Support NeoGAF

[Kraftwerk]

@Kraftwerk: How is one to argue, when the opposition's very case relies on being dismissive of counter-arguments?

Thank you, for being patient and wording your argument again. Really appreciate it. Now;

Ah, so you did misunderstand my second post. Pardon me as english is not my first language. hard to word things sometimes. I shall try again too.

I did not mean to dismiss counter-arguments from someone like yourself. I was merely dismissing hadith, and translations/explanations of hadith.

If you want you can completely forget my second post, as I still find it difficult to word it in english.

Here is my question; Based on my first lengthy post on this page, about Hadith and not needing an outside source as explanation, how do muslims justify hadith? Why do they need it, when God states many times that the Quran is Complete? I am not trying to attack anyones belief, just trying to know why.

 

[crazy monkey]

you can see quote couple of lines above about why many would not be understand it and why you might need help.

 

[Ashes]

Here is my question; Based on my first lengthy post on this page, about Hadith and not needing an outside source as explanation, how do muslims justify hadith? Why do they need it, when God states many times that the Quran is Complete? I am not trying to attack anyones belief, just trying to know why.

I think this is another common argument. And to be honest, I'm bored, hopefuly OS will give you a fuller explanation.

Basically the problem boils down to this. God A says: I have given you a complete book.
Person 1 says: Well then why do we need a second book explaining the first book?
Teacher: No book stands alone. You need other books to learn how to read first.

Somewhere down the line, a third person will suggest additional things - such as the importance of 'aql' (reason) and 'fikr' (reflection)' to understand any kind of material.

Then someone else will bring up the example of law documents, and the use of language to rule out loopholes. And at that point, you need specialists in that field. You go to a lawyer for help with law, a doctor for help with medicine, so why not a scholar for help with the Quran? it's almost a stupid question then, but, when you look closer, the answer is still: not really. Because of the next point one can make.

For God A claims the Quran to be clear and simple. So then you argue about the 'clear' and simple versus 'precise' as principles, and what clear and precise to one person is not clear and precise to another person, so how do you balance that? Who is the Quran addressing? this person or the whole of humanity?. And for that you need context and explanation.

Sorry I got to rush... But like I said, this is such a common argument and comes up so often.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Why waste govt money keepings ome guy in jail? Cut his hand off and get done with it. I have no problem with this. Its also a MUCH better deterrant than jail time.

Absolutely horrible.

Btw, good to have you back Ottoman. That's great news about your wife.

 

[Atrus]

3) Why do asian muslim countries (malaysia, singapore) tend to be a lot more liberal than the middle east? I've been to KL, and I see muslim womens in miniskirts and stuff, and I see no one trying to stone them

The SE Islamic countries are or at the very least have been more liberal because their synthesis of Islam came through Islamic mystics whose views of Islam were more esoteric and until recently they have been regionally isolated.

The countries also had a significant amount of influence from Buddhist, Hindu and Animist traditions that have distilled Islam to their own traditions.

Islam is an Arabic tradition, created from a bunch of violent desert-dwellers and that in itself is a foreign element to South-East Asian society. A good corollary would be Christianity in South America.

How do you use Sheep metaphors on South Americans when they've never seen sheep before? Well... you adapt it to Llamas and Alpacas. Eventually what you end up with is a synthesis of the Christian tradition with cultural and traditional affectations.

In SE Asia, it really involves a lot of animist and buddhist traditions. Garuda is still a significant folkloric entity as are spirits that live in trees and the jungle. Wayang Kulit or shadow puppetry is also Buddhist/Hindu tradition, the martial art of Silat is steeped in Animism where the Kris has a sacred mystical element ascribed to it, and there really are no limits.

Being so far away from the epicenter of Islam allowed these countries the freedom to not be so stupid as to immediately ban their traditions. It's somewhat ironic that since Islam is an Arabic tradition, Arab paganism like Djinn is acceptable but those of other cultures are not.

Another factor has been the warrior nature of the cultures in general. The word Amok for instance is derived from Malays in the same capacity that Berserk is from the Nordic and Germanic peoples. In a warrior society with such a small population, women are required to step in and involve themselves more than just baby carriers you hide in your homes.

Much like how Mongol women were the leaders of things not having to do with fighting, Malaysian women are similarly accorded the same role. While this is no more an equality of the sexes as the Mongol version, it does give a large if not larger role in society than the men who are limited to small specific roles.

One thing you'll also find is that unlike their other Islamic counterparts is that upon marriage, it's generally custom that the men move in with the women's family where feasible. This again is in recognition of the fact that women have a larger role to play in the family and socially, and therefore need to rely on a larger social network than men. Therefore it is easier on the couple if the man moves in with his wifes family.

Unlike the Western tradition of totally separate housing, economics tends to limit Malaysian households to housing multiple families so it really is a choice between one or the other for most.

Between independence and today, the European doctrine of nationalism has also provided Malays with a heavy nationalist mindset. The term bumiputra for instance literally means 'princes of the Earth' and no prince is going to be kowtowing to a bunch of foreigners that haven't had the decency to beat them in battle.

Things have changed recently however. As I've mentioned before several times, the amount of investment from other Islamic countries is slowly but surely whittling away these traditions and the younger generation is becoming more zealous and more Arab-centric. If a secular government isn't established in recognition that Malaysia is a pluralistic country, then Malaysia too might become as shitty a country as Pakistan.

 

[OttomanScribe]

some questions for the Muslims here.

1) Does the Koran really tell Muslims to kill those that are'nt Islamic?

It does, but only in specific circumstances, i.e. in legally permissible warfare. So in general terms, no, it doesn't tell Muslims to kill anyone who is not Muslim (Islamic is not the word here).

2) Does the Koran not treat women as equal to men? If it does, then where does the 40 virgins in heaven come from?

That tradition (it is 40 now?) comes from descriptions of 'Houri' which are beings of light that serve the inhabitants of heaven. They are not 'virgins'. They also serve both men and women.

Heaven would not be particularly heavenly if it was without sex. Sex is healthy and awesome within halal bounds, and something that Muslims should enjoy when they get the chance! I never understood why non-Muslims were weirded out by the idea that there is sex for Muslims in heaven.

3) Why do asian muslim countries (malaysia, singapore) tend to be a lot more liberal than the middle east? I've been to KL, and I see muslim womens in miniskirts and stuff, and I see no one trying to stone them

Are they? If you go to parts of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt you will see the same thing. I think this is a false distinction. Singapore is not a Muslim country.

Btw, good to have you back Ottoman. That's great news about your wife.

Don't speak too soon lol, dunno if I am staying yet, we shall see if I can keep my usage down eh?

Thanks she is awesome! So proud of her mash'Allah.

hopefuly OS will give you a fuller explanation.

To be honest I don't know if I want to lol.

I find debating with Qur'an alone people a waste of time generally. They have come to their own conclusions, and then are fitting everything they find to those conclusions. This is why he is quoting surah al-Qamar and saying it says 'easy to understand' when the Arabic does not imply that, at least according to most translations.

None of those Qur'an alone people I have met have even a basic understanding of Arabic, they rarely know anything about the transmission of hadith, and I get the impression that they have hardly read the Qur'an.

Islam has a rich and in depth scholarly tradition, the Qur'an is full of exhortations to seek knowledge, to learn, yet these people appear to show now interest in such things. The irony of this being that the Qur'an, without the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is not as liberal as they think.

That interpretation of how theft is treated... it comes from the hadith. For a Qur'an alone person, if someone steals, even if they are starving? It is choppy choppy time. Similarly, someone 'spreads corruption in the land' (something which is open to definition according to these people who reject the hadith), well.. here comes the hadud!!

It is bizarre, they have an end point in mind, and they make a bunch of sloppy intellectual shortcuts in an attempt to get there. This is foolishness that I have little time for.

The greatest single rebuttal is that there are hadith that have a similar level of authentication as the Qur'an, and yet they reject them. Anyone who is willing to reject something that so clearly came from the mouth of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) needs to read the Qur'an they claim to follow, and see what it says about those who do that.

Ever played Sid Meier's Civilization series? Cultural victory...so satisfying to dominate people without having to hurt a single soul...

Haha, nice!

 

[coldfoot]

So they are not open minded because they don't accept your narrative on their religion. You are the one that appears to have done little analysis of your own beliefs. In terms of your social group, could you name a single belief that you hold that it is outside the norm?

Switching to atheism is one example that not many people around me share.

Why not? They seem quite comparable. The only difference being time of slavery. So temporary slavery is cool, it is just when slavery becomes long term that it becomes actual slavery?

1. The purpose of incarceration is not to enslave people, but to keep them away from the general population and to try to reform them as a result of their actions. The purpose of slavery is to exploit people and their labor and does not care if the person committed a crime or not. Therefore they cannot be compared. Besides, even temporary slavery is a more humane punishment than cutting someone's arms and legs off.

No, it is not like Wikipedia at all. The Qur'an is the guarantee of the hadith tradition, the integrity of the consensus of scholarship and the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).... the same is true of the others, they all support each other in term. If you accept one, you accept them all.

Quran describes itself as complete, and perfect. If it's so perfect, why are all the hadiths are needed? Why couldn't God include them in the book and remove any arguments that arose from its incompleteness? It surely had the power to do so.

I don't believe I said they were?

The Quran still suggests that punishment, therefore it's not modern at all. It's fallen behind the times. A true book written by God would never fall behind the times, since God is the master of time and space.

The Ottoman Empire ended in 1918, though it had been sick for about 50 years before that. So 150 years.

LOL...the Ottoman Empire's relevancy decreased starting in the 18th century, and thanks to colonization, Europe had jumped ahead of them by the 1750 or so. That's 250 or so years, and there isn't a single Muslim country that can challenge the dominance of the Western world because they have turned their backs on human rights, arts, and freedom.

Turkey is a rising power in the ME and has weathered the economic storm far better than Europe. It is also increasingly Muslim in character. What makes you think that history is over?

Turkey is only where it is because it has been in USA's pocket for the last 50 years. Same with Saudi Arabia. Nothing will ever come out of there that can even remotely challenge the US+Europe. Besides, Turkey would never become like Iran, which I'd consider a more true Muslim country ruled by Shariah law. There'd be a bloody civil war.

 

[Kraftwerk]

@OttomanScribe

This is exactly the response I get in mosques, from professors and anyone I have asked. I sincerely ask them a question and I WANT to, I would LOVE to gain knowledge and the other side of the argument, but instead I get treated like what you just said to me;

That you have no time for my "foolishness" and my arguments are "sloppy".

I kid you not, that is the single answer I get every time. Just frustrating.

Please, refrain from insulting others when they actually have questions and are curious. Have a nice day.

 

[Ashes]

@OttomanScribe

This is exactly the response I get in mosques, from professors and anyone I have asked. I sincerely ask them a question and I WANT to, I would LOVE to gain knowledge and the other side of the argument, but instead I get treated like what you just said to me;

That you have no time for my "foolishness" and my arguments are "sloppy".

I kid you not, that is the single answer I get every time. Just frustrating.

Please, refrain from insulting others when they actually have questions and are curious. Have a nice day.

He was talking to me though... Did I not reply to you?

 

[Kraftwerk]

He was talking to me though... Did I not reply to you?

You gave me a brief explanation - which I really appreciate- and then stated that OS will be able to give a better explanation. OS comes along and scoffs and states that he has no time for such foolish arguments, claiming that we are sloppy intellectualls etc etc.

Not to sound over dramatic, but I am amazed that someone like him is supposed to be a representation of Islam Gaf, a person whom a ton of people in this thread refer for advice.

Eh, I'll continue my quest for knowledge elsewhere. Apologies if I made the thread somber in this post.

EDIT: Zapages, I will PM you. Don't want to post in the thread any more.

 

[Zapages]

You gave me a brief explanation - which I really appreciate- and then stated that OS will be able to give a better explanation. OS comes along and scoffs and states that he has no time for such foolish arguments.

Not to sound over dramatic, but I am amazed that someone like him is supposed to be a representation of Islam Gaf, a person whom a ton of people in this thread refer for advice.

Eh, I'll continue my quest for knowledge elsewhere. Apologies if I made the thread somber in this post.

whats your question? Maybe I could help. Although I might not be knowledgeable as OS... I will try my best though.

 

[Ashes]

You gave me a brief explanation - which I really appreciate- and then stated that OS will be able to give a better explanation. OS comes along and scoffs and states that he has no time for such foolish arguments, claiming that we are sloppy intellectualls etc etc.

Not to sound over dramatic, but I am amazed that someone like him is supposed to be a representation of Islam Gaf, a person whom a ton of people in this thread refer for advice.

Eh, I'll continue my quest for knowledge elsewhere. Apologies if I made the thread somber in this post.

EDIT: Zapages, I will PM you. Don't want to post in the thread any more.

Think OS got to apologise... :/

But he did add stuff though:

They have come to their own conclusions, and then are fitting everything they find to those conclusions. This is why he is quoting surah al-Qamar and saying it says 'easy to understand' when the Arabic does not imply that, at least according to most translations.

None of those Qur'an alone people I have met have even a basic understanding of Arabic, they rarely know anything about the transmission of hadith, and I get the impression that they have hardly read the Qur'an.

Islam has a rich and in depth scholarly tradition, the Qur'an is full of exhortations to seek knowledge, to learn, yet these people appear to show now interest in such things. The irony of this being that the Qur'an, without the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is not as liberal as they think.

That interpretation of how theft is treated... it comes from the hadith. For a Qur'an alone person, if someone steals, even if they are starving? It is choppy choppy time. Similarly, someone 'spreads corruption in the land' (something which is open to definition according to these people who reject the hadith), well.. here comes the hadud!!

It is bizarre, they have an end point in mind, and they make a bunch of sloppy intellectual shortcuts in an attempt to get there. This is foolishness that I have little time for.

The greatest single rebuttal is that there are hadith that have a similar level of authentication as the Qur'an, and yet they reject them. Anyone who is willing to reject something that so clearly came from the mouth of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) needs to read the Qur'an they claim to follow, and see what it says about those who do that.

You did dismiss all of us, and we stuck with you Kraftwek... oh well...

I suggest you stay out of the thiest vs athiest thread if that kind of thing bothers you...

Though I don't think they speak about athiests that way, so you may be fine.

 

[OttomanScribe]

@OttomanScribe

This is exactly the response I get in mosques, from professors and anyone I have asked. I sincerely ask them a question and I WANT to, I would LOVE to gain knowledge and the other side of the argument, but instead I get treated like what you just said to me;

That you have no time for my "foolishness" and my arguments are "sloppy".

I kid you not, that is the single answer I get every time. Just frustrating.

Please, refrain from insulting others when they actually have questions and are curious. Have a nice day.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the arguments in question. You don't even claim to be Muslim, so I am even less likely to waste my time.

It doesn't sound to me like you are asking questions here, how then can you say you would love to gain knowledge? What you are doing here is putting forth your opinions.

You say that you are just here questing for knowledge, your first post was not a request for it. It was a collection of statements. Where I am from, that is not usually how we go about accumulating knowledge.

You define yourself as 'on the other side of the argument'. You cannot do so and then say that you are only seeking knowledge and act affronted when people have no desire to engage in what appears to be ultimately be a pointless discussion, with one who (not being Muslim) does not even believe what he is arguing.

 

[Kraftwerk]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the arguments in question. You don't even claim to be Muslim, so I am even less likely to waste my time.
.

Wow. Keep up the great work.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Switching to atheism is one example that not many people around me share.

I mean your social group, not your society. Are your social group made up predominantly of Christians

1. The purpose of incarceration is not to enslave people, but to keep them away from the general population and to try to reform them as a result of their actions.

The purpose of slavery is not to enslave people, it is usually to acquire their labour for commercial benefit. However slavery in both cases is the result. The intention in this case is not the point, the end result is slavery, and that is the point. The purpose is a non-sequiter.

Quran describes itself as complete, and perfect. If it's so perfect, why are all the hadiths are needed? Why couldn't God include them in the book and remove any arguments that arose from its incompleteness? It surely had the power to do so.

The book is perfect, humans, however, are not. Hence there is the need of a perfect human, to reflect a perfect book (perfection is a term with a shadowy meaning but whatever). The Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the method through which Allah has provided to remove arguments that arise from the imperfections within humanity, by providing a cross reference.

All holy books are mirrors, and they will often reflect what is in the reader, more than what is in the book. That is the way it works. One of the functions of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is to provide a cross reference, the control group, to show the example of how a perfect believer operationalises the commands within the perfect book.

The Quran still suggests that punishment, therefore it's not modern at all. It's fallen behind the times. A true book written by God would never fall behind the times, since God is the master of time and space.

When you say 'the times' what you mean is 'my opinion of what is right'. Again, we fall back to your calls to your own subjective opinions. I don't feel a need to respond if you continue with this line of argument.

LOL...the Ottoman Empire's relevancy decreased starting in the 18th century, and thanks to colonization, Europe had jumped ahead of them by the 1750 or so. That's 250 or so years, and there isn't a single Muslim country that can challenge the dominance of the Western world because they have turned their backs on human rights, arts, and freedom.

So what you are saying is that prior to 1750, all Muslim countries that challenged the dominance of the West were the prime examples of human rights, arts and freedom, as that is apparently what guarantees umm.. dominance? Surely you understand how strange this argument sounds? Bringing up colonialism as an example of human rights, arts and freedom?

Turkey is only where it is because it has been in USA's pocket for the last 50 years. Same with Saudi Arabia. Nothing will ever come out of there that can even remotely challenge the US+Europe. Besides, Turkey would never become like Iran, which I'd consider a more true Muslim country ruled by Shariah law. There'd be a bloody civil war.

Iran is a Shia country, so 'what you would consider a Muslim country' is one that represents a minority sect? Forgive me for finding this a quite odd assertion. Why is Iran Muslim and Turkey not? Because you like Turkey better than you like Iran?

Yes, in the US's pockets, which is why Turkey let the US invade Iraq through their lands........

oh.

Also I disagree, I have provided an argument behind my assertion that Turkey is a rising power. Do you have any argument behind your assertion that nothing will ever come out of it that will challenge the US or Europe? Or is it just a statement made without reference to any supporting argument.

This is becoming a trend. You have a bad habit of saying a bunch of your own opinions, and then not supporting them with arguments, and then acting as though people must accept them as being reasonable. This is not the way a discussion works.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Wow. Keep up the great work.

By saying that you aren't Muslim, you are saying that you don't believe the arguments you are making regarding the Qur'an.

Tell me how discussing it with you would not be wasting everybody's time? If you don't believe what you are arguing, then there is no point trying to change your mind. This is the primary reason I have no desire to engage with you. If your intent was to engage in frank and open discussion, you would come to this thread and ask questions. As it is, you came in, made a bunch of statements, which you apparently don't believe, and then appeared affronted when people felt no need to engage with you.

If you feel that my reasons for not wanting a discussion are incorrect, if all the following are actually true:
-you believe in what you are saying about the Qur'an, and thus do in fact consider yourself Muslim
-you do have a level of competency in Arabic that would allow you to read the Qur'an (something belied by your choice of translation previously)
-you do have a familiarity with hadith transmission, in order to dismiss it

If the above are actually true of you, then I am happy to have a discussion with you, though I would ask that you explain to all why you would deceive people about the first one.

I only make arguments I believe in, and if I am playing 'devil's advocate' I make it very clear.

 

[Laughing Banana]

OttomanScribe, where have you been all this time?

 

[OttomanScribe]

OttomanScribe, where have you been all this time?

Took a break for Ramadan and study, and enjoyed being away so much that I stayed away lol. I don't like what forums do to my adhab. I am still tossing up whether to stay or leave lol.

No offence meant to you all of course It isn't that I didn't like the community here, more that I sometimes ended up debating for the sake of it, not for a love of knowledge. It also eats up a lot of time...

 

[coldfoot]

I mean your social group, not your society. Are your social group made up predominantly of Christians

Actually, no. I have travelled and spent years among Muslim as well as Christian societies.

The purpose of slavery is not to enslave people, it is usually to acquire their labour for commercial benefit. However slavery in both cases is the result. The intention in this case is not the point, the end result is slavery, and that is the point. The purpose is a non-sequiter.

BS. Intent is very important as you yourself admitted that someone stealing because they're starving should be held to a different standard from someone steeling because of greed. The end result of both is still thievery but you admit that they should not be punished by amputation as said in the Quran. You just contradicted your previous arguments.

The book is perfect, humans, however, are not. Hence there is the need of a perfect human, to reflect a perfect book (perfection is a term with a shadowy meaning but whatever). The Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the method through which Allah has provided to remove arguments that arise from the imperfections within humanity, by providing a cross reference.

He had no trouble writing the Quran, why couldn't he be bothered to write the content of the Hadiths in there too? Surely he knew the dangers of alteration and interpretation and he could easily written the Hadiths in the main text in the Quran, removing any doubt to their genuineness.

When you say 'the times' what you mean is 'my opinion of what is right'.

No, it's by universal human rights. Amputation is wrong just like the death penalty is wrong. Anyone who defends either is a less evolved human being.

So what you are saying is that prior to 1750, all Muslim countries that challenged the dominance of the West were the prime examples of human rights, arts and freedom, as that is apparently what guarantees umm.. dominance?

No, humanity was less enlightened and less prosperous back in those days. The West have left the East (not Far East) way behind in enlightenment, human rights, rights to freedom since that time, and there is not a chance in hell that the Muslim world will catch up unless they reform their religion, give women the same rights as men, allow paintings and sculptures, etc. They will never catch up when the value of human life in their societies is that of a slave to God vs. an independent sentient being.

Yes, in the US's pockets, which is why Turkey let the US invade Iraq through their lands........

There are American bases, soldiers, planes, nuclear missiles in Turkey, and Turkey recently allowed US (NATO, but they're pretty much the same thing) to build a missile shield base in their territory. They are in the US's back pocket.

 

[crazy monkey]

Took a break for Ramadan and study, and enjoyed being away so much that I stayed away lol. I don't like what forums do to my adhab. I am still tossing up whether to stay or leave lol.

No offence meant to you all of course It isn't that I didn't like the community here, more that I sometimes ended up debating for the sake of it, not for a love of knowledge. It also eats up a lot of time...

one of the reason I want to bail form this too. It is pointless argument with many people most of the time. You do not know you are arguing with some kid who just want to troll or some one who wants to learn about religion. I would say go away for while come back may be once a month max. So i would suggest leave for a while.

 

[Ashes]

one of the reason I want to bail form this too. It is pointless argument with many people most of the time. You do not know you are arguing with some kid who just want to troll or some one who wants to learn about religion. I would say go away for while come back may be once a month max. So i would suggest leave for a while.

They say don't be dick. And the reason they say this is because they bang their head in frustration with some of the utter stupidity they face from the religious lot.

 

[Azih]

Tell me how discussing it with you would not be wasting everybody's time? If you don't believe what you are arguing, then there is no point trying to change your mind.

Incredible. Here is a guy who has been getting frozen out from being able to express his concerns to every Islamic scholar that he has gone to, is turning away from the faith as a result, and here you are repeating the exact same kind of arrogance.

What you are advocating is what most Islamic scholars advocate. Sit Down, Shut Up, and Recite the Wisdom of the Ancient scholars. God forbid you should use your own intelligence and come to your own conclusions as God exhorted humans to do.

Rigid arrogant dogma like yours, deriding the God given intelligence of individuals and insisting on adherence to ancient scholars, is why people turn away from a religion dominated by the local mullah in the mosque no matter how ignorant that man may be.

 

[Ashes]

Incredible. Here is a guy who has been getting frozen out from being able to express his concerns to every Islamic scholar that he has gone to, is turning away from the faith as a result, and here you are repeating the exact same kind of arrogance.

What you are advocating is what most Islamic scholars advocate. Sit Down, Shut Up, and Recite the Wisdom of the Ancient scholars. God forbid you should use your own intelligence and come to your own conclusions as God exhorted humans to do.

Rigid arrogant dogma like yours is why people turn away from a religion dominated by the local mullah in the mosque no matter how ignorant that man may be.

And yet he is arguing with Coldfoot, when even I have stopped. <3 Coldfoot.

I have tried to talk to Kraftwerk, and initially his argument was based on dismissing other arguments. So how was one to argue against that?

However, to his credit, Kraftwerk reshaped his argument in the form of a question so the debate could be had. And well he didn't answer back except to thank me, and continued the discussion in PM. He has full right to do so, and feel offended when somebody else dismissed him, but Kraftwerk is just doing what he did initially. Dismissing arguments by being dismissive of discussion.

edit: For the record, I think Kraftwerk... is okay. He isn't swearing, he is kinda polite... He's cool... If you're reading this; you're welcome any time mate.

 

[Azih]

I have tried to talk to Kraftwerk, and initially his argument was based on dismissing other arguments. So how was one to argue against that?

I don't want to get in the way of what Kraftwerk was or was not saying. I just want to highlight how astoundingly arrogant Ottoman was. One of the things that I am incredibly jealous of in other faiths is that their leaders seem to be incredibly approachable and open to question and conversation. In every mosque I've been to the attitude by contrast has been one of "sit down, shut up, listen to what the imam says, accept it completely, go home, how dare you question what he said whodoyouthinkyouare?". It's absolutely not an environment that encourages any sort of dialogue. To see Ottoman adopt the same horrendous stance of assuming that KW is either ignorant or a troll and stating flat out that people are not worthy of speaking to him if they don't know Arabic fluently is depressing.

I'm a Muslim, I don't know Arabic, like 80% of Muslims in the world today and I have no idea why I shouldn't feel anger when someone baldly states that I have no right to use my own 'aql and need to suppress it to blindly engage in taqlid with someone who does.

 

[Ashes]

I don't want to get in the way of what Kraftwerk was or was not saying. I just want to highlight how astoundingly arrogant Ottoman was. One of the things that I am incredibly jealous of in other faiths is that their leaders seem to be incredibly approachable and open to question and conversation. In every mosque I've been to the attitude by contrast has been one of "sit down, shut up, listen to what the imam says, accept it completely, go home". It's absolutely not an environment that encourages any sort of dialogue. To see Ottoman adopt the same horrendous stance of assuming that KW is either ignorant or a troll and stating flat out that people are not worthy of speaking to him if they don't know Arabic fluently is depressing.

I'm a Muslim, I don't know Arabic, like 80% of Muslims in the world today and I have no idea why I shouldn't feel anger when someone baldly states that I have no right to use my own 'aql and need to suppress it to blindly engage in taqlid with someone who does.

Well, now you're taking stuff and running with it. And like I said, Kraftwerk, initially *appeared* not to want context and explanation. It seemed like he just wanted to air his views.

Anyway, like I said O.S. is still discussing with Coldfoot, and you make an excellent point regarding churches/mosques treatment etc. So I'm not sure where to take this..

 

[F#A#Oo]

Incredible. Here is a guy who has been getting frozen out from being able to express his concerns to every Islamic scholar that he has gone to, is turning away from the faith as a result, and here you are repeating the exact same kind of arrogance.

What you are advocating is what most Islamic scholars advocate. Sit Down, Shut Up, and Recite the Wisdom of the Ancient scholars. God forbid you should use your own intelligence and come to your own conclusions as God exhorted humans to do.

Rigid arrogant dogma like yours, deriding the God given intelligence of individuals and insisting on adherence to ancient scholars, is why people turn away from a religion dominated by the local mullah in the mosque no matter how ignorant that man may be.

I'd just like to point out muslims don't call islamic scholars "mullah"...Sheikh/Shaykh is what you are looking for. I think Shias use the word for their scholars who seem more political than religious but what ever.

Kraftwerk just made a bad entrance in my opinion...it was kinda like coming to class and telling the teacher this is what I know...you need to prove me wrong!!!

I've always used the following as a way to drop my baggage when it comes to learning;

"You cannot begin to understand, what you think you already know"

It's served me well...

 

[Azih]

Anyway, like I said O.S. is still discussing with Coldfoot, and you make an excellent point regarding churches/mosques treatment etc. So I'm not sure where to take this..

Well Ottoman is the one who rubbed me the wrong way and his attitude reminded me of how scholars in mosques act in the way he refused to engage KraftWerk and hell then he mocked people who disagreed with him. So my comments weren't addressed to you .

 

[Azih]

I'd just like to point out muslims don't call islamic scholars "mullah"

They do in South Asia where I'm from.

Kraftwerk just made a bad entrance in my opinion...it was kinda like coming to class and telling the teacher this is what I know...you need to prove me wrong!!!

This is a part of what depresses me. Who's the teacher here? When exactly did we appoint one of us to be the master and decided that the role of the rest of us was to sit at their feet and bask in his or her aura and hopefully pick something up through osmosis?

 

[Kraftwerk]

Thank you Azih, good to see someone rational. You pretty much nailed it on how I was treated in a few of these gathering in mosques and Islamic schools.

Also Ashes1396, I stated after my first post, that I apologize if I had sounded dismissive, I did not mean to come off that way. In the same post I clearly said that English is not my first language, thus sometimes I sound completely different than what I am trying to convey.

EDIT: @ F#A#Oo


It seems like everyone is just ignoring my 2-3 posts after that, where I reshape my argument, and apologize for coming of wrong, which AGAIN is due to my lack of English in translation.

 

[Ashes]

Thank you Azih, good to see someone rational. You pretty much nailed it on how I was treated in a few of these gathering in mosques and Islamic schools.

Also Ashes1396, I stated after my first post, that I apologize if I had sounded dismissive, I did not mean to come off that way. In the same post I clearly said that English is not my first language, thus sometimes I sound completely different than what I am trying to convey.

yeah i got that. And also for the record, for those who weren't here, you didn't swear or name call etc... so that's a bonus...

 

[Ashes]

It seems like everyone is just ignoring my 2-3 posts after that, where I reshape my argument, and apologize for coming of wrong, which AGAIN is due to my lack of English in translation.

not everyone.... refer to post #4170...

However, to his credit, Kraftwerk reshaped his argument in the form of a question so the debate could be had.

 

[Kraftwerk]

not everyone.... refer to post #4170...

Thank you again

 

[Smellycat]

It is truly a sign of the end of days when people start abandoning hadith and claiming that all they need is Quran. The funny thing is that a lot of those people don't know anything about the Quran, and they just pick and choose verses that they like in order to support what they want.

How can you abandon hadith and claim that it is unnecessary? Where do you think prayer rules and directions come from? I am only bringing up the example of prayer, because that is one of the most basic and fundamental parts of islam. That alone should tell you how important hadith is.

Prophet Mohammad didn't say anything without God's approval, and when he made a mistake, it never went uncorrected by God. There is a reason why many scholars spent years collecting sayings from the prophet, because they understood the significance of his words and his teachings.

 

[F#A#Oo]

They do in South Asia where I'm from.

Interesting...thanks

This is a part of what depresses me. Who's the teacher here? When exactly did we appoint one of us to be the master and decided that the role of the rest of us was to sit at their feet and bask in his or her aura and hopefully pick something up through osmosis?

Eh? I'm just talking about how I perceived the situation...it didn't seem like an engagement for learning.

EDIT: @ F#A#Oo
It seems like everyone is just ignoring my 2-3 posts after that, where I reshape my argument, and apologize for coming of wrong, which AGAIN is due to my lack of English in translation.

I'm guilty of this yes. Sorry.

 

[Kraftwerk]

It is truly a sign of the end of days when people start abandoning hadith and claiming that all they need is Quran. The funny thing is that a lot of those people don't know anything about the Quran, and they just pick and choose verses that they like in order to support what they want.

How can you abandon hadith and claim that it is unnecessary? Where do you think prayer rules and directions come from? I am only bringing up the example of prayer, because that is one of the most basic and fundamental parts of islam. That alone should tell you how important hadith is.

Prophet Mohammad didn't say anything without God's approval, and when he made a mistake, it never went uncorrected by God. There is a reason why many scholars spent years collecting sayings from the prophet, because they understood the significance of his words and his teachings.

See, this is one issue I have, and one of the questions I have also.

It is argued that God does not make mistakes, by everyone.

Well, if God is perfect, and cannot make mistakes, then how did he leave out such fundamental things out of the Quran. The very same book in which he states that is it "complete" and "perfect"

Also, as I stated bove, it is not just one or two verses that I picked out , I posted many, and there are many more. I know many claim that it is not that easy to translate, and many other hidden meaning lie within, but I fail to see how a simple sentence such as "The Quran is perfect and complete. We did not leave anything out of this." can have inner meaning.

I mean just look at Surat Al-Kahf ( The cave ) This verse is even know as "The Perfect Quran"

[Quran 18:109] Say, 'If the ocean were ink for the words of my Lord, the ocean would run out, before the words of my Lord run out, even if we double the ink supply.

Yes there is a metaphor used here, which clearly states that if God deemed that the Quran needed more, God would be able to write and drain oceans of ink, and STILL have more to write.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Ashes]

I mean just look at Surat Al-Kahf ( The cave ) This verse is even know as "The Perfect Quran"

[Quran 18:109] Say, 'If the ocean were ink for the words of my Lord, the ocean would run out, before the words of my Lord run out, even if we double the ink supply.

Yes there is a metaphor used here, which clearly states that if God deemed that the Quran needed more, God would be able to write and drain oceans of ink, and STILL have more to write.

Just my 2 cents.

Can you now explain why you see that interpretation from those set of words?

To me, in English, the ideas of the sentence is expressing:

Ink (x times infinity) would run out before the GOD X ran out of things to say.

in simpler words: God wouldn't run out of things to say. Or god could talk forever.

How do you expect us to understand what you are saying, when you don't even understand what is being said?

Like I said before. There is an obvious language problem here on your part, because you are failing to explain your self. But you are determined to say that we are wrong. And that we do not understand you.

On a separate point, the passsage you highlighted has a very interesting background to it. But shame, that you choose not to want a background to the information.... It's interesting from a historical point of view.

 

[TheContact]

Here's something about Islam that I'm curious about. So, in the Koran, unlike the Bible, there's a passage that says if there's any contradictions in text then you choose the one that was written later and that is correct. So when the Bible tells you to love your neighbor but also tells you when it's okay to stone people to death, people can read that and say the Bible is open to interpretation so I'm going to choose not to stone people to death and choose to love my neighbor. With Islam, however, when in the peaceful versus it tells you to love your neighbor, but in the Sword verses (written after) it tells you to convert anyone who isn't Muslim and if they don't convert then you are allowed to kill them. Given the clause in the Koran, officially every Muslim should be going around converting, if not killing apostates. Am I misinterpreting that?

 

[Ashes]

Here's something about Islam that I'm curious about. So, in the Koran, unlike the Bible, there's a passage that says if there's any contradictions in text then you choose the one that was written later and that is correct.

Oh very interesting. I didn't know that. Do you have a link? or is this something commonly known?

Because if this statement isn't true, then your whole post falls apart... I think. right?

So when the Bible tells you to love your neighbor but also tells you when it's okay to stone people to death, people can read that and say the Bible is open to interpretation so I'm going to choose not to stone people to death and choose to love my neighbor. With Islam, however, when in the peaceful versus it tells you to love your neighbor, but in the Sword verses (written after) it tells you to convert anyone who isn't Muslim and if they don't convert then you are allowed to kill them. Given the clause in the Koran, officially every Muslim should be going around converting, if not killing apostates. Am I misinterpreting that?

Perhaps you are correct, perhaps you are not. Though I doubt Zapages will take kindly of you telling him the quran tells him to go 'convert anyone who isn't Muslim and if they don't convert then you are allowed to kill them.'

edit: I seem to be very fond of passing the buck. So lazy I am. But I think Azih could help with the 'forced conversion issue' perhaps. But you should probably have your quotes ready.

 

[crazy monkey]

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=1

this is preety good for translation and explanation

I mean just look at Surat Al-Kahf ( The cave ) This verse is even know as "The Perfect Quran"

[Quran 18:109] Say, 'If the ocean were ink for the words of my Lord, the ocean would run out, before the words of my Lord run out, even if we double the ink supply.

Yes there is a metaphor used here, which clearly states that if God deemed that the Quran needed more, God would be able to write and drain oceans of ink, and STILL have more to write.

Just my 2 cents.

http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=18&verse=102&to=110

does this one explains better?

 

[SouSouRocket]

Here's something about Islam that I'm curious about. So, in the Koran, unlike the Bible, there's a passage that says if there's any contradictions in text then you choose the one that was written later and that is correct. So when the Bible tells you to love your neighbor but also tells you when it's okay to stone people to death, people can read that and say the Bible is open to interpretation so I'm going to choose not to stone people to death and choose to love my neighbor. With Islam, however, when in the peaceful versus it tells you to love your neighbor, but in the Sword verses (written after) it tells you to convert anyone who isn't Muslim and if they don't convert then you are allowed to kill them. Given the clause in the Koran, officially every Muslim should be going around converting, if not killing apostates. Am I misinterpreting that?

Some of these controversial verses came down in a time of war, when your religion was sort of your identity. So in a time of war, if you are at war with a Jewish tribe then having a non-Muslim around was sort of a life-and-death matter, I suppose. It doesn't sound fantastic, but that was how my parents had explained it to me. But I don't know why you're applying Bible rules to the Qur'an to begin with. We're not in a time of war, and we're never going to have to live by those rules again. Times have changed. Islam promotes peace, so if you have something that's encouraging violence and something that's encouraging peace, you ought to use your brain and look at the context in which those verses were revealed and the context you are living in now. The Qur'an has a lot of issues with both interpretation and a lot of historical context that has to be looked at, so a lot of these horrifying verses can sometimes be chalked up to a bad interpretation or something that was a necessary evil at the time. In the same way that you can ignore horrifying things from the Bible because no one lives that way anymore. You don't need to sell your daughter into slavery.

EDIT: Also, does anyone else find it hilarious that there are muslima.com ads on this site? I see them all the time. It's all scary/gross old dudes who want a young wife to come live with them in Saudi...

 

[RustyNails]

See, this is one issue I have, and one of the questions I have also.

It is argued that God does not make mistakes, by everyone.

Well, if God is perfect, and cannot make mistakes, then how did he leave out such fundamental things out of the Quran. The very same book in which he states that is it "complete" and "perfect".

Quran's primary purpose is to declare one-ness of God (Tawhid) and testify the prophethood of messengers, the last of whom is Muhammad (S). How to pray, how to do ablution, political affairs and matters of familial relations are secondary to the primary message, so this is why Quran instructs people to follow the sunnah of the prophet for detailed exposition. Quran only says "Make prayer" or "Fast in Ramadan" and "Give Zakat to poor and needy", but the intricacies of all those things such as what is the requirement of fasting, how many rakats in Isha prayer or how much to give to poor people when you earn less than $20,000 a year (for example) is detailed in the hadiths. If you liked the message of Tawhid and believe in the prophethood of Muhammad (S) and his predecessors, you can refer to Hadiths on how to fully emulate Muhammad (S), study how he behaved in situations, and follow the detailed guidelines on five pillars of Islam.

With Islam, however, when in the peaceful versus it tells you to love your neighbor, but in the Sword verses (written after) it tells you to convert anyone who isn't Muslim and if they don't convert then you are allowed to kill them. Given the clause in the Koran, officially every Muslim should be going around converting, if not killing apostates. Am I misinterpreting that?

As Sou Sou Rocket pointed out, the "sword verses" you speak of are majority in Surah Tawbah (Repentance) which deals with war and conflict. The Chapter begin with the following warning:

Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. (Quran 9:1)

This verse is referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyah which was broken by pagans when they attacked Muslim pilgrims in Mecca. Allah is declaring the treaty void for the Muslims in Medinah. The treaty declared peace with Meccans in exchange for safety of Muslim pilgrims coming to visit Mecca and the Kaaba.

 

[TheContact]

Oh very interesting. I didn't know that. Do you have a link? or is this something commonly known?

Because if this statement isn't true, then your whole post falls apart... I think. right?

Perhaps you are correct, perhaps you are not. Though I doubt Zapages will take kindly of you telling him the quran tells him to go 'convert anyone who isn't Muslim and if they don't convert then you are allowed to kill them.'

edit: I seem to be very fond of passing the buck. So lazy I am. But I think Azih could help with the 'forced conversion issue' perhaps. But you should probably have your quotes ready.

I'm just going to plead ignorance here because I really don't know. I do know that the Koran has a system of abrogation in it, which can be read in Surah 2:106:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106

&

"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101

But pretty much anything from Surah is just about fighting. This is the quote I had in my memory, I was able to find it online:

"Sura 9:5: “And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.”"

 

[Ashes]

I'm just going to plead ignorance here because I really don't know. I do know that the Koran has a system of abrogation in it, which can be read in Surah 2:106:

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" Surah 2: 106

&

"When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." Surah 16:101

But pretty much anything from Surah is just about fighting. This is the quote I had in my memory, I was able to find it online:

"Sura 9:5: &#8220;And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful.&#8221;"

Oh that... Boy that's a long debate... It's another common anti-islamic, anti-religions website one... Not to say you got it from there, but I can't go through this again, it's the third one in as many days...

I think I'm gonna leave this thread for while - one goes over the same turf again and again.

The following is a very basic summary and more historical than interpretation. The koran was revealed over a period of years, twenty plus years, and moved from a small group being harassed etc to warfare and then to some kind of state hood. The God there is having a conversation with the rest of humanity through Muhammad.

Some schools of thought say, that those verses could very well be talking in reference to the bible or the torah, or that it could be in reference to principles or rulings, like Alcohol, which was progressively tightened etc...or warfare. In the case of warfare for example, it is one thing to say you should defend your self in attack, or attack to defend your self, but then it is another thing to talk about killing an innocent. And lining those things up with history may have something to do with it.

They are close enough to seem contradictory, but Muslims argue that they are not. Before one battle, they were told that they had a right to defend themselves, and god clarified to what extent they had that right, (stuff about civilians casualties? etc). And then much much later in Muhammed's life, a different kind of statement seems to say, that though Muhammed was humiliated (during a treaty talk), and that the others thought they had won, in truth, it was he and his people who had won the long term thing, and that he should accept the peace. So peace >warfare? warfare >peace? What is this god saying... Muslims say there is no contradiction there.

The chapter you are referencing is one of the biggest in the Koran, and it covers so much stuff. So I'm not sure which of the stuff the verse is referencing. Is it talking about the bible/torah or is it clarifying a position, or is to tighten up the law, following an incident, or battle or whatever.

^^^ See how long this 'basic' explanation is?

I should say that I'm a little disappointed that it wasn't what you said...:

So, in the Koran, unlike the Bible, there's a passage that says if there's any contradictions in text then you choose the one that was written later and that is correct.

I don't mean it in a bad way; you were just paraphrasing from memory I presume. And I'm not that disappointed because it is an excellent question.

 

[RiZ III]

It is truly a sign of the end of days when people start abandoning hadith and claiming that all they need is Quran. The funny thing is that a lot of those people don't know anything about the Quran, and they just pick and choose verses that they like in order to support what they want.

How can you abandon hadith and claim that it is unnecessary? Where do you think prayer rules and directions come from? I am only bringing up the example of prayer, because that is one of the most basic and fundamental parts of islam. That alone should tell you how important hadith is.

Prophet Mohammad didn't say anything without God's approval, and when he made a mistake, it never went uncorrected by God. There is a reason why many scholars spent years collecting sayings from the prophet, because they understood the significance of his words and his teachings.

Smellycat, the hadith have been controversial from the very beginning. Imam Shafi'i wrote an entire book in the 2nd century hijra arguing against groups who rejected the hadith. In the end, his view won and has been adapted through the centuries, but there have always been people who didn't accept the hadith.

Concerning your example of prayer. First, the prayer is not completely described in the hadith either. Second, prayer is described in the Quran. Wudu, reciting the quran, bowing, praising God, etc.. Third, even if the hadith didn't exist, do you really think we wouldn't know how to pray? Salaat is a physical act which has performed by thousands of people since even before Prophet Muhammad. It's not like some day people would have suddenly forgotten how to pray. That's absurd don't you think?

Also, consider if God is saying He has given humanity all the guidance they need to please him, then why do you ask for more? If I told you to go do the laundry and told you that's all I want from you, would you come back and ask what detergent I would prefer, and how hot the water should be? No, I already told you what I wanted, why ask for details? I don't care about the details, or else I would have told you. Think of the story in Surah Baqarah when God asks the Israelites to sacrifice a cow. That's all He asked, but they made it complicated. Which cow is it? What color is it? How old is it? What's the lesson here? Don't complicate things when the command is simple. God says pray. So pray. If it mattered so much to God, He would surely have told us.

Muhammad picked up prayer from what he saw around him and probably modified it a bit as he thought was best. He probably picked it up from the Jews as it closely resembles the Jewish method of prayer which would also explain why he was bowing towards Jerusalem at the beginning. Watch here to see the Jewish method of prayer. http://youtu.be/0aHWASyMjwg

God says that people in the past didn't disagree until the clear revelation had already come to them. He says they wrote books with their own hands and didn't follow His revelations alone. So to disagree on how to pray, or how to do anything based on anything besides God's only revelation to Muhammad is ignoring the warning He gave.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Actually, no. I have travelled and spent years among Muslim as well as Christian societies.

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked if your immediate social group held radically different views to the ones you hold, and the cultural norm you were taught from birth.

BS. Intent is very important as you yourself admitted that someone stealing because they're starving should be held to a different standard from someone steeling because of greed. The end result of both is still thievery but you admit that they should not be punished by amputation as said in the Quran. You just contradicted your previous arguments.

Intent is indeed very important, however you are making a straw man here. You had made the argument about what is and what is not slavery. In this sense, intent makes no difference to that. Your above argument would have to say that the end result is NOT thievery, because the intent is different.

If this is a sign that you have changed your argument or conceded my point, then say so and we can move along.

He had no trouble writing the Quran, why couldn't he be bothered to write the content of the Hadiths in there too? Surely he knew the dangers of alteration and interpretation and he could easily written the Hadiths in the main text in the Quran, removing any doubt to their genuineness.

Then we come upon the same issue, the point of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is a cross reference to the Qur'an. The hadith are accounts of that cross-reference.

No, it's by universal human rights. Amputation is wrong just like the death penalty is wrong. Anyone who defends either is a less evolved human being.

This is becoming a rather circular argument. I previously explained the thing about backing up statements with some form of reasoned argument? This is something you have not done here. You are again posting your own, subjective opinions. If you are acknowledging that they are merely that, then I am happy to move on from this, and I remain unconvinced.

No, humanity was less enlightened and less prosperous back in those days. The West have left the East (not Far East) way behind in enlightenment, human rights, rights to freedom since that time, and there is not a chance in hell that the Muslim world will catch up unless they reform their religion, give women the same rights as men, allow paintings and sculptures, etc. They will never catch up when the value of human life in their societies is that of a slave to God vs. an independent sentient being.

Like I said before, you assume that history has ended. When you talk about 'leaving the East behind' you are actually talking about levels of global dominance, not anything else.

There are American bases, soldiers, planes, nuclear missiles in Turkey, and Turkey recently allowed US (NATO, but they're pretty much the same thing) to build a missile shield base in their territory. They are in the US's back pocket.

So they let the US use their territory for an invasion into Iraq? Turkey does what it needs to when it comes to the US, but their relations are not what they used to be. Describing Turkey as being in the back pocket of the US implies that they are a lackey and will do whatever the US says, this is clearly not the case.

The US has long been angered by Turkey's reorientation towards the East.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Incredible. Here is a guy who has been getting frozen out from being able to express his concerns to every Islamic scholar that he has gone to, is turning away from the faith as a result, and here you are repeating the exact same kind of arrogance.

It is not a matter of turning away from the faith. It is a matter of having openly said that he is no longer a Muslim, and then coming into the thread to tell Muslims what they should believe about the Qur'an.

What you are advocating is what most Islamic scholars advocate. Sit Down, Shut Up, and Recite the Wisdom of the Ancient scholars. God forbid you should use your own intelligence and come to your own conclusions as God exhorted humans to do.

I don't believe I said that at all. I merely asked the courtesy of having the person I am talking to actually believe what they are arguing. If he is not Muslim, then he doesn't believe what he is arguing.

If he was Muslim, then it would be a different story.

Rigid arrogant dogma like yours, deriding the God given intelligence of individuals and insisting on adherence to ancient scholars, is why people turn away from a religion dominated by the local mullah in the mosque no matter how ignorant that man may be.

I do not see where I derided anyone's intelligence. What I will deride, and have no shame in deriding, is ignorance. I will respect an individual, but their argument is another thing entirely.

For the record, I think Kraftwerk... is okay. He isn't swearing, he is kinda polite... He's cool... If you're reading this; you're welcome any time mate.

My problem isn't with his adhab. It is with the fact that he is making an argument that he does not believe in.

To see Ottoman adopt the same horrendous stance of assuming that KW is either ignorant or a troll and stating flat out that people are not worthy of speaking to him if they don't know Arabic fluently is depressing.

I did not assume he was ignorant or a troll, what I assumed was that he is as he stated he is: not a Muslim. Do you think that I am wrong to assume such a thing, considering that he came out and stated it in his first post.

If this is the case, if he is not Muslim, then his Qur'an alone stance is not one that he even believes, but merely one that he is arguing for the sake of it. Surely I have a right not to engage in debate with one who is merely arguing for the sake of it, and does not even believe what they are arguing?

I'm a Muslim, I don't know Arabic, like 80% of Muslims in the world today and I have no idea why I shouldn't feel anger when someone baldly states that I have no right to use my own 'aql and need to suppress it to blindly engage in taqlid with someone who does.

If someone is arguing that they have the ability to make ijtihad on things based on the Qur'an, and cannot even read the Qur'an, then surely that is not a sound position?

That is the foundation for any discussion. If he does have the kind of Arabic required, then the discussion can move on from there. If he does not, then it remains a null-point, because then it becomes merely a hypothetical argument: 'If I had the required level of Arabic, could I argue this', rather than it being 'this is what I understand from the Qur'an, can I take this from it'.

I have not been appointed Imam of the Muslims on this forum (alhamduliLlah) and I don't think the intent of Ashes in asking me to clarify further was intended to imply that I have been given that status. I am open to discussion with Kraftwerk, if he himself is open to it, however I will not engage in a pointless discussion with someone if they do not even believe what they are arguing. I did not get the impression that Kraftwerk was either open to discussion (based on his first post) or did believe what he was arguing (based on the fact that he declares himself not to be a Muslim).

If I am wrong in that impression, then I will apologise for my wrong assumption.

ignoring my 2-3 posts after that

You will note that in my reply to Ashes, I did address your points in part. However the posts that followed your first one, were no different from the first one.

The posts you made came in two forms, the first being a statement of your personal beliefs (which aren't actually what you believe because you aren't Muslim) and the second was an expression of affront at how people respond to your beliefs (by either debating with them or refusing to debate with them).

Might I suggest that your treatment in Mosques had something to do with your manner of approach? I have felt disinclined to respond to you because you do not seem to be asking questions, but rather making statements that you don't even personally believe. How does one respond to such a thing?

I am honestly asking you, how can one respond to you? When you don't believe your own arguments?

 

[coldfoot]

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked if your immediate social group held radically different views to the ones you hold, and the cultural norm you were taught from birth.

There are very few Atheists in my social circles. I wasn't taught to be an Atheist by my family.

Intent is indeed very important, however you are making a straw man here. You had made the argument about what is and what is not slavery.

Slavery as punishment is different than regular slavery due to intent and the time period. Being a slave to a person vs. a state/government is also very different since there are more checks and balances involved and a state will guarantee you some rights even if you're a prisoner. Therefore this subject is nothing more than a feeble attempt to equate prison term with slavery by you and it's not working.

Then we come upon the same issue, the point of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is a cross reference to the Qur'an. The hadith are accounts of that cross-reference.

Where does it say in the Quran to obey the Hadith? Where does it GUARANTEE that what you know as hadith is actually what the Prophet did? You're weaseling out of the main issue here. Why are Hadith not included in the Quran to remove any and all doubt to it? I don't think you'll ever have an answer to this besides the usual "God is testing you" BS.

You are again posting your own, subjective opinions.

There you go: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
With all else equal, a society that uses amputation as punishment is a more primitive society than one that doesn't. That's why you don't see amputation in the more advanced societies of the west, and even many Muslim societies have advanced to the level that they don't practice this direct order of barbarism, even though it says so in the Quran.

Like I said before, you assume that history has ended. When you talk about 'leaving the East behind' you are actually talking about levels of global dominance, not anything else.

You also assume that history will reverse the course it's been taking for the last 300 years against Islam. That's a bigger stretch than asserting that the West will remain prevalent.

So they let the US use their territory for an invasion into Iraq? Turkey does what it needs to when it comes to the US, but their relations are not what they used to be.

Really, where do you think Turkey buys their weapons/licenses to manufacture weapons from? US and Europe, and even Israel. Turkey is its own unique country, but it's far more oriented with the West. They're a NATO member! They will never go against the US.

 

[OttomanScribe]

There are very few Atheists in my social circles. I wasn't taught to be an Atheist by my family.

So you have few atheist friends? Additionally the manifestation of your beliefs is very different to those around you, and your culture is different to them because of this?

Slavery as punishment is different than regular slavery due to intent and the time period. Being a slave to a person vs. a state/government is also very different since there are more checks and balances involved and a state will guarantee you some rights even if you're a prisoner. Therefore this subject is nothing more than a feeble attempt to equate prison term with slavery by you and it's not working.

The first part of this post accepts that slavery ('slavery as punishment' versus 'regular slavery' being an irrelevant distinction) is what occurs, then you say that me equating prison (which you admit is slavery) with slavery is not working...

Where does it say in the Quran to obey the Hadith? Where does it GUARANTEE that what you know as hadith is actually what the Prophet did? You're weaseling out of the main issue here. Why are Hadith not included in the Quran to remove any and all doubt to it? I don't think you'll ever have an answer to this besides the usual "God is testing you" BS.

It says in the Qur'an to obey them Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). The hadith are the manner in which the Muslims operationalise this commandment. One is not 'obeying the hadith', they are obeying the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) as conveyed through the most reliable method (the hadith).

Like I said, the hadith are not included in the Qur'an because they are distinct from the Qur'an, the Qur'an being the word of God, the hadith being the representation of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) the first being the message, the second its explanation.

There you go: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
With all else equal, a society that uses amputation as punishment is a more primitive society than one that doesn't. That's why you don't see amputation in the more advanced societies of the west, and even many Muslim societies have advanced to the level that they don't practice this direct order of barbarism, even though it says so in the Quran.

What does a link to the UDHR add to your argument?

The second part is just reiteration without explanation.

You also assume that history will reverse the course it's been taking for the last 300 years against Islam. That's a bigger stretch than asserting that the West will remain prevalent.

Not at all, considering that Muslims have recently become the largest religious group in the world (counting Christian groups separately). Looking at a global history, and the way in which Empires work, the best assumption to make is that all Empires fall. The ability of Europe and her offshoots to push consensus on the rest of the world has been something that has been in decline since the beginning of World War 2, that is the trend we need to look at.

Really, where do you think Turkey buys their weapons/licenses to manufacture weapons from? US and Europe, and even Israel. Turkey is its own unique country, but it's far more oriented with the West. They're a NATO member! They will never go against the US.

They clearly have gone against the US, by refusing to allow their country to be a route through which the US pursued its invasion. What do weapons have to do with anything?

 

[RiZ III]

It says in the Qur'an to obey them Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). The hadith are the manner in which the Muslims operationalise this commandment. One is not 'obeying the hadith', they are obeying the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) as conveyed through the most reliable method (the hadith)..

No Ottoman, this is a jump of logic here. God did not authorize Bukhari's collection and neither did Muhammad. Obeying the hadith is obeying the hadith. At best the Hadith collections are educated guesswork as to what the prophet actually said. Yes God told the followers of Muhammad to follow him, but he is dead, we can't follow him. God didnt say we should follow reported sayings of his, in fact it warns us not to follow anything besides the scripture. The only way we can obey the prophet is to obey the Quran as that's the only work which is authorized by God and Muhammad and also accepted by all Muslims.
l

 

[OttomanScribe]

No Ottoman, this is a jump of logic here. God did not authorize Bukhari's collection and neither did Muhammad.

Bukhari (and the other orthodox collections) are authoritative because they are the most reliable representations of the commandments of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).

Obeying the hadith is obeying the hadith. At best the Hadith collections are educated guesswork as to what the prophet actually said.

If you say that about the hadith, you should say the same thing about the Qur'an, as they were both given to you through the same methods of transmission. Some hadith even have a greater level of authenticity in transmission than the Qur'an.

Yes God told the followers of Muhammad to follow him, but he is dead, we can't follow him.

AudibiLlah! Listen to what you are saying here! So that whole 'La Ilaha ill-Allah, Mohammaden Rasul'Allah' thing is merely a formality? The passing of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) did not constitute the end of our ability to follow him.

God didnt say we should follow reported sayings of his, in fact it warns us not to follow anything besides the scripture.

It is not a matter of 'following reported sayings of his', it is a matter of following what we know, to the greatest level of authenticity possible, were his commands. The alternative is believing that the vast swathe of the scholarly traditions, and hundreds of thousands of minds greater than you or I, who dedicated their lives to the preservation of the life and sayings of the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) have less access to authentic Islam than you and I do today. This is an unlikely proposition.

The only way we can obey the prophet is to obey the Quran as that's the only work which is authorized by God and Muhammad and also accepted by all Muslims.

Obeying the Qur'an is obeying the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) are you saying that the only thing we have that is at all reliable from the time of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the Qur'an? That the entirety of the Muslim community, who took the commandment to follow the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) as being more than simply 'during his lifetime', were wrong throughout history?

Anyone who claims to follow the Qur'an cannot make such a claim.