What will really happen after you die?

  • 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

I find myself involved with another funeral for today. This time it's a friend's mother. Thankfully, they planned for a humanist funeral and cremation (without any prompting at all from me!). They all had to bury their sister last year, who recently became a born again Christian, so they may have got ideas from that funeral...

Which got me thinking moribundly:

Burials seem like a ridiculous idea to me and are really difficult and impractical to perform. But one cemetery, near one of the grieving brothers, recently lost (the first round of) a planning application battle to expand their cemetery into surrounding parkland. So they must be doing some good business there.

I think burials are a requirement of some faiths - for example, there is a big issue in the UK with a shortage of Asian organ donors because it is against Islam to give life to others through the donation of your organs after you die. I think Muslims share this custom with the Jewish too. The only burials I've personally seen were at Catholic funerals though.

So what will your own personal wishes be for your remains, once you are gone? Is there something about leaving your body to medicine that makes you wary? Is it important to have a six foot long place of remembrance for the next 70 years, with a nice piece of inscribed marble marking it out?

Does anyone know the religious arguments against cremation, or medical useage?

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

I would want to be buried. I want my body to be intact, thank you.

Though it's strange that you mentioned Muslims being against deceased organ donors because most Muslim websites I've seen say otherwise. If you can tell me the source that prohibits such practice, show me because I'm interested.

 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#3 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

I dont really care whatever happens to my body after I die. I think the preparations and "formalities" of burial put a furthur stain of pain and depression on the already broken loved ones. I mean whenever my parents die, I cant just sit and gather myself, I have to quickly prepare for the long process of their burial.

However with that said I do like the idea of going to the burial place of a loved one as I find it a very close way of remembering them.

Avatar image for Ingenemployee
Ingenemployee

2307

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Ingenemployee
Member since 2007 • 2307 Posts
I plan to donate my body for science.
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#5 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
I'm glad you made this thread... now I can apply some of my knowledge I got from my course on death this term.

Arguments against cremation:

Judaism:

The body is sacred, and must be repsected and revered. It is ritually washed after death and before burial. It also must be buried in a grave that does not contain unnatural materials or metals (i.e. the coffin must be made entirely of wood), this is because the body must "return to dust" and decompose naturally.

Orthodox Jews claim a bodily resurrection at the time of the coming of the Messiah. Also, Hell doesn't exist within Judaism, as it is incompatible with a loving God, so "wicked" people just remain in the dust.

Islam:

The body and soul must remain in the grave until resurrection. The body is not cremated or embalmed (I assume this has to do with purity obligations) and is ritually washed before burial.

~~~

As for my death, both my girlfriend and I agree, we both want to be cremated and tossed into any random patch of land. Though, I personally want every one of my relatives to be allowed to see my dead body, realize that I am no longer alive, and helped to understand that I won't be coming back or "going to a better place."

When it comes to bodily/organ donation, I'm still unsure how to address that. I am for donation of organs, but want some assurance they won't be used for scientific experiments and will actually benefit someone directly. Plus, I also don't want my body itself to be used in scientific experiements (such as crash testing), but don't have anything against it being used as a medical training cadaver (considering the high demand for them).
Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Also, Hell doesn't exist within Judaism...foxhound_fox

Not necessarily:

Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba (The Afterlife). 

 

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#7 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Is that an Orthodox, Conservative or Reform tradition though? Hell in both Christianity and Judaism are extremely vague... espcially if we are talking about the medieval-Catholic/Dante idea of Hell.
Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Is that an Orthodox, Conservative or Reform tradition though? Hell in both Christianity and Judaism are extremely vague... espcially if we are talking about the medieval-Catholic/Dante idea of Hell.foxhound_fox

It's Orthodox.

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#9 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Also, Hell doesn't exist within Judaism...ghoklebutter

Not necessarily:

Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba (The Afterlife). 

As far as Gehenna goes, you don't need theology to tell you what it's like.  This is Gehenna:

Gehenna was, effectively, the city dump outside of Jerusalem, one where garbage (and, in a more sordid past, children who had been sacrificed) was burned.  I have my own thoughts about what Jesus meant when he said someone is in danger of Gehenna, but it seems that one ought at least grant that he did not mean you were literally going to end up in Gehenna.

At any rate, regarding the thread question, I don't know - to be honest I haven't thought about it much, and I don't really care much either, given that I will be dead. :P  I would probably not be opposed to being an organ donor - if my death can bring some benefit to someone, that's surely better than bringing no help to anyone.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

Well this is this something that I've thought about before and I've basically concluded that the most pragmatic form of disposal is the best. When I die my body ceases to house what anyone could call "Dominic". My identity is no longer present and so my body essentially becomes a piece of waste. How do you deal with waste? In the way that is the easiest, the way that harms other people and the environment the least and benefits them the most.

With this thought in mind burial is the last thing I would want for my body. It's a waste of space, it's damned expensive (I've heard that funeral homes really shaft you) and all being said and done it's more trouble than a corpse is worth. Now I'm not against the benefit that burial can give for bereavement but apart from the opportunity to grieve and celebrate the memories of a person, placing a body in a casket and burying it in the ground is just.... impractical. Really I'd be happier to be rolled up in a carpet and dumped over the side of a bridge than to be buried.

A better form of disposal would be a simple cremation. It's not too expensive and it takes up almost zero space. This is what I voted for because it's probably what will end up happening to my body. I'll also show my support for organ donation / scientific amusement though. If my body can be useful then heck yes, harvest the organs, cut it up for scientific study or hang the skeleton in a high school class room.

My ideal kind of disposal would be as a humble plant fertilizer. If my body could be ground up and thrown in a patch of earth in the backyard with the seed of some great tree on top then I would be happy to have been useful. There's probably something highly illegal about that though.

Avatar image for woonsa
woonsa

6322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#11 woonsa
Member since 2008 • 6322 Posts

Well this is this something that I've thought about before and I've basically concluded that the most pragmatic form of disposal is the best. When I die my body ceases to house what anyone could call "Dominic". My identity is no longer present and so my body essentially becomes a piece of waste. How do you deal with waste? In the way that is the easiest, the way that harms other people and the environment the least and benefits them the most.

With this thought in mind burial is the last thing I would want for my body. It's a waste of space, it's damned expensive (I've heard that funeral homes really shaft you) and all being said and done it's more trouble than a corpse is worth. Now I'm not against the benefit that burial can give for bereavement but apart from the opportunity to grieve and celebrate the memories of a person, placing a body in a casket and burying it in the ground is just.... impractical. Really I'd be happier to be rolled up in a carpet and dumped over the side of a bridge than to be buried.

A better form of disposal would be a simple cremation. It's not too expensive and it takes up almost zero space. This is what I voted for because it's probably what will end up happening to my body. I'll also show my support for organ donation / scientific amusement though. If my body can be useful then heck yes, harvest the organs, cut it up for scientific study or hang the skeleton in a high school class room.

My ideal kind of disposal would be as a humble plant fertilizer. If my body could be ground up and thrown in a patch of earth in the backyard with the seed of some great tree on top then I would be happy to have been useful. There's probably something highly illegal about that though.

domatron23

Doesn't burial help the soil get fertile? I want myself to be buried when I pass away. Even though our body is nothing but waste after we die it still should be respected and not toyed with. IMO, burial is the most respectful treatment for a dead body.

Avatar image for bean-with-bacon
bean-with-bacon

2134

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 bean-with-bacon
Member since 2008 • 2134 Posts

Honestly, I'm thinking of getting my head cryogenically frozen... Yes it's probably pointless and stupid but quite frankly if it has any chance of working then I think it's worth it, I don't want to live forever but a few extra hundred years would be nice.

As for my body, I'll probably just donate it to science.

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts


When it comes to bodily/organ donation, I'm still unsure how to address that. I am for donation of organs, but want some assurance they won't be used for scientific experiments and will actually benefit someone directly. Plus, I also don't want my body itself to be used in scientific experiements (such as crash testing), but don't have anything against it being used as a medical training cadaver (considering the high demand for them).foxhound_fox

Why not, you're not going to be using it, and presumably there will be a benefit from any kind of scientific testing done with it?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#14 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Why not, you're not going to be using it, and presumably there will be a benefit from any kind of scientific testing done with it?MetalGear_Ninty

I'd like my family have the chance to see my body after my death. Cutting out organs is fine, that can be covered up... but if my body becomes mangled or dismembered, its harder to cover up.
Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#15 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

Doesn't burial help the soil get fertile?woonsa

I'm not sure, I imagine the casket would kind of get in the way with that.

I want myself to be buried when I pass away. Even though our body is nothing but waste after we die it still should be respected and not toyed with. IMO, burial is the most respectful treatment for a dead body.

woonsa

Well yes it certainly is respectful. I would maintain however that it is undue respect.

Avatar image for AlternatingCaps
AlternatingCaps

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 AlternatingCaps
Member since 2007 • 1714 Posts

I've actually thought about this before, and I've decided I definitely don't want to be buried. The world's population is only going to get bigger, and I can't see any reason for giving valuable real estate to people who need it least. Yes, it is nice to have a 'resting place' for your friends and family to visit, but my grandmother was cremated and her ashes distributed among her loved ones (and her D-bag ex-husband who just gave them away to my uncle). It's not uncommon practice to have an urn full of ashes that acts as sort of a "grave at home."

I was pretty sure I wanted my body cremated when the big day arrived, but I guess I hadn't thought of scientific or medical donation before. Now I'm not sure whether I'd prefer to have something for my loved ones or something to benefit society as a whole. I guess it depends how useful ~85-90 year-old organs are/will be. Ah well, I've still got all sorts of time to decide.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[QUOTE="woonsa"]

Doesn't burial help the soil get fertile?domatron23

I'm not sure, I imagine the casket would kind of get in the way with that.

I want myself to be buried when I pass away. Even though our body is nothing but waste after we die it still should be respected and not toyed with. IMO, burial is the most respectful treatment for a dead body.

woonsa

Well yes it certainly is respectful. I would maintain however that it is undue respect.

Burial is not a good way of fertilising: For a start, its 4 feet deep too deep for most roots - for seconds, nothing grows over it, except gravestones.

Getting buried is not only expensive, but also highly impractical. I learned some things from a friends mother's burial; like the grave site has to be a mound with no headstone for over a year, to let the ground settle sufficiently so as not to subside the stone when it is layed.

I feel exactly the same as you Domatron. In fact, the words of a song by "Alberto y Lost Trios Paranoias" called "Kill" spring to mind:

"Don't wanna be cremated, or buried in a grave,

Just shove me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pave-ment" 

Another anecdote from today - about remembrance. When my Dad died a few years ago, my sister wanted a memorial stone (they have them all around the crematorium chapel) to remember him, as well as his ashes scattering under a certain tree. I wasn't really into the idea of a stone, but didn't protest her wish. She was at that friends funeral today - at the same crematorium and pointed out Dad's memorial stone to me. It was right beside a drain cover and covered in moss and dirt - Not a fitting tribute. It'll be there for the next 35 years, when I presume it comes up for renewal.

I've had the good fortune to visit Highgate cemetery, to witness the preserved Victorian fixation with death. That cemetery looks like a mini New York, with each lavish but pointless memorial jostling with the next monstrous monolith to the forgotten Victorian upper classes. Seeing all that makes me think how silly it is to have some idea of a permanent funeral shrine.

There are companies that compress your ashes to make diamonds for jewellery. That might be a better way of being remembered!

 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

I would want to be buried. I want my body to be intact, thank you.

Though it's strange that you mentioned Muslims being against deceased organ donors because most Muslim websites I've seen say otherwise. If you can tell me the source that prohibits such practice, show me because I'm interested.

 

ghoklebutter

Why would you want your body intact? No-one would notice if your kidneys were missing, except perhaps the two people that could live normal lives with them. What is the relationship with your earthly body and your Islamic soul, once you die - and how long is the association, if any?

My information stems from a TV debate with faiths of all sorts and none, including Islamics, where there are mixed views (once again!) The source is direct from the UK Transplant NHS site:

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/fact_sheets/religious_leaflets/islam_and_organ_donation/Islam%20and%20Organ%20Donation.pdf

It clearly states that there is an Islamic view that violating the human body (whether alive or dead) is not permitted. Consequently a UK fatwa was created to overcome this. But as you well know yourself, not all Muslims follow all fatwas.

NHSBT site here:

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/news_releases/article.jsp?releaseId=169 

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#19 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Why would you want your body intact? No-one would notice if your kidneys were missing, except perhaps the two people that could live normal lives with them. What is the relationship with your earthly body and your Islamic soul, once you die - and how long is the association, if any?

Nah, I just the idea of my body being intact. I wouldn't mind being a donor at all, though. On an unrealated note, Islam even allows abortions within four months of pregnancy. So I don'y think organ donors would be an issue.

My information stems from a TV debate with faiths of all sorts and none, including Islamics, where there are mixed views (once again!) The source is direct from the UK Transplant NHS site:

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/fact_sheets/religious_leaflets/islam_and_organ_donation/Islam%20and%20Organ%20Donation.pdf

It clearly states that there is an Islamic view that violating the human body (whether alive or dead) is not permitted. Consequently a UK fatwa was created to overcome this. But as you well know yourself, not all Muslims follow all fatwas.

You see, just as there are differring views on i.e. Jewish Law (reform Jews, etc.), there are differing views on Shari'a as well. We have different schools of thought. All of them think differently from each other, but it is left up to the Muslim to decide. We have variety so to speak. :P

NHSBT site here:

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom/news_releases/article.jsp?releaseId=169 

RationalAtheist
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

You see, just as there are differring views on i.e. Jewish Law (reform Jews, etc.), there are differing views on Shari'a as well. We have different schools of thought. All of them think differently from each other, but it is left up to the Muslim to decide. We have variety so to speak. :P

ghoklebutter

They are different views that are both based on the same book. The interpretation of "violation" of the body is central here. I know most other faith groups are also contrary in their teachings too, but that's no real excuse here. You asked me for my source and I supplied it. Despite what you say about Islamics welcoming donations, only 2% of organ donations are from black and asians in the UK and 60 of them die each year through lack of donors.

Surely it would more depend on where you lived and what you were told by your Imam, rather than your risking to ignore their hadith or fatwa.

P.S. Please sort out your quotes - go on, please! 

 

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#21 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

They are different views that are both based on the same book. The interpretation of "violation" of the body is central here. I know most other faith groups are also contrary in their teachings too, but that's no real excuse here. You asked me for my source and I supplied it. Despite what you say about Islamics welcoming donations, only 2% of organ donations are from black and asians in the UK and 60 of them die each year through lack of donors.

Surely it would more depend on where you lived and what you were told by your Imam, rather than your risking to ignore their hadith or fatwa.

P.S. Please sort out your quotes - go on, please! 

 

RationalAtheist

1. Well it's a shame that we have so few Muslim donors. I have nothing else to say. :(

2. I make judgements in the Qur'an according to me mostly. I only use fatwas if I'm totally lost about something.

Sidenote: we Muslims believe that a man known as the Mahdi will come alongside Jesus, and essentially reform Islam and clarify everything. So right now we're in a state of confusion and dilemma. That's why we are supposed to have taqwa (God-conciousness) and sabr (patience) in every situation so that even if we adhere to the wrong law, it won't be so bad. Of course this doesn't matter to non-Muslims, but I thought that it was relevant to your point.

P.S. Sorry for the quotes. :P

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

1. Well it's a shame that we have so few Muslim donors. I have nothing else to say. :(

2. I make judgements in the Qur'an according to me mostly. I only use fatwas if I'm totally lost about something.

Sidenote: we Muslims believe that a man known as the Mahdi will come alongside Jesus, and essentially reform Islam and clarify everything. So right now we're in a state of confusion and dilemma. That's why we are supposed to have taqwa (God-conciousness) and sabr (patience) in every situation so that even if we adhere to the wrong law, it won't be so bad. Of course this doesn't matter to non-Muslims, but I thought that it was relevant to your point.

P.S. Sorry for the quotes. :P

ghoklebutter

Why would you need the Mardi to come and clarify what is often described as the "most pure and uncorrupt word of God"? If following the wrong law is not so bad, why is Islam so strict?

Also, please note that not all Muslims think as you do, as we've already seen with our exchange here. Why would this Islamic prophesy not matter to non-Islamics? Surely a clarification of your faith would be of some interest to all concerned, wouldn't it?

 

 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#23 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

There's already a mahdi come in mirza ghulam ahmad. Hez got quite a following now despite not being alive anymore and the followers subject to prosecution at times. The legend of him is going to die in the next 200 years as he predicted most of the world to believe in him 300 years after his death which is obviously not happening lol.

But the ahmadis(his followers) are determined that it's going to happen and the world will soon be converted. I was born an ahmadi and the thing I hate most about this group is their determination on "preaching" despite getting tons of hate from pretty much the whole muslim world. Mirza ghulam ahmad claimed to be a prophet which the non-ahmadis find completely contradicting the quran and the teachings of the prophet as he is supposed to be the last prophet. There is inevitably going to be plenty of violence when this group gains more followers.:(

I raised a question once in a question answer session,

"Why do we preach when other people who are in a massive majority are so annoyed with it? Can you not see the inevitable violence that is going to happen solely because we preach? Sure it is our right to preach but why is it really so important to make people believe in mirza ghulam ahmad? Is ONE MAN really so important as it's worth losing several lifes over? If it was really so important than why dont God just do it Himself??"

There was stun silence as these sort of questions are not normally asked. The answer was pretty bad as expected that it is our duty to spread the word of ghulam ahmad, God has told us so no one is supposed to question it. We are to do it even if it doesnt make sense. I wanted to reply "God didnt told anyone, mirza ghluam ahmad did LOL" but I didnt cuz I cant reveal my disbelief over there.

I cant believe people put their beliefs over unquestionably predictbale human suffering. 

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#24 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

1. Well it's a shame that we have so few Muslim donors. I have nothing else to say. :(

2. I make judgements in the Qur'an according to me mostly. I only use fatwas if I'm totally lost about something.

Sidenote: we Muslims believe that a man known as the Mahdi will come alongside Jesus, and essentially reform Islam and clarify everything. So right now we're in a state of confusion and dilemma. That's why we are supposed to have taqwa (God-conciousness) and sabr (patience) in every situation so that even if we adhere to the wrong law, it won't be so bad. Of course this doesn't matter to non-Muslims, but I thought that it was relevant to your point.

P.S. Sorry for the quotes. :P

RationalAtheist

Why would you need the Mardi to come and clarify what is often described as the "most pure and uncorrupt word of God"? If following the wrong law is not so bad, why is Islam so strict?

Also, please note that not all Muslims think as you do, as we've already seen with our exchange here. Why would this Islamic prophesy not matter to non-Islamics? Surely a clarification of your faith would be of some interest to all concerned, wouldn't it?

 

 

1. If a Muslim is confused about a law, he should avoid it out of doubt. Muhammad said that in Islamic law, if a matter is doubtful to you, try to avoid it. So it's better to do that than switch between interpretations like monkeys in a jungle. :P

About the Mahdi (pronounced "MAH-di"), there is a prophecy by Muhammad that the Muslim Ummah (community) will be in loss.  By "loss" I mean corrupt Muslim rulers (like in Saudi Arabia), Muslims will become non-religious (in a bad way), etc. Some Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have extremely harsh punishments in Sharia court like stoning rape victims and beheading homosexuals. The Mahdi will come and reform customs like these.

I guess non-Muslims would be interested because most of them are ill-informed of Islam and its teachings.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

1. If a Muslim is confused about a law, he should avoid it out of doubt. Muhammad said that in Islamic law, if a matter is doubtful to you, try to avoid it. So it's better to do that than switch between interpretations like monkeys in a jungle. :P

About the Mahdi (pronounced "MAH-di"), there is a prophecy by Muhammad that the Muslim Ummah (community) will be in loss.  By "loss" I mean corrupt Muslim rulers (like in Saudi Arabia), Muslims will become non-religious (in a bad way), etc. Some Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have extremely harsh punishments in Sharia court like stoning rape victims and beheading homosexuals. The Mahdi will come and reform customs like these.

I guess non-Muslims would be interested because most of them are ill-informed of Islam and its teachings.

ghoklebutter

I don't get it - avoid the law? How do you know if you are avoiding a law if you don't know what the law is? It sounds like a preposterous statement to make. I trust you mean avoid breaking the law, but it still makes the same difference.

Do monkeys in a jungle really switch between interpretations? I've never heard of that and I'm a naturalist!

You started off by saying that according to your own research, Muslims were fine with organ donations. I showed you (as requested) evidence for the root of a division of belief. Now you say firstly that its ok to have many interpretations of a gospel, then concede that someone is coming soon to clear it all up, than finally determine "good" and "bad" Islamism by your own terms, as if this muddiness is all cleared up. What is the point of having any view of Islam until its all clarified, on Mahdi?

You said originally that non-Muslims wouldn't be interested! Are you conceding that Sharia law affects all those in the region where it is imposed? It seems that your statements about Saudi Muslims show you think other Muslims are even less well-informed than non-Muslims about the teachings of Islam - which need divine clarification, according to you!

 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#26 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

Some Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have extremely harsh punishments in Sharia court like stoning rape victims and beheading homosexuals. The Mahdi will come and reform customs like these.

ghoklebutter

You do know that the prophet gave those punishments as well?:|

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#27 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

1. I don't get it - avoid the law? How do you know if you are avoiding a law if you don't know what the law is? It sounds like a preposterous statement to make. I trust you mean avoid breaking the law, but it still makes the same difference.

2. Do monkeys in a jungle really switch between interpretations? I've never heard of that and I'm a naturalist!

3. You started off by saying that according to your own research, Muslims were fine with organ donations. I showed you (as requested) evidence for the root of a division of belief. Now you say firstly that its ok to have many interpretations of a gospel, then concede that someone is coming soon to clear it all up, than finally determine "good" and "bad" Islamism by your own terms, as if this muddiness is all cleared up. What is the point of having any view of Islam until its all clarified, on Mahdi?

4. You said originally that non-Muslims wouldn't be interested! Are you conceding that Sharia law affects all those in the region where it is imposed? 5. It seems that your statements about Saudi Muslims show you think other Muslims are even less well-informed than non-Muslims about the teachings of Islam - which need divine clarification, according to you!

RationalAtheist

1. I'm sorry I confused you. Those "laws" that I mentioned are not really full-fledged laws. Fatwa means "opinion" in Arabic. It is advised that someone studies Islam himself, or better than that with a trusted Imam

. Fatwas are like movie reviews; not necessarily factual but useful for one's judgement. Fatwas are mainly for people who are not as knowledgible as the scholars or are illiterate of the Qur'an's teachings. Of course they have different uses as well. 

Avoiding the law is not what I am trying to convery here. I am merely saying that if a matter is unclear to you, abstain from dealing with it. The Qur'an tells Muslims to stay away from which is doubtful. This is not breaking the law per se, it is simply staying away from doing somethig that could possibly be unlawful.

2. As monkeys sway from tree to tree, some people switch from opinion to opinion. That was my analogy.

3. From what it looks like organ donation is actually looked down upon in Islam. However, only for organs vital for human life like heart transplants are forbidden (the same cannot be said if it is a corpse the organ is taken from). In other cases, it is only allowed in extreme circumstances, i.e a kidney transplant if someone is dying from a kidney related disease. As someone who studies Islam and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), I can tell you that most matters in Islam are not a mere jumble of interpretations. Studying Islam closely reveals little room for opinion except for trivial matters (like using alchohol for perfume). The Mahdi's mission is not really to reform Islam (there is actually no mention of that), but rather to bring clarity, peace, and understanding to the world. That is where I deduced that the Mahdi will reform Islam. Until then, we are supposed to stay away from what is doubful and forbidden, and repent in advance to God incase we make a malformed judgement.

4. When I said that, I only meant that in the sense that non-Muslims may not care about Islam and/or are uninterested.

5. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#28 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

You do know that the prophet gave those punishments as well?:Gambler_3

Muhammad stoned rape victims and beheaded homosexuals? That's news to me!

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#29 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

You do know that the prophet gave those punishments as well?:ghoklebutter

Muhammad stoned rape victims and beheaded homosexuals? That's news to me!

Are you trying to say that rape victims are stoned for being rape victims?:|

 

They are stoned for adultery which is a punishment the prophet used to give. Homosexuals I dont know if there was punishment for it but it is severally looked down upon by the quran.

So do you really defend capital punishment for adultery?

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#30 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

The man and the woman guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes and let not compassion move you in their case in the enforcement of the law of God, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. This man guilty of fornication may only marry a woman similarly guilty or an idolatoress and this woman guilty of fornication may only marry such a man or an idolator. The believers are forbidden such marriages. (24:2-3) 

There is punishment for pre-marital sex in Islam. I am sorry but whosoever suuports such ridiculous belief systems is just severally deluded and still living in the stone age. Ah it makes me cringe how the quran contains such ridiculous things and it is louded by billions as the greatest and holiest thing ever.:(

More than half the muslims I know have done pre-marital sex, shows you how much people really believe.

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#31 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Ah, another debate! Hooray! :D :P

The man and the woman guilty of fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes and let not compassion move you in their case in the enforcement of the law of God, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. This man guilty of fornication may only marry a woman similarly guilty or an idolatoress and this woman guilty of fornication may only marry such a man or an idolator. The believers are forbidden such marriages. (24:2-3) 

There is punishment for pre-marital sex in Islam. I am sorry but whosoever suuports such ridiculous belief systems is just severally deluded and still living in the stone age. Ah it makes me cringe how the quran contains such ridiculous things and it is louded by billions as the greatest and holiest thing ever.:(

More than half the muslims I know have done pre-marital sex, shows you how much people really believe.

Gambler_3

Interestingly, it is actually difficult to obtain such punishment. Unless you're doing sex in public (or have 4 people watching you :?) or you confess to the court, the only thing you need to do is to repent and never do it again.

Also, what's with the big text? Emphasis? :P

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts
Are you trying to say that rape victims are stoned for being rape victims?:|

They are stoned for adultery which is a punishment the prophet used to give. Homosexuals I dont know if there was punishment for it but it is severally looked down upon by the quran.

So do you really defend capital punishment for adultery?

Gambler_3

I didn't say they were stoned for being victims, I said rape victims were stoned. Big difference there.

The only references where stoning was used as a punishment (btw no countries except corrupt places like Saudi Arabia use that punishment) was when the perpetrator WILLINGLY accepted the punishment. I don't have the Hadith right now, but I'll try to find it. Muhammad was disappointed in one man who willingly cheated on his wife. He told the man to repent and to never do it again. But the man told Muhammad that he wasn't intoxicated, he had regular sex with his wife, and he was aware of Islam's stance of adultery. Then he accepted the punishment and was stoned to death. This was called "tawbah mastubah", a way to purify one's soul completely from a major sin. This and a few others were the ONLY instances where stoning was used.

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#33 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

Witnesses or self consession were the only 2 ways of punishing someone back then. How else would someone's act be proven?

Today there are many more ways like forensic evidence, photo or video evidence or recording a telephone call etc...

You didnt answer me, you accept these punishments as valid?

I copy pasted so that's why the bigger text.

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#34 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts
[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Are you trying to say that rape victims are stoned for being rape victims?:|

They are stoned for adultery which is a punishment the prophet used to give. Homosexuals I dont know if there was punishment for it but it is severally looked down upon by the quran.

So do you really defend capital punishment for adultery?

ghoklebutter

I didn't say they were stoned for being victims, I said rape victims were stoned. Big difference there.

The only references where stoning was used as a punishment (btw no countries except corrupt places like Saudi Arabia use that punishment) was when the perpetrator WILLINGLY accepted the punishment. I don't have the Hadith right now, but I'll try to find it. Muhammad was disappointed in one man who willingly cheated on his wife. He told the man to repent and to never do it again. But the man told Muhammad that he wasn't intoxicated, he had regular sex with his wife, and he was aware of Islam's stance of adultery. Then he accepted the punishment and was stoned to death. This was called "tawbah mastubah", a way to purify one's soul completely from a major sin. This and a few others were the ONLY instances where stoning was used.

And upon those of your women who habitually commit fornication, call in four people among yourselves to testify over them; if they testify [to their ill-ways], confine them to their homes till death overtakes them or God finds another way for them. And the man and woman among you who commit fornication, punish them. If they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. For God is Oft-Forgiving and most Merciful. (4:15-16)

So prostitues are supposed to be STARVED TO DEATH? WOW ALL HAIL ALLAH THE MERCIFUL!!!

"If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him."(Abu Da`ud 3871)

WTF????

Kill the one who commits the action of the people of Lut and the one to whom it is done and (kill) the animal and the one who has sex with that animal; and whoever has sex with a mahram, kill him. (Ahmad 2591)

Kill kill kill just kill.:roll:

Here the prophet ordains death penalty for incest and homosexuality. But ofcourse the hadith is not authentic, only the one which suit our arguments are valid.:)

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#35 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Witnesses or self consession were the only 2 ways of punishing someone back then. How else would someone's act be proven?

Today there are many more ways like forensic evidence, photo or video evidence or recording a telephone call etc...

You didnt answer me, you accept these punishments as valid?

I copy pasted so that's why the bigger text.

Gambler_3

How a crime is proven in Sharia is not defined, therefore you can prove the crime in whatever manner.

If a person turns himself in knowing that he has commited a crime and accepts his punishment, what's wrong with it? I do think that capital punishment is unnecessary but since most Muslim countries don't do it, I am content. Like I said, capital punishment was only used in certain circumstances.

The Qur'an also orders that thieves must have their hands cut off. But ever since Abu Bakr declared so, it is only reserved for punishing people who steal millions of dollars away from needy people. Times change.

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#36 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts
And upon those of your women who habitually commit fornication, call in four people among yourselves to testify over them; if they testify [to their ill-ways], confine them to their homes till death overtakes them or God finds another way for them. And the man and woman among you who commit fornication, punish them. If they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. For God is Oft-Forgiving and most Merciful. (4:15-16)

So prostitues are supposed to be STARVED TO DEATH? WOW ALL HAIL ALLAH THE MERCIFUL!!!

"If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him."(Abu Da`ud 3871)

WTF????

Kill the one who commits the action of the people of Lut and the one to whom it is done and (kill) the animal and the one who has sex with that animal; and whoever has sex with a mahram, kill him. (Ahmad 2591)

Kill kill kill just kill.:roll:

Here the prophet ordains death penalty for incest and homosexuality. But ofcourse the hadith is not authentic, only the one which suit our arguments are valid.:)

Gambler_3

1. Yeah, that's totally going to happen if there is no evidence or four witnesses. :roll:

2. Unauthentic source FTL.

3. Unauthentic source again. *yawn*

The hadiths aren't full of candy and roses. Some are corrupt and are downright inhumane.

 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

1. I'm sorry I confused you. Those "laws" that I mentioned are not really full-fledged laws. Fatwa means "opinion" in Arabic. It is advised that someone studies Islam himself, or better than that with a trusted Imam

. Fatwas are like movie reviews; not necessarily factual but useful for one's judgement. Fatwas are mainly for people who are not as knowledgible as the scholars or are illiterate of the Qur'an's teachings. Of course they have different uses as well. 

Avoiding the law is not what I am trying to convery here. I am merely saying that if a matter is unclear to you, abstain from dealing with it. The Qur'an tells Muslims to stay away from which is doubtful. This is not breaking the law per se, it is simply staying away from doing somethig that could possibly be unlawful.

2. As monkeys sway from tree to tree, some people switch from opinion to opinion. That was my analogy.

3. From what it looks like organ donation is actually looked down upon in Islam. However, only for organs vital for human life like heart transplants are forbidden (the same cannot be said if it is a corpse the organ is taken from). In other cases, it is only allowed in extreme circumstances, i.e a kidney transplant if someone is dying from a kidney related disease. As someone who studies Islam and Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), I can tell you that most matters in Islam are not a mere jumble of interpretations. Studying Islam closely reveals little room for opinion except for trivial matters (like using alchohol for perfume). The Mahdi's mission is not really to reform Islam (there is actually no mention of that), but rather to bring clarity, peace, and understanding to the world. That is where I deduced that the Mahdi will reform Islam. Until then, we are supposed to stay away from what is doubful and forbidden, and repent in advance to God incase we make a malformed judgement.

4. When I said that, I only meant that in the sense that non-Muslims may not care about Islam and/or are uninterested.

5. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

ghoklebutter

The UK fatwa that said organ donation was ok was made by Imams, so was guidance for Islamics. You say they are for people who are not knowledgeable, but then why do fatwas disagree on organ donation? Anyway, surely your view of fatwa adherence would depend on your branch of Islamic belief (for example; don't Sunni and Shia approach fatwas differently?) .

Are you saying now that Islamics should not receive heart transplants??? How can anyone justify that! If you abstain from action, are you not sinning by not aiding the saving of another person's life by letting them use an organ or two from your dead body?

It seems the matter is unclear to you, since: 1. you said you wanted to be buried in tact. 2. You said you didn't know about any Islamic law objecting to organ donation, despite your research. 3. You said people could interpret the Islamic law on violation either way. 4. You now seem to say that heart transplants are bad but kidney transplants are ok. ( ? Explain please! ) 

From my studies of the Quran and Islam, I can tell you my findings about it evidence a wide variety of often contradictory views, based on a book that offers some rather bipolar verses and plenty of room for interpretation. In my world, there are a wide variety of different Muslims with similar divides - just as the Christian faith has. I've heard proud Islamics trumpeting about their scientific and medical innovation, along side your new view about forbidding heart transplants...

Why wouldn't non-Muslims want inclusion into Muslim affairs in a secular society, where we all have to live under one human law? What I meant by number 5 is that you contrasted your own "correct" Islamic views with bad ones held in another country. What country would represent your preferred Islamic state then? I'm not sure you've explained what you think yet: about the little room for opinion in the Quran's verses about donations and life saving surgery, then how and why you've interpreted your own views from the many fatwa on the issue, from the many sides of Islam there are.

 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#38 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Witnesses or self consession were the only 2 ways of punishing someone back then. How else would someone's act be proven?

Today there are many more ways like forensic evidence, photo or video evidence or recording a telephone call etc...

You didnt answer me, you accept these punishments as valid?

I copy pasted so that's why the bigger text.

ghoklebutter

How a crime is proven in Sharia is not defined, therefore you can prove the crime in whatever manner.

If a person turns himself in knowing that he has commited a crime and accepts his punishment, what's wrong with it? I do think that capital punishment is unnecessary but since most Muslim countries don't do it, I am content. Like I said, capital punishment was only used in certain circumstances.

The Qur'an also orders that thieves must have their hands cut off. But ever since Abu Bakr declared so, it is only reserved for punishing people who steal millions of dollars away from needy people. Times change.

The quran isnt talking about punishing those who accept it, it infact tells you to NOT show compassion and abey the comman of God. Oh man you seem to have lost it.:?

Most countries do have capital punishment, wtf are you talking about?

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#39 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]And upon those of your women who habitually commit fornication, call in four people among yourselves to testify over them; if they testify [to their ill-ways], confine them to their homes till death overtakes them or God finds another way for them. And the man and woman among you who commit fornication, punish them. If they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone. For God is Oft-Forgiving and most Merciful. (4:15-16)

So prostitues are supposed to be STARVED TO DEATH? WOW ALL HAIL ALLAH THE MERCIFUL!!!

"If anyone has sexual intercourse with an animal, kill him and kill it along with him."(Abu Da`ud 3871)

WTF????

Kill the one who commits the action of the people of Lut and the one to whom it is done and (kill) the animal and the one who has sex with that animal; and whoever has sex with a mahram, kill him. (Ahmad 2591)

Kill kill kill just kill.:roll:

Here the prophet ordains death penalty for incest and homosexuality. But ofcourse the hadith is not authentic, only the one which suit our arguments are valid.:)

ghoklebutter

1. Yeah, that's totally going to happen if there is no evidence or four witnesses. :roll:

2. Unauthentic source FTL.

3. Unauthentic source again. *yawn*

The hadiths aren't full of candy and roses. Some are corrupt and are downright inhumane.

Wtf? Why have you resorted to nonsense sorry to say? I bring you the punishments precribed in the quran and you tell me that it's not going to happen if there's no evidence. Well whoever didnt know that punishments are not given without evidence.:shock:

And ya it's totally not going to happen that four people would testify a prostitute of having done protitution.:lol:

Why did you bother saying unauthentic, I already gave your answer in my post.:lol:

Your arguments are void and invalid, there's no subjectivity here they just ARE.

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#40 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Ah come on guys cut me some slack. :P

My responses are in red.

The UK fatwa that said organ donation was ok was made by Imams, so was guidance for Islamics. You say they are for people who are not knowledgeable, but then why do fatwas disagree on organ donation? Anyway, surely your view of fatwa adherence would depend on your branch of Islamic belief (for example; don't Sunni and Shia approach fatwas differently?) .

Imams don't listen to fatwas, ordinary Muslims however, do.

Are you saying now that Islamics should not receive heart transplants??? How can anyone justify that! If you abstain from action, are you not sinning by not aiding the saving of another person's life by letting them use an organ or two from your dead body?

In cases of necessity, such transplant is allowed.

It seems the matter is unclear to you, since: 1. you said you wanted to be buried in tact. 2. You said you didn't know about any Islamic law objecting to organ donation, despite your research. 3. You said people could interpret the Islamic law on violation either way. 4. You now seem to say that heart transplants are bad but kidney transplants are ok. ( ? Explain please! ) 

1. My personal opinion, even then it doesn't matter since I'm dead. 2. I did some research after reading a few posts of yours on this topic. 3. Violating Islamic Law? I'd never...:lol: 4. Those were EXAMPLES. Understand? Organ donations like heart transplants (aka anything that endangers the donor's life)  are forbidden while the donor is still alive.

From my studies of the Quran and Islam, I can tell you my findings about it evidence a wide variety of often contradictory views, based on a book that offers some rather bipolar verses and plenty of room for interpretation. In my world, there are a wide variety of different Muslims with similar divides - just as the Christian faith has. I've heard proud Islamics trumpeting about their scientific and medical innovation, along side your new view about forbidding heart transplants...

Show me such bipolar verses.

Why wouldn't non-Muslims want inclusion into Muslim affairs in a secular society, where we all have to live under one human law? What I meant by number 5 is that you contrasted your own "correct" Islamic views with bad ones held in another country. What country would represent your preferred Islamic state then? I'm not sure you've explained what you think yet: about the little room for opinion in the Quran's verses about donations and life saving surgery, then how and why you've interpreted your own views from the many fatwa on the issue, from the many sides of Islam there are.

My views may not be correct at all. I just gave you an example. I guess Indonesia, Lebanon, and Syria (again they aren't perfect either) are the closest in my views.

There is only one true side of Islam and that is Sunni Islam.

RationalAtheist

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

How a crime is proven in Sharia is not defined, therefore you can prove the crime in whatever manner.

If a person turns himself in knowing that he has commited a crime and accepts his punishment, what's wrong with it? I do think that capital punishment is unnecessary but since most Muslim countries don't do it, I am content. Like I said, capital punishment was only used in certain circumstances.

The Qur'an also orders that thieves must have their hands cut off. But ever since Abu Bakr declared so, it is only reserved for punishing people who steal millions of dollars away from needy people. Times change.

ghoklebutter

What's so special about Abu Bakr? Was he Mohammad's father-in-law, or something (a userper)?

Having said that, is there a chance of containing this thread to organ donations and transplants please? 

 

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#42 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

How a crime is proven in Sharia is not defined, therefore you can prove the crime in whatever manner.

If a person turns himself in knowing that he has commited a crime and accepts his punishment, what's wrong with it? I do think that capital punishment is unnecessary but since most Muslim countries don't do it, I am content. Like I said, capital punishment was only used in certain circumstances.

The Qur'an also orders that thieves must have their hands cut off. But ever since Abu Bakr declared so, it is only reserved for punishing people who steal millions of dollars away from needy people. Times change.

RationalAtheist

What's so special about Abu Bakr? Was he Mohammad's father-in-law, or something (a userper)?

Having said that, is there a chance of containing this thread to organ donations and transplants please? 

 

Muhammad said that if he (Muhammad) was not the last prophet, Abu Bakr would be. He was Muhammad's best friend.

I apologize for derailing this thread. 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Ah come on guys cut me some slack. :P

My responses are in red.

Imams don't listen to fatwas, ordinary Muslims however, do.

In cases of necessity, such transplant is allowed.

1. My personal opinion, even then it doesn't matter since I'm dead. 2. I did some research after reading a few posts of yours on this topic. 3. Violating Islamic Law? I'd never...:lol: 4. Those were EXAMPLES. Understand? Organ donations like heart transplants (aka anything that endangers the donor's life)  are forbidden while the donor is still alive.

Show me such bipolar verses.

My views may not be correct at all. I just gave you an example. I guess Indonesia, Lebanon, and Syria (again they aren't perfect either) are the closest in my views. 

There is only one true side of Islam and that is Sunni Islam.

ghoklebutter

Or you could cut this thread some slack! 

I'd prefer it if you didn't add your quotes under my name - even in red and even with an explanation. Why not write full paragraphs to express your points instead, or quote properly? 

I don't know why you've replied. You seem to agree that there are many Islamic views on this. You seem to give strange unqualified EXAMPLES, but they seem to be pure guesswork with no explanation, rather than any genuine research into understanding interpretations from the Quran on the subject.

I'm not interested in donations while one is alive - that should be clear from the topic.  Although are you saying that you shouldn't donate a kidney to a relative or friend? Many do and most live full lives with one kidney or one lung. What's wrong with that?

Gosh; there are so many bipolar Quran verses. Here's a flavour:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/contra/merciful.html

Indonesia and Lebanon are not Islamic states. Syria have dubious human rights records, so good luck to all Syrians. No matter what spin you put on your preferred flavour of Islam, you are not making it come across as particularly clear, deductive, rational or appealing to me.

 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What's so special about Abu Bakr? Was he Mohammad's father-in-law, or something (a userper)? 

ghoklebutter

Muhammad said that if he (Muhammad) was not the last prophet, Abu Bakr would be. He was Muhammad's best friend.

Isn't it odd that Wiki says he was Mohammad's father-in-law! (or a userper, depending on your Islamic faith...) 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Gambler_3

Since RA prefers to keep this topic about organ donation, let's not bring the whole debate in this thread. Next time such argument is brought up I'll debate about it with you as long as we don't derail the thread. You bring up some very good points though, good job.

ghoklebutter

I'm no mod and would hate to stifle debate - sorry - it was said in jest.

I did want to nail the specifics of this particular issue, while dealing with all the diversions that got thrown up. 

I honestly appreciate all responses in this thread. I'm a serial-thread-derailer myself. Carry on!

 

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#47 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Or you could cut this thread some slack! 

I'd prefer it if you didn't add your quotes under my name - even in red and even with an explanation. Why not write full paragraphs to express your points instead, or quote properly? 

I don't know why you've replied. You seem to agree that there are many Islamic views on this. You seem to give strange unqualified EXAMPLES, but they seem to be pure guesswork with no explanation, rather than any genuine research into understanding interpretations from the Quran on the subject.

I'm not interested in donations while one is alive - that should be clear from the topic.  Although are you saying that you shouldn't donate a kidney to a relative or friend? Many do and most live full lives with one kidney or one lung. What's wrong with that?

Gosh; there are so many bipolar Quran verses. Here's a flavour:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/contra/merciful.html

Indonesia and Lebanon are not Islamic states. Syria have dubious human rights records, so good luck to all Syrians. No matter what spin you put on your preferred flavour of Islam, you are not making it come across as particularly clear, deductive, rational or appealing to me.

RationalAtheist

1. I was lazy sorry. :P That's the way I like quoting but I understand not everyone likes it.

2. I researched the Hadith and Qur'an for that topic. I'll give you evidence upon request.

3. I didn't say you cannot donate kidneys. But generally donations are frowned upon unless it is done out of necessity.

4. God is merciful and benevolent to those who repent to him. The "Allah has sealed their hearts, set a veil across their eyes, etc." is referring to the disbelievers (not ordinary non-Muslims, mind you) who reject Islam even when the proof is in front of their eyes. 

5. Your statement that you have studied the Qur'an is quite questionable considering you showed me a website that takes verses out of context. 

6. I may be wrong about Indonesia, but how is Lebanon an unIslamic country? I agree about Syria, however.

7. Preferred flavor of Islam? The only sources I look up are the Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadith. It's only "my flavor" because you don't agree with me. Whether you believe that I study the Qur'a or is debatable, however.

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#48 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What's so special about Abu Bakr? Was he Mohammad's father-in-law, or something (a userper)? 

RationalAtheist

Muhammad said that if he (Muhammad) was not the last prophet, Abu Bakr would be. He was Muhammad's best friend.

Isn't it odd that Wiki says he was Mohammad's father-in-law! (or a userper, depending on your Islamic faith...) 

Perhaps "friend" was just a respectful title. Either way it doesn't matter to me.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

1. I was lazy sorry. :P That's the way I like quoting but I understand not everyone likes it.

2. I researched the Hadith and Qur'an for that topic. I'll give you evidence upon request.

3. I didn't say you cannot donate kidneys. But generally donations are frowned upon unless it is done out of necessity.

4. God is merciful and benevolent to those who repent to him. The "Allah has sealed their hearts, set a veil across their eyes, etc." is referring to the disbelievers (not ordinary non-Muslims, mind you) who reject Islam even when the proof is in front of their eyes. 

5. Your statement that you have studied the Qur'an is quite questionable considering you showed me a website that takes verses out of context. 

6. I may be wrong about Indonesia, but how is Lebanon an unIslamic country? I agree about Syria, however.

7. Preferred flavor of Islam? The only sources I look up are the Qur'an, Sunnah and Hadith. It's only "my flavor" because you don't agree with me. Whether you believe that I study the Qur'a or is debatable, however.

ghoklebutter

Thanks. The GS editor goes bad for me when anyone colours text or boldises, making it hard to quote them properly. Its mainly a technical issue for me, so thanks for listening!

Please tell me all you know about where your Islamic knowledge on Islamic organ donation differs from the links I supplied from the UK NHS. I would imagine most all organ transplants are done out of necessity. Are you in favour of transplant but opposed to research?

Muslim disbelievers are not infidels, eh? What constitutes this "proof", and how does it apply to some more readily than to others?

You tell me my understanding of the Quran is questionable without responding to specific points I've made since the start of the thread (i.e. point No. 2 above). Have I made any statements about your knowledge of the Quran, aside from re-itterating your own statements back at you? If so, I apologise, since making assumptions about what others know is arrogant and fool-hardy.

It's not your "flavour" because I disagree with you - it's your flavour since there are many other falvours of Islam. I disagree with them all.

 

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#50 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

Thanks. The GS editor goes bad for me when anyone colours text or boldises, making it hard to quote them properly. Its mainly a technical issue for me, so thanks for listening!

Please tell me all you know about where your Islamic knowledge on Islamic organ donation differs from the links I supplied from the UK NHS. I would imagine most all organ transplants are done out of necessity. Are you in favour of transplant but opposed to research?

 

 

Muslim disbelievers are not infidels, eh? What constitutes this "proof", and how does it apply to some more readily than to others?

You tell me my understanding of the Quran is questionable without responding to specific points I've made since the start of the thread (i.e. point No. 2 above). Have I made any statements about your knowledge of the Quran, aside from re-itterating your own statements back at you? If so, I apologise, since making assumptions about what others know is arrogant and fool-hardy.

It's not your "flavour" because I disagree with you - it's your flavour since there are many other falvours of Islam. I disagree with them all.

RationalAtheist

You're welcome.

My understanding agrees with that fatwa pretty much 100%. It seems to be based on the fact that Sharia can be broken in times of necessity. This still applies even though normally taking advantage of another human's body parts is forbidden (in any sense).

Let's see Sura Baqarah:

This is the Book (the Quran), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are God-conscious. Who believe in the Ghaib and perform regular prayer, and spend out of what we have provided for them (money, charity, etc.). And who believe in which has been sent down to you which were sent down before you and they believe with certainty in the Hereafter. They are on guidance from their Lord, and they are the successful. Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (Muhammad) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment. And of mankind, there are some (Muslims) who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day" (one of the basic tenants of faith in Islam) while in fact they believe not. 2:2-8

So this is in the context of the disbelievers and the hypocritical Muslims. The word disbeliever is "kaafir" in Arabic, which is from the verb "ka-fa-ra" which means "to disbelieve". "Kaafir" is in the pattern "one who does ____". So in this case it means "one who disbelieves". This is different from "ghayru-Muslim", which means "non-Muslim". 

In the light of the above paragraph (the second one), I don't really need to show you the Quran and Hadith because my judgement was based on my common sense of Islam. Which that fatwa happens to agree on.

I'm sure you'll eventually find a good flavour of Islam. I prefer chocolate-flavoured Islam myself. :P