@Palmyrene
Yeah I notice it but I'm not sure terms like "rape capital of the world" is helpful in actually dealing with the issues. Terms like that are just attempts at disparaging those countries rather than an honest attempt and discussing the issue.
If they don't want to be called that, then I'm sure they can stop the epidemic.
South Africa has the highest rate of rapes in the world.
And the constant reports of endemic sexual assaults and rapes in Egypt aren't gone un-noticed.
From the people who talk about Sweden they don't seem to make that distinction.
Sweden has the highest rates of rape in Europe, but no where near the rates of countries like Egypt or South Africa.
Yeah but there's a difference between encouraging something and saying "well if you're going to do this thing anyways, you may as well follow these rules". The Quran is the latter not the former.
ِ
وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاء إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ...}].
{وَمَن لَّمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنكُمْ طَوْلاً أَن يَنكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِن مِّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُم مِّن فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ}
سورة النساء. 23-25
Here, in the Quran, in a verse named Alnesa' meaning ladies or women, the Quran explicitly says you are allowed to have sex either with your wives or whom ever female slaves you own.
And in the second verse, says that if you could not marry or lay with Muslim women, then have sex with a female slave.
Noting that having sex with a slave, or even forcing a slave into sex is not considered rape.
Furthermore, the prophet owned sex slaves both captured in battle or given to hem as gifts.
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيراً
وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ الْآخِرَ وَذَكَرَ اللَّهَ كَثِيراً
{مَّنْ يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللّهَ وَمَن تَوَلَّى فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظاً}
etc.
An example of the many many verses telling you to follow what the prophet does in the Quran.
Not in Iran they aren't. There's no excuse for Iran to kick out the Bahais.
I'm not in favor of what's being done to the Baha'is, but that's simply the consequences of siding with the Shah in a war.
And, feel free to read on the period in which Iran turned from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam.
No there weren't. Other than the initial conquests, most pre-Islamic religions have survived, far more than in Europe.
European empires being horrible doesn't mean that Islamic ones were good.
Majority of pre-Islamic religions were destroyed under the reign of the various caliphates.
If Muslims wanted to get rid of every single non-Muslim minority they would've done so by now. Nothing you could do could stop them.
They did try, and succeeded in many of their attempts.
I've skimmed through it and didn't find an endorsement. I don't think you know what endorsement means.
Then perhaps you should read it instead of skimming through it.
No they didn't. That's just a leap of assumptions on your part and generally does a better job explaining why the Quran is up to interpretation than I ever could.
And just because it's an external incentive doesn't mean it's encouraged by the Quran. The Quran knows it's an incentive and encourages slaves to convert to get out of slavery, has specific rules for treating slaves, and has rules on war.
T
Well, the Quran says on multiple occasions how it's ok to own slaves, ok to have sex with them, how if you can't marry you should have sex with a slave, how it's preferable to adultery, etc. But that couldn't possibly be an endorsement or atleast leaving an open door for it.
جاء في حديث قدسي : قال الله تعالى : ( ثَلَاثَةٌ أَنَا خَصْمُهُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ، وَمَنْ كُنْتُ خَصْمَهُ خَصَمْتُهُ ، ذكر منهم : رَجُلٌ بَاعَ حُرًّا فَأَكَلَ ثَمَنَهُ) رواه البخاري ( 2227) .
قال الشيخ الشنقيطي رحمه الله : " وسبب الملك بالرق : هو الكفر ، ومحاربة الله ورسوله ، فإذا أقدر اللهُ المسلمينَ المجاهدين الباذلين مُهَجهم وأموالهم وجميع قواهم وما أعطاهم الله لتكون كلمة الله هي العليا على الكفار : جعلهم ملكاً لهم بالسبي إلا إذا اختار الإمام المنَّ أو الفداء لما في ذلك من المصلحة للمسلمين " انتهى من " أضواء البيان " (3/387)
Now, this is an interesting verse regarding a part of your comment:
وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَن يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلاَّ خَطَئًا وَمَن قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَئًا فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يَصَّدَّقُواْ فَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَّكُمْ وَهُوَ مْؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةٍ وَإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِّيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُّسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةً فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِّنَ اللّهِ وَكَانَ اللّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا {النساء:92
It says Raqaba mo'menah (رَقَبَةٍ مُّؤْمِنَةً). Do you know what that means? A Muslim slave.
You see, converting to Islam doesn't get you out of slavery, you'll still be a slave.
Also, if you bothered reading the Sunnah, which I'm sure you'll claim you did, you'll know that enslaving enemies, specifically infidels (everyone other than Christians and Jews) is a form of punishment for them and as a humiliation for not believing in god.
This is why so many Muslim rulers enslaved tons of people in India.
Yeah and if I was Sunni Muslim I can ignore them.
International Islamic councils don't matter. What do you think just because they're international they matter?
To the 100s of millions following their words, yes, they do matter.
Also, they're the ones in power and applying the religion in many areas.
No I'm not. I, unlike you, understand that there are no literal barriers that prevent people from changing ideologies or coming up with their own ideas. You are so caught up in thinking people act exactly like how their ideology is and you refuse to admit that liberal Sunnis are following their own interpretation.
1- Depends on what you qualify as a barrier, does being ruled an apostate or a heretic and murdered for it count as a barrier?
Some Sunnis being liberal doesn't mean that the Sunnah and the Quran became liberal, it just means they're not following it.
I've heard this argument a million times so far about how there are liberal Sunnis followed by calls not to mistaken Islam for Muslims. Which I totally agree with, don't mistake Islam for Muslims.
Some liberal Muslims existing doesn't change the fact that Islam is horrible.
I'm not just talking about now, I'm talking historically.
And that shouldn't matter to you if you are interested in theology.
Sufis were always a minority, now and historically.
Maybe you should figure out why it's easier to be a Sufi as a Sunni compared to being Shia.
Because at the core of Shia Islam is the Imama. Sunnis need Sufism, Shias have other options to follow, which is why even amongst sects that has the Imama, there are so many divisions.
---------------------------------------------------
Let's see.
Yasir Qadhi's Criticism of Salafism
1) Its relegation of theology to the mainly abstract and theoretical doctrines tangential to the message of Islam, to the point that abstract theology and man-made creeds eclipse each and every other aspect of Islam.
2) An unfounded hesitation in embracing tazkiya al-nafs and little interest in spiritual development. It is an undeniable reality that, as a whole, the Salafī movement has failed to emphasize proper spirituality, or tazkiya al-nafs. Yet, this is a Qur’anic concept, one that has unanimously consensus over – for what exactly is iḥsān in the famous ḥadīth of Jibrīl except tazkiya al-nafs? The Salafī preoccupation with advanced sciences such as jarḥ wa-l-tadīl over the basic need of spiritual purification explains the phenomenon of ‘Salafī-burnout’, an observable trend of Salafīs forsaking Salafism and either adopting another Islamic trend (typically Sufism, which shows what they were ‘missing’ from Salafism), or leaving practicing Islam altogether.
I agree with this part. But, nonetheless, it is irrelevant simply because you're arguing about reforming the religion while this is arguing about spirituality and faith.
Noting, that this isn't a criticism of the teachings themselves (i.e. the Sunnah) but a criticism of the people applying them, so it doesn’t support your argument.
3) A characteristic harshness evidenced in its treatment of other, non-Salafī, Muslims.
Salafīs believe in their salvific exclusivity.[17] Such an attitude clearly breeds a level of arrogance and conceit amongst lay-Salafīs, and is reminiscent of (but not identical to) religious conceit manifested in the Khārijīs.
This also explains the disproportionate focus on identifying deviants and deviation, which has lead to an absurd result of some Salafī laymen knowing more about deviant beliefs than correct ones. The Madkhalīs are the quintessential example of this: any recent convert to Islam from amongst them will be able to recite a list of names of scholars ‘on’ or ‘off’ the Salafī manhaj, but will be hard-pressed to mention as many names of Companions; they will know the ‘ruling on greeting a deviant’ but remain ignorant of the adhkār for the morning and evening. Unfortunately this is not exclusive to the Madkhalī-Salafīs. The question the movement needs to ask itself is: Is Islam about obsessively investigating the errors of others, or is it about becoming a role model for the promotion of good? “Fortunate is the one who is busy with his own defects, rather than those of others” (Musnad al-Bazzar).
Again, not a criticism of the teachings, but rather of those who apply it.
4) Many Salafī trends adopt an extremist position regarding bidʿa and mubtadʿis. This has led to them being mocked by other Muslims – even lay-Muslims recognize that it is ultra-literalistic to consider carpets with prayer lines in the mosque a religious heresy!
An extremist and literalistic position. Ok.
So he agrees that they're applying the Quran and the Sunnah, good to know.
5) Mistaken priorities. The Prophet Muḥammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said, “Focus on that which benefits you!” For some Salafīs, success is tantamount to refuting ‘deviants’. They revel in writing lots of refutations against people, warning people from associating with ‘deviants’ and using aggressively harsh language to correct people.
Here I disagree on this assumption.
They do see benefit for themselves in doing so as they see themselves a part of a greater Islamic nation (Ummah) and as such whatever benefits the nation, including pushing away its enemies or silencing its critics, benefits them as well.
6) The Salafī treatment of women. By and large, the modern Salafī movement relegates women to a level that might justly be considered inhumane.
True, which is what you get when you apply the Quran and the Sunnah.
The Quran itself says that a woman is worth less than a man and inferior to men.
The Quran is also where the permission to beat women comes from. (Mentioned literally)
(وَاللَّاتِي تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَاهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِي الْمَضَاجِعِ وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ)
7) Unquestioning allegiance to a group of ‘senior scholars’ that serve as final arbiters on all matters. For a movement that claims to champion free-thinking and eschew blind-following, it is sad that most Salafīs are sectarian and narrow-minded about following the ‘Kibar’ (senior scholars).
So, basically he's criticizing for doing as the prophet said they must do which is follow him and his companions?
”خَيْرُ النَّاسِ قَرْنِي، ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ، ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ“
------------------------------------------------
Scholars from Al-Azhar University of Cairo produced a work of religious opinions entitled al-Radd (The Response) to refute the views of the Salafi movement.[186] Al-Radd singles out numerous Salafi aberrations – in terms of ritual prayer alone it targets for criticism the following Salafi claims:[187]
1. The claim that it is prohibited to recite God's name during the minor ablution [Fatwa 50]
2. The claim that it is obligatory for men and women to perform the major ablution on Friday [Fatwa 63]
3. The claim that it is prohibited to own a dog for reasons other than hunting [Fatwa 134]
4. The claim that it is prohibited to use alcohol for perfumes [Fatwa 85].
All are foro', not relevant to my argument.
Also, much of the teachings groups like ISIS applies are taught in Al-Azhar, so don’t try to use them as a source for “Liberalizing the religion”, they aren’t. They just disagree on some Foro’, yet agree on all of the Osol, since neither would touch.
One of the authors of al-Radd, the Professor of Law Anas Abu Shady states that, "they [the Salafis] want to be everything to everyone. They're interested not only in the evident (al-zahir), although most of their law goes back to the Muhalla [of the Ẓāhirī scholar Ibn Hazm], but they also are convinced that they alone understand the hidden (al-batin)!"[188]
True, they do indeed do that.
But yet again, the people they kill are rarely ever killed for hidden infidelity, rather either an action that was deemed a crime in either the Quran or the Sunnah, or a declared abandonment of religion (i.e. apostasy).
So this point is, yet again, irrelevant.
"derive their theological premises from the intolerant Puritanism of the Wahhabi and Salafi creeds".
Ooh, look, even the liberal Muslims you like to cite understands this.
Puritanism.
Puritanism based on what exactly @Palmyrene ?
He also suggests that the extreme intolerance and even endorsement of terrorism manifest in Wahhabism and Salafism represents a deviation from Muslim historical traditions.
Disagree.
If we looked at their actions and compared it to Islamic history, they're the return to Islamic historical tradition, not the deviation from it.
I'm sure the apologists will now claim that history is falsified to make Islam look bad now.
According to the As-Sunnah Foundation of America, the Salafi and Wahhabi movements are strongly opposed by a long list of Sunni scholars.[192] The Saudi government has been criticized for damaging the Islamic heritage of thousands of years in Saudi Arabia. For example, there has been some controversy that the expansion projects of the mosque and Mecca itself are causing harm to early Islamic heritage. Many ancient buildings, some more than a thousand years old, have been demolished to make room not only for the expansion of the Masjid al-Haram, but for new malls and hotels.[193][194][195][196][197] Though some Salafis who attended a lecture by The City Circle in the UK, were equally as opposed to it as other Muslims.[198] The Salafi movement has been linked by Marc Sageman to some terrorist groups around the world, like Al-Qaeda.[199]
Yet again, not relevant to the teachings or the discussion.
Salafis are accused of having a double-standard on their views on innovation, rejecting good innovations and unwittingly accepting harmful ones. Classical scholars (including imam Nawawi, who is widely praised by Salafis[202][203]) categorized innovation into 5 types, yet Salafis consider all innovation to be sinful. This creates a strange paradox where they unwittingly accept some innovations and reject others. The compilation of the Qur'an under Abu Bakr's caliphate was an innovation, yet is accepted by Orthodox Muslims as an obligatory innovation to preserve the Qur'an. The notorious Salafi creed, which divides tawhid into 3 types, is itself an innovation which leads to liberal excommunication, prolific accusations of shirk, and violence against other Muslims.[204][205]
Now this is a point I heard so many times from Muslims in the US, yet never heard it from ones in the Middle East.
See, the reason why you see such criticism coming from offshoots far away yet never near the major centers is because all the centers accept that you can only innovate in the Foro', but not in the Osol.
And trying to innovate in the Osol, according to the Quran, is punishable by excommunication and death, and eventually hell. According to the Quran, not any scholar, The Quran. This is mentioned clearly in the Quran and I've put a long list of verses saying this the last time.
And it says clearly that the verses are clear and understandable:
الر تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ وَقُرْآنٍ مُبِينٍ
طس تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْقُرْآنِ وَكِتَابٍ مُبِينٍ
وَمَا عَلَّمْنَاهُ الشِّعْرَ وَمَا يَنْبَغِي لَهُ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا ذِكْرٌ وَقُرْآنٌ مُبِينٌ
وَإِذَا تُتْلَى عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُنَا بَيِّنَاتٍ قَالَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَرْجُونَ لِقَاءَنَا ائْتِ بِقُرْآنٍ غَيْرِ هَذَا أَوْ بَدِّلْهُ قُلْ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أُبَدِّلَهُ مِنْ تِلْقَاءِ نَفْسِي إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَى إِلَيَّ إِنِّي أَخَافُ إِنْ عَصَيْتُ رَبِّي عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ
وَكَذَلِكَ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَنْ يُرِيدُ
سُورَةٌ أَنْزَلْنَاهَا وَفَرَضْنَاهَا وَأَنْزَلْنَا فِيهَا آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ
Although Salafist claim to re-establish Islamic values and protects Islamic culture, sociological observations show that they often interpret it in a manner which does not match with Islamic traditions, with some members of the movement regarding inherit elements of Islamic culture, such as music, poetry, literature and philosophy as works of the devil.[200] Generally, Salafis do not adhere to traditional Islamic communities, and those who do, often oppose the traditional Islamic values.[201]
This is clearly false and bullshit.
One, the prophet is the one who've banned much of these things. And two, these teachings have been clearly observed to be applied in various Islamic empires, with the Ummayad caliphate, under Omar bin Abed Al Aziz, the one who is considered to be the 5th rightly guided caliph by the Sunnis, applying these teachings to the letter.
So if anything, they're abiding by Islamic tradition. Simply not the modern one, but the old one. (i.e. the one where all the major characters of Islam lived in)
----------------------------------------------------------
For more evidence that it's up to interpretation, I was reading this article of Wikipedia named Hijab by country. When I was reading about Malaysia in the "Muslim World" section, I stumbled upon this-
Several members of the Kelantan ulama in the 1960s believed the hijab was not mandatory. By 2015 the Malaysian ulama believed this previous 'fatwa' was un-Islamic.
It’s really surprising that now, you will face criticism & judgement from local people for not covering your hair! Like this newswhere a man slapped a girl in bus only because she didn’t wear headscarf, or like this, where this Malaysian actress had to apologise to the public for removing hijab, or this woman who was also criticised heavily for removing headscarf. Or like this guy who is a celebrity, but he caned his 9 year old daughter because the little girl took her hijab off in front of men. But 50 years ago from now, things were different, & even there were scholars who believed it as a tradition, not something obligatory for a muslim woman!
The Hijab is based on a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari which says that a woman can only show her face and her hands while must cover everything else up.
So, there is a reason why they called it un-Islamic. It's in direct opposition to what the prophet and God says.
Regarding Hijab:
وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَى عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ وَلا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعاً أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ
وَالْقَوَاعِدُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ اللَّاتِي لا يَرْجُونَ نِكَاحاً فَلَيْسَ عَلَيْهِنَّ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ يَضَعْنَ ثِيَابَهُنَّ غَيْرَ مُتَبَرِّجَاتٍ بِزِينَةٍ وَأَنْ يَسْتَعْفِفْنَ خَيْرٌ لَهُنَّ وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
عن ابن شهاب أن أنسا قال : أنا أعلم الناس بالحجاب كان أبي بن كعب يسألني عنه : أصبح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عروساً بزينب بنت جحش وكان تزوجها بالمدينة فدعا الناس للطعام بعد ارتفاع النهار فجلس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وجلس معه رجال بعد ما قام القوم حتى قام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فمشى ومشيت معه حتى بلغ باب حجرة عائشة ثم ظن أنهم خرجوا فرجعت معه فإذا هم جلوس مكانهم فرجع ورجعت معه الثانية حتى بلغ باب حجرة عائشة فرجع ورجعت معه فإذا هم قد قاموا فضرب بيني وبينه سترا وأنزل الحجاب . رواه البخاري ( 5149 ) ومسلم ( 1428 ) .
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ
It's mentioned clearly.
If you reject what the prophet says or think parts of the Quran can be nullified or changed, congrats, you’re now a Shi’a. Because to be a Sunni is to believe in the Sunnah. That’s what the word means.
Also, fun fact, this is why groups like ISIS and the Taliban treat regular Muslims so badly. When you reject the Sunnah or even parts of it, you’re no longer a Sunni. They derive this not from an offshoot scholar, but from the Quran that tells them to follow the Sunnah. So if you don’t abide by it, you’ll be considered and treated as if you are just another stray sect. Basically, a Shiite.
من يطع الرّسول فقد أطاع الله
يـا أيّها الّذين أمنوا أطيعوا الله وأطيعوا الرّسول
-------------------------------------------------------------
Also here are official rape statistics:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
Egypt isn't even on there and the figures of South Africa and Egypt are estimated, they aren't the actual amount of rapes.
Yeah most of these rapes go unreported but your claims are still wrong. Egypt isn't the rape capital of the world.
Addressed prior.
-----------------------------------------------
Here is another scholar who is outside the establishment and engages with independent thought in regards to the Quran:
Outside the establishment. Debunked your own argument before I even responded to it. What a shame.
Anyways, let's see.
1. to trace the various interpretations and historical settings of the single Qur'anic text from the early days of Islam up to the present;
2. to demonstrate the "interpretational diversity" (al-ta 'addud alta 'wili) [40] that exists within the Islamic tradition;
3. and to show how this diversity has been "increasingly neglected" across Islamic history.[3]
Now, the fact that you actually went ahead and quoted this just shows how much you don't understand the ideology.
Those interpretational diversities are what we call Shi'a sects.
Abu Zayd saw himself as an heir to the Muʿtazila, "particularly their idea of the created Qurʿān and their tendency toward metaphorical interpretation."[8]
Abu Zayd strongly opposed the belief in a "single, precise and valid interpretation of the Qur'an handed down by the Prophet for all times".[41]
Man, seriously, did you read it before quoting it?
This is an example of what major Sunni scholars think of the Mu'tazala, a commonly held view:
قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى: أصولهم -يعني المعتزلة - خمسة يسمونها التوحيد والعدل والمنزلة بين المنزلتين وإنفاذ الوعيد والأمر بالمعروف والنهى عن المنكر.
لكن معنى التوحيد عندهم يتضمن نفى الصفات... وهذا إنما هو إلحاد في أسماء الله وآياته، ومعنى العدل عندهم يتضمن التكذيب بالقدر، وهو خلق أفعال العباد، وإرادة الكائنات والقدرة على شيء...
وأما المنزلة بين المنزلتين فهي عندهم أن الفاسق لا يسمى مؤمنا بوجه من الوجوه كما لا يسمى كافرا، فنزلوه بين منزلتين، وإنفاذ الوعيد عندهم معناه أن فساق الملة مخلدون في النار لا يخرجون منها بشفاعة ولا غير ذلك كما تقوله الخوارج. والأمر بالمعروف والنهى عن المنكر يتضمن عندهم جواز الخروج على الأئمة وقتالهم بالسيف
قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى: وأما القدرية المقرون بالعلم و الروافض الذين ليسوا من الغالية والجهمية والخوارج فيذكر عنه يعني الإمام أحمد في تكفيرهم روايتان هذا حقيقة قوله المطلق مع أن الغالب عليه التوقف عن تكفير القدرية المقرين بالعلم. ثم قال: وأصل ضلال هؤلاء الإعراض عما جاء به الرسول من الكتاب والحكمة وابتغاء الهدى في خلاف ذلك، فمن كان هذا أصله فهو بعد بلاغ الرسالة كافر لا ريب فيه... إلى أن قال:
فهذا الكلام يمهد أصلين عظيمين:
أحدهما: أن العلم والإيمان والهدى فيما جاء به الرسول، وأن خلاف ذلك كفر على الإطلاق، فنفي الصفات كفر والتكذيب بأن الله يرى في الآخرة أو أنه على العرش أو أن القرآن كلامه... كفر وكذلك ما كان في معنى ذلك وهذا معنى كلام أئمة السنة وأهل الحديث.
و الأصل الثاني: أن التكفير العام كالوعيد العام يجب القول بإطلاقه وعمومه.
وأما الحكم على المعين بأنه كافر أو مشهود له بالنار فهذا يقف على الدليل المعين فإن الحكم يقف على ثبوت شروطه وانتفاء موانعه
They are not considered Sunnis. Which is what I keep telling you again and again.
If you started a school of thought and diverged from the Sunnah, you become to be considered a Shi'a.
This is what these two terms (Sunni, Shi'a) means.
From the beginning of his academic career, Abu Zaid developed a renewed hermeneutic view (the theory and methodology of text interpretation) of the Qur'an and further Islamic holy texts, arguing that they should be interpreted in the historical and cultural context of their time. The mistake of many Muslim scholars was "to see the Qur'an only as a text, which led conservatives as well as liberals to a battle of quotations, each group seeing clear verses (when on their side) and ambiguous ones (when in contradiction with their vision)". But this type of controversy led both conservatives and liberals to produce authoritative hermeneutics.[44] This vision of the Qur'an as a text was the vision of the elites of Muslim societies, whereas, at the same time, the Qur'an as "an oral discourse" played the most important part in the understanding of the masses.
Nasr Abu Zayd called for another reading of the holy book through a "humanistic hermeneutics", an interpretation which sees the Qur'an as a living phenomenon, a discourse. Hence, the Qur'an can be "the outcome of dialogue, debate, despite argument, acceptance and rejection". This liberal interpretation of Islam should open space for new perspectives on the religion and social change in Muslim societies.[44]
Abu Zayd's analysis finds several "insistent calls for social justice" in the Qur'an . One example is when Muhammad—busy preaching to the rich people of Quraysh—failed to pay attention to a poor blind fellow named Ibn Umm Maktūm who came asking the Prophet for advice. The Quran strongly criticizes Muhammad's attitude. (Quran 80:10) [45][44]
Abu Zayd also argued that while the Qur'anic discourse was built in a patriarchal society, and therefore the addressees were naturally males, who received permission to marry, divorce, and marry off their female relatives, it is "possible to imagine that Muslim women receive the same rights", and so the Quran had a "tendency to improve women's rights". The classical position of the modern 'ulamā' about that issue is understandable as "they still believe in superiority of the male in the family".[44]
Abu Zayd's critical approach to classical and contemporary Islamic discourse in the fields of theology, philosophy, law, politics, and humanism, promoted modern Islamic thought that might enable Muslims to build a bridge between their own tradition and the modern world of freedom of speech, equality (minority rights, women's rights, social justice), human rights, democracy and globalisation.
So all it says is that the tradition followed by the mainstream, which we're discussing, does exist and attempts to publicize a renewed liberal version on the fringes outside the established norms.
Got it.
How does any of this support your argument about the Quran and the Sunnah?
Or is your argument that there can be other interpretations outside the mainstream that diverges from the original text (i.e. What Shi'a sects are)?
NOTE:
Also, regarding the verses in the Quran that appear to contradict each other, if you followed the Sunnah, which if you are a devout Sunni Muslim you would, you’d know that the prophet stated that the newer verses nullify the older ones.
So if you came up with a verse from the times of Mekka, and it was contradicted by one in the times of Medina, you take the newer one, not the old one.
This is the mainstream tradition, based on the Sunnah of the prophet.
This is also why so many calls for reform in the Middle East fall on deaf ears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another Algerian reformist, Mohammed Arkoun:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Arkoun
Arkoun advocated a radical paradigm shift that would allow for the rethinking of Islam as a cultural and religious system and subvert ideological and dogmatic constructs with hegemonic claims. He was committed to contribute to an archaeology of the hidden, repressed, and marginalised elements of Islam, in order to uncover, and set free, what he called, 'the exhaustive tradition' of Islam. Most of his work is written in French rather than Arabic. In order to counter-act the philological and historical bias of traditional Islamic studies, he advocated what he called “applied Islamology”—following Roger Bastide’s concept of “applied anthropology.” Applied Islamology aims to establish a “disciplinary space between political and historical sciences” (Arkoun, The answers, 25), taking into consideration elements of the courte and longue durée, as well as contemporary social factors. Arkoun has developed an inclusive approach which seeks to deal with Islamic tradition in its entirety, including elements characterised by the representatives of orthodoxy (or official religion) as heterodox, and therefore marginalised and repressed. He has adopted a multifaceted and holistic approach which looks between traditional dogma and axioms. Arkoun’s critique of Islamic reason serves as the unifying theme, or leitmotif for the different concepts he elaborated over the course of time.[2]
And yet another one trying to establish a new school of thought, not change the mainstream.
And let me note that all of these scholars have Sunni backgrounds or are Sunni.
And all Shi'a sects were at some point Sunnis, until they diverged enough to become their own sect.
I'm not sure if you understand this point yet, it’s key.
-----------------------------------------
For the first point, the Quran does not mention even once it is the last book, final version etc. The closest we have is Ch 33 Vs 40 which calls Muhammad ‘the seal of the prophets’. Interestingly here, the word ‘last’ (aakhir) is not used either and in early Islam, ‘seal’ was used to mean the perfection of prophethood.
It does in the Sunnah, saying it has completed religion, and if you follow the Sunnah (the collection of Hadiths, i.e. what the term Sunnis refer to, the followers of the Sunnah).
It also mentions there won’t be any more prophets in the Sunnah, so if you follow it, that's it.
Unless you want to follow the Imama which does say that the religion is not complete, and it will only be fully completed with Al-Mehdi. But that wont make you a Sunni, it'll make you a Twelver Shi'a.
Second, on the Jews and Christians having corrupted books. Once again this is not present in the text. I suspect you may be thinking of commentaries about certain verses which ultimately became common belief.
I don't recall which verse of the Quran, nor do I have time to search it, but there are several verses and hadiths saying that Jews and Christians corrupted their books with more hadiths than verses as in most occasions, and it also says the god will preserve the Quran and make it unchanging. In the Quran it says that BTW, several times, over and over again.
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِالذِّكْرِ لَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ وَإِنَّهُ لَكِتَابٌ عَزِيزٌ . لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِنْ بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنْزِيلٌ مِنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ
This is to a point mentioned elsewhere, the second verse says there wont be any more books.
Thirdly, I have also never seen any verses warning the Prophet about changing the meaning at all. I am not thinking literally by using the word ‘meaning’ (al-ma’ana) but even a similar meaning. It does tell the Prophet to seek out knowledge before making any decision about what he is uncertain of.
This is what is called Ijtihad and Qiyas. They have rules, and they're based on the Quran.
And there are verses saying you can’t change the Quran and what’s the punishment for that. I quoted them the last time.
For me, the Quran is against absolutist thinking because of what I call ‘ontology of signs’.
I'm sure the Quran agrees, right after God said not to take his words in vain and not to change them and follow the laws of God (Hudud, حدود), and promised eternity in hell for anyone who tries to do so, he changed his mind and said it's all alright.
What this means is, in the world of the Quran, readers come to know reality by virtue of signs (ayaat). This word appears in the Quran about 300 odd times, and if you analyse its usage, it is very personal in nature. People experience signs, and they either believe or not. Hence it is impossible to elicit someone else’s experience of signs. That’s why I would never call a person “kaafir” (concealer of signs, essentially).
This part is just bullshit.
Ayat, in most mentioned, means verses, not signs.
On occasion, it will be mentioned in context where it will mean a miracle or something of massive significance.
The Quran does not say everyone will have their own, or that it’ll mean something different for everyone. It explicitly says it is universal and easy to understand when it comes to the Hudud, which are the main issue here, and obligates everyone to follow them.
Why the fuck else would 100s of millions of people read it and come up with the exact same thing? Could it possibly be because it uses very clear and straight forward language in the Hudud, or as commonly referred to, Osol?
Furthermore, the Quran’s own verses testify to its sanctification of diversity. For example, 29/69 uses the word ‘subulana’ (our paths) rather than the singular. 2/148 mentions that each of us has an expression to which God turns us. 5/48 mentions that each of us has a disclosure and a method.
And this part in specific shows what an idiot whom ever wrote this.
God refers to hemself in plural all over the Quran as a sign of his majesty, and it's a common curtsy in the Arabic language to refer to people in the plural noun to show respect for their rank and significance.
Infact, I'd go further, whom ever wrote this probably never heard or read any speech or decree made in any Arabic country, both Islamic and non-Islamic, present or past.
-----------------------------------------------
And finally:
The abolition movement starting in the 19th century in England[92] and later in other Western countries influenced the slavery in Muslim lands both in doctrine and in practice.[5] One of the first religious decrees comes from the two highest dignitaries of the Hanafi and Maliki rites in the Ottoman Empire. These religious authorities declared that slavery is lawful in principle but it is regrettable in its consequences. They expressed two religious considerations in their support for abolition of slavery: "the initial enslaving of the people concerned comes under suspicion of illegality by reason of the present-day expansion of Islam in their countries; masters no longer comply with the rules of good treatment which regulate their rights and shelter them from wrong-doing."[93]
Here it debunks your own argument, saying that it is lawful in Islam, and holding the lack of compliance by masters with the rules of slavery as an excuse to abolish it.
Now, this is a good thing in the end because it resulted in its end, partially atleast. But it still says that it is infact lawful, which means the minute when some group wants to go back to the old texts, like, I don't know, Salafis, they'll also see it as lawful and apply it.
Must be why countries ruled by Salafis are paradises of anti-slavery tendencies in the modern day, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar for example.
According to Brunschvig, although the total abolition of slavery might seem a reprehensible innovation and contrary to the Qur'an and the practice of early Muslims, the realities of the modern world caused a "discernible evolution in the thought of many educated Muslims before the end of the 19th century." These Muslims argued that Islam on the whole has "bestowed an exceptionally favourable lot on the victims of slavery" and that the institution of slavery is linked to the particular economic and social stage in which Islam originated. According to the influential thesis of Ameer Ali, Islam only tolerated slavery through temporary necessity and that its complete abolition was not possible at the time of Muhammad. By the early 20th century, the idea that Islam only tolerated slavery due to necessity was to varying extent taken up by the Ulema. However, it was unable to gain support among the Wahhabis as of 1980s.
So, this part supports my argument, not yours.
According to Brockopp, in the Ottoman empire and elsewhere the manumission contract (kitaba) was used by the state to give slaves the means to buy their freedom and thereby end slavery as an institution. Some authorities issued condemnations of slavery, stating that it violated Quranic ideals of equality and freedom. Subsequently, even religious conservatives came to accept that slavery was contrary to Islamic principles of justice and equality.[94]
Here we have two points:
1- The reason why this practice was done is because they, unlike you, understood that Islam doesn't prevent slavery and the only way for a Muslim slave, not any slave but only a Muslim one, to become free is to buy his\her freedom as it's not automatic.
And
2- The reason why Wikipedia only works when it comes to basic facts and numbers and the sorts, not theological or philosophical claims, is because Wikipedia is freely edited.
In this paragraph it says "Quranic Ideals of equality and freedom", those don't exist in the Quran; In fact, the Quran make explicit class and hierarchal distinctions between men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims, so no equality. It also makes very clear punishments for many acts including thought crimes (i.e. like twisting the Quran, or leaving the religion, etc), so, not free.
It also says "some authorities", I wonder why not name them? Ooh, that's right, only fringe religious authorities decree such things, not major ones.
Furthermore, it says that even conservatives came to this conclusion. Are you sure about that?
Conservatives came to reject slavery? Like those conservatives in the Gulf states? Those reject slavery?
And how come they "reject" slavery when it was only abolished under international pressure in the 60s?
How come they need international pressure to abolish something that they reject in the first place?
How about the various Imams and scholars who came out in the early years of the Syrian civil war decreeing that it's ok to take Syrian refugee girls as Molk Al yameen, i.e. sex slaves, to improve their conditions as they were left without anything and would be "better off" like that. Something that was in debate in the Jordanian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti media in the past few years. Are those the conservatives who reject slavery?
----------------------------------------------------------------
So you're wrong.
Everyone you cited is either in the fringes and not mainstream, or trying to establish a new school of thought like many before have done (i.e. where all those Shi'a sects came from), or a propagandist that seems very obvious he\she never bothered reading the Quran and the Sunnah, to a point where if they made their claims near religious authorities they'll be labeled heretics or apostates and killed, like many have before them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to address the bullshit you say about me. Which, either comes from you straight lying or simply forgetting or not understanding what is being said.
Anasawad is making the claim that Muslims are incapable of reform and that Salafism is a phenomenon due to Islam and not state sponsorship.
I didn't say Muslims are incapable of reform. I clearly stated dozens of times that there can be reform.
And those who do reform the religion and establish a new school of thought are what people usually refer to as Shi'a.
Salafism predates current states, and started with the people not from the state.
And you'll keep seeing these types of movements rising up again and again in Sunni Islam because even if 90% of Sunnis were liberal, that last 10% will look at the Quran and the Sunnah and say here you go, this is god's words and apply it.
There is no mechanism in the Sunnah to change the foundations of religion. And anyone who follows the Sunnah will end up pretty much with the same behavior as we currently see in the likes of ISIS. Because they're not bringing anything new, they're just applying what the Quran and the Sunnah are saying.
In short, anasawad thinks ideology governs humsn behavior while I think socio-economic conditions govern human behavior.
WTF are you talking about? are you really saying that you got absolutely nothing from all this talk?
There can be all sorts of circumstances for a person and he\she can choose among many many lines of thinking or ideologies to follow, but when they follow an ideology and apply it, they'll get the same results as others had when they followed that ideology.
If a 1000 different communities with a 1000 different set of conditions decided to adopt the idea of abolishing private property and apply it; Guess what, they'll all end up with no private property, because it's the same fucking idea.
And if a 1000 different communities with a 1000 different set of conditions decided to adopt and apply the Quran and the Sunnah, they'll all look very similar because it's the same ideas.
Anasawad, and TTP before him, weren't talking about only Salafists but Muslims in general.
I am talking about Sunni Islam, not Muslims in general, and Salafis are applying Sunni Islam to the letter.
They think that the Quran itself condones those actions when, in actuality, this is far from the case.
It does, in very clear and straight forward words.
All the things ISIS and the Taliban and Saudi Arabia, etc does, there is a very clear verse in the Quran that each of their actions are based on.
And it's ironic that you cited someone who criticizes them for applying the Quran to the letter, then here saying that the Quran doesn't say that at all.
The Quran, like all religious texts, are open to interpretation by default because all of it's rules are arbitrary.
Not only there are rules for interpretation, in Sunni tradition that is, but there are limitations on those interpretations.
And not only that, but the Osol come from straight and clear verses.
Like this for example:
يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِنْ نَفْعِهِمَا وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَفَكَّرُونَ
They ask you on Alcohol and gamling, tell them there is a great sin in it.
or this:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ
About the same topic.
How much is that open for interpretation?
It's a very clear and straight forward language, there isn't much, if any, room for interpretation here.
See, this is why these types of "re-interpret" the Quran things generally come from the west and not from the centers of Islam in the Arab world. You, and most other western Muslims, seem to think that mainstream Islam is just like Christianity, entirely open for interpretation and all of that. It's not.
The bible and the Tanakh are filled with stories, you interpret stories. The rules in the Quran are not based on stories or told through stories and common sayings, they're told in direct and clear language.
Heck, if you looked at the verses where there are bans or terms told, it even avoids big words in it, confining to the simplest and easiest words to understand that everyone knows, strictly to avoid this whole interpretation debacle.
There is a reason why the sects that does major reforms are all sects who has a mechanism to change or nullify the Quran in them, and all either abandon the Sunnah completely or nullify a huge part of it.
Furthermore, the Quran, according to Islamic faith, is not arbitrary, rather it is the direct word of god.
There is a reason why even sects that do reform does this either by nullifying parts of it or bringing new parts without changing existing ones.
The problem is that Salafism is being supported by and exported by the Saudi government and, due to being a US backed dictatorship, it has the freedom abd resources to build those times.
These movements existed before either Saudi Arabia or the US even existed.
In local levels personal interpretation is generally how people deal with Islam on a daily basis. It's only the elites and state sponsered imams that impose these draconic laws on the population.
More accurately, it's on the local and personal levels on which people avoid the religion and don't apply it.
When a Muslim opens an Alcohol store for example, he\she isn't "reforming" Islam, he's just not applying it.