The Oxford Union Debate on Islam: The Question No One Asked—or Answered

Before asking whether the West should be “suspicious of Islam,” we must first establish what actually MAKES something Islamic—and Islamic law is crystal clear.

I’ve been watching the recent Oxford Union debate on whether the West has the right to be “suspicious of Islam.” Amidst all the bickering, it is interesting to note that no one has taken the time to methodically answer the ultimate question: How does one determine what is—and is not—Islamic? 

Once this all-important question is answered, it becomes clear that “debating”—including by quoting this or that Koran verse, in a positive or negative context—is a fool’s errand. For the question on what is and isn’t Islamic has already settled, and it isn’t connected to the opinions of this or that person, be they pro- or anti-Islamic.

Here, then, is the traditional answer—the Islamic answer—on how one determines what is and is not Islam:

What do the core texts and scriptures of Islam say about the thing in question, let’s call it x? Does the Koran, believed by Muslims to contain the literal commands of Allah, call for or justify x? Do the hadith and sira texts—which purport to record the sayings and deeds of Allah’s prophet, whom the Koran exhorts Muslims to emulate in all ways, to call for or justify x?

If any ambiguity remains, the next question becomes: what is the consensus (ijma) of the Islamic world’s leading authorities concerning x? Here one must turn to the tafsirs, or exegeses of Islam’s most learned men—the ulema—and consider their conclusions. Muhammad himself reportedly said that “My umma [Islamic nation] will never be in agreement over an error.”

FULL ARTICLE AT: https://raymondibrahim.substack.com/p/the-oxford-union-debate-on-islam?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6873559&post_id=204220954&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1v9n4o&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email