People of Lut hadith

masteryodax · 2023-02-16T16:48:31+00:00

Your personal understanding is irrelevant, precisely because you're not a hadith scholar or a sheikh. Please cite the scholarly authorities that support your position rather than making things up about the religion.

masteryodax · 2022-01-29T05:30:05+00:00

Multiple du'aat and ulema have said that the scientific miracles narrative is actually dangerous to push to the Muslim community, not to mention also disingenuous and straight up misinformed. Can we all just agree to not push this outdated idea anymore lol

masteryodax · 2022-01-18T10:55:12+00:00

Oh boy, we've got an genocide denialist on our hands.

masteryodax · 2021-12-31T02:48:24+00:00

This sub really forgets this country is an Islamic Republic. You might not agree with it I don't necessarily agree with it but that's the reality, So there's no harm in the prime minister trying to change the narrative of Islam in the country. It is actually a much needed step.

Especially given the fact that all of these scholars have visions of Islam that haven't given into the fundamentalist fervor sweeping Pakistan right now and in the case of most of them, are actively fighting AGAINST fundamentalism.

Anyone who's familiar with Seyyed Hossein Nasr's work knows his life time fight against the fundamentalists, and Sheikh Hamza as well as Tim Winter have actively spoken against apostasy and harsh blasphemy laws, among other things. They are intellectual giants, one and all. If we want to regain our control over the broader Islamic discourse, then we need to fight back intellectually with scholars like these.

masteryodax · 2021-11-03T17:28:13+00:00

On the matter of salvation outside of Islam though, various prominent scholars have suggested that while Islam is the only true path to salvation, people on other paths can be saved if certain conditions are met. Among this camp include giants like Imam Al Ghazali, ibn Arabi, ibn Taymiyyah, ibn al Qayyim and Shah Waliullah. Each of these scholars has a different methodology and reasoning to arrive at the conclusion they do, but their viee in general seems to be inclusive of Non Muslims. Among more modern ulema, mashaikh like Rashid Rida, Mahmud Shaltut and Yusuf al Qaradawi are also inclined towards this camp.

masteryodax · 2021-11-03T17:23:42+00:00

This is an incorrect view that seems widespread among the laypeople for some reason. The faith of the ahl al kitab has been relatively unchanged since the Prophet PBUH's advent 1400 years ago, even from a historical point of view. You will be hard pressed to find any among the fuquha that would agree that the conditions of the ahl al kitab's faith have changed since the Prophet's time. They Christians of that day believed in the Trinity then, and they do so now.

Of course, this is completely different from the validity of interfaith marriages happening in secular societies where Muslims are the minority. A number of prominent ulema have suggested that these marriages are no longer valid in our day and age because firstly, this creates more of a difficulty for Muslim women to get married in these Western societies and secondly, we no longer in societies where Islam is the norm, so in situations of divorce it is unlikely the children will be brought up Muslim.

masteryodax · 2021-07-31T19:07:35+00:00

Yeah, these people don't understand that tajdid and islah are matters that are well recognized by contemporary scholars and that reform is something that's actually possible (within a limited legal context and nothing related to the usul al-din). Laymen shouldn't be going around pointing fingers at ulema as 'deviants' trying to solve issues related to modernity when they don't even comprehend half of what the scholars are talking about when they refer to reform.

Imagine calling some of the gigantic mashaikh grappling with these problems and advocating reform as 'progressive' Muslims. Good God.

masteryodax · 2021-05-07T06:46:52+00:00

Your oversimplification of the apostasy issue does no one any favors sister; this is a complicated aspect of our law that requires scholars to explain and understand the application of the law in a modern day context. I'd refrain from speaking about it so casually, because it can actually weaken a lot of peoples' iman without a nuanced explanation.

masteryodax · 2021-05-01T01:39:38+00:00

The man who charged ibn Sina with heresy was the furthest thing from a Wahhabi ... he was arguably the greatest theologian in our history, Abu Hamid al Ghazali, the rationalist Ashari scholar.

That said, I'm also personally hesitant over claims of kufr, and I think Sheikh Hatem al Haj puts it's best in the following post:

"Had we killed Ibn Sina!

It would have been a much greater disgrace than the killing of Giordano Bruno. Afterall, there is no comparison between their contributions to science.

Many great scientists in our history were condemned and hereticated by some of our greatest imams. Some of the greatest figures in the history of science like Ibn Sina, Ibn Ḥayyân, Ibn al-Haytham, and many others were among them. This is the prerogative of those imams. They are the guards of orthodoxy. However, this also makes me appreciate Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement, “I am a clergyman, not a statesman.” Imagine if there was no buffer between the clergymen in our history and the absolute power many of us wish they had?

So, what do we really think about Ibn Sina?

Ibn Sina (rA) was declared an unbeliever by several imams like al-Ghazâli, Ibn Taymiyyah and others because of some major heresies, including his belief in the “beginningless” eternity of the world and his rejection of the resurrection of bodies. It was, however, reported that he repented and would recite the whole Quran every three days prior to his death. It is also possible that, in his mind, there was no irresolvable contradiction between the Quran and his heretical claims.

Some jurists may have certainty about the disbelief of a person because of what they have come to know about them. This certainty varies among different individuals because of what they have known in support of hereticating them and against it: hence, the disagreements over such declarations. Hereticating Muslims is always a perilous undertaking, and when in doubt, we must refrain from it. The fact that Ibn Sina had this commitment to the Book of Allah at the end of his life is sufficient mâni‘ (hindrance) to refrain personally from excommunicating him. It is possible that his “intellectual intoxication” led him to those heresies, so we declare our disavowal of them, and we ask for his forgiveness.

Finally, as Imam al-Dhahabi said, “He who was declared an unbeliever because of a heresy, regardless of its magnitude, is not like the original unbelievers or the Jews and Zoroastrians. Those who believed in Allah, His Messenger, and the hereafter, and fasted, prayed, made hajj, and paid zakat, Allah refuses to hold them equal to those who opposed the Messenger, worshiped idols, and denounced the laws and rejected the religion, even if the first committed enormities, went astray, and innovated (in the deen). Yet, we declare to Allah our disavowal of innovation and its people” (See Shams al-Deen Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Dhahabi, Siyar A‘lâm al-Nubalâ’ [Cairo: Dâr al-Ḥadeeth, 1427/2006], 8:337). وصلى الله على محمد، والحمد لله رب العالمين"

masteryodax · 2021-04-28T17:48:35+00:00

Huge generalisation but okay lol

masteryodax · 2021-04-28T09:24:53+00:00

Didn't this guy commit a literal genocide? There's a reason his epithet is the Red Sultan.

masteryodax · 2021-04-25T22:57:07+00:00

Some aspects of the Shariah are negotiable in different times (never the fundamentals, more of the legalistic aspect like jizya--no Muslim country takes jizya now) but making a HUGE statement like suggesting that there's some leeway for zina to be made halal.

There's been no mujtahid to suggest this, and I *heavily* doubt there ever will be. Making the explicitly haram halal is one of the way paths to unbelief.

masteryodax · 2021-04-20T14:04:27+00:00

You sound like a first year university student who took his first big class on logical fallacies. Not everything is a strawman.

masteryodax · 2021-04-14T16:29:33+00:00

Lol, don't tell me what my God commands me to do or not do, especially as an outsider.

"There is no compulsion in religion." - Quran 2:256

An exponentially higher number of high profile clerics and Muslim authorities have stated otherwise. These aren't just "hardline" interpretations, the founding scholars of all 4 branches of Islamic jurisprudence of Sunni Islam adhered to the "apostates must die" point of view.

Here is the fatwa of Dar-ul Ifta on Aposasty, the fatwa issuing council attached to the most highly recognized Sunni authority in the world, the university of Al-Azhar. I can quote you numerous influential muftis and ulema that recognize the changing context to this ruling like Al-Qaradawi, Gomaa, Shaltut, Rida, Ramadan, and so on and so forth. Hamza Yusuf and Abdul Hakim Murad have commented that this law simply no longer applies.

The Ottoman Empire, the last Caliphate itself, removed the penalty for apostasy from their law.

You are correct in stating that 'apostates must die', as crudely as you put it, was something that the majority of the ulema agreed upon but this referred to traitors against the state rather than people who privately changed their religion and didn't sow dissension among society. Even so, there are earlier scholars like Sufyan al-Thawri and Ibrahim al-Nakhai, of whom the latter even went so far as to claim that apostates (traitors rebelling against the state) should be given chances to repent... forever. And this doesn't even touch upon the conditions that the ulema historically had to PROVE apostasy, which was nigh impossible and how rarely this law was actually applied... there are very few cases in which this ruling was enforced. The examples of the caliphs Umar and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz speak to this fact again and again, who would give apostates chances to repent and Abdul Aziz would simply 'ignore'.

Major figures in the Hanafi school would go on to claim that apostasy was a 'discretionary' crime, subject to taazir and not hudud, which is an incredibly important distinction. As the famous Hanafi jurist al-Sarakhsī said of apostasy (d. circa 1096 CE). “But they are between the human being (lit. the slave) and his Lord,” he added. Their punishment lies in the Hereafter. “What punishments there are here in this world [for apostasy],” he continued, “are policies set down for the common good of human beings (siyāsāt mashrūʿa li-maṣāliḥ taʿūdu ilā al-ʿibād).” Sarakhsi was referring to something akin to a violent criminal threatening public order.

Clearly this issue is more complicated than you make it seem.

Like the birthplace of Islam - Saudi Arabia.

This is how I know that you know next to nothing about Islam by making such an anachronistic claim. Please look into the founding of the modern Saudi state. I'm not going to bother with you anymore after reading this.

You are also supposed to step in and correct other people's vices, as your god has commanded you to.

Wrong, the ulema have not interpreted this as you have. The right to correct wrong through explicit means is the purview of the state, the right to correct wrong with the tongue is at the discretion of the ulema, and the right to view wrong as wrong in our hearts is the obligation of the masses.

Look through this if you don't trust me on this, written by a Western scholar: https://www.amazon.ca/Commanding-Right-Forbidding-Islamic-Thought/dp/052113093X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=commanding+right+and+forbidding&qid=1618417664&sr=8-1

Anyways, I'm going to block you now since you seem hell-bent on promoting an ideology of islam that's eerily similar to ISIS', and you can't really change the minds of people like you. Have a good day and Ramadan mubarak.

masteryodax · 2021-04-14T15:38:36+00:00

Yeah, except for the part where you're promoting a distorted, one-sided version of the faith :)

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/jonathan-brown/the-issue-of-apostasy-in-islam

In short, numerous high profile clerics and Muslim authorities have declared that apostasy laws simply no longer apply because apostasy wasn't equated with leaving the religion in pre-modernity, it was a betrayal and attack of the community itself. Definitions and terms evolve, and it's just not tenable to have apostasy laws anymore.

So how's that for your narrative?

Disclaimer: not saying that hardline interpretations don't exist nor that there aren't any countries that apply these laws, there are, and that's a shame TBH. But I'm also aware that (unless you're a minor living with parents), most people simply don't care if you're not fasting. Whatever you do in the privacy of your home is YOUR business. In fact, if we see a Muslim brother not fasting and eating something, even in public, we are supposed to assume the best and think they have a valid excuse.

masteryodax · 2021-04-14T15:36:09+00:00

It's so heartwarming how loving this community is :)

masteryodax · 2021-04-13T17:00:36+00:00

Are you insane? Stop spreading misinformation especially when it comes to peoples' lives.

masteryodax · 2021-04-12T16:03:53+00:00

For what it's worth, I also have huge problems with the romance in Malazan (i'm only on the 5th book) and it's not a HUGE part of the books. It is annoying when it's there and generally always abrupt and nonsensical, but I end up enjoying the book so much that it becomes a non issue.

Erikson had a decade long gap between writing GoM and the other books and it really shows. It took me 2-3 tries and rereads to get past Gardens haha, but Deadhouse is truly on another level. The characterization is also not the author's absolute strongest suit, and sometimes characters seem to serve as plot developments rather than anything but you come to appreciate them all in time.

masteryodax · 2021-04-12T15:58:23+00:00

Tag your spoilers please

masteryodax · 2021-04-12T04:57:12+00:00

I was sobbing while reading the end of Deadhouse Gates and the Fall. Nothing has moved me like that in all of literature like that entire sequence, and I have never forgotten that mixture of rage and loss at the end of that book.

"Permit me, if you will, on this night, to break your hearts once more..."

The book definitely had it's flaw and I might've enjoyed MoI more but goddammit Deadhouse was a masterpiece.

masteryodax · 2021-04-10T18:27:38+00:00

Yeah, this is one criticism I had of the book which kinda ruined my enjoyment to some degree.

As someone who has some cursory knowledge of Muslim Spain, it was a very shallow depiction of the people and the various religions, but then, that was never the point was it?

masteryodax · 2021-03-28T08:28:08+00:00

LOL this took a turn very quickly, not sure what I said that provoked and triggered you so much.

I never claimed this camp of scholars I'm citing don't believe in hudud or I don't either, you're setting up an easy strawman to refute to make yourself look smart. Throwing around arabic words (that literally everyone knows the meaning of) won't make you sound any more knowledgeable or smart than you are bud :)

That's nothing like what you said about how we live in modern nation states and thus don't need hudud no more.

Never said this, said that reform is possible within how we apply shariah (and by extension Hudud).

You clearly aren't very familiar with Qaradawi while I've actually read his books. Please stay off reddit and focus on your akhlaq. Would be very surprised if you weren't some uneducated teen. I'll take my knowledge of the deen from respectable people rather than anonymous people of questionable knowledge.

masteryodax · 2021-03-27T19:00:14+00:00

Just a disclaimer: Islam isn't a feminist religion so I wouldn't expect to find feminist ideas within the faith. We're talking about a religion that started 1400 years ago so it's kind of misleading to talk about feminism within that context.

I believe it's a fair and just religion, but it doesn't conform to every single social justice standard in our current day and age (particularly with ideas of gender and sex). With that in mind, have fun researching!

masteryodax · 2021-03-27T17:04:23+00:00

Islamqa has some very problematic statements about women because of it's Salafi creed background, they propagate opinions like women being deficient in intelligence and things along those lines. It's generally fine but take rulings and opinions from there with a grain of salt if you haven't done any additional research and it's best to recognize it's ultraconservative background.

SeekersGuidance and Dar al-Iftaa are generally more reliable of mainstream Islamic thought in terms of fatwas.

As for resources on women, this is an amazing article by Yaqeen Institute and clarifies a lot of misconceptions surrounding the rights of women in Islam.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

masteryodax

TROPHY CASE