Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Are ISIS muslims? watch

  • View Poll Results: Are ISIS militants MUSLIMS?
    Yes.
    124
    42.91%
    No.
    77
    26.64%
    They are muslims. But not "true" muslims
    71
    24.57%
    Idk
    17
    5.88%

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    This is the job you hold on TSR.
    It's not full time though.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taeffa)
    Murder is the greatest sin in Islam after shirk.
    Isis openly commit murder like it's a ritual.

    Therefore they cannot be Muslim.
    Define "murder" in an Islamic context.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    It is killing someone that Allah has forbidden.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Phew! That was a bit of a marathon.

    Still, nothing new, apart from the "I reject the consensus".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The Quran makes no mention of consent.
    In the historical context of 7th century female slaves, do you seriously think that the slave owners said "Do you mind? You don't have to".
    Get real!
    As I was explaining in the message about 'al bighaa' which you quoted, the verse says 'do not push your maids to al bighaa if they desire chastity'. The word for prostitution is da'aara, whereas the word 'al bighaa' also encompasses sexual relations with the slave master. If the slave desires chastity, i.e. does not want to have sex, then she cannot be pushed.

    (Original post by QE2)
    Where do all these ages and dates come from? Are they from sources more reliable and authentic than Bukhari, Muslim and Dawud?

    Essentially, your argument is...
    "These several sahih hadith that give an actual age (some on the narration of Aisha herself) are wrong because if we trawl through other hadith (of lesser authenticity) we find occasional references to dates and periods of time. If we use this data, we can construct a formula which seems to show that Aisha'a age must be "x".

    That's a bit like finding a photo of someone wearing an "I am 9" badge at a birthday party and claiming that they weren't nine because a friend who knew their sister said that they met the sister when they were 12 and someone else said that they thought that their parents moved into their new house when the sister was 20, and they remember them saying that they had been there 8 years since that party, or something.
    It isn't really that convincing to someone who doesn't already have the preconception that the child was 12.

    Plus you have the Quran saying that there is an idda period for those women too young to have started menstruation, thus giving permission for sex with pre-pubescent girls.

    It really isn't that convincing to the objective observer, is it?
    I think you are still not understanding of the fact that not every hadith in a given compilation holds the same reliability, even if modern sunni culture seems to imply that every hadith in Bukhari is authentic, every hadith in Muslim is almost as authentic, and so on. This is ridiculous, because those books have several contradictory verses. Sahih Muslim itself proposes that aisha was 6 in one hadith, and the hadith immediately after it says that she was 7.

    The narrator chains who claimed that Aisha was 6 or 7 were unreliable. First of all, the 6/7 contradiction seems trivial, but from a historical point of view it is a major loss of consistency.

    I'm not sure if you would be able to find a way to translate this, but here is a list of over 50 sources which support the assertion that she was 19 from the shia books.
    http://www.valiasr-aj.com/fa/page.ph...uestion&id=699

    The sources saying she was 9 at the time of her consummation are narrated by liars like Hisham ibn `Urwa and unreliable.

    After moving to Iraq from Medina, he became completely unreliable and narrated falsehoods and it was precisely at that time he narrated Ayesha was 9.

    al-Dhahabi in his seerah al 'ilaam confirms this:

    'Ya'kuub said Hisham bin Shaybah did not deny it, but after he trave;;ed to Iraq to write his narrations, he said things he said that he had heard from his father, which he had definitely not heard from his father.'


    So does Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Tah'dhiib al Tah'dhiib quoting the same Ya`qub b. Shayba on this where he became negligent:


    وقال يعقوب بن شيبة ثقة ثبت لم ينكر عليه شيء إلا بعدما صار إلى العراق فإنه انبسط في الرواية عن أبيه فأنكر ذلك عليه أهل بلده والذي نرى أن هشاماً تسهل لأهل العراق أنه كان لا يحدث عن أبيه إلا بما سمعه منه فكان تسهله أنه أرسل عن أبيه مما كان يسمعه من غير أبيه عن أبيه وقال بن خراش كان مالك لا يرضاه وكان هشام صدوقاً تدخل أخباره في الصحيح بلغني أن مالكاً نقم عليه حديثه لأهل العراق.

    Abu al-Hassan ibn al-Qattan also says he changed in regards to reliability before he died:

    تغير قبل موته ولم نر له في ذلك سلفاً
    I'm kinda heading out to college now or I'd translate those last two references for you, I'll do it when I get back haha. Ahmed if you can help me translate while I'm out that'd be great bro
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    There are sahih hadith that clearly contradict this. There are scholars, past and present, who support it. So on what grounds do you claim this?

    Obviously not familiar with the maxim "Do as I say, not do as I do"?

    Are you claiming that it is impossible for those dispensing law (especially in totalitarian regimes) to spare people on a whim, despite what the law states?

    Not in the Quran, but it clearly does in the sunnah.
    Are you a Quranist?

    Oh, that's fine and dandy then.
    And hudd punishments can be prescribed on the strength of a "confession". I'm sure you are familiar with how reliable these are under totalitarian regimes.
    Again, I'm not a quranist, I am a shia. I suppose this is the first time you've debated one? :P
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Again, I'm not a quranist, I am a shia. I suppose this is the first time you've debated one? :P
    The main difference being that a Koranist will deny until he's blue in the face that the Koran has any faults, while a Shia will deny the Koran has faults but will use other sources to resolve the contradictions and correct the faults.

    :toofunny:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The main difference being that a Koranist will deny until he's blue in the face that the Koran has any faults, while a Shia will deny the Koran has faults but will use other sources to resolve the contradictions and correct the faults.

    :toofunny:
    There are no contradictions or faults. The time I explained a so called contradiction so far has depended upon linguistic analysis, not the use of secondary historical sources. You claim the quran has faults based on translations of certain words -from secondary sources- like Ibn Kathir. You cannot justify that the primary source is contradictory via a secondary source and then claim that doing the same to prove that the quran isn't contradictory via linguistic analysis rather than secondary historical sources (not linguistic ones) is invalid.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    As I was explaining in the message about 'al bighaa' which you quoted, the verse says 'do not push your maids to al bighaa if they desire chastity'. The word for prostitution is da'aara, whereas the word 'al bighaa' also encompasses sexual relations with the slave master. If the slave desires chastity, i.e. does not want to have sex, then she cannot be pushed.
    Yet there are various accounts of Muslim soldiers having sex with their captured women, on the explicit permission of Muhammad. Are you seriously claiming that just after their menfolk had been slaughtered, these women freely, and without coercion, happily volunteered to have sex with their captors (who may well still be covered in the blood of their husband)?
    No, obviously not. They may not have had to physically hold them down while they raped them, but it was still rape. To attempt to argue otherwise is somewhat distasteful.

    The sources saying she was 9 at the time of her consummation are narrated by liars like Hisham ibn `Urwa and unreliable.
    He is not accused of "lying". Some scholars have claimed that in his later years, he bacame forgetful, not that he made things up. Others claim that the whole accusation of unreliability in nonsense.

    We seem to be dealing with the perennial hadith problem. Any Hadith that paints Islam of Muhammad in a bad light seems to have reliability and authenticity issues, yet the ones claimint that he was a saint and Islam is all love and peace are always beyond reproach. It would be interesting to see a list of all the hadith related by Hisham in his last 25 years, after his move to Iraq, to see if the contents of all of them are similarly rejected.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Again, I'm not a quranist, I am a shia. I suppose this is the first time you've debated one? :P
    No, but it's the first time that one has completely rejected Bukhari and Muslim.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    There are no contradictions or faults.
    The Quran claims it is perfect.
    It is clearly not perfect.
    Therefore it contains a contradiction/flaw.

    The Quran cliams that man is responsible for his fate.
    The Quran claims that Allah deliberately misguides people.
    This is another clear contradiction.

    The Quran claims that Allah is "most merciful" (ie. one cannot be more merciful)
    Allah punishes people, so he could be more merciful.
    Another clear contradiction.

    The Quran says that man was formed from potters' clay.
    That is a biological error.

    The Quran says that new life is created by fluid from the loins.
    That is a biological error.

    In the passage on "embryology", the Quran makes no mention of the female egg.
    That is a biological error.

    Remember that it only takes one error or contradiction to show the Quran to be false.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    There are no contradictions or faults.
    There are contradictions present in the Quran- so much so, Muslim scholars have developed the doctrine of Naskh "Abrogation" to deal with such contradictions. You as a Muslim apologist with the presupposition that Islam is "perfect" and "free from flaws" significantly stifles your ability to be truly objective, rational and critical and thus quite unlikely to admit to any such blemishes and contradictions present in the Quran, so as to not shatter your vested interest in Islam as the "perfect" and "true" religion.

    The time I explained a so called contradiction so far has depended upon linguistic analysis, not the use of secondary historical sources. You claim the quran has faults based on translations of certain words -from secondary sources- like Ibn Kathir. You cannot justify that the primary source is contradictory via a secondary source and then claim that doing the same to prove that the quran isn't contradictory via linguistic analysis rather than secondary historical sources (not linguistic ones) is invalid.
    You don't need a secondary source to identify the contradictions in the Quran, moreover why does the 'perfect, universal and clear' infallible word of god, require subjective clarification/analysis by fallible humans? (many of whom, differ on the "True" interpretation of the Quran- like yourself as a 'Shia', accused by many sunni Muslims as being 'unbelievers) Is there anything in the Quran that clearly states that the Quran is not sufficient to understand Allah's message, and that further texts (that are produced by fallible humans and are subjective) are required?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The Quran claims it is perfect.
    It is clearly not perfect.
    Therefore it contains a contradiction/flaw.

    The Quran cliams that man is responsible for his fate.
    The Quran claims that Allah deliberately misguides people.
    This is another clear contradiction.

    The Quran claims that Allah is "most merciful" (ie. one cannot be more merciful)
    Allah punishes people, so he could be more merciful.
    Another clear contradiction.

    The Quran says that man was formed from potters' clay.
    That is a biological error.

    The Quran says that new life is created by fluid from the loins.
    That is a biological error.

    In the passage on "embryology", the Quran makes no mention of the female egg.
    That is a biological error.

    Remember that it only takes one error or contradiction to show the Quran to be false.
    1. The Quran is perfect for what it is - one half of the rope of god. I have discussed this on this thread before.


    2. "…He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path)," (Quran 2:26)
    The Quran does not say that God actually misguides people. This misunderstanding was a point of contention for me before I became muslim which was one of the reasons I was not muslim at the time. The word translated as 'mislead' in the quran is 'yudhillu' which means 'to leave astray', not 'to lead astray'. All the cases where this word is used in the quran make more linguistic sense when considered in this way.

    3. Absolute mercy is not lack of justice. The islamic hell is not permanent - according to the imams, once the value of your sins is cleansed from you by the 'fire' of hell, all human beings will receive heaven.

    4. In fus'ha arabic, 'clay' is used in the metaphorical sense to mean several things. One meaning is 'ground', and another is 'stuff' or matter. The 12 imams confirmed the latter interpretation before there was a need for apologists to realign their interpretations with modern scientific information.

    5. The quran says that the creation of new life is begun by a process involving a mixture of fluids from the male 'sulb' of loins to the female 'tara'ib' or lower abdomen. It is well known that ova move through a fluid medium in the anterum, and that this fluid is moved (with the ovum) along by the cilia in the fallopian tubes. If this liquid was not present, and there was no mingling of male and female fluids, the ova would die to start with, and secondly the sperm cells would be unable to move through a medium by which to reach the ova.

    The quran doesn't mention sperm cells or ova, but the fluids they are contained within. If the Quran was to go into detail about the cells, or even meiosis and etc, it would become a book of science and not a guide to be taken alongside the prophets and imams, which would defeat the point.

    (Original post by QE2)
    No, but it's the first time that one has completely rejected Bukhari and Muslim.

    I don't completely reject either. I reject the idea that either of those books contains -only- sahih hadiths. They contain hadiths with a range of reliabilities.

    (Original post by QE2)
    Yet there are various accounts of Muslim soldiers having sex with their captured women, on the explicit permission of Muhammad. Are you seriously claiming that just after their menfolk had been slaughtered, these women freely, and without coercion, happily volunteered to have sex with their captors (who may well still be covered in the blood of their husband)?
    No, obviously not. They may not have had to physically hold them down while they raped them, but it was still rape. To attempt to argue otherwise is somewhat distasteful.

    He is not accused of "lying". Some scholars have claimed that in his later years, he bacame forgetful, not that he made things up. Others claim that the whole accusation of unreliability in nonsense.

    We seem to be dealing with the perennial hadith problem. Any Hadith that paints Islam of Muhammad in a bad light seems to have reliability and authenticity issues, yet the ones claimint that he was a saint and Islam is all love and peace are always beyond reproach. It would be interesting to see a list of all the hadith related by Hisham in his last 25 years, after his move to Iraq, to see if the contents of all of them are similarly rejected.
    I don't consider any of the hadiths regarding muslim soldiers having sex with captured female prisoners of war to be accurate based on my studies of their reliability. Hisham's hadiths from even before he travelled to iraq were often full of lies - he was one of the hadith writers of the faction of Abu Huraira, who was publicly exposed for lying outright several times. Sunni scholars have not accused, and do not accuse him of lying and instead try to excuse his more flagrant lies by calling him forgetful. The shia have no reason to try and excuse him.
    And no, there are some positive hadiths that are false too, like those used to argue that homosexuality and 'natural eunuchs' were readily accepted and given the right to engage in what they wanted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by string56)
    There are contradictions present in the Quran- so much so, Muslim scholars have developed the doctrine of Naskh "Abrogation" to deal with such contradictions. You as a Muslim apologist with the presupposition that Islam is "perfect" and "free from flaws" significantly stifles your ability to be truly objective, rational and critical and thus quite unlikely to admit to any such blemishes and contradictions present in the Quran, so as to not shatter your vested interest in Islam as the "perfect" and "true" religion.



    You don't need a secondary source to identify the contradictions in the Quran, moreover why does the 'perfect, universal and clear' infallible word of god, require subjective clarification/analysis by fallible humans? (many of whom, differ on the "True" interpretation of the Quran- like yourself as a 'Shia', accused by many sunni Muslims as being 'unbelievers)Is there anything in the Quran that clearly states that the Quran is not sufficient to understand Allah's message, and that further texts (that are produced by fallible humans and are subjective) are required?
    I do not believe in naskh apart from legal naskh as muslim society developed and the completed Islam could be fully implemented/established, such as in the case of alcohol intoxication initially invalidation prayer and alcohol consumption later being forbidden. I believe that this provides precedent for a 'pathway' by which muslim converts can ease themselves into the personal shari'ah. There is no theological naskh.

    You yourself are using secondary sources. It is impossible for anyone not to in the modern day, because fus'ha arabic is extinct as a first language. Everybody, including arabic speakers has to study it. The example of when Goodbloke and I were discussing the use of the word 'al baghaa' a day or so ago comes to mind.

    Secondly, we don't use subjective clarification and analysis by fallible humans. The Prophets and Imams are considered to be infallible By the shi'a. And yes, in answer to your question about the quran not being sufficient to understand allah's message - Quran 3:7 is very clear in saying that the only people who will be reminding the 'people of understanding' of the correct interpretation of the quran's verses (reminded because they were the interpretations taught by muhammad) will be 'those vested firmly in knowledge'.

    This does not necessarily mean by texts, but since we're still awaiting the 12th imam we can't really get primary information from them. I will admit that this makes things a lot more difficult, since now there are also a lot of contradictory narrations about what they said and did, too. We need to rely on historical analysis, again, when discerning the reliability of these hadiths of ahlulbayt as we do with the hadiths of muhammad.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I do not believe in naskh apart from legal naskh as muslim society developed and the completed Islam could be fully implemented/established, such as in the case of alcohol intoxication initially invalidation prayer and alcohol consumption later being forbidden. I believe that this provides precedent for a 'pathway' by which muslim converts can ease themselves into the personal shari'ah. There is no theological naskh.
    You a 'Shia', believe this under your subjective interpretation of the "perfect, universal and clear" religion, to which other Muslims would differ in their subjective interpretation.

    You -are- using secondary sources. Back when we were talking about the meaning of the word 'al baghaa', you used a translation - i.e. secondary source, or english interpretation - in order to say that the verse was only talking about prostitution, when it in fact was not.
    You're responding to a strawman, I think you've confused me with someone else.


    Secondly, we don't use subjective clarification and analysis by fallible humans.
    Er...many Muslims do and you might think that (as a shia, with a vested interest in islam, being 'perfect' and 'flaw free' ) but from an objective, rational and critical stance, I think it's quite clear, that shias do use subjective interpretations developed by fallible humans. Even within shia Islam, there are differing sects.

    The Prophets and Imams are considered to be infallible By the shi'a.
    Once again, this is your subjective interpretation of Islam. From an objective, rational and critical stance, Imams are fallible humans and with their subjective interpretation of Islam, they differ from other subjective interpretations of Islam (i.e. sunni Islam, quranists, ahmadiyya Islam etc)

    And yes, in answer to your question about the quran not being sufficient to understand allah's message - Quran 3:7 is very clear in saying that the only people who will be reminding the 'people of understanding' of the correct interpretation of the quran's verses (reminded because they were the interpretations taught by muhammad) will be 'those vested firmly in knowledge'.
    So the 'perfect and universal', 'Quran'- the infallible word of Allah- is insufficient and thus requires "those vested firmly in knowledge" i.e. fallible humans, with their differing subjective interpretations of Islam. Allah did a great job on making his message perfect, universal and clear.

    This does not necessarily mean by texts, but since we're still awaiting the 12th imam we can't really get primary information from them. I will admit that this makes things a lot more difficult, since now there are also a lot of contradictory narrations about what they said and did, too. We need to rely on historical analysis, again, when discerning the reliability of these hadiths of ahlulbayt as we do with the hadiths of muhammad.
    So the 'perfect, universal and clear' religion requires 'analysis' by fallible humans (many of whom, once again have arrived at a different interpretation to the Quran, hadith and Islam in general, than to your 'Shia' interpretation. Allah did a great job on making his message perfect, universal and clear.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    Never said it was, it's how logic works
    Humans aren't logical, particularly the religious: Your argument is an argumentum ad populum; i.e. Not logical at all.

    2.4 billion Christians don't put homosexuals to death or stone witches; they mix fabrics and eat pork, yet Yahweh commands such things in the Bible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by string56)
    You a 'Shia', believe this under your subjective interpretation of the "perfect, universal and clear" religion, to which other Muslims would differ in their subjective interpretation.

    You're responding to a strawman, I think you've confused me with someone else.

    Er...many Muslims do and you might think that (as a shia, with a vested interest in islam, being 'perfect' and 'flaw free' ) but from an objective, rational and critical stance, I think it's quite clear, that shias do use subjective interpretations developed by fallible humans. Even within shia Islam, there are differing sects.

    Once again, this is your subjective interpretation of Islam. From an objective, rational and critical stance, Imams are fallible humans and with their subjective interpretation of Islam, they differ from other subjective interpretations of Islam (i.e. sunni Islam, quranists, ahmadiyya Islam etc)

    So the 'perfect and universal', 'Quran'- the infallible word of Allah- is insufficient and thus requires "those vested firmly in knowledge" i.e. fallible humans, with their differing subjective interpretations of Islam. Allah did a great job on making his message perfect, universal and clear.

    So the 'perfect, universal and clear' religion requires 'analysis' by fallible humans (many of whom, once again have arrived at a different interpretation to the Quran, hadith and Islam in general, than to your 'Shia' interpretation. Allah did a great job on making his message perfect, universal and clear.
    To your first point - Yes, it is a subjective interpretation, and is based upon what human beings (Imam Ali) said about abrogation - to a non muslim, a fallible human. Granting that from an objective viewpoint, he would be seen to be fallible, the quran makes far more sense when put into the context he explains.

    I edited what you responded to in your second point. My bad. It should make a little more sense now.

    To your third point - yes, I understand that there are other interpretations of Islam. While I don't agree with them, I'm not going to shove my views down their throats either, though I'd be open to discussion on the reasons for their opinions on certain verses and practices.

    To your fourth - the Quran is perfect in terms of what it is meant to be. I am not a muslim who believes that it, alone, is universal, or fully understandable by everyone, nor do I think that it's meant to be. The Quran is the final revelation, but what needs to be actually relied upon for comprehensive islamic law is the instruction of the imams and the prophets.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    To your first point - Yes, it is a subjective interpretation, and is based upon what human beings (Imam Ali) said about abrogation - to a non muslim, a fallible human. Granting that from an objective viewpoint, he would be seen to be fallible, the quran makes far more sense when put into the context he explains.

    Must be said again, this is you belief under your subjective interpretation of Islam, to which other Muslims would differ.

    You yourself are using secondary sources. It is impossible for anyone not to in the modern day, because fus'ha arabic is extinct as a first language. Everybody, including arabic speakers has to study it. The example of when Goodbloke and I were discussing the use of the word 'al baghaa' a day or so ago comes to mind.
    So your god sends his final message to all mankind, in an antiquated language (classical Arabic) to which the vast majority of humanity throughout history have never spoken. Moreover they must 'study' it. What a a flawed and terrible method to send your final message to all mankind. This contradicts the popular Muslim apologist claim of Islam being 'perfect, universal, clear and simple'. What an incompetent god.

    To your third point - yes, I understand that there are other interpretations of Islam. While I don't agree with them, I'm not going to shove my views down their throats either, though I'd be open to discussion on the reasons for their opinions on certain verses and practices.
    Understood. But nevertheless, it does contradict the Muslim apologist claim, that Islam is 'perfect, universal and clear', if there are numerous, competing, conflicting and contradicting interpretations, many self-proclaiming as 'True islam'.

    To your fourth - the Quran is perfect in terms of what it is meant to be.
    What?, a perfect, universal and clear message for all mankind? If so it clearly doesn't seem like that.

    I am not a muslim who believes that it, alone, is universal, or fully understandable by everyone, nor do I think that it's meant to be.
    Understood, but must be said again I'm afraid, this is your subjective interpretation of Islam, to which other muslims would differ.

    The Quran is the final revelation, but what needs to be actually relied upon for comprehensive islamic law is the instruction of the imams and the prophets.
    And has been said before 'Prophets' and especially 'Imams', are fallible humans whose subjective interpretation of Islam differs from others. It seems Allah is a very incompetent god on making sure he keeps his religion unambiguous, clear and easy to understood, especially when you consider it's not beyond his ability i.e. he's supposedly 'Omnipotent', plus he's 'omniscient', so he would have foreseen the fragmentation of the Muslim world and its numerous differing interpretations, yet did little to prevent this from happening.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by string56)
    [/b][/i]
    Must be said again, this is you belief under your subjective interpretation of Islam, to which other Muslims would differ.

    Understood. But nevertheless, it does contradict the Muslim apologist claim, that Islam is 'perfect, universal and clear', if there are numerous, competing, conflicting and contradicting interpretations, many self-proclaiming as 'True islam'.

    What?, a perfect, universal and clear message for all mankind? If so it clearly doesn't seem like that.

    Understood, but must be said again I'm afraid, this is your subjective interpretation of Islam, to which other muslims would differ.

    And has been said before 'Prophets' and especially 'Imams', are fallible humans whose subjective interpretation of Islam differs from others. It seems Allah is a very incompetent god on making sure he keeps his religion unambiguous, clear and easy to understood, especially when you consider it's not beyond his ability i.e. he's supposedly 'Omnipotent', plus he's 'omniscient', so he would have foreseen the fragmentation of the Muslim world and its numerous differing interpretations, yet did little to prevent this from happening.
    Please don't put the 'muslim apologist' label on me. That may be the role I'm taking right now, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to use the same arguments or even hold the same beliefs as others.

    Islam as a whole is the perfect, clear, universal message for all time. Not the Quran alone. The Quran alone is ambiguous on many issues and is incomplete in the details of its instructions, as well as giving principles that it doesn't always explain how to implement.

    Islam does not need to be coherent in order for positive effects to be felt by human beings by its existence. Of course, there would be negative events which would be tied to religion, but from an islamic perspective so long as the 'true islam' is available somewhere, its positive qualities will find ways to leak into mainstream society.

    The welfare system, rights for women, etc etc (values I mentioned before among others) have taken root in non muslim countries, and islamic reasoning is that despite not following muhammad, they have received guidance from the messengers sent to their own nations long before, as well as being indirectly affected by the message of muhammad through some positive examples shown through some things that muslim civilisations displayed.

    Different interpretations existing is fine. Human beings will always pursue the more righteous path and civilisation will move in the direction which is the most just, but in small pieces, with injustice always existing but in different ways - all the old ways being slowly replaced with justice.

    The purpose of religion is not for everyone to submit to it, but to help human civilisation to prosper and to help carve away negative cultural aspects from its societies over time.
    As a result, the negative interpretations of Islam will, and are already slowly falling away in favour of semi-secular (and usually uneducated) but well meaning, and justly intended interpretations, as well as interpretations which maintain their religiousness and do not contain mandate for injustices.

    This process has been reversed and abated by the work and support of the work of people such as the deobandi school of thought, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, Qutb, etc.

    'And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, being sincere to Him in the Way, to be hunafaah (just, honest), and to establish prayer and to give zakah. And that is the correct religion.'
    Surah bayyinah, ayah 5.

    This verse gives indication of the core 'purpose' of islam for society. To worship, that we may not grow arrogant, to be sincere to God, which requires sincerity to the self, to be honest, to be just, and to help the poor gain the means to emancipation from their status.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Please don't put the 'muslim apologist' label on me. That may be the role I'm taking right now, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to use the same arguments or even hold the same beliefs as others.
    So far you've seem to have resorted to many of the same fallacious responses, seen numerous times before on TSR.

    Islam as a whole is the perfect, clear, universal message for all time.
    Such a statement is expected, coming from a Muslim- with the presupposition and vested interest, that Islam is 'perfect' and 'flaw free"- this pro Islamic bias goes on to stifle your ability to be truly objective, rational and critical, in concerning Islam. You seem to be very inconsistent and contradicting yourself quite much (I guess it's that desperation of yours, resulting from your vested interest to keep the image of Islam intact)

    How is 'Islam as a whole' ( 'perfect, universal and clear' if there are numerous conflicting, competing and contradicting interpretations, many self-proclaiming as 'True islam'. You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance quite much.

    Not the Quran alone.The Quran alone is ambiguous on many issues and is incomplete in the details of its instructions, as well as giving principles that it doesn't always explain how to implement.
    This is your subjective interpretation, other Muslims (i.e. quranists ect) would differ.

    So infallible Allah's 'perfect, universal and clear' final message to all mankind, is insufficient and thus requires subjective clarification by fallible humans, many of whom have arrived at different interpretations to yours (shia).

    It seems Allah is a very incompetent god on making sure he keeps his message unambiguous, clear and easy to understood. Especially when you consider it's not beyond his ability i.e. he's supposedly 'Omnipotent', plus he's 'omniscient', so he would have foreseen the fragmentation of the Muslim world and its numerous differing interpretations, yet did little to prevent this from happening.

    Islam does not need to be coherent in order for positive effects to be felt by human beings by its existence.
    That's a first, you don't seem to be aware of what you're saying. What are these positive effects? I'm willing to assume they're not unique to Islam and can be present without it. Are these 'positive effects', the thousand year history of Islamic slavery, sex slavery, imperialism, colonialism, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, cruel and unusual punishments, childhood indoctrination, child marriage, oppression of homosexuals and apostates etc, etc,

    Of course, there would be negative events which would be tied to religion, but from an islamic perspective so long as the 'true islam' is available somewhere, its positive qualities will find ways to leak into mainstream society.
    ...and what is 'true Islam'? (Many sunnis inform me, it's not your 'shia' interpretation) after more than a thousand years, the title of 'True Islam' is still very much contested by various Muslims.

    The welfare system, rights for women, etc etc (values I mentioned before among others) have taken root in non muslim countries
    Indeed they have, without ever requiring the implementation of Islam (or in your case Shia Islam) on society. Also I would very much contest and differentiate what kind of a 'welfare system' and 'women's rights' present in non-muslim countries is, in light of Islam's financial discrimination against non-muslims and gender discrimination against women.

    and islamic reasoning is that despite not following muhammad, they have received guidance from the messengers sent to their own nations long before,
    Who are these messengers? What evidence do you have they exist? And how did they guide non-muslim countries?

    as well as being indirectly affected by the message of muhammad through some positive examples shown through some things that muslim civilisations displayed
    Examples please? These supposed 'positive examples' don't justify all the Islamic slavery, sex slavery, imperialism, colonialism, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, cruel and unusual punishments, childhood indoctrination, child marriage, oppression of homosexuals and apostates etc, etc, featured in Islamic history.

    Different interpretations existing is fine.
    Not if Muslim apologists proclaim Islam to be 'perfect, universal and clear'. Moreover, not if these interpretations conflict, compete and contradict each other, sometimes leading to violence and intolerance. I take it from your above statement, you're fine with ISIS and other sunni Muslims, in their belief that 'Shias' are 'Unbelievers', worthy of hatred and death (after all different interpretations are fine)

    Human beings will always pursue the more righteous path and civilisation will move in the direction which is the most just, but in small pieces, with injustice always existing but in different ways - all the old ways being slowly replaced with justice
    More platitudes by Muslim apologists. There's plenty of that around.

    The purpose of religion is not for everyone to submit to it, but to help human civilisation to prosper and to help carve away negative cultural aspects from its societies over time.
    It's apparent that societies that are very developed, democratic, tolerant, secular and respectful of human rights (like many non-muslim countries) seem to be much more prosperous than many Muslim countries, with high levels of happiness reported, all with low levels of religious adherence/religiosity present and all without the need for the implementation of 'Shia' Islam.

    As a result, the negative interpretations of Islam will, and are already slowly falling away in favour of semi-secular (and usually uneducated) but well meaning, and justly intended interpretations, as well as interpretations which maintain their religiousness
    A religion that proclaims itself to be 'perfect' would not result in so much misinterpretations. The cognitive dissonance in you is very visible. What are these 'justly interpretations'?

    and do not contain mandate for injustices.
    I guess that depends on your interpretation of 'injustice', you've previously shown on this thread you're okay with human beings to be violently 'flogged' for the non violent, non offence of consensual adult sex. Bearing in mind such a punishment as 'Flogging' is prohibited under the UN conventions against torture, to which the vast majority of the world (including many Muslim countries) are signatories.

    This process has been reversed and abated by the work and support of the work of people such as the deobandi school of thought, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab, Qutb, etc.
    Once again under your subjective interpretation (I find myself repeating this allot)

    'And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, being sincere to Him in the Way, to be hunafaah (just, honest), and to establish prayer and to give zakah. And that is the correct religion.'
    Surah bayyinah, ayah 5.

    This verse gives indication of the core 'purpose' of islam for society. To worship, that we may not grow arrogant, to be sincere to God, which requires sincerity to the self, to be honest, to be just,
    And many Muslims (given you're a shia) differ on prayer. Why does your god require worship? How does a lack of worship to a diety that is yet to be objectively proven, lead to arrogance? 'Just', that depends on what you define as 'just', given Islam's questionable rulings.

    and to help the poor gain the means to emancipation from their status.
    You don't need Islam to liberate people from poverty. Moreover, ironically it was your god who has allowed poverty to exist (and can stop it in a instance, yet does not) and continues to create children and place them in the most impoverished and unhealthy environments- most of which seems to encompass many Muslim countries.

    Furthermore, if you need religion to liberate the poor, you're not much of an empathetic and good human being at all.The cognitive dissonance within you is very strong.

    Try to keep your post short and relevant, as opposed to continuing fallacious points and BS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wasn't clear what I meant by Islam as a whole with you, but I have explained it earlier in this thread. Islam is comprised of two thaqalayn or 'weighty things', which make up the 'rope of god'. These are the Quran and Ahlulbayt. The Quran alone only provides half of islam, and this half is not functional alone. This is according to hadith al thaqalayn, which is found in both sunni and shia books, but not explained in great detail by the sunnis, whose scholars prefer to relate a narration they themselves consider weak which reports 'quran and sunnah' rather than 'quran and ahlulbayt.'.

    When you're talking about this 'perfect final message', you refer to the Quran - I don't. I refer to this two-part rope mentioned by Muhammad. The Quran is only perfect as a part of this message - I have never made the claim that it is perfect alone. I am aware that other muslims don't agree with me - you're talking to me, not them.

    When I said, 'Islam doesn't need to be coherent' I meant that there doesn't have to be a single recognised correct interpretation. Incoherence, as in 'not consistent', as in 'different people say different things'.

    When I was talking about the positive effects of Islam, I wasn't talking about the religion revealed by muhammad, but by the overall message of the entirety of the prophets from before him, who the Quran says have been sent to every people. We don't know all their names, there's apparently been tens of thousands.

    'Are these positive effects, the thousand year history of Islamic slavery, sex slavery, imperialism, colonialism, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, cruel and unusual punishments, childhood indoctrination, child marriage, oppression of homosexuals and apostates etc, etc,'
    No, they aren't. This is the legacy of the so-called muslim caliphate. I don't agree with any of those things.

    When I said that other interpretations are fine, I assumed that you'd infer I'd meant the ones that aren't interested in killing each other for their beliefs or lack of them. I don't claim that that path to whichever interpretation is 'true' Islam is clear, because the historical waters have been muddied by certain hadith writers, which has put everything into disarray. People of different interpretations should be cooperating with one another in discussion to either discern the truth of islam, or discover together that it should be discarded - producing a situation conducive to learning and spreading education, not violence. If sunnis want to consider me a non muslim, fine. Just don't hurt or hate people for being shia.

    The spread of ideas like the welfare system, encouragement of hygeine, women's rights and etc started with Islam, though not necessarily during or after Muhammad. The first welfare system was the zakaat + khums system, for instance, and respect for gender equality was enshrined by every religion I have studied that appears to have basic theological and social principles in common with that of Muhammad's teachings, such as ancient vedic religion, zoroastrianism, some native american religions, and others.

    Poverty is a human injustice. Nobody is naturally impoverished - there is always a system which is, through intention or not, oppressive, which results in the creation of poverty. The ideas of zakaat and khums, if implemented properly, would eventually eradicate it. While of Islamic origin, I don't consider it to be a solely religious or even islamic idea - just that Islam called for it.

    A justly intended interpretation is one that is followed because someone's conscience tells them that it's the right way to ensure that nobody is persecuted or oppressed.

    The method of prayer doesn't matter in the bigger picture picture. Sincere worship, honesty and justice are necessary. Worship is beneficial in that a person can't be arrogant if they sincerely believe that only god knows all the faults of others. The reason why 'allahu akbar' is so sacred is because it enshrines humility towards other humans because of the existence of an incomparably greater God. I am not saying that atheists and agnostics can't be humble, I am saying that this is a method by which to gain humility.

    I'm not a gnostic theist. I don't claim to know that Islam is correct for sure. I do think that a certain interpretation has potential as a beneficial system. But, the point I tried to make before is that it doesn't need to be implemented, only discussed. So long as a few aspects of it can penetrate into policy and philosophy, it will have done good.

    Also, the whole flogging thing was only a rule of deterrent. It'd never happen, because nobody (at least in those days) would have sex in front of three people willing to report them. I don't think that rule is applicable anymore for obvious reasons, like cameras. It's up to individual muslims not to have sexual relations that they consider unlawful, and to educate themselves for the reasons why they are.

    To clarify again, I think that 'real' Islam, or at least what I think it is, is a perfect system. Not that this interpretation is going to be clear to everyone. According to shia narrations, it was going to get murky until the 12th imam arrives anyway, so we can only try our best to do the right things right now.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.