There is a hadith about Muhammad telling a builder (or some such specialist) not to follow him on such matters as he is not expert on (ie non-religious things) - just as he wouldn't ask the builder advise on things not related to building. I have seen it before, but I can't find it right now.

I found this article which reflects my views on related issues. Its well worth a read:

http://www.quranicpath.com/sunnishia/sunnah.html

The point I made in the post you quote I have dealt with in detail before. Prophet Muhammad made rulings that were specific to the circumstances of his state. The key point that I made before and I will make again is that *NOWHERE* did he ever say what he did were examples to be followed by muslims for all time. In fact the Quran, as quoted in the article I linked above, directly contradicts this idea.

The question you ask about secularism I cannot make sense of.

Quote:


It's a bit of a stretch to interpret that to exclude matters associated with ruling a state, such as who to slaughter and who not to slaughter, don't you think? If Muhammed was not building or not telling him how to build something, it's a strange thing to say.

I want to see the actual hadith.

Quote:


This is a pretty big detail to leave out.

Quote:


Did he ever explain this concept?

Quote:


The Koran does say he is a perfect example to follow, without qualification, doesn't it?

Quote:


I call BS on your claim that Muhammed was a secular ruler of a secular state. It renders the term secular meaningless if you stretch it to include Muhammed. Furthermore, it indicates Muslims are bullshitting us, Abu style, when they claim that Islam and secularism are compatible.

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:


No, there is a very big qualification:

"Indeed, in the messenger of Allah a 'good example (uswatun hasana / أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَة)' has been set for the one who seeks Allah and the Last Day and thinks constantly about Allah." (Qur'an 33:21)

The Quran makes clear what "seeking Allah" entails - it is a personal, spiritual journey that involves taking "the path to peace".

The idea that muslims should flagrantly violate this message and instead take an unfortunate incident where the Prophet had to apply heavy justice for a particular circumstance that was forced upon him as leader of a secular (yes secular) state - as a free license to mass execute jews wherever they can be found - is obviously absurd.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:


Obviously if you do something different, that is not following his example. But what if Muslims only engage in genocide in similar circumstances? Say, while trying to establish an Islamic state and Jews (or some other group, otherwise it would be racist) are getting in the way.

Does the "path to peace" have nothing to do with the very real worldly challenges we face in our lives? Are you trying to say that Muslims can be head hacking lunatics or peace loving hippies by day, so long as they have the same inner struggle at night?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:



WTF gandalf?...Does this mean that peaceis not there at the start?..but only afterwards?..and after what gandalph?

If the peace you pursue is the peace you have when the whole world is under Shariah law, is that the right path?

If you pursue peace with violence, even genocide, is that the right path?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 10^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:


You'll have to explain this Gandalf. Is Muhammed's example a demonstration for how Muslims should achieve peace, or is it to be used only by Muslims who are seeking peace? Or does the "seeking Allah" bit abrogate the "good example" bit?

I fail to see how this verse can be interpreted as saying Muslims should not follow Muhammed's example. Do you have to add the verse where Muhammed said do as I say, not as I do?