Bali Bombers Used Quran Laws of Retaliation

[Narnian]

In the days of ignorance, (before the rise of Islam) it was a custom with the Arabs ......

The quran has laws about killing a murderer: I'm not disputing that. What I keep saying is that THIS particular verse is not about executing a murderer, but about the law of equality: "woman for woman, slave for slave, freeman for freeman". It does not say: "the actual murderer for the murdered" does it? Here are a few translations, including the literal one:

2:178 Literal it is dictated/ordered on you the revenge in the killed/murdered, the free/liberated with the free/liberated , and the slave with the slave, and the female with the female,
Yusuf Ali the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman.
Pickthal Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.
Shakir retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female,
Khalifa equivalence is the law decreed for you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female.

That is the verse the Bali Bombers quoted!

In The Crusades: bla bla bla ....

Tu Quoque Tu quoque (IPA: /tu ˈkwoʊkwɛ/, Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.
You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Old Testament verses bla bla bla ...

But Jesus said this: Matthew 5: 38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

[Ibn Abu Talib]

Narnian, name one Islamic scholar who agrees with your view.

[Narnian]

Narnian, name one Islamic scholar who agrees with your view.

I answered you twice on that one: Allah

[Ibn Abu Talib]

I answered you twice on that one: Allah

as the saying goes. the wise man knows nothing, the fool knows everything.

[Narnian]

as the saying goes. the wise man knows nothing, the fool knows everything.

And another saying goes:
Mt 11:25 (God has) "hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants"
"But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise" (1Cor 1:27)

Now, are we going to get back into the debate after that nice little Red Herring?

[Jesus Maranatha]

Now, the way he views women is another problem.

[barnasha]

narnian making a sarcastic comment does not constitute a red herring

Learn what a red herring is before throwing the term around.

[penguinfan]

In the days of ignorance, (before the rise of Islam) it was a custom with the Arabs that whenever a man was killed by someone, the murdered man's family used to massacre the whole family of the murderer. It was therefore to abolish this ghastly practice that the Holy Qur'an ordained death penalty for the sole perpetrator to be killed and not the whole family.

This was definitely not a custom in pre-Islamic Arabia. Richard Gabriel, author of Muhammad: Islam's First Great General, writes on p26:

The blood feud ended when the victim's family agreed to accept financial compensation for its loss, often a number of camels or other goods. If no agreement could be concluded, the feud went on if need be until the perpetrator himself was killed.

and on p27:

Even under these conditions the blood feud was aimed at the individual wrongdoer. There was no thought of attempting to kill the whole clan or even large segments of it, an attempt that would certainly have created a new blood feud with the former victims and aggressors trading places. The blood feud aimed at the proportional response of "an eye for an eye." and not at a disproportional response to a wrong.

Blood feuds were based off the concept of an eye for an eye. If a member from one tribe murdered someone another tribe, the family or tribe of the victim would expect to receive a payment, usually in camels or livestock. If the family was not satisfied in the blood 'money,' tribe members could murder someone from the other tribe. Unfortunately, the person killed might not always be the actual perpetrator of the first murder. However, since a blood feud could last a long time, and Arabs could barely survive the harsh conditions of the desert during times of peace, both tribes would think long and hard before they would make their next move. Usually, if the original murderer was dealt with in a blood feud, the feud was over. Even when an innocent man from the other tribe was murdered in revenge, the feud was over as well. Both tribes lost one member and now they were "even." I would ask you for a source for your assertion that it was a "custom" to wipe out families, but I know you lifted it off of some website that also did not bother to cite the claims they made. Furthermore, as Richard Gabriel says, taking revenge in blood feuds risked creating more enemies and perpetuating the cycle of violence - something that neither side wanted if they were to survive. A tribe seeking revenge would, therefore, usually make sure to target the original perpetrator. Moreover, the idea of wiping out entire families is beyond belief. Why on earth would someone in Arab society, ignoring the norms of tribal ethics, slaughter an entire family when they could be sold back to the tribe and the kidnappers could make a tidy profit?

[Narnian]

002:178 O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.

Rene Girard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Gi...and_the_Sacred writes a lot about the subject of "lie" of divine violence, and its addictive nature, since relief is found temporarily in violence, yet it is never ever resolved this way. He says that: "Human culture is predisposed to the permanent concealment of its origins in collective violence," meaning that while humans pretend that scapegoating and violence are from God, not from their own animal natures, they are doomed by this biology. Girard also says that Christianity is superior to all other religions because it ends the cycle of violence through its archetype of the cross. He is a little difficult to read, but what he says, once you grasp it, is quite profound. I will try to sum it up:

In religions like Islam, (as well as ancient judaisim), the sacrifice of the guilty through collective violence ends the crisis and creates a new order and collective relief, though this is only temporary. Violence and scapegoating are familiar in ancient cultures, and it's true that the structure of the gospels is similar to that of mythology in which a crisis is resolved through a single victim who unites everybody against him, and bonding a community together. However, in the case of Christnaity, the victim is innocent and the victimizers are guilty. Collective violence against the scapegoat as a sacred, founding act is revealed as a lie. Christ redeems the victimizers through enduring his suffering, imploring God to "forgive them for they know not what they do." He refuses to plead to God to avenge his victimhood with reciprocal violence. Rather, he turns the other cheek. Love conquers the scapegoating cycle of violence, and Jesus subverts the violent system of this world.

I hope that makes sense: if not please ask me for clarification.

And, in context, executing these Bali Bombers does nothing to end the cycle of violence.

[mudcake]

Narnian The quran has laws about killing a murderer: I'm not disputing that. What I keep saying is that THIS particular verse is not about executing a murderer, but about the law of equality: "woman for woman, slave for slave, freeman for freeman". It does not say: "the actual murderer for the murdered" does it? Here are a few translations, including the literal one:

2:178 Literal it is dictated/ordered on you the revenge in the killed/murdered, the free/liberated with the free/liberated , and the slave with the slave, and the female with the female,
Yusuf Ali the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman.
Pickthal Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.
Shakir retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female,
Khalifa equivalence is the law decreed for you when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female.

That is the verse the Bali Bombers quoted!

Just like you, your bali bomber friends miscontrued the Quranic verse thaq reflects you both are wondering in a maze of confusion and ignoance...lol....

Narnny still hasn't gasped when she has been debunked time and time again regarding her ignorant understanding in miscontruing the Quranic verses to mean somehing its doesn't . Narnny still stubbornly advances forth with her erroneous assertions to imply the Quranic law insinuates 'substitutionary retaliation', where according to the literary context and historical application of the law of equality according to Islamic shariah exposes narnny;s confusions and lies as false.Hence, why narnny is unable to respond to Ibn Abu Talib request to quote one reputable scholar that agrees with narnny's bogus interpretation of the veses...keeping going mate...lol..... your'e only illustrating you are one ignorance little girl who seriously lacks understanding in Islamic shariah regarding the Quranic law of retribution..lol....

In The Crusades: bla bla bla ....

Tu Quoque Tu quoque (IPA: /tu ˈkwoʊkwɛ/, Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy. The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.
You-too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
This is an instance of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

lol... I purpose and point of presenting my example was to illustrate how pathetic your mode of logic and reasoning truly is.... you missed it mate...lol...except the truth is, the Quranic does not command to slaughter and kill innocent women and children as exemplified and commanded in the bible....

Old Testament verses bla bla bla ...

But Jesus said this: Matthew 5: 38 "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

blah blah blah... Jesus is'nt advocating a war ethic on how to deal with agressive and tyranical oppresors here narnny... this is an advise on how to conduct ones self within the community on an individual bases.

The verse is talking about a slap in the face mate....not a baseball bat across the face, or getting stabbed in the eye with a knife or getting your leg getting chopped off with a sword or getting shot in the face...

If a women came up to you, spat in your face and slashed your face with a knife... you wouldn't resist but rather turn the other cheek and have your other face slashed too?...lol....

In the Quran it proclaims:

"We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. " 5:45

[Narnian]

Just like you, your bali bomber friends miscontrued the Quranic verse thaq reflects you both are wondering in a maze of confusion and ignoance...lol.... Narnny still hasn't gasped ...

I have a university degree in literary theory - that means I studied and analysed texts for 4 years, carefully dissecting words and sentences to get to the true meaning, ie to not misconstrue. YOU, muddy, have misconstrued the verse. A plain reading of this verse, as I have shown you many times in this thread now, means equal killing, NOT execute the perpetrator.

lol... I purpose and point of presenting my example was to illustrate how pathetic your mode of logic and reasoning truly is.... you missed it mate...lol...except the truth is, the Quranic does not command to slaughter and kill innocent women and children as exemplified and commanded in the bible....

Define "innocent"

blah blah blah... Jesus is'nt advocating a war ethic on how to deal with agressive and tyranical oppresors here narnny... this is an advise on how to conduct ones self within the community on an individual bases.

Jesus is not coming up with a new rule, because that is not what Christianity is about. Jesus is rescinding the law of Qisas to a new level of understanding and evolution in human thinking. Rules are for children, as the NT clearly states.

If a women came up to you, spat in your face and slashed your face with a knife... you wouldn't resist but rather turn the other cheek and have your other face slashed too?...lol....

see above

In the Quran it proclaims:

"We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. " 5:45

But the Allied forces did not remit through charity and atonement, did they? So, "life for a life" remains. In the case of these dudes, and Quranic law, they did not overdo the repayment at all: they only killed 202 people. Have you seen them on TV all smiling and happy that they're going to get their 72 virgins, and showing not a hint of remorse?

The lower side of myself wants to see them suffer and die. But in reality, I know that executing these idiots will do nothing to address the problem: it only takes our mind away from it for a brief time. The problem remains ..... divinely sanctified qisas and violence. In other words: the problem is the Quran itself.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

The lower side of myself wants to see them suffer and die

You mean your whole self?

[smaneck]

Unfortunately, she also represents one of the 25% of muslims worldwide who agree that killing innocents (who aren't innocent according to islam) is good.

Not what the polls said. And you are once again ignoring the fact that a larger proportion of Americans than Muslims believe that terrorism (defined as the deliberate targeting of civilians) is sometimes justified.

[smaneck]

I answered you twice on that one: Allah

Somehow I doubt if Allah agrees with you about much of anything.

[smaneck]

Jesus is not coming up with a new rule, because that is not what Christianity is about. Jesus is rescinding the law of Qisas to a new level of understanding and evolution in human thinking. Rules are for children, as the NT clearly states.

You mean that's what Paul states.

The truth is that Jesus' ethic of 'turn the other cheek' was intended for individuals. Rules are intended for communities. That's what the Qur'anic law was aimed at. But the passage itself makes it clear that it is preferable to forgive than retaliate, but if the victim refuses to forgive then it is up to the *community* not the victim's responsibility to seek retribution.

The lower side of myself wants to see them suffer and die. But in reality, I know that executing these idiots will do nothing to address the problem: it only takes our mind away from it for a brief time. The problem remains ..... divinely sanctified qisas and violence. In other words: the problem is the Quran itself.

So you direct your lower nature against that.