I didn't ask you about literalism, reread the question
The main bone of contention is regarding billy's distinction between "literalist" and "non-literalist Islam". YOU brought up the matter of "variations in prayer", along with other red herrings, I am sure with the intention of burying the issue under a pile of irrelevence ie:
"Methodology of salah, as performed by Muslims today, is not in the Qur'an. That is why there are variations."You made the assertion with, I assumed, the implication that it had some relevence to whether "non-literalist" Islam is a meaningful term. Thus my statement that a "variation" in the practice of a qur'anic command is NOT the same as a "non-literalist" practice of one. As you broached the matter of "variations in prayer" I merely asked you to prove it. I did not deny it. I also took issue with your statement "practice of salah is not in the Qur'an". I offered to demonstrate to you that you are wrong, an offer which you ignored. Furthermore, even if it was true the question must be "so what"? The "vast majority of Muslims" also accept the hadith as a valid source of guidance to the implementation of Qur'anic verses. I pointed out that as YOU had already made reference to the hadith as a source of guidance then the standard manner of Muslim prayer is clearly laid out therein and must therefore - contrary to what the wikepedia page you linked asserted - be regarded as the primary source of:
Whenever debating Islam with Muslims I steer clear of the hadith because of the common Muslim habit of questioning their authenticity when presented with something unedifying. I have no doubt that if I had been the first to bring hadith into the discussion you would have resorted to a similar tactic. However, YOU first invoked them to support your assertion that modern warfare could be deemed "unIslamic" because it involves people getting burned - supposedly countermanding a "prophetic" order not to punish disbelievers with fire. As YOU have established the hadith as a valid reference to support arguments then the alleged "fact" that the standard mode of Islamic prayer is not in the Qur'an is irrelevent. It's clearly laid out in the hadith. End of story.
Answer the following
Fully understanding, of course, that it is YOU, rather than ME, who is the one who does not answer questions and resorts to diversionary tactics.
What is real Islam? Stoning or flogging.
Both would at first sight be LITERALLY "submitting to the will of Allah" - in the latter case to obey the "prophet" and emulate him as the "best example". So, at first sight, either/both would be "real Islam". However, a "non-literal" interpretation of "pitilessly flog-stone" as "mercilessly plaster the adulterers with a hundred kisses" would certainly NOT be "Real Islam". Remember, my contention was with the notion that one "variety" of "Islam" equally warrants the term as another, which you are obviously keen to propagate.
Fourth request for your evidence on your claims about Turkey.
Remind me of the request.
According to you, killing other Muslims is anti-Islamic,
I don't remember stating this but according to the Qur'an whosoever kills a BELIEVER with deliberate intent TO KILL A BELIEVER will indeed burn in hell (4:93). However, "believer" does not include a munafiq ("hypocrite") who Allah certainly likes to see killed at the hands of believers.
Given the list of Muslim victims of 9/11, either acknowledge it was anti-Islamic, or admit your interpretation was literal YET wrong.
Ditto my previous. Furthermore, any "Muslim" who wantonly and knowingly flouts the commands of Allah is in fact a de facto apostate kafir in the eyes of the all-knowing psycho and is certainly no believer subject to the protection of surah 4:93. The 9-11 plane-missile flyers had clearly satisfied themselves that no TRUE BELIEVERS were in the WTC. Perhaps they were wrong and there was ONE true believer in the WTC. However, as they went out to kill the enemies of Allah in large numbers they could not be accused of killing a true believer deliberately.
confirm whether you think suicide bombs against Muslim, in Karachi, or Mosul etc. is anti-Islamic given the above.
Depends on whether any of those killed fitted the Koranic definition of "True Believer" and whether the bombers set out with the intent of killing THEM. Can you demonstrate this situation? Furthermore, a true believer would be quite happy to be martyred in a military operation to slaughter Kafiroon and Munafiqun.
5 - The methodology of Salah is not found in hadith in FULL, you will find PARTS of it, but to know it fully, both the Qur'an and Hadeeth are not enough. The Qur'an mentions the number of times, and prostration etc. The hadeeth cite some other rules, but neither is enough to complete it.
Which bits of current prayer practice are omitted from:
1) The Qur'an
2) The hadith
?
Topic: The heart of the EDL army is online, not on the streets