Proof Qur'an-alone is Error
-
The salaat in the mosque ; it is stated in quran, the prophet said that men must pray in mosques and it also sounds right to me as I realise that the goal of islam is to achieve the community unification so I follow.
How can a community be "unified" when half of its members are missing? hypno
The Qur'an tells "the believers" to gather for prayer, the verse in question is not exclusively addressing males.
Yet the majority of scholars tell us that Friday prayer is an obligation only for men. Interestingly, most of them don't even quote hadith to support their view; the reason they give is usually that women "are busy with children and household things" etc.
So the majority of Muslims worldwide believe that prayer in congregation is obligatory for men but not for women, despite the fact that the Qur'an says otherwise and that there aren't even any other proofs for that claim. And I am supposed to follow that majority because so many people can't err?!?
& -
In a perfect world, if we suppose that the ruler is a true muslim without bias and that the man propaganded serious stuff and were very active and opposed to the government, the ruler would follow the steps of the prophet and turn his head and ask the man to leave. That is my understanding of the situation as the prophet would have done because he was an example of mercyfullness.
We do not live in a perfect world.
-
Depends of what he is propaganding and the appreciation of the ruler at that time. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal have been imprisoned for his thoughts and he is one of the 4 madhahibs.
Whether in an islamic states or not, it's the same, it's up to the ruler to decide, people are not judges.
Another punishment not found in the quran.
-
None of which you can provide as you have no knowledge of ilm ul rijal. You were taught that the science of hadith is so thorough, so precise and so scientific that it eradicates 99.9% of falsehood. This, of course, is untrue. Any investigation by you will inevitably end up in your scholars shutting you out, convincing you that you need a 10 year alim course before you can begin to understand the subject. You will never know why matn criticism stopped after the compilation of the 6 "sahih" collections. You will never objectively question why it took 200 years before these books were compiled. You will ignore the fact that the rashidun caliphs refused to compile them, despite the growing availability of writing tools.
You pay lip service to the verses that say the quran is fully detailed. On the one hand you affirm it with your tongue but disbelieve it with your heart when you want rituals presented to you on a plate provided by hadith. It disturbs your heart to think Allah wants you to decide your own zakat rate based on your disposable income without giving you a fixed number. It's disturbing to think that there may not be a set number of rakats for salat, and that Allah requires sincerity and not numbers. It is worrying that there is no mention of the messiah returning to destroy all other religions and return you to glory. To put it bluntly, the quran is simply not enough.
Very well said. peace
-
Peace "Badr",
He is not helping Islam.
JK- That's what you are saying. The hadith "scholars" in Saudia would state otherwise.
Theres also alot of scholars that dont back him at all.
JK- So which "scholars" should we follow? According to you it should make llogically more sense to follow those closer to the heart land where Muhammad came given that these and other "scholars" have otherwise both studied quran and hadith.
The law is clear 'amrukom shura beinakom'
JK- So what? The ruler in Saudia consults the "scholars" there and they back him up. That's the whole point. Nothing in that system should be unislamic there according to you. IF you insist that they are unislamic then everyone can calll anyone unislamic even according to you and there would never be any true "Islam". GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- The Quran also defines some limits in our understanding like specific times, performing wudu before doing it, bowing and prostrating(though not everyone agrees but i still do), trying best to focus on GOD Alone. Within these we are free to act. Additionally any of these limits can also be challenged if someone comes up with a better interpreation.
You have the best interpretation, why don't follow what the best of mankind use to do ?
JK- In that case it's fine and no I don't always assume that at times I do.
) thanx
JK- I agree it is clear to "cut the hands" BUT as to how much, that is not clear. This is why I belevie GOD gave the example of the story above in Joseph. What a coinidence that He mentions the same word for "cut" in there and also that particular part of Josephs story is missing even in the Bible, though much of the rest is there too.
But alot of scolar jews confirm this story such as Louis Ginzberg in his Legends of the Jews. The stories are not necessarily siupposed to be told in full detail every time.
JK- 596 Y.Ali awful to you is the pursuit of water-game(saad-ya-daal ul BAHR(ba-Ha-ra) and its use for food...
Pickthall; To hunt and to eat the fish of the seaHanfi school of thought says by this only fish are allowed whilst shafi and the others say all game from the water is halal. GOD Bless!
I knoiw nothing about this story o
JK- Yes and we think that we are holding fast to the rope of GOD by 1st independetly and without bias trying to study his word. THEN we come together and check each other. Otherwise we would be full of biases and coudlnt tell whether GOD is actually saying x,y,z or just our desires AS YOU ACUSE OF. Infact it is group thinking like your system where it leads Qurnaic verses and hadith as well to be understood according to your desire, instead of reason and logic. GOD Bless!
The few companions of Muhammad led to a big community with the help of alot of great commanders that spent the religion of god and now the few of you make nothing but derive from this Umma of Islam.
-
Peace "Badr",
I said ; it depends of what he is propaganding.
JK- Lets say he is propagating that one should no longer stone married adulterers, no longer should women have to wear the headcovering or the husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances.
In a perfect world, if we suppose that the ruler is a true muslim without bias
JK- Which is practically never possible.
and that the man propaganded serious stuff
JK- Who decides whether the stuff is serious or not?
and were very active and opposed to the government, the ruler would follow the steps of the prophet and turn his head and ask the man to leave. That is my understanding of the situation as the prophet would have done because he was an example of mercyfullness.
JK- Still he could decide as you mentioned earlier that he's not serious and order him to be killed which is the whole point and the real danger. The person will be at the mercy of one man the ruler in this case for merely saying something. It can't get anymore dangerous than that. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr"
You have the best interpretation, why don't follow what the best of mankind use to do ?
JK- Coz we have no evidence of anything of the messenger doing/commanding outside of the Quran. HOW MANY times do i have to repeat this. ALSO NOWEHERE does ther Quran say that muhammad was the best of mankind.
thanx
JK- Your welcome.
But alot of scolar jews confirm this story such as Louis Ginzberg in his Legends of the Jews. The stories are not necessarily siupposed to be told in full detail every time.
JK- The most important book of the Jews is the OT Bible. That doesnt mention it. Could be that it is somewhere else but the fact that the Quran chose this to highlight is cannot be a coincidence and it explains perfectly that "cut the hand" does not just mean "cut the whole hand".
I knoiw nothing about this story o
JK- Well then it's about time you do some google search on this and ask your local hanfi and shafi "scholars". For hanfi Read
http//www.sailanmuslim.com/news/list-of-animals-that-are-halal-and-haram-according-to-the-hanafi-school/
Shafis sa all creatures permanetly in water "As for aquatic animals - meaning those that cannot live outside of water - it is permissible to eat them whether they resemble normal fish or not, even if they resemble dogs or other impermissible terrestrial (i.e., land) animals."
http//qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2813&CATE=347The few companions of Muhammad led to a big community with the help of alot of great commanders that spent the religion of god and now the few of you make nothing but derive from this Umma of Islam.
JK- WERE YOU THERE OR HAVE EVIDENCE? This statement of yours would appear to us to be very arrogant as if you were actually there or have evidence, as acceepted in courts today, of what was going on back then. I repeatedly said that you don't. I can claim that the Prophet Muhammad did exactly as to what I undersdtand from the Quran. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- Lets say he is propagating that one should no longer stone married adulterers, no longer should women have to wear the headcovering or the husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances.
no longer stone married adulterer ; you know I think it is not permissible nowerdays so I would agree with him.
no longer should women have to wear the headcovering ; it's up to the women.
he husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances ; of course no even under sharia law.
JK- Which is practically never possible.
I agree, but it will come a time where it will be back with the Mahdi.
JK- Who decides whether the stuff is serious or not?
the ruler, the khalif.
JK- Still he could decide as you mentioned earlier that he's not serious and order him to be killed which is the whole point and the real danger. The person will be at the mercy of one man the ruler in this case for merely saying something. It can't get anymore dangerous than that. GOD Bless!
Must be a wise ruler, otherwise
Whoever dies aggrived/treated unjustly/oppressed goes to heaven (of course it up to God to judge if he's a muslim or not then)
-
Peace "Badr"
JK- Coz we have no evidence of anything of the messenger doing/commanding outside of the Quran. HOW MANY times do i have to repeat this. ALSO NOWEHERE does ther Quran say that muhammad was the best of mankind.
You want to call it no evidence I like to see it as evidence logically, historically and with common sens.
JK- The most important book of the Jews is the OT Bible. That doesnt mention it. Could be that it is somewhere else but the fact that the Quran chose this to highlight is cannot be a coincidence and it explains perfectly that "cut the hand" does not just mean "cut the whole hand".
1-Or it was god choice not to mentionned.
2-Or it disappeared with all the alterations of that corrupted book.
3-cut the whole hand or cut the finger, it's cutting.
JK- Well then it's about time you do some google search on this and ask your local hanfi and shafi "scholars". For hanfi Read
http//www.sailanmuslim.com/news/list-of-animals-that-are-halal-and-haram-according-to-the-hanafi-school/
Shafis sa all creatures permanetly in water "As for aquatic animals - meaning those that cannot live outside of water - it is permissible to eat them whether they resemble normal fish or not, even if they resemble dogs or other impermissible terrestrial (i.e., land) animals."
http//qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2813&CATE=347I'll check it later.
JK- WERE YOU THERE OR HAVE EVIDENCE? This statement of yours would appear to us to be very arrogant as if you were actually there or have evidence, as acceepted in courts today, of what was going on back then. I repeatedly said that you don't. I can claim that the Prophet Muhammad did exactly as to what I undersdtand from the Quran. GOD Bless!
Why your Iman is so frail that you need a court evidence ?
-
Peace "Badr",
no longer stone married adulterer ; you know I think it is not permissible nowerdays so I would agree with him.
JK- No i said in an Islamic state, if it were there, this man gets up and makes this claim?
no longer should women have to wear the headcovering ; it's up to the women.
JK- Do you sincerely beleive that or is this taqiyya? If you yourself be the ruler of what you consider a true islamic state, would you allow women to roam the public streets there without hijab?
he husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances ; of course no even under sharia law.
JK- The "not" applied to the complete sentence. What I meant is the man propagates "women should NOT ALLOWED TO BE BEATEN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES by their husbands".
I agree, but it will come a time where it will be back with the Mahdi.
JK- You are welcome to believe that but you have no evidence for it.
the ruler, the khalif.
JK- That's the danger.
Must be a wise ruler, otherwise
JK- A wise ruler today can become unwise tomorrow or due to certain unpredictable emotional fluctuations. It is VERY DANGEROUS to allow a ruler to decide what people can say and what not. This is one of the core problems with "shariah".
Whoever dies aggrived/treated unjustly/oppressed goes to heaven (of course it up to God to judge if he's a muslim or not then)
JK- This is a lame excuse. It means that sharia is not capable of producing a just system on earth as comapred to the secular system where rulers cannot decide to imprison or kill people based on what they say. Infact even in case of murder the death penalty is being systematically abolished. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
You want to call it no evidence I like to see it as evidence logically, historically and with common sens.
JK- I dont and most of the secular world doesnt plus most of the indepedent courts don't, plus the majority of scientists in the world, who've shown they're capable though their application, also don't. That leaves you along with medieval "scholars" and occassional historians and that even without archaelogical backup. Need i say more?
1-Or it was god choice not to mentionned.
JK- Yes ofcourse it was His choice but every choice of God has a reason and the one I stated seems to be very reasonable.
2-Or it disappeared with all the alterations of that corrupted book.
JK- Even if so this is also ultimately controlled by GOD isn't it? Why did GOD allow this particular part to disappear?
3-cut the whole hand or cut the finger, it's cutting.
JK- OR make a cut into the hand as one were to cut him/herself with a knife. In any case the entire hand need not be cut AND THAT was the point.
I'll check it later.
Why your Iman is so frail that you need a court evidence ?
JK- I don't necessarily need it for my personal beliefs and/or interpretations of the Quran but if i want to enforce a law on someone else then this would be required otherwise anyone can say I'm conviced that GOD told me to kill x,y,z beucase he/she is an apostate and be given permission to go right ahead. Can't work that way and so until ANY relgion, including any type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court, based on indepednent and scientific principles, it cannot be given permission to enforce it's laws upon anyone which incldues making a seprate "islamic" state WITHOUT facing war from the rest of the world. This needs to be understood. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- No i said in an Islamic state, if it were there, this man gets up and makes this claim?
In an islamic state he most probabely won't do it but if he does he will be considered as a revolution setter. If I was the ruler (and nowerdays) I would probabely talk with him and keep him from turning the people against the government by reasonating him. I wish I will never be a ruler of the islamic world, what a responsability !
JK- Do you sincerely beleive that or is this taqiyya? If you yourself be the ruler of what you consider a true islamic state, would you allow women to roam the public streets there without hijab?
I dont know what is taqiya, all I know is that it is something for shiia but the exact explanation no idea. I'll check it tho.
JK- The "not" applied to the complete sentence. What I meant is the man propagates "women should NOT ALLOWED TO BE BEATEN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES by their husbands".
Of course in no way a man must beat a woman, if you follow hadeeth when the prophet have been asked about the beating verse, he said with a siwak stick and lightly on the hand, wich is like nothing. He forbid to beat animals on the face so let alone women, what these people who beat their wives do is wrong all day. They dont understand islam.
JK- You are welcome to believe that but you have no evidence for it.
"only" a hadeeth sahih.
JK- That's the danger.
Not necessarily.
JK- A wise ruler today can become unwise tomorrow or due to certain unpredictable emotional fluctuations. It is VERY DANGEROUS to allow a ruler to decide what people can say and what not. This is one of the core problems with "shariah".
You allow a president to do it with all its fluctuation.
JK- This is a lame excuse. It means that sharia is not capable of producing a just system on earth as comapred to the secular system where rulers cannot decide to imprison or kill people based on what they say. Infact even in case of murder the death penalty is being systematically abolished. GOD Bless!
Sharia must be capable but people are biased, especially nowerdays.
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- I dont and most of the secular world doesnt plus most of the indepedent courts don't, plus the majority of scientists in the world, who've shown they're capable though their application, also don't. That leaves you along with medieval "scholars" and occassional historians and that even without archaelogical backup. Need i say more?
You must be proud to belong to the muslim world and not to back your claim with what the secular world think.
JK- Yes ofcourse it was His choice but every choice of God has a reason and the one I stated seems to be very reasonable.
Not all the time, I think it's a coincidence and you pushing it too far to prove your point if you only contradicted it by saying not all the hand.
JK- Even if so this is also ultimately controlled by GOD isn't it? Why did GOD allow this particular part to disappear?
) funny question, and why other parts? why not this part ?
JK- OR make a cut into the hand as one were to cut him/herself with a knife. In any case the entire hand need not be cut AND THAT was the point.
if it was a small knife cut you will argue why a cut anyway why not a sting then why not a poke etc....
JK- I don't necessarily need it for my personal beliefs and/or interpretations of the Quran but if i want to enforce a law on someone else then this would be required otherwise anyone can say I'm conviced that GOD told me to kill x,y,z beucase he/she is an apostate and be given permission to go right ahead. Can't work that way and so until ANY relgion, including any type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court, based on indepednent and scientific principles, it cannot be given permission to enforce it's laws upon anyone which incldues making a seprate "islamic" state WITHOUT facing war from the rest of the world. This needs to be understood. GOD Bless!
"ny type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court" ??? do you read what you type ?
-
Peace "Badr",
In an islamic state he most probabely won't do it but if he does he will be considered as a revolution setter. If I was the ruler (and nowerdays) I would probabely talk with him and keep him from turning the people against the government by reasonating him. I wish I will never be a ruler of the islamic world, what a responsability !
JK- Ok but what if he insists on his views? Would you keep on reasoning indefinitely, if he doesnt use physical force at any time but also keeps on insisitng with his reason?
I dont know what is taqiya, all I know is that it is something for shiia but the exact explanation no idea. I'll check it tho.
JK- No sunnis apply it too. It means when they are not in a position of power they deliberately lie or hide many of the elemts they think secular or nonreligious people would consider violent and thus not make them accept "islam" if they heard them at the outset.
Of course in no way a man must beat a woman, if you follow hadeeth when the prophet have been asked about the beating verse, he said with a siwak stick and lightly on the hand, wich is like nothing. He forbid to beat animals on the face so let alone women, what these people who beat their wives do is wrong all day. They dont understand islam.
JK- Ok but if the man insists that a husband should not be allowed to even embarass his wife by hitting her physically with somehting as small as a siwak? ALSO what do you say about a husband having the right to have sex with his wife, even if she's not in the mood or just doesnt want to, at any time except those particularly laid down by sharia? As far as I know none of the "scholars" would accuse such a husband of rape even if the wife feels violate after the husband has forced himself upon her without her consent.
"only" a hadeeth sahih.
JK- Which is not evidence by any standard other than the religion's grp itself.
Not necessarily.
JK- It is. Perhaps you should study the middle ages in Europe. In that Era Church rulers had similar power. After the enlightenment people came out of these dark ages. What you're suggetsing will lead us right back into them.
You allow a president to do it with all its fluctuation.
JK- Western secular values do not give the president the right to put anyone in jail just by his decision alone, let alone by anything what he says. Infact leaders in the western world can be harshly and openly criticized, satiric pictures of them being drawn without them having the authority to imprison or even so much as to fine them. People have moved out of this. It maybe that some remnants of such laws are still leftover in the system but they'll also fade away sooner or later coz they're not compatible with the main pillar of the secular world i.e. freedom of expression.
Sharia must be capable but people are biased, especially nowerdays.
JK- Why shoudl people be biased now when there is much more competition now than ever before when people used to live in groups and vastly employed group thinking? Also this again sounds like leading upto the "no true scotsman fallacy". Many religions use it. Go and google it. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
You must be proud to belong to the muslim world and not to back your claim with what the secular world think.
JK- But i don't want to belong to the hadith "muslim" world. Havnt i made this clear? If not let me tell you I consider the hadith followers the most corrupt and vile people of all. As for the Quran Alone Muslims we have a lot in common with secular people. They're much closer to us. Even enlightened Chrisians are closer to us. Hadith followers are like those in the dark ages. Nothing to be proud of in our understanding.
Not all the time, I think it's a coincidence and you pushing it too far to prove your point if you only contradicted it by saying not all the hand.
JK- If you think it is a coincidence the argument here is over. I can't convince you then with this point but you admitted that one can cut fingers and thus not necessarily the whole hand.
) funny question, and why other parts? why not this part ?
JK- That was just an additional fact I pointed out. The MAIN argument is that the verse shows what "cut hands" can mean and it clearly shows it is not restricted to "cutting the entire hand".
if it was a small knife cut you will argue why a cut anyway why not a sting then why not a poke etc....
JK- Yes one can argue this and if the claimer has good points to justify then I can accept this. For now I take whatever I best understand of what constitutes a cut i.e. starting from the smallest possible mark that observably tears the skin using a sharp object.
"ny type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court" ??? do you read what you type ?
JK- by "Any type of "islam" i meant that any of the various schools of thoughts who all claim to be "islamic" and many call the others unislamic. To rephrase just substitute by "any group of people who claims to be the true Muslims and following true Islam". GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- Ok but what if he insists on his views? Would you keep on reasoning indefinitely, if he doesnt use physical force at any time but also keeps on insisitng with his reason?
I really don't know I must find myself in this position and look at the fors and againsts, I can say I would emprison him or obligate him to quit the territory but maybe if I was really in the position I would act otherwise. If it becomes a menace to the security of the state I would put the general interest above the private one. I really don't know. Maybe I am not fit to rule the islamic world ;D
JK- No sunnis apply it too. It means when they are not in a position of power they deliberately lie or hide many of the elemts they think secular or nonreligious people would consider violent and thus not make them accept "islam" if they heard them at the outset.
it is a lie plain and simple, I never heard a single scholar talking about it.
No I'm not "taqaying" I'm really telling you what I know from the prophet sayings and acts.
JK- Ok but if the man insists that a husband should not be allowed to even embarass his wife by hitting her physically with somehting as small as a siwak? ALSO what do you say about a husband having the right to have sex with his wife, even if she's not in the mood or just doesnt want to, at any time except those particularly laid down by sharia? As far as I know none of the "scholars" would accuse such a husband of rape even if the wife feels violate after the husband has forced himself upon her without her consent.
for the embarrassement ; I would obligate him to stop. But I don't think the women on whom this is applicable feel embarrassed, the "beating" is when the woman push it faaaaar away by been infidel and riculising her husband and doing all what it is not permissible to do even with our standards nowerdays (muslim and non muslims standards).
Of course it is not OK to have sex when the woman is not in the mood, this is non sense. I can't understand how you can ask such a question, do you really expect me to say "yes the man is allowed to have sex anytime he wants and the woman must shut her mouth" ????
JK- Which is not evidence by any standard other than the religion's grp itself.
Says johnny B.
JK- It is. Perhaps you should study the middle ages in Europe. In that Era Church rulers had similar power. After the enlightenment people came out of these dark ages. What you're suggetsing will lead us right back into them.
Middle ages kings only left the dark ages after their contact with islam (orthodox islam not quran-aloner islam).
JK- Western secular values do not give the president the right to put anyone in jail just by his decision alone, let alone by anything what he says. Infact leaders in the western world can be harshly and openly criticized, satiric pictures of them being drawn without them having the authority to imprison or even so much as to fine them. People have moved out of this. It maybe that some remnants of such laws are still leftover in the system but they'll also fade away sooner or later coz they're not compatible with the main pillar of the secular world i.e. freedom of expression.
But as soon as it is a menace to the security they allow their police and secret services to do every thing.
JK- Why shoudl people be biased now when there is much more competition now than ever before when people used to live in groups and vastly employed group thinking? Also this again sounds like leading upto the "no true scotsman fallacy". Many religions use it. Go and google it. GOD Bless!
I'll check it.
-
You said I am a quran aloner and I am better now because I dont have to defend myself before people.
You are mistaken me with somebody else. I never said that.
Of course your family will accept you, why wouldnt they ?
Would you accept your child becoming Quran Alone person number 13?
In this case it is literal.
Matter of opinion. Please don't use your opinion to say that Quran Aloners cut the hands off thieves, that is not fair because I am not even going to enter quran interpretation quarrels with you, it will lead us nowhere.
Your are judgin people here not the prophet saying, of course there people who interpret hadith to accomplish their greedy goals.
I take your non-answer as a yes.
I am judging sunni islam as a religious system. If there is a flaw in the system that may allow bad people to take advantage of it, then it can surely not be the word of Allah. I know you are not a bad guy, Badr. Like I said before you seem very clever and knowledgable. Surely you must admit a tiny tiny bit that yes, sunni islam has its flaws since people can twist it to oppress and kill. -
You are mistaken me with somebody else. I never said that.Would you accept your child becoming Quran Alone person number 13?
Maybe number 20 in a few years if you keep growing.
Inshallah it wont happend with the help of God. But I wont accept it, I wont reject my child tho.
Matter of opinion. Please don't use your opinion to say that Quran Aloners cut the hands off thieves, that is not fair because I am not even going to enter quran interpretation quarrels with you, it will lead us nowhere.
Am I the only one not allowed to use his opinions ? otherwise all this forum wouldnt exist. Yall state only opinions, starting with "WE THINK we should referr only to quran"
I take your non-answer as a yes.
I am judging sunni islam as a religious system. If there is a flaw in the system that may allow bad people to take advantage of it, then it can surely not be the word of Allah. I know you are not a bad guy, Badr. Like I said before you seem very clever and knowledgable. Surely you must admit a tiny tiny bit that yes, sunni islam has its flaws since people can twist it to oppress and kill.Read my posts and you'll see that I admit it without shame, when people is involved theres flaws.
Thanks for the compliments and I return them to you.
-
Peace "Badr",
I really don't know I must find myself in this position and look at the fors and againsts, I can say I would emprison him or obligate him to quit the territory but maybe if I was really in the position I would act otherwise. If it becomes a menace to the security of the state I would put the general interest above the private one. I really don't know. Maybe I am not fit to rule the islamic world ;D
JK- We can rule out security issues since there is no physical harm done. He's expressing his opinion as to why in his view the system is flawed. Thats the point. It is insanity to imprison someone for that because it bars society from correecting itself via revision COZ as I said even if you have divinely isnpired scriptures you could have still misinterpreted them and there is no guarantee that any society will ever understand anything in them completely. This alone should make you think on this point.
it is a lie plain and simple, I never heard a single scholar talking about it.
JK- You are right in terms of the usage of the term itself in sunnism. They call it "idtirar" and it is to conceal the faith to protect ones belief. Although sunnis claim they cannot use this to hide the truth, they do for example when they call their "islam" a religion of peace where men and women have equal rights etc BUT when one studies the details this is not the case and they know it.
No I'm not "taqaying" I'm really telling you what I know from the prophet sayings and acts.
JK- Again what you and your group thinks it knows. "know" is a word reserved for things you get to know without any religious/ideological bias.
for the embarrassement ; I would obligate him to stop. But I don't think the women on whom this is applicable feel embarrassed,
JK- Lets take a poll with the women who have not been indoctrinated with this view and see how many will not feel embaraased kwnoing that their husbands acn discipline them with whatvever small stick, whilst they dont have the right explicit right to do the same.
the "beating" is when the woman push it faaaaar away by been infidel and riculising her husband and doing all what it is not permissible to do even with our standards nowerdays (muslim and non muslims standards).
JK- What if the husband went that far? Do you know that most women would feel embarrased by the very statement you made which implies it's mostly women who stray as comapred to men? If not make a poll and ask some of the women right here on this forum who once were sunnis.
According to todays standards ridicule in private btw husband and wife is not punshable at all as long as it's not physical. 2ndly what you're implying is that it's the woman whos most likely to do the ridicule and this embarasses women.Of course it is not OK to have sex when the woman is not in the mood, this is non sense. I can't understand how you can ask such a question, do you really expect me to say "yes the man is allowed to have sex anytime he wants and the woman must shut her mouth" ????
JK- Well I've not heard of any sunni school of thought who would punish a man for doing such except if she has her period and other times laid out by the sharia as ive mentioned. They all say, to my knowledge, a man can have sex with a woman when he desires, exceptions excluded, and she has to come to him "even if shes at the stove" as one hadith states
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwlW9Qq_zEc
SO what would you do to a man if a wife came to you complaining about this and you were the ruler?Says johnny B.
JK- You can go to any secular court or the majority of rational thinkers world wide and most of them, if not all would agree with me on this point. So NO it's not just me.
Middle ages kings only left the dark ages after their contact with islam (orthodox islam not quran-aloner islam).
JK- I don't agree with you because it makes logically no sense by definitioon. Think of it dark ages= killing apostates for 1. coming out meant abolishing this law first and formost. orthodox hadfith islam promotes the same as a fundamental to guard it's faith so how could it make them come out? Think my man.
But as soon as it is a menace to the security they allow their police and secret services to do every thing.
JK- Though Physical security is something different even there they have to be very careful not to violate the 1st amendment and laws are being revised accordingly. Critique of religion or political ideology cannot be condemned by the law under any circumstances. At best they can condemn by law if someone threatens to kill someone or give away government secrets, NEVER can they do so for cricizing any of the political ideologies laws or even the constituion itself without them being forced back by the 1st amendment, the core principle which guaratees freedom of expression for anyone in public.
I'll check it.
JK- Ok. GOD Bless!