Muslim Rage-a different view?

[gotone]

I disagree.

 

When the context is understood the meaning is pretty straightforward, and Islam has a rich tradition of teaching the Quran in context, my independant readings reach the same conclusions as those formed by lay Muslims and Muslim scholars. There are some parts of the Quran that can't be understood in the context of itself, and these create difficulty for everyone trying to read the text, but these are very small in the context of the whole.

 

Other than that the difficulty in Islam is almost exclusively one of two things.

 

1. Muslims who try to justify the Hadith/Sunnah in the context of them contradicting the Quran, rather than accept that the suplimentary texts might be wrong they try to justify them by changing the meaning of the Quran to fit the suplimentary texts.

 

2. People who have a political agenda (eg Abu Hamza) who purposfully either twist the words of or take the verses of the Quran out of context to promote their own ideology.

 

So are you saying WHAT MUHAMMED ACTUALLY did mean nothing? He is separate from the koran? In the sense that his actions do not detract from the korans credibility. He did not have to set an example?

Edited October 8, 2012 by gotone

[PaliRichard]

So are you saying WHAT MUHAMMED ACTUALLY did mean nothing? He is separate from the koran?

 

No, I'm saying (and have said countless times) that Muslim is an active word, it means to follow the will of Allah, which is the Quran.

 

The supplimentary texts are exactly that, supplimentary, there to expand upon areas that the Quran only touches upon or doesn't deal with. But some of it contradicts the Quran, it is these contradictory verses that some people use to justify some of the acts they do, but using Islams own standards this makes them no more Muslim than I am.

 

Essentially speaking, Mohammad is a man, and to elevate his teachings to the status that some Muslims hold him, even using the criteria laid down by Islam, makes those people non Muslims. That doesn't mean they can't respect him or hold him in the highest regard, but what they absolutely shouldn't do is place him on a pedestal equal to that of the Quran. He never taught them to do so, they just take his words out of context.

[maxmaximus]

I disagree.

 

When the context is understood the meaning is pretty straightforward, and Islam has a rich tradition of teaching the Quran in context, my independant readings reach the same conclusions as those formed by lay Muslims and Muslim scholars. There are some parts of the Quran that can't be understood in the context of itself, and these create difficulty for everyone trying to read the text, but these are very small in the context of the whole.

 

Other than that the difficulty in Islam is almost exclusively one of two things.

 

1. Muslims who try to justify the Hadith/Sunnah in the context of them contradicting the Quran, rather than accept that the suplimentary texts might be wrong they try to justify them by changing the meaning of the Quran to fit the suplimentary texts.

 

2. People who have a political agenda (eg Abu Hamza) who purposfully either twist the words of or take the verses of the Quran out of context to promote their own ideology.

 

You have reached the same conclusion has some Muslims and Muslim scholars, but that doesn't make you or them right in your interpretation of a book written over a thousand years ago. It’s just as likely the other Muslims and Muslim scholars are right in their interpretation, there are different branches of Islam just has there are different branches of Christianity; the reason for these different branches is because of different interpretations of the same books. Christians have killed Christians and Muslims have killed Muslims over these differences of opinion on the interpretation of their respective books.

[gotone]

No, I'm saying (and have said countless times) that Muslim is an active word, it means to follow the will of Allah, which is the Quran.

 

The supplimentary texts are exactly that, supplimentary, there to expand upon areas that the Quran only touches upon or doesn't deal with. But some of it contradicts the Quran, it is these contradictory verses that some people use to justify some of the acts they do, but using Islams own standards this makes them no more Muslim than I am.

 

Essentially speaking, Mohammad is a man, and to elevate his teachings to the status that some Muslims hold him, even using the criteria laid down by Islam, makes those people non Muslims. That doesn't mean they can't respect him or hold him in the highest regard, but what they absolutely shouldn't do is place him on a pedestal equal to that of the Quran. He never taught them to do so, they just take his words out of context.

 

And his actions? Are they out of context?

[MrMoran]

You didn't appreciate the 'balance' in the post? .

 

I appreciated the message that "even muslims" can be intollerent and ignorant.

I know that will shake some epople to the core (mainly muslims) but there you have it

[Plain Talker]

From Wikki

According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated.[6][8][9] Aisha stayed in her parents' home for several years until she joined Muhammad and the marriage was consummated when she was nine.[6][8][9][10][11][12] However, al-Tabari records that she was ten.[8] The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years, but mention that after the wedding, she continued to play with her toys, and that Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games

Im sure even though you can say ,sometimes truthfully but more often in blind faith,that people such as myself may over exaggerate now and then much the same as the pro muslimists do ,but surely even you musr agree that if Wikki printed lies and allowed them to remain they would be told about it,obviously they have got their information from somewhere and it has been allowed to stay there for some time,failing this evidence though we also have it from a hadith

From the hadith of Bukhari, volume 5, #234

 

"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

From what I have read further some parts of Islam have begun to criticise the Bukhari hadiths and have started to "change history" by trying to prove different ages,seems a bit strange that this is allowed in Islam after all they are all part of sacred works.

 

Not all hadiths are sound hadiths, Some are stronger than others. The Hadith that states her age is not backed up by others, it's narrated by only one person. Most other ahadith are corroborated by other companions. Also you forget that birth certificates did not exist in those times, so ages were not absolutely bang-on.

 

Look at these points:-

 

1) Aisha was among the 12 Male and 12 Female Muslims to migrate to Ethiopia. She was identified as one of the 12 females and not an infant/ child though according to the sources (if she were born in 612) she would have been only 3 years old.

 

2) Aisha recalled that she remembers how the Prophet used to visit her father on a daily bases, after the revelation and before the Hijra (migration) to Madina. She also recalled the migration to Ethiopia. Either she had a 3 year old’s über-memory or a big miscalculation has occurred.

 

32) Aisha’s sister, Asma, is 10 years her senior. Asma was 14 old during the revelation (in 610). Accordingly, Aisha would be 4 years old in 610 and thus born 606, while Asma born in 596. (This makes Aisha about 9 years old when she went to Ethiopia and 16 when the marriage was consummated)

[PaliRichard]

You have reached the same conclusion has some Muslims and Muslim scholars, but that doesn't make you or them right in your interpretation of a book written over a thousand years ago. It’s just as likely the other Muslims and Muslim scholars are right in their interpretation[/Quote]

 

But those that don't agree with the 'standard' view can be shown to have added to or subtracted from the 'main' view. As I have previously stated the authentication process in Islam is a quite strict one.

 

The 'standard' interpretation is as right as is going to get, of course you can't say that it is 100% accurate, but you can't say that about any history, even events that happened five minutes ago are prone to different interpretations by different people, but in Islam as in most systems that study history there is an accepted 'standard', and deviations from that are considered innacurate.

 

there are different branches of Islam just has there are different branches of Christianity;[/Quote]

 

Yes but unlike Christianity the different 'branches' of Islam agree on the core principles, and that is because the authentication process is none sectarian. Regarding the two 'main' branches, their differences are mostly political rather than scriptural.

 

the reason for these different branches is because of different interpretations of the same books. Christians have killed Christians and Muslims have killed Muslims over these differences of opinion on the interpretation of their respective books.

 

As my above post, the differences fought over in Islam are usually because one set seeks to impose an unislamic ideology and change Islam to suit its own agenda, like the Taliban, which the majority of Muslims recognise as unislamic and totally reject.

[boyfriday]

I appreciated the message that "even muslims" can be intollerent and ignorant.

I know that will shake some epople to the core (mainly muslims) but there you have it

 

Have you ever been brayed by a cast iron irony?

 

You advise the poster he'd be better off without friends like that because they're "ignorant and intollerant" (sic), and in so doing you're being ignorant and intolerant as you've no knowledge of the nature of their relationship and unlike the poster you were responding to, were demonstrating all the qualities of 'intolerance', thank god/allah/jehovah I don't have to rely on friends like you

[MrMoran]

Have you ever been brayed by a cast iron irony?

 

You advise the poster he'd be better off without friends like that because they're "ignorant and intollerant"

 

Yes, and i stand by that.

[MrMoran]

I guess even Christians can be intolerant and ignorant.

 

Not being a Christian i cant really see why you'd use that particular cult as a comparrison.

All religion is stupid, misguided and backwards.

Some religions are backward in the extreme and highly dangerous with it.