Question for Muslims: Judicial school Fiqh

Post Reply New Topic

This is a poll intended for Muslims.

Obviously if you are not Muslim you can select "I am not a Muslim" as you won't be able to see there results otherwise.

Regardless of your personal views, which school of jurisprudence (Fiqh) is most closely related to you branch/sect of Islam?

I am going to say Quranism, because I am for the most part a person of the book.

But, I also relate myself to Ibadi and Sunni.

thanks.

I tried to put the Sunni schools, but I may have missed some. I know there are some historic ones that are not longer used.

Can you answer the following in order:
viewtopic.php?t=268210
viewtopic.php?t=268213
viewtopic.php?t=268231

I do not believe that apostasy is punishable by death, it's against Islam and there should be no compulsion in acceptance of religion as Islam itself states in 2:256 of Quran.

I worship home, but when I go to my local mosque I see no Imam preaching against apostates or on that they should be killed. They preach the opposite.

My position on apostasy is indifferent. I don't consider them for bad people, I don't wish them harm, but I do not believe that they were Muslims in the first place, you cannot reject faith after accepting it, they were then only pretending to believe for the whole time, and not pious, or they committed the mistake that God warned Muslims about in 4:89 of Quran, do not be convinced by the unbeliever's bias and ignorant propagandistic false beliefs.

These people became convinced and thus they didn't follow Quran and weren't practitioners in the first place.

What age on average do people say Shahada?

What age would do you advocate? I realize that same question also applies to Abrahamic faith as a whole. For example the Anabaptist like Amish and Mennonite do the joining of the faith in teen years, counter to the normal practice in Christianity. Some even advocate brief period outside of the Anabaptist community, to prepare for the decision.

What I'm really getting at do you see any inconsistencies between yourself and the status quo of Islam? You realize that you position of apostasy even among Muslims, is debatable?

You sound like a Qur'an only Muslim which isn't the majority. Most follow the Hadiths. Is your Iman a Qur'anist. or does he follow the Hadiths? Would you prefer to go to Qur'anist mosque where Hadiths are rejected? If not why not?

There are two types of moderates those that are reformers, and that insist that everything matches their expectations.

Christianity went through a Reformation, this had an impact even on the Conservatives. Judaism also had a reformation in the 19th century. The Ahmadiyya could be deemed an a kind of reform movement within Islam. What do you think of them?

What do you think of the idea of "Reversionist Islam" or "Protestant Islam"?

The reason for many Protestant moments, is that they felt that thing had go to a point they the needed to create a separate identity becuase it needed to be clear what they stood for. This includes separate churches.

I think you should stand up for you conviction what you believe in. I have a problem with your statement "I do not believe that they were Muslims in the first place, you cannot reject faith after accepting it, they were then only pretending to believe for the whole time, and not pious, or they committed the mistake that God warned Muslims about in 4:89 of Qur'an, do not be convinced by the unbeliever's bias and ignorant propagandistic false beliefs"

I personally never believed in god, but there are plenty people who rejected a faith or god, who were true believers. The premise that unbelievers are biased/propagandist and faithful somehow aren't, is disingenuous. You might argue that these faithful are really unbelievers too, but this argument is circular and cannot be falsified, which make it probematic. The reality is if you have a position, you have a bias, especially when it comes to righteousness. Are you without bias?

Anyway I was asking you a hypothetical. I asked if someone was a believer, not if they were never a believer.

What do you think of Turan Dursun or Ibn al-Rawandi?

If someone in your Mosque, who although didn't directly support current extremist group had views that you found totally abhorrent, what would you do? Not the haven't broken the law? What is these people are making up most of the parishioners?

Would you worship in a Salafist or Wahhabist mosque? Some aren't linked to militants, but I still think both of these types of Conservatives beliefs (militant or not) are abhorrent in my view. What do you think of Mohammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab the man?

What is your view of the Immutability of the Word. Is there a differnce between Immutability of word and having a clear indisputable interpretation? Do you think the Immutability is talking about the sentences and words only or what should be a singular obvious meaning? How does that affect translation? Is it possible to faithfully translate? Is it to do with intention of heart? Or is that not enough?

Do you think that even the 'experts' don't always get the interpretations right?

Do you think that being a religious scholar, only studying this text can prepare the person enough, make them sufficiently educated to understand the texts? For instance in those religious cities with mostly religious clerics in cloister, where there is intense religious study and nothing else?

Does the Qur'an or Bible help you understand the world and universe, or does the world and universe and scientific inquiry of that, help you understand the Qur'an or Bible? I am aware of the knowledge requirement with Islam, but I wondering how much of the knowledge outside of the Qur'an or Bible can be used to interpret the Qur'an or Bible and understand it?

There is no specific age, the Shahada is the way to convert to Islam. Age varies. I wouldn't be able to even give you an average number. When a person has become knowledgeable about the religion and sincerer to convert. I would say an age of maturity. No, I do not. Even if apostasy is debatable between Muslims. That do not equate to Islam, it's clear that Islam say that apostates or any other kind of unbelievers should not be harmed and that it never says that they should be executed for their sin, some cherry-picked verses from Muslims do not change the contextualized message that still stands loud and clear. I go to a Mosque with an Imam that accept Hadiths, I accept some, too. Hadiths are historical accounts and you cannot dismiss them blindly nor accept them blindly, you need to observe them and go after the root of where that Hadith originates and if it is authentic, I accept it, if not, I of course reject it then. I think of them as heretics, because they believe there came a prophet after Prophet Muhammad, which was the last prophet of Islam. They contradict the very basics of Islam and therefore, I cannot accept them as Muslims. Their teachings are also very flawed, such as calling Buddha and Krishna as prophets of God, even though Krishna is meant to be a god and that Buddha never believed in creator deities, but believed in multiple irrelevant deities. No, it destroys the monolith that Islam tries to be. I think of the idea of an Islamic (Quranic) Islam. I do not think that can ever be the case, a person can reject something, but later accept it.

But a person cannot accept something and then reject it, he can deny it, but not reject it, that is only to happen if what he believed was conflicting with science and has been proven wrong by science, which especially cannot be done when it's something like a god, which is unfalsifiable, the only way to reject is if you weren't a true believer in the first place.

But if the person was a true believer, that would mean the person was deluded by militant atheists to think that it's a fact that god does not exist and what he or she believes is a mistake that was corrected by the atheists, that would mean that the person rejected faith by turning into the propaganda (neutral-sense of the word) of the unbelievers. Being biased/propagandist is essential to every person, therefore God says do not turn to them. Apathetic. Yes, they would have broken the law and I wouldn't agree with them, but I can't do more than that. It's like saying to a homophobe to embrace homosexuality, he wouldn't do it no matter how much evidence you give him. Though, if the person is going to act on his bigotry, I'm going to call the police or therapy. I wouldn't worship in that mosque and not talk to any of those people and I wouldn't listen to the Imam's prayer, they are usually repulsive and the houses aren't clean unless they are moderate Salafists. I think about the man to be a disgrace for whole Islam. Yes, I do. Yes, it depends. If the person is Arabic-speaking and really tries to understand the verses, it might be that he is educated, but some scholars aren't that good at it. I believe both. I answer later.

Is one of the unwritten Pillars of Islam, "Smite the infidels wherever you find them, and drive them out. Fight them until they are no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme"?

I think he is a disgrace to mankind. It is good that you don't associate with these people. However he is not unique had material which he could use.

What do you mean be unclean. Ritually unclean? Are Hundus unclean, are Christians? What particularly is unclean about their houses? What is the reason for this uncleanness? It uncleanness the main reason why you won't associate with them.



This is nonsense. it is quite possible and probable that someone can believe something than not believe. I class this with anti/new think and denialism. Islam aside you can't challenge the probability of something simply because it suits you, and then insist this how it is all along. I also don't believe in conflating real argument with Semitics. We both know what is meant.

The falsifiability of god is exactly what the is contentious to scientists. However scientists never set out to pick a fight with religion. Caperncous or Galileo never asked for the treatment the received.

What do you think with the Islamic creationists, that deny evolution, especially in humans?
?

Unclean in terms of their deviation to Islam. Their religious double standards and hypocrisies in name of religion disappoint me and therefore they are religiously unclean. This is not the same for Christians or Hindus because they are not affiliated with Islam unlike Salafis and Wahhabis. I have to disagree, (Islam aside) if a person gets raised up learning a moral that is incompatible to society, the person will always stand behind that moral and opinion of his, even if the person refuses to argue this any further to change his personal morals or opinions. Unless a person gets knocked on the head realizing that what he believed is wrong, he wouldn't stop believing.

A younger generation would adapt to the society much easier and forsake their culture, morals and opinion in order to be compatible to the society, this is due to confirmation bias and propaganda from the society he was born in on their views of the other culture. He then forsakes it on what he learned from biased sources. which his parents aren't quite the voice to argue against and the person gets "turned".

Muslim apostates are usually from Western world and because they became "turned", point stands. They are wrong on evolution didn't happen. Nothing more do I have to say about them.

Ok but Islam has rules about ritual purity, Judaism has such rules, and even more requirements still. So are there situational example for non-Muslim where there would ritually impure? For instance an Iranian scholar said that Jews were ritually impure when rained on (wet from rain). I have heard Muslims say that Hindus are unclean/impure.



Again rubbish. people change all the time. How do think extremists are formed? People who fail to take responsibility for themselves, then look for an easy way to get into heaven (as a atonement). Being pious, or religious doesn't mean the person is good/moral.


The usual "western" excuse. Eastern cultures are so moral such as China, Russia, the Middle East...? So what has happened in the 13 centuries since the battle of Karbula, the paranoia, sectarianism, bile an vitriol is a great moral example?

Remember you are talking about states, and cultures, but before it was more convenient to say Islam is beyond states and culture.

This is the kind of thing that also appeals to extremists becuase they tell followers that westerners are corrupting zombies. The idea that westerners are possessed corrupts, is kind of a way a dehumanizing them, which mean they will not have to empathize with them when they kill them.

Yet muslims are living in the west, benefit from these societies when it suits. It come to the point if an individual doesn't like the freedoms we have, then why stay?

There are some Muslim scholar who say the veil (not the head covering) is against Islam, and comes from pre-muslim Persian traditions, especial for the elite of these societies. What you think of that? The head covering in Judaism and Islam, and nuns in Christianity apart from modesty, is actually supposed to be a sing of respect/reverence to God.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 07 Dec 2014, 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Btw the way where did the idea that deceased could share time in heaven and hell come from? I read about his somewhere, asked a Muslim, he said it is not the case, but that it what they tell stupid people. But why tell stupid people that? I guess this is similar to the "Limbo" debate, which now has been rejected by the Catholic church as least the idea of being lost in Limbo.

Is Barzakh the reason for the confusion? That is a Limbo like state.

Barzakh is the state where you will go directly after you die before the Judgment Day on whether you are going to Heaven or Hell.

Barzakh is open to interpretation on whether you go to nothingness, as most atheists believe, or you will go to some peaceful place for the righteous and some horrific place for the wrong-doing, it might be the case for all and it is what you view it as.

Some Muslims believe that people will go to Hell as a way of prison for their committed sins and after a certain time, they will go to Heaven, while others believe when you go to Hell, you stay in Hell. Those who believe in the latter are usually from the denomination "Ibadi".

Oh right so I wasn't sure. There is some truth to it.

Is this like Limbo, which was a speculation by some theologians?

Which camp are you?

If you take the western world overall we are more developed than the East, also historically speaking (despite the media impression), the whole world is become less violent, and conflict involve less fatalities compared to the centuries back to prehistory. However it tend to be the liberal western societies where people are much safer, healthier. Which is not surprising becuase people wish to claim asylum in those countries.

I guess people want to have their cake an eat it to.

Our legal systems tent to have more due process and more guarantees of rights. The justice received in some of these other countries beggars belief. I mean some of them you do possibly have a speedy trial, but it is so becuase there is no standard of evidence, and it is just some judge making a subjective option, with no scrutiny. When justice fails in the West

In Russia like many places in the east there is no separation between the courts and the executive. So you end up with show trials.

In other words this type Conservative isn't all good. If people reject these western principle (which have hundreds of years of refinement) it is reasonable to say that those people are better of living in a place where justice is dealt by sword.

Also the conservative principles in these countries, merely paves over the cracks. The nature of immorality may change but it doesn't stop the immorality.

That is part of Islam. Terrorizing the enemy forces only is a obligation on every Muslim and I am Muslim.