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


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:



from the OP:

Quote:

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


no mention in the quran.

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


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:


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:


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:


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

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


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:


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:


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

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


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 

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.

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


You gonna ban me like you did the rest Adama ?

That is very Kondascending.

Quote:


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

Quote:


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:


Did he get it wrong?

Quote:


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

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


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