Here we go again...

Submitted by Mo (United Kingdom), Jan 26, 2007 at 18:34

I guess my statement was true about you making extravagant and exaggerated conclusions from a single statement that I may make, I don't know where you find time.

Firstly, there are different schools of thoughts yes, they differ in jurisprudence, they are in consensus in most (that's 90+ %) things in the Quran, but where there is a question mark they may differ or agree with each other. The Quran came to make plain what is lawful and what is not, like we know alcohol is illegal etc.

But when it comes to all the nitty-gritty aspects in religion or even things that are supposed to be clear, but do appear to have room for further understanding upon it, scholar may comment and interpret verses in the light of their personal understanding. It is much like the translation of the Quran, even in English one has different translations for different authors and translators, and they interpret the verses in the light of their own knowledge and understanding. It does not mean we must choose between the many translations of the Quran, but having various translations help us in our understanding of verses and scriptures.

There is no need to choose between scholars, although some scholarly views may help in our understanding of certain aspects of Islam, it may be that this particular view is irrelevant or perhaps it has become obsolete given the context of modern day society; this is where Ijtihad (re-interpretation) comes along.

The hadiths did not come after 250 years of Islam, but it was merely compiled to a single book during this period, Hadiths were floating all across the empire.

When I means acceptable, I mean to say to the majority or to the public. There is interpretation, but they must be done within the guidelines set by the Prophet (p) when he said "following me and following the Sahabahs and the first three generations will guarantee you being on the straight path" there are many scholars who do this, they are of those who are within the framework of Islam, but those who totally goes against the following of the Prophet and the first 3 generations will have twisted views on issues, such as understanding Tawhid and Risalah (Oneness of God and Prophethood respectively) and those with teisted views on these points will inevitably gain a following, thus a sect will be created much like the Ahmadia and the Salafiyas. They choose to blindly follow without reasoning their scholars without questioning the validity of their arguments.

You mention chapter 111 of the Quran, it may not sound coherent to you, but when in Arabic it make perfect sense, the words used are beautiful. "Thabbat yadaa abi lahab yu wathabb, Maa aghna Anhu ma luhu wa ma kasabb, Sayas laanaa ranzatha lahabb, Wa am rathuhu hamma lalthal hatabb, fee gee dhee haa habbul mim masad" It is in reference to Abi Lahab, one of the staunchest opponents of the Prophet (p) and Islam in the early stages in Mecca, he died of drinking within 3 days of realising their defeat at Badr where 70 Meccan leaders died in the battle. "The father of flame" is the literal meaning of his Abi Lahab.

Just like you failed to grasp chapter 111 when just reading the verses in English, without relevant understanding pre-hand, you will also fail to understand these verses that you have made reference to. Words in the Quran must be understood, and context must be given to each verse, I do not see any other way.

You ask me if I would see any other way in relation to the hadith you have quoted; I do not possess adequate knowledge in the field of Shariah but if this is a required punishment for this crime in shariah, I say yes 100%. At least it is better for 25 years in prison, later let out.

"Mo, that is the worrying part about Muslims which scares the pants off people like Noah, Dhimmi No More and me. That is the window of opportunity used by Islamic terrorists. Slamming planes into buildings is an act of faith for those who did it. Suicide bombing of Israeli school buses is an act of faith for the Muslim who did it. Faith by definition has no reason and if you limit it to your belief, taboos or actions which do not affect non-believers, it is fine. But the moment you bring unreason into activities that affect others and anchor it in your faith, it has us unbelievers reach for our guns or nukes as Noah or Susan would.

You know Mo, the hogwash about context does not wash with many believers. For them Surah 9 is a license from Allah to curse, kill and maim unbelievers. I do not know Arabic but you could enlighten me, what verses from the Koran do the Bin Laden groupies chant when they saw off the heads of unbelievers. The problem with the Koran is that it can be interpreted to suit any taste, from justifying the actions of a mass murderer to that of a Sufi saint."

I agree with you on the fact that faith can sometimes be reasons for extremism, but I will re-iterate that the Quran works as a catalyst. when Muslims feel that their land, and people are being attacked by outsiders, whatever the reason may be, WMD or routing out Al-Qaeda or otherwise, that aspect of the Quran will apply on these terms. However the word "unbelievers" mentioned in the Quran is not that of innocent civilians amongst the non-Muslims, but as enemy combatants. The Muslims who these verses directly related to knew what it meant, because important distinctions where made between the combatants and that of the women and children.

I won't rely upon Ibn Ishaq's work too much, it was not meant to be on a historic nature, as implied by him, his stories are exaggerated at times and can give a view not so in line with what actually took place.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".