2 ms·

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

by 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.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > Note: I don't have anything against Muslims, You make very many anti-Islam posts for someone who doesn't have anything against them.
    - acqq 10y ago
      Why is it so hard to understand? I am against religion, and that one especially deserves to be analyzed for its negative basics. I don't have problem with the people, most of who never had any choice: they were just born there and leaving that religion can still get you killed. Free people are supposed to be able to point to the negativity of some ideology, and that religion has huge ideological component which is dangerous: the still practiced laws (in more countries officially or semi-officially) of killing anybody who disagrees shouldn't be ignored.

by acqq 10y ago

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.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Note: I don't have anything against Muslims, You make very many anti-Islam posts for someone who doesn't have anything against them.
  - acqq 10y ago
    Why is it so hard to understand? I am against religion, and that one especially deserves to be analyzed for its negative basics. I don't have problem with the people, most of who never had any choice: they were just born there and leaving that religion can still get you killed. Free people are supposed to be able to point to the negativity of some ideology, and that religion has huge ideological component which is dangerous: the still practiced laws (in more countries officially or semi-officially) of killing anybody who disagrees shouldn't be ignored.