Australian Politics Forum - replacing morals with rules

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #90 - Nov 12^th, 2008 at 6:25pm

So do not enquire into things which are not mentioned in the Koran? Doesn't that contradict what you said about Muslims being commanded to seek knowledge?

Quote:

Ibn Kathir (May God have mercy on him) was one of the greatest scholars of Islam, who memorised and was aware of the entire Qur'an as well as entire collections of hadith, so I think he'd have a much better idea of what it is about.

That falls far short of an explanation as to why his interpretation appears to have so little to do with what the Koran actually says. If he said something that doesn't make sense then insisting he is a great scholar hardly clarifies the issue. Surely this is a significant issue in Islam? Doesn't the command to look into Islam yourself rather than take someone else's word for it inevitably lead other Muslims to also seek clarification of the apparent discrepancy? Are they not allowed to because it would trouble them, so they are compelled take the 'cop-out' response from the dead scholar at face value?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #91 - Nov 12^th, 2008 at 6:35pm

Quote:

So do not enquire into things which are not mentioned in the Koran? Doesn't that contradict what you said about Muslims being commanded to seek knowledge?

Are you deliberately being arrogant and obnoxious? Or is it just an involuntary character flaw?

It's got nothing to do with something being in the Qur'an or not being in it. Nowhere does it say anything about this at all, neither does it say anyhting about seeking knowledge, you're just speaking nonsense really.

Let me put it for you one last time. It's about people asking questions about a ruling/command given to them, when it's already made clear (in fact it reminds me a lot of you, perhaps that's why you don't like this passage so much), because then more stringent commands might be revealed for them that could cause them hardship.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #92 - Nov 12^th, 2008 at 6:54pm

Quote:

It's got nothing to do with something being in the Qur'an or not being in it.

I am not deliberately being obnoxious. It just doesn't make sense. Can you explain what this means for me, if it's nothing to do with what's in the Koran? I'm just enquiring as to what it is I'm not supposed to enquire about.

Quote:

and He has said nothing about certain things, as an act of mercy to you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not go enquiring into these."

Also, can you explain the discrepancy between what that scholar said and what the Koran says about not enquiring about troubling things.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #93 - Nov 12^th, 2008 at 11:20pm

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 8:58pm:

Quote:

There would be much fruit if Mohamedans could discusss such matters without hinting at or resorting to violence

Just to make it clear for you, although I'm sure you're fully aware of the correct terminology. We are Muslims (those who've surrendered their will to God). This is our religion, and it was the original form of your religion and of the religion the Hebrews adhered to. They were of those who surrendered to the commands of God, instead of to their own whims and desires, or to idols and pantheons (from 3 to 300 and beyond) of false deities.

Considering that the vast majority of the koranic text is about Mohammed and obvioussly an even greater majority of the sunna is about him, all together muslim textss are far more concerned with Mohammed than with God. So I think Mohammedan is more precise.

Quote:

BUT with no violence lurking behind the scenes. But that violence is islam's political modus operandi, whether becaause of the current geopolitical line up or otherwise, i do not know.

Quote:

You keep alluding to this idea of violence-bolstered dialogue, but I really don't see it. You keep trying to link every Muslim's sincere dialogue back to your misconceptions about ahl al-dhimma or jizyah or whatever it is you've got in your mind Islam is all based on

These are not my inventions, andd they are not misconceptions. These are your doctrines. Islamic texts have been translated, history has been studied, analysed, discussed. There is no misundertsanding.

Theere is no misunderstanding when Islamists threatens violence evey time Islam is questioned. It is theeir consciouss policy and it haas noww resulted in thee esstablishmeent of reflex in the minds of the Kufr that being critical of anything Mohammedan, let alone joking about them, can be a death sentence.

Book of fiction about non existent satanic verses - death threats and killings of translators
Lame-o danish cartoons - death and destruction, marches on the streetss of Western citiees like london, threateening death
Pope gives a speech in Germaan at his old university - death threats and killings
Rushdie is given a knighthood - more of the same
Berlin opera cancels a stupid performance of an opere for fear of death aand destruction from one of the religions ridiculed (Islam) but not from the otheer 3, obviously.
Novel about Aisha pulled on advice of possible violent backlash from Mohammedans.

None of the above involves the killing of a single muslim by an infidel. There is no invasion, there is no bombing. Only books, printed materials, art works, talk. And ALL in sovereign western nations, by freeborn citizens, within the law.

Indonesia executes terrorists - promise of 1001 more jihadists, ie. kufr killers in the name of Islam

And you do not see this or you are not aware of this? You are lying.
The bloody cheek.

Back to top

IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #94 - Nov 12^th, 2008 at 11:36pm

Quote:

Considering that the vast majority of the koranic text is about Mohammed and obvioussly an even greater majority of the sunna is about him, all together muslim textss are far more concerned with Mohammed than with God. So I think Mohammedan is more precise.

Actually Muhammad (pbuh) is only mentioned a few times in the Qur'an. Jesus (pbuh) is mentioned about 5 times more than Muhammad (pbuh) so perhaps we should be the real Christians? And in fact Moses (pbuh) is mentioned more times than the two of them (pbut), so perhaps we should be called Mosesans, assuming we'd go by your obviously flawed logic.

Quote:

And you do not see this or you are not aware of this? You are lying.

Those are reactions of individuals, who are acting on pure emotion, not on Islamic law. This can be countered by the example we saw during the time of the Ottoman Caliphate, when the French wanted to perform the blasphemous and slanderous play of Volatire, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (May God have mercy on him) used diplomatic means to stop it. Nobody was killed, no wild emotion charged demonstrations in the streets, no burning flags or effigies.

Also how about all the journalists that seem to be going 'missing' in Russia and other European states lately, because they report things not favourable to the governments? Just on vacation are they? Or did the Christian governments silence them, merely for reporting the news? Nah couldn't be... only Muslims would do such a thing!! Perhaps they contracted their friends in Syria to do it for them Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #95 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 11:45am

Quote:

Those are reactions of individuals, who are acting on pure emotion, not on Islamic law. This can be countered by the example we saw during the time of the Ottoman Caliphate, when the French wanted to perform the blasphemous and slanderous play of Volatire, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (May God have mercy on him) used diplomatic means to stop it. Nobody was killed, no wild emotion charged demonstrations in the streets, no burning flags or effigies.

And if diplomatic means are not successful in stopping blasphemy? What if there is an irreconcilable clash of values - freedom of speech vs the death penalty for blasphemy?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: replacing morals with rules Reply #96 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 4:08pm Christian governments? Russia? As for the rest of Europe I'd have thought they'd be rather secular.
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #97 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 5:55pm

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 11:36pm:

Those are reactions of individuals, who are acting on pure emotion, not on Islamic law.

More 'islamic individuals' acting completely outside islam...

Khaleej Times Online >> News >> INTERNATIONAL Taliban kill mullah critical of suicide(AP)
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/international/2008/Nov...
14 November 2008
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - Suspected Taliban militants killed a religious leader in western Afghanistan after he criticized the use of suicide attacks in the country, an Afghan official said Friday.

Militants kidnapped Shamsudin Agha in Farah province's Anar Dara district on Tuesday, days after he led prayers condemning the practice of using suicide attacks as a weapon of war, said provincial police Chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar.

Suicide attacks are one of the Taliban's preferred tactics in their attacks against Afghan and foreign troops. Most of the victims of such attacks have been civilians.
Authorities recovered Agha's body on Wednesday night in Farah's Khaki Safed district, Watandar said.
Agha was the head of the religious council of Farah's Anar Dara district, he said.

I am sure a posse of true muslims is being assembled as we speak to find and punish those 'individuals', whoever they may be, acting so obviously outside islamic rules.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 15^th, 2008 at 2:28pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: replacing morals with rules
Reply #98 - Nov 16^th, 2008 at 1:01pm

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 9^th, 2008 at 8:58pm:

Quote:

an argument, a shouting match even, even with god,

This is where our concept of God departs quite sharply. To you, God is just 'another bloke', who has a boy that is a 'chip off the old block' and who you can have debates and arguments with. To us, He is the maker, the creator of us all, why would we argue with him who fashioned us? Such 'discourse' would be nothing but complete disrespect for the one who brought you into being. As Muslims (and even originally in the Jewish and Christian traditions) we have great respect for our parents, and do not even argue with them, yet you believe it's befitting for the creation to argue with their own Creator? Sorry, but I think I agree with your original statements, that our religions are worlds apart, when it comes to the relationship between man and God.

The 'another bloke' quip is silly.

Different relationships - yes. Love is dialogic. It converses. A loving god converses (often in a still, small voice). This relationship is of the heart.

Submission is not dialogic. A god that demands only submission does not converse. He rules like a despot.

Even those who do not believe in any god can see the differences in the two kinds of relationship.

Back to top

IP Logged