Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Insaanistan]

*Looks*

They're largely the same picture.

The punishment for sodomy in the 8th century Islamic world was death. In Christendom it was six months to a year of penance (six months for women, a year for men). You don't see a shift towards more extreme punishments until the later middle ages. It didn't become punishable by death in England until the reign of Henry VIII.

You also had to have 4 unbiased people clearly see someone’s d*ck entering another guys *sshole, making it so hard to prove the ruling was seldom enforced.

[Insaanistan]

The problem often seen in Western examinations of early Islam is that’s it’s often through the lens of an understanding of Christianity, its theology, its history etc.
Jesus (pbuh) was not a political leader. Muhammad (pbuh) was both a religious and political leader. In the words of Reverend Bosworth Smith:

He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.

I remember one non-Muslim scholar of Islam who asserted the problem of many non-Muslims reading the Qur’ân is that they fail to fully understand what the book is. Too many take it as “the Muslim Bible”, when in fact, the the New Testament in particular parallels in Islam more closely to the Hadiths rather than the Qur’ân. When we examine the Qur’ân as God talking to Muhammad (S) (or at the very least, Muhammad pbuh believing that is the case), and understanding that this book was revealed over 23 years and not at one on that fateful night in Cave Hira, we see how the verses are contextualized, with orders to fight being revealed just before battles, condemnations of Jews in reality in reference to certain Jewish tribes who had just broken treaties and begun insurrections, as opposed to more general calls to protect houses of worship of all faiths (yes, believe or not, we see scholars throughout the centuries interpreting them as such), that there are righteous people among the Jews and that Christians are among the Closest to Muslims, that those of other Abrahamic faiths and the Sabians (who have been interpreted to be Zoroastrians and Yazidis or Hindus and Buddhists or, get this: people who leave Islam for other religions) can attain heaven.
This can also be seen in the Hadiths: we see the Prophet (S) react differently to different people depending on who they are.

Authentic Hadiths of his hostility to certain Jews as opposed to Authentic Hadiths of how he was close to at of the Jewish community to the point some (including the Rabbi Mukhayriq) opted to fight and die alongside him even when it broke the Sabbath. And orders to kill certain apostates (who when we look deeper, had not only committed apostasy in the religious sense, but had also committed apostasy in what some refer to as “political apostasy”, or in other words, defected to the enemy side or began violent and armed rebellions) are contrasted by people who ask the Prophet (S) himself to be abullones to leave Islam and being permitted to do so.

Another problem we see is the historical generalization of Muslims that continues to this day: there’s the mistaken belief that scholars in Timbuktu in Mali or Kano in Nigeria saw shariā the same way as jurists in Baghdad in Iraq or Istanbul in Anatolia. (For example, Ottoman jurists opted not to have prostitutes and those who had intercourse with them executed on the grounds that is could be argued that a man paying a prostitute was alike enough to a man paying his soon to be wife mehr to the point God would frown upon them for ordering a hudud punishment. Tangier, Morocco wouldn’t have seen any issue with having the “adulterers” put to death).

Islam was sowed by divisions and differences of opinion incredibly early on. At the death of the Prophet (S), the Muslims couldn’t even agree on how leaders should be selected, let alone who should lead. Just a few years after the passing of Muhammad (S), there was already an Ibadi branch of Islam, with the Sunni and Shiā ones soon to form. Of the first Four Caliphs, dubbed “the Rightly Guided Caliphs” by most Muslims, 3 were assassinated. While under them we see the rules outlined by Rasulallah (S) most generally being followed in the purest form, after them, we see the next Caliph, Muāwiyah, abdícate to his son rather than have the next caliph elected (or at the very least, chosen from someone trusted and experienced). That son, Yazid, would end up being behind the murders of Hussayn (son of Āli, the fourth Caliph, and grandson of Muhammad pbuh) and several other relatives of Muhammad (pbuh) and Āli (May Allah be pleased with him). Under the subsequent empire, we see more and more draconian laws towards dhimmis, to the point where the Parsis begin to flee Persia for regions of India outside the reach of the Muslims.

Just a century or two after the death of Muhammad (S), the Muslim world ceased to be under the rule of any single political entity, or even under the same sect. Local interpretations and the whims of the rulers take hold, with some empires drastically changing policies constantly (such as the frequent prohibitions and legalizations of coffee in the Arab World).

[Diarcesia]

Okay, it's fair that sodomy punishments in Christianity more reflect the culture of the place. The New Testament to my knowledge does not prescribe anything specific with regards to that. In England in particular, it paralleled the development of the Muslim world in the sense that they become stricter against such offenses.

I'm not sure why you're quoting Leviticus 20 considering that the way the OT is viewed in Christianity.

The Hebrews punished sodomy with death before Jesus's time. The argument you are trying to make is that the Muslims 'regressed' by punishing sodomy by death. Oh, by the way, the Theodosian Code as of 390 "ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death". Quite the departure from the six months to a year of penance (six months for women, a year for men) and definitely a step back from the more permissive posture on such acts from a legal perspective during the pagans' rule.

Edit:

A lot of the radicalness of it was inspired by Islamic jurisprudence and views because of the renewed threat the Islamic world had become during the 16th and 17th centuries.

You mean the Ottomans?

Especially within Protestantism where there was a lot of diplomatic chatter and positive comparisons between the two.

Positive comparisons? Between the Protestants and the Muslims? Perhaps the former saw fanaticism of the more fanatic Muslims or being "on fire" to spread the correct doctrine as a good thing, in the sense that they will save as many people as possible from damnation.

I read it as "Christianity gets a pass because Islam did it first."

It's like how the Iconoclasm controversy in the Byzantine Empire was inspired by the Islamic conquests. The Islamic world has always been strict de jure.

Because the Byzantines thought God was punishing them for not living the way God ought them to. Like they did a soul-searching and wondered if the Muslims are sent by God as punishment. Matters of theology. And it parallels Genghis Khan's quip that he was "God's punishment to the Muslims".

[Diarcesia]

Authentic Hadiths of his hostility to certain Jews as opposed to Authentic Hadiths of how he was close to at of the Jewish community to the point some (including the Rabbi Mukhayriq) opted to fight and die alongside him even when it broke the Sabbath. And orders to kill certain apostates (who when we look deeper, had not only committed apostasy in the religious sense, but had also committed apostasy in what some refer to as “political apostasy”, or in other words, defected to the enemy side or began violent and armed rebellions) are contrasted by people who ask the Prophet (S) himself to be abullones to leave Islam and being permitted to do so.

And in modern times, the distinction between "religious" and "political" apostasy to a large percentage of Muslims is nonexistent.

[Insaanistan]

Authentic Hadiths of his hostility to certain Jews as opposed to Authentic Hadiths of how he was close to at of the Jewish community to the point some (including the Rabbi Mukhayriq) opted to fight and die alongside him even when it broke the Sabbath. And orders to kill certain apostates (who when we look deeper, had not only committed apostasy in the religious sense, but had also committed apostasy in what some refer to as “political apostasy”, or in other words, defected to the enemy side or began violent and armed rebellions) are contrasted by people who ask the Prophet (S) himself to be abullones to leave Islam and being permitted to do so.

And in modern times, the distinction between "religious" and "political" apostasy to a large percentage of Muslims is nonexistent.

Unfortunately quite true.

[Ansarullah]

The punishment for sodomy in the 8th century Islamic world was death. In Christendom it was six months to a year of penance (six months for women, a year for men). You don't see a shift towards more extreme punishments until the later middle ages. It didn't become punishable by death in England until the reign of Henry VIII.

You also had to have 4 unbiased people clearly see someone’s d*ck entering another guys *sshole, making it so hard to prove the ruling was seldom enforced.

This made me laugh for some reason
edit: will delete if asked since this contributes nothing to the discussion, I just found it funny how upfront you were

[Insaanistan]

You also had to have 4 unbiased people clearly see someone’s d*ck entering another guys *sshole, making it so hard to prove the ruling was seldom enforced.

This made me laugh for some reason
edit: will delete if asked since this contributes nothing to the discussion, I just found it funny how upfront you were

Merci gidan.

[The Black Forrest]

If this is the opinion of Islam then Islam is disgusting. Not even Christianity, well-known for homophobic views, supports murdering them outright.

Leviticus 20:13 & 18:22.

Leviticus also had things like stoning a person for wearing mixed fibers. It's no longer followed.

Reading some of your comments; what was that bit about the religion of peace again?

[Tarsonis]

Leviticus 20:13 & 18:22.

Leviticus also had things like stoning a person for wearing mixed fibers. It's no longer followed.

Reading some of your comments; what was that bit about the religion of peace again?

for the record, the bit about 2 fibers isn't the same type of law as the prohibitions on homosexuality. The death penalty however isn't implemented for anything anymore, in both Judaism and Christianity.

[Santheres]

I mean most people dance around admitting that their views are evil. You come right and say "Yeah I support murdering people."

It's the opinion of most Muslims and all scholars of Islam.

I don't want to offend the LGBTQ+ community fro wanting them dead, but I will offend everyone and say the holocaust didn;t happen despite the evidence"

Are there any Jews here? I don't know of any, so I don't see a reason to shy away from the topic. What I do know is that multiple members of the other community are here and I'd rather not say something I regret.

Either you're an edgy teen, and this is late NSG summer, a troll committed to this facade, or someone who truly believes this.

If it is the third option, I feel sorry for you.

It's the third option. Ask anyone I know, I believe this genuinely.

I am giving you a *** 7-day ban for trolling *** in line with normal escalation. "Wink wink nudge nudge" doesn't save you; neither does genuine belief.

[Tarsonis]

It's the opinion of most Muslims and all scholars of Islam.

Are there any Jews here? I don't know of any, so I don't see a reason to shy away from the topic. What I do know is that multiple members of the other community are here and I'd rather not say something I regret.

It's the third option. Ask anyone I know, I believe this genuinely.

I am giving you a *** 7-day ban for trolling *** in line with normal escalation. "Wink wink nudge nudge" doesn't save you; neither does genuine belief.

Man you're busy today. Hope you get a nice nap sometime soon.

[Tarsonis]

It's kind of terrible that you only avoid saying awful things if you think someone from the targeted group won't see or hear you

I try not to offend. I'm not going to deny my views, I just know the reaction they'll get and thus I avoid talking about the more extreme ones. Except in this circumstance about Jews, and I already regret that.

OT legalism does not apply under the new covenant.

"I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it."
Off topic anyways and I'm not getting into another heated discussion.

When you come back, don't try to interpret Christianity, you're already having enough trouble with your religion without adding piss poor interpretations of another to the mix.

[Diarcesia]

Leviticus also had things like stoning a person for wearing mixed fibers. It's no longer followed.

Reading some of your comments; what was that bit about the religion of peace again?

for the record, the bit about 2 fibers isn't the same type of law as the prohibitions on homosexuality. The death penalty however isn't implemented for anything anymore, in both Judaism and Christianity.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians. And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

[The Black Forrest]

for the record, the bit about 2 fibers isn't the same type of law as the prohibitions on homosexuality. The death penalty however isn't implemented for anything anymore, in both Judaism and Christianity.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians. And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

Sooo? They should be using the death penalty as listed to remain a Jew or Christian?

[Washington Resistance Army]

for the record, the bit about 2 fibers isn't the same type of law as the prohibitions on homosexuality. The death penalty however isn't implemented for anything anymore, in both Judaism and Christianity.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians. And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

Christians can because early church councils established tradition dealing with those laws and how they no longer apply and afaik the reason Jews no longer do it has to do with a lack of qualified personnel or something. Fahran would know more but I vaguely remember it being something like that.

[Diarcesia]

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians. And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

Sooo? They should be using the death penalty as listed to remain a Jew or Christian?

I'm saying that Abrahamics can believe their religion without resorting to killing gays. I'm baffled at what Tars is trying to point out.

[Immortan Khan]

for the record, the bit about 2 fibers isn't the same type of law as the prohibitions on homosexuality. The death penalty however isn't implemented for anything anymore, in both Judaism and Christianity.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians. And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

In Judaism, iirc they are not allowed to pass down death sentences on Biblical transgressions since there is no Temple. It's also why Judaism doesn't have priests.

[Tarsonis]

for the record, the bit about 2 fibers isn't the same type of law as the prohibitions on homosexuality. The death penalty however isn't implemented for anything anymore, in both Judaism and Christianity.

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians.

Yes.

And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

I didn't mean to imply that, merely providing context from the other two Abrahamic faiths on that verse. That said, I actually don't know enough about Islam to say how that really works.

[Tarsonis]

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians. And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

In Judaism, iirc they are not allowed to pass down death sentences on Biblical transgressions since there is no Temple. It's also why Judaism doesn't have priests.

I don't know about that, but even in the times of the Temple, the death penalty was seldom used (at least on men). One of the reasons they turned Christ over to the romans to be killed, was because they had narrowed the application of death so finely that they couldn't legally execute him themselves.

[Diarcesia]

If I understand correctly, are you saying that Jews and Christians can ignore the homosexuality laws and remain Jews and Christians.

Yes.

And if Muslims do the same they're no longer considered Muslim?

I didn't mean to imply that, merely providing context from the other two Abrahamic faiths on that verse. That said, I actually don't know enough about Islam to say how that really works.

A state trying to be Islamic as in emulate the rightful guided Caliphs will most likely have those punishments (see: ISIS and Taliban). Personally, it's like some of the fringe groups that advocate for theonomy or to fully implement the Old Testament laws. In the current time however, the Muslim fundamentalists (as in "go back to the roots - or how they see the roots are like" of their faith, more than a thousand years ago) have more local clout and power and was able to call the shots.

[Tarsonis]

Sooo? They should be using the death penalty as listed to remain a Jew or Christian?

I'm saying that Abrahamics can believe their religion without resorting to killing gays. I'm baffled at what Tars is trying to point out.

TBF made a point that both laws aren't followed and that's not really how it works. The prohibitions on 2 fibers are from a different set of laws than the prohibitions on homosexual sex. The fibers comes from ritual purity laws. Those are the ones that were abolished in the new covenant. The prohibitions on homosexual sex, come from the moral laws which were not. So it's not a right comparison by TBF.


However, while one is abolished and one is not, the punishment prescribed for both is not followed in either case. This holds true in Christianity where the ritual laws are abolished, and Judaism where the ritual laws are still in effect. So appealing to those laws as justification isn't a good defense for advocating killing lgbt

[Diarcesia]

I'm saying that Abrahamics can believe their religion without resorting to killing gays. I'm baffled at what Tars is trying to point out.

However, while one is abolished and one is not, the punishment prescribed for both is not followed in either case. This holds true in Christianity where the ritual laws are abolished, and Judaism where the ritual laws are still in effect. So appealing to those laws as justification isn't a good defense for advocating killing lgbt

In the current secular zeitgeist (which I prefer personally), killing LGBT for being LGBT is a no no. What I don't know is how, in this thread in particular, current Islamic scholars view the matter. Do they hold to the traditional rulings? Or do they take a new look and infer something different in their exegesis? Same holds with the Jews, like if the temple is rebuilt, will they return to making the sacrifices and reinstating the Torah punishments?

[Tarsonis]

However, while one is abolished and one is not, the punishment prescribed for both is not followed in either case. This holds true in Christianity where the ritual laws are abolished, and Judaism where the ritual laws are still in effect. So appealing to those laws as justification isn't a good defense for advocating killing lgbt

In the current secular zeitgeist (which I prefer personally), killing LGBT for being LGBT is a no no. What I don't know is how, in this thread in particular, current Islamic scholars view the matter. Do they hold to the traditional rulings? Or do they take a new look and infer something different in their exegesis? Same holds with the Jews, like if the temple is rebuilt, will they return to making the sacrifices and reinstating the Torah punishments?

I can't say with the Muslims, like I said I dunno enough about it to make the case. With the Jews, most likely not. They weren't enforcing them when they had the temple 2000 years ago, I doubt they'd suddenly start again.


Also would depends which sect of Judaism took power

[Insaanistan]

However, while one is abolished and one is not, the punishment prescribed for both is not followed in either case. This holds true in Christianity where the ritual laws are abolished, and Judaism where the ritual laws are still in effect. So appealing to those laws as justification isn't a good defense for advocating killing lgbt

In the current secular zeitgeist (which I prefer personally), killing LGBT for being LGBT is a no no. What I don't know is how, in this thread in particular, current Islamic scholars view the matter. Do they hold to the traditional rulings? Or do they take a new look and infer something different in their exegesis? Same holds with the Jews, like if the temple is rebuilt, will they return to making the sacrifices and reinstating the Torah punishments?

Surprisingly, most Islamic scholars don’t endorse killing gay people. The majority state that any punishment for homosexuality would come from God in the afterlife, with the minority opinion being God won’t punish it period.

[Diarcesia]

In the current secular zeitgeist (which I prefer personally), killing LGBT for being LGBT is a no no. What I don't know is how, in this thread in particular, current Islamic scholars view the matter. Do they hold to the traditional rulings? Or do they take a new look and infer something different in their exegesis? Same holds with the Jews, like if the temple is rebuilt, will they return to making the sacrifices and reinstating the Torah punishments?

Surprisingly, most Islamic scholars don’t endorse killing gay people. The majority state that any punishment for homosexuality would come from God in the afterlife, with the minority opinion being God won’t punish it period.

Then what made them promulgate laws prohibiting homosexuality - at least the act of it - on pain of death? The requiring several witnesses thing, for example? Or is that a fatwa from a scholar who do endorse killing gays? If the latter is the case, when did it happen?