The Hadith, source of Islamic atrocities.

[dybmh]

@danieldemol ,

I am a little concerned that the discussion of whether or not rape is prohibited in the Qur'an is going to become futile. If the burden of proof requires that the word "rape" be included in the verses I bring, then we should agree to disagree on this point. But the bottom line is that rape is indeed prohibited even though the word rape is not used explicitly. The same is true for a husband raping his own wife.

If you would like to discuss it further, please let me know?

 

[Pastek]

But go a bit further and ask, HOW DOES ONE WAGE WAR AGAINST ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE?
then you learn the truth.
Dont insult islam.
Dont insult Muhammad.
Dont mock Muhammad with cartoons.
Dont question the Quran, it is actually divine, burning one incites Jihad.

There's a difference between what some people think and what God said.
What you are saying is in contradiction with the Quran, if you have read it you already know.
I'm astonished by all the things that you said concerning muslims. You have to understand that like a lot of christians who have never read their Book there's many muslims who haven't read theirs.
I think some of us remember the video about some Christians thinking verses read to them where from the Quran yet it was from the Bible and they were shocked.
If you haven't check out the video :

Saying that muslims follow more the hadiths than the Quran is not true either.

Do you know how many book of hadiths there are ? I don't even talk about the exegesis. Just look at the prices in Amazon (over 150$)
You think a muslim will read dozens of hadiths books (and pay that much) or just read the Quran (that you can have sometimes for free) ?
And by the way we are supposed to read the Quran in arabic and learn it. I can tell you that the majority of muslims won't read the hadiths you quoted.
Do you think a christians/jew will start with the Talmud, Midrash, apocryph gospels etc ?
And they will rely more on those books that the Bible ?
Why do you think muslims give more importance to the hadiths ? This is not true.

"Therefore, if one reasons out of the Quran alone, it is not easy to get to the bottom of why Muslims do the terrible things such as suicide bombings, Honor Killings, beheadings and so forth.
But this all becomes clear once you get hold of the Hadith and read what Muhammad said and did."

Have you heard of the innocent people killed in Algeria in the 90's ? That was done by terrorists.
They killed few christians and thousands of muslims among them pregnant women, elderly and babies/children.
Why ?
Because they said those children will grew up and be bad muslims just as their parents so they killed them so they can go (the children) to paradise.
They killed journalists/intellectuals who wrote against them. Because they said their weapons where their pen.
They killed civil servants (including teachers, nurses etc) because they get their money from the State and the State isn't recognized by them.
They excommunicated many muslims and all those things are forbidden in Islam.
Those things (excuses) are not to be found in the Quran nor the hadiths on the contrary you'll find condamnation for such behavior.

Bentalha massacre - Wikipedia
Beni Messous massacre - Wikipedia

I'm sure you know all that verse saying killing an innocent is like killing the entire world.
If you have read the Quran (you studied it for 10 years, right ?) you know there's a verse against killing ourselves.
And there's nothing such as "honor killing" which is cultural only.

When people say muslims are the first victims of terrorism, it's true.
It seems for you that the targets are the westerners because it shocks a lot people when there's bombings ect but if you look well muslim victims are the majority : Afghanistan, Irak, Syria, Algeria, some part in Africa ...
But what the Quran says about killing muslims ?

4.93 But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.

You can see there's nothing religious about them, the problem is not the Quran nor the hadiths they are just criminals.
Hadiths are important but not when they contradict the Quran which is the FIRST source as it's the Word of God.
And many of the things the extremists are doing are not even in hadiths.
And honestly I don't think the majority of them have read all the hadiths.

"Dont insult islam."

25.63 And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace

"Dont question the Quran, it is actually divine, burning one incites Jihad."

On the contrary in the Quran it says that you should search the truth it's ok to question the Quran.
There's plenty of those verses.

16.24 And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.


18.29 And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve."

 

[icehorse]

A couple of points:

1 - Every woman i know would be offended by this video
2 - I trust the renowned scholars to translated the Quran, more than i trust this speaker. She is apologizing for the Quran.
3 - The Quran declares itself to be easy to understand. It should not take 5 minutes to explain a few sentences.

Once again, the problem begins because Muslims INSIST that the book is perfect.

 

[dybmh]

@icehorse ,

You brought 2 very very good examples of troubling verses in the Qur'an.

2:191

2:191 is a problem because it is possibly the most violent verse in the entire book. But it is surrounded by limits on all sides including in the verse itself.

190: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."
191: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
192: "And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
193: "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

hyperlink >>> quran.com verses 185-195

The limits are:

• 190: Fight those who fight you
• 190: Do not transgress while fighting
• 191: Do not fight them until they fight you
• 192: If they cease fighting, you cease fighting
• 193: limit from verse 192 is repeated
• 193: no aggression except against oppressors

The limits and conditions out number the violent statement 5 to 1. Also, a person doesn't need to go far from 2:191 so read the limits. They are embedded in the verse and surrounding the verse. A person doesn't need to be a scholar to get the message: "These verses in the Qur'an do not advocate continuous war or a purging of the world of non-believers via fighting."

Quite honestly, I think any verse from the Quran that is brought that speaks about violence has limits placed on it the same way.

3:43

This is a verse that I personally have a lot of trouble with. Quite honestly, this one specific verse is enough to prevent me from converting to Islam. Beyond the note about "striking", It still puts the husband in the dominant role, and the wife in the subservient role. In my house, in my family, the men serve the women. My wife is the boss... and I take care of her. That's just how it works in our family. But there are families that prefer to have the husband "in charge of the wife". Is it OK to "strike" the wife? I don't think so. But the Qur'an appears to advise arbitration before it gets to that point.

That said, here's the verse and the limits imposed on it. Unlike verse 2:191, the limits on this verse do not obviously surround it on all sides. But the limits are there.

2:228: "Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."
4:19: "O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them - perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good."
4:34: "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."
4:35: "And if you fear dissension between the two, send an arbitrator from his people and an arbitrator from her people. If they both desire reconciliation, Allah will cause it between them. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Acquainted [with all things]."

hyperlink >>> quran.com 2:228
hyperlink >>> quran.com 4


The limits are:

• 2:228 - Wives have a similar degree of authority over their husbands
• 4:19 - Husbands are to be kind to their wives
• 4:34 - Physical correction is the 3rd not the 1st course of action
• 4:35 - Arbitration is preferred before any of the 3 corrections listed in 4:34

As I said earlier; these limits are not as numerous or obvious as the limits on 2:191; but, they still do exist. Would a non-scholar be able to come to the conclusion: "My wife has authority over me as well. Treat her with kindness. Get help before disagreements get out of hand."? I don't know. And there is the practical problem of how does a wife seek help if the Husband prevents them from leaving the house. But, there are limits imposed on verse 3:34 in the verse immediately following it. And that's the point.

Both 2:191 and 3:34 have limits placed on them in the Qur'an. A person does not need to go to Hadith in order to find these limits. This supports the claim that in Islam, the Qur'an has much higher reliability than Hadith.

 

[Wasp]

wrong verse

It relates to the following verse.

• 4:35 - Arbitration is preferred before any of the 3 corrections

For women ^

It isn't really physical correction it's a gesture. If that either doesn't work, he might leave her. So if a husband does it to his wife they both know that the situation is serious. It means the husband feels he has tried everything else and the wife feels she still cannot overcome whatever it is that is the matter. It also shows gentleness and humility.

 

[Wasp]

A couple of points:

1 - Every woman i know would be offended by this video
2 - I trust the renowned scholars to translated the Quran, more than i trust this speaker. She is apologizing for the Quran.
3 - The Quran declares itself to be easy to understand. It should not take 5 minutes to explain a few sentences.

Once again, the problem begins because Muslims INSIST that the book is perfect.

The problem begins from your flawed thinking. You're not refuting the verse at all. You say 'women you know would...',-

okay,

'you trust the scholars (she is a scholar) more...' -

so go read what they say,

'should be quick to explain' -

The length of the explanation is a problem?

So what's your problem with the verse, really?

 

[Wasp]

And there is the practical problem of how does a wife seek help if the Husband prevents them from leaving the house.

He doesn't have a right to simply stop her leaving the house at all. That is abuse. So if she has a reason such as this here, obviously he has to allow her to leave.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

What seems flawed to me is the idea that either:

- 1.8 billion people can't be trusted to read the scripture on their own - as non-scholars

or

- 1.8 billion people are meant to rely on interpretations of Islamic scholars who can't even agree with each other.

==

Why should non-Muslims rely on individual apologist's interpretations, such as yours? How do you come to conclude that your interpretations are the "correct" ones? I'm not trying to be snarky here.

But then how do YOU come to the conclusion that the OP is right?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Like elephant's teeth, Islam has two versions. One for show, the other for practice. Quran is for show, hadith is for practice. We have a saying in Hindi picturising that "Hathi ke do dant, Khane ka aur, dikhane ka aur" (One for show, the other for eating).

Hindus are no better shall I talk about the "show" Hindus display in California? I don't think you want me to go there. Hindus are no better. I really like how Hindus display their deities in front of motel windows while displaying racist behavior. That's just one encounter.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

He's probably not even studied it ten minutes. This thread is

This thread is trash its meant to demonize Muslims because OP has an axe to grind.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well well well.
perhaps you can tell me what the previous post instructs Muslims to do?

It's too easy to correct you. You're trolling here so I'll let you troll.

 

[icehorse]

Quite honestly, I think any verse from the Quran that is brought that speaks about violence has limits placed on it the same way.

I think your analysis is fine on a granular, case by case basis. But there are two big problems I see with this approach if we zoom out to look at the bigger picture:

1 - It requires a certain scholarly approach that most people don't take.
2 - It fails to acknowledge the larger, propaganda messages that are woven through the book.

In the book, non-Muslims are vilified over 500 times. So we could say something like this:

1 - In situation #1, you can distrust non-Muslims
2 - In situation #2, you can despise non-Muslims
3 - In situation #3, you can kill non-Muslims
4 - In situation #4, you should never trust non-Muslims
...
...
...
501 - In situation #501, remember that non-Muslims are lazy
502 - In situation #502, never make friends with a non-Muslim

So, if you look at any one of these in isolation your approach is reasonable, there is some specific context. But when you zoom out, it should be clear that a larger pattern appears. And remember that human brains are designed to spot patterns. People who create propaganda are aware of this capability and they exploit it.

So even though each of the 500+ occurrences can be said to have a specific context, the pattern that the brain will pick up will be a general one:

"Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and non-Muslims are to be despised."

This is propaganda 101.

 

[dybmh]

I think your analysis is fine on a granular, case by case basis. But there are two big problems I see with this approach if we zoom out to look at the bigger picture:

1 - It requires a certain scholarly approach that most people don't take.
2 - It fails to acknowledge the larger, propaganda messages that are woven through the book.

In the book, non-Muslims are vilified over 500 times. So we could say something like this:

1 - In situation #1, you can distrust non-Muslims
2 - In situation #2, you can despise non-Muslims
3 - In situation #3, you can kill non-Muslims
4 - In situation #4, you should never trust non-Muslims
...
...
...
501 - In situation #501, remember that non-Muslims are lazy
502 - In situation #502, never make friends with a non-Muslim

So, if you look at any one of these in isolation your approach is reasonable, there is some specific context. But when you zoom out, it should be clear that a larger pattern appears. And remember that human brains are designed to spot patterns. People who create propaganda are aware of this capability and they exploit it.

So even though each of the 500+ occurrences can be said to have a specific context, the pattern that the brain will pick up will be a general one:

"Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and non-Muslims are to be despised."

This is propaganda 101.

And this is all completely reasonable. There are 3 details that I am still trying to work out for myself.

1) Regarding the Qur'an and Hadith: What does the religion Islam encourage? What are the variations among different versions of Islam regarding how to approach these 2 texts? What is the majority opinion? What is the minority opinion? What are the 'deal-breakers'; when does a person's approach to Qur'an and Hadith deviate so far from the mainstream that it becomes a different religion all together?
2) Regarding the pattern vs. the case by case analysis: If the case by case granular approach renders each of the verses inert; then doesn't case-by-case approach also render the propaganda inert? ( assuming that it is propaganda... ) If so, then a case-by-case approach is a good thing, right?
3) Regarding the requirement of a scholarly approach: I am not a scholar of this subject matter. I am a newbie. I am an outsider. Addressing 1:191 and 3:34 required internet access. But other than that, all that was needed was simple human do-no-harm morality and critical thinking skills. because of this, is a scholarly approach required?

Besides these questions that I am still working on myself; I think it is important to point out:

The places where you identify that the Qur'an is speaking about non-Muslims is slightly inaccurate. Based on our previous conversations, I am guessing that the verses are speaking about a Kafir which is an extreme example of a non-believer which I think is more accurately described as a hypocrite. But that part does indeed require a scholarly approach or at the very least knowledge of Arabic.

Lastly, I want to pose this hypothetical question:

If the scholarly approach is helpful in defusing verses which can be exploited in the Qur'an, then isn't it a good idea to support Islamic Scholars? People have been criticizing, stereotyping, and demonizing Islam since its inception. That approach clearly hasn't worked. Maybe supporting Islamic Scholars would be helpful?

In reviewing information relating to radicalization of Islamic terrorists in prisons, I read an article where it was found that access to Qur'ans and Islamic "Chaplains" reduced radicalization among incarcerated offenders. I can provide the source for this on request. If this is true and effective, it makes sense to support Islamic Scholarship and promote verses which contradict pro-violence / pro-hate Hadith. (Note: I think the article I read used the word Chaplains. That is why it is in quotes. )

 

[Wasp]

1 - In situation #1, you can distrust non-Muslims
2 - In situation #2, you can despise non-Muslims
3 - In situation #3, you can kill non-Muslims
4 - In situation #4, you should never trust non-Muslims
...
...
...
501 - In situation #501, remember that non-Muslims are lazy
502 - In situation #502, never make friends with a non-Muslim

You can replace the "non-Muslims" with nearly any group of people and apply the same (in fact it is applied) for non-Muslims. For instance if it's a list for the Americans and you put "Iranians" to replace "non-Muslims", it becomes the reality of the day. Muslims form a nation. That was always the plan.

 

[danieldemol]

This thread is trash its meant to demonize Muslims because OP has an axe to grind.

Be that as it may, we still have the folks at IslamQA who represent a sizeable number of Muslims calling for the death of apostates based on Hadith they regard as authentic1

So I think there is some legitimacy to criticism of their approach.

1 Some of the rulings on apostasy and apostates - Islam Question & Answer

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Good one. I hope the Pakistani Muslim reads this, who threatened to "Nuke the Netherlands" a few month ago, over a simple drawing contest" (and the maybe 100.000 Muslims who applauded this)

A lone nutter doesn't override around 1,500 years of Islamic thought. Even Daesh or Al Qaeda doesn't. None of the major world religions condone slaughtering civilians or suicide attacks, but all of them have fringe wackos who twist things or extremists with political agendas.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Be that as it may, we still have the folks at IslamQA who represent a sizeable number of Muslims calling for the death of apostates based on Hadith they regard as authentic1

So I think there is some legitimacy to criticism of their approach.

1 Some of the rulings on apostasy and apostates - Islam Question & Answer

That's a Salafi site so of course it's going to have extremist lunacy on it.

 

[danieldemol]

That's a Salafi site so of course it's going to have extremist lunacy on it.

What Sunni websites are there for rulings that are non-Salafism based?

 

[Shad]

He only studied enough to pronounce Muslims violent but forgot to study the other parts. On the other hand, he didn't study the Bible enough to know that Christians are supposed to love others.

Ahmadiyya is a good example. They are targets of extremists yet do not respond with violence in kind. They are or were the dominate sect in Canada. Now they are having issues with rich conservatives buying up Mosques which introduce ideas such as segregation based on sex.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What Sunni websites are there for rulings that are non-Salafism based?

There's many different Muslim websites but I'm not sure where most go to get rulings on things since I'm not a Muslim and not sure how that works. I would assume that most are talking to their imams instead of looking online.