I confess I am radically changing my attitude towards the ahadith - the accounts of the life and practices of The Prophet Muhammad. I believe this is in line with the Quranic commands to use reason and intellect with regards to understanding and practicing islam.

My previous beliefs - and what I understand is the beliefs of the majority of muslims - is that the ahadith that are considered 'sahih' (sound), as determined by a reliable "isnad" (chain of transmission) - must be considered not only authentic, but a reccommended, if not compulsory aspect of the islamic religion - whether it be an actual practice, attitude or law. Overwhelmingly, these are the ahadith compiled by the two 'sahih' compilers Bukhari and Muslim. Thus if it is narrated in a sahih hadith that The Prophet said that the beard should be kept and the moustache should be trimmed - then this is either a reccommended or compulsory practice for muslim men - as stated in actual islamic law.

I am now starting to believe that the ahadith should be viewed and treated exactly for what they are - the life and times of a mere mortal man, who was issuing laws and advise as a ruler in a very specific time and place.

Muhammad's closest companion famously said when he announced The Prophet's death:

for those who worship Muhammad - Muhammad is dead. For those who worship Allah, Allah is alive

Muhammad was a mortal man who had flaws just like any other man. The Quran as well as Muhammad himself stressed this very point constantly - that Muhammad was there merely to deliver a message, not to be worshipped, and not to be elevated to anything beyond a simple man with a message. Though he was undoubtedly "the best" among men. Yet, today, the earthly practices and laws handed down by this mere mortal have been elevated by mainstream islam to something practically equivalent to the Quran. This, in my view, is tantamount to saying the words and deeds of the Prophet are divine in nature - undoubtedly a result of borrowing from Christian doctrine - whose central figure really was divine, according to Christian beleifs. Such an interpretation of islam could only be true if the laws and practices handed down personally by Muhammad were in turn handed down by Allah himself. This we can categorically reject however - the only divine revelation Muhammad received was the Quran itself, which is quite separate from the ahadith.

The islamic "school" that most closely fits this assessment is the Hanafi school. Emphasising the role of reason, this school counts as part of Islamic law the ahadith that not only have a reliable isnad, but more importantly - the ones that make sense and are relevant to both the general themes laid out in the Quran, as well as the specific earthly circumstances of any given muslim.

However I would probably go even further than Hanifa - and say that just because a hadith is not inconsistent or technically "makes sense" with the quran or my given circumstances, it still shouldn't necessarily make it a gospel truth and equivalent to Quranic (divine) law. Thus the example of keeping the beard and trimming the moustache  - it is not inconsistent with the Quran (as in the Quran makes no mention of it), and it "makes sense" insofar it is something I know how to do and can do. Yet I use reason to deduce that it is not a requirement under islamic law. This particular hadith is about a comment The Prophet made in a particular time and place. Beards were 100% universal - and it was a pre-islamic practice to have one. Thus the comment was made without any consideration to the possibility that one day men might choose not to grow beards in the first place. But more importantly, I reason that "true islam" is not defined by the outward appearances or physical attributes of individual muslims (beyond dressing modestly and not mutilating your body).

The polar opposite of the "rational" islamic schools such as the Hanafi school, is the Hanbali school, which states that every hadith determined to be sahih, must be accepted and obeyed without question. Hanbal himself took it to the furthest possible extreme and considered anything not specifically 'authorised' by Muhammad as haram (forbidden). Thus he famously would not eat watermelon because he could not find any hadith that reported The Prophet eating or specifically authorising people to eat it.

The rigid and reactionary Hanbali school is championed by the Wahabists, who dominate the rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and who conduct the most rigorous and organised evangelising program in all the islamic world. Thus this once fringe view now has a powerful influence on all corners of the muslim world. It would be inaccurate to say this school now dominated the islamic world, but it is certainly somewhere in between the rationalism commanded by the quran and the hanbali school - or in other words, far more towards the reactionary extreme than it should be.

That is not to say that Islam must exist without the ahadith - there is a wealth of sage advise and practices from the "best among men" that can beautifully compliment the divine message of the Quran. But elevating the ahadith to a complete set of divine laws in its own right that is equal and even a competitor to the Quran is tantamount to elevating the Prophet himself to something akin to a divine leader. This is effectively 'shirk' - attributing associates with Allah - and a grave sin in islam.

There are economic causes to the spread of knowledge, as you’ve hinted at. The Saudis, now hugely wealthy, have the wherewithal to spread their version of religion, and so they have.

Just as the American version of Christianity, Pentacostalism - a school that promotes a direct spiritual relationship with God -  has spread in line with US hegemony.

The Billy Graham Crusades of the 1950s and 60s, while not Pentacostal but deeply American in the pioneering (and freemarket) spirit of the reachings, influenced every Christian denomination in the West, from Anglicans to Catholics. Being "born again" only became a mantra after Billy Graham popularised this idea. It followed, of course, the elevation of America in geopolitical terms post WWII - just as the nations of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are influencing the Muslim world today.

Wealth creates knowledge, and vice versa. It will be interesting to see what China does with its influence. At present, China seems to be importing religions - Pentacostalism is the fastest growing religion there. Inevitably, I think, there will be Party-approved Confuscious or Buddhist schools rising in China. The unique thing about the rise of East Asia economically, is that there have been no ethical or religious movements spreading with the wealth - the odd whackyJapanese cult notwithstanding.

The Saudis are a cult of their own. The rest of the Middle East is far from uniform. As the centre of three world religiins, the Middle East is one of the most heterogenous regions in the world. The Saudis are showing themselves to be quite the colonizers with their promotion of the most fundamentalist, austere brand of Islam.

In the 1970s and 80s, Saudi loans funded global development.Now, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the same money is funding Al Qaida, ISIS, and a host of Middle Eastern revolutions and civil wars in the name of the most rigid form of fundamentalism in the world today.

Like Dick Cheney, I blame God. He put the oil under the "bad guys’" land. Cheney, of course, wasn’t talking about the Saudis, a people himself and the Bush family were happy to do business with. Cheney was talking about Iran, Ghaddafi and Saddam.

By taking out their enemies, Cheney and Bush promoted a power shift back to the influence of the Saudis -  who, ironically, were responsible for September 11.

When your country is torn apart by war, as Afghanistan, Iraq, and a host of neighbouring countries are, it’s very hard to "choose" which brand of religion to follow. Most have no choice.

But Saudi Arabia? A land of milk and honey. They’re rich, well-fed, and have wives, mothers and Philippino housekeepers to cater to their every whim. What is it about the Saudis that makes them the biggest bastards in the world?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:

I confess I am radically changing my attitude towards the ahadith - the accounts of the life and practices of The Prophet Muhammad. I believe this is in line with the Quranic commands to use reason and intellect with regards to understanding and practicing islam. ..... ..... Muhammad was a mortal man who had flaws                   just like any other man. The Quran as well as Muhammad himself stressed this very point constantly - that Muhammad was there merely to deliver a message, not to be worshipped, and not to be elevated to anything beyond a simple man with a message. Though he was undoubtedly "the best" among men. Yet, today, the earthly practices and laws handed down by this mere mortal have been elevated by mainstream islam to something practically equivalent to the Quran.

Wow! gandalf, Wow!






One step at a time.

Consideration of the Hadith aside, the Koran is an inerrant document, the Koran is the word of Allah - to the moslem.


"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.21




Now to the Hadith.

Are the Hadith topical and authoritative ?

You as a moslem, must make that decision [choice].

Yadda wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

Wow! gandalf, Wow!

You are sticking your neck out there!

::)

Is that supposed to be a compliment Y?


Yadda wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

Now to the Hadith. Are the Hadith topical and authoritative ? You as a moslem, must make that decision [choice].

Really? I thought you made that choice for me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 4:49pm:

Is that supposed to be a compliment Y?

It was pity [love?] gandalf.

Pity for a thinking being who would choose to follow embrace ISLAM.



In this life, we all choose our own path gandalf.

I have.

You have.

Those who love the pleasures of this world [more than God's righteousness] have.i"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter?...."
Koran 9.38,39





What is the matter with you, gandalf ????

Can you answer me that ?

Gandalf, I will come back to address this properly later - I'm exhausted at the moment, but want to get some thoughts down.

I was always skeptical of ahadith. I once read one which I think may have been Bukhari that said that Umar directed Aisha to return to the house because she hadn't covered her hair. It didn't make sense to me because it reeked of impertinence.

The stoning to death thing in Islam - surely something as important as that would be mentioned in the Quran. It's not like the subject isn't addressed. I think you're wise to be wary of ahadith - even if just for the fact that they seem to be a result of something similar to Chinese whispers.

My ex-husband always suggested that if a hadith makes sense in the greater context of the religion, believe it. If not - disregard.

My best friend is a Muslim and she and her family think differently. They believe it's not for the layman to question whether or not something is legitimate. For them it's haram - it's innovation in a way. These decisions should be left to scholars. In my opinion, this is where the danger lies. Scholars discourage questioning and critical thinking about Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:

I confess I am radically changing my attitude towards the ahadith - the accounts of the life and practices of The Prophet Muhammad. I believe this is in line with the Quranic commands to use reason and intellect with regards to understanding and practicing islam. My previous beliefs - and what I understand is the beliefs of the majority of muslims - is that the ahadith that are considered 'sahih' (sound), as determined by a reliable "isnad" (chain of transmission) - must be considered not only authentic, but a reccommended, if not compulsory aspect of the islamic religion - whether it be an actual practice, attitude or law. Overwhelmingly, these are the ahadith compiled by the two 'sahih' compilers Bukhari and Muslim....... ...... I am now starting to believe that the ahadith should be viewed and treated exactly for what they are - the life and times of a mere mortal man, who was issuing laws and advise as a ruler in a very specific time and place.

THE KORAN, on Mohammed.....

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
Koran 33.21





THE HADITH [bukhari], on disbelief, apostasy, and rebellion against Allah.....

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




Then, there is also the authority of ISLAMIC law texts, on disbelief, apostasy, and rebellion against Allah.....



ISLAMIC law texts declare, moslems can 'lawfully' kill 'disbelievers'/apostates,

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

Gandalf, I will come back to address this properly later - I'm exhausted at the moment, but want to get some thoughts down. I was always skeptical of ahadith. I once read one which I think may have been Bukhari that said that Umar directed Aisha to return to the house because she hadn't covered her hair. It didn't make sense to me because it reeked of impertinence. The stoning to death thing in Islam - surely something as important as that would be mentioned in the Quran. It's not like the subject isn't addressed. I think you're wise to be wary of ahadith - even if just for the fact that they seem to be a result of something similar to Chinese whispers.

The Koran - it is conceded by moslems themselves - is an incomplete document.

Mohammed - a goat ate my homework part of the Koran, they were revelations to Mohammed from Allah, that were to be added to the Koran - but were never added/included.

Because a goat ate them!
....it was prolly a Mossad goat, sent on a suicide mission!





Quote:

My ex-husband always suggested that if a hadith makes sense in the greater context of the religion, believe it. If not - disregard. My best friend is a Muslim and she and her family think differently. They believe it's not for the layman to question whether or not something is legitimate. For them it's haram - it's innovation in a way. These decisions should be left to scholars. In my opinion, this is where the danger lies. Scholars discourage questioning and critical thinking about Islam.

True.

ISLAM is a philosophy which insists that the moslem must uncritically obey his religion [i.e. obey the leaders of his community and instruction of ISLAM's clerics].


"O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.....
Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."
Koran 5.101, 102


"We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed..........they ['believers'] can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction."
Koran 4.64, 65


"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger [i.e. the clerics], and make not vain your deeds!"
Koran 47:33
 

What are the big differences between the Koran and ahadiths, in terms of politics (ie not confined to spiritual knowlege)?

I've come across a 'Koran only' female Muslim before.

The Ahadith have for a long time G, been considered suspect with many known to have been written well after Muhammad's death to satisfy the political needs of some ruler or other.   There is a massive and ongoing project in Turkey at the moment to examine the Hadith closely and determine their veracity.

You're taking a modernist approach, which we are informed by so many of the Islamophobes is impossible in Islam.  I'd be worried about death threats from the Islamophobes for daring to throw their claims about Islam and Muslims into doubt!   ;D

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

What are the big differences between the Koran and ahadiths, in terms of politics (ie not confined to spiritual knowlege)? .

Can you be clearer?

What are the differences, for someone who isn't particularly interested in which way they face to pray?

Now that’s the first genuine question I’ve seen FD ask since 2007.

Good work, FD. I hope you get a decent answer.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

What are the differences, for someone who isn't particularly interested in which way they face to pray?

I'm still not 100% sure what you're asking.

The ahadith in their entirety are anecdotes about Muhammad. Muslims agree that lots of them are either lies or have been corrupted as they've been passed from person to person. I think the biggest difference between Quran and hadith is that the Quran is non-negotiable whereas you can sort of argue about the hadith. Most Muslims wouldn't consider it blasphemous to question hadith, but to question the Quran would get you in trouble.


ETA: So dialogue about hadith allows much more freedom of expression.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

My best friend is a Muslim and she and her family think differently. They believe it's not for the layman to question whether or not something is legitimate. For them it's haram - it's innovation in a way. These decisions should be left to scholars. In my opinion, this is where the danger lies. Scholars discourage questioning and critical thinking about Islam.

Needless to say, the reason why religious scholars discourage the laity from exercising their intelligence and their cognitive powers is precisely because this inevitably leads to scepticism, cynicism, agnosticism, and in some cases ~ atheism.

Every religious person who still retains at least some degree of free thinking should read a couple of books on the psychology of religious belief.





 

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

My ex-husband always suggested that if a hadith makes sense in the greater context of the religion, believe it. If not - disregard.

Good advise!


Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:

My best friend is a Muslim and she and her family think differently. They believe it's not for the layman to question whether or not something is legitimate. For them it's haram - it's innovation in a way. These decisions should be left to scholars. In my opinion, this is where the danger lies. Scholars discourage questioning and critical thinking about Islam.

Yes this is the mainstream view - unfortunately. I confess to swallowing it too, until I started to read about the importance of free thinking in the Quran. The call for muslims to understand truth by using their "intellect" or "reason" comes up time and time again - it is a central theme. The conventional view on the Ahadith - that someone from the 10th century tells us that it is 'sahih', and that automatically prevents us from using reason to question them - is anathema to the Quranic message.

And *WHY* is it considered proper for muslims to accept these man-made anecdotes of a mere mortal man as on the same level of authority as the Quran? It makes no sense.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

What are the big differences between the Koran and ahadiths, in terms of politics (ie not confined to spiritual knowlege)?

The Ahadith are a mind-bogglingly large collection of anecdotes about The Prophet - running into the 10s of thousands, even if we include only the sahih collection. The problem with them is that they were only recorded on paper about 200 years after Muhammad's death, and it is a known fact - even amongst the most ardent hadith followers - that the vast majority of them are fake - either created to demonise The Prophet by islam's political enemies, or to promote the political agenda of a particular political group or rulers - eg one hadith says that Allah will only remember the good deeds of the Caliph, not the bad - obviously fabricated by a particular Caliph, or supporter of that Caliph. At this stage, the ahadith only existed through oral tradition, and so several islamic scholars - such as Bukhari and Muslim and Abu Dauod - began the task of trying to determine which ones were authentic. Their method was to analyse the 'isnad' - chain of transmission (John narrated to Bob who narrated to Joe......[until it goes as far back as one of The Prophet's contemporaries] who heard The Prophet say...) - and to determine the character and reliability of each and every narrator in the chain. Thus Bukhari is said to have wittled down a pile of some 200 thousand to just over 6 thousand - or around 2 thousand unique ahadith after taking into account the same stories repeated by different narrators.

Anyway, thats a rather long-winded summary of what they are. The key issue around Quran vs ahadith, is that the quran mostly leaves out the details of how muslims should practice their faith. This includes the political/social aspects of how an "islamic state" should run. So understandably, those muslims who insist on an publicly intrusive islam that creates a full social and political system, the quran is wholly inadequate, and they must look to the ahadith for instruction on these. My problem is that the rules and systems muslims who advocate the sharia state come up with, are merely the rules and systems that a mere mortal ruler came up with for the needs of his people in a very specific time and place. Nowhere does it say those practices are divinely inspired, and must therefore be followed by all muslims for all time.

Quote:

until I started to read about the importance of free thinking in the Quran

When was this? Since you joined this site?


Quote:

This includes the political/social aspects of how an "islamic state" should run.

So the Koran is largely apolitical? I've heard lots of references to Shariah law being based on the Koran, but it's the exceptions that come to mind - eg people pointing out that stoning is not mentioned in the Koran.


Quote:

the quran is wholly inadequate

Because it is incomplete, or doesn't touch it at all?

(Once more for the slow learners at the back of the class)

... "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 9:17pm:

(Once more for the slow learners at the back of the class) ... "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

"Intelligence and low native cunning..."  ;)

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 8:58pm:

So the Koran is largely apolitical? I've heard lots of references to Shariah law being based on the Koran, but it's the exceptions that come to mind - eg people pointing out that stoning is not mentioned in the Koran.

The Quran is in no way a manual for how to run a state. There are a few specifics - eg laws around marriage, witness testimony in legal matters, rules of engagement in war, and not a lot else. Nearly all of the things you hear about being part of the sharia come from the ahadith - including the most notorious things like stoning for adultery and death for apostasy.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 8:58pm:

Because it is incomplete, or doesn't touch it at all?

Both those theories have been debated by muslims and non-muslims alike. Another more radical theory is that it is left deliberately open - to leave room for adaptation for the specific circumstances of any given muslim society. Or even more radical - perhaps it is not even meant as a system of government (shock horror!). The Quran after all, is overwhelmingly - perhaps 95%+ about the personal responsibilities - that are purely a matter between the individual and God, and not matters for the state to interfere with. And this is an actual islamic movement that goes right back to the dawn of islam. They were called the "murjiites" - which in arabic means "postponers" - they advocated "postponing" all judgment of muslims in matters of faith until the only true judge - God - makes His judgements. Or in other words, they advocated a state that didn't police or judge citizens on matters of faith - which is really just following the Quran.

Quote:

witness testimony in legal matters

Does that include the relative value of testimony from women and non-Muslims?


Quote:

eg laws around marriage

Is there anything about sex with female slaves in the Koran, or anything that forbids it?

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 9:41pm:

[ Is there anything about sex with female slaves in the Koran, or anything that forbids it?

You know, FD, you seem to have rather an unusual fixation with this topic.   ::)

You are aware I hope that the Bible condones sex with slaves, FD?   It was afterall, common practice in most slave owning societies of antiquity and medieval times.  However, that's straying from the topic of the thread...

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 9:24pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 8:58pm: So the Koran is largely apolitical? I've heard lots of references to Shariah law being based on the Koran, but it's the exceptions that come to mind - eg people pointing out that stoning is not mentioned in the Koran. The Quran is in no way a manual for how to run a state. There are a few specifics - eg laws around marriage, witness testimony in legal matters, rules of engagement in war, and not a lot else. Nearly all of the things you hear about being part of the sharia come from the ahadith - including the most notorious things like stoning for adultery and death for apostasy. freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 8:58pm: Because it is incomplete, or doesn't touch it at all? Both those theories have been debated by muslims and non-muslims alike. Another more radical theory is that it is left deliberately open - to leave room for adaptation for the specific circumstances of any given muslim society. Or even more radical - perhaps it is not even meant as a system of government (shock horror!). The Quran after all, is overwhelmingly - perhaps 95%+ about the personal responsibilities - that are purely a matter between the individual and God, and not matters for the state to interfere with. And this is an actual islamic movement that goes right back to the dawn of islam. They were called the "murjiites" - which in arabic means "postponers" - they advocated "postponing" all judgment of muslims in matters of faith until the only true judge - God - makes His judgements. Or in other words, they advocated a state that didn't police or judge citizens on matters of faith - which is really just following the Quran.

The Koran is mostly plagiarism.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=321.0



Quote:

If you look at the Quran in historic context and study the exegesis of its teachings, it becomes obvious that aside from its constant claims that "God is great", lawgiving and bigotry against the "Infidel", it is little more than a compilation of borrowed stories from Arabian myths, folk tales, Buddhist legends, the Jewish Talmud, Midrash, and apocryphal works as well as Gnostic gospels and other apocryphal Christian tales. There is more plagiarism in the Quran than in the Book of Mormon, and that's saying something!

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

which we are informed by so many of the Islamophobes is impossible in Islam

Are you able to back this up with verifiable evidence?


Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

I'd be worried about death threats from the Islamophobes for daring to throw their claims about Islam and Muslims into doubt

Please back this statement up with hard evidence, or shut up.

Please define "Islamophobes"

I am impressed Gandalf, do you also question the Quran?

Even mildly?

Adamant wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 10:55pm:

Please define "Islamophobes"

It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 11:27pm:

Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;)

Please define "Islamophobe".

Please explain?

Adamant wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 11:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe".

Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia.

And before you ask  ::)

Islamophobia

Gandalf, it's a tricky one. If Muslims follow Muhammad's 'love me, love my Sunnah' doctrine, they have to rely on ahadith for guidance.

In Islam, the Quran was the miracle of Muhammad - Jesus had his healing etc. From what I remember, it is believed to be a perfect book that can't be corrupted. Is that right? Surely all that extra information - particularly punishments like stoning - would have been included in it. There's no mention of more to come in the form of recollections of the Sahabah.

The main problem as I see it is that Islam is a religion of fear for the majority of Muslims. There is a hadith (lol) that says that Muslims who are motivated to worship by love of God rather than fear of hell are closer to heaven - or something like that. Most Muslims I know are motivated by fear. I don't think there'll be any serious questioning of ahadith on a mainstream level while people have that fear.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 12:53am:

Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe". Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia. And before you ask  ::) Islamophobia

So one mustn't dislike or be prejudiced against an ideology? If you dislike or are prejudiced against Nazism, you are a Niziphobe, Communism a Commiephobe.

Islamists are eleutherophobes.  You are a insighto-phobe.

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 12:53am: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe". Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia. And before you ask  ::) Islamophobia So one mustn't dislike or be prejudiced against an ideology?

No, that isn't what it says, Soren.  Try again.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 12:53am: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe". Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia. And before you ask  ::) Islamophobia So one mustn't dislike or be prejudiced against an ideology? No, that isn't what it says, Soren.  Try again.   ::)

That is precisely what it says - prejudice against a political ideology. Islam is a political ideology.

What's wrong with being utterly unsympathetic to all its premises and teachings and all the actions committed and performed in its name? Why do I have to like the bloody thing??

I think it is detrimental to free human beings. It needs to be tempered but it resists all tempering and it is tearing itself apart and is drawing everyone else into its death throws. Islam is a force for suppression of creativity, free and open human relations, it is against equality, against the dignity of women, it is a terrible burden on its devotees and it is a threat to all who do not embrace it.

I do not see anything in Islam that is an improvement of the human condition. It is all negative.


18c me.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 7:37am:

Gandalf, it's a tricky one. If Muslims follow Muhammad's 'love me, love my Sunnah' doctrine, they have to rely on ahadith for guidance. In Islam, the Quran was the miracle of Muhammad - Jesus had his healing etc. From what I remember, it is believed to be a perfect book that can't be corrupted. Is that right? Surely all that extra information - particularly punishments like stoning - would have been included in it. There's no mention of more to come in the form of recollections of the Sahabah. The main problem as I see it is that Islam is a religion of fear for the majority of Muslims. There is a hadith (lol) that says that Muslims who are motivated to worship by love of God rather than fear of hell are closer to heaven - or something like that. Most Muslims I know are motivated by fear. I don't think there'll be any serious questioning of ahadith on a mainstream level while people have that fear.

The motivation of fear and the motivation of love are of essential importance when distinguishing between Christianity and Islam.

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 10:24pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 7:37am: Gandalf, it's a tricky one. If Muslims follow Muhammad's 'love me, love my Sunnah' doctrine, they have to rely on ahadith for guidance. In Islam, the Quran was the miracle of Muhammad - Jesus had his healing etc. From what I remember, it is believed to be a perfect book that can't be corrupted. Is that right? Surely all that extra information - particularly punishments like stoning - would have been included in it. There's no mention of more to come in the form of recollections of the Sahabah. The main problem as I see it is that Islam is a religion of fear for the majority of Muslims. There is a hadith (lol) that says that Muslims who are motivated to worship by love of God rather than fear of hell are closer to heaven - or something like that. Most Muslims I know are motivated by fear. I don't think there'll be any serious questioning of ahadith on a mainstream level while people have that fear. The motivation of fear and the motivation of love are of essential importance when distinguishing between Christianity and Islam.

That’s not what we were taught at Sunday School, dear boy. We were taught we had to choose between Jesus and Hell. "Where will you spend Eternity?"

Most of us chose Jesus.

Blame Luther? Never!

We blame Islam.

personal attack removed

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 10:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 7:03pm: Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 12:53am: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe". Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia. And before you ask  ::) Islamophobia So one mustn't dislike or be prejudiced against an ideology? No, that isn't what it says, Soren.  Try again.   ::) That is precisely what it says - prejudice against a political ideology. Islam is a political ideology.

*SIGH*, no that is not what it says, Soren.  It states:


Quote:

Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

"against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."   The word "especially" means a special condition.   However, the normal form of Islamophobia is "dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims" and that is what you and so many here suffer from, Soren.

Do you really have such problems reading English?   Or is this just another symptom of your dislike or prejudice against Islam?    ::)


Quote:

What's wrong with being utterly unsympathetic to all its premises and teachings and all the actions committed and performed in its name? Why do I have to like the bloody thing??

You don't but you have to tolerate it and it's adherents when they are not breaking any laws, Soren.   Intense dislike, to the point of hatred which is unreasoning is bigotry.


Quote:

I think it is detrimental to free human beings. It needs to be tempered but it resists all tempering and it is tearing itself apart and is drawing everyone else into its death throws. Islam is a force for suppression of creativity, free and open human relations, it is against equality, against the dignity of women, it is a terrible burden on its devotees and it is a threat to all who do not embrace it.

Depends upon which interpretation of it's teachings we're discussing, Soren.  You treat the adherents and the entire religion as being monolithic which it is demonstrably not.   At various times and in various places, Islam and Muslims have encouraged creativity, they have seen the flowering of culture, art, science and understanding and tolerance.   You however, appear to believe that Islam and Muslims have been intolerant and uncreative throughout it's entire history and across all Muslim cultures and societies.   Just as we've seen fundamentalist Christianity turn it's back on culture/art/science, so we are seeing fundamentalist Islam doing the same thing and for the same reason - it challenges their interpretation of their faith.


Quote:

I do not see anything in Islam that is an improvement of the human condition. It is all negative.

All?  Obviously you've never travelled in any Muslim countries, Soren.  You are, as I've always maintained one of the best graduates that a Madrassa has ever produced with your intolerance, your hatred and your bigotry.  You are the mirror image of the Islamic fundamentalists you rail against and your views would not be out of place in their ranks.   ::)


Quote:

18c me.

Not worth the bother.    ::)

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 10:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 10:43pm: Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 10:24pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 7:37am: Gandalf, it's a tricky one. If Muslims follow Muhammad's 'love me, love my Sunnah' doctrine, they have to rely on ahadith for guidance. In Islam, the Quran was the miracle of Muhammad - Jesus had his healing etc. From what I remember, it is believed to be a perfect book that can't be corrupted. Is that right? Surely all that extra information - particularly punishments like stoning - would have been included in it. There's no mention of more to come in the form of recollections of the Sahabah. The main problem as I see it is that Islam is a religion of fear for the majority of Muslims. There is a hadith (lol) that says that Muslims who are motivated to worship by love of God rather than fear of hell are closer to heaven - or something like that. Most Muslims I know are motivated by fear. I don't think there'll be any serious questioning of ahadith on a mainstream level while people have that fear. The motivation of fear and the motivation of love are of essential importance when distinguishing between Christianity and Islam. That’s not what we were taught at Sunday School, dear boy. We were taught we had to choose between Jesus and Hell. "Where will you spend Eternity?" Most of us chose Jesus. Blame Luther? Never! We blame Islam. Thank you, idiot. As you were.

Missed Sunday School did we, dear boy?

Too busy squeezing the cheese out of Mormor’s pantiloons, no doubt.

Miam miam.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 1:26am:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 10:04pm: [quote] What's wrong with being utterly unsympathetic to all its premises and teachings and all the actions committed and performed in its name? Why do I have to like the bloody thing?? You don't but you have to tolerate it and it's adherents when they are not breaking any laws, Soren.   Intense dislike, to the point of hatred which is unreasoning is bigotry.

I am tolerating them, numpty. I am not doing any of the intolerant things that the sons of Allah do every day - threaten death, violence and actually carry out violence and murder.

I am simply SAYING that Islam has nothing to recommend it.  I don't like a few other ideologies. I do not have to like what you think, Brain. You can think what you want but I do not have to say  'Oh, that's noice , Brain'. I do not have to think that just because a billion people believe in something it must be therefore OK.


Insofar as a Muslim can treat his religion as a PRIVATE devotion and not a political program, he is welcome to it and will have no bad word from me. Some old timers are doing just that. It is very thin spiritual gruel but they are welcome to it in peace.
But ascendant Islam is militant, political and activists. I am totally against it.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 1:26am:

Depends upon which interpretation of it's teachings we're discussing, Soren.  You treat the adherents and the entire religion as being monolithic which it is demonstrably not.   At various times and in various places, Islam and Muslims have encouraged creativity, they have seen the flowing of culture, art, science and understanding and tolerance.   You however, appear to believe that Islam and Muslims have been intolerant and uncreative throughout it's entire history and across all Muslim cultures and societies.   Just as we've seen fundamentalist Christianity turn it's back on culture/art/science, so we are seeing fundamentalist Islam doing the same thing and for the same reason - it challenges their interpretation of their faith.

Tell us about the various interpretations of Islam - and how they cause the sectarian violence every day.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

The Ahadith have for a long time G, been considered suspect with many known to have been written well after Muhammad's death to satisfy the political needs of some ruler or other.   There is a massive and ongoing project in Turkey at the moment to examine the Hadith closely and determine their veracity. You're taking a modernist approach, which we are informed by so many of the Islamophobes is impossible in Islam.  I'd be worried about death threats from the Islamophobes for daring to throw their claims about Islam and Muslims into doubt!   ;D

Watched "Salman Rushdie and The Satanic Verses Affair".

This was a precursor to the Islamist militarism we see today nearly 20 years after Khomeini's fatwa was lifted by the Iranian government.

I imagine that Ayatollah Khomeini was a latter day incarnation of a dark age or medieval pope... Very good reasons why religious primates must never be allowed to wield  power.

Having tamed the Vatican, the world must now be vigilant against a Caliphate... Although, admittedly, creating a Caliphate would be as inane as reconstituting the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 1:26am:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 10:04pm: I do not see anything in Islam that is an improvement of the human condition. It is all negative. All?  Obviously you've never travelled in any Muslim countries, Soren.  You are, as I've always maintained one of the best graduates that a Madrassa has ever produced with your intolerance, your hatred and your bigotry.  You are the mirror image of the Islamic fundamentalists you rail against and your views would not be out of place in their ranks.   ::)

Yes, all.

Show us one improvement that Islam has brought into the world.

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 12:53am: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe". Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia. And before you ask  ::) Islamophobia So one mustn't dislike or be prejudiced against an ideology? No, that isn't what it says, Soren.  Try again.   ::)

But that is exactly what YOU are saying, spineless squishy apologist for everything unfree and oppressive.

:(
Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 7:03pm: Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 12:53am: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe". Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia. And before you ask  ::) Islamophobia So one mustn't dislike or be prejudiced against an ideology? No, that isn't what it says, Soren.  Try again.   ::) But that is exactly what YOU are saying, spineless squishy apologist for everything unfree and oppressive.

But, old boy - only yesterday you were demanding your squishy. It’s so hard to keep up with your demands sometimes, I must say.

Would you like to speak to Matron?

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 8:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 17th, 2014 at 1:26am: Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 10:04pm: Quote: What's wrong with being utterly unsympathetic to all its premises and teachings and all the actions committed and performed in its name? Why do I have to like the bloody thing?? You don't but you have to tolerate it and it's adherents when they are not breaking any laws, Soren.   Intense dislike, to the point of hatred which is unreasoning is bigotry. I am tolerating them, numpty. I am not doing any of the intolerant things that the sons of Allah do every day - threaten death, violence and actually carry out violence and murder. No, you just persecute them because of their religious beliefs, Soren, every day and in every post that you post in this forum.   ::) [quote] I am simply SAYING that Islam has nothing to recommend it.

No, you carry it beyond "simply" saying to persecution.  You attack and rail against anything and anybody who is Muslim.  One only has to read your responses to Gandalf's reasoned pointed to see that.   ::)


Quote:

I don't like a few other ideologies. I do not have to like what you think, Brain.

Not asking you to.  I am suggesting that you need to give Muslims are fair go though, Soren.  Something you demonstrably have not done here, ever, as far as I can tell.


Quote:

You can think what you want but I do not have to say  'Oh, that's noice , Brain'. I do not have to think that just because a billion people believe in something it must be therefore OK.

You don't have to think their religion is "noice", Soren.  What you do though, have to do is be part of a civil society where people listen to one another's views and not persecute them because of guilt by association with the lunatic fringe of their religion.

Did Fred Phelps represent your version of Christianity?  Joseph Koney?  Tomas de Torquemada?  'cause they are examples of how you come across, Soren with your continued and determined bigotry against anything and everybody to do with Islam who disagrees with you.   ::)


Quote:

Insofar as a Muslim can treat his religion as a PRIVATE devotion and not a political program, he is welcome to it and will have no bad word from me.

Funny, that is not the impression I get from your posts where you have attacked anybody who dares to admit to being a Muslim.  Nor in the way which you treat anybody you even suspect of being a Muslim.  How many times have you accused me and others who preach tolerance of being Muslim, as if that is the greatest insult you can conjure?   ::)


Quote:

Some old timers are doing just that. It is very thin spiritual gruel but they are welcome to it in peace.

How can they when you are continually posting your vitriol and hatred for them and any other Muslim in the world?  Telling them that ALL Muslims, them included are dishonest, followers of a "cult", that their spiritual leader was a paedophile and other insulting things?   You really are naive if you think this sort of attitude that you continually express here does not take a toll!   ::)


Quote:

But ascendant Islam is militant, political and activists. I am totally against it.

I am against you and your ilk, Soren.  Always will be.  Hatred, intolerance, bigotry - doesn't matter who spouts it, it is still not acceptable in our modern society.  Be it a salafist Islamist or you.   Both are the same and for the same reasons to - narrow mindedness, ignorance and hatred.    ::)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 8:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 6:11pm: The Ahadith have for a long time G, been considered suspect with many known to have been written well after Muhammad's death to satisfy the political needs of some ruler or other.   There is a massive and ongoing project in Turkey at the moment to examine the Hadith closely and determine their veracity. You're taking a modernist approach, which we are informed by so many of the Islamophobes is impossible in Islam.  I'd be worried about death threats from the Islamophobes for daring to throw their claims about Islam and Muslims into doubt!   ;D Watched "Salman Rushdie and The Satanic Verses Affair". This was a precursor to the Islamist militarism we see today nearly 20 years after Khomeini's fatwa was lifted by the Iranian government. I imagine that Ayatollah Khomeini was a latter day incarnation of a dark age or medieval pope... Very good reasons why religious primates must never be allowed to wield  power. Having tamed the Vatican, the world must now be vigilant against a Caliphate... Although, admittedly, creating a Caliphate would be as inane as reconstituting the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

No disagreement from me.  The Ayatollah was as bad as any renaissance religious leader in Europe.  Nearly all preached intolerance and hatred.  Just as Soren, Yadda, Moses, et al do here. 

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 17th, 2014 at 1:26am: Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 10:04pm: I do not see anything in Islam that is an improvement of the human condition. It is all negative. All?  Obviously you've never travelled in any Muslim countries, Soren.  You are, as I've always maintained one of the best graduates that a Madrassa has ever produced with your intolerance, your hatred and your bigotry.  You are the mirror image of the Islamic fundamentalists you rail against and your views would not be out of place in their ranks.   ::) Yes, all. Show us one improvement that Islam has brought into the world.

It has united nations, created the conditions for the flowering of high culture, art and science, Soren.   It is going through a reformation at the moment as it struggles to adapt to the modern world.  Either modernism will take hold and Islam will once again flourish and cultivate higher learning and understanding of the world or it will flounder and sink.   It is however, primarily up to the Muslims to decide the direction of their religion.  All you'll do is drive the moderates into the arms of the extremists as they feel the pressure of your continued and continual persecution, Soren.

You should be proud that you're as intolerant as those you claim to oppose.   ::)

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 7:03pm: Soren wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 6:49pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 16th, 2014 at 12:53am: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:46pm: Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 11:27pm: Adamant wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 10:55pm: Please define "Islamophobes" It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   ;) Please define "Islamophobe". Islamophobe - one who suffers from Islamophobia. And before you ask  ::) Islamophobia So one mustn't dislike or be prejudiced against an ideology? No, that isn't what it says, Soren.  Try again.   ::) But that is exactly what YOU are saying, spineless squishy apologist for everything unfree and oppressive.

Thank you, Soren for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.  Intolerance and hatred all the way for anybody or anything that dares to suggest that you've taken the wrong turning.   You're false to everything you claim you're defending, be it civilisation, your religion or your culture.   
::) ::)

Well done, Brian and Soren. Once again, you've managed to turn what could have been an interesting discussion into a tit for tat bitch fest. Don't you ever grow tired of it happening in every single topic where you engage?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 18^th, 2014 at 7:19am:

Well done, Brian and Soren. Once again, you've managed to turn what could have been an interesting discussion into a tit for tat bitch fest. Don't you ever grow tired of it happening in every single topic where you engage?

Perhaps you should ask Soren that, Annie.  I merely reply to his idiocies.  He is the one who is showing his intolerance.   Perhaps you'd prefer he was given free reign to preach his hatred?   ::)

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 18^th, 2014 at 7:19am:

Well done, Brian and Soren. Once again, you've managed to turn what could have been an interesting discussion into a tit for tat bitch fest. Don't you ever grow tired of it happening in every single topic where you engage?

So, you taking over moderator from Gandalf?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Brian's doing a good job of kicking there.   8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 7:37am:

Gandalf, it's a tricky one. If Muslims follow Muhammad's 'love me, love my Sunnah' doctrine, they have to rely on ahadith for guidance. In Islam, the Quran was the miracle of Muhammad - Jesus had his healing etc. From what I remember, it is believed to be a perfect book that can't be corrupted. Is that right? Surely all that extra information - particularly punishments like stoning - would have been included in it. There's no mention of more to come in the form of recollections of the Sahabah. The main problem as I see it is that Islam is a religion of fear for the majority of Muslims. There is a hadith (lol) that says that Muslims who are motivated to worship by love of God rather than fear of hell are closer to heaven - or something like that. Most Muslims I know are motivated by fear. I don't think there'll be any serious questioning of ahadith on a mainstream level while people have that fear.

Yes muslims do consider the Quran a perfect book, when a Florida pastor wanted to burn a Quran the Indonesian president said it could threaten world peace.

Bukhari said the verse on stoning was revealed and read, where did it go what happened to it?

Quote:

Narrated Aisha- The verse of stoning and breastfeeding an adult 10 times was revealed,and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the messenger of allah died, we were preoccupied with his death,and a tame sheep came in and ate it. sunnah.com/urn/1262630

Do you want to explain what breastfeeding an adult 10 times is for,why does an adult need to be breastfed?

Of course we have a hadith that explains what happened to the stoning verse yet muslims absurdly insist the Quran has never been corrupted.

I give Allah an incomplete for the Quran, muslims could not add verses to the quran afterwards because they accuse jews/christians of following corrupted beliefs and that would make them hypocrites for doing the exact same thing so they came up with the sunnah to explain the things the quran left out which allowed them to sidestep the issue of corrupting the quran.

The Saudi constitution says gods book (quran) and the sunnah of his prophet are the constitution of Saudi Arabia, the sunnah carries as much authority as the Quran.

Of course the Sunni say the shia hadeeth is unreliable and the shia do not respect Bukhari or the sunni hadeeth, the doctrinal differences between these sects comes from books that were written a couple of hundred years after the Quran.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 9:41pm:

Quote: witness testimony in legal matters Does that include the relative value of testimony from women and non-Muslims? [quote]eg laws around marriage

Is there anything about sex with female slaves in the Koran, or anything that forbids it?[/quote]

I know what you are trying to do, but I think I'll let that through to the keeper.

We are talking about the ahadith, and I'd like to keep it to that please.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 16^th, 2014 at 7:37am:

Gandalf, it's a tricky one. If Muslims follow Muhammad's 'love me, love my Sunnah' doctrine, they have to rely on ahadith for guidance.

Did he say that though? I tend to think that is a myth.

I found this interesting article which I find myself in strong agreement with:

http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/_obey_god_%28P1245%29.html


Quote:

In Islam, the Quran was the miracle of Muhammad - Jesus had his healing etc. From what I remember, it is believed to be a perfect book that can't be corrupted. Is that right? Surely all that extra information - particularly punishments like stoning - would have been included in it. There's no mention of more to come in the form of recollections of the Sahabah.

Absolutely. The Quranic punishment for adultery is flogging and/or house arrest. Saying that the punishment must be stoning is nothing short of rejecting the authority of the Quran. And the idea of 'abrogation' is a complete fabrication - some muslims even making the incredible argument that some ahadith abrogate the Quran!

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2014 at 10:22pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2014 at 9:41pm: Quote: witness testimony in legal matters Does that include the relative value of testimony from women and non-Muslims? [quote]eg laws around marriage Is there anything about sex with female slaves in the Koran, or anything that forbids it?

I know what you are trying to do, but I think I'll let that through to the keeper.

We are talking about the ahadith, and I'd like to keep it to that please.
[/quote]

You brought up the Koran Gandalf. It's pretty hard not to, given the subject. Do we need a different thread on the difference between the Koran and hadith?

For once I'd like to talk about islamic jurisprudence without the usual sh!tfest about sex slaves.

Now I just know you are going to start a new thread and quote the above as some kind of evidence for how unreasonable muslims are, thats fine.

But if I can have just one thread without that tired nonsense, then I'll be satisfied.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

The post was on topic Gandalf, it showed how the ahadith is used to get the context of the Quran verses.

I posted a sahih hadith and the Quran verse it mentioned, how is that off topic?

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 19^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:

The post was on topic Gandalf, it showed how the ahadith is used to get the context of the Quran verses. I posted a sahih hadith and the Quran verse it mentioned, how is that off topic?

Yes, Master.

Quote:

For once I'd like to talk about islamic jurisprudence without the usual sh!tfest about sex slaves.

I was actually thinking more about the testimony of non-Muslims being automatically considered untrustworthy, on the grounds that they are not Muslims.


Quote:

Now I just know you are going to start a new thread and quote the above as some kind of evidence for how unreasonable muslims are, thats fine.

I'm glad I have your approval. I'd prefer to discuss it in this thread. If I start a new one, may I refer to you in the thread title, given that it is really about this revelation of yours?

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

I was actually thinking more about the testimony of non-Muslims

Then why did you ask about women?


freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2014 at 6:27pm:

If I start a new one, may I refer to you in the thread title

No.

I think the testimony of women is also downgraded, so I threw that in also. I am trying to keep the questions as open ended as possible.

um so you were interested in non-muslim testimony, so you asked about women.

rightio...

I'm interested in both. I'm trying to get you to elaborate on what this all means. Feel free to respond to any issue, or throw in others I haven't thought of.

Is it merely a slightly less barbaric version of Islam, or is it fundamentally different?

FD’s no genie, G.

FD’s a Djin.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 28^th, 2014 at 4:55pm:

Complete rubbish. This is like you harping on for months about how I never expanded on my "universal morality" theory of Muhammad's example, until it eventually seemed to sink in that I did - after linking you back to the relevant post for about the 10th time.

It is exactly like that, and you still haven't done it. At best you gave a few examples of what you end up with - interpretations that are completely at odds with what Muhammed said, did, or meant, and no explanation of how you got there, other than that you it was somehow preconcieved. It didn't sink in, I simply gave up asking for the same thing. Your recent thread rejection of the hadiths was closer to the mark, but just like the mufti you release a carefully considered statement then run away and hide. So now I know that you reject the hadiths somehow, though not to what extent, nor what you end up with. You completely refuse to discuss how your re-interpretation efforts resolve (or not) the main criticisms of mainstream Islam, claiming that it is somehow wrong for us to dredge those things up in your special thread dedicated to running away from your own statement.


Quote:

But of course we both know this is just a convenient excuse. The reassessment that you cry I never expanded on is more than adequately outlined in the thread I started about it.

Where you did the mufti trick? This might mean something to those who are familiar with the distinctions between the Koran and hadith, but all the Muslims that preceded you did not think that distinction mattered too much, and you refuse to explain what they are.


Quote:

But as always you just want to bring it back to a sh!tfest about sex-slaves, knowing perfectly well that it would derail any possibility of constructive dialogue.

I raised about half a dozen different issues, and you used the sex slave one to refuse to respond to any of them. A constructive dialogue would resolve how your interpretation dealt with the issue of sex slaves and the other major criticisms of Islam. I am not sure why you imagine it is more constructive to avoid the important issues.


Quote:

Not to mention the fact that I have made my views about those alleged references to "sex slaves" perfectly clear - ie they are non-existent.

And yet many other Muslims concede that Islam permits sex slaves and that Muhammed himself had them. If you claim to be offering a different interpretation of the same religion, it is entirely appropriate to ask how and why it differs.


Quote:

If you don't know what it is I am advocating then you clearly haven't read my post on it. Its very simple really - the Quran is deliberately broad and mostly non-specific, leading the 'rationalist' school of thought (includes me) to conclude that the Quran advocates free thought, flexibility and the very real possibility of the sort of consideration for equality and human rights that we hold to today. This is being prevented, IMO, by the dominance of the sunna in islamic law, which has a rule on pretty much every conceivable human action - and effectively turns muslims into automatons with no free thought.

Are Muhammed's actions a demonstration of how to live by the Koran? Do they shed light, for example, on the reference to no compulsion in religion? Does your interpretation go so far as to conclude that Muhammed violated the Koran on a regular basis? You always manage to backpedal from your progressive interpretation of Islam to justifying every single thing Muhammed did, which kind of undermines any claim you make to a fundamentally different interpretation. If context is your excuse, most of the middle east is the same shithole it was when Muhammed rode his camel across it, which means the example he set is equally applicable today as it was 1400 years ago.

How is the absence of compulsions resolvable with the existence of Shariah law?

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

So now I know that you reject the hadiths somehow, though not to what extent, nor what you end up with. You completely refuse to discuss how your re-interpretation efforts resolve (or not) the main criticisms of mainstream Islam, claiming that it is somehow wrong for us to dredge those things up in your special thread dedicated to running away from your own statement.

Yes folks, FD really said this - in this very thread

Yes, G, but FD’s post-2007 retardation levels are clearly the fault of one thing and one thing only: Islam.

We blame Islam. FD hasn’t been the same since Abu left.

Oh, when will he ever return?

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2014 at 6:36pm:

I think the testimony of women is also downgraded, so I threw that in also. I am trying to keep the questions as open ended as possible.

But whatever you do, don’t make the answers open-ended.

Best to just say what FD wants to hear.

Sometimes a question is just a question, no?

Ahhh what a surprise the poor Islamic Blow Fly hoping for a chop from freediver. Poor old Kamel toe.

I say, Yasser, I’m too busy with my apologism these days, but have you ever thought of becoming the new Abu?

It would make FD’s life so much happier, you know.

All you’d have to do is start up a new sock puppet and come on every now and than and say a few mean things about whitey.

Just give it some thought, okay? I can help you with your lines if you want.

I find it hilarious the Islamic Blow Fly thinks it can help people, no?

Okay, you carry on with your blowfly posts and I’ll play Abu. We’ll cheer FD up.

FD, I think freedom, democracy and all forms of innovation should be banned.

Sorry, am I Abu or the old boy?

Yasser, you’d better do this. I can’t stay in character.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 28^th, 2014 at 7:38pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 28th, 2014 at 6:57pm: So now I know that you reject the hadiths somehow, though not to what extent, nor what you end up with. You completely refuse to discuss how your re-interpretation efforts resolve (or not) the main criticisms of mainstream Islam, claiming that it is somehow wrong for us to dredge those things up in your special thread dedicated to running away from your own statement. Yes folks, FD really said this - in this very thread

You have spent the last few posts in this thread explaining how doing so would take this thread "off topic", derail constructive dialogue etc.

Are you going to become a Quran only muslim Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

You have spent the last few posts in this thread explaining how doing so would take this thread "off topic", derail constructive dialogue etc.

No, you just don't want to listen.

I have given a detailed opinion on the extent to which I reject the ahadith, and what I end up with.

I also explained that the key problem and criticism of islam today is that muslims are expected to reject rational and free thought, and become an army of automatons through blindly following all the minutiae of The Prophet's example. It is the Hanbali school of thought - as explained - and islam today is influenced far too much by it. It runs contrary to (what I consider) the Quranic prescription of being flexible and adaptable in applying islamic law - not to mention the strong Quranic prescription on non-compulsion and deferring judgements on faith to God. Applying these core islamic principles properly can lead to free, liberal and democratic societies - as has occurred in various periods of Islamic history (eg the Ottomans in the late 18th and early 19th centuries)

This is at the very heart of "the main criticisms of mainstream Islam", and I am dealing with it directly. That you prefer to troll and pretend to be actually raising legitimate questions doesn't change this fact.


Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 29^th, 2014 at 6:08pm:

Are you going to become a Quran only muslim Gandalf?

from the OP:


Quote:

That is not to say that Islam must exist without the ahadith - there is a wealth of sage advise and practices from the "best among men" that can beautifully compliment the divine message of the Quran. But elevating the ahadith to a complete set of divine laws in its own right that is equal and even a competitor to the Quran is tantamount to elevating the Prophet himself to something akin to a divine leader. This is effectively 'shirk' - attributing associates with Allah - and a grave sin in islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 9:24pm:

The Quran is in no way a manual for how to run a state. There are a few specifics - eg laws around marriage, witness testimony in legal matters, rules of engagement in war, and not a lot else. Nearly all of the things you hear about being part of the sharia come from the ahadith - including the most notorious things like stoning for adultery and death for apostasy.

Gandalf a lot of the criticisms I have listed in the wiki are covered by those "few specifics" you mentioned. In particular, I have asked you to elaborate on:
* the relative value of the testimony of non-Muslims
* the relative value of the testimony of women
* sex with your slaves (who according to many Muslims are pretty much equivalent to wives, except they do not count towards the limit of 4)

I might as well ask you what the laws regarding war are too.

You can hardly build a functioning, just society with the traditional interpretation of Islamic law on these issues. How does your interpretation differ? Your responses so far:


Quote:

I know what you are trying to do, but I think I'll let that through to the keeper. We are talking about the ahadith, and I'd like to keep it to that please.

Quote:

For once I'd like to talk about islamic jurisprudence without the usual sh!tfest about sex slaves.

Quote:

But if I can have just one thread without that tired nonsense, then I'll be satisfied.

Quote:

um so you were interested in non-muslim testimony, so you asked about women.

Looks to me like you are avoiding the very topic you raised.


Quote:

Both those theories have been debated by muslims and non-muslims alike. Another more radical theory is that it is left deliberately open - to leave room for adaptation for the specific circumstances of any given muslim society.

Isn't this exactly what the rulers that came after Muhammed did - that you criticise them so much for? Even Muhammed appears to have been very flexible in adapting Islamic principles to help him build an empire. And aren't Muhammed's words and actions the best guide on how to adapt the words of the Koran?

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

the relative value of the testimony of non-Muslims

no mention in the quran.


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

sex with your slaves (who according to many Muslims are pretty much equivalent to wives, except they do not count towards the limit of 4)

I have said time and time again I do not believe the Quran permits sex with slaves - period. I have even given you links to articles supporting this. So I don't know why you keep taking it up with me - as if I need to somehow justify the practice. Suggest you engage a muslim who believes that crap.


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

the relative value of the testimony of women

There is one verse relating specifically to drawing up financial contracts. It says take two men as witnesses, or one man and two women. I do not believe this is suggesting a general rule that women's testimony is less half than men - given that women are given equal testimonial status in other areas. Maybe its because women weren't comfortable presiding over financial legal documents, felt intimidated etc in a male-dominated area. Yet what the Quran does is quite radical for its contemporary audience - by introducing the very concept of women testimonials, undoubtedly unheard of.


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

I might as well ask you what the laws regarding war are too

Look them up. Basic thrust: do not initiate hostilities, defend yourself when attacked, do not fight disproportionately, and always accept the enemies overtures to peace.


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

You can hardly build a functioning, just society with the traditional interpretation of Islamic law on these issues.

Precisely - which is why I am not a "traditionalist".


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

How does your interpretation differ? Your responses so far:

My response so far was to launch a rather detailed and scathing attack on the 'traditionalist' approach of completely rejecting the Quranic prescriptions for:

1. exercising rationality and intellect
2. accepting the individual's right to have the freedom to make their own choices
3. not having the right to hand down judgements on matters of personal beliefs
4. accepting Prophet Muhammad as only someone who passes down a message - and not a law-maker

...and replace them for a ridiculously long charter of rigid and uncompromising 7th century era laws that govern every aspect of social and personal life - and which must be enforced by a sadistic and fascistic earthly regime.

This thesis of mine goes to the very heart of what you are talking about - the misogynistic attitude of men that leads to "islamic" views on sex slaves and the inferior status of women, intolerant views towards non-muslims, aggressive war - and literally any other thing you care to bring up that gives islam its notoriety. Invented by arab fascists who were desperately looking for an islamic spin to justify their fascism, couldn't find it in the Quran, and so, quite literally, invented them through the so called 'sunna' of the Prophet.


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

Isn't this exactly what the rulers that came after Muhammed did - that you criticise them so much for?

No, they did the opposite - they invented a whole new set of "islamic" laws which flew directly in the face of the central Quranic message, and which completely closed the door on free thinking and rational adaptation.

The whole point I'm making about a "Quran-centric" islamic law, is not just that it is flexible and open to rational interpretation - but more so that it has this flexibility and openness within the framework of the central Quranic themes of non-compulsion and individual responsibility. Thus it is the polar opposite to the traditionalist approach of dictating a hard and fast (7th century) rule on every conceivable day to day behaviour, which is completely inflexible and must be accepted blindly. And not just this, but moreover (according to the traditionalists), any deviation from this rigid, inflexible behaviour by individuals must be met with some barbaric earthly punishment.


freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 9:46am:

And aren't Muhammed's words and actions the best guide on how to adapt the words of the Koran?

On issues of islamic jurisprudence yes - on issues of how he ran a small 7th century desert state - no.

Muhammad did not ask that every word and deed of his be recorded so that people 1400 years later could delude themselves into thinking they were somehow divine laws for all time. To be sure, Muhammad ruled as best he could according to his Islamic principles, but that is a million miles from saying the laws he handed down are somehow relevant to a 21st state. He had to adapt to his circumstances, just as any ruler today has to adapt to theirs.

I would say that the "examples" of his to follow are on the spiritual and personal level - his dedication to prayer and his emphasis on its importance, the way he meditated, his temperament towards others with (for example) his willingness to always sit down and discuss things civilly, the dedication and kindness he expressed to his family, his humility and willingness to accept disagreement or criticism

Ahh the full CIC Sunni Taqiyya in one post well done.

SweetLambo wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:

Ahh the full CIC Sunni Taqiyya in one post well done.

It overjoys my heart to know that the spirit of Mattywisk and Mahdi will live on in you Yasser - and then when you are banned, in someone else  :)

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

SweetLambo wrote on Aug 30th, 2014 at 2:15pm: Ahh the full CIC Sunni Taqiyya in one post well done. It overjoys my heart to know that the spirit of Mattywisk and Mahdi will live on in you Yasser - and then when you are banned, in someone else  :)

What a vivid imagination you Sunni's have.

Slippery Taqqyia Yes?

Thanks, G. Based on FD’s criticisms of Islam to date, it looks like he has three choices in response to your post:

1. Agree wholeheartedly.

2. Advise us to Google Taqiyya.

3. Pretend you didn’t say any of that.

My money’s on 3. Oh, for the good old days of Abu and Falah.

FD hasn’t been the same since they left.

FD feed him a chop, its feeding time for the Islamic Blow Fly.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 2:50pm:

SweetLambo wrote on Aug 30th, 2014 at 2:15pm: Ahh the full CIC Sunni Taqiyya in one post well done. and then when you are banned

You gonna ban me like you did the rest Adama ?

That is very Kondascending.

qur'an: 4.88 -  What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.

Freewill in islam?

Definitely not. allah causes people to err, he makes their minds up for them. Either that or qur'an 4.88 is lying

However more importantly, why does allah cause innocent people to err? well the next verse tells us: 

qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

What a surprise, allah caused them to err, disbelieve (become apostates), he then commands, unless they join islam (emigrate in the way of allah), muslims are to kill them.

So once again islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an is nothing more that a conglomeration which urges terrorism, torture and mass murder, as the way for muslims to follow.

Quote:

he whole point I'm making about a "Quran-centric" islamic law, is not just that it is flexible and open to rational interpretation - but more so that it has this flexibility and openness within the framework of the central Quranic themes of non-compulsion and individual responsibility.

Is that one of the central themes, or the central theme? I have only ever seen one reference to non-compulsion.


Quote:

On issues of islamic jurisprudence yes - on issues of how he ran a small 7th century desert state - no.

Everything about Muhammed that people criticise was to do with jurisprudence. How do you separate his role as leader of an empire from his role of interpreting Islamic jurisprudence? Everything he received was in the context of running his empire and deciding who to kill.


Quote:

To be sure, Muhammad ruled as best he could according to his Islamic principles

Did he get it wrong?


Quote:

qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Thanks Moses. Gandalf, how does that fit in with the central Koranic theme of non-compulsion?

Queue the Islamic Blow Fly, hold on to your hats people.

freediver wrote on Aug 30^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

Thanks Moses. Gandalf, how does that fit in with the central Koranic theme of non-compulsion?

Ask moses to quote you the very next verse - as I know you are incapable of finding it yourself.

Let me guess, "LOL, just kidding"

I wrote in Reply #85 - Yesterday at 3:56pm:


Quote:

qur'an: 4.88 -  What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. Freewill in islam? Definitely not. allah causes people to err, he makes their minds up for them. Either that or qur'an 4.88 is lying However more importantly, why does allah cause innocent people to err? well the next verse tells us:    qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." What a surprise, allah caused them to err, disbelieve (become apostates), he then commands, unless they join islam (emigrate in the way of allah), muslims are to kill them. So once again islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an is nothing more that a conglomeration which urges terrorism, torture and mass murder, as the way for muslims to follow.

gandalf wrote in Reply #88 - Yesterday at 5:22pm: 


Quote:

Ask moses to quote you the very next verse - as I know you are incapable of finding it yourself.

My pleasure gandalf, the next two verses to give the true picture of islam:


Quote:

qur'an 4.90: Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

The above verse refers to people who are seeking refuge, who don't want to fight muslims or their own people, all so benign and compassionate isn't it?

However the next verse shows the true muslim spirit


Quote:

qur'an 4.91: You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization.

Now the real message of compulsion and murder comes out: 4.91 states that some people will come to muslims seeking security from muslims and their own people, (obviously these people are peaceful, they do not want any trouble, they are seeking refuge and security)

However verse 4.91 states that they will fall under the influence of disbelief. Remember 4.89 says they are  not to be accepted until they emigrate in the way of allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them.

4.91 is exactly the same, people who become apostates, must be removed, subjected to rules and regulations outside of the norm, or hunted down and killed.

So qur'an 4.88 4.89 4.90 & 4.91 absolutely prove there is no free will in islam.

There definitely is compulsion, terrorism, torture and mass murder directed against those who don't believe in islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. 

But, M, I’m confused. Haven’t you be saying we should exile, and when that’s not possible, invade and slay people who refuse to make peace with us?

In fact, haven’t you often said we should invade and slay people in foreign lands who don’t even pose a threat to us?

In the words of the old boy’s bard, please explain.

The sheer stupidity of the non-muslim crowd certainly contributes to the problem. Eg:


freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 4:18pm:

The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy (which is straight from the Koran) and stoning people to death for adultery.

What is actually "straight from the Quran" on this issue is:

And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."
18:29

upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account.
13:40

There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance.
2:256

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:04pm:

The sheer stupidity of the non-muslim crowd certainly contributes to the problem. Eg: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 4:18pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy (which is straight from the Koran) and stoning people to death for adultery. What is actually "straight from the Quran" on this issue is: And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." 18:29 upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account. 13:40 There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance. 2:256

Your quotes refer to those who have not yet converted to Islam, not to those who, having converted, now want to leave Islam.  For them, the rulings are these:


There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death.  The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad.

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: "An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: "Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

The equivalent, gravely negative implications of the OIC's Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism."
Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the "punishment" of so-called "apostates" from Islam:
"[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."




Which bit is a lie, Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:04pm:

The sheer stupidity of the non-muslim crowd certainly contributes to the problem. Eg: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 4:18pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy (which is straight from the Koran) and stoning people to death for adultery. What is actually "straight from the Quran" on this issue is: And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." 18:29 upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account. 13:40 There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance. 2:256

Gandalf does killing apostates count as compulsion?

re. reply #90:

I have disproven this argument before, I suspect it was moses then as well. It is an extremely simple rebuttal, because the evidence is crystal clear:

There are two things here:

1. The verse 4:90:

if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

Clearly a precondition for executing those who are openly hostile to the muslim community is that they must remain hostile, reject peace and do not remove themselves from the community.

2. As if that wasn't clear enough, 4:91 reemphasises the point:

if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them.

The key to understanding these verses is to understand the word "if" - IF they do not withdraw, IF they do not restrain themselves and IF they do not offer you peace...

or in other words - fight those who attack you. Very simple and straight forward - for anyone who reads it with an open mind.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:17pm:

Gandalf does killing apostates count as compulsion?

Brilliant question FD. Possibly the question of the decade.

I'll no doubt ponder over it continually for the next 15 years or so.

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:04pm: The sheer stupidity of the non-muslim crowd certainly contributes to the problem. Eg: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 4:18pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy (which is straight from the Koran) and stoning people to death for adultery. What is actually "straight from the Quran" on this issue is: And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." 18:29 upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account. 13:40 There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance. 2:256 Gandalf does killing apostates count as compulsion?

Arrogant people never admit that they are wrong.


Perhaps Freediver has confused the Quran with the Bible:



Quote:

...whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:13

Quote:

“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’...you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God// Deuteronomy 13:6-11

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:53pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:17pm: Gandalf does killing apostates count as compulsion? Brilliant question FD. Possibly the question of the decade. I'll no doubt ponder over it continually for the next 15 years or so.

Don’t go too far, G. Sometimes a question is just a question, you know.

Team Murdoch wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:55pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:17pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:04pm: The sheer stupidity of the non-muslim crowd certainly contributes to the problem. Eg: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 4:18pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy (which is straight from the Koran) and stoning people to death for adultery. What is actually "straight from the Quran" on this issue is: And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." 18:29 upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account. 13:40 There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance. 2:256 Gandalf does killing apostates count as compulsion? Arrogant people never admit that they are wrong. Perhaps Freediver has confused the Quran with the Bible: Quote: ...whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:13 [quote]“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’...you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God// Deuteronomy 13:6-11

[/quote]

We ignore those bits, TM - unless we need to justify a jolly old killing.

No Christians take those words seriously anymore, shurely.

Okay, apart from Yadda, I mean.

The old boy’s a Freudian. He doesn’t count.

Team Murdoch wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:55pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:17pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:04pm: The sheer stupidity of the non-muslim crowd certainly contributes to the problem. Eg: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 4:18pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy (which is straight from the Koran) and stoning people to death for adultery. What is actually "straight from the Quran" on this issue is: And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." 18:29 upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account. 13:40 There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance. 2:256 Gandalf does killing apostates count as compulsion? Arrogant people never admit that they are wrong. Perhaps Freediver has confused the Quran with the Bible: Quote: ...whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:13 [quote]“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’...you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God// Deuteronomy 13:6-11

[/quote]

No he didn't, the scriptures you quote are from the old cannon of scripture and are quoted out of context against the new cannon. A little study wouldn't go astray.

No comment for the Islamic blow fly, it never knows what it is talking about.

You haven’t been reading Yadda’s posts, Yasser.

Naughty naughty.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:15pm:

Your quotes refer to those who have not yet converted to Islam, not to those who, having converted, now want to leave Islam.

Baseless. Verse 2:256 is a direct translation, word for word of the English words "no" "compulsion" "in" "religion" - "La" Ikraha" "fee" "Al-deen".

The Quran has many mentions of how to treat disbelievers (patience and non-emnity - until they initiate hostilities), nowhere does it distinguish between those disbelievers who were once believers and those who were not.


Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:15pm:

Which bit is a lie, Gandalf?

None of it is a lie - I'm sure those jurists genuinely believe the crap they spout.

But what is the real issue here Soren? You are proving more and more that you are deeply threatened by muslims wanting to reform islam for the better. Why else would you sneer and jeer at it so? I really cannot fathom it. Its almost like keeping islam as the monster serves some twisted agenda of yours.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 6:14pm:

Its almost like keeping islam as the monster serves some twisted agenda of yours.

Ah.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 5:46pm:

re. reply #90: I have disproven this argument before, I suspect it was moses then as well. It is an extremely simple rebuttal, because the evidence is crystal clear: There are two things here: 1. The verse 4:90: if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them. Clearly a precondition for executing those who are openly hostile to the muslim community is that they must remain hostile, reject peace and do not remove themselves from the community. 2. As if that wasn't clear enough, 4:91 reemphasises the point: if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. The key to understanding these verses is to understand the word "if" - IF they do not withdraw, IF they do not restrain themselves and IF they do not offer you peace... or in other words - fight those who attack you. Very simple and straight forward - for anyone who reads it with an open mind.

So if your neighbour apostasises you can only kill him if he doesn't leave the country?

Here is the full version of what Gandalf so selectively quoted:

http://quran.com/4/90


Quote:

Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

Looks to me like this applies in the context of war - ie do not pursue apostates if they take refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who could defeat you at war. It is not a qualification on the command to kill apostates.

SweetLambo wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 6:03pm:

Team Murdoch wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:55pm: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:17pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 5:04pm: The sheer stupidity of the non-muslim crowd certainly contributes to the problem. Eg: freediver wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 4:18pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy (which is straight from the Koran) and stoning people to death for adultery. What is actually "straight from the Quran" on this issue is: And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." 18:29 upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is the account. 13:40 There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance. 2:256 Gandalf does killing apostates count as compulsion? Arrogant people never admit that they are wrong. Perhaps Freediver has confused the Quran with the Bible: Quote: ...whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:13 [quote]“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’...you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God// Deuteronomy 13:6-11

No he didn't, the scriptures you quote are from the old cannon of scripture and are quoted out of context against the new cannon. A little study wouldn't go astray.[/quote]

An interesting claim, Matty.  One you've made frequently before.  Pray tell, if the new canon replaces the old, why is the old still in The Bible?   Why do many Christians still refer to the old when preaching?   I'd suggest that most theologians would point out, the old is there because it forms the basis upon which Christianity is built.  Without it, you have only half the story.  Abandoning it in the manner you keep claiming Christians have, is disingenuous but according to some, that sort of tactic is only practised by Muslims, never Christians...  ::)

Karnal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 6:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 31st, 2014 at 6:14pm: Its almost like keeping islam as the monster serves some twisted agenda of yours. Ah.

So.

Perhaps if Soren didn't have Islam, he'd have to invent it?   ;D

freediver wrote on Aug 31^st, 2014 at 6:29pm:

Here is the full version of what Gandalf so selectively quoted:

Selectively - as in completely ignoring 4:91?

Are you one of those who has difficulty understanding the word "if"? Looks like you also have difficulty with the word "or" - as in:

Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people

ie - fight the disbelievers except for the ones who take refuge with a third party whom you have a treaty with - *OR* the ones who declare their willingness for peace.

Again, why is you lot need to do these mental gymnastics to twist this one passage into "kill all apostates", while you completely ignore the plethora of crystal clear commands to leave the disbelievers (again not distinguishing between those who believed and now disbelieve and those who never believed) in peace - so long as they are peaceful in return?

4.91 is self explanatory:

qur'an 4.91: You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization.

1st sentence: You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people.

you will find others who want peace with their own people and the muslims, they want nothing more than to live in peace with all people

2nd sentence: Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it.

These peaceful people who want security, cannot not see the logic of islam, they want to return to being a non muslim, they become apostates.

3rd sentence: So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them.

If they do not withdraw from you ( are exiled) or offer you peace, restrain their hands, ( they've already done that by coming to muslims seeking security and refuge), then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. (hunt them down and kill them)

4th sentence: And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization. 

muslims have clear authorization to kill apostates

There is no free will in islam.

moses wrote on Sep 1^st, 2014 at 8:42am:

4.91 is self explanatory: qur'an 4.91: You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization. 1st sentence: You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. you will find others who want peace with their own people and the muslims, they want nothing more than to live in peace with all people 2nd sentence: Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. These peaceful people who want security, cannot not see the logic of islam, they want to return to being a non muslim, they become apostates. 3rd sentence: So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. If they do not withdraw from you ( are exiled) or offer you peace, restrain their hands, ( they've already done that by coming to muslims seeking security and refuge), then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. (hunt them down and kill them) 4th sentence: And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization.  muslims have clear authorization to kill apostates There is no free will in islam.

Yep.

That's the story!





ISLAM;

Moslem = = virtuous human being.


ISLAM;

Non-moslem = = vile human being, worthy of death.i

Yadda wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 10:05am:

Q. What behaviour is halal [permissible] to a moslem [i.e. to every moslem] ? Answer..... ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS!; For a devout moslem, all things are permissible, if they are permitted by Sharia.

.....and it is completely lawful [sanctioned by ISLAM] for the moslem to kill, those who are the enemies of Allah.
.....ALL DISBELIEVERS.



As per the directives of Allah, within ISLAM's own foundation texts;


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11








It is completely lawful whenever the moslem 'righteously' kills, those who are the enemies of Allah


Harbi = = "one under a declaration of war", i.e. a non-moslem.


".........A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbi

Google,
"A harbi has no rights, not even the right to live"

There you go, G. I trust that puts the matter to rest.