Taliban Hangs Four Bodies In Public Square in Western Afghanistan

[Cow Poke]

Up until the 19th cent. Arab historians regarded the Crusades as merely a minor irritant and was celebrated as a victory. The Crusades (which I should add was defensive in nature) were viewed as being nothing more than yet one more barbarian incursion and certainly not nearly as serious a threat as the Mongols were to prove in the 13^th and 14^th centuries. IOW, Muslims didn’t regard the Crusades as something separate and distinctive, nor did they single out the Crusades from a long series of infidel enemies whom from time to time they fought.,

But then many Western historians began to extoll the Crusades as being Europe’s first colonial venture, and by the 20^th century, when Imperialism was discredited in the West and hated in the countries that were former colonies, so too were the Crusades.

We still sing Onward Christian Soldiers at our Church - a lot of the liberals banned it for being too militant.

[siam]

It is Islamic, Siam. Such laws originated in the Old Testament which all Abrahamic Faiths took from.
Islam is Abrahamic in origins..... yes?

As you say, people are focusing upon Islamic law in Islamic countries...... now. And that certainly includes Muslims.
Yes...... When I was a kid my country's legislation outlawed/criminalised homosexuality......
Yes..... Most if not all of Islamic law originated in the Old Testament of the bible. Islam is an Abrahamic Faith, is it not?

Let me show you.........

....... to demonstrate this, the text which you included is all about Islamic law.

Siam, I'm not interested so much in debating the finest origins, so please let me repeat the really important part of my post:-...............

Just don't go to these countries unless prepared to follow their laws to the letter. Where UK Nationals are contracted to work in these countries, special isolated encampments are established where foreign nationals stay and can follow their own laws. But outside.......... don't bust the laws!

Abrahamic origin---The Islamic /Quranic concept is that Islam is "Adamic"---in that, it (message) has been around since the beginning of humanity and all of humanity throughout time have received this message.
Unlike Christianity, where the OT is part of sacred literature---the Quran stands independent of OT and NT.---though it pays respect to these and other sacred literatures as the same "Adamic" message of Tawheed that has always been given to humanity throughout time.

Sharia---is too encompassing---the part of Sharia that deals with religious rituals, devotional practices, rules...and other everyday aspects...comes from the Quran and the practices of the Prophet and his community. The judicial/jurisprudence aspect of it (Figh) comes from a methodology that uses several tools to arrive at "law".

Yes u are right that people should follow the laws....But my personal opinion is that we, Muslims, should strive towards justice and not oppression---therefore, speaking out against injustice when possible is a good thing..... The Quran is strongly against oppression, therefore, even if a state or group claim an unjust/oppressive law as "Islamic"...there is a degree of responsibility on every Muslim to speak against it where possible? how can society improve otherwise?
It is also my opinion that laws do not need to be harsh and retributive in order to accomplish justice....it is better for society and humanity when justice is balanced with a degree of compassion and mercy. (restorative justice).
.....and perhaps, ...maybe even more important in countries that have gone through trauma such as war...etc....?.....

[siam]

The qu'ran describes homosexuality as a sin but does not proscribe any specific punishment. Surat Al-'A`rāf (7:80-81):

And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?

Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."

That was the Shih International translations. Others are more blunt

“And (remember) Lut (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn)? Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)’”

There is also Surat Ash-Shu`arā' (26:165-6)

"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males and leave those (women) whom Allah has created for you to be your wives? Without any doubt, you are a people who have transgressed (the limits imposed by Allah).

There are a number of similar passages.

We find the punishment, the death penalty, in the Hadiths which were written centuries before colonialism.

For example, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and Ibn Maajah all narrated that Ibn 'Abbaas said:

"The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”"

The Hadiths Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi also state that

"If a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers; If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both adulteresses."

Adulterers are typically stoned to death.

And in al-Tirmidhi you'll find the declaration from Muhammad himself that

There is nothing I fear more for my Ummah [the Muslim community globally] than the deed of the people of the Prophet Lot (pbuh) [i.e., Homosexuality].’’

Different methods of execution were used, including stoning, throwing the person of a minaret (favored in Iran today) and in Afghanistan in the 1990s, the Taliban would be place the victim in a pit and then topple a large stone wall on top of him. I'm sure the Taliban of Afghanistan adopted that from the brits

The fact is, as I noted, that Islam has prescribed the death penalty (and some other punishments like flogging) for homosexuals and lesbians all on their own and many centuries before Colonialism or even the Crusades.

There is more research being done in how (pre-modern) Fiqh was actually implemented and practiced in the courts....and so far, the evidence says that harsh punishments were extremely rare/almost non-existent in its long history.

Also---as I mentioned, the Fiqh requirement for conviction was impossible to meet---the principle that one had to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt---was set to a very high standard.

Stoning for adultery (or other) is not from the Quran. ---In the case of heterosexual adultery, the standard of "reasonable doubt" is set very high in Quran (4 witnesses to the actual act)---and bearing false witness is punished.

While the Quran does suggest punishment (lashing) for heterosexual adultery---it has no suggested punishment for homosexuality. That is why the Fiqh uses the criteria of adultery (4 witnesses) for Sodomy.
(IMO, the purpose of such laws was as a deterrent rather than enforcement---and pertained to "public indecency"....as I mentioned, privacy was a right in those times----(so...some actions were for God to judge---not for humans to judge))

[eider]

Nope.

Nobody suggested any such thing - this is part of your weird logic.

It is not obedience to the harsh laws I'm contesting - it's the psychotic need of the Taliban to control the people through brutality, fear and intimidation.
You have weird logic.

If you didn't question the common sense of 'obey the laws of lands which you live in' in connection with Afghanistan (or any other Islamic Country) then how come you posted so many objections to my posts, because that's mostly what I have written about.

I haven't commented upon the Taliban's ..... I've simply pointed out that US persons working or being there will do well to keep those laws.

And you haven't offered any ideas at all about what you would do about them..... and if you do, please include the other scores of countries which run under kinds of Islamic law.

[eider]

More of your really weird logic?

This your answer to my question:-
So what do you suggest about, say, Afghanistan?

Yes, Islam is evil. Especially carried to its extreme.

So you think Islam is 'evil'. What a surprise!
Western Armies have fought alongside Muslim comrades in so many wars, including armies with Christians in them. And yet here it is, you want to tell that 'Islam is evil'. So it wouldn't be a good idea for you to be any kind of diplomat to any Muslim countries.

Yes, the Students of Islam (The Taliban) now running Afghanistan are a pretty fiery and extremist bunch, just another land run by extremists. Is the Russian Leader evil? Chinese leaders? All communist Governments? Saudi? Iran? UAE? ....... and on?

So what do you want the USA to do about Afghanistan??? !!
How many Afghans who flee will you take in?

Nothing weird in this post......

[eider]

Perhaps you should look up all of the stories about Western gays being arrested in Muslim countries for homosexuality before spouting ignorance. For instance.

This is about what Western visiting Gays should think about now, because of what happened back then.
You do love your insults, rogue, you just chuck 'em without thinking, imo.

And somehow I don't think you're a homophile, so I won't be taking close notice of what you think about that.

[eider]

If it's not "extreme", then it's not Islam.

And how many Muslims do you know well, or have known well?

Its sort of like saying that a Christian who doesn't get drunk and is not sexually promiscuous is an "extreme Christian" when it's actually among the basic tenants of our religion.

Since Jesus loved his wine, so much so that it worried the Baptist, I don't think you need to make a fuss of folks getting inebriated now and then. Not a huge Tenet really.

Which is to say that any Muslim who persecutes and kills infidels is not extreme but merely orthodox.

That's just not true. Made up. Dishonest.
There are more than a million Muslims in my country and they don't support the persecution or killing of those outside their religions.

[eider]

Up until the 19th cent. Arab historians regarded the Crusades as merely a minor irritant and was celebrated as a victory.

Well it was a victory....... for Islam.

The Crusades (which I should add was defensive in nature) were viewed as being nothing more than yet one more barbarian incursion and certainly not nearly as serious a threat as the Mongols were to prove in the 13^th and 14^th centuries. IOW, Muslims didn’t regard the Crusades as something separate and distinctive, nor did they single out the Crusades from a long series of infidel enemies whom from time to time they fought.,

Correct. Islam just beat the hell out of it's enemies, back then.
And, Yes, the Mongols reached well in to Europe........ quite a terrific migration..... literally.

But then many Western historians began to extoll the Crusades as being Europe’s first colonial venture, and by the 20^th century, when Imperialism was discredited in the West and hated in the countries that were former colonies, so too were the Crusades.

In the 20th century historians scrutinised the Crusades a bit more objectively, and Christianity began to reduce it's glorification of of Crusaders.

[eider]

Abrahamic origin---The Islamic /Quranic concept is that Islam is "Adamic"---in that, it (message) has been around since the beginning of humanity and all of humanity throughout time have received this message.
Unlike Christianity, where the OT is part of sacred literature---the Quran stands independent of OT and NT.---though it pays respect to these and other sacred literatures as the same "Adamic" message of Tawheed that has always been given to humanity throughout time.

Hello again..... :)
Islam has the same routes as Judaism, Christianity and even Bahaism...... call it Abrahamic or Adamic... as you please.

Sharia---is too encompassing---the part of Sharia that deals with religious rituals, devotional practices, rules...and other everyday aspects...comes from the Quran and the practices of the Prophet and his community. The judicial/jurisprudence aspect of it (Figh) comes from a methodology that uses several tools to arrive at "law".

That's the same as with the MOsaic Laws, Siam. Of the 613 laws about 200 wewre all about ceremony, ritual, devotion, etc.

Yes u are right that people should follow the laws....But my personal opinion is that we, Muslims, should strive towards justice and not oppression---therefore, speaking out against injustice when possible is a good thing..... The Quran is strongly against oppression, therefore, even if a state or group claim an unjust/oppressive law as "Islamic"...there is a degree of responsibility on every Muslim to speak against it where possible? how can society improve otherwise?

Yes, we can all speak out against oppression and injustice; as many Western women can tell you over their oppression in certain Western countries.
But talk is cheap. So what to do?

It is also my opinion that laws do not need to be harsh and retributive in order to accomplish justice....it is better for society and humanity when justice is balanced with a degree of compassion and mercy. (restorative justice).
.....and perhaps, ...maybe even more important in countries that have gone through trauma such as war...etc....?.....

By all means. Can you think of a good example of a country that follows your ideas closely?

[eider]

There is more research being done in how (pre-modern) Fiqh was actually implemented and practiced in the courts....and so far, the evidence says that harsh punishments were extremely rare/almost non-existent in its long history.

Also---as I mentioned, the Fiqh requirement for conviction was impossible to meet---the principle that one had to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt---was set to a very high standard.

Stoning for adultery (or other) is not from the Quran. ---In the case of heterosexual adultery, the standard of "reasonable doubt" is set very high in Quran (4 witnesses to the actual act)---and bearing false witness is punished.

While the Quran does suggest punishment (lashing) for heterosexual adultery---it has no suggested punishment for homosexuality. That is why the Fiqh uses the criteria of adultery (4 witnesses) for Sodomy.
(IMO, the purpose of such laws was as a deterrent rather than enforcement---and pertained to "public indecency"....as I mentioned, privacy was a right in those times----(so...some actions were for God to judge---not for humans to judge))

Siam, there are Christians who still believe in the public flogging up to 40 lashes, public executions for various crimes including adultery and homosexuality, and a most oppressive society.
If you need an example the Denver Bible Church's Pastor (Robert Enyart) is a very strong supporter of such a World.

We can find extremists wherever we look.

[Mountain Man]

And how many Muslims do you know well, or have known well?


Since Jesus loved his wine, so much so that it worried the Baptist, I don't think you need to make a fuss of folks getting inebriated now and then. Not a huge Tenet really.


That's just not true. Made up. Dishonest.
There are more than a million Muslims in my country and they don't support the persecution or killing of those outside their religions.

Um... where are you getting this absurd idea that Jesus ever got drunk?

As for any Muslim you know who does not advocate the persecution and killing of infidels, all I can say is that he is not living in accordance with the scriptures of Islam or following the example of its founder.

[rogue06]

There is more research being done in how (pre-modern) Fiqh was actually implemented and practiced in the courts....and so far, the evidence says that harsh punishments were extremely rare/almost non-existent in its long history.

Also---as I mentioned, the Fiqh requirement for conviction was impossible to meet---the principle that one had to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt---was set to a very high standard.

Stoning for adultery (or other) is not from the Quran. ---In the case of heterosexual adultery, the standard of "reasonable doubt" is set very high in Quran (4 witnesses to the actual act)---and bearing false witness is punished.

While the Quran does suggest punishment (lashing) for heterosexual adultery---it has no suggested punishment for homosexuality. That is why the Fiqh uses the criteria of adultery (4 witnesses) for Sodomy.
(IMO, the purpose of such laws was as a deterrent rather than enforcement---and pertained to "public indecency"....as I mentioned, privacy was a right in those times----(so...some actions were for God to judge---not for humans to judge))

I noted that there is no specific punishments proscribed in the qu'ran but also noted it is included in the various Hadiths, which are regarded as sacred texts.

And yes, there has been some efforts by a few modern scholars to reinterpret the passages condemning homosexuality. FWIU, they want to reinterpret them to be prohibitions on only forced homosexuality. Rape. Of course there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the text that supports this new view. It is an obvious example of eisegesis.

But the overall point, that Islam has been condemning and punishing homosexual behavior pretty much since its inception and your claim that it is only a recent thing brought about by colonialism is easily disproved

[rogue06]

This is about what Western visiting Gays should think about now, because of what happened back then.
You do love your insults, rogue, you just chuck 'em without thinking, imo.

And somehow I don't think you're a homophile, so I won't be taking close notice of what you think about that.

You continue to struggle in your confusion. I tend to think you must enjoy doing so.

[rogue06]

Um... where are you getting this absurd idea that Jesus ever got drunk?

It looks like a bizarre reading of Luke since he brings John into it.

Scripture Verse: Luke 7:33-34

For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Since Jesus loved his wine, so much so that it worried the Baptist....

One could say....

That's just not true. Made up. Dishonest.

Some more of your weird logic.