|
Fizzil posted:This is false, Abrogation only applies if there is hadith specifically abrogating it, it is not based on chronology. By the way, all the things i mentioned was in Medina, not Mecca. When he was in power. Hadith are given chronologies, y'know? If an earlier one says the sky is blue and a later one says it is red, the later one is to be taken as truth. As for Muhammad being nice to people in Medina, yeah political and military power didn't turn him into a complete dick. But it did change a lot of dynamics, especially how he treated those who were not under his power.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
GuyinCognito posted:I wonder where Brown Moses is so he can identify the munitions that the ISIS are using? Seems suspicious. Any examples in particular you want me to look at?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
Numerical Anxiety posted:I don't think I'll follow you there. Paul was at best ambivalent about marriage and the gospels depict Jesus as being hostile to it. Are we going to say that Christians who are invested in it aren't doing their religion right? Actual practice of any religion is pretty much never in conformity with the strict, ultra-conservative ideal that you're touting. And maybe it's just me, but if one is going to talk about Muslims or any other religious group, I'm more interested in what actual people do, not what some outsider tells them that they should be doing. Again, it is the Quran, hadith, and jurisprudence that tells Muslims what they should be believing and doing. If Jesus had come right out and said marriage was evil and forbidden, I'd go out on a limb and say that anyone calling themselves Christian and happily marrying wasn't acting in an especially Christian manner, that their Christian belief was deficient because it directly contradicted the primary (?) and secondary texts of the religion. It's not me who is the judge, it's the texts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
In non-trolling about Islam news: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/02/tony-blair-advise-egypt-president-sisi-economic-reform Tony Blair, in partnership with PWC and the UAE, is to Advise the Egyptian government on how to most efficiently rob the Egyptian people. quote:Tony Blair has agreed to advise the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who came to power in a military coup last year, as part of a programme funded by the United Arab Emirates that has promised to deliver huge "business opportunities" to those involved, the Guardian has learned. ReV VAdAUL fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
gunblade posted:Why is this being discussed in this thread? I'd be interested to learn about what ISIS believes Islam is, not so much what Exioce believes it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Exoice does not seem to be too far off though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Exioce posted:Hadith are given chronologies, y'know? If an earlier one says the sky is blue and a later one says it is red, the later one is to be taken as truth. You are either obfuscating it deliberately or you mis-understood abrogation, because thats not what it means at all. Abrogation is identified when it specifically points out, with Muhammeds own words, that it's abrogated. Also yeah, at least we agree on something, he isn't a monster, but a human. I'm not sure what that has to do with your mystery 6th pillar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Exioce posted:Let us allow Muhammad himself to explain it: Those quotes are about fighting their contemporary enemies, not about fighting all non-muslims for an eternity, or more specifically 1400 years later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Exioce posted:Is it me who's the authority or is it the Quran, hadith, and jurisprudence which is the authority? Given that you're pushing your own interpretation as the authoritative one instead of, you know, the interpretations of the scholars who have spent their lives studying the Quran, Hadith and jurisprudence and whose opinions are generally held as authoritative, then hell yes, you apparently think that you're the authority here. But I suppose it's too much to ask to check what the muslims themselves believe before telling somebody that they're doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
You lot are a lost cause.  But in an attempt to get things back on track, what does D&D think this could mean in reflection to the violence going down in Iraq? Do you think anything is going to come of it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Exioce posted:I'm saying the Quran, hadith, and jurisprudence are to be deemed essential to defining Islam. Am I wrong in that? Perhaps you would care to explain where in the Quran, hadith or jurisprudence, it says that the biggest obstacle to Islamic expansion would be other, clearly not-muslims, who occupy the same geographical area, ethnicity, language, customs, history and culture, and well, pretty much everything except exitential devotion to some words on a page. Because until I see some ethereal shining hosts descending to assist our true muslims to establish their holy land, I suspect that they wont get very far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
bathroomrage posted:You lot are a lost cause. With regards to Israel, it's SSDD. As far as I know, nobody cares at all about the Palestinians anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:You are either obfuscating it deliberately or you mis-understood abrogation, because thats not what it means at all. Abrogation is identified when it specifically points out, with Muhammeds own words, that it's abrogated. Where in the texts or jurisprudence of Islam are you getting this from, that for something to be abrogated Muhammad must specifically mention what the earlier ruling was an what it is now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
The authorities on contemporary islam are islamic scholars. A lot of them don't agree with you, Exioce, so perhaps you should stop making GBS threads up the thread with what you'd prefer Islam to be? The 'struggle' of war in the Qu'ran was first intended for the neighbours of the muslims. When they got new enemies, they updated the Qu'ran to include these. It was basically a religiously-flavoured campaign paper, and has no relevance today, except in allegorical terms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Tias posted:Exioce, so perhaps you should stop making GBS threads up the thread with what you'd prefer Islam to be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Rukeli posted:Those quotes are about fighting their contemporary enemies, not about fighting all non-muslims for an eternity, or more specifically 1400 years later. Actually, no specific enemies are mentioned in those hadith I quoted (but it's a long chapter so they may be). What the quoted hadith do prove, which was the intention all along, is that Jihad is damned important, with more rewards for the believer than praying and fasting even which are two of the 5 pillars of Islam. If Muhammad intended Allah's rule to stop with Arabia, why did he prophecise about the conquests of Rome and Constantinople? He had no concept of self-determination or religious equality, he believed that Allah made all things possible, that his message was for all mankind. You and I know eternal war and the conquest of the earth is doomed to fail. Do you think he an his true believers did?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Given that you're pushing your own interpretation as the authoritative one instead of, you know, the interpretations of the scholars who have spent their lives studying the Quran, Hadith and jurisprudence and whose opinions are generally held as authoritative, then hell yes, you apparently think that you're the authority here. You mean scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa, who was born a mere 67 years after Muhammad, who came up with the concepts I'm taking about and founded one of the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, who refused the largesse of the ruler, and who was imprisoned, tortured, and murdered because he refused to modify Islam to suit the powers that be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:In non-trolling about Islam news: To be fair, it looks more like he's grifting the oil-emirates, and trying to swindle them into dumping money into the Egyptian economy. Playing both sides. I guess the end goal would be to siphon money out of Egypt with the military taking a cut, but mostly the goal is to collect  for Blair
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Tias posted:The authorities on contemporary islam are islamic scholars. A lot of them don't agree with you, Exioce, so perhaps you should stop making GBS threads up the thread with what you'd prefer Islam to be? A lot of scholars don't agree but a lot of them do, also. And in case you missed it, there's some guys who just recently took over a lot of land and hardware who agree too, and they're implementing various laws domestically and using it to inform foreign policy, so I would argue what the Quran and hadith say is still quite relevant to today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Exioce posted:You mean scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa, who was born a mere 67 years after Muhammad, who came up with the concepts I'm taking about and founded one of the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, who refused the largesse of the ruler, and who was imprisoned, tortured, and murdered because he refused to modify Islam to suit the powers that be? Pretty sure the scholars that are alive right now and that direct the muslim community today are more important for an analysis of the present moment. You're creating an ideal type from sources you picked (Imam Abu Hanifa in this case) and equating it with "real islam", putting an emphasis on a history of islamic ideals and ignoring the real community that sustains those ideals. Saying IS represents a truer version of islam to 8th century islam just shows how anachronistic and divergent IS is to mainstream islam practised by muslims around the world today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Exioce posted:You mean scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa, who was born a mere 67 years after Muhammad, who came up with the concepts I'm taking about and founded one of the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, who refused the largesse of the ruler, and who was imprisoned, tortured, and murdered because he refused to modify Islam to suit the powers that be? What do the other three say? e: lol if you don't realize 'Allah's cause' is a cipher for material conditions Lightanchor fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Exioce posted:A lot of scholars don't agree but a lot of them do, also. And in case you missed it, there's some guys who just recently took over a lot of land and hardware who agree too, and they're implementing various laws domestically and using it to inform foreign policy, so I would argue what the Quran and hadith say is still quite relevant to today. Great, you're THIS close to getting it. If I carved out a piece of Bavaria and claimed to found a new Holy Empire because part of such an ideal has been espoused by a christian scholar who knew Jesus and had been dead for millienia, it wouldn't WHAT CHRISTIAINITY IS, just because I felt like it. In short, you really want expansionist warfare to be a clear part of Islam, and are using appeal to authority fallacy to get there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Why don't you guys utilize Occam's Razor and realize that he really, really doesn't like Islam and is just trying to paint it in a bad light? Just food for thought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
More to the point, no reputable scholars have endorsed ISIS' "caliphate," no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
bagual posted:Pretty sure the scholars that are alive right now and that direct the muslim community today are more important for an analysis of the present moment. You're creating an ideal type from sources you picked (Imam Abu Hanifa in this case) and equating it with "real islam", putting an emphasis on a history of islamic ideals and ignoring the real community that sustains those ideals. Saying IS represents a truer version of islam to 8th century islam just shows how anachronistic and divergent IS is to mainstream islam practised by muslims around the world today. IS is extremely divergent from how a lot of mainstream Muslims practice Islam today, I would never question that. Most Muslims just want to pay the bills and have nice things. At the same time, IS is not alone in thinking the way they do. Consider all those eager foreign fighters in their ranks. More significantly still, even if their methods are condemned by the majority of Muslims the goal is often admired - a Caliphate that unites all Muslims under one banner and turns the tables on the Jews and the Christians. IS will fall in time but their ideology will live on and a new IS will arise. The only way to stop it is to un-gently caress the Middle East, and I think we're all agreed that's not happening any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Exioce posted:Sorry, I assumed you were aware that the Islam that Muhammad brought was pretty typical of religions of the time period and considered the entire world its right, through violent conquest if necessary. Incidentally, this is the Islam that IS believe in. You may have a different version of Islam to them, a nicer version for politer society, but you should know their interpretation is closer to the Islam of Muhammad than your own. Rite...and Brevik was closer to Norway then I am.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Tias posted:Great, you're THIS close to getting it. If I carved out a piece of Bavaria and claimed to found a new Holy Empire because part of such an ideal has been espoused by a christian scholar who knew Jesus and had been dead for millienia, it wouldn't WHAT CHRISTIAINITY IS, just because I felt like it. You're using the appeal to authority of guys over a millennia and a half removed from the source ("The authorities on contemporary islam are islamic scholars. A lot of them don't agree with you, Exioce"). I'm using an appeal to authority of a guy only a century removed from the source. The guy I'm using also didn't have a need to shoehorn in modern concepts and self-determination and equality into the mix. He also got tortured for his principles by not kowtowing to the ruler. Which of these authorities you are appealing to has as much credibility? If you did what you said with regards to Bavaria, you wouldn't be doing it just because you felt like it. You'd have textual backing from primary sources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Exioce posted:
Your empire might even pass peer review!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Exioce posted:Where in the texts or jurisprudence of Islam are you getting this from, that for something to be abrogated Muhammad must specifically mention what the earlier ruling was an what it is now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir) One example given is when Muhammed prohibited the drinking of wine, that was a direct abrogation because it was permissible before. Its a very long and good read, plus: "Yet despite its dependence on chronology, naskh is in no way a historiographical enterprise: While it cannot really be doubted that there is an implicit assumption of the chronological-progressive order of the Qur'ān in the naskh texts, it is notable that the discussions themselves do not generally make this point explicit; naskh, be it with regards to wine or direction of prayer, always assumes that the present law is known (that is, no wine and facing Mecca), and the verses which agree with that fact are necessarily the valid ones. Any verses which contradict this are necessarily invalid, and thus can be logically arranged according to a basic notion of 'progressive revelation.' The arguments found in the naskh texts are, in short, based on logic not chronology.[9] In particular, the central tenets of the faith are excluded from this process." This still doesn't make violence a central core tenet of Islam. Also you're using someone close to the source instead of the source himself, why? Edit: VV My Apologies i'll stop derailing VV Fizzil fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Maybe stop talking to the guy who keeps saying the exact same thing no matter what evidence you bring up Hmm?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Any examples in particular you want me to look at? All of them. You did it a bit for Ukraine and now you feel you don't have the time, as a live at home blogger, to examine the munitions that are in the same regional war because they are ISIS?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
GuyinCognito posted:All of them. You did it a bit for Ukraine and now you feel you don't have the time, as a live at home blogger, to examine the munitions that are in the same regional war because they are ISIS? Or I am examining them and nothing has really stood out since the Croatian weapons turned up?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:Maybe stop talking to the guy who keeps saying the exact same thing no matter what evidence you bring up Hmm? D&D literally cannot detect trolling. Just sit back and try to discuss around the argument, it'll disperse eventually. What do you think of the latest Israel Palestine fight? Think anything will come of it given all the recent instability in the region?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Also, what is "live at home blogger" meant to mean? Should I move out of my house while blogging?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Exioce posted:You're using the appeal to authority of guys over a millennia and a half removed from the source ("The authorities on contemporary islam are islamic scholars. A lot of them don't agree with you, Exioce"). I'm using an appeal to authority of a guy only a century removed from the source. The guy I'm using also didn't have a need to shoehorn in modern concepts and self-determination and equality into the mix. He also got tortured for his principles by not kowtowing to the ruler. Which of these authorities you are appealing to has as much credibility? Wahab got fronted by a robber Baron in Saud fighting against the Ottoman. You REALLY think their own nationalism and struggle had nothing to-do with its acceptance? An amateur theologian swayed them all and the fact that it basically gave them national and religious supremacy for their cause had NOTHING todo with it? For me, Religion is a bag of bone, but I am still qualified to distinguish between ego and faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Also, what is "live at home blogger" meant to mean? Should I move out of my house while blogging? I only trust the homeless to bring me the latest in breaking Middle East news. It's served me well so far.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:This still doesn't make violence a central core tenet of Islam. Also you're using someone close to the source instead of the source himself, why? I am struggling to see how expansionary Jihad isn't a core tenet of Islam when Muhammad himself conquered most of Arabia and then his closest companions went on to conquer a lot more outside of it, and that spoke so highly of fighting in Allah's cause (which was to expand Allah's rule on earth). I am also struggling to see why Muhammad would prophecise the conquests of Rome and Constantinople if he didn't desire and expect further conquests after his death. This is the source itself. Imam Abu Hanifa was just putting the actions into concepts. Perhaps based on Muhammad's actions and saying you think there is a better explanation than Imam Abu Hanifa's, I'd love to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
54.4 crowns posted:Wahab got fronted by a robber Baron in Saud fighting against the Ottoman. Whilst austere Wahhabism is quite similar to IS, I very much doubt IS take him as their starting point, or indeed hold him in much regard. There is a tradition in Islam that one should beware of the scholar at the gate of the ruler, and Wahhab wasn't just at Saud's gate but very much in bed with him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Also, what is "live at home blogger" meant to mean? Should I move out of my house while blogging? Blogger on the run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 17:04
|
|
