Religion, what's the point?

[Roane]

I think in this debate over "who is a Muslim?" and "what makes something Islamic?", Muslims and non-Muslims often tend to talk past each other. They each approach the debate in different terms. I don't want to offend you, but reading your posts on this forum you come across as a Muslim who is particularly concerned with strictly demarcating the boundaries of your faith. For the sake of this argument, I will assume this concern springs from a genuine desire to ensure that your community, family, etc. are not led astray and remain true to what you believe to be the straight path.

Non-Muslims simply don't share these concerns when considering the questions set out above. Since we don't accept the fundamental basis of Islam - belief in the unity/oneness of God and the finality of Muhammad's mission - debates and conflicts among those who do claim adherence to these fundamentals - but differ over their details, interpretation, and consequences - simply appear as intra-Muslim debates. So when we think about who is a Muslim or what makes something Islamic, for the most part we are less interested in whatever ideal of Islam an individual Muslim might aspire to fulfil, and more concerned with the actual historical product of Muhammad's mission. In other words, there is little reason for a non-Muslim to deny the Islamic nature of a particular group or individual as long as their conviction that they are Islamic appears sincere and their identity is recognizably a historical product of the idea embodied in the shahada.

We can of course identify those trends among Muslims which have established the dominance of their interpretation (what we might call orthodoxy) in history, and conversely recognize other trends and movements whose ideas have been more peripheral (heterodoxy). So for example, it is common for non-Muslims to consider the jurisprudence of the four madhahib as constituting orthodoxy in Islam, while, say, the Isma'ilis would often be considered a somewhat heterodox group or sect. But in the terms in which we think about these things, both are recognizably Islamic. For non-Muslims, the establishment of dominance or orthodoxy is not a marker of religious truth or correctness in Islam, but simply a product of the forces of history.

To call someone like the Ismailis a sect in Islam is not accurate for me based on Islam itself. Sects would be the people maybe following the individual imam from the four or having certain views on the "minor" matters. The muatazila (sp) and maturidi etc would be sects. Yet they adhere to the major points. Likes of Ismaili, NOI and qadiani go against the very core itself of the shahadah and other fundamentals.

No one is suggesting that non Muslims should accept the fundamental basis of Islam as you mentioned. It's an understanding of what Islam is for those who do believe and differentiating with what people may want to label themselves.

 

[Roane]

Furthermore, the person who wrote the commentary/interpretation of the hadith added a lot of things that hadith didn't say, it was quite bizzare. It seems they were writing what they wanted to hear rather than what it said.

This is what happens on these type of sites. They may add or detract a part of a hadith etc and completely change the meaning. Sites like answering Islam are notorious for this. They reference a hadith or a verse from the Qur'an or even a scholar but do it in such a way that it is basically incitement.

A good example is the "kill them where you find them" quote. It's portrayed as a verse ordering to kill all non Muslims. And yes the line is in the Qur'an. Yet it's one line in a whole Surah. Once you read the whole Surah you realise it's specific to a specific time in war. Where it tells you to treat those who surrender with respect and give them safe passage. Don't harm them in any way. The line of killing them only applies to those who surrender, are fed and looked after, given safe passage but once out of danger attack you and kill your people. It's not a general order towards all non Muslims.

 

[2cents]

To call someone like the Ismailis a sect in Islam is not accurate for me based on Islam itself. Sects would be the people maybe following the individual imam from the four or having certain views on the "minor" matters. The muatazila (sp) and maturidi etc would be sects. Yet they adhere to the major points. Likes of Ismaili, NOI and qadiani go against the very core itself of the shahadah and other fundamentals.

No one is suggesting that non Muslims should accept the fundamental basis of Islam as you mentioned. It's an understanding of what Islam is for those who do believe and differentiating with what people may want to label themselves.

You seem to have missed/not understood my point. I’m not arguing with you over whether or not the Isma’ilis or anyone else are Islamic. I’m saying that since we naturally approach the question on completely different terms - terms derived from our respective position on the nature and significance of the original Islamic impulse - the discussion is largely fruitless.

 

[The Corinthian]

I think in this debate over "who is a Muslim?" and "what makes something Islamic?", Muslims and non-Muslims often tend to talk past each other. They each approach the debate in different terms. I don't want to offend you, but reading your posts on this forum you come across as a Muslim who is particularly concerned with strictly demarcating the boundaries of your faith. For the sake of this argument, I will assume this concern springs from a genuine desire to ensure that your community, family, etc. are not led astray and remain true to what you believe to be the straight path.

Non-Muslims simply don't share these concerns when considering the questions set out above. Since we don't accept the fundamental basis of Islam - belief in the unity/oneness of God and the finality of Muhammad's mission - debates and conflicts among those who do claim adherence to these fundamentals - but differ over their details, interpretation, and consequences - simply appear as intra-Muslim debates. So when we think about who is a Muslim or what makes something Islamic, for the most part we are less interested in whatever ideal of Islam an individual Muslim might aspire to fulfil, and more concerned with the actual historical product of Muhammad's mission. In other words, there is little reason for a non-Muslim to deny the Islamic nature of a particular group or individual as long as their conviction that they are Islamic appears sincere and their identity is recognizably a historical product of the idea embodied in the shahada.

We can of course identify those trends among Muslims which have established the dominance of their interpretation (what we might call orthodoxy) in history, and conversely recognize other trends and movements whose ideas have been more peripheral (heterodoxy). So for example, it is common for non-Muslims to consider the jurisprudence of the four madhahib as constituting orthodoxy in Islam, while, say, the Isma'ilis would often be considered a somewhat heterodox group or sect. But in the terms in which we think about these things, both are recognizably Islamic. For non-Muslims, the establishment of dominance or orthodoxy is not a marker of religious truth or correctness in Islam, but simply a product of the forces of history.

Agree broadly (on the way these debates go) - but what you've laid out is part of the problem.

A footballer would say 'I'm a footballer'.
A person not interested in sports would say 'Oh, sports, like cricket.'

The first statement is true. The second statement is making an inaccurate assumption based around the first statement.

If we substitute some of the language to say -

A: 'I'm a Sunni Muslim'.
B: 'Oh Muslim, like Aga Khan, or Ayatollah Khomeini, or Elijah Mohammad...etc'

You can see why Person A would correct them on that.

The main reason that these debates are pointless and circular in nature is because Person B has a limited and ignorant understanding of the nuances in these types of debates on religion, just like the person in the first example has a limited and ignorant understanding of why football is distinctly different to cricket despite both being sports. For example, in this thread we've had people unable to differentiate and understand differences between Sunni and Shia clergy (which covers over, I'd say 95% of Muslims worldwide), so how would they understand differences between something more granular, such as Ismaili, Zaydis, Twelvers and so on. Now I'm not saying that this is the case for every non-Muslim who enters these debates, but there are a few where undoubtedly this does apply.

 

[Dumbstar]

I think in this debate over "who is a Muslim?" and "what makes something Islamic?", Muslims and non-Muslims often tend to talk past each other. They each approach the debate in different terms. I don't want to offend you, but reading your posts on this forum you come across as a Muslim who is particularly concerned with strictly demarcating the boundaries of your faith. For the sake of this argument, I will assume this concern springs from a genuine desire to ensure that your community, family, etc. are not led astray and remain true to what you believe to be the straight path.

Non-Muslims simply don't share these concerns when considering the questions set out above. Since we don't accept the fundamental basis of Islam - belief in the unity/oneness of God and the finality of Muhammad's mission - debates and conflicts among those who do claim adherence to these fundamentals - but differ over their details, interpretation, and consequences - simply appear as intra-Muslim debates. So when we think about who is a Muslim or what makes something Islamic, for the most part we are less interested in whatever ideal of Islam an individual Muslim might aspire to fulfil, and more concerned with the actual historical product of Muhammad's mission. In other words, there is little reason for a non-Muslim to deny the Islamic nature of a particular group or individual as long as their conviction that they are Islamic appears sincere and their identity is recognizably a historical product of the idea embodied in the shahada.

We can of course identify those trends among Muslims which have established the dominance of their interpretation (what we might call orthodoxy) in history, and conversely recognize other trends and movements whose ideas have been more peripheral (heterodoxy). So for example, it is common for non-Muslims to consider the jurisprudence of the four madhahib as constituting orthodoxy in Islam, while, say, the Isma'ilis would often be considered a somewhat heterodox group or sect. But in the terms in which we think about these things, both are recognizably Islamic. For non-Muslims, the establishment of dominance or orthodoxy is not a marker of religious truth or correctness in Islam, but simply a product of the forces of history.

I understand the position this puts non-Muslims in when quantifying or 'boxing up' Islam in a way they can understand - other than by actually studying Islam. Which, lets face it, why would anyone go into that depth of learning?

So Muslims are the face of the religion. And in the Qur'an and Hadith many warnings have been given for presenting a 'face' of the religion which leads to the things you mention in your post. I'm as guilty as most when it comes to hypocrisy and we will all be judged accordingly when the time comes. And as I have stated before in RC the lowest pits of hell, the absolute worst place, will only be populated by hypocrite 'Muslims'. And there will be many.

My original response in this thread was not to go into an intellectual argument, as I am woefully bereft of that kind of intelligence. It was to simply separate your 'non-Muslim' understanding of Islam from the correct version as per Qur'an and Hadith. In which, I repeat, the guy stabbing Rushdie goes against Islam.

 

[2cents]

Agree broadly (on the way these debates go) - but what you've laid out is part of the problem.

A footballer would say 'I'm a footballer'.
A person not interested in sports would say 'Oh, sports, like cricket.'

The first statement is true. The second statement is making an inaccurate assumption based around the first statement.

If we substitute some of the language to say -

A: 'I'm a Sunni Muslim'.
B: 'Oh Muslim, like Aga Khan, or Ayatollah Khomeini, or Elijah Mohammad...etc'

You can see why Person A would correct them on that.

The main reason that these debates are pointless and circular in nature is because Person B has a limited and ignorant understanding of the nuances in these types of debates on religion, just like the person in the first example has a limited and ignorant understanding of why football is distinctly different to cricket despite both being sports. For example, in this thread we've had people unable to differentiate and understand differences between Sunni and Shia clergy (which covers over, I'd say 95% of Muslims worldwide), so how would they understand differences between something more granular, such as Ismaili, Zaydis, Twelvers and so on. Now I'm not saying that this is the case for every non-Muslim who enters these debates, but there are a few where undoubtedly this does apply.

Sure, a superficial understanding or basic lack of knowledge is sometimes a problem with those who tend to charge into these discussions, often with the intent of discrediting Islam. I understand it must be exhausting for Muslims to confront, as they feel inclined to do on a regular basis. I’m often impressed by the patience of Muslim posters on this forum who engage in these threads.

However I’m not sure that drawing a hard circle around oneself and declaring everything outside of it to have “nothing to do with Islam” is the best way to encourage a better understanding. I would favor an approach that encourages people to try and understand the various ways Muslims (or people claiming to be Muslim if you like) have understood the particular issues throughout history - where, when, and under what particular circumstances. But that likely is due to my particular bias as a non-Muslim interested in that history.

 

[2cents]

I repeat, the guy stabbing Rushdie goes against Islam.

Appreciate all of your post, I’ll just address this last point and use it to better illustrate where I’m coming from. Apologies if it’s a bit long-winded.

As I’ve posted already, the death sentence passed against Rushdie appears to violate the legal processes which the mainstream Islamic schools of jurisprudence rule must be adhered to in such cases. Therefore on that basis alone, broadly blaming “Islam” for the act demonstrates a lack of understanding of the intricacies of Islamic law and involves tarnishing all those Muslims who accept the authority of those schools with the same brush as the attacker.

However, it does not then follow for the non-Muslim that the death sentence, or the attempt to execute it, necessarily “goes against Islam” or “has nothing to do with Islam.” For us, the question in this regard isn’t whether or not the attacker violated a particular law or committed a particular sin which places him beyond the boundaries established by the schools of jurisprudence. Or that due process according to those schools wasn’t followed. Since, as non-Muslims, we don’t acknowledge/accept the basic principles on which the authority of these schools rests, we must look elsewhere to determine if the attack can be understood to be in some way “Islamic.”

What matters then are two questions. First, did the attacker himself sincerely understand his motives primarily in terms of Islam? Second, can his act only be fully understood with reference to the historical processes triggered by the mission of Muhammad? If the answer to both these questions is “yes”, then the attack clearly, for me, has something to do with Islam, is in some way “Islamic”, without, of course, necessarily implicating anything more than a tiny minority of the world’s Muslim population.

Likewise with the status of the Isma’ilis, mentioned above. I acknowledge that there may be several or more doctrinal issues which place them beyond the fold of the established, orthodox position on the question of “who is a Muslim.” But again, my concern is not the question of whether or not Isma’ilis sin, blaspheme, or apostatize by engaging in these doctrines, and in doing so condemn themselves as un-Islamic. As a non-Muslim myself the boundaries established by orthodoxy in Islam are little more than the arbitrary product of historical process.

Rather, I must go back to my two questions: do Isma’ilis sincerely believe themselves to be Muslims? Can Isma’ilism only be fully understood with reference to the historical processes triggered by the mission of Muhammad?

(e.g. accepting the notion that the Isma’ilis are not Islamic requires us to consider that one of the great dynasties of Islamic history, the Fatimids, was in fact a non-Muslim dynasty and so somehow falls outside the category of “Islamic history.” This despite the fact that in this capacity they founded Cairo and al-Azhar, encouraged the building of mosques (some of which remain standing and in use in Cairo today) and madrassas, ruled Mecca and Medina for decades, and administered the Hajj. It would also require us to accept that the knights of the First Crusade captured Jerusalem from a rival non-Muslim power.)

 

[Gehrman]

This is a good post. However my point is and was simple. The rush to label any killer who is slightly tanned and has a link to a "Muslim" country and once visited a mosque is there for all to see.

The vegan eating big Mac is a good example for me of how these things work.

In Islam we also have the new Muslim who is gradually learning and adapting. However as a fundamental rule the likes of NOI, qadiani, certain Shia can never be Muslim. These are the equivalent of eating a big Mac daily and saying I'm vegan.

What we need to do is look at what a religion is and its core values. If a Muslim sounding guy says X but the religion says Y then it's not Islamic. It's as simple as that.

The apostasy and death issue is clear too. Becoming a non Muslim doesn't carry in itself a death penalty. One of the Prophets wives was married to someone else when they emigrated to Abyssinia. He became non Muslim. Wasn't killed. The ones killed were the ones who became non Muslim and started to create mischief for the Muslims. In short attacked them.

These things have contexts. I get tired of seeing statements being made. And just attributed to any religion.

I mean there are hadiths saying. It doesn't mean that they are end be all, but obviously they are carry weight and are relevant to this whole deal.

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, see also Sahih Muslim, 16:4152, Sahih Muslim, 16:4154

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:58Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:64

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

And I mean I can look up what defines apostacy and capital punishment for it and find this.

Al-Shafi'i listed three necessary conditions to pass capital punishment on a Muslim for apostasy in his Kitab al-Umm. (In the words of Frank Griffel) these are:

• "first, the apostate had to once have had faith (which, according to Al-Shafi'i's definition, means publicly professing all tenets of Islam);
• secondly, there had to follow unbelief (meaning the public declaration of a breaking-away from Islam), (having done these two the Muslim is now an unbeliever but not yet an apostate and thus not eligible for punishment);
• "third, there had to be the omission or failure to repent after the apostate was asked to do so

I can't see that one has to plot mischief(violence/war) to be a proper apostate or to receive a death sentence.

 

[Gehrman]

That would obviously depend on which country - most would probably have him executed, but then again the vast majority of the middle east is authoritarian ranging from absolute monarchies to faux democracy dictatorships.

Its not like people were living under prospering liberal democracies in Mecca and Medina when Muhammed became ruler of both and these laws were said to have originated from and to be somewhat timeless. What I'm getting at is simply the laws themselves and their source, it's not so much whether those countries are absolute monarchies or faux or fledgling democracies. I'm sure most moderate muslims don't care too much about the stuff that doesn't make much sense in times we are living in, but i'm simply talking about the laws and their source.

 

[Raoul]

Its not like people were living under prospering liberal democracies in Mecca and Medina when Muhammed became ruler of both and these laws were said to have originated from and to be somewhat timeless. What I'm getting at is simply the laws themselves and their source, it's not so much whether those countries are absolute monarchies or faux or fledgling democracies. I'm sure most moderate muslims don't care too much about the stuff that doesn't make much sense in times we are living in, but i'm simply talking about the laws and their source.

I get your point, but how are Muslim religious texts much different from (for example) ancient Biblical texts that call for all sorts of violence ? Ultimately, all religions are interpreted differently be their adherents and occasionally you do get a few crazies who use religion to advance their violent goals. Is it then fair that this should reflect poorly on a vast majority of peaceful adherents by blaming the entire religion ?

 

[Gehrman]

I get your point, but how are Muslim religious texts much different from (for example) ancient Biblical texts that call for all sorts of violence ? Ultimately, all religions are interpreted differently be their adherents and occasionally you do get a few crazies who use religion to advance their violent goals. Is it then fair that this should reflect poorly on a vast majority of peaceful adherents by blaming the entire religion ?

The tenets of a religion is the tenents of a religion. If, as the case we are discussing, reflects poorly of on the religion it will to some degree reflect poorly on the devout people of that religion especially if they feel that in this case, capital punishment is a valid punishment for apostacy. I think it's fair to blame the actual religion itself if a reasonable case can be made for that religion to be source of intolerance and violence we are discussing. You can't morph Jainism into something violent because it's more or less impossible to do so from the source material. It's already pretty much impossible with Theravada Buddhism and with 99% of Mahayana Buddhism. I'm not going to say stuff like 1.8 billion muslims are responsible for this, but I am going to fault the religion when there is a fault with the religion.

I am not actually a fan of the bible. But Jesus at least basically said a lot of hippie stuff at the end of the day. He's as such, not a bad role model. He's not for me though.

 

[Raoul]

The tenets of a religion is the tenents of a religion. If, as the case we are discussing, reflects poorly of on the religion it will to some degree reflect poorly on the devout people of that religion especially if they feel that in this case, capital punishment is a valid punishment for apostacy. I think it's fair to blame the actual religion itself if a reasonable case can be made for that religion to be source of intolerance and violence we are discussing. You can't morph Jainism into something violent because it's more or less impossible to do so from the source material. It's already pretty much impossible with Theravada Buddhism and with 99% of Mahayana Buddhism. I'm not going to say stuff like 1.8 billion muslims are responsible for this, but I am going to fault the religion when there is a fault with the religion.

Why though ? If 99.5% of a religion's adherents are peaceful worshippers, why should the behavior of very few define the entire religion ?

 

[Gehrman]

Why though ? If 99.5% of a religion's adherents are peaceful worshippers, why should the behavior of very few define the entire religion ?

You didn't bold the rest of that sentence which made my point.

 

[Gehrman]

Why though ? If 99.5% of a religion's adherents are peaceful worshippers, why should the behavior of very few define the entire religion ?

I could have phrased myself differently, in the sense it that it reflects only poorly on the devout of that religion if they support the death penalty for leaving that religion.

Okay lets get to the opion polls. Between 2008-2012 it was this.

i

 

[Raoul]

Okay lets get to the opion polls. Between 2008-2012 it was this.

i

But this doesn't speak to actual behavior though. A vast majority of these people, irrespective of their views when polled about random topics, are probably ordinary law abiding people, even if they live in largely autocratic societies where pluralistic, democratic values are scarce.

 

[Gehrman]

But this doesn't speak to actual behavior though. A vast majority of these people, irrespective of their views when polled about random topics, are probably ordinary law abiding people, even if they live in largely autocratic societies where pluralistic democratic values are scarce.

When I talk about blaming an entire religion im talking mainly about the religion itself. It's holy scriptures that lay down laws, teachings and rules that are supposed to be timeless. Holy figures that embody that religion (Prophet Muhammed). But if I am to talk of the behavior all who belong to that religion, we'd probably have to talk about who actually represents that religion most authentically today.

 

[frostbite]

Why though ? If 99.5% of a religion's adherents are peaceful worshippers, why should the behavior of very few define the entire religion ?

What if the 99.5% are peaceful worshippers, but they support the 0.5% who do the actual violence?

(0.5% of 2 billion is 10,000,000 )

 

[Raoul]

What if the 99.5% are peaceful worshippers, but they support the 0.5% who do the actual violence?

(0.5% of 2 billion is 10,000,000 )

Having an opinion doesn't impugn them. For instance George Bush the first had 90% public support during the first Gulf War and his son nearly the same prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion. People have opinions based on their cultures, religions, nations. Its whether specific individuals break the law that is more informative imo.

 

[frostbite]

Having an opinion doesn't impugn them. For instance George Bush the first had 90% public support during the first Gulf War and his son nearly the same prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion. People have opinions based on their cultures, religions, nations. Its whether specific individuals break the law that is more informative imo.

In my opinion, the Americans who supported the invasion are also responsible for the invasion, and the deaths, and the mess that the invasion caused. Those who support or tolerate evil are responsible for this evil.

If Bush knew that nobody in the US will support or tolerate a war in Iraq, that war would not happen. If Bush knew that everyone will demand for him to go to jail if he started a war without any valid reason, he would not start the war.

The vast majority of the Nazis in the 1935 Germany were also very nice people. They just wanted work and prosperity for their friends.

 

[Raoul]

In my opinion, the Americans who supported the invasion are also responsible for the invasion, and the deaths, and the mess that the invasion caused.

They supported it because of national sentiment following 9/11. Fortunately, Iraq is now one of the few functioning democracies in the Middle East today, instead of being run by Saddam or one of his nutty sons.

 

[frostbite]

They supported it because of national sentiment following 9/11. Fortunately, Iraq is now one of the few functioning democracies in the Middle East today, instead of being run by Saddam or one of his nutty sons.

What we are discussing is that the vast majority of any random group of people are nice people who do not want to kill. This is true for the Nazis in the 1930s, for Islam today, for Russia today, etc. It does not mean that the Nazi ideology and politics (or the Islam ideology and politics) are fine.

 

[Raoul]

What we are discussing is that the vast majority of any random group of people are nice people who do not want to kill. This is true for the Nazis in the 1930s, for Islam today, for Russia today, etc. It does not mean that the Nazi ideology and politics (or the Islam ideology and politics) are fine.

So all we can deduce from this is that people in autocratic systems tend to go with the flow instead of think independently, because they don't want to be perceived as outliers in societies that may persecute them for it.

 

[The Corinthian]

However I’m not sure that drawing a hard circle around oneself and declaring everything outside of it to have “nothing to do with Islam” is the best way to encourage a better understanding. I would favor an approach that encourages people to try and understand the various ways Muslims (or people claiming to be Muslim if you like) have understood the particular issues throughout history - where, when, and under what particular circumstances. But that likely is due to my particular bias as a non-Muslim interested in that history.

I think you're a black sheep in this scenario, my friend.

Just a cursory scroll up (or in the other thread) will show you that most couldn't give a shit about the historical context, how and when the application of fiqh is derived, and so on.

 

[2cents]

I think you're a black sheep in this scenario, my friend.

Just a cursory scroll up (or in the other thread) will show you that most couldn't give a shit about the historical context, how and when the application of fiqh is derived, and so on.

Yes, that's unfortunate. And like I said, tiresome to engage with. Another issue, however, is that the subject of Islamic law (and theology for that matter) is just far too complex for casual internet discussion. The literature is too dense, the issues at stake often appear extremely mundane, and the chronological and geographical scope of the enterprise is too vast to be reliably generalized. This affects Muslims and non-Muslims alike engaging in the discussion.

 

[The Corinthian]

Yes, that's unfortunate. And like I said, tiresome to engage with. Another issue, however, is that the subject of Islamic law (and theology for that matter) is just far too complex for casual internet discussion. The literature is too dense, the issues at stake often appear extremely mundane, and the chronological and geographical scope of the enterprise is too vast to be reliably generalized. This affects Muslims and non-Muslims alike engaging in the discussion.

Definitely - I was going to add to my original post that your average Muslim (i.e. one that would browse a Man Utd forum!) would probably have more knowledge than the average non-Muslim, but when discussing things as complex as fiqh, ikhtilaf on rulings, and what not it's probably best left to those that have actually studied the material.

In my own reading, I saw that a Middle Ages Damascene scholar once gave over 115 stipulations that needed to be satisfied to mete out a hudud punishment for theft. That's the level of scholastic and intellectual rigour that is required, but you have certain people who would glibly just copy / paste whatever a quick Google provides and pass this off as fact.

 

[Roane]

I mean there are hadiths saying. It doesn't mean that they are end be all, but obviously they are carry weight and are relevant to this whole deal.

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17, see also Sahih Muslim, 16:4152, Sahih Muslim, 16:4154

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:57Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:58Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:64

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:89:271

And I mean I can look up what defines apostacy and capital punishment for it and find this.

Al-Shafi'i listed three necessary conditions to pass capital punishment on a Muslim for apostasy in his Kitab al-Umm. (In the words of Frank Griffel) these are:

• "first, the apostate had to once have had faith (which, according to Al-Shafi'i's definition, means publicly professing all tenets of Islam);
• secondly, there had to follow unbelief (meaning the public declaration of a breaking-away from Islam), (having done these two the Muslim is now an unbeliever but not yet an apostate and thus not eligible for punishment);
• "third, there had to be the omission or failure to repent after the apostate was asked to do so

I can't see that one has to plot mischief(violence/war) to be a proper apostate or to receive a death sentence.

I did kind of explain how hadith work. I also explained how we have a formula that we should follow. Qur'an , Sunnah, actions of the sahabah.

I further explained that hadith narrators collected hadith and these are graded from Hassan to Daeef. Many are collated but there maybe weakness in the chain etc.

Just to take the hadith from Bukhari that you quoted 9:83:17, yes this hadith is found in Bukhari. But with hadith they are not an instruction or a ruling. They are narrated from people with chains. Then graded then a ruling is derived once it has been checked back to Qur'an.

In this case the Qur'an is clear in Surah 5:54 that a person leaving the religion is allowed to do so peacefully. Therefore the hadith is not confirmed from Qur'an.

Fyi the hadith are like a classroom full of students taking notes. No two will be the same. Some maybe doodling etc. A hadith collector doesn't make judgement he simply records what people have said the saw or heard etc.

 

[Roane]

Its not like people were living under prospering liberal democracies in Mecca and Medina when Muhammed became ruler of both and these laws were said to have originated from and to be somewhat timeless. What I'm getting at is simply the laws themselves and their source, it's not so much whether those countries are absolute monarchies or faux or fledgling democracies. I'm sure most moderate muslims don't care too much about the stuff that doesn't make much sense in times we are living in, but i'm simply talking about the laws and their source.

To be fair the prosperity of Mecca and Medina is dependent on the texts/books you read. I wasn't born in UK so the history I read as a kid was a lot different to what I learnt here.

The markets of Mecca were very prosperous. Some of the Sahabah were very wealthy and part of the elite. The tribe of Muhammad, his uncles were the guardians of Mecca and very powerful.

It was under the caliphs later once Islam was established that poverty was eradicated and people struggled to give zakat locally.

Unfortunately there are swathes of Islamic history that never get mentioned these days.

 

[Gehrman]

I did kind of explain how hadith work. I also explained how we have a formula that we should follow. Qur'an , Sunnah, actions of the sahabah.

I further explained that hadith narrators collected hadith and these are graded from Hassan to Daeef. Many are collated but there maybe weakness in the chain etc.

Just to take the hadith from Bukhari that you quoted 9:83:17, yes this hadith is found in Bukhari. But with hadith they are not an instruction or a ruling. They are narrated from people with chains. Then graded then a ruling is derived once it has been checked back to Qur'an.

In this case the Qur'an is clear in Surah 5:54 that a person leaving the religion is allowed to do so peacefully. Therefore the hadith is not confirmed from Qur'an.

Fyi the hadith are like a classroom full of students taking notes. No two will be the same. Some maybe doodling etc. A hadith collector doesn't make judgement he simply records what people have said the saw or heard etc.

Could you quote surah 5.54 from the quran you read?

 

[dal]

Thing is people go mad living on earth, hardly anyone wants to live forever, so why live forever in heaven?

From what I’ve seen is people believe i after life as it keeps them comfortable on earth but there is scientific theory that says when we die we are reborn /relive in another dimension, spooky.

 

[frostbite]

Since we have people who have read the Quran, I have a question:

What should a good Muslim do when someone (like me) is an open, 100 percent atheist who says that all religions are lies and scams?

I know that the Bible is not very tolerant towards atheists. But I have no idea what the Quran says and what a good, faithful Muslim is supposed to do.


(Of course, I know that a Muslim in California is fine with atheists, but they are also fine with alcohol, gays, gay parades, divorce, sex outside marriage, abortion, and many other things that are not allowed in many Muslim-dominated countries. It is always true that, in practise, what people do and what their religion says, is not the same thing. Here, my question is about what Islam, the religion, says about atheists, not what *you* personally think it is the proper thing to do. )

 

[The Corinthian]

Since we have people who have read the Quran, I have a question:

What should a good Muslim do when someone (like me) is an open, 100 percent atheist who says that all religions are lies and scams?

I know that the Bible is not very tolerant towards atheists. But I have no idea what the Quran says and what a good, faithful Muslim is supposed to do.


(Of course, I know that a Muslim in California is fine with atheists, but they are also fine with alcohol, gays, gay parades, divorce, sex outside marriage, abortion, and many other things that are not allowed in many Muslim-dominated countries. It is always true that, in practise, what people do and what their religion says, is not the same thing. Here, my question is about what Islam, the religion, says about atheists, not what *you* personally think it is the proper thing to do. )

Why would they, Muslim or otherwise, have to do anything? I’m not sure I understand the question or the point you’re making here.

 

[2cents]

In my own reading, I saw that a Middle Ages Damascene scholar once gave over 115 stipulations that needed to be satisfied to mete out a hudud punishment for theft.

What I’ve found interesting recently is reading of cases where Jews and Christians sometimes made use of Islamic courts, under the Mamluks and Ottomans, and in Yemen. Sometimes because they could potentially obtain a more favorable ruling from the Islamic court, other times because there was no sure way to have the rulings of their own religious courts enforced.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Can I just say, if your finite religious book contains the infinite knowledge of God, the only way that is possible is if every single word in that religious book has an infinite number of meanings. Read every line again and again, each word changing its meaning, then you might, possibly, start to understand the infinite knowledge of God.

Basically, everything you've read also means the opposite of what you think, and every gradient in between.

 

[calodo2003]

 

[MarylandMUFan]

And that's no more ridiculous than anything else in religious texts, especially considering the number of people that may actually believe it.

 

[calodo2003]

And that's no more ridiculous than anything else in religious texts, especially considering the number of people that may actually believe it.

Just a different flavor.

 

[frostbite]

Why would they, Muslim or otherwise, have to do anything? I’m not sure I understand the question or the point you’re making here.

You don't understand the question because you grew up in the West and you accept that religion is a personal thing. Like being gay is a personal thing. However, many people in muslim-dominated countries do not think this way, they don't accept that religion is a personal thing. Or that being gay is a personal thing. (And it was like that in the West 500 years ago, too.)

 

[MarylandMUFan]

You don't understand the question because you grew up in the West and you accept that religion is a personal thing. Like being gay is a personal thing. However, many people in muslim-dominated countries do not think this way, they don't accept that religion is a personal thing. Or that being gay is a personal thing. (And it was like that in the West 500 years ago, too.)

To be fair, it's where a good chunk of America is heading as well. Christian Nationalism is something people are running on and winning with. Scary shit.

 

[Gehrman]

I did kind of explain how hadith work. I also explained how we have a formula that we should follow. Qur'an , Sunnah, actions of the sahabah.

I further explained that hadith narrators collected hadith and these are graded from Hassan to Daeef. Many are collated but there maybe weakness in the chain etc.

Just to take the hadith from Bukhari that you quoted 9:83:17, yes this hadith is found in Bukhari. But with hadith they are not an instruction or a ruling. They are narrated from people with chains. Then graded then a ruling is derived once it has been checked back to Qur'an.

In this case the Qur'an is clear in Surah 5:54 that a person leaving the religion is allowed to do so peacefully. Therefore the hadith is not confirmed from Qur'an.

Fyi the hadith are like a classroom full of students taking notes. No two will be the same. Some maybe doodling etc. A hadith collector doesn't make judgement he simply records what people have said the saw or heard etc.

"O believers! Whoever among you abandons their faith, Allah will replace them with others who love Him and are loved by Him. They will be humble with the believers but firm towards the disbelievers, struggling in the Way of Allah; fearing no blame from anyone. This is the favour of Allah. He grants it to whoever He wills. And Allah is All-Bountiful, All-Knowing."

Roane i'm not quite clear on how this Surah 5:54 illuminates what muslims should do about apostates. Perhaps something is lost in translation or i'm not reading it correctly. This is just from Quran.com. The main I gather from it is that apostates will replaced by people who are humble towards believers and firm towards disbelievers. I don't really feel it tells us anymore than that on this topic unless I'm missing something?

 

[frostbite]

I think in this debate over "who is a Muslim?" and "what makes something Islamic?", Muslims and non-Muslims often tend to talk past each other. They each approach the debate in different terms. I don't want to offend you, but reading your posts on this forum you come across as a Muslim who is particularly concerned with strictly demarcating the boundaries of your faith. For the sake of this argument, I will assume this concern springs from a genuine desire to ensure that your community, family, etc. are not led astray and remain true to what you believe to be the straight path.

Non-Muslims simply don't share these concerns when considering the questions set out above. Since we don't accept the fundamental basis of Islam - belief in the unity/oneness of God and the finality of Muhammad's mission - debates and conflicts among those who do claim adherence to these fundamentals - but differ over their details, interpretation, and consequences - simply appear as intra-Muslim debates. So when we think about who is a Muslim or what makes something Islamic, for the most part we are less interested in whatever ideal of Islam an individual Muslim might aspire to fulfil, and more concerned with the actual historical product of Muhammad's mission. In other words, there is little reason for a non-Muslim to deny the Islamic nature of a particular group or individual as long as their conviction that they are Islamic appears sincere and their identity is recognizably a historical product of the idea embodied in the shahada.

We can of course identify those trends among Muslims which have established the dominance of their interpretation (what we might call orthodoxy) in history, and conversely recognize other trends and movements whose ideas have been more peripheral (heterodoxy). So for example, it is common for non-Muslims to consider the jurisprudence of the four madhahib as constituting orthodoxy in Islam, while, say, the Isma'ilis would often be considered a somewhat heterodox group or sect. But in the terms in which we think about these things, both are recognizably Islamic. For non-Muslims, the establishment of dominance or orthodoxy is not a marker of religious truth or correctness in Islam, but simply a product of the forces of history.

You are right. For me as a non-Muslim, the differences between interpretations are completely meaningless. Studying the Quran is like studying a "Nigerian letter". Because the whole situation is very simple: Muhammand's "mission" was a scam. Perhaps the greatest scam ever. He established himself as king, prophet, judge, warlord. The wet dream of every autocrat. Hitler and Stalin tried to have that absolute power, but they never were able to, they never claimed they have been talking to god.

I think this is the reason why we see Americans who try to portray Trump as something akin to a prophet sent from God to clear this land from the filth. This is the next step of his scam. Trump has been building a cult for a long time, and he has many disciples. The "divine right" is the best possible way to control his followers. For us, who haven't fallen down the rabbit hole, Trump is a con artist. For his followers, he is the savior, sent by god. That's how scams, cults, and religions work. And I am afraid that the Trump cult will also produce many "extremists" in the future.