Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 03:56 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 03:05 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 11:44 AM

Coronavirus crisis
Yesterday at 10:10 AM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 02:32 AM

Freely down loadable Boo...
Yesterday at 02:02 AM

Is Iran/Persia going to b...
November 24, 2022, 05:33 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2022, 04:09 PM

hindus in India beat A M...
November 20, 2022, 03:10 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
November 20, 2022, 03:02 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 20, 2022, 02:14 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
November 19, 2022, 08:32 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams

 (Read 36095 times)
  • 12 3 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     OP - June 29, 2014, 04:37 AM

    16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

    4:79-80 Say: ‘Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

    17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe.... Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

    24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

    88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

    42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

    64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

    28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

    39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

    67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."


    As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authority to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.

    The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themselves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else's right.

    Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It’s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It’s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the prophet’s wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.

    The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.

    In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.

    However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile. The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.

    But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostate. That’s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. Rather than question the hadiths that contradicts the Quran, they abrogated any Quranic verses that contradicted the hadiths. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority (to force people to follow Islam and its commands) was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. According to these sects, God only punishes those who did not get caught and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this concept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

    This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler where he can either let a prisoner go free or order his execution. By creating stories about the prophet, they now can transfer that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. Throughtout Islam's history, Sultans have invaded other territories and imposed taxes and traded in slavery claiming that this is the Sunnah and Shariah. This is all very sad as the taking of someone’s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw. A good example of that is how the sects believe that those who steal should have their hand amputated sometimes for as little as ten dinars. A hand for a hand (proportional justice) became a hand for ten dinars (disproportionate justice).

    To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws abandunatly.  So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial and therefore they tended to avoid them. They knew questions might be raised as to why these laws are not in the Quran etc.

    Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed many aspect of the Sunni/ Shia sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But the clerics also understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder because people expect that capital punishment should be stipulated in the Quran. But this wise tradition was broken. That’s very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

    One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the Sunni/Shia sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That’s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink in the Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that’s very sad.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #1 - June 29, 2014, 07:16 AM

    Quote
    Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It’s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It’s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the prophet’s wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.


    I shall reply specifically to the above. The verse was revealed to absolve Muhammad's wife Aishah after she rebuked him for not believing that, after being slandered, she 'did not have sexual relations with that man' ala Bill Clinton stylee.  Magic verses fell from the sky vindicating Aishah of any sex crime she may have committed and rather conveniently stating that the accuser should bring forward four witnesses or else receive eighty lashes (24:2-5). Sometimes, you don't need four witnesses! How short sighted of Allah and can you imagine the suffering millions of women have endured because of this stupid rule since they could not procure four witnesses to attest to their rape claims?

    There are other verses in the Qur'an that state that a HUSBAND does not need four witnesses since his testimony is worth four men IF he swears by Allah that what he says is true. Additionaly, women can challenge her husbands accusation IF she swears by Allah what she is saying is true. How the hell do you determine this in a court of law? People can still lie.

    Koranic law or Shariah law = stupid law.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #2 - June 29, 2014, 07:22 AM

    Quote
    In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.


    Actually, Allah is the one who abrogated the verses (2: 106). And Muhammad's life story which has been repeated endlessly demonstrates that he routed out the rebels and punished disbelievers.

    The sword verse is not the only one that is calling for violence against non-Muslims or apostates. Unfortunately, since Allah left no footnote to indicate that verses telling Muslims to fight against the kafir until the Day of Judgement were not to be taken literally and not timeless they are used to jsutify atrocities across the globe by the EXTREMISTS whilst the majority of our brothers and sisters in humanity who happen to be Muslim get on with their lives without filling their head with the nonsense of this Holy Book.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #3 - June 29, 2014, 07:28 AM

    Quote
    However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile.


    And what do you think woud've happened if they couldn't pay the Jizya tax?

    No doubt that it was enforced to compensate Muslims for their losses, but didn't the Muslims raid caravans in order to gain goods and compensate themselves? This is stealing, so Muhammad broke a Koranic rule?

    Jizya was also a protection racket ala Al Capone stylee.

    Quote
    The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.


    He accepted rewards in the flesh (what was that Jewess called again?) and was entitled to spoils of war.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #4 - June 29, 2014, 07:37 AM

    Quote
    This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime.


    “The thieves, male and female, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they have earned...” (Quran 5:38)

    “The recompense for those who wage violent transgression against God and His Messenger and who go forth spreading corruption in the Earth is that they should be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet should be cut off on alternate sides or that they should be sent into exile…” (Quran 5:33)

    Oh and did I forget to mention: 'I don't believe in you Allah and that's AFTER reading your Quran and about your Muhammad. I can't reconcile your claims and both the ideological and social  framework you wish to establish.' Consequence: Burn in Hell!!! finmad

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #5 - June 29, 2014, 09:16 AM

    Hi Bigmo, ramadan kareem. Care to introduce yourself? You can start a thread here.

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?board=2.0

     Smiley

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #6 - June 29, 2014, 10:17 AM

    16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

    4:79-80 Say: ‘Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

    17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe.... Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

    24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

    88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

    42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

    64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

    28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

    39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

    67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner."


    As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize.

    Smart,, smart way of highlighting the words in a verse

    Hello Bigmo ., boy it is your first post, a big post, lot of Quran verses and your tafsir  on those verses.,  So glad to read you and glad to see you joining the board but you know you spilled all of your beans and showing all of your cards including that wild card joker in that first  post??

    Suppose if I say,  that you are NOT reading Quran properly(because you are not highlighting proper words in those verses you selected ), would you mind?

    Anyways welcome to CEMB., I read Quran literally more than 10 times and I still read it., you know there is always something new I find in it..

    with best regards
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #7 - June 29, 2014, 12:07 PM

    “The thieves, male and female, cut off their hands as a recompense for what they have earned...” (Quran 5:38)

    “The recompense for those who wage violent transgression against God and His Messenger and who go forth spreading corruption in the Earth is that they should be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet should be cut off on alternate sides or that they should be sent into exile…” (Quran 5:33)

    Oh and did I forget to mention: 'I don't believe in you Allah and that's AFTER reading your Quran and about your Muhammad. I can't reconcile your claims and both the ideological and social  framework you wish to establish.' Consequence: Burn in Hell!!! finmad



    If you read my post I said that the Quran only allowed capital punishment for intentional murder but allowed exiled from community as a lower punishment.

    (26) But recite unto them with truth the tale of the two sons of Adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill thee. (The other) answered: Allah accepteth only from those who ward off (evil). (27) Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. (28) Lo! I would rather thou shouldst bear the punishment of the sin against me and thine own sin and become one of the owners of the fire. That is the reward of evil-doers. (29) But (the other's) mind imposed on him the killing of his brother, so he slew him and became one of the losers. (30) Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother's naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother's naked corpse? And he became repentant. (31) For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. (32) The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; (33) Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


    This is talking about intentional murder. Here the Quran says that whoever intentionally kills another human being without cause it is as if he killed all mankind. Jewish scholars specified this only for the Israelite clan and even allowed disproportionate justice as the verses indicate. A Jewish eye for a thousand gentile eye and a Jewish tooth for a thousand gentile teeth etc. Muslim authorities claimed the verse is talking about highway robbery and such forth. However this is not based on its Quranic context. The Quran here was talking about intentional murder as compare to unintentional murder where it said compensation must be paid but allowed forgiveness especially if the person is poor and unable to pay compensation.

    The verses also allows exile from community as an alternative to capital punishment which in today's world would mean life imprisonment.

    As far as cutting of the hand well in the Quran we are told Joseph's appearance made the women of the town cut their hands. However we do not understand it to be amputation. So I am not sure why people here read the verse as amputation. Anyways Quran only recognizes proportionate justice. So a hand for a hand. If you stole something and inflicted a burden on someone equal to a loss of a hand, than amputation could make sense Quranically. But its hard to see what could equate losing a hand. The punishment should always fit the crime in the Quran. This is known as qist.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #8 - June 29, 2014, 12:33 PM

    I shall reply specifically to the above. The verse was revealed to absolve Muhammad's wife Aishah after she rebuked him for not believing that, after being slandered, she 'did not have sexual relations with that man' ala Bill Clinton stylee.  Magic verses fell from the sky vindicating Aishah of any sex crime she may have committed and rather conveniently stating that the accuser should bring forward four witnesses or else receive eighty lashes (24:2-5). Sometimes, you don't need four witnesses! How short sighted of Allah and can you imagine the suffering millions of women have endured because of this stupid rule since they could not procure four witnesses to attest to their rape claims?

    There are other verses in the Qur'an that state that a HUSBAND does not need four witnesses since his testimony is worth four men IF he swears by Allah that what he says is true. Additionaly, women can challenge her husbands accusation IF she swears by Allah what she is saying is true. How the hell do you determine this in a court of law? People can still lie.

    Koranic law or Shariah law = stupid law.


    The Quran does consider consider adultery as a crime as its infringing one somebody elses right but the verses concerning that topic is mostly concerned about slandering especially when a man slanders a married woman by accusing her of adultery. I think this has to do with the Arab tribal society and their honor killing habits. Slandering women like that can mean deadly for a woman even if its not true. The Quran here does not give the man the right to slander a married without bringing forth 4 witnesses or else he can be held accountable.

    This is the only time the Quran moved away from proportional justice (eye for an eye) to deterence justice. Probably to discourage people from running their mouth about what a woman was doing. Whats interesting here is the Quran is not concerned about whether the person slandering is saying the truth or not but rather to act as a deterence from opening his mouth even if he saw something.  The Quranic verses (chapter 24) about adultery and slandering is an interesting one. As far as how Sunnis interpret verses 4.34 -35 this has to do with some hadiths they use to interpret that verse. But that is not a Quranic understanding. Sunnis believe the verse about adultery (chapter 24) is talking about fornification and not adultery. They introduced another punishment for adultery called rajm, meaning stoning to death. This is not a Quranic concept and violates the soul for a soul argument where capital punishment can only be applied if the person commits intentional murder. Thats the proportional justice I was refering to.The punishment should always fit the crime. But when it came to slandering women the Quran invoked deterence justice. I think Sunni authorities did that (change the verses from adultery to fornification) because than people will say fornification and homosexuality is OK since the Quran only commented on adultery and was silent about anything else. Sunni authorities actually have a hadith that says there was a verse in the Quran about adultery and stoning but it got lost! Most Muslims simply think that stoning adulterers is in the Quran.

    The Quran can not talk about fornification or homosexuality since this is not an infringement on somebody else like adultery where you have a third party. Only when you are infringing on something that belongs to somebody else whether his life, property and spouse will the Quran allow holding people accountable. I am not saying that fronification and homosexuality is OK but I am just saying that people can not be held accountable for it as far as the Quran is concerned. As far as the Quran is concerned it has nothing to do with anybody else’s business.

    Even when a spouse makes an allegation against his own spouse:

    And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;

    7 . And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.

    8 . But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;

    9 . And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.


    Now who on Earth would not lie when facing lashes?. The Quran itself says that:

    Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief… except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;That is because they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter and that Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.

    Here in verse 16.106-107 The Quran says that God won’t hold accountable someone who disbelieves under duress in reference to the torture and perseution the believers were facing in Mecca if it was done under duress.

    Well how can God than hold accountable someone lying when facing lashes? We all know that even when a spouse brings forth an allegation and the term the Quran uses is “shahada” which means bears witness. Another when the spouse witnesses something even then the Quran says that he con only swear on oath and the other party can also swear on oath that he is lying and the issue is now closed.

    The Quran knows well that people will lie when facing torment. So what these verses ENDED up establishing is stopped anyone from making allegations against usually a woman. We know in Arab culture accusing a woman of something like that means the end for her even if its not true. Its known as honor killing.

    You are not looking at the verses properly..

    Lastly the Quran is talking about adultery. Fornification does not concern a third party so the Quran would not stipulate to hold anyone accountable.

    Sunnis see those verses as talking about fornification and not adultery and then they introduced stoning adulterers presumable to fit the honor killing culture of Arb societies.

    That is what I meant when I said its interesting. Its four times more likeley for a Slanderer making an accusation to be punished even if he is saying the truth than an actual adulterer.

    I think this has to do with the dangers women face when confronted with allegations like this where truth is not relevant but reputation and perceptions is what usually dictates issues like this.

     

    Wikipedia
    An honor killing, or honour killing[1] is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community.
    The perceived dishonor is normally the result of one of the following behaviors, or the suspicion of such behaviors: dressing in a manner unacceptable to the family or community, wanting to terminate or prevent an arranged marriage or desiring to marry by own choice, especially if to a member of a social group deemed inappropriate, engaging in heterosexual acts outside marriage and engaging in homosexual acts.
    The United Nations estimate for the number of honor killings in the world is 5000. Many women’s groups in the Middle East and Southwest Asia suspect that more than 20,000 women are honor killed in the world each year.[2]

    Human Rights Watch defines “honor killings” as follows:

    Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that “dishonors” her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.[3]

    An Amnesty International statement adds:

    The regime of honour is unforgiving: women on whom suspicion has fallen are not given an opportunity to defend themselves, and family members have no socially acceptable alternative but to remove the stain on their honour by attacking the woman.[8]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

     


    Is is this the Quran was trying to prevent and not adultery.

    So the Quran sent the message that adultery is a major sin and brings about pain to another party a pain that will not go away easy. But in turned around and went after the slanderer instead. If you read the verses you will see the issue came because of some allegation brought forth by a group of people against a female member of the community and the Quran chastised those who engaged in that rumor and used harsh language. The reason why is that this can bring great harm to the female regardless of its truth.

    When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah , tremendous.And why, when you heard it, did you not say, “It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, [O Allah ]; this is a great slander”? And why, when you heard it, did you not say, “It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, [O Allah ]; this is a great slander”?Allah warns you against returning to the likes of this [conduct], ever, if you should be believers 24.15-17

    It is this the Quran was concerned about mainly. Thats why I said its tricky.

    This could be seen as something specific to adultery and slandering or whatever that a mere allegation can bring harm to someone and the other party is powerless to defend than in such cases the allegation and accusation is a crime.

    There is one more thing I wanted to add. If you carefully look at the verses concerning this subject what the Quran wants a person to do is when he does see something with his own eyes and is asked about it. The Quran forces him to deny having seen anything. Quite remarkable.

    So just like a women being accused can find herself being targeted by society and her own family whether the issue is true or not. Same way a person who makes an accusation can find himself targeted even if he is saying the truth . Proportional justice .


    Eye for an eye at its best. .

    Thanks.

  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #9 - June 29, 2014, 01:44 PM

    Bigmo, I'm afraid you're living in an apologetic fantasy world.

    Good luck with that.


    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #10 - June 29, 2014, 01:52 PM

    Bigmo, I'm afraid you're living in an apologetic fantasy world.

    Good luck with that.



     No..noo..noo., No Jed., 

    Jedi Keep  discussing with Bigmo., keep him busy, Bigmo likes you., Big Mo cares about you., And he writes so much and so well..

    Hmm.. Bigmo.. Big Mo.,  that sounds good..

    with best wishes
    yeezevee

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #11 - June 29, 2014, 05:30 PM

    And what do you think woud've happened if they couldn't pay the Jizya tax?

    No doubt that it was enforced to compensate Muslims for their losses, but didn't the Muslims raid caravans in order to gain goods and compensate themselves? This is stealing, so Muhammad broke a Koranic rule?

    Jizya was also a protection racket ala Al Capone stylee.

    He accepted rewards in the flesh (what was that Jewess called again?) and was entitled to spoils of war.


    I think you are refering to the term "ma malakat aymanukum" in the Quran which in English means "whom you right hand possess". The Islamic sects interpret that whom you possesses as slaves. Actually this term means concubine. A concubine is any women a man posseses by oah wothout dowry. It is a Biblical term common in Judaic traditions. Many prophets in the Bible had concubines. It has nothing to do with slavery. What is even more unusual is the Islamic sects applied it usually with captives of war, probably a Meccan tradition.

    The Quran only allowed two options for prisoners of war. Freedom or ransom. The verses about MMA has nothing to do with prisoners of war.

    As far as MMA is concerned, MMA is what we call a concubine. Many prophets in the Old Testament had concubines as well as wives.

    The only difference is concubines have no dowry arrangements and is considered an inferior form of marriage for that reason. When the believers came to Medina they came across a larger Jewish presense there and the practice of concubinage (urfi marriage in Arabic) was prevalent. Its an acceptable form of arrangement but the Quran does not advice that form of relationship since its open for abuse.

    Later Islamic authorities changed its meaning to mean prisoners of war.




    In the Bible

    Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives.[7]

    The concubine may not have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. In the Levitical rules on sexual relations, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as "wife" is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". However, on at least one other occasion the term is used to refer to a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaiden of Jacob's wife.[8] In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved.[9][10] The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and (rape excepted) none of them resulted in capital punishment for either party,[11][12][13] although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship.[7] For instance, Jacob is dishonoured when his son Reuben sleeps with his concubine Bilhah [14] but the consequence is that Reuben is disgraced and cut out of the genealogical line.[15] David is portrayed as having been dishonored when his son Absalom deliberately has public sex with all his father's concubines on the roof of the palace, on the advice of David's former counsellor Ahithophel.[16] Absalom does this not just as an act of sexual potency but to show the nation that everything David had is now his, that he is the king and in total command and that David is disgraced, exiled and not coming back.

    Because it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, and Rachel and Bilhah.[7] The children of the concubine often had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife;[7] for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine.[17] However, Abraham's actions in allowing his wife Sarah to drive his concubine Hagar away[18] and in sending all the sons of his concubines away with gifts, rather than allowing them to stay and have an equal inheritance with his son Isaac,[19] indicates that he saw them as inferior to Isaac, who had been promised to him and was Sarah's child.[20] Later[7] biblical figures such as Gideon, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings say that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.[21]

    The disturbing account of the unnamed Levite [22][23] shows that the taking of concubines was not the exclusive preserve of Kings or patriarchs in Israel during the time of the Judges and that the rape of a concubine was completely unacceptable to the Israelite nation and led to a civil war. In the story, the Levite appears to be an ordinary member of the tribe dedicated to the worship of God, who was undoubtedly dishonoured both by the unfaithfulness of his concubine and her abandonment of him. However, after four months, he decides to follow her back to her family home to persuade her to return to him. Her father seeks to delay his return and he does not leave early enough to make the return journey in a single day. The hospitality he is offered at Gibeah, the way in which his host's daughter is offered to the townsmen and the circumstances of his concubine's death at their hands describe a lawless time where visitors are both welcomed and threatened in equal measure. The most disturbing aspect of this account is that both the Levite and his (male) host seek to protect themselves by offering their womenfolk to their aggressors for sex, in exchange for their own safety. The Levite acts in a way which indicates that he believes that the multiple rape of his unfaithful concubine is preferable to the violation of the virginity of his host's daughter or a sexual assault on his own person. In the morning, the Levite appears to be quite indifferent to the condition of his concubine and expects her to resume the journey but she is dead. He dismembers her body and distributes her (body parts) throughout the nation of Israel as a terrible message. This outrages and revolts the Israelite tribesmen who then wreak total retribution on the men of Gibeah and the surrounding tribe of Benjamin when they support them, killing them without mercy and burning all their towns. The inhabitants of (the town of) Jabesh Gilead are then slaughtered as a punishment for not joining the eleven tribes in their war against the Benjamites and their four hundred unmarried daughters given in forced marriage to the six hundred Benjamite survivors. Finally, the two hundred Benjamite survivors who still have no wives are granted a mass marriage by abduction by the other tribes.

    There are no concubines in the New Testament. St Paul emphasises that church leaders should be in monogamous marriages,[24][25] that believers should not have sexual relationships outside marriage.[26] and that unmarried believers should be celibate.[27] Marriage is to reflect the exclusive relationship between the husband (Christ) and wife (his church),[28] described as a "mystery".
    In Judaism

    In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword derived from the Greek word, pallakis, Greek παλλακίς,[29][30][31] meaning "a mistress staying in house".

    According to the Babylonian Talmud,[7] the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin). Neither was the case for a concubine. One opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without a clause specifying a divorce settlement.[7]

    Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides, believed that concubines were strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine. Indeed, such thinkers argued that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage.

    Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage. For example, Leviticus Rabbah severely condemns the custom.[32] Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly objected to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

    Its important to understand that MMA is primarily a Judaic tradition. Western societies understood concubinage differently. Only Islamic authorities attached it to slavery and prisoners of war. But what is important is the Quranic use of the term which is based on its biblical understanding.

    When the Quran says "ma malakat aymanukum" meaning what you  possessed by oath, it means a relationship established by oath only without dowry or financial arrangement and encourages to elevate that arrangement to a full marriage by establishing a dowry and financial arrangement and also informing family members. This happens many times in urfi marriages where the man denies ever having relationship with a women and tears off the contract he had with her.



    Nikah 'urfi is a "customary" Sunni Muslim marriage contract that is not registered with state authorities. This form of marriage usually requires witnesses. Couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment before God, although there are many other informal ways in which people marry `urfi. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and at least two witnesses sign it, although others may record their commitment on a cassette tape and use other forms of documentation. Most Arab countries do not recognize 'Urfi marriages and do not allow partners to get a 'legal' divorce since the government does not recognize the legality of the marriage in the first place. Sometimes these relationships are a way for people to have sex with each other within what is perceived to be a licit framework. Nevertheless, the relationship is often kept secret from family members and women often become pregnant but are unable to prove they are married or get a divorce.[1]

    The 'Urfi marriage has always existed, but for different reasons.[citation needed]

    In the past, it was common among the widows of soldiers who had huge pensions and they did not want to lose it by officially re-marrying. Now, however, it is mostly among university students and young couples who cannot afford the high cost of marriage.[citation needed]

    Undocumented 'Urfi marriages are increasingly popular among Egyptian youth. The high cost of marriage forces many young couples to wait several years before they marry. Conservative Egyptian society forbids sex before marriage, so many young people consider the 'Urfi marriage a solution. 'Urfi marriages are conducted by a Muslim cleric in the presence of two witnesses. However, they are not officially registered and are not legally financially binding on the man. Couples married in this way often meet in secret and avoid the expense of renting an apartment. The 'Urfi marriage can be disastrous for the wife in legal terms. If the husband leaves her without granting her a divorce, she had no legal right to seek a divorce since 'Urfi marriage is considered illegal. Her husband could remarry. The wife is in a more difficult position. If the wife remarries, she can be accused of polyandry, which is punishable by seven years in prison in Egypt, or she could remain single for the rest of her life.[citation needed]

    The new Egyptian law (passed in 2000) recognizes the woman's right to seek divorce from an 'Urfi marriage. However, the law denies her alimony and child support.[citation needed]

    There are also controversial, unofficial "'Urfi" marriages, where a couple signs documents declaring themselves married. The couple does not inform their families of the marriage. Many Egyptian clerics are against this type of 'Urfi marriage calling it a cover for pre-marital sex.[citation needed]

    An extreme form of 'Urfi marriage is known as zawag al-'urfi: to give prostitution an Islamic cover, some women enter into secret marriage contracts with their summer visitors. Known in Egypt as zawag al-'urfi, this contract is made without witnesses and typically ends in divorce by summer's end. Most of Egypt's Islamic scholars condemn this use of zawag al-'urfi.[citation needed]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_%27urfi

    It has nothing to do with slavery or prisoners of war. Slavery is a barbaric act practiced by the Pharaoh in the Quran and Joseph's brothers and sex with female slaves is rape and nothing else and prisoners of war are already discussed in the Quran.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #12 - June 29, 2014, 05:36 PM

    Hi Bigmo, ramadan kareem. Care to introduce yourself? You can start a thread here.

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?board=2.0

     Smiley


    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #13 - June 29, 2014, 05:55 PM

    I think you are refering to the term "ma malakat aymanukum" in the Quran which in English means "whom you right hand possess". The Islamic sects interpret that whom you possesses as slaves. Actually this term means concubine. A concubine is any women a man posseses by oah wothout dowry. It is a Biblical term common in Judaic traditions. Many prophets in the Bible had concubines. It has nothing to do with slavery. What is even more unusual is the Islamic sects applied it usually with captives of war, probably a Meccan tradition.

    The Quran only allowed two options for prisoners of war. Freedom or ransom. The verses about MMA has nothing to do with prisoners of war.


    Are you completely out of your mind and out of touch with reality? What you say flies in the face of Islamic scholarship and non-Western Islamic scholarship.

    1) Muhammad and his companions raped war captives. Deal with it.

    2) Right hand possess is a generic term that applies to slaves who acted as concubines. It is sexual slavery no matter how you wish to colour it or justify it.

    3) The 'Quran' offers the following options 1) Surrender (integration into the Ummah) 2) Death 3) Ransom 4) Freedom (though this is dependent upon political expediency).

    Please do not insult my intelligence with such apologetic nonsense. Sorry, but you're not going to get a warm, cuddly approach from me.

    You do realise that YOU, a nobody in terms of Muslim intellectual tradition, are completely dismissing centuries of Islamic scholarship by Muslim and non-Muslims? This is what I abhor about the 'moderates' or 'reformists'. Yes, promote peace, but do not rewrite history or ignore what is in the text and hadith.

    You dismiss all the other sects, save your own. How ironic!

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #14 - June 29, 2014, 06:20 PM

    Bigmo
    Are you a submitter? How do you see Rashad Khalifa?
    Its ironic because I was reading about the quraniyoon just today, although none of the things I read were new to me.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #15 - June 29, 2014, 06:21 PM

    I think it is a mistake, Bigmo, all this possession you are referring to. How the hell can one person possess another person? How can you think this is ever permissible? Why would you choose to believe this is okay? Who has the right to possess another, and how did they obtain that right, and why would those possessed not have this same right?



    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Re: Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #16 - June 29, 2014, 06:28 PM

    Bigmo
    Are you a submitter? How do you see Rashad Khalifa?
    Its ironic because I was reading about the quraniyoon just today, although none of the things I read were new to me.


    No I am not a submitter although I have nothing against Rashad Khalifah. He came during the time when the internet was not available. He had the multiple 19 thing that I find interesting but math is not my thing. Some say he claimed he was a messenger but other Quranist tell me he was the first that introduced the idea of Quran and Sunna being incompatible. But this was before the net.

    Now most Quranist never heard of the man. I disagree with his definition of shirk(polytheism). I think polytheism has nothing to do with what he says. I think he got influenced by Salafi Islam but then again he lived in Egypt during the 70s so this is not unusual.

    Quranist Islam is still in its infancy and ideas and interpretations and information are still developing.

  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #17 - June 29, 2014, 06:29 PM

    Quote
    Quranist Islam is still in its infancy


    Well, when it decides to come out of its self-induced mind numbing reality rejecting delusions, let me know.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #18 - June 29, 2014, 06:33 PM

    I think it is a mistake, Bigmo, all this possession you are referring to. How the hell can one person possess another person? How can you think this is ever permissible? Why would you choose to believe this is okay? Who has the right to possess another, and how did they obtain that right, and why would those possessed not have this same right?





    Its what you possessed as a partner without dowry. Its not about owning anyone. In marriages there is an oath. Ma malakat aymanukum is a partnership established by oath only. There is no dowry and therefore its risky especially for a woman since there is no protection for her. Its the same with urfi marriages in Arab countries where a person signs a contract of marriage and then throws it away claiming he never married that women. But it is a Quranic accepted marriage but not advisable. The Quran says this kind of marriage should only be done an an exception but to be done with good intentions. It also encouraged this type of arrangement to be elevated by paying dowry or some financial arrangement and informing family members and to give the contract to the women if she demands. In modern days its like a boyfriend and girlfriend situation where a formal marriage does not exist carrying risk for a women in case the man tried to leave the child with her and end their relationship. Or even deny the child is his etc.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #19 - June 29, 2014, 06:38 PM

    Well, when it decides to come out of its self-induced mind numbing reality rejecting delusions, let me know.


    I detect hostility from you. Whats ironic is while you speak of how violent and intolerant Islam is you yourself carry some of that. But I am used to that from Muslims also who sometimes have hostility towards me and my beliefs. I do not see this as a competition but I detect also you only accept Islamic tradition if you can use it to attack it. I have no hostility towards Islam or any other religion.  I am only interested with what Koran says.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #20 - June 29, 2014, 06:42 PM

    You can't be "intolerant" towards Islam. Its an idea, not a peoples like Muslims.

    And you can't be violent via an internet forum, short of making actual threats. But nice try at making false equivalences.

    Edit: Also, itt cherrypicking wars ahoy.

    Edit2: Bigmo, when it comes to the more liberal, family friendly Quranism all I can say is best of luck in convincing the vast majority of the Muslim world that centuries of jurisprudence and Islamic practice is just them "doing it wrong" and that you're "doing it right". I really wish you the best of luck in this endeavor, because the goings on in the Islamic world are fucked up enough as it is.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #21 - June 29, 2014, 06:49 PM

    No I am not a submitter although I have nothing against Rashad Khalifah. He came during the time when the internet was not available. He had the multiple 19 thing that I find interesting but math is not my thing. Some say he claimed he was a messenger but other Quranist tell me he was the first that introduced the idea of Quran and Sunna being incompatible. But this was before the net.

    Now most Quranist never heard of the man. I disagree with his definition of shirk(polytheism). I think polytheism has nothing to do with what he says. I think he got influenced by Salafi Islam but then again he lived in Egypt during the 70s so this is not unusual.

    Quranist Islam is still in its infancy and ideas and interpretations and information are still developing.



    Well in reality Im not sure if there is a sharp edge between Islam with hadith and Quranism, since some can accept a few a hadith. The mutazilah although not quranist wholly, were far more rigorous in requirement hadiths authenticity when it came to basic beliefs.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #22 - June 29, 2014, 06:50 PM

    Its what you possessed as a partner without dowry. Its not about owning anyone. In marriages there is an oath. Ma malakat aymanukum is a partnership established by oath only. There is no dowry and therefore its risky especially for a woman since there is no protection for her. Its the same with urfi marriages in Arab countries where a person signs a contract of marriage and then throws it away claiming he never married that women. But it is a Quranic accepted marriage but not advisable. The Quran says this kind of marriage should only be done an an exception but to be done with good intentions. It also encouraged this type of arrangement to be elevated by paying dowry or some financial arrangement and informing family members and to give the contract to the women if she demands. In modern days its like a boyfriend and girlfriend situation where a formal marriage does not exist carrying risk for a women in case the man tried to leave the child with her and end their relationship. Or even deny the child is his etc.


    So there is no such thing as fornication between consenting adults?
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #23 - June 29, 2014, 06:52 PM

    Way to cage love, or lust, or whatever other perfectly healthy emotions can be expressed mutually and safely between consenting adults.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #24 - June 29, 2014, 07:05 PM

    Having just skimmed the thread....my comments on quranism
    No stoning
    No wifebeating
    No gendersegration
    No cutting of hand of thief
    No childmarriage
    No killing for insulting prophet
    No penalty for apostasy
    ....
    With the hadith removed from play I would expect a more liberal interpretation, which I think I alluded to in another thread. There would still be problems but with only the quran, the minefield would be much smaller.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #25 - June 29, 2014, 07:06 PM

    I detect hostility from you. Whats ironic is while you speak of how violent and intolerant Islam is you yourself carry some of that. But I am used to that from Muslims also who sometimes have hostility towards me and my beliefs. I do not see this as a competition but I detect also you only accept Islamic tradition if you can use it to attack it. I have no hostility towards Islam or any other religion.  I am only interested with what Koran says.


    True. I'm hostile to your beliefs. You do not realise that the Quran refers to Muhammad as a guide and instructs Muslims to follow his examples and his wives as well as other fictitious characters from the Quran. You can only ascertain this from a holistic approach. A Quran only approach is basically a free card that says 'I can make this shit up as I go along'. This approach solves nothing, for what is to stop me from adopting a Quran only approach and accepting them literally as they were intended, thus resulting in extremist, violent ideologies?

    You fail to realise that you are interpreting the text, ergo it is a reflection of your state of mind.

    You also fail to realise, despite your dislike of sects, that Quranists ( or however you wish to language it) is aspect, ideology of its own.

    You also fail to realise, without the vast corpus of post-quranic literature, islam is relegated to a socio-political philosophy that is rendered pointless.


    Hope you realise that you are a good person with Islam, but will become a better person without it. Well done, you took the steps I took. I denied the hadiths and accepted only the Quran. Then I denied the Quran and accepted only Allah. Now I deny Allah and I accept only humanity. I am free.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #26 - June 29, 2014, 07:08 PM

    Having just skimmed the thread....my comments on quranism
    No stoning
    No wifebeating
    No gendersegration
    No cutting of hand of thief
    No childmarriage
    No killing for insulting prophet
    No penalty for apostasy
    ....
    With the hadith removed from play I would expect a more liberal interpretation, which I think I alluded to in another thread. There would still be problems but with only the quran, the minefield would be much smaller.


    Wrong. All are still applicable and justified practices in certain contexts as prescribed in their respective ayats. Only the stoning for adultery is exclusively derived from non-quranic source.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #27 - June 29, 2014, 07:14 PM

    You can't be "intolerant" towards Islam. Its an idea, not a peoples like Muslims.

    And you can't be violent via an internet forum, short of making actual threats. But nice try at making false equivalences.

    Edit: Also, itt cherrypicking wars ahoy.

    Edit2: Bigmo, when it comes to the more liberal, family friendly Quranism all I can say is best of luck in convincing the vast majority of the Muslim world that centuries of jurisprudence and Islamic practice is just them "doing it wrong" and that you're "doing it right". I really wish you the best of luck in this endeavor, because the goings on in the Islamic world are fucked up enough as it is.


    I disagree. Ex muslims who have these hositilities do not have power over Muslims. But we know from communism that when this strong anti religion trend takes power they can practice persecutions against religions. It starts with not being objectionable. If you look at my opening post, i made it clear that Sunni Islam deliberately avoided the more controversial aspects of Islamic traditions. But they lost control in recent times since the literature of the past is now available to the masses giving those who have extremist personalities an opening. It also makes those who may wish to leave Islam or any other religion second thoughts since they may not feel that level of hostility. I guess it depends on how you define hostility. Once people have power over others these hostilities can take action form. At least thats how I look at it.
  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #28 - June 29, 2014, 07:20 PM

    Jedi
    Quote
    Wrong.All are still applicable and justified practices in certain contexts as prescribed in their respective ayats. Only the stoning for adultery is exclusively derived from non-quranic source.

    Certainly, you would end up with some of those things without the hadith (wifebeating or cutting of hand of thief), but as you can see my comment was about quranism, the sect, not that you without hadith by necessity end up with those things.

    Then I made a general statement about that you without the hadith have a smaller minefield.  Without the hadith, the positive parts can have a greater impact to negate negative parts on issues dealing with law, or you would end up with contradictions. Without the hadith+the rope tying modern interpretation to years between 700-900, the wiggle room would be much greater,

  • Koranic Law Versus Shariah Law - two different Islams
     Reply #29 - June 29, 2014, 07:21 PM

    So there is no such thing as fornication between consenting adults?


    I am saying what the Quran allows humans to hold other humans accountable. Disbelieving in God and worshiping idols are the worst behavior the Quran considers yet it gives people the freedom to do so. The Quran tells us that when Satan told God he will lead mankind astray God did not stop him. This is very hard for Muslims to understand since they see an Islamic state as a state that enforces religion. The Quran meanwhile only allowed the prophet to hold people accountable if they infringe on somebody else right or inflict a burden on somebody else. Unlike marriages, sex between consensual adults affect no other party. This talk of family shame or reputation is not Quranic. What God decides in judgement day is another matter.

    Its about intentions in the end.
  • 12 3 ... 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »