# For Aldebaran. Is Islam truly a Religion of Peace? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359 "2004-05-03T22:35:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![wisernow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@wisernow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wisernow)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/61 "2004-06-11T22:06:39Z")
> [@Alde](#): > > The only problems you have with Al Qur’an is > > 1. You do not believe that it can be the word of God. > That is no problem to me and your good right. > Where is the possibility for discussion? I am not a Muslim and so do not see how you can even expect me to “believe” the Koran to be the word of God? However, the purpose of my initiating the discussion was to understand and know, what you and the other intelligent Muslim minds like yours, find in the Koran that make you believe that it is the word of God. > [@Alde](#): > > 1. You do not see how someone who is educated in the issue can have more insight in the issue then you do. I did not say that. I would indeed like to see and understand those insights, but I have to insist that this willingness on my part is incumbent on some fundamental conditions, one of them being that the _insight_ should be commonsensical, pertinent and have legitimacy. By commonsensical I mean that it should appeal to human intellect. By pertinent I mean that the relationship between the _insight_ and the object of “insight” should be easy to observe(explanations concocted out of thin air are not “insights”) and be capable of being demonstrated. By legitimacy I mean that they should hold water and conform to some level of intellectual standards. As an example, the “insight” you gave for Sura 2:67 to 2:73, - the whole story of the cow being sacrificed and a man being brought back to life by hitting him with the flesh of the cow = killing of the idol of the calf(“insight”). Unfortunately IMO, this does not qualify as “insight”. And if you insist then you have to demonstrate how. Else I can say that this also means “a cow flew to the moon” and then I, imitating you, will ask you why you do not accept my “insight” as correct and become upset and angry. > [@Alde](#): > > Since you have made up your mind about this and about not accepting any explanation of the text in question other then your “this can not come from God”: Where is the possibility for a discussion? I have NOT made up my mind about anything. Read above again. > [@Alde](#): > > You clamp to the idea that “a Muslim” shall do “anything” to “defend the text as being divine”. Either you are not reading my posts with adequate attention or you refuse to understand what I have said so often. Please read this again. This is the third time I am posting it just so that you do not avoid reading it just in case you are too lazy to scroll. > [@Wisernow](#): > > Here we have a situation that can perhaps be described thus: > – A text exists that is “claimed” to be the word of God Himself. > – There is no undisputable proof or evidence to substantiate that claim. > – This text has several obvious and noticeable irrationalities. > There are now two choices. > > 1. Reject the claim of divinity and discard the text, because > a. It contradicts the fundamental concept that God’s word cannot be absurd. > b. The divinity is only a “claim” and has not been proven. > 2. Find “hidden” meanings and other ways to explain the irrationalities so that the text becomes acceptable as divine. > Using Occam’s Razor, of choosing the simpler explanation, the obvious choice is (1), unless there are compelling reasons to choose (2). IMO, the only compelling reason for someone to choose (2) over (1) would be the predisposition that the text IS divine. Can I request you to **p…l…e…a…s…e** not forget to respond to this in your next post. I would really appreciate it if you could only quote it in your next post and write below it that you have read it. [QUOTE=Alde] You have no intention of discussing anything but your own perceptions of a text you have no other access to then via some translations. Which you also defend as “accepted worldwide” and being THE translation able to translate litteraly Quranic Arabic. While every normal thinking person knows no such thing is possible for any text. [QUOTE] Your choice of “any text” makes it a pretty sweeping statement and completely incorrect. There are several thousand translations of different kinds going around in the world of literature. One last question Alde - Do you believe it possible to translate the Koran in another language or not? Please answer the question after due thought. I am not talking about a word word word translation. But is it possible for someone to learn and know the Arabic script that the Koran was written in, and thus become capable of understanding the general meaning of it, or is the Arabic language of that time indeed so poor that each word and phrase can have so many multiple meanings that the text is beyond reasonable comprehension? If yes then well :rolleyes: . If not, then after having understood the text, is it possible for that person to write down what he has understood in another language in which is he equally proficient? Also tell me, when _you_ talk about giving me “insights” and explanations, how are _you_ going to do it? With reasonable certainty I think I can say that since you have said that you know Arabic, and have read the Koran, you have formed an understanding of the verses in your mind and you will use your vocabulary and knowledge of the English language to tell me that “insight”. In other words you would have given me your translation. Now I can accept that tt might be incorrect because of 2 possibilities. 1. Your knowledge of the Arabic language of the time is poor, because of which you could not understand the meanings if the verses clearly. 2. Your knowledge of the English language is poor because of which you cannot reproduce the meanings clearly. When I quote those three translations of Pickthal, Yusufali and Shakir, and say that they are accepted the world over, it is very likely that they have studied the languages and whatever goes with it, if not more, at least as much as you. And incidentally all three are Muslims(full name of Pickthal being Muhammed Pickthal) not westerners. > [@Alde](#): > > Let be when written in a dead language and in poetry at that. You do not even want to accept what I told you about this single issue. I am willing to accept anything as long as it makes sense and is not fabricated or forged to suit specific purposes. > [@Alde](#): > > No discussion possible either. Very possible only if you exhibit some maturity and read and reply to my posts instead of getting distressed and annoyed all the time like a child. [QUOTE=Alde] Non-discussion closed. [QUOTE] I am afraid I have this strong suspicion Alde, that you are perhaps finding yourself in a hot seat in as far as the discussion is concerned and are trying to wriggle out. I am led to this inference because I have been extremely elaborate and detailed in explaining my position in the last few posts. I have gone over each and every allegation you have made about me and either provided clarifications or requested you for your rationale, while providing explicit and detailed reasoning of my views. You have studiously avoided responding to my posts, and instead, have been continuously repeating the same allegations over and over again. If you want to close the discussion, be my guest – go ahead. But not because no discussion was possible but because you chose to avoid giving logical and acceptable “insights”. Also not because I walked away from it, but you did. ---
**Author:** ![holdmytail](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ecae2f/32.png) [@holdmytail](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holdmytail)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/62 "2004-06-12T05:29:19Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Being a Jew ;j , I can tell you what many teachers and rabbis told me. The Jews were chosen (a folktale says that G-d went around asking every nation on earth if they would accept His laws. The Jews were actually the last nation He asked, but the only one to say yes. Another version of the same tale has the Jews saying yes only after G-d lifts a mountain into the air and holds it over their heads.) to be the first to receive His laws and prophets, and to introduce the rest of the world to monotheism (It can be argued that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic faith. Some argue that with Ohura Mazda on the side of good, and Ahri Manu on the side of evil, Zoroastrianism was duotheism.). Being Chosen does not make us somehow better or above everybody else. Some say that the Jews were forced to accept being chosen (mountain squishing threat) and that the Jewish people freely consented only after Purim. This is just one interpretation though. And being chosen really doesn’t make us better. It just gives us more responsibilities. In fact I was taught that God listens to non-Jews’ prayers first before Jews’ prayers because he has higher standards for us and will not respond to just any prayer. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/63 "2004-06-12T18:45:33Z")
Aldebaran said: > [@](#): > > Sorry? What is the reason behind your projection of what I write here onto me personally? I didn’t project it onto you, I merely asked you a question. Look, this is what I said (note the question mark): > [@](#): > > you think that flogging, and not stoning, is the correct punishment for adultery? > [@](#): > > I gave you what is described in AQ. If that is implemented depends on the factors I talked about earlier, and if I recall well also in other threads. And these factors are…? Whether or not sharia is fully implemented? Anyway, I asked you a pretty straight question. What do you think is the correct punishment for adultery? If not flogging then what is your reason for disagreeing with the quran, disagreeing with God? > [@](#): > > In most nations where Islam is the State religion there is an influence of the shari’a on the nation’s laws. To which extend depends largely on the nation and on the stipulations made on this particular issue in the nation’s constitution. But would you say that the nation’s laws hold back the full implementation of sharia? That national law should be secondary to sharia? For example, if sharia says that flogging is the correct punishment for adultery but the nation’s laws say that there should be no punishment for adultery, do you think that the nation’s laws should be changed so as to allow for flogging (so as to come into line with what God wants)? > [@](#): > > Do you live in a nation where what you call “people’s love life” is not regulated by law = where that is not an aspect of governing in general? > There are no laws regulating things like marriage, rape, adultery, incest, etc… where you live? Well, let’s see: marriage - the state certainly recognises the institution of marriage and it limits the number of marriage partners to one and there are tax implications and inheritance implications but beyond that, the state doesn’t get involved. adultery - no. The country in which I live does not get involved in the issue of adultery. Adultery may be used as a grounds for divorce but there is no state sanctioned punishment for adultery. incest - no. There are, I think, old laws banning incest but I don’t think they ever get used in relation to the (very rare) phenomenon of consensual incest between adults. Most incest is that of a parent and a young child and this does get punished as child abuse. There may be moral, religious and other problems with incest but it’s legality is not clear cut in all cases. The only legal restraints are that certain relatives are not allowed to get married and obviously the incest must be consensual. If it’s not consensual then it is rape which is covered by the rape laws. rape - I wouldn’t class rape as being part of people’s love life (like say adultery). It involves sex so I suppose, you could say it has something in common with adultery but I wouldn’t go any further than that. Anyway, your mention of rape brings us back to where I came in - the issue of four witnesses. I don’t recall you ever answering my question about this?? The idea of having a rigid requirement of four witnesses before a rape can be proven. This is unneseccary because you can prove a rape with less and it’s impractical because a rapist will be unlikely to commit his crime in front of four witnesses - he would need to be the world’s dumbest rapist. > [@](#): > > Sorry? > Where do you get the weird idea that in Islamic nations it is the role of governments to gather whenever a criminal investigation is made or to act as prosecutors and judges? Sorry, you’re right, I was a little unclear. When I say government I mean “the authorities”, the “state”, the “legal system” whatever. I said this: > [@](#): > > [Islam accepts that adultery needs to be punished, it’s just not quite decided on the correct punishment. Whether it should be flogging or stoning or imprisonment is a moot point, but something needs to be done on an official governmental level What I meant was: Does islam (and therefore you) think that there should be _some_ kind of official punishment for adultery, some kind of legal sanction? Legal sanctions are always administered by the state whether this state is a secular state like the one I live in or whether this “state” is an islamic caliphate or whatever. Whether you live under a secular government or whether you live under an islamic caliphate doesn’t really matter in this regard. Either way you live under some kind of “authority” that has the power to punish you for transgressing it’s rules. Secular states don’t wish to punish you for adultery so they don’t but would an islamic “state” wish to punish you for adultery? > [@](#): > > Sorry, but I have to ask you also… On which planet do you live? Planet Jojo. It’s quite nice here, you should come visit sometime. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/64 "2004-06-12T19:41:21Z")
Jojo, Yes you did and still do project what I write to you as general information on Islam onto me personally. You would not ask this question to anyone who is _not_ Muslim and from this background as Arabist and Islamic historian gives you information on the issues you raised. I am scholared in Islam which does not mean that I am automatically a judge and I never had any intentions to become one. Is that clear enough? > [@](#): > > But would you say that the nation’s laws hold back the full implementation of sharia? That national law should be secondary to sharia? I think you still have this strange idea that “shari’a” means one single set of laws that must be applied everywhere Muslims live or where Islam is the State religion. I don’t know what is so unclear in my posts that you hold on to this idea. > [@](#): > > For example, if sharia says that flogging is the correct punishment for adultery but the nation’s laws say that there should be no punishment for adultery, do you think that the nation’s laws should be changed so as to allow for flogging (so as to come into line with what God wants)? I don’t think you shall find an Islamic nation that does not forsee a punishment for adultery. Most of the time there is no flogging involved at all. So yes these nation’s laws have adapted the prescriptions of AQ to their own ideas of what should be done. This can perfectly be reasoned theologically and the same is done about many things. If you talk about “interference in people’s love life”… Do you live in a country where for example same sex couples have the same rights and merits as others? Can they get married? Inherit from each other, adopt children or have children by IVF. If not, don’t you think this is state intervention in people’s love life? (One can even classify marriage itself under state interference). I think I answered the question about the four witnesses for rape in a former post. You still think every nation has the same laws because it has Islam as State religion? > [@](#): > > Whether you live under a secular government or whether you live under an islamic caliphate doesn’t really matter in this regard. Either way you live under some kind of “authority” that has the power to punish you for transgressing it’s rules. There are no caliphates. > [@](#): > > Secular states don’t wish to punish you for adultery so they don’t but would an islamic “state” wish to punish you for adultery? See above. Speaking of what you call “secular states”: I’m not informed on other EU nations but in Belgium adultery was classified under “crime” upto 1986. Under laws that were discriminating for women. I can imagine a few others who still might have punishments for adultery. When I recall well even divorce was not possible in Ireland upto a few years ago. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/65 "2004-06-13T00:00:54Z")
Aldebaran said: > [@](#): > > Yes you did and still do project what I write to you as general information on Islam onto me personally. Well, since you claim yourself to be a muslim I am assuming that what islam thinks and what you think are one and the same thing. I know that there are different interpretations of islam but, since you declare yourself to be a muslim, then it follows that you must agree with _one_ of these interpretations. Which one? I’m asking you what _you_ think should be the punishment for adultery. A fairly simple question I would have thought. Surely you know what you think? I could tell you what I think should be the punishment for adultery. It would take me one sentence and thirty seconds to type it. I wouldn’t have to get into a big argument about it. I don’t understand what the problem is. I’m not asking you to be a judge, just to tell me what you think the correct punishment for adultery should be (assuming that the adultery is proven beyond all doubt). I note that you say this: > [@](#): > > I don’t think you shall find an Islamic nation that does not forsee a punishment for adultery. Most of the time there is no flogging involved at all. > So yes these nation’s laws have adapted the prescriptions of AQ to their own ideas of what should be done. This can perfectly be reasoned theologically and the same is done about many things. Can I take it then that you think that flogging should not be the punishment but that there should be some other punishment? I don’t understand how the punishment can be anything other than flogging since the quran states that this should be the punishment. Is adultery not a hadd crime - where the penalty is laid out in the quran? It seems quite clear cut to me - the punishment for adultery is flogging. If you think it shouldn’t be flogging, how do you reconcile this with what it says in the quran? And what do you think the punishment should be? You are correct that many countries have various old laws on the books relating to sodomy, adultery etc but these laws are a hangover from christian influence on the law. They never actually get used and are gradually being removed. In any case, I’m not talking about the past I’m talking about the future. Not about laws we are in the process of removing but about laws you would like to see introduced. > [@](#): > > I think I answered the question about the four witnesses for rape in a former post. No, I don’t think you did, I’m still waiting. To be honest I’m more interested in this than in the adultery thing. I’m just arguing about the adultery issue for something to do while I wait for you to answer my rape questions. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/66 "2004-06-13T00:28:42Z")
> [@Jojo](#): > > To be honest I’m more interested in this than in the adultery thing. I’m just arguing about the adultery issue for something to do while I wait for you to answer my rape questions. You might find this article of interest. It is highly critical from an Islamic perspective of both Pakistan’s rape and adultery laws in particular and modern ( and traditional ) application of Islamic law in this area generally and makes the claim that a more accurate interpretation of Islamic law in these matters ( from the writer’s perspective, obviously ) would result in a far more egalitarian approach: [http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/rape\_laws.htm](http://www.crescentlife.com/articles/rape_laws.htm) - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/67 "2004-06-13T23:31:02Z")
Yes, interesting article although I wonder how widely accepted her interpretation is. Two different muslim countries on different sides of the world (Pakistan and Nigeria) both consider four witnesses to be necessary. These two countries each follow different schools from each other and both are different from the dreaded wahabbi school. Yet both seem to to think that four witnesses are necessary to prove a rape. Also her interpretation creates problems of it’s own. Her line of reasoning is that rape is not a zina crime and that therefore the four witness rule is not applicable. She argues that the requirement for four witnesses shows us that zina was not meant to cover rape but instead refers to public indecency. Quote from the article: > [@](#): > > Why so many evidentiary restrictions on a criminal offense prescribed by God? Islamic scholars posit that it is precisely to prevent carrying out punishment for this offense. By limiting conviction to only those cases where four individuals actually saw sexual penetration take place, the crime will realistically only be punishable if the two parties are committing the act in public, in the nude. The crime is therefore really one of public indecency rather than private sexual conduct. This all sounds good until you actually think about it. What she is saying is that a couple would need to be having full sex naked in a public park and that it is this that is being banned by the quran. I would say it’s pretty rare that you get two people having full sex in so public a manner and so it seems a bit odd of God to devote part of his holy book banning it. The practice is so rare anyway, why devote time addressing the problem? On the other hand, rape is an extremely serious crime that has dogged us since the dawn of mankind. I’m sure there were plenty of rapes before, during and since Mohammed’s lifetime and yet (if her interpretation is to be believed) the quran doesn’t mention it. It makes a big issue out of banning public sex in a park (which never happens anyway) but doesn’t mention rape. Seems a tad strange. Also, assuming it really is referring to public indecency then it doesn’t do a very good job of that. Four witnesses are required in order to prove this indecency but public indecency doesn’t always involve four witnesses. Often it may be a flasher - some guy getting his willy out and showing it to a girl. This would fail for lack of witnesses and yet is a far more common form of public indecency than two people getting it on in a park. Also, it seems to be saying that full sex in front of three witnesses is ok but full sex in front of four witnesses is a no no. Her interpretation doesn’t really solve the problem, it just kind of shifts it onto a different offence. We still have the four witnesses problem, just relating to a different offence. Also, if rape is not a zina offence then it is a hiraba offence (according to her). The definition of zina is as follows: > [@](#): > > A man and a woman are said to commit ‘zina’ if they willfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other. The definition of hiraba is armed robbery. She defines it as follows: > [@](#): > > Hiraba is another hadd crime defined in the Qur’an. It is variously translated as “forcible taking,” “highway robbery,” “terrorism,” or “waging war against the state.” The crime of hiraba is based on the following Qur’anic verse: > > The punishment for those who wage war [yuharibuna] against God and His Prophet, and perpetrate disorders in the land is: kill or hang them, or have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off or banish them from the land (Qur’an 5:33). > > Islamic legal scholars have interpreted this crime to be any type of forcible assault upon the people involving some sort of taking of property. She believes that the crime of rape falls under hiraba because by raping someone you are taking away their sexual autonomy. Hiraba doesn’t require four witnesses. She does appear to have some support from past scholars for this viewpoint. However, I can see problems with this in that rape (being a sexual offence) would appear to fit more naturally into the zina definition than into the hiraba (armed robbery) definition. I wouldn’t like to discourage her though. She is thinking along the right lines - trying to make islam conform more to common sense and logic but I fear she may have an uphill battle on her hands. But it’s certainly true that islam could do with more thinkers like her. Of course, none of this tells me what punishment Aldebaran would like to see for adultery nor whether he thinks that you need four witnesses to prove a rape. ---
**Author:** ![Jojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecd19e/32.png) [@Jojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jojo)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/68 "2004-06-13T23:50:39Z")
Sorry, another point I meant to make was that her article quite nicely demonstrates the dangers in trying to derive law from a static book (that cannot change). You can argue about whether the book means this or whether it means that and meanwhile women are getting raped. If you have a secular legal system then you just introduce a specific law dealing specifically with the crime in question. I don’t see the point in all this arguing. We all agree rape is wrong, we all know that four witnesses is unreasonable- why waste time arguing about it? Just introduce a law banning it with proper (rational) evidential standards and bingo, problem solved. No need for all this pointless argument. The aim of law is to catch as many criminals as possible and punish them in the most effective way possible. Islamic law, however, adds another clause to this. The aim of islamic law is to catch as many criminals as possible and to punish them AND to conform to verses of the holy book written 1400 years ago. The third component is the most important. Any law that conflicts with the holy book is considered invalid even if it is at the cost of the other two components. The necessity of conforming with the holy book introduces unnecessary complications into an otherwise fairly straightforward procedure. Pakistan’s rape laws are a prime example. Even if they are wrong and eventually get changed they still demonstrate the foolishness of religious law. It wastes time and causes unnecessary complications. The aim of law is to catch as many criminals as possible and punish them as effectively as possible and that’s it. Nothing else. There is no need for any input from any holy books, we know what needs to be done. ok rant over. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359/69 "2004-06-14T00:16:57Z")
> [@Jojo](#): > > The aim of law is to catch as many criminals as possible and punish them as effectively as possible and that’s it. Nothing else. There is no need for any input from any holy books, we know what needs to be done. Eh, well, I pretty much agree. Personally, when it comes to sexual relations between consenting adults, I’m pretty much a social libertarian. It is of concern only to those involved and the law shouldn’t be a party to the issue directly ( indirectly, say as grounds for divorce, is another matter ). That includes situations I find personally a bit icky, like full-sibling incest. As for you counter-arguments to that author’s article, I’m not really that invested in it or interested in debating it :). My main point in posting it was to show that what is “religious law” can often be surprisingly malleable from an interpretive point of view - one can end up with the entire gamut from fairly liberal to intensely reactionary, depending how you spin things. Therefore it is a bit fallacious to make the bald argument that, for instance, “Islam requires four eye witnesses to prove rape”. That’s true under some interpretations, but not under others. As for **Aldebaran’s** personal views on the matter, I’m not sure they are all that relevant to the discussion, but if you find them that fascinating, by all means continue your line of questioning :D. - Tamerlane [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-aldebaran-is-islam-truly-a-religion-of-peace/243359.md?page=3)