Misconceptions and quries about Islam

[bananabrain]

Well, in religious law, questioning religious law is in fact an infraction of religious law.

absolutely not - in fact, argument is what halacha is based on. to decide on opinion, you must have discussion. on the other hand, one cannot question whether G!D has the authority to make laws - that just doesn't make sense, because if the Divine cannot command, then what on earth is the point?

schizo - you are entitled to express opinions about saudi arabia if you wish (and i may even agree with you) but referring to arabs in general is not really on, as you seem to realise. either way, saudi isn't really an islamic state, as we seem to agree - more a wahhabi one, which is where the problem comes.

Good values are universal, they apply throughout all times. Why would time affect the goodness of morality?

there are still contextual considerations, as you are well aware. for example, the halachic command to eliminate amalek cannot be observed nowadays as it previously could, because there are no longer identifiable amalekites. therefore, the universal value is evidently affected by time through the mechanism of interpretation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[SchiZo]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

there are still contextual considerations, as you are well aware. for example, the halachic command to eliminate amalek cannot be observed nowadays as it previously could, because there are no longer identifiable amalekites. therefore, the universal value is evidently affected by time through the mechanism of interpretation.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. My original contention was that bringing up something like the playstation is irrelevant as it serves nothing significant in the way of religion or morality. What good would it do, for a religious text to mention the games console? lol

Anyway, the command to eliminate Amalekites is an instruction of action, and may not be applicable today. However, the basis of it may be construed as "To fight/eliminate all tyranny and oppression".

Things like, "thou shalt not murder/steal", treat others as you would like to be treated, help the needy/poor etc etc.. should be universal and applicable throughout all times. There may be some exceptions to the rule, sure, but the basic commands are for the betterment of mankind, and I can't see a time period where it may not apply. That's all I meant.

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

absolutely not - in fact, argument is what halacha is based on.

Well, I was thinking sharia, though even in the context you spoke of there's the potential of whoever has the most influence can shout down the dissenter as against god. A handful of squabbling clerics aren't the most trustworthy lot I can think of. Far too many bodies on the pyre of heresy in every religion for religious law to work.

[Lucien]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Really, I don't see why you bother.
As soon as there's something you can't explain...'It is Allah's will.'
At least refrain from advertising that the Qu'ran is flawless if you're not going to be able to back up your case.

Samabudhi,

Personally I don't see how the omittance of this verse from the Qu'ran proves that the Book is not flawless (or that it is, for that matter). I think that to prove that the Qu'ran is flawless you would have to investigate it carefully for yourself and consider whether the moral and spiritual teachings of the Qu'ran confirm the moral and spiritual teachings from the Messengers of God that came before the Prophet Muhammed (e.g. the Bible).

I think they do, but you have to take into account that the Bible, while divinely inspired, is not faultless. The translation from the original scrolls might be correct, but these scrolls themselves have been written many years (sometimes even centuries) after the events and their authenticity or historical correctness can not be confirmed. Moses and Jesus were not around to certify them. In contrast, Muhammed has approved his Book.

Also, take into account the time that the Qu'ran was revealed and don't pay too much attention to the various interpretations. Let's face it, the Crusaders interpreted the Bible to justify their war against Islam, and modern terrorists use the Qu'ran to justify their murderous acts.

Also take into account the life of the Prophet Himself. The lives of all God's Messengers are characterised by love, devotion, kindness, firmness, integrity, honesty and all other virtues that They tell us to uphold. Muhammed's life definitely was.

Finally, bear in mind that some of the commandments of the Prophet were applicable to the times in which the Qu'ran was revealed and might not apply in the same way today. An example is the Jihad (the Holy War). In today's age this (in my opinion, of course) is not to be a literal war in which the infidels should be killed.

My two cents worth... :-)

Lucien.

[Mus Zibii]

The lives of all God's Messengers are characterised by love, devotion, kindness, firmness, integrity, honesty and all other virtues that They tell us to uphold. Muhammed's life definitely was.

This is interesting, because I disagree that any let alone all of the recognized messengers of the middle-eastern God were any of those things. But the catch-22 is that neither was Mohomet, so I guess two wrongs make a right in this case. His nuance as recorded in the various hadith don't make him any less than Abraham himself--in my opinion.

[Lucien]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

This is interesting, because I disagree that any let alone all of the recognized messengers of the middle-eastern God were any of those things. But the catch-22 is that neither was Mohomet, so I guess two wrongs make a right in this case. His nuance as recorded in the various hadith don't make him any less than Abraham himself--in my opinion.

Mus Zibii,

Well, perhaps you could explain why you think this is the case? If we, for instance, look at Jesus then I can't see how you can say that He was not full of love, devotion, honesty, integrity and so on...

Admittedly, we do have the problem that the hadith are not necessarily "authorized", authentic or true. Nevertheless, we do get a general picture of the Prophet. The same applies to the Gospels, which contradict each other in some places, but still give us a good idea of Who Jesus was.

By the way, there is no such thing as a "Middle-Eastern" God - there is only one God and He is loved from East to West and from North to South by everybody who know and seek Him.

Lucien.

[Mus Zibii]

Well, perhaps you could explain why you think this is the case? If we, for instance, look at Jesus then I can't see how you can say that He was not full of love, devotion, honesty, integrity and so on...

Well, off the top of my head, Jesus ushered in the doctrine of hell, regulated by innumerable variation on what to believe, making it virtually impossible among the various sects of Christianity and Islam to know exactly what to accept in order to be spared an eternity of burning alive. While that's unheard of in Judaism, the punishments suffered by heretics on earth at the hands of Jewish courts was an abbreviated version of hell, AKA Gehenna.

Admittedly, we do have the problem that the hadith are not necessarily "authorized", authentic or true. Nevertheless, we do get a general picture of the Prophet. The same applies to the Gospels, which contradict each other in some places, but still give us a good idea of Who Jesus was.

Its general, all right. Sweeping from one extreme to the next. But again, like you said, its not that different from Christianity or Judaism in what could politely be rendered as 'nuance'.

By the way, there is no such thing as a "Middle-Eastern" God - there is only one God and He is loved from East to West and from North to South by everybody who know and seek Him.

True. But no prophet ever spoke a Germanic tongue, and the provincial flavors of the three Abrahamic religions was always a problem for the clerics. Yahweh spoke (was revealed in, etc) Hebrew, Allah spoke Arabic, and Jesus spoke Greek. Didn't none of 'em speak Norwegian, and in every case, apostasy always followed translation.

[banjo]

Schizo said:

I see you intentionally ignored everything I wrote in my post.

I knew from the very beginning that you weren't interested in discussing the topic with a genuine desire to learn or understand. I have repeated the explanation for it many times, but its either flying over your head, or you don't have it in you to acknowledge that you assumed incorrectly about Islamic doctrine.

You will still try to argue it senselessly, but thats fine, I understand perfectly.

Only ego at play.

Not at all. It's just that you didn't address my point. You said:

So what has happened here is this; no one can accuse a woman of Zinaa unless he/she is a spouse, because really it is none of their damn business

So no one can accuse someone else of adultery because there will never be four witnesses. So what's the point of mentioning it in the quran then? Why does the quran bother to define a crime and then stipulate impossible standards of evidence?

If you are to be believed, the reason the quran does this is to say that no third party can ever accuse someone else of adultery. It would seem to be a very roundabout way of going about it. Why doesn't the quran just say that adultery is wrong but third parties can't bring any action? Why stipulate an impossible amount of witnesses?

Imagine if I started my own religion and I said that eating fish is (legally) wrong and punishable by the state but only if the accuser is able to produce 15 witnesses, the bones of the fish plus all that fish's brothers and sisters.

There's no point in making something into a crime and then stipulating ridiculous standards of evidence. In practical terms it's not really a crime if it is completely unenforceable.

One thing you will notice about all secular legal systems is that NONE of them do this. All crimes have certain standards of evidence. Different crimes have different standards of evidence but, in no case, is a particular crime defined and then an impossible standard of evidence set. There would be no point. It would just be verbal waffle. It wouldn't mean anything.

This is probably the reason why countries like Pakistan define zina to include rape - because if you don't then it means nothing. Why would God tell us something that means nothing? What would be the point? The quran is only a very short book so every sentence is important, there's no room for excess waffle.

This is thus a flaw in the quran. If you define it as you do then it's a flaw because it has no meaning, if you define it how Pakistan defines it then it is a flaw because it is extremely dangerous and illogical (4 witnesses to a rape). So however you look at it, it's a flaw. The very fact that more than one interpretation is possible is in itself a flaw, whatever the correct meaning may be.

And quite a large flaw at that since it covers the whole spectrum from meaning nothing right up to dealing with rape.

bananabrain said:

you're surely not suggesting that, say UK law does not apply to people in the UK who are not UK citizens? it's hardly much different.

What I meant was that islam differs from things like christianity and secular humanism in that it has a legal system at all. A religion with a legal system attached.

*grin* if you're american or even british, sharia and certainly halacha predate the legal systems of both these countries, isn't the onus on the later systems?

Sharia doesn't predate English Common law, ECL is older by many centuries. Scroll back in this thread to near where I first joined in, we dealt with this then.

And anyway, the age of a legal system is only relevant if that legal system has been changing and adapting over all that time. If the legal system has always been the same then it shows that it hasn't learnt anything.

which is one of the reasons why (and i quote an islamic theologian) that there is "no islamic state currently existing in the world". pakistan can't be truly islamic due to a) tribal law and b) corruption.

This is something that muslims often say - that no true islamic state exists in the world but that it is something that should be aspired to. The point I've been trying to make in this thread is not whether any of the states that currently exist in the world are truly islamic. My point is that the true islamic state is not something that is even worth aspiring to - because it's flawed.

yes, the *system* expects a commitment but, as i said, this commitment may not be as straightforward as you think it is, particularly in respect of what marriage is actually considered to be at least in judaism. you are now saying that you're only talking about what is in people's mind at the moment they say "i do" or whatever, which is a much more specific point and specifying the perspective of the couple and the minister concerned. and when you restrict it to what you say you're actually referring to, i don't see a terribly big insight, other than "people ought to mean it when they get married" - with which i agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not talking about what people "ought to think when they get married". It's a legal thing, a contractual thing. Intention is a very important concept. You can commit a crime without even doing anything - just having the intention to commit that crime. You can nullify a contract just because you lacked the correct intention.

Intention is important, legally important. And when I say legally I mean it in a broad way to include religions as well. Under christianity, you need to have the requisite intention in order to have a valid marriage. Likewise under other religious systems too.

Lucien said:

Personally I don't see how the omittance of this verse from the Qu'ran proves that the Book is not flawless (or that it is, for that matter). I think that to prove that the Qu'ran is flawless you would have to investigate it carefully for yourself and consider whether the moral and spiritual teachings of the Qu'ran confirm the moral and spiritual teachings from the Messengers of God that came before the Prophet Muhammed (e.g. the Bible).

I think they do

I don't understand how you can say they do when islam teaches completely different things from christianity which itself teaches completely different things from judaism. If they were all the same then we wouldn't have different religions, there would be no point since they would all agree with each other.

Also take into account the life of the Prophet Himself. The lives of all God's Messengers are characterised by love, devotion, kindness, firmness, integrity, honesty and all other virtues that They tell us to uphold. Muhammed's life definitely was.

Hmm...slightly surprised about this paragraph but then this isn't a thread about Mohammed so no need to get sidetracked. Is it not true to say that Mohammed was no Jesus? Far as I recall, he was involved in about 60 wars in his lifetime (most of which he started), ambushed Jewish trading caravans, made treaties which he subsequently broke (and had intended to break when he made them), married a 6 year old girl and had sex with her when she was 9, killed various opponents of his who merely told him they didn't agree with him (they had no intention of being violent to him, they just didn't agree with him) etc etc.

Whether you think the above is arguable or not, you can't dispute that Mohammed was something of a warrior. But no need to get sidetracked.

Mus Zibii said:

Well, in religious law, questioning religious law is in fact an infraction of religious law. LOL Thus the virtue of the godless rule of the land.

Preach it, brother.