The Bible and Stoning in Adultery

[JaMaaL-23]

If we were to judge on what is written above as willful and intentional, one can easily conclude there are minimum of two GAALs there.

[Twisted_Logic]

No one spoke of how men use these laws, we are talking about he actual laws. What do you think of God's laws?

You can't separate the theory from the actions. No-one is arguing that the laws are immoral, what we are saying is that you can't trust man to implement these laws because people are self-interest driven and will use and abuse the religion to further their own personal ends, this has been the case throughout history and continues to torment the world today and especially of our Somalia. Society will do better off, if it kept politics as far away from the religion. The perversion of the religion serves no useful role and deviates it from its moral purpose.

When someone tells me that they are doing "God'/s work, I have a reason to feel worried," now I don't know about you; but, aniga, am not going to outsource morality to some bearded mullah that believes he is doing the Lord's work.

[Twisted_Logic]

Twisted, what would we do without enlighten people like, and what would we do without America that protects God's rules!

God's laws are too powerful to be trusted to the manipulative and self-interest driven man. The separation of the religion and the State, directly benefits both society and the religion itself

nin waliba intu garto ayuu gooyaa ^^^^kana intuu maqalo ayuu sheekee un

Back to your rear-end attacks, eh? Good boy, this role will suit you well

[Voltage]

You can't separate the theory from the actions. No-one is arguing that the laws are immoral, what we are saying is that you can't trust man to implement these laws because people are self-interest driven and will use and abuse the religion to further their own personal ends, this has been the case throughout history and continues to torment the world today and especially of our Somalia. Society will do better off, if it kept politics as far away from the religion. The perversion of the religion serves no useful role and deviates it from its moral purpose.

Has anyone ever seen a 2 year old trying to be clever and put one over you right under your nose?

I suppose then because freedom of speech is so moral and right and useful we should then separate freedom from speech in the fear one would abuse and pervert it and speak in manner that harms the nobility and morality of the freedom. This perversion of the freedom serves no purpose so we should speak but not have the freedom to speak about what we want.

[sadeboi]

No one spoke of how men use these laws, we are talking about he actual laws. What do you think of God's laws?

You can't separate the theory from the actions. No-one is arguing that the laws are immoral, what we are saying is that you can't trust man to implement these laws because people are self-interest driven and will use and abuse the religion to further their own personal ends, this has been the case throughout history and continues to torment the world today and especially of our Somalia. Society will do better off, if it kept politics as far away from the religion. The perversion of the religion serves no useful role and deviates it from its moral purpose.

When someone tells me that they are doing "God'/s work, I have a reason to feel worried," now I don't know about you; but, aniga, am not going to outsource morality to some bearded mullah that believes he is doing the Lord's work.

What about when God's Laws were implemented under the Prophet and the 4 Khalifs? Are the laws okay then?

[Enemy_Of_Mad_Mullah]

If we were to judge on what is written above as willful and intentional, one can easily conclude there are minimum of two GAALs there.

[Twisted_Logic]

You can't separate the theory from the actions. No-one is arguing that the laws are immoral, what we are saying is that you can't trust man to implement these laws because people are self-interest driven and will use and abuse the religion to further their own personal ends, this has been the case throughout history and continues to torment the world today and especially of our Somalia. Society will do better off, if it kept politics as far away from the religion. The perversion of the religion serves no useful role and deviates it from its moral purpose.

Has anyone ever seen a 2 year old trying to be clever and put one over you right under your nose?

I suppose then because freedom of speech is so moral and right and useful we should then separate freedom from speech in the fear one would abuse and pervert it and speak in manner that harms the nobility and morality of the freedom. This perversion of the freedom serves no purpose so we should speak but not have the freedom to speak about what we want.

Hey kiddo! Delirious announcements don’t make you right, when are you ever gonna learn this point?

It is kind of sad that you have to learn the difference between Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech this late into your life.
So, tell me child, if I enter a mall and claim to have a bomb strapped unto me, will that pass for freedom of expression?

Seriously, do they teach you how to think and reason at U of W?

[Twisted_Logic]

No one spoke of how men use these laws, we are talking about he actual laws. What do you think of God's laws?

You can't separate the theory from the actions. No-one is arguing that the laws are immoral, what we are saying is that you can't trust man to implement these laws because people are self-interest driven and will use and abuse the religion to further their own personal ends, this has been the case throughout history and continues to torment the world today and especially of our Somalia. Society will do better off, if it kept politics as far away from the religion. The perversion of the religion serves no useful role and deviates it from its moral purpose.

When someone tells me that they are doing "God'/s work, I have a reason to feel worried," now I don't know about you; but, aniga, am not going to outsource morality to some bearded mullah that believes he is doing the Lord's work.

What about when God's Laws were implemented under the Prophet and the 4 Khalifs? Are the laws okay then?

Even the Khalif's had internal problems exactly on religious matters and they actually went to war against each other on multiple occasions. This actually enhances my argument rather than defeating it.

[Voltage]

You can't separate the theory from the actions. No-one is arguing that the laws are immoral, what we are saying is that you can't trust man to implement these laws because people are self-interest driven and will use and abuse the religion to further their own personal ends, this has been the case throughout history and continues to torment the world today and especially of our Somalia. Society will do better off, if it kept politics as far away from the religion. The perversion of the religion serves no useful role and deviates it from its moral purpose.

Has anyone ever seen a 2 year old trying to be clever and put one over you right under your nose?

I suppose then because freedom of speech is so moral and right and useful we should then separate freedom from speech in the fear one would abuse and pervert it and speak in manner that harms the nobility and morality of the freedom. This perversion of the freedom serves no purpose so we should speak but not have the freedom to speak about what we want.

Hey kiddo! Delirious announcements don’t make you right, when are you ever gonna learn this point?

It is kind of sad that you have to learn the difference between Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech this late into your life.
So, tell me child, if I enter a mall and claim to have a bomb strapped unto me, will that pass for freedom of expression?

Seriously, do they teach you how to think and reason at U of W?

Do you do this for fun or are you this arrogantly dense all the time? The difference between hate speech and freedom of speech is irrelavant to what I said. And your second comment about the mall and bomb makes my premise--because opportunities arise in which people can misuse freedom of speech, should freedom then be separated from speech?

I walk on the street and call you a bastard. I stand on some corner and call Obama "a lying, thieving communist out to destroy this nation".

Those are perfect examples when I can misuse and hurt the morality and nobility of freedom of speech but can do so perfectly under the law. Because I am able to do that and misuse freedom of speech in that manner, should freedom then be separated from speech?

Look at you trying to be clever with "the religion can be misused so there has to be total separation between state and Islam". If you are a Muslim, you eat a certain way. You marry a certain way. You conduct your relationships a certain way. It decides for you who you can marry and how to marry them. It decides for you how you clean your private parts and in what manner to excrete human waste. It decides for you what you can and cannot eat. Islam is a way of life not a religion like Christianity. By being a Muslim, you are already naturally under a law system.

Because Osama bin Laden can corrupt a passage from the Koran in the same way I can corrupt freedom of speech while still under the law, should you then separate freedom from speech or remove the legislative weight of Islam in the running of the affairs of the people and societies who are already under its governorship individually, societally, and naturally as long as they adhere to the said institution as the faithful?

You sxb are as dense as beetle dung.

[Twisted_Logic]

Voltage,

If the difference between hate speech and Freedom of Speech is irrelevant, than why make the silly “separation of freedom and speech” argument that you constructed earlier? I drew the distinction between freedom of speech and hate speech to show how exceptionally dumb your comparison was.

The principle of dualism is one that works in every case and opportunity and people will manipulate the laws to further their own interest. This is not a point that I am arguing about. My point is simply this:

People will manipulate and misuse the religion as they have done for centuries for personal/political reasons. When they do so, great harm is done to society and the religion is perverted and its name ruined. I then concluded that the marriage between religion and politics serves no useful purpose but to deface the nobility of the religion.

Islam in its current form is too diverse and divisive and Muslims have widely divergent views and theories about the interpretations of the Quran. We see this divergence in interpretations and implementations of the Quran in a highly homogeneous society such as Somalia where our war today is one of religion and each combatant belief’s that he is doing God’s work and will go paradise if killed. As Obama said in the very video that you have posted, if Abraham is claiming that God is telling him to murder his own son, fine, “but how do we know this.?” There is nothing more dangerous and destructive than someone that beliefs that they are doing the Lord’s work; and this is why I don’t want Sharia law in either Somalia or the United States. Religion is a devastating tool of exploitation and manipulation and you just have to study how the Sharia is implemented in Saudi Arabia to see my point. The select few will get rich and stay outside the domain of the laws while the majority is oppressed and this is justified in the name of the religion. Society can do well without this shyt. This says nothing about the Sharia, it says everything about how it is implemented and used. This is a distinction you need to observe instead of making girly statements. Educate yourself, kid. You are still in college and it is not too late.

You are actually quite dense for thinking that there is a stable contradiction-free Muslim/Somali/American Society that can come to a basic agreement on the imposition and implementation of the Sharia.

[sadeboi]

Twisted, please explain democracy and the changes of it, in America from 1700's until now.

[FAH1223]

Voltage,

If the difference between hate speech and Freedom of Speech is irrelevant, than why make the silly “separation of freedom and speech” argument that you constructed earlier? I drew the distinction between freedom of speech and hate speech to show how exceptionally dumb your comparison was.

The principle of dualism is one that works in every case and opportunity and people will manipulate the laws to further their own interest. This is not a point that I am arguing about. My point is simply this:

People will manipulate and misuse the religion as they have done for centuries for personal/political reasons. When they do so, great harm is done to society and the religion is perverted and its name ruined. I then concluded that the marriage between religion and politics serves no useful purpose but to deface the nobility of the religion.

Islam in its current form is too diverse and divisive and Muslims have widely divergent views and theories about the interpretations of the Quran. We see this divergence in interpretations and implementations of the Quran in a highly homogeneous society such as Somalia where our war today is one of religion and each combatant belief’s that he is doing God’s work and will go paradise if killed. As Obama said in the very video that you have posted, if Abraham is claiming that God is telling him to murder his own son, fine, “but how do we know this.?” There is nothing more dangerous and destructive than someone that beliefs that they are doing the Lord’s work; and this is why I don’t want Sharia law in either Somalia or the United States. Religion is a devastating tool of exploitation and manipulation and you just have to study how the Sharia is implemented in Saudi Arabia to see my point. The select few will get rich and stay outside the domain of the laws while the majority is oppressed and this is justified in the name of the religion. Society can do well without this shyt. This says nothing about the Sharia, it says everything about how it is implemented and used. This is a distinction you need to observe instead of making girly statements. Educate yourself, kid. You are still in college and it is not too late.

You are actually quite dense for thinking that there is a stable contradiction-free Muslim/Somali/American Society that can come to a basic agreement on the imposition and implementation of the Sharia.

Without Sharia, you wouldn't know how to pray, what steps to get married and divorced, rights for women and inheritance... and secular law has borrowed elements from the Islamic viewpoints. Which is one of the reasons they have some statue of Nabi SAW (not that I really agree with it or anything) at the Supreme Court

[Enlightened~Sista]

A lot of ppl here don't know all of the things Sharia entails; it's a human endeavour and thus not immune from error.

Also stoning to Death is not to be found in the Qur'an, the most important Muslim Scripture.

[*Nobleman*]

A lot of ppl here don't know all of the things Sharia entails; it's a human endeavour and thus not immune from error.

Also stoning to Death is not to be found in the Qur'an, the most important Muslim Scripture.

Huh I dont know if your serious or not? But if you are please see Lil cuties response from an earlier thread: perfect response imo.

As Muslims following Ahlu Sunnah, we take from two sources; QURAN & SUNNAH.

Anyone who takes the Quran on it's own, is tredding on a wrong path. We must take from the Sunnah aswell.
For example; in the Qur'an it does not say pray 5 times a day, neither does it tell us how to pray. We know how to pray and get allll of that from the beautiful Sunnah of our beloved Messenger Prophet Muhammad sallalahu waaliyhim wassalam. Through his actions, his behaviour we can uphold the laws of Allah. Walhamdulilah. We know the Punishment of Zina, Adultary because the Prophet told us. He made it specific but it also has conditions.

“It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth that He make it prevail over all religion. Even though the Pagans may detest (it).”(61:9)


“Say: “If ye do love Allâh , follow me: Allâh will love you and forgive you your sins: for Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Say: “Obey Allâh and His Messenger”: But if they turn back, Allâh loves not those who reject Faith.” (3:31-32)


“O mankind! The Messenger has come to you in truth from Allâh : believe in him: it is best for you. But if you reject Faith, to Allâh belong all things in the heavens and on earth: and Allâh is All-knowing, All Wise. (4:170)


“O you who believe! Obey Allâh , and obey the Messenger, and make not vain your deeds!”(47:33)


“O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Chastisement? That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allâh , with your wealth and your persons: that will be best for you, if you but knew! (61:10-11)


Likewise, we can not take an ayat from the Qur'an and come to our own conclusion. The Tafsir, and the Hadiths are there to help us. And who are the people of Hadith? (and essentially the ones that lived during the revelation) the Sahaba's who explained the verses..

The Shariah is the Law of Allah. Accept it, if you have a problem with it you have a problem with your religion. How the Qur'an and Sunnah relate to one another and issues of abrogated verses, sunan's are all part of FIQH and USOOL.. But InshaAllah study the principles and foundations of FIQH (Jurisprudence), it's a beautiful subject.

[Advo]

A lot of ppl here don't know all of the things Sharia entails; it's a human endeavour and thus not immune from error.

Also stoning to Death is not to be found in the Qur'an, the most important Muslim Scripture.

Huh I dont know if your serious or not? But if you are please see Lil cuties response from an earlier thread: perfect response imo.

As Muslims following Ahlu Sunnah, we take from two sources; QURAN & SUNNAH.

Anyone who takes the Quran on it's own, is tredding on a wrong path. We must take from the Sunnah aswell.
For example; in the Qur'an it does not say pray 5 times a day, neither does it tell us how to pray. We know how to pray and get allll of that from the beautiful Sunnah of our beloved Messenger Prophet Muhammad sallalahu waaliyhim wassalam. Through his actions, his behaviour we can uphold the laws of Allah. Walhamdulilah. We know the Punishment of Zina, Adultary because the Prophet told us. He made it specific but it also has conditions.

“It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the Religion of Truth that He make it prevail over all religion. Even though the Pagans may detest (it).”(61:9)


“Say: “If ye do love Allâh , follow me: Allâh will love you and forgive you your sins: for Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Say: “Obey Allâh and His Messenger”: But if they turn back, Allâh loves not those who reject Faith.” (3:31-32)


“O mankind! The Messenger has come to you in truth from Allâh : believe in him: it is best for you. But if you reject Faith, to Allâh belong all things in the heavens and on earth: and Allâh is All-knowing, All Wise. (4:170)


“O you who believe! Obey Allâh , and obey the Messenger, and make not vain your deeds!”(47:33)


“O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Chastisement? That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allâh , with your wealth and your persons: that will be best for you, if you but knew! (61:10-11)


Likewise, we can not take an ayat from the Qur'an and come to our own conclusion. The Tafsir, and the Hadiths are there to help us. And who are the people of Hadith? (and essentially the ones that lived during the revelation) the Sahaba's who explained the verses..

The Shariah is the Law of Allah. Accept it, if you have a problem with it you have a problem with your religion. How the Qur'an and Sunnah relate to one another and issues of abrogated verses, sunan's are all part of FIQH and USOOL.. But InshaAllah study the principles and foundations of FIQH (Jurisprudence), it's a beautiful subject.

Case closed.