[Slonopotam845]

Okay it's become clear that Kasinova is a Qur'an-only troll with an agenda.

Lol please. If you don't have nothing good to say then don't say anything at all.

[seosoftseo]

Then why didn't Bukhari dispose of this "hadith"? And what about the others I listed (theres many more)?

Infact Dr Shabbir has helped you already by gathering all such Hadiths in a book and they mount upto 150 ( Half of them are sayings of the jurists which he has termed Hadiths). Picking out 150 narration out the tens of thousands of Hadiths and objecting them on the basis of " they don't match my mind" is illogical.
Why would Bukhari dispose off this hadith? Hadith is a record of our history and its a specialized record unlike the common history books. We can expand it if you are interested in discussing it but Dr springer , the famous German orientalist summarizes it this way.
"There has been no nation in the world ever which has invented the science of Isma wa Rijal(hadith sciences) like Muslims , due to which the record of 5 lac narrators is preserved"

I would go through the rest of Hadiths mentioned by you and would try to provide you the explanations.

[seosoftseo]

Mufti Taqi Usami DB has written a very brief and concise book on this issue. It can be read here http://islamicbookslibrary.wordpress...11/01/30/1900/

[Lerpenoaneway]

What about these?
Ø Killing the apostate?
Sahih Bukhari 9/57:
Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

Ø No big deal to kill a “kafeer” (infidel)?
Sahih Bukhari 9/50:
Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel)
Nothing wrong with either of those

Really? So basically no freedom of religion in islam? No capital punishment for killing a non muslim?

Thats disgusting.

[alegsghed]

I don't know but the two points that the OP raised should be dealt with seperately:

1. Majority of Muslims not living up to the standards of Islam.
2. The Authenticity and Role of Ahadith as a source in Islam.

[nicktender]

Really? So basically no freedom of religion in islam? No capital punishment for killing a non muslim?

Thats disgusting.

It is nonsensical to judge a religion based on modern, man-made standards.

The concept of "freedom of religion" is a very recent concept in human history, as is the ludicrous concept that all people are equal regardless of what they believe or do.

[8Uxtkz7F]

By islamic culture I meant the culture of the peoples in what is typically considered the islamic world. I don't think that that culture IS islam, especially since cultures change throughout the years and islam does not change. It is disconcerting because the culture draws upon Islam, and the culture has become poor.

I see no need to post these hadith in these forums, it will just derail the topic. If you would like to see them, by all means PM me and I will send u a website.

I know God does not need me, but before I give my life/soul to a religion it makes sense to address concerns. If you can't understand that, then please leave me be.

Liar? If you think I am a liar, please let me be and don't respond to my post.

PS
Since I see someone else has asked, here is a more tasteful website with some of these hadith. If mods dont like it, by all means get rid of it.
http://www.islamrevolution.org/hadit...ameofislam.htm
My post is legitimate. If a religion is supposed to be true/good, doesn't it make sense that its followers should in general be better than the rest of the world... certainly not near the botttom? (sorry if it sounds mean, but I am being honest)

Hi

I looked over the list of Ahadith in the link you posted, and here is what I have to say about them:

Number 1:
This is not a complete version of the story. The hands and feet were cut because the people were highway robbers (and that is their punishment, as mentioned in the Quran), and the other punishments were inflicted upon them because that is what they had done to the old man who took care of them. The people who were being punished in this manner were extremely evil people; they went to a man to get treatment, and then, when he had helped them without asking for anything, they stole his flock and tortured him to death. As for the drinking of camel urine, this was done because that was the cure they used at that time to treat the ailment that the group of men were suffering from. Modern medicine uses similarly strange ingredients to treat various maladies as well, so I don't see how anyone could complain about that point.

Number 2 & 3:
Stoning is the Islamic punishment for adultery. I don't really see what the complaint here is. The people were not wronged; they admitted to their guilt without being forced to do so, and were then punished accordingly. If someone wants to criticize the punishment of stoning, I would ask him upon what basis does he feel the need to criticize it?

Number 4:
Interestingly enough, no reference was given for this one. There's no real need to expound upon it before we can determine whether it is legitimate or not.

Number 5 & 6:
This one really illustrates the ignorance of the person who compiled this list. The first hadith is referenced to "al-Bayhaq," while the second it to "al-Baihaqee." The person apparently didn't even know enough to realize that there is no one named "al-Bayhaq," and that both are from the same person, i.e. al-Bayhaqi !
Furthermore, the website's compiler makes an interesting commentary upon this hadith, where he/she states that circumcision is not part of Islam because it is not mentioned in the Quran. Here, we see that the compiler has denied this practice based upon his denial of Hadith, but he places this commentary in a piece that is supposed to refute the legitimacy of Hadith. This is clearly circular.
Getting to the actual content of the Hadiths in question, I simply ask what is wrong with female circumcision? Is it wrong because the Western world names it "genital mutilation?" Or is there some objective criteria that can be utilized to say that is wrong absolutely?

Actually, I wont even bother with the rest, because they are either twisted away from their true meaning, or are instances where the complier decided the Hadith was wrong because it conflicted with the liberal secular Humanist philosophy that is forced down our throats nowadays.

So, I'll conclude with this:

If you, like the complier of that list you've posted, have decide that secular Humanism, or some other philosophy is the truth and then want to see if Islam is the right religion for you, then it is most likely not. Islam is not designed to be compatible with any other philosophy, and the expectation that it should be is ludicrous. Unless whatever you are comparing Islam to a set of objective criteria, then any judgments made about Islam will be suffer from a biased prospective, and will be meaningless to anyone except you and perhaps those that have the same viewpoints as you.

[Lerpenoaneway]

Are you serious? Would you take the same approach of it was christian doctrine that people could not leave the religion without being killed, and that muslims were fair game?

Should freedom of religion not be granted to muslims living in non muslim countries?

I don't believe people are all equal, not even in the slightest bit, but one group should not have the right to trample on the rights of others.

[Zesavenue]

What about these?
Ø Killing the apostate?
Sahih Bukhari 9/57:
Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

Ø No big deal to kill a “kafeer” (infidel)?
Sahih Bukhari 9/50:
Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel)
Nothing wrong with either of those

Really? So basically no freedom of religion in islam? No capital punishment for killing a non muslim?

Thats disgusting.

Endo, Ive followed your 21 posts - and you strike me as a smart guy.

So do you really need answerss to those questions? Your telling me that you have studied all this stuff about Islam, but you came accross those two (partial) ahadeeth and you got confused?

You know that Islam allows christians and jews and sabians (and even the hindus in india) to practice their abomnable religions - so why ask such a question? you know the answer.

You also know that in an Islamic state - the non-muslims have restrictions placed on them and there is a double standard -its a theocracy, what do you expect - If I lived in a christian country, I wouldnt be upset if those christians limited some of my rights as long as I can practice my religion to the fullest - its a theocracy.

You see a theocracy is built on a premiss that this world is temporary, and adhearance to a single religion is most important - thus, those citizens who do not adhear to said religion do not deserve the same privalges as a citizen who does adhere. You have been raised in a culture that constantly promotes this world - and constantly screams freedom, so its no wonder why you would scream of injustices of a theocracy.

...But, I got good news for you, there are no Islamic theocracies on earth today, so you dont have to worry about it.

P.S. - the second hadeeth which you may or may not have quioted without context does not say that a Muslim can kill kafirs willy nilly with no punishment - the Shari punishment for murder is death (or blood ransom, or forgiveness , its up to the victims fam) - so this hadeeth is saying that death is not an option when the victim is a kafir.

[Lerpenoaneway]

What objective criteria should I compare it to?

Hi

I looked over the list of Ahadith in the link you posted, and here is what I have to say about them:

Number 1:
This is not a complete version of the story. The hands and feet were cut because the people were highway robbers (and that is their punishment, as mentioned in the Quran), and the other punishments were inflicted upon them because that is what they had done to the old man who took care of them. The people who were being punished in this manner were extremely evil people; they went to a man to get treatment, and then, when he had helped them without asking for anything, they stole his flock and tortured him to death. As for the drinking of camel urine, this was done because that was the cure they used at that time to treat the ailment that the group of men were suffering from. Modern medicine uses similarly strange ingredients to treat various maladies as well, so I don't see how anyone could complain about that point.

Number 2 & 3:
Stoning is the Islamic punishment for adultery. I don't really see what the complaint here is. The people were not wronged; they admitted to their guilt without being forced to do so, and were then punished accordingly. If someone wants to criticize the punishment of stoning, I would ask him upon what basis does he feel the need to criticize it?

Number 4:
Interestingly enough, no reference was given for this one. There's no real need to expound upon it before we can determine whether it is legitimate or not.

Number 5 & 6:
This one really illustrates the ignorance of the person who compiled this list. The first hadith is referenced to "al-Bayhaq," while the second it to "al-Baihaqee." The person apparently didn't even know enough to realize that there is no one named "al-Bayhaq," and that both are from the same person, i.e. al-Bayhaqi !
Furthermore, the website's compiler makes an interesting commentary upon this hadith, where he/she states that circumcision is not part of Islam because it is not mentioned in the Quran. Here, we see that the compiler has denied this practice based upon his denial of Hadith, but he places this commentary in a piece that is supposed to refute the legitimacy of Hadith. This is clearly circular.
Getting to the actual content of the Hadiths in question, I simply ask what is wrong with female circumcision? Is it wrong because the Western world names it "genital mutilation?" Or is there some objective criteria that can be utilized to say that is wrong absolutely?

Actually, I wont even bother with the rest, because they are either twisted away from their true meaning, or are instances where the complier decided the Hadith was wrong because it conflicted with the liberal secular Humanist philosophy that is forced down our throats nowadays.

So, I'll conclude with this:

If you, like the complier of that list you've posted, have decide that secular Humanism, or some other philosophy is the truth and then want to see if Islam is the right religion for you, then it is most likely not. Islam is not designed to be compatible with any other philosophy, and the expectation that it should be is ludicrous. Unless whatever you are comparing Islam to a set of objective criteria, then any judgments made about Islam will be suffer from a biased prospective, and will be meaningless to anyone except you and perhaps those that have the same viewpoints as you.

[8Uxtkz7F]

Actually you are wrong. Go and check the hadith for yourself (i.e the ones I posted below). How do we determine the context when there is no historical evidence to support these hadith? And in many cases, the required context would seem pretty far-fetched.

Are you stupid, or just acting the part?

The Hadith ARE the historical evidence. What, are you now going to demand historical records of history?

[8Uxtkz7F]

What objective criteria should I compare it to?

That's exactly my point.

These are issues of morality.

Unless you can establish a system of morality that is universal and objective, you have no real place to be criticizing others for their views on what is moral and what isn't.

And before you ask why we can criticize, we do have an objective set of criteria, i.e. those of Islam.

Your error is that you're judging the legitimacy of Islam upon principles when in fact you have no way of knowing whether or not they are correct in the first place.

[Lerpenoaneway]

Endo, Ive followed your 21 posts - and you strike me as a smart guy.

I would disagree, a smart guy would have this sorted out and be doing more productive things
So do you really need answerss to those questions? Your telling me that you have studied all this stuff about Islam, but you came accross those two (partial) ahadeeth and you got confused?

Not just these, many. The whole way hadith seem to override reason and quran.
You know that Islam allows christians and jews and sabians (and even the hindus in india) to practice their abomnable religions - so why ask such a question? you know the answer.

Allows? How many churches in Saudi? How are the copts treated? Hindus during time of the reign Muslims?

They survive, but they are exploited, harassed, and pushed to convert to islam.
You also know that in an Islamic state - the non-muslims have restrictions placed on them and there is a double standard -its a theocracy, what do you expect - If I lived in a christian country, I wouldnt be upset if those christians limited some of my rights as long as I can practice my religion to the fullest - its a theocracy.

But would you be able to? And if a religion is true, why violently force it down peoples throats and forbid them from leaving? I had a buddy, now a surgeon, who was COPT. The stories he used to tell do not lead me to believe that christians are free to to practice their religion


You see a theocracy is built on a premiss that this world is temporary, and adhearance to a single religion is most important - thus, those citizens who do not adhear to said religion do not deserve the same privalges as a citizen who does adhere.
And who determines this? The state and state supported scholars. MEN, not God
You have been raised in a culture that constantly promotes this world - and constantly screams freedom, so its no wonder why you would scream of injustices of a theocracy.

...But, I got good news for you, there are no Islamic theocracies on earth today, so you dont have to worry about it.

No countries with quran as the constitution, I can think of a few...

P.S. - the second hadeeth which you may or may not have quioted without context does not say that a Muslim can kill kafirs willy nilly with no punishment - the Shari punishment for murder is death (or blood ransom, or forgiveness , its up to the victims fam) - so this hadeeth is saying that death is not an option when the victim is a kafir.

Which in turn states that a non muslim's life is worth less than a muslims... which yes, I do disagree with. When some of my western friends state that muslims lives are worth less, I disagree with them as well.

[nicktender]

Which in turn states that a non muslim's life is worth less than a muslims... which yes, I do disagree with. When some of my western friends state that muslims lives are worth less, I disagree with them as well.

The Qur'an states multiple times that the believers are superior to the disbelievers. This is a natural extension of that.

[broksaksaak]

Muslim scholars agree that Killing a Dhimmi or a Non-Muslim is HARAM (unless you're at war with them) it is one of the biggest sins BUT they said that if this does happen the punishment for the Muslim is not death as the Hadiths state:

"لا يُقتل مسلم بكافر" &
"ألا لا يُقتل مؤمن بكافر ولا ذو عهد في عهده" another group of scholars however disagreed and said that If a Muslim kills a Dhimmi then he must be killed because they explained the word Kaffir in the Hadith as a Kaffir Harbi, meaning a Kaffir who you are at war with But a Kaffir from ahlul-Dhimmah has a different ruling. The Ottoman Caliphate followed this opinion.

[Lerpenoaneway]

Thank you tripolysunni, it is nice to hear that their are different opinions on the matter. I like hearing their are different opinions on any matter.

Sometimes I feel that converting to islam would mean I had to hold views that I disagree with, but I forget that all muslims do not agree.

Thanks for the post

[Lerpenoaneway]

The Qur'an states multiple times that the believers are superior to the disbelievers. This is a natural extension of that.

Yes, but is it true? Could a christian not be more of a believer than a muslim? Plenty of hypocrites in religion, but they would be protected by this law.

I believe 100% in God, one of the only things I truly do believe in, because I am not muslim at this time that makes me less in his eyes than a muslim of bad character?

[seosoftseo]

What about these?
Ø Killing the apostate?
Sahih Bukhari 9/57:
Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

Ø No big deal to kill a “kafeer” (infidel)?
Sahih Bukhari 9/50:
Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel)
Nothing wrong with either of those

Really? So basically no freedom of religion in islam? No capital punishment for killing a non muslim?

Thats disgusting.

As brother abdulhaq said that its irrational to look into a religion through the lenses of your intellect as tthe intellect which is of-course adoptive in nature , cannot be taken as standard. How many times have you objected to the internal dilemma of your own self that you can not breath nitrogen instead of Oxygen? Ofcourse you would not object to that , though its a sort of unjust in its core that you have been made u in a way that you can respire Oxygen only. There are certain laws of nature which are binding on every human and they carry a sense of discrimination.
As far as apostasy in Islam , there is a difference of opinion on what an " Apostate" is.

1. This is a matter that only a ruler or a judge that is authorized by a ruler can decide its decession

2. No judgment to be made before a careful investigation occur for this matter

3. If it is proven then whoever apostaes openly should be questioned first then all his doubts and questions to be answered and clarified then he needs to be asked to repent from what he did.

4. This ruling if to happen cannot be applied by people because only a ruler or a judge that is authorized by the ruler can do so.

5. If he insists on it then a judgment is based on its case like any other case because what he did is considered a crime according to Islam therefore the law needs to eb employed just like any other law. The punishment for such crime is execuation and on this point please read the following topic:

6. there is a big difference between Murtad and Muharib. the fisrt is someone who is muslim then he becomes not Muslim in purpose while the second is someone who terrorify others in roads with weapon and so on.

[broksaksaak]

Which in turn states that a non muslim's life is worth less than a muslims... which yes, I do disagree with. When some of my western friends state that muslims lives are worth less, I disagree with them as well.

Muslim and non-Muslims are not equal:

And not equal are the blind and the seeing, nor are those who believe and do righteous deeds and the evildoer. Little do you remember. (40:58)

Muslims themselves are not equal:

Not equal among you are those who spent before the conquest [of Makkah] and fought [and those who did so after it]. Those are greater in degree than they who spent afterwards and fought. But to all Allah has promised the best [reward]. And Allah, with what you do, is Acquainted. (57:10)

[broksaksaak]

Thank you tripolysunni, it is nice to hear that their are different opinions on the matter. I like hearing their are different opinions on any matter.

Sometimes I feel that converting to islam would mean I had to hold views that I disagree with, but I forget that all muslims do not agree.

Thanks for the post

The disagreement is not whether the person is punished or not, if you read Islamic history you'll see plenty of examples of Muslims being punished for killing or harming non-Muslims, The Disagreement is on the death-penalty and whether it should be applied.