannot save you from the punishment of Allah; O Bani Abd Manaf, I cannot save you from Allah; O Abbas, son of Abdul Mutalib, I cannot protect you either; O Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, even you I cannot save." (Sahihain)

He used to pray, "O Allah! I am but a man. If I hurt anyone in any manner, then forgive me and do not punish me." (Ahmed, Musnad, Vol. 6 p. 103)


So my concern is this,  the Prophet of Allah who by his own admission did not know what fate awaits him in the life after.  Should a faithful servant of God not have some assurance of becomes of him or her after death? If the person I rever and hold in the highest esteem as the messenger of Allah, had no assurance of what becomes of him after death, where does that leave a commoner?

On the other hand, if some other Prophet of God, especially a holy one like Chrst, promises assurance of eternal life in God's kingdom after life on earth provided one follows certain virteous principles, who am I likely to follow? The one who cannot save himself from what's to come, or the one who offers redemption and salvation with authority?

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.

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 ?

Quote from: "_Waziri_"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:

QuoteBut 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

_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

QuoteYou 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

QuoteThis 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.

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

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

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.

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:

QuoteA 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:

QuoteMy 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.

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?

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:

Quote
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?

Quote
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

Quote from: "lionger"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.

Quote from: "usman11,

Ten years after his first revelation, and at the age of fifty, Mohammed was struck with immense grief.  His dearly loved wife, Khadija, died, and so did his uncle Abu Talib.  This opened a whole new chapter in Mohammed?s life in which he would end up marrying another fourteen women, a new wife for every remaining year of his life.  A partial list of Mohammed?s wives include the following:

1. Sauda:  Within two months after Khadija?s death he married her.  She was a widow.

2. Ayisha:  She was the daughter of his friend, Abu Bakr.  She was only seven years of age when she was betrothed to Mohammed.  They celebrated and consummated their marriage three years later when Ayisha was ten years old.

3.  Hafasa:  She was the daughter of one of the esteemed early converts of Islam named Omar.

4. Zainab:  She was the wife of his own adopted son, Zeyd.

5. Juwariyah: She was kidnapped by Mohammed on one of his raids against local tribes outside of Medina.

6.  Raihana. She was a Jewess, whose husband and relatives Mohammed massacred.  She refused to embrace Islam.

7. Mariam, who was a Christian slave girl sent by the governor of Egypt to Mohammed as a pledge of fidelity to Mohammed.  Moslems say that Mohammed only agreed to take her as his wife when she refused to leave his side.

8. Safiyya.  She was captured from a Jewish settlement, and was fifteen years of age.  The Moslems had agreed to allow the Jews to leave if they left their possessions behind.  The Jewish chief, Kinana, was accused of keeping back some of his treasure and was murdered.  Safiyya was his widow.  Bakari states that, One of Mohammed?s followers begged to have Safiyya himself, but Mohammed was taken with the woman?s beauty and took her into his harem.

9. Um Habeeba.  She was married to a man, who left Islam and embraced Christianity.  Upon his death Mohammed sent her a marriage proposal.  Their marriage was consummated in A. D. 628 when Mohammed was 58 years of age.


10. Maimuna.  She was a Meccan that Mohammed married in A. D. 629

The story of Zainab, the wife of Mohammed?s adopted son Zeyd, has proved especially scandalous to non-Moslems.  The story is related as follows.  Mohammed is said to have received a ?revelation? from God that Zeyd was to divorce Zainab.  Several days later after the divorce, ?another revelation? came to Mohammed that Zainab was to be taken as his own wife.  All this took place immediately after Mohammed had made a visit to Zeyd?s house unexpectedly and has been smitten by a site of Zainab when she was unveiled.  Mohammed was said to have exclaimed upon seeing her, ?Praise belongeth unto God who turneth the hearts of men even as He will.?  Zainab overheard the statement, related it later to her husband Zeyd, who immediately went to Mohammed and offered his wife to the Prophet.


Islamic apologists have long attempted to explain away Mohammed?s prolific polygamy by saying that he married women in order to care for ?old maids and widows and forge important political alliances.  Supposedly the ?only proper way? according to the ?Arab code? for Mohammed to take care of these destitute women was to marry them. As such Mohammed is acclaimed as chivalrous by Moslems.  Non Muslims on the other hand have long wondered why, if the marriages were made for charitable purposes, sexual relations with each wife was included in the package.  If receiving a reward for charity nullifies the charity itself, how can these multiple marriages be considered charitable acts by the Prophet?  Or are we to believe that Mohammed only slept with these women to satisfy them?

The marriage to Zainab has been more difficult for Moslem apologists to justify.  Some Moslems suggest that Mohammed consented to this arrangement in order to alter poor laws concerning adoption.  Christians also find it particularly convenient and peculiar that one of the Koranic ?revelations? that came to the Prophet was the following:

?Prophet, we have made lawful for you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom God has given you as booty;  the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you;  and any believing women who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage.  This privilege is yours alone, being granted to no other believer( Koran, p. 297.)

[bassalam

usman pls send more of this very educating thread.

ma'assalam[/b]

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!

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.

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!

salam

I am saddened by the dimension this thread is assuming. ( I am sure many have forgotten it was supposed to deal with the death penalty debate silently being waged in NIgeria and other places around the world).

I am most incensed by usman11's constant condescention on Islam and our dear prophet Muhammad. He went from accusing prophet Muhammad not have good morals by marrying the wife of his adopted son to demeaning the prophet's prophethood for not knowing what will become of him in the hereafter.

Usman11 tells us that, Islamic apologists have long attempted to explain away Mohammed?s prolific polygamy by saying that he married women in order to care for ?old maids and widows and forge important political alliances. Supposedly the ?only proper way? according to the ?Arab code? for Mohammed to take care of these destitute women was to marry them. As such Mohammed is acclaimed as chivalrous by Moslems.  Now, if usman11 were truly trying to seek the Muslim viewpoint on that subject, then he should accept their explanations. He is also free to hold differing views on the subject .

Three have been many verses quoted from the Bible and the Quran to support certain positions. But to me, this is unnecessary. Because, of what use is someone quoting the bible to prove a point to me when I am not a Christian? I expect a good Christian to think the same way about the Quran too.

To my good friend Maqari, I will concede that my comparing an adulterer with Adolf Eichman is somewhat exaggerated. What I had wanted to do was to highlight the fact that both adultery and genocide are crimes against humanity. You might disagree with this but isn?t true that in the old times a whole city, that of annabi Ludh, was annihilated because  some of it?s inhabitants were in the habit of having sex with those of their own gender?

I will end by appealing to all to return back to the topic at hand??

myadudu
you wrote

QuoteThree have been many verses quoted from the Bible and the Quran to support certain positions. But to me, this is unnecessary. Because, of what use is someone quoting the bible to prove a point to me when I am not a Christian? I expect a good Christian to think the same way about the Quran too.

Let me try and refresh your memory on the genesis of the slipping away from focus.  You wrote this

QuoteNow, Dave raised a very important point derived from the bible which, quite honestly, confounds me. Let me quickly point out that I do not, even for a second, doubt Jesus' judgement. BUt, doesn't it sound unfair to let a sinner run free just because those going to punish the sinner are sinners themselves? What sort of sins have the punishers committed? Are there not muliple degrees of sin? Isn't sex of wedlock, then and now, considered a mortal sin in christianity

This comment came after david refered to a statement by Jesus in the bible. You challenged the person of Jesus as veiwed by Christians being cheered by _waziri_, you did not obviously expect christians or those that understand the faith to remain silent.  Anyway I believe one thing that has come out well for you in all the exchanges is what is contained in your last posting as i qouted above when you said "......Three have been many verses quoted from the Bible and the Quran to support certain positions. But to me, this is unnecessary. Because, of what use is someone quoting the bible to prove a point to me when I am not a Christian?....."

Gentlemen In respect to Myadudu's request to "return back to the topic at hand" I will continue some of the issues raised here in an independant thread.

Quote from: "myadudu"

Three have been many verses quoted from the Bible and the Quran to support certain positions. But to me, this is unnecessary. Because, of what use is someone quoting the bible to prove a point to me when I am not a Christian? I expect a good Christian to think the same way about the Quran too.

This is necessary Amin because law in Islam derives its epistomology from Torah and Gospel. A muslim must believe them if not he will cease to be a Muslim. But to the Christians I do not know why they are quoting Qur'an.

Tahiyyatiy al- Islam,

Lionger,

I am pleased that you exchanged the "false" with "wrong" will come back to you later.

Usman11,

You will only get help when you become willing to be submissive to superior arguments. All the questions you raise are actually antiquated questions that reflect the truth that you did not do much work in Islamic studies.

Now look at it this way. Theology is a science just as jurisprudence is a science in Islam. In other words, religion is science limited by divine revelation, while any other thing maybe science limited by human reflection. This is the reason why I do not agree with Maqari when he said religion or faith is dogma. This is the reason why I assume we should follow through our arguments with reasoned logic as we have always tried doing.

Every good student of the ESSENCE, will know that being together does not mean agreeing on every thing even if it were with parents or relatives but understanding that they too have their ways and manners they pursue things reasonably. To me if this discourse has any meaning it is in my ability to show you that Muslims trace the epistemology of their laws into the Torah in a particular way that makes complete sense using rational thinking.

Now here are the answers to your questions as you asked:

QuoteWaziri, 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 constitution arguing that Islam and Christianity are not African religions anyway, but were brought 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?

If you had a preliminary knowledge of Nigerian constitution you would have seen that provisions for customary laws, as may be required by any traditional religion, are included in the constitution. Why then some Africans should claim that laws relating to Islam or Christianity should be abolished? I am sorry to say please. This does not relate to our discourse here.

QuoteThe 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.

Emphasis on the underlined part. I didn't think Shari'a should be binding on all Nigerian but appealed to the reasoning faculty of all to understand the fact that empirically Shari'a has proven to be helpful and effective not  to Muslims only but to non-Muslims alike.

QuoteThe 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 I disagree, the explanation made perfect sense, and left little room for countering.

But non of you explained why the Pharisees took the adulteress to Jesus for him to condemn to death if it was not the leaders that used to execute such punishments. It is only when you do this I will agree with you that it makes perfect sense.

QuoteYour 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.

It is rather unfortunate that you do not know what TALMUD is and how much it means to the Jews. I am sorry please if this is truly the case. I will doubly doubt your capability in discussing religion with me.

QuoteAgain, 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.  

I told you right from the outset that Muslims cannot use the story to get an EPISTOMOLOGY cos it is completely abrogated in the Qur'an. But I went ahead and gave you the logical thought process that will be followed to explain the story if it were believed by Muslims.

QuoteAnd 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.

I didn't say that because I wanted spiting on OBJoke but because I needed a live example to illustrate my points. It was not an attempt to make comparison. Don't be too confrontational, you are likely to miss the real points

QuoteBut 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.

Now this issue is an antiquated one. No  true scholars of Islam even from among non-muslims today complain bout it. It is thoroughly exausted . Look at the verses from the Qur'an that dwelled on the subject matter, the bolded and underlined portion please:

Sura: 33 (the clans) ayah 36 – 39
[33.36] And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.
[33.37] And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favour and to whom you had shown a favour: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, we gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed.
[33.38] There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute:
[33.39] Those who deliver the messages of Allah and fear Him, and do not fear any one but Allah; and Allah is sufficient to take account.

[33.40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

QuoteSo 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?

But did you really look at the  SECULAR reasons I put forward  before saying Chritians too can benefit from Shari'a. Or did I say it was by force?

Lioger I will come back to reply to you please.

Thanks.

Now unto lionger:

You said I made wrong assumptions just because the line of argument I took in the other thread was different from this one but in reality  is not quite true that I made wrong assumptions or my  opinions 'metamorphosed'  to something else in the sense that there is always many ways we can argue the invalidity of the story even from a technical point of view and that was what I tried pointing at up there.

We can not substantiate in anyway that the woman was caught "in the very act of adultery" as Kig James Version put it without a man. This must be a false claim which Jesus will not succomb to. it is only when we stretch the argument we can take it to the Roman laws of the then which I had time to do then.

But simple as it is if you have to believe the Pharisees on the charge of adultery against that woman you then will have to believe in their claim that "In the Law, Moses commanded us(THEM) to stone such women. " Then you will no longer have problem of the issue of who is to execute the laws of God again. Do you get it?

Concerning King David I have said it earlier that Muslims do not believe in the claim that he commited adultery and therefore neglected the story. But I have gone an extra mile to analyse the story as it happened from the scriptures and gave it an explation in a manner that a system thinker and operational theorist will do in Islam.

As I have explained earlier Muslims trace the epistomology of their laws to Torah and Gospel including other revealed scriptures. The aim of my discourse is not to make all agree with me but rather to make them see that Muslims too have a case when they choose to be different, they should be allowed for even at secular levels their laws can benefit even non-Muslims if they can be wise enough to implement them.

I dont generally make contributions(even though i an avid reader) in this particular forum but i cant help myself this time around.
Its just the same old topic isnt it?Muslim versus Christians,Islam versus Christianity,Bible versus Qur'an,sharia versus penal(civil?)law etc etc.Haba! When will this end.We have enough of that guest who is killing Kano online gaba daya and since he doesnt join you in agreeing to everything you guys all say,at  least you should agree on something.Which is- please put an end to all this feud.Maybe admin should open a new forum for this topic.Whatever new thread is begun it eventually changes into islam versus christianity.
Please,please please.Stick to the topic and give yourselves a break.

Wazirii, perhaps you should point me to the sections of my argument that are void of logic. Everyone else seems to agree that the arguments I have put forth so far have borderd on logic. If there is anyone's submission is lacking in that department, it would be yours.

Here is what you said....

"But non of you explained why the Pharisees took the adulteress to Jesus for him to condemn to death if it was not the leaders that used to execute such punishments. It is only when you do this I will agree with you that it makes perfect sense."


Waziri, do not get too corky, for it appears you do not understand the text that you reference.  It is interesting how you dodge questions that are directed at you, but insist that others respond to yours.  Let me address your question about the Pharisees. The pharisees DID NOT take the woman to Jesus seeking his condemnation of her as you misrepresent. Here is what the Scripture says and please pay attention this time..


John 8:

8:2
   And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
8:3
   And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4
   They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
8:5
   Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:6
   This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7
   So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:8
   And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
8:9
   And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
8:10
   When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
8:11
   She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I have posted from verse 2 to 11 of John 8 so that everyone gets the proper context in which this event unfolded.  Notice what  verse 6 says. The Pharisees'  only intention of even bringing the woman before Christ was to tempt him in order to entrap him in their deceitful scheme which by the way was on-going.  But here is the problem with Waziri's thinking. He constantly creates false assumptions that do not represent the reality of the situation, but thinks he is applying logic to the scenario.

So if Waziri is a scholar as he often proudly announces, he should have better insight to what actually occured here.  Nothing here explicitly implies that the elders had been executing adulterers by stoning. Certainly from the old testament era of Moses to the point where the Pharisees brought this temptation to christ, there is no recorded account in the Old or New Testament where anyone had been stoned for this violation.  Is it that no one breached that law for all that time?

It has already been pointed out to Waziri that King David was seriously guilty of adultery and even murder to go with it. Yet David was not stoned for violating Gods' law.  Why is that? Is there a double standard with God? It is his law that was broken and the penalty as you say is stoning. So why was David not stoned?  Then came Jesus who should know better being the Son of God, but what does he do? Did he refuse to enforce his father's law when the occassion presented itself even though he had authority to do so? Do you see a pattern with how God handled David's breach with how Jesus handled the adultrous woman's case?

So where does your logic leave you here Waziri?  The logical thing in this whole stoning argument will be to assess how the law maker himself handled those who breached the law, not how ordinary humans see it or want it interpreted. This is why I said previously that you are so sucked into the sharia syndrome to the point that you clearly fail to see reason in any logic.

According to you, the Muslims cannot use David's story as a reference point in this argument because that story is completely abrogated in the Koran.  Do you know why? This story is in the Jewish Torah which Muslims claim to agree with. Is it that this story was purposely left out by writers of the Koran?

Now back to the issue that set off myadudu, the one about the Prophet and Zainab.  Now waziri announces repeatedly that this issue has been exhausted, discussed and addressed. Problem is, it is still there and no explanation can legitimize the actions of the prophet here.  You can discuss for another million years if you will, this is a serious stain, and we should critically examine whether or not God would sanction such behavior. That is the point here and it does relate to adultry.

In leviticus 20 which I quoted comprehensively for Waziri's benefit, we see God casting even greater condemnation on any man who sleeps with his daughter-in-law.  Now, from a logical perspective waziri, given God's past reactions to moral issues as recorded in the Torah and Bible, is it likely that will sanction the prophet's indecent relationship with his son's wife? And if you truly think you know anything about God, you'll know the answer to that question.

In mentioning how Sharia has immensely benefitted Muslims and non Muslims in Nigeria.....please do not always make wild claims. Give us specifics. What are these benefits? Be as specific as possible. Thx

QuoteEveryone else seems to agree that the arguments I have put forth so far have borderd on logic.[/b] If there is anyone's submission is lacking in that department, it would be yours.

You see, do not rely on everyone, they could be wrong. I didn't say you were illogical but I said you were wrong in some places and I maintained my contrary opinion in other places believing your logic to be rooted in lack of adequate information about the subject of discourse.

You cannot ppl cannot keep saying I misread you always just for the simple reason that I hold contrary view. Your above quoted statement from me is quite correct going by the verses you reproduced. Look at it this way:

8:3
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now for God sake does this not mean they took an adulteress to Jesus ?

the subsequent verse:
8:5
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Okay does this not mean they want him to condemn her  too then?

But if you believe that the sole intentions of the Pharisees was to tempt Jesus then the story shouldn't carry any moral whatsoever apart from projections of the genius of Jesus who was able to see thru' their evil plan and avoided it.

Please Usman if you have nothing new to offer know that I have many things to do. Please.

Claims about Sharia having been good to non-Muslims also have been substantiated in the post I made the claims but for the sake of argument I reproduce them here again:

QuoteIn 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.

Quote from: "precious"I dont generally make contributions(even though i an avid reader) in this particular forum but i cant help myself this time around.
Its just the same old topic isnt it?Muslim versus Christians,Islam versus Christianity,Bible versus Qur'an,sharia versus penal(civil?)law etc etc.Haba! When will this end.We have enough of that guest who is killing Kano online gaba daya and since he doesnt join you in agreeing to everything you guys all say,at  least you should agree on something.Which is- please put an end to all this feud.Maybe admin should open a new forum for this topic.Whatever new thread is begun it eventually changes into islam versus christianity.
Please,please please.Stick to the topic and give yourselves a break.

precious, so you are still round.

You know life is like vicious circle, afterall these discussions are the ones that dominate today's media houses. It is either secular verses religion or Christianity verses Islam.

In the other forum I participate being it the writers are very much enlightened the Christians and the Muslims gather under one umbrella to work out the secularists.

Anyway it doesn't matter however, I discuss these things to exercise my brain muscles and to see how far other can go.... We really are far in our alliance with the leaders o the chatholic church.

Salam

My learned brother Waziri may I seek from you an explanation on how the people of annabi Ludu were annihilated and for what reasons? I had tried to show Maqari that adultery and sodomy are indeed crimes against humanity and their punishment is death because, as we are told in Islamiyya, they were all killed.

I would say I respectfully disagree with you somewhat on the issue of quoting the bible to support some points found in the Quran. I will also plead ignorance on the meaning of the word epistemology- Defn: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

My question on this will be, if Islam derives all of it's epistemology from the Torah and the Gospel, then why do we reject the divinity of Christ when the Bible makes that abundantly clear?  I do understand there are some aspects of the Bible which we must accept otherwise we are not genuine believers. But how do we define what is acceptable to Islam and what is not?

Now onto mallamt's response to my earlier response.

I do take responsibility for taking this thread off track but I wouldn't have done that if Dave hadn't sprung up the issue Jesus order people without sin to cast the first stone. I, however, think that is not the reason why usman11 is disparaging the character of our dear prophet Muhammad (SAW).

I second precious motion to revert back to the original subject.....

Peace!

Quote from: "myadudu"Salam

My question on this will be, if Islam derives all of it's epistemology from the Torah and the Gospel, then why do we reject the divinity of Christ when the Bible makes that abundantly clear?  I do understand there are some aspects of the Bible which we must accept otherwise we are not genuine believers. But how do we define what is acceptable to Islam and what is not?

OK,

Amin we take from the Bible what is confirmed by Qur'an or is not abrogated and alot of these are there in the present day Bible. We reject Divinity of Christ because Qur'an denies it and its reality is even very vague in the present Bible. I think I have made this clear in all o our past discourses on the subject matter.

I will also attend to your request on Maqari I will start a new thread on it.

my dear learned friend myadudu, believe me, I am not disparaging your dear beloved prophet. Every comment I have made about the Prophet is contained in the Hadith or even the Koran.  These books are accepted authoritatively in Islam as truths. So if I am telling the truth as conveyed by these books, where have I erred?

Waziri I await this thread that attends to Amin's request on my humble self

Myadudu, I inded do have a few words to say regarding adultery. but let us maintain this thread for "death penalty"

on a light note
Ms/Mrs ? Precious would you please be as precious as to allow the fellas discuss those issues they find worthy of debate? I personally dont see nothing wrong with it, I love the adrenaline, it makes me feel like a character out of Plato's Symposium  8) to hear our brothers refer to one another as "my learned brother....".  :)  but seriously there no error in debate when there arise the need for one.

Quote from: "usman11"my dear learned friend myadudu, believe me, I am not disparaging your dear beloved prophet. Every comment I have made about the Prophet is contained in the Hadith or even the Koran.  These books are accepted authoritatively in Islam as truths. So if I am telling the truth as conveyed by these books, where have I erred?

But where lies the truth if your posts were to be compared with those of Waziri?

Besides, everything you put up here were copied from somewhere, they are not yours originally, I came across the articles 10+ years back. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Yorubaland,  first off, you opening comment "But where lies the truth if your posts were to be compared with those of Waziri? " make absolutely no sense.

Secondly, be kind enough to reproduce every post of mine that were copied and provide the links where they were copied from.

I am well aware that this is a common tactic of very defficient Muslims who rather than engage people head on in a difficult discuss, would cut corners and make irresponsible accusations with the aim of discrediting someone.  Is this all you have to offer? What a shame!!!!!!

Quote from: "_Waziri_"

Quote from: "mallamt"
1.  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.

Okay let me speak factually as you demanded. On a certain Thursday the 31 of March 2005 you wrote the following for the simple reason that I tried to correct you on the use of correct semantics depicting the menace of begging in Hausa land:

Quote from: "mallamt"Now what part of my explanation is it that _waziri_ does not understand? or is it just his utter disgust for me that makes him respond in the manner that he does (that is without thinking)? I assume that _waziri_ is an educated adult who would not stoop soo low to make silly and childish comments just because they do not like an individual.

Mallamt is this not enough evidence that you jump to the claim of hate when I corecct you? If you dare dispute this I will supply more evidences again. I really wonder why sam kai baka da wayo ko kadan.

_waziri_
I am still waiting for your response as indicated in your positing if I dare dispute you,you will provide more evidence.  Please be a man of your words and provide them.  If you do not be humble enough to appologise and accept it was a careless statement or else the implication will be that you were lying.[/b]

Gentlemen.
This topic is getting very ill-tempered and is not addressing any the issues that have been raised.

Quote from: "Yoruba Land"
Besides, everything you put up here were copied from somewhere, they are not yours originally, I came across the articles 10+ years back. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I personally think Usman11's arguments were anitiquated ones. I have come across them since when I was very young in religious studies. Needless to say that his emotional attachment to them to the point of blindly sticking to them in the presense of superior explanation shows it in broad daylight that he did not form them, he only stumbled across them.

Muslims everywhere regardless of sectarian differences do not consider adopted sons to be equal to biological sons, which was the moral drawn from the incident as recorded in the Qur'an. Any way prejudices die hard.

Yoruba Land,

I learnt that you were at the headquarters yesterday but you did not call me. Please learn to allow us be acessing you at our convinience or whenever you come around you look for us. Hope d whole family is fine.

Thank you once again.

Waziri

QuoteWaziri I await this thread that attends to Amin's request on my humble self

Usman, my arguments to that effect were artculated in the many past threads I urged you to read earlier which you did not agree to. But then in the of newer discoveries I intend to rephrash them and put them up at least to refresh my memory and  make it easy for me to help out.

QuoteNow unto lionger:

You said I made wrong assumptions just because the line of argument I took in the other thread was different from this one but in reality  is not quite true that I made wrong assumptions or my  opinions 'metamorphosed'  to something else in the sense that there is always many ways we can argue the invalidity of the story even from a technical point of view and that was what I tried pointing at up there.

Really, so this was your purpose all along? Well all fine and good; as long as you back it up with thorough scriptural analysis. But rather than doing that, you resort to making wrong unnecessary assumptions, and here you are making the same mistake again!

Quote
We can not substantiate in anyway that the woman was caught "in the very act of adultery" as Kig James Version put it without a man. This must be a false claim which Jesus will not succomb to. it is only when we stretch the argument we can take it to the Roman laws of the then which I had time to do then.

The emphasized part is yet another example of the many wrong assumptions you have made. Why are you still stuck rigmarolling in legal technicalities? I see you did not carefully read my previous post. Read the scripture for yourself and see what I mean:
John 8:11
Jesus declared, "Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."
What sin, Waziri? What life of sin is Jesus telling the woman to abandon? Does Jesus think she did commit adultery? Does this verse not dismiss your argument?

Quote
But simple as it is if you have to believe the Pharisees on the charge of adultery against that woman you then will have to believe in their claim that "In the Law, Moses commanded us(THEM) to stone such women. " Then you will no longer have problem of the issue of who is to execute the laws of God again. Do you get it?

The scriptural establishment of woman's guilt is not based oh the Pharisees' accusations alone! Where in any of my posts did I say that? As I have already shown, you can believe the narrator, apostle John, and you can believe the words of Jesus.

Secondly, I do not dispute the fact that in the Law God commanded that adulterers be puinshed by death, so what is your point? My point is, Waziri, that God sometimes chooses to show mercy, as He does to David, and he has every right in doing so.

Quote from: "lionger"Secondly, I do not dispute the fact that in the Law God commanded that adulterers be puinshed by death, so what is your point? My point is, Waziri, that God sometimes chooses to show mercy, as He does to David, and he has every right in doing so.

Oh sorry I my thinking was you still want to find WHO should execute the punishment. As regards to the argument that God is may choose to show mercy, we Muslims believe so even without the story of David. It is the reason why in our codes it is emphasised that only those caught with ventilating evidence should be punished. Even then we insist that the judge must create execuses for them. It is when they fail to come out of it clean that will be punished. And those who do it in secrecy are encouraged to ask for the mercy of God in their prayers and must not tell anyone.

In all the Islamic legal theory, punishments regarding adultery are only meant to paint a picture of a heinous crime that should always be avoided.

Very well, since the commentaries above were stumbled on and none of my thinking, that is fine. However, maybe you Waziri can use your superior argument to explain away this article written by a muslim. Please use as much superior argument as possible. I am just want you take on this, and please note that the writter did reference the koran and hadith to support his point. Please feel free to do same.

Sorry for the length of the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Syed Kamran Mirza

Adoption in Islam:  
Islam prohibits adopting children. Period. Adoption in the technical sense is not allowed in Muslim Shriah law. This is because Allah does not like this gesture of adopting orphan children. Muhammad Rushed Ridha states, "Allah prohibited adoption in Islam and annulled all the judgements pertaining to adoption. The most important one of which was the prohibition of the wife of the adopted son to the fostering father as though he is the natural father. So Allah commanded his prophet to marry Zainab Bint Jahsh in order to abolish pagan custom (Fatawa al-Imam)." Al-sabuni states, "As to Zainab Bint Jahsh, the Messenger of Allah married for no higher wisdom than to abolish the heresy of adoption (A-sabuni)."  

I don't know, how in the world Allah could dislike such noble deeds. I am not sure what percentage of Muslims actually knows this divine law. I do admit that I never knew this and, I was stunned when I first learnt this from a real Mullah. How and why was this noble custom among human being prohibited? We shall learn this history later in this essay.  

Pre-Islamic Arab Custom: Adoption of orphan/helpless child was a very popular and moral practice amongst pre-Islamic Arabs. By adopting orphan/helpless child, they used to consider adopted child as their own. And they used to pass onto them the adopter's genealogy and name, his investment of them with all the rights of the legitimate son including that of inheritance and the prohibition of marriage on grounds of consanguinity.  

Post-Islamic Custom: The all-wise legislator of Islam willed to undo the above mentioned Arab practice of adopting children. The divine legislator willed to give the adopted son only the right of a client and co-religionist. For that reason a verse was revealed: "God did not make your adopted son as your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim. God's word is righteous and constitutes true guidance. (Q.33: 4)." It follows from this revelation that the adopter may marry the ex-wife of his adopted son and vice-versa. Thus Muhammad married Zainab in order to provide a good example of what the All-wise legislator was seeking to establish by way of rights and privileges for adoption. In this regard God further said: "After a term of married life with her husband, We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son provided that wife has already been divorced. That is God's commandment which must be fulfilled (Q.33: 37)." Who, among the Arabs, could implement this noble legislation and thereby openly repudiate the ancient traditions? The truth is, however, that Muhammad was the exemplar of obedience to God; his life was the implementation of that which he was entrusted to convey to mankind. His life constitutes the highest ideal, the perfect example, and the concrete instance of his Lord's command (M.H. Haykal, page-296-297).

Those who are Muslims and are obedient to the Qur'an will not have adopted sons.


Muhammad's Marriage to Zainab Bint Jashsh  

Muhammad's marriage to Zainab, who was the wife of his adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad. The dissimulators said, "Muhammad prohibits the wives of the son while he himself marries the wife of his son Zaid." These incidents are not in harmony with the ethics and conventions that Muhammad introduced to mankind, as Muslims claim. Abdullah Ibn Umar narrated: "We have always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad." Abdullah Ibn Umar said, "We only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men' was revealed.""  

Historical views: There are many conflicting stories about this scandalous happening and all these stories are based on Sahih Hadiths and Muslim biographies and books. It is worthwhile to quote here what Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari said concerning this story:  

Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, "The Messenger of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha's house seeking him. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, 'Where is Zaid?' He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zainab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a housedress, but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, 'He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.' The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zainab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did that. The heart of the Prophet was filled with admiration for her He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: 'Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.' When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, 'You asked him to come in, didn't you?' She replied, 'I bade him to, but he refused.' He said, 'Have you heard [him say] anything?' She answered, 'When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, "Praise be to God who disposes the hearts." ' Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, 'O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zainab. I can leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Hold on to your wife.' Zaid said, 'O Messenger of God, I will leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Keep your wife.' So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with `A?isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted, he smiled and said, 'Who will go to Zainab to tell her that God wedded her to me from heaven?' The Messenger of God recited; 'Thus you told someone whom God had favoured and whom you yourself have favoured: "Hold on to your wife." ' `A?isha said, 'I heard much about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, "For sure she will boast over this with us." ' Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God, hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some silver jewellery that she was wearing."


More help from Allah:  

So, this charge that the dissimulators, among others, leveled against Muhammad (pbuh) necessitated the revelation of more Qur'anic verses:

(Sura al-Ahzab  Q.33: 40): "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but [he is] God's Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. God is Aware of everything!"  

(Sura al-Ahzab  Q.33: 37): "We married her off to you so that there would be no objection for believers in respect to their adopted sons' wives once they have accomplished their purpose with them. God's command must be done!"  

In the verse (33:37) there is stated a particular purpose for this revelation and action of Muhammad. It is not for himself, but it is for the future of the Muslim community. It is so that in future there may not be a problem if anybody (father-in-law) wants to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son. ?We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son.? Without adoption, there cannot be any adopted son either. Therefore, the explicitly stated reason for the revelation of this verse does not exist. Muhammad himself dissolved the original adoption of Zaid when the above revelation came. Also, it is a mystery why in the world, any father-in law will need to marry his adopted son's wife.

 

Critical (Orientalist) version:  

Muhammad fell in love with Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, while she was the wife of Zayd bin Harithah, his own adopted son. Once, when he passed by the house of Zayd in the latter's absence, he was met by Zainab wearing clothes which exposed her beauty. Muhammad's heart was inflamed. It is reported that when his eyes fell upon her, he exclaimed, "Praise be to God who changes the hearts of men" and he repeated this expression at the time of his departure from her home. Zainab heard him say this and noticed desire in his eye. Zainab proudly reported this happening to her husband. Zayd immediately went to see the Prophet and offered to divorce his wife. Muhammad answered, "Hold to your wife and fear God." Thereafter, Zainab was no longer a docile wife and Zayd had to divorce her. Prophet Muhammad married Zainab Bint Jahsh who was his daughter-in-law. That was definitely taboo in pre-Islamic Arabia, and the Prophet of Islam lifted this taboo in order to satisfy his own lust and fulfill his own desire. They also relate that when Muhammad saw her she was half-naked, that her fine black hair was covering half of her body, and that every curve of her body was full of desire and passion. Others relate that when Muhammad opened the door of the house of Zayd the breeze played with the curtains of the room of Zainab, thus permitting Muhammad to catch a glimpse of her stretched out on her mattress in a nightgown.

 

Apologetics views:  

Muhammad Husain Haikal, for one, in the course of "refuting" the claims of V. Vacca in the Encyclopaedia of Islam regarding Zainab, speaks about a "glorious deed" of Muhammad, which the orientalists and missionaries have turned into a romance. He says, "As to Zainab Bint Jahsh, who has been wrapped up by orientalists and missionaries in an imaginary picture of romance and infatuation, true history judges that [Muhammad's act with] her was one of the glorious deeds of Muhammad. Being the perfect example of faith, he applied to her the Hadith that says, 'Man's faith is not made perfect till he loves for his brother what he loves for himself'.

Apologists conclude that it is one of the truly great facets of Muhammad's personality. It proves beyond question that Muhammad was the perfect exemplar of his own legislation, especially of such laws as were intended to replace the tradition and customs of pre-Islamic Arabia. He was the exemplar of the new system that God revealed through him as a mercy and guidance to mankind.

On the other hand, Arab custom and tradition demanded that the adopted son inherit from his adopted father, like the latter's legitimate children. And since this custom too was the object of Muhammad's attack, his choice of Zayd as the spear point of the first reform, would actually make of him -- if he were prepared to give up the inheritance to which Arabian custom gave him title -- the spearhead of another Islamic legislation prohibiting inheritance to any but the blood heirs and relatives of the deceased. This indeed furnished the revelation: "No believer, whether man or woman, has the freedom to choose otherwise than as God and His Prophet have resolved in any given case. To do so is to disobey God and His Prophet, to err and fall into manifest misguidance (Q.33: 37)?  

 

Comments:  

There is a considerable moral problem with such a self-serving revelation. It is quite clear that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was attracted to Zainab before Zaid divorced her and it might well have been the true reason for the divorce itself. And Qur'anic verses do make clear that there was something going on before Zaid divorced Zainab. The entire melodrama: Zaid's divorce of Zainab, Muhammad's marriage with Zainab and subsequent revelations of several Qur'anic Ayats from Allah to purify this scandalous happening is something to ponder very seriously. There is more in this strange story. That this action is immoral and this revelation/justification of it self-serving and not fitting for a true word of God is an important aspect, but not a contradiction within the Quran - even though contradicting the true character of God, who is moral purity. Prohibiting adoption is no way a moral action. Prohibitions of alcohol drinking, smoking, gambling, sorceries, killing, etc., could be a moral action. But why was there prohibition of adoption?

To summarize, the logical difficulty is that Allah (?) causes a scandal and then sends Gabriel to officially justify the scandalous action of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with Qur'anic revelations is morally incorrect and too much of a coincidence.  

Some after thoughts: Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) cannot get away from the culpability of this salacious behavior of his with Zainab. If he had this forthrightness in his mind, he would have vigorously fight with his conscience and not allow this marriage to go through. But the reality was quite the opposite. He had surrendered to his passion and thus had marred his "unblemished" character. If all the Muslims in the present-day world follow Muhammad's inglorious example, seduce theirs daughter-in-law, and then cause a divorce and then to add insult to the injury marry her, what would happen then? Just think the consequences. In more enlightened society if a man does what Mohammad (pbuh) did with Zainab he would be looked up as a lascivious character. Not all the Qur'anic Ayats of this world will be able to change that. To have faith is one thing, but to have a blind faith is another matter, altogether!

Quote from: "usman11"Very well, since the commentaries above were stumbled on and none of my thinking, that is fine. However, maybe you Waziri can use your superior argument to explain away this article written by a muslim. Please use as much superior argument as possible. I am just want you take on this, and please note that the writter did reference the koran and hadith to support his point. Please feel free to do same.

The bolded and underlined portion of the quote above referred please. Why do you think the authour of this piece was a Muslim? Does this  confirm the truth that all what you have been putting up regarding this story was just a a matter of copy and paste?

Usman11, it appears like you greatly underestimate the potentials of the people you are taking on in this debate. I will discuss this article after your evidence of the Islamic background of its author. But one thing I want to make clear before then is the truth that all the sources quoted by this author were books I have read and in some cases reviewed years back. So I will prefer to discuss the veracity of the authors claim with the author himself not the person who only copies and pastes. Please try if you can and bring him up on board or find away of passing across my critique of his uninformed position that quotes a piece of history material full of perharps and maybe thinking that it was a Hadith.

Waziri, you are such a loser.  You speak from both sides of your mouth depending on what position of discuss favors you.  Here was what you said when I came on board and made my first contribution to this thread:


Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:36 am    Post subject:  



For Usman11,

You have a very nice submission there but I provide below some links that can give you the full backgroud of the item of this discourse here. Have a wonderful reading session as I wait to here from you:

http://www.hausafulani.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=154

http://www.hausafulani.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=125

Thank you once again

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

Do you recall that? In case you do not, please refresh your brain by going back to page 1 of this thread, and you'll see it there plainly.
After your commendation of my post, I responded with a follow up, and here was what you said regarding my second contribution;



Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:55 am    Post subject:  

Usman11,

Interesting comment you have there. But as you said you always enjoy researching so I will beseech you to like try to read everything in those links and finally give me your final accessment of the issue. It is then we can build up on the discussion. As you can see you have only responded to one claim by EMTL up there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you knew I was copying and pasting all along as you claim later, why didn't you make that revelation known right away?  You guys seem to enjoy shifting position and claiming ignorance all in one. Kind of reminds me of when certain portions of the Koran that encourages the Worship of Allah's daughters were abrogated and explained away by the Prophet that he was deceived by the Devil.

Yes, those comments above are yours.....so how come your position shifted now to that of discrediting my contributions which you liked just a few weeks ago? Some of you Muslims are simply sore losers as I mentioned earlier. When an argument presents a serious challenge to you, especially when it involves the so called Prophet of Allah, you run and employ all dubious tactics to silence your opponet, if not by killing them, then by discrediting them.  I have news for you brother, i am just warming up. You may travel to hell and back and come up new accusations, I am just warming up. I intend to show anyone reading that Mohammed could never have been a messenger of God as he claimed, and believe me Waziri after several posting are made (they will contain references taken from your Koran and hadith, in detail) it will leave enough doubt in the minds of people here, and they'll begin reviewing their commonly held beliefs about the Prophet.

In case you have not noticed, myadudu is already having serious questions because he notices grave inconsistencies in your theology in relationship to the Christians. Here was his question:

"My question on this will be, if Islam derives all of it's epistemology from the Torah and the Gospel, then why do we reject the divinity of Christ when the Bible makes that abundantly clear? I do understand there are some aspects of the Bible which we must accept otherwise we are not genuine believers. But how do we define what is acceptable to Islam and what is not?"

If you are as smart as you think you are, you will realize that this is a man beginning to question with logic, the information that has been fed to him all along, and what he has been taught isn't making much sense anymore once critically analyzed.  Here is his dilemna, on one hand, Muslims are taught never to be friends with Christians and Jews.  They are taught that the Christian Bible is corrupted source of religious information, yet he is taught that..." Islam derives all of it's epistemology from the Torah and the Gospel".  Here the interesting part of his question Waziri,

" then why do we reject the divinity of Christ when the Bible makes that abundantly clear? I do understand there are some aspects of the Bible which we must accept otherwise we are not genuine believers. But how do we define what is acceptable to Islam and what is not?"

I read your simplistic response to his very important question, and sir, you goofed again.  Your response was to simply reject the portions that the Koran rejects.  How bright is that? It is the Korans position that creates the conflict that is brewing up inside him.  Bottomline, and whether you Waziri and even Myadudu accepts it or not, he (myadudu) has done what Islamists fear the most, and that is to ASK QUESTIONS.

So if you are thinking I am going to fold, pack up and leave this site, you have something else coming Waziri.  It is not a do or die affair, no, but I am here for the long haul, so get used to it.

I have posted an article by a Muslim author on this site where the Character of your dearly beloveth prophet (SAW) was scrutinuzed. The article contains factual quotes from the hadith, and even passages from the Koran, all documented. Rather than refute them, or explain them, you are here taking shots at the author and the article. Which is it Waziri, are those accounts false? Are those accounts by Omar and Bakari false?

Mariyah the Sex Slave of the holy Prophet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sayed Akbar


The following is Muhammad?s scandalous love affair with Mariyah the Copt who was one of the prophet?s wives? maids. Muhammad slept with her without any ceremony, which caused uproar among his wives and finally was settled by Divine intervention. This story is recorded in an authenticated Hadith and is reported by Omar.

This Hadith is describing the reason for the revelation of verse 66: 4 of Quran. The verse says:

?If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.?

Omar explains that these two women were Hafsa and Ayesha who became disrespectful of the prophet causing him grief until he thought of divorcing all of his wives. Here is the full story.

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

I had been eager to ask 'Umar about the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet regarding whom Allah said (in the Qur'an saying): If you two (wives of the Prophet namely Aisha and Hafsa) turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes) (66.4), till performed the Hajj along with 'Umar (and on our way back from Hajj) he went aside (to answer the call of nature) and I also went aside along with him carrying a tumbler of water. When he had answered the call of nature and returned. I poured water on his hands from the tumbler and he performed ablution. I said, "O Chief of the believers! ' Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said:

'If you two return in repentance (66.4)? He said, "I am astonished at your question, O Ibn 'Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa."

Then 'Umar went on relating the narration and said. "I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in 'Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back. She said, 'Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.' What she said scared me and I said to her, 'Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.' Then I dressed myself and went to Hafsa and asked her, 'Does any of you keep Allah's Apostle angry all the day long till night?' She replied in the affirmative. I said, 'She is a ruined losing person (and will never have success)! Doesn't she fear that Allah may get angry for the anger of Allah's Apostle and thus she will be ruined? Don't ask Allah's Apostle too many things, and don't retort upon him in any case, and don't desert him. Demand from me whatever you like, and don't be tempted to imitate your neighbor (i.e. 'Aisha) in her behavior towards the Prophet), for she (i.e. Aisha) is more beautiful than you, and more beloved to Allah's Apostle.

In those days it was rumored that Ghassan, (a tribe living in Sham) was getting prepared their horses to invade us. My companion went (to the Prophet on the day of his turn, went and returned to us at night and knocked at my door violently, asking whether I was sleeping. I was scared (by the hard knocking) and came out to him. He said that a great thing had happened. I asked him: What is it? Have Ghassan come? He replied that it was worse and more serious than that, and added that Allah's Apostle had divorced all his wives. I said, Hafsa is a ruined loser! I expected that would happen some day.' So I dressed myself and offered the Fajr prayer with the Prophet. Then the Prophet entered an upper room and stayed there alone. I went to Hafsa and found her weeping. I asked her, 'Why are you weeping? Didn't I warn you? Have Allah's Apostle divorced you all?' She replied, 'I don't know. He is there in the upper room.' I then went out and came to the pulpit and found a group of people around it and some of them were weeping. Then I sat with them for some time, but could not endure the situation. So I went to the upper room where the Prophet was and requested to a black slave of his: "Will you get the permission of (Allah's Apostle) for Umar (to enter)? The slave went in, talked to the Prophet about it and came out saying, 'I mentioned you to him but he did not reply.' So, I went and sat with the people who were sitting by the pulpit, but I could not bear the situation, so I went to the slave again and said: "Will you get he permission for Umar? He went in and brought the same reply as before. When I was leaving, behold, the slave called me saying, "Allah's Apostle has granted you permission." So, I entered upon the Prophet and saw him lying on a mat without wedding on it, and the mat had left its mark on the body of the Prophet, and he was leaning on a leather pillow stuffed with palm fires. I greeted him and while still standing, I said: "Have you divorced your wives?' He raised his eyes to me and replied in the negative. And then while still standing, I said chatting: "Will you heed what I say, 'O Allah's Apostle! We, the people of Quraish used to have the upper hand over our women (wives), and when we came to the people whose women had the upper hand over them..."

'Umar told the whole story (about his wife). "On that the Prophet smiled." 'Umar further said, "I then said, 'I went to Hafsa and said to her: Do not be tempted to imitate your companion ('Aisha) for she is more beautiful than you and more beloved to the Prophet.' The Prophet smiled again. When I saw him smiling, I sat down and cast a glance at the room, and by Allah, I couldn't see anything of importance but three hides. I said (to Allah's Apostle) "Invoke Allah to make your followers prosperous for the Persians and the Byzantines have been made prosperous and given worldly luxuries, though they do not worship Allah?' The Prophet was leaning then (and on hearing my speech he sat straight) and said, 'O Ibn Al-Khatttab! Do you have any doubt (that the Hereafter is better than this world)? These people have been given rewards of their good deeds in this world only.' I asked the Prophet . 'Please ask Allah's forgiveness for me. The Prophet did not go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to 'Aisha, and he said that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Mariyah). When twenty-nine days had passed, the Prophet went to Aisha first of all. She said to him, 'You took an oath that you would not come to us for one month, and today only twenty-nine days have passed, as I have been counting them day by day.' The Prophet said, 'The month is also of twenty-nine days.' That month consisted of twenty-nine days. 'Aisha said, 'When the Divine revelation of Choice was revealed, the Prophet started with me, saying to me, 'I am telling you something, but you needn't hurry to give the reply till you can consult your parents." 'Aisha knew that her parents would not advise her to part with the Prophet . The Prophet said that Allah had said:--

'O Prophet! Say To your wives; If you desire The life of this world And its glitter, ... then come! I will make a provision for you and set you free In a handsome manner. But if you seek Allah And His Apostle, and The Home of the Hereafter, then Verily, Allah has prepared For the good-doers amongst you A great reward.' (33.2 'Aisha said, 'Am I to consult my parents about this? I indeed prefer Allah, His Apostle, and the Home of the Hereafter.' After that the Prophet gave the choice to his other wives and they also gave the same reply as 'Aisha did."

The above Hadith is significant as it contains two important historic points. First it reveals, by Omar?s own admission, that ?Ansari women had the upper hand over their men?. Even if we consider that to be an exaggeration, it is clear that women in Medina had more rights and authority than their Quraishy counterparts. Mecca, the home of the Quraish tribe, where Omar and Muhammad came from was a religious hob. People living in religious towns are more bigots than those living in other cities. Religion has always played a role in subjugating women and taking away their human rights. So it is natural that women in Mecca were more subdued than those living anywhere else in Arabia and especially Medina that was a more cosmopolitan city having civilized nations like Jews and Christians as its inhabitants. Omar and Muhammad?s wives enjoyed this emancipating atmosphere and were starting to exercise their relative freedom. This attitude, of course, did not sit well with the two misogynist men of Mecca, namely Omar and Muhammad and as this Hadith demonstrates, they were angry of their wives newfound liberties and rebelliousness.

The importance of this Hadith is in the fact that it proves that women prior to Islam had much more freedom, which was taken away from them by Muhammad and his misogynistic khalifas. It becomes clear that the deplorable status of women in Islam is not a divine verdict but a reflection of how women were treated in Mecca 1400 years ago.

The fact that there is so much emphasis in Quran and in Ahadith about the importance of women being obedient to their husbands is indeed an indication of Muhammad?s own desire to control his young and rebellious wives. (See Q. 4: 34)

The other important point of the above Hadith is that it reveals yet another sexual scandal of the prophet.

One-day Muhammad goes to his wife?s house Hafsa the daughter of Omar and finds her maid Mariyah attractive. He sends Hafsa to Omar?s house, telling her that he wanted to see her. When Hafsa leaves, Muhammad takes Mariyah to bed and has intercourse with her. Meanwhile Hafsa, who finds out that her father was not expecting her, returns home much sooner than expected, and to her chagrin finds her illustrious husband in bed with her maid.

She becomes hysteric and forgetting the station of the prophet she shouts and causes a scandal. The prophet pleads with her to calm down and promises not to sleep with Mariah anymore and begs her also not to divulge this secret to anyone else.

However, Hafsa would not control herself and relays everything to Ayisha who also turns against the prophet and jointly with his other wives cause him much anguish. So the prophet decides to punish all of them and not sleep with any one of his wives for one month. Depriving one?s wives sexually is the second grade of punishment recomendedn in Quran. The first level is admonishing, the second level is depriving them of sex and the third level of punishment is beating them. Q. 4: 34.

Of course when a man decides to punish a wife with sexual deprivation he can satisfy himself with his other wives. But Muhammad?s anger had made him make the oath not to sleep with any of them for one month. That of course would have been too much of hardship for the beloved messenger of God (peace be upon his immaculate soul), therefore God in his mercy came to the aid of his prophet and revealed the Surah Tahrim (Banning). In this Surah Allah rebukes Muhammad for being hard on himself and for depriving himself from what he really likes and has been made lawful for him, in order to please his wives.

This is the text of the Surah Tahrim: Q. 66: 1-5.


1. O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which All?h has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And All?h is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2. All?h has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And All?h is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.
3. And (remember) when the Prophet (SAW) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and All?h made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (All?h) has told me".
4. If you two (wives of the Prophet SAW, namely 'Aishah and Hafsah turn in repentance to All?h, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet SAW likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, All?h is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.
5. It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to All?h), believers, obedient to All?h, turning to All?h in repentance, worshipping All?h sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for All?h's sake), previously married and virgins. ?

Comment:

Although Muhammad gave his word to Hafsa, not to have sex with her maid he could not resist the temptation. Especially now that he had taken another oath not to sleep with all of his wives. It was a difficult situation and no one but Allah could help him. Well, nothing is impossible when you are the prophet of Allah. Leave everything in the hands of the Almighty and let him take care of it. And that is exactly what happened. Allah himself intervened and gave him the green light to follow his heart's desire. In the Surah Tahrim God licensed his beloved prophet to have his flings and not pay attention to his wives. What can a prophet ask more? Allah was so concerned about Muhammad's carnal pleasures that he even allowed ALL MEN to break their oaths as a bounty. Alhamdulillah! AllahuAkbar! Subhanillah. Isn't Allah great?

It is also worthy of mention that Muhammad who came to know that Hafsa did reveal the secret to Aisha, lied to her by pretending that it was Allah who told him so (Ayat 3) while he actually learned it from Ayisha. But of course Muhammad is not the author of Quran. It is Allah himself who is lying for his prophet.

In reaction to the above verses, Ayisha, who was not only young and pretty but also clever, is reported to have said to Muhammad, "Your God indeed rushes in coming to your aid!"


The above story must have been also embarrassing for Muhammad?s followers even when they gobbled mindlessly everything he told them. So they made other hadithes to explain those verses of Quran that were already explained by Omar.



Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3496:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrated that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) used to spend time with Zainab daughter of Jahsh and drank honey at her house. She ('A'isha further) said: I and Hafsa agreed that one whom Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) would visit first should say: I notice that you have an odour of the Maghafir (gum of mimosa). He (the Holy Prophet) visited one of them and she said to him like this, whereupon he said: I have taken honey in the house of Zainab bint Jabsh and I will never do it again. It was at this (that the following verse was revealed): 'Why do you hold to be forbidden what Allah has made lawful for you... (up to). If you both ('A'isha and Hafsa) turn to Allah" up to:" And when the Holy Prophet confided an information to one of his wives" (lxvi. 3). This refers to his saying: But I have taken honey.

Also Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3497:

The existence of the above Hadith and its difference with the one narrated by Omar reveals yet another fact that the companions of Muhammad were willing to lie, (as Muslims are today) to preserve the image of their prophet from blemish. It would be foolish to accept the excuse of drinking honey to justify those Ayat. First of all honey does not smell bad. But above all it is inconceivable that a trivial incident like drinking honey could cause such an upheaval in the household of the prophet to the extend that he decides to divorce all of his wives or to punish them for one month by not sleeping with them. Could such an insignificant incident like drinking honey provoke so much uproar that the creator of this universe had to intervene with a warning to Muhammad?s wives that Muhammad would divorce all of them and He (Allah) would give him virgin and faithful wives? This explanation is absurd unless honey is the code for something else that the prophet (peace be upon his immaculate soul found with Mariyah)

I am surprised with the amount of ignorance displayed by some people in their "logical" discussion on the issue of Jesus and the adulteress in the bible.  People have saide so much about logic and research in a discussion that it amazes me how absent it is in some of the "logical" arguments.  One would have thought that to take a position or present a logical discussion of this nature first the context of events would have been studied, because anything else is just baseless and ignorant ramblings.  It is actually unscientific and silly to just take bits and pieces of an event and conclude on the participants without understanding who the participants are what was the context of the event.

I believe the following issues/person must first be understood first in this discussion before we start trying analyse or conclude on actions and people in the story of Jesus and the adultres. 1) The Mosaic Laws 2) Pharisees 3) Jesus.

THE MOSAIC LAWS
A lot of reference has been made to the mosaic laws in the discussion support death sentence for acts of adultery in christianity (I suppose here people are coming to this conclusion because the story is in the bible) while also suggesting that Jesus broke Gods law by allowing the adulteress go.  But before we can go on discussing what Jesus should have done or not done when he was tempted we must as ourselves what is the origin of the law (mosaic), that is to say, where is it from and why was it made and who was it for.

The mosaic laws came through moses (Deut 5:5,27,28)(and I suppose muslims here are in agreement with christians as to the origins of the mosaic laws, that is, it is from God, so it is safe to say we know and agree on where it is from.  The next issue that needs our attention then is why was is made or given.  First according to the bible, the jews where the chosen people of God (Duet 7:6,7)and were the only people who had the knowledge of God and worshiped Him (Ex 5:17; Ps 48:3; Ps 96:5, 115:3,4). However they often displeased God because of their disobedience and sins (Num 14:11; 25:3; Duet 32:15-28).  I have given biblical references and a further study of these references will reveal the utter calamity and disobedience of the time by the jews.  From this diobedience of the jews then, we will be able to understand why God issued the laws.  Now then I suppose the question of who the mosaic laws were for should be easy now - the jews! and no other person/nation (Lev. 26:46; Ps 78:5).

I also find that some people either out  ignorance fail to see or understand that there is a difference between tradition/custom and the laws of God in this discussion.  In very simple terms tradition/custom are those practices passed on from one generation to another and has nothing to do with Gods laws.  In several instances we have seen situations where certain customary practices conflict with Gods laws and it was common even with the jews (Jer 44:17; Ezek 20;18,21,30; Mark 7:3,4).  I really find it embarassing that some people here try to even argue about the existance of the difference!! They should do their homework first before coming here to mislead people!!!

On the issue of mosaic law from the biblical perspective it is irrefutable to say that the laws were from God through moses and was directed only to the jews at that time, furthermore, christianity had not started then as we know Christ had not come to earth.  So it is utter rubbish and complete nonsense bourne out of ignorance to try and ascribe the mosaic laws to christians.

THE PHARISEES
Much have been said about the pharisees here in the story of Jesus and the adulteress.  Again we see ignorance creeping up in some of the postings where people try to suggest that the pharisees were ordained by God to mete out judgement/purnishement on those who broke the law. But who are the pharisees? The Pharisees first appeared in the second century B.C. They appear to have originated from a group called the Hasidim (God's loyal ones). By about 135 B.C. they were known as Pharisees (the separated ones). The Pharisees had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Torah which was God's gift to Israel. Throughout His ministry, Jesus was openly opposed to the Pharisees. He denounced them publicly for their hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, and evil ways.
The law was intended to enable the Israelites to live righteous lives. But the Pharisees had corrupted the law. Disregarding any ethical considerations and being devoid of mercy, they imposed an intolerable burden of legal observance upon the common people. Life for the Jews became slavery to the legal precepts invented by the experts of the law.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being careful to appear righteous on the outside, while inside they were full of greed and wickedness. John the Baptist in the book of Mattew called them ...."brood of vipers" in fact, the pharisee spirit is often what is referred to as the religious spirit.

Anyway now we understand who the pharisees are, since they were known to be pretenders and Jesus could see their hearts is it then possible that some of them that wanted the stoning of this woman actually committed adultry with her?  Then does the "...he who is without sin let him cast the first stone....." make sense to us? Is it possible that Jesus knew more about her accussers and His statement went into their hearts and they suddenly realised He (Jesus) knew what nobody else knew and with each seeing this and knowing this they drop their stones fearing that they may be exposed and the same fate visited onto them?

JESUS
Jesus in this story gave an insight of the central messages of His ministry - grace!!  For we are not saved by works (remember the pharisees) but by grace through Christ.  So it does not matter how much good works you have done if your heart is not clean you remain unclean in Gods kingdom.  It is very important to note that in the story and throughout His ministry in the bible, Jesus did not say the laws were wrong or they should not be obeyed, He Himself obeyed them, in fact what Jesus did was affirm the laws.  However, in affirming the laws Jesus came with grace.


THE TEXT
Let us go back to the text that brought us here to this discussion Jn 8:2-11
In verses 3-5 we see the accussation and the reference to the laws of moses, but what we know according to the scritptures is that the woman has been given to adultry, but no mention of a male partner.  The mosaic laws then specifically required the MAN an WOMAN to be stoned to death.  This attempt to tempt Jesus and make Him either break the mosaic laws or break roman laws by carrying out the execution or discredit Himself and act against His own teachings backfired with His response.  First we see justice here at work, because the law required that the MAN and WOMAN be stoned, so could it be that the man was one of the accussers or even one of the pharisees and Jesus knew that?  When Jesus responded in verse 7 could it then be Jesus knew something about the accussers and they also realised that as indicated earlier?  And knowing the background of the pharisees was this possible?  Verse 10-11 shows us the grace which the gospel have been talking about.

WHO JUDGES MAN ON GODS LAWS
Theocratic rule lasted until the appointment of kings according to scriptures.  And God choose leadership and communicated directly with leadership.  Judgement during that time was from God even though executed by man, because God communicated directly with man (Num9:8-11, 15:34,35; 27:5-11) and it is only God who has the prerogative of mercy to those who break His laws (Num 14:20; Duet 9:18-20).  God had direct contact with man that was the only reason man could implement Gods purnishment.  So the question of who implements Gods laws remains only God, not even when man implemented purnishment base on Gods law did man judge based on Gods laws, guilt was only declared by God not man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I qouted only from the bible because the story of Jesus and the adulteress was culled from the bible and to show that all it needs is more study of the bible before making "logical" arguments that are ilogical and based on ignorance.

I am surprised with the amount of ignorance displayed by some people in their "logical" discussion on the issue of Jesus and the adulteress in the bible.  People have saide so much about logic and research in a discussion that it amazes me how absent it is in some of the "logical" arguments.  One would have thought that to take a position or present a logical discussion of this nature first the context of events would have been studied, because anything else is just baseless and ignorant ramblings.  It is actually unscientific and silly to just take bits and pieces of an event and conclude on the participants without understanding who the participants are what was the context of the event.

I believe the following issues/person must first be understood first in this discussion before we start trying analyse or conclude on actions and people in the story of Jesus and the adultres. 1) The Mosaic Laws 2) Pharisees 3) Jesus.

THE MOSAIC LAWS
A lot of reference has been made to the mosaic laws in the discussion support death sentence for acts of adultery in christianity (I suppose here people are coming to this conclusion because the story is in the bible) while also suggesting that Jesus broke Gods law by allowing the adulteress go.  But before we can go on discussing what Jesus should have done or not done when he was tempted we must as ourselves what is the origin of the law (mosaic), that is to say, where is it from and why was it made and who was it for.

The mosaic laws came through moses (Deut 5:5,27,28)(and I suppose muslims here are in agreement with christians as to the origins of the mosaic laws, that is, it is from God, so it is safe to say we know and agree on where it is from.  The next issue that needs our attention then is why was is made or given.  First according to the bible, the jews where the chosen people of God (Duet 7:6,7)and were the only people who had the knowledge of God and worshiped Him (Ex 5:17; Ps 48:3; Ps 96:5, 115:3,4). However they often displeased God because of their disobedience and sins (Num 14:11; 25:3; Duet 32:15-28).  I have given biblical references and a further study of these references will reveal the utter calamity and disobedience of the time by the jews.  From this diobedience of the jews then, we will be able to understand why God issued the laws.  Now then I suppose the question of who the mosaic laws were for should be easy now - the jews! and no other person/nation (Lev. 26:46; Ps 78:5).

I also find that some people either out  ignorance fail to see or understand that there is a difference between tradition/custom and the laws of God in this discussion.  In very simple terms tradition/custom are those practices passed on from one generation to another and has nothing to do with Gods laws.  In several instances we have seen situations where certain customary practices conflict with Gods laws and it was common even with the jews (Jer 44:17; Ezek 20;18,21,30; Mark 7:3,4).  I really find it embarassing that some people here try to even argue about the existance of the difference!! They should do their homework first before coming here to mislead people!!!

On the issue of mosaic law from the biblical perspective it is irrefutable to say that the laws were from God through moses and was directed only to the jews at that time, furthermore, christianity had not started then as we know Christ had not come to earth.  So it is utter rubbish and complete nonsense bourne out of ignorance to try and ascribe the mosaic laws to christians.

THE PHARISEES
Much have been said about the pharisees here in the story of Jesus and the adulteress.  Again we see ignorance creeping up in some of the postings where people try to suggest that the pharisees were ordained by God to mete out judgement/purnishement on those who broke the law. But who are the pharisees? The Pharisees first appeared in the second century B.C. They appear to have originated from a group called the Hasidim (God's loyal ones). By about 135 B.C. they were known as Pharisees (the separated ones). The Pharisees had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Torah which was God's gift to Israel. Throughout His ministry, Jesus was openly opposed to the Pharisees. He denounced them publicly for their hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, and evil ways.
The law was intended to enable the Israelites to live righteous lives. But the Pharisees had corrupted the law. Disregarding any ethical considerations and being devoid of mercy, they imposed an intolerable burden of legal observance upon the common people. Life for the Jews became slavery to the legal precepts invented by the experts of the law.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being careful to appear righteous on the outside, while inside they were full of greed and wickedness. John the Baptist in the book of Mattew called them ...."brood of vipers" in fact, the pharisee spirit is often what is referred to as the religious spirit.

Anyway now we understand who the pharisees are, since they were known to be pretenders and Jesus could see their hearts is it then possible that some of them that wanted the stoning of this woman actually committed adultry with her?  Then does the "...he who is without sin let him cast the first stone....." make sense to us? Is it possible that Jesus knew more about her accussers and His statement went into their hearts and they suddenly realised He (Jesus) knew what nobody else knew and with each seeing this and knowing this they drop their stones fearing that they may be exposed and the same fate visited onto them?

JESUS
Jesus in this story gave an insight of the central messages of His ministry - grace!!  For we are not saved by works (remember the pharisees) but by grace through Christ.  So it does not matter how much good works you have done if your heart is not clean you remain unclean in Gods kingdom.  It is very important to note that in the story and throughout His ministry in the bible, Jesus did not say the laws were wrong or they should not be obeyed, He Himself obeyed them, in fact what Jesus did was affirm the laws.  However, in affirming the laws Jesus came with grace.


THE TEXT
Let us go back to the text that brought us here to this discussion Jn 8:2-11
In verses 3-5 we see the accussation and the reference to the laws of moses, but what we know according to the scritptures is that the woman has been given to adultry, but no mention of a male partner.  The mosaic laws then specifically required the MAN an WOMAN to be stoned to death.  This attempt to tempt Jesus and make Him either break the mosaic laws or break roman laws by carrying out the execution or discredit Himself and act against His own teachings backfired with His response.  First we see justice here at work, because the law required that the MAN and WOMAN be stoned, so could it be that the man was one of the accussers or even one of the pharisees and Jesus knew that?  When Jesus responded in verse 7 could it then be Jesus knew something about the accussers and they also realised that as indicated earlier?  And knowing the background of the pharisees was this possible?  Verse 10-11 shows us the grace which the gospel have been talking about.

WHO JUDGES MAN ON GODS LAWS
Theocratic rule lasted until the appointment of kings according to scriptures.  And God choose leadership and communicated directly with leadership.  Judgement during that time was from God even though executed by man, because God communicated directly with man (Num9:8-11, 15:34,35; 27:5-11) and it is only God who has the prerogative of mercy to those who break His laws (Num 14:20; Duet 9:18-20).  God had direct contact with man that was the only reason man could implement Gods purnishment.  So the question of who implements Gods laws remains only God, not even when man implemented purnishment base on Gods law did man judge based on Gods laws, guilt was only declared by God not man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I qouted only from the bible because the story of Jesus and the adulteress was culled from the bible and to show that all it needs is more study of the bible before making "logical" arguments that are ilogical and based on ignorance.

Quote from: "usman11"So if you knew I was copying and pasting all along as you claim later, why didn't you make that revelation known right away?[/u]  You guys seem to enjoy shifting position and claiming ignorance all in one. Kind of reminds me of when certain portions of the Koran that encourages the Worship of Allah's daughters were abrogated and explained away by the Prophet that he was deceived by the Devil.

The underlined portion of your submission referred. Usman11, courtesy demand that I treat you with maximum respect and politeness when you joined this forum. And that was why I had to encourage you by seeing how you made "very nice" postings. Even though I diosagreed with the contents of what you said and referred you to other discussions we held here.

QuoteYes, those comments above are yours.....so how come your position shifted now to that of discrediting my contributions which you liked just a few weeks ago?

I didn't do that cos I thought you would stop the attitude of copying and pasting with half knowledge of what the truth is. But unfortunately you did not stop, boxing me into saying what I did not want to say earlier.

Imagine some person who is not aware of the existence of Talmud and Midrash in Jewish literature trying to discuss judaism with all claims of expertise?

Imagine a person who tries discussing Nigerian constitution but does not know about how that constitution provides for inclusion of traditional religious laws?

Imagine a person discussing Islam but could not distinguish between a historical account and a Hadith in the Muslim thought?

QuoteSome of you Muslims are simply sore losers as I mentioned earlier. When an argument presents a serious challenge to you, especially when it involves the so called Prophet of Allah, you run and employ all dubious tactics to silence your opponet, if not by killing them, then by discrediting them.

Where is the challenge? is it in your copy and paste attitude? If there is any challenge is for you to try to tell the truth and stop ascribing the writings of non-Muslims to Muslims in order to garner cheap victory. Work for your success, read hard and present real challenges.

QuoteI have news for you brother, i am just warming up. You may travel to hell and back and come up new accusations, I am just warming up.

You may roast up(not only warm up) if you so wish but your attitude and prersentations here have already shown how you do not have the expertise to take me on any subject of debate under the earth. You are too cheap an intelectual todler for me to handle.

Quote
I intend to show anyone reading that Mohammed could never have been a messenger of God as he claimed,

If only you can achieve that without being a COPYCAT.

QuoteIn case you have not noticed, myadudu is already having serious questions because he notices grave inconsistencies in your theology in relationship to the Christians. Here was his question:

Myadudu asks questions which he believes I can provide answers to, which ofcourse I rose to his expectations adressing them since time. That was why he asked me and got the answers. He also asked me to adress an issue of disagreement between him and Maqari which I intend doing. He is quite satisfied with my methodology and so he comes to me. If only you would realise this and ask questions where you do not know things it would have served you better rather than COPYCATTING.

QuoteBottomline, and whether you Waziri and even Myadudu accepts it or not, he (myadudu) has done what Islamists fear the most, and that is to ASK QUESTIONS.

Asking questions are what have made this forum great! Many of our discussions here are a product of querstions asked here or elsewhere. Even threads I referred you too earlier were filled with questions asked by both Muislims and Non-Muslims to which I rose to their expectations by adressing those questions.

QuoteSo if you are thinking I am going to fold, pack up and leave this site, you have something else coming Waziri.  It is not a do or die affair, no, but I am here for the long haul, so get used to it.

The more you stay here the more we inject the culture of dicipline - we here are known with- into you. You will come to see that our debates  are meant to increase one another in knowledge rather than defeat or win an argument. But if you should resort to ridicule and namecalling we will definately shut you up. We have effective ways of silincing nuisances and mischiep makers.

Quote
I have posted an article by a Muslim author on this site where the Character of your dearly beloveth prophet (SAW) was scrutinuzed. The article contains factual quotes from the hadith, and even passages from the Koran, all documented. Rather than refute them, or explain them, you are here taking shots at the author and the article. Which is it Waziri, are those accounts false? Are those accounts by Omar and Bakari false?

Soft paddle, Usman11, had it been you  admittted that you did not tell the truth when you claimed the author was a Muslim, I would have gone ahead to discuss the article, which no forumnite used to this forum will doubt my capabilities and ever green claims of the ability to dextrously do just that. But the problem is you did not appear sincere no just or even truthful in your claims. You are not also versed in the subject you try to handle save for your dogmatic attachments to antiquated arguments.

Tell me for God sake how can a fruitful reminicence come out from your kind of discussion. Get serious Usman11, bring the authors of these articles here so that we can discuss with them to discredit their claims or forget and nurse your half measured truth out of Hausafulani.com domain.

Waziri, Mr. Artifical intelligence, your ignorant ramblings bore me silly.
Again, the majority of contributors have already concluded that your celebrated intelligence is nothing but the desperate cry from a depraved fool for attention. You constantly advertise your percieved logic, however, when logical reasoning is presented to you, you disappear and resurface later with a no brainer of an argument.

When I refreshed your confused mind with your own words of commendation to my posts, your response (which is dumb as usual) was that you were being nice. So let me get this, you were being nice to someone "copying and pasting materials"? How foolish of you. I guess that is logical for you.

You have ways to silence people like me because I post the truth about your so called false prophet? What are you going to do Waziri? Declare Fatwah on me? Go right ahead...that was exactly what your beloved Prophet did to all those who called him out for what he truly was, a fraud.
Mallamt talks about the pretencious Pharisees. These people should have been Muslims. There really is no difference between Pharisees and Muslims if one makes a comparion. Both are hypocrites.

Waziri, if you like bribe the administrator to block my posts....it would further confirm what everyone says about Muslim and how free expression and truth is disallowed.

Myadudu did not ask you questions because he thought you could provide answers...why would he? He's not that stupid. You duck and disappear for days whenever a question is presented to you, so why would any right thinking person ask you such important and obviously troubling questions? Truth is, your response was stupid than originally imagined. You adviced someone who noticed very fundamental flaws in Islamic theology to discard what the Bible says if it is in conflict with the Koran. To any reader of both books, one is very quick to realize that the Koran is cheap copycat of the Bible. The only difference between both books is that the Koran edits portions of the Bible that Mohammed rejected for reasons best known to him. But here is more example of Mohammed's kindness:

Oh, one more thing, please note, the Koran and hadiths are referenced in this material narration. So if you disbelieve the source, feel free to look it up yuourself and argue with yourself if you like:



Bakari:

In the history of the Arabs that predates the arrival of Islam, never before had there been such wars, certainly none on the scale and magnitude of those that were instigated by Muhammad the founder of Islam. Previous battles in Arabia had mainly centered on tribal differences and were confined to bouts of squabbling with some fights. With the introduction of Islam came not only war, but also an unrelenting genocide and terror that would quickly become integral components in furthering Islam?s expansionism.  

The early years of Muhammad?s prophetic carrier, in his native town Mecca, were peaceful. After 13 year of preaching no more than 70 or 80 people had embraced his cause. Not all of them were able fighting men. That explains why those early years were peaceful. Muslims did not have the strength to fight. However soon after Muhammad migrated and settled in Medina, and the Arab population of that town accepted his religion, he began invading and looting first the merchant caravans and then the human settlements to survive and to provide for his followers who had accompanied him and because of their lack of expertise had a difficult time finding employments in Medina.  

The fifth year of hijrah (migration to Medina) was an eventful year. That was the year that Muslims fought the famous war of the ditch against the Meccans and soon after that they surrounded the Jewish quarter of Bani Qaynuqa of Medina who were a prosperous population of goldsmiths and blacksmiths and after confiscating their properties (vineyards and homes) and belongings (jewelry and arms) they were banished from their ancestral home. After that he set his sight on another Jewish tribe, the Bani Nadir. He did a similar thing to them. He killed their leaders and many of their able-bodied men and after confiscating their properties and much of their wealth, expelled the rest from Medina. In neither of these cases the Jews offered any resistance. They were taken by surprise and simply surrendered under the superior forces of Muhammad?s men.  

Emboldened by his victories over these weaker, non-combative and non-threatening people who agreed to give up their wealth in exchange for their lives and goaded by an insatiable greed and his lust for power this self styled messenger of Allah then set his eyes upon other Jewish tribes of Arabia living outside of Medina. This time it was the turn of Bani al-Mustaliq.  

Bukhari, the great biographer of Muhammad, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq in the following story (Hadith)  

"Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.? Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:    



This same Hadith is recorded in the Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292, which validates the claim of its authenticity.  

Muhammad molded his religion after Judaism and had great expectations that the Jews would be the first to heed his call. Nevertheless, to his chagrin, the Jews had no interest in his religion and he never forgave them for that. You cannot reject a narcissist without invoking his rage. Muhammad was so upset that he changed the direction of the Qiblah (the direction towards which the Muslims pray) from Jerusalem to Kaaba, which at that time was just a temple of idols and said Allah transformed the Jews were transformed into apes and swine because of their transgression (Q. 5:60) and (Q. 2:65). Muhammad made the Jews the scapegoat to rally his followers around himself. He was an expert of that old trick known as ?divide n? conquer?.  The Arabs of Medina were generally a bunch of illiterate folk with little skills and often poor who made their living by working in the vineyards of the Jews and rendering other services to them. They where originally immigrants from Yemen while the Jews were the masters of trades and the owners of the lands who had called Medina home, for 2000 years. They were easy targets.  Prowling their wealth and making more money by enslaving their women and children and distributing them among the poor Arabs while giving them the assurance that killing their masters and bread givers is not only ethical but also sanctioned by God proved a very lucrative enterprise for Muhammad, one that would change his fortunes, and set this new religion on its eventual path of war and military conquests.  

Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.  

 

The following quote from an Islamic site states:  

"The news of the advance of Muslim forces had already reached Haris. In panic, his men deserted him and he himself took refuge in some unknown place. But the local population of Muraisa took up arms against the Muslims and rained showers of arrows in a sustained manner. The Muslims launched a sudden and furious attack and routed the enemy, who suffered huge casualties and nearly 600 were taken prisoners by the Muslims. Among the booty there were 2,000 camels and 5,000 goats.
   The prisoners of war included Barra, the daughter of Haris, who later on became Hazrat Juwairiyah, the consort of the Holy Prophet. According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers. Hazrat Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him "0' Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation". The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet (sallal alaho alahie wasallam) paid the amount of ransom and married her.?  

 

The above is the story how Muhammad married Juwairiyah as recorded by Muslim historians. Interestingly Muhammad makes his Allah praise him with verses such as the following: "And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Quran 68:4). and  ?Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Quran 33:21). The question that begs an answer is; was he really the standard of sublime morals and good example to follow?  

First he attacks a population without warning and only because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. Is this behavior befitting of a messenger of God? The narrator says,  ?According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.? As we read the history of Islam, we see this WAS indeed the prevailing practice of the Muslim Mujahedin, throughout the bloody history of Islam. Yet the question remains unanswered. Is this how a messenger of God should behave?  In another place Muhammad called himself the mercy of God for all the worlds 21:107 . What is the difference between this ?mercy of God? and a ruthless marauding gangster and a tyrant? If Muhammad were not the ?mercy of God? and if he were not ?a good example to follow?, how else would he have then behaved?  

If this was the prevailing practice of the Arabs, couldn?t the messenger of God change it? Why engage in such a barbaric practice at all?  Did he not say that his is the example to follow? Why should a man with such a claim behave in so brutal a fashion? Was he merely following the customs of his people or was he attempting to set an example for them to follow?

It is very clear that Muhammad was not "moved" by compassion but by lust. Muhammad did not set free Juwairiyah because he felt sorry for her. He was a man incapable of such feelings. He wanted Juwairiyah for himself. And this is the man 1.2 billion people follow as the perfect example and a messenger of God.

Unlike what most people may think, Muhammad?s intentions were not to convert people to his religion. His real aim was power, wealth and domination. Religion was just the pretext he used to subdue and conquer those he first sought to have dominion over. He weighed each case differently and considered its financial benefits. In most cases it was more profitable if the people did not convert to Islam, but killed and their belongings taken as spoils of war and their wives and children enslaved and soled with huge profits. This could bring sudden wealth to this ?messenger of God? that otherwise he could not have. If people were given the choice they could have feared defeat and the harsh consequences and they could have accepted Islam. This would have impeded Muslims of looting them, which meant loss of profit. That is why Muhammad did not deem appropriate to warn the Bani Mustaliq just as he never warned his other victims but attacked them by surprise.  

Muslim, another biographer of Muhammad narrates:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.?  Book 019, Number 4292:  



Muslim warriors carried on this sunnah (examples set by Muhammad) after his death.

When a Muslim army invaded a town, they would not allow anyone to convert to Islam for three days.  During these three days they could kill as many men as they liked, pillage their properties, then rape and enslave their women and children. Only after a town had been decimated and all the young women and children that could be sold as slaves were captured would the brutal campaign of Islamization, with its brutal mandate that all must convert or die, began.  However the Jews and the Christians were given protection to live provided they pay a penalty tax called Jizyah and enter into dhimmitude. Dhimmi means protected. But the dhimmis had to pay a hefty jizyah for their protection.  This Jizyah was the source of livelihood of the Muslims who through it were able to live like parasites off the labor of the dhimmis. The following Hadith, reported by Bukhari, records the source for this practice based on the admonitions of Muhammad toward the dhimmi:  

Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) "  Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:      


Continuing the story of Juwairiyah, Aisha who accompanied the prophet on this expedition related:

"when the prophet-peace be upon him- distributed the captives of Banu Almustaliq, she (Barrah) fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qyas. She was married to her cousin, who was killed during the battle. She gave Thabit a deed, agreeing to pay him nine okes of gold for her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her. She came to the prophet-peace be upon him-, to ask for his help in the matter. As soon as I saw her at door of my room, I took a dislike to her, for I knew that he would see her as I saw her. She went in and told him who she was, the daughter of al-Harith ibn Dhirar, the chief of his people. She said: "you can see the state to which I have been brought. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit, and have given him a deed for ransom, and I have to come to ask your help in the matter.' He said: 'would you like something better than that? I will discharge your debt, and marry you.' she said: 'yes. O then it is messenger of Allah! Done.' he replied.?  http://66.34.76.88/alsalafiyat/juwairiyah.htm

This story ends any further arguments about to the real motives of Muhammad in marrying only the young and beautiful women. As it can be seen Muhammad murders the husband of Juwairiyah, who was also her cousin. Captivated by her beauty, he offers to free her, but only on the condition she marry him. After having come to Muhammad to plead for his help, this self declared Messenger of God, this self proclaimed ?mercy of God for humanity?, this self styled ?example to follow? by all the Muslims presents her with a most unwelcome choice, for whose price is that she must surrender her freedom.  What other choice could there possibly be for her?  Muslims apologetics insists that most of Muhammad?s wives were widows. They try to give the impression Muhammad married them as an act of charity. However as it becomes clear these women were young and beautiful. If they were widows, is because Muhammad murdered their husbands. Juwairiyah was just 20 years old then while Muhammad was 58.  

 

Interestingly, the name of Juwairiyah was originally Barra (Pious). Apparently Muhammad did not like this name and so changed her name to Juwairiyah. Even the two Zeinabs who were his wives were previously called Barra and he changed their names as well to Zeinab, It would appear the Prophet had some guilt in becoming sexually intimate with women that were called ?Pious?. These seemingly incidental incidents reflect a certain hitherto humanity, a conscience, if you will, to his character, and perhaps hint at his own real, but hidden religiosity. Muhammad was certainly convinced of his own cause. However his understanding of reality was distorted as he had difficulty to distinguish between what is real and what is imagined. In fact Muhammad was more motivated by fear and superstitions than by conscience and ethics.  

                       

The rest of the story of Juwairiyah is mixed with half-truths and exaggerations, in the manner that have tainted most of the Hadiths. We read:

It is said that when the Prophet-peace be upon him- departed from the raid with Juwairiyah and was at Dhuljaysh, he entrusted her to one of the Ansar and went forward to Madinah. Her father, al-Harith, discovered that she was held captive and went back o Madinah, bringing his daughter's ransom. When he reached al-Aqia, he looked at the camels he had brought as her ransom and admired the two of them greatly, so he hid them in one of the passes of al-Aqia. Then he came to the Prophet-peace be upon him- dragging the camels behind him, and told him: "My daughter is too noble to be taken as a captive. Set her free by this ransom." the Prophet-peace be upon him- replied: "Isn't it better that we let her choose her self?" that is fair enough," said al-Harith. He came to his daughter and said: "This man is letting you chose so do not dishonor us!" "I choose Allah's messenger," she replied calmly. "What a disgrace!" he exclaimed.

The Prophet-peace be upon him-, then said "where are two camels which you have hidden in al-Aqia in such -and- such a pass?" al-Harith exclaimed: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that you Muhammad are the messenger of Allah! For none could have know of this but Allah."

Ibn-i-S'ad in his 'Tabaqat', states that the father of Juwairiyah paid her ransom amount, and when she became free, the Holy Prophet married her. As a result of this marriage a11 the prisoners of war numbering about 600 were freed by the Muslims as they did not like that any member of the family in which the holy Prophet was married, be made a slave."  



It is hard to determine which part of these stories is true and which part is not. However, what is not so difficult to notice are the many contradictions contained within the main storyline. For instance, we read that Muhammad paid the ransom to Thabit the captor of Juwairiyah, and then married her after freeing her. Then we read that Hairth, the father of Juwairiyah also paid the ransom to set her free.  As to the claims of Muhammad having some sort of psychic power, that empowered him to know or tell certain things in advance, for instance knowing certain information such as the whereabouts of camels, we can safely conclude that these claims are false. On many occasions Muhammad demonstrated precisely the opposite, and proved that he was by no means psychic, let alone prescient, as he failed to discern or to obtain through divine blessings the information he so desired. For instance, when he raided Khaibar, he tortured the treasurer of that town, even to the point of death, just so he could extract from him the information that would lead to the whereabouts of the city?s treasures.  

It is important to understand the character of the Arab peoples. In this particular instance it was the Arabs who exhibited higher moral standards than their prophet. They released the relatives of Juwairiyah after they learned that Muhammad had married her. Muhammed was devoid of common decency, of having or showing even a hint of the virtues reflective of a moral leader.  Without any empathy for those whose misfortune it was to become his victim.  

Muslims claim that Juwairiyah became a very devout believer and would spend all of her days praying. The source of this claim can be found in the book Usud-ul-Ghaba. There the author writes that whenever the Prophet used to come to Juwairiyah he would find her praying, then when he would return at a later time he still found her praying. One day he said to her: ?Shall I tell you few words, if you say them they will be heavier in the scale than what you have done? You say: 'subhaana allahe 'adada khalqihi, subhana allahe ridhaa nafsehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe,subhana allah midadda kalimaatihi.' (Praise Allah as many times as number of his creatures, and as much as pleases him, and as much as the weight of his throne, and as much as the ink for his words).  

One wonders why Muslims spend 5 times a day praying and waste that much man hours unproductively when they have such a simple and unbeatable formula to praise Allah?    

Let us look at this situation from a more realistic perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of a young woman who has just fallen into the lot of a murderer of her husband who also happened to be her cousin!  As relatives, they grew up together. They were more than just husband and wife. They were first playmates, then lovers and  companions for life.  If you were a woman in Juwairiyah?s situation, how would you feel about the killer of your husband and many of your relatives and loved ones? Suppose further you don?t have anywhere to go to. Without any viable options for escape, your only choice would be to surrender as a sex slave to this old man, one who is the king of his people and has plenty of money or to be given away to one of his soldiers. Under whose captivity would you rather be?  I believe the answer is clear. Juwairiah had no choice but to accept Muhammad?s offer to marry her. Now what would any woman do if such an old man as this came to her for sex or company? She probably would devise a survival ploy. That is what Juwairiyah did. Any time she noticed Muhammad is coming, she pretended that she was busy praying, hoping that he would leave her and go to his other wives to satisfy his wretched lust. Yet, as we see, Muhammad was a cunning old man. He soon prescribed a sentence and told her that this ?will be heavier in the scale? than praying all day long, robbing her from excuses to shun him when he desired her.

usman_11

Haba, these your new posts leave me worried and a bit perturbed. I understand that you might be annoyed at Waziri and angry over the mysterious disappearance of your thread on the Islamic forum (yes I noticed that too), but I beseech you sincerely to mince your words; take it easy. Don't lose your cool. Don't insult forumnites, rave madly against Muslims and slander their Prophet in the manner I see you're doing now; that is disrespectful. Trust me, if you carry on this way you will not get far on this forum. You have raised many good points, but if you do so in a disrespectful manner then you will not be taken seriously and everyone will have a convenient excuse to ignore your valid arguments. What good is it to anyone if your posts are constantly ignored/deleted, or if you yourself are banned? How will ppl on this forum have the benefit of hearing and actually absorbing your arguments?

My friend, abeg don't go down that road. You started off well; continue in that path of respectful debate.

Waziri et al,
I think this debate has gone down into very unsavoury places because of the unfortunate "intellectual/religious chest-beating" that some of us display in these discussions. YorubaLand should have known a lot better than to interject with a groundless 'copy-and-paste' accusation, which to my surprise you bought into, Waziri. But what difference does it really make if usman-11 is posting an article? So long as he presents it as his opinion, then hopefully it means he is ready to stand up for it and defend it as his own! Did any of us really invent any of our arguments, or did we learn from others? Did our super brains come up with this stuff, are our arguments that 'original'? Everything I say here I have learned from the Bible and from others. Some of your arguments are new to me, some of them aren't. I'm sure we'll all be loathe to saying we didn't learn or 'copy' from others. Therefore we shouldn't be puffing our chests and presenting ourselves as masters of the intellectual/religious discourse. It is not respectful debate, it just isn't.


Maybe its time we called it a day on this thread; we're not even on topic anyways lol  :lol:

lionger

lionger

Usman11
 
I hope you do not regard my Advice to be condescending (for its completely not my intention) but like our brother Lionger pointed out; there are periods where maintaining ones cool prove way more fruitful in a conversation than to engage in an emotional duet which is likelier to lead one out of logical trajectories or even reason., which (as he also noticed) your earlier postings enjoyed much more of.

I can absolutely relate to how you feel about your post disappearing from a so called non biased website. I myself had my posts deleted from some of the forums, an act I consider a breach of human right to self expression at its worst. I denounce that and still hold the administration accountable for it and will continue to until I receive a reasonable explanation. I still don?t think (as the saying goes) that two wrongs make a right. I know it can be immensely frustrating when people try ducking your arguments by trying to discredit their originality. (as if anything ever totally is) but in all honesty you are only letting your guards down if you allowed yourself to get sucked into the void of useless emotional rants and accusations. If we are to start condemning whole societies on basis of mistakes commited by their founding members I assure you that; No society will remain unscathed by the thorns of history. and that helps us in no way solving the problems we pretend to be discussing here.

I?ve held many discussions with Waziri and you will rarely find one example where him and I stood on the same side.  I furthermore disagree with many of his methods of approach as I?m sure he does many of mine. But at the end his opinions are only views of one person amongst many here, and are in no sense representative of any other individual. Thus require no treatment that is outside the boundaries of reason. So maintain bro. maintain. I'm sure that Im only one amongst many who enjoy your presence. please make the effort to stay with us regardless of what other people might personally feel or hold against you

Myadudu
   may I suggest that if you wish for the original post to continue that you repost the question in a different thread? let the participants of the above conversation do what they find fit with this one. just a suggestion

Peace ONE
Maqari

usman11

I agree with both lionger and maqari.  It is true that you may find _waziri_ frustrating to have a focused and consistent debate with, but I can assure it is no grounds to say some of the things you did.  Worst of all the names or accusations you made to muslims I find totally unacceptable, they did not do any thing to you one or two may have offended you but please do not put them all in the same box.  You arguments are very well laid out and you make good points don't allow your anger get the better of you lets treat each other with respect and respect the believes of each other, we can question the basis of beliefs but please let us respect that that is what people believe in.  I strongly propose and will love to see you appologise to _waziri_ and all the other muslims that visit this site.  You know people like _waziri_ who you find annoying etc you will find that in real life face-to-face they are wonderful and pleseant people always remember that.

If I catch this waziri, I would have flogged him seriously  :lol: He is such a kata-kata person. Ok, I agree with everyone.  This was way overboard and unnecessary. There is no doubt that Waziri is a brilliant writer in his presentations. I am also enjoyed the contributions of everyone here despite the position they take on this issue. I withdraw all unpleasant commentaries of mine, and apologize to everyone that I have offended including waziri. Waziri sorry for my rude outburst. All that was in the heat of argument. I respect your views whether or not I agree with them.

Cheers everyone!

Salam
Justice has finally being served for the brutal rape murder of Zainab Abdulhamid (See Daily Trust of Friday Nov 11th, 2005).

Kudos to Alhaji Aliyu Umar for dilligently prosecuting this ugly crime with the most zealousness it requires....

May Zainab's soul rest in peace and may Allah give the family capacity to bear the loss. Amin!