webcast about Sunni jurist interpretation of "no compulsion in deen" verse

jonny_k

Peace "bigmo",

Because theft and adultery are common crimes, not only for Muslims. The believers are to watch the punishment probably to ensure no abuse by the punisher beyond whats recomended and also as a reminder for them of the humiliation of crime. Yes every society has its laws and customs and we are to implement justly(meaning equally on everyone) however God does not deal with humans throught justice but "qist" which means measured scale. Or something like that, i heard a lecture ones about adl versus qist. By the way the lecture said everything "meezan" is mentioned in the Quran is uses the term "qist". Meezan of course is scale.

JK- Yes but for adultery Quran says 100 lashes n public, which can be interpreted as symbolic lashes ok but theres still public humiliation. And tht is not common at all. Many western countries wldnt agree with it for whtever personal reasons there maybe. So my pt stands the Quran contains legal laws with a certain amount of detail and we need to do our best to bring them into constitution, not through violence like the sunnis do, but through dialogue. GOD Bless!

Bigmo

Peace "bigmo",

JK- Yes but for adultery Quran says 100 lashes n public, which can be interpreted as symbolic lashes ok but theres still public humiliation. And tht is not common at all. Many western countries wldnt agree with it for whtever personal reasons there maybe. So my pt stands the Quran contains legal laws with a certain amount of detail and we need to do our best to bring them into constitution, not through violence like the sunnis do, but through dialogue. GOD Bless!

Sorry, the meezan was in another lecture, not hers. You see the reason that verse of no compulsion was problematic because it would mean religion is a private matter, and this concept conflicts with an state based on religion. The problem is you immediately equate anthing in the Quran with islam. Most of these legal guidelines have their roots also in pre Islamic Arabia. They were the accepted norms and legal codes of the community. How can God create a religious state if religion is a private matter? There is no reason to believe, unlike the theology of the Quran, that these laws were inherently different than what the community were accustomed to. Its quite obvious though, that even the community had gender differences in legalism and differences in legalism between freed men and slaves, God ordained everyone to offer salaat, make haj,fast ramadan, obey the comandments and pay zakat, if they have wealth. There is no gender or class differences in the deen however in state function there can be. This in not a Divine approval but its human evolution. God judges everyone accordingly regardless of class or gender or ethnicity yet the state has to differentiate. If not based om gender, religion and race, it will do so in citizenship as most nations do today. People here and most Muslims are not able to seperate the religion from the state because the state was run by the prophet and the guidelines to the prophet on how to govern also came from the Quran. So they immediately say this is God's law. Yet God does not recognize gender, or class or nationality according to the requirements of the deen. So why should the state be a function of His divine approval when it does differentiate. While the pagans did not accept women to testify or inherit, the prphet was ordered to give them half of what was previously not allowed. But God did not give half in deen, she is to perform haj like men, pray 5 times like men, fast ramadan like men, and obey the deen like men. The deen did not seperate between men adultery or women adultery or men theft or women theft but the state did. Slaves have the same requirements also. So I believe this was due to the accepted norm and cultural mulieu of the time. God does not equate Himself with human justice and humans by nature evolve in their accepted norms and cultural practices. The reason why the Madina state functioned and succeeded that it layed a legal framework appropriate with its time and place while the Islamist tried to establish a framework based on 7th century(actually to some degree 9th) realities and failed after taking the concept of the Islamic state from the Ulema. Yet the deen has no need to evolve and be altered since it equates everyone the same and relies on established physical features on Earth for the rituals such as the sun, moon, water and established human ethics and morals universal in its concept such as lying, cheating, honesty and generosity and sin.

I find this the hardest for Muslims to accept, even Quranist. Since unlike Jesus, the prophet of Islam governed, and because the Quran always guides the prophet in any situation he is in and always guides his companions so long as the prophet is alive among them, Muslims immediately look at it as part of the deen. Unable to implement them the way it was in Madinah, Muslims are now stuck between accepting a modern state that seems to them in conflict with the legal codes of the 1st Muslim community which they find in the Quran and the sira. Or implement a legal and political framework based on 7th or 9th century realities that can no longer be implemented since the social and political and economic realities today is drasticly different from the 7th century.

Therefore we are not able to accept a modern democracy and also unable to create a state in the model of 7th century Arabia. We are lost and confused &

jonny_k

Peace "Bigmo",

Sorry, the meezan was in another lecture, not hers. You see the reason that verse of no compulsion was problematic because it would mean religion is a private matter, and this concept conflicts with an state based on religion. The problem is you immediately equate anthing in the Quran with islam. Most of these legal guidelines have their roots also in pre Islamic Arabia. They were the accepted norms and legal codes of the community. How can God create a religious state if religion is a private matter? There is no reason to believe, unlike the theology of the Quran, that these laws were inherently different than what the community were accustomed to. Its quite obvious though, that even the community had gender differences in legalism and differences in legalism between freed men and slaves, God ordained everyone to offer salaat, make haj,fast ramadan, obey the comandments and pay zakat, if they have wealth. There is no gender or class differences in the deen however in state function there can be. This in not a Divine approval but its human evolution. God judges everyone accordingly regardless of class or gender or ethnicity yet the state has to differentiate. If not based om gender, religion and race, it will do so in citizenship as most nations do today. People here and most Muslims are not able to seperate the religion from the state because the state was run by the prophet and the guidelines to the prophet on how to govern also came from the Quran. So they immediately say this is God's law. Yet God does not recognize gender, or class or nationality according to the requirements of the deen. So why should the state be a function of His divine approval when it does differentiate. While the pagans did not accept women to testify or inherit, the prphet was ordered to give them half of what was previously not allowed. But God did not give half in deen, she is to perform haj like men, pray 5 times like men, fast ramadan like men, and obey the deen like men. The deen did not seperate between men adultery or women adultery or men theft or women theft but the state did. Slaves have the same requirements also. So I believe this was due to the accepted norm and cultural mulieu of the time. God does not equate Himself with human justice and humans by nature evolve in their accepted norms and cultural practices. The reason why the Madina state functioned and succeeded that it layed a legal framework appropriate with its time and place while the Islamist tried to establish a framework based on 7th century(actually to some degree 9th) realities and failed after taking the concept of the Islamic state from the Ulema. Yet the deen has no need to evolve and be altered since it equates everyone the same and relies on established physical features on Earth for the rituals such as the sun, moon, water and established human ethics and morals universal in its concept such as lying, cheating, honesty and generosity and sin.

JK- I think your missing one basic principle of the Quran namely tht GOD IS DOING EVERYTHING. So yes he even controls thing THROUGH HUMANS AND THEIR AFFAIRS. He has calculated everything in advance and everything be it seemngly fair or unfair has its purpose or reason though we might not understand it at any particular time. Now lets get back to the legal laws mentioned in the Quran. Here read these
The thief, male or female, you shall mark their hands* as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as an example from GOD. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
So who gave this law? GOD directly through inspiration as you can see from the phrase. Its Divine with high prob since its in the Quran, the book which has never been scientifically falsified though it is potentially extremely falsifiable.
The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them a hundred LASHES. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out GOD's law, if you truly believe in GOD and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their penalty.*
Those who accuse chaste women of adultery, then fail to produce four witnesses, you shall whip them eighty LASHES, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.
So you see now? What do you say now?

I find this the hardest for Muslims to accept, even Quranist. Since unlike Jesus, the prophet of Islam governed, and because the Quran always guides the prophet in any situation he is in and always guides his companions so long as the prophet is alive among them, Muslims immediately look at it as part of the deen. Unable to implement them the way it was in Madinah, Muslims are now stuck between accepting a modern state that seems to them in conflict with the legal codes of the 1st Muslim community which they find in the Quran and the sira. Or implement a legal and political framework based on 7th or 9th century realities that can no longer be implemented since the social and political and economic realities today is drasticly different from the 7th century.

JK- Excuse me your going with hadith now. Where do u get all this info from? Whenever GOD issued a LOCAL COMMANDMENT He said so like
For those who are Jewish we prohibited animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep we prohibited the fat, except that which is carried on their backs, or in the viscera, or mixed with bones. That was a retribution for their transgressions, and we are truthful.
The above verses are for ALL BELEIVERS otherwise GOD would have made it clear and said ending it "These were the laws we appointed for Muhammad at a certain time" or something similar in order for us to know they aint universal. If thts not the case then this means GOD is confusing us.

Therefore we are not able to accept a modern democracy and also unable to create a state in the model of 7th century Arabia. We are lost and confused &

JK- Im not. Im always pro democracy but tht doesnt mean i shld give up my views. Wer not to introduce those laws by force. Nobody said so but wer to do our best to put these laws into constituion through debate and dialogue. Who says we need to agree with wht the majority says? No one. We only need to tolerate it meaning not use violence against it. GOD Bless!

Bigmo

Peace "Bigmo",

JK- I think your missing one basic principle of the Quran namely tht GOD IS DOING EVERYTHING. So yes he even controls thing THROUGH HUMANS AND THEIR AFFAIRS. He has calculated everything in advance and everything be it seemngly fair or unfair has its purpose or reason though we might not understand it at any particular time. Now lets get back to the legal laws mentioned in the Quran. Here read these
The thief, male or female, you shall mark their hands* as a punishment for their crime, and to serve as an example from GOD. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
So who gave this law? GOD directly through inspiration as you can see from the phrase. Its Divine with high prob since its in the Quran, the book which has never been scientifically falsified though it is potentially extremely falsifiable.
The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them a hundred LASHES. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out GOD's law, if you truly believe in GOD and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their penalty.*
Those who accuse chaste women of adultery, then fail to produce four witnesses, you shall whip them eighty LASHES, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked.
So you see now? What do you say now?

JK- Excuse me your going with hadith now. Where do u get all this info from? Whenever GOD issued a LOCAL COMMANDMENT He said so like
For those who are Jewish we prohibited animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep we prohibited the fat, except that which is carried on their backs, or in the viscera, or mixed with bones. That was a retribution for their transgressions, and we are truthful.
The above verses are for ALL BELEIVERS otherwise GOD would have made it clear and said ending it "These were the laws we appointed for Muhammad at a certain time" or something similar in order for us to know they aint universal. If thts not the case then this means GOD is confusing us.

JK- Im not. Im always pro democracy but tht doesnt mean i shld give up my views. Wer not to introduce those laws by force. Nobody said so but wer to do our best to put these laws into constituion through debate and dialogue. Who says we need to agree with wht the majority says? No one. We only need to tolerate it meaning not use violence against it. GOD Bless!

The Quran did say Islam is a deen, it did say that the deen with God is Islam and it did say that God Has completed our deen. So you made it a deen and a state, and then you went out of your way compiling and collecting hadiths to find a way to create that state since the Quran was very vague about many issues even though neither the prophet nor his companions left behind them any hadiths. And now you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So who is to blame? hmm

Anyways the verse goes like this

5.38. As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power.

5.39. But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

24.3. Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.

24.4. And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after for such men are wicked transgressors;-

24.5. Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

24.6. And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;

24.7. And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.

24.8. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie;

24.9. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.

24.10. If it were not for Allah.s grace and mercy on you, and that Allah is Oft- Returning, full of Wisdom,- (Ye would be ruined indeed).

24.11. Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves think it not to be an evil to you; On the contrary it is good for you to every man among them (will come the punishment) of the sin that he earned, and to him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous.

24.12. Why did not the believers - men and women - when ye heard of the affair,- put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, "This (charge) is an obvious lie" ?

24.13. Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars!

So I see it as historical, many gossips and lies in a society like tribal Arabia where issues like this can mean conflicts or maybe even war between tribes. I see it as the accepted norm of the period and its culture. Its clear the Quran wanted to prohibit rumours and lies and tried to ensure no ftna can occur. Anyways as I said I find accepting the historicity of the 1st Madina state the hardest for Muslims to do.

So we are still &

jonny_k

The Quran did say Islam is a deen, it did say that the deen with God is Islam and it did say that God Has completed our deen. So you made it a deen and a state, and then you went out of your way compiling and collecting hadiths to find a way to create that state since the Quran was very vague about many issues even though neither the prophet nor his companions left behind them any hadiths. And now you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

JK- And wht do u think deen is? Its a complete way of life. Its NOT RELIGION thts a false translation made by sectarians. Read bro Arnolds articles. Deen means judgement in the sense covers every aspect of life. And yes ppl dont need to accept GOD's system of justice but we must do to get it running through dialogue.

So I see it as historical, many gossips and lies in a society like tribal Arabia where issues like this can mean conflicts or maybe even war between tribes. I see it as the accepted norm of the period and its culture. Its clear the Quran wanted to prohibit rumours and lies and tried to ensure no ftna can occur. Anyways as I said I find accepting the historicity of the 1st Madina state the hardest for Muslims to do.

So we are still &

JK- These commands are not a historical documentation otherwise GOD wouldve made this clear at a later stage. You cant just sepcualte tht something is just a histrical narration without proof from the scripture itself. GOD Bless!

Bigmo

The Quran did say Islam is a deen, it did say that the deen with God is Islam and it did say that God Has completed our deen. So you made it a deen and a state, and then you went out of your way compiling and collecting hadiths to find a way to create that state since the Quran was very vague about many issues even though neither the prophet nor his companions left behind them any hadiths. And now you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So who is to blame? hmm

Anyways the verse goes like this

5.38. As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power.

5.39. But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.