Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World
- By Fervent
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 358 Replies
Only with modernist revisionism. As you seem to recognize down below.Anyone who has made a serious effort to study Islam knows that abrogation is a very complex and controversial subject. Very few verses found in the Qur'an have been agreed on as being abrogated among scholars, and of those that have, none override the verses that teach tolerance, coexistence, and peace. A far more important concept in understanding Islamic jurisprudence is puting things in historical and cultural context when reading any Islamic texts
Are Muslims or are Muslims not supposed to imitate Muhammad as the ideal moral example for all humanity? how then can you claim that we have to understand him in his historical situation? And is the Qu'ran the timeless revelation of Allah or is it a contextual document intended only for those who were in the unique situation of 7th century Arabia?.
The Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an and the classic scholars lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations. You can't read the Qur'an, hadiths, or the tasfirs from a modern perspective, you have to read them through a historical lens, if not, you will continue to misinterpret what they are saying.
A claim that only arose in the 20th century among modernists, while all historic interpreters were agreed that they very much do.The violent verses found in the Qur'an don't abrogate the verses of peace because of the context they were written in. There are certain situations where the verses of peace apply, and others where the verses of violence apply, therefore, each verse has a specific context and application. In other words, each verse in the Qur'an is to be applied to its appropriate situation. For example, when Qur'an 9:5 says "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush," it is dealing with a specific event at a point in history when Meccan pagans were breaking their peace treaties and declaring war on the Muslims, so that verse would not negate the peaceful verses in the Qur'an since it is very specific to it's intent and the point in history it was to be applied
A claim that is more modern attempts at whitewashing it into something it isn't..
Neither the Qur'an nor the hadith can be properly interpreted without putting them into the historical and cultural context they were written in.
Another white-washing and nothing more.According to Islamic teachings, Muslims are to emulate Muhammad's character traits like honesty, compassion, and humility and his ethical principles. Muslims understand the historical context in which the Qur'an was written. They see his actions as a warrior to have been appropriate for situations Muslims faced in the 7th century and not as mandates for Muslims to follow in 2025.
With humiliation? The issue isn't "taxes' it's that jizya is designed to humiliate the people paying it and make their second class status clear.You do realise that Muslims also had to pay taxes (zakāt)? And the tax was for the betterment of society as a whole. Would it be fair for non-Muslims to live in an Islamic state and receive all of the benefits and protections offered by that state without any contribution to the costs involved?
there was no "openly hostile" requirement. It is either under islamic control or is "at war" for not being subjugated. You can't whitewash it when there was no 3rd option.In very simple terms, Dar al Islam (House of Islam) historically was a Muslim land with a Muslim government where Islamic law governed. Dar al Harb (House of War) was a land not under an Islamic government or Islamic law, which was openly hostile towards Muslims. Since there are no countries or states that fit these definitions today, the terms are no longer used by Muslims for the most part.
I prefer Islamic fundamentalists to calling them "extremists" because they are simply practicing the religion in its purest form. Speaking the truth about Islamic jurisprudence and history isn't "anti-Islamic propaganda" it's not giving in to Islamic pressure and accusations for the sake of political correctness.The only people who talk about jizyah, abrogation, the division of the world into dar-al-Islam and dar-al-harb, and cite Qur'an 9:29 as an open-ended command to Muslims to fight until the end of time today are Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. So when someone like yourself presents Islam the way you have in this thread and others, it's clear to me, as someone who has a strong background in Islam, that your understanding of this religion comes from those sources and not the actual teachings and understanding of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims adhere to.
Upvote
0
