Secularism isn't a religion, it is a principle and a way for humans to govern without relying on a scripture while giving everyone the right to practice their religion (or way of life) freely without any major interference from the state. I'm a supporter of the Anglo-American version of Secularism and I'm a big opponent of the France/Quebec style of Hard Secularism
Why are we screaming about Europe and America being biased and bigoted when we are worse?
- Thread starter Shaafici Mujaahid
- Start date
I don't know anything in t he quran or the Sunnah that makes us Muslims forced to implement the exact same laws that were even subjective in the prophets time. Even the most extreme terrorist groups don't behead and stone people that much do to the great deal of public uproar it causes. It's rational that it was only meant as a covenant for a certain period of time to transform society and not keep them the same way. If technology evolves, people evolve, and so should the implementation of stricter laws. Just like how Umar got rid of the Huduud laws in his time.
You sound like you believe in secularism and are a kaffir.
And as for your claim that the secular state is the right way to go.... how is the Soviet Union doing?
I think it's justified to say you're a kaffir then. The hukm belongs to Allah.
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
I'm dodgy because you don't agree with me? What's next? Making takfir like your brother @Omar del Sur and advocating to behead me?
I was being merciful by calling you dodgy you're most certainly a deviant based on your what you believe in. This is what you wrote
According to you when Allah commands muslims not to engage in zina, riba etc then this according to you doesn't mean that what is forbidden is morally wrong ? Similarly when Allah commands us to engage in good deeds like praying salah, giving charity then these actions are not morally good ?
How are you separating between the command of Allah and what is morally right or wrong ? The very basis of any act being either morally right or wrong as commanded in the Quran is decided by Allah yet you try to make a distinction ? This is nothing more than progressive mental gymnastics aiming to redefine islam based on secular liberal ideology.
Last edited:
Kaffir must be your favorite word
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Don't bother with him he's a kafir
Since there is a natural moral code, moral values existed “before the existence of revelation” (min qabla wurud al-shar’ Even without religion, therefore, there would be morality. Only the rituals of religion, such as fasting, praying, or dietary requirements, the Muʿtazila argued, were knowable solely by revelation.
Religion, in this view, does not claim to redefine the whole world, but rather operated in a world of objective facts and truths. The Sharia, argued one of the most astute Muʿtazila scholars, Abd alJabbar (d. 1025), “does not change the facts,” as “will or intention … has no effect upon the truth of things.”
The Sharia rather only “indicates” what is objectively right and wrong. In the words of alJabbar: Prohibition from the Exalted [God] is an indication that something is evil, as the indicator indicates the thing as it is … not that it becomes what it is by indication.
In strong contrast to this ethical objectivism, there was the divine command theory of the Ashʿarites. For them, all the good acts such as “thanking a benefactor” or “pursuing fairness” were not good in themselves. Neither bad acts such as theft or murder were bad in themselves. They were categorized as such only because God says so—and not by “the mind’s intuitive judgment.”
Al-Kiya, an Ashʿarite from the twelfth century, put their position very clearly: We refuse to say that its being good or being bad is grounded in any essential property [of the act] … Good and bad are grounded simply in God’s command and prohibition.
Another prominent Ashʿarite, al-Baqillani (d. 1013), also put it quite clearly: “All acts are evil only because they are evil by way of revelation. If revelation did not make them evil, they would not be evil.”
Therefore, if revelation said something totally different, then all the moral values would be totally different. “Lying is wrong, since He declares it to be wrong,” al-Ashʿari, the very founder of the school, argued. “[But] if He were to command it, there would be no argument to the contrary.
The Ashʿarites did not disagree with the Muʿtazila that Allah is a just God. But His justice did not mean much for them, because since there were no objective values in the world, whatever God does would be, by definition, just. In contrast, the Muʿtazila believed that God is “necessarily just in the same sense that our reason understands justice.”
It is one of the most dramatic stories of the Bible. Abraham, God’s chosen, is blessed in his late age with a child named Isaac, who becomes a much beloved son. Yet Abraham receives one day a chilling commandment from God to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. He obeys the Lord, takes the poor child to Mount Moriah, and bounds him on an altar, with a knife in his hand. Yet at the last moment before Isaac is slaughtered, an angel stops Abraham, telling him, “Now I know that you fear God.”
Then a miraculous ram appears, which Abraham sacrifices instead of his son. What is the moral lesson of this story? It is a tough question discussed for centuries in the Jewish and Christian traditions. For ethical objectivists, who believe that God commands only what is objectively good, the story has “often been an embarrassment.” In contrast, fideists have celebrated the story as an illustration of “unquestioning obedience to the divine command.”
One of the most sophisticated voices in this camp was the Danish Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (d. 1855), who, in his famed book Fear and Trembling, saw in the sacrifice story a justified “suspension of the ethical” based on trust in God.
On the other hand, for the Enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant (d. 1804), Abraham’s blind obedience to a divine command for murdering his own child was not an example to follow but an error to avoid. This was, alas, the mindset behind religious fanaticism. It was the very mindset, Kant warned, of the “Grand Inquisitor,” which tortured heretics for the sake of God, and of the holy warriors who wielded the sword “to raze all unbelievers from the face of the earth.”
A somewhat similar dispute on the sacrifice story took place in Islam as well, because the same story, albeit with some nuances, also exists in the Qur’an. There, too, Abraham has a beloved son— who is unnamed but was later identified in the Muslim tradition as Ishmael. There, too, Abraham comes close to slaughtering his own son, just to obey God, but is stopped at the last moment by an angel and a miraculous ram. The story is also very central to Muslim practice: one of the two major religious holidays in Islam is the Eid al-Adha, or the “Feast of Sacrifice,” where all able Muslims are called to sacrifice a lamb, at least, to walk in the footsteps of Abraham. So what are Muslims supposed to understand from this chilling story? The Ashʿari view was articulated by great Qur’anic exegete Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1210). According to him, God had first commanded Abraham to sacrifice his own son, but then later “abrogated” this command with a second one that saved the child. But did the initial commandment, to slaughter an innocent child, amount to something evil? Razi declined to concede that, because for him, “to judge the Divine command on the basis of what seems good or evil to human reason [was] invalid.”
The Muʿtazila, as one could expect, could not accept this explanation. We know this from Razi himself, who writes in his exegesis that the Muʿtazila struggled to find an alternative explanation to the story. They suggested, “Abraham was actually never commanded to carry out such a sacrifice.” He was only commanded with making preparations, to “be ready to follow the command to sacrifice if it were given.”
Razi seems to think that this was too much hairsplitting, which it really was. Yet one of the most articulate Muʿtazila scholars, Abd al-Jabbar, came up with a better solution, based on a careful reading of the Qur’anic sacrifice story, which has a significant difference from the Bible. In the latter, Abraham receives an explicit commandment from God to sacrifice Isaac. In the Qur’an, though, Abraham only has a dream in which he sees himself sacrificing his son. He then consults his son, and they together decide that this is a commandment from God. But this was a wrong interpretation of the dream, Abd al-Jabbar argued, as dreams are not necessarily revelations. “How can it be a command from Allah,” he asked. “He could see anything in his dreams.”
Two centuries after al-Jabbar, a towering name from the Sufi tradition, the scholar and mystic Ibn al-Arabi (d. 1240), would offer the same interpretation. Accordingly, Abraham’s dream was not a divine commandment to sacrifice his son. Abraham had just misinterpreted the dream’s lesson, and God had “rescued his son from Abraham’s misapprehension.”
Then a miraculous ram appears, which Abraham sacrifices instead of his son. What is the moral lesson of this story? It is a tough question discussed for centuries in the Jewish and Christian traditions. For ethical objectivists, who believe that God commands only what is objectively good, the story has “often been an embarrassment.” In contrast, fideists have celebrated the story as an illustration of “unquestioning obedience to the divine command.”
One of the most sophisticated voices in this camp was the Danish Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (d. 1855), who, in his famed book Fear and Trembling, saw in the sacrifice story a justified “suspension of the ethical” based on trust in God.
On the other hand, for the Enlightenment thinker Immanuel Kant (d. 1804), Abraham’s blind obedience to a divine command for murdering his own child was not an example to follow but an error to avoid. This was, alas, the mindset behind religious fanaticism. It was the very mindset, Kant warned, of the “Grand Inquisitor,” which tortured heretics for the sake of God, and of the holy warriors who wielded the sword “to raze all unbelievers from the face of the earth.”
A somewhat similar dispute on the sacrifice story took place in Islam as well, because the same story, albeit with some nuances, also exists in the Qur’an. There, too, Abraham has a beloved son— who is unnamed but was later identified in the Muslim tradition as Ishmael. There, too, Abraham comes close to slaughtering his own son, just to obey God, but is stopped at the last moment by an angel and a miraculous ram. The story is also very central to Muslim practice: one of the two major religious holidays in Islam is the Eid al-Adha, or the “Feast of Sacrifice,” where all able Muslims are called to sacrifice a lamb, at least, to walk in the footsteps of Abraham. So what are Muslims supposed to understand from this chilling story? The Ashʿari view was articulated by great Qur’anic exegete Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 1210). According to him, God had first commanded Abraham to sacrifice his own son, but then later “abrogated” this command with a second one that saved the child. But did the initial commandment, to slaughter an innocent child, amount to something evil? Razi declined to concede that, because for him, “to judge the Divine command on the basis of what seems good or evil to human reason [was] invalid.”
The Muʿtazila, as one could expect, could not accept this explanation. We know this from Razi himself, who writes in his exegesis that the Muʿtazila struggled to find an alternative explanation to the story. They suggested, “Abraham was actually never commanded to carry out such a sacrifice.” He was only commanded with making preparations, to “be ready to follow the command to sacrifice if it were given.”
Razi seems to think that this was too much hairsplitting, which it really was. Yet one of the most articulate Muʿtazila scholars, Abd al-Jabbar, came up with a better solution, based on a careful reading of the Qur’anic sacrifice story, which has a significant difference from the Bible. In the latter, Abraham receives an explicit commandment from God to sacrifice Isaac. In the Qur’an, though, Abraham only has a dream in which he sees himself sacrificing his son. He then consults his son, and they together decide that this is a commandment from God. But this was a wrong interpretation of the dream, Abd al-Jabbar argued, as dreams are not necessarily revelations. “How can it be a command from Allah,” he asked. “He could see anything in his dreams.”
Two centuries after al-Jabbar, a towering name from the Sufi tradition, the scholar and mystic Ibn al-Arabi (d. 1240), would offer the same interpretation. Accordingly, Abraham’s dream was not a divine commandment to sacrifice his son. Abraham had just misinterpreted the dream’s lesson, and God had “rescued his son from Abraham’s misapprehension.”
moral authority was precisely what the “intuitionist” ethics of the Muʿtazila entailed—but Muʿtazila itself was precisely the road not taken. Conscience still remained in the air, naturally, but to act only implicitly. Hence, when jurists followed the “call of conscience,” they had to “construct a fortress of juridical reasoning and legal language to create the impression that they are not ruling according to the dictates of philosophy or ethics, but law.”
Meanwhile allusions to conscience in the founding texts received only limited attention. One of them is a remarkable hadith in which the Prophet gets asked by his companion, Wabisah ibn Ma’bad, on what it means to be a good person. In return, the Prophet says: Consult your heart. Righteousness is that which makes the soul feel tranquil and the heart feel tranquil. And sin is that which makes the soul waver and the breast uneasy.
An exceptional voice in classical Islam that embraced this message was the great Sufi master Jalal al-Din Rumi (d. 1273). “You have a spiritual organ within,” he wrote, “Let it review the fatwa of the muftis and adopt whatever it agrees with.”
But muftis themselves, and the orthodoxy they upheld, were not impressed. Some, including al-Ghazali, argued that the advice “consult your heart” was valid only for Wabisah himself. Others said it can’t be that narrow, but it must be still valid for only people like Wabisah, whom the Prophet “knew to be a person of faith and understanding.”
Sunni sources still quote this hadith only by taking great pains to emphasize that the heart can’t actually override the law.
They say that the hadith is valid only “if the person giving the ruling does not have any strong [textual] evidence to support his conclusion.” And even in that case, those who can trust their hearts are only “who are true believers and who are knowledgeable of the Shariah.”
All this legalism is justified with an understandable concern: that humans can tilt the law out of hawa, or “whimsical desire.” But the opposite risk, that law itself can be used to serve immoral ends, is often overlooked. Conscience, which can balance the law, does not count as a moral authority according the Conservatives
Meanwhile allusions to conscience in the founding texts received only limited attention. One of them is a remarkable hadith in which the Prophet gets asked by his companion, Wabisah ibn Ma’bad, on what it means to be a good person. In return, the Prophet says: Consult your heart. Righteousness is that which makes the soul feel tranquil and the heart feel tranquil. And sin is that which makes the soul waver and the breast uneasy.
An exceptional voice in classical Islam that embraced this message was the great Sufi master Jalal al-Din Rumi (d. 1273). “You have a spiritual organ within,” he wrote, “Let it review the fatwa of the muftis and adopt whatever it agrees with.”
But muftis themselves, and the orthodoxy they upheld, were not impressed. Some, including al-Ghazali, argued that the advice “consult your heart” was valid only for Wabisah himself. Others said it can’t be that narrow, but it must be still valid for only people like Wabisah, whom the Prophet “knew to be a person of faith and understanding.”
Sunni sources still quote this hadith only by taking great pains to emphasize that the heart can’t actually override the law.
They say that the hadith is valid only “if the person giving the ruling does not have any strong [textual] evidence to support his conclusion.” And even in that case, those who can trust their hearts are only “who are true believers and who are knowledgeable of the Shariah.”
All this legalism is justified with an understandable concern: that humans can tilt the law out of hawa, or “whimsical desire.” But the opposite risk, that law itself can be used to serve immoral ends, is often overlooked. Conscience, which can balance the law, does not count as a moral authority according the Conservatives
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
@Fawz
Again i want you to answer the simple question that i asked
@Shimbiris this is why i told you he's dodgy, hiding behind mu'tazilah doctrine so as not to be questioned about his actual beliefs. This is why don't believe that he's a muslim ruunti.
In his understanding it's possible for there to exist a morality that goes against what Allah commands but at the same time be morally right. Why would one who claims to be a muslim ever advocate for such a view ? unless the aim is to negate the commands in and of themselves in order to accommodate liberal theology where man is now the judge who determines what is morally right or wrong. This is here is the end-game of this guy .
Again i want you to answer the simple question that i asked
@Shimbiris this is why i told you he's dodgy, hiding behind mu'tazilah doctrine so as not to be questioned about his actual beliefs. This is why don't believe that he's a muslim ruunti.
In his understanding it's possible for there to exist a morality that goes against what Allah commands but at the same time be morally right. Why would one who claims to be a muslim ever advocate for such a view ? unless the aim is to negate the commands in and of themselves in order to accommodate liberal theology where man is now the judge who determines what is morally right or wrong. This is here is the end-game of this guy .
Last edited:
I'm a Mu'tazila Muslim if you can't tell by my posts,profile photo and username unless only Salafi followers of the Madkhali camp are considered Muslims
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
I'm a Mu'tazila Muslim if you can't tell by my posts,profile photo and username unless only Salafi followers of the Madkhali camp are considered Muslims
This is what we call sheeko xarir, a mu'tazila somali who champions for progressive values so ma ahaan ?? hiding behind a dead sect isn't going to help you out of this
This dead sect will be leading us back to our glory days just as they did during th days Al Mamun and put us on par with the modern world unlike your sword wielding stone age brothers who have been blown to smithereen by drones in the Levant and Mesopatamia.This is what we call sheeko xarir, a mu'tazila somali who champions for progressive values so ma ahaan ?? hiding behind a dead sect isn't going to help you out of this
MBS could be our very own Al Mamun, an open-minded authoritarian despot that will reform Islam in the land of the Haramain and lead Saudi Arabia to the modern world.He has also basically become a Quranist
Quotes of the man that will soon imprison your radical scholars:
“All Muslim jurists and scholars have been talking about the concept of moderation for over a thousand years. So, I do not think I am in a position to clarify this concept, as much as I can ... abide by the Saudi constitution, which is the Quran, the Sunnah, and our basic governance system and to implement it fully in a broad sense that is inclusive of everybody."
MBS also declared that "the Constitution of Saudi Arabia is the Koran" and that his country is "obliged to implement the Koran in one form or another"; that is: all citizens will be respected as such and in their differences. To be more explicit, he stressed that only what is only said “unequivocally” in the Koran should be applied: “In social and personal affairs, we are obliged to implement only the stipulations clearly enunciated in the Quran. Thus, I cannot apply a sharia punishment without a clear or explicit Koranic stipulation of the Sunna.”
If this is to take place, says MBS, then Islam needs reform and sources of religious legislation need review. In saying as much, MBS has placed himself alongside Muslim intellectuals such as Mohamed Arkoun, Mohamed Shahrour, Faraj Fouda and others. It must be said that many of these intellectuals have been persecuted, imprisoned, interdicted, or killed because they had defended a contemporary view of Islam, or tried to cure Islam of its illness: Wahhabism, or political Islam.
MBS says the reform is clear: "The government, where Sharia is concerned, has to implement Quran regulations and teachings in mutawater (well-known) hadiths, and to look into the veracity and reliability of ahad hadiths and to disregard “khabar” hadiths entirely, unless if a clear benefit is derived from it for humanity. So, there should be no punishment related to a religious matter except when there is a clear Quranic stipulation, and this penalty will be implemented based on the way that the Prophet applied it.”
In this case, according to this criterion, only 10% of the valid hadiths remain, which are those converging with the Koran. In addition, some Islamic laws would disappear, such as stoning, scourging, amputating the hands of thieves, as well as Islamic criminal law laws, such as the death of the apostate and homosexuals.
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
This dead sect will be leading us back to our glory days just as they did during th days Al Mamun and put us on par with the modern world unlike your sword wielding stone age brothers who have been blown to smithereen by drones in the Levant and Mesopatamia.
MBS could be our very own Al Mamun, an open-minded authoritarian despot that will reform Islam in the land of the Haramain and lead Saudi Arabia to the modern world.He has also basically become a Quranist
Quotes of the man that will soon imprison your radical scholars:
“All Muslim jurists and scholars have been talking about the concept of moderation for over a thousand years. So, I do not think I am in a position to clarify this concept, as much as I can ... abide by the Saudi constitution, which is the Quran, the Sunnah, and our basic governance system and to implement it fully in a broad sense that is inclusive of everybody."
MBS also declared that "the Constitution of Saudi Arabia is the Koran" and that his country is "obliged to implement the Koran in one form or another"; that is: all citizens will be respected as such and in their differences. To be more explicit, he stressed that only what is only said “unequivocally” in the Koran should be applied: “In social and personal affairs, we are obliged to implement only the stipulations clearly enunciated in the Quran. Thus, I cannot apply a sharia punishment without a clear or explicit Koranic stipulation of the Sunna.”
If this is to take place, says MBS, then Islam needs reform and sources of religious legislation need review. In saying as much, MBS has placed himself alongside Muslim intellectuals such as Mohamed Arkoun, Mohamed Shahrour, Faraj Fouda and others. It must be said that many of these intellectuals have been persecuted, imprisoned, interdicted, or killed because they had defended a contemporary view of Islam, or tried to cure Islam of its illness: Wahhabism, or political Islam.
MBS says the reform is clear: "The government, where Sharia is concerned, has to implement Quran regulations and teachings in mutawater (well-known) hadiths, and to look into the veracity and reliability of ahad hadiths and to disregard “khabar” hadiths entirely, unless if a clear benefit is derived from it for humanity. So, there should be no punishment related to a religious matter except when there is a clear Quranic stipulation, and this penalty will be implemented based on the way that the Prophet applied it.”
In this case, according to this criterion, only 10% of the valid hadiths remain, which are those converging with the Koran. In addition, some Islamic laws would disappear, such as stoning, scourging, amputating the hands of thieves, as well as Islamic criminal law laws, such as the death of the apostate and homosexuals.
Why do you pretend to be a muslim ? you could at least be frank about it instead of engaging in petty childish games.
I've already stated I'm Muslim. Stop being childish and learn to defend your undefendable obsolete version of Islam like an intelligent being instead of wailing: "bbbbut..I no think you iz musliM mAn"
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Yes a muslim that believes that what Allah commands in the Quran isn't morally right or wrong, it doesn't take that much to know you're indeed a pretender
Next time don't bother quoting me if you are just going to wail and complain
Clllam
Æ
The west has both good and bad aspects. There are various problems that the west has that could be solved with the implementation of Shariah law in my opinion.
Also, you must abide by the law of the Quran. The amputations are ample punishments and the best penalty for those who have transgressed and stolen with no reason. Adultery is a horrible crime that comes with no other penalty but stoning. Prison sentences are useless for murderers and adulters.
But I definitely do agree with countering salafis and wahabbis. Their abuse of takfir really gets out of hand sometimes.
I remember hearing that musical instruments are apparently haram after some guy used a very weird and odd tafsir of an ayah which made no sense to me since I never heard something like that in Egypt.
The reference was actually to really excessive pleasures and pastimes rather than music but a Sahabi put forth music as an example of such a pastime which will mislead( ie delay salah) if the person doesn’t limit himself. It can also go for other things like work, games, education, etc. anything which obstructs you from the path of good.
that’s why I stay weary of them, weird folks
Also, you must abide by the law of the Quran. The amputations are ample punishments and the best penalty for those who have transgressed and stolen with no reason. Adultery is a horrible crime that comes with no other penalty but stoning. Prison sentences are useless for murderers and adulters.
But I definitely do agree with countering salafis and wahabbis. Their abuse of takfir really gets out of hand sometimes.
I remember hearing that musical instruments are apparently haram after some guy used a very weird and odd tafsir of an ayah which made no sense to me since I never heard something like that in Egypt.
The reference was actually to really excessive pleasures and pastimes rather than music but a Sahabi put forth music as an example of such a pastime which will mislead( ie delay salah) if the person doesn’t limit himself. It can also go for other things like work, games, education, etc. anything which obstructs you from the path of good.that’s why I stay weary of them, weird folks
