4 ms·

Billions may be overstating it, but you do have a point, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of that movement and does promote the literalist approach, along with it

by ern 11y ago

Billions may be overstating it, but you do have a point, Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of that movement and does promote the literalist approach, along with its Gulf neigbours. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate. In the case of France, as the article points out, Islamically ignorant, disaffected Moslem youths are easy pickings for Salafists. Edit: as for the rest you are again ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation.

acqq 11y ago
> it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate. But you don't know. As I speak a few languages, I was able to check the instructions on one local language and I was able to see that among all the content that is supposed to be less fundamentally oriented there is this nice "kids, now we will learn who is unbeliever, think about those who you know who aren't Muslim" etc. Then you can actually check what the religious text tell about the unbelievers. > ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation Sunnah is the context and they are even searchable online. So please don't scare people from reading Quran. They will surely understand more than when they don't even attempt to see what's inside. They can also search for the context and interpretations elsewhere, even Wikipedia has some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muha... Interpretations abound: http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 "Those who ridicule Prophet Muhammad and defame his life and message drive people away from virtue and deprive the world from stability and tranquility. These people are condemned and threatened by the Qur’an. Allah says in His Glrious Book, : {The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.} [chapter of Abraham, 14:3]" I actually want to be free to "ridicule" that self-claimed "prophet": I don't believe in him. He was only a mortal, and he was not more connected to God than Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith was a fraud too, even if the guy who believes in him almost became president of US. And gods are just a human invention anyway. Imaginary beings who as the messages stumble to give "Guide us to the straight path The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)" but never even a single scientific hint for anything, like, why wouldn't any "God" leave the message in his holy texts "you don't understand now, but once later you'll see that the light has always the same speed." The humanity discovered it around a century ago. Imagine that this simple words were in some holy text. Wouldn't it simply prove that the imaginary beings called by us gods even exist? The major problem with Islam is that I'd be dead after saying former sentences in front of most of the "submitted" (which is the meaning of the word "Muslim"). It's true that I'd be dead for the same words in Europe of Middle Ages, but that only proves that we know what we know today because we dared to stop being the "believers" or the "submitted."
- ern 11y ago
  Feel free to that, just be aware that your approach lacks any kind of validity and would be regarded as quixotic at best. Most hadiths (I think that's what you are referring to) have weak veracity and weighted accordingly. As I stated elsewhere your approach shares a great deal with the Salafist/Wahabist doctrine but, sadly, not a great deal with 1400 years of Islamic thought. Once again, to use the analogy of the US Constitution, your approach is akin to finding a copy of the Constitution in 2015 and trying to produce a functioning government from scratch with no prior knowledge. Sure you'd be able to produce something, but th chances that it would remotely resemble the real thing are slim.
  - acqq 11y ago
    I can read the constitution to get the ideas of those who wrote it just like I can read the Islamic text to get their ideas. To know the exact implementation of the ideas we'd have to study the US law or the law of some other country (and we are sure to see that not all ideas are even implemented in practice). But to learn about the general ideas, reading the original material is actually enough. And it's actually a good exercise to read both the US constitution and then read Quran and compare the ideas in them. Let's start with the constitution. I can search through that too. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt God is never mentioned, religion is mentioned twice: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

by ern 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

> it wouldn't surprise me if Moslem countries carefully watch their madrasah syllabi to make sure that Saudi influence does not infiltrate. But you don't know. As I speak a few languages, I was able to check the instructions on one local language and I was able to see that among all the content that is supposed to be less fundamentally oriented there is this nice "kids, now we will learn who is unbeliever, think about those who you know who aren't Muslim" etc. Then you can actually check what the religious text tell about the unbelievers. > ignoring the context in which then verses were revealed, and their practical interpretation Sunnah is the context and they are even searchable online. So please don't scare people from reading Quran. They will surely understand more than when they don't even attempt to see what's inside. They can also search for the context and interpretations elsewhere, even Wikipedia has some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muhammad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Campaigns_led_by_Muha... Interpretations abound: http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/1640 "Those who ridicule Prophet Muhammad and defame his life and message drive people away from virtue and deprive the world from stability and tranquility. These people are condemned and threatened by the Qur’an. Allah says in His Glrious Book, : {The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it (seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.} [chapter of Abraham, 14:3]" I actually want to be free to "ridicule" that self-claimed "prophet": I don't believe in him. He was only a mortal, and he was not more connected to God than Joseph Smith. And Joseph Smith was a fraud too, even if the guy who believes in him almost became president of US. And gods are just a human invention anyway. Imaginary beings who as the messages stumble to give "Guide us to the straight path The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)" but never even a single scientific hint for anything, like, why wouldn't any "God" leave the message in his holy texts "you don't understand now, but once later you'll see that the light has always the same speed." The humanity discovered it around a century ago. Imagine that this simple words were in some holy text. Wouldn't it simply prove that the imaginary beings called by us gods even exist? The major problem with Islam is that I'd be dead after saying former sentences in front of most of the "submitted" (which is the meaning of the word "Muslim"). It's true that I'd be dead for the same words in Europe of Middle Ages, but that only proves that we know what we know today because we dared to stop being the "believers" or the "submitted."

ern 11y ago
Feel free to that, just be aware that your approach lacks any kind of validity and would be regarded as quixotic at best. Most hadiths (I think that's what you are referring to) have weak veracity and weighted accordingly. As I stated elsewhere your approach shares a great deal with the Salafist/Wahabist doctrine but, sadly, not a great deal with 1400 years of Islamic thought. Once again, to use the analogy of the US Constitution, your approach is akin to finding a copy of the Constitution in 2015 and trying to produce a functioning government from scratch with no prior knowledge. Sure you'd be able to produce something, but th chances that it would remotely resemble the real thing are slim.
- acqq 11y ago
  I can read the constitution to get the ideas of those who wrote it just like I can read the Islamic text to get their ideas. To know the exact implementation of the ideas we'd have to study the US law or the law of some other country (and we are sure to see that not all ideas are even implemented in practice). But to learn about the general ideas, reading the original material is actually enough. And it's actually a good exercise to read both the US constitution and then read Quran and compare the ideas in them. Let's start with the constitution. I can search through that too. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt God is never mentioned, religion is mentioned twice: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."