Zlat, you still around mate?
You spoke about discussing stuff seriously. Last night I asked KFC about certain punishments. He gave me a couple of links to check. Extremely long stuff I didn't manage to get through in full, but I took in as much as I could in a single sitting and here are some thoughts in case you'd like to comment:
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
Hi KFC,
Thanks for all that material. Had a pretty hectic morning, so only managed to get about haf way through the first link, but it's interesting.
However, no offence but I feel there's a degree of contradiction or just interpeting things according to what's convenient at each moment in time.
On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.
On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.
To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
itsonlyagame
I'm out at the moment mate but will reply later, one thing I will say quickly is tat you should finish off the article because it makes things clearer.
Another important thing that you touched upon is things changing with the times. That isn't true as exemplified with the Prophets mercy in the early days of Islam. If anything Muslims have regressed as far as mercy is concerned.
It stipulates in the Quran that if an enemy combatant gives up that he should be escorted to safety. This is a clear instruction.
No Muslim majority nation earth carries out that order.
I will go into more detail later.
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
Zlat, you still around mate?
You spoke about discussing stuff seriously. Last night I asked KFC about certain punishments. He gave me a couple of links to check. Extremely long stuff I didn't manage to get through in full, but I took in as much as I could in a single sitting and here are some thoughts in case you'd like to comment:
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
Hi KFC,
Thanks for all that material. Had a pretty hectic morning, so only managed to get about haf way through the first link, but it's interesting.
However, no offence but I feel there's a degree of contradiction or just interpeting things according to what's convenient at each moment in time.
On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.
On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.
To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry had to log off for a bit.
I haven't really followed your and kung fus conversation so reading the above in isolation doesn't make much sense in that I don't know what punishments etc you speak of.
If I get time I will look back and see if I can find the conversation.
Or you could link or post me the punishments and I can see of I have anything to offer
I asked him whether stoning, amputation and others were established in the Qur'an or how they came about.
I also later asked him if there was any word on slavery, but I haven't been able to catch up on the link he posted.
@KFC - I will catch up with those links soon as I can, mate - thanks.
Right now I'm shattered, been a really tough week and I'm nodding off as I type. Need to hit the sack, hopefully I'll have a bit of time tomorrow in between parenting duties.
Zlat, around p. 64-65.
G'night now lads.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 hours, 52 minutes ago
Hi KFC,
Thanks for all that material. Had a pretty hectic morning, so only managed to get about haf way through the first link, but it's interesting.
However, no offence but I feel there's a degree of contradiction or just interpeting things according to what's convenient at each moment in time.
On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.
On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.
To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so here’s my answer in full, I’ll begin with the shorter version and expand.
One thing I will say is that you should finish off the article because it makes things clearer.
“On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.”
Around the beginning of the article, Jonathan Brown states..
“The Sunna is the lens through which the Quran is read, explaining and adding to it.”
The Sunna or Sunnah are the records of the Prophets sayings, acts and teachings, otherwise known as Hadith. The truths you talk about in the Quran can not be deciphered entirely on there own, Hadith supplement the Holy Book to educate Muslims on how the Prophet practised particular verses.
They provide interpretation.
I give an example of this further down…
“On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.”
Muslims believe that the Quranic verses were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and it’s with his voice that other Muslims understood how to practise their religion as I make clear above (Hadith)
This maybe a leap of faith for to believe in this but you don’t need to believe this to understand it’s essential that you view narrations about the Prophet in this context.
This way you will understand that he wasn’t uncomfortable with the verses but understood there true nature and how to practise them.
There is also no need to loosely interpret the verses I was talking about in regard to adultery. It’s already clear that the punishment is pretty much impossible to implement. What are the chances of 4 people witness the penetration occur unless it’s a gang bang in which case the witnesses are implicating themselves.
Carry on reading the article and you will find out that people don’t necessarily get let off the hook.
“To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.”
You’ll find that Muslims aren’t so much moving with the times and adjusting the Quran but that the Holy Book has always consisted of these mercies and it’s Muslims who have regressed.
Here’s an example from an answer I gave a while ago on JA and it will also help you understand how historical context is applied.
“Ok so lets move on to Jihad and historical evidence….
There are verses anti Islamic webpages and Islamophobes use often in an effort to call the Islamic faith violent.
These segments are usually ripped away from a verse a whole, erasing it’s context, missing it’s historical context or both.
"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…”
That’s one of the most popular ones and has been copy and pasted to death on here by some posters who think they have backed me into a corner.
This is why historical evidence is important and taught to Muslims as children.
Here is the entire verse to analyse:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
Lets look at the context of the verse.
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits”
Limits being the rules of engagement:
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
The Historical context confirms this as well.
The Mekkans at the time conducted a public crucifixion of one of the companions of the prophet Khubaib bin Adi. This broke the peace the Mekkans and Muhammad
“Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies.”
Because up until then killing was illegal so revelations were revealed like the one above to legalise killing in self defence.
More from the verse:
“But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
This an indication to forgive the enemy if they give up safe guarding against massacres of the civilian population once the battle is one.
“But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Noble Quran 9:6]
Not only does the Quran tell us to forgive enemies but to escort them to safety and let them go.
http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_2.php
That’s just the tip of the ice berg as far as rules of engagement go and how to treat enemy combatants.”
This is an example of mercy during the Prophets time which is no longer prevalent, Muslims aren’t moving with the times but are moving backwards to a time before Islam.
"no offense"
None taken, you debate with sincerity and humility.
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 14 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason (U10415)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact we still have religions in the face of the blindingly obvious is the most telling.
I can generalise all religions as believing in the supernatural at least........
And I don't read fiction....I prefer autobiographies or accounts of true stories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...or the complete lack of evidence to prove that the religious are correct, whilst there's a huge weight of evidence behind Darwin...
Sorry Kung fu, as always you argue very well, with well thought out points in these debates, but the lack of evidence is overwhelmingly in galv's favour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not necessarily true mate.
"Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was
“greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is
overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to
know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in
credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
READ MORE BELOW
If you are talking about empirical evidence which scientists use to theorise about the probability of the big bang, then the same can be said about God.
The accusations that contradictions exist in Holy Books can also be levelled at science.
For example here's an article about how scientists think some Galaxies are older than the Universe.... how is this possible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/nightsky/11895673/night-sky-chart-october-2015.html
As far as scientists conceding to the probability of intelligent design, read this.
http://inters.org/files/metaxas-science-increasingly.pdf
"In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the
cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a
“God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were
premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from
a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the
astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to
support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given
the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have
been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large,
expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was
sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network
for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years
passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI
in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have
discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there
were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew
to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on
plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece
for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems
appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early
estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept
going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life,
including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life
—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.
Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a
thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe
are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it?
Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is
it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?
Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less
faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable
odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared
with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example,
astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the
electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined
less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the
universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and
the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by
even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all.
Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds
against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that
it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it
come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was
“greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is
overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to
know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in
credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the
miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of
every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself."
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 10 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 day, 23 hours ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 18 minutes ago
A set of behaviours based on a rule book, if you aren't following the rule book then you aren't practising the religion.
___________________
In your opinion! They obviously believe they are following the rule book. They just interpret the rules differently.
"This is where the argument of interpretation comes into the equation and it's usually something some people hide behind"
________________
Yes. How convenient.
"People seem to think anything and everything can be interpreted differently when in actual fact people are most likely manipulating text deliberately "
______________
In your opinion. They may think theirs is the correct interpretation and who are you to say they are wrong?
" the Quran it self says not to dwell on the ambiguous verses."
_______________
How convenient. Why include them then?
" but none knows its hidden meanings save Allaah"
_______________
How convenient.
"Listening to an imam with an agenda and never studying the Quran leads to confusion."
_______________
Which just proves that religion is about how people behave and not what is written in some old book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a pathetic rebutall, everything seems to be convenient because you disagree with it.
It's a fact those verses are clear as day, people either manipulate it deliberately or don't apply historical context and this happens repeatedly with the terrorism argument.
You asked me if I'd been to India, no haven't Have you studied Islam for all your life, interacted with Islamic communities all of your life, or read the Quran in Arabic?
You are going on about Islam like you understand anything about it.
Your opinion that religion is separate from the holy book which dictates religious practise is a ridiculous one!
Why did God include the ambiguous verses? Are you trying to go off tangent? What has that got to do with God commanded Muslims to obey the clear ones.
You have some how decided in your own arrogance that the verses talking about secs are interpritable to mean multiple things.
Have you read these verses? Studied them?
___________________
1) Where did I disagree with anything?
2) Why should I have studied the Quran in Arabic in order to state my opinion that all religions are sexually repressed to some extent?
3) When did I "go on about Islam" in any way, shape or form? I never even mentioned it - you brought it up.
4) I never said that "religion is separate from the holy book". What I said is that religion is practised according to how people INTERPRET the book, that's all.
5) And you think this makes ME arrogant? Surely you are the arrogant one who thinks that YOUR interpretation is the only one that matters.
As the expression goes, belief is so often the death of reason. You have proved this to be true - although in your case it is as much down to your sheer stupidity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Here...
"A set of behaviours based on a rule book, if you aren't following the rule book then you aren't practising the religion.
___________________
In your opinion! They obviously believe they are following the rule book. They just interpret the rules differently."
How would you know?? You have never even read anything in the Quran which refers to sexual relationships.
Somethings don't have different interpretations like I have said over and over again!
Is there a different interpretation about Muslims being able to consume alcohol? NO! Then why freely assume that the verses talking about sexual relations are able to be interpreted in multiple ways.
You are just guessing that it can be interpreted differently, probably because it confirms your uneducated opinion!
2) Why should I have to have visited India to talk about if Indian women are sexually repressed because of religion?
You want me to judge sexual repression in India based on experience but you think your self able to talk about which verses can be interpreted differently. YOU CAN'T!
Also see above.
3) I brought Islam up as an example as a religion which isn't sexually repressive. Just because women are sexually repressed in Muslim majority countries doesn't mean that the religion dictates this. It can't be proved so within Islamic texts either, unless you have proof??
Culture is a major factor in how women are treated in Muslim countries.
4) Again! We are talking about sexual repression and the verses dealing with sexuality are not repressive.
Again can you show me where men have used the words in the Quran to sexually repress women or did you just read about a brown bloke in Pakistan that did some bad things?
5) My interpretations aren't the only ones that matter, but as a Muslim I understand which verses only have one interpretation for example like the ones forbidding alcohol.
"As the expression goes, belief is so often the death of reason. You have proved this to be true - although in your case it is as much down to your sheer stupidity."
Sheer stupidity in understanding my religion and what can or can't be interpreted?
I think it is you who have abandoned reason with the assumption that anything and everything can be interpreted differently. All this without a jot of research!
I'm going to attempt to build a house now, lucky I have that degree in Media Production and Journalism to guide me through this task.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
KFC,
The link you posted is just too much content for me I'm afraid. It's equivalent to about 27 pages-worth of standard Word document, and I've got through around 10.
If there's anything else you feel is essential to complete the picture, please feel free to let me know a bit more concisely in your own words.
What I understand is that those punishments are not supposed to be meted out except in very, very exceptional circumstances, although personally I would object to them in any circumstance whatsoever. The bit where I left off seemed to begin to address the role of each ruler (or judge, maybe?) in the interpretation and application of those verses.
On the other hand, I understand that Islamic canon is at least the main basis for the legal system in most Muslim countries (just as its basis in most predominantly Christian countries is old Roman and Christian law), but also that this doesn't imply that it is 100% Sharia law in all of those countries.
Do you know if any Muslim-majority countries specifically and explicitly outlaw Hudud punishments?
Would you disagree with them doing so, as being contrary to the scriptures?
In the unlikely event of all of the conditions for a Hudud punishment such as lashing or limb amputation being met, then am I correct to assume that you'd agree with the corresponding punishment being applied?
I'll have a look at the video link you posted now.
@Zlat, yesterday you referred to atheism as a religion. This obviously depends on which definition of religion you care to apply, but having read the excerpt below this morning, I'd like to ask your opinion on something.
"The Muslim scholars who elaborated the Shariah allowed a remarkable accommodation for the beliefs and practices of religious minorities. They did so because their authoritative sources, the Quran and the Prophet’s Sunna, permitted non-Muslims to retain their religions under Muslim rule. In general, non-Muslims were allowed to engage in practices that Muslims considered reprehensible provided that 1) this practice or belief was really part of their religion; and 2) it did not actually contravene their religion. For example, Christians had to be allowed to drink wine because it formed a crucial part of their church service. But neither Christians nor Jews could engage in fornication or adultery, since such acts were prohibited in their religions. Thus the Prophet had ordered Jews in Medina to be executed for zina not on the basis of Islamic law but rather on the basis of the Torah.12 Theft and murder could not be permitted amongst non-Muslims because they were prohibited in every law that Muslims knew of.
"This notion of crimes condemned by all religions verges on the notion of a universal wrong. Some Muslim schools of thought, like the Mu’tazila, asserted that there were universal moral rights and wrongs that were knowable by human reason alone – for example, murder. Some early Sunnis considered right and wrong to be obvious to the human mind, but what became the majority school of theology in Sunni Islam, the Ash’ari school, held that right and wrong were not inherent characteristics in an act but rather were determined solely by God. So murder was not universally wrong in and of itself, it was only wrong in so far as God prohibited it in every law He revealed. Ash’ari scholars acknowledged that human beings, as a species, shared certain reactions or characteristics. For example, roses smell good to us and we tend to love our immediate family. But these are not moral facts any more than a dog liking bones is."
http://drjonathanbrown.com/2016/incest-widow-burning-how-much-can-muslims-stomach/
In view of the above, would you still consider atheism a religion in the eyes of the law, bearing in mind that we don't have a commonly shared 'religious code'?
And secondly, if so, could an atheist in a country governed by Shariah law defend his right to homos·exuality and sodomy because his own belief system does not prohibit them?
Hi I've been busy over the last couple of days will answer the remains wuestion tonight
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 21 hours ago
@Zlat, yesterday you referred to atheism as a religion. This obviously depends on which definition of religion you care to apply, but having read the excerpt below this morning, I'd like to ask your opinion on something.
"The Muslim scholars who elaborated the Shariah allowed a remarkable accommodation for the beliefs and practices of religious minorities. They did so because their authoritative sources, the Quran and the Prophet’s Sunna, permitted non-Muslims to retain their religions under Muslim rule. In general, non-Muslims were allowed to engage in practices that Muslims considered reprehensible provided that 1) this practice or belief was really part of their religion; and 2) it did not actually contravene their religion. For example, Christians had to be allowed to drink wine because it formed a crucial part of their church service. But neither Christians nor Jews could engage in fornication or adultery, since such acts were prohibited in their religions. Thus the Prophet had ordered Jews in Medina to be executed for zina not on the basis of Islamic law but rather on the basis of the Torah.12 Theft and murder could not be permitted amongst non-Muslims because they were prohibited in every law that Muslims knew of.
"This notion of crimes condemned by all religions verges on the notion of a universal wrong. Some Muslim schools of thought, like the Mu’tazila, asserted that there were universal moral rights and wrongs that were knowable by human reason alone – for example, murder. Some early Sunnis considered right and wrong to be obvious to the human mind, but what became the majority school of theology in Sunni Islam, the Ash’ari school, held that right and wrong were not inherent characteristics in an act but rather were determined solely by God. So murder was not universally wrong in and of itself, it was only wrong in so far as God prohibited it in every law He revealed. Ash’ari scholars acknowledged that human beings, as a species, shared certain reactions or characteristics. For example, roses smell good to us and we tend to love our immediate family. But these are not moral facts any more than a dog liking bones is."
http://drjonathanbrown.com/2016/incest-widow-burning-how-much-can-muslims-stomach/
In view of the above, would you still consider atheism a religion in the eyes of the law, bearing in mind that we don't have a commonly shared 'religious code'?
And secondly, if so, could an atheist in a country governed by Shariah law defend his right to homos·exuality and sodomy because his own belief system does not prohibit them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without getting into dispute about what you quoted and to address the questions at the end the yes I would consider it a religion and no it couldn't be defended in a shariah court.
The reason it is a religion is because of Islams understanding of worship and religion.
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 minutes ago
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not text.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Zlatanariyan (U19849)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 minutes ago
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me?
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Zlatanariyan (U19849)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 minutes ago
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what you quoted are not text unless i missed something (which is possible)
I didn't mean "text" as in quotes from the Qur'an, but "text" as in the excerpt from the source I quoted.
Fyg, the text is by the same author KFC quoted in our discussion on punishments, which is what led me to thinking he was a respectable source.
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
I didn't mean "text" as in quotes from the Qur'an, but "text" as in the excerpt from the source I quoted.
Fyg, the text is by the same author KFC quoted in our discussion on punishments, which is what led me to thinking he was a respectable source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I misunderstood.
The thing with most of the, what i call, ''musings'' is that they are just that. Thoughts from people
So the issue with christians and wine wasnt allowed openly and they were allowed their own courts etc but only if the issue was between christian and christian
similarly the Jews being punished according to the Torah maybe (n the source) based on what happened after a battle and the Jews asking for justice and an ex Jewish companion deciding the punishment
Some of these principles were in fact specific rather than general and here is where one of the problems starts.
even the muatazillah and ashariah issue needs to eb understood and how one arose from the other based on disagreement but neither would be seen as right today.
Its a huge topic in itself and am not sure what the best response would be and which bit to tackle to be honest. so maybe you can help me out and take it one step at a time and keep it simple? or it will be all over the place as this post shows (sorry)
The main issue as i understood it from your earlier question, was that ''people of the book'' were recognised (jews/christians) but religions like buddhism sikhism (i appreciate they came later) and hinduism were not. Atheism would fit into that category as it denies God (or the 1 God with hinduism etc)
There is a hadith where Muhamamd said muslims need to be different from Jews and Christian as and not take their priests and rabbis as lord (this is in quran as a verse too) . An ex Jew companion said we dont worship them and Muhammad said but do they nit make permissible what is impermissible? to which the companion said yes. Muhammad said that is a form of worship
In fact if we look at what is called al riya (the minor shirk. shirk being worship of other than God) then we see that if a muslim is in prayer and he is rushing through it but then hears someone enter where he is praying and subsequently slows down and elongates everything etc then he has prayed for that person and not God
Similarly we have muslims who for 11 months do what they want but for 1 month in Ramadhan get all ''Islamic'' and think all is good as a little is better than nothing. They couldnt be more wrong as they have worshiped ramadhan (which is the name of the month).
Turkey arrest 748 muslims ...our professional protestors missed another detail, over the weekend.
Bless.
Sign in if you want to comment
Anything Goes Politics Edition
Page 75 of 274
76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80
posted on 3/2/17
Zlat, you still around mate?
You spoke about discussing stuff seriously. Last night I asked KFC about certain punishments. He gave me a couple of links to check. Extremely long stuff I didn't manage to get through in full, but I took in as much as I could in a single sitting and here are some thoughts in case you'd like to comment:
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
Hi KFC,
Thanks for all that material. Had a pretty hectic morning, so only managed to get about haf way through the first link, but it's interesting.
However, no offence but I feel there's a degree of contradiction or just interpeting things according to what's convenient at each moment in time.
On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.
On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.
To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 3/2/17
itsonlyagame
I'm out at the moment mate but will reply later, one thing I will say quickly is tat you should finish off the article because it makes things clearer.
Another important thing that you touched upon is things changing with the times. That isn't true as exemplified with the Prophets mercy in the early days of Islam. If anything Muslims have regressed as far as mercy is concerned.
It stipulates in the Quran that if an enemy combatant gives up that he should be escorted to safety. This is a clear instruction.
No Muslim majority nation earth carries out that order.
I will go into more detail later.
posted on 3/2/17
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
Zlat, you still around mate?
You spoke about discussing stuff seriously. Last night I asked KFC about certain punishments. He gave me a couple of links to check. Extremely long stuff I didn't manage to get through in full, but I took in as much as I could in a single sitting and here are some thoughts in case you'd like to comment:
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 hours, 11 minutes ago
Hi KFC,
Thanks for all that material. Had a pretty hectic morning, so only managed to get about haf way through the first link, but it's interesting.
However, no offence but I feel there's a degree of contradiction or just interpeting things according to what's convenient at each moment in time.
On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.
On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.
To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry had to log off for a bit.
I haven't really followed your and kung fus conversation so reading the above in isolation doesn't make much sense in that I don't know what punishments etc you speak of.
If I get time I will look back and see if I can find the conversation.
Or you could link or post me the punishments and I can see of I have anything to offer
posted on 3/2/17
I asked him whether stoning, amputation and others were established in the Qur'an or how they came about.
I also later asked him if there was any word on slavery, but I haven't been able to catch up on the link he posted.
@KFC - I will catch up with those links soon as I can, mate - thanks.
Right now I'm shattered, been a really tough week and I'm nodding off as I type. Need to hit the sack, hopefully I'll have a bit of time tomorrow in between parenting duties.
posted on 3/2/17
Zlat, around p. 64-65.
G'night now lads.
posted on 3/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/2/17
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 hours, 52 minutes ago
Hi KFC,
Thanks for all that material. Had a pretty hectic morning, so only managed to get about haf way through the first link, but it's interesting.
However, no offence but I feel there's a degree of contradiction or just interpeting things according to what's convenient at each moment in time.
On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.
On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.
To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so here’s my answer in full, I’ll begin with the shorter version and expand.
One thing I will say is that you should finish off the article because it makes things clearer.
“On the one hand - or so I've understood - all the truths are contained in your holy book; it's just a question of interpreting them correctly.”
Around the beginning of the article, Jonathan Brown states..
“The Sunna is the lens through which the Quran is read, explaining and adding to it.”
The Sunna or Sunnah are the records of the Prophets sayings, acts and teachings, otherwise known as Hadith. The truths you talk about in the Quran can not be deciphered entirely on there own, Hadith supplement the Holy Book to educate Muslims on how the Prophet practised particular verses.
They provide interpretation.
I give an example of this further down…
“On the other hand, there are passages which it seems that even your main prophet wasn't too comfortable with (according to the link you provided), so he and other since have gone out of their way to interpret them very loosely to avoid doing what the books tells them to.”
Muslims believe that the Quranic verses were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and it’s with his voice that other Muslims understood how to practise their religion as I make clear above (Hadith)
This maybe a leap of faith for to believe in this but you don’t need to believe this to understand it’s essential that you view narrations about the Prophet in this context.
This way you will understand that he wasn’t uncomfortable with the verses but understood there true nature and how to practise them.
There is also no need to loosely interpret the verses I was talking about in regard to adultery. It’s already clear that the punishment is pretty much impossible to implement. What are the chances of 4 people witness the penetration occur unless it’s a gang bang in which case the witnesses are implicating themselves.
Carry on reading the article and you will find out that people don’t necessarily get let off the hook.
“To me it makes sense to adapt to the times, but at the same time I don't really see how that can go hand in hand with the idea of everything being there in the original book right from the start for anyone capable of reading it adequately.”
You’ll find that Muslims aren’t so much moving with the times and adjusting the Quran but that the Holy Book has always consisted of these mercies and it’s Muslims who have regressed.
Here’s an example from an answer I gave a while ago on JA and it will also help you understand how historical context is applied.
“Ok so lets move on to Jihad and historical evidence….
There are verses anti Islamic webpages and Islamophobes use often in an effort to call the Islamic faith violent.
These segments are usually ripped away from a verse a whole, erasing it’s context, missing it’s historical context or both.
"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…”
That’s one of the most popular ones and has been copy and pasted to death on here by some posters who think they have backed me into a corner.
This is why historical evidence is important and taught to Muslims as children.
Here is the entire verse to analyse:
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
Lets look at the context of the verse.
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits”
Limits being the rules of engagement:
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
The Historical context confirms this as well.
The Mekkans at the time conducted a public crucifixion of one of the companions of the prophet Khubaib bin Adi. This broke the peace the Mekkans and Muhammad
“Historically, fighting back against the aggressors was prohibited during the thirteen years of the Meccan period. After the migration to Medina and the establishment of the Islamic state, Muslims were concerned with how to defend themselves against aggression from their enemies.”
Because up until then killing was illegal so revelations were revealed like the one above to legalise killing in self defence.
More from the verse:
“But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
This an indication to forgive the enemy if they give up safe guarding against massacres of the civilian population once the battle is one.
“But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves."
"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge." [Noble Quran 9:6]
Not only does the Quran tell us to forgive enemies but to escort them to safety and let them go.
http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquote_part_2.php
That’s just the tip of the ice berg as far as rules of engagement go and how to treat enemy combatants.”
This is an example of mercy during the Prophets time which is no longer prevalent, Muslims aren’t moving with the times but are moving backwards to a time before Islam.
"no offense"
None taken, you debate with sincerity and humility.
posted on 4/2/17
comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 14 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Galvs...Friend of Reason (U10415)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact we still have religions in the face of the blindingly obvious is the most telling.
I can generalise all religions as believing in the supernatural at least........
And I don't read fiction....I prefer autobiographies or accounts of true stories.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...or the complete lack of evidence to prove that the religious are correct, whilst there's a huge weight of evidence behind Darwin...
Sorry Kung fu, as always you argue very well, with well thought out points in these debates, but the lack of evidence is overwhelmingly in galv's favour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not necessarily true mate.
"Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was
“greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is
overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to
know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in
credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
READ MORE BELOW
If you are talking about empirical evidence which scientists use to theorise about the probability of the big bang, then the same can be said about God.
The accusations that contradictions exist in Holy Books can also be levelled at science.
For example here's an article about how scientists think some Galaxies are older than the Universe.... how is this possible?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/nightsky/11895673/night-sky-chart-october-2015.html
As far as scientists conceding to the probability of intelligent design, read this.
http://inters.org/files/metaxas-science-increasingly.pdf
"In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the
cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a
“God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were
premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from
a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the
astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to
support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given
the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have
been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large,
expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was
sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network
for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years
passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI
in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have
discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there
were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew
to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on
plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece
for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems
appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early
estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept
going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life,
including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life
—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.
Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a
thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe
are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it?
Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is
it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?
Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less
faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable
odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared
with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example,
astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the
electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined
less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the
universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and
the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by
even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all.
Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds
against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that
it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it
come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was
“greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the
physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the
facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is
overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to
know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in
credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the
miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of
every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself."
posted on 4/2/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 10 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Kung Fu Cantona *JeSuisPalestinian* (U18082)
posted 1 day, 23 hours ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 18 minutes ago
A set of behaviours based on a rule book, if you aren't following the rule book then you aren't practising the religion.
___________________
In your opinion! They obviously believe they are following the rule book. They just interpret the rules differently.
"This is where the argument of interpretation comes into the equation and it's usually something some people hide behind"
________________
Yes. How convenient.
"People seem to think anything and everything can be interpreted differently when in actual fact people are most likely manipulating text deliberately "
______________
In your opinion. They may think theirs is the correct interpretation and who are you to say they are wrong?
" the Quran it self says not to dwell on the ambiguous verses."
_______________
How convenient. Why include them then?
" but none knows its hidden meanings save Allaah"
_______________
How convenient.
"Listening to an imam with an agenda and never studying the Quran leads to confusion."
_______________
Which just proves that religion is about how people behave and not what is written in some old book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a pathetic rebutall, everything seems to be convenient because you disagree with it.
It's a fact those verses are clear as day, people either manipulate it deliberately or don't apply historical context and this happens repeatedly with the terrorism argument.
You asked me if I'd been to India, no haven't Have you studied Islam for all your life, interacted with Islamic communities all of your life, or read the Quran in Arabic?
You are going on about Islam like you understand anything about it.
Your opinion that religion is separate from the holy book which dictates religious practise is a ridiculous one!
Why did God include the ambiguous verses? Are you trying to go off tangent? What has that got to do with God commanded Muslims to obey the clear ones.
You have some how decided in your own arrogance that the verses talking about secs are interpritable to mean multiple things.
Have you read these verses? Studied them?
___________________
1) Where did I disagree with anything?
2) Why should I have studied the Quran in Arabic in order to state my opinion that all religions are sexually repressed to some extent?
3) When did I "go on about Islam" in any way, shape or form? I never even mentioned it - you brought it up.
4) I never said that "religion is separate from the holy book". What I said is that religion is practised according to how people INTERPRET the book, that's all.
5) And you think this makes ME arrogant? Surely you are the arrogant one who thinks that YOUR interpretation is the only one that matters.
As the expression goes, belief is so often the death of reason. You have proved this to be true - although in your case it is as much down to your sheer stupidity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Here...
"A set of behaviours based on a rule book, if you aren't following the rule book then you aren't practising the religion.
___________________
In your opinion! They obviously believe they are following the rule book. They just interpret the rules differently."
How would you know?? You have never even read anything in the Quran which refers to sexual relationships.
Somethings don't have different interpretations like I have said over and over again!
Is there a different interpretation about Muslims being able to consume alcohol? NO! Then why freely assume that the verses talking about sexual relations are able to be interpreted in multiple ways.
You are just guessing that it can be interpreted differently, probably because it confirms your uneducated opinion!
2) Why should I have to have visited India to talk about if Indian women are sexually repressed because of religion?
You want me to judge sexual repression in India based on experience but you think your self able to talk about which verses can be interpreted differently. YOU CAN'T!
Also see above.
3) I brought Islam up as an example as a religion which isn't sexually repressive. Just because women are sexually repressed in Muslim majority countries doesn't mean that the religion dictates this. It can't be proved so within Islamic texts either, unless you have proof??
Culture is a major factor in how women are treated in Muslim countries.
4) Again! We are talking about sexual repression and the verses dealing with sexuality are not repressive.
Again can you show me where men have used the words in the Quran to sexually repress women or did you just read about a brown bloke in Pakistan that did some bad things?
5) My interpretations aren't the only ones that matter, but as a Muslim I understand which verses only have one interpretation for example like the ones forbidding alcohol.
"As the expression goes, belief is so often the death of reason. You have proved this to be true - although in your case it is as much down to your sheer stupidity."
Sheer stupidity in understanding my religion and what can or can't be interpreted?
I think it is you who have abandoned reason with the assumption that anything and everything can be interpreted differently. All this without a jot of research!
I'm going to attempt to build a house now, lucky I have that degree in Media Production and Journalism to guide me through this task.
posted on 4/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/2/17
hmmm
posted on 4/2/17
KFC,
The link you posted is just too much content for me I'm afraid. It's equivalent to about 27 pages-worth of standard Word document, and I've got through around 10.
If there's anything else you feel is essential to complete the picture, please feel free to let me know a bit more concisely in your own words.
What I understand is that those punishments are not supposed to be meted out except in very, very exceptional circumstances, although personally I would object to them in any circumstance whatsoever. The bit where I left off seemed to begin to address the role of each ruler (or judge, maybe?) in the interpretation and application of those verses.
On the other hand, I understand that Islamic canon is at least the main basis for the legal system in most Muslim countries (just as its basis in most predominantly Christian countries is old Roman and Christian law), but also that this doesn't imply that it is 100% Sharia law in all of those countries.
Do you know if any Muslim-majority countries specifically and explicitly outlaw Hudud punishments?
Would you disagree with them doing so, as being contrary to the scriptures?
In the unlikely event of all of the conditions for a Hudud punishment such as lashing or limb amputation being met, then am I correct to assume that you'd agree with the corresponding punishment being applied?
I'll have a look at the video link you posted now.
posted on 4/2/17
@Zlat, yesterday you referred to atheism as a religion. This obviously depends on which definition of religion you care to apply, but having read the excerpt below this morning, I'd like to ask your opinion on something.
"The Muslim scholars who elaborated the Shariah allowed a remarkable accommodation for the beliefs and practices of religious minorities. They did so because their authoritative sources, the Quran and the Prophet’s Sunna, permitted non-Muslims to retain their religions under Muslim rule. In general, non-Muslims were allowed to engage in practices that Muslims considered reprehensible provided that 1) this practice or belief was really part of their religion; and 2) it did not actually contravene their religion. For example, Christians had to be allowed to drink wine because it formed a crucial part of their church service. But neither Christians nor Jews could engage in fornication or adultery, since such acts were prohibited in their religions. Thus the Prophet had ordered Jews in Medina to be executed for zina not on the basis of Islamic law but rather on the basis of the Torah.12 Theft and murder could not be permitted amongst non-Muslims because they were prohibited in every law that Muslims knew of.
"This notion of crimes condemned by all religions verges on the notion of a universal wrong. Some Muslim schools of thought, like the Mu’tazila, asserted that there were universal moral rights and wrongs that were knowable by human reason alone – for example, murder. Some early Sunnis considered right and wrong to be obvious to the human mind, but what became the majority school of theology in Sunni Islam, the Ash’ari school, held that right and wrong were not inherent characteristics in an act but rather were determined solely by God. So murder was not universally wrong in and of itself, it was only wrong in so far as God prohibited it in every law He revealed. Ash’ari scholars acknowledged that human beings, as a species, shared certain reactions or characteristics. For example, roses smell good to us and we tend to love our immediate family. But these are not moral facts any more than a dog liking bones is."
http://drjonathanbrown.com/2016/incest-widow-burning-how-much-can-muslims-stomach/
In view of the above, would you still consider atheism a religion in the eyes of the law, bearing in mind that we don't have a commonly shared 'religious code'?
And secondly, if so, could an atheist in a country governed by Shariah law defend his right to homos·exuality and sodomy because his own belief system does not prohibit them?
posted on 6/2/17
Hi I've been busy over the last couple of days will answer the remains wuestion tonight
posted on 6/2/17
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 day, 21 hours ago
@Zlat, yesterday you referred to atheism as a religion. This obviously depends on which definition of religion you care to apply, but having read the excerpt below this morning, I'd like to ask your opinion on something.
"The Muslim scholars who elaborated the Shariah allowed a remarkable accommodation for the beliefs and practices of religious minorities. They did so because their authoritative sources, the Quran and the Prophet’s Sunna, permitted non-Muslims to retain their religions under Muslim rule. In general, non-Muslims were allowed to engage in practices that Muslims considered reprehensible provided that 1) this practice or belief was really part of their religion; and 2) it did not actually contravene their religion. For example, Christians had to be allowed to drink wine because it formed a crucial part of their church service. But neither Christians nor Jews could engage in fornication or adultery, since such acts were prohibited in their religions. Thus the Prophet had ordered Jews in Medina to be executed for zina not on the basis of Islamic law but rather on the basis of the Torah.12 Theft and murder could not be permitted amongst non-Muslims because they were prohibited in every law that Muslims knew of.
"This notion of crimes condemned by all religions verges on the notion of a universal wrong. Some Muslim schools of thought, like the Mu’tazila, asserted that there were universal moral rights and wrongs that were knowable by human reason alone – for example, murder. Some early Sunnis considered right and wrong to be obvious to the human mind, but what became the majority school of theology in Sunni Islam, the Ash’ari school, held that right and wrong were not inherent characteristics in an act but rather were determined solely by God. So murder was not universally wrong in and of itself, it was only wrong in so far as God prohibited it in every law He revealed. Ash’ari scholars acknowledged that human beings, as a species, shared certain reactions or characteristics. For example, roses smell good to us and we tend to love our immediate family. But these are not moral facts any more than a dog liking bones is."
http://drjonathanbrown.com/2016/incest-widow-burning-how-much-can-muslims-stomach/
In view of the above, would you still consider atheism a religion in the eyes of the law, bearing in mind that we don't have a commonly shared 'religious code'?
And secondly, if so, could an atheist in a country governed by Shariah law defend his right to homos·exuality and sodomy because his own belief system does not prohibit them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without getting into dispute about what you quoted and to address the questions at the end the yes I would consider it a religion and no it couldn't be defended in a shariah court.
The reason it is a religion is because of Islams understanding of worship and religion.
posted on 6/2/17
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
posted on 6/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/2/17
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 minutes ago
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not text.
posted on 6/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/2/17
comment by Zlatanariyan (U19849)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 minutes ago
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me?
posted on 6/2/17
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Zlatanariyan (U19849)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 minutes ago
From your response I take it then that you disagree with the text quoted - care to explain what and why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are not text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what you quoted are not text unless i missed something (which is possible)
posted on 6/2/17
I didn't mean "text" as in quotes from the Qur'an, but "text" as in the excerpt from the source I quoted.
Fyg, the text is by the same author KFC quoted in our discussion on punishments, which is what led me to thinking he was a respectable source.
posted on 6/2/17
comment by itsonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
I didn't mean "text" as in quotes from the Qur'an, but "text" as in the excerpt from the source I quoted.
Fyg, the text is by the same author KFC quoted in our discussion on punishments, which is what led me to thinking he was a respectable source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I misunderstood.
The thing with most of the, what i call, ''musings'' is that they are just that. Thoughts from people
So the issue with christians and wine wasnt allowed openly and they were allowed their own courts etc but only if the issue was between christian and christian
similarly the Jews being punished according to the Torah maybe (n the source) based on what happened after a battle and the Jews asking for justice and an ex Jewish companion deciding the punishment
Some of these principles were in fact specific rather than general and here is where one of the problems starts.
even the muatazillah and ashariah issue needs to eb understood and how one arose from the other based on disagreement but neither would be seen as right today.
Its a huge topic in itself and am not sure what the best response would be and which bit to tackle to be honest. so maybe you can help me out and take it one step at a time and keep it simple? or it will be all over the place as this post shows (sorry)
The main issue as i understood it from your earlier question, was that ''people of the book'' were recognised (jews/christians) but religions like buddhism sikhism (i appreciate they came later) and hinduism were not. Atheism would fit into that category as it denies God (or the 1 God with hinduism etc)
There is a hadith where Muhamamd said muslims need to be different from Jews and Christian as and not take their priests and rabbis as lord (this is in quran as a verse too) . An ex Jew companion said we dont worship them and Muhammad said but do they nit make permissible what is impermissible? to which the companion said yes. Muhammad said that is a form of worship
In fact if we look at what is called al riya (the minor shirk. shirk being worship of other than God) then we see that if a muslim is in prayer and he is rushing through it but then hears someone enter where he is praying and subsequently slows down and elongates everything etc then he has prayed for that person and not God
Similarly we have muslims who for 11 months do what they want but for 1 month in Ramadhan get all ''Islamic'' and think all is good as a little is better than nothing. They couldnt be more wrong as they have worshiped ramadhan (which is the name of the month).
posted on 6/2/17
Turkey arrest 748 muslims ...our professional protestors missed another detail, over the weekend.
Bless.
Page 75 of 274
76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80