Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There aren't two different Islams; "good" and "evil". There is only one Islam.
There are no evil laden verses in the Qur'an. Evil prone so-called Muslims are not influenced by any imagined evil laden verses but they twist good verses to qualify their evil actions. If not then they are not trying to understand these verses within the context.
I have defined secular 'evil' and given example of evil laden elements. You did not counter my points.
Note the principle of duality.
There can be one thing with two truths, e.g. the duck-rabbit.
Even in Science we can one thing with two truths.
An electron can be either a particle or a wave depending on what perspective on is looking at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E...rticle_duality
Wave–particle duality is the fact that every elementary particle or quantic entity exhibits the properties of not only particles, but also waves. -wiki
Note Asbestos can be very useful but very malignant [cancer causing] to humans.
In reality there are many things that has two truths.
It is similar with Islam [Quran] which inherently has good and evil elements.
I think your reading of the Quran 6-7 times is not sufficient to give you an understanding of all [or both] the truths of the Quran.
In addition, being emotionally bias you are not likely to view the 'evil' elements in the Quran.
Do you agree dehumanizing a group of people is evil?
If not can you demonstrate why it is good instead.
In the case of the Quran and Allah, the Jews and infidels are dehumanized as apes, worst of all creatures, cattle, asses, etc.
7:166. So when they [Jews infidels] took pride in that which they [infidels] had been forbidden, We said unto them [infidel Jews]: Be ye apes despised and loathed!
The above is merely one example of MANY hundreds of verses where Allah in the Quran dehumanize non-believers.
You can define evil in whatever way you like, one thing is certain, you are unable to understand the Qur'an the same way as so-called evil prone Muslims are unable to understand some verses of the Qur'an. Both are, in Qur'anic terms, deaf, dumb and blind who will not understand (2:171).
My definition of 'evil' is philosophical, truthful, rational and objective which all intellectually inclined and wise person would accept.
Quote:
As for "casting terror upon non-Muslims", the Qur'an does not command Muslims to cast terror upon non-Muslims. It is God who is casting terror upon the kuffaar just as He had done after the Exodus (Exodus 23:27, Deuteronomy 2:25, 11:25). Even Muslims haven't claimed that they are casting terror upon the non-Muslims. It is only the non-Muslims who are talking about them being terrified by the "Islamic terrorists". So called "Islamic terrorists" do not call themself "terrorists". This is a clear indication that their goal is not "casting terror" upon non-Muslims.
If it had been a command in the Qur'an for us to cast terror upon the non-Muslims then I would be doing it too.
You are not casting terror upon the non-Muslims because you [like 80% of Muslims] are a good human being.
Good and moral human beings do not commit evils as in casting terror on others.
Evil prone Muslims [from the pool of 20% or 300 million] will obey Allah to the 't' and act out what is stated in the Quran, e.g. casting terror on non-Muslims.
My definition of 'evil' is philosophical, truthful, rational and objective which all intellectually inclined and wise person would accept.
You are not casting terror upon the non-Muslims because you [like 80% of Muslims] are a good human being.
Good and moral human beings do not commit evils as in casting terror on others.
Evil prone Muslims [from the pool of 20% or 300 million] will obey Allah to the 't' and act out what is stated in the Quran, e.g. casting terror on non-Muslims.
It should be noted that it is only the Shafi'i Madhab that considers that book to be a source of Sharia law. The other 3 Madhabs which make up the majority of Sunni do not view it as a valid source of Sharia. The non-Islamic sites will lead one to believe that all Sunni view it as a source of Sharia. It is important to be aware that it is only the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence that consider "Reliance of the Traveler" to be a source of Sharia and they are only a small percentage of Sunni.
Quote:
The Shafi`i school is followed throughout the Ummah, but is most prevalent in Kurdistan, Egypt, Yemen, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Syria and is the school of thought officially followed by the government of Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia. It is followed by approximately 15% of Muslims world-wide.
The Shafi`i tradition is particularly accessible to English speaking Muslims due to the availability of a high quality translation of the Reliance of the Traveller.
The Shafi`i school of jurisprudence is based on Qur'an (Koran), the Sunnah of the Prophet, Ijma' (the consensus of the scholars), the opinions of the Prophet's companions (mostly Al-Khulafa Ar-Rashidun, the first four caliphs accepted by Sunni Muslims) and Qiyas (though he is known to have significantly limited the scope for using qiyas in deriving Islamic law). His most famous books are Ar-Risalah and Al-Umm. They emphasized the use of proper instibat (derivation of laws) through the rigorous use of legal principles, as opposed to speculation and guess-work. He is largely responsible for systematizing the methods used for deriving Islamic laws.
The other Three schools of Sunni Jurisprudence do not consider the "Relience of the Traveler to be a source of laws. Neither do those that do not adhere to a Madhab nor those who are not Sunni.
for what The Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi Madhabs of Sunni view as sources of Law One would need to check each Madhab individually.
Overall what it means is that at least 85% of Muslims do not consider the "Reliance of the Traveler" to be a source of Islamic law. The non-Muslim sites would lead a person to believe it is required reading for all Muslims and it is the primary source of Sunni Islamic Law. as a Sunni who is on the Hanafi path I consider it to be book usable only as kindling to start a camp fire. Especially the English translations that are on the market. They border on heresy and do not represent Islam
It should be noted that it is only the Shafi'i Madhab that considers that book to be a source of Sharia law. The other 3 Madhabs which make up the majority of Sunni do not view it as a valid source of Sharia. The non-Islamic sites will lead one to believe that all Sunni view it as a source of Sharia. It is important to be aware that it is only the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence that consider "Reliance of the Traveler" to be a source of Sharia and they are only a small percentage of Sunni.
The other Three schools of Sunni Jurisprudence do not consider the "Relience of the Traveler to be a source of laws. Neither do those that do not adhere to a Madhab nor those who are not Sunni.
for what The Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi Madhabs of Sunni view as sources of Law One would need to check each Madhab individually.
Overall what it means is that at least 85% of Muslims do not consider the "Reliance of the Traveler" to be a source of Islamic law. The non-Muslim sites would lead a person to believe it is required reading for all Muslims and it is the primary source of Sunni Islamic Law. as a Sunni who is on the Hanafi path I consider it to be book usable only as kindling to start a camp fire. Especially the English translations that are on the market. They border on heresy and do not represent Islam
I did not imply "Reliance of the Traveler" to be a guide for ALL Muslims. I happen to read about this book of the Shafi'i Madhab and comment accordingly.
If 15% of 1.5 billion, that is still a very significant number, i.e. that is 225 million Muslims. Even 1,000 or 1 evil prone Muslim will create significant evil, violence, terror within humanity.
I have not come across guides from the other Madhabs but I predict they are similar in nature due to the martial ethos and evil laden verses in the Quran which will filter into the guides of all the other Madhabs.
The other Three schools of Sunni Jurisprudence do not consider the "Relience of the Traveler to be a source of laws. Neither do those that do not adhere to a Madhab nor those who are not Sunni.
for what The Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi Madhabs of Sunni view as sources of Law One would need to check each Madhab individually.
Note the principle re Bell Curve where the distribution is generally 80% are "good' while 20% are 'evil'.
When I surveyed your Hanafi Madhab note this is what I found.
[quote] Theory of perennial war
The 11th century Hanafi scholar Sarakhsi adopted Shafi'i doctrine of war which was first to justify, in Islamic theory, that the proper reason to wage war, jihad, on unbelievers, was their disbelief (kufr).[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]30[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE][SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]31[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE] War must be waged, Shafi'i scholars stated, not merely when the unbelievers attacked or actively started a conflict with Muslims, but the unbelievers must be attacked "wherever Muslims may find them", because they are unbelievers. Hanafi scholars, such as Sarakhsi in his Kitab al-Mabsut, accepted this theory and ruled that Muslims must fight the unbelievers as "a duty enjoined permanently until the end of time".[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]30[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE] Similarly, Hanafi texts such as Al-Hidayah based on Al-Quduri's Mukhtasar states,
The rationale for holy war against unbelievers set by early Hanafi scholars continued for many centuries. For example, Ebussuud Efendi of 16th century, provided ideological framework to Ottoman Sultans to raid and attack non-Muslim territories for holy war.[SIZE=2][[/SIZE][SIZE=2]33[/SIZE][SIZE=2]][/SIZE] However, this historical interpretation and justification for jihad and unprovoked war from Quran and Hadiths, has been challenged by some modern Islamic scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi..._perennial_war
[quote]
The point is there will always be natural evil prone Muslims within the Hanafi Sect and they will find ways to get to the above.
The point is who on Earth can judge they are wrong as the elements are traceable to the Quran.
I believe if I survey the other schools, there will be evil elements cropping up within them as I said such evil elements exist inherently in the Quran [in part] and ethos of Islam [in part] which will satiate the impulses of the minority evil prone Muslim.
I have defined secular 'evil' and given example of evil laden elements. You did not counter my points.
This is where you are making mistake; judging religious elements with secular elements. I can judge secular elements with religious elements. The Qur'an forbids drinking alcohol. Alcohol is evil because not only people do evil things under its influence but it damages them too. It has been declared by the medical people only recently that no amount of alcohol is safe amount to drink.
You are not casting terror upon the non-Muslims because you [like 80% of Muslims] are a good human being.
Good and moral human beings do not commit evils as in casting terror on others.
You are forgetting here that regardless of whether I am good human or not, as a Muslim, my action must comply with the commands in the Qur'an. There is no command in the Qur'an for me to "cast terror upon non-Muslims". Therefore, I do not cast teror upon the non-Muslims. As you are discussing Islam here, what's stopping you from understanding this Islamic point?
The point is there will always be natural evil prone Muslims within the Hanafi Sect and they will find ways to get to the above.
The point is who on Earth can judge they are wrong as the elements are traceable to the Quran.
This is where you are making mistake; judging religious elements with secular elements. I can judge secular elements with religious elements. The Qur'an forbids drinking alcohol. Alcohol is evil because not only people do evil things under its influence but it damages them too. It has been declared by the medical people only recently that no amount of alcohol is safe amount to drink.
Because your religion is based on faith [belief without reason nor proofs] it is irrational to judge secular elements with religious elements. This would be like asking a kindergarten kid to judge Einstein on the matter of Physics.
The fact is alcohol has a potential for evil and also good.
But only 20% of those vulnerable to evil will commit evil upon drinking certain exceeding amount of alcohol.
No Scientist nor medical will confirm 'no amount of alcohol is safe to drink'. Where did you get this claim? Else you are lying.
Many of the fermented food stuffs which are claimed to be good for health contain some alcohol.
Scientists has researched and confirmed a certain minimal amount of wine is good for health. Red Wine Burns Fat And Lowers Blood Pressure, Plus 5 Other Health Benefits For Winos
Even the Quran recognized alcohol has a certain degree of good but recommend it is better to avoid it.
Wow, I can't wait to hear what brilliant insights the religious experts on City Data will come up with this time, said nobody ever!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
