Imam Says He Didn't Pressure Hasan

[Nihil Obstat]

To be fair to Hassan, considering he's an atheist/agnostic, there's going to be quite a bit theology that he disagrees with.

[HisChildForever]

Perhaps we should ask Hassan what he thinks about Sharia.

[HisChildForever]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1258576722' post='2005004']
What do you count as Islamic theology?[/quote]
To make it simpler for you, and since my own studies for my BA focused upon the schools of Jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, you can focus on one of those groups. Perhaps the Hanbalites. I have a copy of one of the creeds of that school and could post it if that would help you.

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1258576722' post='2005004']
And what do you mean by "Islamic"?[/quote]
That which is founded upon the sources of revelation in Islam, e.g., the Quran, the collections of Hadith, and - although not inspired - the writings of some of the great theologians of Islam. Why not focus upon the writings of Al-Ashari, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, or even the jurist / sufi Al-Ghazali, to narrow it down for you.

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1258576722' post='2005004']
Sufism has a stronger tradition of speculative/mystical theology than say orthodox Sunni thought. So my complaints of Sufism have a different center of gravity than my disputes with Sunni thought.[/quote]
Sufism is practiced by a small number of Muslims, so I think that you should keep it to the main schools of thought. The Hanbali school for example.

You could even look at the texts that Hasan brought up in his power point presentation.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 November 2009 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1258577293' post='2005012']
To be fair to Hassan, considering he's an atheist/agnostic, there's going to be quite a bit theology that he disagrees with.
[/quote]
I am asking Hassan to do something very specific: I want him to critically analyze the sources of Islamic revelation in connection with the endorsement of jihad against non-believers.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='18 November 2009 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1258578062' post='2005022']
I am asking Hassan to do something very specific: I want him to critically analyze the sources of Islamic revelation in connection with the endorsement of jihad against non-believers.
[/quote]
That was directed more towards HCF.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 November 2009 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1258583176' post='2005079']
That was directed more towards HCF.
[/quote]
My apologies.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='18 November 2009 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1258577892' post='2005019']
To make it simpler for you, and since my own studies for my BA focused upon the schools of Jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, you can focus on one of those groups. Perhaps the Hanbalites. I have a copy of one of the creeds of that school and could post it if that would help you.[/QUOTE]


I have not read the Hanbalites tradition of fiqh much, mainly the Malaki and some Shia traditions. Within the domain of fiqh I'd say I disagree with all of it. The very conceptual basis of basing the common law foundation which governs diverse peoples on a private, non universally accessible source is, to me, repugnant and irrational. Therefore even the positive elements found in the fiqh will be, in my opinion, worthy of rejection due to the illicit means by which they were implemented.

Beyond this I don't see the practical need to get into specifics as I think it's fairly obvious which aspects of the law I would find repugnant in not simply the means by which they were arrived at but their content as well. The institutionalized patriarchal social structure being a major one. By which I refer to the institution of concubinage, the permissibility of any for of slavery, the structured inequality of different social blocks, the status of religious minorities et cetera.


[QUOTE]That which is founded upon the sources of revelation in Islam, e.g., the Quran, the collections of Hadith, and - although not inspired - the writings of some of the great theologians of Islam. Why not focus upon the writings of Al-Ashari, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, or even the jurist / sufi Al-Ghazali, to narrow it down for you.[/QUOTE]

I am a big fan of Al-Ghazali outside of the content of many of his strictly legal deductions (for example his recommended treatment of Ismalies).


[QUOTE]Sufism is practiced by a small number of Muslims, so I think that you should keep it to the main schools of thought. The Hanbali school for example.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's legitimate as, particularly after Ghazali, Sufism had a major impact on Sunni Islam even if most Sunni Muslims never identified themselves as Sufis.

My major problem with them would be the excessive gnosticism and irrationalism which crept into their thought which obscured even the more praiseworthy aspects of their philosophical tradition. In the Shia vein, Seyyed Hossein Nasser is a modern example of this.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='18 November 2009 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1258577564' post='2005015']
Perhaps we should ask Hassan what he thinks about Sharia.
[/quote]


The sad thing is that you know so little about the content of your ire that you don't even understand why that's a bad question.

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='18 November 2009 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1258577130' post='2005009']
How about you prove me wrong?
[/quote]


I've given up trying to prove anything to you. I just really don't have the patience.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Hassan

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1258595106' post='2005236']
I have not read the Hanbalites tradition of fiqh much, mainly the Malaki and some Shia traditions. Within the domain of fiqh I'd say I disagree with all of it. The very conceptual basis of basing the common law foundation which governs diverse peoples on a private, non universally accessible source is, to me, repugnant and irrational. Therefore even the positive elements found in the fiqh will be, in my opinion, worthy of rejection due to the illicit means by which they were implemented.

Beyond this I don't see the practical need to get into specifics as I think it's fairly obvious which aspects of the law I would find repugnant in not simply the means by which they were arrived at but their content as well. The institutionalized patriarchal social structure being a major one. By which I refer to the institution of concubinage, the permissibility of any for of slavery, the structured inequality of different social blocks, the status of religious minorities et cetera.[/quote]
I must say that this is a good start, although the lack of specificity in your criticism is disappointing, especially since your defense of Islam usually involves very specific events and or actions from the historical past and the present time.

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1258595106' post='2005236']
I am a big fan of Al-Ghazali outside of the content of many of his strictly legal deductions (for example his recommended treatment of Ismalies). [/quote]
Well, he was able to bring Sufism into line with the juridical aspects of Sunni Islam, which is no small feat.

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1258595106' post='2005236']
I don't think that's legitimate as, particularly after Ghazali, Sufism had a major impact on Sunni Islam even if most Sunni Muslims never identified themselves as Sufis.[/quote]
That is true, but one must remember that Sufism itself did not reject dhimmi status for non-Muslims within the Umma, nor did it reject the concept of the lesser jihad, i.e., killing non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Allah.

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1258595106' post='2005236']
My major problem with them would be the excessive gnosticism and irrationalism which crept into their thought which obscured even the more praiseworthy aspects of their philosophical tradition. In the Shia vein, Seyyed Hossein Nasser is a modern example of this.[/quote]
This is good, but still rather vague. Perhaps you could write a post reflecting upon Hasan's powerpoint presentation, which includes quotations from several recognized Islamic sources, and state in clear terms that - although you recognize the fact that the ideas expressed are acceptable in Islam - you personally find the Islamic position on the lesser jihad to be inhuman.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Apotheoun

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1258595195' post='2005239']
The sad thing is that you know so little about the content of your ire that you don't even understand why that's a bad question.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should elaborate.

[quote name='Hassan' date='18 November 2009 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1258595360' post='2005243']
I've given up trying to prove anything to you. I just really don't have the patience.
[/quote]

How is the weather up on that pedestal?

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='18 November 2009 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1258602188' post='2005396']
Perhaps you should elaborate.[/QUOTE]

No, I have explained this to you multiple times in the past. I'm done. Either you are just playing games or you just really can't follow along when it comes to this topic. You are welcome to teach yourself though. For this subject start with Muhammad Iqbal and his discussion of Sharia' and it's relation to fiqh. Or you could look for articles by Ziauddin Sardar. I read hard books by him but you could probably find things online.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Hassan

[Hassan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='18 November 2009 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1258595846' post='2005250']
I must say that this is a good start, although the lack of specificity in your criticism is disappointing, especially since your defense of Islam usually involves very specific events and or actions from the historical past and the present time.[/QUOTE]

If you could explain this further I will try to be more specific.


[QUOTE]Well, he was able to bring Sufism into line with the juridical aspects of Sunni Islam, which is no small feat.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I also like his method of thinking though. Not so much the content as how he set about answering problems.


[QUOTE]That is true, but one must remember that Sufism itself did not reject dhimmi status for non-Muslims within the Umma, nor did it reject the concept of the lesser jihad, i.e., killing non-Muslims in order to advance the cause of Allah.[/QUOTE]

I would only say that those criticisms were regarding criticisms of the novel features that Sufism brought to the table as they say.


[QUOTE]This is good, but still rather vague. Perhaps you could write a post reflecting upon Hasan's powerpoint presentation, which includes quotations from several recognized Islamic sources, and state in clear terms that - although you recognize the fact that the ideas expressed are acceptable in Islam - you personally find the Islamic position on the lesser jihad to be inhuman.
[/quote]

I will look at his presentation and write something on it if you wish.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' date='19 November 2009 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1258606918' post='2005464']
No, I have explained this to you multiple times in the past. I'm done. Either you are just playing games or you just really can't follow along when it comes to this topic. You are welcome to teach yourself though. For this subject start with Muhammad Iqbal and his discussion of Sharia' and it's relation to fiqh. Or you could look for articles by Ziauddin Sardar. I read hard books by him but you could probably find things online.
[/quote]

Okay cool, let me start us off then.

[b]9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:

'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to 'Further discussion'). [/b]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html