My view of a fundamentalist Muslim

[muhammad_isa]

You are not aware.

I am not a salafi scholar.
In my locality, near Birmingham UK, most Asian Muslims are of the hanafi madhab.
They criticise the ahle-hadith [or salafi] for not adhering to one of the 4 madhabs.
I'm sure that you are right, that some salafis do.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are making conjecture..

Do you consider salafis as being incorrect in their approach?
If so, what in particular is incorrect?

 

[Firedragon]

I am not a salafi scholar.

You don't have to be. You just need to make absolute statements of something you know about. Like you claimed about the Muwatta, and Bukhari, and Muslim, and your false claim about the 13th century you withdrew because later realised you claimed falsely, and then you changed it to the 12th century you against retracted because you googled and realised you made falsely, and then the 11th century you had to also withdraw because you googled and found out you claimed falsely. Just like that. If you make claims that are false, study it.

You don't have to be a scholar. Just don't make claims about things you have no knowledge of. That is just being genuine.

 

[Firedragon]

Do you consider salafis as being incorrect in their approach?

Tell me exactly which specific subject in the salafi akidha you are talking about and I will give my view. Can't generalise anything to anyone just like that.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You don't have to be. You just need to make absolute statements of something you know about. Like you claimed about the Muwatta, and Bukhari, and Muslim, and your false claim about the 13th century you withdrew because later realised you claimed falsely

I would say that you purposely led me into that.
..when I said 1300 years ago, I wasn't really making a claim.

You don't have to be a scholar. Just don't make claims about things you have no knowledge of. That is just being genuine.

Don't be so harsh.
This is an interfaith forum. We all have something to learn.

 

[Firedragon]

I would say that you purposely led me into that.
..when I said 1300 years ago, I wasn't really making a claim.

Haha. I purposefully led you to make a bogus claim? That's a first. Super duper.

Don't be so harsh.
This is an interfaith forum. We all have something to learn.

Absolutely true. We have a lot to learn. I don't go to a Hindu thread and make claims about a Hindu philosophy I have never studied about. I will "ask questions" instead and learn.

I doubt that an interfaith forum is there for me to go and make false claims but to share my knowledge with others and learn a lot from others as well.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Haha. I purposefully led you to make a bogus claim?

I wouldn't word it like that, but you seem to be on the "attack", as you see me as an ignorant sunni?

..so you can be proud of yourself that you caught me out.

 

[Firedragon]

I wouldn't word it like that, but you seem to be on the "attack", as you see me as an ignorant sunni?

..so you can be proud of yourself that you caught me out.

That's a super sympathetic moment, but try not to make conjecture. Better to study and make comments prior to making the comment and then going and going a quick googling. Qur'an says when a fasik brings you news investigate it first or you will do something harmful and be regretful.

So you see? Rather than eternally trying to do an ad hominem and escape the argument, try to verify your information.

Hope you understand.

 

[Thomas]

Picking up late ... language evolves, changes.

From your initial statement, I'm not sure I see much distinction between your use of the term 'fundamentalist' and terms like 'orthodox' and 'traditional'.

Fundamentalist from the religious aspect first appears in print in the 1920, in discussions of Protestant denominations in America.

'Fundamental' itself means pertaining to the foundation, via 'fundament', that upon which something sits.

So OK, one can self-identify as a fundamentalist, but that would still have to be qualified (Islam in its foundation was accepting of slavery, for example).

+++

The other side of the coin is basically 'the spirit v the letter' discussion, and the term 'fundamentalist', rightly or wrongly (depends on context) come down on the latter side.

 

[Firedragon]

(Islam in its foundation was accepting of slavery

Hmm. So the whole point of your post is this. I agree with everything you said about language etc etc.

But this "slavery" thing. Are you saying today being a Muslim fundamentalist I have to accept slavery as being valid today? Based on what are you saying that? What kind of study have you done on this topic? Do you think that it's Shirk for one to assume the position of Rab? Do you think Rakaba or Yamin means slave? So what is this "fundamental" of Islam you are speaking about? Can you explain the context?

 

[RabbiO]

But this "slavery" thing. Are you saying today being a Muslim fundamentalist I have to accept slavery as being valid today? Based on what are you saying that?

I don’t think that was what @Thomas intended to imply. Perhaps you are a little too eager to be angered, a little too quick to be offended.

 

[Firedragon]

I don’t think that was what @Thomas intended to imply. Perhaps you are a little too eager to be angered, a little too quick to be offended.

That's just ad hominem Rabbio. There is nothing to get offended about. It's just a question to someone who made such a generalisation of something he does not understand.

Think about it. If I tell you that you should believe Jesus is the messiah because Isaiah 59 prophecies and Isaiah 7:14 also prophesies about Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of god. If I tell you that you should believe in it because it's said in the Tanakh what would you do? Just say Yes yes yes or No no no?

You would either ask for "why he believes so" or something. Not just make a general comment.

That's not being offended which is projection. Just being objective. The intention is clear and I agreed with him anyway.

Cheers.

 

[Thomas]

Hmm. So the whole point of your post is this. I agree with everything you said about language etc etc.

OK.

But this "slavery" thing. Are you saying today being a Muslim fundamentalist I have to accept slavery as being valid today?

No. I'm saying the term 'fundamental/fundamentalist' can be used – if I might put a twist on your words – to assert slavery 'as being valid today', as it was valid at the time of the foundation of institutional Islam.

In a sense it's the same for me – slavery was practiced in the days of Christ and the early Church, and neither Christ nor the apostles spoke out against it as a practice, although St Paul saw the freeing of slaves as a virtuous act – much like it is seen in Islam – but slavery as such was not condemned.

So while I identify as fundamentalist/traditional/orthodox' I would qualify that, because there are elements of perceived 'f/t/o' Catholicism that I do not agree with. I would have to point out the 'elephant in the room' in that as fundamental as I might like to think myself, I'm 2,000 years removed from the mindset, the sitz im leben of the early Christian communities.

 

[Firedragon]

No. I'm saying the term 'fundamental/fundamentalist' can be used – if I might put a twist on your words – to assert slavery 'as being valid today', as it was valid at the time of the foundation of institutional Islam.

Okay. Let's give it that slavery was valid at "that time" and argue about the validity of that belief later.

So if it was given at that time, why would it be still valid? Can you give a valid Islamic reason from within Islam itself? If you give an external reason you are making an external personal justification, not an Islamic justification.

Thanks.

In a sense it's the same for me – slavery was practiced in the days of Christ and the early Church, and neither Christ nor the apostles spoke out against it as a practice, although St Paul saw the freeing of slaves as a virtuous act – much like it is seen in Islam – but slavery as such was not condemned.

Thomas. So you wish to get into proving Islam did not condemn slavery? In that case, you have to answer the question I asked. You can only repeat this same claim after comprehensively answering the question I asked. Hope you understand. So I will cut and paste the question again.

But this "slavery" thing. Are you saying today being a Muslim fundamentalist I have to accept slavery as being valid today? Based on what are you saying that? What kind of study have you done on this topic? Do you think that it's Shirk for one to assume the position of Rab? Do you think Rakaba or Yamin means slave? So what is this "fundamental" of Islam you are speaking about? Can you explain the context?

 

[Thomas]

Okay. Let's give it that slavery was valid at "that time" and argue about the validity of that belief later.

There's no argument, really. Slavery was a common practice.

So if it was given at that time, why would it be still valid?

I'm not saying it is. Please try and follow my point: If one declares oneself a 'fundamentalist', it would not be uncommon for an uninformed person to assume that one endorses everything the religion stood for in its place and time. The Abrahamics all allowed slavery, while observing that freeing a slave was a virtuous act. However, in their early days none of them were 'abolishionist'

I am not arguing it's validity – I don't know why you assume I am – I was pointing out a possible misconception of a current position if one identifies as a fundamentalist.

Thomas. So you wish to get into proving Islam did not condemn slavery?

Nope. That's a given. It does later, but not in its foundation.

But this "slavery" thing. Are you saying today being a Muslim fundamentalist I have to accept slavery as being valid today?

No, I am saying one might erroneously assume that you do because of the cultural connotations attached to the term 'fundamentalist'.

I am not, and never was, arguing anything to do with doctrine, I think you're jumping to conclusions there. I'm merely point out aspects of contemporary language.

 

[Firedragon]

There's no argument, really. Slavery was a common practice.

I didn't make an argument. Maybe I was not clear. Lets see.

I'm not saying it is. Please try and follow my point: If one declares oneself a 'fundamentalist', it would not be uncommon for an uninformed person to assume that one endorses everything the religion stood for in its place and time. The Abrahamics all allowed slavery, while observing that freeing a slave was a virtuous act. However, in their early days none of them were 'abolishionist'

I am not arguing it's validity – I don't know why you assume I am – I was pointing out a possible misconception of a current position if one identifies as a fundamentalist.

Not really Thomas. Islam was always theologically an aboloshanist. Just that you don't know about it. What you are doing is associating Islam with people and what they did, and generalising it to me and this post. That's a fallacy of composition/division.

Nope. That's a given. It does later, but not in its foundation.

That's why I asked a question and I would expect your answer because you are making such direct theological exegesis. If you can't answer them, you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are avoiding the discussion.

I am not saying you are an unreasonable guy. You seem like a person with a good head on your shoulders, but you should engage with what I asked because you have steered this thread away into a theological discussion. If you cannot answer them, then you don't know anything about this topic. With all due respect.

No, I am saying one might erroneously assume that you do because of the cultural connotations attached to the term 'fundamentalist'.

I am not, and never was, arguing anything to do with doctrine, I think you're jumping to conclusions there. I'm merely point out aspects of contemporary language.

You just did above.

And you avoided my question.

Peace.

 

[RJM]

@Firedragon
Are you saying the Quran condemned slavery from the outset?

Let's rephrase: does the Quran abolish slavery?

Islam was always theologically an abolitionist.

Was slavery forbidden?

 

[Firedragon]

@Firedragon
Are you saying the Quran condemned slavery from the outset?

Let's rephrase: does the Quran abolish slavery?

Nah. See, when someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is his. So I am waiting for the substantiation of what was claimed.

Your question is fair, but not at this time brother. I respect those who substantiate their claims. And I ask the question when claims are made and many times people don't provide a simple answer. They don't even say "I don't know". No offence intended, but please understand it is only fair to ask for substantiation of what someone claims.

So when he responds, if he says "I don't know", I will make it clear to him. And upon that response, I promise you I will answer your question. Not a problem at all. And you can hold me anchored on that.

Hope that's fine with you. Cheers.

 

[Thomas]

Oh dear, we seem to have a situation going on here.

OK. Let me revise my initial statement for the sake of clarity – post #29, paragraph 5:
"So OK, one can self-identify as a fundamentalist, but that would still have to be qualified."
And then delete the comment in brackets. It was perhaps a poor example, and has carried us off the point.

To get back to the point:
A fundamentalist anything is readily taken as a pejorative these days, and there are various reasons for that.

I distance myself from those elements, so in describing myself I would use another term rather than 'fundamentalist', even though my theology is generally under the 'ressourcement theologie' that spoke of a 'return to the source'.

'Traditional' is better but still probably leads to erroneous assumptions. In the rather small circles I moved in, 'Trad Catholic' wasused, but understood in its nuances.

Orthodox is another acceptable term, but then people would assume I belong to one of the Patriarchies rather than the RC ... I could push the boat out and say 'Christian Neoplatonist' which is probably nearest the mark, but that leaves most people none the wiser.

So 'fundamentalist' if you will, but language changes, and we can't turn back that particular clock, so we qualify, for clarity, to disassociate ourselves from certain other movements who also identify as 'fundamentalist' as a badge of honour, it would seem, and delight in conflict.

That was my point.

 

[Thomas]

Not really Thomas. Islam was always theologically an aboloshanist.

You may well be right, but there's a lot of scholarly material out there which offers a more nuanced view.

I would tend to agree. I fail to how any teaching that accords the same dare I say fundamental dignity to the human person, cannot in the same breathe logically condone keeping another as a possession to dispose of as s/he chooses.

And yet, historically, both yours and mine did.