|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 8, 2012 17:53:05 GMT
I have just stumbled across the origin of the statement I made concerning the example of Muhammad that muslims must follow. It was, if you recall, 'What Muhammad did you may do. What Mohammad did not forbid you may not forbid.' Ciggie very kindly publicised this supposedly hilarious injunction as his/her signature on the MCL board. The other day, however, I came cross the origin of the statement (which is quite correct as a paraphrase) when reading about Sharia Law. What is known about Muhammad is contained in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah, a collection of writings about him mainly by the people who knew him. "What Muhammad did not forbid" is known in the Sunnah as his "silent consents" or his "tacit consent" i.e. things that he was aware of happening or observed and did not condemn. Hence the statement 'What Muhammad did not forbid you may not forbid' is a perfectly good summary of the guidance the good muslim should follow in emulating the behaviour of the Perfect Man, Muhammad. I know some of you thought it was hilarious that I could no longer find the source for this statement and proclaimed I had made it up. Well, I did not make it up even though I could no longer find the place I first read it and the statement IS accurate as guidance for muslims as anyone of you may find if you google the words -sunnah silent consents- OR -sunnah tacit consent-. The lazy can start here Sources of sharia law en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_sharia_lawAfter the Qur'an the Sunnah is the next important source, and is commonly defined as "the traditions and customs of Muhammad" or "the words, actions and silent assertions of him". It includes the everyday sayings and utterances of Muhammad, his acts, his tacit consent, and acknowledgments of statements and activities. Expressions like “Allah does not forbid you etc etc...." and "Take what the Messenger Gives You and Abstain from what he Forbids you..." occur often in Islamic writing. The statement 'What Muhammad does not forbid you may not forbid' is consistent with this tradition. "Not forbidding" something is equivalent to sanctioning it. I think 'What Muhammad did you may do. What Muhammad did not forbid you may not forbid' is a memorable piece of advice which slips off the tongue very nicely. That is why I remembered it even after the site where I first read it five years ago disappeared from the web. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 8, 2012 20:20:33 GMT
Silent consents, silent assertions, tacit consent
Nice vocabulary for jean to get into, eh? But will Islam be susceptible to her spin?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 10, 2012 0:47:27 GMT
80+ 107 viewings of this thread so far! The Islamophiles must be preparing a rejoinder. Maybe someone will get round to reading some of the Islamic texts at last !
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 10, 2012 8:24:00 GMT
The Islamophiles must be preparing a rejoinder. Well then, if you insist: (My emphasis.) That's significantly different from your 'summary', isn't it? (But I reject being labelled an islamophile just as much as you reject islamophobe, marchesa. Though if someone who can write the only moderate muslim is an ex-muslim isn't an islamophobe, I am not sure who would qualify.) |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 10, 2012 9:02:39 GMT
I make no bones about being an islamophobe, jean. Any liberated western woman should fear the extension of Islam into her world. That so many here are complacent about it is surprising.
And once again, the statement 'What Muhammad did you may do. What Mohammad did not forbid you may not forbid' is not "my summary". It is a form of words I picked up long ago on a website discussing Islam. It is a perfectly good summary of the muslim's duty to emulate the Perfect Man,Muhammad.
I thought you would be FAR more interested in dissecting the concepts of "silent consents, silent assertions and tacit consents". These are forms of words that allow the invidious to drive a bus though moral strictures, the Islamic "Get out of Jail Free" card, as some might describe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 10, 2012 14:17:26 GMT
...These are forms of words that allow the invidious to drive a bus though moral strictures... Not sure how that works, marchesa. Whose 'strictures' are we talking about? I suppose that any belief system can choose to ignore 'moral strictures' they didn't set up themselves. They can do this explicitly or implicitly. But the most important thing seems to me that you have to show that Muhammed was actually aware of something before you can assume that he was tacitly assenting to it. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 10, 2012 15:29:16 GMT
Normal moral strictures, current today in western Judaeo-Christian culture I should have said.
I do not have to show or prove anything, jean. Read the Qur'an and parts of the Sunnah if you want to know the abominations that went on in Muhammad's day that he gave tacit, even active consent to.
We now know (thanks,Nick) that Muhammad procured the murder of a woman and her five children for complaining about a previous murder committed by Muhammad and described thus
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?"
I hope some of your guests are the teensiest bit "surprised" by such information that I have been aware of ever since I started looking into Islam in 2007. There is lots more just like this.
Yet muslims TODAY (not way back when) have no problem in describing this specimen of humanity as "The Perfect Man" and murdering people who deny it.
Do you begin to see the problem with this Catch22 religion which has brought mediaeval standards into the modern liberal British society we have been educated in? Fundamentalists today who want to murder westerners (infidels) or muslim critics for whatever reason can find sanction for it in Muhammad's example. And if you complain about this as immoral YOU are a blasphemer and worthy of being murdered yourself. Small wonder Islam is stuck in the mire.
And you politically correct bright sparks are trying to convince us on this board that Christianity is REALLY the problem. God give me strength!
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 11, 2012 16:16:18 GMT
I do not have to show or prove anything, jean. Nobody does, marchesa. But if they don't try, or engage with such replies as they get, they can't be surprised if the discussion peters out. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 11, 2012 16:51:01 GMT
I have already stated the source in the sunnah and given you the link to set you off on your quest.
So, there is nothing to discuss (to coin a phrase).
All that remains is for you ignorant Islamophiles to educate yourselves about the religion you are so unaccountably tender hearted towards.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 11, 2012 17:15:40 GMT
I have only just realiosed that your rather tetchy reply was probably addressed to my But the most important thing seems to me that you have to show that Muhammed was actually aware of something before you can assume that he was tacitly assenting to it. That doean't mean you particularly, marchesa - it means whoever is asserting that Muhammed tacitly assented to anything. I do wish you would read things. Otherwise it's a complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 11, 2012 17:24:12 GMT
The sunnah is COMPRISED of stories about Muhammad's behaviour, his injunctions and his tacit consents. i.e. stuff he did, stuff he forbade and stuff he did not forbid. This is the material that is the basis for the Sharia and Islam itself.
You "discuss" it if you want, jean. There is plenty for you to get your teeth into. I am happy simply to acknowledge that this material exists and that the sunnah is the basis for the statement "What Muhammad did you may do. What Muhammad did not forbid you may not forbid.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Oct 11, 2012 20:57:07 GMT
All that remains is for you ignorant Islamophiles to educate yourselves about the religion you are so unaccountably tender hearted towards. Ignorant Islamophiles, now (all of us probably)! Jesus Christ! Hello Aunt-Sally-hoister, again. I for one am not tender-hearted towards Islam. In fact, I have never said anything to that effect, and have rarely seen a post which has. But, as I've often said, I'm not going to be bullied into giving vent to my criticisms of Islam by someone who seems so islamophobically obsessed. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 11, 2012 22:38:34 GMT
How very convenient for you, aqua. Only the marchesa is standing in your way! Otherwise you would happily spill the beans of your up-close and personal insights into Islam.
YOU are the one who is "obsessed", aqua, and you are obsessed with ME. You always have been. Get over it.
I am a feminist and a liberated woman and I am absolutely appalled at the supine behaviour of politically correct multiculturalists in obstructing the proper policing of the ghastly cultural imports that have arrived with Islam into our liberal, tolerant society.
Not only am I appalled about the misogynistic religiously and culturally sanctioned behaviour of our British muslims towards their wives and daughters, I am fearful of the future as their numbers rapidly rise and they gain more political clout in the UK.
That is what Islamophobia is. I don't hate anyone of any colour or creed. I am afraid of Islam because it is a stone-age cult of personality and an ideology that is already causing massive bloodshed round the world and it will only get worse including in the UK, too. We are not immune because we have already permitted Islamic practices and Islamic self-segregation to gain too much of a foothold here.
I want the British state publicly and loudly to stamp down on the evil bastards who marry off children, who force their children into marriages they do not want and who abuse and murder their children when they do not submit. I want mullahs and parents who marry off little girls to receive the same obloquy as Jimmy Savile is receiving because they are opposite sides of the same coin, the gross obsession with sex, the former repressive the latter exploitative.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 11, 2012 22:50:35 GMT
I want the British state publicly and loudly to stamp down on the evil bastards who marry off children, who force their children into marriages they do not want and who abuse and murder their children when they do not submit. I want mullahs and parents who marry off little girls to receive the same obloquy as Jimmy Savile is receiving because they are opposite sides of the same coin, the gross obsession with sex, the former repressive the latter exploitative. We all want that, marchesa. But some of us are not sure that tarring all Muslims with the same brush, proclaiming that the only moderate Muslim is an ex-Muslim, collecting together on one thread every example we can find of extreme and vile behaviour by any Muslims anywhere in the world and calling the result a discussion, is the best way of achieving this. We fear that it might just alienate those moderate Muslims that you believe don't exist, but that I know do. |
|
|
|
Post by easypeasy on Oct 11, 2012 22:51:11 GMT
How very convenient for you, aqua. Only the marchesa is standing in your way! Otherwise you would happily spill the beans of your up-close and personal insights into Islam. YOU are the one who is "obsessed", aqua, and you are obsessed with ME. You always have been. Get over it. I am a feminist and a liberated woman and I am absolutely appalled at the supine behaviour of politically correct multiculturalists in obstructing the proper policing of the ghastly cultural imports that have arrived with Islam into our liberal, tolerant society. Not only am I appalled about the misogynistic religiously and culturally sanctioned behaviour of our British muslims towards their wives and daughters, I am fearful of the future as their numbers rapidly rise and they gain more political clout in the UK. That is what Islamophobia is. I don't hate anyone of any colour or creed. I am afraid of Islam because it is a stone-age cult that is already causing massive bloodshed round the world and it will only get worse including in the UK, too. We are not immune because we have already permitted Islamic practices and Islamic self-segregation to gain too much of a foothold here. I want the British state publicly and loudly to stamp down on the evil bastards who marry off children, who force their children into marriages they do not want and who abuse and murder their children when they do not submit. I want mullahs and parents who marry off little girls to receive the same obloquy as Jimmy Savile is receiving because they are opposite sides of the same coin, the gross obsession with sex, the former repressive the latter exploitative. Poor old Aqua.It's not his fault! And you complain that your posts are ignored. So angry! |
|
