Should Mohammed have been put death? Yes, according to the law of Moses. Does the law of Moses allow divorce at will if the woman is a captive foreigner? NO

An Eye for an Eye

(Matthew 5:38-48; Luke 6:27-36)

Levitcus 24 v 17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.

So Mohammed, who killed many men, either by his own hand or by the hands of his executioners, assassins and raiders, should have been put to death according to the law of Moses.

The following law seems to give the appearance of divorce by decree as a man’s prerogative:

Deuteronomy 21 v 10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

But the following law applies to all divorces:

Law of Divorce

(Matthew 5:31-32; Luke 16:18-18)

Deuteronomy

24 v 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Because of the following law:

Leviticus 24 v 22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. 23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

So all divorces had to be grounded in the fact that the woman must have committed some kind of sexual impropriety in order for the divorce to be justified. This had to apply in all cases of divorce. This is certainly in line with the teaching of Jesus which only allows for divorce in the case of marital unfaithfulness on the part of either of the partners, freeing the innocent partner from marital obligation to sue for divorce.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Should Mohammed have been put death? Yes, according to the law of Moses. Does the law of Moses allow divorce at will if the woman is a captive foreigner? NO

  1. θ says:

    Throughout Hadith, there’s no single name of person who is killed by Prophet’s sword, thus both his hands are clean from enemies’ bloods, his name is clear from any accusation of murder, yet he fights them and have a lot of scars of war. The enemies were killed indirectly by his loyal proxy, yet he didn’t expose nor take any responsibility of the killings by his proxy after it is conducted, because there’s no glory in vengeance, and even he didn’t participate in the beheading of the Qurayzan captives even though he could if he desired it so.

  2. θ says:

    If I am not mistaken, the Moses Law is silent on the case of masterminding a killing or even paying for the killers, because in the Torah only the actual killer is responsible of killing.

  3. θ says:

    “Madmanna says: So all divorces had to be grounded in the fact that the woman must have committed some kind of sexual impropriety in order for the divorce to be justified. This had to apply in all cases of divorce. This is certainly in line with the teaching of Jesus ”

    Exo 21:11 suffices to refute the Gospel.
    Exo 21
    10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

  4. Anonymous says:

    In the Tanach and Gospel there’s a vindicating term of “reckoned among the transgressors” for a guiltless one who just innocently mingles with the violent ones.
    Lk 22
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

  5. madmanna says:

    Exo 21
    10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.Exo 21:11 suffices to refute the Gospel.
    Exo 21
    10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

    “Exo 21:11 suffices to refute the Gospel.

    Why? Share with us your wisdom. Why is this text relevant?

  6. madmanna says:

    “If I am not mistaken, the Moses Law is silent on the case of masterminding a killing or even paying for the killers, because in the Torah only the actual killer is responsible of killing.”

    Interesting viewpoint but I think flawed reasoning in view of the scriptural text.

    If the one who indirectly causes the death of another by excessive negligence must be put to death then isn’t the indirect cause of death with wilful intention a greater crime? If the one is punished with death then should not the other also?

    Exodus 21 v 29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

  7. θ says:

    The context of Exo 21:11 is about a pious woman whose family is known, and she never commits any indecency whatsoever, hence her marriage has a higher value of reputation in terms of principle and ancestral relation. Divorcement is a consequence of husband’s failure, not by wife’s.

    On other hands, the context of so-called “bill of divorcement” in Deuteronomy 24:1 by Moses and Matthew 19:9 by Jesus is clearly about the example of unclean woman whose family is also dishonorable, or unknowable, or disavows her (due to her indecency), thus her marriage is quite shameful.
    Jesus allows a man to divorce – meaning to give a bill of divorcement – his indecent wife, just perfectly in accordance to Moses. In a nutshell, no where does Jesus correct Moses who allows a writing of bill of divorcement on reason of wife’s uncleanness.

    Mt 19
    8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    Dt 24:1
    When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

  8. θ says:

    “madmanna says: If the one who indirectly causes the death of another by excessive negligence must be put to death then isn’t the indirect cause of death with wilful intention a greater crime? If the one is punished with death then should not the other also?”

    Yet, a prescription of paying a Blood Money is given for a case of murderous negligence. Do you think the Moses Law allows the masterminds of killing just go happily unpunished and escape by simply paying some dollars, eh?
    Exo 21
    30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.

  9. madmanna says:

    “murderous negligence”

    The passage is not dealing with murder but with unintentional manslaughter.

  10. madmanna says:

    “The context of Exo 21:11 is about a pious woman whose family is known, and she never commits any indecency whatsoever, hence her marriage has a higher value of reputation in terms of principle and ancestral relation. Divorcement is a consequence of husband’s failure, not by wife’s.”

    Exo 21
    10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

    Where does it say anything about divorce in Exodus 21v10?

  11. θ says:

    “madmanna says:Where does it say anything about divorce in Exodus 21v10?”

    Exodus 21:10 talks about man’s rights to do polygamy for reason other than wife’s death or fornication, and Exodus 21:11 talks about letting a wife go free without money for reason other than wife’s fornication. These straightforwardly present two huge troubles for the Trinitarian doctrines on marriage. As I said, Jesus actually doesn’t correct Moses. Moses’ matrimony comes “after the Torah”, hence it is a scriptural marriage.
    On other hands, an union between a male and a female into one flesh existed “before the Torah”, thus it is a traditionalist marriage.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Moreover, the stipulation to have only one wife is a strict requirement for bishops and deacons whose job is teaching the learners, educating their spiritual children, and ruling over their followers.
    1Tim 3:2
    A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    1Tim 3:12
    Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

  13. madmanna says:

    I think “go out free” means to be free of debt and thus free of the obligation to serve.

    If you look at the usage in the chapter of this phrase :

    “2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

    Same with the woman:

    11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

    This is not divorce. She is still his wife but not his slave because he is not keeping his side of the lawful obligations.

    Polyamy is not divorce because women are not put away by polyamy, they are added.

    “Moses’ matrimony comes “after the Torah”, hence it is a scriptural marriage.
    On other hands, an union between a male and a female into one flesh existed “before the Torah”, thus it is a traditionalist marriage.”

    I don’t understand what you mean here. Can you explain?

  14. madmanna says:

    Jesus’ Teaching about Divorce

    (Matthew 19:1-12)

    1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

    2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

  15. θ says:

    The phrase in Exodus 21:11 “shall she go out” is parallel with the context of common divorcement in Lev 22:13, Lev 21:7, Num 30:9.
    Lev 22:13
    But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.
    Num 30:9
    But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.

    Also, since one slave wife can go free if her husband does not provide marital duties any longer, then how much more so any autonomous wife.

    There are only two conditions for endless monogamy:
    (i) Marriage of a rapist of one unbetrothed virgin who then consented to marry him, so monogamy is set as a life-time punishment on man for having defiled her, per Deut 22:28-29.
    (ii) Marriage of a false accuser of his own wife of being unclean or fornicator, so monogamy is set as a life-time punishment on man for having disgraced her, per Deut 22:13-21.

  16. θ says:

    “madmanna says: “Moses’ matrimony comes “after the Torah”, hence it is a scriptural marriage.
    On other hands, an union between a male and a female into one flesh existed “before the Torah”, thus it is a traditionalist marriage.” I don’t understand what you mean here. Can you explain?”

    Scriptural marriage is designed for all commoners of fallible couples, whereas a traditionalist marriage is set for the “unblemished” ones, namely Adam and Eve in the former Edenic family, whom bishops and deacons take a precedent for the first-ever monogamy, to educate their spiritual children with a different set of rule of the unblemished character.

  17. madmanna says:

    Divorce started with Moses according to Jesus, as a lawful act.

  18. θ says:

    “madmanna says: Jesus’ Teaching about Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12)”

    Jesus doesn’t rule out divorcement for a reason other than uncleanness or fornication. In fact, he just reconfirms Deut 24:1. Since one slave wife can go free if her husband does not provide marital duties any longer, then how much more so any autonomous wife, per Exod 21:11.

    Since one Levite wife can be divorced, then how much more so other Non-Levite wives, per Lev 22:13.
    Lev 22:13
    But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.

    Since the vow of one divorced wife is counted valid, then how much more so that of other divorced wives, per Num 30:9.
    Num 30:9
    But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Apparently in terms of divorce other than fornication reason, Jehovah has given a Modern Judaism to the Levite women and other women different than the Rabbinical Judaism, but the Rabbis and Jesus don’t like flexible Judaism, they want a misogynist Judaism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s