Allah as Law: The Law!

[The Cat]

The Cat may have his own Cat plans. May be he has the idea of moving the political power of Islam which he thinks is in the hands of Hadith preaching/following Muslims...

Muslims that are Quran only and sufi like ..sing songs and spend time type of Muslims which The Cat may think that are harmless to Muslim folks and rest of the humanity. Off course The Cat clearly knows Islam as preached in Hadith and some of it is in Quran is not good to humanity..

Correct me if I am wrong The Cat..
with best regards
yeezevee

You're right dear yeezevee...

My point is to negate the idolatrous importance given to Muhammad. The point of SNB is to uphold this importance,
giving legitimacy to the hadiths' Islam! I'm at awe to understand how this silliness has made it unto some members!

This is simply a crazy, deluded, self-defeating position. If the Koran is 'unreadable' without the hadiths, let it be!

One thing the hadiths took away is the Ijtihad tradition within Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

Ijtihad (Arabic: اجتهاد‎, ’iğtihād) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The opposite of ijtihad is taqlid, Arabic for "imitation".

Generally, a Mujtahid (Arabic: مجتهد‎, ’muğtahid) is an educated Muslim who makes up his own ruling on the permissibility of an Islamic law but only for himself, by rejecting the authority of the Ulema.

The word derives from the three-letter Arabic verbal root of ج-ﻫ-د j-h-d (jahada, "struggle"), the same root as that of jihad; the <t> is inserted because the word is a derived stem VIII verb. The shared etymology is worth noting, as both words touch on the concepts of struggle or effort.

In the case of form VIII verbs, this means to "struggle with oneself", as through deep thought. Ijtihad is a method of legal reasoning that does not rely on the traditional schools of jurisprudence (madhabs).

We can see how Ijtihad is related to Jihad. It is opposed to taqliq or imitation ! So whenever Jihad is written, it should be understood as in connection with Ijtihad, personal struggle. We can see how then Jihad, the 6th pillar of Islam, becomes totally different. That must be why al-Ghazali fought for the Ijtihad suppression and the enforcement of imitation (taqliq), that is blind faith. And IMITATION is the sine qua none of the hadiths...

[yeezevee]

[The Cat]

Where did The Cat say that YOU SHOULD FOLLOW the laws of Quran dear Muhammad bin Lyin??

I am under the impression that The Cat is saying and arguing with "Muslims" specially Muhammad following Muslims to follow Quran ..strictly Quran.. and arguing with you guys to help him and Quran only Muslims to educate Muslims that use Hadith and change them to Quran only Muslims.. That doesn't mean Quran escapes criticism

You're one of the few fellows here who understands my far reaching point.

For the Koran is asking ponder and reflection, as we've seen with the Ijtihad notion:
12:108 Say: This is my Way: I call on Allah with sure knowledge.
I and whosoever followeth me - Glory be to Allah! - and I am not of the idolaters.

But it's even more than Ijtihad: Let us see Istihsan and Istislah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istihsan

Istihsan (استحسان) is an Arabic term for juristic "preference". Muslim scholars may use it to express their preference for particular judgements in Islamic law over other possibilities. It is one of the principles of legal thought underlying personal interpretation or ijtihad.

Proponents of liberal movements within Islam have used istihsan and the similar idea of istislah (Arabic for "to deem proper") as ethical principles to favour feminist and reformist interpretations of the Qur'an and thus reform Islamic law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istislah

Istislah (Arabic استصلاح "to deem proper") is a method employed by Muslim jurists to solve problems that find no clear answer in sacred religious texts. It is related to the term مصلحة Maslaha, or "public interest" (both words being derived from the same triconsonantal root, "s-l-h").[1] Extra-textual pragmatic considerations are accepted in Islamic jurisprudence concerning areas where the Qur'an and the practices of the earliest Muslim generations provide no specific guidance. Appeals to Istislah or Maslaha are controversial when the goal is reforming what has been considered to be divinely-revealed law.

By this method, legislation promoting negative freedoms and human rights is to be considered "Islamic".

In Egypt this approach has been upheld by the Supreme Constitutional Court, which has ratified equitable measures benefiting women even where these seemingly conflict with principles of classical Shari'ah.

nb. On 'Negative Freedom': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
''Negative liberty is defined as freedom from interference by other people...''

Clearly liberal Muslims are gaining the upper hand... ever slowly but surely.
I'm just giving it a hand. Haters will hate that, from their tribal mentality...

[crazymonkie_]

My point is to negate the idolatrous importance given to Muhammad. The point of SNB is to uphold this importance,
giving legitimacy to the hadiths' Islam! I'm at awe to understand how this silliness has made it unto some members!

And in your approach, to also say that the Quran is nothing but a legal document? In the same way that a secular modern constitution is?!? I want some of whatever you're smoking, because it must be AWESOME.

If the Koran is 'unreadable' without the hadiths, let it be!

If it is unreadable without the hadiths (or at the very least, recourse to Jewish and Christian apocryphal and orthodox stories), then Islam doesn't exist. If you cut out the allusions to those characters whose mention in the Quran makes no sense without previous knowledge, that leaves a tiny portion of the Quran as collected today. If you further take away the portions that deal with the supernatural, leaving only the legal parts that you think the Quran represents in total, it's a tiny "book" indeed.

And in the rest of your reply, you mention interpretations.... NOT interpretations from the Quran (impossible anyway- that "let it speak to your heart" crap is the main reason why there are hundreds of thriving Christian sects, each with their own little theologies, soteriologies, eschatologies, and so on); these interpretations REQUIRE the investment of time and effort by those who study/interpret Muslim jurisprudence. The revisionism with "western Islam" that you've so proudly displayed DEPENDS on the same allegedly extraneous and "man-made" materials you're trying to place aside! YOUR argument, not SNB's, not MBL's, is fallacious.

But you've proven yourself not above ignoring massive heaps of evidence. I doubt you'll turn from the practice now.

[The Cat]

YOUR argument, not SNB's, not MBL's, is fallacious.

So the Koran isn't a legal document? It's the Saudi Arabia Constitution! My point is:

The bottom line here is that once a book becomes the law, it doesn't matter anymore who authored it.
Then we have to deal with the Koran from this perspective and learn to argue within its legal scope...

Jurists did write the Napoleonic Code, that's plainly historical. But the Code stands afterward all by himself.
In court, you won't make a case out of authorship ! That's what is by now with the Koran. See?

But I and more and more dedicated Muslims are NOT giving this legal status to the hadiths. No way!

[IoshkaFutz]

Crazymonkie says:

The revisionism with "western Islam" that you've so proudly displayed DEPENDS on the same allegedly extraneous and "man-made" materials you're trying to place aside! YOUR argument, not SNB's, not MBL's, is fallacious.

Very keen observation. But it's nonetheless pleasurable to see a Kafir try to create an Islamic-Unitarian church.

Why not? There being no orthodoxy yet repeated and tremendous calls for activism, anything goes.

For me the real question is: why were the Ahadith religionized in the first place? (And religionized by and for an overwhelming majority).

Islam is most UNLIKE a law code and very much Chaos Incorporated.

[crazymonkie_]

YOUR argument, not SNB's, not MBL's, is fallacious.

So the Koran isn't a legal document? It's the Saudi Arabia Constitution!

It can't be the Saudi consitution, because it lacks definitive declarations of many legal situations. Hence Islamic jurisprudence.

As I said, at length, in my first reply, the Quran is both more and less than a legal document. More because it is also a religious document; less because the legal aspects of it are FAR from comprehensive.

The bottom line here is that once a book becomes the law, it doesn't matter anymore who authored it.

It does if it makes a case for being inflexible and perfect based on who authored it.

Then we have to deal with the Koran from this perspective and learn to argue within its legal scope...

But in doing so we CANNOT ignore that it is ALSO a religious document. Which is what you're trying to do.

Jurists did write the Napoleonic Code, that's plainly historical. But the Code stands afterward all by himself.

But by that correlation- did jurists write the Quran? And if so, why is it so heavily religious? Why the parts about faith in the unseen, the Last Day, mythic or semi-mythic figures from the Torah and NT? It really doesn't match up.

In court, you won't make a case out of authorship ! That's what is by now with the Koran. See?

No, I'm not following. You're asking us to excuse its allegedly transcendent source and see it as a fully man-made document- WITHIN the Muslim framework. Clearly this is not true for Muslims- why are you asking outsiders to do so?

But I and more and more dedicated Muslims are NOT giving this legal status to the hadiths. No way!

Well, yes. But only because they've become embarrassing now.

But if you take away the extra-Quranic materials of Islam, the Muslim system fails to cohere. It's gibberish, plus accusations, plus fear-based exhortations to do right (or "Wait till your father gets home!"); nothing more.

It does NOT work as a legal document, and to even hint at the idea that secular law codes are similar to the legal portions of the Quran is misleading at best.

[crazymonkie_]

For me the real question is: why were the Ahadith religionized in the first place? (And religionized by and for an overwhelming majority).

Because Islam requires them- or at least *some* non-Quranic source- to make sense of the Quran. The meaning (often confused with "context") of the ayahs that, say, talk about the Battle of Badr, evaporates when the Quran is forced to stand on its own. So why not alleged chains of narrators of the deeds of "the Prophet"? It certainly seems to work.

Islam is most UNLIKE a law code and very much Chaos Incorporated.

Rather understandable, considering that Islam never really had a centralizing religious authority to vet the dogma or beliefs that Muslims extracted from their interpretations of the (Arabic) Quran. Without something like the councils of the 6th centuries in "eastern" Christendom, or the Papacy in "western" Christendom, Islam dogma tended toward diffusion and dissent. At least until one faction gained control, squashing all heterodox thought (CF: Ahamadis and Sunni Pakistani Muslims).

[yeezevee]

.... My point is:
The bottom line here is that once a book becomes the law, it doesn't matter anymore who authored it.

Then we have to deal with the Koran from this perspective and learn to argue within its legal scope...

I am not certain that is the right way of scoring a point against hadith Muslims The Cat.,

I would slightly modify that and say., first of all "That book, Quran is NOT a law", at least not a law for human beings to enforce. Assuming, it being the word of Allah/god whatever, only Allah/god or messengers/prophets of Allah should deal with those who don't follow the rules/laws that are there in Quran. In the present times all messengers being DEAD and no more messengers from allah/god are going to come, the followers of the messengers should NOT have any role in enforcing the laws of Quran (if you think that there some laws in it)

Human interference should be minimal and personal., in fact should NOT be there et all.,

did I make any sense in the above statement ??

Next question is what are the laws of Quran??? can you highlight some dear The Cat??

[crazymonkie_]

I would slightly modify that and say., first of all "That book, Quran is NOT a law", at least not a law for human beings to enforce.

Precisely, yeezevee! It's more- in the sense of also being a book of religious injunctions and statement of beliefs- and less, in the sense of being a vague and incomplete book of law. Both at the same time.

Assuming, it being the word of Allah/god whatever, only Allah/god or messengers/prophets of Allah should deal with those who don't follow the rules/laws that are there in Quran.

Ahhh, but if we follow The Cat "down the rabbit hole" (as the saying borrowed from Alice In Wonderland goes), he's asking us to disregard the fact that it's the word of a god. And yet at the same time deal with the Quran "internally", like Muslims do. How you can get rid of one of the key tenets of a faith and then ask outsiders to act like that disregarding is working "internally" to a certain belief system, I have no idea, but The Cat is trying valiantly.

In the present times all messengers being DEAD and no more messengers from allah/god are going to come, the followers of the messengers should NOT have any role in enforcing the laws of Quran (if you think that there some laws in it)

True... although that very lack might have been the reason behind the rise of the jurisprudence schools to begin with. Without the physical presence of someone who was alive during the times (although that brings up questions of the validity of memory.... a subject for another time) of Muhammad, there was probably a lot of guesswork. So to avoid any confusion, the schools of sharia came about. They also worked to fill in the gaps- wherever the Quran was unclear, or if it was silent on an issue, the interpreters of the Quran were there.

Human interference should be minimal and personal., in fact should NOT be there et all.,

Yes, but in the case of a hazy and unclear document like the Quran, it's not possible.

Even if all the ahadith disappeared, forever; if the sharia interpreters were forgotten.... the Quran would still need an explanation in many parts. Islam does not stand or fall on the Quran, not like many other religions stand or fall on their foundational books or liturgy. The latter, of course, require interpretation (all religious documents do) but they differ from the Quran in that if they mention people or events, they will then directly mention what the story is and (sometimes) what its purpose is in the text or book.

So the Quran needs outside sources to make sense of itself. Whether that's alleged oral traditions apart from those that were written down, or Christian or Jewish stories, or other sources, the Quran needs them to cohere. If it does not cohere, it cannot be a book of guidance for all time (to paraphrase its own words). If this is not the case, it cannot be a good source for a religion- let alone the dictation of a god (why would a god allude rather than directly speak; it would know that later people wouldn't have the cultural "touch-stones" that the original Arabs would?)

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Well., could it not be possible that in The Cat thinking that "Allah is Not God" hence as The Cat says., it is not God's Law" but Allah Law

The bottom line here is that once a book becomes the law, it doesn't matter anymore who authored it.

Why not?

Then we have to deal with the Koran from this perspective and learn to argue within its legal scope...

That's "oppressive" or "limited" logic. What happened to your reasoning skills?? Who removed them? Clearly they have disappeared.

This is very down to earth, dear yeezevee. Napoleon did write the Napoleon Code, that's plainly historical.
But the Code stands afterward all by himself. In court, you won't make a case out of Napoleon's authorship !

But Napoleon did not claim he was writing the letter for letter dictation of the creator of the universe. And what's incredible is that this point comes from someone who does not think the hadiths, and comment on Muhammad's character are important. I think 63:4 truly drove you off the edge into insanity.

Our hatred team has much problem understanding this. Go figure...

Ridiculous!!! You are simply now struggling because 63:4 makes the one honest bone in your body not feel quite so right. So we get to watch you invent all sorts of ridiculous and desperate excuses.

You are getting truly spanked right now, and now we all get to watch you go into your act as being "above it all" so that you can evasively "save face". Save it, AHOLE, nobody buys it. Is that plain enough for you, psychopath?? I'm sure you think you are being completely rational.

[yeezevee]

Assuming, it being the word of Allah/god whatever, only Allah/god or messengers/prophets of Allah should deal with those who don't follow the rules/laws that are there in Quran.

Ahhh, but if we follow The Cat "down the rabbit hole" (as the saying borrowed from Alice In Wonderland goes), he's asking us to disregard the fact that it's the word of a god. And yet at the same time deal with the Quran "internally", like Muslims do.

What The Cat is saying is, It doesn't matter whether Quran is Allah/god word or man's word, It has been assumed and that book is model to 1.5 billion Muslims WHO WILL NEVER QUESTION IT and many seem to have NO IDEA of what is there in Quran, so he and other Quran only Muslims arguing with Muslims., 'USE ONLY QURAN" not the stuff that is written by some guy after 300 years from the death of Mr. Muhammad. And Muslims must have that right to do it. Why not dear crazymonkie?

How you can get rid of one of the key tenets of a faith and then ask outsiders to act like that disregarding is working "internally" to a certain belief system, I have no idea, but The Cat is trying valiantly.

well that is NOT your problem., it is Cat's problem and other Quran only Muslim problem. What all they are asking from you is "PLEASE SUPPORT US IN OUR ENDEAVOR" making all Muslims to follow Quran only and no more hadith. Would you mind giving support to them??

In the present times all messengers being DEAD and no more messengers from allah/god are going to come, the followers of the messengers should NOT have any role in enforcing the laws of Quran (if you think that there some laws in it)

True... although that very lack might have been the reason behind the rise of the jurisprudence schools to begin with. Without the physical presence of someone who was alive during the times (although that brings up questions of the validity of memory.... a subject for another time) of Muhammad, there was probably a lot of guesswork. So to avoid any confusion, the schools of sharia came about. They also worked to fill in the gaps- wherever the Quran was unclear, or if it was silent on an issue, the interpreters of the Quran were there.

I understand and Quran only Muslims understand why the schools of sharia came about., In fact the reason ( I guess one of the reasons) they are fighting and trying to get rid of Hadith is to get rid of these schools of sharia from all Islam.

Human interference should be minimal and personal., in fact should NOT be there et all.,

Yes, but in the case of a hazy and unclear document like the Quran, it's not possible.

Even if all the ahadith disappeared, forever; if the sharia interpreters were forgotten.... the Quran would still need an explanation in many parts. Islam does not stand or fall on the Quran, not like many other religions stand or fall on their foundational books or liturgy. The latter, of course, require interpretation (all religious documents do) but they differ from the Quran in that if they mention people or events, they will then directly mention what the story is and (sometimes) what its purpose is in the text or book.

I don't get that., why worry about Islam stands or falls on the Quran? It doesn't matter whether it falls or stands., The Goal of The Cat and Quran only Muslim is to make all 1.5 billion Muslims follow only Quran and Quran only ..Nothing else.,

So the Quran needs outside sources to make sense of itself. Whether that's alleged oral traditions apart from those that were written down, or Christian or Jewish stories, or other sources, the Quran needs them to cohere. If it does not cohere, it cannot be a book of guidance for all time (to paraphrase its own words). If this is not the case, it cannot be a good source for a religion- let alone the dictation of a god (why would a god allude rather than directly speak; it would know that later people wouldn't have the cultural "touch-stones" that the original Arabs would?)

I understand that there are many stories of OT and NT in Quran that needs help to explain to the children., Well Quran only Muslims have the right to take those stories from OT & NT because Quran says OT & NT also are the books from Allah/god..

so what is wrong with that dear crazymonkie??

with best wishes
yeezevee

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

I have no idea, but The Cat is trying valiantly.well that is NOT your problem., it is Cat's problem and other Quran only Muslim problem. What all they are asking from you is "PLEASE SUPPORT US IN OUR ENDEAVOR" making all Muslims to follow Quran only and no more hadith. Would you mind giving support to them??

How could anybody give support to a book that claims to be the letter for letter dictation of God and has been proven that it is not as per Muhammad's slip up in 63:4?

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The interesting part of all of this is that the Cat is basically treating the Quran not so much as a spiritual book, now it is a book of laws. Somewhat true. And that's the problem. Islam is INDEED very political, and that's the problem for any secular society they live in. This is what separates it from other religions because it seeks to live within it's own laws rather than the law of the land. And this, coupled with an us verse them ethos, causes them not to add to the societies they live in, but rather to carve out territory from it and slowly eat it from the inside out. There is no such thing as Islamophobia as there is no such thing as a "fire phobia". It's like saying that being concerned about termites in your house is a phobia. Ridiculous liars. All of them. They even lie so much that they don't even know what they are lying about and they call it "racism" rather than bigotry or something else, as if Islam was a race. Just desperate people pulling any desperate ploy they can think of. Whatever it takes and nothing is too low. Very transparent. Therefore, because of it's clearly political nature, Islam needs to start being treated as the clearly political entity that it is, and therefore not be granted the same religious freedoms granted to other religions, because it really isn't a religion, but far more of a political movement. And that indeed is the way Cat is treating Islam.

And as far as the Quran being a book of laws or a code of laws, it's a very incomplete one and instead, most laws come from the hadiths. Even the most basic things like praying exactly 5 times per day comes from the hadiths. So I'm not even sure how he can call the Quran a book of laws. And if it claims to be the letter for letter dictation of God, Muslims and non Muslims don't have to care whether it actually is that or not before we follow it's laws?? How could anybody possibly think that?? If it's not from God, then it's all a lie. So who wants to follow a legal document, as Cat paints it, that came from a man who was either delusional, or a liar or both?? How someone can say that it shouldn't matter whether the Quran was man made or not is beyond me.

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

The Cat may have his own Cat plans. May be he has the idea of moving the political power of Islam which he thinks is in the hands of Hadith preaching/following Muslims...

Muslims that are Quran only and sufi like ..sing songs and spend time type of Muslims which The Cat may think that are harmless to Muslim folks and rest of the humanity. Off course The Cat clearly knows Islam as preached in Hadith and some of it is in Quran is not good to humanity..

Correct me if I am wrong The Cat..
with best regards
yeezevee

You're right dear yeezevee...

My point is to negate the idolatrous importance given to Muhammad. The point of SNB is to uphold this importance,
giving legitimacy to the hadiths' Islam! I'm at awe to understand how this silliness has made it unto some members!

This is simply a crazy, deluded, self-defeating position. If the Koran is 'unreadable' without the hadiths, let it be!

Then what is somebody supposed to do?? I do not recall you ever answering what we are supposed to make of all the violent verses without any context outside of the Quran? Read sura 4, 8 and 9 with no context and see what you get. A perfect excuse to become a terrorist, that's what you get. There's nothing in it that says kill only this one group of people at this one particular time or under this one particular circumstance, and therefore can easily be applied to the present and any non Muslims under multiple circumstances, or maybe even any circumstance.

[yeezevee]

Then what is somebody supposed to do?? I do not recall you ever answering what we are supposed to make of all the violent verses without any context outside of the Quran? Read sura 4, 8 and 9 with no context and see what you get. A perfect excuse to become a terrorist, that's what you get. There's nothing in it that says kill only this one group of people at this one particular time or under this one particular circumstance, and therefore can easily be applied to the present and any non Muslims under multiple circumstances, or maybe even any circumstance.

What ?? you want The Cat and other Muslims to read Surah "Women"., Surah "Loot-Booty" And Surah "REPENTANCE"?? lol.... Why dear Lying Muhammad?

they are 176+129+75 Damn they are close to 400 verses., that will take a year to explain you what they mean., I don't think the verses say "Kill every one" ., They only say Kill those who question Prophet and the word of Allah.. ., But then Quran only Muslim will come up say to you., Those Voilent verses are only to the times of Prophet not for today....

[Wootah]

Spoiler! :

If Allah allows bad people into heaven then he is not good.

But JEsus died for the sins of humanity meaning whether you accept him or not, whether you are Hitler or Staline, you go straight to heaven.
If Hitler accepts Jesus as his "savior", he is saved from his sins and even if he keeps sinning Jesus -whom he accepted as his savior- already died for his sins meaning Hitler will be absolved whether he repents or not.
If Hitler refuses Jesus as his savior, he is still saved since Jesus died for the sins of all humanity, including those who do not know him or even refuse him. To refuse Jesus as a savior is a sin, for which Jesus already died. If you say "no, Jesus' only redeems the sins of those who accept him" (even though sin atonements are only possible for past sins according to your Bible), you are denying that Jesus died for the sins of everyone including non- christians.

Eagle surely even you notice that you:
- did not address the question
- attacked another religion simply to deflect.

[Wootah]

Koran only muslims are possibly the worst thing to happen to the world in regards to Islam. With the hadith any child with an education can easily see how crazy the ideology is. With just the koran and a solid fundamental islamic education you get to the true meaning of the koran. It is a war cry for a long dead mad man.

Have you guys been following this site and its stats on Islam? Part 4 is out now.

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/stat ... rt-4-of-9/

Cat if you haven't seen this site check out the four parts. Do you really want a koran only understanding for your children and for the world? There would be far more jihadi killers that way.

[skynightblaze]

I have no idea, but The Cat is trying valiantly.well that is NOT your problem., it is Cat's problem and other Quran only Muslim problem. What all they are asking from you is "PLEASE SUPPORT US IN OUR ENDEAVOR" making all Muslims to follow Quran only and no more hadith. Would you mind giving support to them??

How can anyone support you Yekee? We will support elimination of both quran + hadiths and not just hadiths.WE cant tolerate quran either. Einstein's(CAT) ideas are crazy . He is telling here to consider quran as the book of law.

[skynightblaze]

You're right dear yeezevee...

My point is to negate the idolatrous importance given to Muhammad. The point of SNB is to uphold this importance,
giving legitimacy to the hadiths' Islam! I'm at awe to understand how this silliness has made it unto some members!

Sorry CAT. Please dont blame me because I am not intelligent enough to understand the wisdom behind quran being a law and similar to American Constitution so please ask for my forgiveness to Allah.