Killing for apostacy is against Quran.

[danieldemol]

This addressing the argument?

No. This is "he said this" argument. that's not addressing the argument.

@Link said, "They prefer ahadith over Quran when their scholars emphasize on those hadiths.".
I interpreted this to mean that they acknowledge the Quran and hadith to be contradictory then prefer or choose the hadith over the Quran.
If they do not acknowledge the Quran to be contradictory to the hadith then the argument is directly addressed.

In my opinion

 

[firedragon]

I don't know. You apparently use the word correct.
Here is the quote:

Lol. It was in response to your own post. #110

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lol. It was in response to your own post. #110

Yeah, again with the non-logic and evidence.

I think I get your stick. You fence in part of the world and play it with your rules and when some of us try to point out there are other rules in play, you won't play. You change to in effect emotions. That is okay, we all do that in some cases. It means you are human like the rest of us.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, again with the non-logic and evidence.

I think I get your stick. You fence in part of the world and play it with your rules and when some of us try to point out there are other rules in play, you won't play. You change to in effect emotions. That is okay, we all do that in some cases. It means you are human like the rest of us.

I didnt say anything was correct or wrong in interpretation. Not yet. So asking why I think I am correct is not relevant to me. Maybe you are asking someone else.

Have a nice day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didnt say anything was correct or wrong in interpretation. Not yet. So asking why I think I am correct is not relevant to me. Maybe you are asking someone else.

Have a nice day.

So how is it relevant to you or is that irrelevant? I know you don't play that way. So how is your way correct?

Is it: If we assume your way, it is incorrect to assume another way, because we must use your way?

 

[firedragon]

@Link said, "They prefer ahadith over Quran when their scholars emphasize on those hadiths.".
I interpreted this to mean that they acknowledge the Quran and hadith to be contradictory then prefer or choose the hadith over the Quran.
If they do not acknowledge the Quran to be contradictory to the hadith then the argument is directly addressed.

In my opinion

If you wish to discuss these matters Daniel, I would suggest that you ask the question directly rather than saying "he said this".

Ill give you an example. You dont know if I am even a Muslim. You will only take my word for it. No one is authority, thus when I say something you should question it or ask why and analyse it. You normally do that. So rather than referring to others, ask the questions directly. I will explain a few things as quick as I can, if you like it or not. These are traditions, not contemporary attitudes I will show. When I say traditions, they are the oldest in existence.

There are different methods some of the so called scholars have been employing in order to present their opinion on a particular question. An opinion is a Fatawa. Generally a qualified Mufti is known to have a handed over right or status to issue a fatawa. A fatawa in the past was an opinion. Thats what it means.

The Maliki school in Islam follows the method of Sunnah. This Sunnah is their inherited traditions from Medina. Their school of thought is called the school of Medina. Their Sunnah is only supplemented or supported by ahadith, ahadith doesnt drive their tradition. Their Sunnah is inherited from person to person, teacher to student. Thats their school of thought.

The Hanafi school of thought was traditionally very stringent in their Quranic tradition. Ahadith and the contemporary analysis methods came later. Abu Hanifa was condemned by the Shafi school for their Quran centric doctrine.

Because the Shafi school were very much hadith based. So were the Hanbalis. But somehow they found themselves coexisting as one Islamic sect. Some people have this idea that they should practically worship their teachers. Thats it. Shop closed. Some people promote using of the Akal or reason, which is predominantly the Maliki and the Hanafi schools. So some people are indoctrinated not to use their Akal. That is also very modern phenomena, stemming from Ibn Taimiyyah propagated by Abdul Wahhab and that was for a political agenda. Thus, this is what you know and this is what you are hearing. The problem is that you may think this is Islam and this is their tradition.

I have seen a Muslim here who promotes all kinds of dirty violence and the typical child marrying doctrines but he doesnt even know the first few words of one single Surah or the meaning of one single Arabic word, claiming a life long Islamic background and scholarship but gets caught out so easily. Of course you would not have a problem with them and you even seem to like them for a strange reason. You have quoted this person in every single thread in this kind of topic. This is why, you should try to analyse things.

Anyway, these are nuances in theology. In Islam, according to any school of thought, the Quran is known as the Muhaymeenun, and the Furqan. Thus, there is absolutely no argument about that. Any argument that is proven through the Quran by default must take precedence over any other document or literature. This is universal Islamic theology. Banking on this, some may superimpose a 700 years later idea onto the Quran which came in the 7th century. Even Christians and atheists do this.

Contd.

 

[firedragon]

So how is your way correct?

What is my way?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is my way?

That Islam is unified down to one principle. All must in the end come form one and only one way to use the Quran. That is not how it works in practice, because it is always also a product of other factors as time, local traditions, power structures and surrounding culture.

I mean either a Muslim woman is allowed to drive a car or not or it depends. I mean I get that you do that in the correct manner and everybody else who differently don't. If that is not the case and you accept different contradictory results then just say so.

 

[firedragon]

That Islam is unified down to one principle. All must in the end come form one and only one way to use the Quran. That is not how it works in practice, because it is always also a product of other factors as time, local traditions, power structures and surrounding culture.

When did I say any of this to you in this thread when you asked me this "correct" question?

I mean either a Muslim woman is allowed to drive a car or not or it depends. I mean I get that you do that in the correct manner and everybody else who differently don't. If that is not the case and you accept different contradictory results then just say so.

When did I say any of this to you in this thread when you asked me this "correct" question?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When did I say any of this to you in this thread when you asked me this "correct" question?



When did I say any of this to you in this thread when you asked me this "correct" question?

I apologize. You are a relativist and don't assume that there is only one scholarly way of doing it. You have never to the effect claimed that there is a correct way to understand the Quran.
Sorry.

 

[firedragon]

I apologize. You are a relativist and don't assume that there is only one scholarly way of doing it. You have never to the effect claimed that there is a correct way to understand the Quran.
Sorry.

Thats just some ad hominem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thats just some ad hominem.

Then state your basics.

 

[firedragon]

Then state your basics.

For what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For what?

What is scholarly? Is that the only way to do Islam? And so on?

 

[firedragon]

What is scholarly? Is that the only way to do Islam? And so on?

What is the relevance to a anything I've said to you in the thread?

If you wish a question, ask it independently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the relevance to a anything I've said to you in the thread?

If you wish a question, ask it independently.

So I can't ask about words you use in a thread, unless I make another thread? Okay.

 

[firedragon]

So I can't ask about words you use in a thread, unless I make another thread? Okay.

When I said "independently", I meant dont associate your "New" questions which are now asking about some women driving, what is scholarly, what ever you are asking about with what I said earlier or didnt say earlier because I never even brought up any of these things.

Just ask your question like you are just asking from a friend.

Hey buddy. what do you think of this? Do you think in Islam women are allowed to drive? On what basis are you saying what you are gonna say? What is being scholarly? Can you explain?

Its pretty simple to do that. I sure hope you understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I said "independently", I meant dont associate your "New" questions which are now asking about some women driving, what is scholarly, what ever you are asking about with what I said earlier or didnt say earlier because I never even brought up any of these things.

Just ask your question like you are just asking from a friend.

Hey buddy. what do you think of this? Do you think in Islam women are allowed to drive? On what basis are you saying what you are gonna say? What is being scholarly? Can you explain?

Its pretty simple to do that. I sure hope you understand.

You use a methodology and you apparently think it is correct or what ever.

 

[firedragon]

You use a methodology and you apparently think it is correct or what ever.

Which methodology did I say is correct? I never spoke of some "correct methodology" in this thread prior to starting this trail of questioning.

Whats your real question. Why dont you just ask your question Mikkel? Its perfectly fine if you have a question, but ask directly.

 

[Link]

That verse does not make up the whole Quran.

Also it is not clear from that verse whether or not it is abrogated as per the commentary in post #7, "It was reported that Ibn `Abbas said that this Ayah was later abrogated by Allah's statement,

(Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the idolators wherever you find them)"

From Al-Islam.com (the website referred to in the OP), the following explanation of 4:88 to 4:90 is given at 10. Abrogation in the Qur’an

'What ails you that you are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when God cast them back [to disbelief] because of what they earned? Seek you to guide him whom God has sent astray? He whom God sends astray, for him you [O Muhiammad] cannot find a road (Qur’an 4:88). They long that you should disbelieve, that you may be upon a level [with them]. So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of God: If they turn back [to enmity], then take them and kill them wherever you find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them (Qur’an 4:89). Except those who seek refuge. . . . (Qur’an 4:90).

Hence, the ordinance in the passage applies to the apostates (al-murtaddun) who were nonbelievers, [who] then converted to Islam, and then, again, reverted to disbelief. The ruling about them, as stipulated in the passage, is: kill them except in two cases:

1. If they were to seek refuge with a people who [have a covenant with] the Muslims, and to whom they appeal for protection. In such a case, the same ruling applies to them as it applies to the group from whom they have sought protection, in accordance with the terms of the covenant. However, this ruling is conditional on the validity of the covenant. Thus, if the covenant between them and the Muslims is revoked, the ruling would lose its object. We explained, at the beginning of this discussion, that a ruling which is revoked because of the termination of its object has no relation to abrogation whatsoever. The covenant between the Muslims and the disbelievers was revoked in "Surat al-Tawba" (sura 9). They were given four months to choose between converting to Islam or leaving the Muslim domain. Accordingly, there remained no ground for seeking the kind of protection the verse mentions.'

Have I misunderstood any of the above?

In my opinion

Yes, you have. The covenant of four months is with respect to the polytheists that fought them and kept breaking treaties and as such God is saying instead of letting them rally more people towards you, attack them as soon as four months are over.

However the same chapter says to stay true to those who did not break treaties. And so it's only concerning those who kept breaking it as they were untrustworthy and would probably attack again.

Also the Sunnah shows Prophet (s) didn't force them to convert when the victory happened.

I also don't see the relevance with apostasy issue.