I read one of the posts that you had tracked to. A person who prays to Mary or to the ghost of a philosopher should not be taken seriously.Fellas like Ali are too smart for their own good;as Muslims let us pray that they see the light.

Actually I have no idea!   I did just spell Muslim backwards, to demonstrate a person with a reverse belief (God submits to him) 

Ok, totally off topic.. I notice your use of the world ‘milsum’.. someone on msn added me to their buddy list milsum@hotmail.com… do you know who that is? (Aside from that Email, this is only place I see that term, that’s why I ask) and ya.. I thought whoever it was was just spelling ‘muslim’ backwards *blush* k, bye

ps: interesting debate

I agree with you on applicability. Eteraz’s criticisms on permissability however require additional consideration as far as the Divine nature of the Quran is concerned.

When we say something is not permissable anymore, or has a faulty moral foundation (which Eteraz insists), then we are doing something far beyond discussing applicability.

We are inherently denying God’s ability to know our reality, in the here and now, 1400 years ago. Even worse, we are faulting Him for it, and correcting Him. The Muslim becomes the reverse.. the Milsum, where God submits to him.

Polygamy is not ‘ibadat, nor is it a fard on us. Moreover, studying its context, and its applicability and permissibility, do not require us to treat the Qur’an as less than Divine. Rather, it requires us to understand how the Qur’an is to be applied to different arenas in life. This revivification of Islamic practice requires the synthesis of new methods with established and valid legacies, critically and openly, and does not require an unreflexive retreat into an established pattern that clearly hasn’t existed for a long time, or has in a very corrupted form.

Interesting

I do agree with you that traditionalism can be misused, and I absolutely consider Hasan al-Banna a Muslim who preached Islam.

As for your second point. I don’t believe these ayats are open to such questions in terms of ending their permissibility.

The ayats are quite clear, and we are all aware that God exists without a time and place. He is also well aware of the actions of a single ant in the year 408413 (if it comes to be) much less our society today.  And furthermore, this ant was not any mystery to him in the year 0 A.H.

If these considerations were needed before determining polygamy’s very permissibility, then the conditions would have been mentioned in the Quran or Sunnah.  Who are we to deny what God has permitted? 

We can empirically determine if the worldly benefit of some aspect of Islam is declining, but in the end can we ever determine the spiritual loss of abandoning it, much less hating it?

I welcome a criticism of the traditional methodology vs Salafism etc, but this is a different beast altogether.

I hope to write-up a full, deserving response to this response soon. In the meantime: My concern is that you’re still not seeing that traditionalism, as a methodology, can be misused, and because it is a methodology, and as such, other methodologies to interpret Islamic law — rigorously — also have their benefit. While I excuse you for being passionate about your faith, Islam is not limited to traditionalist interpretations alone. (Unless you want to say that what Hasan al-Banna preached is not Islam. Which is treacherous road to go down.)One does not have to fully agree, nor fully disagree.

Moreover, you are quoting ayat, but missing the point when it comes to clearness: These ayat are not as clear as you make them out to be. For example, polygamy: Is it solely for the sake of desire? Does it serve a social function? When does this social function arise? Can it be regulated by a government, or does it go on good faith? If we look at Islamic law in its formative stage, it lacks an awareness of a nation-state of intense regulational capacity — obviously. As such, we wonder about the position of Islamic law, which developed in a certain context, versus a new context now.

My criticisms of AHM’s ahistoricality are intimately tied into this willing dismissal of new context: To talk about the validity of traditionalism, and its benefits, based on a history that never happened, is disingeneous to say the least. The very notion of traditionality is constructed as the result of its noted absence. This is, as Simon says, not about what happened 1400 years ago, but our understanding of what happened immediately after Revelation and through the period until colonialism, at the least. Quoting ayat is legitimate, to some extent, but fails to take into account my methodological and constructionist concerns.

Is it really? I think it might be about something else.

Though your comments are very valid and accurate, I would say that unless the other side put their methodology and their understanding of your method on table, there is no use defending your views. Thats the traditionalism that I understand from my little knowledge.

wassalam

“Excuse me for being passionate about it [Islam]”
- excuse you for owning it

“Of course, his gauge for this judgement is Western humanistic morality.”
-maybe you should read Orientalism by Edward Said, flip it around, and see whether you view the west as “the other”

“This is about what occurred 1400 years ago when the Prophet Muhummad (S) received a Divine Message from God. ”
-No. It is not about that at all. This is about what you think the Prophet meant. It’s about what you think Islam is. It’s about what right you have to tell others it means. It’s about ownership of faith. And finally, it’s about sharing. Can you share the title Muslim with Eteraz, or did the Angel Gabriel whisper in your ear that you do not have to?

“When he criticizes these things, he is in my opinion, directly criticizing God’s word. ”
-I’m so glad that people no longer need to think about what Islam means. It’s done now. Should Muslims all go home?

“If he ignores them, then we might as well be speaking to the atheist Eteraz that once was.”
-Ok back up. So lets get this straight. If someone leaves the faith, and comes back, you can hold that over their head forever, correct? It seems to me that if people who leave the faith can expect to be second class Muslims for the rest of their existence, they might as well leave for good. I thought Bismellah Arahman Arahim talks of mercy? Guess not for people you disagree with. Further, I guess any doubts eteraz has are unacceptable.

“Are we sure this is the man we want to be defending?”
-Are you sure this is the God you want to be speaking for?

Lastly, Yursil, Islam has indeed lasted for over 1400 years, it survived the Crusades, civil strife, Russian invasions, Mongol invasions – it can survive Eteraz, must you truly attack him so profusely in order to sleep soundly at night? Or do you fear that the Message is that frail?

I wonder, Yursil, have you rewritten Surah 109, verse 6 to read “To you be my way, to me be mine”?

My take on Haroon’s comments exactly. The fellow while providing an excellent analysis relating to some aspects of history has conflated some scholars’ view on history and the traditional view towards Islamic Law. He critiques the former and concludes from it that the latter has problems. I don’t understand it at all.

Wassalam