Now, fellow-travellers, some of you might be wondering: say, Geoff, what ever happened to that wholesale integration of islamic immigrants to France? You remember that whole outspoken-demonstration-action-aggressively racist/religionist-rioty-thing? Yeah, what ever happened with the renewed call for integration and understanding and respect that - well, everyone called for and called for and called and called until they were hoarse?

Well, it seems not to have taken...completely. Seems some islamic students at schools in France - now, you might call them Misunderstanders Of Islam, if you like - stoned a girl for breaking Ramadan. Seems she had a snack. But not to worry! The local head of religious affairs decried the kids, said they should read the Quran more - in school, as if that kinda weren't the problem as it was - and explained how women who were feeling poorly were exempt.

Because, you know, if she'd been feeling all right, then stoning would have been jeeest fine.

I've attached the translation en bas.

http://www.france-echos.com/actualite.php?cle=10411

"Une collégienne a été lapidée mercredi dans une cour de récréation

Pour non-respect du Ramadan.
Selon une information communiquée par Michèle Vianès, de l'association Regards de Femmes :

L'information que j'ai donnée jeudi lors de notre café Regards de Femmes est dans Le Progrès d'aujourd'hui.

Une collégienne du collège Jean Mermoz dans le huitième arrondissement de Lyon a été agressée à coup de pierres mercredi matin en cour de récréation alors qu'elle mangeait son goûter . La thèse d'un acte lié au non-respect du ramadan est confirmée par le parquet de Lyon sur la foi des premiers éléments de l'enquête.

Azzedine Gaci, le président du CRCM déclare que si "les faits sont avérés, ils sont inacceptables". Il déplore l'ignorance des élèves à qui il faudrait enseigner le Coran à l'école et qui ignorent que sont exemptées de suivre le ramadan les "femmes indisposées".

Sans autres commentaires pour aujourd'hui, je vous tiens au courant."



"A schoolgirl was stoned on Wednesday in playground

For non-observance of Ramadan

According to information given by Michèle Vianès, from the Regards de Femmes organization:

The information that I gave Thursday from our cafe Regards de Femmes is in Le Progres today.

A schoolgirl of Jean Mermoz college in Lyon's eighth arrondissement (postal district) was pelted with stones on Wednesday morning in the playground because she ate a snack. The argument that the incident stemmed from the non-observance of Ramadan is confirmed by the Lyon prosecutor's office, based on initial results from its investigation.

Azzedine Gaci, president of the CRCM (Regional Council for the Muslim Religion) , states that "if the facts are proven, they are unacceptable". He deplores the ignorance of the pupils, who should be taught the Koran at school, and who are unaware that "women who are not feeling well" * are exempted from observing Ramadan."

What do you mean stoned?
Was she killed?
Was she hit by some kids with stones?
Granted it's wrong and those kids should get punished, I seem to remember that as kids we used to sometimes throw stones at one another, and get in trouble, and go to the prinicipals office.

Dear Geoff

I hope you are well.

So what we are sayibng is that a girl got stoned for non-observation of Ramadan...

The problem is the article does not go to much into depth about it... perhaps the kids were using this as an excuse to pick on the girl...

These children should be punished accordingly, whether she was ill or not...

religion is a very personal thing, and if she did not fast that is between who and God no one else.... Ghost and sam have you missed any of your fasts through laziness or not getting up in time etc... i have espicially when i was at uni...And i bet these kids have probably missed one too.

##################
take care
zak

..., and if she did not fast that is between who and God no one else....

Apparently others don't see it the same way as you, Zak. And I'd say that's true of many, many happenings in the Muslim world lately.

As a Muslim, your views are apparently not the norm in the Muslim world ....and you should see that and understand that, not deny it.

Baron Max

Apparently others don't see it the same way as you, Zak. And I'd say that's true of many, many happenings in the Muslim world lately.

As a Muslim, your views are apparently not the norm in the Muslim world ....and you should see that and understand that, not deny it.

Baron Max
Hi Baron,

I hope you had a good weekend

I dont know but the relatively few muslims i know see it this way...

i would like to hear more details about this story before i can shed anymore of an opnion.

######

take care Zak

In a world of 6 billion people, shit happens and is bound to happen on a daily basis, from racial attacks, to modern day slavery, to child imprisonment by its own parents, to mass murders in US schools, to the stoning of a child on religious grounds. It doesn't happen every day, but it does, it's shit and it's part of human nature to be shits, so why single out one incident and go woo woo?

I dont know but the relatively few muslims i know see it this way...

Sure, Zak, but what you're posting seems to always be the views of those very same FEW MUSLIMS as if it was the general view of all Muslims! That's not different to some people viewing all Muslims as terrorists! Your views, your are obviously NOT view of most Muslims!

Baron Max

..., it's shit and it's part of human nature to be shits, so why single out one incident and go woo woo?

Ahh, but it's sensationalist, and sensationalism is fun and exciting! Besides, it sells newspapers and tv advertising!

It wouldn't sell much or be very exciting if the headlines were something like: "Little Johnnie Kissed Little Mohammed on the Cheek" ....would it?

Baron Max

What do you mean stoned?
Was she killed?
Was she hit by some kids with stones?
Granted it's wrong and those kids should get punished, I seem to remember that as kids we used to sometimes throw stones at one another, and get in trouble, and go to the prinicipals office.

Ah yes: but never for failing to observe Easter, for example. That would be just the teensiest bit extreme.

Sure, Zak, but what you're posting seems to always be the views of those very same FEW MUSLIMS as if it was the general view of all Muslims! That's not different to some people viewing all Muslims as terrorists! Your views, your are obviously NOT view of most Muslims!

Baron Max
Ok perhaps we should here more of the details then.

No, Zak, the details have nothing to do with how you're viewing the Muslim/Western viewpoints and tactics. You keep saying/implying that Muslims are like you, yet you fail to acknowledge the riots and terrorism that it prevalent in the Middle East ...which is, of course, Muslims fighting against innocent civilians ...and mostly other Muslims.

YOUR views or those that you initiallly claim, Zak, are obviously NOT the views of most of the Muslims!!

Baron Max

In a world of 6 billion people, shit happens and is bound to happen on a daily basis, from racial attacks, to modern day slavery, to child imprisonment by its own parents, to mass murders in US schools, to the stoning of a child on religious grounds. It doesn't happen every day, but it does, it's shit and it's part of human nature to be shits, so why single out one incident and go woo woo?

Because it's symptomatic of the whole.

By comparison, should we mind evermuch if Israel does or does not shell people on a beach? After all, it's merely one incident. We needn't go "woo woo" about it.

And perhaps there's no reason to address the issue of the tourants that go on in the ghettos of France, and which - in addition to car bombings and general riotings on and off - are similarly suggestive of a subtle fascism there. Similarly, these are just single incidents, and below our concern.

Of course, of course.

Or, perhaps, we might be able to draw on the breathtaking array of cognitive abilities provided by our large, well-developed brains and make the simple act of connecting the dots to see what kind of picture we develop. If the picture is crude at first, simple repetition coupled with the small issues of variation - say, in body count, or the extremity of violation of human rights - should give us a more detailed impression, in time.

In a world of 6 billion people, shit happens and is bound to happen on a daily basis, from racial attacks, to modern day slavery, to child imprisonment by its own parents, to mass murders in US schools, to the stoning of a child on religious grounds. It doesn't happen every day, but it does, it's shit and it's part of human nature to be shits, so why single out one incident and go woo woo?

Because it's taking place in a Western nation. It's shit going down in our hometown, or our neighbors house. Not some far off place full of poor people that are very different from us.

No, Zak, the details have nothing to do with how you're viewing the Muslim/Western viewpoints and tactics. You keep saying/implying that Muslims are like you, yet you fail to acknowledge the riots and terrorism that it prevalent in the Middle East ...which is, of course, Muslims fighting against innocent civilians ...and mostly other Muslims.

YOUR views or those that you initiallly claim, Zak, are obviously NOT the views of most of the Muslims!!

Baron Max


hi baron

i think you do me an injustice here....

i do condem the riots in the middleeast...and i hate this needless fighting when there could be dialogue...if people have grievances then they can be talked through rather than fought over.

The Middleast riots though have a lot to do with Politics though

###############
take care zak

Give the kids their own right back. An eye for an eye and all that. If they reckon it's alright to stone a girl, then surely they can take it too?

hi baron i think you do me an injustice here....

Ahh, going back into hiding now, huh? Pretending to be the nice guy, the guy who is soooo peaceful and nice ....until some other unsuspecting innocent falls into the trap of deception!

i do condem the riots in the middleeast...and i hate this needless fighting...

Yeah, sure, Zak, sure! But as soon as someone agrees, then you'll turn their words around to make it seem like they're arguing against Israel, instead of the terrorists!! ....LOL!

Hey, I know you're tactics, Zak, ....just exactly like the tactics that the terrorists use .....sneaky, hiding, pretending ...then BOOM!!!

Baron Max

Ahh, going back into hiding now, huh? Pretending to be the nice guy, the guy who is soooo peaceful and nice ....until some other unsuspecting innocent falls into the trap of deception!



Yeah, sure, Zak, sure! But as soon as someone agrees, then you'll turn their words around to make it seem like they're arguing against Israel, instead of the terrorists!! ....LOL!

Hey, I know you're tactics, Zak, ....just exactly like the tactics that the terrorists use .....sneaky, hiding, pretending ...then BOOM!!!

Baron Max
Hk baron


Im sorry but what has this got to do with israel.

###############

Take care Zak

Ahh, going back into hiding now, huh? Pretending to be the nice guy, the guy who is soooo peaceful and nice ....until some other unsuspecting innocent falls into the trap of deception!



Yeah, sure, Zak, sure! But as soon as someone agrees, then you'll turn their words around to make it seem like they're arguing against Israel, instead of the terrorists!! ....LOL!

Hey, I know you're tactics, Zak, ....just exactly like the tactics that the terrorists use .....sneaky, hiding, pretending ...then BOOM!!!

Baron Max

Hi Baron

thanks again for yet another re-itteration of your usual post with regards to my posts....
*blushing* - i am flatered really you must have missed me over the weekend.

############
take care

zak

Does the practice of Ramadam not take into consideration hypoglycemia?

Where did Allah fail to connect the dots on that one?

Does the practice of Ramadam not take into consideration hypoglycemia?

Where did Allah fail to connect the dots on that one?

It does of course.

One should not fast without suhoor, the meal before daybreak and it consists of foods which contain both sweets and fats, to allow for provision of energy for the first half of the day.

After that the body utilises liver glycogen. In a fed state the liver contains enough glycogen to maintain blood glucose for 8-12 hours (much more time than required).

Pregnant and menstruating women and children below puberty, as well as those who are sick, convalescing or travelling do not have to fast if they do not wish to do so.

If there is some reason that one cannot fast or must break a fast, one can do so and make it up later.

If one cannot make it up later, one should feed a needy person for each day one has not fasted.

Does the practice of Ramadam not take into consideration hypoglycemia?

Where did Allah fail to connect the dots on that one?
Hi (Q)

thank you for your post

If you have any medical condition or are not well then you are exempt from fasting.... this also applies to pregnant women people travelling etc..

############

take
care
zak

Now, fellow-travellers, some of you might be wondering: say, Geoff, what ever happened to that wholesale integration of islamic immigrants to France? You remember that whole outspoken-demonstration-action-aggressively racist/religionist-rioty-thing? Yeah, what ever happened with the renewed call for integration and understanding and respect that - well, everyone called for and called for and called and called until they were hoarse?

Well, it seems not to have taken...completely. Seems some islamic students at schools in France - now, you might call them Misunderstanders Of Islam, if you like - stoned a girl for breaking Ramadan. Seems she had a snack. But not to worry! The local head of religious affairs decried the kids, said they should read the Quran more - in school, as if that kinda weren't the problem as it was - and explained how women who were feeling poorly were exempt.

Because, you know, if she'd been feeling all right, then stoning would have been jeeest fine.

.[/I]"

I don't live in France and I don't know exactly how the government is trying to intergrate and help the poor Islamist immigrant community. I don't know how close they get to the community leaders to try and find solutions to their daily problems. One thing is clear and that is they still have a long way to go.

As a realist, I know that it might take a whole number of generations before those immigrants are assimilated into French society and are able to find their rightful place. What makes this situation even more difficult is that there is a lot of inherent racism in France, which is not exactly condusive to the amalgamation of foreigners and when you couple that with the fact that most of the rowdy immigrants happen to be naturally hot headed North African Muslims, it is easy to see that the conflicts between these 2 peoples are not going to be pacified overnight and do in fact need to be taken very seriously, viewed over the longer term and need to have proper programs of reconciliation, employment and intergration put into place.

Although connected to the above, the intolerance inherent within religious fundamentalism is a whole subject in itself and needs to be addressed with sensitivity so as not to derail any other programs that might be put into place. That a child was attacked by other children is not an entirely new phenomenon, but what makes this incident stand out seems to be the religious intolerance behind it and the naive and weak way in which it was 'condemned' by the Muslim representative. This is an area where again, the government must make it clear but with sensitivity that religious laws have no place and no application in a secular Western society and that religious representatives should take this into account when addressing their followers.

Because it's symptomatic of the whole.

By comparison, should we mind evermuch if Israel does or does not shell people on a beach? After all, it's merely one incident. We needn't go "woo woo" about it.

And perhaps there's no reason to address the issue of the tourants that go on in the ghettos of France, and which - in addition to car bombings and general riotings on and off - are similarly suggestive of a subtle fascism there. Similarly, these are just single incidents, and below our concern.

Of course, of course.

Or, perhaps, we might be able to draw on the breathtaking array of cognitive abilities provided by our large, well-developed brains and make the simple act of connecting the dots to see what kind of picture we develop. If the picture is crude at first, simple repetition coupled with the small issues of variation - say, in body count, or the extremity of violation of human rights - should give us a more detailed impression, in time.

You are mixing up war crimes in one place with social unrest in another, but yes, we should mind. We should mind very much and I'm sure that many people do, but who gets up to do anything about it, and who will listen? We can talk about it, we can debate, argue, suggest ideas to each other, but will it ever change anything? I'm sorry for sounding cynical but the 60's are dead and the philosophers and demonstrators of old are too tired, too comfortable and too busy with their grandkids to try and change anything. The present generation doesn't seem to give a fuck!


Because it's taking place in a Western nation. It's shit going down in our hometown, or our neighbors house. Not some far off place full of poor people that are very different from us.

It is symptomatic of a transient, impersonal, city based and materialistic society with global corporations at the helm and tv in the pulpit, which is at war with itself, its ethics and its religions. The most common emotions in this world are jealousy, intolerance, anger and envy. Wealth is the new opium of the people . So, will shit happen? Hell yeah.

It does of course.

So, Gabriel instructed Muhammed on the dangers of hypoglycemia in Ramadam? :rolleyes:

It would have been easier if muhammad just learnt to read and write!

So, Gabriel instructed Muhammed on the dangers of hypoglycemia in Ramadam? :rolleyes:

Did he need to? :cool:

It would have been easier if muhammad just learnt to read and write!

He did know how to read and write. The myth of him being illiterate was meant to prop up his credibility.

It would have been easier if muhammad just learnt to read and write!

Easier for whom?

easier for his followers "the muslims" right now they seem confused as ever about their belief's!

easier for his followers "the muslims" right now they seem confused as ever about their belief's!

I think it is the Non-Muslims who are confused.

They are the ones supporting and funding the terrorists and their Wahabi backers AND yelling Islamofascism from the rooftops.

Apparently others don't see it the same way as you, Zak. And I'd say that's true of many, many happenings in the Muslim world lately.

As a Muslim, your views are apparently not the norm in the Muslim world ....and you should see that and understand that, not deny it.

Baron Max

Pointless.

Pointless.
yep ghost thanks.

baron and stu have been in full flow this afternoon
############
take it ez
zak

I think it is the Non-Muslims who are confused.

They are the ones supporting and funding the terrorists and their Wahabi backers AND yelling Islamofascism from the rooftops.
I'm afraid 1 billion or so of your fellow brother's and sister's would disagree with your views on the wahabi embrodied version of Islam that is now been preached everywhere!

I'm afraid 1 billion or so of your fellow brother's and sister's would disagree with your views on the wahabi embrodied version of Islam that is now been preached everywhere!
hi vega

what makes you say that then???

hi vega

what makes you say that then???
many muslims I know and statistics!

many muslims I know and statistics!
show me the stats then please vega

and obviously the source of these stats

thanks

Zak

show me the stats then please vega

and obviously the source of these stats

thanks

Zak
wait right there!,..I'm gonna go do a global world survey now! :D

wait right there!,..I'm gonna go do a global world survey now! :D
hey vega,

i thought as you came out with it that you had the survey at your finger tips.

dont mean to cause you to much trouble vega

#########

take care
Zak

I'm afraid 1 billion or so of your fellow brother's and sister's would disagree with your views on the wahabi embrodied version of Islam that is now been preached everywhere!

The majority of Muslims belong to the Hanafi school of Sunnis and they are the most liberal of all the Muslim groups. So I would say that you are wrong.

This was indicated in the post I put up earlier, on the Wahabis, if you would care to confirm it

The majority of Muslims belong to the Hanafi school of Sunnis and they are the most liberal of all the Muslim groups. So I would say that you are wrong.

This was indicated in the post I put up earlier, on the Wahabis, if you would care to confirm it
In most muslim countries, aren't their judical system and sharia heavily influenced by wahabi laws.

Liberal Hanafi might be, but not that liberal:

The greatest kind of danger that faces Muslims is that which threatens their moral aspect of existence, i.e., their belief. That is why apostasy from Islam is regarded as one of the most dangerous threats to the Muslim community. The ugliest intrigue the enemies of Islam have plotted against Islam has been to try to lure its followers away from it; they have even used force for this purpose. In this regard, Almighty Allah says, [And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can.] (Al-Baqarah 2:217)

...

Muslims are to seriously resist individual apostasy before it seriously intensifies and develops into a collective one.

That is why the Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml

Why must they "seriously resist apostacy"? And how serious is serious?

Geoff

Liberal Hanafi might be, but not that liberal:



Why must they "seriously resist apostacy"? And how serious is serious?

Geoff

I cannot access this article Geoff.

Could you post it here?

Sure, Zak, but what you're posting seems to always be the views of those very same FEW MUSLIMS as if it was the general view of all Muslims! That's not different to some people viewing all Muslims as terrorists! Your views, your are obviously NOT view of most Muslims!

Baron Max
Actually Baron, Zaks views are the majority. It's just that the view most non-Muslims have of Islam is taken from the opinion of those who do not hold Islam as it should be held. Those seem to be the people that make the news. Media get no attention when it broadcast the real views of the majority of Muslims around the world.

Just as in the US where the majority of people are some what good, kind hearted folk yet killers, rapist, thieves, etc. dominate the media. It's what sells papers. But if course you know this Baron.

Hanafi Muslims:

Geoff that site is filled with misinformation.

Here is a reliable source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-hanafi.htm

Within the Sunni Muslim tradition, Hanafi is one of four “schools of law” and considered the oldest and most liberal school of law. Hanafi is one of the four schools of thought (madhabs / Maddhab) of religious jurisprudence (fiqh) within Sunni Islam. Named for its founder, the Hanafi school of Imam Abu Hanifa, it is the major school of Iraqi Sunni Arabs. It makes considerable use of reason or opinion in legal decisions. Sunni Hanafi creed is essentially non-hierarchial and decentralized, which has made it difficult for 20th century rulers to incorporate its religious leaders into strong centralized state systems.

The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence was founded by Abu Hanifa, born in Kufa, Iraq about A.D.700. He was one of the earliest Muslim scholar-interpreters to seek new ways of applying Islamic tenets to everyday life. In his lifetime Abu Hanifa was disgraced, called ignorant, inventor of new beliefs, hypocrite and kafir. He was imprisoned and poisoned. He died in 150 A.H. [circa 767-768 C.E.]. Abu Hanifa's interpretation of Muslim law was extremely tolerant of differences within Muslim communities. He also separated belief from practice, elevating belief over practice. Hanafi took Shafi as his rival and vice versa.

Broad-minded without being lax, this school appeals to reason (personal judgment) and a quest for the better. It is generally tolerant and the largest movement within Islam. The Hanafi school is known for its liberal religious orientation that elevates belief over practice and is tolerant of differences within Muslim communities.

Hanafi scholars refuse to control a human religious or spiritual destiny, and refuse to give that right to any human institution. Among the Hudud crimes, those crimes against God, blasphemy is not listed by the Hanafis. Hanafis concluded that blasphemy could not be punished by the state. The state should not be involved in deciding God-human relationships. Rather, the state should be concerned only with the violation of human rights within the jurisdiction of the human affairs and human relationships.


On apostasy:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_3_70/ai_110737774/pg_4

In Egypt the doctrine of the Hanafi school of law is considered to be the dominant expression of the Muslim fiqh. The Hanafis are the oldest Muslim law school. Since the ninth century, the jurists of this school have exerted a hegemonic influence over the production and application of legal norms in the eastern stretches of the Muslim world. Later, the Hanafis became the official law school of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans made their doctrine dominant in its Arab provinces, including Egypt. Even with the fall of the Ottomans, the modern Egyptian state continues to recognize the Hanafi doctrine as the source of the legal norms that the judges are required to apply in personal status (cases the legislature has left undecided). Hanafi law thus represents, in Egypt, the legacy of Muslim legal thought and practice.

Classical Hanafi doctrine holds that the capital punishment of the apostate serves mainly political aims. I quote two famous Hanafi jurists from Central Asia on this matter. The first is the eleventh-century Transoxanian jurist Sarakhsi, one of the major authorities of the Hanafi school. He says:

The change of religion and the original form of unbelief
belong to the most abominable of crimes. But [their judgment]
is a matter between God and his servant and the punishment
[of this crime] is postponed until the hereafter.
The measures advanced in this base world [and which thus
precede God's judgment] are matters of political expediency
[siyasat mashru'a] ordained by the law in order to protect
human interests" (Sarakhsi, n.d., vol. 10: 110).

In the same vein, the twelfth-century Hanafi jurist Marghinani, whose book al-Hidaya exerted a lasting influence on the Hanafi jurists of the Near East, states his position with the following words:

In principle, punishments are postponed to the hereafter
and the fact that they are advanced [so that they precede
the hereafter] violates the sense of probation [as the sense
of human life in this world]. One deviates from this principle
in order to defy a present evil and that is warfare
[against the Muslims] ('Ayni, vol. VI: 702-703). (2)

Both authors argue that the apostate's punishment is not clue to his belief but to the military and political danger that this belief may cause. They use this argument to show that women, even if they abandon Islam, should never be condemned to death because they are, according to Hanafi doctrine, physically not able to lead war on the Muslim community. The jurists conclude from this that capital punishment is not imposed for disbelief and apostasy but as a means to prevent the military and political dangers connected with it. They justify this punishment in terms of political expediency. Sarakhsi gives a systematic explanation of this reasoning, saying that it is not unbelief that is punished but that the ratio legis ('ilia) of the capital punishment is the political danger that results from unbelief (Sarakhsi, vol. 10:110). In other words, the Hanafu jurists do not feel competent to judge belief or unbelief but transform the crime to be punished into the crime of political rebellion, a crime more accessible to judicial decisions than belief or unbelief. The individual Muslim's belief or unbelief is thus left for God to judge.

Hanafi Muslims:

Geoff that site is filled with misinformation.

Islamonline is filled with misinformation?? On what grounds? Who misinformed them? Have you talked to them?

Here is a reliable source:

I must admit, I think a bit less of the site track "global security/military" and a generalized search than something so canonical as to have the address Islamonline.com - which I add is also frequented by more visitors than either of your above links. Is Islamonline now not to be considered sufficiently official?

And, more to the point, how do your links disprove my point? They still dictate that apostates must be put to death; that they undermine the islamic character of the nation. (Women, of course, are stated as exempt since they apparently cannot lead armies, which seems a rather sexist conclusion to my mind, and hopefully not indicative of other problems.) Why should we conclude that the situation, even in the benighted Hanafi system, is not exactly as specified?

Anyway, were you able to access the full islamonline doc after all then? I could post but it's rather long.

Best,

Geoff

Islamonline is filled with misinformation?? On what grounds? Who misinformed them? Have you talked to them?



I must admit, I think a bit less of the site track "global security/military" and a generalized search than something so canonical as to have the address Islamonline.com - which I add is also frequented by more visitors than either of your above links. Is Islamonline now not to be considered sufficiently official?

And, more to the point, how do your links disprove my point? They still dictate that apostates must be put to death; that they undermine the islamic character of the nation. (Women, of course, are stated as exempt since they apparently cannot lead armies, which seems a rather sexist conclusion to my mind, and hopefully not indicative of other problems.) Why should we conclude that the situation, even in the benighted Hanafi system, is not exactly as specified?

Anyway, were you able to access the full islamonline doc after all then? I could post but it's rather long.

Best,

Geoff



Yes I managed to load your document and much of the information is not referenced well. I haven't checked all other articles on this website, but I would be wary of unmonitored information from an online source. I am a Hanafi Muslim (most Asians are) and I am aware of the nature of jurisprudence in this school. I prefer to use books (since I can be sure of the source) so I usually get my information from them and then look for online links which mirror them. I'll have to ask Ghost for authentic links. General information is available but there is not a lot of Fiqh online. What I gave you (especially the link from findarticles) is correct information.

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

The links I gave earlier were to underline my point, that is the capital punishment for apostasy is not based on religion, but is for political reasons. Hence it is not based on any divine law, but on political expediency.

I found another article from islamonline, seems to be with better references (I don't know well enough to be certain though)
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/05/Article01a.shtml

And here is a better one with explanations of Quranic and Hadith sources:
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/is_killing_an_apostate_in_the_is.htm

And another on the varying positions on apostasy in Islam:
http://religion.info/english/articles/article_234.shtml

The links I gave earlier were to underline my point, that is the capital punishment for apostasy is not based on religion, but is for political reasons. Hence it is not based on any divine law, but on political expediency.

Sorry toots, that one will never fly, no matter how many times you try and fire it across our bows. The Hadith was conceived every bit as much as the Quran from the mind of one man and has everything to do with Islam, which has everything to do with authority and power.

Sorry toots, that one will never fly, no matter how many times you try and fire it across our bows. The Hadith was conceived every bit as much as the Quran from the mind of one man and has everything to do with Islam, which has everything to do with authority and power.

What are you blathering about?

1. The histories and hadith collections we possess today were written down at the start of the Abbasid period, more than one hundred years after the death of Muhammad (d.632)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

2.Patricia Crone a skeptic of established Islamic history has stated "One of the biggest problems with the method of authentication by isnads is early traditionists were still developing the conventions of the isnad. They either gave no isnads, or gave isnads that were sketchy or deficient by later standards. Scholars who adhered strictly to the latest standards might find themselves rejecting or deprecating what was in fact the very earliest historical material, while accepting later, fabricated traditions that clothed themselves with impeccable isnads". (Roman, provincial and Islamic Law, Patricia Crone, pp. 23-34 of the paperback edition)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith#Science_of_hadith

3.Sunni Muslims view the Six major Hadith collections as their most important. They are, in order of importance [5]:

1. Sahih Bukhari, collected by al-Bukhari (d. 870), included 7275 hadiths
2. Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), included 9200
3. Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i (d. 915)
4. Sunan Abi Da'ud, collected by Abu Da'ud (d. 888)
5. Sunan al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)
6. This one is disputed. Sometimes its referred to Al-Muwatta, collected by Imam Malik (d. 796) and sometimes it is referred to Sunan Ibn Maja, collected by Ibn Maja (d. 886). Some people even consider Sunan al-Darami to be the sixth one [citation needed].
Shia’s have their own collections and reject the claims of authenticity that Sunni attribute to the six collections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_major_Hadith_collections

My apologies for the lateness of my rebuttal.

Yes I managed to load your document and much of the information is not referenced well. I haven't checked all other articles on this website, but I would be wary of unmonitored information from an online source. I am a Hanafi Muslim (most Asians are) and I am aware of the nature of jurisprudence in this school. I prefer to use books (since I can be sure of the source) so I usually get my information from them and then look for online links which mirror them. I'll have to ask Ghost for authentic links. General information is available but there is not a lot of Fiqh online. What I gave you (especially the link from findarticles) is correct information.

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

The links I gave earlier were to underline my point, that is the capital punishment for apostasy is not based on religion, but is for political reasons. Hence it is not based on any divine law, but on political expediency.

Well, Sam, if religion is the law, and the law religion (sharia being considered the sine qua non of islamic societal expression) then it hardly matters which side of the split hair you choose to rest your argument on.

If the al-insan, al-kamil, Mohammed, that "perfect man" on whose merits - whatever they might be - orders the death of apostates, and he represents the spiritual head of your religion, then how precisely is it that you assume such murders are merely expressions of political expediency? And why should I accept your couching such murder in the latter terms? Why would a sensible person whitewash the nature of this crime?

More to the point, I find it dubious in the extreme that you presume such wholesale killing is political in nature. The Quran reviles non-muslims throughout, stating that they are to be offered only the "three fold choice": that of death, dhimmitude or conversion. Not only the spiritual but the physical nature of the kufr is roundly condemned in the strongest terms. Why, precisely, would one believe that the murder of apostates merely constitutes political islamic expression, particularly when the religious and political nature of islam - that supposedly perfect, all-encompassing way of life - are not in any way distinct?

When you say the murder of apostates is not divine law (and was Mohammed " jest sayin' "? as reported by al-Buhkari, al-Muslim, and al-Dahoud?) and, contrarily Mohammed obstinately instructs you that you should "obey Mohammed as you obey Allah" (Quran 3: 32, or 3: 50, or 3: 132, or 4: 15, or 4: 59, etc etc) , then who is right? You or Mohammed? His injunction appears quite clear.

Best,

Geoff

My apologies for the lateness of my rebuttal.



Well, Sam, if religion is the law, and the law religion (sharia being considered the sine qua non of islamic societal expression) then it hardly matters which side of the split hair you choose to rest your argument on.

If the al-insan, al-kamil, Mohammed, that "perfect man" on whose merits - whatever they might be - orders the death of apostates, and he represents the spiritual head of your religion, then how precisely is it that you assume such murders are merely expressions of political expediency? And why should I accept your couching such murder in the latter terms? Why would a sensible person whitewash the nature of this crime?

More to the point, I find it dubious in the extreme that you presume such wholesale killing is political in nature. The Quran reviles non-muslims throughout, stating that they are to be offered only the "three fold choice": that of death, dhimmitude or conversion. Not only the spiritual but the physical nature of the kufr is roundly condemned in the strongest terms. Why, precisely, would one believe that the murder of apostates merely constitutes political islamic expression, particularly when the religious and political nature of islam - that supposedly perfect, all-encompassing way of life - are not in any way distinct?

When you say the murder of apostates is not divine law (and was Mohammed " jest sayin' "? as reported by al-Buhkari, al-Muslim, and al-Dahoud?) and, contrarily Mohammed obstinately instructs you that you should "obey Mohammed as you obey Allah" (Quran 3: 32, or 3: 50, or 3: 132, or 4: 15, or 4: 59, etc etc) , then who is right? You or Mohammed? His injunction appears quite clear.

Best,

Geoff


IOW, the fact that the Quran has no declaration of death for apostates holds little value for you compared to oral traditions about Mohammed written more than a 100 years after his death.

I'm constantly surprised by the similarity in thinking between the Islamic fundamentalists and the atheists on this forum. :)

As for disbelievers in the Quran:


The word kafir (and related words, such as the abstract noun kufr "disbelief") is mentioned in the Qur’an in five different senses:

1. Kufr al-tawheed: to reject the belief in the Oneness of God. The Qur’an says:

* As to those who reject faith (kafaru), it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe (2:6; Yusuf Ali)

2. Kufr al-ni`mah: to lack gratefulness to God or to people. The Qur’an says:

* Therefore remember Me, I will remember you, and be thankful to Me, and do not be ungrateful to Me. (la takfurun)(2:152; Shakir)
* (Pharaoh) said (to Moses): … And you did (that) deed of yours which you did, and you are one of the ungrateful (kafireen)(26:18-19; Shakir)

3. Kufr at-tabarri: to disown/clear oneself from. The Qur’an says:

* Indeed, there is for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him when they said to their people: “Surely we are clear of you (kafarna bekom).” (60:4; Shakir)

4. Kufr al-juhud: to deny. The Qur’an says:

* When there comes to them that which they [should] have recognized, they refuse to believe in (kafaru) it.(2:89; Yusuf Ali)

5. Kufr at-taghtiyah: to hide/bury something, like planting a seed in the ground. The Qur’an says:

* The likeness of vegetation after rain, whereof the growth is pleasing to the husbandman (kuffar.) (57:20; Pickthall)

The word kufr can also be applied to a Muslim when he is doing something wrong, but not necessarily something that would place him or her outside the state of belief in Islam. For example, a Muslim who is able to perform the Hajj but does not go, without denying the need to go, would be committing an act of kufr in a sense of ungratefulness to God.

* Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-'Alamîn (the mankind and jinns). In it are manifest signs (for example), the Maqâm (place) of Abraham (Arabic:Ibrâhim) ; whosoever enters it, he attains security. And Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah) to the House (Ka'bah) is a duty that mankind owes to God (Arabic:Allah), those who can afford the expenses (for one's conveyance, provision and residence); and whoever disbelieves(wa man kafara) [i.e. denies Hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah), then he is a disbeliever of God], then God stands not in need of any of the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinns)(3:96-97).

In the Qur’an, the word “O disbelievers” (“Ya Kuffar”, “Ya ayuhalathina kafaru”, or “Ya ayuhal-kafirun”) is found only in these two places:

1. In Hellfire, we seek refuge in God from it. The Qur’an says what means:

* [Then it will be said]: “O ye who disbelieve (Ya ayuhalathina kafaru)! Make no excuses for yourselves this day. (66:7)

So, it is something that is said to them by God Almighty or by the angels, not by us.

2. In Surat Al-Kafirun (109) that you mentioned in your question. It says what means:

* {Say [O Muhammad]: “O ye that reject faith (al-Kafirun)! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.”}

This surah is addressing Prophet Muhammad and therefore must be understood in its historical context. God is asking Prophet Muhammad to address a group of leaders from Mecca who offered him the following deal: That they all — including Muhammad — worship God for one year and then they all worship the idols for the next year, and so on. That is why God asked him to address them in this term “rejecters of faith” and to refuse to accept this kind of deal.

In the rest of the Qur’an, the Qur’anic style follows two principles:

1. To label certain sayings or actions to be sayings or actions of kufr (disbelief or rejection of faith), without labeling any specific group of people with that name and calling them with it. For example, the Qur’an says what means:

* Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely God is the third [person] of the three. And there is no god but One God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve [reject]. Will they not then turn to God and ask His forgiveness? And God is Forgiving, Merciful. The Messiah, son of Mary is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman.(5:73-75)

2. To distinguish clearly between idol-worshippers, on one hand, and believers in God and a Script that went through a phase of corruption, on the other hand. God called the later group only by the name “People of the Book.” For example, the Qur’an says what means:

* Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you [people] back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. But, forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish His purpose; for God Hath power over all things.(2:109)

* It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering [of the forces]. Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from God! But the [wrath of] God came to them from quarters from which they little expected [it], and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes [to see](59:2)

In today’s world, scholars recommend that Muslims should use the same term “People of the Book” with Christians and Jews, or call them Christians and Jews, if they wish to be called so, or simply call them “non-Muslims”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

IOW, the fact that the Quran has no declaration of death for apostates holds little value for you compared to oral traditions about Mohammed written more than a 100 years after his death.

I'm constantly surprised by the similarity in thinking between the Islamic fundamentalists and the atheists on this forum. :)

Good lord!

Look, Sam, it's your religion that places such absolute values on the hadiths, not mine. I'm a secularist and couldn't give less of a bugger about them or the Quran, for frankly it's all hogwash anyway. You see, Sam, it's not me you have to convince that the hadiths are bullshit - for they are - but the other 1.1 billion members of your faith. They seem to be quite confused about the issue, as any number of practical examples from the ummah illustrate quite clearly. Perhaps they could benefit from your opinion. I imagine we shall never know, so long as you continue berating the choir and not the sinners.

And thus, in short: are you calling the hadith nonsensical? I reiterate that I agree, but regret to inform you that no one else in your religion feels as you do. Will you preach to the masses, and not to the choir?

Geoff

As for disbelievers in the Quran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir

Of course, those same disbelievers are termed "monkeys" and "apes" in the Quran. They are admonished to hell in the afterlife, and punishment in the present one: death, dhimmitude or conversion.

In other words, Sura 9.

Geoff

Good lord!

Look, Sam, it's your religion that places such absolute values on the hadiths, not mine. I'm a secularist and couldn't give less of a bugger about them or the Quran, for frankly it's all hogwash anyway. You see, Sam, it's not me you have to convince that the hadiths are bullshit - for they are - but the other 1.1 billion members of your faith. They seem to be quite confused about the issue, as any number of practical examples from the ummah illustrate quite clearly. Perhaps they could benefit from your opinion. I imagine we shall never know, so long as you continue berating the choir and not the sinners.

And thus, in short: are you calling the hadith nonsensical? I reiterate that I agree, but regret to inform you that no one else in your religion feels as you do. Will you preach to the masses, and not to the choir?

Geoff

You misunderstand the purpose of the Hadiths.

They are a collection of ALL oral traditions. One is supposed to use reason to distinguish between them and to determine the right thing to do. They are NOT considered absolute for the simple reason that they are not law.

It is like putting a key word in Entrez Pubmed and coming up with 1000+ papers on the topic. Does not mean that all the studies are valid or the conclusions are right. Does not even mean that the majority of opinion is right or the most accomplished authors are right.

What papers you decide to use depends on what you wish to discuss or what viewpoint you support. The Islamic tradition has been to keep all known information whether supported or not since who is equipped to decide what is right or wrong?

Where we have failed is in the educational sphere. It is equivalent to having an unschooled person or one with conflicting interests to look up the science on Pubmed.

Of course, those same disbelievers are termed "monkeys" and "apes" in the Quran. They are admonished to hell in the afterlife, and punishment in the present one: death, dhimmitude or conversion.

In other words, Sura 9.

Geoff

I'll get back to you on this sura. I think I have discussed it before, maybe not with you.

The Science of Hadith:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/atit.html

Some information on what the Hadith is comprised of.

This is of course just one source of information and there are several.

You misunderstand the purpose of the Hadiths.

They are a collection of ALL oral traditions. One is supposed to use reason to distinguish between them and to determine the right thing to do. They are NOT considered absolute for the simple reason that they are not law.

??? And so sharia, then, is derived from...what? The best guess, most precise inferences of the finest feelers of bumps on the anus? (In fact, that would be my guess, but it is not so.)

You might well not consider the hadiths a source for law, but - again - your coreligionists do. And it is nothing like PubMed, because PubMed (although for reasons diligent as they are obscure, I prefer ISI WoS) is a database of separate, intinsically (if not necessary philosophically) original articles on separate issues. Islam is not. All these supposed sayings and reportings and mental memos are reported (by whatever chain of isnad) to originate with the same individual: Mohammed. No one person - not even Gould, which is not to say the thought never occurred to him - could claim the same for any collubrium of papers in PubMed or CAB or ISI or CC or anywhere else. That means that in the absence of other information - and who would abrogate the word of God? :D - the sole or few or collection or bounty of hadiths might well be taken as articles of - dare we say it - faith by the observant muslim. And, moreover, if the same injunction - "kill the apostate", for instance - is recorded by the most canonical of sources (al-Buhkari) or by multiple ones (al-Da'ud, al-Muslim, and so on) then where, pray tell, is the argumentative leg on which you need stand? They might not be accurate, and PubMed might not well be accurate, but if a multitude of articles imply the quantitative nature of evolution, I would opine that their mutual support at least suggests convergence of mechanism.

So, if you would not construct islamic law from the hadiths, then kudos to you. But what is your religious justification for doing so? For the interpretation of islam, as you know, is a litigious business, and I wonder at the extent of the dent even the purest rationalism could conceivably make on it.

What papers you decide to use depends on what you wish to discuss or what viewpoint you support. The Islamic tradition has been to keep all known information whether supported or not since who is equipped to decide what is right or wrong?

Who indeed? And yet this, too, is the rub: we, as mere, humble kufr/dhimmis, are told we are not permitted to discern the will of God in black and white. It is beyond us. It is not allowed. And the laity of islam - you imply - also are not so equipped, or rather that they might cite the wrong sources, use the wrong papers. And yet, the imams, and scholars of islam - which we see eminating, in their odiousness, from al-Azhar, from Palestine, from Afghanistan - insist quite strongly, and the 'secular' administration agrees with them, that this is, indeed, in truth, islam. So whom are we to believe? Whom has the greater scriptural support, in these texts that you see can be interpreted so many ways? Whom carries the greater weight? You, or them?

Sam, I commend your position, but I reiterate that without wholesale conversion of the opinion of the ummah, your views are not going to be promulgated, and there is going to be no change.

The Science of Hadith:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/scienceofhadith/atit.html

Firstly, I object to the phrase "Science of Hadith". It is not a science. It is an open-ended interpretation of religious texts. There is no hypothesis to be tested, no empirical answer to be derived. It is not a science; neither is there science in the Quran.

I also note that nowhere within does it say: "Of course, all hadiths and all Quranic quotes are rescinded where they conflict with basic, humanitarian good will."

Geoff

??? And so sharia, then, is derived from...what? The best guess, most precise inferences of the finest feelers of bumps on the anus? (In fact, that would be my guess, but it is not so.)

You might well not consider the hadiths a source for law, but - again - your coreligionists do. And it is nothing like PubMed, because PubMed (although for reasons diligent as they are obscure, I prefer ISI WoS) is a database of separate, intinsically (if not necessary philosophically) original articles on separate issues. Islam is not. All these supposed sayings and reportings and mental memos are reported (by whatever chain of isnad) to originate with the same individual: Mohammed. No one person - not even Gould, which is not to say the thought never occurred to him - could claim the same for any collubrium of papers in PubMed or CAB or ISI or CC or anywhere else. That means that in the absence of other information - and who would abrogate the word of God? :D - the sole or few or collection or bounty of hadiths might well be taken as articles of - dare we say it - faith by the observant muslim. And, moreover, if the same injunction - "kill the apostate", for instance - is recorded by the most canonical of sources (al-Buhkari) or by multiple ones (al-Da'ud, al-Muslim, and so on) then where, pray tell, is the argumentative leg on which you need stand? They might not be accurate, and PubMed might not well be accurate, but if a multitude of articles imply the quantitative nature of evolution, I would opine that their mutual support at least suggests convergence of mechanism.

So, if you would not construct islamic law from the hadiths, then kudos to you. But what is your religious justification for doing so? For the interpretation of islam, as you know, is a litigious business, and I wonder at the extent of the dent even the purest rationalism could conceivably make on it.

Who indeed? And yet this, too, is the rub: we, as mere, humble kufr/dhimmis, are told we are not permitted to discern the will of God in black and white. It is beyond us. It is not allowed. And the laity of islam - you imply - also are not so equipped, or rather that they might cite the wrong sources, use the wrong papers. And yet, the imams, and scholars of islam - which we see eminating, in their odiousness, from al-Azhar, from Palestine, from Afghanistan - insist quite strongly, and the 'secular' administration agrees with them, that this is, indeed, in truth, islam. So whom are we to believe? Whom has the greater scriptural support, in these texts that you see can be interpreted so many ways? Whom carries the greater weight? You, or them?

Sam, I commend your position, but I reiterate that without wholesale conversion of the opinion of the ummah, your views are not going to be promulgated, and there is going to be no change.


This is mixing together a whole lot of issues here.

Shariah is a separate body of knowledge which is derived from fiqh, written down by Islamic jurists down the centuries.

The law system inspired by the Koran, the Sunna, older Arabic law systems, parallel traditions, and work of Muslim scholars over the two first centuries of Islam.
Sharia is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Koran. A correct designation is "Muslim Law" (i.e. the law system of the Muslims), or "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived," or even "the law system of Muslims."
This is well known to most Muslims, yet Sharia is always referred to as "based upon the Koran", hence it is the "will of God."
One sees traces of many non-Muslim juridical systems in the Sharia, such as Old Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, agrarian law from Madina, law from the conquered countries, Roman law and Jewish law.
Also, calling the Sharia 'law' can be misleading, as Sharia extends beyond law. Sharia is the totality of religious, political, social, domestic and private life.

The Quran, Hadith and Sharia are all different bodies of knowledge. The Hadith defines the knowledge of Sunnah but there are differences in agreement about levels of authenticity and isnad.

The Sharia derives from the Fiqh and is the written documentation of different interpretations of legal jurisprudence followed by various Muslim jurists, much of which are NOT based on the Quran.

Firstly, I object to the phrase "Science of Hadith". It is not a science. It is an open-ended interpretation of religious texts. There is no hypothesis to be tested, no empirical answer to be derived. It is not a science; neither is there science in the Quran.

I also note that nowhere within does it say: "Of course, all hadiths and all Quranic quotes are rescinded where they conflict with basic, humanitarian good will."

Geoff

The science of Hadith does not make the Hadith a science. :D

The science of Hadith describes how isnads are used to keep track of who said what, i.e. the process of using citations. One must be careful even then, since earlier Hadiths had poorer isnads as the Muslim scholars were still in the process of developing the system of citation then and latter Hadiths have impeccable isnads but that does not guarantee their accuracy or validity. :)