What will really happen after you die?

Okay Gambler, let's look at those Hadiths and verses you've shown me.

And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.

(It's a bit different since yours was too big)

This was a command in the early days in Islam. It has since been abrogated and now the standard Sharia punishment for adultery applies.

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

The reason why the animal is killed is because the Prophet deemed such animals unlawful to eat and to prevent the spread of disease through bestiality.

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)

That's only if such acts are done in public. Most sexual sins (including those) must be proved with 4 reliable witnesses. So you practically have to have commit those acts out in public or turn yourself in.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][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...) 

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

This was a command in the early days in Islam. It has since been abrogated and now the standard Sharia punishment for adultery applies.

The reason why the animal is killed is because the Prophet deemed such animals unlawful to eat and to prevent the spread of disease through bestiality.

That's only if such acts are done in public. Most sexual sins (including those) must be proved with 4 reliable witnesses. So you practically have to have commit those acts out in public or turn yourself in.

ghoklebutter

2. And the killing of the human who had sex with an animal is not a big deal at all...

3. Where did it say public? Once again why are you making up things to suit yourself?:|

And no just because it needs 4 witnesses doesnt mean that this is the only way to prove it. You simply have to prove without reasonable doubt and the punishment stands and now there are many more ways of proving.

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. :Pghoklebutter

But aren't there many fatwa sayng different things on organ donation in Islam? Isn't that why there is so much confusion there and over here in the UK (which is why yet another new fatwa was written in 1995)?

From your quote, I do see that Allah is not merciful, since he puts people in torment by sealing their hearts and covering their eyes.

I'm worried you now don't feel the need to justify the Islamic reasoning behind organ donation, since you showed me that a non-Muslim is a different word to a disbeliever (just like in English). You didn't show me that they could not be used to describe the same thing, or how this all relates to organ donations anyway.

I don't think I will find a good enough "flavour" of Islam for me - I find them all rather tasteless!

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

This was a command in the early days in Islam. It has since been abrogated and now the standard Sharia punishment for adultery applies.

The reason why the animal is killed is because the Prophet deemed such animals unlawful to eat and to prevent the spread of disease through bestiality.

That's only if such acts are done in public. Most sexual sins (including those) must be proved with 4 reliable witnesses. So you practically have to have commit those acts out in public or turn yourself in.

Gambler_3

2. And the killing of the human who had sex with an animal is not a big deal at all...

3. Where did it say public? Once again why are you making up things to suit yourself?:|

And no just because it needs 4 witnesses doesnt mean that this is the only way to prove it. You simply have to prove without reasonable doubt and the punishment stands and now there are many more ways of proving.

1. No it isn't. The verse that says "flog the adulterer and adulteress" abrogated that other verse.

2 and 3. All of those are sexual sins. These are the conditions to prove the accused guilty:

-The accused, before the accusation, must be known as a practising Muslim.

-There must be four Muslim witnesses to the incident or confessions from both of the accused persons.

-The accused must possess common sense. The accused must not have been in an intoxicated state of mind while the act was committed.

-The accused must be an adult.

-The accused must have committed adultery of his/her own free will.

But aren't there many fatwa sayng different things on organ donation in Islam? Isn't that why there is so much confusion there and over here in the UK (which is why yet another new fatwa was written in 1995)?

From your quote, I do see that Allah is not merciful, since he puts people in torment by sealing their hearts and covering their eyes.

I'm worried you now don't feel the need to justify the Islamic reasoning behind organ donation, since you showed me that a non-Muslim is a different word to a disbeliever (just like in English). You didn't show me that they could not be used to describe the same thing, or how this all relates to organ donations anyway.

I don't think I will find a good enough "flavour" of Islam for me - I find them all rather tasteless!

RationalAtheist

That's not true. The majority of scholars agree with organ donation in necessary cases. There is little room for opinion.

It's a metaphor. God is referring to those who are blind and ignorant to the truth. Unless you don't think those people exist.

I can justify my stance. "Kaafir" implies that the person knows about Islam yet rejects it. That word definition has to do with those "bipolar" verses you've shown me. It has nothing to do with organ donation obviously.

I was just joking. I don't expect you to like Islam.

That's not true. The majority of scholars agree with organ donation in necessary cases. There is little room for opinion.

It's a metaphor. God is referring to those who are blind and ignorant to the truth. Unless you don't think those people exist.

I can justify my stance. "Kaafir" implies that the person knows about Islam yet rejects it. That word definition has to do with those "bipolar" verses you've shown me. It has nothing to do with organ donation obviously.

I was just joking. I don't expect you to like Islam.

ghoklebutter

I thought I showed you some links stating that there are differing views on this and evidence for the reality of these views. Would you believe in Christianity simply because more people do than believe in Islam? That's exactly the popularist argument you're poutting forward with your majority of scholars' thinking. Are you perhaps excluding "scholars" from other branches of Islam you don't agree with?

Metaphores are easy to mis-interpret. People ignorant to your "truth" would surely include both infidels and kaafir, wouldn't they?

Thanks goodness you were joking - I'll stop my research project on chocolate Islamism right now! 

I thought I showed you some links stating that there are differing views on this and evidence for the reality of these views. Would you believe in Christianity simply because more people do than believe in Islam? That's exactly the popularist argument you're poutting forward with your majority of scholars' thinking. Are you perhaps excluding "scholars" from other branches of Islam you don't agree with?

Metaphores are easy to mis-interpret. People ignorant to your "truth" would surely include both infidels and kaafir, wouldn't they?

Thanks goodness you were joking - I'll stop my research project on chocolate Islamism right now! 

RationalAtheist

Of course there is some ambiguity, but not very much. When it comes to these things in Islam, following the consensus of opinion is not a bad idea.

Yes it includes all of them.

Why not try mint Islamism instead? :P

That verse about people being blind and ignorant is simply mind games played by muhammad to make more people come to Islam. You are passing off unbelievers as stupid, ignorant, clueless and dumb. The people who already believe that it is God's world will never even listen to the other side's arguments since God says they are ignorant.

There are MANY such verses in the quran. There are verses which say that "We have given clear signs and that there is no doubt".

I have several times been thrown that blind and hearts sealed verse in arguments like how I am ignorant and been blinded to the truth. The power of these verses still works today sadly, the other person is convinced that HIS God says that I am ignorant, there's no way then that I can ever convince them.

1. No it isn't. The verse that says "flog the adulterer and adulteress" abrogated that other verse.

ghoklebutter

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

1. No it isn't. The verse that says "flog the adulterer and adulteress" abrogated that other verse.

Gambler_3

That is true. Allah substituted something better:

And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.

That's why. There is also a Hadith where Muhammad said that "Allah has ordained for them another way!". And he was relating to the new verse.

Alchohol used to be allowed (under certain circumstances) in the early days of Islam, but it was later banned completely.

That verse about people being blind and ignorant is simply mind games played by muhammad to make more people come to Islam. You are passing off unbelievers as stupid, ignorant, clueless and dumb. The people who already believe that it is God's world will never even listen to the other side's arguments since God says they are ignorant.

There are MANY such verses in the quran. There are verses which say that "We have given clear signs and that there is no doubt".

I have several times been thrown that blind and hearts sealed verse in arguments like how I am ignorant and been blinded to the truth. The power of these verses still works today sadly, the other person is convinced that HIS God says that I am ignorant, there's no way then that I can ever convince them.

Gambler_3

God is specifically referring to the non-Muslims in the early days of Islam in those verses because it says "whether you warn them or not (Muhammad) they will not believe".

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

1. No it isn't. The verse that says "flog the adulterer and adulteress" abrogated that other verse.

ghoklebutter

That is true. Allah substituted something better:

And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.

That's why. There is also a Hadith where Muhammad said that "Allah has ordained for them another way!". And he was relating to the new verse.

Alchohol used to be allowed (under certain circumstances) in the early days of Islam, but it was later banned completely.

Well obviously alcohol was allowed cuz muhammad hadnt really thought about it yet. He gradually introduced all the different beliefs, exactly like how it would be if islam was his own invention.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

That verse about people being blind and ignorant is simply mind games played by muhammad to make more people come to Islam. You are passing off unbelievers as stupid, ignorant, clueless and dumb. The people who already believe that it is God's world will never even listen to the other side's arguments since God says they are ignorant.

There are MANY such verses in the quran. There are verses which say that "We have given clear signs and that there is no doubt".

I have several times been thrown that blind and hearts sealed verse in arguments like how I am ignorant and been blinded to the truth. The power of these verses still works today sadly, the other person is convinced that HIS God says that I am ignorant, there's no way then that I can ever convince them.

ghoklebutter

God is specifically referring to the non-Muslims in the early days of Islam in those verses because it says "whether you warn them or not (Muhammad) they will not believe".

Where did I say that muhammad wrote those verses for later times? And secondly that verse doesnt say "muhammad" it is simply added in to the translation by the interpretor. Always ignore those brackets when reading the translation...

lol that means that you should lock them in houses but if they manage to escape than consider it God's will and let them free.

Well obviously alcohol was allowed cuz muhammad hadnt really thought about it yet. He gradually introduced all the different beliefs, exactly like how it would be if islam was his own invention.

Gambler_3

I hate to say it, but it's as if you ignore my posts completely.

1.

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.(4:15)

It has been accepted by ALL scholars that this does not mean escape, it means figuratively as "another way around."

Then

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)

2. It was gradually banned. The Arabs were addicted to alcohol, do you really think they could stop drinking it alltogether in one day?

WOW you dont really get it? What did I say that you had to make that insignificant post? I am sorry I am being rude cuz your posts are getting so increasingly useless and meaningless. I dont think you are that dumb, you are just being an extreme apologetic.

Where did I say that muhammad wrote those verses for later times? And secondly that verse doesnt say "muhammad" it is simply added in to the translation by the interpretor. Always ignore those brackets when reading the translation...

Gambler_3

The plural "you" isn't used in that verse, it's singular. A lot of verses are like this. This was definitely directed to Muhammad.

Thank you for the ad-hominem attitude.

...It has been accepted by ALL scholars...

ghoklebutter

Surely, you know that statement can not be true. Thinking like that shows you are either ignorant to or dismissive of other views.

I still can't see how you justify kaafir and infidels as being different in not knowing the "truth", according to you. Perhaps you do this to make Gambler3 flip out. Or perhaps you just won't tell.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

...It has been accepted by ALL scholars...

RationalAtheist

Surely, you know that statement can not be true. Thinking like that shows you are either ignorant to or dismissive of other views.

I still can't see how you justify kaafir and infidels as being different in not knowing the "truth", according to you. Perhaps you do this to make Gambler3 flip out. Or perhaps you just won't tell.

I apologize. That was an ignorant statement. But most scholars agree on the ruling.

Infidels and kuffar (pl. of kaafir) are the same. Non-Muslims are simply people who don't follow Islam, while kuffar are the ones who reject Islam in the light of evidence. "Truth" is not the right word...for our purposes I'll just say "Islam" instead.

I apologize. That was an ignorant statement. But most scholars agree on the ruling.

Infidels and kuffar (pl. of kaafir) are the same. Non-Muslims are simply people who don't follow Islam, while kuffar are the ones who reject Islam in the light of evidence. "Truth" is not the right word...for our purposes I'll just say "Islam" instead.

ghoklebutter

You love your appeals from authority, dont you? Why aren't you a Christian then? - they outnumber you chaps 3  to 2? They must be right, since there's more of them... If you can't create some more credible argument, I'd say there is no reconciling these different views. I'll go on...

Do your body parts testify to your sin on the day of judgement in Islam?

You love your appeals from authority, dont you? Why aren't you a Christian then? - they outnumber you chaps 3  to 2? They must be right, since there's more of them... If you can't create some more credible argument, I'd say there is no reconciling these different views. I'll go on...

Do your body parts testify to your sin on the day of judgement in Islam?

RationalAtheist

That was for my support. The real reason why I have this view is because in Islam, saving a life is very important. The Qur'an says that saving one human is like saving all humanity. So why wouldn't organ donation fall in there in cases of necessity?

And yes, that is true. Although it has nothing to do with organ donation.

That was for my support. The real reason why I have this view is because in Islam, saving a life is very important. The Qur'an says that saving one human is like saving all humanity. So why wouldn't organ donation fall in there in cases of necessity?

And yes, that is true. Although it has nothing to do with organ donation.

ghoklebutter

Aren't organs body parts too? What would happen to someone without their liver? Wouldn't it hold evidence that the one before judgement has been drinking alcohol, for example?

Aren't organs body parts too? What would happen to someone without their liver? Wouldn't they hold evidence for that the one before judgement has been drinking alcohol, for example?

RationalAtheist

I like your creativity. To be honest I don't know but maybe you'll get new body parts for that purpose. :P

I like your creativity. To be honest I don't know but maybe you'll get new body parts for that purpose. :P

ghoklebutter

Its not my creativity - thank your religion for this confusion.

The new liver would not have passed the alcohol you may be being judged for...

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I like your creativity. To be honest I don't know but maybe you'll get new body parts for that purpose. :P

RationalAtheist

Its not my creativity - thank your religion for this confusion.

The new liver would not have passed the alcohol you may be being judged for...

God's judgement doesn't depend on the testaments of your body parts. That is only when someone denies their act. Obviously God already knows, but it's for the person, not God.

God's judgement doesn't depend on the testaments of your body parts. That is only when someone denies their act. Obviously God already knows, but it's for the person, not God.

ghoklebutter

So is that why it is forbidden to donate body parts then? You just admitted that they were used in the judgement. 

If it is obvious that God already knows, why does God need the body parts at all? 

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

God's judgement doesn't depend on the testaments of your body parts. That is only when someone denies their act. Obviously God already knows, but it's for the person, not God.

RationalAtheist

So is that why it is forbidden to donate body parts then? You just admitted that they were used in the judgement. 

If it is obvious that God already knows, why does God need the body parts at all? 

It's not forbidden to donate organs.

I'm not sure what God needs body parts for, however. It doesn't concern me.

It's not forbidden to donate organs.

I'm not sure what God needs body parts for, however. It doesn't concern me.

ghoklebutter

But some Islamics think it is - for good reason!

Just knowing that God does need body parts should put you off organ donation, shouldn't it?

Why doesn't it concern you, all of a sudden?

But some Islamics think it is - for good reason!

Just knowing that God does need body parts should put you off organ donation, shouldn't it?

Why doesn't it concern you, all of a sudden?

RationalAtheist

God doesn't "need" organs, he can make them himself. Otherwise he's not God.

I simply gave you a response. I have no reason to dwell on this like this.

But some Islamics think it is - for good reason!

Just knowing that God does need body parts should put you off organ donation, shouldn't it?

Why doesn't it concern you, all of a sudden?

RationalAtheist

God doesn't "need" organs, he can make them himself. Otherwise he's not God.

I simply gave you a response. I have no reason to dwell on this like this.

God doesn't "need" organs, he can make them himself. Otherwise he's not God.

I simply gave you a response. I have no reason to dwell on this like this.

ghoklebutter

If they are not needed, why are they used in judgement? If they are used in judgement, why remove them?

Again, would these newly made organs have suffered the same abuses as the missing ones?

Submit to the crazy logic of Islam and accept the irreconcilable. Or don't dwell on it. Your choice.

If they are not needed, why are they used in judgement? If they are used in judgement, why remove them?

Again, would these newly made organs have suffered the same abuses as the missing ones?

Submit to the crazy logic of Islam and accept the irreconcilable. Or don't dwell on it. Your choice.

RationalAtheist

I don't know why they are used.

Even if the person had no liver, God can still judge him by looking through his deeds. His liver isn't necessary.

Irreconcilable? I have never dwelled on this subject because it doesn't concern me. You might as well ask me why Muhammad liked vinegar.

I don't know why they are used.

Even if the person had no liver, God can still judge him by looking through his deeds. His liver isn't necessary.

Irreconcilable? I have never dwelled on this subject because it doesn't concern me. You might as well ask me why Muhammad liked vinegar.

ghoklebutter

If you don't know why its used, how do you know it isn't necessary?

If it doesn't concern you, why spend so much time on it? 

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I don't know why they are used.

Even if the person had no liver, God can still judge him by looking through his deeds. His liver isn't necessary.

Irreconcilable? I have never dwelled on this subject because it doesn't concern me. You might as well ask me why Muhammad liked vinegar.

RationalAtheist

If you don't know why its used, how do you know it isn't necessary?

If it doesn't concern you, why spend so much time on it? 

You said that if God gave someone a new liver, there wouldn't be any evidence that the human drank alcohol. I said that God doesn't need the liver anyway since God knows what you did regardless. Otherwise he's not God. :?

I am "spending time" on this because you brought it up. It doesn't concern me nearly as much as, say, Islamic jurisprudence. 

How this can possibly be an argument against Islam is lightyears beyond me.

You said that if God gave someone a new liver, there wouldn't be any evidence that the human drank alcohol. I said that God doesn't need the liver anyway since God knows what you did regardless. Otherwise he's not God. :?

I am "spending time" on this because you brought it up. It doesn't concern me nearly as much as, say, Islamic jurisprudence. 

How this can possibly be an argument against Islam is lightyears beyond me.

ghoklebutter

I'm sensing misinformation, blame and dismissal: 

I think I asked you the question (that you didn't answer) rather than make that statement. Your statement that God does not need the liver is at odds with the statement that God wants the all parts of the body. The "just coz its God" argument does not resolve this conflict for me.

Actually - you bought it up. Remember, you initially asked about my information source? If you think this argument is too low for you, you can always stop replying - I'll understand. All I'm doing is ensuring religious views don't end up dominating in an atheist forum, especially when I don't see you qualifying many of them.

I' hope you will agree that there are varied Islamic views on this issue. If you think you've justified your "narrow range of opinion" in matters Islamic, you are lightyears ahead of me.

You completely blew my mind...in a different way.

I reall don't see how hard this is to understand.

1. People are judge on the Day of Judgement for their deeds.

2. If someone tries to deny their sin, God will make the human's hand, foot, etc. testify against the person (there is nothing to indicate that the body part speaking has something to do with the sin). This is a warning to those who are unwary of the Day of Judgement, and it is a demonstration of God's power.

Yes there are varied issues on organ donation but the consensus is that it is allowed in necessary circumstances. The only organ donation that is bad is a heart transplant-while the donor is alive. I said that there is little room for opinion since the scholar's opinions don't differ that much in this matter. Of course there are scholars that forbid any kind of organ donation, but when in doubt, I'll follow the consensus. Unless you have a bone to pick with that as well.

You completely blew my mind...in a different way.

I reall don't see how hard this is to understand.

1. People are judge on the Day of Judgement for their deeds.

2. If someone tries to deny their sin, God will make the human's hand, foot, etc. testify against the person (there is nothing to indicate that the body part speaking has something to do with the sin). This is a warning to those who are unwary of the Day of Judgement, and it is a demonstration of God's power.

Yes there are varied issues on organ donation but the consensus is that it is allowed in necessary circumstances. The only organ donation that is bad is a heart transplant-while the donor is alive. I said that there is little room for opinion since the scholar's opinions don't differ that much in this matter. Of course there are scholars that forbid any kind of organ donation, but when in doubt, I'll follow the consensus. Unless you have a bone to pick with that as well.

ghoklebutter

The foot will testify against them? How? Where does it say that in the Quran? 

Your concensus is that way. The Indo/Pakistan countries are largely against, while Arab countries are for it. Source here:

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/organ.htm

You already know the bone I have with the concencus argument - You'd be a Christian!

The foot will testify against them? How? Where does it say that in the Quran? 

Your concensus is that way. The Indo/Pakistan countries are largely against, while Arab countries are for it. Source here:

http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/organ.htm

You already know the bone I have with the concencus argument - You'd be a Christian!

RationalAtheist

Golly this is fun. :P

The foot was an example. I don't care if it's not in the Qur'an because it's just an example.

I'm from the Shafi school of thought. That means that I mostly agree with that school of thought (I have no official status). The Shafi school of thought agrees on organ donation, so I follow suit. 

Well yes the concensus argument has flaws. Of course the consensus isn't always trustworthy. Otherwise, like you said, I wouldn't be Muslim! The concensus in Islamic jurisprudence is different, however. If many reliable scholars agree on the same thing, going with the concensus is a good idea. Imam Shafi, Malik, Hanafi, and Hanbal all agree on organ donation. So following them is good idea if you are confused.

Golly this is fun. :P

The foot was an example. I don't care if it's not in the Qur'an because it's just an example.

I'm from the Shafi school of thought. That means that I mostly agree with that school of thought (I have no official status). The Shafi school of thought agrees on organ donation, so I follow suit. 

Well yes the concensus argument has flaws. Of course the consensus isn't always trustworthy. Otherwise, like you said, I wouldn't be Muslim! The concensus in Islamic jurisprudence is different, however. If many reliable scholars agree on the same thing, going with the concensus is a good idea. Imam Shafi, Malik, Hanafi, and Hanbal all agree on organ donation. So following them is good idea if you are confused.

ghoklebutter

Is an example "some statement that you can't back up or just made up"? 

Since you follow these people, why did you say this? :

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

ghoklebutter

Is an example "some statement that you can't back up or just made up"? 

Since you follow these people, why did you say this? :

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

RationalAtheist

There is no mention of your foot talking against you in the Qur'an. In general I implied that your body parts may testify against you if you deny your actions. Don't you know the meaning of "Et-cetera"?

My post was merely an opinion. Obviously I have no control over my corpse when I am dead. I would like the idea of my body being in one piece, but if it's used to benefit the life of someone else, I'm still content.

It has been accepted by ALL scholars that this does not mean escape, it means figuratively as "another way around."

ghoklebutter

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)

Clearly the punishment in Surah 24 suceeds the verse in Surah 4. What is the ambiguity here?

ghoklebutter

2. It was gradually banned. The Arabs were addicted to alcohol, do you really think they could stop drinking it alltogether in one day?

ghoklebutter

Why is it that a new convert to islam is supposed to quit alcohol from day one? Learn your history...

.

There is no mention of your foot talking against you in the Qur'an. In general I implied that your body parts may testify against you if you deny your actions. Don't you know the meaning of "Et-cetera"?

My post was merely an opinion. Obviously I have no control over my corpse when I am dead. I would like the idea of my body being in one piece, but if it's used to benefit the life of someone else, I'm still content.

ghoklebutter

It sounded to me like you were making something up, rather than including everything else that is similar. (Do you know what etc means?) I know you were implying that parts of your body would testify against you - which is why I presume all your body parts are wanted in-tact. You seem to be missing the ocnnection between the desire for all body parts, if some of them are not even necessary for judgement.

Of course you have some control over your corpse when you die - if you carry a donor card - in the UK at least - It's how these necessary donations can occur. I just thought you said you based your opinion on the Islamic scholars you described, rather than your own personal desires.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

It has been accepted by ALL scholars that this does not mean escape, it means figuratively as "another way around."

Gambler_3

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)

Clearly the punishment in Surah 24 suceeds the verse in Surah 4. What is the ambiguity here?

ghoklebutter

2. It was gradually banned. The Arabs were addicted to alcohol, do you really think they could stop drinking it alltogether in one day?

ghoklebutter

Why is it that a new convert to islam is supposed to quit alcohol from day one? Learn your history...

I never said all scholars are goody-goody people. Some are atrociously bad. Every honest Muslim knows that. 

Looks like you don't understand Sharia. Zina counts for fornication AND adultery. Any sexual sin falls in the category of zina.

Yes that is true. It was banned in three steps in a span of 3 years. It was still banned gradually.

It sounded to me like you were making something up, rather than including everything else that is similar. (Do you know what etc means?) I know you were implying that parts of your body would testify against you - which is why I presume all your body parts are wanted in-tact. You seem to be missing the ocnnection between the desire for all body parts, if some of them are not even necessary for judgement.

Of course you have some control over your corpse when you die - if you carry a donor card - in the UK at least - It's how these necessary donations can occur. I just thought you said you based your opinion on the Islamic scholars you described, rather than your own personal desires.

RationalAtheist

Of course I made it up! There is no mention of your foot testifying against you. I was giving you an impression only.

My personal opinion does not affect my true stance on the subject.

Of course I made it up! There is no mention of your foot testifying against you. I was giving you an impression only.

My personal opinion does not affect my true stance on the subject.

ghoklebutter

Fine! Just so long as we both understand that you make things up to suit your case. Typically, there are better methods stating the reasons behind belief you should check out too.

I'll admit I'm struggling with the difference between a "personal opinion" and a "true stance" now. 

Fine! Just so long as we both understand that you make things up to suit your case. Typically, there are better methods stating the reasons behind belief you should check out too.

I'll admit I'm struggling with the difference between a "personal opinion" and a "true stance" now. 

RationalAtheist

I admit it. All I did was throw out an example that was not necessarily true. And it barely suit my case at all. My direct point was not that your foot testifies against you, rather that some of your body parts may testify against you. ANY part of your body may do that. However, I have no proof that your foot specifically testifies against you, I just threw out an example.

I'll say it again: my personal opinion is that my body be left intact in the grave. My true stance is that organ donation is okay in most circumstances.

I never said all scholars are goody-goody people. Some are atrociously bad. Every honest Muslim knows that. 

Looks like you don't understand Sharia. Zina counts for fornication AND adultery. Any sexual sin falls in the category of zina.

ghoklebutter

2. The quran is clearly giving different punishments for fornication and adultery. How the **** does the verse prescribing death penalty for adulteres becomes invalid??:| Seriously stop twisting things to suit yourself. And yes I not only dont understand sharia but I am generally very clueless about everything.:)

1. Whoever says that pedophilia is "ok" has some serious mental issues. There are an alarmingly high number of scholars and educated muslims in general who think pedophilia is ok. They dont really have a choice though cuz unlike you they dont simply disregard any hadith which doesnt seem right...

2. The quran is clearly giving different punishments for fornication and adultery. How the **** does the verse prescribing death penalty for adulteres becomes invalid??:| Seriously stop twisting things to suit yourself. And yes I not only dont understand sharia but I am generally very clueless about everything.:)

Gambler_3

1. Obviously those scholars are sick in the head. Pedophilla has never been allowed in Islam. I will give you proof upon request. I don't dismiss any Hadith that "doesn't seem right". I look into the actual meaning an context in the Hadith, not completely disregard it. Muslims should never lie and twist the truth.

2.There is a hadith where Muslim (narrarator) has reported that Muhammad said:

 "Come listen to me! Come listen to me! God has now made a way out for them"

It's in a Sahih Muslim Hadith book which I have. It's not on the internet AFAIK.

And in 4:15...

...until God appoints for them a way.

What am I twisting here?

You are not clueless, I'll take that back. You simply pass me off as a liar, as implied in your posts.

1. Obviously those scholars are sick in the head. Pedophilla has never been allowed in Islam. I will give you proof upon request. I don't dismiss any Hadith that "doesn't seem right". I look into the actual meaning an context in the Hadith, not completely disregard it. Muslims should never lie and twist the truth.

2.There is a hadith where Muslim (narrarator) has reported that Muhammad said:

 "Come listen to me! Come listen to me! God has now made a way out for them"

It's in a Sahih Muslim Hadith book which I have. It's not on the internet AFAIK.

And in 4:15...

...until God appoints for them a way.

What am I twisting here?

You are not clueless, I'll take that back. You simply pass me off as a liar, as implied in your posts.

ghoklebutter

And I am now going to bring an argument you cannot dismiss. MOST scholars accept the traditional account of muhammad having sex with a 9 year old, there is a reason why marrying a 9 year old is "legal" in saudi arabia. For centuries after the death of muhammad, it was readily accepted that ayesha was 9 years old, no issues. Then the changing moral zeitgist began to have a serious problem with it and there was also then the start of the apologetic explanations.

I know you are going to throw me a huge article which tries to "prove" that ayesha wasnt a child but please dont bother. It is going to find one contradictory evidence to her being a child and declare it supersiding the other traditions. There is contradictory evidence for many things about muhammad and islam, we may just as well throw the whole history out and perhaps wait for God to send a new prophet lol.

I will say once again, MOST scholars accept that ayesha was 9 years old so there's no way YOU can spin this one.

2. Lets not bring hadith in cuz quran will always have automatic supercidance over them.

And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them  to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some way.

What does the last sentence mean? As far as I can understand it clearly means that you SHOULD confine them to houses. That is the one part that has to be done, the 2 alternatives here are that they die or God saves them through some way....

And btw why the hell is this verse included in the quran if it is no more applicable? The quran is a universal book and there is nothing redundant in it.

And why was there EVER a death penalty for adultery? Why couldnt God just bring the other punishment before? God was confused I guess lol.:shock: