Providing clarification for Islamic theology

Originally posted by ILikeStars
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Can a "u" make the same sound as "oo"?
Can a "c" make the same sound as a "k"?
Do we hear an audible sound from the "a" in the word "fear"?

LOOK I FEAR could be spelled LUC I FER

Just to be a little nitpicky, since you like word play.....

Phonetically, FER would be pronounced FUR not FEAR. While the a is indeed "silent," it changes the e to its "long" sound.

Similarly, LUC would be pronounced LUCK not LOOK. Whenever the word pattern is consonant, vowel, consonant (CVC is the lingo) the vowel takes its "short" sound. In other words, u as in umbrella.

Of course, this has absolutely no bearing on anything the OP mentioned, so sorry for the derailment OP.

Happy Friday to all.....

reply to post by smyleegrl


Happy Friday! Back to topic..

u guys diatribe is fruitless. religious maturity trumps negating scriptures just because u dont respect a believers laws. use your own logic and tell me how eloquent emotions stated about personal views of others laws means anything. at least the op stated his position, of which i disagree.

Hey again Petrus!

First, some boring scriptural stuff!
Personally, as far as I understand it, there is no abrogation in the Quran. It is as it is, in totality. And the Quran itself agrees with this. In fact, the only mention of "abrogation" in the Quran is where it says "None of our revealations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better, or similar".

Easy examples of this are found in the Quran. The popular example is that of alcohol. Originally, there was no prohibition on (or even mention of) it, then a verse came that prohibited praying while intoxicated. Finally, a second verse came that completely prohibited consumption of alcohol. If you notice, the second verse in no way negates or cancels or renders incorrect the first verse- the second is not mutually exclusive of the first. It just provides something "better".

So those who suggest that one verse in the Quran can be taken out of context to completely nullify and negate other verses are....well, not being scriptural. Of course, there WAS a tradition of doing this, but it'll be interesting to note that it wasn't an Islamically mandated tradition...it arose centuries after the death of Muhammad, and at one point rose to the level that there were hundreds of "abrogated" verses. Thankfully, this obsession has fallen from popularity again in the recent centuries, with many scholars denying the practice altogether, to some who list only 7 such verses that have been abrogated.

The second thing I wanted to speak of was the idea that verse 9:5 of the Quran is some sort of universal, all encompassing instruction to muslims for all time. Reading the verse as part of the chapter it is in clears up that this is not the case. It is speaking of a treaty that the Muslims had made with the Meccans, which was then subsequently broken by the Meccans. This passage was then revealed, giving them freedom from the obligations of the treaty (since it had already been broken), and allowing them to fight and defend against the Meccans, except, and here is the important part, those who had not broken the treaty (and also except those who ask for asylum from the fighting).

Okay, now done with the boring scriptury part!

I feel it slightly unfair even to target Salafis as a whole. While I don't really agree with many of their tenets and such (and I agree with some of them as compared to other islamic groups), I'd see them more (to use Christian parallels) like the Amish rather than for example, Westboro Baptist.

The basis of Salafi idealogy is that "perfect society" fell away two generations after Muhammad died, so they try to emulate those 2 generations as an eternal and perfect model for all time. Unlike the Amish, they aren't theologically opposed to technology, although many would probably consider the internet and television to be generally "haram" (forbidden).
The point I am making is that while I do not really agree with Salafi idealogy, I do not believe either that it is intrinsically violent. My objection is more against their obsession with ritual, their abandonment of the ideas of critical thinking and investigation which the religion originally preached.

Petrus, with the recent themes of your threads around here, it seems you are trying to grapple with the idea or question as to why Islam, or perhaps why muslims are shown to behave the way they do with respect to violence and such.

I realise you always preface your questions with "I realise it is just a minority" and "All are not like this" and so on, so you certainly don't suspect all muslims, but you probably do suspect Islam to a certain degree.
If you ask me, the actual details of the religion are completely removed from these actions.

I remember a couple years ago they interviewed this man who had been caught before he was able to commit a suicide bombing in some (muslim) shopping area. They asked him about the innocents he would've killed, and he responded that "if they were innocent, they'd go to heaven, so they wouldn't mind". This showed the shocking amount of ignorance so many of these people have for the religion they profess to practice, where it is written that any person who destroys even one innocent life, it would be as if they had destroyed all of humanity.

Most of these people have probably never even taken the time to investigate their own religion. They simply accept what their preacher tells them. Unfortunately, occasionally their preacher is not a very good guy, and takes advantage not only of their ignorance, but also of their lingering resentment and general feeling of isolation.

This is why I am always worried when the public (even a segment here on ATS) encourage this isolationism and resentment with fearmongering and bigotry, rather than trying to destroy it and bridge the gaps.

"Hey, you're human. I'm human too!" is better than "You're a muslim? EVIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLL!"