Islam, is it a culture or a religion?

One more thing: Here's a good example of the difference between culture and religion:

Honor killings are part of Arab culture, but they are not part of the Qur'an or the Sunnah. I can't think of a single example that requires raped women to be stoned. Do you?

Matt Browne wrote: One more thing: Here's a good example of the difference between culture and religion:Honor killings are part of Arab culture, but they are not part of the Qur'an or the Sunnah. I can't think of a single example that requires raped women to be stoned. Do you?

Matt, you are right in Islam, the Quran does not teach honor killing. It must be a cultural thing, not jsut limited to the Arabs either.
In religious teaching it is surprising that only the Judeo-Christian teaching command honor killings:
In the Bible we read:
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Hasan

Matt Browne wrote: One more thing: Here's a good example of the difference between culture and religion: Honor killings are part of Arab culture, but they are not part of the Qur'an or the Sunnah. I can't think of a single example that requires raped women to be stoned. Do you?

Hi Matt,
There is confusion on this issue.
The quran and hadith differ on punishment for adultery, which I do not understand.  If the qur'an was the word of God(Allah) shouldn't the hadith agree with the quran?

Qur'an prescribes flogging not stoning in surah 24.
However;

"Nearly all hadith collections include three hadiths that are central in the legal arguments about the punishment for zina:

    One to the effect that the Prophet has enforced this punishment in a case of unlawful intercourse among Jews on the basis of the Torah;
    a second one, transmitted by Abu Hurairah states that the Prophet, in a case of intercourse between a young man and a married woman, sentenced the woman to stoning and the young man to flogging and banishment for a year;
    and a third one in which Umar al-Khattab asserts that there was a revelation to the effect that those who are muhsan (i.e. an adult, free, Muslim who has previously enjoyed legitimate sexual relations in matrimony regardless of whether the marriage still exists) and have unlawful intercourse are to be punished with stoning.

The hadith related by Abu Hurairah has been the basis of the fiqh doctrine.

The most accepted collection of Hadith Sahih al Bukhari has 4 entries (under 3829, 8804, 8805 and 8824) which refer to death by stoning. One case involved Jews who were stoned to death in accordance with the Law of the Torah (not the Qur'an). ... the narrator acknowledges his ignorance of whether the stoning to death was carried out before or after the revelation of Quranic Verse 24-2"
(from wikipedia)

If quran supercedes the torah according to Allah, then obviously it would not be right if Jews were stoned following Torah and not treated the same as others by the quran, if surah 24 had been revealed.

Even marriage can be unclear in Islamic tradition, since first a contract is made... which is considered 'marriage' because exchange of dowry is made... but no marriage ceremony takes place until one year later.  So what happens in between time?  When do relations become acceptable?  I understand that often after a contract has been made the wedding never happens, and thus it is considered that there never was a marriage.  What does this mean in terms of chastity?  What now happens to a woman if she was under the understanding that she was married but one year later finds herself not married.

honeto wrote: Matt, you are right in Islam, the Quran does not teach honor killing. It must be a cultural thing, not just limited to the Arabs either.

I totally agree. A good example is Sicily in Italy. Plenty of honor killings there.

honeto wrote: In religious teaching it is surprising that only the Judeo-Christian teaching command honor killings. In the Bible we read: Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Hasan

Yes, and this is why two things are so important

1) We need to understand the historical context of when this was written
2) We need to make sure that religions have the capability to evolve

In Qur'an 4:24 we read:

"Also forbidden are women already married, except slave girls (those whom your right hands possess). Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement has been determined, there is no sin on you."

Like Christianity, the understanding of Islam has evolved and I can't think of an Islamic scholar who promotes slavery. In the 7th century slavery was part of the culture, but it is no longer in the 21st century. Slavery is wrong.

For the same reason, the death penalty for adulterers is wrong. Leviticus 20:10 isn't applied anymore.

Btw, I'm a secular German Protestant.




Edited by Matt Browne - 04 December 2012 at 5:37am