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

Independent: The Prophet Mohammed had British values watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So like every religion then?

    In primary school we used to get read old testament stories like David and Goliath. Have you seen what is in the Bible? The head teacher funnily enough didn't read us all pro genocide stories, all the stories where female slaves are fair game to be raped. Considering Christianity is part and parcel of 'British values' there is a lot fo hypocrisy in this discussion of whether Islam is compatible with Britain. Even more so when pedophilia gets brought up... It;s like you ahve no knowledge of the history fo this country.

    I'm fairly anti-religion, but in the same way I don't think all Christian or Jews are evil murderers and rapist, I don't think all Muslims are evil child rapists either. Christians can be perfectly civil citizens and so can Muslims.

    My response to the article is make all schools secular.
    Dude you're the realest poster out there man. Massive respect.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoCrazy)
    Lol time doesn't change beliefs fyi.
    Of course it does, which is obvious by looking at people's beliefs today and comparing them to those of 500 years ago.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Sorry, I was not aware that the opinion of one of Muhammad's companions supersedes the opinion of Muhammad, or even the Quran itself.
    Ibn Abbas is one of the great transmitters of Hadith (transmitting an estimated 1,700 Hadith), and yet, he was only 13 when Muhammad died. It seems questionable that such a young child be one of the greatest sources for Hadith. But that is my opinion.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I can't help what the Koran says. It bans interpretation, and makes it clear this applies even to Mohammed's interpretations, never mind his mates or modern imams. The reason for this is also made clear, and it's a bit of a gotcha - the reason Islam can never move forward - the Koran is the word of the deity and is perfect, incapable of being improved. Any interpretation would harm its perfect meaning. It even points out the language is clear and understandable by anyone for this reason. There are no unofficial changes to the word of your deity, of course. They would attract severe retribution in the afterlife - presuming to try to improve on what God has done.

    My own guess would be that the disobeyed husband would either pick up whatever is to hand (a chair, say, or a stick, or a camel whip) or lay into her with his hands, fists and feet. It is what abusive or disobeyed husbands in all cultures have done for aeons.
    But Islam teaches that the laws Allah gave varied between generations. To quote Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im:

    While in Adam's time Islamic Shari'a allowed marriage of a brother to his own sister, the permissible became prohibited in the Shari'a of Mohamed.... Such vast difference between the two Shari'as [of Adam's and Mohamed's eras], due to the difference in the level of nations, clearly indicate that it would be a gross mistake to assume that the Islamic Shari'a of the seventh century is suitable, in all its details, for application in the twentieth century. The difference between the level of the seventh century and that of the twentieth century is beyond comparison.
    If the law Allah gives changes for different generations, then it is not unfathomable for there to exist a different Shari'a for the 7th century and the 21st century. There are some that would argue that the Medinan and Meccan Surah's contain two completely different sets of teachings that are intended for different audiences and that the Medinan Surah's were only applicable to the 7th century. In fact, if one reads the Meccan Surahs and the Medinan Surahs, one will find that they often contradict each other. For example 16:125 (Meccan) and Surah 9:29 (Medinan). How one approaches this contradiction centres upon how one interprets Surah 2:106 and the teaching of abrogation. Surah 2:106 says:

    Whenever We abrogate any verse or postpone it [nunsi’ha], We bring a better verse, or a similar one. Do you not know that God is capable of everything?
    The word nunsiha means 'cause to be forgotten', whereas nunsi'ha (as used above) means 'cause to be delayed'. Ones whole interpretation of the Quran here centres upon the interpretation of this word and whether it is nunsiha or nunsi'ha.

    If we are to believe the Islamic narrative, the pre-Islamic Arab world was a backwards world, corrupt with infanticide, slavery, misogyny etc... It would be impossible to eradicate all of these practices overnight and a teaching that was too advanced for such a society would not have won over the people. It is this purpose that the Medinan Surah's served for seventh century Arabia. Whilst the Medinan Surah's still permitted evils such as slavery, it brought in new regulations to control the practices. For example, the Medinan Surah 4:36 doesn't call for the end of slavery, but rather calls for better and more humane treatment of slaves in 7th century Arabia.

    However, if one looks at the Meccan Surah's, they see the teachings push further and for example the Meccan Surah 90:13 goes as far as to call for slaves to be freed.

    Essentially a more moderate interpretation is possible.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    It is this purpose that the Medinan Surah's served for seventh century Arabia. Whilst the Medinan Surah's still permitted evils such as slavery, it brought in new regulations to control the practices. For example, the Medinan Surah 4:36 doesn't call for the end of slavery, but rather calls for better and more humane treatment of slaves in 7th century Arabia.

    However, if one looks at the Meccan Surah's, they see the teachings push further and for example the Meccan Surah 90:13 goes as far as to call for slaves to be freed.
    90:13 doesn't call for the freeing of slaves. It says that freeing slaves is a good deed that earns brownie points for Jannah (a sign that you are on the "righteous path"). And it only applies to believing slaves, according to sahih hadith.

    How one approaches this contradiction centres upon how one interprets Surah 2:106 and the teaching of abrogation
    Indeed. However, when one looks at the other uses of nunsihā in the Quran, they all mean "forget" and would not make sense as "cause to be delayed".

    Also, 2:106 refers to replacing with verses that are better. Why would Allah reintroduce inferior verses? And are the original replacements still in effect, or are they abrogated? No word about that. (The whole concept of abrogation clearly shows that the Quran is the work of men reacting to changing conditions, rather than the final, perfect...etc, etc - but that's a different argument)

    Essentially a more moderate interpretation is possible.
    As with any ambiguous and contradictary text, many interpretations are possible, some closely fitting the apparent meaning, some less so. As I always point out when this comes up, the possibility of deriving a moderate (but tenuous) interpretation does not mean that those who favour the more obvious "extreme" one must give up their version and accept the new one.
    As long as the passages are there, people will choose to interpret them to fit their agenda.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Voldermort would never have got away with it if Hogwarts was Tower Hamlets
    :rofl:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    90:13 doesn't call for the freeing of slaves. It says that freeing slaves is a good deed that earns brownie points for Jannah (a sign that you are on the "righteous path"). And it only applies to believing slaves, according to sahih hadith.
    But that is the same with any religious teaching. Do this and you will be punished, do this and you will be rewarded. It is no different than any other religious teaching.

    I assume you are referencing the Hadith narrated by Abu Hurayra such as:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave." Said bin Marjana said that he narrated that Hadith to 'Ali bin Al-Husain and he freed his slave for whom 'Abdullah bin Ja'far had offered him ten thousand Dirhams or one-thousand Dinars.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "If somebody manumits a Muslim slave, Allah will save from the Fire every part of his body for freeing the corresponding parts of the slave's body, even his private parts will be saved from the Fire) because of freeing the slave's private parts."



    Abu Hurayra was the most prolific transmitter of Hadiths (transmitting an estimated 5,300 Hadith), despite only knowing Muhammad in the last 3 years of his life. A disproportionate number of Hadith are attributed to him which one can't help but be sceptical of. In fact, many have had issue with the Hadith of Abu Hurayra, including Muhammad's wife Aisha who accused him of fabricating Hadith. So the Hadith of Abu Hurayra are of questionable reliability.

    Also, if we are to accept Abu Hurayra's Hadith, we must take into account that he only knew Muhammad during the last three years, and thus he would only be able to bequeath us with the teachings that Muhammad gave to the people of Medina and thus his Hadith would only be applicable to the Medinan teachings.


    (Original post by QE2)
    Indeed. However, when one looks at the other uses of nunsihā in the Quran, they all mean "forget" and would not make sense as "cause to be delayed".
    But "to make forget" does not make sense within this context, since the verses remain in the Quran. These verses are not forgotten at all, they still exist in the Quran and they present a contradiction. The only logical interpretation is to read it as saying that these verses have been "postponed".


    (Original post by QE2)
    Also, 2:106 refers to replacing with verses that are better. Why would Allah reintroduce inferior verses?
    Why was incest permitted at the time of Adam, but not at the time of Muhammad? Why did Allah change his ruling from one era to another? The only reason could be that different centuries and different societies are at different levels of social development. If we are to accept the Islamic narrative, the 7th century Arabians were a pretty backwards people practising things like infanticide. And let us not forget that the Meccan teachings of Islam did not receive as much support or growth as the Medinan teachings. In which case, it wouldn't be far fetched to argue that the 7th century Arabians weren't ready for the Meccan teachings.


    (Original post by QE2)
    And are the original replacements still in effect, or are they abrogated? No word about that. (The whole concept of abrogation clearly shows that the Quran is the work of men reacting to changing conditions, rather than the final, perfect...etc, etc - but that's a different argument)
    As Mahmoud Taha argued, what purpose does it serve to keep these abrogated verses in the Quran? You are taking the stance that they are inferior and have been abrogated and as you stated "replacing with verses that are better." There is no logic in keeping verses that have been replaced by better verses. Now obviously you can put forward the argument that is the work of man, but assuming this is a work of Allah, the only logical position to take for a Muslim (in my opinion) is that these verses were still relevant. Otherwise they serve no purpose.

    Also, with the Meccan Hadith we find the verses addresses "O Humankind", "O Mankind" and "O Children of Adam", whereas in the Medinan Surah's we find "O People". It would appear that the Medinan verses seem to be addressing a particular people, whereas the Meccan verses are addressing all people.

    When the right time is for the adoption of the Meccan teachings? I think that is a matter of ijtihad. I would argue that we have reached a point of social progress where it is clear that the Medinan teachings are outdated and at odds with society. Does not half the debates on TSR constitute people arguing why Islam is barbaric and medieval? Surely that would be the sign that the Medinan verses are no longer relevant and the Meccan teachings need to be adopted?

    (Original post by QE2)
    As with any ambiguous and contradictary text, many interpretations are possible, some closely fitting the apparent meaning, some less so. As I always point out when this comes up, the possibility of deriving a moderate (but tenuous) interpretation does not mean that those who favour the more obvious "extreme" one must give up their version and accept the new one.
    As long as the passages are there, people will choose to interpret them to fit their agenda.
    Indeed. To say that ISIS are not true Muslims or that progressive Muslims are not true Muslims is to play the exact same "no true Scotsman" fallacy. But I think it important for people to acknowledge that there do exist more progressive interpretations and they are every bit as valid as the interpretation of the Islamists. And I think it also important that these progressive interpretation get more attention. But that would be another separate debate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iAre Teh Lejend)
    Dude you're the realest poster out there man. Massive respect.
    I am pretty great.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.