ISIL, Taliban = True Islam??

[sun rise]

It doesn't say "free all slaves", it says that freeing a slave is a good deed that can assuage sin or gain entry points for paradise.

You need to bear in mind the context where in the early days of his preaching, many of the early followers were slaves. They were bought and freed if they converted to Islam. However, Muhammad and his companions still kept and traded their own slaves.

If we excoriate religions, politicians and philosophers of the past by the standards of today, we wind up ignoring positive if incomplete steps. But if you want to denounce all who practiced slavery and all scriptures with slavery in them, that's fair but to me is a mistake.

To me the Quran is, in part, a document of it's time and place and, as such, was a step forward compared to what was there before. So compared to the US south many hundreds of years later, the Quran established the step forward that freeing slaves was a virtuous act well before other countries and cultures started considering slavery as immoral in and of itself.

 

[sun rise]

One can marry a girl who is underage, but the girl does not "join" her husband until after puberty.

That is in the history of many nations in the past. Today it should be different: In ancient and medieval societies, it was common for girls to be betrothed at or even before the age of puberty.[28][29] According to M.A. Friedman, "arranging and contracting the marriage of a young girl were the undisputed prerogatives of her father in ancient Israel.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I think you have a political hatred towards Iran so you are trying your levels best to bring it in here to derail this thread.

No, I am not discussing from political point of view. I am talking completely theological.

 

[sun rise]

mainstream Sunni Islam will take some time to evolve into something less dogmatic

What is your proof that the vast majority of mainstream Sunni Muslims are dogmatic. Please cite actual validated research studies published in reliable journals.

 

[firedragon]

No, I am not discussing from political point of view. I am talking completely theological.

Discussing Iran and Khomeini etc etc etc are all political, disguised as theology.

If you want to demonise Islam and Quran etc etc, you can do it directly.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Discussing Iran and Khomeini etc etc etc are all political, disguised as theology.

If you want to demonise Islam and Quran etc etc, you can do it directly.

No, ISIS, Khomeini, Taliban, all claim they have a Godly government. Theologically There is no such a right given to any person to claim to have a Godly government. Claiming that our government is establishing true Islam, is an invented idea. It is the same as what the Pops did in Europe, if you have read the history in Europe, in the 15' 16, 17, 18 and 19th centuries.
To take advantage of religion to rule over people have been always an issue for people. Hope you can understand!. Take care

 

[stevecanuck]

Are they Arabs, or have decent knowledge of classical Arabic?
..or are they just repeating something they read from another Asian "scholar"?

G-d does not teach us to abuse women.

Unfortunately, he does. Verse 4:24 (among others) allows for the rape of enslaved and captive women, "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess". Also note that the need for consent is in no way implied.

 

[stevecanuck]

Yet more intellectual dishonesty or stupidity.
I clearly said... "In the context of Islamic belief".

It's baffling that you seem to think these tactics can, in any way, strengthen your position.

I think you're referring to the Throw-crap-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks fallacy.

 

[stevecanuck]

If we excoriate religions, politicians and philosophers of the past by the standards of today, we wind up ignoring positive if incomplete steps. But if you want to denounce all who practiced slavery and all scriptures with slavery in them, that's fair but to me is a mistake.

To me the Quran is, in part, a document of it's time and place and, as such, was a step forward compared to what was there before. So compared to the US south many hundreds of years later, the Quran established the step forward that freeing slaves was a virtuous act well before other countries and cultures started considering slavery as immoral in and of itself.

Freeing a slave can be a punishment. Verse 4:92 explains it, "It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave".

As an aside, there are three fascinating admissions made in that one short sentence:
1. Killing a non-believer doesn't even rate a mention.
2. Slave owning is obviously deemed acceptable.
3. Muslims can own Muslim slaves.

Verses 24:33 and 9:60 say to allow a slave to buy his freedom, or to allow alms to pay for it. Either way, the slave is still property that can be purchased, even if it's by himself. That's not ending slavery, but just another type of contract within the bounds of it.

 

[stevecanuck]

That is in the history of many nations in the past. Today it should be different: In ancient and medieval societies, it was common for girls to be betrothed at or even before the age of puberty.[28][29] According to M.A. Friedman, "arranging and contracting the marriage of a young girl were the undisputed prerogatives of her father in ancient Israel.

Correct. The difference being that the Middle Ages were left behind, but having wives "who do not yet menstruate" lives on in the Qur'an.

 

[KWED]

Are they suggesting that it is lawful to have sexual intercourse with a girl who hasn't reached puberty?
If so, please show me.

Jesus Muhammad and Moses! Have you not read those tafsir?
They clearly and explicitly state that the verse about how long to wait to have sex with a new wife includes females who are too young to have started menstruating!

Which part of that makes you think it is not lawful to have sex with them when the three months are over?

What nonsense is this?
That verse is about divorce, and not "having sex".

Oh, I get it now. You have completely misunderstood that passage.
"In Islam, iddah or iddat (Arabic: العدة‎; period of waiting) is the period a woman must observe after the death of her husband or after a divorce, during which she may not marry another man.[1]: 472 [2] One of its main purposes is to remove any doubt as to the paternity of a child born after the divorce or death of the prior husband." Iddah - Wikipedia

A good question. You are asking the wrong person. I don't follow these "scholars".

Iddah is a universal Islamic principle. If a woman is divorced or widowed, she must wait three periods (or three months if she doesn't menstruate.
The purpose of this wait is to remove any question over paternity. There is only a question over paternity if she had sex with both her previous and her new husband.
It really isn't that difficult. (It never ceases to amaze how often apologists have little more than a basic grasp of what Islam actually contains beyond praying, fasting, and telling their women what to wear)

 

[KWED]

Yes, you are an intelligent individual.
It is a pity that you can't use it in a more positive way.

Somebody as intelligent as you should surely realise that it is us that determine the future with our decisions.
Do you believe that the future is an imaginary concept?
..or is it a real one?

i.e. will the future be represented by a series of events or not?

?

 

[stevecanuck]

What is your proof that the vast majority of mainstream Sunni Muslims are dogmatic. Please cite actual validated research studies published in reliable journals.

I have seven years of personal observation from living in a majority Sunni Muslim country, and I came away with the distinct impression that they eat, live, and breathe Islam.

Sunni and democratic Pakistan is an example you might want to ponder. The voting majority favor the death penalty for "insulting Islam". That's about as dogmatic as it gets.

 

[KWED]

But you dont believe they are historical. But you quote "Muhammed did this and that".

In the context of Islamic belief!

I get it now. You are trying to act stupid in an attempt to get me to give up in exasperation, so you can somehow claim victory. Otherwise known as "pigeon chess".

So according to which scholar is this hadith authentic, and which scholar did not accept it at all, and which scholar said Its Sahih but not Sarih?

Who narrated this hadith, and what are the problems with the narrator?

Why is Muslim different to Bukhari?

Why is it not in the Golden chain?

What are other scholars saying about this hadith?

If you dont know, you can ask.

None of this has any relevance to this issue. You are just trying to deflect and derail with your bucket'o'fallacies.
However, if you want to start a thread on the subject of the nature of hadith, feel free and I will join you there.

 

[KWED]

But the text does not say it. It does not say prepubescent.

No. They all say "Too young to have started menstruation". And what is another term for "Too young to have started menstruation"?
Yes, come on, you can do it...
Correct - "prepubescent".
Well done!

Little girls are never called Grown women.

Do you think a 9 year old girl can be a "grown woman"?

Anyway, do you know the criteria for marital age in the Qur'an? After all, this is about the Qur'an so do you know?

The Quran does not specify an age for marriage.

 

[KWED]

Mate. Thanks for the usual insults.

Not insults. Observations. How you take them is up to you. May I recommend thicker skin?

You are not reading the iBn Abbas Tafsir. you are reading the Thanweer of Al Mikbaas. its commentary on Tasfir. This is the problem with google scholarship ready to insult others. Its actually kind of hilarious. Nevermind. We all learn everyday.

Are you claiming that Ibn Abbas' tafsir does not contain that explanation?
Let's see how far your dishonesty goes.

 

[KWED]

Of course there is. If you dont know just say so.
Who made that argument? You just created it.
So again, what is the "Classical Arabic" word, which you said I dont know, for pre pubescent girls? Go ahead.
Since you dont know, just say you dont know.

I can only assume your refusal to explain your obsession with this word, or even to say what it is, indicates that you don't know.

If pose a question in that way, you really should know the answer.

 

[Nakosis]

This thread is opened to discuss ISIL/ISIS/Dais or what ever you wish to call them, and the Taliban, which are the most prominently caricatured representation of Islam by some of the hardline atheistic polemicists in this forum. Not all, but some. It is also prominently used by some Christians, and since of late, by Hindus too, and maybe even others.

What do you think? Is this a true Islam or a false Islam. What are the evidences for this equation?

Without God or Muhammad around to verify what is correct how could you verify which interpretation is correct?

Is ISIL or the Taliban more correct than some other interpretation? Whatever claim made, how would you validate the claim?

If people say the Taliban is the correct interpretation, how would you prove them wrong.

The problem is the word "interpretation" which allows a broad avenue of creative license. People will go with whatever they feel is correct.

For me, like the Bible, I start off assuming all interpretations are wrong. With the Quran and the Bible we are given claims made by other people as to what these messengers said. Which could itself be right/wrong/totally made up. From this we have to rely of an third interpretation. I've see how broadly the Bible can be interpreted. I'd suspect the same is true of the Quran.

 

[KWED]

If we excoriate religions, politicians and philosophers of the past by the standards of today, we wind up ignoring positive if incomplete steps. But if you want to denounce all who practiced slavery and all scriptures with slavery in them, that's fair but to me is a mistake.

Historical relativism is all well and good, but it cannot apply to an ideology that claims timeless perfection and objective moral supremacy.

To me the Quran is, in part, a document of it's time and place and, as such, was a step forward compared to what was there before.

The Quran did contain some progressive elements 1400 years ago. However, today it contains far too much violence, intolerance and discrimination to have any valuable role in society, beyond spiritual symbolism.

So compared to the US south many hundreds of years later, the Quran established the step forward that freeing slaves was a virtuous act well before other countries and cultures started considering slavery as immoral in and of itself.

Luckily, I don't feel the need to justify any form of slavery or rank them by acceptability. I can unequivocally condemn them all.

 

[KWED]

What is your proof that the vast majority of mainstream Sunni Muslims are dogmatic.

"Dogmatic - Inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true." - OED
Are you claiming that the majority of Muslims do not consider specifically the Quran, and generally Islam, to be "undeniably true"?

Please cite actual validated research studies published in reliable journals.

It's not really something that needs papers writing about it. A bit like saying "Show me actual validated research studies published in reliable journals that Christians believe in the trinity and the resurrection".
But this might help The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity