Karnal wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:


Now now karnal, you have access to a dictionary if you're struggling

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:16pm:


Oh great! So do you think today polyandry is accepted by Allah? 

Why not say that (which you will notice I said a few pages back) rather than point me to an interpretation that explains why men, to this day, are permitted to polygyny but makes no mention of women having access to polyandry? Why do all the Muslim states that allow polygamy only do so for men?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 4^th, 2016 at 10:21pm:


No, neither is polygyny - except in a very specific scenario that is no longer applicable. As I said, the default is monogamy. Not sure why you are so hung up on polygamy, but if you really must know, polyandry is also unacceptable because a child will never know who their real father is. Thats an important point - and dare I say, something that is important to modern liberal principles.

But as I said, getting hung up on these details is irrelevant while your ovearching argument continues to be this inane line that 'there is only one option for "good" muslims - to reject their texts'. I don't expect you to agree with my doctrinal arguments, but I should be able to expect you to accept my sincerity for a compatible Islam - deluded as it may be - and that such sincerity can absolutely make me and my doctrinally justified beliefs compatible with modern society.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2016 at 5:13am:


Not at all. But I understand how you could make that mistake.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 5^th, 2016 at 8:00am:


I'm sorry Gandalf but it just doesn't add up.  I'm hung up on this simply because it was the one example I thought of and you have over and over again failed to explain how this acceptance is compatible with liberal values.  I had a think about your argument overnight that orphans are looked after by the state so therefore polygyny is unacceptable in all cases and I'm sorry but that rational does not make any sense. Orphans who have only lost a dad are looked after by their remaining parent, their mother. Nothing stops a Muslim man from deciding that he will take care of the orphan and the mother, therefore under your interpretation granting the ability to be in a polygamous relationship and this being completely acceptable in the eyes of Allah.  And even if the male was to somehow decide to look after an orphan without any paternal parents, he could, under your definition, go and find a wife, then adopt, and do this four times and it technically would be acceptable. Anyway, like i said, that isn't even my problem.  My problem is the inference of this verse. I know you keep saying that polygyny is unacceptable.  But that is simply not true because 1) I have just shown you how your logic does not add up regarding the acceptable circumstance and 2) more Muslim states than not allow polygyny in their laws because of the teachings, and they don't even follow your interpretation (because again it is actually incorrect given the historical context). 

But these aren't the biggest problems I have because like I've said, I don't have issues with consenting polygamist relationship. My issues are simple; given that we can easily determine through real life evidence and through your own interpretation that polygyny is acceptable then we need to understand why polyandry is not. You have just now told me it isn't acceptable. I agree with you, polyandry in the texts and teachings is not acceptable. And it is this one little fact that shows the incompatibility of Islam with liberal values because like I've said, liberal values are for equality of rights.  This is not guaranteed in Islam, on this one particular issue and on many others I'm happy to discuss if you so wish.  You can give me all the verses that somehow suggest man and woman have equal rights in islam. I'm only after the one where it says a woman can look after many orphaned children and marry their dads (based on your interpretation).

Anyway, I'm not tied up on this issue, I'm simply using it to show to you that no matter how many times you try to reinterpret Islam, whilst you continue to accept that text are the words of Allah then we really can't re-interpret.  My fight is with you very simply because you profess to be a moderate Muslim who accepts liberal values. However, given one example and you fail to comprehend what the actual liberal values are: not because you are dumb, I think you're quite intelligent. No, you failed because you're using a text which is just so many light years away from the modern world that of course it's going to lead you astray. Don't ask me, just look at the laws in "modern" Muslim countries where the texts and teachings are transformed into laws.  Give us a break with this "Islam is compatible" because so far there is not one state that can be used as an example of this.  And it is troubling when a moderate Muslim living in a western country too fails the test, albeit on one example, when trying to interpret the scripture in a liberal fashion.

So why does it need to be re-interpreted? For the reasons above.  Allah may have said many nice things that mattered in the 7th century.  These things are no longer compatible with the modern world.  There is nothing wrong with believing in an Islam that has undergone the same reformation that Christianity did.  But the first step isn't too ignore translations and come up with irrational understandings of the texts.  No, the first step is to accept that Allan's words were not eternal.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 5^th, 2016 at 9:37am:


I don't think you understand how arrogant this is, Alevine. You're trying to tell someone what their personal views are, based on your own reading of anti-Islam articles and websites. Imagine if I told you what you are "compelled" to believe as FD says, because of the spiritual path you follow.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 5^th, 2016 at 10:09am:


You've linked them. Tsk tsk.

I include your podcast above in this category. How could you not call this anti-Islam?

All you're doing here is going through a tired old list of anti-Islam themes. Child marriage, polygamy, polandary, public flogging, etc, etc, etc. You're clearly not interested in a discussion - you point out others' thoughts as "anecdotal" as if this were a trial.

Of course other people's travel stories are anecdotal.

No one's disagreeing that all these things are illegal in our country, or even immoral, cruel and against the rights of women and girls. No one disagrees that we should keep these rights fully in place.

But to suggest they're being eroded by Islam in Australia is ludicrous. To suggest that Muslims in Australia are campaigning or somehow willing to wind back these rights is equally ignorant. They're not.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 5^th, 2016 at 10:18am:


Told you 

I wonder if karnal thinks telling a climate change denier that their opinion goes against mountains of scientific analysis is also being arrogant?  We better stop... people may get offended.