Conversation Between rupertj and Indo-Chinese Food

All in due course - I'm very busy for the next 5 days or so and I may or may not be able to reply within that time. My apologies

i was hoping, you would least make an attempt at answering the below..

Thanks for re-iterating what i said - your 'scholars are doing nothing of value- a critique, scientific analysis, or in depth discussion of scripture would be something at least of some value. repeating what was already written , but with an added spin on its meaning is a pointless excercise. Of course i realised that, which is why i said form the beginning the existence of scholars was facile- it is one man reading text derived from hebrew religious belief and custom hundreds of years before and telling you what he thinks it means. SChool kids do this every day in english classes around the world. There is no empircal process involved, it becomes simple conjecture- you as a mathematican should be able to have spotted that fact.
again i ask why on earth then are they regarded above proper historians? Becuase they are charged to view islam in entirely a one-eyed basis? Then it valuable to a muslim that doesnt want to hold an open mind- but no-one else.

As regards images- the dieference between photos and painting are in the mechanics of such - the purpose of creating an image for posterity is the same - as is the result. Equally digital images desgined by graphic designers are even more so the same as ancient art - the paint brush replaces by the mouse and cpu and the canvas- the hard drive and computer screen. And yet how many muslims accross the world play video games and traverse the internet with the blessing of these scholars. The whole system seems tenuous to me. Why do muslims even need the quran when your 'scholars' make it up as they go along - without the need to be scientific about anyhting along the way.

I don't think you understand the point. The scholars are not doing a 'critique' of Islam. That is what outsiders do. They aren't weighing up the pros and cons as in the example of tobacco; that is not the objective. Rather, they want to resurrect and preserve the beliefs and way of life of Muhammad (pbuh) in writing. In that respect, Islamic scholarship is of the highest quality. They are not trying to prove the validity of Islam - this is where you expose your ignorance once more. They are working within the frame that assumes Islam is correct and trying to find out what Muhammad (pbuh) really preached. Comparative religion and missionary efforts do not constitute scholarship . The fact that you don't realise this has just delegitimised this debate. Nice theory though.

Regarding image-making, you are pretty much correct up until you mention 'new forms of making images'. The Deoband tradition maintains this strict ruling, but when it comes to new forms of making images, your knowledge seems to be patchy. There is a fundamental difference between a photo and a drawing/painting, which has led to differing opinion. Scholars have held different views but the ruling which permits photo-taking has prevailed. This is not to say that we take family photos and stash them at home. This is also maintained as a sin in the Deoband tradition, and indeed I will expand if you wish for us to have a separate discussion on it. Your theory is evidently biased, because you make no attempt to explain using Quran, Sunnah, 'Ijma, 'Ijtihad or Qiyas, rather just throw out your preconception.

As regards later 'rulings' on image making, i have plenty to say on this, if you were to create a thread on the subject i would put them forward to you. Effectively the hadiths again are clear in arious translations on the point that mohammed prohibited All forms of images of living things as one of the major sins so much so he didnt allow muslims to keep pictures of their relaives in their homes- to the extent that ALL methods of art were referred to (painting, drawing, sculpture) that were known at the time. Hadtih and fatwa state also that things like comic scetches in parody of living images are prohibitted on the same basis.
Logically then this premise would and should be applied to modern times- now that there are new forms of making images (photos, animation, comuter gen, the internet) which were techniques unknown to mohammed. BUT scholars have realised to applt this rule would effectively cripple any muslims ability to operate in the modern wolrd- certainly in terms of trade and business - so they ruled otherwise. An example of scholars re-writting islam

Ut doesnt take a cynicla person to say this si hetoric - it is clealry logica that a person with a vested interest in a study clealry undermines its merit -how would a medical study into the effects of smoking be interpreted if it were conducted by tobacco com panies (as they were in the 40s I think you are completly avoiding the point that islamic commentators are tied to their loyalty to their emotional attachment to their religion whereas men of science are not. This principle can be applied to many areas - which leads to the islamic scholar trying to prove the validty of islam first as oppossed to the validity of a hypotheisis

See my wall - i accidentally put it on my own instead of yours. there's two of them, read the lower one first.

People spend their whole lives trying to master many different subjects- it doesnt mean their subject is complex. It generally means they can make a career out of doing it. islamic scholars make a name for themselves (within islam) by coming up with interpretations that is accpetable to muslims of the day. This occurred through various generations - which why there are dozens of tafsirs and schools of thought. The quran is quite straghtforwad but very general in terms of what it covers. the hadths provide more detail and pe-empt the questions arising from the areas ignored by the quran (although each successive caliph etc had their own input too), they also superimpose their opinon which is sstaed to be experience of mohammed.
Scholars then add their own layer of interpretation and opinion to this. That is without adding into the mix the variation of each translator pickthal, arberry, abl fazl etc.
The complexity doenst arise in the source material but in 'the two pennies worth' added by hundreds of scholars over the generations. We know that mohammed practiced a very straight forward version of islam as written in the quran - this included practices that modern day muslims dont follow anymore - why? because over the years certain 'scholars' have deemd parts of the scriptures 'not relevant' but have left others untouched and also applied their own rulings on old principles from mohammed for modern advancement (his ruling on images in the home, image making etc) -but again ignored modern advancement in relation to other rulings. All contradictory of course.

Because very few of them have gone to the lengths that some of the more famous Islamic scholars went to, to understand its depths. I wonder whether you treat literary experts with the same derision."


Eh? you don think the experts in greek science and technology spent huge amounts of their lives onthese subjects? Some of these guys hold degrees in mulitple disciplines such as physics, chem, geneology, archelogy, geology, ancient and classical history. How does the ability and educational background of a linguist stack up to this? It is not derision to identify a vast gulf between men of science and guys re-interpretaing poetry. The other point is that the men of science are entirely inpartial and logically thinking. the islamic scholars are already entirely baised in their works- and tied by their religious loyalties are entirely unable to identify and proclaim any inconsistencies. contradictions or immoral comments in the islamic scriptures. Moreover any that even tried this would have probably been beheaded by anyone that heard. Men of science dont have this restriction placed upon them. If anything, your scholars will fabricate opinon to support their loyalties - whatever it says. Which is why you have idiots on tsr that have read "the quran taught the world the world was round, the moon reflected the sun, came up with the idea of embryology etc etc " - which as we know is rubbish.


"You clearly haven't met many of them. Ironically, they have done the exact opposite throughout history"
Tthat is your opinion, to me what they are doing is simplistic - trying to find alternative meanings to a straightforward text using poetic licence as an excuse. Ultimatly on this line of logic - noone will ever know what islamic scriptures actually say if we beleive all this nonsesne of how un-literal classical arabic was. If it was so un-literal, how on earth did muslims in the 7th century adpot it so easily?

i dont agree at all with the principle that so called islamic scholars have any better understanding of what hadith or quran says than anyone else.

Even though their whole purpose in life is to understand the texts?

Historians have been able to decipher what ancient greek scientists meant on the highly technical subjects of physics, chemistry, engineering etc. Why should they not be able to understand the translations of islamic scripture talking about basic day to day life and rituals in arabia?

Because very few of them have gone to the lengths that some of the more famous Islamic scholars went to, to understand its depths. I wonder whether you treat literary experts with the same derision.

in my opinon various 'scholarly opinion' only serves the purpose to change the obvious meanings of scripture to suit contemporary thinking. Plus making themselves seem more important and valuable than they actually are - bit like politicians

You clearly haven't met many of them. Ironically, they have done the exact opposite throughout history.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You really should take up some of your issues at sunniforum.com. Some of those people put most of TSR's secular graduates to shame.