Thursday 6 February 2020

Questions for rabbis on whether the Koran is Noahide-compliant

1) Which verse of the Koran infringes the Noahide laws?

2) Why is it impossible that God would first reveal the Torah to Jews first and then the Koran to gentiles?

3) Do rabbis see it as their role to create a Noahide religion for gentiles if it is interpreted that Maimonides said that no gentile shall be allowed to create a religion of their own?

4) Surely it is only when one's country has been invaded and conquered that one submits to the religion of the conqueror?

5)  It didn't end well for the Israelites when they forcibly converted the Edomites, did it?
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-edomites
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/herod

6)  Israel is the only nation in the world whose borders have been defined by the Torah. This means that Israel of all nations is not allowed to acquire empire, and this means Jews of all people are not permitted to conquer gentiles and forcibly convert them to Judaism, doesn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

7) But let us hypothesise that Israel became a world superpower with a global empire, conquered every nation and imposed its religion and culture upon them. This means Jews out of all the people of the world will no longer retain their chosen status and will be submerged by the rest of humanity if everyone became Jewish. It would then be impossible for Israel to be light unto the nations if every nation were conquered by the Global Israeli Empire. Can it therefore not be surmised that the Noahide laws are only there as a minimum moral and civilisational standard for Jews to judge other nations while keeping only to its Torah-defined borders?

8) If Jews are claiming that Islam/the Koran is not Noahide-compliant, wouldn't they have to read it first and cite verses that they claim go against the Noahide laws to make good that claim? It is not convincing for Jews to claim "The late Rambam has decreed that no gentile shall create a religion for gentiles and all gentiles are to submit to a Jew-administered Noahide religion for gentiles propagated by Chabad."

https://wrldrels.org/2017/10/08/the-bnei-noah-children-of-noah/

1860s:  The idea of Noahidism as a Judaic religion for non-Jews was developed by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Benamozegh#Religious_universalism

Benamozegh's works are noted for his free and uninhibited use of various non-Jewish religious sources, especially the New Testament and ancient pagan mythology. Benamozegh even considered the Gospels to be a highly valuable Jewish Midrash, comparable to the Talmudic Aggadah. He respected Jesus as a wise righteous Jew, but criticized the religious innovations of Paul.

In his theological works, Benamozegh suggested to explain the Christian dogmas of Trinity and Incarnation as an oversimplified and corrupt version of the Kabbalistic panentheistic doctrine of Divine emanations. While he disagreed with the Trinitarian Christian theology, he considered it, unlike most other Orthodox rabbis, an erroneous misunderstanding of subtle Kabbalistic doctrines and not a major deviation from monotheism. Moreover, he claimed that Christianity is too monotheistic in comparison with the Kabbalah which views all pagan deities in their essence as partial manifestations or faces of the Absolute. Similarly, Benamozegh criticized the Christian view of Jesus as incarnated God on monistic or panentheistic grounds. According to Benamozegh's Kabbalistic view, the entire world is an incarnation of Shechina, the feminine aspect of Divinity. He believed that Hinduism is closer in this respect to mystical Judaism than Christianity.

Benamozegh offered a novel mystical interpretation of Ludwig Feuerbach's atheistic philosophy. Feuerbach wrote that God is merely a product of human mind. Benamozegh explained that Feuerbach is essentially right; However, what people call God is a limited human perception of the apophatic Infinite Absolute.

Indeed, dualistic, panentheistic and highly complex views of the Godhead are common in the Kabbalistic literature. A number of known rabbis criticized Kabbalah for Gnostic-like dualistic views of God.

A particular interest was evolutionary theory and its universalist implications. Over time, Benamozegh came to view Darwin’s account of the common descent of all life as evidence in support of kabbalistic teachings, which he synthesized to offer a majestic vision of cosmic evolution, with radical implications for understanding the development of morality and religion itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Benamozegh#Cosmopolitanism_and_patriotism

Benamozegh considered himself, simultaneously, an Italian patriot and a cosmopolitan. He believed that authentic mystical core of the Jewish tradition, which he called "Hebraism" as opposed to more isolationist exoteric Judaism, is profoundly universal and capable of uniting all world religions and nations into one brotherly cosmopolitan network. While Benamozegh believed in the unique spiritual mission of the Jews, his idea of Jewish chosenness was far from narrow particularism. According to his worldview, the Jews are chosen to serve the humanity as a priestly people, by proving a common mystical ground that transcends the boundaries of the nations and religious traditions. He also emphasized the impact of other cultures on Judaism, starting from the ancient Egyptian paganism, as well as the great role of the proselytes in the Jewish history. Unlike some exclusivist Kabbalists, Benamozegh believed that Kabbalah is a universal theology that unites all human beings and views them as equals. 
At the same time, Benamozegh was a staunch Italian patriot. He even wrote a daring formulation, based on the Jewish declaration of faith: O Israelites, that you will always love Italy, that you will love her with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. Apparently, according to his panentheistic philosophy, Benamozegh viewed the Italian soil as a specially beloved expression of the Shechina.

9)  Who has more moral and intellectual authority in the opinion of humanity as a whole and not just Jews alone?

a) The originator of the Koran (believed by Muslims to be the Abrahamic God Himself)

b) A deceased Jewish sage who called Muhammad a lunatic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_views_on_Muhammad

Maimonides referred to Muhammad as a false prophet and an insane man. In his Epistle to Yemen he wrote "After [Jesus] arose the Madman who emulated his precursor [Jesus], since he paved the way for him. But he added the further objective of procuring rule and submission [talb al-mulk; pursuit of sovereignty] and he invented what was well known [Islam]." 
In his authoritative work of law the Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Melakhim 11:10–12), Maimonides indicated that nevertheless Muhammad was part of God's plan of preparing the world for the coming of the Jewish Messiah: "All those words of Jesus of Nazareth and of this Ishmaelite [i.e., Muhammad] who arose after him are only to make straight the path for the messianic king and to prepare the whole world to serve the Lord together. As it is said: 'For then I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech so that all of them shall call on the name of the Lord and serve him with one accord' (Zephaniah 3:9).


10)  Wouldn't the quickest way for Jews to "Noahidise" the world and be the light unto the nations as God had chosen them to be be for them to declare Christianity kaput - because it is not only Noahide-compliant but idolatrous and blasphemous to a supreme degree - but Islam to more than satisfy the minimum moral standards of the Noahide laws?

11) Before the moral authority of Jews is acknowledged, wouldn't Israel itself have to be at least Noahide-compliant?

12) In order to be at least Noahide-compliant, wouldn't Israel itself have to be a theocracy?

13) Isn't Israel really just a colonial outpost of the American Empire that is infamous for promoting "globohomo" and turning the global village into Sodom and Gomorrah doubtless attracting the same punishment, if God exists and intends to punish us?

14) If Israel were to become a theocracy in order to be in good standing with God, wouldn't a Torah-theocracy be too harsh on the many secular Jews currently living there?

15) Wouldn't you agree that a Koranic theocracy (which is really a legal system designed to accommodate atheists to polytheists because it guarantees freedom of belief as the First Amendment does according to quran.com/2/256) would be the preferred option of the majority of Israelis, if they had to choose between a Torah theocracy and a Koran theocracy and no other option is on the table?

16) It has been said that Islam is "Judaism Lite". We know that what is halal is not kosher, but what is kosher is halal. If it is indeed the case that Islam is "Judaism Lite", then sharia ought to be just a walk in the park for observant Jews. It is well known that the burden of being Jewish is greater than that of being Muslim, wouldn't you agree?

17)  The Koran acknowledges the borders of Greater Israel - whose total population is estimated to be 100 million - as defined in the Torah. If such a thing were to be possible in the foreseeable future, it would have to be governed by Koranic principles rather than Torah principles, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.prb.org/israel-demography/

In 2050, the UN Western Asia region will have a population of 405 million (with Israel representing 3 percent of the population of that region) and Iran should have just under 100 million people.

18)  If there is to be a chance of a Greater Israel in the foreseeable future, then the Third Temple cannot be built and the Al Aqsa Mosque has to stay in situ, wouldn't you agree?

19)  If God exists and arranged matters so that the Al Aqsa Mosque prevents the building of the Third Temple, could it not be argued that God intends for Israel to take cognisance of the possibility that the Koran represents God's revelation to gentiles since the Torah represents instructions for Jews only?

20) Since Temple Judaism resulted in the expulsion of Jews from Israel, would you not agree that all priesthoods are corruptible? (The Catholic and Anglican Churches are excellent examples of clerical corruption.)

21) Islam operates through following God's laws in the Koran and in Islam it is the judiciary that would be the closest thing to a priesthood. Since law operates openly and is subject to adversarial argument and legal decisions are subject to appeal, even a potentially corruptible judiciary would be more open to challenge and scrutiny. A slim-line Koranic "theocracy lite" that dispenses with the trouble of Jews having to re-establish a priesthood for their Third Temple and the inevitable disputes amongst Jews about how that should done would be a blessing in disguise, would it not?


121 comments:

  1. Rabbi Allen S Maller6 February 2020 at 08:54

    For my article regarding the important issue of Islam’s claim of scriptural
    corruption and Prophet David's Zabur. please see the link below to view the
    article:
    https://www.islamicity.org/22443/prophet-davids-zabur-and-scriptural-corruption/
    My Kabbalistic prayer, 'At the Beginning of a New Decade', is now published
    and can be found
    at https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/at-the-beginning-of-a-new-decade/ .

    Every Rabbi who wants to understand why the Qur'an rejects the Gospel's
    claim that the Jews killed Jesus should read my article in the Islamic
    magazine al-Jumuah:
    https://aljumuah.com/was-jesus-crucified-a-rabbis-view/
    Rabbi Allen S Maller

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fact that the Koran says at http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=157 that Christ was not crucified takes the heat off the Jews and prevents antisemitic Christians from using that narrative as an additional stick to beat Jews with. If only rabbis would declare that Islam/The Koran to be Noahide-compliant! On the other hand, Christianity falls below the minimum standards of the Noahide laws because of its idolatry and supreme blasphemy. It is unlikely that Christians these days feel any strong emotion for Christianity because even confirmed Christians probably do not believe in this absurdity and are only affirming it because their jobs depended on it ie its corrupt priesthood and those who wish to enter this parasitic class.

    I have noticed that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not even know he was supposed to believe in this absurdity.
    https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-point-of-having-archbishop-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Quran would imply Mohammed was a prophet. As this is not Jewish it's nonsense to sell a a belief in Mohammed to Jews. So you are on a non-starter. If you are saying that secular Koranism does not include Mohammed then why call it Koranism. Why not call it Noahidism?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Secular Koranism is not a belief system, but a legal system. Religions are belief systems requiring you to believe in a particular narrative but the Koran guarantees freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are aspects of Noahidism that do not apply to Jews. We have other, often stricter, laws so selling this to Jews is nonsense as you may as well sell Christianity or Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The 613 Commandments include the 7 Noahide laws in some form, do they not?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1) The last prophet was Malachi - who prophesied via God that the next one would be in the times of the Messiah.
    2) Islam claims that Mohammed was a prophet sent by God
    3) If statement 1 is true, then statement 2 cannot be true. As statement 1 came first, if statement 2 is true then God is a liar!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Book of Malachi is not the part of the Torah and has no divine status.

    What verse in the Torah contradicts Muhammad being a prophet of God?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Malachi is part of the Tanakh and so divinely inspired. There are verses in the Torah relating to false prophets and identifying them. Malachi qualifies as a true prophet. Mohammed does not.

    Also leading people away from God is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Tanakh includes scripture not in the Torah and only the Torah was handed to Moses by God. It is only to be expected that a Jew would deny all prophets that are not the prophets of Judaism, so your position is not surprising. Why do you think Secular Koranism is "leading people from God"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Torah says what is or isn't a true prophet. That's why the prophets in the Tanakh are valid.

    Secular koranism is not the Torah. So it leads away from God and His teaching by pretending to be an alternative

    ReplyDelete
  12. Secular Koranism is a legal system based on the Koran.

    The Koran is believed by Muslims to be from God.

    It is generally acknowledged that Islam is one of the Abrahamic faiths and acknowledges all the prophets of Judaism.

    Is it your intention never to read the Koran?

    ReplyDelete
  13. TOTALLY WRONG!

    Unlike in Islam, capital crimes were not supposed to be carried out by man. The death sentence was supposed to be a warning relating to the severity of the crime. It was "if you do this, then you are deserving of death" but a human court was so severely constrained by the requirements to carry this out that it was almost impossible. A court that carries out even ONE death penalty in 70 years is viewed as an abominable and wicked court. It was NOT done - whereas in Islam whipping multiple times and amputation and stoning and so on are frequent. In Judaism the MAXIMUM number of lashes is 39. In Islam it's not limited - so people are sentenced to 1000s.

    Rather than show ignorance and stupidity by claiming things that are false, do some reading. It's NOT hard to educate yourself on this rather than keep lying about Judaism and the death penalty.
    https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-death-penalty-in-jewish-tradition/

    As that is a bit too complex for you - as you keep bringing this BS up, maybe something for children may be better. The BBC Religions page also gets it right. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/capital.shtml

    In case you do not read all this - here are key points.
    "Anyone reading the Old Testament list of 36 capital crimes might think that Judaism is in favour of capital punishment, but they'd be wrong"

    The classic Old Testament texts quoted to justify capital punishment are these:

    To really understand Jewish law one must not only read the Torah but consult the Talmud, an elaboration and interpretation by rabbinical scholars of the laws and commandments of the Torah.

    The rabbis who wrote the Talmud created such a forest of barriers to actually using the death penalty that in practical terms it was almost impossible to punish anyone by death.

    Show me ONE source - just one will do - that says the death penalty was supposed to be imposed. I'll even accept Wikipedia on this. (The Torah alone in not valid as that was never a standalone text. It always needed interpretation).

    This is why the Torah is a valid source for finding God, and the Quran is a perversion of God's mercy and teaching. Muslims USURP God and believe they are greater than God as they go against God all the time. Whenever a Muslim kills somebody and yells out Allahu Akbar he is desecrating God as if God wants somebody killed, God will do it and does do it. Man does not need to sentence evildoers, infidels or apostates. God will do it - but yelling out that you are doing this in the name of God just shows how evil that teaching actually is. Murder without compassion. Murder without meaning. Murder that is willful is NOT God's will. It's Mohammed's will. A man - not God.

    Even in Islam there are supposed to be 4 reliable witnesses - but sentencing is carried out without this, showing how Muslims corrupt their own teachings. And you push "secular koranism" which is just a perversion of these teachings and so is just as bad.

    Push the Torah, not BS.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Torah is for Jews, the Koran is for gentiles.

    Are you saying the Torah is so harsh it had to be interpreted away with the consequence that obeying those rules became merely optional?

    Are you calling the Koran "bullshit"?

    If so, are you going to tell me which verse represents "bullshit"?

    Do you think Jews treating obedience to laws forbidding crimes what were technically capital offences as merely requiring optional obedience brought the law into contempt and caused Jewish morals to deteriorate to the extent that they ended up being expelled from Israel by the Romans?

    Are you aware that the Koran can be literally interpreted without causing offence to universal standards of Truth, Logic and Morality?

    Are you confusing a book you seem determined never to read with people who call themselves Muslims who haven't read it either? If so, you are making a category error.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So many assumptions....

    1) The Quran is for Muslims. It is NOT for Jews and NOT for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists....

    2) I have read parts - and have no real problem with those parts. I've also read other parts and have a big problem with these parts e.g. the bits about Jews. Yes - I know interpretations that say that these only refer to Sabbath breakers and not all Jews. However that is not how many interpret these passages. And from your point that the Quran should be literally interpreted suggests you've either not read these, understood them OR fail to recognise they DO cause offence to universal standards of truth, logic and morality.

    3) The Torah is not harsh. It's much less harsh than the Quran. The aim of the penalties outlined is NOT retribution but rehabilitation. That's why after the sentence is carried out the person is referred to as "your brother" as that is what he/she is. The death penalty is to show how severe the sin is. It was not supposed to be carried out except in the most extreme circumstances. Man has no right to kill another man except in self-defence. That right belong's to God. However some crimes are so severe that we say "This deserves death". That does not mean man can do it. The Torah heavily constrains this - unlike the Quran.

    4) Even Shakespeare needs interpretation. To have a text like the Torah and the Quran and say it does not need interpretation is stupidity. In the case of the Torah, there are verses that clearly state that it needs interpretation and that there was an oral tradition that accompanied the Torah. It's not a standalone text. (Nor is the Quran for most sensible people. That's why there's the Hadith).

    5) NO - the reason that the Romans prevailed is complex and not due to failing to execute people. Look at global history and power struggles. The Jewish people had appalling leadership that led to what happened. The leadership saw the glory of Rome and chose that rather than their own traditions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "So many assumptions...." What were they?

    "1) The Quran is for Muslims. It is NOT for Jews and NOT for Christians, Hindus, Buddhists...." But it is designed to accommodate atheists to polytheists.

    Which commands and prohibitions of the Koran go against Torah principles?

    "The Torah heavily constrains this" - Are you claiming that the Torah constrains the death penalty? Chapter and verse, please.

    "To have a text like the Torah and the Quran and say it does not need interpretation is stupidity." Could you cite the words I used that gave you the impression that was my view.

    You don't seem to realise that Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia under *my* interpretation, even after all these years! Oy vey.

    Anything in the Hadith that contradicts the Koran will be rejected under Secular Koranism.

    There will always be Jews and gentiles who want to identify with another culture or who find another culture more appealing than their own. This shouldn't be a problem to society at large. What we want are universal standards of truth and morality and the Noahide laws have set a minimum moral standard that I find useful in the promotion of Secular Koranism. Would you happen to know any rabbis prepared to discuss this?

    Herod was an Edomite and the Edomites were forcibly converted. It may be that his problem was the forced conversion to Judaism imposed on by Jews. The Koran's policy on jizya seems to have learned from this mistake because the jizya is really a conditional tribute, payable only if you choose to keep your religion, but avoided if you become Muslim. Very Art of the Deal, wouldn't you say?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Amputation goes completely against Torah principles. It also means that Islam goes against the Noahide laws! Quran - 5.33 and 5.38: As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.
    This is also not a theoretical punishment. It's carried out. As is the death penalty and it has never been seen as theoretical as in Judaism.

    Constraint on the death penalty is clearly in the Torah.
    Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

    V18 And the judges shall inquire diligently; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

    V19: then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

    Compare this to Islam. The witnesses in a Jewish court of law have to have ACTUALLY seen the crime AND WARNED the miscreant in advance that if he continues then a death penalty could result AND the miscreant continues with the crime AND that the two witnesses are not related or linked in any way e.g. as friends or business colleagues....

    SO take the capital crime of adultery for example. Mr X lives next door to Mr Y. Mr Z lives on the other side to Mr Y. Mr X and Mr Z see Mr Y go into his house with Mrs Q. They hear the sound of Mr Y and Mrs Q making love. Neither Mr Y or Mrs Q can be sentenced to death as they were

    a) not actually seen making love. Hearing is circumstantial in this case.

    b) not warned that they should not be going together

    c) Mr X and Mr Z live two doors away from each other so it is likely they already know each other and so may have colluded to lie about Mr Y.

    So for these 3 reasons and others too, Mr X and Mrs Q cannot get the death penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Did you read the verse after the one prescribing manual amputation?

    ReplyDelete
  19. So let's have another case. Mr X, Y and Z and Mrs Q are on a train. This is the first time Mr X has been on that train - he lives in town A. The same apples to Mr Z - who lives in town B. There is no way that Mr X or Mr Z could have ever met before and this satisfies the court they are independent. Both see Mr Y cavorting with Mrs Q. Mrs Q has a ring on her finger and tells Mr X that she shouldn't be doing this as her husband may find out. However they continue and get overly amorous on the train in full view of Mr X and Mr Z. Mr X and Mr Z BOTh tell Mrs Q and Mr Y that they should stop as if they make love then this is adultery and subject to a death penalty. Both Mrs Q and Mr Y tell Mr X and Mr Z to STFU and they continue and then have full sexual intercourse in front of Mr X and Mr Z.

    In this case - assuming that both Mr Y and Mrs Q are in sound mind, then a death penalty could be carried out. However it needs to be this extreme. Otherwise it's just a warning that the death penalty is deserved. In the first case Mr X and Mrs Q both say "Oops - we did it" then so what. You cannot incriminate yourself so their plea of guilty holds no water.

    THIS IS THE TORAH APPROACH - as seen in the requirement for actual witnesses to the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Even if the accused is guilty as charged, the Torah penalty is still too harsh.

    ReplyDelete
  21. First - in the Quran Allah may forgive but the crime is still punished by amputation and that breaches Noahide laws.

    Second - if something is not carried out but is there as a warning to show the severity of the crime then how can anybody say it is too harsh. It's the opposite of harsh. As the only way penalties like the death penalty can be carried out is if the person essentially wants to commit suicide.

    Compare Judaism and the Quran. Judaism is about mercy. Islam is about punishment.

    Deuteronomy 25 v2-3: Then it shall be, if the wicked man deserve to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to the measure of his wickedness, by number.

    3 Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed; lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should be dishonoured before thine eyes.

    Practically a maximum of 39 was mandated in case the count was lost - to make sure there were not 41 stripes.

    Now compare the "holy" Quran.
    24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator – flog each of them with a hundred stripes; and do not let pity for them hold you back from carrying out God's law, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of believers witness their punishment.

    Even worse is Sura 4:34 mandating wife abuse! Also 38:44

    You were brought up in an Islamic country among people who believe in Sharia law. To succeed in what you want you need to clear your mindset of the Quran being something to spread and emulate. It's not - there's lots of good in it, but too much real evil too. The good is based on the Torah so why not go to the source and try and understand that properly. Not from a pre-conceived bias - but by looking at the real context and how Torah law was actually put into practice - contrast this with Islam and you'll see why Judaism is superior.

    It's harder - which is why so many take the easy options such as Christianity (with fewer commands) or Islam with things "black or white" but lots less gray and in-between interpretation (and less laws too). Christianity is for people who want an easy faith. Islam for those a harsh 'Yes or No' faith. Judaism is for those who think and want to learn God's true ways. It requires thought and intelligence rather than the blind obedience of Islam. This thought has led to Jews being successful out of all proportion to their numbers - 20% of all Nobel Prizes have been won by people of Jewish origin. Einstein, Freud, Marx - even if you don't like Marx, he was of Jewish origin - have changed the world we live in more than any Muslim. Maybe the reason is that the Jews were chosen by God to be a light to the nations so trying to destroy this by getting them to believe in a false legal system (secular Koranism) goes against God.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What is your problem with 38:44 exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I gave you verses that totally contradict Noahide law. AMPUTATION is a breach of these. It's totally clear. There is one mention in the Torah and the context is compensation for damage done and not amputation at all.

    Chillul Hashem is far from clear except in the most obvious examples. I won't give recent ones where one group accused another of Chillul Hashem, but there was a major one in January in connection with LGBT issues. This hardly made the secular news at all for obvious reasons to those who know about it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Please read http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=39 and acknowledge that the option of mercy is specifically given.

    http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-interpretation-of-that-wife-beating.html is the Secular Koranist interpretation of the wife-beating verse.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Of course there's a verse in the Torah talking about false prophets. This includes Mohammed and if all the gospels say is true (dubious) Jesus. The claim that Jesus was a prophet, or son of God, etc. is totally against Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The Gospels are believed to be of divine inspiration.
    Rabbis who have anything to do with secular Koranism are breaching Torah, unless you rewrite the Quran to remove many parts e.g. those breaking the Noahide laws. Then it's not the Quran so why not call it Khawism instead.

    What have you got against Christianity. They are no worse than Islam! No better either.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You side with Christians because you think they are stupid and can easily be controlled, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  28. 38:44 legalises wife beating "And take in your hand a bunch and her strike with it and do not break your oath...."

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=38&verse=44 refers to Job!

    ReplyDelete
  30. 5:39 - ALLAH gives atonement. It does NOT say the punishment should not be inflicted. Who, in their right mind, is not going to repent in order to stop the Noahide breach of amputation. So the fact that this takes place all the time in many Sharia compliant countries shows either that the punishment goes ahead and then Allah forgives OR that people who are insane are being punished. Either way it shows Islam to be abhorrent and in breach of the Noahide laws.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Three strikes and your hand comes off?

    ReplyDelete
  32. SO - BREAKING NOAHIDE LAWS!

    ReplyDelete
  33. How?

    I am going to sell Secular Koransm to the Israelis so that Israel can be a theocracy.

    The restoration of Greater Israel would be an additional incentive. Do you think you might be able to help?



    ReplyDelete
  34. NO!

    Amputation involves cutting off a limb from a living creature and that is essentially against the Noahide laws.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Noahide laws require punishment for stealing, don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  36. And flogging 100 times is in the Quran and TOTALLY AGAINST THE TORAH.

    Theft is a financial crime and so the Torah penalty is financial.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Which verse in the Torah forbids corporal punishment?

    The Torah omits to punish fornication, doesn't it?

    The Torah does not guarantee freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256, does it?

    I was thinking of manual amputation for theft aggravated by violence.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The Quran omits to punish bestiality.

    And define fornification. The Torah does say this:

    Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity” (Leviticus 19:29)

    The Torah allows a MAXIMUM of 40 stripes in Corporal Punishment. Nothing more at all. Islam - as a cruel, inhuman religion - has no limit. It gives an example of 100 stripes.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Fornication is an unmarried person having sex with anyone they are not married to.

    The 100 lashes are more to humiliate than to hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1) That's not how it's done. And 100 lashes is one example. People have been sentenced to 1000 lashes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33039815

    ReplyDelete
  41. Badawi was arrested in 2012 for "insulting Islam through electronic channels".

    There is no such crime in the Koran. Also, 2:256 of the Koran guarantees freedom of belief and is believed to be the verse that inspired the First Amendment. I trust you are aware that Thomas Jefferson read the Koran and drafted the precursor to the First Amendment.

    http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-first-amendment-was-derived-from.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. This goes against the Torah completely - which is why it is so evil.

    Study the Torah a bit more and you would learn about God's law. Stop being prejudiced and STOP trying to influence Jews (and Christians) to something that is MUCH worse than their religions. Islam is for Muslims. Quranic law is for Muslims. Secular Koranism is for idiots!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Which verse in the Torah forbids corporal punishment?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Read up. I gave you this. Cruelty is against the Torah. Corporal punishment is not but it is limited.

    Compare Judaism and the Quran. Judaism is about mercy. Islam is about punishment.

    Deuteronomy 25 v2-3: Then it shall be, if the wicked man deserve to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to the measure of his wickedness, by number.

    3 Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed; lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should be dishonoured before thine eyes.

    Practically a maximum of 39 was mandated in case the count was lost - to make sure there were not 41 stripes.

    Now compare the "holy" Quran.
    24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator – flog each of them with a hundred stripes; and do not let pity for them hold you back from carrying out God's law, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day; and let a group of believers witness their punishment.

    Note the wording

    1. It's not to humiliate.
    2. More than 40 strokes is expressly forbidden.
    3. Wife beating is not included, unlike Islam which approves this. Any flogging has to be as a result of a court trial in front of a judge. The Torah is against hate and retributive actions. That's why koranism as you want is evil as you sanction retribution not rehabilitation.

    In fact the Koran prevents rehabilitation in its penal code. A poor thief who suffers amputation is worse off than before so can't make amends.

    In Judaism the purpose of punishment is aimed at making amends.

    Maybe you should abandon secular quranism and introduce just the noahide laws. You'd then get Jewish support. Add a few other Torah laws if you want too.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Compare Judaism and the Quran. Judaism is about mercy. Islam is about punishment."

    The Torah has more capital crimes than the Koran, and this you cannot deny.

    While 5:38 of the Koran prescribes manual amputation for the thief, 5:39 gives the option of mercy if remorse is expressed.

    "Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed"

    While 100 lashes may sound harsher, it really does depend on the method and the means used to inflict corporal punishment. After all, tehcnically, a slap on the wrist amounts to corporal punishment.

    "Wife beating is not included, unlike Islam which approves this."

    http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-interpretation-of-that-wife-beating.html is my interpretation of the wife-beating verse, which you will find is more intended to humiliate than to hurt.

    "In fact the Koran prevents rehabilitation in its penal code. A poor thief who suffers amputation is worse off than before so can't make amends."

    You are forgetful of 5:39 which gives the option of mercy for a convicted thief.

    You have failed to demonstrate that any verse in the Koran infringes any of the Seven Noahide laws.

    You must already know that in an environment of rising antisemitism, gentiles are unlikely to subject themselves to any Jew-administered Noahide religion. The quickest way to Noahidise the world would therefore be to declare Christianity kaput and Islam Noahide-observant. Even better, recommending Secular Koranism as a "Theocracy Lite" legal system would make it even more seductive and irresistible!

    ReplyDelete
  46. I gave examples of where Islam is not Noahide observant. You ignore them.

    The Quran does NOT say that if a convicted their shows remorse he should be forgiven by man and not suffer punishment. It says Allah will forgive him. There is NO verse that says punishment should be stopped.

    As for capital crimes - in the same way you choose what to highlight and what to ignore, you ignore what I said about capital crimes never being carried out as the rules to carry them out were so stringent that it should be obvious that the purpose is deterrent rather than something to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "The Quran does NOT say that if a convicted their shows remorse he should be forgiven by man and not suffer punishment. It says Allah will forgive him. There is NO verse that says punishment should be stopped."

    The Koran DOES give the option of mercy in 5:39:

    Sahih International: But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    Pickthall: But whoso repenteth after his wrongdoing and amendeth, lo! Allah will relent toward him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

    Yusuf Ali: But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    Shakir: But whoever repents after his iniquity and reforms (himself), then surely Allah will turn to him (mercifully); surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

    Muhammad Sarwar: However, God will accept the repentance of whoever repents and reforms himself after committing injustice; He is All-forgiving and All-merciful.

    Mohsin Khan: But whosoever repents after his crime and does righteous good deeds (by obeying Allah), then verily, Allah will pardon him (accept his repentance). Verily, Allah is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    Arberry: But whoso repents, after his evildoing, and makes amends, God will turn towards him; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

    On the matter of capital crimes, there is no point having a law that you never enforce, which brings the law into contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 1) EACH of those translations backs up what I said. Allah forgives. Man does not have to. That should be obvious as nobody in their right mind would NOT repent and say "I repent" if that was all that was needed to stop an amputation that went against the Laws of Noah. So it's obvious that it doesn't apply to man. Allah sees a man's heart and if he/she truly repents, then Allah will forgive them and make amends for their lost limb. Man does not have to read minds and cannot do so. Hence the punishment is carried out in Islam.

    2) There are many laws - or were many laws - on the UK statute books (including the death penalty) that were never imposed. They were for deterrent purposes.

    The reason you cannot see that a law that is there to show the serious nature of the act is because of your background of inhumanity in approving flagellation, amputation and other abuses.

    BTW just because the capital crime was not imposed does not mean the miscreant walked free.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Under Secular Koranism only those who use violence to deprive others of their property would suffer manual amputation under the three strikes and you're out rule.

    Which death penalty was never imposed?

    If you accuse me of inhumanity in approving of capital and corporal punishment, you also condemn the British of the same inhumanity.

    The punishment should always fit the crime. I am surprised that as a Jew you are not aware that the an eye for an eye, a limb for a limb and a life for a life rule is an argument for proportionality.

    There is a verse in the Koran that says the death penalty should only be applied where justice requires it.

    "Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice."

    Qur'an 17:33

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nothing whatsoever to do with my personal views on the death penalty. I actually have no objections in principle to a death penalty if there is incontrovertible evidence and the circumstances are such that the criminal was compos mentis and aware of what they were doing and the risks. This is essentially the Jewish view but it is NOT the view of most countries that have a death penalty that is used.

    In the USA those receiving the death penalty are disproportionally lower IQ and often black suggesting evidence of bias. That alone shows it is wrong. There have been numerous cases where the death penalty was applied and only subsequently did evidence come out that showed it was a miscarriage of justice. Here are just 3 for the UK - Timothy Evans was murdered via execution for a crime later found to be one of the Christie Rillington place murders. Derek Bentley was murdered via execution for a crime when he was innocent and his friend had fired the gun. He was murdered by the UK State because the actual murderer was under age. Mahmud Mattan was murdered by the UK state and in 1998 the Court of Appeal came to the judgement that the original case was, in the words of Lord Justice Rose, "demonstrably flawed". The family were awarded £725,000 compensation, to be shared equally among Mattan's wife and three children. These and other cases resulted in the UK stopping the death penalty.

    There are numerous other cases for other countries.

    You on the other hand follow a different view. For you, you don't care about miscarriages of justice. You don''t care about people being murdered by the State. You don't care about justice at all.

    All you want is retribution and vindictiveness. For punishments to be seen to be done, irrespective of if they are deserved or not. But that is the Koranic way - mercy and real justice are left to Allah. Man, as a servant of Allah may get things wrong, but as long as what he /she does goes along with Allah all is OK.

    That is not the Jewish way. God gave the law to man to implement with mercy and justice. The aim is NOT to take God's work into his/her own hands. That's why you never find a Jew yelling out Allahu Akbar as he goes on a Jihadist rampage. As in Judaism, God IS greater and if somebody needs to die, God will arrange for this to happen. God does not need man to carry out such actions.

    It's why on the Day of Atonement one of the key prayers was made famous in Leonard Cohen's song "Who by fire". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilGahIwQEQ0 which is based on this prayer. Every year ALL humanity (not just Jews - so you included) is judged by God for the next year. And those deserving of death for their crimes will receive death - some by fire, some by drowning, some by strangulation and so on.

    Jews trust in God. Moslems don't. Instead they play at being God. And secular Koranism is worse as it removes even God from an evil, Sodomite like, legal code.

    ReplyDelete
  51. One must of course be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that an accused is guilty of the crime accused of. If that is not enough for you, then you do not in practice believe in the death penalty, so you might as well admit it, instead of trying to have your cake and eating it.

    It is supreme racial arrogance to pretend that only Jews trust in God while Muslims don't.

    If there are any miscarriages of justice, doubtless Hashem will make it up to the wrongfully executed in their olam aba.

    Secular Koranism is a perfectly practicable legal system that would reintroduce the death penalty. If you disagree with the principle of the death penalty because you are deep down an atheist hiding his atheism, it is time to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. 1) That's the reason that the death penalty is available in Judaism. If there is no doubt at all then of course it should be applied.

    2) The number of miscarriages of justice show that the Jewish view is correct - as the "beyond reasonable doubt" barrier is not enough for a death penalty. At the time, the sentence was carried out it was beyond "reasonable" doubt but not beyond any doubt. Define reasonable. 1%, 10%. Generally beyond reasonable doubt means something like 80% certain. That means for every 5 executions, 1 (20%) will be a judicial murder and the court, judges, jury and executioner will all lose their place in Olam Haba as they will have been guilty of murder. Judaism doesn't want this so even 1% doubt is too high (1 in 100 cases). There must be incontrovertible evidence that cannot be challenged ever i.e. no doubt at all.

    Judaism does have penalties for where there is doubt. Consider Socrates. The criminal is not executed but things are done so that he is not in a good place (as mentioned in Sanhedrin 81b that I quoted for you). Essentially if the prisoner is guilty - even if not executed - the chances are that he/she will die. It will not be at the hand of a court however and so the judges do not lose their place in Olam Haba due to a wrongful execution.

    3) An Islamist extremist who goes on a murder rampage yelling Allahu Akbar is putting himself/herself ABOVE God as he/she is showing that he/she does not trust God to punish the infidels.

    I'm not talking about a normal Muslim believer - who of course can trust in God, as can a Christian or a Hindu or a Bahai or a Jain or a Zorastrian. A key difference between Islam and Judaism is that Jews recognise that other peoples trust in God and follow God's ways. The Bible has many such teachings about righteous gentiles and such people are always praised. Jews do not view non-Jews as "infidels" worth of death in the way that too many Muslims view non-Muslims.

    In fact you can see that even secular and irreligious Muslims view non-Muslims negatively. It's no coincidence that almost all the people who abused white girls and raped them, etc. in Rotherham and elsewhere were Muslims. Too many Muslims (INCLUDING YOU) have a view that the kaffir are all fornicators and sluts and so what happens to them is coming to them and it's OK to drug and dope 13-14 years and then rape them. THAT is racial arrogance!

    Secular Koranism will breach the Noahide laws as it believes in amputation and as such is a reprehensible doctrine. It also punishes crimes that may be immoral but harm nobody. (Fornication). So it's a nasty legal system that will lead to its executioners and amputators getting damned by God. No thank you! (No Jew with any knowledge would accept such a philosophy).

    ReplyDelete
  53. My view is that sex predators and those who run child prostitution rings are sex offenders and in the vice trade because they are criminals, not because they are Muslims. It is therefore a policing and social problem and not a Muslim problem, though it is entirely predictable that Islamophobes and racists would use this opportunity to attack Muslims and Islam so they can claim that these sex predators are doing what they do because they are Muslims rather than because they are bad people who happen to be Muslims. It seems you are one of them.

    I happen to know that the Noahide laws are silent on manual amputation even if you do not.

    I also happen to know that one of the Noahide laws require the forbidding of sexual immorality and it seems you are not aware of this either.

    I would have thought that any self-respecting Jew would already know what the Noahide laws are, without having to look them up. I have just realised that you do not even know what they are and have not looked them up.

    On the question of Muslim terrorists, I have a number of questions:

    1) If there are just wars, are there also just acts of terrorism?

    2) Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter?

    3) Is terrorism a poor man's war?

    4) To pretend that Judaism is an entirely pacific religion is at odds with God's commandment to Jews to exterminate the Amalekite, is it not?

    5) Are you a neocon?

    ReplyDelete
  54. You say you know the Noahide laws but you obviously do not understand them. The last Noahide law prohibits cutting off the limb of a living animal for food. This is the basic law but along with this is the idea of kindness to animals and not cutting off limbs unnecessarily i.e. amputation. It's why in Judaism castrating an animal is forbidden. If it is forbidden for an animal it is also for a human being except to save its life (e.g. for gangrene).

    Did you know that in fact the laws of Noah have 66 sub-divisions. The basic 7 are the headlines but none standalone and they can't. What does it mean by establishing courts of justice, for example? It needs to be defined. What are illicit relations - they are NOT fornication, but something NOT condemned in the Quran at all i.e. bestiality. Plus adultery and incest and homosexual sex.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Muslims eat the hands of amputees?

    ReplyDelete
  56. The Rotherham sex perverts plus those in Oxford, Rochdale, etc. were almost all Pakistani Muslims. Many claimed to be devout Muslims - and they only picked on non-Muslim girls. The reason they were allowed to operate for so long was because the police and social workers were scared they would be seen as racist / Islamaphobic if they highlighted the truth.

    I seem to recall that Mohammed led the path - with his relations and marriage with underage girls. That does not both me as the ethos of the time allowed that. (Child brides were common in Christian Europe too). However Islam's veneration of the Prophet means he needs to be emulated - including in this sort of way.

    Judaism is not pacific. There are just wars and just causes. However there is no concept like Jihad and trying to forcibly convert non-believers.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The First Amendment comes from the Koran.
    http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-first-amendment-was-derived-from.html

    There is no verse in the Koran commanding Muslims to kill non-Muslims just because they are non-Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Maybe there isn't. However how do you explain away Al Qaeda, ISIS and the other Islamist terrorists that use the Quran to justify what they do. I agree that this is not all followers of Islam and Ibadi Muslims in particular are renowned for their tolerance of others. However Wahabi and Shia Islam are both rapacious in their hate of not only each other but non-Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Having the group solidarity that Islam gives them, they act as a group to defend each other when they are being attacked by the West. That would be the simplest explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  60. So you are explaining away perverts and justifying perversions. What's the punishment for that in Secular Koranism?

    Group solidarity is NOT a defence. They were not attacked by the "West". They were protected and the girls who were raped were the ones who needed protection but because the State is so scared of Muslim terrorism and outrage they victimised the victims rather than the criminals.

    BTW the 1st Amendment was NOT derived from the Quran - unless you mean that Jefferson looked at the Quran and rejected it so as to derive the 1st Amendment. He criticised Islam as "stifling free enquiry" in his early political debates in Virginia, a charge he also leveled against Catholicism. He thought both religions fused religion and the state at a time he wished to separate them in his commonwealth.

    Also it wasn't just Jefferson. It was also Madison who drafted the 1st Amendment.

    And Jefferson's Quran was not any old Quran. It was a 1734 translation that was produced to further Christian missionary efforts in Muslim lands. The translator George Sale wrote in his introduction to the reader, “Whatever use an impartial version of the Korân may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture.”

    Methinks you should think more, study more and then and only then will you even start to be a voice of reason!

    ReplyDelete
  61. To explain is not to justify.

    There is no punishment for explaining the purpose of religion which is that of group solidarity. Why should there be?

    I was not defending Muslim terrorists, merely explaining what Muslim terrorists thought they were doing.

    Are you sure the sex predators and child prostitution rings thought they were committing their sexual offences for political reasons? This is the first I have heard of it.

    The point remains that only the Koran protects freedom of belief. which is entirely absent from the Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Why is it absent in the Torah? On the contrary the book of Exodus is all about freedom. Real freedom is not anarchy. It's about respect for others, love for others, building relationships without fear. That's the Torah. It's NOT the Quran which predicates belief in God / Allah on fear.

    That's why the Bible includes the Song of Solomon. Where is there anything like this in the Quran. The Quran covers women up.

    The Song of Songs by Solomon.
    O that he would kiss me with his lips! Indeed, your caresses are better than wine. Sweet is the fragrance of your perfumes; your very self is a precious perfume; therefore do the maidens love you. Take me with you; let us hasten!

    The king brings me into his chambers. We will thrill with delight over you; we will celebrate your caresses more than wine! Rightly do they love you.

    I am dark yet comely, maidens of Jerusalem: dark as the tents of Kedar, comely as the curtains of Solomon. Do not stare at me because I am dark, for the sun has tanned me; my mother’s sons were angry with me, they made me keeper of the vineyards; I did not look after my own vineyard.

    While the king sits at his table, my nard gives forth its fragrance. My beloved is my bunch of myrrh that lies between my breasts. My beloved is my cluster of henna-blossom from the gardens of Engedi.

    You are beautiful, my love, you are beautiful; your eyes are dove-like.

    You are handsome, my beloved, and pleasant; and our couch is leafy. The beams of our houses are cedars, and our rafters are firs.

    How beautiful are your steps in sandals, O princess; the curves of your thighs are like ornaments made by an artist. Your chest is like a round goblet ever filled with wine; your body is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies.

    Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like a tower of ivory; your eyes are like the pools of Heshbon, at the gate of Bathrabim; your nose is like a tower of Lebanon, overlooking Damascus.

    Your head is on you like Carmel, and the hair of your head is like purple; the king is held captive in its tresses. How beautiful, how sweet you are, O love’s delight! This stature of yours is like a palm tree, and your breasts like clusters. I say: I will climb the palm tree, I will take hold of its branches; let your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the fragrance of your breath like that of apples, and your soft speech like the best wine—flowing smoothly for my beloved, gliding over the lips of those about to sleep.

    I am my beloved’s, and his longing is for me. Come, my beloved, let us go into the field, let us stay in the villages; let us go early to the vineyards, to see whether the grapevine has budded, whether the vine blossoms have opened, if the pomegranates are in flower. There I will give my love to you. The love-plants yield their fragrance, and at our doors are all kinds of precious fruits, both new and old, which I have kept for you, my beloved.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Have you forgotten?

    The Koran has rules for modesty which are quite reasonable.

    I have no idea why you expect the Song of Solomon to be in the Koran when it is already in the Tanakh! In any case, it is probably a little transgressive for mere humans to think of God as a lover.

    ReplyDelete
  64. WRONG! The beginning of wisdom is love of God.

    "You shall love the L-rd your G‑d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates."

    Fear is what you do with enemies. Love is what you do with those you have a positive relationship with. If you have a positive relationship then fear is not needed. That is another difference between Judaism and Islam. Judaism is a religion of Love. All the commandments come out of love.

    That's why the Song of Solomon is far from Transgressive. It's a love poem between God and his people using the metaphor of human love.

    Think about the 10 sayings (commandments). Start with the first one.

    1) I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    That sets the scene of God as a partner. He is announcing to the people that this is a strong relationship based on God having brought the people to freedom.

    If you are in a relationship e.g. a marriage then there is no room for anybody else. Hence:

    2) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    In a strong relationship there is also no place for substitutes. Only the real thing is good enough.

    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

    And also you should not be flippant and take your love for granted - so

    Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    Then in a relationship you set time aside - essentially you have a regular date night or special day to share on a regular basis with your lover.

    Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

    But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

    In any good relationship there are also others e.g. those who introduced you and so you need to respect them and be thankful to them too.
    Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

    Honour parents as they are the ones that made you and allowed you to come to God.

    They also link to a relationship. If you can't have a good relationship with your parents you won't with your parent in heaven either. They go together.

    And as God created all humanity you need to respect His work and not damage it.

    Thou shalt not kill.

    Or treat it flippantly and disrespectfully.

    Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    And kidnapping can lead to murder. It's also the opposite of freedom and denies somebody freedom so goes against God.

    Thou shalt not steal another human being from their home. (It's NOT thou shalt not steal property. That's a different command - the verb in the 10 commandments is talking about kidnapping).

    And you need to be honest with your fellow man. If you can't do that how can God trust you as relationships are all about honesty.

    Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    AND be satisfied with what you have. The relationship should be enough.

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

    ReplyDelete
  65. In contrast, Islam is all about fear and subservience to God. Even the name Islam / Muslim is about subservience. It's not about loving relationships at all. And if you are expected to be subservient to God then you can expect others to be subservient to you. Hence Rotherham.

    Also I don't expect the song of songs to be in the quran. That wasn't my point. My point was that Islam is puritanical and so rejects such texts. Or at least your sort of Islam does.

    ReplyDelete
  66. How is Islam puritanical when it tolerates prostitution?
    http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/06/verse-in-koran-implicitly-condones.html

    ReplyDelete
  67. Read the comments that show why your interpretation is crap.

    Interestingly, my knowledge of Jewish views also suggests a misinterpretation on the term slave girl. And I see nowhere for the authorisation of brothels. On the contrary, it's talking about a short term or temporary marriage.

    Btw Judaism is much more open on prostitution. This is why you need to speak less and learn more. You speak and sound rational to those who don't know. Those who do, know what you write is bs.

    As to Jews and prostitutes look up Hosea. And also who Rahab married.

    Prostitution is not accepted in Judaism and even allowing a slave girl to be a prostitute is wrong. It's a big sin to let your daughter fall into prostitution.

    Yet prostitutes are viewed with respect as victims of patriarchal power. Which is why Tamar is praised and one of the ancestors of the Messiah. (As is Rahab)

    ReplyDelete
  68. I am delighted that we both agree that brothels should be legalised!

    ReplyDelete
  69. And drugs too.

    Plus consistency - i.e. stopping the crap that pre-marital sex is a crime as brothels are essentially venues for fornication!

    ReplyDelete
  70. I distinguish between a slut and a whore. A whore is a prostitute who always give you the price of her services up front. A slut pretends it is free but loads it with all kinds of hidden charges.

    ReplyDelete
  71. So paying for fornication is OK but trying to build a loving relationship is not.

    That's nuts!

    ReplyDelete
  72. When did I ever say building a loving relationship is not OK?

    ReplyDelete
  73. A prostitute sells her body for sex.

    A woman who has multiple sexual partners (which you call, insultingly and misogynistically a slut) is usually looking for a relationship but doesn't know how to achieve one with commitment - usually due to her background e.g. lacking parental love / role models and so is always looking for somebody who will care for her. There are men who take advantage of this - and that was why the Muslims in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale were so evil. They preyed on girls from broken homes or who were looking for kindness and promised the girls what they needed but were liars. (And yes - non-Muslims also take advantage of girls desperate for love. However they tend not to target particular groups. That was what was so despicable about the Rotherham groups. They SHARED your views on "white girls" of this type and so took advantage of them).

    You want to punish the victims - not the people who victimise. And you defend those who victimise by not recognising their evil.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I would make a Slut Single Mother give up her seat for a whore, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  75. As I just said. You are a misogynist. Most single mothers are victims - desperate for love. They are taken advantage of, and need help and support. Attack the men - not the girls! But you won't as you hate other women unless they match up to your impossible standard. And turn a blind eye to men.

    Why is it that in Muslim nations, more women get stoned for adultery than men? Because of people like you!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Stoning actually came from Judaism. The Koran is silent on stoning.

    I only propose to punish sluts and slut-fuckers who are parents of bastards in the way prescribed at http://quran.com/24/2 which is going easy on them

    http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/aphorisms-of-claire-khaw.html See No 96 and 151.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Which is why your approach is so immoral and lacks any human (or Godly) mercy.

    The Jewish view always looks at the circumstances. It's not black or white. It's gray.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I think the Jewish view is pretty black and white, but Jews like you prefer to muddy the water in order to have the best of both worlds. You want to be a good Jew and a good liberal but should know that this is as impossible as having your cake and eating it. Judaism is not Liberalism, is it?

    It is ridiculous that Jews should get the credit for having their wonderful religious principles and laws which they never follow in practice while sneering at Muslims who try to follow them but who are denounced as fundamentalists and extremists for trying to follow their religious principles because they lack the Jewish capacity for doublethink.

    You do know that it is only the Torah that prescribes honour killing and not the Koran, don't you?

    I hope you know that the practice of throwing sodomites off tall buildings came from the Talmud and not the Koran.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Please say where it states about honour killing. Chapter, verse.

    Please state where it talks about throwing Sodomites off tall buildings. Tractate, Page number and side.

    Justice is NEVER black and white. Anybody who says it is wants to play God. ONLY God knows the truth. Man can never know the full truth. Judaism recognises this. Islam tries to play God - and so lacks God's wisdom and God's mercy.

    There's a Jewish statement - "Don't be right. Be wise". Wisdom is about knowing when to be strict (and right) and when to be willing to bend and be lenient.

    This idea is also in the etymology of the word "intelligent" which is made of "Inter" (between) and "Legere" (lines / choices). So somebody who is intelligent knows not to be constrained by lines and can work and walk between them.

    SO why don't YOU try to be intelligent instead of correct and right!

    ReplyDelete
  80. I am surprised that you have not heard of https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV

    "When the Torah specifies the death penalty of stoning, the Talmud explains it meant the offender was hurled down from a high place – rather than pelted with stones."

    https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/the-pursuit-of-rabbi-dweck-1.440146

    ReplyDelete
  81. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is NOT honour killing. It's a death sentence on a totally out-of-control and rebellious son. Nothing to do with honour-killing. Also it's not straightforward - but then as you refuse to accept anything that's not black and white, you won't see this. However I'll TRY (hard as it is) to explain.

    v18. If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him,

    Not one parent. But both need to agree on this and agree totally. What sort of mother is going to sentence her son to death? So there's more to it. Also he has been disciplined severely already as the verse states. The view is that if he ignores all such pressure to behave, then in the end he will take his stand on the crossroads and rob people, and in some way or other make, himself liable to the death penalty. Says the Torah, “Let him die innocent of such crimes, and let him not die guilty of them. The death penalty is only ever administered if the son would become liable to a death penalty anyway.

    As for the throwing off tall buildings - I asked about the throwing off of sodomites from tall buildings. I asked for sources. You have now sort of given them by describing how a punishment that rarely, if ever, was put into practice. So the Muslims, as usual, totally misunderstand Jewish sources and invent their own - claiming it is Allah's will. And you, lacking wisdom, go along with it.

    This is from a leading Rabbi and head of a Yeshiva "The punishment of stoning is only when they did it b’mayzid (deliberate violation of Jewish law), and before two witnesses who warned them not to do it, and that if they do, they will be punished by stoning, and nevertheless, they transgressed and sinned before them visibly. In practice, one would have to be completely insane to do so, because no one would dare commit a sin deserving of death before witnesses who warn him that if he continues to sin he will be punished by death. And if he dared, perhaps he really is insane and not responsible for his actions, and exempt from punishment.

    Therefore, even though there are dozens of sins for which the penalty of death was determined by the Torah, in actuality, capital punishment by Beit Din (religious court) was very rare, to the point where our Sages said a Sanhedrin that effects a capital punishment once in seven years is branded a destructive tribunal [...]

    Accordingly, the punishment set by the Torah is meant to teach the gravity of the sin, and is mainly intended to discourage people from transgressing it deliberately and brazenly in front of witnesses."

    https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/27505

    ReplyDelete
  82. My point it that even if these sodomites were caught bang to rights, death is still too harsh. The Koran does not make sodomy either a hanging or stoning offence.

    Ditto being a drunken and disobedient son.

    ReplyDelete
  83. But it will be enforced if the conditions are right. And if the full punishment is not given there are other penalties as the Deuteronomy passage you gave me shows. Your problem is that you are all or nothing. For you, everything is black and white. So for you there is only ever one level of punishment. No look at circumstances. No mercy (that's for Allah - after the people involved have lost their share in heaven for a wrong judgement that turned them into murderers).

    READ Deuteronomy. 21 v18. Read it again....

    v18. If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him,

    "... even after they discipline him". That's the difference between a religion inspired and given by God (Judaism) and one that perverts God's mercy and love (Islam - as interpreted by you). For you, the the rebellious son is immediately executed. The sodomite is immediately executed - even though there is only circumstantial evidence. That is NOT merciful. That is cruel and vindictive and not Judaism and so also breaches the Noahide laws about setting up courts of JUSTICE (i.e. not courts of vengeance and vindictiveness which is what you want to do).

    ReplyDelete
  84. Commandments that can be literally interpreted without offending against Truth, Logic, Morality and humanity in the Koran are to be preferred to the Torah which calls for the death penalty for every little thing. I am sure all reasonable Jews and gentiles would agree with me on this!

    ReplyDelete
  85. If you redefine reasonable as meaning ignorant and stupid they may.

    There is zero humanity in allowing judicial murder when the truth has not been established unequivocally. Your system is an abomination against morality, logic and humanity as sentencing can take place without absolute truth being established.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Proof beyond all reasonable doubt is good enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  87. EXACTLY. You are willing to give up your place in heaven by becoming a murderer.

    There is proof beyond reasonable doubt that somebody is going to win the lottery by purchasing a ticket. That does NOT mean I should purchase a ticket as it "could be me". That is the sort of proof that you seem to accept.

    If there had never been any miscarriages of justice I'd say proof beyond reasonable doubt meant something. The numbers of times "beyond reasonable doubt" later turns out to have been wrong shows that this is not proof. I prefer to execute based on truth - NOT bias and supposition which seems to be your preference.

    As I said, no truth, no logic, no morality and no humanity. I'll stick with the Jewish view that has logic, is moral, is human and respects truth.

    (Just as an aside, the Hebrew word for Truth is אמת. This is made up of the first, middle and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. EACH letter can stand upright without toppling over. THAT is truth. In contrast the word for a lie is שקר. These are the penultimate 3 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and none of them can stand upright.

    Stop chasing lies and start chasing truth)

    ReplyDelete
  88. You are either for the death penalty in principle, or you are not. You cannot have your cake and eat it and say you are for it in theory, but not in practice and then claim moral superiority over those who say it is practically necessary as a deterrent. Your hysterical accusation against me of murder is just evidence of your ridiculous and hypocritical posturing. Just accept once and for all that Judaism is nothing to do with Liberalism and come out firmly on one side or another. I would hate to have to take apart your mind and disentangle the knots of its twisted reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I'm for it in principle. No question about that.

    I'm AGAINST the idea that justice can be done for something as permanent as execution or amputation where there could be any doubt at all. Beyond reasonable doubt is nonsense as that means there can still be doubt. The number of cases that led to incarceration that were beyond reasonable doubt and then DNA evidence proved that the prisoner's claims to be not guilty were accurate just show that "beyond reasonable doubt" is nonsense. Fortunately only a few executions in the UK turned out to be false but that is not the case in other countries and even ONE false execution is judicial murder.

    There is no way anybody with a brain can countenance approving such crimes. It's why the death penalty was abolished and the fact that large numbers want to bring it back shows how many people are totally thick. I'm surprised that you count yourself among these idiots!

    In cases where there is even a tiny amount of doubt e.g. the person says "not guilty" or claims an alibi or claims it was an accident or whatever, I don't care where it's "beyond reasonable doubt" - there is doubt. If the person says "I'm guilty" then there is also massive doubt as nobody in their right mind would say they are guilty if they knew that they would be sentenced to death. So whatever the evidence against them, there will be a bias against them because of their "guilty claim". It means they are not in sound mind. So a death sentence (or amputation) is not beyond reasonable doubt.

    If you want to sentence to death in such cases, you give them a normal cell and normal socialising conditions and so on. Plus put a glass of hemlock on the cell windowsill. The court should never execute in such circumstances but the prisoner can kill themselves if they feel they deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. You are trying to have your cake and eat it again.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Haha

    Not at all. I'm just not a fan of the sort of cake you like to serve - as it's rotten and mouldy!

    ReplyDelete
  92. I just mean you want to say "yes but no but yes but no" ad nauseam and expect praise for your certainty and clarity.

    ReplyDelete
  93. That was a real stream of consciousness rant. But actually said very little. Seems I'm getting under your skin. GOOD!

    As that means you realise that you may be (sorry - are) wrong!

    Execution (or state-imposed homicide) when there is even a smidgen of doubt is judicial murder. You may be willing to accept such murderers but I am not.

    I'm happy to incarcerate for life when there is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I'm happy for civil laws to be based on the balance of probability. As if a mistake is made it can be corrected. And mistakes ARE made - the word doubt implies this.

    The Noahide laws talk about establishing courts of JUSTICE. It is manifestly unjust to execute somebody who is innocent although is found guilty based on "reasonable doubt" that they did the crime they are accused of. Hence this would be a breach of the Noahide laws. If there is certainty then execution is warranted. Not otherwise.

    If you incarcerate somebody and later information shows they were innocent you can compensate them. If you execute them not only can you not compensate them - as they are dead - but you cannot compensate their family either as they lost a loved one who cannot be replaced. That is pure, unadulterated evil and not justice at all. Hence in such cases, the judges themselves and everybody involved in the execution are murderers.

    If you want to go with the principle of "reasonable doubt" I'll accept that on one condition. That if it turns out that a mistake was made, then the judges and jury and executioners and all concerned including the prosecution witnesses be executed too as punishment for executing somebody who later proved to be innocent or not subject to a death penalty. However as you are so certain yourself that executing somebody when there is still doubt is OK - what about this as a compromise? Would you be willing to go along with this?

    And same for amputation and other mutilations that you like the sound of. So even if the judge is lame in one leg, if he calls for an amputation and it turns out that it was a faulty judgement and a leg of an innocent victim is chopped off, the judge will lose his own good leg.

    BTW if you are not willing to go along with the above compromise you are a hypocrite as you are willing for somebody to be murdered but you are unwilling to suffer the consequences if they were innocent and murdered.

    ReplyDelete
  94. If you believe in God, then you would trust that any injustice suffered in this world would be made good in the next, but do you? Do you have emunah, let alone bitachon?

    ReplyDelete
  95. One day you will learn enough to know how much stupidity you spout about Judaism. You keep showing how little you know or understand. I suspect that is why so many have given up on you. I see you as a challenge and entertaining (sometimes) as I always like to see what other people are saying. It means I can keep my knowledge up to date.

    So in answer to your last point - another ignorant one. Yes, God will make good any injustice. However unlike Christianity and definitely unlike Islam we are NOT supposed to live our lives with the hope of the world to come. God gave the Torah to Moshe to put into place. You are actually forbidden to delve too far into understanding the world to come. Judaism is not about something that can't be experienced in the next world. It's all about THIS world. There are no 72 virgins or anything like that for the righteous. We do not know what there is.

    What we DO know is that God HATES injustice. That is a massive sin. Deuteronomy 16 v20: Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

    That means that a judge who sentences somebody to death on "reasonable doubt" is not following this command as it is not certainty. Hence the victim may get pardoned by God. However the judge and jury and prosecution witnesses and everybody involved in the judicial murder WILL get punished even if the person was actually guilty. BECAUSE they sentenced based on doubt not certainty.

    You have no emunah or bitachon by your constant acceptance that man should overcome God's will and God's command to strive for justice ALL the time, not just when there is reasonable doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  96. The Koran prescribes that the death penalty be applied where the interests of justice require it.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/capitalpunishment.shtml

    The Torah assumes that it would be just to apply the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath, picking up sticks on the Sabbath, sodomy, idolatry amongst other things.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I've judged (maybe wrongly) Islam on

    1) What you claim for it - which, if the BBC article is accurate is a long way from secular Koranism which is a perversion of the Islamic idea of justice

    2) The number of Islamic countries where Sharia law is used by repressive powers to justify their rule and are indiscriminate against poor and women, etc. Plus failure to give full access to a lawyer, etc - justifying this on Islam. Name me ONE Islamic country that fulfils the letter of Sharia law e.g. regarding FOUR witnesses (i.e. double the number for Jews).

    If you read what I've said in the past, I've praised Ibadi Islam. I'd forgotten that Albania and Bosnia are Islamic. They are also much more enlightened - and the article mentions them specifically in their views on the death penalty which corresponds with the Jewish view "...countries such as Albania and Bosnia, which still retain the death penalty as part of their penal system...." i.e. it is a deterrent but not generally applied.

    As for repressive regimes, only TWO Islamic countries can claim to have any form of democracy (Indonesia and Tunisia).

    Malaysia is not one and is viewed as a hybrid regime (i.e. with some elements of democracy but basically a regime and not a democracy. From when I've been in Malaysia the way Chinese and Indian peoples are treated and marriage laws, etc. I'd view this as obvious. There are a few other Islamic countries that fall into this hybrid regime classification e.g. Bosnia, Albania, Morocco. Most are classed as authoritarian dictatorships!

    http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2019.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=democracyindex2019

    I think the report says it all - it essentially says that if you live under Islam the chances are that you live in a repressive, feudal and cruel state. If you live under Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or Shintoism then chances are you live in a much fairer, more just AND more compliant with Noahide law countries.

    That says something about the way Islam is applied and why secular Koranism would be 100x worse as it removes even the idea of God and mercy!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Some questions for you:

    How is Secular Koranism "a perversion of the Islamic idea of justice"?

    I have no idea why you assume I would want to repeat the defects of Muslim majority governments in Secular Koranism.

    What do you mean Malaysia is "a regime and not a democracy"?

    Who gets to call which country is a democracy and which is not?

    Have you ever visited Malaysia?

    Do you know any Malaysians?

    I see you get your information from The Economist which is the neoliberal and neocon house magazine.

    On what basis do you claim that Secular Koranism would be 100% worse than how Islam is applied at the moment and how would you measure goodness or badness?

    I assume that your Islamophobia would make you cheer on the treatment Zakir Naik by the Indian government and cheer on the persecution and deaths of Muslims in Delhi, which you describe as "much fairer, more just AND more compliant with Noahide law countries".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-51719204

    Which countries do you consider Noahide?

    ReplyDelete
  99. 1) How is Secular Koranism "a perversion of the Islamic idea of justice"?

    Based on the BBC article, and what you've written, you accept reasonable doubt as acceptable. That goes against "extreme care" which means no doubt.

    2) What do you mean Malaysia is "a regime and not a democracy"?
    Who gets to call which country is a democracy and which is not?

    I gave a link. This table is widely respected and accepted.
    http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2019.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=democracyindex2019

    WTF is neoliberal and neocon. These are opposites. The EIU is one of the most respected political / economic consultancies worldwide.

    3) Have you ever visited Malaysia?

    Do you know any Malaysians?

    Several times.

    4) On what basis do you claim that Secular Koranism would be 100% worse than how Islam is applied at the moment and how would you measure goodness or badness?

    It is based on the Quran which stole ideas from the Torah. However by removing God it removes the morality an spirit of the law and so, ipso facto, is invalid an so worse.

    5) I assume that your Islamophobia would make you cheer on the treatment Zakir Naik by the Indian government and cheer on the persecution and deaths of Muslims in Delhi, which you describe as "much fairer, more just AND more compliant with Noahide law countries".
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-51719204

    I'm not Islamophobic. I have praised Ibadi Islam. Also Ammadiya Islam. I have problems with Sunni and Shia Islam as practiced in many areas for the reasons I gave - namely their support for repressive practices. The persecution of Muslims in India is a problem with the Modi government and why most Muslims are opposed to him. However things are not simple - look at the situation in Kashmir for example, and also relations with Pakistan which are worse than israel's relationships with Jordan and Egypt.

    7) Which countries do you consider Noahide?

    Most democracies. Fornication is only a crime for secular koranism and Islam in some countries. It's not a breach of Noahide law. Repressive and biased justice IS a breach.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "you accept reasonable doubt as acceptable."
    I said the only practicable standard of proof to be convicted of a capital crime is guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, if you want the death penalty to be practised. I support it in principle and practice while you claim - ridiculously - that you support it in theory but not in practice, in your policy of trying to have your cake and eating it and hoping the peasants won't notice your contorted logic and doublethink. This is why you childishly insist on 100% certainty which is in practice impossible. For your "Yes, but not, but maybe" answer, you expect acknowledgement for your cleverness in choosing to have your cake and eating it.

    To my surprise, it seems you have never heard of neoconservatism and neoliberalism, which makes me wonder where you have been all these years. You don't seem to know that The Economist has always been establishment and neoliberal, terms that you claim are new to you. You don't seem to have noticed that Trump supporters and Brexiteers are a reaction against decades of neoliberal and neoconservative policies.

    I have never heard of Ibadi Islam. You clearly only approve of Muslims who have sworn never to fight back against Western imperialism.

    You don't seem to know that the Noahide laws do not say anything about democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Of course I've heard of both neocon and neolib ideas. My understanding is that they are different. Neocon tends to be more linked to foreign policy issues while Neoliberalism is more linked to Ayn Rand economic ideas. Both are nuts - especially Ayn Rand's ideas. (They are profoundly immoral - to deny charity, altruism and so on and follow the idea that strongest wins - which is actually anti-Darwin as well although Rand supporters misquote these ideas. If they were right, then that could explain why the honeybee population is plummeting - as honeybees are altruistic. And if they die out, then so does much of humanity - just proving that we need to be altruistic).

    Neocon is more "The US is right" and the world is not connected so they do overlap but are different.

    If mistakes had never been made I'd accept beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is that this is a moving target. 30 years ago, many people were sentenced to prison based on their "guilt" being beyond reasonable doubt. Had we a death sentence some would have been executed. Later knowledge showed that they were innocent for multiple reasons - lying witnesses, DNA and so on. It is NOT a suitable level for something like amputation or execution.

    Also what is beyond reasonable doubt. If I said you have a 90% chance of putting money on the lottery and winning, most would go with it as the 10% is too low. Is that "beyond reasonable doubt". Or 99%. Or six sigma levels. I'd actually accept six sigma levels of beyond reasonable doubt - as the whole purpose of six sigma is to get as certain as humanly possible. I'm NOT against the death penalty in principle. Only where there is doubt. I'll step back and allow a level of doubt below six sigma! Is that enough for you?

    The Economist is not usually viewed as neoliberal except by idiots on the neocon right. Many attack it for being leftwing. The EIU is different - and is highly respected by all with brains.

    As for Ibadi Islam. As you don't even know the 3 major schools/branches of Islam, how can you talk about knowing the Quran. (There used to be 4 schools although the Kharijite is now extinct). There are also sub-sects of Sunni and Shia plus more recent groups such as Ahmadiyya and Sufi groups. Ibadi grew out of Kharijite Islam. It's the smallest of the 3 main groups.

    I keep telling you to go and do some proper study instead of spouting the nonsense you love about "secular" Koranism and cruelty in the form of amputation is OK. You know a little - e.g. that there is such as thing as the laws of Noah but have never looked at the detail on what these mean. (66 different facets with sub-facets). You claim to know about the Jewish view on Heaven (Olam Haba) but confuse this with the Christian view which is completely different.

    I wish I was educating you but you are so stuck that even an Ostrich with its head buried in the sand would give up as you're head is much deeper in the sand. SO study a bit more.... and then come back and see how nuts some of what you write actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Neoliberalism is the Transnational Progressivism that people voted Trump and Brexit to end.

    Neoconservatism is an euphemism for American imperialism/militarism/foreign policy.

    Beyond reasonable doubt - 75% certain

    Everyone knows The Economist promotes the globalism that people who voted Trump and Brexit loathe.

    There is no requirement to know about all the different sects of Islam in the world that you happen to favour in order to know the Koran.

    How have I confused the Jewish and Christian view of the afterlife?

    ReplyDelete
  103. So you are happy to execute people or cut off limbs when there is a 1 in 4 chance they are innocent?

    That is madness and would lead to many more problems as 25% of the people you judicially murder would lead to children without a parent, parents without children or in the case of judicial maiming, somebody innocent who could not work.

    As I said, you have no idea of the concept of Justice and your concept of Justice is not that dissimilar to those of Sodom - which was the reason the cities were destroyed. It was not homosexuality. It was a perverted justice system. That is what you are advocating.

    I said that I would accept the same sort of reasonable doubt used in modern manufacturing. From what you've just said, you would accept a car where there was a beyond reasonable doubt the brakes wouldn't fail i.e. in a quarter of cases they would fail. It's to prevent things like this that six sigma was devised - and I would accept this as "beyond reasonable doubt". But 1 / 4 is a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  104. I am only repeating to you what I learned at law school, which was that beyond reasonable doubt meant 75+% certain of the accused's guilt, or whatever the juror thought this meant.

    Civilisations do destroy themselves because of sexual immorality. Sodom and Gomorrah sounded like it was destroyed by a pyroclastic flow.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Beyond reasonable doubt is fine for incarceration. NOT for maiming or execution. Maybe you should have spent more time in law school understanding the principles behind law and less on the letter of the law. The principles are to ensure a safe and just society. Execution where 1/4 are innocent is not just and would not lead to a safer society as 25% of the population would grow to hate the system when they see the innocent murdered by the state. Of course in repressive regimes, they may be scared to rise up - so in repressive regimes you can get away with that (for a time). However such a system is not proper justice. It's the justice of Sodom.

    Sodom & Gomorrah may have been destroyed due to a volcanic type cataclysm. However read Genesis 18: 20-21.

    And the Lord said, "Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave, I will descend now and see, whether according to her cry, which has come to Me, they have done; [I will wreak] destruction [upon them]; and if not, I will know."

    And Genesis 19:13 For we are destroying this place, because their cry has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.

    The cry was not orgasmic. It was not because of sexual immorality or sodomy or anything like that. it was because of cruelty to the poor and a totally warped sense of justice so the victims cried out to God. The text is totally clear if you read it - but not if you are biased in your reading.

    Nachmanides commented: " THE OUTCRY OF SODOM AND AMORRAH. This is crying out of "the oppressed people who cry and plead because of the brutality of the wicked."

    ReplyDelete
  106. Another commentary looks at the Hebrew

    The wickedness of the Sodomites, however, was in a class by itself. This is indicated by the words כי רבה, "for it is great;" this explains why G'd seemed to mind the conduct of those cities more than that of any others. The additional word וחטאתם alludes to the fact that their wickedness included not only the metaphysical, i.e. idolatry, but also moral-ethical wickedness in their relations with fellow human beings. Sanhedrin 109 lists examples of the latter, describing how they tortured a young girl to death for having given bread to a stranger, something illegal in that town.

    The sin which sealed the fate of the Sodomites was that they despised charity, i.e. they legislated against people who practiced the virtue of giving charity or being otherwise charitable. They did not even take care of their own needy who were suffering from hunger.

    The meaning of our verses based on the simple explanation of the text is: “the men of Sodom were very evil and they sinned greatly against G’d, so much so that the echo of their sins reached the ears of G’d.” We find a warning in the Torah concerning the needy and oppressed crying out to G’d complaining about their condition in Deut. 15,9 וקרא עליך והיה בך חטא, “when he cries out about your conduct you will be guilty of a sin.” We find a specific verse about the sins of the Sodomites in Ezekiel 16,49 הנה-זה היה עון סדם אחותך גאון שבעת-לחם ושלות השקט היה לה ולבנותיה ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקו ותגבהינה ותעשינה תועבה לפני ואסיר אתהן כאשר ראיתי. “See! This was the sin of Sodom: pride, surfeit of bread, and undisturbed peace were hers and her daughter’s but the hand of the poor and the needy she did not support. And they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. So I removed them when I perceived it.” They were dealt with so harshly because they persisted in their evil ways more so than anyone else. There is no other nation on earth which does not practice some degree of charity towards its own members. The people of Sodom not only considered such an attitude as pandering to the economically unsuccessful, but they treated the victims with cruelty to boot. Even though the Torah and its social legislation had not been given as yet, the commandment of giving charity belongs to the group of commandments which one’s intellect dictates, and it is something despicable when a human being watches another human being suffering from hunger without trying to relieve his condition. When G’d destroyed the people of Sodom He avenged the poor who had been allowed to die from hunger or whose condition had been deliberately aggravated by those people in order to accelerate their death.

    And this gives a more concrete example from the Midrash (similar to the Hadith).

    A Midrashic approach to our verse: The word רבהis understood to refer to a young and kind-hearted girl. According to tradition as related in Sanhedrin 109, this girl had been feeding a poor beggar in Sodom until suspicion fell on her because the poor (who had been given money but whose money had not been accepted by the local merchants in exchange for food and drink) had somehow refused to die. When it was found that she had indeed broken the local law by feeding the beggar she was bound, placed on the roof, smeared with honey all over so that the bees stung her to death. The outcry from that girl’s (ריבה) soul came to G’d’s attention and this is what triggered His reaction as described in our verse.

    ReplyDelete
  107. We are talking about the principle of the thing. Both the Torah and the Koran prescribe capital and corporal punishment. I am going along with the principle of capital and corporal punishment, but I am not sure about you.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I am too. You are not going along with the Torah view at all. You are against it. You are also against the Noahide laws. Your views are closer to the Sodomite view of false justice, and extreme retribution.

    ReplyDelete
  109. How am I against the Torah by taking it at its word? I think you mean the Talmudic view, which is to interpret away the plain words of the Torah. Interpreting the Koran literally would not cause you to go against reason or injustice, but you are too chauvinistic to acknowledge this. Please define "sodomite view" because this is the first I have ever heard of this nonsense you have just doubtless just made up.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I gave you one example - with the lex talionis laws. Eye for an eye does NOT mean eye for an eye as the context is financial compensation. However another more explicit proof is Deuteronomy 12 v21: If the place the Lord, your God, chooses to put His Name there, will be distant from you, you may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat in your cities, according to every desire of your soul.
    NOWHERE in the WRITTEN Torah does it say what was commanded. Yet the verse clearly says something was commanded with regards to slaughtering animals.

    Another example is that Moses was 40 days communing with God on Mount Sinai. Why so long if, only the written law. The reason is that the Torah are the lecture notes and NOT the lecture. You need to read the lecture notes to understand the lecture and that is what the Talmud is all about. It's aim is to understand the lecture. Anybody who says the Torah is everything is showing ignorance. The sort of basic ignorance that would look at a student's lecture notes and believe that was the whole lecture verbatim.

    We know from the Bible they did not break every law. And the Noahide laws forbid incest and adultery. NOT fornication. That's your imagination.

    Also, the Noahide laws relate to justice. Preventing somebody from being properly rehabilitated by maiming them is the opposite of justice so you have just accepted that not only do you not hold by the Noahide laws but that you actually oppose them. In fact, fornication is a lesser sin than what you want to do.

    NOWHERE in the Torah is amputation allowed for the things you want.

    ReplyDelete
  111. The narrative is this: the Torah for Jews and the Koran for gentiles. Jews refer to the Torah, gentiles to the Koran. Do please try to remember this instead of making such a point of ignoring the Koran in your arrogant offensiveness which is now habitual for you. Is there anything in Judaism that says you must dismiss the revelation of gentiles in your chauvinism and arrogance?

    If the Torah allows capital punishment then anything short of that must implicitly be allowed.

    If it is indeed the case that Jews are not forbidden fornication, then why are not most Jewish mothers unmarried mothers and their offspring illegitimate?

    You are guilty of malign encouragement when you claim that fornication is allowed for gentiles. It will do you no good at all as a Jew living in a gentile nation to deliberately encourage gentiles to destroy themselves by continuing to condone widespread illegitimacy. Are you really not aware that the link between illegitimacy and criminality is well-established? Just as gentiles can be victims of crime, so can Jews too. By condoning unmarried parenthood, you are condoning criminality. Jews have no business being liberal and should be wise enough to know tha they cannot have their cake and eat it. There is no such thing as a being a good Jew who is also a good liberal, just as there is no such thing as a good Jew who is a good Nazi.

    I am surprised that a Jew is disagreeing with me that having most married parents in your society is the minimum standard of sexual morality and comes under forbidding sexual immorality under the Noahide laws. What have you to say about the fact that there are more unmarried parents now than married parents in the UK?
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

    It is almost beyond belief that with the rise of violent crime that is being daily reported these days that you should as a Jew be so irresponsibly encouraging and condoning bastardy.

    You claim that Sodom and Gomorrah, a city believed to destroyed by God Himself was not guilty of sexual immorality at all but of being uncharitable and inhospitable, which is plainly ridiculous, unless you really do not know what sodomy means or know that sodomy is a sexual offence that attracts the death penalty in Judaism.

    I see no problem in a three strikes and you're out policy as regards the manual amputation of violent robbers. You can find no authority at all in the Torah that is in principle against this punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  112. 1) The Torah and Talmud and Shulchan Aruch.... is for Jews
    2) The Koran and Hadith are for Muslims
    3) The Bible and Gospels / NT are for Christians
    4) Other texts for other religions.

    The aim is to live a moral life within a set of rules. It is total arrogance to say that the Koran is for all gentiles. It just says "FU" to everybody else and so brings the Koran into disrepute - a disrepute it does not deserve but instead should be applied to all those who say FU to other texts. As your dismissal of all other texts is habitual, obnoxious and arrogant and deserves a totally offensive reply which is what I am giving you. When you stop being stupid I'll stop highlighting your stupidity. When you accept that you do not have the divine right to apply a cruel, unjust and immoral code of your own invention then I will have no problem with what you say. And to claim that the story of ONE man, however important, is more important than the revelation from God to 2m people - even if God did inspire this one man - is total arrogance and chauvinism. It doesn't justify your views at all - and the fact you claim that you are the successor for this just makes you out as a fool.

    "If the Torah allows capital punishment then anything short of that must implicitly be allowed." This is another example of your inability to think. Using this logic, as sex between married people is allowed, sex between unmarried people must implicitly be allowed. That is the same logic. And it is the logic of idiots. The Torah prescribes punishments. It does NOT prescribe maiming others - which is a cruel, inhuman and unjust practice. In fact the Torah says the opposite. That this is forbidden and an eye-for-an-eye means financial compensation. To interpret lex talionis in any other way is the say of Sodom - as it is the way of cruelty and injustice. The way of Claire Khaw!

    Fornication is not praised. It is not desirable. The Torah talks about not allowing your daughter to become a prostitute. However this gives a more nuanced view: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/traditional-sources-on-sex-outside-marriage/

    Finally I did not say that the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were not guilty of sexual immorality. I'm saying that was NOT their crime. It was a crime of failing to be just - which is why you have Sodomite tendencies as your concept of justice is warped.

    As for amputation - theft is a financial crime. Amputation is a Sodomite approach to something that is financial.

    Finally what is your total thing about fornication and amputation? You keep bringing this up. You are OCD about it - as if you have a personal problem that goes beyond moral issues. Were you the child of a single mother and this is your way of attacking a father you never knew? Or who abandoned you and your mother as a child? Or were you subject to rape or abuse? Or maybe in your younger days you fell in love with somebody who you thought would love you if you slept with him. And then found he wanted your body and not your soul so you condemn all fornicators as a result - when in reality it is your own weakness you hate.

    I'd love to have a psychologist analyse your thoughts!

    ReplyDelete
  113. 'It is total arrogance to say that the Koran is for all gentiles.'
    The Koran says its message is for all mankind, actually.

    'It just says "FU" to everybody else and so brings the Koran into disrepute - a disrepute it does not deserve but instead should be applied to all those who say FU to other texts.'
    The Talmud says FU to other texts, doesn't it? Does it not say that gentiles are forbidden to have their own religion?
    https://www1.biu.ac.il/indexE.php?id=18690&pt=1&pid=14212&level=0&cPath=43,14206,14211,14212,18690
    'A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot. Similarly, a gentile who rests, even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is obligated to die. Needless to say, he is obligated for that punishment if he creates a festival for himself. The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions.'

    'As your dismissal of all other texts is habitual, obnoxious and arrogant and deserves a totally offensive reply which is what I am giving you."
    You were the one who refers to the Torah to the exclusion of everything else and made many derogatory references to Koran eg

    'This is why the Torah is a valid source for finding God, and the Quran is a perversion of God's mercy and teaching.'

    'Muslims USURP God and believe they are greater than God as they go against God all the time.'
    'Whenever a Muslim kills somebody and yells out Allahu Akbar he is desecrating God as if God wants somebody killed, God will do it and does do it. Man does not need to sentence evildoers, infidels or apostates. God will do it - but yelling out that you are doing this in the name of God just shows how evil that teaching actually is.' [You falsely claim that Islam teaches this and then say Muslims are evil.]

    'You were brought up in an Islamic country among people who believe in Sharia law. To succeed in what you want you need to clear your mindset of the Quran being something to spread and emulate. It's not - there's lots of good in it, but too much real evil too. ' [You call Islam 'real evil'.]
    'the Muslims in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale were so evil"

    'Using this logic, as sex between married people is allowed, sex between unmarried people must implicitly be allowed.'
    What would this logic be?

    'The Torah prescribes punishments. It does NOT prescribe maiming others - which is a cruel, inhuman and unjust practice. In fact the Torah says the opposite. '

    Where does the Torah forbid manual amputation?

    'Fornication is not praised. It is not desirable.'
    Too bad the Torah does not forbid it, but fear not, the Koran does, which is evidence of its greater sophistication as well as its support of freedom of worship on with the First Amendment is based.
    http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-first-amendment-was-derived-from.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_incest
    'One of the most notable features of each list is that sexual relations between a man and his own daughter are not explicitly forbidden'
    The Koran does not make this omission.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahram

    'I did not say that the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were not guilty of sexual immorality. I'm saying that was NOT their crime. It was a crime of failing to be just - which is why you have Sodomite tendencies as your concept of justice is warped.'
    How puerile of you to accuse me of being a sodomite because you lost the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  114. 'As for amputation - theft is a financial crime. Amputation is a Sodomite approach to something that is financial.'
    I have already explained to you that violent robbers who cause GBH deserve something harsher than monetary compensation of their victim, but you are pretending not to understand.

    Now you are saying I must have been the victim of a sexual offence because I wish to address the matters liberal political establishment refuses to address in the hope of embarrassing and humiliating me. Why would I cease and desist merely because an arrogant Jew labouring under the misapprehension that he can be both a good Jew and a good liberal wishes to silence me in the hope of currying favour with the liberal political establishment to show what a good liberal he is?

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'm not anti-Islam. I'm anti-Khawism which is a made up idea. You may call it secular Koranism but ultimately it is not Islam at all. It is Khawism. Khawism is a cruel, inhamane code.

    As one example - which you will probably now backtrack on.
    A man with a deformity in one hand steals a loaf of bread because he is starving. He is caught and to ensure the bread is not taken, he uses his good hand to protect himself and hits the baker causing the baker to fall over and get concussion. The man is had up for theft and GBH. The trouble is this man, because of his deformity, cannot find work and is particularly ugly so people jeer at him and call names at him. This man is thus rejected by society because of his deformity, cannot find work and is starving. So he steals and fights to survive. On the 3rd time he is caught, Justice Khaw, applying Khawism says "3 strikes and you have your remaining hand cut off". Now our victim has no usable hands, and is still starving. The consequence is he falls asleep on his park bench, and eventually dies.

    THAT IS THE JUSTICE OF SODOM and that is why Khawism is evil.

    The Torah view would be completely different. It focuses on rehabilitation and so the man would have been helped, despite his deformity, in anger management, and to get a job and more. The Torah focuses on our common humanity. You choose to reinterpret it from total ignorance, to misquote it, to take proper quotations out of context and to then say what things mean. You claim to follow the laws of Noah and reinterpret the rules against incest and adultery as against fornication because of the bee you have in your bonnet for this. And so you not only fail to understand them but worse, breach them with your warped concepts of justice.

    They aren't even Koranic the way you want them applied. They are Khawist. You reject justice as you say financial reparations aren't strong enough. If that was the case, why is blood money compensation allowed in many cases for Quranic punishments. Because it is an option but cruel people may choose to cut off somebody's hand (that does nobody any good) rather than to accept compensation.

    The Torah view of compensation has 5 parts.
    1) Disability - does the injury do permanent damage (e.g. even a scar). There is a sum for this.
    2) Pain - there is a sum for this.
    3) Medical treatment - this is totally reimbursed.
    4) Lost wages - these are totally made up.
    5) Shame - the fact the victim suffered psychologically.

    If the person concerned cannot pay then they become an indentured servant to the victim until the debt is paid off. There are punishments that are just, moral and rehabilitative that work. You just prefer blood, guts and maiming people - which helps nobody.

    As for your tirades against women for having sex when unmarried - maybe you should stop and go or the men who are responsible. It was attitudes like yours that led to 100s of girls from broken homes, or with ADHD or other problems to be molested by paedophiles in Rotherham, Oxford and elsewhere. You justify and protect the paedophiles by saying the girls were sluts and responsible ignoring what the men were doing. The fact these men were all Pakistani Muslims is significant. As they saw these girls as you do - and went a small step further: that they were fair game. That is evil and it just happens the evil doers were all Pakistani Muslims. That is not to say all Pakistanis are bad and definitely not to say all Muslims are bad. Sadly however there are elements that view what they did as acceptable and that is a shame on Islam and society that it was not stopped and was tolerated!

    ReplyDelete
  116. In case you hadn't noticed, all ideas are "made up". Secular Koranismn is a new school of sharia. Because its legitimacy is not acknowledged by any third party, you feel you can dismiss it, but let us be clear exactly what it is, which is a New School of Sharia.

    I already anticipate the problem of Muslims accepting it because they will say it is not one of their schools of sharia.

    However, I do not need your permission or theirs to sell it to the government if the government will buy it, were it minded to restore the patriarchy after realising the errors of its matriarchal ways.

    Secular Koranism is a legal system designed to restore the patriarchy while accommodating atheists to polytheists guaranteeing freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256.

    In your scenario of the thief who stole the bread, he would not be found guilty of intentionally attacking the baker so the situation you described will not arise. It is hard to imagine a man with a shrivelled hand being much good as a robber unless he also owned a gun. Slavery would be reintroduced under Secular Koranism as an alternative to the welfare state and this means the slave would get fed and housed while he repays his debt to society/works towards his manumission.

    If females are always the ones left holding the baby, then it behoves them to take greater care than men. Once everyone realises that unmarried parents will be lashed 100 times per illegitimate offspring, they will adjust their behaviour accordingly.

    As for sex predators and men who operated a child prostitution rings, the more interesting question is why white local indigenous men are no longer up to the job of criminal enterprise, leaving the field wide open to non-white foreign criminal gangs. Could it be that white local indigenous men brought up by their unmarried mothers made them somehow less able to share information and resources and cooperate with each other? Presumably non-white gangs who come from married parents were naturally able to to enjoy greater male cooperation and be more effective at their criminal enterprises compared to local white men who have suffered a catastrophic loss of masculinity as a consequence of the widespread illegitimacy that you are so keen to condone.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Or because of the reasons actually shown. Certain (not ALL) Pakistani Muslims plus social workers and police being scared to accuse them because they were scared of being politically incorrect.

    Seems you now prefer political correctness to facts.

    Also Gillick competence was not relevant, especially as many victims were not competent and that was what the men targeted.

    Seems you have no problems with older men having relationships with 13 year olds and are happy to view police refusal to protect the girls as OK as the girls complaints at men 2 or 3 times their age was a lovers tiff.

    So another thing on your rap sheet to join supporting murder for a quarter of people sentenced to death, maiming irrespective of circumstances as well as on a quarter of people who are Innocent as Allah will make it up the victims at some point. Now paedophilia is OK as long as not by whites.

    One day you'll wake up and realise are nuts your views are.

    ReplyDelete
  118. You are in favour of being politically correct though, aren't you?

    I have always said there should be no thoughtcrime/hate speech laws because this would offend against quran.com/2/256 though of course there should be laws forbidding us from inciting violence and crime against individuals and groups. Defamation is already a tort.
    What are the "facts" here anyway?

    The facts, as I see it, are that these convicted sex predators and criminals running child prostitution rings came from a Muslim background and were not doing what they were doing because they were Muslim doing what they did because they were being directed by the teachings of Islam. You seem to be saying that they did what they did precisely because they were Muslim. Your previous comments about Muslims and Islam are evidence of your Islamophobia.

    You don't seem to understand the signifiance of Gillick Competence which is that since the 1985 and before that, doctors have been allowed to hand out contraception to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents they are living with. The concept of Gillick Competence means that the government has been aiding and abetting underage sex since the mid-1980s, creating the ideal conditions for child sex predators and operators of child prostitution rings to supply themselves with child prostitutes through recruiting vulnerable underage females whose unmarried mothers had abandoned them. Yet when I draw attention to the morals of unmarried mothers who casually conceive, parent and abandon their illegitimate offspring, you imply that only someone who has had bad relationships or been the victim of sexual abuse would say what I do. It is almost as if you want to silence me with your spiteful and demeaning accusations.

    I thought any man of the world would immediately understand that policemen are not interested in wasting their time keeping the peace between lovers and only want investigations to lead to convictions that would lead to promotion. "Domestics" and lovers' tiffs invariably end in allegations being withdrawn and time being wasted as far as the copper is concerned.

    I am a little puzzled as to what you think I said that supported "murder for a quarter of people sentenced to death, maiming irrespective of circumstances as well as on a quarter of people who are Innocent ". Your hysterical accusations are both bemusing and effeminate.

    ReplyDelete
  119. It depends on what you mean by politically correct. I'd be called a terf - so that possibly helps you, and I'm not particularly woke!

    It seems you do the same with Islam as you do with the Torah and Bible. You take one verse and interpret yourself out of textual context and out of historical context. If you had qualifications to make you an Iman or a degree in Islamic jurisprudence then I could take your claims more seriously but as far as I know you are mostly self-taught from extensive reading. And that reading takes things out of context. You did it with the first amendment in the USA - claiming this came from the Quran (and so ignoring the historical context and much more). You are doing it with this verse. It would be marvellous if you were correct but this is yet another example of Khawism. It is also highly Islamophobic as it says that pretty much EVERY Iman and Islamic teacher, whether Shia, Sunni, Ibadi and possibly even Ammadiya is wrong when they condemn depictions of Mohammed, and sentence people for blasphemy. As that verse would allow blasphemy - as there is no compulsion in religion.

    It also denies history - as Jihad through the ages has compelled people to convert to Islam and furthermore has discriminated against non-believers.

    As for the sex predators I agree that this is not Islam, but the common factor for all the predators is that their beliefs in Islam did not make them question their behaviour. It did not stop them doing wrong - while it did stop non-Muslims. Yes - other religions may have a tendency to commit other crimes. Jews are often accused of white-collar crime. However such sex crimes seem to be a propensity for SOME followers of Islam. You only need to look at how Daesh treated Yazidi (and other "kaffir") women to see that the Pakistani experience is not isolated. So it falls down to some areas where Islam is deficient or maybe it is too hard for Muslims so they go the opposite (as some drunkards do in Saudi Arabia, despite the potential punishment).

    To say this is not Islamaphobic - unless you've become a Corbyn supporter also. As Trevor Phillips has said the same sort of thing about the Rotherham sex predators. The man who put in the legislation on Islamaphobia has now been expelled from Labour for Islamaphobia for talking about Rotherham in the same sort of way.

    But then your dictatorial tendencies do share a lot with the hard-left Corbynites. (As in your call for a one-party state. EVERY one-party state tends to be repressive, cruel and a nasty place to live in for many).

    ReplyDelete
  120. Finally for the police to ignore it when parents (mother and father) call the police for help when their daughter is being abused by a Pakistani Muslim male because of fears they would be called Islamaphobic shows how wrong society is with regards to reverence for Muslims to the exclusion of others. Many of these girls came from broken homes. Not all - and they were often seen as the best catch as the men loved subverting impressionable girls from good homes.

    And for you to say actions such as gang rape, forcing children to watch rape, dousing them with petrol and threatening to set them on fire, threatening to rape their mothers and younger sisters, and trafficking them to other towns is a lover's tiff. There were pregnancies—one at age 12—terminations, miscarriages - if the police did not recognise that a pregnancy by an older man with a 12 year old girl was against the law and just a lover's tiff then there is something seriously wrong. And ANYBODY who defends this - which includes you - is at fault and has absolutely no right to talk about single mothers and stuff like that as you obviously support Muslim rape of 12 year olds! (Yes - I AM ACCUSING YOU. I've said your views are those of Sodom and this defense proves it).

    Finally little Ms Sodom, you said that maiming people and judicial murder was OK within reasonable doubt which you said was 75%. So 1/4 of those you execute or maim would have been found not guilty of the crime that would have led to the sentence. That is not hysterical. It just shows how you lack comprehension of a fair and equitable justice system.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "You take one verse and interpret yourself out of textual context and out of historical context."
    Which verse are you claiming I have interpreted out of context?

    "You did it with the first amendment in the USA - claiming this came from the Quran (and so ignoring the historical context and much more). "
    Are you denying that the First Amendment is in harmony with https://quran.com/2/256 and that Thomas Jefferson read the Koran?

    " It is also highly Islamophobic as it says that pretty much EVERY Iman and Islamic teacher, whether Shia, Sunni, Ibadi and possibly even Ammadiya is wrong when they condemn depictions of Mohammed, and sentence people for blasphemy."
    What is "highly Islamophobic"?

    "As that verse would allow blasphemy - as there is no compulsion in religion." Are you proposing the restoration of the Blasphemy Act 1697 or are you in favour of the principle enunciated by 2:256 of the Koran?

    "It also denies history - as Jihad through the ages has compelled people to convert to Islam and furthermore has discriminated against non-believers."
    What also "denies history"?

    "Yes - I AM ACCUSING YOU."
    What are you accusing me of?

    I did indeed say that beyond reasonable doubt is 75+% sure that the accused did it, if you are to have the death penalty. What do you propose and how do you intend to measure certainty?

    ReplyDelete

Mujahid answers some of my 23 questions for Muslims

https://t.co/il73UjGO1X — Koranic Secularism (@Book_of_Rules)  April 25, 2024 2:00   Feminism is the corruption of the morals of women bribi...