@ShmuelBrin The Rambam explains what the practice was: אבל המוסרים והאפיקורסין מישראל היה דין לאבדן ביד ולהורידן עד באר שחת מפני שהיו מצירים לישראל ומסירין את העם מאחרי ה. So apostates that were actively threatening the lives of Jews or trying to convert other Jews were included.
@Fred I don't believe you should try to apologize for some rulings which are there , and I myself see nothing wrong in it. Even the literal bible has such rulings
The Rambam discusses this, and is very severe about someone who does so from his own ideas (in contrast to a child who was raised this way):
Rambam - Shoftim - Mamrim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
A person who does not acknowledge validity of the Oral Law is not the rebellious elder mentioned in th...
here a ruling of killing is given on those who do not accept the oral laws
Even Jesus had shown contempt for the Oral laws , thus attracting the anger of the Rabbis
Rambam - Shoftim - Mamrim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
A person who does not acknowledge validity of the Oral Law is not the rebellious elder mentioned in the Torah. Instead, he is one of the heretics and he should be put to death by any person.
Far from a court approved capital punishment , the halacha gives freedom to any person to kill a heretic who denies the Oral Law. This is clearly a standing instruction that can be executed by anyone.
@Islam Perhaps, but I have a hard time considering a Jew a real expert in halacha without at least 5-10 years of solid advanced study, and that's with all the background they would have just by knowing the practices and language from growing up with it.
@Islam This is not apologetics. There is a lot of literature that discusses this, and this topic is to be understood from the totality and context of the literature.
@Islam There is a distinction between what a high court had the authority to do during the time of the Temple, and what individuals have the authority to do in self-defense or in defense of others.
@Islam Certain things still applied in the time of the Rambam, namely killing those who had a presumption that they would slander innocent Jews and get them killed. That's self defense.
@Islam In general, halacha has to be considered according to the circumstances of the time, and one must be careful in extrapolating to another set of circumstances.
@Islam The Rambam explicitly states that those heretics that were raised that way are not included.
In Islam, Ahlul al-Kitaab have a special, protected status. For example, a Muslim man may marry a Jewish or Christian woman. Because of this, it is relevant to determine who is a Jew or a Christian.
It is easy to determine who is a Christian because anyone who professes a belief that Jesus is th...
@Islam The new heretics of the time were generally people who were physically dangerous (via slander) and spiritually predatory out of a sense of malevolence.
The above question , although being correct about Jews does have a wrong assumption about christians . As many Muslim scholars don't recognize trinitarian christians(believe Jesus to be a part of triune God) and marriage with such would be seen on par as marriage with pagans which is prohibited
@Islam It's pretty obvious that it doesn't apply as you seem to think it might, since it hasn't been done by anyone ever since certain conditions (including presumptive danger) ceased to exist many hundreds of years ago.
@Fred Wrong , people no longer practice it in the same way many Jews no longer practice the sabbath or have been stop being observant, does that change the halacha?
@DoubleAA Read it, thanks. :) He debunks the historicity of the "on that spot the Beit Hamikdash was built" story. He concludes, though, that it's a nice story anyway that promotes authentically Redemptive values.
... so, yeah, I'll keep referring to it when applicable to the situation
@Fred "Judaism does not advocate throwing people into pits for their beliefs." - we execute Idolators. If a Jew worships idols, he gets executed even if he is all-in-all a good guy.
And technically a Jew cannot leave his jewishness, so if a Jew starts following another Ideology which involves worship of Idols like the ones found in the catholic church , does this ruling apply?
Anyways even if this is true it is no longer applied due to fear of people
@Islam There is a distinction between what a high court had the authority to do during the time of the Temple, and what individuals have the authority to do in self-defense or in defense of others.
@ShmuelBrin 1000s of line of chat have been wasted because Ali (AKA Islam) was confused. Fred knows very well that idolatry gets skilah (and not pit-throwing). Your comment is not constructive at all.
Comments are not for weak answers. If you had provided some investigative path (e.g. suggesting a source or a line of inquiry), that would be something for a comment. But this is not really a comment and very weak as an answer. Generally it's better to hold off until you can provide a more-fully-baked answer. The question will still be here later when you're ready to provide sources. — Monica Cellio16 hours ago
@MonicaCellio 1) You can do that?
2) Is it really a good idea to create a first-class post (answer) with acknowledged poor quality and without even desire of its author to create it?
@IsaacMoses right -- we have no way to go from comment to post, only the reverse. It would be better if that answer had not been made at all since it is not a good answer, but since it does attempt to answer the question (albeit badly) it's not an NAA-deletion candidate.
@IsaacMoses no worries! (I hadn't even seen it yet.) There were a lot of new posts this morning and I haven't gotten through everything yet.
@MonicaCellio Agreed. And I also agree with the implied policy of not being a human workaround for the deliberate technical restriction on low-rep users' posting comments
@IsaacMoses thanks for deleting the meta note. (I'll delete my comment as obsolete in time, too -- want to give the author a chance to see it.)
@IsaacMoses yes. The rep threshold is there for a reason. This doesn't mean we'll never comment-ify a low-rep user's post, but no one should presume that we will either.
@Islam I'm not sure what discretionary power moderators have on this. What do you want to change it to? I can raise it with the team to see if we can do that on your behalf. (No promises; as I said, I don't know what rules and guidelines there are around this yet.)
@MonicaCellio IMO, the burden should be on the suspended user to demonstrate a compelling need to change the name, not on the mod/administration to demonstrate objectionability of particular choices
@IsaacMoses right. @Islam, you are asking us to do you a favor (which we might not even be allowed to do); you should show a reason, and know that since you are asking a favor in the first place you shouldn't ask for things that you know will be problematic.
@DoubleAA Yes, and otherwise my point was that measures were taken when a belief could, under certain circumstances, indicate a presumption regarding future action.
@Islam when you were suspended from Mi Yodeya you received a message (via email and I think also your Stack Exchange inbox). I can't discuss its contents in public.
@MonicaCellio And even if you could discuss those contents, the rest of the population of this room may well find such discussion tiresome. I, for one, would.
@Islam oh. That's harder, as lots of people could have done that. (I haven't done so recently.) If you post something that is flagged as offensive and a moderator -- any SE moderator, not just the ones here -- confirms that it's offensive, you get auto-banned for a short time. If that's been happening to you, you should think about what you've posted that might cause that reaction.
@Islam Your icon and name come from your parent site, the one designated as your "main" site. I don't know why you're not getting "reason" links; I suggest you use the "contact us" link to ask about that. The SE staff folks have more information than we mods do; I can't answer your questions but they probably can.
anyways I was suspended in the past for inviting people to ISLAM chatroom, I know that people who dont like to be invited should not be invited , but some other mod had suspended me for inviting other friendly users to Chat (I think it I had invited Daniel with whom I was having conversation in another room and Wax eagle suspended me,), they did not explicitly ask for not getting invited. Don't I have the right to invite anyone to a chatroom. Its just an invitation which one can reject though?
earlier If I sent invites you might be getting messages like "Ali has invited you to Islam" does that sound too intrusive ? and now since the room name has changed does it read better now?
Although I would not invite you , but I may invite other users who may have a conversation with me and that I need to move the conversation to Islam room based on the topic
@Islam I don't know about specific invitations, suspensions, etc., but to the degree that people perceive that you are trying to induce interest in Islam in people who are not looking for such and in forums dedicated to unrelated purposes, they will tend to be rubbed the wrong way. People who feel that way are going to be more likely to flag, etc., justified or not.
My recommendation, based on that and based on common courtesy, would be to try to avoid giving people such a perception.
@Isaac re this -- since it's a new post anyway (so the question is already bumped), I wouldn't see a problem with a further small edit to get unstuck. People shouldn't get in the habit of making edits just to reverse votes, but what you described is a corner case and I think it would be justified there. (Note: I haven't looked at the post, only your meta post.)
It seems that when things move quickly enough, I can incorrectly lose the ability to change my vote on an answer.
Here's what happened (on this answer), all within ~15 minutes:
Answer posted
I commented that the answer didn't address the question, and downvoted.
OP edited the answer to address...
The Rambam discusses this, and is very severe about someone who does so from his own ideas (in contrast to a child who was raised this way):
Rambam - Shoftim - Mamrim - Chapter 3
Halacha 1
A person who does not acknowledge validity of the Oral Law is not the rebellious elder mentioned in th...
It seems that when things move quickly enough, I can incorrectly lose the ability to change my vote on an answer.
Here's what happened (on this answer), all within ~15 minutes:
Answer posted
I commented that the answer didn't address the question, and downvoted.
OP edited the answer to address...
