What's the problem with Islam, anyway?

[illram]

Is that Islam's fault?

 

[Squonk]

I don't think so.

 

[illram]

I agree!

 

[Squonk]

and all lived happily ever after

 

[Ajidica]

Anyway, it was mostly about crosses that were placed in marketplaces, I believe. Also, it was forbidden to held prayers in public space, ring the bells (not quite bells in fact, but I don't know how to call it) loudly, hold loud prayers in churches etc.

I remember the bells thing. They had to hit wooden boards with hammers. I thought that was just an Arab thing instead of Islamic. Whatever.

Al-Hakim also forbade decorating churches with some palm hearts or whatever, and ordered the crosses to be removed from them, but I don't recall if others did so as well.

It certiantly wasn't an official policy. Didn't his sucessor help pay to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

 

[Squonk]

I remember the bells thing. They had to hit wooden boards with hammers. I thought that was just an Arab thing instead of Islamic. Whatever.

Yes, that's what I mean. I don't know how to call it in english. They were forbidden to do that, not ring the bells. Although that would probably be forbidden as well.

It certiantly wasn't an official policy. Didn't his sucessor help pay to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The church was destroyed on a precise Al-Hakim's order, very nicely versed in fact. An interesting matter, I may add: the order was written by a christian scribe, and the visier at this time was christian (Al-Mansur ibn 'Abdun). The church was restored, but Fatimids didn't waste a penny on that.

 

[aelf]

Because they concern human rights, religious freedom, world politics, etc. It's sad that you apparently want to hush me up.

Hush you up? Why? Because I'm some stout defender of Islam? Have you seen the social group my sig links to?

Again, I'm just not sure what your motives are. You claim to be here to clear things up by pointing out some facts, and that you have the privilege to do so because this is a topic you have studied. Yet there are some glaring blind spots in your arguments, which show that you are either not revealing the whole truth or are simply ignorant about it.

So you're only making yourself appear to be painting Islam in a bad light, while professing to be neutral, in a thread about why people have an irrational fear of Islam. Good job. If you are indeed the scholar that you make yourself out to be, then you should win an award for doing things in the wrong place and in the wrong manner so as to make your own position look bad.

The specific words you've quoted didn't mention any other religion but islam nor did they imply that other religions were better. I did defend christianity against certain accusations as well as I negated some embellished images of islamic tolerance in this thread, but only by stating some facts, and, anyway, it wasn't me who brought christianity in this thread. It is in fact those who believe to be "defending" islam who brought this topic in, and so did you in this very precise case.

Why this persistent rush to accuse me of wanting to bring Christianity up for some nefarious reason? I told you why I brought it up, and yet you still seem blind to it. Why are you so defensive about Christianity?

I reported this post, as it's offensive towards me, as were some of your previous remarks.

It's offensive to say that you appear to be biased against Islam, but not an outright bigot, because you've made yourself appear to be biased?

Really, you are way too defensive, which makes your supposed neutrality even more suspect.

if you want an actual "prove that the hadiths you cited have been translated into laws...", I'd have to read the works of the fathers of madhhabs, and I'm too lazy to do it just for your fancy. I can provide you with an example of how specific examples of Al-Qur'an were used for this purpouse, though. Ibn al-Athir cites a letter of caliph 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, which quotes Al-Qur'an and orders firing of non-muslim officials. I may translate this bit, if you like.

So you mean you have no examples of those hadiths being translated into law today? Thought so.

Well, I grant that you're not necessarily biased against Islam. Maybe you just have very bad argumentative skills and are too sensitive. Maybe.

 

[Squonk]

Hush you up? Why? Because I'm some stout defender of Islam? Have you seen the social group my sig links to?

I don't know why. Your motives are obscure

Again, I'm just not sure what your motives are. You claim to be here to clear things up by pointing out some facts, and that you have the privilege to do so because this is a topic you have studied. Yet there are some glaring blind spots in your arguments, which show that you are either not revealing the whole truth or are simply ignorant about it.

What are these "glaring blind spots", in your opinion?

So you're only making yourself appear to be painting Islam in a bad light, while professing to be neutral, in a thread about why people have an irrational fear of Islam. Good job. If you are indeed the scholar that you make yourself out to be, then you should win an award for doing things in the wrong place and in the wrong manner so as to make your own position look bad.

Why? What did I do? this thread is one great threadjack, and the original topic wasn't discussed since page 1. I am not "painting islam in a bad light". I am just opposing painting Muhammad, historical and modern islam in rainbowy colours. Didn't you claim that words of the founder of a religion or state laws made in the name of this religion, etc do not concern the believers of this religion, and are not this religion's responsability anyway?

Why this persistent rush to accuse me of wanting to bring Christianity up for some nefarious reason? I told you why I brought it up, and yet you still seem blind to it.

for me a claim that you brought christianity up, suggesting I want to prove it's better in this case, because in another discussion in the same thread I argued it is not worse than islam in some matter, is not a good excuse.

It's offensive to say that you appear to be biased against Islam, but not an outright bigot, because you've made yourself appear to be biased?

Your style of discussion consists of calling me biased, prejudiced, bigoted person who lacks argumentative skills, has no idea about the subject and has blindspots etc, all of that without showing any knowledge in this subject yourself, just a couple of a priori convictions.

So you mean you have no examples of those hadiths being translated into law today? Thought so.

Sunna is, apart from islam, basis for shari'a, shari'a exists and is implemented - more or less - in some states, and these states have laws that match the sayings of Muhammad in certain hadiths. What are they based on, in your opinion, if not on these hadiths and Al-Qur'an?

 

[aelf]

What are these "glaring blind spots", in your opinion?

That you deliberately quote old passages without context, for one? Again I have to bring this comparison up - someone could do the same for Christianity and Judaism and it would have very little relevance to either religion today. That's just to illustrate the point that what you're doing is meaningless and only serves to antagonise in a thread that is about antagonism towards Islam.

I also have a problem with your tendency to collectivise responsibility and aspects of the religion. Perhaps that's why I don't buy the sharia hasn't moved on nonsense - because I don't see Islamic law and its application as a monolithic thing, nor do I agree that someone from outside the Islamic community can presume to dictate its less savoury applications as the responsibility of the entire community. To begin with there are six Islamic schools of jurisprudence that do not necessarily agree with each other. On top of that, each society and community has to actively decide how to apply its faith to fit its own circumstances. Muslim societies apply Islamic precepts to their methods of organisation differently and with varying degrees of extensiveness, establishing markedly different political institutions and ways of social organisation.

Here I must note your modus operandi of conflating Islam with an aggregate of Muslim communities, which is how you arrive at this collective responsibility crap. It explains why you think the fact that large countries like Iran (which is hardly a monolithic entity anyway) apply Islamic precepts in a backward manner makes Islam as a whole relatively backward. Even if, say, 25% of Muslims are extremists, it would still be ridiculous to say that Islam as a religion is more extreme than others because that way you'd be unfairly distributing the blame to innocent Muslims. A Muslim might say let those who err be judged by Allah, those extremists have nothing to do with him/her. And that sentiment would be 100% justified.

I am just opposing painting Muhammad, historical and modern islam in rainbowy colours.

Yeah, and that's the classic excuse of people who have some sort of unfathomable problem with Islam. So don't blame me for being incredulous.

Your style of discussion consists of calling me biased, prejudiced, bigoted person who lacks argumentative skills, has no idea about the subject and has blindspots etc, all of that without showing any knowledge in this subject yourself, just a couple of a priori convictions.

I never called you a bigot. Clearly, you are an unreliable debater who is prone to plain and persistent exaggeration in order to prove a point, thus proving just how bad you are at argumentation. Own goal.

Sunna is, apart from islam, basis for shari'a, shari'a exists and is implemented - more or less - in some states, and these states have laws that match the sayings of Muhammad in certain hadiths. What are they based on, in your opinion, if not on these hadiths and Al-Qur'an?

This is barely comprehensible. All I can say is the hadiths and the Quran have to be interpreted, yes? The fact that the Islamic community as a whole has not continuously been persecuting non-believers is proof enough that Muslims do not blindly follow them to the letter.

 

[Lone Wolf]

someone could do the same for Christianity and Judaism and it would have very little relevance to either religion today.

I agree that citing bad stuff in the Quran as an explanation for the problems with the Muslim world today is an intellectually dubious tactic. I still think that it's acceptable to cite it as a criticism of Islam "in general". Same with all other religions, of course.

 

[aelf]

I agree that citing bad stuff in the Quran as an explanation for the problems with the Muslim world today is an intellectually dubious tactic. I still think that it's acceptable to cite it as a criticism of Islam "in general". Same with all other religions, of course.

It would nevertheless be an unfair criticism without context. And the context is the fact that the religious community actively interprets and applies its religious texts instead of simply following them blindly. Seen in this context, those passages may matter hardly at all. Religion is organic, not mechanical.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It would nevertheless be an unfair criticism without context. And the context is the fact that the religious community actively interprets and applies its religious texts instead of simply following them blindly.

I agree, any such criticism should also analyse the interpretations and the value assigned to these Bad Quotes by the community.

 

[Traitorfish]

It would nevertheless be an unfair criticism without context. And the context is the fact that the religious community actively interprets and applies its religious texts instead of simply following them blindly. Seen in this context, those passages may matter hardly at all. Religion is organic, not mechanical.

Well, usually.

 

[Ronojoy1917]

The OP of this thread was very inciteful and its a shame how little discussion there was actually related to it. The topic seems to have become extremely sidetracked.

 

[Squonk]

That you deliberately quote old passages without context, for one?

When I quoted that specific sura, I left the part that said about the treaty with pagans and that it should be preserved etc. It was already mentioned that Muhammad was at war with Meccans, and it's something obvious anyway.
When it comes to hadiths, I've quoted them without abbreviations, and the only abbreviations that seem to be done (not by me) is the isnad, that is that the whole line of who transmitted this information was not mentioned, for obvious reasons.

I think it's pretty offensive for muslims to call Al-Qur'an "old passages" anyway.

These verses were and are used to justify certain actions of muslim states and muslim groups even today. They are hardly "old" and "irrelevant".
If Al-Qur'an and sunna is irrelevant for islam, then what is, anyway?

sharia hasn't moved on nonsense

Did it? If or not the gate of igtihad is closed or not is a matter of discussion, but the classical schools still exist and I they do not disregard the classical works of their masters.

- because I don't see Islamic law and its application as a monolithic thing, nor do I agree that someone from outside the Islamic community can presume to dictate its less savoury applications as the responsibility of the entire community.

uh, so I can not discuss islam, because I'm not a muslim?

To begin with there are six Islamic schools of jurisprudence that do not necessarily agree with each other

Six? Do you count Zahiri school as alive?
Anyway, the differences between 4 main schools are tiny, and so is the case when it comes to treatment of dhimmis and of apostates. Major difference in case of women is Hanafi school, which orders death penalty for male apostates, while life imprisonement for women. Other schools execute both groups alike.

. On top of that, each society and community has to actively decide how to apply its faith to fit its own circumstances. Muslim societies apply Islamic precepts to their methods of organisation differently and with varying degrees of extensiveness, establishing markedly different political institutions and ways of social organisation.

By saying "applying faith" you seem to treat shari'a as part of islamic faith. Different levels of implementing shari'a do not change shari'a itself, so the laws concerning dhimmis, apostates etc remain part of it.

Here I must note your modus operandi of conflating Islam with an aggregate of Muslim communities, which is how you arrive at this collective responsibility crap. It explains why you think the fact that large countries like Iran (which is hardly a monolithic entity anyway) apply Islamic precepts in a backward manner makes Islam as a whole relatively backward. Even if, say, 25% of Muslims are extremists, it would still be ridiculous to say that Islam as a religion is more extreme than others because that way you'd be unfairly distributing the blame to innocent Muslims. A Muslim might say let those who err be judged by Allah, those extremists have nothing to do with him/her. And that sentiment would be 100% justified.

I operate the same with each religion. I see no reason not to associate islam with religious laws established in majorly muslim countries in order to protect the interest of this particular religion, especially if they have basis in words of the founder of this religion and long legal tradition of islamic scholars.
I find your stance very strange indeed. Again I ask: if not the holy book of this religion; if not the words of its founder; if not its religious law; if not the state laws in majorly muslim countries, if nothing of that can be attributed to islam, what does?

Yeah, and that's the classic excuse of people who have some sort of unfathomable problem with Islam. So don't blame me for being incredulous.

If I said something that wasn't truth, correct me. If you think my words need additional context etc, provide it, and if I'll find you saying truth, I shall agree with you.

I never called you a bigot.

"not an outright bigot" means I am a bigot according to you, just not "outright"

Clearly, you are an unreliable debater

Why am I unreliable? Did I say something that wasn't true?

who is prone to plain and persistent exaggeration

What did I exagerrate?

All I can say is the hadiths and the Quran have to be interpreted, yes? The fact that the Islamic community as a whole has not continuously been persecuting non-believers is proof enough that Muslims do not blindly follow them to the letter.

The most obvious interpretation is the literal one, and you yourself claim that this'd mean persecution. Indeed, refraining from fulfilling a religious order does not mean disagreeing with its validity. What sort of an interpretation would you offer for "fight them until they convert" and a Jew and a stone bits, anyway.

This is barely comprehensible

As you seem to claim there's no link between hadiths ordering execution of apostates and state laws in several muslim countries ordering execution of apostates, I ask you where did these states get the idea of executing apostates from?

I agree that citing bad stuff in the Quran as an explanation for the problems with the Muslim world today is an intellectually dubious tactic

No it isn't. Al-Qur'an and sunna gave birth to shari'a, and shari'a influences politics today.

And the context is the fact that the religious community actively interprets and applies its religious texts instead of simply following them blindly.

I did provide this context. After quoting Khomeini's and Naik's stances, I mentioned
"Thankfully, there are saner attitudes present as well".
it's you and some others who act ridiculously one-sided (I will not comment on Ayn Rand, it's another topic). When there was some criticisement of acts of some muslims today, the answer was: well, Muhammad was different. So I showed Muhammad wasn't always different. Then you say: well, the "realm of islamic scholarship" was different. So I've showed that it wasn't different. So you claim "state laws are different" - well, some are, some aren't.
You're like Yazdagird who loses one battle after another and moves away to a new field just to be defeated there as well. You escape from one field of battle to another, but continue to claim you were not defeated.
Not only didn't you show any knowledge, but your views are really interesting. Again I ask:
if not holy book
if not words of the founder of religion
if not the religious law
if not the current muslim states' law
if not the islamic history
if not the words of any living or dead muslim scholars, politicians etc
can be associated with islam, what can? Islam seems to be for you something of other reality.

I agree, any such criticism should also analyse the interpretations and the value assigned to these Bad Quotes by the community.

As well as defending against such criticism should mention what is this value. Aelf is saying "you ignore the implications", but he does not say what they are himself, because then he'd have to mention himself that some, if not most, of these implications are negative.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not only didn't you show any knowledge, but your views are really interesting. Again I ask:
if not holy book
if not words of the founder of religion
if not the religious law
if not the current muslim states' law
if not the islamic history
if not the words of any living or dead muslim scholars, politicians etc
can be associated with islam, what can? Islam seems to be for you something of other reality.

This is an interesting word; what, I wonder, is it intended to imply? One can "associate" all manner of things with any religion one chooses, but that does not mean to imply that those things are essential to the religion. One can "associate" human sacrifice with Celtic paganism, for example, but that doesn't necessarily imply that you're likely to find Wiccans dumping bodies in peat bogs.

 

[Squonk]

the meaning is contextual, you'd have to read our discussion. Aelf denies importance of all these things in "painting an image of islam".

 

[Traitorfish]

I did, and what I see is you conflating "association" with essence.

 

[Squonk]

If you actually did (read the discussion), you wouldn't say so, as early on, I've written that I believe islam will overcome the problems I'm talking about etc.

And if so, clearly they can not be essential to islam.
I believe the essence of islam is 5 pillars of it. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that essence (if one believes in God), au contraire. But a religion is more than its "essence".

 

[aelf]

double post