@ DD
Ok assuming this is common sense...how can we use what happened during the Meccan phase to derive a ruling? especially when events that contradict this happened during the medinan phase?
We have to look at the final product...It would be like saying there is no jihad in Islam because any kind of fighting was prohibited during the meccan phase.
It would be like using the verse
"O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say, ..." (4:43)
to say that Muslims are allowed to drink alchohol as long as it wasn't during prayers.
It appears you did NOT read the verses I listed, nor did you read the conversation from the beginning. No matter, could you please tell me, how would Muslim women running away from their PAGAN husbands seek refuge with Muslims, without Muslims having their own place of refuge? Clearly the verses were revealed in MEDINA! Muslim women were leaving their PAGAN husbands and seeking refuge in Medina. Now, the least I would expect from a God who allows enslaving non-combatants is to order the Muslims to ignore the pagan husbands and laugh at them... Instead, God ordered them to pay them back, to recompensate them, to give money to pagan ex-husbands since they lost their wives to Islam. If God wouldn't even so much as allow Muslims to marry fleeing, willing women, without recompensating their husbands, how would He allow Muslims to sleep with non-combatants.
By the way, I did discuss these verses with some *slavery-happy Muslims* and they got really upset, because it contradicts some other Hadith/historical accounts... I also did show them the pact of Umar (posted a few pages back).. I also shown them what Abu Bakr said when he conqured Syria:
In the land you will invade kill neither the aged, nor the little child, nor the woman. Do not force the stylite from his high perch and do not harass the solitary. They have devoted themselves to the service of God. Do not cut down any fruit-tree, neither damage any crop, neither maim any domestic animal, large or small. Wherever you are welcomed by a city or a people, make a solemn pact with them and give them reliable guarantees that they will be ruled according to their laws and according to the practices which obtained among them before our time. They will contract with you to pay in tribute whatever sum shall be settled between you, then they will be left alone in their confession and in their country. But as for those who do not welcome you, make war on them. Be careful to abide by all the just laws and commandments which have been given to you by God through our prophet, lest you excite the wrath of God.That was all very depressing to those Muslims I was discussing these things with, in the end, of course, being the self-deifying thugs that they are, they chose the other contradicory accounts because it nurtures their false sense of superamacy.
I agree totally. But when someone shows you a ruling you don't like you accuse the person who made the ruling of "having a peanut sized brain"
If a hadith doesn't fall in line with your way of thinking you dismiss it as a lie.
You have some really interesting views but what you are saying amounts to this....
"All the muslims in history have misunderstood the religion and were doing it wrong. I'm the only one who understands it properly."
Are you referring to the other thread? where I shown you a verse that says Muslims shouldn't kill those who mock the Quran, only stay away from them until they change the subject (a Medinan verse)? Why are you brininging this here?
Anyway, if you have two sources of information: Source A says kill those who insult Islam! Source B says just stay away from them until they hange the subject... which one would you pick? It depends on your biases, right? Same with me... I'm inclined to believe Source B, especially that Source B, not only maches my bias, it is also the Quranic source on this. But then again, if there are fanatics, self-worshipping Muslims (or non-Muslims) who prefer Source A, then so be it, everyone is entitled to their own biases, but it's kind of weird to expect me that I'd go with Source A just because you believe it's the proper ruling on this when Source B contradicts it completely and there is really no reason to believe A is more authentic than B (will, in fact, the Quran takes precednce over any other source, but hey, I won't even hold that against anyone who chooses source A).
As for Muslims being somehow united on choosing Source A, so what? Many wrongs don't make a right (6:116). If it helps inflate their fucking ego, so be it, as long as they don't impose their crazy views upon me.
Topic: Peace, All