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?
Forum
Pages: 
Muslims must reassess the role of ahadith (Read 15766 times)
