Someone shared this news about a scientific study on winds parting water: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68K33520100921
My response: Glory to God
Finally, science is coming round to proving that what is written in the scriptures is actually possible. Wonder why people feel science and religion are incompatible? Coming from the same person (God), they must complement each other, or so I think :)
Thanks for sharing,
Research Article: Dynamics of Wind Setdown at Suez and the Eastern Nile Delta
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012481
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Hawking, Big Bang, God, Multiverse, M-theory
I posted this article Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God by Henry F. Schaefer III upon which the following discussion commenced
AK wrote: I haven't read the article yet but it seems to rebuttal the new book by Stephen Hawking.
I'm wondering would it actually help to share our comments or have a discussion? Has any such discussion ever changed ones mind? We tend to read what we feel (believe) to read and stick to our version of truth. I know I'm being pessimistic. But thats how I feel sometime :)
Does anyone else here feel the same way?
SI wrote: I personally feel that discussions are enriching as we can look at the same thing from different angles. As none of us mortals can be absolutely sure we're 100% right, all arguments are plausible in our search for truth. Perhaps we all have certain pieces of the jigsaw puzzle...
AK wrote: I like the way you put it :)
Yes I believe we all have certain pieces of jigsaw puzzle but we like to think we have got the complete puzzle... thus the conflict :)
As for the book (The Grand Design), it can be downloaded from the following link:
http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2010/09/grand-design-stephen-hawking-leonard.html
SI wrote: Thanks for the link.
And yes, we should carry on our discussions. Every debate forces us to think deeper and adds a new dimension to our understanding. Carry on...
Aj posted: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727780.301-mtheory-doubts-linger-over-godless-multiverse.html
SI wrote: Hawking says "God may exist but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator". I have yet to read his book though.
In my opinion, M-theory or any other science does not set out to prove or disprove the the existence of God. It rather attempts to explain nature as best as it can. If the Creator has made a perfect set of laws, a perfectly automated system, then why not? I mean we don't need to invoke God to explain physical phenomena. But, it is up to the individual whether we accept it all happened / evolved on its own, or whether there is a Creator behind it.
http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/09/sneak-peek-stephen-hawking/
Aj wrote: Generally, non atheists are asked to prove the existence of God. It is seldom that non atheists ask those atheists who rely heavily on science -- to prove that God does not exist. It is a bit disturbing and sad to see that even after passing of millions of years, science is unable to decide.
Whether the proof can be given (either way) is another matter. But putting the onus in the other direction is also warranted.
Frankly, I didnt expect Hawkings to say God may exist. His saying that may mean two things. First, there is no conflict between religion and science. Second, science may never be able to prove/disprove existence of God.
SI wrote: I think he meant both :)
AK wrote: I honestly think the onus of prove lies with people who believe in (unseen) God. Let me explain you with an example... if I claim today that I've got supernatural powers and you have to believe me, I have to prove it to you... otherwise you are least bothered about my claims. You dont need to disprove me, unless it has any impact on your life. You might leave me to believe whatever I want to believe or ask me for evidence. It's that simple :)
Aj wrote: no, its not that simple.
who is claiming to have supernatural power here?
its relative.
those who believe in god, for them its normal to see nature as a product of god. And anyone claiming that universe is being maintained without a CPU is claiming something 'supernatural'. so let him prove....
AK wrote: Logically speaking... your argument that nature is the product of God and everything has to be maintained will put a BIG question mark on God too. That is... who created God and how it is being maintained??? These two aruguments are known as first-cause argument and argument by design.
We like to think that way cuz we have been told this from the childhood, over n over again such that it has been entrinched in our minds. That's why our minds are OK with the explaination that everything is created by God, but no one asks who created God?
By the way, I have absolutely no problem with whether someone believe in God or not as it's not affecting me. But if someone tries to convince me then I have every right to ask him for proof. That's why we had miracles, right???
On the contrary what atheists are doing... they are just telling us that guys your explainations/proofs are not valid from the logical point of view. That's it :)
AK wrote: Let’s imagine we’re sitting together having a relaxed, honest and open discussion about religion. On the table is a huge stack of white index cards and on each index card is one of thousands of different religions, gods, belief systems, along with arguments for believing in that particular religion or god. Maybe a card has a current religion, or maybe it has a older religion that no one believes in any more, or is largely forgotten. It doesn’t matter – the point is that they’re all here in this great big stack, except for the ones that you believe in – you religion’s not in this stack.
One at a time, I draw up a card and I read you the religion and god and arguments for why you should believe in it and you respond with the reasons you dismiss the arguments and why you don’t believe the religion or god, and I’ll write the responses down.
So we go through every argument ever made for every other religion, their gods, supposed holy books, witnesses, miracles, profits, saviors, prophecies, testimonies, answered prayers, faith claims, affects for good, archeological support; whatever the argument, we go through it. We note all your counter arguments and dismissals on the back on each card.
It won’t take long before we realize that there is a pattern. Your argument for dismissing one religion will likely be similar to a previous answer. We won’t need to write anything down any more – we can just refer back to a previous argument.
Once we get to the bottom of the stack, I take another card out of my pocket. This card has your religion and god on them, and all the arguments that you think support them. We go through that card and they are refuted referring back to arguments you made before, just as we did with all the previous cards.
The fact is that you’re an atheist in regards to thousands of other religions and gods. You already know everything there is to know about dismissing religious arguments. You’re an expert already. You rationally dismiss thousands of other religions or gods just like any atheist does. The difference is you don’t turn that critical side of your mind to your own beliefs.
This realization is all anyone needs to know to recognize their faith doesn’t stand up any more. It’s just question of how honest you can be with yourself.
This is pretty much sumed up in a quote by Stephen Roberts:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
SI wrote: Let's do it. Perhaps that is what we need...
And, why I believe:
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2009/06/reading-scientific-and-mathematical.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2009/06/can-any-of-holy-scriptures-be-totally.html
AK wrote: I haven't read the article yet but it seems to rebuttal the new book by Stephen Hawking.
I'm wondering would it actually help to share our comments or have a discussion? Has any such discussion ever changed ones mind? We tend to read what we feel (believe) to read and stick to our version of truth. I know I'm being pessimistic. But thats how I feel sometime :)
Does anyone else here feel the same way?
SI wrote: I personally feel that discussions are enriching as we can look at the same thing from different angles. As none of us mortals can be absolutely sure we're 100% right, all arguments are plausible in our search for truth. Perhaps we all have certain pieces of the jigsaw puzzle...
AK wrote: I like the way you put it :)
Yes I believe we all have certain pieces of jigsaw puzzle but we like to think we have got the complete puzzle... thus the conflict :)
As for the book (The Grand Design), it can be downloaded from the following link:
http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2010/09/grand-design-stephen-hawking-leonard.html
SI wrote: Thanks for the link.
And yes, we should carry on our discussions. Every debate forces us to think deeper and adds a new dimension to our understanding. Carry on...
Aj posted: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727780.301-mtheory-doubts-linger-over-godless-multiverse.html
SI wrote: Hawking says "God may exist but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator". I have yet to read his book though.
In my opinion, M-theory or any other science does not set out to prove or disprove the the existence of God. It rather attempts to explain nature as best as it can. If the Creator has made a perfect set of laws, a perfectly automated system, then why not? I mean we don't need to invoke God to explain physical phenomena. But, it is up to the individual whether we accept it all happened / evolved on its own, or whether there is a Creator behind it.
http://larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/09/sneak-peek-stephen-hawking/
Aj wrote: Generally, non atheists are asked to prove the existence of God. It is seldom that non atheists ask those atheists who rely heavily on science -- to prove that God does not exist. It is a bit disturbing and sad to see that even after passing of millions of years, science is unable to decide.
Whether the proof can be given (either way) is another matter. But putting the onus in the other direction is also warranted.
Frankly, I didnt expect Hawkings to say God may exist. His saying that may mean two things. First, there is no conflict between religion and science. Second, science may never be able to prove/disprove existence of God.
SI wrote: I think he meant both :)
AK wrote: I honestly think the onus of prove lies with people who believe in (unseen) God. Let me explain you with an example... if I claim today that I've got supernatural powers and you have to believe me, I have to prove it to you... otherwise you are least bothered about my claims. You dont need to disprove me, unless it has any impact on your life. You might leave me to believe whatever I want to believe or ask me for evidence. It's that simple :)
Aj wrote: no, its not that simple.
who is claiming to have supernatural power here?
its relative.
those who believe in god, for them its normal to see nature as a product of god. And anyone claiming that universe is being maintained without a CPU is claiming something 'supernatural'. so let him prove....
AK wrote: Logically speaking... your argument that nature is the product of God and everything has to be maintained will put a BIG question mark on God too. That is... who created God and how it is being maintained??? These two aruguments are known as first-cause argument and argument by design.
We like to think that way cuz we have been told this from the childhood, over n over again such that it has been entrinched in our minds. That's why our minds are OK with the explaination that everything is created by God, but no one asks who created God?
By the way, I have absolutely no problem with whether someone believe in God or not as it's not affecting me. But if someone tries to convince me then I have every right to ask him for proof. That's why we had miracles, right???
On the contrary what atheists are doing... they are just telling us that guys your explainations/proofs are not valid from the logical point of view. That's it :)
AK wrote: Let’s imagine we’re sitting together having a relaxed, honest and open discussion about religion. On the table is a huge stack of white index cards and on each index card is one of thousands of different religions, gods, belief systems, along with arguments for believing in that particular religion or god. Maybe a card has a current religion, or maybe it has a older religion that no one believes in any more, or is largely forgotten. It doesn’t matter – the point is that they’re all here in this great big stack, except for the ones that you believe in – you religion’s not in this stack.
One at a time, I draw up a card and I read you the religion and god and arguments for why you should believe in it and you respond with the reasons you dismiss the arguments and why you don’t believe the religion or god, and I’ll write the responses down.
So we go through every argument ever made for every other religion, their gods, supposed holy books, witnesses, miracles, profits, saviors, prophecies, testimonies, answered prayers, faith claims, affects for good, archeological support; whatever the argument, we go through it. We note all your counter arguments and dismissals on the back on each card.
It won’t take long before we realize that there is a pattern. Your argument for dismissing one religion will likely be similar to a previous answer. We won’t need to write anything down any more – we can just refer back to a previous argument.
Once we get to the bottom of the stack, I take another card out of my pocket. This card has your religion and god on them, and all the arguments that you think support them. We go through that card and they are refuted referring back to arguments you made before, just as we did with all the previous cards.
The fact is that you’re an atheist in regards to thousands of other religions and gods. You already know everything there is to know about dismissing religious arguments. You’re an expert already. You rationally dismiss thousands of other religions or gods just like any atheist does. The difference is you don’t turn that critical side of your mind to your own beliefs.
This realization is all anyone needs to know to recognize their faith doesn’t stand up any more. It’s just question of how honest you can be with yourself.
This is pretty much sumed up in a quote by Stephen Roberts:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
SI wrote: Let's do it. Perhaps that is what we need...
And, why I believe:
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2009/06/reading-scientific-and-mathematical.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2009/06/can-any-of-holy-scriptures-be-totally.html
Stoning to death
Question: Samiya, I beg to differ. The Quran (as well as the Bible) both prescribe STONING TO DEATH as a solution to certain undesirable behaviors. Just follow the links in that article that SHOW you the places in the Quran that prescribe this.
The question is not that scriptures prescribe barbaric behavior, but why do some cultures FOLLOW these barbaric behaviors and others don't. Jews and Christians have scripture support for stoning people to death but we don't hear of them do that any more. Why then do the Muslims still embrace this. And I will add that as this article pointed out we don't hear much or any from Muslims AGAINST this behavior. If there was a public uproar against this type of behavior in the MUSLIM community then I would see a movement toward change, but there is none that I have ever heard of.
My question is WHY? And why, Samiya, do you stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that the Quran supports this behavior?
Answer: Quran DOES NOT prescribe stoning to death. All the sources quoted are from hadith compilation according to Bukhari. Hadith are historical compilation of oral traditions and stories and are subject to many human limitations. Records in it may be wrong or may be right, each has to be evaluated and cross-checked with the Quran.
Unfortunately, some people still think it is divine law. The reasons are:
-Lack of knowledge of the Quran
-Belief in Hadith books as divine source of guidance
-Illiteracy
-Feudal mindset
There was an era when muslims were highly educated and progressive and Islamic countries were the centre of learning. During those times, much of Europe was in its infamous Dark Ages and many terrible things were done in the name of religion. For various reasons, free thinking and enquiry came to a halt in Muslim countries, and along with sciences and other disciplines, religion also suffered and the door to development of fiqh and sharia work (interpretation of religious edicts to formulate laws consistent with divine guidance and the needs of the time) was also closed.
You, on the outside, find such things reprehensive. Imagine how difficult it is for a muslim to believe in such things and maintain faith. The religion of Islam has suffered much at the hands of those who have misrepresented religion and prevented people from studying and understanding the original texts and taking guidance from it.
As we muslim nations progress and develop our people, it is hoped that more open thought and objectivity will replace the old mindset and thus such practices will be eradited.
What is perhaps central to interfaith discussion is that we evaluate each religion for its merit/demerit based upon its core beliefs and book, rather than take the practices of certain groups and label that as the real religion.
My earlier response to a video posted:
Quran does not prescribe STONING TO DEATH though certain groups do think its a divine law, based upon other books.
I do not believe in those books, and the scholars I know also DO NOT BELIEVE it to be a divine law nor do they think that the Prophet would have ordered it.
The reason I do not believe it: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/which-hadith-should-we-follow.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/sects-in-islam.html
I had answered the issue of punishment for adultery earlier. The following are the links
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2009/06/shariah-law-and-flogging-as-form-of.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2010/09/punishment-for-adultery-according-to.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/theft-and-adultery.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-equal-comments-on.html
You may also find this of some interest: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2010/05/status-of-women-in-islam.html
The question is not that scriptures prescribe barbaric behavior, but why do some cultures FOLLOW these barbaric behaviors and others don't. Jews and Christians have scripture support for stoning people to death but we don't hear of them do that any more. Why then do the Muslims still embrace this. And I will add that as this article pointed out we don't hear much or any from Muslims AGAINST this behavior. If there was a public uproar against this type of behavior in the MUSLIM community then I would see a movement toward change, but there is none that I have ever heard of.
My question is WHY? And why, Samiya, do you stick your head in the sand and ignore the fact that the Quran supports this behavior?
Answer: Quran DOES NOT prescribe stoning to death. All the sources quoted are from hadith compilation according to Bukhari. Hadith are historical compilation of oral traditions and stories and are subject to many human limitations. Records in it may be wrong or may be right, each has to be evaluated and cross-checked with the Quran.
Unfortunately, some people still think it is divine law. The reasons are:
-Lack of knowledge of the Quran
-Belief in Hadith books as divine source of guidance
-Illiteracy
-Feudal mindset
There was an era when muslims were highly educated and progressive and Islamic countries were the centre of learning. During those times, much of Europe was in its infamous Dark Ages and many terrible things were done in the name of religion. For various reasons, free thinking and enquiry came to a halt in Muslim countries, and along with sciences and other disciplines, religion also suffered and the door to development of fiqh and sharia work (interpretation of religious edicts to formulate laws consistent with divine guidance and the needs of the time) was also closed.
You, on the outside, find such things reprehensive. Imagine how difficult it is for a muslim to believe in such things and maintain faith. The religion of Islam has suffered much at the hands of those who have misrepresented religion and prevented people from studying and understanding the original texts and taking guidance from it.
As we muslim nations progress and develop our people, it is hoped that more open thought and objectivity will replace the old mindset and thus such practices will be eradited.
What is perhaps central to interfaith discussion is that we evaluate each religion for its merit/demerit based upon its core beliefs and book, rather than take the practices of certain groups and label that as the real religion.
My earlier response to a video posted:
Quran does not prescribe STONING TO DEATH though certain groups do think its a divine law, based upon other books.
I do not believe in those books, and the scholars I know also DO NOT BELIEVE it to be a divine law nor do they think that the Prophet would have ordered it.
The reason I do not believe it: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/which-hadith-should-we-follow.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/sects-in-islam.html
I had answered the issue of punishment for adultery earlier. The following are the links
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2009/06/shariah-law-and-flogging-as-form-of.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2010/09/punishment-for-adultery-according-to.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/theft-and-adultery.html
http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-equal-comments-on.html
You may also find this of some interest: http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2010/05/status-of-women-in-islam.html
Polygamy
Question: There is one thing I find curious though moslems are allowed more then one wife. A Saudi can have four provided he can care for them. Just thinking to myself though isn't one plenty. Perhaps the discussion to turn to the possibility of an undercurrent of masochism in Islam.
Answer: As I understand from the Quran, conditional polygamy is allowed:
In Surah Nisaa, ayaat 2 & 3 read as follows(Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation)
"To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. "
The point to be noted here is that the permission for marriage is for the purpose of taking care of orphans.
As I understand it is:
1. We are ordered to take care of orphans.
2. If we are unable to take care of orphans, marriage is permitted (as one aalim explained, to the widowed mother* of those orphans), or may be extended broadly to include, to any woman with the purpose of help in taking care of those orphans.
3. And if marriage is not possible, use the help of your servants/staff/slaves to take care of the orphans.
May Allah guide us all.
* Also see Holy Quran 4:127 They ask thy instruction concerning the women say: Allah doth instruct you about them: And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans. There is not a good deed which ye do, but Allah is well-acquainted therewith.
Yet, the general understanding seems to be that even though polygamy is not recommended, it is not prohibited either. Nevertheless, they all agree that sex is only allowed within the bounds of marriage and a man must take full responsibility to provide for and care for his family.
Answer: As I understand from the Quran, conditional polygamy is allowed:
In Surah Nisaa, ayaat 2 & 3 read as follows(Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation)
"To orphans restore their property (When they reach their age), nor substitute (your) worthless things for (their) good ones; and devour not their substance (by mixing it up) with your own. For this is indeed a great sin.
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. "
The point to be noted here is that the permission for marriage is for the purpose of taking care of orphans.
As I understand it is:
1. We are ordered to take care of orphans.
2. If we are unable to take care of orphans, marriage is permitted (as one aalim explained, to the widowed mother* of those orphans), or may be extended broadly to include, to any woman with the purpose of help in taking care of those orphans.
3. And if marriage is not possible, use the help of your servants/staff/slaves to take care of the orphans.
May Allah guide us all.
* Also see Holy Quran 4:127 They ask thy instruction concerning the women say: Allah doth instruct you about them: And (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye desire to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans. There is not a good deed which ye do, but Allah is well-acquainted therewith.
Yet, the general understanding seems to be that even though polygamy is not recommended, it is not prohibited either. Nevertheless, they all agree that sex is only allowed within the bounds of marriage and a man must take full responsibility to provide for and care for his family.
Hadith
Question:If my recall is correct, there are over 40 volumes of hadith. how does one know which are inspired and which are not?
Answer: Difficult, if not impossible, indeed. Even the Sahih Hadith collection (that which scholars narrow down as the only reliable ones) contain contradictions.
The best thing to do is perhaps check it with the Quran, if it is consistent with the message, then its probably reliable.
I don't know... scholars do attach a lot of importance to it, as they say that it is compulsory to obey the Prophet. My position is that the Prophet brought the Quran and asked us to follow it. Why not concentrate on that? The breadth and scope of the Quran is quite extensive, and every re-read adds to understanding. Besides, if we can just folllow the edicts in it, won't we be following the Prophet as he was the ideal and exemplary follower of the Quran?
The Prophet Muhammad has been directed in the Quran to follow the 'hadith' of Prophet Abraham. There was no written record of that. I understand that the concept is to follow the essence of their purity of faith, worshipping solely the only God, and submitting willingly and completely. The Quran contains many broad guidelines and just following them would make anyone an ideal human being.
Moreover, we have been directed to not to try and make religion difficult. There are examples of the Bani Israel (Jews) in the Quran where they asked so many unneccessary questions that they made practice of their religion more and more difficult for themselves. If my religion is good and easy and based upon common sense and a healthy conscience, why complicate it? After all, religion is for all human beings in all sorts of situations all over the globe, not just for a privileged few.
May Allah guide me and correct me where I may be wrong,
Answer: Difficult, if not impossible, indeed. Even the Sahih Hadith collection (that which scholars narrow down as the only reliable ones) contain contradictions.
The best thing to do is perhaps check it with the Quran, if it is consistent with the message, then its probably reliable.
I don't know... scholars do attach a lot of importance to it, as they say that it is compulsory to obey the Prophet. My position is that the Prophet brought the Quran and asked us to follow it. Why not concentrate on that? The breadth and scope of the Quran is quite extensive, and every re-read adds to understanding. Besides, if we can just folllow the edicts in it, won't we be following the Prophet as he was the ideal and exemplary follower of the Quran?
The Prophet Muhammad has been directed in the Quran to follow the 'hadith' of Prophet Abraham. There was no written record of that. I understand that the concept is to follow the essence of their purity of faith, worshipping solely the only God, and submitting willingly and completely. The Quran contains many broad guidelines and just following them would make anyone an ideal human being.
Moreover, we have been directed to not to try and make religion difficult. There are examples of the Bani Israel (Jews) in the Quran where they asked so many unneccessary questions that they made practice of their religion more and more difficult for themselves. If my religion is good and easy and based upon common sense and a healthy conscience, why complicate it? After all, religion is for all human beings in all sorts of situations all over the globe, not just for a privileged few.
May Allah guide me and correct me where I may be wrong,
Friday, September 3, 2010
Actions speak louder than words
To my reply to Punishment for Adultery according to Quran, some one commented: "We dont need to listen to what moslems are saying because what they are doing speaks louder."
Answer: The only thing sure about life is that we'll meet death someday_ can we afford the luxury of just writing off religion on the basis of what others are doing or saying??
We all have 24 hours each day and we can either spend it criticizing others, and dismissing them, or use the time seeking knowledge and going to the source of all scriptures to discover the truth for ourselves.
I'm a born muslim, and I grew up in a society with many plusses and minusses. Religion and culture, poverty and charity, pride and humility, fanaticism and liberalism, and many other contradictory practices. I am glad that I was introduced to the Quran early on and could see that many practices were rooted more in culture than in religion, and somehow, the two were so inter-twined that many people were unaware of what was what, and social expediency also adding a further twist to it.
Another thing that bothered me was that I knew very little about other religions. Hence I started exploring what other religions were really all about. I'm glad that I discovered Study Circle and grateful to all those who shared their perspective of their religion and helped me think from different angles and understand better.
Reading the original texts of different religions has led me to believe that all stem from the same source, all have gems of wisdom, and all have been used as tools by certain people to oppress and exploit others. Thus, I do not base my beliefs on the practices of others. My beliefs are based upon what I honestly and sincerely consider to be the truth, based upon whatever little research that I'm able to do, and I pray that I be guided to truth. Amen.
Answer: The only thing sure about life is that we'll meet death someday_ can we afford the luxury of just writing off religion on the basis of what others are doing or saying??
We all have 24 hours each day and we can either spend it criticizing others, and dismissing them, or use the time seeking knowledge and going to the source of all scriptures to discover the truth for ourselves.
I'm a born muslim, and I grew up in a society with many plusses and minusses. Religion and culture, poverty and charity, pride and humility, fanaticism and liberalism, and many other contradictory practices. I am glad that I was introduced to the Quran early on and could see that many practices were rooted more in culture than in religion, and somehow, the two were so inter-twined that many people were unaware of what was what, and social expediency also adding a further twist to it.
Another thing that bothered me was that I knew very little about other religions. Hence I started exploring what other religions were really all about. I'm glad that I discovered Study Circle and grateful to all those who shared their perspective of their religion and helped me think from different angles and understand better.
Reading the original texts of different religions has led me to believe that all stem from the same source, all have gems of wisdom, and all have been used as tools by certain people to oppress and exploit others. Thus, I do not base my beliefs on the practices of others. My beliefs are based upon what I honestly and sincerely consider to be the truth, based upon whatever little research that I'm able to do, and I pray that I be guided to truth. Amen.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Punishment for Adultery according to Quran
Question: Islam is merciful to men when it comes to adultry, but women they will be stoned to death like old jewish law, havent they heard it takes two to tangle?
Answer: Society is merciful to men as society is largely controlled by men, and laws and rules are bent to favour them. A study of all cultures, be they of whatever religion, throughout history, shows that humans tend to exploit all others whom they can dominate, sadly women being the weaker sex, also thus suffer.
According to the Quran, there is no death sentence for adultery. As for flogging, my understanding from the Quran (see below) is that Allah has indeed made it extremely difficult for anybody to accuse anybody else for adultery. To even admit the case in court you need atleast 4 witnesses, how is it possible to get 4 witnesses for such a thing? Then again, if the accusation is found to be false, the accuser is to be flogged with eighty stripes, and never again is his testimony to be accepted throughout his life! And if a person accuses his/her spouse of adultery, he/she is required to take oath 4 times that the accusation is true, and a fifth oath that if he/she is lying, may the wrath of Allah fall upon him/her.
Given the above conditions, it is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible to launch such accusations. Also, I don’t see how except the openly promiscuous would suffer such a fate, and then again, after one or two such punishments, how many would be left in society who would dare do such a thing, especially openly?
Surah Noor ayat 1-10
1 A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in it have We sent down Clear Signs, in order that ye may receive admonition.
2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
3 Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.
4 And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-
5 Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
6 And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;
7 And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.
8 But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;
9 And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.
10 If it were not for Allah.s grace and mercy on you, and that Allah is Oft- Returning, full of Wisdom,- (Ye would be ruined indeed).
http://searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=24&translator=2
Answer: Society is merciful to men as society is largely controlled by men, and laws and rules are bent to favour them. A study of all cultures, be they of whatever religion, throughout history, shows that humans tend to exploit all others whom they can dominate, sadly women being the weaker sex, also thus suffer.
According to the Quran, there is no death sentence for adultery. As for flogging, my understanding from the Quran (see below) is that Allah has indeed made it extremely difficult for anybody to accuse anybody else for adultery. To even admit the case in court you need atleast 4 witnesses, how is it possible to get 4 witnesses for such a thing? Then again, if the accusation is found to be false, the accuser is to be flogged with eighty stripes, and never again is his testimony to be accepted throughout his life! And if a person accuses his/her spouse of adultery, he/she is required to take oath 4 times that the accusation is true, and a fifth oath that if he/she is lying, may the wrath of Allah fall upon him/her.
Given the above conditions, it is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible to launch such accusations. Also, I don’t see how except the openly promiscuous would suffer such a fate, and then again, after one or two such punishments, how many would be left in society who would dare do such a thing, especially openly?
Surah Noor ayat 1-10
1 A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in it have We sent down Clear Signs, in order that ye may receive admonition.
2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
3 Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.
4 And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-
5 Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
6 And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;
7 And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.
8 But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;
9 And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.
10 If it were not for Allah.s grace and mercy on you, and that Allah is Oft- Returning, full of Wisdom,- (Ye would be ruined indeed).
http://searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=24&translator=2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
