Kalam
Senior Member
- Mar 5, 2009
- 8,866
- 785
- 48
Not at all. If our morality was consequentialistic then we'd have no use for niceties like rules of engagement. It is stated clearly and repeatedly that proper adherence to Islam never taxes a person beyond their capabilities. Asking someone to be tactless and forward about their beliefs when doing so is likely to get them killed is an unreasonable demand that isn't consistent with this assurance. Self-preservation is every creature's most basic instinct -- the fact that God doesn't command us to act against this fundamental aspect of our own nature can't be used to justify the association of Islamic morality with consequentialism.Muslims are allowed to deny their faith in situations where failure to do so will lead to their death or torture. I fail to see what's so horrible about this.
Isn't this in direct conflict with:
Anyone who associates consequentialism with Islam clearly has no understanding of the religion. They may want to refer to the first of Imam an-Nawawi's 40 ahadith.
Must a party openly proclaim hostility toward the entire religion before we're allowed to retaliate? If our assailants were allowed to carry on killing us as long as they did so under pretense then we'd have been wiped out centuries ago.Who has declared war on islam??????? Links, evidence
Every party that initiates hostilities against a believing party (through either the use of aggressive force or the inhibition of free worship) effectively declares war on Islam. If you want me to provide scripture and other evidence in support of this statement I'll gladly do so. In my estimation, today's preeminent non-Muslim antagonists are the governments of Russia, Israel, India, and China. All of the political entities that currently control the so-called Muslim world are equally inimical if not worse; this is especially true of those governments attacking us in the name of Islam.
Which passages?I gave you ample opportunities to present the passages "in the correct context". You chose not to do that.
I hope you'll overlook my contumely. I had no right or reason to be discourteous and ask for your forgiveness along with that of the Almighty. Conducting myself disgracefully constitutes a failure on my part to abide by the religion we're discussing; I'll follow your precedent of civility from now on in sha' Allah.I gave you information off of one site out of hundreds and you want to get indignant?
Some Qur'anic injunctions are general and universal, some are conditional, and other passages are entirely allegorical. Living in the manner prescribed for us in God's book requires understanding them in the light of the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS) and the specific circumstances of each passage's revelation. No inconsistencies will be perceived by anyone who does this.Again, feel free to explain the passages in the "correct" context. To me, the quran seems to contradict itself, repeatedly.
That's because history has given rise to discrepant interpretations formed along political, theological, mystical, and jurisprudential axes. Differences in understanding are permitted so long as they're legitimate -- when one of the Prophet's (SAWS) instructions to an expeditionary group led to a disagreement over the meaning of his words, the group explained their dispute to him upon returning and he didn't criticize or reject either of the understandings that arose. Some issues are black and white, however. The best interpretation is always that which is based on the soundest evidence. Each 'alim and 'alimah must determine for himself or herself which interpretations are the most solid, and each must provide the laity with cogent analyses and explanations of indeterminate issues. Of course, some people are insincere and attempt to wield religious influence to their own worldly benefit (especially those at the top of the corrupt established order.) A bit of scrutiny and common sense is usually all it takes to recognize the perfidiousness of their schemes.What is "taught" by the leaders has even bigger discrepancies.
Example the British extremist Omar Bakri Mohammad's former aide, Anjem Choudary, a British extremist said, "the Muslims don't want democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are anathema to Islam and the Shariah." He continues: Choudary said that at his protest, he will call on Obama and all Americans to "embrace Islam, not only as a religion but as a way of life." and with: He warned Obama: "I do believe that the only way for him to save himself in this life and in the hereafter is to embrace Islam. Islam will eradicate all his sins; he will be like the day his mother gave birth to him. Otherwise, when we do implement the Shariah, obviously he will face the consequences of a trial under the Shariah court."
Choudary has publicly stated he believes the flag of Islam will fly over White House. He repeated that contention in his radio interview.
"I do believe that as a Muslim every part of the world will be governed by the Shariah," he said. "So symbolically the flag of Islam will fly from every single country, every single nation."
Read more: 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis' 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis'
If you have time, refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread which discusses Choudary. He has no religious credentials and his words on the subject carry no more weight than my own or those of any other unaccredited layman. The media always provides platforms for the silly views of rabble-rousers like him because stirring up frivolous controversies keeps their pockets lined and our heads empty.
Democracy as it's usually understood is not Islamic in my view because (in theory) it entrusts people with sovereignty and the power to legislate according to whatever the majority's vain desires happen to be at a given moment. Political authority should belong to the people as a whole, yes, but sovereignty belongs wholly to God. Legislation and the structure of human society should be based not on our own mercurial prejudices but on the eternal and infinitely prudent will of al-Hakim, who revealed His guidance for us in the Qur'an and saw that it was implemented illustratively for us by Muhammad (SAWS) and his companions.
I'm not sure why you'd point out that this isn't an Islamic website or what that has to do with your ability to present your argument, but I'm always happy to explain my religion as accurately as I can with the knowledge and resources at my disposal.This is not an islamic website. I am free to "submit" questions to my abilities, not your preferences. Again, here is another opportunity for you to demonstrate how islam will not make a total stain on the earth. Will you continue to ignore reality and evidence or stay with the land of Oz?
I can assure you that I'm aware of reality and am on the long and arduous path toward fully perceiving it in its wholeness and ineffable perfection. There is only one Reality, one Existence, and He is blindingly apparent to anyone who bothers to contemplate His many signs.
And we both know that He knows best and that He'll inform us about our differences in belief when he sends 'Isa (AS) to us once again and calls all of mankind to account for the last time.