J
jakasaki
Guest
Hi there… to whom are you addressing this to…???
- Status
L
LUV4ALL
Guest
It doesnt matter, you can answer it youerself jasazaki.
In relation to your last post I believe in those statements none of my beliefs go agianst the quran or else i wouldnt be able to call myself muslim would I?
So those quotations from the Quran clearly explain that Jesus was not crucified and that it seemed that way to the people but he was not. this is in favor of my argument that jesus did not die on the cross.
The other verse you have provided is of course:
ARGUMENT: The words in verse 4:159 Bal Rafa’ahollaho Ilaihi --“Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself” clearly shows that Allah lifted Hadhrat Jesus’AS body to heaven.
REFUTATION: As a matter of fact the referred Arabic words simply mean that Allah exalted him (Hadhrat JesusAS) to Himself. Here the exaltation is the exaltation of the soul of which the Jews were trying to deprive him by putting to death through crucifixion, but Allah frustrated them in their evil designs. The detail of their failure is given in Part One of this publication.
In the Holy Quran, the Traditions of the Holy ProphetSAW, the Commentaries and in the Arabic idioms, whenever the word Rafa’a is used by Allah for a human being, it always connotes exaltation of ranks and spiritual nearness, because no fixed abode can be, or has ever been, assigned to God as the Holy Quran declares: “And He is Allah, both in the heavens and in the earth.” (6:4) “So withersoever you turn, there will be the face of Allah.” (2:116) “And We are nearer to him than even his jugular vein.” (50:17) Hence, Rafa’a Ilallah does not necessitate one’s physical ascension to heaven, rather this Rafa’a–exaltation is achieved on this very earth.
As a matter of fact that word Rafa’a has never been used in the entire Holy Quran nor in the Traditions of the Holy ProphetSAW as a connotation of physical ascension to heaven as is clear from the following references:
Wa Lau Shi’naa La Rafa’anaaho Bihaa Wa Laakinnahoo Akhlada Ilal Ardhi–“And if We had pleased, We would have exalted him thereby; but he inclined to the earth.” (7:177) Here the commentators are unanimous in their interpretation of the exaltation of the ranks of the referred person. It is never meant to indicate the intention of physically raising up the referred person to heaven.
Wa Rafa’anaaho Makaanan Aliyyaa–“And We exalted him (Hadhrat IdrisAS) to lofty station.” (19:58) Likewise see: 24:37; 80:14-15; 56:35; 58:12.
Idha Tawaza Al-Abdo Rafa’ahollaho Ilas Samaa Is-Saabiati–“When a person shows humility, Allah lifts him up to the seventh heaven.” (Kanzul Ummaal Vol. 2, page 53) This Hadith clearly shows that even if the word Samaa (sky) had been used here instead of Allah, the verse could not have meant anything else but spiritual honor and exaltation. Will the non-Ahmadies believe that every act of humility literally lifts a person up to heaven in both body and spirit? Certainly, there can be no bigger folly than such an inference. Why then draw such inference in the case of JesusAS? Why should he be sent up to heaven alive? Was not this earth sufficient for him as the Quran declared: Alam Najalil Arza Kifaatan Ahya’an Wa Amwaatan–“Have We not made the earth sufficient for the living and the dead?” (77:26-27)
All the Muslims are aware of the fact that there occurs the word Warfa’anee (and exalt me in ranks) in the prayer which the Holy ProphetSAW used to pray between two Sajdas (prostrations). (Kitab Ibn Maja) All the Muslims supplicate this prayer between two Sajdas in their Salat, but does any one ever think that he is supplicating for his physical ascension to heaven? Or, is there any doubt regarding the Holy ProphetSAW’s Rafa’a (exaltation of ranks) despite his sojourn on this very earth?
In the Commentary of the Holy Quran known as Tafseer Saafi under the verse Maa Muhammadun Illa Rasool Qad Khalat Min Qablihir Rusul (3:145) the demise of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) has been mentioned in he following words: Hatta Idha Da’a Allaho Nabiyyahoo Wa Rafa’a Hoo Ilaihi–“Until when Allah called His Prophet and exalted him to Himself.” Now here are words Rafa’a Hoo Ilaihi used for the Holy ProphetSAW had never been interpreted as his corporal ascension to heaven. Is it not strange and outright blasphemy to interpret the word Rafa’a for the Holy ProphetSAW as exaltation of his ranks, and for JesusAS as his physical ascension to heaven?
In relation to your last post I believe in those statements none of my beliefs go agianst the quran or else i wouldnt be able to call myself muslim would I?
So those quotations from the Quran clearly explain that Jesus was not crucified and that it seemed that way to the people but he was not. this is in favor of my argument that jesus did not die on the cross.
The other verse you have provided is of course:
ARGUMENT: The words in verse 4:159 Bal Rafa’ahollaho Ilaihi --“Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself” clearly shows that Allah lifted Hadhrat Jesus’AS body to heaven.
REFUTATION: As a matter of fact the referred Arabic words simply mean that Allah exalted him (Hadhrat JesusAS) to Himself. Here the exaltation is the exaltation of the soul of which the Jews were trying to deprive him by putting to death through crucifixion, but Allah frustrated them in their evil designs. The detail of their failure is given in Part One of this publication.
In the Holy Quran, the Traditions of the Holy ProphetSAW, the Commentaries and in the Arabic idioms, whenever the word Rafa’a is used by Allah for a human being, it always connotes exaltation of ranks and spiritual nearness, because no fixed abode can be, or has ever been, assigned to God as the Holy Quran declares: “And He is Allah, both in the heavens and in the earth.” (6:4) “So withersoever you turn, there will be the face of Allah.” (2:116) “And We are nearer to him than even his jugular vein.” (50:17) Hence, Rafa’a Ilallah does not necessitate one’s physical ascension to heaven, rather this Rafa’a–exaltation is achieved on this very earth.
As a matter of fact that word Rafa’a has never been used in the entire Holy Quran nor in the Traditions of the Holy ProphetSAW as a connotation of physical ascension to heaven as is clear from the following references:
Wa Lau Shi’naa La Rafa’anaaho Bihaa Wa Laakinnahoo Akhlada Ilal Ardhi–“And if We had pleased, We would have exalted him thereby; but he inclined to the earth.” (7:177) Here the commentators are unanimous in their interpretation of the exaltation of the ranks of the referred person. It is never meant to indicate the intention of physically raising up the referred person to heaven.
Wa Rafa’anaaho Makaanan Aliyyaa–“And We exalted him (Hadhrat IdrisAS) to lofty station.” (19:58) Likewise see: 24:37; 80:14-15; 56:35; 58:12.
Idha Tawaza Al-Abdo Rafa’ahollaho Ilas Samaa Is-Saabiati–“When a person shows humility, Allah lifts him up to the seventh heaven.” (Kanzul Ummaal Vol. 2, page 53) This Hadith clearly shows that even if the word Samaa (sky) had been used here instead of Allah, the verse could not have meant anything else but spiritual honor and exaltation. Will the non-Ahmadies believe that every act of humility literally lifts a person up to heaven in both body and spirit? Certainly, there can be no bigger folly than such an inference. Why then draw such inference in the case of JesusAS? Why should he be sent up to heaven alive? Was not this earth sufficient for him as the Quran declared: Alam Najalil Arza Kifaatan Ahya’an Wa Amwaatan–“Have We not made the earth sufficient for the living and the dead?” (77:26-27)
All the Muslims are aware of the fact that there occurs the word Warfa’anee (and exalt me in ranks) in the prayer which the Holy ProphetSAW used to pray between two Sajdas (prostrations). (Kitab Ibn Maja) All the Muslims supplicate this prayer between two Sajdas in their Salat, but does any one ever think that he is supplicating for his physical ascension to heaven? Or, is there any doubt regarding the Holy ProphetSAW’s Rafa’a (exaltation of ranks) despite his sojourn on this very earth?
In the Commentary of the Holy Quran known as Tafseer Saafi under the verse Maa Muhammadun Illa Rasool Qad Khalat Min Qablihir Rusul (3:145) the demise of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) has been mentioned in he following words: Hatta Idha Da’a Allaho Nabiyyahoo Wa Rafa’a Hoo Ilaihi–“Until when Allah called His Prophet and exalted him to Himself.” Now here are words Rafa’a Hoo Ilaihi used for the Holy ProphetSAW had never been interpreted as his corporal ascension to heaven. Is it not strange and outright blasphemy to interpret the word Rafa’a for the Holy ProphetSAW as exaltation of his ranks, and for JesusAS as his physical ascension to heaven?
J
jakasaki
Guest
Cite your source -link- for this please…
This is the Ahmadi belief - created in the 1800’s by another self proclaimed prophet.
Alrighty then -
Isa lived to be in his 90’s - I think you guys believe that he got married and had children…
Meanwhile - he traveled to India looking for the lost tribes Israel… died there and was buried right next to Mother Mary’s grave.
Got it…
L
LUV4ALL
Guest
Yes he had kids, like a normal human being, how awesome would that be, Jesus lineage actually carried on HUH how ridiculous a thought especially when it is more plausible to believe that he physically ascended to heaven and is suspended in heaven waiting to come down one day LOL.
You seem to discredit my arguments without actually analyzing them for the truth??
Historical records further reveal that Jesus came to India by way of Persia and Afghanistan so that he might accomplish his supreme task of delivering his message to people of that country. In short, Jesus came to the Punjab by way of Afghanistan and after paying visits to Benares, Nepal and Tibet, finally arrived in Kashmir and where he settled.
Holy Quran says: “And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign, and gave them shelter on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running water”. (23:50) According to Arabic Lexicons, the description of a place mentioned in this verse fully fits on the valley of Kashmir where a part of the ten tribes of Israel had settled. The people of Kashmir to this day bearing a striking resemblance to the children of Israel (Bani Israel). Jesus was welcomed and accepted by the Jewish tribes of the diaspora among whom he became known as Yus Asaf, the Prince Prophet.
Jesus spent his last years in Kashmir. He lived to the ripe old age of over 120 years and when he died he was buried in the Khanyar Street in Srinagar, Kashmir. His tomb is still preserved and is a place of pilgrimage.
The dead never return from their otherworldly abode. Once departed, none has ever paid a second visit to begin mixing with the living. Neither has God brought back any dwellers of the past. Those who literally wait the return of Jesus may continue to do so till eternity. He will never come. The Holy Bible also lends support to the view that Jesus himself would not return to this world, in the verses which refer to the second coming of Elijah. According to II Kings (2:11) Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot drawn by horses and the Jews were expecting his physical return to earth which would precede the coming of the Messiah promised to them. However Elijah never appeared in the manner they expected but instead the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist who came in the power and spirit of Elijah.
The Holy Bible says: “And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them? Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist”. (Matt 17:10 - 13)
In these verses Jesus refers to the second coming of Elijah which actually took place in the person of John. The Jews did not recognize John as the second coming of Elijah, and thus persecuted him. Jesus says plainly that likewise he must suffer, i.e. his second coming would be not in his own person, but in the person of someone else. Jesus also said: "For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ (Matt 23:39). Here Jesus is telling his disciples in plain language that they shall be able to recognize him only when they shall realize that someone else, rather than he, the Jesus of history, will come and that he will come in Jesus’ name.
Moreover, the second manifestation of the advent of Jesus, will not be understood by those who claim to his followers until they are able to recognize the spiritual impact of his teachings, that the one who will come, will come only in his name, having similar characteristics and bearing the same Messianic qualities, just as John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah.
Moreover, in the New Testament, we find remarkable signs being mentioned by Jesus about his second coming. What comes readily is Jesus’ reference to the place, the rapidity with which the message will be conveyed, the political instability that will prevail and the abnormality of natural phenomena. We have witnessed that all the signs mentioned by Jesus have been fulfilled.
The Bible also says, ‘Take heed that no man deceives you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many’ (Matt 24:4,5). If any reason, Jesus was scheduled to descend in all glory in his flesh and blood, as a physical entity, escorted by an angelic host, then how could anyone be possibly deceived? There would then be no room for deception. It would have been as plain as daylight and many would then be witnesses of his miraculous descent, since no one is mentioned, in any of the four canonical gospels, as having witnessed his physical ascent. Here, the key to note is, ‘many shall come in my name’, that is to say, that his second advent will be such, that there would be room for deception by false claimants.
Therefore, what was meant by Jesus’ second coming was that someone having his attributes would be born and the descent of Jesus, peace be on him, not to be in his physical person but that a Messiah was to come in his image and spirit.
You seem to discredit my arguments without actually analyzing them for the truth??
Historical records further reveal that Jesus came to India by way of Persia and Afghanistan so that he might accomplish his supreme task of delivering his message to people of that country. In short, Jesus came to the Punjab by way of Afghanistan and after paying visits to Benares, Nepal and Tibet, finally arrived in Kashmir and where he settled.
Holy Quran says: “And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign, and gave them shelter on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running water”. (23:50) According to Arabic Lexicons, the description of a place mentioned in this verse fully fits on the valley of Kashmir where a part of the ten tribes of Israel had settled. The people of Kashmir to this day bearing a striking resemblance to the children of Israel (Bani Israel). Jesus was welcomed and accepted by the Jewish tribes of the diaspora among whom he became known as Yus Asaf, the Prince Prophet.
Jesus spent his last years in Kashmir. He lived to the ripe old age of over 120 years and when he died he was buried in the Khanyar Street in Srinagar, Kashmir. His tomb is still preserved and is a place of pilgrimage.
The dead never return from their otherworldly abode. Once departed, none has ever paid a second visit to begin mixing with the living. Neither has God brought back any dwellers of the past. Those who literally wait the return of Jesus may continue to do so till eternity. He will never come. The Holy Bible also lends support to the view that Jesus himself would not return to this world, in the verses which refer to the second coming of Elijah. According to II Kings (2:11) Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot drawn by horses and the Jews were expecting his physical return to earth which would precede the coming of the Messiah promised to them. However Elijah never appeared in the manner they expected but instead the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist who came in the power and spirit of Elijah.
The Holy Bible says: “And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them? Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist”. (Matt 17:10 - 13)
In these verses Jesus refers to the second coming of Elijah which actually took place in the person of John. The Jews did not recognize John as the second coming of Elijah, and thus persecuted him. Jesus says plainly that likewise he must suffer, i.e. his second coming would be not in his own person, but in the person of someone else. Jesus also said: "For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ (Matt 23:39). Here Jesus is telling his disciples in plain language that they shall be able to recognize him only when they shall realize that someone else, rather than he, the Jesus of history, will come and that he will come in Jesus’ name.
Moreover, the second manifestation of the advent of Jesus, will not be understood by those who claim to his followers until they are able to recognize the spiritual impact of his teachings, that the one who will come, will come only in his name, having similar characteristics and bearing the same Messianic qualities, just as John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah.
Moreover, in the New Testament, we find remarkable signs being mentioned by Jesus about his second coming. What comes readily is Jesus’ reference to the place, the rapidity with which the message will be conveyed, the political instability that will prevail and the abnormality of natural phenomena. We have witnessed that all the signs mentioned by Jesus have been fulfilled.
The Bible also says, ‘Take heed that no man deceives you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many’ (Matt 24:4,5). If any reason, Jesus was scheduled to descend in all glory in his flesh and blood, as a physical entity, escorted by an angelic host, then how could anyone be possibly deceived? There would then be no room for deception. It would have been as plain as daylight and many would then be witnesses of his miraculous descent, since no one is mentioned, in any of the four canonical gospels, as having witnessed his physical ascent. Here, the key to note is, ‘many shall come in my name’, that is to say, that his second advent will be such, that there would be room for deception by false claimants.
Therefore, what was meant by Jesus’ second coming was that someone having his attributes would be born and the descent of Jesus, peace be on him, not to be in his physical person but that a Messiah was to come in his image and spirit.
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
LUV4ALL is gone 
the right decision… Now can we do that with JWs and Mormons 
the right decision… Now can we do that with JWs and Mormons
J
jakasaki
Guest
Bringing attention to a banned member is childish.LUV4ALL is gone
I assure you - we’ve all noticed that he got the boot since the threads were deleted.
Also what you said about the JW’s & Mormons… That is childish and immature as well…
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
I was just ‘trying’ to be funny, but Perhaps on this point you’re right.
That said, reading your posts especially when it’s related to Muslims it sounds a little like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Thanks for the admonition, but do you think you could raise you standard of polemics with Muslims:thumbsup:
Happy Sunday
M
mikelionheart
Guest
Peace of Cake
Can you elaborate on this ‘Brits created a set to destroy Islam from within’ statement please.
Thanks
Can you elaborate on this ‘Brits created a set to destroy Islam from within’ statement please.
Thanks
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
Much of the problems in the ‘Muslim’ lands are the reaction against colonialist influences. For example the male dominance perceived is actually from the French and British; before they went in every faculty had female scholars in.
Basically the people that preserve the religion, the scholars (ulama), were powerful and somewhat separate from secular rule (not all dissimilar to medieval Europe). Of course the ulama spoke out against their new vicious infidel rulers. So the Brits and French did everything the could to destroy Islam and the ulama. Things like making Arabic a capital offence, encouraging Arab nationalism to rise up against the Turkish caliphate, and taking the funding (waqf) from Islamic Universities.
In India under British, ulama were hunted down and assassinated, Urdu was pushed and the Ahmadiyyah was set up to change Islam. They tried to make the Muslims accept their disbelieving rulers - a kind of forced and often bloody reformation.
If people marvel at why Muslims ate anti West then they’re clearly naive! Also the lack of ulama who actually kept the whole religion preserved in full including the loving mystical side (called tasawwuf) are no longer there, so ignorant and very angry people have taken their place. The majority are still very much as before of course, but it’s a poorer quality and the infastructure has been irrevocably disturbed which has caused chaos… Hence the mess!
So the mechanisms put in place to control the masses had spiralled out of control and now it’s coming back to bite us! Rather like Frankenstein
M
mikelionheart
Guest
Thanks Cake that’s very interesting.
I am a Religious Education and History teacher over here in the UK and I have a particular interest in the British Empire so this is very interesting to me.
It is true that much of the problems in the Muslim world are the result of the Brits and French drawing lines in maps and creating badly designed nations.
When did the Brits/French stop women teaching in faculties?
When did they make Arabic a capital offense?
I think you will find that Arab nationalism was provoked in order to defeat the Ottoman Empire rather than to destroy Islam. The British Empire had nothing to do with principles and ambition and all to do with trade and practicalities. Unless you understand this you will never understand the British Empire, you may understand the French Empire, but not the British one.
Was Urdu pushed at the expense of Arabic in India? Do you have any links for that. I’m not calling it into question as it sounds quite likely but I’m unaware Arabic was ever that important in India and certain languages were pushed for practical (not religious) reasons.
Should I understand from your reply that you believe the British Raj invented the Ahmadiyya sect in order to destabilise Indian Islam?
It may be true but sounds rather like rabid conspiracy theory nonsense to me? Where did you learn this?
You sound very knowledgeable about Islam and its history.
Are you a Muslim?
Many thanks Cake
I am a Religious Education and History teacher over here in the UK and I have a particular interest in the British Empire so this is very interesting to me.
It is true that much of the problems in the Muslim world are the result of the Brits and French drawing lines in maps and creating badly designed nations.
When did the Brits/French stop women teaching in faculties?
When did they make Arabic a capital offense?
I think you will find that Arab nationalism was provoked in order to defeat the Ottoman Empire rather than to destroy Islam. The British Empire had nothing to do with principles and ambition and all to do with trade and practicalities. Unless you understand this you will never understand the British Empire, you may understand the French Empire, but not the British one.
Was Urdu pushed at the expense of Arabic in India? Do you have any links for that. I’m not calling it into question as it sounds quite likely but I’m unaware Arabic was ever that important in India and certain languages were pushed for practical (not religious) reasons.
Should I understand from your reply that you believe the British Raj invented the Ahmadiyya sect in order to destabilise Indian Islam?
It may be true but sounds rather like rabid conspiracy theory nonsense to me? Where did you learn this?
You sound very knowledgeable about Islam and its history.
Are you a Muslim?
Many thanks Cake
C
Calgar
Guest
Pig headed ignorance? You can spend as much time with pigs as you want. My comment was not ignorant.
Simplistic comment? You didn’t get the deep truth in my statement?
I’ve spent many years in several muslim countries, I know what I’m talking about. A horrific false religion.
Can you show me one muslim controlled country that isn’t a backwards and hellish place to live? egypt? Perhaps saudi arabia? No, no iran surely. lol
K
Kouyate42
Guest
Problem is that you’re from one culture and you’ve been in a completely alien and different cultural setting. Even without Islam, the cultures of the Middle East are VERY different to that of the West. Tribal histories and allegiances are still very important. This is completely different to anything we’re used to.
And Islamic countries can be places of great enlightenment. Iran and Dubai are major scientific centres. Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia are highly important for archaeology. Egypt is a major source of agricultural technology and food supplies for both the Middle East and even the West.
C
Calgar
Guest
Do you think you’re teaching me something about the middle east? I’m well aware.
As to your comments about science and achaeology…what’s your point? Lipstick on a pig?
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
Hi
Sorry for the delay… I’m also a teacher in the UK (maths and physics) and have been busy with end of half term exams. Happy holidays
It’s hard for me to find a reference for everything I said, since that’s quite a few books to trawl through, however:
Akram an Nadwi of Oxford University has some interesting stuff on the scholarly work of women throughout Islamic History. I heard a lecture of his where he made this claim, but I couldn’t give you exact dates off the top of my head. Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam, by him is a good and enlightening read. There was a general trend amongst Muslims to have strong female characters at first and then this slowly declined, but the colonialists finished them off.
The Arabic thing was certainly in place in Algeria and I think the Oxford History of Islam is the place to look for that. The Brits were more subtle on the whole as you know. I think the pushing from Arabic and Farsi to Urdu came from a GCSE course in Pakistan though… Not one I took personally. On a different point I would recommend sacred limbs and cheap lives as a good book (though rare) on British legal reforms in Islamic India. As the title suggests we Brits didn’t like amputation, so just humanely hanged people instead!?!
The Ahmadiyyah thing may well be a bit of Artistic licence. However there are some interesting clues, such as it started from British ruled northern India, it was pro British, had a secret fund, had its HQ in Woking and more. Maybe the Brits just ‘helped’ things on a bit rather than started it?
Hope that helps
PS not Muslim
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
I have been guilty on this forum for not taking my time in writing posts and so have often given the wrong impression. I’m sorry if you took offence to my comments, I wasn’t meaning to be rude even though I was - sorry.
It sounds like you have had a nasty experience. Personally I’ve had a good experience. Of course it depends where you go, who you speak to etc. Could you please elaborate on what you’ve experienced please?
The middle east is certainly in a state of flux and there is a lot going on, both good and bad. However I do not think it is fair to say Islam is soley at fault or that it politically cannot improve. There is much depth to this rich tradition. There was an interesting book by Esposito entitled Islam and development where he speaks of the unproductivety of dialogue when ultra secular meet fundamentalists. Each doesn’t realise the depth of the others tradition… Or their own! Just to give a sound bite:
‘Militant American feminists who attempt to “liberate” Iranian women are probably ignorant of the positive historical contributions of Islam in this area and surely do not comprehend the complexity of Iran’s postrevolution situation’
M
mikelionheart
Guest
Piece of Cake
Thanks for that answer.
Lots of fascinating info there and some very interesting books to look up.
Enjoy half term.
Mike
Thanks for that answer.
Lots of fascinating info there and some very interesting books to look up.
Enjoy half term.
Mike
P
Peace_of_cake
Guest
Made slight error on book title, it was Cheap lives and dear limbs, see here
Its a bit pricey, so if you want a brief overview see the section that starts on pg 109 of Peters Crime and punishment in Islamic law, you can get this on PDF (see pg 123) here. It also has a really good first section on the Islamic penal code. Apparently the main beef us Brits had, was it was too lenient!
The Oxford History of Islam is a good general guide to Islamic History -not just a clever name. So it’s probably the best place to start.
Sounds an interesting period, but I must confess not my forté
- Status