Posted on 08/30/2010 5:42:13 AM PDT by SJackson
The Koran is mostly history too. It starts with Christianity and Judaism, warped with a bunch of local Arab culture. Then mix it up with Mohammed and the history of the start and initial expansion of Islam. Much of Sharia law comes not from the Quran itself, but the Hadith and Sunnah, which are collections of stories about what Mohammed said and did written well after he died. Different sects accept different ones with varying levels of relative authority, down to the Quran-alone Muslims who accept none of it.
This is why you can get ten different answers from ten different Muslims on almost any issue in Sharia. This is how treatment of women runs from "they're slaves" to a woman being the head of a Muslim country's government.
....as was the caption under the candidate for SCOTUS. I think this picture/mockup was to illustrate the inhumane technique of stoning. Sorry I offended you by not showing something even more offensive.
I don’t doubt any of the Jihad points above, but, without footnotes/citations, Muslims or their apologists can claim it’s not true....
Is there a version of this list somewhere that lists the Islamic sources for each point?
Laws made by Christians undoubtedly reflected their values (as laws made by people of any religion will), but there is no mandate in Christianity that we establish a Christian theocracy on Earth.
I went to an online Koran this morning, clicked at random on three different chapters, and found only lists of rules and exhortations, not history.
Bookmarking....just in case the LIBS on Facebook arguing FOR the NYC Mosque come back at me since my last statement....asking them WHY they refuse to address SHARIA Muslims....
Laws made by Christians undoubtedly reflected their values (as laws made by people of any religion will), but there is no mandate in Christianity that we establish a Christian theocracy on Earth.
Absolutely right.
Historically, after the late Roman Empire adopted Christianity, and it became the official religion, the Emperors also adopted certain general elements of Christianity into law. The Church didn't push for it, but, Rome had always combined certain elements of it's official religion(s) into civil law (during the pagan period for example, Emperor worship was mandatory--and why a lot of Christians were persecuted and killed.)
In Rome religions were also licensed, and until the 4th Century after Christ, Christianity was an unlicensed (or "illicit") religion--especially since they refused to acknowledge the Roman gods. So when the power of the Emperor got behind Christianity (although much of the 4th Century a heretical sect called Arianism was favored) the Romans did the same kind of thing they had done when they were pagan--they made some basic elements of their religion (now Christianity) mandatory (but all for the sake of social order, mind you...).
These were not that detailed, but included things like mandatory acceptance of the holy Trinity (and yes, Jews were given an exception to that--most of the time), and NO repeat baptisms... (to prevent any alternative Christian sects from getting going). Later, slavery was also outlawed (even though yes, medieval serfs were often little better than slaves). So elements of Christianity did make it into law--by leaders with a mindset that assumed an Official Religion was required to run an empire, or even a kingdom.
As the medieval world began, newly converted Christian kings in barbarian Europe copied the civilized world's law codes--using the Code of the Roman Emperor Justinian, as the basis of their law--which always included (even though not always followed) the death penalty for heresy--just as it had always been in Rome (both pagan AND Christian).
However, in all that, it was a government-use-of-religion, not visa-versa, it was the hand of the king not the Church that kept Justinian's Code: There is no basis in the New Testament, for some sort of Christian Law--as there certainly is in the Koran and Hadith for Sharia.
Christianity never, for example, made adultery a stoning offense (as it was in old Hebrew-Mosaic Law) as the civil laws of the Old Testament are seen as the civil laws of long-gone ancient Israel--not in any way mandatory for Christians. At the same time, Old Testament morality (NOT civil penalties) has always been a basis of Christian ethics--the 10 Commandments, and sexual ethics being key elements there. However, ethics are NOT civil law--and even though witch hunting and heretic burning did occur in Christendom--these events were not nearly as common as most people assume.
Most of the executions for witchcraft for example are LATE Medieval/Renaissance phenomena (or later, as in Massachusetts, in the 1690s), when Europe became embroiled in religious and political turmoil. (why the Monty Python scene of a witch taken to be burned is wrong...as not many were in the mid-Middle Ages) The same is true for heretic executions...most were done in the Reformation period, when the Roman Church lost its government supported monopoly on matters of faith--and insecurity breeds hysteria.
In any event, after the incredible bloodshed of the 30 Years war of the 1600s, religious involvement in politics directly was rejected....STRONGLY, which is one big reason why our Founders were so adamant about NOT having an official American Church.
Of course ethics affect what laws people want in effect, and Christian ethics have informed our laws....but again, Christian ethics--perhaps since they first appeared amidst a persecuted illicit religion, under a hostile government--have never mandated lists of specific laws, in the way that Islam's belief in Sharia is shown to do above.
I think it might have something to do with the New Testament's, and Jesus', emphasis of change from the inside out, by grace...not the outside in, by force, that makes Christianity NOT a secular law-making religion.
Whether the laws contain the values of a religion by inspiration or direction is an academic issue. The effect is the same. We have Sunday laws in this country because of religion. As far as total theocracy, that is optional, although often used in the past.
The Quran purports to be exactly that too.
Mis-treatemnt of women is NOT a part of how you are guided by this book.
If you don't closely adhere to the book, then yes. If you allow more modern morals to influence your interpretation of the book, then yes.
Slavery in the days of the OT was not the ‘involuntary SLAVERY’ depicted in the US 17-1800’s. It was mostly voluntary servitude ‘slavery’.
That's a rich defense. It's slavery. Slavery, you know, what we consider to be immoral these days. Face it, involuntary servitude was a common part of life when the Bible was written, and thus the Bible regulated it. You make it sound like all of them were debt slaves, when that's not the truth. You think it's okay to beat your "voluntary" slave even to death? Talk about revisionism.
Practices in the bible and using them as a basis for our foundation and laws is what made this country so successful.
Luckily, we have left some of the practices behind. Women have equal rights and slavery is outlawed.
It doesn’t matter what the quran (Koran, whatever) purports to be, because that Same book says that it is OK to lie if it will further Islam, if your intentions are good. That seems to be missing from the Bible.
Yes, we are living under Grace, Jesus hass come to die for our sins and, believeing in Him, we are NOT bound under the Law.
So, voluntary indentured servitude is now slavery? Thats a rich connection. Our military is then, composed of slaves.
The Bible does NOT say that women are not equals. Having said that, Men and Women are NOT the same and have basic, vital differences. And those are manifested in their traditional roles.
You mean like how Rahab lied to the king of Jericho about the spies she was hiding? Of course it's okay to lie to your enemies. Who would consider that immoral?
So, voluntary indentured servitude is now slavery?
Some of the slaves had that status. Otherwise, the Jews were in the involuntary slave trade, and the laws even included generational slavery. This continued through Christianity. Face it, the Bible regulated involuntary servitude. Fact. Revisionism will not work.
The Bible does NOT say that women are not equals. Having said that, Men and Women are NOT the same and have basic, vital differences. And those are manifested in their traditional roles.
That's pretty much what the Quran says too. Remember, much of it is cribbed from Christianity and Judaism.
Rahab is not a lesson to lie, nothing in that recollection says that is good. A Commandment in fact specificaly says “Thou shalt not bear false witness”
And you dodged the military question.
Little of the Quran is ‘cribbed’, if you are speaking of morals or tyhe right way to behave.
It sounds as though you might be a litle happier under Islam, after all it is just the same as Christianity (at least in your eyes).
You should dropto your knees and Thank God above for allowing you to be born in this country where you can spout stuff like this. Try it in Mecca why don’t you? You’ll see all the tolerance you can stand.
No it isn't: if it's not by direction, reform is not automatically heresy, and becomes easier. That's why there is no predominantly Christian country today that is the equivalent of the Muslim regimes we read about.
She was rewarded by being saved. I have other examples of sanctioned lying.
And you dodged the military question.
Why dodge an irrelevant question? Soldiers are not property that can be beaten to death by their masters on a whim. Their children aren't automatically born into soldier status. Indentured servitude of Jews was for a specific short time, basically contract employment. The others were permanent slaves who could even be used sexually by their masters.
Little of the Quran is ‘cribbed’, if you are speaking of morals or tyhe right way to behave.
I am speaking especially of that. Islam was an improvement of the previous state of things in that area of that world. Much of the improvement came by borrowing from Christianity and Judaism.
It sounds as though you might be a litle happier under Islam, after all it is just the same as Christianity (at least in your eyes).
I'd be miserable under strict biblical Christianity or strict Islam. Our society is better because we've moved away from the more outdated of the prescribed morals of 2,000 years ago, and most of Islamic society is still stuck at 1,400 years ago.
You should dropto your knees and Thank God above for allowing you to be born in this country where you can spout stuff like this.
You would probably be thinking differently had you been born in Mecca. Who the "true god" is usually depends on accident of birth.
Reform is easy in either case. Either you separate your morals from the religion and enact laws based on that, or you simply re-interpret the religion and make religious laws based on that. In both cases cries of heresy abound. It happened in Christianity and it happens in Islam. Different sects of Islam consider some practices or beliefs of others heretical, just as Martin Luther and Jan Huss were heretics.
The bigger issue is whether a government is a theocracy or not. If it is, then the religion will be strictly enforced as law regardless of the religion. Today we have few, if any, Christian theocracies left, but many Muslim theocracies remain.
Islam is an IMPROVEMENT!?!
That is the point! We do NOT live under OT biblical Law. What are you fussing over? The OT Law is NOT a governing thing. Is stoning required for some things? No, yet the death penalty can and should apply. The only question is application.
Yet the Quran DOES insist that the OT-style laws be followed (recent stoning of woman in Iran is just the newest example).
Your attempts to equate Christianity with Islam is disingenuous at best. Our society WAS better when we tried to follow how God wants us to live as a society. But we dont want that, we want to do what WE want. We as a nation, WANT to be able to kill our unborn. We as a nation do not WANT to put a murderer to death for his crime. We as a nation do not WANT to condemn the practices of homosexuals.
Yes, all those hideous 2000 year old morals....
Don’t Lie
Don’t be adulterous,
Do not murder
Love thy neighbor.
Oh, the HUMANITY of it all, hwo could people EVER agree to that?
And, we as a nation will pay for it.
Who the true God is is a matter of truth, not geography. A god (little ‘g’) that says the way to him is by killing those who do not beleive is not a ‘god’ but a cult-master.
The God of Israel is a Living God, not something made-up. Not worshipped by travelling to a meteorite. I thank God daily for this country, and pray that He will show mercy to us, as we have forsaken Him. You should also.
I'll let you figure out for yourself why that is. I'll also let you figure out why Christian nations are uniformly getting more and more liberal but many Muslims nations are actually getting more and more militant.
Check up on what society was like in the Arab world before then. The treatment of women was especially improved. Yes, it was that bad before that even the Quran was an improvement.
Yet the Quran DOES insist that the OT-style laws be followed (recent stoning of woman in Iran is just the newest example).
The Quran doesn't mention stoning, or death for apostates. That's in Hadith, the source of most of Sharia law. I don't know about you, but I don't trust that this bunch of stories collected over two hundred years after Mohammed has any reasonable degree of accuracy concerning his words or deeds. Even within their own theology, the Quran purports to be all you need, perfect, nothing less, nothing more ("Nothing have we omitted from the Book").
Our society WAS better when we tried to follow how God wants us to live as a society.
I disagree. I'm glad we rid ourselves of slavery.
Don’t Lie Don’t be adulterous, Do not murder Love thy neighbor.
Some morals are pretty much universally accepted as good. These are among them. Of course, one can redefine what "murder" is, since killing Martin Luther after he was branded a heretic would have incurred no sin upon the murderer. Also, Muslims kind of narrowly define "neighbor" so they can hate non-Muslims, and Muslims not of their own sect.
A god (little ‘g’) that says the way to him is by killing those who do not beleive
Are you talking in the theoretical sense according to your modern interpretation, or how things actually worked under Christianity?
I am saying that You seem bent on equating the bible with the Koran and Christianity with Islam. May you find joy in that.
I am saying that You seem bent on equating the bible with the Koran and Christianity with Islam. May you find joy in that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.