[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Humes fork]

A tweet for everyone to chew on:

 

[Darat]

What's there to chew on?

 

[mijopaalmc]

A tweet for everyone to chew on:

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bni3c64CUAAwJVG.jpg:large[/qimg]

Do all–or even most–Muslims agree?

Tell me, Humes fork, when conservative Christian politician for one of the US's main political party questio. Whether a rape is "legitimate" because the woman got pregnant, do you condemn Christianity as fundamentally incompatible with Western society and advocate that the US be "forcibly secularized"?

 

[Chaos]

A tweet for everyone to chew on:

I take this as an admission that you have no intention of ever addressing anything anyone else here has said that runs contrary to your agenda.

 

[Belz...]

A tweet for everyone to chew on:

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bni3c64CUAAwJVG.jpg:large[/qimg]

Well I guess that proves... something.

 

[A'isha]

Bilal Philips isn't a "British Imam". He was born in Jamaica and raised in Canada, and after converting to Islam he studied and taught in Saudi Arabia (oh, look...another Salafist that Humes is trying to pretend represents all Muslims). He currently lives and teaches in Qatar, and is banned from entering Australia, the UK, Germany, and even Kenya.

 

[trustbutverify]

Nice Guy

“In Islaam a woman is obliged to give herself to her husband and he may not be charged with rape. Of course, if a woman is physically ill or exhausted, her husband should take her condition into consideration and not force himself upon her.”

A lot of these nine and ten year olds are big fakers, so their middle aged husbands should become medically sophisticated enough tell the difference.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Nice Guy



A lot of these nine and ten year olds are big fakers, so their middle aged husbands should become medically sophisticated enough tell the difference.

Your point?

 

[rtved]

If stoning ever starts taking place in my country, for instance, it's not gonna be the Muslims that are doing it.

Stoning is not islamic ?. There are dozens of islamic hadiths that say muhammad prescribed stoning.

Also (as per Wiki entry) Stoning remains a legal form of judicial punishment in Iraq, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Northern Nigeria, Aceh in Indonesia, and Pakistan;

 

[rtved]

Incase somebody already not posted Apostasy is punishable by death In Major islamic countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

 

[rtved]

No, it doesn't. Suggesting that Muslims are unable to interpret their scriptures to conform to modernity the same way Jews and Christians do would make you a bigot.

Many Muslim countries pride themselves from not straying from Islam as evidenced by the fact that they have laws that prescribe death penalty for apostasy and stoning for adultery.

It shows Muslim countries don't like to interpret their scriptures to confirm to modernity .It is not lack of capability.

 

[rtved]

Do all–or even most–Muslims agree?

..

Most muslims view it is authentic. There was never any doubt in islamic theological discussions until recently and that to only on internet that Muhammad married a young child.

 

[A'isha]

Stoning is not islamic ?. There are dozens of islamic hadiths that say muhammad prescribed stoning.

I think you need to reread my post and the links in it again.

Many Muslim countries pride themselves from not straying from Islam as evidenced by the fact that they have laws that prescribe death penalty for apostasy and stoning for adultery.

It shows Muslim countries don't like to interpret their scriptures to confirm to modernity .It is not lack of capability.

And yet, there are a lot more Muslim countries that don't have laws that prescribe the death penalty for apostasy or stoning for adultery.

 

[rtved]

I think you need to reread my post and the links in it again.

I read them all.The point is whether Islamic theology prescibes stoning , killing apostates etc.

And yet, there are a lot more Muslim countries that don't have laws that prescribe the death penalty for apostasy or stoning for adultery.

Right.I suppose you agree that Islamic theology indeed prescribe stoning and death for apostasy among other things .

 

[A'isha]

Most muslims view it is authentic. There was never any doubt in islamic theological discussions until recently and that to only on internet that Muhammad married a young child.

Incorrect. In fact, the Shia (who use different books of hadith than the Sunni) have often used sources that portrayed 'A'isha as older than 9 at marriage, because they view her as a scheming and sinful because of her leadership role in the First Fitnah, while the Sunni try to counter that by emphasizing her innocence and purity.

And even among Muslims who accept that 'A'isha was nine at marriage, they do not support the current practice of child marriage (the official position of al-Azhar, for instance).

I read them all.The point is whether Islamic theology prescibes stoning , killing apostates etc.

No, the point of my posts that I have more to fear from politically-influential Dominionist Christians than I do fundamentalist Muslims, when it comes to assessing the risk of laws prescribing stoning for adultery and death for apostasy where I live.

Right.I suppose you agree that Islamic theology indeed prescribe stoning and death for apostasy among other things .

Some Muslims think it does, some Muslims think it doesn't, and still others think that it used to but that such laws should not govern modern Muslim countries.

Or did you even stop to wonder, when you consulted Wikipedia, why only Aceh province in Indonesia is listed, and not all of Indonesia?

 

[rtved]

Incorrect. In fact, the Shia (who use different books of hadith than the Sunni) have often used sources that portrayed 'A'isha as older than 9 at marriage, because they view her as a scheming and sinful because of her leadership role in the First Fitnah, while the Sunni try to counter that by emphasizing her innocence and purity.

Since there aren't any shias at the time of her marriage the only source is aisha herself .

Before shia sunni split happened the hadiths recorded were narrated by aisha herself regarding her age.

And even among Muslims who accept that 'A'isha was nine at marriage, they do not support the current practice of child marriage (the official position of al-Azhar, for instance).

Ok.

No, the point of my posts that I have more to fear from politically-influential Dominionist Christians than I do fundamentalist Muslims, when it comes to assessing the risk of laws prescribing stoning for adultery and death for apostasy where I live.

Nothing for me to argue there since I don't know anything about your situation.

Some Muslims think it does, some Muslims think it doesn't, and still others think that it used to but that such laws should not govern modern Muslim countries.

Or did you even stop to wonder, when you consulted Wikipedia, why only Aceh province in Indonesia is listed, and not all of Indonesia?

I am aware some muslim countries don't follow the sharia strictly . But, like it is happening in turkey there is nothing to prevent a ruler like Erdogan (Who was elected)to bring back sharia Islamic practices in the only secular muslim country in the world.

I haven't seen any major Islamic country theologians say that some Important Muslim practices of Muhammad (sunna) are not suitable for modern times.

 

[A'isha]

Since there aren't any shias at the time of her marriage the only source is aisha herself .

Before shia sunni split happened the hadiths recorded were narrated by aisha herself regarding her age.

The ahadith weren't collated and recorded until centuries after the Sunni-Shia split (that's why the Sunni and Shia have different books of hadith, and the contentious process of codification and canonization took even longer.[/quote]

I am aware some muslim countries don't follow the sharia strictly . But, like it is happening in turkey there is nothing to prevent a ruler like Erdogan (Who was elected)to bring back sharia Islamic practices in the only secular muslim country in the world.

Even Erdogan can't just declare the institution of shari'ah in Turkey, despite being elected. Not even the Muslim Brotherhood could manage that in Egypt, after Morsi's election.

I haven't seen any major Islamic country theologians say that some Important Muslim practices of Muhammad (sunna) are not suitable for modern times.

I just pointed one out to you in the post you responded to.

 

[rtved]

The ahadith weren't collated and recorded until centuries after the Sunni-Shia split (that's why the Sunni and Shia have different books of hadith, and the contentious process of codification and canonization took even longer.

The hadiths were recorded around the time they were spoken or heard.Collation happened much later.

Even Erdogan can't just declare the institution of shari'ah in Turkey, despite being elected.

But he aims to.

Not even the Muslim Brotherhood could manage that in Egypt, after Morsi's election.

They were in the process before military crack down.

I just pointed one out to you in the post you responded to.

Not that I see. The post of mine was

I haven't seen any major Islamic country theologians say that some Important Muslim practices of Muhammad (sunna) are not suitable for modern times.

 

[Belgian thought]

7But, like it is happening in turkey there is nothing to prevent a ruler like Erdogan (Who was elected) to bring back sharia Islamic practices in the only secular muslim country in the world.

That is funny - secular Muslim country, I should add, I find the same contradiction when people say secular Christian country - (you is secular or you ain't).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular.

Yes it is thrown about by some 'Wouldn't it be nice if...?' a la Tony Blair solution. You cannot be a religious state and secularist. Stop biting on this biscuit.

 

[A'isha]

The hadiths were recorded around the time they were spoken or heard.Collation happened much later.

No, actually, they weren't "recorded". That was the problem, and why the later efforts at collation happened. You know, why the entire discipline of ʻilm al-ḥadith was developed in the first place, because sorting out what was a purportedly authentic tradition from a later interpolation became too difficult because ahadith weren't recorded. I suggest you read Jonathan Brown's Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World [EDIT: Or, if you're feeling particularly ambitious, his The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunni Ḥadith Canon.]

But he aims to.

That's nice. Unfortunately for him, and contrary to your assertions, he so far hasn't been able to, and is not likely to be able to, any more than Morsi could.

They were in the process before military crack down.

You mean they were in the process before the massive protests of tens of millions of Egyptians against Morsi led to the military crackdown. Which means that, contrary to your implication, there is indeed "something" that can prevent a single elected ruler from unilaterally imposing shari'ah.

Not that I see. The post of mine was

Yes. And I pointed out to you al-Azhar's position on child marriage, which was exactly "major Islamic country theologians say[ing] that some Important Muslim practices of Muhammad (sunna) are not suitable for modern times", just like you asked for.