Quote:
Originally Posted by bihari
Going in circles; nice way to evade the question.
|
I'm not at all evading the question. I know what a Mutazilite is; it's because I know what a Mutazilite is that I'd ask you why you'd bother asking a Sunni "what's wrong with Mutazilites?" The Mutazila were heretics and largely vanquished/made irrelevant by Imam Ghazali (RA) and others; a good example of a modern day Mutazilite is Khaled Abou Fadl.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bihari
Just curious to know where it says this, and even so, it doesn't say to blindly follow, which unfortunately is the case for most people nowadays
|
021.007
YUSUFALI: Before thee, also, the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message.
Very few of the sahabas passed fatawa. It was an extreme minority that the majority of the sahabas followed, as blessed and learned as they were. Why do you think that was?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bihari
So prostitution is allowed? When clearly it says that sex is only within the bounds of marriage:
[left] "23:6 [not giving way to their desires] with any but their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]: Asad(23,3)[3] for then, behold, they are free of all blame,"
Note 3 (Quran Ref: 23:6 ) Lit., "or those whom their right hands possess" (aw ma malakat aymanuhum). Many of the commentators assume unquestioningly that this relates to female slaves, and that the particle aw ("or") denotes a permissible alternative. This interpretation is, in my opinion, inadmissible inasmuch as it is based on the assumption that sexual intercourse with ones female slave is permitted without marriage: an assumption, which is contradicted by the Qur’an itself (see 4:3, 24, 25 and 24:32, with the corresponding notes). Nor is this the only objection to the above-mentioned interpretation. Since the Qur’an applies the term ‘‘believers" to men and women alike, and since the term azwaj ("spouses"), too, denotes both the male and the female partners in marriage, there is no reason for attributing to the phrase ma malakat aymanuhum the meaning of "their female slaves’’; and since, on the other hand, it is out of the question that female and male slaves could have been referred to here it is obvious that this phrase does not relate to slaves at all, but has the same meaning as in 4:24 - namely, "those whom they rightfully possess through wedlock (see note 26 on 4:24) - with the significant difference that in the present context this expression relates to both husbands and wives, who "rightfully possess" one another by virtue of marriage. On the basis of this interpretation, the particle aw which precedes this clause does not denote an alternative ("or") but is, rather, in the nature of an explanatory amplification, more or less analogous to the phrase "in other words" or "that is", thus giving to the whole sentence the meaning, "save with their spouses - that is, those whom they rightfully possess [through wedlock]", etc. (Cf. a similar construction 25:62 - ‘‘for him who has the will to take thought -that is [lit., "or"], has the will to be grateful".)(Quran Ref: 23:6 ) |
That is Asad's opinion, which again, runs counter to the understanding given to us by both the Qur'an and recorded history.
Re: Sharia or Democracy?
