A clerical doctrine such as Christianity has no model

[Veritas Aequitas]

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also an aspect of Morality-proper.

This UN declaration does not overrule religion in any way. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam clearly points that out.

Strawman again.

The point is the UN Declaration is one example of one aspect of 'Morality-proper" in practice [as you asked for evidence], albeit unsystematically and inefficiently at present.

There is no question of the UN Declaration on HR overruling on any thing.
It is merely a resolution and a guide, thus no authority over any individual or nation.

The UN Declaration on HR includes the UN Slavery Convention which is supposedly universal and aligns with morality-proper, as inferred rationally, is natural inherent morality.
Because Islamic Laws are from God and are immutable, its condoning of slavery is not in alignment with natural morality till eternity.


The UN's morality is not total nor complete because it does not declared "no humans ought to be killed by humans absolutely" but merely advocate restraints and minimizing the killing of humans within justified reasons. [e.g. UN's Declaration on Wars].

Whatever it declares, The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam cannot override God's Laws as stipulated in the Quran.
The Law of Islam permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [in very loose terms] to the religion, e.g. even the drawing of cartoon, disbelieving the religion.
As such, from a morality-proper perspective, TROP is evil laden with high potential of evil. Even if 0.1% of desperate-to-please-God believers [ a whopping 15 million ] are motivated by 5:33 there is a carnage of terror as evident since the TROP first emerged.

[godelian]

The point is the UN Declaration is one example of one aspect of 'Morality-proper" in practice

Well, I spit, pee, and shit on that kind of declarations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is the UN Declaration is one example of one aspect of 'Morality-proper" in practice

Well, I spit, pee, and shit on that kind of declarations.

So you insist slavery, killing of humans and the like are morally good.
You should spit, pee, and shit on your 'barbaric' self.

[godelian]

So you insist slavery, killing of humans and the like are morally good.

Again an imbecile straw man of yours.

[Belinda]

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also an aspect of Morality-proper.

This UN declaration does not overrule religion in any way. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam clearly points that out.

Strawman again.

The point is the UN Declaration is one example of one aspect of 'Morality-proper" in practice [as you asked for evidence], albeit unsystematically and inefficiently at present.

There is no question of the UN Declaration on HR overruling on any thing.
It is merely a resolution and a guide, thus no authority over any individual or nation.

The UN Declaration on HR includes the UN Slavery Convention which is supposedly universal and aligns with morality-proper, as inferred rationally, is natural inherent morality.
Because Islamic Laws are from God and are immutable, its condoning of slavery is not in alignment with natural morality till eternity.


The UN's morality is not total nor complete because it does not declared "no humans ought to be killed by humans absolutely" but merely advocate restraints and minimizing the killing of humans within justified reasons. [e.g. UN's Declaration on Wars].

Whatever it declares, The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam cannot override God's Laws as stipulated in the Quran.
The Law of Islam permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [in very loose terms] to the religion, e.g. even the drawing of cartoon, disbelieving the religion.
As such, from a morality-proper perspective, TROP is evil laden with high potential of evil. Even if 0.1% of desperate-to-please-God believers [ a whopping 15 million ] are motivated by 5:33 there is a carnage of terror as evident since the TROP first emerged.

I am curious as to why you cannot understand that Muhammad and the Koran were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This UN declaration does not overrule religion in any way. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam clearly points that out.

Strawman again.

The point is the UN Declaration is one example of one aspect of 'Morality-proper" in practice [as you asked for evidence], albeit unsystematically and inefficiently at present.

There is no question of the UN Declaration on HR overruling on any thing.
It is merely a resolution and a guide, thus no authority over any individual or nation.

The UN Declaration on HR includes the UN Slavery Convention which is supposedly universal and aligns with morality-proper, as inferred rationally, is natural inherent morality.
Because Islamic Laws are from God and are immutable, its condoning of slavery is not in alignment with natural morality till eternity.

The UN's morality is not total nor complete because it does not declared "no humans ought to be killed by humans absolutely" but merely advocate restraints and minimizing the killing of humans within justified reasons. [e.g. UN's Declaration on Wars].

Whatever it declares, The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam cannot override God's Laws as stipulated in the Quran.
The Law of Islam permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [in very loose terms] to the religion, e.g. even the drawing of cartoon, disbelieving the religion.
As such, from a morality-proper perspective, TROP is evil laden with high potential of evil. Even if 0.1% of desperate-to-please-God believers [ a whopping 15 million ] are motivated by 5:33 there is a carnage of terror as evident since the TROP first emerged.

I am curious as to why you cannot understand that Muhammad and the Koran were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

It is obvious and I [of average intelligence] understands Muhammad and the Qur'an were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.
But for true Muslims, by default, they naturally do not and cannot accept that.

This is the evidence and factual reason,
"Islamists has carried out 46,660 terror incidents [with fatalities] since 911"
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
why Muhammad and the Qur'an had NOT been taken as merely a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

Now, I am curious as to why you cannot understand,
that to be a Muslim-proper, a believer has to enter into divine contract [covenant] [Mithaq, Ahd] with Allah [supposedly real entity] and all the terms of the 'contract' are within the Qur'an only.
You are so driven to be blind to this fact.

Surely, there must be the necessary "terms of a contract" to be fully complied with when one has entered into a contract with another party.
The 'terms of contract' a Muslim entered into with Allah are glaringly stated in the Qur'an and besides, ignorance of the terms is no defense on Judgment Day when facing Allah.
Since whatever is in the Qur'an is applicable eternally, " the historical and political situation of their time and place" factor is irrelevant to the contract/covenant a Muslim has 'signed' with Allah.

As stated in the Qur'an, Muhammad is to be the exemplar for contracted-Muslims to used as a guide in complying with the terms of their contract.

Muhammad is the Most exemplary character (33:21) (68:4) of Islam:

• [33:21] Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
  
  [68:4] And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.

What is at stake for a Muslim is the threat of eternal burning in hell if they were to break or do not comply with the terms of the 'contract' they have 'signed' with Allah.
As such, if a person is a Muslim and to be a Muslim-proper, a Muslim CANNOT treat the Qur'an and Muhammad are merely "a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place" else he could risk going to hell.
A true Muslim must understands the 'terms of contract' are in the Qur'an and no where else and as demanded by God, to comply with them in a state of godfearing with the greatest fear for their life [taqwa].

Another reality is,
say, even if 99.9% [1.5 billion] ignorantly take or 'pretend' the Qur'an and Muhammad are merely "a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place"
and these 99.9% do not commit killing and violence upon non-believers*,
there is still a whopping 15 million of hardcore true-Muslims who would readily comply with the terms of their contract [in the Qur'an] with God, i.e.
'kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadan]' e.g. drawing of cartoons, even being disbelievers as exemplified by the acts of Muhammad.

*the majority of them will condone it indirectly,
[re Pew Research stats]

I DO understand why you deny my above facts, i.e. you have been brainwashed via threats of violence to be blind to reality; in this case you are indirectly promoting violence because there is no way you can change the genetically hardwired true Muslims who are evil-prone.

This is the reason why the existence of the inherently evil ideology itself is a threat to humanity, especially when WMDs are cheaply and easily accessible in the near future.
For the Islamists, they have nothing to lose even if the human species is extinct via WMDs because they are assured of eternal life regardless of what happened on Earth; this is already evident on the small scales martyred killing of non-believers.

[godelian]

I am curious as to why you cannot understand that Muhammad and the Koran were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

The fact that Islam is a product of its time, is exactly what we like about it.

Society and especially its rulers try to alter natural human morality to their benefit. Hence, religion is very suitable as a tool to keep morality as close as possible to our innate biologically preprogrammed firmware.

The mouthpieces of the regime do not like this obstacle because it makes people more difficult to manipulate. So, the harder the mouthpieces of the regime complain about Islam, the more Islam proves that it is indeed doing its job.

So, keep complaining! It sounds like music to our ears!

[Belinda]

Strawman again.

The point is the UN Declaration is one example of one aspect of 'Morality-proper" in practice [as you asked for evidence], albeit unsystematically and inefficiently at present.

There is no question of the UN Declaration on HR overruling on any thing.
It is merely a resolution and a guide, thus no authority over any individual or nation.

The UN Declaration on HR includes the UN Slavery Convention which is supposedly universal and aligns with morality-proper, as inferred rationally, is natural inherent morality.
Because Islamic Laws are from God and are immutable, its condoning of slavery is not in alignment with natural morality till eternity.

The UN's morality is not total nor complete because it does not declared "no humans ought to be killed by humans absolutely" but merely advocate restraints and minimizing the killing of humans within justified reasons. [e.g. UN's Declaration on Wars].

Whatever it declares, The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam cannot override God's Laws as stipulated in the Quran.
The Law of Islam permit believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [in very loose terms] to the religion, e.g. even the drawing of cartoon, disbelieving the religion.
As such, from a morality-proper perspective, TROP is evil laden with high potential of evil. Even if 0.1% of desperate-to-please-God believers [ a whopping 15 million ] are motivated by 5:33 there is a carnage of terror as evident since the TROP first emerged.

I am curious as to why you cannot understand that Muhammad and the Koran were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

It is obvious and I [of average intelligence] understands Muhammad and the Qur'an were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.
But for true Muslims, by default, they naturally do not and cannot accept that.

This is the evidence and factual reason,
"Islamists has carried out 46,660 terror incidents [with fatalities] since 911"
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
why Muhammad and the Qur'an had NOT been taken as merely a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

Now, I am curious as to why you cannot understand,
that to be a Muslim-proper, a believer has to enter into divine contract [covenant] [Mithaq, Ahd] with Allah [supposedly real entity] and all the terms of the 'contract' are within the Qur'an only.
You are so driven to be blind to this fact.

Surely, there must be the necessary "terms of a contract" to be fully complied with when one has entered into a contract with another party.
The 'terms of contract' a Muslim entered into with Allah are glaringly stated in the Qur'an and besides, ignorance of the terms is no defense on Judgment Day when facing Allah.
Since whatever is in the Qur'an is applicable eternally, " the historical and political situation of their time and place" factor is irrelevant to the contract/covenant a Muslim has 'signed' with Allah.

As stated in the Qur'an, Muhammad is to be the exemplar for contracted-Muslims to used as a guide in complying with the terms of their contract.

Muhammad is the Most exemplary character (33:21) (68:4) of Islam:

• [33:21] Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
  
  [68:4] And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.

What is at stake for a Muslim is the threat of eternal burning in hell if they were to break or do not comply with the terms of the 'contract' they have 'signed' with Allah.
As such, if a person is a Muslim and to be a Muslim-proper, a Muslim CANNOT treat the Qur'an and Muhammad are merely "a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place" else he could risk going to hell.
A true Muslim must understands the 'terms of contract' are in the Qur'an and no where else and as demanded by God, to comply with them in a state of godfearing with the greatest fear for their life [taqwa].

Another reality is,
say, even if 99.9% [1.5 billion] ignorantly take or 'pretend' the Qur'an and Muhammad are merely "a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place"
and these 99.9% do not commit killing and violence upon non-believers*,
there is still a whopping 15 million of hardcore true-Muslims who would readily comply with the terms of their contract [in the Qur'an] with God, i.e.
'kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadan]' e.g. drawing of cartoons, even being disbelievers as exemplified by the acts of Muhammad.

*the majority of them will condone it indirectly,
[re Pew Research stats]

I DO understand why you deny my above facts, i.e. you have been brainwashed via threats of violence to be blind to reality; in this case you are indirectly promoting violence because there is no way you can change the genetically hardwired true Muslims who are evil-prone.

This is the reason why the existence of the inherently evil ideology itself is a threat to humanity, especially when WMDs are cheaply and easily accessible in the near future.
For the Islamists, they have nothing to lose even if the human species is extinct via WMDs because they are assured of eternal life regardless of what happened on Earth; this is already evident on the small scales martyred killing of non-believers.

"A contract" you claim, with Allah. But there is no quid pro quo with Allah who is the epitome of mercy . A Muslim submits to Allah whom he trusts as the epitome of goodness.
As with any religion it's people that make the religion divisive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am curious as to why you cannot understand that Muhammad and the Koran were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

It is obvious and I [of average intelligence] understands Muhammad and the Qur'an were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.
But for true Muslims, by default, they naturally do not and cannot accept that.

This is the evidence and factual reason,
"Islamists has carried out 46,660 terror incidents [with fatalities] since 911"
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
why Muhammad and the Qur'an had NOT been taken as merely a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

Now, I am curious as to why you cannot understand,
that to be a Muslim-proper, a believer has to enter into divine contract [covenant] [Mithaq, Ahd] with Allah [supposedly real entity] and all the terms of the 'contract' are within the Qur'an only.
You are so driven to be blind to this fact.

Surely, there must be the necessary "terms of a contract" to be fully complied with when one has entered into a contract with another party.
The 'terms of contract' a Muslim entered into with Allah are glaringly stated in the Qur'an and besides, ignorance of the terms is no defense on Judgment Day when facing Allah.
Since whatever is in the Qur'an is applicable eternally, " the historical and political situation of their time and place" factor is irrelevant to the contract/covenant a Muslim has 'signed' with Allah.

As stated in the Qur'an, Muhammad is to be the exemplar for contracted-Muslims to use as a guide in complying with the terms of their contract.

...........

"A contract" you claim, with Allah. But there is no quid pro quo with Allah who is the epitome of mercy . A Muslim submits to Allah whom he trusts as the epitome of goodness.
As with any religion it's people that make the religion divisive.

Yes, a "contract" [covenant] with Allah; to qualify as a Muslim, the believer must enter into a binding agreement ["contract"/covenant] with Allah and to comply fully with the terms stipulated in the Quran [only] to receive eternal life in paradise as promised within the contract.
The total submission to Allah is the necessary 'consideration' element of the contract.

I have studied and researched the Quran full time for 3 years, so, I am very familiar with the imperativeness and centrality of the covenant in Islam.

Here are some related notes:

Abundance of Covenantal Language and Commentary
An initial clue to the importance of the covenant to Islam is that the Qur’an is replete with discussions and allusions to covenantal ideas.
The first and most substantial modern study of the concept of covenant in the Qur’an is a dissertation by Robert Darnell.
In the abstract of his dissertation, Darnell states that “more than 700 verses of the Qur’an were found related to the covenant idea.”
With respect to specific terminology, Lumbard notes that “words pertaining to the covenant occur over 100 times.”
These statistics indicate an abundance of covenantal language.

There are two Arabic words that are of primary importance for understanding the covenants in the Qur’an.
The first, ‘ahd, occurs 29 times, and the second, mithaq, occurs 25 times.
-Anderson

The Covenant to be 'contracted' is offered from God with grace: A believer must declare the shahada to affect the agreement as binding [covenant/divine-contract].

• [Q: 7:172] And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (That was) lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware
  
  [Q13:20-23] Those who fulfil the covenant [biʿahdi] with God, and break not the compact {agreement} [l-mīthāqa];
  who join what God has bidden to be joined; and dread their Lord and fear the evil reckoning;
  who remain patient, craving their Lord's countenance; and perform the prayer; and
  expend [in alms] of what We have provided them secretly and openly; and
  ward off evil with good
  —these shall have the recompense of the [eternal) abode, Gardens of Eden which they shall enter.

There is Mutual conditions and responsibility of reciprocity between God and believers [quid pro quo]:

“But every covenant, inasmuch as it is a covenant, puts both parties under obligations.”
Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur’an (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002), 88,

Quran 2:40 “Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, and fulfil My covenant and I shall fulfil your covenant; and have awe of Me” (Q 2:40).

“This is God’s promise: God never breaks his promise, but most people do not know” (Q 30:6);

“We make it Our duty to help the believers” (Q 30:47);

“They have sworn . . . that He will not raise the dead to life. But He will—it is his binding promise (Q 16:38);

“Say to them, ‘Have you received a promise from God—for God never breaks His promise?’” (Q 2:80).

On the basis of such passages, Frederick Denny argues that, “It would be easy to multiply examples of how the Qur’anic covenant concept entails mutual conditions and responsibility.”
-Anderson

Although 2:40 mentioned "Children of Israel" i.e. the Jews, the principle is the same for Muslims and Islam, i.e. as God said, "I shall fulfil your covenant" so it is "quid pro quo"

Belinda: As with any religion it's people that make the religion divisive.
It is people within religions that divide religions into denominations and sects; it is religion [esp. Abrahamic] that make people divisive [believers versus infidels] with strong hatreds.

My point:
Whenever you discuss Islam, it is critical you are mindful [in the spirit of critical thinking] of the above, i.e. a Muslim is one who had entered into a "contract" [covenant, mithaq, ahd] with Allah to comply fully [with the greatest fear of God {taqwa}] with the terms of the agreement to gain eternal life in paradise as promised. There is a risk of going to hell if the Muslim did not comply with the "contracted" terms.
Every act [good or evil from a non-believer perspective] a Muslim claimed to be done in the name of the religion and God is in compliant with God's word, for no Muslim would dare to do otherwise to avoid going to Hell.
The above is a very fair, rational and reasonable point.

Any counter to the above?

[Belinda]

It is obvious and I [of average intelligence] understands Muhammad and the Qur'an were a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.
But for true Muslims, by default, they naturally do not and cannot accept that.

This is the evidence and factual reason,
"Islamists has carried out 46,660 terror incidents [with fatalities] since 911"
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
why Muhammad and the Qur'an had NOT been taken as merely a product of the historical and political situation of their time and place.

Now, I am curious as to why you cannot understand,
that to be a Muslim-proper, a believer has to enter into divine contract [covenant] [Mithaq, Ahd] with Allah [supposedly real entity] and all the terms of the 'contract' are within the Qur'an only.
You are so driven to be blind to this fact.

Surely, there must be the necessary "terms of a contract" to be fully complied with when one has entered into a contract with another party.
The 'terms of contract' a Muslim entered into with Allah are glaringly stated in the Qur'an and besides, ignorance of the terms is no defense on Judgment Day when facing Allah.
Since whatever is in the Qur'an is applicable eternally, " the historical and political situation of their time and place" factor is irrelevant to the contract/covenant a Muslim has 'signed' with Allah.

As stated in the Qur'an, Muhammad is to be the exemplar for contracted-Muslims to use as a guide in complying with the terms of their contract.

...........

"A contract" you claim, with Allah. But there is no quid pro quo with Allah who is the epitome of mercy . A Muslim submits to Allah whom he trusts as the epitome of goodness.
As with any religion it's people that make the religion divisive.

Yes, a "contract" [covenant] with Allah; to qualify as a Muslim, the believer must enter into a binding agreement ["contract"/covenant] with Allah and to comply fully with the terms stipulated in the Quran [only] to receive eternal life in paradise as promised within the contract.
The total submission to Allah is the necessary 'consideration' element of the contract.

I have studied and researched the Quran full time for 3 years, so, I am very familiar with the imperativeness and centrality of the covenant in Islam.

Here are some related notes:

Abundance of Covenantal Language and Commentary
An initial clue to the importance of the covenant to Islam is that the Qur’an is replete with discussions and allusions to covenantal ideas.
The first and most substantial modern study of the concept of covenant in the Qur’an is a dissertation by Robert Darnell.
In the abstract of his dissertation, Darnell states that “more than 700 verses of the Qur’an were found related to the covenant idea.”
With respect to specific terminology, Lumbard notes that “words pertaining to the covenant occur over 100 times.”
These statistics indicate an abundance of covenantal language.

There are two Arabic words that are of primary importance for understanding the covenants in the Qur’an.
The first, ‘ahd, occurs 29 times, and the second, mithaq, occurs 25 times.
-Anderson

The Covenant to be 'contracted' is offered from God with grace: A believer must declare the shahada to affect the agreement as binding [covenant/divine-contract].

• [Q: 7:172] And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (That was) lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware
  
  [Q13:20-23] Those who fulfil the covenant [biʿahdi] with God, and break not the compact {agreement} [l-mīthāqa];
  who join what God has bidden to be joined; and dread their Lord and fear the evil reckoning;
  who remain patient, craving their Lord's countenance; and perform the prayer; and
  expend [in alms] of what We have provided them secretly and openly; and
  ward off evil with good
  —these shall have the recompense of the [eternal) abode, Gardens of Eden which they shall enter.

There is Mutual conditions and responsibility of reciprocity between God and believers [quid pro quo]:

“But every covenant, inasmuch as it is a covenant, puts both parties under obligations.”
Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qur’an (Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002), 88,

Quran 2:40 “Children of Israel, remember My blessing wherewith I blessed you, and fulfil My covenant and I shall fulfil your covenant; and have awe of Me” (Q 2:40).

“This is God’s promise: God never breaks his promise, but most people do not know” (Q 30:6);

“We make it Our duty to help the believers” (Q 30:47);

“They have sworn . . . that He will not raise the dead to life. But He will—it is his binding promise (Q 16:38);

“Say to them, ‘Have you received a promise from God—for God never breaks His promise?’” (Q 2:80).

On the basis of such passages, Frederick Denny argues that, “It would be easy to multiply examples of how the Qur’anic covenant concept entails mutual conditions and responsibility.”
-Anderson

Although 2:40 mentioned "Children of Israel" i.e. the Jews, the principle is the same for Muslims and Islam, i.e. as God said, "I shall fulfil your covenant" so it is "quid pro quo"

Belinda: As with any religion it's people that make the religion divisive.
It is people within religions that divide religions into denominations and sects; it is religion [esp. Abrahamic] that make people divisive [believers versus infidels] with strong hatreds.

My point:
Whenever you discuss Islam, it is critical you are mindful [in the spirit of critical thinking] of the above, i.e. a Muslim is one who had entered into a "contract" [covenant, mithaq, ahd] with Allah to comply fully [with the greatest fear of God {taqwa}] with the terms of the agreement to gain eternal life in paradise as promised. There is a risk of going to hell if the Muslim did not comply with the "contracted" terms.
Every act [good or evil from a non-believer perspective] a Muslim claimed to be done in the name of the religion and God is in compliant with God's word, for no Muslim would dare to do otherwise to avoid going to Hell.
The above is a very fair, rational and reasonable point.

Any counter to the above?

I can't object to any of the above especially that you have studied the Koran and Islam more than I have.
In view of your superior knowledge, how do you explain the closing of the gates of Ishtihad? Many Muslims are now able to get post-enlightenment educations and will not tolerate being forbidden critical thinking.
Moreover you seem to me to be literal in your understanding of the Koran, for instance about Hell and life after death. Is there no way Islam and the Koran can be understood without Cartesian dualism ontology?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can't object to any of the above especially that you have studied the Koran and Islam more than I have.
In view of your superior knowledge, how do you explain the closing of the gates of Ishtihad? Many Muslims are now able to get post-enlightenment educations and will not tolerate being forbidden critical thinking.
Moreover you seem to me to be literal in your understanding of the Koran, for instance about Hell and life after death. Is there no way Islam and the Koran can be understood without Cartesian dualism ontology?

Note this;

In the modern era, this gave rise to a perception amongst Orientalist scholars and sections of the Muslim public that the so-called "gate of ijtihad" was closed at the start of the classical era.[2][7]
While recent scholarship established that the practice of Ijtihad had never ceased in Islamic history, the extent and mechanisms of legal change in the post-formative period remain a subject of debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

While there may be certain period where there was consensus within some top clerics of various schools of Madhabs to stop further interpretation of the holy text, that is merely very superficial.

In the Foreword to Izutsu's book, Charles J Adams claim Izutsu's methodology enable the "Qur’an to interpret itself".

The other aspect of Izutsu's study that deserves particular notice is the innovative method he employed to describe the concepts in which he was interested.
He proceeds by a process of semantic analysis that determines the semantic field of each of the ethico-religious terms studied.
Every term in the text is surrounded by other words that constitute its field or its structure.
The meaning of a term, he argues, is to be understood through its relation with the words that surround and accompany it.
In effect, the method allows the Qur’an to interpret itself.

The Muslim community looks upon the Qur’an as the literal word of God delivered to the Prophet by an angel.
Along with the example of the Prophet, the Qur’an provides the guidance necessary for human beings to lead lives pleasing to God in this world and to gain the reward of Paradise Hereafter.
Nothing is of more importance for understanding Islam than an understanding of its Scripture.
Izutsu's work is a fundamental resource for study of the Qur’an, one that was pioneering in its time and whose merit and significance have not diminished.

When the gates of ijtihad was supposed to be closed in the 16th century?? the average linguistic competency and critical thinking level then was very low compared to the present.
Since our linguistic abilities continue to evolve and progress, it is only rational and wise that there should not be any global freeze of what is the supposed message of God in the Quran.
As our average linguistic improve, more people or groups should be able to interpret the Quran on their own without being hindered by others.

Besides there is also the dissonance [dilemma] of to act in accordance to the literal message of God [in many cases sanction violence] against what is it to be a human being with natural moral and empathy within an underlying threat of Hell at stake.

We are not too worried of the 90% of believers.
The critical and real problem is that whopping 15 million [or 20 million ] of evil prone believers from merely 1% of all believers, who are motivated to obey the literal words of God to kill non-believers to be ensured of eternal life paradise. It only took 20+ to do a 911.

If there are 10% that would be 150 millions evil laden.

Some minorities group who had studied the Quran their whole life are likely to be intuitive right despite the lower linguistic competency.

So far, I have NOT seen any moderate Muslims been able to come up with solid counter to the claims of those who claim to be literal to the words of God and advocated evil acts upon the non-believers.
These so-called moderate Muslims merely cherry picked certain verses which are not effective at all.

Note for example:

• [5:32] : For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

then immediately there is;
[5:33] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [fasadan] in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

The term 'corruption' is the ineffective translation of "Fasadan" which is a very loose term that cover even the slightest threat to the religion, e.g. drawing of cartoon or even being disbeliever.

The final arbiter of a believer's acts is God on Judgment Day.
If a believer intend to kill non-believers on Earth upon the reason, they are threat, who can judge and stop him, since no fallible humans can judge for God.
Thus we can have up to 1% or 15 million believers with the potential and willingness to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion and they are so confident they will be rewarded on Judgment Day. This is not a guess because the reality of it is so EVIDENT.

Find me examples where the majority moderate believers had countered the literal or intuitive views of the minorities, e.g. ISIS, Talibans, Hamas and the likes.

[Belinda]

I can't object to any of the above especially that you have studied the Koran and Islam more than I have.
In view of your superior knowledge, how do you explain the closing of the gates of Ishtihad? Many Muslims are now able to get post-enlightenment educations and will not tolerate being forbidden critical thinking.
Moreover you seem to me to be literal in your understanding of the Koran, for instance about Hell and life after death. Is there no way Islam and the Koran can be understood without Cartesian dualism ontology?

Note this;

In the modern era, this gave rise to a perception amongst Orientalist scholars and sections of the Muslim public that the so-called "gate of ijtihad" was closed at the start of the classical era.[2][7]
While recent scholarship established that the practice of Ijtihad had never ceased in Islamic history, the extent and mechanisms of legal change in the post-formative period remain a subject of debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

While there may be certain period where there was consensus within some top clerics of various schools of Madhabs to stop further interpretation of the holy text, that is merely very superficial.

In the Foreword to Izutsu's book, Charles J Adams claim Izutsu's methodology enable the "Qur’an to interpret itself".

The other aspect of Izutsu's study that deserves particular notice is the innovative method he employed to describe the concepts in which he was interested.
He proceeds by a process of semantic analysis that determines the semantic field of each of the ethico-religious terms studied.
Every term in the text is surrounded by other words that constitute its field or its structure.
The meaning of a term, he argues, is to be understood through its relation with the words that surround and accompany it.
In effect, the method allows the Qur’an to interpret itself.

The Muslim community looks upon the Qur’an as the literal word of God delivered to the Prophet by an angel.
Along with the example of the Prophet, the Qur’an provides the guidance necessary for human beings to lead lives pleasing to God in this world and to gain the reward of Paradise Hereafter.
Nothing is of more importance for understanding Islam than an understanding of its Scripture.
Izutsu's work is a fundamental resource for study of the Qur’an, one that was pioneering in its time and whose merit and significance have not diminished.

When the gates of ijtihad was supposed to be closed in the 16th century?? the average linguistic competency and critical thinking level then was very low compared to the present.
Since our linguistic abilities continue to evolve and progress, it is only rational and wise that there should not be any global freeze of what is the supposed message of God in the Quran.
As our average linguistic improve, more people or groups should be able to interpret the Quran on their own without being hindered by others.

Besides there is also the dissonance [dilemma] of to act in accordance to the literal message of God [in many cases sanction violence] against what is it to be a human being with natural moral and empathy within an underlying threat of Hell at stake.

We are not too worried of the 90% of believers.
The critical and real problem is that whopping 15 million [or 20 million ] of evil prone believers from merely 1% of all believers, who are motivated to obey the literal words of God to kill non-believers to be ensured of eternal life paradise. It only took 20+ to do a 911.

If there are 10% that would be 150 millions evil laden.

Some minorities group who had studied the Quran their whole life are likely to be intuitive right despite the lower linguistic competency.

So far, I have NOT seen any moderate Muslims been able to come up with solid counter to the claims of those who claim to be literal to the words of God and advocated evil acts upon the non-believers.
These so-called moderate Muslims merely cherry picked certain verses which are not effective at all.

Note for example:

• [5:32] : For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

then immediately there is;
[5:33] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [fasadan] in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

The term 'corruption' is the ineffective translation of "Fasadan" which is a very loose term that cover even the slightest threat to the religion, e.g. drawing of cartoon or even being disbeliever.

The final arbiter of a believer's acts is God on Judgment Day.
If a believer intend to kill non-believers on Earth upon the reason, they are threat, who can judge and stop him, since no fallible humans can judge for God.
Thus we can have up to 1% or 15 million believers with the potential and willingness to kill non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion and they are so confident they will be rewarded on Judgment Day. This is not a guess because the reality of it is so EVIDENT.

Find me examples where the majority moderate believers had countered the literal or intuitive views of the minorities, e.g. ISIS, Talibans, Hamas and the likes.

The issue of modernising Sharia law is a political issue. Modernisers endorse critical thinking by all competent adults including women---see Aisha. Modernism is promoted by Ijtihad , critical reasoning by all.

The closing of ijtihad is similar in intention to all repressive authorities such as Evangelicals, , the RC magisterium, Stalinist communism, the Saudi administration, and various terrorists.
It is incorrect to denigrate all contemporary Muslims as supporters of oppression and repression. For an example, most Muslims in the UK abide by British law,s and are productive citizens.

[Skepdick]

If you can model it then it's consistent.
If it's consistent then it's incomplete and incapable of self-contradiction.
Adaptation/growth/self-rectification requires negating past versions of yourself.
Self-negation is contradiction.
If Islam has a model then Islam necessarily undermines moral progress/evolution.

I find consistency highly desirable in a theory.

I can only explain it so many times why that's ludicrous and evolutionary suicidal.

Only completeness is desirable. Fuck consistency.

Concerning change, humanity has not changed genetically for 300 000 years. Our fundamental biological firmware has remained the same. Society may change but we essentially remain the same.

Yeah. Except essentialism is nonsense.

To insist that nothing changes is to insist that nothing ever gets better/improves.

Only God's perfect. Everybody else gotta work to improve.

We will interpret the rules about right and wrong according to changing circumstances but we will keep using the same rules. These rules are hard coded into our biological firmware. They cannot be changed.

Fine. Let that be true. Let the rules be hard-coded in our biological firmware.

But you aren't talking about the hardcoded rules; or the firmware. You are talking about linguistic descriptions, expressions of the and codifications of the rules/firmware. You are talking about the communicability of the law. This renders any encoding subject to semantic drift and linguistic relativity.

And so if the codification has a model (e.g is consistent) then the codification cannot be changed.

Even when you come to realize that the letter of the law fails to capture the spirit of the law in a contemporary mind.

If you can't change/update it...queue software rot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot

[Veritas Aequitas]

The issue of modernising Sharia law is a political issue. Modernisers endorse critical thinking by all competent adults including women---see Aisha. Modernism is promoted by Ijtihad , critical reasoning by all.

I believe you missed the point why the concept of 'contract' [covenant] is very critical to the discussion.
Where one is called a Muslim, one has entered into a binding contract with Allah and the terms of contract are in the Quran and no where else. This is epistemologically correct.
The terms of the contract are simple enough to be understood to be complied.

If the terms of contract [in the Quran] warranted that homosexuals must be condemned [Q4:16 & others] and is a threat to the religion, then they are be killed [Q5:33].
Rational and Critical thinking mean a contractee must comply with the terms of the contract, period!
If a believer do not want to comply with the terms of the contract to be a Muslim, then he cannot be called a Muslim officially.

Rather than being rational or critical thinkers, it is the application of wisdom and morality that some believers want to reform Islam and being a Muslim.
However, when the original terms of the contract in the Quran [easily understood] is changed or reformed, that is no more Islam proper and Muslim-proper; it is then corrupted or cultural Islam which is a sin in Islam.
Islam as in the Quran accused Jews and Christians as changing on their own the terms of the original contracts which is the worst sin.

What is at stake for the believer is the assurance of eternal life in paradise and avoiding the threat of Hell.
So with the awareness of this terrible threat of terror, sincere believers would not want to change what is supposed to be the original meaning of the terms of the 'contract', else they could end up in Hell.

What is dangerous is, as long as Islam exists, it is inherently and inevitably [unavoidable] there will be 1% of believers [15-20 million] who are naturally fundamentalists and they are highly motivated [by fear] to comply what is stipulated as terms of their 'contract'. This is THE reality at present and will continue in the future.

The closing of ijtihad is similar in intention to all repressive authorities such as Evangelicals, , the RC magisterium, Stalinist communism, the Saudi administration, and various terrorists.
It is incorrect to denigrate all contemporary Muslims as supporters of oppression and repression. For an example, most Muslims in the UK abide by British law,s and are productive citizens.

Those who insist on staying true to the original meanings of the religion [in this case, Islam] insist they are using reasoning and critical thinking in sticking to the literalness of the terms of 'contract' in the Quran.
In a way [?], they are resisting closing the 'gates of ijtihad' and confining the interpretations to the supposedly 'already reasoned and final' Madhabs [the 4 schools].

That the majority of Muslims do not strongly condemned the acts of the extremists enough or understand the root causes, and worst when they condemn the critiques, mean they are indirectly complicit to the evil acts committed by those extremists. Like it is said, "the moderates are the grasses that hide the poisonous snakes."

The reality is while most Muslims in the UK abide by British Laws [even in Europe and elsewhere], there is still the reality of Islamic related evils emerging and getting worst by the day.
Another reality is, that most Muslims abide by the secular laws of a country is because they are the minority. The reality is where Muslims are the majority, they will enforce barbaric sharia laws on the population and this could happen to the UK when there are more Muslims [seem inevitable due to the slow growth rate of non-Muslims and the deliberate birth jihad financed and parasitic upon the socialist system of the UK].

[godelian]

To insist that nothing changes is to insist that nothing ever gets better/improves.

There is enormous power in manipulating people's morality. If you can alter what they believe is right and wrong, you will have acquired God-like power, and that is exactly what the ruling mafia wants. Changes to morality do not represent improvements for the believer. They represent improvements for the ruling mafia. That is why it is so important to reject the manipulative narrative by the mouthpieces of the regime. Your own power, as a believer, is concentrated in your disbelief of the official propaganda. We do not want their "improvements".