|Scholars opinions about dissenting opinions
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Linguistic [ 01 Jul 2010, 20:24 ]|
|Post subject:||Scholars opinions about dissenting opinions|
I wanted to post my opinion that the hostile attitude towards those who disagreed with the abrogation doctrine, which can be seen in the abusive language openly used against them in the theological literature, may have inhibited those who had doubts about abrogation from pursuing their ideas or expressing their opinions. The reason this is relevant to the merits of the case here is that such bias of embracing those who agree and shunning those who disagree could result in a self-fulfilling 'consensus'.
Ihaab Abduh, in his book استحالة وجود النسخ بالقرآن, pages 9-10, quotes Ibn Al-Qayyim saying (my brief translation),
"Just like the law set the capital punishment for apostasy, to defend the religion, it also set it for heresy, to protect the religion from corrupt and invalid interpretations.
Interpretation is two types: one that does not contradict the Book, the Sunna and consensus, and another that does. That's heresy.
Someone mentions a corrupt interpretation not heard before is a heretic. The majority of later followers of Abu-Haneefa and Ash-Shaafi`i agree that such person is to be killed."
That takes the cake for intimidation, indoctrination and suppression of individual analysis! I actually find it hard to believe that Ibn Al-Qayyim would say anything of the sort. That quote makes a number of points, all easily refutable:
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group