Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Hindia Belanda]

Leading Indonesian Muslim scholar and Secretary-General of the largest Sunni muslim organisation in the country said the following in an interview with a German newspaper:

"Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me—an Islamic scholar—of being an Islamophobe, too?"

Original article in German
Another source: Stop Pretending Islam and Violence Aren’t Linked

I know the interview happened quite a while ago, but I just found out about it. I fully agree with everything the guy said and I think more muslim scholars need to adopt his viewpoint and start working on a new, progressive interpretation of Islam.

consider this: Wahabism and Salafism was the Islamic version of the religious reform. I don't think we're gonna appreciate yet another reform from you guys

I specifically said "progressive interpretation of Islam". Wahhabism and Salafism aren't progressive.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

consider this: Wahabism and Salafism was the Islamic version of the religious reform. I don't think we're gonna appreciate yet another reform from you guys

I specifically said "progressive interpretation of Islam". Wahhabism and Salafism aren't progressive.

And what's "progressive" supposed to mean?

[Hindia Belanda]

I specifically said "progressive interpretation of Islam". Wahhabism and Salafism aren't progressive.

And what's "progressive" supposed to mean?

The kind of interpretation that doesn't resort to calling others who don't follow your interpretation "kafirs" whose blood are halal.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And what's "progressive" supposed to mean?

The kind of interpretation that doesn't resort to calling others who don't follow your interpretation "kafirs" whose blood are halal.

That's not progressive, that's been there since the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).

[Hindia Belanda]

The kind of interpretation that doesn't resort to calling others who don't follow your interpretation "kafirs" whose blood are halal.

That's not progressive, that's been there since the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).

And yet Wahhabism/Salafism are on the rise and more muslims are invoking takfir freely. I remember just a few pages ago in this thread some guy said Ahmadis were not muslims (although I’d say such behaviour isn’t exactly that uncommon in the IDT).

A new progressive interpretation of Islam that rejects textualism and doesn’t overly rely on the Ahadith, many of which are violent and sometimes downright hilarious (and they’re saheeh according to the ulemas, too), needs to be adopted.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That's not progressive, that's been there since the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).

And yet Wahhabism/Salafism are on the rise and more muslims are invoking takfir freely. I remember just a few pages ago in this thread some guy said Ahmadis were not muslims (although I’d say such behaviour isn’t exactly that uncommon in the IDT).

Yes, some Muslims don't follow everything in Al-Islam, that's been that way since the time of Adam (AS)

A new progressive interpretation of Islam that rejects textualism

and doesn’t overly rely on the Ahadith

I don't know much Muslims who overly rely on ahadith, but I'm down for that

many of which are violent and sometimes downright hilarious (and they’re saheeh according to the ulemas, too)

Well....you can't really disregard sahih ahadith. Unless they contrdict the Holy Qur'an of course.

[Conserative Morality]

>> Medieval Islam has a lesbian dedicating a monastery to Allah for her lover

I, for one, approve of Islam returning to the old ways.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

>> Medieval Islam has a lesbian dedicating a monastery to Allah for her lover

1: There is no medieval Islam. Al-Islam is Al-Islam.
2: Muslims don't use monasteries
3: what?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Well....you can't really disregard sahih ahadith.

Watch me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well....you can't really disregard sahih ahadith.

Watch me.

That ain't funny.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Watch me.

That ain't funny.

It kind of is. And your insistence that some scholar saying that a hadith is "sahih" while other ahadith that are also considered "sahih" say different things is amusing, too.

[Pilarcraft]

Well....you can't really disregard sahih ahadith.

Watch me.

I think disregarding Sahih Ahadith should be Wajib. seriously. most of that rubbish is literally oral tradition of something that happened a hundred years before the first guy who wrote it down knew how to fucking write.
and the most Sahih of them goes something along the lines of "my dad heard his dad hear his trainer say he heard from Ahmed the merchant that Prophet (SAWS) said something like this when he met some guy"
I wouldn't trust this if it happened in a game of Telephone. you expect me to trust it about how I should (presumably) live my fucking life?

[Conserative Morality]

1: There is no medieval Islam. Al-Islam is Al-Islam.
2: Muslims don't use monasteries
3: what?

The story of Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah. I presume monastery was the term used just as a translation convention for religious retreat or some similar tradition.

[Genivaria]

>> Medieval Islam has a lesbian dedicating a monastery to Allah for her lover

1: There is no medieval Islam. Al-Islam is Al-Islam.
2: Muslims don't use monasteries
3: what?

There kind of was yes.
To assert that your religion is monolithic and unchanging is just delusional.

[Pilarcraft]

1: There is no medieval Islam. Al-Islam is Al-Islam.

Ok, that is just fucking bullshit and you'd know it too if you weren't so hell-bent on performing your weak-ass Taqiyya by pushing your own head in the snow. There are 73 fucking sects in Islam. and most of them date back to Medieval Era. Apart from Bab'i sect and, probably, Wahabbism, all of the Islamic Sects are Medieval. because they were formed approximately a couple centuries after the prophet's death i.e. 8th century (early Medieval era)

2: Muslims don't use monasteries

Are you sure? that? Sufis? don't?
Or do you think Sufis aren't muslims now?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That ain't funny.

It kind of is. And your insistence that some scholar saying that a hadith is "sahih" while other ahadith that are also considered "sahih" say different things is amusing, too.

Oi, I didn't say they were perfect.

1: There is no medieval Islam. Al-Islam is Al-Islam.
2: Muslims don't use monasteries
3: what?

There kind of was yes.
To assert that your religion is monolithic and unchanging is just delusional.

It is monolithic and unchanging. Muslims aren't.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

It kind of is. And your insistence that some scholar saying that a hadith is "sahih" while other ahadith that are also considered "sahih" say different things is amusing, too.

Oi, I didn't say they were perfect.

Mhm. And I do not follow them and I think it is ridiculous to do so.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oi, I didn't say they were perfect.

Mhm. And I do not follow them and I think it is ridiculous to do so.

Any, as in, zilch, nada, nothing?

[Pilarcraft]

Yo. Muslims who don't follow the Hadiith because they're shaky and possibly not really that trustworthy! I have something for you guys.

You might wanna stop following Quran too, then. There are only two reasons for Quran being infallible.
1- Quran says Quran is infallible

2- this thing, mostly used by the Sunnis, called نظریه عصمت امت (The Infallibility of the Ummah)
Now, what does this theory mean? well, it goes something like this: "I say this is true. You also say this is true. hell, everyone says this is true, then it can't be false, right?". Yes. it goes along the way that if everyone in the Ummat believes in one thing, then it can not be false (because the probability of every single person in the ummat being wrong the same way is basically 0, right?...)

Reading into the whole Sadr-al-Islam history a bit, you'll realize that Quran wasn't gathered down and written until a year after the Prophet's death. Abu Bakr, seeing the rebels were burning houses, was scared that people would forget parts of Quran, so he ordered everyone to gather around, and to put their fucking minds together and see if they remembered anything or had written down anything. his own Quran, along with Ali's and a few others', were the most complete (and yet not completely complete). They gathered around, put their minds together, and said "OK. this is the Quran. everyone, this is the book we're using from now on. get on with it!" (which is also when he banned writing down Hadith)

The shitshow continues. Two Caliphs later, Uthman realized that Abu bakr, in his infinite knowledge, had forgotten about the Pronunciation guide. If you know arabic, you know that without a clear pronunciation guide, a word like "ملک" can mean either (land, king, angel, fairy, among others) and that's just one word. So, he called everyone to gather around, again, and to put together their mind to make a unified, agreed upon, pronunciation for the text. Again, everyone started a debate of 'I remember the prophet saying it like this" 'No, I'm pretty sure he didn't, that was Yazid's Qera'at! Muhammad SAWS said it like this' until they said "OK, FINE. We gathered around the unified pronunciation! do we agree on this?"
and eventually, we got the Infallible Quran. about twenty years into Muhammad's Death.
-
-
-
of course, Ali also had another quran with the text, their tafsir, and the reason for each Ayat, but he never shared it with anyone so we have to trust that he had it and gave it to his son who gave it to his brother who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who is missing but will show up at some point and show us the right quran, 1400-and-counting years old and yet still fresh!

[Genivaria]

It kind of is. And your insistence that some scholar saying that a hadith is "sahih" while other ahadith that are also considered "sahih" say different things is amusing, too.

Oi, I didn't say they were perfect.

There kind of was yes.
To assert that your religion is monolithic and unchanging is just delusional.

It is monolithic and unchanging. Muslims aren't.

Then you're delusional.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Mhm. And I do not follow them and I think it is ridiculous to do so.

Any, as in, zilch, nada, nothing?

Not to the same level that you do, anyway. I'm obviously not a straight Quranist if I'm Shia.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Non-Muslims aren't subject to Islamic law.

*inhales*
Let's try again.

If you live in a theocracy then you are, by default, living under that religion because that religion CONTROLS THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

It's un-Islamic to make non-Muslims live under Islamic law. They live under their own religion's laws or secular law if they don't adhere to a religion, or if their religion doesn't have any laws of its own.

Non-Muslims aren't subject to Islamic law.

Except when non-Muslims who aren't even citizens of that country are subject to Islamic law.
https://www.albawaba.com/loop/chinese-m ... ce-1074470

I said "Islamic law" not "Iranian law"

We whip people who commit illegal sexual intercourse, being drunk. And no, it's not like whipping a slave, it's more like spanking a child.*

*Spelling mistakes of "whip" corrected by me, The NCR.

Yeah, no. Corporal punishment for gay sex or having a few drinks is absurd. Getting whipped for both those things would ruin my weekends. Also, if you think the horror of getting whipped is comparable to the mild spankings I got as a child, then you are very much mistaken....

no, it's not like whipping a slave, it's more like spanking a child.

wait did you just imply that people who do these things are in fact, NOT people?

No

Yes, he did.

Prove it

[Genivaria]

*inhales*
Let's try again.

If you live in a theocracy then you are, by default, living under that religion because that religion CONTROLS THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

It's un-Islamic to make non-Muslims live under Islamic law. They live under their own religion's laws or secular law if they don't adhere to a religion, or if their religion doesn't have any laws of its own.

Except when non-Muslims who aren't even citizens of that country are subject to Islamic law.
https://www.albawaba.com/loop/chinese-m ... ce-1074470

I said "Islamic law" not "Iranian law"

Yeah, no. Corporal punishment for gay sex or having a few drinks is absurd. Getting whipped for both those things would ruin my weekends. Also, if you think the horror of getting whipped is comparable to the mild spankings I got as a child, then you are very much mistaken....

no, it's not like whipping a slave, it's more like spanking a child.

wait did you just imply that people who do these things are in fact, NOT people?

No

Yes, he did.

Prove it

I said "Islamic law" not "Iranian law"

That's adorable.
I wonder what your take on Saudi Arabian law is.

No law requires all citizens to be Muslim, but non-Muslims and many foreign and Saudi Muslims whose beliefs are deemed not to conform with the government’s interpretation of Islam must practice their religion in private and are vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, detention, and, for noncitizens, deportation.[2] Children born to Muslim fathers are by law deemed Muslim, and conversion from Islam to another religion is considered apostasy and punishable by death.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... udi_Arabia

[Aillyria]

Yo. Muslims who don't follow the Hadiith because they're shaky and possibly not really that trustworthy! I have something for you guys.

You might wanna stop following Quran too, then. There are only two reasons for Quran being infallible.
1- Quran says Quran is infallible

2- this thing, mostly used by the Sunnis, called نظریه عصمت امت (The Infallibility of the Ummah)
Now, what does this theory mean? well, it goes something like this: "I say this is true. You also say this is true. hell, everyone says this is true, then it can't be false, right?". Yes. it goes along the way that if everyone in the Ummat believes in one thing, then it can not be false (because the probability of every single person in the ummat being wrong the same way is basically 0, right?...)

Reading into the whole Sadr-al-Islam history a bit, you'll realize that Quran wasn't gathered down and written until a year after the Prophet's death. Abu Bakr, seeing the rebels were burning houses, was scared that people would forget parts of Quran, so he ordered everyone to gather around, and to put their fucking minds together and see if they remembered anything or had written down anything. his own Quran, along with Ali's and a few others', were the most complete (and yet not completely complete). They gathered around, put their minds together, and said "OK. this is the Quran. everyone, this is the book we're using from now on. get on with it!" (which is also when he banned writing down Hadith)

The shitshow continues. Two Caliphs later, Uthman realized that Abu bakr, in his infinite knowledge, had forgotten about the Pronunciation guide. If you know arabic, you know that without a clear pronunciation guide, a word like "ملک" can mean either (land, king, angel, fairy, among others) and that's just one word. So, he called everyone to gather around, again, and to put together their mind to make a unified, agreed upon, pronunciation for the text. Again, everyone started a debate of 'I remember the prophet saying it like this" 'No, I'm pretty sure he didn't, that was Yazid's Qera'at! Muhammad SAWS said it like this' until they said "OK, FINE. We gathered around the unified pronunciation! do we agree on this?"
and eventually, we got the Infallible Quran. about twenty years into Muhammad's Death.
-
-
-
of course, Ali also had another quran with the text, their tafsir, and the reason for each Ayat, but he never shared it with anyone so we have to trust that he had it and gave it to his son who gave it to his brother who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who gave it to his son who is missing but will show up at some point and show us the right quran, 1400-and-counting years old and yet still fresh!

Interesting, I'll look into this. I must be honest, though I generally like you Pilar, I am skeptical on your trustworthiness on religion and sprituality seeing that you are an antitheist.

Though I will say this, my loyalty is to ultimately to Allah (swt) alone, not Islam or any religion. I am currently a Muslim, and find it the perfect expression of our Lord's will, however if I find it unsatisfactory I will drop it. God (swt) is logical and compassionate, anything that isn't that cannot be from my Lord.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What makes y'all think that non-Muslims would be living under Al-Islam? They won't.

Pretty much every Muslim majority nation in existence. Non of them are very tolerant of Christianity, let alone the Jews.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm:
"Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).
"No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew."
"The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped."
"The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen."
"The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalu ... _Caliphate <--- Depends on which Muslim leader was ruling
https://sites.google.com/site/spainmoorish/essays
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bound ... d-empires/: " While the non-Muslim population had autonomy, their judicial matters were dealt with in accordance with their own laws and by their own religious heads or their appointees. Non-Muslims paid a poll tax for policing to the central state. Muhammad had stated explicitly during his lifetime that each religious minority should be allowed to practice its own religion and govern itself, and the policy had on the whole continued."
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_3 ... istory.htm
http://sensiblereason.com/muslim-hindu- ... e-culture/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... re_1.shtml

You wouldn’t be allowed to. You would probably be arrested for blasphemy under a Christian or Jewish theocracy.

Then I'd have to move

> says that’s Muslims don’t whip people
> proceeds to tell everyone what kind of people Muslims whip.

Read my post.

Also why the fuck are you whiping people for being drunk, having sex, or being a witness.

1: Because it's a part of Al-Islam
2: I never said people get whipped for bringing witnesses.

Sure....

Yes, exactly.