2 ms·

Can you point me to any actual Fiqh which presents the possibility of choice of "which passages to believe" in Islamic scholarship? I'm really not aware of it,

by acqq 10y ago

Can you point me to any actual Fiqh which presents the possibility of choice of "which passages to believe" in Islamic scholarship? I'm really not aware of it, only the opposite, and for that there's enough quotes in any Fiqh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh Jihad as the actual physical fight is also a part of every fiqh. Excluding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya that are around 1% of all believers and actually not accepted by the rest.

notahacker 10y ago
I actually said "which passages they believe are applicable to the present situation" which is quite different from "which passages to believe"[1] Fiqh literally is the principle of interpreting how actions and statements made by Muhammad at various times during his rather turbulent life should be applied as behavioural rules and guidelines for Muslims living under different circumstances today and in the future. For example, Islamic scholars differ hugely on whether the "sword verse" abrogated all prior calls for religious tolerance found in the Quran or was better understood from the context of the surrounding passage as a conditional and quite specific directive targeted at particular pagan groups in the event of them opting to violate a ceasefire during the time of Mohammed (and of course there is plenty of scope for scholars following the latter interpretation to nevertheless claim a particular side of a particular conflict is an analogous situation...). Needless to say, the interpretations found on websites like "Answering Islam" are not necessarily the most authoritative or representative of mainstream Muslim belief. [1]if this is because you have a more general difficulty or unwillingness to interpret even simple, uncontroversial sentences written in modern English using their most natural meaning, the study of Islamic theology probably isn't for you...
- acqq 10y ago
  These schools of law (fiqh) cover almost all Muslims in the world: Sunni: hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ẓāhirī Shia: Ja'fari Ibadi The Shafii approved one is translated in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_of_the_Traveller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_of_the_Traveller "We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a). — Al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991)" Some quotes from this fiqh: "In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year." "O9.4: Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane." "O9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required)." Etc. Now I'm still waiting to hear from you fiqh of which school excludes jihad as a warfare and an obligation, or which of those allows anybody to chose which passages "are applicable to the present situation."
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Meanwhile, a billion or so actual Muslims living in their own countries included, apparently don't think the quotes you have cherry-picked from this Fiqh amount to a communal obligation upon them to go to war each year. But I'm sure you know their religion much better than they do. As I've pointed out Fiqh literally is the interpretation of which passages are applicable to which situations and so your request makes about as much sense as "show me a legal ruling that Common Law is a law". (If what you actually want is an example of Islamic scholars not considering passages of the Quran relevant to contemporary life, I refer you to the Wikipedia link you just posted...). As for the different schools' perspectives on what can constitute jihad, every school of Islam acknowledges that jihad can take several non-violent forms, including jihad al-nafs ("literally jihad against oneself") and every school acknowledges that military action can be a form of jihad, though since jihad literally translates as "struggle" that's pretty much a tautology, and Islamic scholarship is rather more concerned with debating which circumstances dictate that war is just or unjust. This is Islam 101 stuff. I suspect you're under the impression that a bit of Google-fu and a few straw man requests makes you look like you're well informed on this subject and have a point. It doesn't. It makes you look like a troll. Even if this was the place to discuss comparative theology, I wouldn't feel inclined to do it with somebody inclined to start discussions by suggesting that violence is unique to the Quran by implying Biblical exhortations and narratives never got any bloodier than the Ten Commandments.
    - acqq 10y ago
      So you don't have any reasonable answer, just as I've thought. That the billion of Muslims don't go around killing anybody isn't proof of Islam not being a blood-thirsty-Jews-and-Unbelivers-hating religion. It's just a proof these Muslims don't take their scripts seriously, just like a billion or so Christians also don't. But Islam is more problematic simply because the founder of it was more problematic. He killed unbelievers, ordered them decapitated, he raped the female slaves, he took 20% of all booty .... nothing of it was done by Jesus... Islam is based on considering its founder as the best example of life that exists... Specifically, I claim that Islam is based on not allowing the believers to do any critical thinking about exactly these acts of its founder. The exact example of any influential (for the believers) person who is a counterexample is more than welcome. All the priests consider the founder as the best example of the righteous life, so if you just give me one influential that doesn't I would believe you. Note: I don't have anything against Muslims, just like I don't anything against Christians. But I absolute don't like what the founder of Islam did and I don't like anybody who considers this a good example: specifically: killings of unbelievers, decapitations, intolerance, rape and torture. And I don't like anybody who approves these acts on because it's "a religion" or "his religion." And I'd really like to see who does approve this just because it's related to the name of the specific religion. It's absolutely no excuse.

by acqq 10y ago

notahacker 10y ago

I actually said "which passages they believe are applicable to the present situation" which is quite different from "which passages to believe"[1] Fiqh literally is the principle of interpreting how actions and statements made by Muhammad at various times during his rather turbulent life should be applied as behavioural rules and guidelines for Muslims living under different circumstances today and in the future. For example, Islamic scholars differ hugely on whether the "sword verse" abrogated all prior calls for religious tolerance found in the Quran or was better understood from the context of the surrounding passage as a conditional and quite specific directive targeted at particular pagan groups in the event of them opting to violate a ceasefire during the time of Mohammed (and of course there is plenty of scope for scholars following the latter interpretation to nevertheless claim a particular side of a particular conflict is an analogous situation...). Needless to say, the interpretations found on websites like "Answering Islam" are not necessarily the most authoritative or representative of mainstream Muslim belief. [1]if this is because you have a more general difficulty or unwillingness to interpret even simple, uncontroversial sentences written in modern English using their most natural meaning, the study of Islamic theology probably isn't for you...

acqq 10y ago
These schools of law (fiqh) cover almost all Muslims in the world: Sunni: hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ẓāhirī Shia: Ja'fari Ibadi The Shafii approved one is translated in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_of_the_Traveller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_of_the_Traveller "We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’a). — Al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991)" Some quotes from this fiqh: "In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year." "O9.4: Who is Obligated to Fight in Jihad Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane." "O9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required)." Etc. Now I'm still waiting to hear from you fiqh of which school excludes jihad as a warfare and an obligation, or which of those allows anybody to chose which passages "are applicable to the present situation."
- notahacker 10y ago
  Meanwhile, a billion or so actual Muslims living in their own countries included, apparently don't think the quotes you have cherry-picked from this Fiqh amount to a communal obligation upon them to go to war each year. But I'm sure you know their religion much better than they do. As I've pointed out Fiqh literally is the interpretation of which passages are applicable to which situations and so your request makes about as much sense as "show me a legal ruling that Common Law is a law". (If what you actually want is an example of Islamic scholars not considering passages of the Quran relevant to contemporary life, I refer you to the Wikipedia link you just posted...). As for the different schools' perspectives on what can constitute jihad, every school of Islam acknowledges that jihad can take several non-violent forms, including jihad al-nafs ("literally jihad against oneself") and every school acknowledges that military action can be a form of jihad, though since jihad literally translates as "struggle" that's pretty much a tautology, and Islamic scholarship is rather more concerned with debating which circumstances dictate that war is just or unjust. This is Islam 101 stuff. I suspect you're under the impression that a bit of Google-fu and a few straw man requests makes you look like you're well informed on this subject and have a point. It doesn't. It makes you look like a troll. Even if this was the place to discuss comparative theology, I wouldn't feel inclined to do it with somebody inclined to start discussions by suggesting that violence is unique to the Quran by implying Biblical exhortations and narratives never got any bloodier than the Ten Commandments.
  - acqq 10y ago
    So you don't have any reasonable answer, just as I've thought. That the billion of Muslims don't go around killing anybody isn't proof of Islam not being a blood-thirsty-Jews-and-Unbelivers-hating religion. It's just a proof these Muslims don't take their scripts seriously, just like a billion or so Christians also don't. But Islam is more problematic simply because the founder of it was more problematic. He killed unbelievers, ordered them decapitated, he raped the female slaves, he took 20% of all booty .... nothing of it was done by Jesus... Islam is based on considering its founder as the best example of life that exists... Specifically, I claim that Islam is based on not allowing the believers to do any critical thinking about exactly these acts of its founder. The exact example of any influential (for the believers) person who is a counterexample is more than welcome. All the priests consider the founder as the best example of the righteous life, so if you just give me one influential that doesn't I would believe you. Note: I don't have anything against Muslims, just like I don't anything against Christians. But I absolute don't like what the founder of Islam did and I don't like anybody who considers this a good example: specifically: killings of unbelievers, decapitations, intolerance, rape and torture. And I don't like anybody who approves these acts on because it's "a religion" or "his religion." And I'd really like to see who does approve this just because it's related to the name of the specific religion. It's absolutely no excuse.