Moderate vs. Fundamentalist Islam

[Fatality]

There may be moderate muslims, more than likely they are just posing , Trojan horses for fundamentalism, there is no moderate Islam.

Yep. People like to equate the word 'Moderate' into everything. In this case you either subscribe to the Koran, or you don't.

Thinking there are 'Moderate'Muslims' is wishful thinking. And to those that think they are 'Moderate' in their faith should get out of it...even under 'Pain of DEATH' advocated by the Koran for changing Religion.

No, more than a passing visit to the Koran will show that there are numerous passages, suras, that can be read as modeate, and, as with every religion, the outcome depends on which aspects, suras, one emphsizes.

sure, if you pretend abrogation is nonexistant and you tear out half the book, then yeah.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You don't remember posting that earlier? You failed to put forth any meaningful response to my rebuttal, so I assumed that my argument stood.

Let's look into this.

Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in the most holy Muslim texts -- both the Koran (verses such as 2:217 and 4:89)

They ask thee about fighting in the sacred month. Say: fighting it is a grave (offense). And hindering from Allah's way and denying Him and the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah; and persecution is graver with Allah; and persecution (fitna - persecution, trial, etc.) is graver than slaughter. And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can. And whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever -- these it is whose works go for nothing in this world and the Hereafter. And they are the companions of the Fire: therein they will abide. - 2:217​

This ayah condemns those who attempt to proselytize Muslims and who prevent them from worshiping freely in the Masjid al-Haram. Moreover, it's made clear that the disbelievers being referenced are "fighting" Muslims with the intent of making them convert to another religion. Of those who abandon Islam, it is said that anything that they may accomplish is nullified in the sight of Allah (SWT) and that they'll receive their due punishment in the hereafter. No earthly punishment is prescribed, so the claim that this ayah provides justification for executing apostates is dishonest and inaccurate. The next ayah you cite proves my point rather than yours. Let's read it along with the ayah that immediately follows it:

They long that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved so that you might be on the same level; so take not from among them friends until they flee in Allah’s way. Then if they turn back, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take no friend nor helper from among them, except those who join a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them. - 4:89-90​

The passage hardly requires an explanation. If the person in question "withdraws" from the Muslims (ie: becomes an apostate), attacking him is not permissible unless he takes up arms against Muslims.

Narrated Jabir: A bedouin came to the Prophet and said, "Please take my Pledge of allegiance for Islam." So the Prophet took from him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam. He came the next day with a fever and said to the Prophet "Cancel my pledge." But the Prophet refused and when the bedouin went away (from Madinah,) the Prophet said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows: It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good."

- Sahih Bukhari, Ahkaam ("Judgements"), no. 323.​

The same hadith is reported in nos. 316 and 318 of that book as well as no. 107 of Virtues of Madinah and no. 424 of Holding Fast to the Quran and Sunnah.


More:
Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam? - IslamOnline.net - Living Sharia'h


Sharia is derived from the Qur'an and Ahadith. Law with no firm basis in scripture is not Sharia.


See the link above.


This is untrue. The Shafi'i Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, does not believe that apostasy is a capital offense under Islam.

Ali Gomaa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nope. Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri disagrees.

Hosein-Ali Montazeri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Middle Ages were a period of particularly high intolerance in Islam. A legal opinion issued during that period was not necessarily reflective of the actual teachings of the religion.

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy-endorsed Shafi'i manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states:

Reliance of the Traveler is not contemporary; it was written by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1367 CE.) You're referring to the 1990 translation of that work by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The Shafi'i position on apostasy was articulated by Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa; see above.

You'll forgive me for not addressing the rest of the post, as it deals with individuals whose opinions hold no real weight in Islam.

Wa 'alaykum as-salam.

Your posts on the subject conjure up images of the straying husband, caught 'flagrante delicto,' turning angrily to his wife, and defending himself with

"who ya' gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes."

You know who I'm going to believe.

 

[Kalam]

sure, if you pretend abrogation is nonexistant and you tear out half the book, then yeah.

Conclusively refuted.

Abrogation is a false doctrine

You have tried and shown you cant prove that.

I have shown it to be true on a number of occasions; you cling to falsities because you realize that acknowledging the truth would deprive your hilariously pathetic Islamophobia of a rational basis. I'm sure that you're not even familiar with the development of the theory of internal naskh. As time has passed and knowledge has increased, a progressively fewer number of verses have been regarded as "abrogated." During the Medieval period, for example, varying numbers of passages were thought to be affected by internal abrogation - Imam Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti eventually demonstrated that no more than 21 verses could have been abrogated.

The possibly abrogated verses -- as recognized by Suyuti -- are as follows:

• 2:180 (by 2:181)
• 2:184 (by 2:185)
• 2:183 (by 2:187)
• 2:217 (by 9:36)
• 2:240 (by 2:234)
• 2:284 (by 2:286)
• 3:102 (by 64:16)
• 4:33 (by 8:75)
• 4:8
• 4:15
• 5:2
• 5:42 (by 5:49)
• 5:106 (by 65:2)
• 8:65 (by 8:66)
• 9:41 (by 24:61, 9:91, and 9:122)
• 24:3 (by 24:32)
• 24:58
• 33:52 (by 33:33)
• 58:12 (by 58:13)
• 60:11
• 73:2

Suyuti's discussion of Naskh can be found in full here (for some reason, it's hosted on an Ahmadi website):
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/images_blog/nasikhmansukh.pdf

You will notice that 2:256 (Let there be no compulsion in religion...) and similar passages that I cite were not included by Suyuti in his list of abrogated verses.

What's more, renowned Indian scholar Shah Wahiullah (d. 1762) demonstrated in Al Faudhul Kabir fi Usoolut Tafsir that all but five of Suyuti's verses were unaffected by abrogation. We have now reduced this number to zero, as it's plainly obvious that the passages that supposedly explain internal naskh actually describe a form of naskh that involves the Qur'an taking precedence over previous scriptures. Like Maulana Muhammad Ali, eminent Sunni leader Maulana Maududi confirmed that the references were to the Qur'anic abrogation of Halakha. Excerpted from his tafsir, Tafhim al-Qur'an (regarding 2:106) -

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

This is the answer to an objection which the Jews raised to create doubts in the minds of the Muslims. They argued this: "The Qur'an says that the former Scriptures had been sent down by Allah and that it had as well. If this is so, why does the Qur'an give commands that differ from those contained in the former Books? How can the same God give different commands at different times?" Besides, they said, "The Qur'an asserts that the Jews and the Christians have forgotten a part of the teachings sent down to them. How is it possible that the teachings of Allah could be obliterated from memory?" They did not raise these objections for the sake of arriving at the truth, but for the sake of creating mischief. Allah answers their objections thus: "I am the Sovereign and My powers are unlimited. I can repeal any order of Mine or allow it to be forgotten, but I substitute for it something that serves the same purpose better or at least equally well."​

Yawn.

 

[Kalam]

Your posts on the subject conjure up images of the straying husband, caught 'flagrante delicto,' turning angrily to his wife, and defending himself with

"who ya' gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes."

You know who I'm going to believe.

This post would be less nonsensical if I didn't substantiate all of my opinions with clear scriptural references or the opinions of respected scholars. I have to say, I expected a little more fight from you.

You're welcome to believe factually inaccurate articles over the Qur'an itself and ahadith if you so wish.

 

[PoliticalChic]

sure, if you pretend abrogation is nonexistant and you tear out half the book, then yeah.

Conclusively refuted.

I have shown it to be true on a number of occasions; you cling to falsities because you realize that acknowledging the truth would deprive your hilariously pathetic Islamophobia of a rational basis. I'm sure that you're not even familiar with the development of the theory of internal naskh. As time has passed and knowledge has increased, a progressively fewer number of verses have been regarded as "abrogated." During the Medieval period, for example, varying numbers of passages were thought to be affected by internal abrogation - Imam Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti eventually demonstrated that no more than 21 verses could have been abrogated.

The possibly abrogated verses -- as recognized by Suyuti -- are as follows:

• 2:180 (by 2:181)
• 2:184 (by 2:185)
• 2:183 (by 2:187)
• 2:217 (by 9:36)
• 2:240 (by 2:234)
• 2:284 (by 2:286)
• 3:102 (by 64:16)
• 4:33 (by 8:75)
• 4:8
• 4:15
• 5:2
• 5:42 (by 5:49)
• 5:106 (by 65:2)
• 8:65 (by 8:66)
• 9:41 (by 24:61, 9:91, and 9:122)
• 24:3 (by 24:32)
• 24:58
• 33:52 (by 33:33)
• 58:12 (by 58:13)
• 60:11
• 73:2

Suyuti's discussion of Naskh can be found in full here (for some reason, it's hosted on an Ahmadi website):
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/images_blog/nasikhmansukh.pdf

You will notice that 2:256 (Let there be no compulsion in religion...) and similar passages that I cite were not included by Suyuti in his list of abrogated verses.

What's more, renowned Indian scholar Shah Wahiullah (d. 1762) demonstrated in Al Faudhul Kabir fi Usoolut Tafsir that all but five of Suyuti's verses were unaffected by abrogation. We have now reduced this number to zero, as it's plainly obvious that the passages that supposedly explain internal naskh actually describe a form of naskh that involves the Qur'an taking precedence over previous scriptures. Like Maulana Muhammad Ali, eminent Sunni leader Maulana Maududi confirmed that the references were to the Qur'anic abrogation of Halakha. Excerpted from his tafsir, Tafhim al-Qur'an (regarding 2:106) -

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

This is the answer to an objection which the Jews raised to create doubts in the minds of the Muslims. They argued this: "The Qur'an says that the former Scriptures had been sent down by Allah and that it had as well. If this is so, why does the Qur'an give commands that differ from those contained in the former Books? How can the same God give different commands at different times?" Besides, they said, "The Qur'an asserts that the Jews and the Christians have forgotten a part of the teachings sent down to them. How is it possible that the teachings of Allah could be obliterated from memory?" They did not raise these objections for the sake of arriving at the truth, but for the sake of creating mischief. Allah answers their objections thus: "I am the Sovereign and My powers are unlimited. I can repeal any order of Mine or allow it to be forgotten, but I substitute for it something that serves the same purpose better or at least equally well."​

Yawn.

Your 'yawn' is nearly as transparent as your attempted defense of a horrid aspect of the religion.

Are some killed for leaving Islam?

Many?

Is this the only religion where congregants leave prayer services and go out to kill?

Case closed.

 

[Kalam]

I'm also flattered, if bewildered, that you'd think of me as your husband.

 

[Kalam]

Are some killed for leaving Islam?

Yes, they are.

Many?

What constitutes "many'?

Is this the only religion where congregants leave prayer services and go out to kill?

No, nor is that a statement that can be applied to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

Case closed.

If your contention is that Islam -- meaning the fundamental teachings of the religion itself -- condones this practice, the case has been closed in my favor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are some killed for leaving Islam?

Yes, they are.

Many?

What constitutes "many'?

Is this the only religion where congregants leave prayer services and go out to kill?

No, nor is that a statement that can be applied to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

Case closed.

If your contention is that Islam -- meaning the fundamental teachings of the religion itself -- condones this practice, the case has been closed in my favor.

My sympathies go out to you- no, not just a jibe, I actually mean it, because you post many cogent and well thought out post, but at times you feel you are constrained by a sense that you must protect and excuse even the most inhuman aspect of your religion.

My suggestion would be, not to crilticize your own religion, nor to look for common ground with those who do so, but to try to see from outside the religion, and decline comments rather than support concepts such as we all see in the treatment of apostates or critics.

Killing of apostates is clearly linked with one religion. As is honor killing. As is subjugation and domination of other religions. As is sexual apartheid.

Some religions honor love, some life, and some death.

I understand that you may feel that you do not have any other option.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm also flattered, if bewildered, that you'd think of me as your husband.

You'd be more than bewildered!

I'd whip you into shape: I'd beat you like a rented mule.

Then you'd be wearing the pillowcase.

 

[Kalam]

My sympathies go out to you- no, not just a jibe, I actually mean it, because you post many cogent and well thought out post, but at times you feel you are constrained by a sense that you must protect and excuse even the most inhuman aspect of your religion.

If I felt that an part of Islam was inhuman, I'd not be a Muslim. I don't feel constrained. Defending my religion allows me to learn more about it and strengthens my convictions.

My suggestion would be, not to crilticize your own religion, nor to look for common ground with those who do so, but to try to see from outside the religion, and decline comments rather than support concepts such as we all see in the treatment of apostates or critics.

It wouldn't be dutiful for me to fail to respond to criticism of Islam until attacks by non-Muslims abate. I understand your non-Muslim perspective. I haven't always been as religious as I am now, which still isn't particularly religious.

Killing of apostates is clearly linked with one religion. As is honor killing. As is subjugation and domination of other religions. As is sexual apartheid.

I'm sorry you see things that way. I suppose it's, as you said, a matter of perspective.

Some religions honor love, some life, and some death.

I understand that you may feel that you do not have any other option.

I have plenty of options... I enjoy responding to criticism.

 

[Kalam]

I'm also flattered, if bewildered, that you'd think of me as your husband.

You'd be more than bewildered!

I'd whip you into shape: I'd beat you like a rented mule.

Then you'd be wearing the pillowcase.

Kinky!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

sure, if you pretend abrogation is nonexistant and you tear out half the book, then yeah.

Conclusively refuted.

Nothing is unequivocal .

Like the abrogation of one Quranic verse by another?

It is abundantly evident that naskh occurs between separate scriptures rather than between them, though belief in internal naskh is still somewhat widespread and certainly doesn't constitute kufr.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1628053-post118.html

Sorry you cant have it both ways
conclusively - definition of conclusively by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

unequivocally - definition of unequivocally by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Kalam]

sure, if you pretend abrogation is nonexistant and you tear out half the book, then yeah.

Conclusively refuted.

Like the abrogation of one Quranic verse by another?

It is abundantly evident that naskh occurs between separate scriptures rather than between them, though belief in internal naskh is still somewhat widespread and certainly doesn't constitute kufr.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1628053-post118.html

Sorry you cant have it both ways
conclusively - definition of conclusively by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

unequivocally - definition of unequivocally by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

OK, fine. I'll accept internal naskh if you write an original argument in favor of it that refutes each of my points concerning the words of the Qur'an and establishes each of the three scholars I cited as frauds. Get crackin'.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Conclusively refuted.

It is abundantly evident that naskh occurs between separate scriptures rather than between them, though belief in internal naskh is still somewhat widespread and certainly doesn't constitute kufr.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1628053-post118.html

Sorry you cant have it both ways
conclusively - definition of conclusively by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

unequivocally - definition of unequivocally by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

OK, fine. I'll accept internal naskh if you write an original argument in favor of it that refutes each of my points concerning the words of the Qur'an and establishes each of the three scholars I cited as frauds. Get crackin'.

Nothing is unequivocal .

Like the abrogation of one Quranic verse by another?

It is abundantly evident that naskh occurs between separate scriptures rather than between them, though belief in internal naskh is still somewhat widespread and certainly doesn't constitute kufr.

I do not care if you accept the concept, You have pinned yourself with your own words.

 

[Kalam]

I do not care if you accept the concept, You have pinned yourself with your own words.

By stating that belief in internal naskh doesn't constitute kufr? If thinking that makes you feel better about your inability to refute my argument, you're welcome to do so.

 

[Chris]

There may be moderate muslims, more than likely they are just posing , Trojan horses for fundamentalism, there is no moderate Islam.

Do you actually know any muslims?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There may be moderate muslims, more than likely they are just posing , Trojan horses for fundamentalism, there is no moderate Islam.

Do you actually know any muslims?

I shared a Reese's bar with one a few days ago.
Not the cups , the new bar that is like a hersey's
What does knowing Muslims have to do with what is in thew Quran and hadith ?

 

[kyzr]

Ahem, not to butt in, but last week some FBI guys arrested some islam guys who were going to kill some Danish guys for some cartoons?!
Danish terror plot: 2 Chicago friends accused of scheming to attack Danish newspaper over cartoons about Muhammad -- chicagotribune.com

I seem to recall another guy who wrote a book called "Satanic Verses" who also is supposed to be killed.

then there was this guy who tried to run his own daughter over,
Dishonor Killings?

Then there was this other muslim guy who tried to blow-up a Dallas skyscraper...
FBI Arrests Man in Dallas Skyscraper Bomb Plot | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth

Its easy to see that these guys are stuck in the middle-ages, and don't belong in the civilized/modern world. I want these MFs out of the US.

 

[Kalam]

Its easy to see that these guys are stuck in the middle-ages, and don't belong in the civilized/modern world. I want these MFs out of the US.

Where am I going?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I do not care if you accept the concept, You have pinned yourself with your own words.

By stating that belief in internal naskh doesn't constitute kufr? If thinking that makes you feel better about your inability to refute my argument, you're welcome to do so.

You have proven your irrefutable evidence is not irrefutable, with your own words.
All I did was point it out.
You cannot hang your tragedy on me.