This issue came up in the executing prisoners of war and anti-muhammedan Muslims thread.


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 12^th, 2013 at 11:54am:

As for Brian's claims about Muhammad's "standards", I would firstly point out that Brian is not muslim, so I don't think we could ever agree on the morality of the prophet. As a muslim, I believe that Muhammad's morality was/is universal, whereas Brian believes his morality can only apply to the time and place in which he lived. That is the general premise to this issue... BUT I think it is a little more complicated than this. I believe the prophet's morality can only be viewed in two layers. There is absolutely a universality to his morality, but it is abstract: do not abuse women, ensure that marriage is about mutual love and respect, tolerate opposing views etc. However this universal morality can only exist within specific contexts - contexts which are vastly different depending on the time and place. This is what I tried to touch on with my arguments about the morality of marrying a post-pubescent 9 year old. Look at it this way: the "universal" morality on this issue is that women must be "mature" before consummation of marriage. However what constitutes "mature" is completely meaningless outside the specific contexts of the societal norms of a specific time and place. Thats why you can have the apparent contradiction of marrying a 9 year old being both moral and immoral depending on when and where it happens - and *STILL* be able to call it a universal morality. Since in *BOTH* cases, the same universal morality applies - namely that the girl has to be psychologically and physically mature and of course willing enough according to the societal norms of the time.

This seems like a big improvement on what all the other Muslims here have said, but it raises a lot of questions.

Gandalf, can you please give a broad outline of how you divide Islamic rules and principles into the abstract ones that vary with the circumstances, and the ones that are eternal, fixed rules?

How does this fit in with the concept of Shariah law?

Does it mean that Islam permits very "backwards" practices in poorer Muslim countries today but would have a different set of rules in richer countries? How do you decide what is permitted?

Are there many historical cases of countries under Shariah law improving on Muhammed's standards? How would that fit in with the Islamic principle of not forbidding what God has permitted? I believe that principle came into the permissibility of sex with slaves and also wife beating.

Pretty much all your questions indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what I said. I believe my thesis is rather self-explanatory, so I suggest you go over it again.

If I understood where you were coming from, I wouldn't need to ask these questions. It took about a week of prodding to get that out of you and you offered up every possible excuse for not giving a straight answer. Surprise surprise, you are deflecting again.

Lets be honest with ourselves FD - the only "prodding" you were doing was to get me to say something incriminating about islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Lets be honest with ourselves FD - the only "prodding" you were doing was to get me to say something incriminating about islam.

Why not the word candid, instead of the word 'incriminating' ?

That word sprang immediately to my mind, on reading your words!




It would please me no end, to hear moslems speak candidly about ISLAM's/moslems intentions and true motives in the world.

But i am not holding my breath!

After all, there is a war going on.





Dictionary;
candid = =
1 truthful and straightforward; frank.
2 (of a photograph or film) taken informally, especially without the subject’s knowledge.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Lets be honest with ourselves FD - the only "prodding" you were doing was to get me to say something incriminating about islam.

No Gandalf, I spent about a week trying to get you to offer an opinion on what Brian posted. I actually expected you to disagree with it.

You did everything but pretend you could not speak English.

And you are doing it again.

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

And you are doing it again.

FD I can't answer questions that bear absolutely no resemblance to what I wrote. For example..


freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

Gandalf, can you please give a broad outline of how you divide Islamic rules and principles into the abstract ones that vary with the circumstances, and the ones that are eternal, fixed rules?

What I said had nothing to do with "dividing" anything - quite the opposite in fact. I said very clearly that the universal/abstract morality cannot exist outside contexts of time and place. Thus his morality is the one universal morality that cannot be separated or "divided". If you understood that you would not have asked this nonsensical question.

You divided Muhammed's morality into a timeless principle and a specific example that cannot be generalised.

Here is a demonstration of what you did:

General rule: be nice to people.

Specific rule: Muhammed was actually a bit of an asshole, but slightly less of an asshole that some of the other assholes that were getting around at the time. Thus we must ignore the specific cases where he was an asshole (and save them for when we can get away with it) and focus for now only on the generality of being good, or slightly better than everyone else, depending on the context.

It is still a division. What I am asking is, how do you do it? If you want to think of an alternative term to division, go ahead. I don't want your pedantry to get in the way of giving an answer. I saw what you did with "anti-Muhammedan". Let's not spend a dozen pages arguing over the appropriateness of the term division for your moral gymnastics.

freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 10:43pm:

Specific rule: Muhammed was actually a bit of an asshole, but slightly less of an asshole that some of the other assholes that were getting around at the time.

Thats where you fail. You say he was an asshole because you transplant him from 7th century arabia straight into liberal 21st century western culture - without even realising that if you actually did that, he would rise to the standards of 21st century western culture. Just like if we transplanted a morally upstanding person from our contemporary culture into 7th century arabia, they would seem to you like an asshole - but would actually be a morally upright person of his time and place. Thats your universality - the prophet will be an upstanding moral example in whichever culture you place him in - and thats because his universal morality cannot be separated or "divided" from the context of time and place.


freediver wrote on Nov 29^th, 2013 at 10:43pm:

It is still a division. What I am asking is, how do you do it? If you want to think of an alternative term to division, go ahead.

OK, my alternative is that it is nothing like a division. There is only one morality in islam - it is universal and unchanging. Do you get that part? Right, the next point is that these universal, unchanging moralities can only exist within the context of time and place. OK??

No divisions. They are *NOT* two types of morality - one separate one that changes with context, and another separate one that is universal and unchanging. It is *ALL* universal and unchanging, but can only exist in context of time and place. I also gave the example of the morality around consummating marriage, which should have cleared this up.

So how do you derive the universal morality? Do you have any kind of system? It looks to me like you are simply picking and choosing a few vague principles to take from Muhammed, and then picking and choosing how to apply them in any context, making Islam harsh, unforgiving and exploitive when your audience wants it, and a bunch of tree hugging hippy crap when your audience wants that.

I am also particularly interested in how this fits in with Shariah law. It seems to me to be an outright rejection of it.

How do you prevent Islam from becoming an excuse to adopt whatever morality exists at the time, not matter how abhorrent?

How do you prevent Islam from becoming a barrier to improving "specific morality"?

Islamic universal morality comes from the Quran.

Gee thanks Gandalf, now it all makes sense.

where else did you think islamic rules, laws, morality - for that matter everything islam - comes from? Santa Clause?

That where Islamic law comes from. Fixed, unchangeable rules - not flexible principles to be interpreted based on the 'context' and how well everyone else is behaving.

How does your interpretation fit in with Shariah law? Is it a rejection of it?

How do you prevent Islam from becoming an excuse to adopt whatever morality exists at the time, not matter how abhorrent?

How do you prevent Islam from becoming a barrier to improving "specific morality"?

FD everything islamic - laws, principles and morality - have to be flexible and interpreted based on the context of time and place.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 8:11am:

FD everything islamic - laws, principles and morality - have to be flexible and interpreted based on the context of time and place.

You may not be aware of this, but many Muslims, including the ones that have posted here before you, consider Shariah law to be rather inflexible. That is, it can be expanded upon to accommodate new situations, but not changed. That is why I am asking such basic questions about how you derive it. So far I cannot differentiate your 'method' from making it up as you go along. You and Karnal are the only new age Muslims we have had here, so the interest is inevitable. Your views could represent the way forward for Islamic ideology in the modern world, so don't be shy about it. It is rather fortuitous that you have dubbed yourself Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 8:25am:

You may not be aware of this, but many Muslims, including the ones that have posted here before you, consider Shariah law to be rather inflexible. That is, it can be expanded upon to accommodate new situations, but not changed. That is why I am asking such basic questions about how you derive it. So far I cannot differentiate your 'method' from making it up as you go along.

I believe the term is Ijtihad, which is basically deriving islamic laws based on a sound and thorough understanding of the islamic texts. As the article explains, around 900AD many scholars believed the "doors of ijtihad" could be closed - or in other words, every islamic law that was needed for all time had already been made. Which is just ridiculous in my view. The world today is slightly different to how it was in 900AD.

As I said previously, islamic sources provide general principles and rules on universal morality, however interpretation and undeniably some "independent reasoning" to make sense of these principles in specific contexts of time and place. But it is absolutely not making it up as you go along - as a clear understanding of the 'spirit' of islamic morality, and be consistent with that.

Shariah law is not a "general principle" or a "universal morality". It is law, and according to the other Muslims who have posted here - an eternal, unchangeable law, including prescribed punishments. Are you pretending that you do not disagree with those Muslims?


Quote:

But it is absolutely not making it up as you go along - as a clear understanding of the 'spirit' of islamic morality, and be consistent with that.

Can you elaborate on this please? This is what I have been trying to get you to clarify.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 8:11am:

FD everything islamic - laws, principles and morality - have to be flexible and interpreted based on the context of time and place.

Moslems are like pollies,    ....'tricky'.

Or is that vise-versa, re moslems/pollies ???          :o

Either way, imo, you can not trust them to keep to their word/'principles'/agreements.




Dictionary;
law
1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties.         such rules as a subject of study or as the basis of the legal profession.      statute law and the common law.          something regarded as having binding force or effect: his word was law.       (the law) informal the police.
2 a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
3 a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport.


'Yadda's LAW';
I've said it before;
The moslem, is 'a flag in the wind'.
When the wind [of fortune] changes, so do the [deceitful] 'principles' and allegiances, of moslems.i

Gandalf's views on Islam
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1354330218/66#66

Quote:

To moslems, in various Sharia jurisdictions, Sharia law is a 'moving feast', in the same way that a moslem, a true moslem, is 'a man for all seasons'. In the sense of a moslem is, "A flag in the wind.", and, "Which way is the wind blowing today ?"

Blasphemy laws an impediment to Islamic reform
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1360382901/29#29

Quote:

WHAT WE MUST UNDERSTAND, ABOUT MOSLEMS, IS THAT; Every moslem, EVERY moslem, is 'a man for all seasons'. Every moslem, EVERY moslem, is flag in the wind. When, if the political winds change here in Australia [to favour moslems], gandalf will change, to follow the wind [gandalf will then 'become' more devout]. Moslems are not sincere people. Moslems are 'flags in the wind'.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 10:25am:

Shariah law is not a "general principle" or a "universal morality". It is law, and according to the other Muslims who have posted here - an eternal, unchangeable law, including prescribed punishments. Are you pretending that you do not disagree with those Muslims?

Why would I pretend? I've never been shy to express disagreement about what other muslims claim before.

And why are the two things you mention necessarily contradictory? Sharia is both law and a general set of principles and universal morality. You won't find any muslim who disagrees with that. You also won't get any muslim denying that a process of understanding and interpretation - called ijtihad - must be performed before islamic courts and judges can make specific earthly rulings on day to day matters. The difference between myself and people like Abu and Falah is that they believe that this process of ijtihad is already complete, and a ready set of all the earthly rulings that we will ever need has already been decided. Whereas I believe the process must be ongoing.

The point being, *BOTH* points of view agree that you don't just take the quran or the sunna directly and make rulings straight from that. There are books of fiqh, written by "faqih" - experts in islamic law - who have established every day laws for the islamic community based on the ijtihad they have done on islamic law. These basically serve as semi-official legal documents, and it is to these documents islamic jurists refer to when making rulings, not the quran itself.


freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 10:25am:

Can you elaborate on this please? This is what I have been trying to get you to clarify.

It is not "making it up as you go" because at every step it is based on a solid understanding of islamic texts. I'm not sure how else I can elaborate without repeating myself.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 8:25am:

It is rather fortuitous that you have dubbed yourself Gandalf.

"Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends"

- could easily have come from The Prophet himself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 1^st, 2013 at 10:13pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2013 at 8:25am: It is rather fortuitous that you have dubbed yourself Gandalf. "Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends" - could easily have come from The Prophet himself.

Oh really ?

Do you really think it is so, gandalf ?




Which do you think fits Mohammed better ?

"...the Prophet said, "Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends""
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #XYZQWERTY


OR......

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

????

I think that Abu and Falah also believed it to be ongoing, in the sense that new situations may arise, but for 'old' situations the punishment has already been determined. I took a particular interest in where the death penalty applies, where people should be punished for things that are now considered human rights or personal freedoms or where things are permitted that would today be considered a violation of human rights.

If the same situation were to arise today under a Shariah state - eg fornication, adultery, blasphemy, apostasy, slavery, rape, wife beating etc - how do you justify reaching a different conclusion regarding the punishment to what the historical Islamic scholars decided?

Do you subscribe to a recognised 'school of thought' on this?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 12:50pm:

If the same situation were to arise today under a Shariah state - eg fornication, adultery, blasphemy, apostasy, slavery, rape, wife beating etc - how do you justify reaching a different conclusion regarding the punishment to what the historical Islamic scholars decided?

You suck it up, be objective, and have the courage to consider that the historical islamic scholars were above all else products of their time, and that their customs and prejudices were infused into their laws - to greater or lesser extents.

Islam can go one of two ways: we can accept that 10th century customs are appropriate for today's global, modern society, and turn back the clock, and bring back the camels and sand dunes for good measure...

OR

we can accept that 10th century laws are appropriate only for people living in the 10th century. Accept that the world now contains realities that these 10th century scholars could never have imagined, and therefore never catered for. Importantly, this involves not just merely expanding existing islamic laws to incorporate these modern realities. It must involve an entire reassessment of the appropriateness of the laws, and accept that they are not perfect translations of islamic law, but are very much laws made by fallible men who simply cannot have been free of their own prejudices and biases of a 10th century world. Just as I would hope that muslims a thousand years in the future wouldn't take the laws written today as perfect for their time and place.

Quote:

You suck it up, be objective

Is this an Islamic principle? I have never heard a Muslim say anything like this before.

Other than saying you have to know about Islam in order to do it, you have not explained how you go about choosing your 'path'.

As far as I can tell, what you propose is a complete rejection of the legal aspects of Islamic law. You want to throw it all out and come up with new ones, keeping only some vague principles that you came up with yourself and inventing everything specific on top of that. I have no idea how you got those principles from Muhammed's example, and they do not appear to be presented as core principles of Islam in Islamic texts. If we ignored enough of what Hitler did we could probably refine a few decent principles from things he said or did, but that would not reflect Nazism in any real way. I cannot see a difference between that and your method of interpreting of Islam.

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

This seems like a big improvement on what all the other Muslims here have said, but it raises a lot of questions.

I can't believe there is still questions, heads are regularly chopped, women regularly oppressed, Europe is on the brink of collapse, and yet they keep asking questions
Wake the bugger up!!!

I mean, this gandalf quotes this vile horrible person TC in his signature, and they ask him questions

Torpedo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2013 at 11:04pm:

Europe is on the brink of collapse

Geez you post some odd things

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 14th, 2013 at 2:00pm: No Gandalf. The essence of the question was how the "context" can make it morally appropriate to have sex with children. I was after details. Perhaps you missed it: Quote: I made it clear it was something only for a particular time and place - and that time was a long time ago. Since then Women receive education, better health care, they grow up in relative peace and prosperity etc. You make it sound as if it is something that is worth pursuing, I never said that. In fact I made it clear that going back to that would be massively retrograde. Girls were "conditioned", if you like, to grow up very fast because life was much shorter, far more volatile and generally sucked in just about every measure compared to today. And this was not an environment of Muhammad's or islam's making - it was the way of the world - everywhere. What Muhammad did do was try and make the best of a sh!tty situation- raising the status of women, having a *VERY* strong emphasis on education (in fact he deemed it compulsory for women to be educated), and severely curbed the ill-treatment of women. Aisha embodied that "new way" for women - becoming well educated and a strong, wise and very much reverred leader of her society. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/176#176

Did you mean to say a particular set of circumstances, rather than a particular time and place?

What if the conditions were to arise again? Many parts of the world are still like this. Does that make it morally appropriate to have sex with children?