Interesting article Shakira. I hope you keep writing (and wearing whatever you like to wear!) and I look forward to reading your articles on OLO.

Dawood... when it comes to interpreting/understanding the Hadith and how they are regarded by Muslims, the reasonable person will do the following:

Look at particular issues, and SEE what the muslims scholars/imams say about them, further, that same interested and reasonable person, can then seek out opinion from imams of the various schools of Islamic law, and compare. Then we are in a position to comment reasonably on that issue.

I have one issue, which Kactuz raised where I would REALLY like a considered answer from either or both of you and F.H.

F.H. is <<incesantly' repeating the same mantra "Islam teaches about war, ONLY defensive as when you are being attacked and even then, only within limits, not to transgress>> is how his mantra goes.

Now, Kactuz demonstrated from Islamic history that the prophet made a large number of aggressive raids during his time in Medina.

1/ Is Kactuz wrongly reporting ?
2/ If he is correctly reporting the history of Tabari, is Tabari wrong ?
3/ If Tabari is not wrong, then what does this say about the prophet who said in effect "do what I say, not what I do" like the father with a smoke in one hand and a beer in the other telling his kids not to smoke or drink..... it defies the imagination.
4/ If the founder of Islam cannot and did not follow his own supposed revelations, how can any Muslim be expected to ?
5/ What then, is the point of Islam ? (does not require an answer, rhetorical only)

F.H. do you still rationalize the genocide of the Banu Qurayza with your 'treachery during wartime' hyperbole ? That was unquestionably an aggressive raid. But there were many others, do you have a rationalization for each one ?

The difference between F.H.s approach and that of the extremist, is that the Extremists find inspiration in the ACTUAL deeds/sunnah of mohamed, F.H. finds the need to rationalize them.

r0bert, perhaps it cos christians are better at taking the piss.

BOAZ_David: I will try to do my best.

First the easier ones:

2 - I have still yet to see a clear reference on Tabari apart from some quote taken off an anti-Islam site mentioning some random chapter number. The man wrote something like 5 different books (some very intricate), with many other works attributed to him.. I would like to see the actual references, if possible, for my own sake.

If something is stated in history, then it is dishonest to deny it. But we also can't project our own perceptions backwards and then criticize pre Midle-Ages people for not believing as we do now.

Regardless, I follow what other scholars say, and if they (ie. the majority) do not advocate action or legal import on an issue, then that is good enough for me.

3 - Tabari is known in Islam as a kind of... collector of materials. He collected many different things and compiled them, kind of for posterity. Many of the quotes in his works do not even reflect his opinion - for example the idea that Isaac was sacrificed not Ishmael, as well as the exact opposite of this. He was documenting the debates of his time, amongst other things.

4 - Again, it's an issue of methodology. Imam Malik was once asked why he narrated a hadith, classed as authentic, yet continued to act against it. He replied "So that it is clear that it was known, and we continued to go against it." Meaning that it was not the Sunnah, so had no legal value.

I am rapidly running out of word-space but I would say this. The issue of the raids and such is something that has been discussed by a few different academics. One piece I have found that raises some interesting points is this: http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html It's long but worth a read, in my opinion and covers some of what you mentioned.

1 - This is also rhetoric. My position is clear.

Moonie,
So you are telling me that [Quote, "Bali is Buddhist. Not Muslim."]. So you say that the Bali Judicary, government and laws are Buddhist, and not Muslim. I cannot believe Buddhists can execute drug dealers, and show lieniency and sentence reduction during Ramidan to extremist Muslim bommers.

But that was not my point entirely, it was what the Muslim Clerics in Australia were saying, that Michelle Leslie had adopted the Hijab to win favour with the Judges. The Australian Clerics obviously believed to be a young Muslim girl gained her favour above a middle aged white Aussie non believing male of insignifance, or an Aussie girl of Christian faith. If they did not believe this then they would not have called her a hypocrite for her Muslim pretense.

Robert,

I actually answered your question but had no response from you.
No problems, what I am advocating in essence are people of faith (any faith) should accommodate each other and respect each other beliefs. You can tell from my postings that I am not likely to be offended when my faith is attacked or criticised (and in some cases just ridiculed) But I can never do that to people of other faith.

I have a different view on freedom of expression: how far does it go?
If people engage in a debate, conversation or humour (ie jokes) you and I would argue it is reasonably acceptable by most people.

To give you an example from your posting: lets imagine the mockery with Jesus (PBUH) in urine was made by an atheist. Now Muslims or Christians, offended will use the freedom of expression to respond with a large Bronze statue for a crying atheist with a fire ball up his bottom, wouldn’t that annoy all atheists, even the non-aggressive ones?

People hold their beliefs dear and that is natural and human psychology, how much freedom do you need to give and where to you draw the lines before my freedom steps on your rights and well being? Freedom of expression should stay well clear from divide and circles of hate.

I will post one or two articles weekly on my blog, my next two articles will be about Apostates and arts (including statues) and I am still in reading and thinking mode.

Boaz,

Your thread now with Dawood confirms what I have been saying all along.
Quran is the only source for all Muslims, you start with ‘man made’ hadith and sources and good luck finding a conclusion, Muslim scholars started this debates 12 centuries ago and still are unable to come to conclusions until today. I debated it for 6 years of my life.