Things in Islam I am curious about...

[جوري]

I think he's kuwaiti. Yeah, I know what you mean... it adds to the beauty of the Qur'an.

What gives him his slight egyptain accent? (just out of interest) I didnt know people could have regional dialects when reciting Qur'aan.

:lol: I prefer not to say but let's just put it this way, Egyptians and Lebanese especially have a rather effeminate quality about them that doesn't appeal to my personal taste..

 

[Banu_Hashim]

^lol, ok. I get the jist.

 

[Hugo]

I am not Uthman as you will notice, and I hope you don't mind if I elaborate slightly. There are many, many ahadeeth (recorded actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him), covering a myriad of topics. Had Allah done that, if they were all in one volume as part of the Qur'an, the book would be too wide to fit on a shelf, and certainly too heavy for anyone to pick up!

This does not seem to make sense as an argument as one supposes that the Qu'ran could have been in several volumes covering your myriad topics.

Also, we humans would have complained that we need a human to show us how to apply certain rules. That's why we have further details, and have the examples, and instances of things that happened recorded in the hadeeth to teach us by practical human example, showing us how rules and laws were applied and should be applied. So we've not just been told, "Don't do this, this is wrong", and subsequently been left to our own devices. We've been shown how to avoid it happening and what to do if it happens.

This does not explain why they are not in the Qu'ran and also it implies that such books (if I can put it like that) can never be enough because times and circumstances and institutions change - surely it is not even common sense to regard all 1400 year old examples to apply equally for all eternity?

 

[Uthman]

Just to clarify, he didn't take a revelation of Allah's and decide of his own volition to put it into his own words. The sunnah is a type of revelation from God. He was divinely inspired as to the message, the wording and how he spoke to humans was up to him, he was a human being, and to apply practical examples you need humans talking to humans.

Thanks for offering this clarification Sr. Insane Insaan. I misunderstood what Supreme was saying, thereby giving the wrong impression about the way Allah inspired the Prophet saws with the Sunnah.

 

[aamirsaab]

This does not seem to make sense as an argument as one supposes that the Qu'ran could have been in several volumes covering your myriad topics.

Like the bible? Yeah we all know how that turned out. 1 Divine book is more accessible than 2 or 3.

This does not explain why they are not in the Qu'ran and also it implies that such books (if I can put it like that) can never be enough because times and circumstances and institutions change - surely it is not even common sense to regard all 1400 year old examples to apply equally for all eternity?

1) Qur'an: Word of God; Hadith: actions/sayings of The Perfect role model. 2 pronged method.
2) That's why there is a science of hadith; ijma;qiyas etc. And that's why there are scholars who know all this stuff because they have spent a long time studying it
3) You are supposed to use your God-given intelligence when following the teachings of Islam. Understand the wisdom behind the teachings - don't just take them on face value as most outsiders do.

 

[Insaanah]

This does not seem to make sense as an argument as one supposes that the Qu'ran could have been in several volumes covering your myriad topics.

As I have explained in my original post. Allah is All-Wise and knows how much we can digest at one time. If people are interested in Islam, they sometimes get given, buy, or read a translation of the Qur'an. We often say to people, "Here's a translation of the Qur'an. Read that. That's got the main message of Islam in it". And they go away and read it.

Now, if I showed someone a book as wide as an entire shelf, or as you prefer, several volumes spanning an entire shelf, and said, "There's the holy book of Islam. Go and read it", do you think anyone would bother? Do you think that would be the best and most digestible way to get the message of a religion across? I think not. Perhaps your personal preference would be that, but as I said, Allah is Most Wise, and knows in His Infinite Divine Wisdom how best to present His Message.

This does not explain why they are not in the Qu'ran

See above

and also it implies that such books (if I can put it like that) can never be enough because times and circumstances and institutions change - surely it is not even common sense to regard all 1400 year old examples to apply equally for all eternity?

You are correct in your observation that times change, However, the teachings of Islam don't change with time. They are for all people, all times, and all places. If something is forbidden, it will always remain forbidden. The goalposts don't change with time. If there is a way to avoid a problem, then that is how it's avoided. The earliest Muslims, to Muslims 1400 years later, Muslims from East to West, have the same rules. That's the beauty of Islam.

Peace.

 

[Hugo]

As I have explained in my original post. Allah is All-Wise and knows how much we can digest at one time. If people are interested in Islam, they sometimes get given, buy, or read a translation of the Qur'an. We often say to people, "Here's a translation of the Qur'an. Read that. That's got the main message of Islam in it". And they go away and read it. Now, if I showed someone a book as wide as an entire shelf, or as you prefer, several volumes spanning an entire shelf, and said, "There's the holy book of Islam. Go and read it", do you think anyone would bother? Do you think that would be the best and most digestible way to get the message of a religion across? I think not. Perhaps your personal preference would be that, but as I said, Allah is Most Wise, and knows in His Infinite Divine Wisdom how best to present His Message.

The trouble with this kind of argument is that if the Qu'ran were 10 volumes you would be saying how comprehensive it is and offering me a summary.

You are correct in your observation that times change, However, the teachings of Islam don't change with time. They are for all people, all times, and all places. If something is forbidden, it will always remain forbidden. The goalposts don't change with time. If there is a way to avoid a problem, then that is how it's avoided. The earliest Muslims, to Muslims 1400 years later, Muslims from East to West, have the same rules. That's the beauty of Islam.

This to makes no sense, first you agree that things change them demand that the 'rules' never do and that is a bit potty surely? There are a million and one things that the rules do not cover and in 100 years time there will be a million more. You cannot lock yourself forever in the past?

I might also point out that in Islam whatever is allowed is allowed forever so that means Islam will forever think slavery is a good thing because it allows it? I can list dozens of other things that can never apply now or ever again. If you look for example laws about property written for tribal society which will never occur again and cannot be applied now. Surely, there is some room for interpretation and circumstance or are you forever locked into interpretations made my men who could not possibly know how modern life works or how life in 500 years might be

 

[جوري]

The trouble with this kind of argument is that if the Qu'ran were 10 volumes you would be saying how comprehensive it is and offering me a summary.

actually no that seems more a long the lines of the kaffir mind.. and we are accustomed to such questions, why five prayers why not three or four. why must you fast in ramadan why not in shawaal or muhraam. There is an absolute wisdom behind the size and volume of the Quran which as I had stated in my previous thread (properly linked) is in fact comparable to the size of the NT sans the convolution ans confusion. The Quran is revealed so that it is easy to memorize and utilize, any other argument only shows the uselessness and ungratefulness of the orientalist mind!

This to makes no sense, first you agree that things change them demand that the 'rules' never do and that is a bit potty surely? There are a million and one things that the rules do not cover and in 100 years time there will be a million more. You cannot lock yourself forever in the past?

What million and one rules that aren't covered in the past? surely you have heard of fundamentals which are the foundation upon which all else rests?

I might also point out that in Islam whatever is allowed is allowed forever so that means Islam will forever think slavery is a good thing because it allows it? I can list dozens of other things that can never apply now or ever again. If you look for example laws about property written for tribal society which will never occur again and cannot be applied now. Surely, there is some room for interpretation and circumstance or are you forever locked into interpretations made my men who could not possibly know how modern life works or how life in 500 years might be

In fact if you knew anything about Islam and from the numerous posts here which you seem to utterly ignore you'd have learned that Islam came to abolish slavery, as such if it were completely not a part of society it would be in perfect concert with what Islam came to accomplish!

btw we are still waiting on other 'contradictions' that you have personally found when reading the Quran

all the best

 

[Insaanah]

I am not sure if you are genuinely here to gain knowledge, or whether you just want to hair split and quibble with each answer you're given.

The trouble with this kind of argument is that if the Qu'ran were 10 volumes you would be saying how comprehensive it is and offering me a summary.

Firstly, I am not posing any "argument" here, or at least wasn't having to til now. If you would like to pose an argument or start a debate, please start a separate thread, and if anyone's interested they will engage with you.

I seem to remember it was you that said: "....one supposes that the Qu'ran could have been in several volumes covering your myriad topics."
I have explained the answer to that twice already, and if you do not understand that then I feel sorry for you.

This to makes no sense,

Then, as I said before, I feel sorry for you.

first you agree that things change

No. Please read carefully. I agreed with your assertion that TIMES change.

them demand that the 'rules' never do and that is a bit potty surely?

What strikes me as being potty is the teachings of a religion being oveturned to adapt to the times such that as immorailty increases, so you change the religion to accept that immorality e.g.homosexuality being a sin one day, being accepted as normal the next day, and being acceptable as a lifestyle for Christian clergy the next day!

Peace.

 

[Hugo]

In fact if you knew anything about Islam and from the numerous posts here which you seem to utterly ignore you'd have learned that Islam came to abolish slavery, as such if it were completely not a part of society it would be in perfect concert with what Islam came to accomplish!

This I take it to mean that that part (very large part) of Sharia that deals with slavery is now obsolete, of no value whatever and should be consigned to the museum where it belongs and hence you subscribe to the notion that Sharia is not infinite wisdom and applicable for all time. If not then you are a support of slavery and if Islam was so benign why was it that the last countries (1960) to get rid of slavery were Muslims ones?

 

[جوري]

This I take it to mean that that part (very large part) of Sharia that deals with slavery is now obsolete, of no value whatever and should be consigned to the museum where it belongs and hence you subscribe to the notion that Sharia is not infinite wisdom and applicable for all time. If not then you are a support of slavery and if Islam was so benign why was it that the last countries (1960) to get rid of slavery were Muslims ones?

I in fact support enslavement of POW yes!

all the best

 

[aamirsaab]

This I take it to mean that that part (very large part) of Sharia that deals with slavery is now obsolete, of no value whatever and should be consigned to the museum where it belongs and hence you subscribe to the notion that Sharia is not infinite wisdom and applicable for all time. If not then you are a support of slavery and if Islam was so benign why was it that the last countries (1960) to get rid of slavery were Muslims ones?

You do realise Sharia encourages one to FREE slaves, right?

As for your second part, so what? How exactly is that Islam's fault? Do you know how integrated slavery was in arabia at that time? Do you realise how badly racism was institutionalised in any other part of the world that was using slaves (and in some cases still is)? This is all moot anyway since slavery has been abolished. What you should really be pissed about is the caste system that exists in india.

And let's consider the bible then. That was out for a lot longer - what's the time span until slavery was abolished? 1000 years? Islam did it in less than half that time. Go figure.

 

[جوري]

^^ in fact we have amply replied to his question before.. Just because Slavery was allegedly abolished in the west, doesn't mean that it actually took effect.
Rosa Parks anyone along with countless other examples.. although I am not in the mood to repeat all that has been previously addressed simply because Mr. Hugo refuses to read or accept the responses given!

 

[Hugo]

I am not sure if you are genuinely here to gain knowledge, or whether you just want to hair split and quibble with each answer you're given.

What you are saying here is that any answer YOU give must be accepted without a second thought, this is not quibbling it is trying to see if there is any substance in what you say.

Firstly, I am not posing any "argument" here, or at least wasn't having to til now. If you would like to pose an argument or start a debate, please start a separate thread, and if anyone's interested they will engage with you.

But you are, you are saying the Koran is a particular size for a particular reason and I have no trouble withy you saying that but I do take issue that you think your answer is the only possibility

I seem to remember it was you that said: "....one supposes that the Qu'ran could have been in several volumes covering your myriad topics." I have explained the answer to that twice already, and if you do not understand that then I feel sorry for you.

So because YOU have explained it I must accept it? Is that the way Islam works? If any Muslim explains anything those who hear it must accept it?

What strikes me as being potty is the teachings of a religion being oveturned to adapt to the times such that as immorailty increases, so you change the religion to accept that immorality e.g.homosexuality being a sin one day, being accepted as normal the next day, and being acceptable as a lifestyle for Christian clergy the next day!

Now we are back where we started and I ask you again, is everything in Islam infinite wisdom for all eternity no matter what happens or what circumstance occur there is no place for interpretation or re-interpretation?



Peace.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hugo]

^^ in fact we have amply replied to his question before.. Just because Slavery was allegedly abolished in the west, doesn't mean that it actually took effect.
Rosa Parks anyone along with countless other examples.. although I am not in the mood to repeat all that has been previously addressed simply because Mr. Hugo refuses to read or accept the responses given!

Just answer the question - do you support slavery because it is permitted by Sharia, and if so is that the Islamic position that slavery is good, its must be if its permitted?

 

[جوري]

What you are saying here is that any answer YOU give must be accepted without a second thought, this is not quibbling it is trying to see if there is any substance in what you say.

what is your measure of substance? Only that which agrees with your brand of logic?

But you are, you are saying the Koran is a particular size for a particular reason and I have no trouble withy you saying that but I do take issue that you think your answer is the only possibility

What other answers are there?

So because YOU have explained it I must accept it? Is that the way Islam works? If any Muslim explains anything those who hear it must accept it?

Acceptance is a subjective find. When someone dies for instance it is a fact and a done deal whether you accept it or refuse to accept it, will not change the fact of the matter!

Now we are back where we started and I ask you again, is everything in Islam infinite wisdom for all eternity no matter what happens or what circumstance occur there is no place for interpretation or re-interpretation?

That is the role of the scholars not orientalists..

Peace

All the best

 

[Hugo]

You do realise Sharia encourages one to FREE slaves, right? As for your second part, so what? How exactly is that Islam's fault? Do you know how integrated slavery was in arabia at that time? Do you realise how badly racism was institutionalised in any other part of the world that was using slaves (and in some cases still is)? This is all moot anyway since slavery has been abolished. What you should really be pissed about is the caste system that exists in india.

And let's consider the bible then. That was out for a lot longer - what's the time span until slavery was abolished? 1000 years? Islam did it in less than half that time. Go figure.

Fine, what I am asking are you in favour of retaining in sharia the large section on slavery and because its in sharia its permitted. Or are you saying here that that section of sharia is now to be abolished? If so then by implication any part of sharia can be changed? Everyone will agree that slavery was part of then ancient world and laws were needed to contain it but now they must be forever obsolete - don't you agree?

 

[aamirsaab]

Fine, what I am asking are you in favour of retaining in sharia the large section on slavery and because its in sharia its permitted. Or are you saying here that that section of sharia is now to be abolished? If so then by implication any part of sharia can be changed? Everyone will agree that slavery was part of then ancient world and laws were needed to contain it but now they must be forever obsolete - don't you agree?

You have not understood sharia's stance on slavery. It really is quite simple: free the slaves. Anything sharia has to say on slavery boils down to that one point. You cannot free slaves if there aren't any - so your question is moot. To come to the conclusion that all of sharia can be changed because of slavery based laws becoming obsolete is also a stretch too far. For instance: alcohol related crime is still rife as is rape, theft and murder - and that's without sharia legal system. But this is a topic in and of itself and requires more than a one reply answer. Especially one given by a student who's studying finance at masters, not sharia law

 

[Hugo]

what is your measure of substance? Only that which agrees with your brand of logic? What other answers are there? Acceptance is a subjective find. When someone dies for instance it is a fact and a done deal whether you accept it or refuse to accept it, will not change the fact of the matter! That is the role of the scholars not orientalists..

If I may be permitted I would like to give an extended answer here. Firstly I quote from David Goodstein (Caltec) on the scientific method, since we hear endlessly about how logical and scientific Islam is then I give an example to show how weak the supposition is because one can become so disposed towards ones faith that we accept anything that props it up

No human activity can stand up to the glare of relentless, absolute honesty We build little hypocrisies and misrepresentations into what we do to make our lives a little easier, and science, a very human enterprise, is no exception. For example, every scientific paper is written as if the particular investigation it describes were a triumphant progression from one truth to the next. All scientists who perform research, however, know that every scientific experiment is chaotic - like war. You never know what's going on, you cannot usually understand what the data means. But in the end you figure out what it was all about, and then, with hindsight, you write it up as one clear and certain step after another. This is a kind of hypocrisy but one that is deeply embedded in the way we do science. We are so accustomed to it that we don't even regard it as a misrepresentation.​

Here is the example written by Mondher Sfar (researcher in history and anthropology) and what he says cuts right across the traditional accounts which are invariably presented as "a triumphant progression from one truth to the next" as Goodstein would put it.

Even the very idea of gathering the scattered texts of the revelation into a collection, according to stories reported by tradition, had been received with amazement: "How, exclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr, would I dare to do something that the Prophet did not? This was how he responded to Umar, who had suggested this project, as we have just seen, after the death of a great number of reciters of the Koran during the battle of Yamama, in which the Muslims fought Musaylima, the false prophet. Abu Bakr, who ended up accepting this project, designated Zayd ibn Thabit, one of the Prophet's secretaries, to carry out this audacious enterprise. But the latter was in turn scandalized and is said to have made the same response as Abd Bakr had given to Umar. But Zayd, too, ended up accepting the task. How can we explain this astonishment of the first Muslims at the idea of gathering the revealed texts into a single volume?

For this is an "astonishing" astonishment, if we consider that it is expressed by the greatest companion of the Prophet and a witness to the first ordering of the divine revelations. We - for whom it is so evident today that Koran can be read at a single sitting, that it can be leafed through ith a simple gesture cannot even imagine that such a sacred text could once have been presented scattered into dozens of sheets without any organic link and without any prospect of unity. It is clear that this astonishment attests to the fact that among the first Muslims, the companions of the Prophet, a sort of revolution was taking place in the perception of the revealed texts, held until then as units autonomous in their meanings, now to propose to turn them suddenly into a new and unsuspected-of entity. Revelation had been plural, and now it was being proposed to construct from its elements something unprecedented: a Koran. ​

I present all this to ask a question - are Muslim even aware that they are, like every one else biased and predisposed to lean towards anything that props up their faith. I don't see anything wrong with being biased as such since we cannot avoid it but I do see everything wrong when its obvious people are not even aware or cannot admit it and that can only in my view bring dishonour on ones faith.

 

[Hugo]

You have not understood sharia's stance on slavery. It really is quite simple: free the slaves. Anything sharia has to say on slavery boils down to that one point. You cannot free slaves if there aren't any - so your question is moot. To come to the conclusion that all of sharia can be changed because of slavery based laws becoming obsolete is also a stretch too far. For instance: alcohol related crime is still rife as is rape, theft and murder - and that's without sharia legal system. But this is a topic in and of itself and requires more than a one reply answer. Especially one given by a student who's studying finance at masters, not sharia law

No I have understood but the question is about a principle, that sharia is or is not organic, it can change and you seem to endorse that here at least with regard to slavery. I am not sure what you point is about various crimes as they occur whether we have sharia or not - sin is sadly part of the human condition and in a way all law does is shine a light on it not prevent it