Opponents of Death Penalty should read this!!!

[alhaji_aminu]

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??

[mallamt]

myadudu
you wrote

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.

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

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

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?....."

[Maqari]

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.

[_Waziri_]

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.

[_Waziri_]

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:

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

[_Waziri_]

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.

[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.

[usman11]

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

[_Waziri_]

Everyone 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:

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_]

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.

[alhaji_aminu]

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!

[_Waziri_]

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.

[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?

[Maqari]

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.

[Yoruba Land]

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: