Debate a Muslim

[sun rise]

@Ghazaly , as you are new, please be aware that there have been many debates about various aspects of Islam here. So in order to decide where we agree or disagree, here are some questions:

I assume from your handle that you hold al-Ghazali in high esteem? al-Ghazali from my small understanding of his life sought to reconcile sufism with Islam. Where do you stand?

Some have claimed that the doors to ijtihad are closed and others disagree. Please give me your thoughts.

Some Sunni Muslims consider Shi'a as not being true Muslims. al-Ghazali as I understand it said that there were many ways to practice Islam. What is your view?

If I as a Jew greet you with Shalom Aleichem (peace be unto you), do you as a Muslim reply wa ʿalaykumu s-salām (upon you, peace)?.

Since I'm not knowledgeable on Quranic Arabic, I have to go by various translations. Some translate 17:104 as indicating that the state of Israel is a marker for the end times. The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation What is your view?

And a followup - given that the tense (past/future) and language of 17:104 varies so much in translation, what value is there in reading any translation which can have such problems?

 

[danieldemol]

- I'm a traditional Muslim. I follow the Maliki madhhab of fiqh (school of jurisprudence), the Ashaari madhhab of aqeeda (school of theology), & the Junaidi madhhab of tasawwuf (school of sufism/spirituality).

Thanks for being informative and upfront

- You're tickling my fancy. God yes.

In my opinion the way to promulgate bad ideas is to protect them as in the free competition of ideas it seems that truthful ideas and better ideas will naturally gain traction over false ideas.

The Quran itself seems to indicate this in certain places, for example;

Surah 2:256 "Truth stands out clear from error"1

Surah 21:18 "We hurl the Truth against falsehood and it knocks out its brain and behold falsehood doth perish!"2

Therefore in my opinion the only way to determine if Islam is a truly good or bad idea is to let it compete on the free market of ideas without the protection that blasphemy/apostasy laws provide and see if it perishes.

ETA It is also deeply hypocritical to expect non-Muslims to be able to convert to Islam freely whilst denying the same right to people who wish to convert away from Islam.

- You're a Godsend. Go on.

Your answer here appears unclear, do you acknowledge natural selection occurs? It is a pretty straightforward Yes/No question.

1 Surah 2. Al-Baqara Translation by Yusuf Ali | Islamic Reference | Alim
2 Surah 21. Al-Anbiyaa Translation by Yusuf Ali | Islamic Reference | Alim

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I don't know how this works, but here we go.

- You can post your objections (or questions) against Islam here – it's scripture, theology, philosophy, law, politics, spirituality, or history –, bring your best supportive arguments & a white flag (or a prayer mat) for future use.

Good luck!

Personally, I see too many problems with belief in a monotheistic creator-god and "revealed" religion in general to worry about the specifics of Islam.

 

[epronovost]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I don't know how this works, but here we go.

- You can post your objections (or questions) against Islam here – it's scripture, theology, philosophy, law, politics, spirituality, or history –, bring your best supportive arguments & a white flag (or a prayer mat) for future use.

Good luck!

Do you want me dead or in prison? If yes, I have some objection to that if not carry on.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Do you want me dead or in prison? If yes, I have some objection to that if not carry on.

That's rather severe. What if instead of death, he wishes you were really, really inconvenienced? Also, what if instead of prison, he wants to put you on time out?

 

[rational experiences]

The only reason I debate is due to personal reasoning of information taught by a human first.

As we are human first and own equal human rights. To be considered as variants by scientific capability.

Seeing religions all use scientific discussions. About aspects in creation.

I always thought country of nation DNA was first why variant religious sciences was considered. As national DNA a variation owns a scientific reason.

When a basic human by DNA was once only one of a human with two same parent origins.

Hence religion a DNA national expression was a changed human.

Why I debate via natural instinctive human rights.

As I cannot debate why humans think differently when nationality owns the reason why.

Symbolism hence is non debatable when you read words and then interpret. The interpretation however was always debatable.

Hence human equal one human first debates. If spiritual we debate to expand our incorrectness otherwise we could not impose interpretations ourselves.

If a man sees an angels burnt cloud image laying atop of an attacked mountain then a man in science would then know why he heard voices speaking to him.

A self experience.

Why debating a personal experience is difficult.

Spiritual means to do no harm is human learnt as science had done harm to self man. The preaching.

When a rock hits earth is that reasoning. The science of its presence.

We debate to learn why one brother expressed information about creation differently.

 

[Nimos]

- You're tickling my fancy. God yes.

You answered this to someone asking: "1. Do you believe in blasphemy laws?", so just some follow up questions. Why is blasphemy wrong, do you have a logical reason for it? and why do you think than an all mighty and loving God would care about it, what, if any is his explanation for this in the Quran?

 

[firedragon]

I have a couple of objections, and they're rather deep ones - I don't think I have too many problems with the theology. I'm tempted to read the Quran some day even though I doubt it'd convert me, just make me understand more. Okay, I'll list my objections:

- The Bush Jr. administration was pretty hard on people of your faith, I think. I think it's made some Muslims hate us Americans, when I feel there may be a certain point where me and them might be able to reach an understanding, and say that American politicians can be rather silly, and just shake our heads. You haven't said anything bad about Americans on here. But I've kind of seen some anti-American rhetoric from others of your faith. I just wanted to say, that if it's any reassurance, not all of us are the enemy. On the other hand, I'm a little cautious sometimes just because if there's ever a thread or issue where I have to ally with a poster, it's better to ally with people who don't dislike me. So I guess what I'm saying is, as far as this forum goes, I'm more prone to support the Muslims in cases where they understand that politicians can be silly, and that I'm not the enemy as an American. So I guess you can say I'm still a little insecure about the subject, which is why I don't always maintain a real close emotional closeness with Islam and Muslims.

-The other thing is more personal to me, and it's that any religion I follow has to be transgender friendly. Sometimes I feel that some faiths following the Abrahamic God aren't. So that's another reason why if I keep my distance, that's why I sometimes do so.

But as for objections to the ideology, the theology, philosophy, I have nothing yet.

Also, if this subject is getting a bit too personal, I really unloaded my objections here, you can skip answering it, if it'd make you feel more comfortable not to do so.

You know I have a question from you. Im sorry if its not what you came here looking for to be questioned on your question.

You said something about some Muslims hating "us Americans". Do you feel that in general or is it only in this forum? What kind of interaction do you have with Muslims in general life?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You know I have a question from you. Im sorry if its not what you came here looking for to be questioned on your question.

Doesn't matter, really, because I'm pretty open.

You said something about some Muslims hating "us Americans". Do you feel that in general or is it only in this forum? What kind of interaction do you have with Muslims in general life?

I have little interaction with Muslims in real life. I'm just going by what I sometimes read online when Muslims post. It doesn't upset me too awfully much, I just think there are some layers and contexts that I'm missing when I read such posts, is all.

 

[sun rise]

I follow the Maliki madhhab of fiqh (school of jurisprudence), the Ashaari madhhab of aqeeda (school of theology), & the Junaidi madhhab of tasawwuf (school of sufism/spirituality).

That answered my sufism questions but of course generated another. I know about Junayd, but I did not realize that the Junaidi school was still extant. Which other sufi schools trace themselves back to Junayd?

 

[firedragon]

Doesn't matter, really, because I'm pretty open.



I have little interaction with Muslims in real life. I'm just going by what I sometimes read online when Muslims post. It doesn't upset me too awfully much, I just think there are some layers and contexts that I'm missing when I read such posts, is all.

In my experience I have associated a lot of Muslims. That may not be authoritative so you can just take this as someones opinion. In the United States, there are only around 1% Muslims so very rarely would an other Americans associate a Muslim personally. Thus most of the interactions you would find online because its a small world after all.

On the internet, groups are like places where a particular type of people gather. Like lets say a Mob meeting. Its a gathering of gangsters. A football match. Its a place for football fans. Religious forums, a place for debating and proving your self to yourself. One can define a religious forum with all kinds of nice little words but it is a place you go to prove yourself to yourself. Generally. You go there with particular interests. And the majority would have a particular agenda.

Anyway, I am taking too long. You go to practically any country in the world. Even the hardest, harshest war torn area and you will find these Muslims not having any problem with Americans. Depending on where you go to, some people will have words about the bombs that killed their neighbours etc etc etc. But very rarely about the people.

 

[Tiberius]

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I don't know how this works, but here we go.

- You can post your objections (or questions) against Islam here – it's scripture, theology, philosophy, law, politics, spirituality, or history –, bring your best supportive arguments & a white flag (or a prayer mat) for future use.

Good luck!

What is there about Islam that you feel means Islam is the One True Religion instead of Christianity, Judaism, atheism (not really a religion, but, y'know), or any other religious position?

 

[Ghazaly]

Thanks for being informative and upfront

- You're welcome.

In my opinion the way to promulgate bad ideas is to protect them as in the free competition of ideas it seems that truthful ideas and better ideas will naturally gain traction over false ideas....

- Since this has been brought up few times I will answer it at the end of this post.

Your answer hear appears unclear, do you acknowledge natural selection occurs? It is a pretty straightforward Yes/No question.

- What exactly do you mean by natural selection?

**********

Thanks for the invitation to dialogue! Here are some things I've wondered about:

1. Why would you believe something that can't be reliably demonstrated to be real? Isn't it better to only believe things once they have been shown to correspond to reality, and not before?

- Aside from your bare assumptions regarding my beliefs, you need to establish your premise first to proceed with your conclusion. What can't be reliably demonstrated to be real & why?

2. I see a lot of Muslim cultures around the world threatening violence against Muslims who deconvert or question the faith. ...

- Since this has been brought up few times I will answer it at the end of the post.

3. Do you think that a book should be considered true because it claims that it is true?

- Of course not. That's obviously circular, I'm not Christian. I'm Ashaari, I believe in the Taesis principle, which states that inferred beliefs (dhanni) must follow from foundational certainty (qatii). Hukm Naqli (revelational reasoning) is contingent on the independent truth of revelation, without itself.

If so, can you see how this form of circular reasoning can be used to equally justify any belief or text, including logically contradictory claims?

- No you can't justify contradictions with circular reasoning.

**********

2. I see a lot of Muslim cultures around the world threatening violence against Muslims who deconvert or question the faith. Do you think true ideas need protection against questioning, or usually do only false ideas need this shield? When we see these restrictions used historically to protect the false claims of cults, other religions, authoritarian rulers, and the claims of con artists, what does this tell us about Islam's claims?

In my opinion the way to promulgate bad ideas is to protect them as in the free competition of ideas it seems that truthful ideas and better ideas will naturally gain traction over false ideas.
The Quran itself seems to indicate this in certain places, for example;
Surah 2:256 "Truth stands out clear from error"
Surah 21:18 "We hurl the Truth against falsehood and it knocks out its brain and behold falsehood doth perish!"
Therefore in my opinion the only way to determine if Islam is a truly good or bad idea is to let it compete on the free market of ideas without the protection and see if it perishes.

- I will answer both simultaneously, in four parts:

- As to violence. This is usually the more shocking thing to me in engaging with westerners, especially Americans. A total desensitization from their reality with the world & complete dissociation with their history. That they often forget, American "freedom" propaganda is not really compelling to most of the rest of the world, who instead see hegemony, hypocrisy & violent crime. You shouldn't be throwing stones from your glass houses. On the same note, The US has famously enacted laws against advocacy for communism. Thousands of communists persecuted & incarcerated in the 40s & 50s for only being liberal-capitalism apostates. In some states (like Michigan) the punishment was life-sentence; Tennessee even decreed death penalty for advocacy –policies which were supported by 46% of Americans at the time. This level of persecution is unheard of against apostates in Muslim countries, under the most brutal regimes –even all combined– in history

- As to the principle of non-coercion. For the sake of guaranteeing freedom of faith so that the soul may chose or reject to fulfill its covenant with Allah. One must be guaranteed the choice to faith, otherwise one can not be accountable for that choice, for coercion negates accountability. Hence, Freedom of Faith in Sharia is the primal human right: Ismat al-Millah – inviolability of faith : guaranteed the 6 sacred rights of faith, life, reason, progeny, property & honor. Contrary to the Secular take on religious freedom, which only extends to beliefs but restricts practice, Islamic religious freedom extends to both beliefs & practices. Non-Muslims in Islamic states were granted the freedom to practice their own faith, apply their own laws, enact their own policies, & establish their own treasury system, within their respective communities. This principal is reiterated in the Quran & Hadith consistently:
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error" (2:256)
"And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (18:29)
"Whoever disbelieves - upon him is [the consequence of] his disbelief. And whoever does righteousness - they are for themselves preparing" (19:44)
"So remind, [O Muḥammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not ˹there˺ to compel them ˹to believe˺." (88:21)

- As to freedom of thought. On the contrary, Islam welcomes discussion & debate, as enjoined in the Quran. In Sharia, publicly preaching to non-Muslims in their own communities is prohibited. That alone tells you the essence of Islam, that it is not to coerce people into following it, rather to guarantee freedom from compulsion in religion, thus justified accountability to Allah. The difference between an the Islamic conception of freedom of thought & the Western conception is in the substance, not the titles. Islam prohibits public preaching & debates from ignorance (deemed propaganda & harmful) but permits & encourages qualified & measured opinions within the scholarly realm, because that's where the merit of ideas is. The best ideas may prevail only in a scholarly environment. During Islamic history, people from various schools & sects & faiths would come & debate in universities & build a following & grow in (or lose). Contrastingly, freedom of thought in the West is banned in anything institutional in the state, education, media, academic..., where ideas should matter & must be challenged, & instead this is permitted in public among laymen, which is propaganda, & only engenders gullible followers & creates a brain-can societ.

- As to apostasy laws. Apostasy ruling is actually, by consensus, established to uphold the primal sacred right, that of faith. Islam There are three legal perspective in our tradition regarding apostasy:

• The fuqaha's (jurists) views (probably the more familiar to most) on apostasy are concerned more about how to deal with apostates in practice to maintain social integrity, generally by exercising persuasion, confinement or punishment. The general & majority view on this is that an apostate who has explicitly, willingly & publicly left Islam after explicitly, willingly & publicly coming into it, is to be indefinitely persuaded (by a assigned scholar) as long as he is willing, else punished (unless a woman). In practice, this entails that truth-seeking law-abiding apostates are not punishable.
• The usuli's (jurisprudents) views (the most interesting) on the issue is about apostasy as a question of Taklif (accountability), the legal dilemma of reconciling apostasy punishment (which looks like coercion) with the principle of non-coercion in faith. They postulate that true freedom of religion can only be accomplished by removing deceptive factors & guaranteeing access to truth seeking (which is why public preaching is also prohibited in Sharia, for that is deemed propagandism). Apostasy rulings, therefore, must remove coercive factors of deception & dominance to allow for genuine faith; upholding, thus, the principle of non-coercion.
• The sasas (political theorists) perspective on apostasy is in reality the most relevant, for it relates to the actual governance of the state. To them apostasy is a political offense -as opposed to a criminal one, thus they only view apostasy in light of Manaa: the intent with means to undermine the integrity of the state. Thus, they don't care about individual apostates. This is why looking back into Islamic history, all those famous apostates have never been punished, for they stayed loyal to the state.

 

[Ghazaly]

- If anybody has any tips on how to best go through about these quotations lemme know.

Why is belief so important? I understand that Zakat and various practices are helpful, but I don't see the reason why people must believe. People around the globe do good things, and we can learn to live better. What's so important about believing in invisible things?

- First of all, Belief is intrinsic to humans. Any transitive knowledge warrants belief. Denying God is as a matter of course denying the moral, rational & spiritual belief system contingent on God, in favor of another belief system contingent on Nature or Chance (or other forces). Second of all, belief in God is the ultimate fulfillment of our state of being; manifesting in morality in the ultimate justice to which temporal justice is prelude, manifesting in rationality in the perfect expansion of our reason, in our soul's aptness to see the unity in the many –universals– & seeking indefinite explanations, anticipating thus the ultimate unity & the ultimate explanation; manifesting in spirituality in self-annihilation towards unity of being, the perfect self-annihilation is total submission to the One. Human civilization are essentially defined by their interpretation of the divine. Nature as an interpretation is more common than you think. Third of all, doing good things is not about the act, it's about the intention. Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said: "actions are but with intentions". We are not accountable for our actions, for these are predetermined, we are accountable for our intentions. Giving charity with arrogance or self-satisfaction may actually be a bad deed, whereas killing a person with the sincere intentions to save another for the sake of God may be a good deed. The Prophet (pbuh) said: "religion is sincerity". There is intention (niyya) in every action we take, either whimsical intention with no actual purpose (hawa), or intentions born of our rational determination (azima) & instinctive desires (shahwa). Therefore every intention is selfish, by design. Sincerity is the unity in intention, not for any selfish reasons, but for the sole sake of God, for God is the sole true benefactor deserving devout gratitude.

**********

- The Bush Jr. administration was pretty hard on people of your faith, I think. I think it's made some Muslims hate us Americans, .... So I guess what I'm saying is, as far as this forum goes, I'm more prone to support the Muslims in cases where they understand that politicians can be silly, and that I'm not the enemy as an American. So I guess you can say I'm still a little insecure about the subject, which is why I don't always maintain a real close emotional closeness with Islam and Muslims.

- This is loaded! Just like to note that the history goes very far back, not just since Bush Jr. The western antagonism against Islam is as old as Islam, from Charles Martel & Covandoga to the Crusades to the Reconquista to Holy Roman alliance to Colonialism, then most recently American imperialism. It's a long history.

- Islam is essentially about submission to Allah. We believe our souls established a covenan ( Ahd) with Allah to worship only Him. Then brought to this life as delegates ((Khilafa) to Allah in this Earthly domain to settle, cultivate the land & prosper (Istimar). In this life our yearning for God is actually the memory of our covenant, as if something we miss we are incomplete without. This memory is our innate state of being (Fitrah), which manifests in our faculty to seek the divine & recognize it when we see it. This faculty is reason (Aql), gift entrusted to us. We are responsible (Taklif) to uphold that trust (Amana) by preserving our innate state of being (Fitrah) -thus our covenant- until we return to Allah again after death. From this regard, our mission in life as humans is two-fold:

1. A primary individual mission for the soul in her journey towards Allah: we face Allah alone, & no soul bears the sin of another. That is, there is no group damnation or salvation in Islam. Allah alone has the authority to decide on the fate of each; Allah's mercy is infinite & encompasses all things. In this respect, being American or otherwise, being Muslim or otherwise, being a man or otherwise, are just circumstantial accidents; the essence is the soul yearning for her Lord in her own unique journey with her Lord.
2. A collective mission for Mankind to settle & prosper on the Earth to allow for the primary mission to be fulfilled: “This, for the fact that when Allah (swt) created humans to bear al-Amana (the Charge), he bestowed them with Reason & Accountability, so that they may be eligible to assume the rights of God on them. He (swt), then, established for them: Inviolability, Liberty & Ownership so that they may be able to fulfil the Charge they have been assigned with. Further, this Liberty, Inviolability & Ownership is firmly established for all human beings from their birth, the discerning among them or the non-discerning alike.” [Sarakhsi d. 1096] – In this respect, social & political morality (laws & politics) emerges, states get established & borders get set. Having such boundaries & maintaining these boundaries become essential in the pursuit of prosperity on Earth.

- In short, the bad history between the Muslim world & Western world, on one side, is inherent to the relation between the two civilizations, & can only be remedied by restoring justice & mending grievances. Injustice is the transgression against other's boundaries into their own & can only be alleviated by restoring justice, that is restituting those boundaries. On another side, Allah's mission in us is too infinite & our fate too eternal for the West or the entire universe to mean much of anything.

-The other thing is more personal to me, and it's that any religion I follow has to be transgender friendly. Sometimes I feel that some faiths following the Abrahamic God aren't. So that's another reason why if I keep my distance, that's why I sometimes do so.

- Islam is about submission to Allah, in recognizing the divine – in His absoluteness, & recognizing the self – in self-annihilation. Failing to realize this is a delusion. A Muslim is not the unsinful person, it's the sinful person in humility with His Lord. In Islam, the greater sin is not in the act of sin, it's in one's arrogance towards Allah. The only possible relationship with Allah, the Creator of All Things, is absolute submission. & Allah's Mercy is infinite, one just has to embrace it, not reject it for the sake of ego. The essence of worship is to stomp the ego.

- Do you mean by transgender intersex or endogeny?

**********

As-salamu alaykum.
I've always found Suraj Al-Hijurat-13 intriguing. No debate here -- just wanted to voice my appreciation.
Shalom and welcome.

Waalaykom Salam

- Thank you. Can you elaborate?

**********

Thanks for answers
So you believe the hadiths about Aisha's age when prophet Muhammad constumated the marriage is true?

- Yes. The opinion among the scholars of hadith (muhadetheen) is that she was 9 upon, though the more likely opinion is that among the scholars of prophetic biography (sirah), that she was 10. Why?

Is your masters sufi?

- Evidently.

Yes letting go of ego is very hard

- That is the essence of worship.

**********

It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

- What is exactly your belief?

**********

Why do so many Muslims seem to be very eager to debate?
Is there some teaching or something in Islam that encourages that sort of thing?

- I can't answer your question. Debating is discouraged in Islam, unless to defend truths & rights. But maybe it's because Muslims are right, they have with which to defend their beliefs better than others.

**********

. What is the intended goal of this thread?

- Title. Debate.

**********

 

[Ghazaly]

Do you think that Islam necessarily prescribes gender roles?

- I'm going to answer this properly, otherwise you will be forever confused. You're close, but not quite.

- Transgression is to infringe on the right of another; the Earth being the domain of Allah (along with all things), any human exercise of rights therein is therefore transgressive. Since Allah has made us delegates on the Earth, thus we can act by proxy in His domain. Therefore, as long as human exercises of rights are within the boundaries set by Allah, they are non-transgressive. These rights are three levels:

• Rights to Allah, worship & all that it entails.
• Rights to self, the sincere pursuit of truth to seek salvation, & self-discipline.
• Rights to creatures, good dealings towards humans, animates & the Earth.

- The distribution of rights/dues (to creatures) is not horizontal where all subjects, for instance, have exactly equal rights, nor is it vertical where rights/dues are hierarchal. Rather, it's a network distribution, where every person -a node- has rights/dues according to their connections & positions in society, according to three types of connections:

• Natural (Tab') relation –from birth, predetermined & irreversible regardless of circumstance, such as between parent & child, inherited & inheritor, blood relations... etc.
• Contractual ('Aqd) relation –from mutual consent, incumbent upon contract & void upon annulment, such as between husband & wife, employer & employee, ruler & subject...etc.
• Conventional (Wad') relation –of circumstance, mandated with the relevant circumstances, such as between neighbor & neighbor, guardian & orphan, Muslim & non--Muslim..etc.

For instance, does a man always have the last word in family discussions

- This is packed. I will provide a more general yet most relevant answer. Your question in effect relates to Care relations (Ri'aya) where one party is set to offer security to another, such as: parent–child, husband–wife, ruler–subject, employer–employee, master–slave... Thus, marriage relationships fall under the umbrella of Care relations (Ri'aya), the general understanding regarding these types of relations in Sharia is the guarantee of basic rights to each party accordingly:

• Care (Ri'aya) from guarantor (ra'yi) to obligee (ra'yya) which include material security & may include physical or emotional or other securities –according to the type of relationship. In a marriage, this is called Qiwama, which comprise care, protection & provision.
  
• Dutifulness (Ta'a) from obligee to guarantor –according to the scope of Security offered, conforming to the following rules enjoined by the Prophet (pbuh): no duty to creature can trump duty to Creator; duty is obligatory in what fulfills the stated benefits to the guarantor & does not harm the obligee; duty is permissible within what is reasonable & what is beneficial...etc. For instance, an employer's stated benefits is the task he is paying his employer to perform, duty in fulfilling this task is obligatory in Sharia, anything else isn't. In the case of marriage, the stated benefits, given the nature of the contract, are reproductive benefits. Therefore, the wife has an obligation to her husband, by Sharia, to fulfill his sexual needs & all that these entail, within what is beneficial & reasonable, & as long as these do not go against her faith or bring harm or hardship to herself.

and is womens’ testimony worth less than a man’s?

- It's a bit more complicated than that. There are 5 types (arguably 6) types of testimony recognized in Sharia:

• Riwaya, religious testimony for transmission of scripture, regardless of gender.
• Shahada, conclusive testimony based on independent & reliable witnesses, conditions not often met. Shahada can be sometimes only admissible from males (such as in penalties), or only from females (such as in birth cases), or from both. [this for the difference in disposition among males & females, & the virtual infeasibility to establish reliability among female witnesses].
• Ishhad, financial testimony, generally requires 2 males, or 1 male & 2 females.
• Ikhbar, circumstantial testimony, indifferent to any background of faith or gender, equivalent to testimony in western laws, deemed thus inconclusive unless with corroborating evidence.
• Lafif (only in Maliki school), jury testimony (lafif means twelve), on the character of the defendant, wether he is capable of the crime.
• Ahl Diraya, expert testimony, relates to qualification.

**********

@Ghazaly , as you are new, please be aware that there have been many debates about various aspects of Islam here. So in order to decide where we agree or disagree, here are some questions
I assume from your handle that you hold al-Ghazali in high esteem? al-Ghazali from my small understanding of his life sought to reconcile sufism with Islam. Where do you stand?

- That's an absurd thing to say, despite it being commonly said. What al-Ghazali did was to consolidate the different orthodox (Sunni) schools of all the dimensions of Islam into one orthodoxy. The Prophet (pbuh) taught the three dimensions of faith: morality (good acts of body = Islem), rationality (good beliefs of mind = Iman) & spirituality (good intentions of soul = Ihsan). His companions inherited this legacy & imparted it (the Sunnah) to their successors, into Fiqh Asgar (minor fiqh = law/morality) Fiqh Akbar (major fiqh = theology/rationality) & Tasawuf (sufism/spirituality). Their followers founded the major legal schools (of morality) we know today, (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali), along with the jurisprudent (legal theory) schools: Usuli school (of principles) & Qawaidi school (of maxims). Around that time, theological schools were also forming, namely the Ashaari, Maturidi & Athari schools; alongside Sufi schools: Muhasibi, Junaidi & Talibi schools....etc. Al-Ghazali, having achieved the highest mastery in all these dimensions, was finally able to consolidate them into one coherent shared paradigm.

Some have claimed that the doors to ijtihad are closed and others disagree. Please give me your thoughts

.
- Ijtihad is the qualification to independently interpret scripture. There is a lot of confusion about what you said that I hear often. But the answer is pretty simple. Ijtihad when it is said to mean total independence to interpret scripture [absolute ijtihad], then yes that door is closed. In effect, Ijtihad (discretion in religion) is just the opposite of Taqlid (imitation in religion). To reach Ijtihad is to become accountable for your own choices in interpretation of scripture, as opposed to Taqlid where one is exempt from such choices. The conditions to reach Ijtihad & become Mujtahid are: mastery (tahqiq), chain of authority (sanad) & license (ijaza). To that effect, there are six levels Mujtahid:

1. Mujtahid Mutabassir = beginner master, discretion in interpretation for his own practice.
2. Mujtahid Mufti = discretion in interpretation for others in particular issues.
3. Mujtahid Murajjih = qualified to weigh in on different opinions.
4. Mujtahid Mukharrij = qualified to infer principles from rulings & the opposite.
5. Mujtahid Muntasib = on the level of absolute master but chose to follow an absolute master, like Imam al-Ghazali.
6. Mujtahid Mutlaq = absolute master, such as the four Imams.

Some Sunni Muslims consider Shi'a as not being true Muslims. al-Ghazali as I understand it said that there were many ways to practice Islam. What is your view?

- The Ashaaris adopt the Qibla principle: anyone who professes to pray towards the Kaaba in worship of Allah following the Prophet (pbuh) is a Muslim, unless he contradicts himself otherwise. Of course Shia are Muslim.

If I as a Jew greet you with Shalom Aleichem (peace be unto you), do you as a Muslim reply wa ʿalaykumu s-salām (upon you, peace)?

.
- Yes. "And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet [in return] with one better than it or [at least] return it [in a like manner]" (4:86). What you're probably referring to is the story of those Jews with the Prophet (pbuh); but they used to say "samu alaykum", which means: 'death upon you'.

Since I'm not knowledgeable on Quranic Arabic, I have to go by various translations. Some translate 17:104 as indicating that the state of Israel is a marker for the end times. The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation What is your view?

- Yes. This is a known prophecy; particularly elaborated in the beginning of the chapter:
"And We gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel that you not take other than Me as Disposer of affairs.
And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture that, "You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness"
So when the time of promise came for the first of them, We sent against you servants of Ours - those of great military might, and they probed into the homes, and it was a promise fulfilled.
Then We gave back to you a return victory over them. And We reinforced you with wealth and sons and made you more numerous in manpower.
"If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, to yourself." Then when the final promise came, to sadden your faces and to enter the masjid [the temple in Jerusalem], as they entered it the first time, and to destroy what they had taken over with [total] destruction."

- Sure this does say Jews will take over Jerusalem by the end of time, but not in glorious way. This is not proof it must belong to them. On the contrary.

And a followup - given that the tense (past/future) and language of 17:104 varies so much in translation, what value is there in reading any translation which can have such problems?

- Yeah, you don't use translations to interpret the Quran. That's absurd. You're talking about the 'iltifat' phenomenon, which is unique to the Quran. The speech sometimes pronounced in the future but its aftermath in the past, or when it's a first person subject then a third person subject if the same sentence. These are very subtle aspects of the Quran which require qualification for Tafsir.

 

[sayak83]

- You're welcome.


-
- As to apostasy laws. Apostasy ruling is actually, by consensus, established to uphold the primal sacred right, that of faith. Islam There are three legal perspective in our tradition regarding apostasy:

• The fuqaha's (jurists) views (probably the more familiar to most) on apostasy are concerned more about how to deal with apostates in practice to maintain social integrity, generally by exercising persuasion, confinement or punishment. The general & majority view on this is that an apostate who has explicitly, willingly & publicly left Islam after explicitly, willingly & publicly coming into it, is to be indefinitely persuaded (by a assigned scholar) as long as he is willing, else punished (unless a woman). In practice, this entails that truth-seeking law-abiding apostates are not punishable.
• The usuli's (jurisprudents) views (the most interesting) on the issue is about apostasy as a question of Taklif (accountability), the legal dilemma of reconciling apostasy punishment (which looks like coercion) with the principle of non-coercion in faith. They postulate that true freedom of religion can only be accomplished by removing deceptive factors & guaranteeing access to truth seeking (which is why public preaching is also prohibited in Sharia, for that is deemed propagandism). Apostasy rulings, therefore, must remove coercive factors of deception & dominance to allow for genuine faith; upholding, thus, the principle of non-coercion.
• The sasas (political theorists) perspective on apostasy is in reality the most relevant, for it relates to the actual governance of the state. To them apostasy is a political offense -as opposed to a criminal one, thus they only view apostasy in light of Manaa: the intent with means to undermine the integrity of the state. Thus, they don't care about individual apostates. This is why looking back into Islamic history, all those famous apostates have never been punished, for they stayed loyal to the state.

So...only public preaching of Islam is allowed, and not of atheism or hinduism? That is fair and non-coercive?
If I am a Muslim who is now convinced Hinduism is true. I cannot change my faith into Hinduism, establish a temple of Krishna (an idol) and have a public festival of holy in an Islamic land where I preach about the greatness of Krishna?
But you would want that right to convert to Islam and preach Islam in a non-Islamic majority land. Correct?

 

[danieldemol]

- What exactly do you mean by natural selection?

'Natural selection is defined as a process by which species of animals and plants that are best adapted to their environment survive and reproduce, while those that are less well adapted die out.'
Source: What is natural selection?

- I will answer both simultaneously, in four parts:

- As to violence. This is usually the more shocking thing to me in engaging with westerners, especially Americans. A total desensitization from their reality with the world & complete dissociation with their history. That they often forget, American "freedom" propaganda is not really compelling to most of the rest of the world, who instead see hegemony, hypocrisy & violent crime. You shouldn't be throwing stones from your glass houses. On the same note, The US has famously enacted laws against advocacy for communism. Thousands of communists persecuted & incarcerated in the 40s & 50s for only being liberal-capitalism apostates. In some states (like Michigan) the punishment was life-sentence; Tennessee even decreed death penalty for advocacy –policies which were supported by 46% of Americans at the time. This level of persecution is unheard of against apostates in Muslim countries, under the most brutal regimes –even all combined– in history

Well I'm not American, i'm Australian and I don't support the death penalty at all, or imprisoning people for their political beliefs to the extent that those beliefs don't lead to actions which infringe upon my personal rights. As the saying goes, "your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins." And I'm sure that there is plenty of violent crime in Muslim countries as well.

- As to freedom of thought. On the contrary, Islam welcomes discussion & debate, as enjoined in the Quran. In Sharia, publicly preaching to non-Muslims in their own communities is prohibited. That alone tells you the essence of Islam, that it is not to coerce people into following it, rather to guarantee freedom from compulsion in religion, thus justified accountability to Allah. The difference between an the Islamic conception of freedom of thought & the Western conception is in the substance, not the titles. Islam prohibits public preaching & debates from ignorance (deemed propaganda & harmful) but permits & encourages qualified & measured opinions within the scholarly realm, because that's where the merit of ideas is. The best ideas may prevail only in a scholarly environment. During Islamic history, people from various schools & sects & faiths would come & debate in universities & build a following & grow in (or lose). Contrastingly, freedom of thought in the West is banned in anything institutional in the state, education, media, academic..., where ideas should matter & must be challenged, & instead this is permitted in public among laymen, which is propaganda, & only engenders gullible followers & creates a brain-can societ.

Are you suggesting debate is banned in universities and education in Australia?

- As to apostasy laws. Apostasy ruling is actually, by consensus, established to uphold the primal sacred right, that of faith. Islam There are three legal perspective in our tradition regarding apostasy:

• The fuqaha's (jurists) views (probably the more familiar to most) on apostasy are concerned more about how to deal with apostates in practice to maintain social integrity, generally by exercising persuasion, confinement or punishment. The general & majority view on this is that an apostate who has explicitly, willingly & publicly left Islam after explicitly, willingly & publicly coming into it, is to be indefinitely persuaded (by a assigned scholar) as long as he is willing, else punished (unless a woman). In practice, this entails that truth-seeking law-abiding apostates are not punishable.

In practice where apostates are killed the killing of apostates is often carried out by vigilantes at the instigation of the Mulsim divines.

• The usuli's (jurisprudents) views (the most interesting) on the issue is about apostasy as a question of Taklif (accountability), the legal dilemma of reconciling apostasy punishment (which looks like coercion) with the principle of non-coercion in faith. They postulate that true freedom of religion can only be accomplished by removing deceptive factors & guaranteeing access to truth seeking (which is why public preaching is also prohibited in Sharia, for that is deemed propagandism). Apostasy rulings, therefore, must remove coercive factors of deception & dominance to allow for genuine faith; upholding, thus, the principle of non-coercion.

There wrong assumption that deceptive factors need to be removed for truth to prevail shows that they have no confidence in the Quranic claim of 2:256 and 21:18 that truth itself is capable of defeating falshood and causing it to perish as I explained in post #22

• The sasas (political theorists) perspective on apostasy is in reality the most relevant, for it relates to the actual governance of the state. To them apostasy is a political offense -as opposed to a criminal one, thus they only view apostasy in light of Manaa: the intent with means to undermine the integrity of the state. Thus, they don't care about individual apostates. This is why looking back into Islamic history, all those famous apostates have never been punished, for they stayed loyal to the state.

Apostates who were loyal to the state and law abiding have been accused of being disloyalty to the state as a pretext to kill and/or persecute them, and as I drew your attention to above I'm morally opposed to the death sentence (except where for example a killer can't be safely isolated).
In my opinion

 

[Meow Mix]

- I'm going to answer this properly, otherwise you will be forever confused. You're close, but not quite.

- Transgression is to infringe on the right of another; the Earth being the domain of Allah (along with all things), any human exercise of rights therein is therefore transgressive. Since Allah has made us delegates on the Earth, thus we can act by proxy in His domain. Therefore, as long as human exercises of rights are within the boundaries set by Allah, they are non-transgressive. These rights are three levels:

• Rights to Allah, worship & all that it entails.
• Rights to self, the sincere pursuit of truth to seek salvation, & self-discipline.
• Rights to creatures, good dealings towards humans, animates & the Earth.

- The distribution of rights/dues (to creatures) is not horizontal where all subjects, for instance, have exactly equal rights, nor is it vertical where rights/dues are hierarchal. Rather, it's a network distribution, where every person -a node- has rights/dues according to their connections & positions in society, according to three types of connections:

• Natural (Tab') relation –from birth, predetermined & irreversible regardless of circumstance, such as between parent & child, inherited & inheritor, blood relations... etc.
• Contractual ('Aqd) relation –from mutual consent, incumbent upon contract & void upon annulment, such as between husband & wife, employer & employee, ruler & subject...etc.
• Conventional (Wad') relation –of circumstance, mandated with the relevant circumstances, such as between neighbor & neighbor, guardian & orphan, Muslim & non--Muslim..etc.

Thank you for the detailed response, I'm following so far.

- This is packed. I will provide a more general yet most relevant answer. Your question in effect relates to Care relations (Ri'aya) where one party is set to offer security to another, such as: parent–child, husband–wife, ruler–subject, employer–employee, master–slave... Thus, marriage relationships fall under the umbrella of Care relations (Ri'aya), the general understanding regarding these types of relations in Sharia is the guarantee of basic rights to each party accordingly:

• Care (Ri'aya) from guarantor (ra'yi) to obligee (ra'yya) which include material security & may include physical or emotional or other securities –according to the type of relationship. In a marriage, this is called Qiwama, which comprise care, protection & provision.
  
• Dutifulness (Ta'a) from obligee to guarantor –according to the scope of Security offered, conforming to the following rules enjoined by the Prophet (pbuh): no duty to creature can trump duty to Creator; duty is obligatory in what fulfills the stated benefits to the guarantor & does not harm the obligee; duty is permissible within what is reasonable & what is beneficial...etc. For instance, an employer's stated benefits is the task he is paying his employer to perform, duty in fulfilling this task is obligatory in Sharia, anything else isn't. In the case of marriage, the stated benefits, given the nature of the contract, are reproductive benefits. Therefore, the wife has an obligation to her husband, by Sharia, to fulfill his sexual needs & all that these entail, within what is beneficial & reasonable, & as long as these do not go against her faith or bring harm or hardship to herself.

This doesn't really answer whether the woman has equal say in the relationship; though (and also, does the husband have an obligation to fulfill the wife's sexual needs too?)

For instance, say there is a financial dispute over whether to buy an expensive lawnmower (with the hope that it lasts long, an investment) or a cheaper lawnmower (to just get the job done for now, saving money). Does the man have final say, or is it sometimes the woman that has the final say, sometimes the man, sometimes a compromise, etc?

- It's a bit more complicated than that. There are 5 types (arguably 6) types of testimony recognized in Sharia:

• Riwaya, religious testimony for transmission of scripture, regardless of gender.
• Shahada, conclusive testimony based on independent & reliable witnesses, conditions not often met. Shahada can be sometimes only admissible from males (such as in penalties), or only from females (such as in birth cases), or from both. [this for the difference in disposition among males & females, & the virtual infeasibility to establish reliability among female witnesses].
• Ishhad, financial testimony, generally requires 2 males, or 1 male & 2 females.
• Ikhbar, circumstantial testimony, indifferent to any background of faith or gender, equivalent to testimony in western laws, deemed thus inconclusive unless with corroborating evidence.
• Lafif (only in Maliki school), jury testimony (lafif means twelve), on the character of the defendant, wether he is capable of the crime.
• Ahl Diraya, expert testimony, relates to qualification.

Why with financial testimony (Ishhad) does it look like 2 women's testimony is worth one man's?

What about men and women that don't have stereotypical dispositions for Shahada?

 

[firedragon]

Do you think that Islam necessarily prescribes gender roles?

For instance, does a man always have the last word in family discussions, and is womens’ testimony worth less than a man’s?

Sis. What you read on the internet is bogus apologetics. The way you worded your question is testimony of your epistemic catastrophe.

Anyway, there are many Muslims around the world who believe the mans say is final. There are many muslims who think women are stupid by nature. But if you go deeper into sociology of religion, this is a causality, not a correlation of societal baggage, and it is universal to all people in the world. For example, in some Buddhist societies the women are considered child bearers and the men are the masters. What?? Where did that come from? Does Buddhism teach anything of the sort? Well, that's a whole other discussion I suppose.

Lets go to the ontology, and since this thread is about Islam, I will discuss the Qur'an with you.

1. NO. The man does not have the last word in "family discussions". There is nothing of the sort in the Qur'an, but the Quran says "Among His signs is that He created for you spouses from among yourselves, in order to have tranquillity and contentment with each other. He places in your heart love and care towards your spouses. In this, there are signs for people who think." (30:21)

But of course if you search the internet for "misogyny in Quran" or something you would find verses that helps you with that picture. This is nature apologetics and evangelism. You will find websites that help you with demonising this theology. No problem. Maybe a thread on this is good. But of course some people are there in this forum who would say "no no. I think this verse says women are stupid" and end with their justification which is "in my opinion". You will see.

2. NO. There is a verse that says "bring a witness from the males and two from the females". There are two ways people interpret this. Non-Muslims generally make this "a woman is stupid" so her witness is only half of a man. They have made a mathematical division of two women and one man and come to that very convenient conclusion because of course it helps their cause. There are some Muslims who also come up with the same conclusion because they probably like their women to think they are stupid to fill their ego.

But the verse doesnt say that. Some Muslims interpret it to mean that at the time the witnesses are called for testimony when there is a future dispute since this is a money matter, a woman can get pregnant, or she could be feeding a child, she maybe in labour which are all things not possible for men biologically. So this woman may not be able to come. Thats why two women should be there to witness a financial transaction on record.

 

[epronovost]

- This is packed. I will provide a more general yet most relevant answer. Your question in effect relates to Care relations (Ri'aya) where one party is set to offer security to another, such as: parent–child, husband–wife, ruler–subject, employer–employee, master–slave... Thus, marriage relationships fall under the umbrella of Care relations (Ri'aya), the general understanding regarding these types of relations in Sharia is the guarantee of basic rights to each party accordingly:

• Care (Ri'aya) from guarantor (ra'yi) to obligee (ra'yya) which include material security & may include physical or emotional or other securities –according to the type of relationship. In a marriage, this is called Qiwama, which comprise care, protection & provision.
  
• Dutifulness (Ta'a) from obligee to guarantor –according to the scope of Security offered, conforming to the following rules enjoined by the Prophet (pbuh): no duty to creature can trump duty to Creator; duty is obligatory in what fulfills the stated benefits to the guarantor & does not harm the obligee; duty is permissible within what is reasonable & what is beneficial...etc. For instance, an employer's stated benefits is the task he is paying his employer to perform, duty in fulfilling this task is obligatory in Sharia, anything else isn't. In the case of marriage, the stated benefits, given the nature of the contract, are reproductive benefits. Therefore, the wife has an obligation to her husband, by Sharia, to fulfill his sexual needs & all that these entail, within what is beneficial & reasonable, & as long as these do not go against her faith or bring harm or hardship to herself.

Are you implying there that according to your reading of the Quran and associated material that a couple can decide who will have to provide care and who will have to be dutiful and that this isn't mandated based on their gender? For example, my wife could promise me care in exchange of my dutifulness towards her? Are mutual care and dutifulness a possible arrangement where we both promise care and dutifulness to one another or must it be one in exchange of the other?