Top Menu

Shocking Stoning in Philadelphia of Homosexual, What if they were Muslim?

Oh no it looks like a Sharia’ takeover!! Hide your kids, hide your wife and your gay neighbors too because they’re coming to get you!! A 70 year old man was stoned to death by 28 year old Muslim Christian, John Thomas. What was his motivation? Could it be the Quran? Sharia’ Law?

No it was THE BIBLE. Does this mean that the Bible should be banned? Do we need to enact laws which ban the creeping spread of Biblical Law in the United States? This underscores the fact that the greatest theocratic threat to our Constitution does not come from a bunch of Muslims who make up roughly 1% percent of the population but in fact the Bible Thumpers who wish to re-cast the USA as a Christian nation.

Philadelphia Man Blames Bible for Stoning Death

by Candace Chellew-Hodge (Religious Dispatch)

A 28-year-old Philadelphia says he stoned a 70-year-old friend to death “because the Bible refers to stoning homosexuals.” John Thomas said he killed Murray Seidman with
stones inside a sock after the older man made “unwanted sexual advances.” From the APreport:

According to the complaint, “John Thomas stated that he read in the Old Testament that homosexuals should be stoned in certain situations. The answer John Thomas received from his prayers was to put an end to the victim’s life. John Thomas stated that he struck the victim approximately 10 times in the head. After the final blow, John Thomas made sure the victim was dead.”

But the full story reveals that Thomas’ “the Bible made me do it” excuse may just be that. Thomas had another, far older, motive for the killing: money. He was the sole heir to Seidman’s estate.

Yet Thomas’ excuse that the Bible supposedly sanctioned his horrific act should not be taken as a reason to dismiss the Bible wholesale. Gay blogger John Aravosis — like Thomas, not a theologian — agrees with the confessed killer that the Bible orders death for gay people and wonders: “How Christians get away with selling the Bible with those quotes still inside is beyond me.”

Both Thomas and Aravosis are right that the Bible (Leviticus 20:13, to be precise) prescribes death for homosexual acts between two men (never between two women because women, being property, were pretty much ignored). However, Thomas is incorrect about the method of death. The Bible never mentions stoning gay men.

Both arguments, though, miss the point. Bibles don’t kill people, ignorant Bible readers kill people.

Aravosis may find some solace from theologian Stanley Hauerwas who wrote a few years ago in his book Unleashing the Scripture, “The Bible is not and should not be accessible to merely anyone, but rather it should only be made available to those who have undergone the hard discipline of existing as part of God’s people.”

Which is to say that many people, like Thomas, who justify their conduct with a single quote from the Bible frequently don’t know what they are talking about. When one reads the Bible and takes the English version at face (and literal) value, they do terrible violence to the text. The Bible is not meant to be a book of answers where you can just open it up and find out exactly what to do next. It is not a Ouija board or a divining rod. Instead, it is a collection of writings from wildly different times, cultures, and points of view. In fact, it contradicts itself from book to book, and sometimes from chapter to chapter. To say, “the Bible says …” as if it settles an argument once and for all is a terribly naïve way to read a very complicated text. Instead, one must be trained to actually read the Bible in a responsible manner – preferably, as Hauerwas states, within a community dedicated to taking the Bible seriously.

As Jennifer Wright Knust writes in her latest book, Unprotected Texts, “The only way the Bible can be regarded as straightforward and simple is if no one bothers to read it. The Bible was not a collection of policy statements that had to be obeyed or a weapon designed to enforce particular views about morality, but an invitation to think about who God might be and what it means to be human.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Important questions about stoning for adultery!()

  • Pingback: Katya Koren: Ukrainian Beauty Queen Killed by Disturbed Classmate not Sharia’ Law | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • akmal

    One major difference between man and animal Is organised property inheritance. as long as there Is desire to hand over property to your own offsprings, free sex with no fathers would not happen. It would require private property to be prohibited, as was the case in communism and all forms of marxisms. These did not recognise religious marriages, prohibiting private property and suppressing family. but surely for mothers it Is going to be a totally exploitative society. Free sex Is not entirely free for women. They pay for the rest of their lives. And after the abolishing slavery and colinisation, bankers defrauding societies, there isn’t the money to continue social welfare as before. Someone has to pay for overseas wars too.
    the issue is: Is Christianity or Judaism liberal towards gays? Answer: the murderer in Philadelphia read the judeo-Christian bible for guidance and acted on its decree.

  • akmal

    All religions have their strictures about moral, natural and acceptable behaviors, according to their doctrines. Except Islam all decree homosexuality as a capital crime: Judaism & Christianity.

  • Anti-atheism

    As expected, perceys modernity revolves around sex. Perhaps when her beloved system provides the right to bone animals, than perceys free genital world order hogwash would sound realistic. And dont come up with “hey those are animals”, “its abusive” blah blah. Do your research on zoophilies. It has every argument you put forward for homosexuality.

    Here’s one for your information:

    Zoophiles love and have sex with animals. Will the world ever except them ?
    http://www.miaminewtimes.com/content/printVersion/1795693/

    The Implication ? By the standards of your own argument, the secular modern system should be discarded for its anti-zoophile ways.

    This reminds me of the time when legalising prostition(with their pseudo rationlization ofcourse) was the benchmark of modernity . With the disaster it caused we now have CNN running campaigns to end sexual slavery while the modern-highly atheist-secular country, Sweden, has already put up laws that makes it illegal for a person to buy sexual services. Contrary to perceys libido, women are in favour of the law.
    http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html

    Not much free genital world order after all. Go home percey. What you saw was just a optical mirage.

  • Percey

    ‘It can be used to support killing any one who Dissent and the majority view and such was the policy of the communist regimes. ”

    Communism was the enemy of the secular west, a good argument against this sort of reasoning.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhczvtmbWE

    Even if you are correct that means that secularism has negative and positive examples; while there are only negative examples of religious law.

  • Percey

    “If the Islamic states did not follow the principles of sharia then that is their fault for not living up to the principles I don’t see how that can be used as a argument against sharia.”

    The above sentence is a crude example to ignore how Islamic law has been applied throughout history.

    “That does not make it any less secular it wasn’t a religiously based party and their goals were not religiously motivated.”

    They were essentially a bastard child of the axis.

    “No it is not. Secularism is just the separation of Church and state religious freedom is not something inherent in a secular state.”

    If the state violates religious freedom than religion and the state are not separate and you using a dictionary definition of secularism while ignoring secular ethics.

  • Percey

    “are not being followed then it is not a Islamic state.”

    That is your personal view, besides it’s a contradictory set of principles; the right to property obviously protects slavery yet that violates the right to dignity.

    “is because they have a free pass by the western nations to do so not because it is inherent in sharia.”

    They would do so with or without a patron, that is a crude attempt to shift the guilt.

    “No it is the view of great number of scholars the six principles are the foundations for Sharia you can not have a state not follow those principles and call it self a sharia state.”

    Then in that case there hasn’t been a single Islamic state, since those principles contradict each other.

  • Saladin

    @Percey

    “The fact that their legal codes were influenced by secular laws does not make those nations secular.”

    Yes but the points of reference they use are secular a lot of time. If the Six principle of Sharia (The right to the protection of life, The right to the protection of family, The right to the protection of education, The right to the protection of religion, The right to the protection of property (access to resources), The right to the protection of human dignity.)are not being followed then it is not a Islamic state.

    “Except that is not the work of every single secular nation, last time I checked Finland is not the back power of any dictatorship.”

    I never claimed it was, all I was stating was the fact that the reason many (not all) of these nations are allowed to oppress people and deny freedom of thought and religion is because they have a free pass by the western nations to do so not because it is inherent in sharia.

    “That is your personal interpretation, besides those ethics are actually inconsistent; if the first right is the protection of life why the use of the death penalty? If protection of dignity is a right why the extensive history of slavery? If protection of family is a key right why the devsirme system? Clearly Islamic states throughout history have not consistently followed that meager set of principles.”
    “Was it different? Obviously, but it was not somehow more “humane” than other forms of slavery.”

    No it is the view of great number of scholars the six principles are the foundations for Sharia you can not have a state not follow those principles and call it self a sharia state. The Islamic nations having a history of slavery is them not living up to their principles, and again slavery was a different system in Islamic nations for example many former slaves and children of slaves rose to high ranks even Heads of State, so at times it was more humane than other form and at other times it was not, and I am not defending the institution slavery. If the Islamic states did not follow the principles of sharia then that is their fault for not living up to the principles I don’t see how that can be used as a argument against sharia.

    “Ba’athism grew from the views of the Axis, the enemies of the secular West, and it was characterized by a persecution of Shiites.”

    That does not make it any less secular it wasn’t a religiously based party and their goals were not religiously motivated.

    “Religious freedom is a key principle of secularism….”

    No it is not. Secularism is just the separation of Church and state religious freedom is not something inherent in a secular state.

    “A false comparison; secular law cannot be interpreted to support killing people for allegedly slandering a religion.”

    It can be used to support killing any one who Dissent and the majority view and such was the policy of the communist regimes. Secular principles can be used and have been used to justify a lot of things. You don’t need a religious point of reference to be dogmatic.

  • http://thebandofstrangers.blogspot.com/ Jack Cope

    Sheesh, this thread went downhill quite fast. Do we really have to shout at each other?

  • Percey

    Aren’t you a little old for imaginary friends?

  • http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/ muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    Yes, Lilly which is why I have stopped. Everything I have said that is correct is from Allah subhanahu wa t’ala. Everything I have said that is false and degrading to myself or my opponent(s) is either from the shaytan or from myself. A’udubillahi mina shaytan-ir rajim.

    Allahu A’lam and May Allah Guide us all.
    —————————————–

    “This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)

  • Lilly

    This is totally degrading to all sides….

  • Percey

    ” Did you just learn about it in a cursory treatment in a high school course?”

    Yes I also took a logic course unlike you.

    “To boot you even admit the validity of certain Shari’ah principles”

    Except those values are not unique to Sharia thus they are not “sharia
    principles” they are virtues that Sharia shares with multiple
    religions and viewpoints.

    “You are a bigot and a liar. My ideal system does no such thing. ”

    That is nothing more than lying and character assassination; the best
    option for gays is a society that simply doesn’t kill them for loving
    another person, how nice.

    “Your ideal culture excludes Islam and all religions.”

    No it doesn’t an ideal society in my view would allow for full
    religious freedom, unlike Sharia law, this is an example of your
    bigotry, Muslims matter more to you than LGBT people. Of course I
    would like to see people abandon religion out of their own free will
    but that’s a fantasy.

    ” You ridicule religious people whenever you get the chance, and make
    assumptions about our actual beliefs based on your poor
    understanding.”

    There’s nothing about the occasional joke about religion, it’s open to
    critique and mockery like other ideas.

    “In addition, admittance, by an atheist, that certain principles in
    the Shari’ah are valid is proof that it is not necessary to prove the
    existence of God to prove their validity”

    Proof that you did not take logic in high school the fact that Sharia
    promotes common ethics is just proof that it is man made.

    “wow, the whole point that punishing homosexuality with death is not
    part of Shari’ah went over your head. ”

    The authorities of every Islamic state in existence would disagree with you.

    “When a system makes the best laws for the survival of the species,
    that is the most moral law. ”

    What nonsense; our species is not any danger of dying out, by
    attempting to present a harmless form of love as a threat you have
    revealed your hatred.

    ” When a society accepts as normative practices that inevitably lead
    to the dissolution of families, and the eventual corruption of
    society, there is nothing superior about it. ”

    Homosexuality does not lead to the dissolution of families and
    corruption of society, that is ridiculous hate speech.

    “Try to invalidate those principles, moral objectives, and rights
    included in the Shari’ah”

    Once again:

    A. They are not unique to Islam, just as charity is not unique to Christianity.
    B. More secular ethics contains more rights.
    C. It is grounded in mythology not reason or fact.

  • Percey

    “A society that believes that homosexuality is an evil, yet will not
    execute them is extremely tolerant; to the extent that Islamophobes
    cannot make up their minds as to whether Shari’ah discriminates
    against gays or if it is too tolerant of homosexuality.”

    No that is nothing more than an apartheid state.

    “Whining huh? Do you need to constantly lie and misrepresent other
    people in order to feel good about yourself? Any call to abolish
    Shari’ah is the same as a call to eradicate Islam. It is not whining,
    it is fact. ”

    You just misrepresented me, I was supporting the concept of abandoning
    Islamic law, that cannot be referred to as ‘eradicating Islam.’

    “Only after you were called on it by myself.”

    In this context the distinction is obvious you have no arguments so
    you focus on that tedious complaint.

    “Even Muslims who do not live under States governed by “Islamic Law”,
    still cannot abandon Shari’ah and still be Muslims. Are you suggesting
    that Bosnian and Lithuanian Muslims don’t pray, fast during Ramadan,
    etc? This is all part of the Shari’ah you demonstrate a deep lack of
    knowledge of. Adhering to Shari’ah is what makes one a Muslim by
    definition,”

    I already covered this; I was not referring to the practices of Sharia
    but the legal system(s).

    “In other words, the Muslims you admire are only the ones that abandon
    or do not use an integral part of our faith, a legal system that you
    admit is flexible.”

    It’s not integral, the Azeris certainly do not think so, Islamic law
    is not necessary to attend a Mosque, pray, fast or enjoy the work of
    Sa’adi and yes its flexible which is why it is dangerous.

    “Refusing to accept that a religious text can only be fully understood
    first through its primary source language is, with all due respect,
    stupid.”

    If Islam is divine and universal why is the main text incomprehensible
    is any other language?

    “All throughput this thread you have claimed that shari’ah is invalid,
    now you are moving the goalposts to say you meant the legal code.”

    You cannot prove the validity of Sharia law, hence faith, and you
    cannot cite a single reason why its necessary to have an Islamic
    legal system.

    “Where have I stated That Allah only speaks Arabic?”

    He must if the Quran can only be understood in that language, you
    don’t like jokes do you? Pity because religion is the biggest joke of
    all.

    “And what is wrong with Allah caring about what we do with our
    genitals if what we do with our genitals determines the survival of
    the human species?”

    Why would an omnipotent being give a sh*t about how an insignificant
    race like us have sex? If he cares about us why the millions of
    children who die from natural occurences?

    ” If you have not read the entire Qur’an and all the ahadith in
    Arabic, you are in no position to talk about it’s ethical and moral
    content or judge it or compare to modern Western secular culture.”

    *Yawns.*

    “If you hold that the principle “you cannot prove the existence of a
    negative” is infallible, then that is dogma. You keep saying that
    religion is untrue, or that God doesn’t exist, but can never prove it.
    and I suspect you will always resort to that dogma to avoid the burden
    of proof.”

    The burden of proof is on religious people; there is no evidence
    support that Islam or any other religion is real, thus it can be
    dismissed as false.

    “Because I can’t convince an atheist, who believes that religious law
    is by it’s very nature invalid and that God does not exist, Shari’ah
    Law is devoid of validity? ”

    So you admit that there is no rational reason for that legal system.

    “So a system that confirms and affirms all the universal values of
    humanity, from all times, should be abandoned?”

    Yes since it isn’t actually confirming universal values, equality is a
    key principle, yet Islam is no egalitarian you admit that there is no
    place for homosexuals in Islamic law; your argument is as silly as
    saying that if it wasn’t for Buddhism we wouldn’t know that killing is
    bad.

    ” You don’t believe in the Divine, but you want me to prove that
    Muhammad(saws) was an agent of the divine? You are a child.”

    The burden of proof rests upon you; you cannot prove that Mumu was an
    agent of the divine, which shows that your ‘arguments’ are grounded in
    mythology not fact.

  • Percey

    “Yet because, the values and principles of Shari’ah are timeless,
    valid for all times, it does not share the feature of secular law:
    “moving with the times.”

    Apart from those values being common, you even admitted they are not
    unique to Islam, how can progress exist in Sharia law if it does not
    “move with the times?” Besides concepts of tolerance and equality for
    LGBT people is not a new concept.

    “You are completely delusional if you think “moving with the times”
    allows for progress.”

    And the views of 7th century desert nomads is the best alternative?
    Don’t make me laugh.

    “I again suggest you study social anthropology to see how views become
    accepted and rejected in secular society and cultures in general, then
    you will see that “moving with the times” can easily lead to a society
    that with accept murder and all sorts of evils, usually with a
    mountain of logical sounding rationalizations(kind of like what we
    have now in the modern age).”

    That is a strawman, name one of these societies.

    ” I do not hate homosexuals, but i do think homosexuality is wrong.”

    Don’t lie; you support a legal system that punishes homosexuality with
    death, of course you hate them.

    ” Sexual minority treatment under Shari’ah is entirely a separate
    issue btw, and I think i have already said that people should not be
    punished with capital punishment for being gay.I’m no homophobe.”

    On the contrary it is a central issue and there’s no point in denying
    your hatred of LGBT people, that “love the sinner hate the sin”
    bullshit is just that, bullshit.

    “So people should be free to fornicate, commit adultery, make
    pornography, and engage in homosexual acts? ”

    Yes wasting time criminalizing acts between consenting adults only
    diverts attention away from real crimes, besides homosexuality existed
    covertly in Muslim states throughout history? A certain sufi
    meditation for example.

    “If that is the standard of an enlightened society!”

    It certainly beats states with blasphemy laws and so on, how does
    someone making porn in the privacy of their home harm you?

    “As I said before, I never said such a thing. You are a liar.”

    You think it’s no big deal and separate topic so no you are the liar.

    “And I suspect, no offense intended, that you belong to the LGBT
    community, otherwise you wouldn’t be so adamant and hell-bent on
    constantly insisting that a “superior” society doesn’t view homosexual
    behavior as wrong.”

    I am strictly straight, however if I was gay or bisexual there would
    be nothing wrong with that; in fact that is an example of bigotry, you
    think only gay people care about LGBT minorities and yes a superior
    society does not criminalize consenting adults for enjoying each
    others bodies.

    “The ideologue who suggests that among human beings, who are all
    equally fallible, there can exist superior cultural values and
    therefore superior cultures, is an extremely dangerous one.”

    Oh please; you clearly think that Islamic law is a superior system.

    “Bigotry involves hatred.”

    Actually its quite subtle, turning someone down for a job interview
    because of bigoted reasons for example.

    “Just because I think homosexuality is wrong does not mean that I am a
    bigot or view people with a different sexual orientation as lesser
    beings”

    Really? Then why support an anti-LGBT legal system? I doubt you
    support equal rights for sexual minorities.

    “Spare me the hypocrisy! You can’t seem to find anything positive to
    say about Muslim cultures that aren’t secular and Western and you
    think I’m the bigot.”

    That simply isn’t true; I admire the medieval Caliphates, I have no
    respect for the Ottoman empire because it was culturally inferior, I
    admire medieval Persian culture just a few examples I clearly stated
    that Islam has cultural value unlike mormonism.

    “And equating sexual orientation with ethnicity all but confirms my
    original suspicion about you belonging to the LGBT community.”

    How is it any less idiotic to hate someone for their sexual orientation?

    “How many non-white ethnicities are part of your heritage? I have
    several. Bigot!? Spare me.”

    Good for you, that makes no sense but good for you.

  • Percey

    “. You cannot discuss a topic you have no knowledge of, otherwise it
    is just emotion-based rationalizations.”

    Except your entire arguments are emotionally based; you want an
    invisible daddy to protect you, how cute, I’m not ignorant about
    Sharia law, just not an expert, nothing wrong with that.

    “You prefer to judge a system based on “Shari’ah in action”. There is
    a reason why that term is in quotes. It is not truly Shari’ah in
    action you are studying, but false interpretations and applications.
    You cannot make a valid conclusion or conclusive arguments about it if
    you haven’t even really studied it”

    So all the current states with Sharia law are not practicing the real
    thing? If so then Sharia law is a mess that should be scrapped since
    anyone can twist it.

    “just its caricatured, bastardized bogey man.”

    Believing the boogey man is the equivalent of believing in Allah.

    “Furthermore, in anthropology, a holistic study consists of analysis
    of theory and practice. Without knowledge of theory how is one able to
    conclude if the practices being witnessed are legitimately based on
    the theory they are supposedly derived from?”

    You have consistently ignored Sharia law in practice, all examples of
    it are cruel and backwards.

    “You presuppose that multiple interpretations excludes the possibility
    that false interpretations exist.”

    Sharia law is grounded in the falsehood of religion, thus any
    interpretation of it is false.

    ” Inquisition and burning at the stake are definitely not biblical,
    just as impalement is not “Shari’ah compliant”

    They’re both examples of religious law.

    “and no amount of fallacious reasoning and declarations that existence
    of multiple interpretations constitutes a “crappy system” will make it
    fall or go away.”

    According to you systems that support impalement and blasphemy laws
    are all interpretations of Sharia law; surely if it’s that easy to
    change it’s dangerous and should be discarded.

    “That’s falsehood. You yourself admitted to positive examples of Shari’ah.”

    You are lying, that simply isn’t true.

    ” This means that the feature of secular law that you love so much:
    progress, is embedded in Islamic Law. ”

    The only examples of progress seen in Islamic law is the use of modern forms
    of execution and modern prisons.

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com/ AJ

    Could LW correct the italics? It makes it difficult to read it.

  • Percey

    “I will concede that Pakistan and Afghanistan are not mainly secular but please read my original post it clearly states most of these countries consist of a mix of secular and Islamic influenced law, not that that they are secular states. Syria and Libya more so than Pakistan or Afghanistan are a mix of secular and Islamic law I don’t understand how any one can deny that.”

    The fact that their legal codes were influenced by secular laws does not make those nations secular.

    “The same Muslims states that they support and keep in power, one could simply call that hypocrisy that they support they same forms of tyranny they are against.”

    Except that is not the work of every single secular nation, last time I checked Finland is not the back power of any dictatorship.

    “If the Six principle of Sharia (The right to the protection of life, The right to the protection of family, The right to the protection of education, The right to the protection of religion, The right to the protection of property (access to resources), The right to the protection of human dignity.)are not being followed then it is not a Islamic state now matter how many times they say they are.”

    That is your personal interpretation, besides those ethics are actually inconsistent; if the first right is the protection of life why the use of the death penalty? If protection of dignity is a right why the extensive history of slavery? If protection of family is a key right why the devsirme system? Clearly Islamic states throughout history have no consistently followed that meager set of principles.

    “I do understand what secularism is, and the Ba’ath Party is secular which was Saddam’s Party, The Madina Charter is good example of the principles of Sharia being applied.”

    Ba’athism grew from the views of the Axis, the enemies of the secular West, and it was characterized by a persecution of Shiites.

    “Throughout Hussein’s tenure, and especially during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), he saw the marginalization and eventual elimination of Shiism as a necessary goal in the Arabization process, by which Iraq would purge itself of all perceived Iranian influence.”

    http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

    Religious freedom is a key principle of secularism, even if you are correct that only means that there are negative and positive forms of secularism, while there are only negative examples of religious law.

  • http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/ muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    Percey,

    You may not believe in Him, but I hope that Allah Guides you. I can see that you are completely and obsessively determined to have the last word here so, after this post, I will let you have it.

    “I have casually researched the topic; I didn’t claim to be an expert but I am certainly qualified to argue about it online.”

    Actually, casually researching a topic that requires expertise, and then passing judgements on it and calling it “arguing” disqualifies you from being able to objectively argue the topic online. You cannot discuss a topic you have no knowledge of, otherwise it is just emotion-based rationalizations. I will not repeat this, it stands on its own.

    “How else can you judge a legal system?”

    You prefer to judge a system based on “Shari’ah in action”. There is a reason why that term is in quotes. It is not truly Shari’ah in action you are studying, but false interpretations and applications. You cannot make a valid conclusion or conclusive arguments about it if you haven’t even really studied it, just its caricatured, bastardized bogey man.

    Furthermore, in anthropology, a holistic study consists of analysis of theory and practice. Without knowledge of theory how is one able to conclude if the practices being witnessed are legitimately based on the theory they are supposedly derived from?

    “If Sharia law is so diverse with countless interpretations then it clearly an incoherent and dangerous system.”

    Bypassing my statement, “discounting the view that it is interpretations he is critiquing rather than the whole Shar’iah,” and making an illogical tangential criticism will not work here. You presuppose that multiple interpretations excludes the possibility that false interpretations exist. That’s fallacious.

    “If the Ottoman use of impalement can be ignored as “not the real thing” then the same argument should be applied to the inquisition, after all burning at the stake is not mentioned in the bible and if the Ottomans were not using “real” Sharia law then that’s another blow to greeneye’s argument.”

    I’m not really all that concerned with greeneye’s argument here. The point still stands: “You take the Ottoman sultanate and, so obviously desperate to use their punishments or examples of hudud as representatives of Shari’ah, base your criticism of the whole of Shari’ah on their example.” Inquisition and burning at the stake are definitely not biblical, just as impalement is not “Shari’ah compliant”

    “Once again, if Sharia law is so myriad and open to interpretation then it’s a crappy legal system.”

    The point: that you “Take particular interpretations or applications of Shari’ah that will be universally regarded as deplorable, and without any discussion of whether these particular interpretations and applications have legitimate roots in the Islamic jurisprudential tradition or Islamic theology, conclude by way of non-sequitur that the whole Shari’ah should be discarded,” still stands, and no amount of fallacious reasoning and declarations that existence of multiple interpretations constitutes a “crappy system” will make it fall or go away.

    “Modern secular law does not criminalize people for their sexual orientation or penalize people for something they allegedly said; at the most you are correct that secular law has negative and positive examples, however there are only negative examples of Sharia law.”

    That’s falsehood. You yourself admitted to positive examples of Shari’ah. And don’t give me that nonsense about me being dishonest since I know you meant legal codes rather than ethical principles. You were conflating Shari’ah and fiqh, and using them interchangeably until I called you on it. You then said you meant “Islamic Law”. Islamic Law has two categories: Shari’ah and fiqh. Now you say you meant legal codes all along. That means we are now talking about fiqh, not necessarily Shari’ah, although fiqh is informed by Shari’ah in theory.

    One of the salient features of fiqh is that it is a human endeavor, subject both to multiple interpretations and error. This means that the feature of secular law that you love so much: progress, is embedded in Islamic Law. Yet because, the values and principles of Shari’ah are timeless, valid for all times, it does not share the feature of secular law: “moving with the times”. You are completely delusional if you think “moving with the times” allows for progress. I again suggest you study social anthropology to see how views become accepted and rejected in secular society and cultures in general, then you will see that “moving with the times” can easily lead to a society that with accept murder and all sorts of evils, usually with a mountain of logical sounding rationalizations(kind of like what we have now in the modern age).

    “Disguising hatred as “culture” is a new low, I suppose you also think that the inquisition was simply Catholic culture?”

    I completely reject your insinuations. I do not hate homosexuals, but i do think homosexuality is wrong. Rejecting or accepting homosexuality *is* in fact a reflection of cultural values, and all anthropological studies show this. I will not do your work for you. All the relevant, credible academic data on the subject is there for research.

    “You do not see the treatment of sexual minorities under Sharia as a negative; which makes you a homophobe.”

    There you go using Shari’ah(ethical principles) and Islamic law(legal codes)interchangeably, so that you can later backtrack when called out on your inconsistency and falsehood. Not only are you now putting words in my mouth again, but you have divined how I feel about sexual minority treatment in Muslim-majority countries. Sexual minority treatment under Shari’ah is entirely a separate issue btw, and I think i have already said that people should not be punished with capital punishment for being gay.I’m no homophobe.

    “The right of consenting adults to engage in intimate relations with consenting partner free of any legal consequences.”

    So people should be free to fornicate, commit adultery, make pornography, and engage in homosexual acts? If that is the standard of an enlightened society!!!!…. may Allah(swt) Guide us away from such thinking. I am through talking to you about what is obviously a cultural difference.

    “Someone who thinks that the treatment of LGBT people under Sharia law isn’t a big deal is in no position to accuse others of bigotry.”

    As I said before, I never said such a thing. You are a liar. And I suspect, no offense intended, that you belong to the LGBT community, otherwise you wouldn’t be so adamant and hell-bent on constantly insisting that a “superior” society doesn’t view homosexual behavior as wrong.

    “Any culturalist judgement against the “criminalization of homosexuality”( please note why these words are in quotes),is arguing that “my cultural values are superior to yours”.

    “Of course there are superior cultural values; just as Japanese culture is superior to Tibetan culture (who had serfdom in the 20th century).”

    The ideologue who suggests that among human beings, who are all equally fallible, there can exist superior cultural values and therefore superior cultures, is an extremely dangerous one. Especially when he suggests that values that don’t necessarily benefit all of mankind are universal.

    “Which makes you a bigot; viewing someone as a lesser being on the basis of who they like to bone is just as vile as judging someone on the basis ethnicity.”

    Excuse me for the non-halal speech, but that is pure fuck!%* nonsense. You can’t stop projecting and putting words in my mouth. Bigotry involves hatred. Just because I think homosexuality is wrong does not mean that I am a bigot or view people with a different sexual orientation as lesser beings. Spare me the hypocrisy! You can’t seem to find anything positive to say about Muslim cultures that aren’t secular and Western and you think I’m the bigot. And equating sexual orientation with ethnicity all but confirms my original suspicion about you belonging to the LGBT community. How many non-white ethnicities are part of your heritage? I have several. Bigot!? Spare me.

    “So the best scenario for gays under Sharia law is avoiding the death penalty for having sex with a consenting partner? You have just provided yet another reason for Sharia law to be scrapped”.

    Except your gross oversimplification deliberately obfuscates the issue. A society that believes that homosexuality is an evil, yet will not execute them is extremely tolerant; to the extent that Islamophobes cannot make up their minds as to whether Shari’ah discriminates against gays or if it is too tolerant of homosexuality. Read Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina for this bizarre display of inconsistency.

    “This is hypocritical whining, you hate LGBT people yet your religion is above criticism;”

    Whining huh? Do you need to constantly lie and misrepresent other people in order to feel good about yourself? Any call to abolish Shari’ah is the same as a call to eradicate Islam. It is not whining, it is fact. ”

    “I did make a distinction between Sharia the ethics code and Sharia the legal system.”

    Only after you were called on it by myself. And you still vacillate between the two whenever it suits you; even in this very response to me. I think it’s all part of your deceptiveness. You know you have no argument against Shari’ah(ethical codes and moral principles) so you shift to an argument about fiqh(legal codes) so that you can later project your criticism of fiqh onto Shari’ah.

    “This is highly dishonest anyone with basic reading comprehension would understand that I am referring to a crude legal system.”

    Just deal with the issue:

    Even Muslims who do not live under States governed by “Islamic Law”, still cannot abandon Shari’ah and still be Muslims. Are you suggesting that Bosnian and Lithuanian Muslims don’t pray, fast during Ramadan, etc? This is all part of the Shari’ah you demonstrate a deep lack of knowledge of. Adhering to Shari’ah is what makes one a Muslim by definition,”

    and stop lying about what you meant:

    “I’m not suggesting that Muslim give up Sharia the ethics code, I am suggesting rejecting the Sharia legal system something countless Muslims have already done; for centuries the Vainakh lived under customary law.”

    In other words, the Muslims you admire are only the ones that abandon or do not use an integral part of our faith, a legal system that you admit is flexible.

    “No the argument about the Quran and language is a crude attempt to isolate it from criticism.”

    That’s nonsense! Just learn Arabic! No one is stopping you or any other critic of Islam from learning the language, so there is no attempt to isolate the Qur’an from criticism, just a legitimate request that someone learn about a text by studying it in its source language. Refusing to accept that a religious text can only be fully understood first through its primary source language is, with all due respect, stupid.

    “All of that proves that it is not of divine origin.”

    That atheist jibe doesn’t help from notice that you dodged the question:

    “How do you propose that Islamic law as interpretive tradition can be understood without understanding the objectives(maqasid)of the Shari’ah as well as the spirit and letter of the Qur’an? How do you propose this can be done without studying its primary source, which is in Arabic?”

    “You attempted to portray my criticism of Sharia law as an attack on Sharia the ethics system;”

    No I simply called you out on your inconsistency and of course now it is evident. All throughput this thread you have claimed that shari’ah is invalid, now you are moving the goalposts to say you meant the legal code. And you are still using the term Shari’ah law instead of fiqh while claiming this.

    “your views are bizarre because you believe in a invisible dictator who speaks only Arabic and cares what dust specks like us do with our genitals.”

    Why are you such a liar who insists on misrepresenting my views so that you can ridicule them9 that is a real straw man btw). Where have I stated That Allah only speaks Arabic? You really know less than nothing about Islam. And what is wrong with Allah caring about what we do with our genitals if what we do with our genitals determines the survival of the human species? I have nothing but love for a Creator Who cares about my continued existence and the continued existence of His Creation.

    “Not trying to prove it to you! But if you seriously expect me to believe that you have and reached the conclusion that Shari’ah only has a few common ethics, and far too few compared to modern(read:Western) human rights, there is no point to this discussion.”

    “If it can only be understood in one lingo it is not universal or of divine origin.”

    That’s nonsense. Everyone can learn to speak Arabic. Denying that certain things are not translatable from one language to the next is just the lazy Islamophobes’ excuse not to engage the text he wishes to criticize. If you have not read the entire Qur’an and all the ahadith in Arabic, you are in no position to talk about it’s ethical and moral content or judge it or compare to modern Western secular culture.

    “And you can prove that religion is false without resorting to the classic atheist dogma that “one cannot prove a negative?”

    “How is that ‘dogma?’”

    If you hold that the principle “you cannot prove the existence of a negative” is infallible, then that is dogma. You keep saying that religion is untrue, or that God doesn’t exist, but can never prove it. and I suspect you will always resort to that dogma to avoid the burden of proof.

    “That’s not an argument; it’s an opinion grounded in belief in fiction you cannot prove.”

    Proving a fiction, that’s rich!

    “If you cannot demonstrate the so-called validity of Sharia law then it is already devoid of validity.”

    Because I can’t convince an atheist, who believes that religious law is by it’s very nature invalid and that God does not exist, Shari’ah Law is devoid of validity? That’s fallacious. I predicted it. You will shift the goalposts until we arrive at the trump card of all atheists: “God doesn’t exist”. Makes me wonder why you are here Percey. You are basically saying “I don’t believe in God’s existence, and by extension any religious law! Now prove to me that Shari’ah is valid”. Extremely disingenuous.

    “So Islamic law lack unique values; all the more reason to abandon it and you cannot prove that Muhammad was an agent of the divine, you use the word strawman constantly yet that is all you have.”

    So a system that confirms and affirms all the universal values of humanity, from all times, should be abandoned? You don’t believe in the Divine, but you want me to prove that Muhammad(saws) was an agent of the divine? You are a child.

    Do you even know what a straw man argument is? Did you just learn about it in a cursory treatment in a high school course? Manufacturing a weak argument that I will later debunk, claiming to debunk something else entirely, that is a straw man argument. You project too much. Your argument is the Straw Man Extraordinaire: demonstrating the invalidity and unacceptability of false interpretations of Shariah( fiqh, legal code, make up your mind)and claiming that Shari’ah itself is invalid. To boot you even admit the validity of certain Shari’ah principles
    (although not without caveat).

    “No you are the bigot; your ideal legal system treats people like pigs on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

    Correction: You are a bigot and a liar. My ideal system does no such thing. Your ideal culture excludes Islam and all religions. You ridicule religious people whenever you get the chance, and make assumptions about our actual beliefs based on your poor understanding.

    “Those are common ethics and there are more rights to be had in secular laws; thus it is an inferior legal code grounded in something that cannot be proven.”

    That’s a lie since you don’t know enough about Shari’ah to make a fair comparison. In addition, admittance, by an atheist, that certain principles in the Shari’ah are valid is proof that it is not necessary to prove the existence of God to prove their validity

    “Wrong, a law which punishes homosexuality with death is clearly worse than a law that grants sexual freedom.”

    wow, the whole point that punishing homosexuality with death is not part of Shari’ah went over your head. Or did you deliberately ignore it to make your non-point? I am sorry but your idea of sexual freedom is not superior to anything. When a system makes the best laws for the survival of the species, that is the most moral law. When a society accepts as normative practices that inevitably lead to the dissolution of families, and the eventual corruption of society, there is nothing superior about it. We’ll just leave it at that.

    Me: “I do not believe you are an Islamophobe, but you are bigoted towards religion”

    You:”It is impossible to be bigoted against something that doesn’t exist.”

    Me: Religion doesn’t exist? :) It is very possible to be bigoted against religious people as you demonstrate.

    Me: “, thus you make use of the language of the Islamophobes(Islamophobese) in your criticisms.”

    You: “Such as?”

    Me: 1. “If the Quran can only be understood in Arabic it isn’t universal.”

    2.“Shariah in action” when talking about abuses and extreme misrepresentations of Shari’ah

    3. “Modern standards” to mean ” Modern Secular, Western” standards..and many more examples. If you want people to seriously believe that you are not an Islamophobe, you are going to have to stop talking like them.

    You: “Then why support a legal system that would persecute a lesbian couple?”

    Again for the last time, I have no disdain for lesbian couples. I do not support any law that would persecute a lesbian couple, but that doesn’t mean that I think homosexuality is morally correct behavior. And FYI, condemnation of such a laws is condemnation of fiqh(legal interpretation), not Shari’ah itself.

    Don’t think that your refusal to comment on this non-exhaustive list went unnoticed:

    (1)Justice, (2)Equity, (3)Ethnic equality, (4)mercy,(5)compassion, (6)benevolence, (7)freedom of religion, (8)freedom of conscience, (9)freedom from compulsion in the conduct of human affairs, (10)the right of women to own property, (11)freedom from predatory financial practices(usury, etc..)(12) serving the best interests of human beings(tahqiq masalih al-’ibad)(13) Haqq(means both the Truth and individual rights): In Islamic Law human beings have rights against whoever violates or threatens that right, even the State(so much for theocracy)(Khaled Abou El-Fadl.”The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists”, 185).(14) The right education, for males and females, (15)the right to reputation(the right not to be slandered, defamed, or maligned)

    Try to invalidate those principles, moral objectives, and rights included in the Shari’ah, I’m through with you, since:

    And they will not cease fighting against you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can( Qur’an 2:217)

    May Allah Guide you. I wish you peace, prosperity, enlightenment, success in all your legitimate endeavors, and the realization of all your noble hopes and dreams.

    Allahu A’lam
    ————–

    “This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant.” (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin ‘Abd al-Rahman al-’Udhri.)

  • Percey

    “Your argument is that Sharia has multiple interpretation the same can be said about secular systems.”

    A false comparison; secular law cannot be interpreted to support killing people for allegedly slandering a religion.

    “Slavery in the Islamic world was a different and more complex system than in the west it was very different system, though I am not defending it .”

    Was it different? Obviously, but it was not somehow more “humane” than other forms of slavery.

  • Saladin

    @Percey

    “Which is not the same as abolishing stoning or other similar crimes.”
    A moratorium is the first step and he has clearly stated he wants to see them abolished.

    “Egypt, Syria , Libya , Pakistan, Afghanistan they tend to mix it up with secular and Islamic laws”

    “None of those states are remotely secular; if you think Afghanistan is secular you do not understand what the word means, a key principle is
    religious freedom, a right virtually nonexistent in those nations. ”

    I will concede that Pakistan and Afghanistan are not mainly secular but please read my original post it clearly states most of these countries consist of a mix of secular and Islamic influenced law, not that that they are secular states. Syria and Libya more so than Pakistan or Afghanistan are a mix of secular and Islamic law I don’t understand how any one can deny that.

    “Except all of that is remarkably tame compared to Muslim states.”

    The same Muslims states that they support and keep in power, one could simply call that hypocrisy that they support they same forms of tyranny they are against.

    “Your claim is that these countries are implementing Sharia when they are just dictators you can not have a modern example of a state
    based on the principles of Sharia because they are just corrupt governments using Sharia as a reference point.”

    “‘Modern Sharia’ is an oxymoron, you don’t see the connection between cruel governments and Sharia law? It’s a rather consistent pattern.”

    If the Six principle of Sharia (The right to the protection of life, The right to the protection of family, The right to the protection of education, The right to the protection of religion, The right to the protection of property (access to resources), The right to the protection of human dignity.)are not being followed then it is not a Islamic state now matter how many times they say they are.

    ” Saudi Arabia may use Islam as a way of justifying their oppression while Saddam and the Sha in Iran used secularism as a point of
    reference to justify what they did at the end of the day they both do the same thing but they justify it using different things.”

    “First of all Saddam was not secular, clearly you do not understand what secularism is, even if you were correct that would mean that positive and negative examples of secularism exist whereas there are only negative examples of Sharia law.”

    I do understand what secularism is, and the Ba’ath Party is secular which was Saddam’s Party, The Madina Charter is good example of the principles of Sharia being applied.

  • Saladin

    @Percey

    “Except that wasn’t my main argument, I was accusing LW of hypocrisy; you can’t support anti-LGBT legal
    system and then turn around and shed crocodile tears for homosexuals when ever its convenient for your agenda,
    well you can if you are a complete hypocrite.”You are assuming that Sharia is monolithic and holds such view which is simply not true.”

    “False, in my posts I pointed how the diverse interpretations of Sharia law is one of the many reasons why it is a dangerous legal system.”

    Your previous post suggest otherwise.

    “You are comparing multiple legals system to Sharia law, a poor argument.”

    Your argument is that Sharia has multiple interpretation the same can be said about secular systems.

    “The eugenics movement was awful, however it was popular in the early 20th century; when many Muslim states still had slavery.”

    I accept that the Islamic world has pretty done terrible things I never claimed it didn’t.
    The point I was making was that the same can be said about secular modes of reasoning.
    Slavery in the Islamic world was a different and more complex system than in the west it was very different system, though I am not defending it .

  • Percey

    “Not trying to prove it to you! But if you seriously expect me to believe that you have read the entire Qur’an and all the ahadith in Arabic and reached the conclusion that Shari’ah only has a few common ethics, and far too few compared to modern(read:Western) human rights, there is no point to this discussion.”

    If it can only be understood in one lingo it is not universal or of divine origin.

    “And you can prove that religion is false without resorting to the classic atheist dogma that “one cannot prove a negative?”

    How is that ‘dogma?’

    ” isn’t an weak argument i put forth to later debunk!”

    That’s not an argument; it’s an opinion grounded in belief in fiction you cannot prove.

    ‘Actually the validity of the argument does not rest on that since the point was not to argue for the validity of Shari’ah, but to show which arguments do not invalidate it.”

    If you cannot demonstrate the so-called validity of Sharia law then it is already devoid of validity.

    “The issues are separate. And i am pretty sure that as I list principles and laws *from* the Shari’ah that you will find impossible to call invalid”

    By your own admission Sharia law does not treat LGBT people as equals, thus it is invalid, laws punished infidelity with lashing are valid.

    “Never mind that in Islamic theology Muhammad(saws) came to affirm and confirm previous values and principles deemed valid and universal, not create new ones.”

    So Islamic law lack unique values; all the more reason to abandon it and you cannot prove that Muhammad was an agent of the divine, you use the word strawman constantly yet that is all you have.

    “Furthermore proving the validity of a religious based system to someone who thinks religion and by extension religious law can never be valid is rather futile.”

    Your posts are futile; since you cannot prove that religious law is valid since religion itself cannot be proven.

    “In fact as you are shown its validity step by stop you will continue to deny and claim that “the ethics therein are common,consequently we don’t need religious law.”

    You miss my point, the ethnics are not only common they are inferior compared to modern ethics; the treatment of LGBT minorities for example.

    “You are a bigot. ”

    No you are the bigot; your ideal legal system treats people like pigs on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    “You are projecting your negative views on what you believe to be Shari’ah Law(“Islamic Law” you say) onto me”

    Wrong your hatred for homosexuals could not be more clear.

    “Invalidate these principles, moral objectives, and rights included in the Shari’ah”

    Those are common ethics and there are more rights to be had in secular laws; thus it is an inferior legal code grounded in something that cannot be proven.

    “You are merely making a culturalist judgements and determinations. ”

    So are you; since you clearly view Sharia law as THE SYSTEM.

    “Having these “rights”, which is actually nothing more than a reflection of cultural values and acceptable mores, in no way makes a system more superior than another cultural system that lacks these “rights.”

    Wrong, a law which punishes homosexuality with death is clearly worse than a law that grants sexual freedom.

    “I do not believe you are an Islamophobe, but you are bigoted towards religion”

    It is impossible to be bigoted against something that doesn’t exist.

    “, thus you make use of the language of the Islamophobes(Islamophobese) in your criticisms.”

    Such as?

    “Secular Western standards “move with the times”

    Which makes it more advanced than religious laws, progress exists in secular law.

    “Again, I have no disdain for lesbian couples.”

    Then why support a legal system that would persecute a lesbian couple?

Powered by Loon Watchers