Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[David Mo]

I hesitated in writing those remarks, but did it anyway. Wasn't sure if it came across rude. So I am sorry if I insulted anyone in the process of stating my observation. My observation is basically this. There were populations conquered by this "divine" ideology and in the process of their subjugation and conversion some of their members suffered rape and slavery and murder, sanctioned by the "divine message". And the latest visible application of this ideology can be seen in this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii4zbNLZXcw
of course that was ISIS, but you need to explain to me how different it was in the early years of islam than this, excepting the machine guns, and modern vehicles.
So maybe I am a little zealous in opposing this "divine" ideology in the light of what i see on the screen and in my imagination while reading passages from Koran and Hadith, while non of my family members suffered in this way, I am loosing respect for intelligent people like yourself when I feel like they make the blatantly evil aspects of this "divine" ideology even slightly less blatantly evil than they are, and thus it reflects to my language.
(…)
By the way you do have good points that I have not acknowledged. But I am limited with time I can spend here recently and I focus more on the big issues..

Thank you. I understand you on the main point of view: it would be preferable if people would not search truth and good in a religious medieval book because the religious adhesion to immutable truths is a danger in itself and because a medieval thinker could express some kind of truth —it is dubious— but he surely would g in a menet involved in a mentality very different to ours —so to speak— and many ideas of him would be inacceptable in the modern world.
Notwithstanding, neither all Muslims are Isis supporter —they are its preferential victims—, neither they are medieval believers. Giving that in the past —not too distant past— Christianity was equally brutal and intolerant like many Muslims are today, we have to think what is the best way to aid “modern” Muslims to became a prevailing force without renounce to the main norms of civil society and secularism. It is not easy to accomplish, but I am sure that aggressive attacks against Islam as a whole is not the best way.
I hope you will be back soon with new contributions to the debate.

To compare our two statements:
"scripture to be treated as if every single word was literally dictated by God"

You notice, that with the bible on supposedly should seek the aid of the church? You notice that saying the bible is God's word usually does not imply that every single word therein is dictated by him?

Both make a huge difference in how the bible is approached compared to koran.

(…)
Very few sentences in the bible are actually god verbatim; but as the example of divorce currently shows, this have the power to produce discussions, strive and schisma even by mild interpretation divergences.


And the Koran is an entire book full of god verbatim; thousands of statements each with the ability to be a source of strive if even mild interpretation differences arise.

The only thing coming close to what the koran is, is what the bible is to some protestants; but even they come short of considering every word verbatim from god.

Excuse me, but every good Christian ought to believe that the Bible is the very word of God in the narrated events as commandments. Galileo was about to end at the stake because it proposed an allegorical reading of Joshua’s passage. You know.
Gospels were also given by God’s dictation. Here the canonical view by the Catholic Peter Paul Rubens: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Peter_Paul_Rubens-Die_Vier_Evangelisten.jpg . Note the angel’s finger. “That and that and not that”.
But other parts of the New Testament are also God’s Word because the Holy Spirit went down to the disciples in form of fire tongues and every that they preached was inspired by him. And remember: “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18).
But God’s ways are inscrutable and sometimes pleased him to speak not too clear. Therefore, we common men need the aid of a wise-saint man. Bishops, priests, imams, prophets and saints. Note that the only man that listened and interpreted God’s words in Islam was Muhammad, his name be blessed. This is a warranty, but a “modern” Muslim could ask himself if the Prophet, his name be blessed, could not have some memory failure or if those that wrote his words could have committed some mistake. This is not impossible.

You see how things are not very different in principle. What might intrigue us is why the things became different with the same point of departure. Why many —illustrated— Christians concede today that even the gospels writers could add things as their own invention meanwhile this is a minority view among Muslims.
And this is what we have been discussing in this thread. There is no need to repeat it.

And yet postmodernism has everything to do with the current uncritical attitude in the West toward islam, a main catalyser of Islamic fundamentalism and yes, indirectly at least, of Islamic terrorism. If you paid more attention to what I said you'd have seen that I was referring to what WE can do to solve this problem durably. Self censorship and waiting ad infinitum for a solution coming entirely from inside the Islamic community* is not what the existing evidence indicate as being rational I'm afraid. Finally basically ignoring the role of the Islamic religious ideology in the creation of the problem via searching ad infinitum for non religious 'root causes' is a huge mistake.
* with strong roots in cultural relativist postmodernist ideology, leading to incommensurability impotence via 'who are we to criticize, what metric give us the right to criticize?'

Those Postmodernists that I know are firm supporters of a plural society and steadfast enemies of every form of totalitarian thinking. His relativism doesn’t can support any mean of imposition neither political nor ideological. This is the contrary of any form of fundamentalism, be religious or not.
Do you know any Postmodernist that says other thing?

 

[winter salt]

You say:
" we have to think what is the best way to aid “modern” Muslims to became a prevailing force without renounce to the main norms of civil society and secularism. It is not easy to accomplish, but I am sure that aggressive attacks against Islam as a whole is not the best way."
I say:
This was done with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey; in addition to whatever other reasons, the leader of islamic world was secularized and their religious understanding in a matter of decades deferred very much from the rest of the islamic world. But in the fringes of society at large lived the cults and old islamic schools in a semi-secrecy -that secrecy was until the last few decades-, and in the recent few decades they accumulated so much power that they are very effectively reversing the positive effects of the secular revolution in every area of life.
Unfortunately the bosses of the world put fuel to this fire and didn't care anymore for a secular islamic "friend" and the role model to the rest of that world. The military coup of 1980 was to that purpose and created the new generation of activist muslims that are running the show today.
In the meanwhile, in Turkey, there was a movement created a few decades ago, protected and aided by foreing powers, among the religionist society and initially seemed to be utilized for the modernization of the islamic theology. It went according to the plan for a good while until the last decade and a half they were used for a more immediate need of reigning in the popular islamic party that was placed in power for some new Middle East policies of their foreign bosses. Thus they (the infamous reformist group) became a most hated political and religious traitor in the eyes of the whole country, among the islamic and otherwise, after their break up with the leading political party a few years ago. Their original mission of reforming islamic teology and sheria from within may have been sacrificed for their more immediate use in ME politics.

It seems to me that reforming islam form "outside" is failing time and again while the cannons of the religion keep generating cults and islamic schools that are on the ground gripping people's minds better than anyone else.
My concern is really not "not hurting" muslims in the process of distancing themselves from it. Who cares. Religion hurt vast populations in its favor in the past (and now) and is hurthing every young mind today.
Why should we concern ourselves with modifying a falsehood?
Would you justify tainting a child's mind with a "moderate" falsehood?

 

[David Mo]

You say:
" we have to think what is the best way to aid “modern” Muslims to became a prevailing force without renounce to the main norms of civil society and secularism. It is not easy to accomplish, but I am sure that aggressive attacks against Islam as a whole is not the best way."
I say:
This was done with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey; in addition to whatever other reasons, the leader of islamic world was secularized and their religious understanding in a matter of decades deferred very much from the rest of the islamic world. But in the fringes of society at large lived the cults and old islamic schools in a semi-secrecy -that secrecy was until the last few decades-, and in the recent few decades they accumulated so much power that they are very effectively reversing the positive effects of the secular revolution in every area of life.
Unfortunately the bosses of the world put fuel to this fire and didn't care anymore for a secular islamic "friend" and the role model to the rest of that world. The military coup of 1980 was to that purpose and created the new generation of activist muslims that are running the show today.
In the meanwhile, in Turkey, there was a movement created a few decades ago, protected and aided by foreing powers, among the religionist society and initially seemed to be utilized for the modernization of the islamic theology. It went according to the plan for a good while until the last decade and a half they were used for a more immediate need of reigning in the popular islamic party that was placed in power for some new Middle East policies of their foreign bosses. Thus they (the infamous reformist group) became a most hated political and religious traitor in the eyes of the whole country, among the islamic and otherwise, after their break up with the leading political party a few years ago. Their original mission of reforming islamic teology and sheria from within may have been sacrificed for their more immediate use in ME politics.

It seems to me that reforming islam form "outside" is failing time and again while the cannons of the religion keep generating cults and islamic schools that are on the ground gripping people's minds better than anyone else.
My concern is really not "not hurting" muslims in the process of distancing themselves from it. Who cares. Religion hurt vast populations in its favor in the past (and now) and is hurthing every young mind today.
Why should we concern ourselves with modifying a falsehood?
Would you justify tainting a child's mind with a "moderate" falsehood?

The effort towards secularization was tried in many Muslim countries and organizations with different intensity since the beginning of the twentieth century. Mossadegh in Iran, Ataturk in Turkey, Nasser in Egypt, Sadam Hussein in Irak, al Hassad in Syria, Sukarno in Indonesia, Arafat in the LPO and some others that never arrived to achieve power (see many social movements of the Arab Spring more recently). All these movements and leaders were struggled or directly overthrow by more regressive movements helped or supported by the Western states. The most meaningful case is Afghanistan where the USA and other gave support to a radical Islamist movement to overthrow the moderate —in religious terms— Najibullah; the now sadly famous Taliban.

If you think that most of them were tyrants and deserved to be overthrow, you are right. But if you are thinking that they deserved to be replaced by radical-extremist movements I cannot agree. If you think that this was an effect of the cold-war you have right… partially, because there is no more cold-war currently and politicy against “secularist” Islam continue with the same outcomes.

There are many causes of this anti-secularism of the Western powers. It would be long to discuss but you can reflect on this.
In any case, what matters in our debate is that this movement towards secularisation existed and was defeated by the radical Islamism. Then we can hope that the situation might revert again and evolve to secularization of Muslims countries. This is not very likely in the present circumstances, but it is possible.

NOTE: If you are interested in other Islamic voices very different of your aggressive forum fellas I recommend you the book Islam and Democracy. Fear of the ModernWorld by Fatema Mernissi (Perseus Books, 2009). It is a classical text.

 

[winter salt]

NOTE: If you are interested in other Islamic voices very different of your aggressive forum fellas I recommend you the book Islam and Democracy. Fear of the ModernWorld by Fatema Mernissi (Perseus Books, 2009). It is a classical text.

I am not interested in reading anything about Islam and what muslims have to say about islam. I studied many versions of it in my youth. I know the reformist movements also. I know what islam is compatible with or not. Basically islam rejects any implication that it should be compatible with any other entity. "there's no god but allah" includes that meaning. It's that simple. Islam, according to its cannons is the "ultimate and perfect" system for the muslims and to be imposed on the whole humanity, whether humanity accept it or not. I am only reading material that explain the mechanics of religious indoctrination.

A good one of that is this: (Chapman Cohen, A Grammar of Freethought)

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36882/36882-h/36882-h.htm

I found out throughout the years listening to debates between atheists and theists and from my own experience in debating muslim ex-friends that there is nothing worthy of my time that I can hear (or read) from a person who believes that "a creator of all things" chose to communicate to them by talking to men in mountain-tops, a couple of milenia before they were born. The most intelligent of them will only demonstrate how much mental acrobacy humans can perform in favor of their indoctinated stupid beliefs.

 

[David Mo]

Basically islam rejects any implication that it should be compatible with any other entity. "there's no god but allah" includes that meaning. It's that simple.

I think it is too simple. I know Muslims that don't agree with this. What are your sources?
If you refuss to read everything that contradicts your point of view you never will able to change it.

 

[Thor 2]

I think it is too simple. I know Muslims that don't agree with this. What are your sources?
If you refuss to read everything that contradicts your point of view you never will able to change it.

I doubt there are enough "sources" that could be listed to change your point of view on this. However Sarah Haider, (Ex-Muslims of North America), who was interviewed by Sam Harris, as I mentioned before on this and another thread, is one such source. Another is winter salt himself - as an ex Muslim I am sure he has a wealth of experience from talking to brother and sister Muslims.

 

[winter salt]

I think it is too simple. I know Muslims that don't agree with this. What are your sources?
If you refuss to read everything that contradicts your point of view you never will able to change it.

I don't remember stating at any point that I am interested in changing my point of view in favor of any religion, and I've done enough reading on that topic, that's where I came from. I worked hard to be at the honest intellectual state I am today, and sacrificed a lot.

I know a lot of muslims that act and think un-islamic. Does that re-define islam?

I have no more interest in proving anyone what "true" Islam is, which version is the honest one, than proving which Christianity is the true and honest one. I don't give a damn about it. If you are in need of finding out, read Quran and hadith and find it out yourself.
I won't be lectured about a religion that devoured the best time of my life and education.
I reject every possible version of all superstition.

I doubt there are enough "sources" that could be listed to change your point of view on this. However Sarah Haider, (Ex-Muslims of North America), who was interviewed by Sam Harris, as I mentioned before on this and another thread, is one such source. Another is winter salt himself - as an ex Muslim I am sure he has a wealth of experience from talking to brother and sister Muslims.

That's right. I wasted my youth for this dogma. I don't even wanna start with what I did in my studying it..If I say that I memorized 320 pages of Koran at the age of 21 while I was in a good engineering school, that should be enough.

 

[David Mo]

I doubt there are enough "sources" that could be listed to change your point of view on this. However Sarah Haider, (Ex-Muslims of North America), who was interviewed by Sam Harris, as I mentioned before on this and another thread, is one such source. Another is winter salt himself - as an ex Muslim I am sure he has a wealth of experience from talking to brother and sister Muslims.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

I was asking for internal Islamic sources that claim in favour of the conquest of all the World in the name of Islam. "There is no god but Allah" only is a monotheistic sentence that doesn't imply the violent conquest of all the world. If it would be so we had to equally match all monotheisms and this is not the case. Does Haider provide any text-based evidence that Islam advocates violent conquest of the whole world?

 

[winter salt]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

I was asking for internal Islamic sources that claim in favour of the conquest of all the World in the name of Islam. "There is no god but Allah" only is a monotheistic sentence that doesn't imply the violent conquest of all the world. If it would be so we had to equally match all monotheisms and this is not the case. Does Haider provide any text-based evidence that Islam advocates violent conquest of the whole world?

To this,
I wanted to respond.
But I can't take this serious. Maybe someone else will.
You are either joking with us or you have just landed on earth.

But really, you are a very clever one at this..
To refer the "violent conquest of the whole world" doctrin to "Haider" is a fine tactic. Really fine. I almost want to believe: the devil exists.
Are you the islamist professional debater "Tariq Ramadan" by any chance? Because i can't stop thinking that the only person I've ever heard this cleverly elusive is him.

 

[David Mo]

To this,
I wanted to respond.
But I can't take this serious. Maybe someone else will.
You are either joking with us or you have just landed on earth.

But really, you are a very clever one at this..
To refer the "violent conquest of the whole world" doctrin to "Haider" is a fine tactic. Really fine. I almost want to believe: the devil exists.
Are you the islamist professional debater "Tariq Ramadan" by any chance? Because i can't stop thinking that the only person I've ever heard this cleverly elusive is him.

Just because you don't know or don't want to answer my questions it doesn't give you the right to make strange assumptions. I'm not Tariq Ramadan —I have little in common with him— and I'm not playing anything.
I summarize: You have claimed that Islam is an imperialist doctrine that aims world domination — “Islam, according to its cannons is the "ultimate and perfect" system for the muslims and to be imposed on the whole humanity, whether humanity accept it or not”, you have written— and I asked you what are your sources. Both Thor2 and you have mentioned Sarah Haider and I supposed that she had provided some information on this subject. If she was not, what other sources do you have? I have to point out that I am asking for original sources.

Note that I am not discussing what true Islam is, but only if Islam may be adapted to the modern world and the principles of democracy.

 

[winter salt]

you have mentioned Sarah Haider

I didn't.

And,
It is just a major task piling up all the evidence you are asking. It's like proving someone on the street evolution. Just Google it from pro and anti islamic sites you'll see plenty of Koran and Hadith. (Wikiislam is a good one).
The full Koran and Hadith may have to be quoted for this. Just read the 8th and 9th surah of Koran if you wish. Read the war and cihad sections of hadith books. Read the famous sword hadith in which he clearly states that "he has been ordered to bring people into submission to God by his sword" and which is the reason for the Saudi flag. It has the tenets of islam and a sword under it. Go to museums that have the artifacts of Mohammad and his companions, it's not about pen and pencil, there are swords, body armors and helmets..Read the life of Mohammad if you wish and see how within the last 10 years of his "mission" he was in about 60 armed conflict. Read the islamic Caliphate history. (Sir William Muir is a good one, or Ibn Ishaq).
All these information is under your fingertips and you can read them for days. I am not interested in what form of Islam you want to follow and in correcting it. You can choose whatever. Good luck convincing over a billion muslims on what Cihad really means.
I just have hard time believing that you don't really know what islam is all about..I will repeat it for you. It's about bringing all humans to Allah's order, willingly or unwillingly.

"This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. " koran 5/3

 

[David Mo]

And,
It is just a major task piling up all the evidence you are asking. It's like proving someone on the street evolution. Just Google it from pro and anti islamic sites you'll see plenty of Koran and Hadith. (Wikiislam is a good one).
The full Koran and Hadith may have to be quoted for this. Just read the 8th and 9th surah of Koran if you wish. Read the war and cihad sections of hadith books. Read the famous sword hadith in which he clearly states that "he has been ordered to bring people into submission to God by his sword" and which is the reason for the Saudi flag. It has the tenets of islam and a sword under it. Go to museums that have the artifacts of Mohammad and his companions, it's not about pen and pencil, there are swords, body armors and helmets..Read the life of Mohammad if you wish and see how within the last 10 years of his "mission" he was in about 60 armed conflict. Read the islamic Caliphate history. (Sir William Muir is a good one, or Ibn Ishaq).
All these information is under your fingertips and you can read them for days. I am not interested in what form of Islam you want to follow and in correcting it. You can choose whatever. Good luck convincing over a billion muslims on what Cihad really means.
I just have hard time believing that you don't really know what islam is all about..I will repeat it for you. It's about bringing all humans to Allah's order, willingly or unwillingly.

"This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. " koran 5/3

Thank you for the quotation, but it doesn’t fit my question. I am not looking for third hands quotations, but original. I repeat:
You have claimed that Islam is an imperialist doctrine that aims world domination and I asked you what are your original sources.
But “those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion” doesn’t means any will of world domination. It only means that at that precise moment those that were trying to make disappear Islam had been defeated. It is something very different from what you say.

Maybe you are able to find a more suitable quotation.

 

[winter salt]

Thank you for the quotation, but it doesn’t fit my question. I am not looking for third hands quotations, but original. I repeat:
You have claimed that Islam is an imperialist doctrine that aims world domination and I asked you what are your original sources.
But “those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion” doesn’t means any will of world domination. It only means that at that precise moment those that were trying to make disappear Islam had been defeated. It is something very different from what you say.

Maybe you are able to find a more suitable quotation.

I'm really not interested to spend time with Islam and its literature and history to gather information to convince you. From what i see you won't be convinced with any data. You can interpret what's so obvious to your understanding with anything. The above verse you cut should give you a good lead to follow. Go read it's tafsirs, you'll see how all Muslim scholars understood it.
Islamic literature is a pile of **** that doesn't deserve my digging into it anymore.
Seems like you're the one who's trying to understand it differently than non-secular Muslims. (Secular Muslims do not qualify as Muslims according to cannons of Islam, i think there lays your problem too).

If you want read through this :

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Invitations_to_Islam_Prior_to_Violence

"
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْمُسْنَدِيُّ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو رَوْحٍ الْحَرَمِيُّ بْنُ عُمَارَةَ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ وَاقِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يُحَدِّثُ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ، وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلاَةَ، وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ، فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّ الإِسْلاَمِ، وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 25
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 18
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25. "

 

[Thor 2]

Thank you for the quotation, but it doesn’t fit my question. I am not looking for third hands quotations, but original. I repeat:
You have claimed that Islam is an imperialist doctrine that aims world domination and I asked you what are your original sources.
But “those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion” doesn’t means any will of world domination. It only means that at that precise moment those that were trying to make disappear Islam had been defeated. It is something very different from what you say.

Maybe you are able to find a more suitable quotation.

I doubt there are any quotations that you will acknowledge as original enough to satisfy you. Winter salt has given you quotations from the Koran and Hadith, even in Arabic, and it is not good enough for you?

And no, winter salt did not make mention of Sarah Haider, that was my small contribution. Sarah's concerns were the inflexibility of Islam and its resistance to reform, as well as giving support to Islamic apostates, who are very much under threat even in Western society.

 

[David Mo]

I doubt there are any quotations that you will acknowledge as original enough to satisfy you.

This is a gratuitous and unnecessary assumption.

If you want read through this :

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Invitations_to_Islam_Prior_to_Violence

"Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."(...)
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 25
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 18
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25. "

Thank you for the quotation. It is very interesting and seems a clear claim for holy war, but…

Some remarks:
It seems you haven't found anything conclusive in the Koran and had to search in the Sunnah. It is a well-known fact among experts that there are many contradictions between the Koran and the Sunnah, and within the Sunnah. It is easy to find some Internet links about that —http://www.guidedislam.com/hadiths-contradict-the-quran.html, for example. A “moderate” Muslim can easily answer that this hadith contradicts the very koranic principle that “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (2:256) and others. The hypothetic expert doesn’t need to reject all the Sunnah —it is possible for many Muslims—, but just pointing that the Koran is the priority in any cases.
A very modern Muslim can also point that some apparent contradictions inside the Koran need a wise clarification. For example, the concept of “yihad” (fight) that can mean a defensive war against those that attack the Islam and a persuasive fight based on the main feature of the Islam: Muhammad’s speech is persuasive. And even an inner personal fight.
Of course, the fundamentalist can affirm that he is not interpreting some passages of the Koran because they are clear and compelling. This is not true. Literality doesn’t exist in religious writings. They are intrinsically ambiguous and contradictory. This is dangerous, but it also enables the moderate interpretation. In the facts, the allegorical school of interpretation of the Koran was dominant in the ninth century and only could be abolished by a wave of orthodoxy that is dominant now, but not the only possible. Given the fact that annihilating all believers is not possible nor desirable, you have to manage to coexist with them.

Therefore, my basic rule is: “Don’t hurt the others and don’t let them to hurt you” = mutual respect and defence of democratic norms. In this sense I support Haider’s task of defend the right to apostasy. This is a democratic principle. And I am ready to welcome Muslims that accept this on the basis of the surah 2:256 or whatever else.

 

[winter salt]

This is a gratuitous and unnecessary assumption.

Thank you for the quotation. It is very interesting and seems a clear claim for holy war, but…

Some remarks:
It seems you haven't found anything conclusive in the Koran and had to search in the Sunnah. It is a well-known fact among experts that there are many contradictions between the Koran and the Sunnah, and within the Sunnah. It is easy to find some Internet links about that —http://www.guidedislam.com/hadiths-contradict-the-quran.html, for example. A “moderate” Muslim can easily answer that this hadith contradicts the very koranic principle that “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion” (2:256) and others. The hypothetic expert doesn’t need to reject all the Sunnah —it is possible for many Muslims—, but just pointing that the Koran is the priority in any cases.
A very modern Muslim can also point that some apparent contradictions inside the Koran need a wise clarification. For example, the concept of “yihad” (fight) that can mean a defensive war against those that attack the Islam and a persuasive fight based on the main feature of the Islam: Muhammad’s speech is persuasive. And even an inner personal fight.
Of course, the fundamentalist can affirm that he is not interpreting some passages of the Koran because they are clear and compelling. This is not true. Literality doesn’t exist in religious writings. They are intrinsically ambiguous and contradictory. This is dangerous, but it also enables the moderate interpretation. In the facts, the allegorical school of interpretation of the Koran was dominant in the ninth century and only could be abolished by a wave of orthodoxy that is dominant now, but not the only possible. Given the fact that annihilating all believers is not possible nor desirable, you have to manage to coexist with them.

Therefore, my basic rule is: “Don’t hurt the others and don’t let them to hurt you” = mutual respect and defence of democratic norms. In this sense I support Haider’s task of defend the right to apostasy. This is a democratic principle. And I am ready to welcome Muslims that accept this on the basis of the surah 2:256 or whatever else.

I will give you Koranic verses since you don't wanna google them and see for yourself. But before that let's show you your hypocrisy about hadith. And than explain here why (according to early islamic sholars) over a hundred verses that promote tolerance were made no longer valid in Madina (where and when Mohammad gained political strength and many followers) and how "Allah" explains the cancellation of verses by the latest ones works.

On your post #411 you said this. (In #467 you reminded me of #411 yourself to defend your position that Sunnah and Hadith "clearly prohibits the killing of children and women in war" , and "muslims believe Koran and Hadith together".) And now you making Hadith and sunnah as if they don't count.
#411
"I think it is not in the Koran, but in the Sunnah (Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257). But the Sunnah is the second sacred book of Muslims. Not “a certain calipha” but “Sahih al-Bukhari is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 AD) (rahimahullah). His collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be the most authentic collection of reports of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad.” Therefore our mistake was not important. Muslims believe that a saying of Muhammad picked up in Sunna is also sacred."
#467
"Difficult to admit my mistake? In my comment #411 I wrote: "Therefore our mistake was not important". In the same paragraph I explained that it was not important because this hadith is set out in the Sunnah that is the second holy Book of Islam together with the Koran. "

This is why we think no data will convince you.

But I know if i don't put a couple of Koranic verses supporting "islam", you will take it as your point proven.

Before that let me explain why the cherry picking of verses is not allowed in a debate about Koran's message. "Allah" says :

2/106: "We do not abrogate any of Our verses of the Qur'an or cause it to be forgotten except that We substitute it with something better or similar; don't you know that Allah has full power over everything?"
16/101: "And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."

You can find the list of abrogated verses of the Koran here or in any other islamic source if you choose:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur'an

So your verses that suggest tolerance are out the window. Because all the cihad verses cancelled them. They are there just for ornament. (Also the Quran muslims use is not chronologically arranged, but it is available and not popular, most muslims don't even know that it exist. If all the mulims were to read the chronologically arranged Koran most of them would wake up by seeing the pattern: as Mohammad gained power his message changed. )

If you look at the verses that tell muslims to fight they almost always define that fight with this : "fi sebilillah- in Allah's way". So in the light of this read all verses that order fighting, because I am only gonna pull one or two, so you won't come and say that there is no verse, it's only in the hadith (which you defended earlier).
2/244 : "And fight in the Way of Allah and know that Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower." (Notice it doesn't say to defend your land or homes.)
3/157 : " If you die or are killed in God's path, there is forgiveness and mercy from God better than all the wealth one might accumulate." (No mentioning of foreign invasion here either).
7/39 : " And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do."
8/1 : "They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the bounties [of war]. Say, "The [decision concerning] bounties is for Allah and the Messenger." So fear Allah and amend that which is between you and obey Allah and His Messenger, if you should be believers."

I didn't know in a defensive war there was bounty to be taken.(And women and children slaves).




There are so many of these as I tried to tell you before. I am not really interested in giving an education about a religion I don't care about. You can always come back here with a modernist interpretation of someone. But when I was religious I read the interpretations of the earliest muslim scholars. And most muslims will not argue against what they say. They are historically closer to Mohammad than someone who writes a book about "islam and democracy".

The hadith you tried to make light of is a famous, valid and well accepted (by muslims) hadith. It summerizes the islamic world view and is in agreement with the Koran and islamic conquests history.
"Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."(...)
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 25
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 18

 

[David Mo]

(…)On your post #411 you said this. (In #467 you reminded me of #411 yourself to defend your position that Sunnah and Hadith "clearly prohibits the killing of children and women in war" , and "muslims believe Koran and Hadith together".) And now you making Hadith and sunnah as if they don't count.
#411
"I think it is not in the Koran, but in the Sunnah (Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257). But the Sunnah is the second sacred book of Muslims. Not “a certain calipha” but “Sahih al-Bukhari is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 AD) (rahimahullah). His collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be the most authentic collection of reports of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad.” Therefore our mistake was not important. Muslims believe that a saying of Muhammad picked up in Sunna is also sacred."
#467
"Difficult to admit my mistake? In my comment #411 I wrote: "Therefore our mistake was not important". In the same paragraph I explained that it was not important because this hadith is set out in the Sunnah that is the second holy Book of Islam together with the Koran. "

This is why we think no data will convince you.

But I know if i don't put a couple of Koranic verses supporting "islam", you will take it as your point proven.

Before that let me explain why the cherry picking of verses is not allowed in a debate about Koran's message. "Allah" says :

2/106: "We do not abrogate any of Our verses of the Qur'an or cause it to be forgotten except that We substitute it with something better or similar; don't you know that Allah has full power over everything?"
16/101: "And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."

You can find the list of abrogated verses of the Koran here or in any other islamic source if you choose:
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur'an

So your verses that suggest tolerance are out the window. Because all the cihad verses cancelled them. They are there just for ornament. (…)

I didn't know in a defensive war there was bounty to be taken.(And women and children slaves).

There are so many of these as I tried to tell you before. I am not really interested in giving an education about a religion I don't care about. You can always come back here with a modernist interpretation of someone. But when I was religious I read the interpretations of the earliest muslim scholars. And most muslims will not argue against what they say. They are historically closer to Mohammad than someone who writes a book about "islam and democracy".(…)

The way you quote me makes me doubt all the other quotes you pick up.
Let's get things straightened out.

We were discussing whether the Koran admits interpretations and I said that even radical Islamists make their own interpretation. I also said - and you do not mention this - that the fragment I quoted from the Sunnah was important for our debate, since the majority of Islamist terrorism is by Sunni groups and Sunnis believe in the sacredness of the Sunnah. Therefore, when AlQuaeda or Isis - which are Sunni organizations - kill children and the elderly, they are attacking his own sacred book. This shows that they even choose from the Sunnah what suits them and reject what they don't like. If you don't quote my argument completely, I doubt you can understand what I say.

Now we are talking about something else: I have quoted the secondary nature of the Sunnah as something that is claimed by non-Orthodox-Sunni Islamist currents because it is a way as some Muslims affirm that a verse has predominance over other. This is an argument to give preference to the famous surah: “No compulsion in religion”.

Do you realize that they were two different discussions?

You say that you have studied the Koran and that you were an Islamist (maybe), but I doubt very much that you have understood the true meaning of Naskh (abrogation). Since your sources appear to be limited to Wikipedia or similar, I suggest you go to the article on abrogation in this encyclopaedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)) There you will learn that there was not always a single position regarding what Muhammad said that modified or repealed others sayings, nor is there now. Within Islam, there are various interpretative currents and that list and those criteria of derogations that come with Wiki Islam - is that all they have taught you? - that you consider eternal are nothing more than a transitional phase of Islam that is contested by the more "modern" or moderate Muslims. Even the most intransigent current of Christianity was the dominant one until the twentieth century and in the twenty-first century we see different interpretations of the Bible.

You seem to have been indoctrinated in the most intransigent Islamism and now you believe that all Muslims are the same. It seems that they were successful with you at least at one point: dogmatism got into your head and you are incapable of the slightest flexibility of perspective.

The problem is that you don't realize what we're discussing. You can quote as many surahs as you like that speak in very cruel terms of the war against infidels. That those passages exist is not denied by anyone. I began my comments in this thread by referring to them, although you don't remember it. But what many argue is that they are not conclusive for the correct interpretation of Islam. Many Muslims will quote the opposite verses and each will give their reasons for accepting either one or the other. There is not unanimity in Islam on this point, and that is important because it makes easier for more modern Muslims to argue for a moderate interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah. You seem to be unaware of the theories of these Muslims, but they exist and they are becoming relevant in Western countries at least. And this is interesting

 

[winter salt]

The way you quote me makes me doubt all the other quotes you pick up.

Incidentally, I have the same doubt about your quotes. Remember, you said I brought up Sarah Haider?

Let's get things straightened out.

Yea, let's do that.

We were discussing whether the Koran admits interpretations and I said that even radical Islamists make their own interpretation.

Irrelevant. Nobody would question that. I am the one who kept telling you that you have to go to the tafsir (interpretation) if you wanna understand Koran. And as someone who experienced radicalism as well as sufisim I will tell you radical islamits are passionate about following the original, earliest interpretations of the Koran. So I could not possibly have any problem with your statement. It simply was never the issue. But you are adamant about changing the topics constantly when your points are proven wrong.

I also said - and you do not mention this - that the fragment I quoted from the Sunnah was important for our debate, since the majority of Islamist terrorism is by Sunni groups and Sunnis believe in the sacredness of the Sunnah. Therefore, when AlQuaeda or Isis - which are Sunni organizations - kill children and the elderly, they are attacking his own sacred book. This shows that they even choose from the Sunnah what suits them and reject what they don't like. If you don't quote my argument completely, I doubt you can understand what I say.

At the point I joined the argument this was not our debate at all. I asked you to show me where -as you claimed- it was "clearly" ordered in the Koran not to kill the women and children. ( the issue here was not to prove that most terrorists come from sunnis since you are quoting a hadith that orders against murdering women and children.) And in your defense of islam's protecting the innocent (only from murder) after my repeated questioning of this Koranic message you claimed exists, you quoted a hadith intead of a Koranic verse and exalted Hadith and Sunnah to the level of the Koran and said "our (only yours) mistake was not important" , because both the Koran and hadith were sacred for the majority of muslims. (You can't be using a "seemingly" anti-terrorist hadith to prove that sunnis create more terrorists, because they follow hadith. You are completely confusing the issues you think you are discussing.)

Don't forget this, because later you keep turning this around and around as whichever way it serves you. I am gonna remind you the the following statement of yours later again. You said,
[#411, "I think it is not in the Koran, but in the Sunnah (Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257). But the Sunnah is the second sacred book of Muslims. Not “a certain calipha” but “Sahih al-Bukhari is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH/870 AD) (rahimahullah). His collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be the most authentic collection of reports of the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad.” Therefore our mistake was not important. Muslims believe that a saying of Muhammad picked up in Sunna is also sacred."]

Nowhere in your statement above you seperated the Sunni muslims. You kept saying "muslims" (when the hadith supported your claim of non-existing anti-terorism Koranic verses).
The issue of terrorism, it being more amongst the Sunni muslims was not an issue I argued about one way or another. It was one of your diversion tactics that I avoided getting involved. Now you are doing it again. Show me where I debated this?

Now we are talking about something else: I have quoted the secondary nature of the Sunnah as something that is claimed by non-Orthodox-Sunni Islamist currents because it is a way as some Muslims affirm that a verse has predominance over other. This is an argument to give preference to the famous surah: “No compulsion in religion”.

Do you realize that they were two different discussions?

"non-Orthodox-Sunni Islamist currents " What the hell is that?
But again whoever you mean by this ambiguous phrase I see what you mean: "Muslims who don't care about sunnah and hadith as much as the Sunnis do can override hadith that is severe against infidels and their ruling (such as democratic ruling) and access the tolerant messages of the Koran without worrying about the hadith such as the one I gave you that you completely ignored." (Because now the context is islamic emperialism and the hadith doesn't support you in this one.) I repeat :
["Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."(...)
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 25
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 18]

For one, the hadith alone is not a road block in front of the early verses of Koran that suggested tolerance. It is the Madina era Koranic verses themselves you have to first address. if you wanna disprove that islam is emperialistic. And you didn't when I brought it up to you with the abrogation clause. I gave you Koranic verses in which "Allah" himself says the later verses abrogates the earlier ones. The only thing I used wikislam for on this issue was a list of abrogated verses of the Koran. And I added that you can use an islamic source to see these verses if you wish. (Because you are going to find the same list, the list was made by early tafsir scholars 1400 years ago.) Instead of acknowledging your BIG problem of abrogation (which also make the early tafsir scholars the ONLY authority on this, otherwise you have hundreds of Koranic verses that oppose each other and no body today saw a friend or a friend of a friend (tabiin, tebe-i tabiin) of Mohammad to know which canceled which) you went ahead and attacked my source of the list of those verses. My source was not the only source, it was the easiest one for me to access. And you could've ignored the list because we weren't even at the point of debating which verses were abrogated by which yet. I haven't been to islamic sources in about 20 years and most verses I bring up is from my memory of 320 pages of Koran I haven't read nor recited in 20 years, because I don't believe them to be revelations of a god. One other reason I used wikiislam is to lead you to a useful website that can show you the other side of Islam.
Now to sum it up,
1.You claimed that the Koran was a document that prohibited terrorism.
When I asked you to prove it, you ignored it for a while and talked about other things I wasn't debating. Finally your answer was a hadith that prohibited the killing of the innocent in a war, which will work against your later claim that sunnis follow the hadith and therefore they produce these terrorists.
2.In doing so you credited and exalted the hadith to "almost" the level of the Koran to be able to say "the Koran prohibits terrorism", and "muslims" (not "the sunnis") accept it as sacred as the Koran. Thus your mistake (you said "ours") of claiming that the Koran "clearly" rejects the killing of women and children becames "unimportant" since the hadith does it and it's well accepted by "muslims".
3.When I turned the table around for you on the issue of proving that islam is emperialistic by quoting the hadith I mentioned earlier here, you then took a stance AGAINST the hadith and claimed that "only" SUNNI muslims take it seriously and that's the reason terrorists come from amongst them. And you completely ignored the fact that the Koran itself is a block in the way of following the tolerance verses when I gave you the Koranic verses about abrogation and the verses about fighting in the way of Allah.

I am still trying not to think that you are extremely dishonest in your arguments, so we can bring out some facts here.
You never take my answers head on.

You say that you have studied the Koran and that you were an Islamist (maybe), but I doubt very much that you have understood the true meaning of Naskh (abrogation).

You can doubt about me as much as you want.
But why couldn't you openly say that you are a muslim of what kind yet?
So I can't bring items of your faith to the incinerator of logic ?

Since your sources appear to be limited to Wikipedia or similar, I suggest you go to the article on abrogation in this encyclopaedia.

I told you the reason I used that site. (It would give you the opportunity the see in a more organized fashion the dark side of Islam you seem to make light of). You didn't have to go there for the list of abrogated verses, and I indicated that at the time of using the link. I din't use that link to learn islam 35 ago. Use any islamic site, it's fine with me.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)) There you will learn that there was not always a single position regarding what Muhammad said that modified or repealed others sayings, nor is there now. Within Islam, there are various interpretative currents

You really think these are news to me?
And I don't care about the Hanafi and Safii, who are within the sunni sect, approaches to abrogation since I clearly told you that the Koran itself says it and does abrogate its own verses. If this can be extended to the hadith is not an issue here, that was the issue of the Safii school. That is the most "interesting" info that site gives. And it doesn't add or subtract anything from our arguments. Most of islam's rules that those sects deal in sorting came about in the politically and socially strong era of Madina. Sunnis are so clear on the issue of tolerance and rules of war. "After islam the world is muslims+dimmi(jews and christians that pay a tax to live as a second class citizens under islamic rulers)+the non-Jew and non-christians that either have to become muslims or die and be enslaved." according to the sunni sholars. So if you disagree with this and wanna convince someone in the islamic world on your reformist view I strongly suggest that you find their volumes and reverse their evidences in their rulings. I am sure they knew what nasih/mansuh mean.(abrogation).

and that list and those criteria of derogations that come with Wiki Islam - is that all they h ave taught you? -

I didn't learn islam from internet. And what do you care who taught me what I am holding to your face? Can you give any straight response when I repeatedly expose your lies? Along all other serious mistakes of yours I exposed I expect your correction on the Haider thing too.

that you consider eternal are nothing more than a transitional phase of Islam that is contested by the more "modern" or moderate Muslims. Even the most intransigent current of Christianity was the dominant one until the twentieth century and in the twenty-first century we see different interpretations of the Bible.

Among the many facts that I gave you and you ignored is this one that already addressed the impossibility of your philosophy of reform in Islam:

1.
2/106: "We do not abrogate any of Our verses of the Qur'an or cause it to be forgotten except that We substitute it with something better or similar; don't you know that Allah has full power over everything?"
16/101: "And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."

2.
"This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. " koran 5/3

You seem to have been indoctrinated in the most intransigent Islamism and now you believe that all Muslims are the same. It seems that they were successful with you at least at one point: dogmatism got into your head and you are incapable of the slightest flexibility of perspective.

Show me where I debated about "muslims" ? You are making things up, again and again.
Are you "capable of the slightest flexibility of perspective" about your dogma?

At least I am not hiding behind ambiguous language and not using diversion tactics when I make a point about islam. You haven't even told us openly if you are a muslim or not. While you can't use islam's prophet's name or imam Bukhari's name without suffixes of respect or prayer just like a good muslim, you can't openly say that you are a muslim and of that what kind? I guess it gives you a shield that I don't need. From what though? (How ironic it is that I should be killed for what I am saying here according to all sects of Islam huh, and you can't openly say in a forum what you believe in, while you don't face any physical threat for doing it.)
By the way, while I was living the religion of islam I knew all kinds of muslims, I was literally a wanderer, I studied pretty much all kinds of it, minus the Shiat sect. I did a very diversed intense reading besides the cannons of islam. That's why no muslim can stand arguing with me much today. That exposure was the biggest agent in my awakening from religion. So you got it all wrong about me. And why is this debate starting to focus about my sources and credentials rather than what I am saying. Are we done?
My biggest goal now in life is to be free of dogma in my thinking. So I will appreciate any service in showing me how I am still dogmatic by not supporting the efforts the improve a dogma while it still remains a dogma.
You are the one who is still stuck with a dogma -one of the worse that is-.
I completely rejected that dogma at a great personal expense as I used to be stuck with it at another great expense.
You on the other hand are of the opinion that by allowing a so-called revelation be re-re-re-re-interpreted and modernized you can be un-dogmatic. What a foolish idea.

The problem is that you don't realize what we're discussing. You can quote as many surahs as you like that speak in very cruel terms of the war against infidels. That those passages exist is not denied by anyone. I began my comments in this thread by referring to them, although you don't remember it. But what many argue is that they are not conclusive for the correct interpretation of Islam. Many Muslims will quote the opposite verses and each will give their reasons for accepting either one or the other. There is not unanimity in Islam on this point, and that is important because it makes easier for more modern Muslims to argue for a moderate interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah. You seem to be unaware of the theories of these Muslims, but they exist and they are becoming relevant in Western countries at least. And this is interesting

What really interesting is that those muslims that escaped their islam-and-islam-approved-teocracy-ridden societies come to the western world -like I did at the age of 28- and do not show any interest in what made their new refuge so much more civilized than their societies and only see the church steeples and fantasize that their prophet and imams would applause them in morphing their "perfected and completed" (refer to tafsirs that are not in wikislam if you wish) religion into something the bluejean-and-head-scarf-wearing-girls would like. You know what.. nobody in those geographies that listen to the Koran and Hadith every Friday from their imams care about what the western-BMW-driving-muslims think about salvaging their "perfect" dogma.

You are dreaming. I will tell you what..the best you can expect is two types of Islam under these conditions. Like the Roman Empire. Western Islam and Eastern Islam. Why don't you folks work on this, it's much more realistic.

And you are still very dogmatic even if you completely modernized a dogma by definition (Revelation).

And you are hiding the name and type of your dogmatic system, so we can not have more to say, the debate stays somewhat within your limits.

 

[David Mo]

(…)
Irrelevant. Nobody would question that. I am the one who kept telling you that you have to go to the tafsir (interpretation) if you wanna understand Koran. And as someone who experienced radicalism as well as sufisim I will tell you radical islamits are passionate about following the original, earliest interpretations of the Koran. So I could not possibly have any problem with your statement. It simply was never the issue.
(…)And in your defense of islam's …

I am sorry but I will not answer to your long diatribe about what you say that I have said that you have said or I have not said. This kind of debate doesn’t interest me in any way.

I think that you don’t understand what I mean with “different interpretations” of Islam. I am saying that the different interpretations that you recognize now are equally inspired by the Koran and the Sunnah. I have also argued that what you call de “earliest” interpretations are not. They are really the outcome of an evolution of different lines, one of them becoming dominant about the ninth century. I don’t defend any interpretation of the Koran as “legitimate” or “true”, as you claim. I defend that one of them —what I call “modern”— is more suitable for democratic norms. Therefore, we should handle with care our relations with this trend —with a certain respect— insofar as a dialogue would be possible on some vital points.

"non-Orthodox-Sunni Islamist currents " What the hell is that?

Those Muslims that don’t agree with the dominant Orthodox (Sunni) interpretation of Islam. Where is the problem?

But again whoever you mean by this ambiguous phrase I see what you mean: "Muslims who don't care about sunnah and hadith as much as the Sunnis do can override hadith that is severe against infidels and their ruling (such as democratic ruling) and access the tolerant messages of the Koran without worrying about the hadith such as the one I gave you that you completely ignored."

I think that I have not said this, but I am not sure because your English has become impenetrable for me.

For one, the hadith alone is not a road block in front of the early verses of Koran that suggested tolerance. It is the Madina era Koranic verses themselves you have to first address. if you wanna disprove that islam is emperialistic. And you didn't when I brought it up to you with the abrogation clause. I gave you Koranic verses in which "Allah" himself says the later verses abrogates the earlier ones. (…) the early tafsir (…)

Yes, but this is not the only criterion possible. The early interprets of the Koran are not the early and not the unique. See the Al-Mu`tazila a dominant interpretation in the Islam in the 8th that defended a rational-allegorical way. You use “early” as a spell to scare away any dissension.

Now to sum it up,
1.You claimed that the Koran was a document that prohibited terrorism.

Oh, my god! I never have claimed this! You don’t understand anything!

2.In doing so you credited and exalted the hadith to "almost" the level of the Koran to be able to say "the Koran prohibits terrorism", and "muslims" (not "the sunnis") accept it as sacred as the Koran. Thus your mistake (you said "ours") of claiming that the Koran "clearly" rejects the killing of women and children becames "unimportant" since the hadith does it and it's well accepted by "muslims".

My mistake or not, this hadith is a problem for terrorist imams who try to circumvent it with reasoning and interpretations too much inconsistent. I have seen so.

3.When I turned the table around for you on the issue of proving that islam is emperialistic by quoting the hadith I mentioned earlier here, you then took a stance AGAINST the hadith and claimed that "only" SUNNI muslims take it seriously and that's the reason terrorists come from amongst them. And you completely ignored the fact that the Koran itself is a block in the way of following the tolerance verses when I gave you the Koranic verses about abrogation and the verses about fighting in the way of Allah.

No. The Koran is not a block with a unique interpretation possible. See for example, the continuous discrepancies about the legitimacy of defensive jihad in the last years. The ulema could not reach an agreement on this point, except in a single case: Afghanistan against the USSR. Note that not a single “emperialist” (sic) war has been declared as jihad by consensus in modern times.

But why couldn't you openly say that you are a muslim of what kind yet?

Oh, my god!
No. I am not Muslim. Nor Christian, nor Buddhist, nor Hinduist, nor Mazdeist, nor…

I told you the reason I used that site. (It would give you the opportunity the see in a more organized fashion the dark side of Islam you seem to make light of). You didn't have to go there for the list of abrogated verses, and I indicated that at the time of using the link. I din't use that link to learn islam 35 ago. Use any islamic site, it's fine with me.

I am not interested. My sources are academic. I quoted Wikipedia in your honour.

(…) So if you disagree with this and wanna convince someone in the islamic world on your reformist view I strongly suggest that you find their volumes and reverse their evidences in their rulings. I am sure they knew what nasih/mansuh mean.(abrogation).

I don’t wish convince any radical Islamist. It is scarcely possible. I am trying to convince you that some non-radical Islamists exist, that they have their own estimable reasons and that they merit our respect till a certain extent.

Can you give any straight response when I repeatedly expose your lies? Along all other serious mistakes of yours I exposed I expect your correction on the Haider thing too.

Can you speak without insults? You are doing a mountain —the “Haider case”— of a grain of sand.

Among the many facts that I gave you and you ignored is this one that already addressed the impossibility of your philosophy of reform in Islam:
1.
2/106: "We do not abrogate any of Our verses of the Qur'an or cause it to be forgotten except that We substitute it with something better or similar; don't you know that Allah has full power over everything?"
16/101: "And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know."

You become repetitive. This doesn’t make sense.

By the way, while I was living the religion of islam I knew all kinds of muslims, I was literally a wanderer, I studied pretty much all kinds of it, minus the Shiat sect. I did a very diversed intense reading besides the cannons of islam. That's why no muslim can stand arguing with me much today. That exposure was the biggest agent in my awakening from religion. So you got it all wrong about me. And why is this debate starting to focus about my sources and credentials rather than what I am saying. Are we done? My biggest goal now in life is to be free of dogma in my thinking. So I will appreciate any service in showing me how I am still dogmatic by not supporting the efforts the improve a dogma while it still remains a dogma.

Don’t tell your life. It can be invented. It is not interesting. Show your knowledge.

You are the one who is still stuck with a dogma -one of the worse that is-.

What dogma? My thought is clearly sceptic. Thinking that the Koran is an ambiguous text that can be interpreted differently is a dogma? What strange dogma that denies any dogma.

What really interesting is that those muslims that escaped their islam-and-islam-approved-teocracy-ridden societies come to the western world -like I did at the age of 28- and do not show any interest in what made their new refuge so much more civilized than their societies and only see the church steeples and fantasize that their prophet and imams would applause them in morphing their "perfected and completed" (refer to tafsirs that are not in wikislam if you wish) religion into something the bluejean-and-head-scarf-wearing-girls would like. You know what.. nobody in those geographies that listen to the Koran and Hadith every Friday from their imams care about what the western-BMW-driving-muslims think about salvaging their "perfect" dogma.

You are dreaming. I will tell you what..the best you can expect is two types of Islam under these conditions. Like the Roman Empire. Western Islam and Eastern Islam. Why don't you folks work on this, it's much more realistic.

Western and Eastern societies are not homogeny. This is a typical colonialist thinking. You continue thinking in black-white terms. This is your problem.

And you are still very dogmatic even if you completely modernized a dogma by definition (Revelation).

Nobody can modernize a dogma with only words. A dogma can be only modernized by the pressure of social changes towards modernity and progress. If Arab countries remain under neo-colonial circumstances they never will change.

And you are hiding the name and type of your dogmatic system, so we can not have more to say, the debate stays somewhat within your limits.

I have not any dogmatic system. Neither philosophical nor religious. I think I have showed this above.

 

[winter salt]

Unless I change my mind later again, I wanna call it quits.
You do have good points, unfortunately for reasons whose disclosures would open up new avenues of discussions I couldn't acknowledge them and also this is taking lot of time. I din't think I would end up debating all this here.
I see one thing clearly after your last thread, that you do not defend a modernized islam as a dogma to be followed by you. So that makes you un-dogmatic while using the tools of this dogma in proving that it can accept reform. You see it as a more harmonious and preferred option for muslims. While your point requires the same evidences and arguments that the reformist muslims use it was hard for me to distinguish you from them. So you defend a reformed dogma for those who can't do without it altogether, while you have no faith in any version of it. It's my first encounter with this kind of situation. I know I am being repetitive but I am just trying to completely absorb it.
Usually intellectually honest and benevolent people spend their time and energy to show those who can't see the harm in dogmatic thinking, instead of showing them ways to beautify it.
Reform ideas are hooks that catch the religionist back to the dogma at the door when they start seeing problems in it. And in turn support the whole buiding of it by keeping them as tenants only in the upper levels.