freediver wrote on Jun 7
th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
I had no agenda until I started talking to Muslims about Islam. You have even pointed this out to me before.
until you started talking to muslims??
Do tell FD, what are you saying your "agenda" is now? I find that statement quite revealing.
freediver wrote on Jun 7
th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
The difference between Abu, Falah, Malik et al and you is that they got their views about Islam from Islamic scripture, rather than coming to it with an a priori interpretation.
I have quoted you scripture on just about every single doctrinal opinion I have on islam. I have probably given you more scriptural references than Abu or Falah. so I have no idea where this idea that Abu and Falah's views come from scripture, but mine don't.
If we were all honest here we would admit that every single one of us - you, me, Abu, Yadda - everyone - approaches the topic of islam with certain preconceived notions and perspectives. For my part, I had enough knowledge about islam to be satisfied enough about Islam's overall theme before I started digging deep into the nitty gritty of it. Knowing that islam is ultimately about all the main universal values like justice, acceptance, respect, human rights etc, I have absolutely no problem admitting that I study Quranic verses with this preconceived view in mind.
It is generally the same for everyone - we form a view of islam first, and then go and dig up the quotes to find support for that view - not the other way around. Even Abu - who you would have me believe is the most 'objective' and honest muslim on islamic jurisprudence (while simultaneously smearing him as a liar and deceiver - go figure
), very clearly brings in a lot of cultural baggage when arguing the case for islam. Rarely, if ever, could he bring himself to promote islam without comparing it in some way with the degeneracy of the west. For him, arguing the case for islam was more about inflaming a bitter cultural war and highlighting himself as the ultimate "anti-west" hero. Falah was even more extreme in this respect.
freediver wrote on Jun 7
th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
In any case, it does make sense to take that approach if you want to criticise something.
The 'devil's advocate' routine doesn't work if you dismiss even the
existence of competing views, and the potential that either could be legitimate. A constructive devil's advocate critique would be along the lines of "yes I understand your perspective and accept that it is held in some circles, but equally, there is this view..." - as opposed to your approach, which is "there is only one perspective in islam, and I reject your point of view because it doesn't conform to this one true perspective, and won't even
consider that it might be held in any muslim circles.
freediver wrote on Jun 7
th, 2014 at 6:59pm:
It does not make sense to take that approach in adopting a religion. To me that would defeat the entire purpose.
Nonsense. No one, except maybe a tiny handful of oddball intellectuals with too much time on their hands, embraces islam (or dare I say any other text-based religion) only after they have conducted a thorough analysis of all the relevant religious texts. You learn the core tenets of the religion which will give you the general gist of it and accept that the "details" will reaffirm your initial understandings. Thats how virtually every new convert to any religion comes to embrace that religion.
Forum
Pages: 
