Do you believe that post Mullah Iran will revert to Zoroastrianism?
Home | 
Do you believe that post Mullah Iran will revert to Zoroastrianism?
Andak jaan (dear),Originally Posted by andak01
This argument is absurd because:
1. We are questioning the act of stoning, not the conditions that allow it. It doesn't matter whether it requires 50 witnesses. How can anyone accept taking the life of living being by shoving them into the ground and stoning them.
2. Stoning was not a rare practice and some people try hard to make us believe. It was ordered by Mohammed on several occasions and it's all well mentioned in the hadiths.
3. It's not difficult to get four witnesses to testify on adultery. It's so easy, if four neighbours see a married woman going into a room with another man and the medical examination verifies the sexual intercourse occurred, why do you think it's so difficult to prove the case?
Going round and round the main point here doesn't make the act justifiable.
I don't think people would want another religious government again, and they may well drop religion altogether as already happening.
Zoroastrianism is not an easy religion to adopt if you're not born into it.
I understand. I did not imply that there should be a Zoroastrian based theocracy, but I would imagine that there would be a "spiritual" vacuum of sorts. If Zoroastrianism is tough to adopt, I would think that for many people so would atheism, speaking as an atheist.
Israel isn't ran by Rabbis, if that's what you meant. It's ran by corrupted, greedy sons of prostitutes with no conscience or morals, at the head of which stands one spineless maggot.
But hey! They're not burning me at a stake, nor they do it to Muslims, Christians, Charkess and others who live here. But you know what? I'd probably be by far more discriminated, if not skinned alive, in almost any Muslim dominated country.
I love the spineless maggot bit
People accept dropping bombs on civilians, torture, assassination, etc.-if it protects their way of life. People in my own family justify the vaporizing of 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima. They accept that was justice. I'm not sure I don't as well.
If what you really want to do away with is the death penalty, that's a consistent stance that I can appreciate, but stoning is simply a method of death penalty, and not even the most painful ever practiced.
It was ordered in the Old Testament. It's part of the laws discussed in Sanhedrin. If there was a theocracy run by rabbis, we could have stoning today.2. Stoning was not a rare practice and some people try hard to make us believe. It was ordered by Mohammed on several occasions and it's all well mentioned in the hadiths.
Because that's not what Sharia requires. In the case of adultry, they must witness insertion, not just that the woman goes in the same room. If the strictness of adhering to witnesses is stressed enough, the practice itself is effectively abolished. But I've seen quite the opposite happening, particularly in Iran.3. It's not difficult to get four witnesses to testify on adultery. It's so easy, if four neighbours see a married woman going into a room with another man and the medical examination verifies the sexual intercourse occurred, why do you think it's so difficult to prove the case?
If the point is it's Islam so it's bad, I'm getting that, you've said as much. I'm not getting that the death penalty is bad or that theocracies are bad. If I did, I'd be more supportive and less defensive.Going round and round the main point here doesn't make the act justifiable.
No, we wouldn't.
"It is cheap to attack Israel. I am certainly not going to make a cheap attack on Israel by howling in the woods with the rest of the wolves." - Geert Wilders
I would agree, it would be immensely uncomfortable, but Jewish law has evolved substantially in two thousand years. You see Andak, Judaism has no prohibition in the department of religious "innovation", something precluded outright in Sunni Islam.
It isn't outright precluded. For example, a few years ago in Casablanca, the ullemah met to make a fatwa about cloning. It was decided then that cloning is permissible except for human cloning, a decision that mirrors secular ethical decisions on the same subject.
In the meantime, Egypt today seemingly outlawed female genital mutilation.
So you are saying Bid'ah is allowed in Sunni Islam?
Bid'ah is an addition to religious duties. For example, if I pray six times one day, it might not be bid'ah. But if I begin a group to pray an extra time each day, I've done a bid'ah. Establishing a new religious practice is not allowed.
Cloning is not a religious practice, the term bid'ah doesn't apply. That's one of many examples. There is really a lot of flexibility for how to handle things where religion isn't directly involved. But a scholar or scholars make make fatwas concerning issues where people have questions and wish to be correct in their actions.
An example of these flexible issues came up in conversation the other day. A friend of mine eats only Halal meat. I say Bismillah and eat restaurant food or food from the grocery store, with a preference for Kosher. Neither practice is directly in conflict with what the Quran says. However his personal choice didn't change, even after we looked it up. We each took a literal interpretation of the Quran and even though the result is quite different, there are scholars that favor each position.
My point is, a literal interpretation allows a lot of latitude. Look at western law! Don't lawyers and judges employ literal interpretations of the law? Yet they can come to opposing conclusions.
Per all the Sunni schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) or just yours, and if I may ask which is yours?
To be fair, you just said human cloning is not allowed, so is it everything that is not connected to the person that can in principle be "innovated".Cloning is not a religious practice, the term bid'ah doesn't apply.
And indeed what if two or more Fatwas are contradictory.That's one of many examples. There is really a lot of flexibility for how to handle things where religion isn't directly involved. But a scholar or scholars make make fatwas concerning issues where people have questions and wish to be correct in their actions.
But doesn't this only work in Western countries, if you live in Egypt aren't you going to be relegated to follow the communal standard, halal?An example of these flexible issues came up in conversation the other day. A friend of mine eats only Halal meat. I say Bismillah and eat restaurant food or food from the grocery store, with a preference for Kosher. Neither practice is directly in conflict with what the Quran says. However his personal choice didn't change, even after we looked it up. We each took a literal interpretation of the Quran and even though the result is quite different, there are scholars that favor each position.
I dont think this is a fair comparison at all. Western law, whether statute law or common law is radically different than say Jewish law, I would think the same with Islamic law. It has different things to prove and the arbiter is always the state not a religious tradition. I've had many many conversations with various Sunni Muslims, the most recently my Egyptian cab driver (who somehow speaks Hebrew and is employed by Israelis here in NY), related to me that one of the fundamental problems with my religion is that it has corrupted itself through time, by this process of innovation, b'idah as he explained it.My point is, a literal interpretation allows a lot of latitude. Look at western law! Don't lawyers and judges employ literal interpretations of the law? Yet they can come to opposing conclusions.
He further informed me that the Shia are even worse in this regard, in his opinion he said it was not Islam at all. So I do appreciate your time explaining it from your perspective but it would also be appreciated if you would describe the whole spectrum (4 schools + Shia) of belief on the subject if you know it.
Apropos.
Last edited by bararallu; 06-29-2007 at 06:41 PM.
I haven't adopted a medhab. Medhabs are generally divided upon geographic lines based on where the founding Sheikh of each medhab taught. Since none of those Sheikhs taught in America, there is no commonly agreed upon medhab here. If I were to adopt one, Maliki would be convenient, since that is the medhab of my Moroccan in-laws. The differences between medhabs are pretty minor. People from different medhabs worship at the same mosques all the time and there isn't such a think as a Maliki mosque or a Hanbali mosque.
The Ullemah (scholars) got together and brought up precidents they thought were relative, compared them to the Quran and Sunna and came to a decision. That holds more weight than a fatwa by an individual, but it still isn't as if it were written in stone. Some future groups could meet and make another decision. All they did was add to the written precidents regarding the subject (I suppose from zero in this case), so future Muslims wanting to know how Islam stands on cloning can refer to it.To be fair, you just said human cloning is not allowed, so is it everything that is not connected to the person that can in principle be "innovated".
I imagine it happens a lot. After all fatwas are created by humans. We don't hold scholars to be infallable like the Pope.And indeed what if two or more Fatwas are contradictory.
In Egypt as here it would be personal choice. It isn't much of an issue there since 99% of the food is already halal.But doesn't this only work in Western countries, if you live in Egypt aren't you going to be relegated to follow the communal standard, halal?
From the standpoint of its ultimate rulings, it's very different, but from the standpoint of how learned people dispute and create precidents based on past legislation and writings, it's only different in that its ultimate source is scripture and not several steps removed from scripture like English Common law.I dont think this is a fair comparison at all. Western law, whether statute law or common law is radically different than say Jewish law, I would think the same with Islamic law.
How can he apply a concept from his own religion to yours and expect that you wouldn't be offended? That's just silly.It has different things to prove and the arbiter is always the state not a religious tradition. I've had many many conversations with various Sunni Muslims, the most recently my Egyptian cab driver (who somehow speaks Hebrew and is employed by Israelis here in NY), related to me that one of the fundamental problems with my religion is that it has corrupted itself through time, by this process of innovation, b'idah as he explained it.
I refuse to speak on the subject of Shiism to any degree of detail. I haven't studied it in depth and I might make a mistake. I keep making plans to visit a Shiite mosque during and after prayer time and speak to the imam about their Sunna, etc., but I haven't yet. My opinion is if a person says Shahada and their intention is to worship one God, they are Muslims. Muslim are not, they can still commit sins.He further informed me that the Shia are even worse in this regard, in his opinion he said it was not Islam at all. So I do appreciate your time explaining it from your perspective but it would also be appreciated if you would describe the whole spectrum (4 schools + Shia) of belief on the subject if you know it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks