Are Muslims okay with Muhammed actions?

[jakasaki]

Punishment has always played an integral part in the concept of justice. We all know or at least expect that if you do something wrong you are subject to punishment in some way or another. This is only fair.Humankind is charged with the responsibility for the choices they make.

Muslims care less for the callous and continual thief than they do for the poor souls who are mugged and robbed and hurt by the thieves.
Their point is that the cutting of the hand for theft is a very powerful deterrent

I knew you or a muslim member will say that.

It’s not so much a deterrent if islam is still chopping off hands in the 21st century is it now? You know 21st century, 1400 years after mohamads islam and koran.

And besides you missed the entire (my post) - allah is NOT merciful, allah is NOT a “creator”, allah is NOT “all knowing” and allah couldn’t care less for his “slaves”.

There is no love and compasion coming from mohamads allah in all directions.

**Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
John 3:16-18 **

 

[qui_est_ce]

Their point is that the cutting of the hand for theft is a very powerful deterrent

As Christians, we believe sin to be a purposeful act that separates us from God. If a person is unable to physically commit the sin, but still desires the sin, it is a sin. Cutting somebody’s hand off keeps the person from sinning in action, but not in desire. Wouldn’t you agree incarceration or restitution would be more effective in keeping the public safe or helping the victim?

I have to say this: THIS IS SO CRUDE, it’s hard to believe maiming is considered OK in the 21st century!

 

[jakasaki]

Amnesty International recorded 90 judicial amputations between 1981 and December 1999 in Saudi Arabia, including at least five cases of cross amputation, but the true number is probably much higher.

It appears that in at least some cases, executioners carry out amputations.

Amnesty International does not know if they receive medical training, or whether anaesthetics are administered to victims of judicial amputations, or if restraints are used.

After the amputation has been carried out, the victim is taken away by ambulance to hospital for treatment.

Amnesty International explains in the paragraph before this one excerpted here that “cross” amputation is meted out for highway robbery and cites two cases in the year 1999 alone.

In the paragraph from the same web page, an executioner is interviewed, and he says he must use special knives and have great courage to cut off a hand, for the condemned man is still alive—it does not take as much courage if the condemned is beheaded because he leaves this life.

According to Sa’id bin 'Abdullah bin Mabrouk al-Bishi, an experienced Saudi Arabian executioner, “purpose-made knives are used to cut off the hands of those who commit theft”. He was reported to have told a journalist:

"…for me it is more difficult to cut off a hand than to carry out an execution, because executions are done momentarily by the sword and the person leaves this life.

By contrast, severing a hand demands more courage, especially because you are cutting off the hand of someone who will remain alive afterwards, and also you have to cut it off at a specific joint and use your skill to make sure that cutting implement stays in position.

As I said, it is much more difficult for me to cut off someone’s hand than to execute them, both in terms of carrying out the penalty itself and in terms of my own feelings."

Surely the same courage must be applied to severing off a foot, as well.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation).

Under Hudud it is prescribed for theft (amputation of the right hand) and for highway robbery (amputation of the right hand and left foot).

Amnesty International has recorded 33 amputations and nine cross-amputations since the Convention came into force in Saudi Arabia.

**Alternate amputation for highway robbery?

Again, where do these judges get this gruesome punishment?**

It is sad to report that the judges get crucifixion and alternate amputation from the koran itself—the immutable, eternal word of allah.

Sura 5:33—and mohamads example—commands these punishments.

Sandy Mitchell was one of seven men incarcerated in Saudi Arabia for the bombing death of Christopher Rodway, a British National living in Riyadh.

While in prison, he alleges he was tortured and forced to make a televised confession in which he detailed the methods and as to which he and his fellow prisoners committed the crime.

He was later granted clemancy and returned to the UK, as a result of intense negotiations by Charles, Prince of Wales and possibly a prisoner exchange in the U.S.

He, along with his supporters, claim he is innocent, and that the evidence supports his innocence. Furthermore, they claim the bombings were perpetrated by “Islamic extremists” and that they were victims of a cover-up conspiracy by Saudi authorities

’I faced crucifixion’ claims Scot freed from Saudi jail

Date: 07 September 2003

SANDY Mitchell, the Scot placed under sentence of death in Saudi Arabia, has revealed he was due to be executed by crucifixion, writes Christopher Claire.

**Mitchell said he was told by his Saudi lawyer that the sentence called for the victim’s head to be “partially” severed and the body fixed to an X-shaped cross in public view for three days. **

Public beheadings are routine in Saudi Arabia, but crucifixion is reserved as an exemplary punishment under sharia (Islamic) law for crimes of the utmost severity.

Two highway robbers have been executed in this way in the past 20 years.

**Jesus Christ came with good news and the love of God.

As the eternal Son of God, he sent the Holy Spirit to transform people from the inside out.**

**Being only a human messenger (Sura 3:144), mohamad came with crucifixion and mutilation. **

**Christianity advances society forward. **

Islam drags society backwards.

**
Jesus saves sinners and criminals by his own crucifixion**.

Muhammad killed sinners and criminals by his legalized, punitive crucifixion.

Jesus saves. Muhammad killed.

 

[jakasaki]

JC - yes, that is why I wrote"

Not only did mohamads allah leave the person who stole with only one usable hand, but now this person cannot do anything in his/hers life with only one limb.

A man needs both hands to hold a nail and hammer to build - both to make and build bricks and concrete to make a home, both hands as God gave them to us to do so much.

Ride a horse, paint, pick up your child, play a piano- a violin, cook, the hands and fingers have so much touch and feeling that once they are removed, there is nothing. and yes, now they are nothing but beggars.

And I agree about punishments for theives/muggers.

There should be consequence for every action that is wrong against society, but removing limbs from the human body is **NOT **the answer, however, it is for islam and this still is happening in the 21ast century.

 

[josie_L]

Amnesty International recorded 90 judicial amputations between 1981 and December 1999 in Saudi Arabia, including at least five cases of cross amputation, but the true number is probably much higher.

It appears that in at least some cases, executioners carry out amputations.

Amnesty International does not know if they receive medical training, or whether anaesthetics are administered to victims of judicial amputations, or if restraints are used.

After the amputation has been carried out, the victim is taken away by ambulance to hospital for treatment.

Amnesty International explains in the paragraph before this one excerpted here that “cross” amputation is meted out for highway robbery and cites two cases in the year 1999 alone.

In the paragraph from the same web page, an executioner is interviewed, and he says he must use special knives and have great courage to cut off a hand, for the condemned man is still alive—it does not take as much courage if the condemned is beheaded because he leaves this life.

According to Sa’id bin 'Abdullah bin Mabrouk al-Bishi, an experienced Saudi Arabian executioner, “purpose-made knives are used to cut off the hands of those who commit theft”. He was reported to have told a journalist:

"…for me it is more difficult to cut off a hand than to carry out an execution, because executions are done momentarily by the sword and the person leaves this life.

By contrast, severing a hand demands more courage, especially because you are cutting off the hand of someone who will remain alive afterwards, and also you have to cut it off at a specific joint and use your skill to make sure that cutting implement stays in position.

As I said, it is much more difficult for me to cut off someone’s hand than to execute them, both in terms of carrying out the penalty itself and in terms of my own feelings."

Surely the same courage must be applied to severing off a foot, as well.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation).

Under Hudud it is prescribed for theft (amputation of the right hand) and for highway robbery (amputation of the right hand and left foot).

Amnesty International has recorded 33 amputations and nine cross-amputations since the Convention came into force in Saudi Arabia.

**Alternate amputation for highway robbery?

Again, where do these judges get this gruesome punishment?**

It is sad to report that the judges get crucifixion and alternate amputation from the koran itself—the immutable, eternal word of allah.

Sura 5:33—and mohamads example—commands these punishments.

**Jesus Christ came with good news and the love of God.

As the eternal Son of God, he sent the Holy Spirit to transform people from the inside out.**

**Being only a human messenger (Sura 3:144), mohamad came with crucifixion and mutilation. **

**Christianity advances society forward. **

Islam drags society backwards.

**
Jesus saves sinners and criminals by his own crucifixion**.

Muhammad killed sinners and criminals by his legalized, punitive crucifixion.

Jesus saves. Muhammad killed.

Jakasaki, how do you read this stuff without cringing? And how can these things be happening in our day and age? I don’t know why the International community doesn’t put pressure on countries like Saudia Arabia to end such barbaric practices?

 

[jakasaki]

Jakasaki, how do you read this stuff without cringing? And how can these things be happening in our day and age? I don’t know why the International community doesn’t put pressure on countries like Saudia Arabia to end such barbaric practices?

Josie - I stopped crying after 9/11 with all of the family members and so many friends and co-workers funerals I went to.

Way too many people, way too many tears.

You are preaching to the wrong choir! It’s islam, and when I hear that islam means “peace” that’s when I cringe!

The International Community doesn’t put ANY pressure is because of one word.

OIL = MONEY

And there are a few other words called… “Politically Correct” - meaning, how DARE YOU INSULT ISLAM!

And it’s NOT just Saudi -

There are many islamic states who support and practice stonning to death, cutting off hands, and off with their heads, and so much more, … yes… in the 21st century. Who is doing this… islam… that’s who.

Perhaps you can reach out to the muslim community to PUT A STOP to all of this. But alas, even if you do, they will not listen.

**Remember, silence to them means…consent. ** They agree 100% with the due punishments as prescribed in the koran, sunna and hadiths…

So by their fruit you will know them." Matthew 7:20

 

[josie_L]

Josie - I stopped crying after 9/11 with all of the family members and so many friends and co-workers funerals I went to.

Way too many people, way too many tears.

You are preaching to the wrong choir! It’s islam, and when I hear that islam means “peace” that’s when I cringe!

The International Community doesn’t put ANY pressure is because of one word.

OIL = MONEY

And there are a few other words called… “Politically Correct” - meaning, how DARE YOU INSULT ISLAM!

And it’s NOT just Saudi -

There are many islamic states who support and practice stonning to death, cutting off hands, and off with their heads, and so much more, … yes… in the 21st century. Who is doing this… islam… that’s who.

Perhaps you can reach out to the muslim community to PUT A STOP to all of this. But alas, even if you do, they will not listen.

**Remember, silence to them means…consent. ** They agree 100% with the due punishments as prescribed in the koran, sunna and hadiths…

So by their fruit you will know them." Matthew 7:20

I am so sad to hear that, I had no idea, although you do state you’re from NY, I should have known better, I know of someone else who was there at the time that the Twin towers fell. I offer my condolences (although belatedly).

As for the Saudi oil, how much of the oil do they provide, I know Canada has enough to provide for itself (and others), anyways, the point is I think we need to find something that will lessen our dependency on oil (who knows technology is advancing so quickly). Also, I think that even though they have oil, we has an international community (the regular joes) need to stand up and put pressure on our governments to prevent countries like Saudia Arabia from acting inhumanely, I do believe this is possible. I think we have to look at people like Lincoln, King and Ghandi to know that we can make a difference. So keep at it Jakasaki, you will see that with prayers and righteous actions we will prevail. Truth is Truth is Truth. God bless.

 

[Hadi]

Jakasaki ,who issued stoning in the OT ?? what about the pre-NT victims of this law ??

 

[josie_L]

Jakasaki ,who issued stoning in the OT ?? what about the pre-NT victims of this law ??

The question you should be asking yourself since you believe Jesus to be a prophet, is if He believed in stoning? Is there any mention of allowing the practice of stoning by Christians in the NT?

 

[ChristIsLord]

the logic christians use makes zero sense to me, the old testament is full of much much much worse than anything you will find in the Qu’ran, maybe the ahadith has some truly terrible stuff i don’t know i haven’t read it. but christins are able to complete divorce themselves from the old testament and never ever criticize judaism for the actions of israels prophets which include killing entire cities, men, women, CHILDREN, ox and sheep (what could the sheep possibly have done?), sacrificing your daughter, incest and a lot more…

look it’s your bible, israel and jews didn’t go from one minute being god’s chosen and following the only appropriate method of worshiping the almighty, to having the actions of their prophets be completely dispicible.

yet for some reason muhammed is held to a 21st century standard??? moses was a murderer, he ran his army similar to a roman general who decimates a company of disgruntled soldiers by having 9 soldiers beat the 10th to death. moses was not a gentle man, he was not kind, he was not christlike AT ALL, yet he is israels greatest prophet and probably holds a secondary place to jesus in christianity.

 

[josie_L]

the logic christians use makes zero sense to me, the old testament is full of much much much worse than anything you will find in the Qu’ran, maybe the ahadith has some truly terrible stuff i don’t know i haven’t read it. but christins are able to complete divorce themselves from the old testament and never ever criticize judaism for the actions of israels prophets which include killing entire cities, men, women, CHILDREN, ox and sheep (what could the sheep possibly have done?), sacrificing your daughter, incest and a lot more…

look it’s your bible, israel and jews didn’t go from one minute being god’s chosen and following the only appropriate method of worshiping the almighty, to having the actions of their prophets be completely dispicible.

yet for some reason muhammed is held to a 21st century standard??? moses was a murderer, he ran his army similar to a roman general who decimates a company of disgruntled soldiers by having 9 soldiers beat the 10th to death. moses was not a gentle man, he was not kind, he was not christlike AT ALL, yet he is israels greatest prophet and probably holds a secondary place to jesus in christianity.

Did God order genocide in the Old Testament against the Canaanites?

One of the most difficult episodes to understand in the Old Testament is God’s command for Israel to kill the Canaanites. Paul Copan, a philosophy and ethics professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University, has made available an article, due out in the next issue of Philosophia Christi addressing this topic. The President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (he also blogs at Parchment and Pen), Copan evaluates the passages in the context of archaeology and Ancient Near East literature and argues that the evidence suggests that “the Canaanites who were killed were combatants rather than noncombatants (“Scenario 1”) and that, given the profound moral corruption of Canaan, this divinely-directed act was just.” Should this scenario be shown to be false, he also maintains that “even if it turns out that noncombatants were directly targeted (“Scenario 2”), the overarching Old Testament narrative is directed toward the salvation of all nations–including the Canaanites.”

The Canaanite campaign jars our moral sensibilities and jeopardizes our confidence in the Bible as a supernaturally inspired interpretation of history. Christians therefore have an obligation to try to understand this episode and Copan’s article, as a follow-up to his eariler essay on this issue (“Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics”), is very helpful in this regard. I have tried to summarize the main points but if you’re interested in the topic, I strongly recommend that you read the whole thing.

Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely-Mandated Genocide or Corporate Capital Punishment?

1. The Canaanites were morally corrupt.

There was a profound moral corruption amongst the Canaanites that called out for God’s justice, in keeping with His salvation historical purposes. The divine judgment enacted upon the nation was consistent with God’s oracles against other nation states that had crossed moral thresholds. The Canaanite campaign is also, in a sense, anticipatory of the final judgment where justice will be firmly established on a cosmic scale. (Also see Clay Jones, “We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to ‘Divine Genocide’ Arguments,” Philosophia Christi 11 (2009): 53–72.))

1. The Canaanites were morally culpable.

God has made available moral ideals and insights through general revelation to Gentile nations such that they are sufficiently accountable. Prophetic warnings as in Amos 1 -2 demonstrate that God can hold other nations responsible for stifling compassion, suppressing their consciences, and carrying out particularly heinous acts. The language used in the New Testament of the Gentile population also confirms this (”disobedient” (Heb. 11:31)–a term indicating a moral awareness of wrongdoing but a refusal to turn from it and also Paul’s affirmation of those outside the Sinai covenant who possess the capacity (through conscience) to distinguish right from wrong (Rom. 2:14–15))

1. The preservation of Rahab’s family demonstrated the possibility of amnesty.

Rahab’s embrace of Yahweh and discovery of salvation exhibited both the compassionate character of Yahweh and His to relent from judgment, whether Canaanite, Ninevite (Jon. 4:2) or those from any “nation” that “turns from its evil” (Jer. 18:7–8). It is Yahweh’s desire that the wicked turn rather than die (Ezek. 18:31–32; 33:11) but once a nation surpasses a point of no moral and spiritual return, God will intervene (as He did even upon Israel and Judah (2 Chron. 36:16; cp. 2 Kings 18:11–12; 1 Chron. 5:23) ).

1. Humanity is incapable of refereeing God’s actions.

Apart from God, we have no transcultural standpoint to assess the moral fitness of a culture, least of all, judge God Himself and His purposes in judgment.

1. The Canaanite campaign was not motivated by racial hatred or ethnic superiority.

Yahweh repeatedly commands Israel to show concern for strangers and aliens in their midst (for example, Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:18–19) and throughout the Old Testament this theme is evident in the way enemies of Israel are shown as eventual objects of His salvation and are consequently incorporated into the people of God (Ps 87). Yahweh’s concern for the nations and His continual reminder that the taking of the land is not due to Israel’s intrinsic superiority (“indeed, the Israelites are “a stubborn people” (Deut. 9:4–6)”) hardly supports a Gentile-hating, arrogant ethnocentrism.

 

[josie_L]

1. The religious dimension of Israel’s campaign cannot be equated with the sanctioning of human sacrifice. The OT passages that treat Israel’s motivation for the campaign highlight punishment against idolaters (especially those who have lead Israel astray or committed injustice against her), the total destruction of warriors and the consecration to God of everything that was captured. Further, the OT strongly condemns child sacrifice as the epitome of anti-Yahwist and anti-social behavior. Even to take certain (dubious) readings as demonstrating the act of sacrifice is to forget that not all behavioral examples included in Scripture are good ones (cp. 1 Cor. 10:1–12) and in fact the theology of Judges emphasizes the nadir of Israelite morality and religion.
2. The rhetorical devices common to Ancient Near East (ANE) literature must be taken into account when understanding the passages that talk of total obliteration. The phrase “all that breathes” is a standard ANE expression of military bravado and refers to total victory and the crushing defeat over one’s enemies. The accounts made clear that many inhabitants remained in the land and prescriptions against alliances and intermarriage with them actually assumed this.
3. Following OT scholar Richard Hess, it can be argued that the Canaanites targeted for destruction were the political leaders and their armies rather than noncombatants. The language employed appears to be stereotypical for describing all the inhabitants of a town or region, without forcing the reader to conclude anything further about their ages or even their genders.
4. Both the language and archaeological evidence point to Jericho, Ai, and the other targeted cities in Canaan as military forts, lacking civilian populations. The actual battles in Joshua do not mention noncombatants and excavated physical evidence show that, for example, Jericho was a military settlement and therefore all those killed were warriors.
5. The methods of Israel’s warfare demonstrate restraint and lack the bloodthirsty fervor of similar ANE annals.Many battles were defensive and in response to calculated assaults and attempts to lead Israel into immorality. God often prohibited Israel from conquering other neighbouring nations.
6. The Canaanite campaign did not set down a pattern or legitimize similar action for later Israel or even professing Christians.
   The killing of the Canaanites was deliberately limited in scope and restricted to a specific period of time. Neither Deuteronomy nor Joshua imply the campaign as precedent-setting and successive OT leaders did not take it as such. We see do not see Saul, David or the other leaders of Israel and Judah undertaking similar action against Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or the local equivalents of the Canaanites in the Second Temple period. Christians that have sought to justify their military campaigns with the killing of the Canaanites ignore Jesus clear own kingdom teaching (Matt 26:52; John 18:36).

Should women and children have been explicit targets of the campaign (scenairo 2):

1. For the Israelites, the killing of the Canaanites would have been a grim task but in the ANE, warfare was a way of life and a means of survival.
   Combatant and noncombatant would not have been easily distinguished and in combination with the hardness of human hearts (Matt. 19:8) and human moral bluntedness in the ANE, would have likely rendered such actions considerably less psychologically damaging for the Israelite soldier.
2. The Canaanite campaign must be set within the context of God’s overarching goal to bring blessing and salvation to all the nations, including the Canaanites, through Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 22:17–18; cp. 28:13–14). The killing of the Canaanites is not the norm but a troubling exception, apart of a background of Yahweh’s enemy-loving character and worldwide salvific purposes. While simultaneously punishing a morally wicked people and seeking to establish Israel in the land, God was certainly willing to preserve any who acknowledged his evident lordship over the nations, which was very well known to the Canaanites (Josh. 2:8–11; 9:9–11, 24; cf. Exod. 15:14–17; Deut. 2:25).
3. We should expect God’s purposes to be often unclear and even baffling, but not let this eclipse the overwhelming revelation of God’s trustworthy character. We cannot measure God by our own defective standards, but must remember both His “kindness and severity” (Rom. 11:22) and realize God’s unique cosmic authority will seek to correct our profoundly selfish human ways, even in civil contexts. Given the inadequacy of our “cognitive position”, and the recognition that even in human relationships there must be room for trust, the full picture of God’s purposes may not always be available to us.

talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/did-god-order-genocide-in-the-old-testament-against-the-canaanites/

 

[ammuslim]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

The question you should be asking yourself since you believe Jesus to be a prophet, is if He believed in stoning? Is there any mention of allowing the practice of stoning by Christians in the NT?

I am bit confused here, don’t you guys believe that Jesus Christ is actually God Himself? so when the law of stoning to death was prescribed in the OT, wasn’t Jesus involved being God? i.e. Father, Son and Holy Ghost??? indeed he did approve of of the law of stoning to death, otherwise you are suggesting that the God of OT and NT are different!!!

Salam
Wael.

 

[ChristIsLord]

so when we’re talking islam we can put every action undertaken by muhammed and compare it to 21st century sensibilities and tear it apart.

but when we’re talking the christian old testament or jewish tanakh which contain much much worse actions than anything you will find in the Qu’ran it becomes "humans can’t referee god’s actions"… and then puting forth an apology for things like incest, rape, human sacrifice, repeated genocide, fathers request a few sheckels and the rapist to marry their raped daughter, and on and on…

can you honestly not see how absurd that is? can we even begin to be the least bit objective here?

 

[dzheremi]

ChristIsLord, the real objective thing would be to let the Qur’an stand or fall on its own merits. I don’t think anyone here is denying that there is violence in the OT.

Also, I would say that we can judge Muhammad by today’s morality since he is supposed (by Muslims) to be sinless and the best example for all mankind not just back in 7th century Arabia, but today and forevermore throughout the entire world. I don’t know that Christians claim that about the figures of the Bible. While many certainly loved the Lord and provide great examples for us in many ways, they were still capable of sin, and not everything they did is something that we should do. I’m certainly not ever planning on killing someone so that I can sleep with his wife (or for any other reason, for that matter), though that certainly happened in the Bible.

So I think it is better not just to look at the Qur’an and the Bible and say “well, there is violence in both, so Christians are being hypocrites”. Maybe a better way to look at things is to try to get at what the violence that is there is trying to illustrate, and how the orthodox understanding of such events has helped to shape the respective faiths. This is where we run into our most intense disagreements, since it seems (from a Christian perspective) that any such attempts at getting something approaching a definitive answer over anything that is troublesome is “God said it, so we don’t ask why”. I admire the piety, but not the unwillingness to practice proper exegesis of their own text while thrashing ours in every way imagineable (please note, I am not claiming that you did this or do this).

 

[josie_L]

so when we’re talking islam we can put every action undertaken by muhammed and compare it to 21st century sensibilities and tear it apart.

but when we’re talking the christian old testament or jewish tanakh which contain much much worse actions than anything you will find in the Qu’ran it becomes "humans can’t referee god’s actions"… and then puting forth an apology for things like incest, rape, human sacrifice, repeated genocide, fathers request a few sheckels and the rapist to marry their raped daughter, and on and on…

can you honestly not see how absurd that is? can we even begin to be the least bit objective here?

Where did you get your biblical interpretation from . . . Richard Dawkins?

Could you please understand that the OT was written more than 2000 years before Mohammed, so then how can one go from the OT (which you insist on stating is worse than the Koran, although nothing in the OT mentions killing the unbelievers, or having four witnesses for a rape, or having a 9 year old be the sexual plaything of a 53 year old man , or stating one can “lightly” beat his wife . . . etc.) to the NT which is the personification of love and mercy, back to the Koran which entails gruesome punishments for all kinds of infractions and other crazy commands that are far from exemplifying love and mercy.

P.S. That is not an apology, but honestly, I don’t care one way or another if you believe it or not; the Canaanites sacrificed their children to their gods by putting them into fires, they were a corrupt people, as for the mention of incest, how in tarnation is that biblical, nowhere does it state under Mosaic law that this was approved of, also, rape was an evil, how is this a good thing in the bible. And there is no mention of human sacrifice amongst the Jews, unless they picked up the surrounding habits of their neighbouring tribes, which in some case they did, hence the reason (more than likely) that God commanded the Jews to kill the Canaanites as they were corrupting the chosen people who were to bring about the Messiah into the world.

I gave you a fair summation of a biblical event, you can choose to reject it if you like.

 

[josie_L]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

I am bit confused here, don’t you guys believe that Jesus Christ is actually God Himself? so when the law of stoning to death was prescribed in the OT, wasn’t Jesus involved being God? i.e. Father, Son and Holy Ghost??? indeed he did approve of of the law of stoning to death, otherwise you are suggesting that the God of OT and NT are different!!!

Salam
Wael.

How bout you answer my question first? Where does it state in the NT that it is ok to stone someone to death, was Jesus in accord with this? And if yes, state where in the NT I could find this?

 

[Hadi]

How bout you answer my question first? Where does it state in the NT that it is ok to stone someone to death, was Jesus in accord with this? And if yes, state where in the NT I could find this?

He was ok with it up until 30 AD …

 

[Louie1983]

He was ok with it up until 30 AD …

Yeah right Hadi, it’s one thing to try and defend your beliefs (of which you have done a poor job) it’s another to try and mock christianity!

This usually happens when someone cannot back up their faith with solid proof. I guess muslims are good at mocking then……

 

[dolphinlove]

He was ok with it up until 30 AD …

But our Saviour Jesus shown how wrong it was.

John 8

1 and Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At daybreak he appeared in the Temple again; and as all the people came to him, he sat down and began to teach them.
3 The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman along who had been caught committing adultery; and making her stand there in the middle
4 they said to Jesus, ‘Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery,
5 and in the Law Moses has ordered us to stone women of this kind. What have you got to say?’
6 They asked him this as a test, looking for an accusation to use against him. But Jesus bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger.
7 As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, 'Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.'
8 Then he bent down and continued writing on the ground.
9 When they heard this they went away one by one, beginning with the eldest, until the last one had gone and Jesus was left alone with the woman, who remained in the middle.
10 Jesus again straightened up and said, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’
11 ‘No one, sir,’ she replied. ‘Neither do I condemn you,’ said Jesus. ‘Go away, and from this moment sin no more.’