Mufti alisema kwa msisitizo ni ibada wewe unakanusha tumsikilize nani,au nani yuko sahihi? Au kila mtu ni msemaji, a bit confusing.
Bunge lapitisha bajeti ya mahakama Kadhi
- Thread starter Watanzania
- Start date
Mufti alisema kwa msisitizo ni ibada wewe unakanusha tumsikilize nani,au nani yuko sahihi? Au kila mtu ni msemaji, a bit confusing.
Watanzania
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 7, 2009
- 727
- 42
- Thread starter
- #62
Suala hapa ni ikiwa uanzishwaji wa mahakama za dini nyingine na makundi mengine hazikuratibiwa na serikali kwa nini suala la mahakama ya kadhi litumie pesa za walipa kodi? Mchakato mzima uhusishe wenye dini na ibada yao siyo serikali na kodi za watanzania.
ThinkPad
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 11, 2008
- 1,844
- 232
Nimeifuma hii kitu kama sheria ndio hizi kweli watu wataziweza jamani maana binafsi naona ni ngumu kinoma soma mwenyewe.
417488]Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.
Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:
First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.
Second, each of these ten reasons has a backup article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.
Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.
'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.
Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.
In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.
After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:9091; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:
The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 67746775)
Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?
The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.
It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.
Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
In 2004, Rania alBaz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling threefourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin AzZubair AlQurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girlbride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:
'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'
It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to 'Further discussion').
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revengephysical eye for physical eye.
In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.
In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc�e.
In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.
The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.
Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.
Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to reimpose the old law of retaliationliterally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.
A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have donea deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)
If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.
In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirtythree amputations and nine crossamputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.
The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:3334. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.
See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad's use of torture.
Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.
For more information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the backup article.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.
In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.
In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'
These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and soninlaw] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.
If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to 'Supplemental material').
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
Fornication:
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.
The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eightyfive stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.
Adultery:
In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed codefendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.
This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. alWalid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
Here is the backup article that supports this fourth reason.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for nonMuslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.
In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.
In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.
Here are the classical legal rulings.
First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 59798, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.
The nonMuslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)(5)):
(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speecheven repulsive speechand freedom of religion or conscience.
Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.
How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?
For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.
This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.
Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.
Here are the articles that support reason no. two.
This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.
Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:1112 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates').
This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.
And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventyfour raids, expeditions, or fullscale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.
Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?
What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and soninlaw, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a nonMuslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.
For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.
For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here. It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here. There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.
Therefore, Islam is violentunjustly and aggressively.
Conclusion
The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?
In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 16001800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 14001600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readilythe Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.
Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.
Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islamthe one taught by Muhammadthen a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
One of the most tragic and underreported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.
It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.
Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.
James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Supplemental material:
In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam's punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.
This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a 'breathing lung' for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words 'breathing lung' in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.
This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:
"Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia perhaps tens of millions of dollars' worth of illegal merchandise annually would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higherlevel patron."
This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung upjust like the one in America during Prohibition.
This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.
This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.
The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.
By Thinker 08/04/2009[/QUOTE]
417488]Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.
Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:
First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.
Second, each of these ten reasons has a backup article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.
Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.
'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.
Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.
In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.
In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.
After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:9091; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:
The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 67746775)
Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?
The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.
It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.
Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
In 2004, Rania alBaz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling threefourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin AzZubair AlQurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girlbride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:
'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'
It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.
Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to 'Further discussion').
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revengephysical eye for physical eye.
In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.
In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc�e.
In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.
The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.
The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.
Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.
Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to reimpose the old law of retaliationliterally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.
A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.
The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have donea deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)
If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.
In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirtythree amputations and nine crossamputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.
The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:3334. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.
See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad's use of torture.
Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.
For more information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the backup article.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.
In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.
In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.
On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'
These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.
Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and soninlaw] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.
If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to 'Supplemental material').
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
Fornication:
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.
The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eightyfive stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.
Adultery:
In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed codefendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.
This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. alWalid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.
Here is the backup article that supports this fourth reason.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for nonMuslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.
In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.
In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.
Here are the classical legal rulings.
First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 59798, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.
The nonMuslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)(5)):
(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speecheven repulsive speechand freedom of religion or conscience.
Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.
How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?
For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.
This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.
Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.
See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.
Here are the articles that support reason no. two.
This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.
Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:1112 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates').
This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.
And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventyfour raids, expeditions, or fullscale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.
Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?
What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?
(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and soninlaw, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a nonMuslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?
Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.
For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.
For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here. It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here. There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.
Therefore, Islam is violentunjustly and aggressively.
Conclusion
The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?
In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 16001800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 14001600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readilythe Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.
Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.
Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islamthe one taught by Muhammadthen a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.
One of the most tragic and underreported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.
It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.
Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.
Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.
James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com
Supplemental material:
In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam's punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.
This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a 'breathing lung' for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words 'breathing lung' in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.
This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:
"Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia perhaps tens of millions of dollars' worth of illegal merchandise annually would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higherlevel patron."
This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung upjust like the one in America during Prohibition.
This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.
This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.
The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.
By Thinker 08/04/2009[/QUOTE]
Amosam
Senior Member
- Jan 15, 2009
- 154
- 5
Ni vizuri ukatafuta rais wako kuanzia leo ili akuongoze kama utaki kumkubali JK.
Chapakazi
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 19, 2009
- 2,874
- 310
Marekani wakati wa Vita Baridi walikuwa na policy iliyoitwa 'Domino Theory'. Hichi ndicho kiliwafanya hata waende vita Korea ya Kaskazini na Vietnam. Theory hii ilisema, ukiachia domino moja ianguke basi jua nyingine lazima zifuate, maana moja ikianguka, hugonga ya pili na kuiangusha, nayo hugonga ya tatu, nk. Walijua ukiwaachia Wakomunisti wapate nchi moja, basi watasambaa na kwenda nchi ya pili, tatu, nk. Sasa hapa naona serikali yetu inataka kuachia domino moja ianguke. Kesho kutwa utasikia wanataka...,alafu...alafu....
Solution ni nyima ya kwanza, watu wakae kimya. Mimi sijaona kitu hii mahakama itasaidia zaidi ya kuleta confusion na ulaji wa pesa za umma. One country, one law!
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory"]gonga hapa[/ame]
Solution ni nyima ya kwanza, watu wakae kimya. Mimi sijaona kitu hii mahakama itasaidia zaidi ya kuleta confusion na ulaji wa pesa za umma. One country, one law!
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory"]gonga hapa[/ame]
Interested Observer
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 27, 2006
- 2,665
- 3,048
HEALTHY THINKING MTOTO! JAKAYA MRISHO KINGWENDU KIKWETE WHERE ARE YOU HANGING? THIS BELOVED COUNTRY IS AT STAKE!
Marekani wakati wa Vita Baridi walikuwa na policy iliyoitwa 'Domino Theory'. Hichi ndicho kiliwafanya hata waende vita Korea ya Kaskazini na Vietnam. Theory hii ilisema, ukiachia domino moja ianguke basi jua nyingine lazima zifuate, maana moja ikianguka, hugonga ya pili na kuiangusha, nayo hugonga ya tatu, nk. Walijua ukiwaachia Wakomunisti wapate nchi moja, basi watasambaa na kwenda nchi ya pili, tatu, nk. Sasa hapa naona serikali yetu inataka kuachia domino moja ianguke. Kesho kutwa utasikia wanataka...,alafu...alafu....
Solution ni nyima ya kwanza, watu wakae kimya. Mimi sijaona kitu hii mahakama itasaidia zaidi ya kuleta confusion na ulaji wa pesa za umma. One country, one law!
Watanzania
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 7, 2009
- 727
- 42
- Thread starter
- #68
Sipo, source ni TBC1, matangazo ya moja kwa moja (live) kutoka Bungeni, Bunge la jamuhuri ya muungano wa Tanzania, Spika Sitta akiwa mwenyekiti. Ni siku Bunge lilipopitisha bajeti ya wizara ya sheria na mambo ya katiba. Waweza kuthibitisha hili kwa Spika au mbunge yeyote aliyekuwepo siku hiyo. Habari hii siyo siri.
Mwiba
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 23, 2007
- 7,607
- 1,744
Hizo sheria amezitaja Think Pad hapo juu zote zimo kwenye Ukiristo ,sasa sijui anapinga kitu gani ,au haelewi dini yake ya ukiristo inafundisha kitu gani ,maana sijawahi kuona kuna Nchi inafuata sheria za Ukiristo na ilihali zipo ,ndio mkubali kuwa ukiristo umetekwa nyara na haupo tena na hawa waliopo ni akina Yuda ,ndio wanaoliongoza kanisa kwa hivi sasa ? Kaazi kwelilweli.
1) Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. Je Ukiristo unasemaje juu ya watu hao ?
2) Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. Je Ukiristo unasemaje hapa ?
3)Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. Nini Wakiristo wanatakiwa wafanye hapa ?
Sasa nipeni hukumu ya kikiristo ambayo inatakiwa itolewe kwa hayo machache tu ,maana isiwe nyinyi mumeipa mgongo dini yenu na wengine nao mnataka wawafuate tabia zenu ,Je katika dini yenu kuna sheria au hazipo ,ni nani anatakiwa kuzifuata sheria hizo na katika dunia hii ya leo ni wapi zinafuatwa ?
1) Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. Je Ukiristo unasemaje juu ya watu hao ?
2) Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. Je Ukiristo unasemaje hapa ?
3)Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death. Nini Wakiristo wanatakiwa wafanye hapa ?
Sasa nipeni hukumu ya kikiristo ambayo inatakiwa itolewe kwa hayo machache tu ,maana isiwe nyinyi mumeipa mgongo dini yenu na wengine nao mnataka wawafuate tabia zenu ,Je katika dini yenu kuna sheria au hazipo ,ni nani anatakiwa kuzifuata sheria hizo na katika dunia hii ya leo ni wapi zinafuatwa ?
Mwiba
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 23, 2007
- 7,607
- 1,744
Deuteronomy 22:24 -Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die. Hii kama hamuelewi ni sheria kutokana na kosa la ubakaji ,sasa sijui ikitumika kwenye mahakama ya kadhi itakuwa ni faraja kwa dini yenu pia ,angalau mmeanza kuona,Sheria za Bwana zinatekelezwa.
Wacheni Waislamu wasimamie dini yao kama yenu imewashinda kuisimamia na kuifuata.
Wacheni Waislamu wasimamie dini yao kama yenu imewashinda kuisimamia na kuifuata.
Chapakazi
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 19, 2009
- 2,874
- 310
Torati sio sheria za Wakristo. Sheria za Wakristo zinatokana na Muongozo wa Yesu. Na yeye alisema amri niwapayo ni PENDANENI. Hivyo huo ndo msingi wa Ukristo - UPENDO.
Mwiba
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 23, 2007
- 7,607
- 1,744
Hivi wakiristo mnayajua haya :-
Exodus 21:15 -And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Proverbs 20:20 - If you insult your father or mother,your light will be snuffed out in total darkness(hii ni adhabu ya kifo kama lugha imewapita)
Leviticus 20:9 -"Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense.
Wakiristu mpooo ? Hizo ni sheria ambazo mnazichukia na hamzipendi ,usipinge jambo ndani ya Uislamu ikiwa huujui ukiristo wako ,wandugu mtaumbuka ,tena mtaumbuka vibaya sana ,sio mchezo ,Uislamu umekuja kuweka mambo sawa mkitaka msitake sasa kuubeza mtakuwa mnajibeza wenyewe. Kwenye Uislamu hatujapewa adhabu ya kifo ila tumeambiwa ukimgunia mzee wako (Baba au Mama) basi ni mwenye kula hasara forever sahihisho ni kuwaomba radhi na si kuuliwa,ukiristo ulienda mbali zaidi ,kwamba huhitajiwi hata kuishi ni kifo tu,naweza kusema ile hasara ilikuwa inaanza papo kwa papo.
Exodus 21:15 -And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Proverbs 20:20 - If you insult your father or mother,your light will be snuffed out in total darkness(hii ni adhabu ya kifo kama lugha imewapita)
Leviticus 20:9 -"Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense.
Wakiristu mpooo ? Hizo ni sheria ambazo mnazichukia na hamzipendi ,usipinge jambo ndani ya Uislamu ikiwa huujui ukiristo wako ,wandugu mtaumbuka ,tena mtaumbuka vibaya sana ,sio mchezo ,Uislamu umekuja kuweka mambo sawa mkitaka msitake sasa kuubeza mtakuwa mnajibeza wenyewe. Kwenye Uislamu hatujapewa adhabu ya kifo ila tumeambiwa ukimgunia mzee wako (Baba au Mama) basi ni mwenye kula hasara forever sahihisho ni kuwaomba radhi na si kuuliwa,ukiristo ulienda mbali zaidi ,kwamba huhitajiwi hata kuishi ni kifo tu,naweza kusema ile hasara ilikuwa inaanza papo kwa papo.
rmashauri
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 29, 2009
- 3,011
- 454
Mwiba
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 23, 2007
- 7,607
- 1,744
ThinkPad ,na wenzako mnasema tuangalie Telaban sijui nani wamesababisha matatizo,hatuangalii huko tunaangalia ndani mwenu kunasemaje ?
Adhabu ya kifo kwa wazinifu Bibilia inatwambia nini ? Nilitaka munijibu lakini naona muda umepita mmeduwaa tu basi angalia kipande hiki halafu ponda Uislamu kwa nguvu zako/zenu zote ,zaidi mtakuwa mnaupinga ukiristo. Hilo mlielewetena mlielewe kwa undani kabisa.
Leviticus 20:10:
The man who commits adultery with another's wife, even his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Hamuwezi kuzuia mambo haya na ya ubakaji kwa kuwafunga watu ,mtawafunga wangapi ? Ukiristo unasema ihakikishwe kabisa wameuliwa na wamekufa sasa kama mtawapiga mawe risasi ,kitanzi ,suala uwepo uhakika kwa kufa kwao. Sasa mnapinga mahakama ya Kadhi hivi mnapinga kitu gani ? Mkiristu makini hawezi kabisa kupinga na isitoshe mahakama ya kadhi haijatilia mguu juu ya hukumu hizi kuna mambo ambayo wametaka tu si yote .bado mnapiga makelele sasa kama haya ya mawe na mikwaju wangeyaweka katika madai yao. Ndugu wakiristu someni dini yenu kwa vizuri kabisa na muielewe ,sio kuja hapa mkababaisha watu ,mtaumbuka.
Adhabu ya kifo kwa wazinifu Bibilia inatwambia nini ? Nilitaka munijibu lakini naona muda umepita mmeduwaa tu basi angalia kipande hiki halafu ponda Uislamu kwa nguvu zako/zenu zote ,zaidi mtakuwa mnaupinga ukiristo. Hilo mlielewetena mlielewe kwa undani kabisa.
Leviticus 20:10:
The man who commits adultery with another's wife, even his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Hamuwezi kuzuia mambo haya na ya ubakaji kwa kuwafunga watu ,mtawafunga wangapi ? Ukiristo unasema ihakikishwe kabisa wameuliwa na wamekufa sasa kama mtawapiga mawe risasi ,kitanzi ,suala uwepo uhakika kwa kufa kwao. Sasa mnapinga mahakama ya Kadhi hivi mnapinga kitu gani ? Mkiristu makini hawezi kabisa kupinga na isitoshe mahakama ya kadhi haijatilia mguu juu ya hukumu hizi kuna mambo ambayo wametaka tu si yote .bado mnapiga makelele sasa kama haya ya mawe na mikwaju wangeyaweka katika madai yao. Ndugu wakiristu someni dini yenu kwa vizuri kabisa na muielewe ,sio kuja hapa mkababaisha watu ,mtaumbuka.
Hawa wenzetu wa mkono wa kushoto sijui hata kama bibilia wanielewa!! walikatazwa kuisoma, lakini tokea 1990s wameruhusiwa, lkini bado vichwa vigumu
Simply; kuamini bibilia lazima pia uamini amri za Musa, huwezi kuamini nusu bible. amri za Musa pia nyingi ndo ari za Qur'an, sasa ukipinga sheria za qur'an ni sawa umepinga sheria za Musa
Msiwe wa vivu wa kufikiri, tumieni akili zenu msijiachie mkawa brain washed na media fulani.
Mwiba
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 23, 2007
- 7,607
- 1,744
Na jinsi dini yenu ilivyotekwa nyara na kubaki mnaburuzwa kuna mambo haya yafuatayo kayatafuteni myasome ,sina wakati wa kuwasomesha mikondoo iliyopotea:
Death for Fornication,Death to Followers of Other Religions,Kill Nonbelievers,Kill False Prophets,Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God,Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night,Kill Followers of Other Religions.Infidels and Gays Should Die,Kill People for Working on the Sabbath.
Kasomeni Isaiah 13:15-18 ,sio watu wanakaa kimya na kuwatazama ,halafu mnajiona kuwa nyie ni bora kuliko wengine mna mamlaka ya kufanya mmpendavyo kumbe hata dini yenu mnayoifuata hamuielewi eti ni KUVUNJA KATIBA.
Death for Fornication,Death to Followers of Other Religions,Kill Nonbelievers,Kill False Prophets,Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God,Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night,Kill Followers of Other Religions.Infidels and Gays Should Die,Kill People for Working on the Sabbath.
Kasomeni Isaiah 13:15-18 ,sio watu wanakaa kimya na kuwatazama ,halafu mnajiona kuwa nyie ni bora kuliko wengine mna mamlaka ya kufanya mmpendavyo kumbe hata dini yenu mnayoifuata hamuielewi eti ni KUVUNJA KATIBA.
Mwiba
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 23, 2007
- 7,607
- 1,744
Sasa bora mtulie maana ndani ya Bible mnaambiwa :-Matthew 7:- DO NOT judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves. Yaani nikisoma aya hiyo hapo juu ndo nawaona hamjui kabisa mlitendalo.
rmashauri
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 29, 2009
- 3,011
- 454
Usitumie andiko vibaya kujihami. Pale inapobidi kuwaambia ukweli tutawaambia bila kusita na kwa kufanya hivyo siyo kuwa tunawahukumu.
rmashauri
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 29, 2009
- 3,011
- 454
Bull,
Sijui unalenga watu gani unaposema hawasomi Biblia. Tunaisoma na kwa msaada wa Roho Mtakatifu tunaielewa sana. Tatizo lenu hamjui lengo la kuwepo na agano jipya. Ndo maana mnang'ang'ania Torati maana ndo uislamu uko hivyo. Sasa ukweli wa mambo kuhusu sheria uko hapa:-
Galatians 3 (Amplified Bible)
Faith or observance of the Law
1O YOU poor and silly and thoughtless and unreflecting and senseless Galatians! Who has fascinated or bewitched or cast a spell over you, unto whom--right before your very eyes--Jesus Christ (the Messiah) was openly and graphically set forth and portrayed as crucified?
2Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the [Holy] Spirit as the result of obeying the Law and doing its works, or was it by hearing [the message of the Gospel] and believing [it]? [Was it from observing a law of rituals or from a message of faith?]
3Are you so foolish and so senseless and so silly? Having begun [your new life spiritually] with the [Holy] Spirit, are you now reaching perfection [by dependence] on the flesh?4Have you suffered so many things and experienced so much all for nothing (to no purpose)--if it really is to no purpose and in vain?
5Then does He Who supplies you with His marvelous [Holy] Spirit and works powerfully and miraculously among you do so on [the grounds of your doing] what the Law demands, or because of your believing in and adhering to and trusting in and relying on the message that you heard?
6Thus Abraham believed in and adhered to and trusted in and relied on God, and it was reckoned and placed to his account and credited as righteousness (as conformity to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action).(A)
7Know and understand that it is [really] the people [who live] by faith who are [the true] sons of Abraham.
8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify (declare righteous, put in right standing with Himself) the Gentiles in consequence of faith, proclaimed the Gospel [foretelling the glad tidings of a Savior long beforehand] to Abraham in the promise, saying, In you shall all the nations [of the earth] be blessed.(B)
9So then, those who are people of faith are blessed and made happy and favored by God [as partners in fellowship] with the believing and trusting Abraham.
10And all who depend on the Law [who are seeking to be justified by obedience to the Law of rituals] are under a curse and doomed to disappointment and destruction, for it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed (accursed, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment) be everyone who does not continue to abide (live and remain) by all the precepts and commands written in the Book of the Law and to practice them.(C)
11Now it is evident that no person is justified (declared righteous and brought into right standing with God) through the Law, for the Scripture says, The man in right standing with God [the just, the righteous] shall live by and out of faith and he who through and by faith is declared righteous and in right standing with God shall live.(D)
12But the Law does not rest on faith [does not require faith, has nothing to do with faith], for it itself says, He who does them [the things prescribed by the Law] shall live by them [not by faith].(E)
13Christ purchased our freedom [redeeming us] from the curse (doom) of the Law [and its condemnation] by [Himself] becoming a curse for us, for it is written [in the Scriptures], Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (is crucified);(F)
14To the end that through [their receiving] Christ Jesus, the blessing [promised] to Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, so that we through faith might [all] receive [the realization of] the promise of the [Holy] Spirit.
The Law and the Promise
15To speak in terms of human relations, brethren, [if] even a man makes a last will and testament (a merely human covenant), no one sets it aside or makes it void or adds to it when once it has been drawn up and signed (ratified, confirmed).
16Now the promises (covenants, agreements) were decreed and made to Abraham and his Seed (his Offspring, his Heir). He [God] does not say, And to seeds (descendants, heirs), as if referring to many persons, but, And to your Seed (your Descendant, your Heir), obviously referring to one individual, Who is [none other than] Christ (the Messiah).(G)
17This is my argument: The Law, which began 430 years after the covenant [concerning the coming Messiah], does not and cannot annul the covenant previously established (ratified) by God, so as to abolish the promise and make it void.(H)
18For if the inheritance [of the promise depends on observing] the Law [as these false teachers would like you to believe], it no longer [depends] on the promise; however, God gave it to Abraham [as a free gift solely] by virtue of His promise.
19What then was the purpose of the Law? It was added [later on, after the promise, to disclose and expose to men their guilt] because of transgressions and [to make men more conscious of the sinfulness] of sin; and it was intended to be in effect until the Seed (the Descendant, the Heir) should come, to and concerning Whom the promise had been made. And it [the Law] was arranged and ordained and appointed through the instrumentality of angels [and was given] by the hand (in the person) of a go-between [Moses, an intermediary person between God and man].
20Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].
21Is the Law then contrary and opposed to the promises of God? Of course not! For if a Law had been given which could confer [spiritual] life, then righteousness and right standing with God would certainly have come by Law.
22But the Scriptures [picture all mankind as sinners] shut up and imprisoned by sin, so that [the inheritance, blessing] which was promised through faith in Jesus Christ (the Messiah) might be given (released, delivered, and committed) to [all] those who believe [who adhere to and trust in and rely on Him].
23Now before the faith came, we were perpetually guarded under the Law, kept in custody in preparation for the faith that was destined to be revealed (unveiled, disclosed),
24So that the Law served [a][to us Jews] as our trainer [our guardian, our guide to Christ, to lead us] until Christ [came], that we might be justified (declared righteous, put in right standing with God) by and through faith.
25But now that the faith has come, we are no longer under a trainer (the guardian of our childhood).
Sons of GOD
26For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.
27For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah] have put on (clothed yourselves with) Christ.
28There is [now no distinction] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male [b]and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if you belong to Christ [are in Him Who is Abraham's Seed], then you are Abraham's offspring and [spiritual] heirs according to promise.
Similar Discussions
-
Kenya wana katiba bora sana, angalia hii ya Bajeti ya Ikulu ya Kenya- Started by BLACK MOVEMENT
- Replies: 57
-
Je, wajua kuwa Rais wa JMT ndie Serikali, Bunge na Mahakama? Yuko juu ya Mihimili yote 3. Je, kuna uwezekano Rais wa JMT pia yuko juu Katiba?- Started by Pascal Mayalla
- Replies: 67
-
Bunge lapitisha Bajeti Kuu ya Serikali kwa 95%- Started by ChoiceVariable
- Replies: 22
-
-
Ukweli ni kuwa Bunge liko chini ya Waziri Mkuu na Mahakama iko chini ya Waziri wa Katiba na Sheria, na Wote wako chini ya Rais wa JMT
- Started by johnthebaptist
- Replies: 9