There's so much nonsense on this thread, I don't know where to start. I don't mind helping explain classical Islam and its application today if anyone has any genuine questions?

There's so much nonsense on this thread, I don't know where to start. I don't mind helping explain classical Islam and its application today if anyone has any genuine questions?

Many Christians and even Jews accept that the laws of the Old Testament are no more applicable in the modern context (being valid only in the remote past) and that the Bible is not infallible, requiring a symbolic interpretation in many aspects (being the work of fallible human beings influenced by the Divinity, their interpretation of God's will). We call them moderates (a wing of the Anglican Church even advocates renouncing condemning homosexuality). Can muslims do the same with sharia and the Qur'an (based on classical Islam of course)?

Many Christians and even Jews accept that the laws of the Old Testament are no more applicable in the modern context (being valid only in the remote past) and that the Bible is not infallible, requiring a symbolic interpretation in many aspects (being the work of fallible human beings influenced by the Divinity, their interpretation of God's will). We call them moderates (a wing of the Anglican Church even advocates renouncing condemning homosexuality). Can muslims do the same with sharia and the Qur'an (based on classical Islam of course)?

This is an extremely valid question for all muslims. Can they live in a democracy

and not make demands on the secular society they choose to live in. If they abhor the Turkish mode of government

, why should ours be beneficial to them?

When we see sharia in action it does not give us any reason to embrace it or even tolerate it. Many Muslims will give you the better definitions of scripture, conveniently ignoring the nasty bits but others free to express themselves without recall will point the nasty bits out with relish.

The Qur'an is considered a miracle by Muslims. The thing that dumbfounded the Arab pagans was the literary and linguistic style of the Qur'an, resulting in people accusing Muhammad of being a sorcerer or possesed by jinn. Arabic grammar, syntax, morphology and rhetoric was developed from the language of the Qur'an; it was the highest standard of Arabic ever witnessed and thus used as a 'textbook' for lingustic science! Meaning even non-Muslim Arabs use the techniques found in the Qur'an which were not present in the language before. If you're asking whether Muslims can reject the miracle status of the Qur'an, and accept it as Muhammad's personal effort, then the answer is no. How can Muslims do such a thing when they can witness the miracle themselves every time they read the Qur'an? Those who witnessed the parting of the red sea would not have relegated it to a story of symbolic nature a few years later. Modern Christians and Jews only interpret the story of Moses symbolically because they did not witness it themselves. But this is not the case with Muslims.

The question of sharia hinges on what your understanding of sharia actually is. Sharia is not 'God's law', as many Muslims will tell you. Sharia is man's attempt at implementing God's law. This is an important distinction. Some aspects of sharia are perfectly clear in Islam like praying five times a day, giving 1.5% of wealth to charity, fasting during the month of ramadan etc. These aspects leave no room for interpretation. Other aspects, are not only up for interpretation but also must necassarily change with the times. Things like fiat currency, taxing and inflation, freedom of movement between states, penal system etc. It is this area where scholarship has failed in Islam. I'm not going to go into the reasons why I think this has happened, but the spirit of reform and keeping the faith alive and dynamic essentially died with the Ottoman Empire.

Buried deep amongst the wahabi rhetoric, there are Muslims trying to re-ignite spirit of true classical scholarship in Islam. I recently read a book by Prof Scott Kugle, Homosexuality in Islam, who believes homosexuals and people with gender ambiguities are mentioned in the Qur'an in a positive manner. I didn't even know of these verses until I read his book. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, it shows people are still attempting to interpret the scriptures to help us with the human condition today. And that really is how sharia is understood by most Muslims.

Islamic democracy is nothing like secular democracy

in my opinion Islam can never be democratic because it demands gods laws not mans.

Secular democracy safeguards us from the tyranny of extremism,

How could a Muslim country allow a political party that opposed gods laws?

Its incompatible.

We see it Iran. By its nature it excludes non Muslims from the process.

This is why you oppose the Turkish model of democracy, it imposes that secular law is above gods law.

The nasty bits are such as the treatment of slaves ,

how when the non believer refuses to become Muslim,

the treatment of women and how they should obey their husbands wishes.

When the prophet married a child

and kept slave girls.

When it is allowed to have sex with slaves and split slave families up , when selling them. I cant help but question the morals and the behaviour of a faith that has allowed such excesses.

Yes more or less the official 'point of view'. But I hope you understand that non-muslims cannot accept uncritically what you tell us; unfortunately we have to reject a lot (including the divine nature of the qur'an or its unicity).

no matter that you want it or not sharia belongs to the 7th century.

The islamic world is the only part of the world where religious constitutions still survive and this say many about islam;

finally it's crystal clear for all rational thinkers that a defense like 'islam is the only true religions' thus its discriminatory laws are acceptable at all times is a perfect non-argument.

Unfortunately islam is not compatible with real democracy

and universal human rights (as much as sharia is retained), the 'lot of nonsense' you were talking about was primarily about this and about the fact that the islam of the last 1400 years is definitely not moderate. Think beyond what your traditions taught you and you'll easily see this.

Islam will not allow man to make laws, will it?

Secular law is secular law,

Muslim democracies can not, will not permit true democracy, will it?

You keep teling me I know nothing about Turkish democracy, do want me to post a link for you,a link I have read.

Mohamed betrothed that child when she was six and consummated the relationship when she was nine...Its this attitude that encourages dirty old men in the Taliban to take child wives.

In my opinion and most civilised societies,

puberty does not make a girl a women capable of sex with a grown man.

Slavery was continued for centuries by Islam, as late as the 1960s in KSA.

What about Safiyah the Jewish girl taken as a slave and raped by Mohamed on the same day her father and husband was murdered by the muslims. You may see no historic reason to mention these facts but the morality is still there for us to examine and question.

You asked whether Muslims can reform their view of their religion to something akin to how modern Christians and Jews view theirs, implying that this is more correct and acceptable to you. I've just explained to you why the case is different in Islam and you've responded by saying "Yes more or less the official 'point of view'". What was the point of asking the question in the first place if you're not going to absorb the response?

I've just explained to you what sharia is, and this is your response? What did I say that convinces you that sharia belongs in the 7th century? You think fasting for a month has no place in modern society?

Many of the religious constitutions you speak of are not reflective of what Muslims consider sharia.

It's crytsal clear that no one has made this argument.

What is real democracy?

What is not moderate about Islam?



Yes it will.

Well done.

What is true democracy?

A link you've read? Is this what constitutes research these days? I was actually preparing a short list of research material for you to understand why those who support Turkey's history and application of secular democracy are no different to Muslims who support the Taliban. But I see it probably will make no difference to you.

Which is wrong. Islam teaches that this marriage was an exception and not to be imitated by anyone else.

You do not speak on behalf of 'civilised societies'.

Yes it does. Her sexual organs are ready for sex and child bearing. But psychologically she would not be ready. That's why this marriage is not an example for Muslims to follow.

KSA is not an example of a society following the teachings of Muhammad. In fact, there are still slaves in KSA today.

She was his wife. So he did not rape her.

you keep making these claims about Islam and democracy but the facts do not support your claims, in practice or by general consensus of Muslims.

Democracy, secular democracy, can be available to all its citizens, Islamic government could not apply laws it considered un Islamic, therefor it would make laws only applicable to Islamic teaching. History of Islam has never ever shown itself capable of secular law or justice, ever.

I do know the history of Turkey

I do speak for civilised opinion when it says a child is not physically or mentally capable of a sexual or emotional relationship at nine.

She,Safiyah was not married when she was raped by Mohamed on the day he killed her father and husband..How you can say that is a moral example for a faith that claims the moral high ground is amazing.

You keep on about not a good example of Islam,Iran KSA, is there one?

has there ever been one?

There are more slaves now than ever and Muslims are the main culprits.

Its because they see the Prophet giving advice on the treatment of slaves but not the exclusion of keeping them.

Why Moslems celebrated 9\11\2001?

Many non-muslims celebrated sept.11 too, though none dared to show it openly. Despite the horror, some people thought it was bound to happen sooner or later because the arrogance of American imperialism cannot go on forever. Before we knew who did it, some people felt that someone somewhere had decided that enough is enough. Some welcomed such a clear message... that someone somewhere is at least as powerful, as intelligeant and as rich as the Americans. Anyways, we will have to wait at least 50 years before we know what really happened. Some still think it was an inside job. I personally don't understand how the Americans can be so cynical as to turn such a tragedy into a tourist attraction. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are waiting the end of the war so they can give the reconstruction contract to O.Bin Laden's father, a good friend of the USA.

Yes, they do.

Secular law and justice are two different things. Yes, we've established that Islam is not secular. That doesn't mean it is not democratic.

Reading a website doesn't count.

A child who has reached puberty is physically capable of sex, male or female. Is it 'civilised' to believe this? Maybe not to you, but it's backed up by science. But what is the point you're trying to make here? That Muhammad was a pedophile and his life encourages men to marry young girls? Most Muslim men do not marry six year-olds because they are educated in their religion and would prefer a woman anyway.

This is what happens when you visit anti-Islam websites for your research. Safiyyah was the wife of the Prophet. He did not marry her the day her father and husband were killed. They had sex after they were married, and so she was not raped. There is nothing immoral about this. But again, what is the point of you bringing this up? What are you trying to prove? That kidnapping and rape (even though that's not what happened) is acceptable in Islam?

No.

Yes.

How?

How do you know this?

The social engineering of the Qur'an and actions of the Prophet were clearly designed to phase out slavery. The majority of Muslims understand this.

Marat;148657 wrote:

Why Moslems celebrated 9\11\2001?

Many non-muslims celebrated sept.11 too, though none dared to show it openly. Despite the horror, some people thought it was bound to happen sooner or later because the arrogance of American imperialism cannot go on forever. Before we knew who did it, some people felt that someone somewhere had decided that enough is enough. Some welcomed such a clear message... that someone somewhere is at least as powerful, as intelligeant and as rich as the Americans. Anyways, we will have to wait at least 50 years before we know what really happened. Some still think it was an inside job. I personally don't understand how the Americans can be so cynical as to turn such a tragedy into a tourist attraction. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are waiting the end of the war so they can give the reconstruction contract to O.Bin Laden's father, a good friend of the USA.

So whats your opinion on those who celebrate the death of so many innocent civilians? do you celebrate their death.

So you tell me what democracy means in a muslim state, how does it differ to the charade we see in Iran.simple question.

Why cant you explain your views on Turkeys democracy and why you believe it is not a democracy? simple question.

The jewish widow was raped before she became his wife, the rest of her female companions just became sex slaves. You show me an unbiased opinion on slavery and the rape of female prisoners by Muslims?

If you consider a nine year old still playing with her dolls suitable for an aged mans sexual pleasure, what more can I say?

I know about slavery by research amnesty have carried out.

The right to vote for their officials and administration, and thus the right to vote them out. The right to have an influence over social matters.



When did I say it was not a democracy? Turkey's democracy is an imitation of Western models.



The Jewish widow was not raped before she became his wife. Just admit that you learnt this from an anti-Islam website and stop embarrasing yourself.



No, I don't consider that. Try reading what I said.



So tell me how Muslims are the main culprits of slavery due to Islam's teachings. You make these kind of comments but don't respond when I call you out.

You asked whether Muslims can reform their view of their religion to something akin to how modern Christians and Jews view theirs, implying that this is more correct and acceptable to you. I've just explained to you why the case is different in Islam and you've responded by saying "Yes more or less the official 'point of view'". What was the point of asking the question in the first place if you're not going to absorb the response?

I've just explained to you what sharia is, and this is your response? What did I say that convinces you that sharia belongs in the 7th century? You think fasting for a month has no place in modern society?

Many of the religious constitutions you speak of are not reflective of what Muslims consider sharia.

It's crytsal clear that no one has made this argument.

What is real democracy?

What is not moderate about Islam?

Josh, You are very generous but you are throwing pearls to the hogs.

Josh, You are very generous but you are throwing pearls to the hogs.