@soul_starter said:
Find my response in the text above.
Right, so your response is just a bunch of mush that ive mostly already addressed and don't care to again. But i think it can really all be summarized with this short quote:
This is another problem of your ignorance of how Islam works and what Muslims follow. ISIS can quite whatever they like, that does not make it Islamically binding. Islamic interpretation is only valid through the method I quoted above.
This is your entire premise, you try to weasel out of being honest about history and reality. The things we hear from ISIS today, are nearly exact to what we heard from the Ottoman Empire 3, 4, 5, 600 etc years ago. In fact the response Thomas Jefferson got from Ottoman could be copied and pasted in an act of Islamic terrorism today and you'd never know the difference.
To ignore something like this and say you decide that there's only one method of interpretation for Islam is to be entirely ignorant of the reality of religion and history or a blatant liar. You do not get to decide that one variation of a religion is correct over another, you do not get to decide that one group of people are less faithful than another group, you do not get to decide that one ancient religious text is more valid than another ancient religious text.
You have jumped from claiming one thing to another. We can talk about the Ottomans if you want in a separate thread, let's stay on track. I explained to you the scholarly (I hope you understand what that means) interpretation and meanings of the verses. I then also explained the method of how these interpretations/meanings are taken, and I will repeat them for your benefit.
1. The revelation from the Quran.
2. Through the actions, sayings and practices of Prophet Muhammad PBUH based on the Quran. This is known as the sunnah collected in the sahih hadeeth.
3. Finally through Islamic jurisprudence (an English word meaning the philosophy and teachings of law). There are four main schools of thought, govern the entirety of the muslim world. Hanafi, Malaki, Hambli and Shaafi. The Hanafi group is the largest and most highly regarded. It is like talking about theories of law and philosophy in western society, where the teachings of X, Y, Z are the most accepted by academia, by society and by politicians.
To go beyond that is to go beyond Islam and that is known as innovation or "bidah". No mainstream school of thought, scholar, student or day to day Muslim would take the words of some random "caliph" labelling himself the leader of ISIS or any other group over the writings, teachings and message of the Quran, the Prophet or any of the four schools of thought.
But why is that? Why can some random person not just wake up one day and decide they have a new theory? Because like in any other social, economic, political etc theory, it must be grounded within realms of reality, previous teachings and if it is within a particularly ideology than the stipulations put forward by that ideology.
A very simple example to discredit your claim that ISIS is representative of Islam. Suicide is forbidden in Islam. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Yet one of the weapons ISIS have used are suicide bombers. That is not part of Islamic teaching, by promoting that, they have fallen out of the fold of Islam. It really is simple. Again, another analogy to explain it: I am a medical doctor by profession, having graduated this year. I can not however, claim to be a medical doctor without studying 5 years and completing 2 years as a FY1/2. Those are the criteria put forward by the powers that be, the government, the GMC and the various universities involved. Do you understand?
Log in to comment