Allah as Law: The Law!

[zamie]

I have only skimmed through this debate, so please excuse me if i have misunderstood, but the comparison between the US constitution and Sharia is ridiculous.

1. Of course we can attack the koranic law from 'within' but why do you think this excludes other assumptions or opportunities for attack? I thought that Allah created everything, thus making an assumption from any where a valid one and certainty 'within the law.' In fact, one could go so far as to say that everything on this planet was created just to it could be in compliance with sharia law, and that would include insects, laws of physics..etc etc.. If this were not true, then Allah cannot be a god, because his sharia law would have already been planned out before he even created man kind and the earth, and surely the sharia would not reflect any cultural habits?

But since Mr cat seems to think that the existence of Allah is irrelevant, i find his argument irrelevant. For example, let's use the US constitution as an example. If we came to the conclusion that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson never existed despite the fact that we have a US constitution, would that in any way undermine the constitution? No it would not, because the legitimacy of the law does not depend or does not gain any privileges or power from it's creator, only the laws themselves. This is proven by the fact that there is a 'balance' of power within the Constitution (in Australian law anyway) This means that it's the constitution itself that validates the law, not the creator( this is why referendums occur). Now if we were to examine sharia law from 'within' and exclude its divine origins, it would be ignored as a mistake or a piece of history, long to be forgotten.

So mr cat, can you please tell me for what you are arguing. Are you arguing against the implementation of hadith, or are you arguing for an internal view of the koran?

[skynightblaze]

@Zamie

That is precisely my point .The issue gets more complicated when this man says that quran is similar to American Constitution and this comes from a person who is writing at FFI for 5 years .This adds more to my confusion. This is a sensitive issue and we must be careful not to hurt anyone because I see many people here are attached to CAt than myself because he is an old timer.

[yeezevee]

I am sorry for diversion but you see Cat isnt even showing up here to reply and almost everyone has attacked his arguments in this thread .

Attacks are no use Mr. SKB., your posts will have far more impact without attacks but proper questions which you are indeed raising.. Give enough time to The Cat and Cat likes to think over "whether it is a good idea to make Quran as the book of Laws that CAN NOT be questioned" ., I would like to remind The Cat and Cat knows Muslims will not agree Questioning Quran unlike the constitution of any country (including US of A) that can be questioned if needed amended with its public support.

So the first thing , What The Cat likes , Quran only likes and all those who come from 19ers Org should do use "Educate themselves and educate other Islamic preachers + Muslims that Quran is also questionable like any hadith, Or for that matter any religious document or any Scientific or non scientific hypothesis that interferes with the day to day lives of human being MUST BE OPEN TO QUESTION.

Any ways I still would like to see from The Cat.. "What Laws Does he like to extract from Quran" ? and are those Laws questionable or unquestionable?? ., I know he is struggling with this concept of Quran being a Law book of Muslims., For a long time He had a better Idea all these years "That Muhammad The Prophet of Islam never existed in Islamic History" And all these Islamic books including Quran has come to existence in some time written mid eighth century and Muslim Robots and those who were in Power/Power hungry characters who joined in Islam for good or bad fully exploited its viral character to impose on the society in many different ways and methods..

[zamie]

Any ways I still would like to see from The Cat.. "What Laws Does he like extract from Quran" ? and are those Laws questionable or unquestionable?? ., I know he is struggling with this concept of Quran being a Law book of Muslims.,

Exactly. The fact that the law is not questionable proves that it is not at all like the US constitution.

[Brendalee]

@Zamie

That is precisely my point .The issue gets more complicated when this man says that quran is similar to American Constitution and this comes from a person who is writing at FFI for 5 years .This adds more to my confusion. This is a sensitive issue and we must be careful not to hurt anyone because I see many people here are attached to CAt than myself because he is an old timer.

Hello SNB!

I hope you have not misunderstood me. Disagree with the Cat all you like. Disagree vehemently. This is a debate site, so debate - even vehement debate - should not be seen as harmful.

If you read my posts on this thread, you will see that I myself disagree with my feline friend.

I made some points about things getting heated and personalised. Angry personal attacks are not a legitimate part of debate: they are merely hot emotional responses which go well beyond cutting repostes and contribute nothing and do not relate to the subject at hand. I see them as unproductive. And I see THEM as "hurtful" and fuel to trolls who delight in them and seek to feed them.

I did not single out my adored MBL particularly to criticise along with the magnificent feline, for any other reason than that I know he is man enough to take it without misreading me. I was attempting to cool things down a degree or two.

I undoubtedly am fond of the Cat. I also think personally that he is mistaken in this matter and that his arguments fall far short of proving his points. I do not think that taking the heat away would damage the ability of people to argue their opinions. I don't think the debate is enhanced by angry emotional personal attacks.

And I made a plea for a cool-down.

And whatever I have said, it is merely my opinion. I am neither a sage nor a Moderator nor the site owner - just an individual who made a plea for a cool-down.

[yeezevee]

I quoted even G.f haddad. HE too says the same thing. Read my previous post.

.................The point here is that there existed early hadiths against what CAT claims. For 40 odd pages he is repeating same crap again and again.

Don't worry about 40 odd pages of crap., people have done 100s 1000s of pages on questioning Islam., 40 pages is nothing.,

Any ways, As you or that guy Gabriel haddad claims "That there were Hadiths floating during Muhammad's time" . Would you happen to read them? are they in Bhukari books or are they written by some one else and are NOT there in Bhukari books??

If there is no guarantee that those hadiths came from mouth of muhammad then there is also no guarantee that quran has the exact content that muhammad wanted because the same companions also collected Quran. So either you have quran + hadiths or else its none.

I understand that., and that is the reason I question Quran and I say all of it which is there in Quran is NOT from Muhammad (or Muhammad like Character IF HE WAS INDEED A LIVE CHARACTER not imaginary character of Quran writers) of Mecca & Madina., But some one(not one many) put together that book way after the death of Muhammad, again if he was real..

with best
yeezevee

[skynightblaze]

Any ways, As you or that guy Gabriel haddad claims "That there were Hadiths floating during Muhammad's time" . Would you happen to read them? are they in Bhukari books or are they written by some one else and are NOT there in Bhukari books??

This question was asked by MBL too and I havent given a proper reply to him because I didnt answer what was specifically asked but here is my chance to make up for it.

The site modern religion claims they became a part of bukhari;s hadith .

Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."

Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopedic collections that emerged in the third century

Also have a look at the following site's claims.

Before Bukhari had started to collect ahaadeeth there had actually been quite a few published books of ahadith in which Bukhari found ahadith of both weak and strong testimonials, which gave him the idea to compile such a book containing ahadith of only strong testimonials. Ishaaq Ibn Rahway agreed to this idea which strengthened Bukhari’s decision.

Bukhari states, "There was once a time during one of our sessions when my teacher Ishaaq Ibn Rahway remarked it would be appreciated if someone could collect ahadith which held strong and reliable testimonials and write them in the form of a book.

http://www.hadithcollection.com/about-h ... round.html


EDIT

Al-Bukhari traveled widely throughout the Abbasid empire since he was sixteen years, collecting those traditions he thought trustworthy. It is said that al-Bukhari collected over 300,000 hadith and included only 2,602 traditions in his Sahih.[5] At the time when Bukhari saw [the earlier] works and conveyed them, he found them, in their presentation, combining between what would be considered sahih and hasan and that many of them included da’if hadith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari

Muwatta hadiths were included by bukhari..
See..

The Muwatta may be treated as a good collection of Ahadith in the sense of the legal traditions. Some Muslim authorities like 'Izz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and 'Abd al-Haq of Delhi include it instead of the Sunan of Ibn Maja in the six canonical collections. Of course the majority of them do not count it as one of the six books because almost all the important traditions contained in it are included in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. (Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, p.13).

http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/6b.html

[yeezevee]

This question was asked by MBL too and I havent given a proper reply to him because I didnt answer what was specifically asked but here is my chance to make up for it.

The site modern religion claims they became a part of bukhari;s hadith .

Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."
.............................

Who?? what site?? I don't care what they write in that stupid site., but who?? Dr. Mustafa Azami?? That old fuckker is from India/Indian subcontinent and he gets silly stuff from Dar al-Ulum Deoband, India + that Al-Azhar University, Cairo.,

Sorry., It is like reading the leader of Muslim Brotherhood., but I don't trust any Muslim Scholar or Muslim on the history of Islam that come either of those places ., Reading Bhukari and dissecting his hadith yourself is better than reading these fools..., Any ways did that old fool come up with any thing that says "Here are Hadith that are collated during Muhammad's time??"

with best
yeezevee

[skynightblaze]

This question was asked by MBL too and I havent given a proper reply to him because I didnt answer what was specifically asked but here is my chance to make up for it.

The site modern religion claims they became a part of bukhari;s hadith .

Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, "by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands."
.............................

Who?? what site?? I don't care what they write in that stupid site., but who?? Dr. Mustafa Azami?? That old fudger is from India/Indian subcontinent and he gets silly stuff from Dar al-Ulum Deoband, India + that Al-Azhar University, Cairo.,

Sorry., It is like reading the leader of Muslim Brotherhood., but I don't trust any Muslim Scholar or Muslim on the history of Islam that come either of those places ., Reading Bhukari and dissecting his hadith yourself is better than reading these fools..., Any ways did that old fool come up with any thing that says "Here are Hadith that are collated during Muhammad's time??"

with best
yeezevee

Thats why I quoted other sites too.As far as your last question is concerned No he didnt say anything of that sort or it could be that I didnt read anything of that sort.

[yeezevee]

Thats why I quoted other sites too.As far as your last question is concerned No he didnt say anything of that sort or it could be that I didnt read anything of that sort.

Oh I see., that is all right., But by now you have read through the hadith from Bhukari may be selectively that incriminates Islam/ early Muslim/Muhammad as criminal characters ., Now question to you is., Can you pick out from Bhukari books which you may think were said by Muhammad or very close to Muhammad's time.??

I opened a new thread on Malik's Muwatt Hadith .. viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8293 please add your selective hadiths in to that thread..

with best regards
yeezevee

[Muhammad bin Lyin]

Just so everybody understands, I think the Cat is saying that if you have any discussion with Muslims, you have to approach it with the axiom that the Quran is the ultimate authority or constitution. Regardless of whether it has any legitimacy or not, to Muslims it is the axiomatic authority or reference point much like the constitution is to American Law. So when discussing with Muslims, one needs to use the Quran as a lawyer uses the constitution when discussing matters of American law. So essentially, you have to treat the two situations as similar, even if one is the product of a lie where someone is representing their ideas as God's, and the other one is not and is instead recognized as an agreement between reasonable men. This is why the constitution even explains or justifies what it says by saying "we hold these truths to be self evident", meaning they need no extra explanation or a God, they are simply logically true on their own.

[crazymonkie_]

And the fact that the situations from which they arose, and their ultimate legitimizing authorities, are totally different, means that it's complete nonsense to approach the Quran in this way. He tries to make it seem possible by his ill-conceived idea that the Quran represents a legal document and nothing else, but that approach is doomed to failure even before it gets started.

He also is trying to divest the fact that the ONLY legitimacy that the Quran has is based on its axiomatic "god-given" status from the way in which this particular god has control over its literary output. Whereas even those constitutions which make mention of a god (not all do) make it a point to be documents up for interpretation and amendment, the Quran's basic point about interpretation and amendment in that same sense can be summed up in three words: Don't do it.

So AGAIN the comparison fails, and in fact taking the "Allah-given" and "not open to liberal (as in open-ended, not like the political stances) interpretation or amendment" out of the equation is most certainly NOT taking the Quran on as Muslims do. Not even the most Quran-only of the Quran-only Muslims would ever say that these two aspects of Islam- based even in the Quran- can be removed from Islam in order to look at the Quran as only a legal document.

So maybe, even if he does have good intentions, The Cat should spend his energies elsewhere than this quixotic search for an Islam that cannot ever exist, because, in becoming what The Cat hopes it can become, it would by definition no longer be Islam.

[Brendalee]

But no less dangerous. It is not the ahadith the jihadis cite: It is the Quran.

[The Cat]

I've been asking the following four questions, to test some members knowledge about the Koran:


1) What is the Koranic DEEN, usually (but quite imperfectly) translated 'religion'?


2) What is the Koranic 'Islam'? What does it mean within the Koranic context? Is it written that often?


3) Who are the Koranic 'Muslims'? Are they called to follow hadiths or the previous scriptures?


4) What is the Koranic 'Shariah'? For it is mentioned 4 times...


Until you can answer those four questions properly, you're only proving that the Islam you're attacking is nothing else than a gigantic STRAW MAN FALLACY.


http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.....

Straw Man arguments often attack a political party or movement at its extremes, where it is weakest. For example, it is a straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should ever be restricted, bar none. Such straw men are often part of the process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw Demon".

Since all I had to these most pertinent questions were elusions, then you're complete ignorance about the basic Koranic meanings is for everyone to see,
a Straw man logical fallacy.

If this is all you've got, you have brilliantly defeated yourself.

As they say: nice charge, wrong hill.

[yeezevee]

I've been asking the following four questions, to test some members knowledge about the Koran:


1) What is the Koranic DEEN, usually (but quite imperfectly) translated 'religion'?


2) What is the Koranic 'Islam'? What does it mean within the Koranic context? Is it written that often?


3) Who are the Koranic 'Muslims'? Are they called to follow hadiths or the previous scriptures?


4) What is the Koranic 'Shariah'? For it is mentioned 4 times...


Until you can answer those four questions properly, you're only proving that the Islam you're attacking is nothing else than a gigantic STRAW MAN FALLACY.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Since all I had to these most pertinent questions were elusions, then you're complete ignorance about the basic Koranic meanings is for everyone to see,
a Straw man logical fallacy.

If this is all you've got, you have brilliantly defeated yourself.

As they say: nice charge, wrong hill.

You can give any number of links on fallacyfiles dear The Cat., But it doesn't help.,

It is fair that they are NOT answering your questions (may be they don't know) but you are also not answering their question., and the question was your heading "Laws of Quran"., what are they?? next is you being an expert, you can answer your own four questions., I am sure there are people who will suggest you better answers from you own answers dear The Cat..

[Brendalee]

Hello Cat:

I like this part of your post: "nice charge. wrong hill."

And I say, "Back at you."

You are not my forum guru. I do not dictate how you argue or what points you make; and I will not allow you to dictate such to me.

Your 4 questions will NOT be answered by me.

You may not impose your conditions or criteria on me.

[darth]

But some one(not one many) put together that book way after the death of Muhammad, again if he was real..

with best
yeezevee

And how do you figure that, dear yeeezeeveee? Because group mentality is moronic? One man alone cannot write a stupid book, it takes a group to make it stupid?

[crazymonkie_]

I've been asking the following four questions, to test some members knowledge about the Koran:

Not mine. You didn't ask me, or anyone else, in fact. Just MBL.

But hey, since I'm here, I'll answer the questions you think are important, your majesty.

1) "Way of life". Sort of like dharma. So where's the implication that it's NOT religious in character? That it's more akin to secular law codes?

2) Dunno, don't really care, you're still barking up the wrong tree- although I'd imagine that this happens to be a portion of the tree that you're barking up.

3) "Quranic" Muslims, eh? Like somehow the ahadith collectors just decided to make up their own? (Fer f**ks sake, Cat, one of the sahih collectors was named IMAM MUSLIM!!!) Anyway. Literally: Submitters. Happy little slaves. The stories in the Quran reinterpret some popular Biblical characters to be Submitters, all for the sake of the secular-style law code that is the Quran.

Oh wait, no. For the sake of the legitimacy of the RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM stated in the Quran. So again: Wrong tree, kittycat.

4) Damned if I know. How does this linguistic nitpick justify your horrendously wrong appropriation of the idea of a secular code of laws (misinterpreting the Deists' purposes in writing 'our Creator' into the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, in a manner similar to how most ignorant Muslims do) being equivalent to the Quran.

Since all I had to these most pertinent questions were elusions, then you're complete ignorance about the basic Koranic meanings is for everyone to see,
a Straw man logical fallacy.

And YOU'RE committing a red herring fallacy. And being a total ass about it at the same time.

Your argument still makes no sense, no matter how many little bits of vocabulary you can pick and choose from in the Quran. Just admit it: The entire idea is a non-starter. From there it's going to be much easier to focus on something that can be useful.

Like trying to point out the RELIGIOUS or LOGICAL contradictions in the Quran. And by doing so, kneecapping any misguided Quran-only Muslim movement. Reason behind that being: If the interpretive background is taken away, violent and cruel ayahs in the Quran suddenly become much more dangerous. They are truly for all time, in that case.

As they say: nice charge, wrong hill.

This nice little trip on a path to nowhere is no longer interesting. Make a solid case for your "Quran as legal document," keeping in mind the serious objections and counter-evidence that many of us have raised, or give up on the idea.

[The Cat]

Make a solid case for your "Quran as legal document,"

Easy. See how you've made a fool of yourself...

viewtopic.php?p=130513#p130513

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_Saudi_Arabia
Article 1 states that "God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet" are the country's constitution...

It even has the perfid Shahadah on its flag


Since there's a beginning of an answer in your post, I shall deal with it soon.

[crazymonkie_]

Easy. See how you've made a fool of yourself...

Nice try. ALSO from the wiki link:

Next, per Article 8, "justice, consultation, and equality" shall be in accordance with Shari'ah.

Origin of Sharia, even according to your awful argument? Ahadith. So Article 1 is just so much claptrap- and moreso considering that the other Articles deal with the royal family (and where is THAT in the Quran? Nowhere.)

So who's the fool here?

*edit*: Even better:

Article 45 affirm that religious rulings must be in accordance with the " Holy Qur'an and the Prophet's Sunnah." To this end, a panel of Islamic clergy and research group shall be established.

So no jurisprudence? Really? The Quran (and Sunnah) speak for themselves? You sure, kittycat?