Opponents of Death Penalty should read this!!!

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

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.

[mallamt]

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

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.

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

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).........

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.

[usman11]

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?

[alhaji_aminu]

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.

[_Waziri_]

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:

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:

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

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.

[_Waziri_]

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.

[_Waziri_]

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.

[usman11]

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...

[mallamt]

_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

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.

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.

[lionger]

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?

[mallamt]

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

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

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

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 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!!!

[Maqari]

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

[_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.

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

[usman11]

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.

[usman11]

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?