Islam: Qur'an and Hadeeth

[GetInTheTruck]

Since mods shut the other thread down for whatever reason, I wanted to give it a second shot and try to stay away from the inflammatory rhetoric.

Based on the responses to my previous posts and a PM convo, it seems that a routine response to those hadeeth which present Islam in a negative way is that hadeeth doesn't matter, only Qur'an.

But the Islamic standard, assuming you are a Sunni Muslim, (as I was) is that hadeeth = Sunnah. So I would like to know:

-Are the people who say this Sunni Muslims?

-If so, then aren't you abandoning Sunnah? Isn't this a bidha (innovation in religion)?

-If hadeeth doesn't matter, only Qur'an, when you go to pray, do you just do whatever you want? How do you know when to perform sujud, ruku, tasleem, etc? How do you know how many rakaats are in fajr, zhur, asr, maghrib, and isha? How do you know to break your fast with dates during Ramadaan? I am asking because none of this is in Qur'an, all of this comes from hadeeth/sunnah.

-Are there hadeeth you DO accept, or is it only those hadeeth which don't portray negatively? If so, isn't this a little hypocritical? In short, do you REALLY reject hadeeth, or do you only say so to avoid having an uncomfortable discussion about Islam?

@BocaRear I was banned from the other thread for derailment, so I hope you don't mind responding to you here.

@GetInTheTruck is a disingenous piece of shyt. Every quote he has posted out of context.
I find it hard to believe you were ever a muslim if you don't know that the prophet Muahmmed pbuh was at war with the pagan arabs of the Qurayish tribe who literally tried to kill him and all the muslims of the time period which those quotes are in reference to.




“For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killsh a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saves 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.” (Al-Ma’idah 5:32)

For someone who claims to have been a muslim you sure are unaware of the basic tenants of Islam. Islam doesn't advocate religion "by the sword",

there are quranic verses that explicitly reference disbelievers and states:

"O disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion"

- Surah Al Kafirun

Don't try to act as if you're some sort of religious scholar on here when you take quotes out of their ancient historical context in a thread about Muslims being killed by a White Supremacist you fukkboy.

Actually I am quoting them entirely within context, because as you know, the Qur'an was "revealed" over a period of 23 years, it did not come down in one shot according to tradition. Al Kafirun is a Meccan verse, it originated when the Muslims were new and vulnerable, they had no choice but to be docile. It wasn't until after the Muslims established their state in Medina and became a political and military force that they started to expand through violence. It started with Muhammad's re-entrance into Mecca, and then expansion outside the borders of Arabia, and yes it certainly was of the violent variety.

A couple of questions about context, maybe you can clear it up for me:

Narrated by Abu Huraira
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Sahih Bukhari 53:392

First, let me ask you, do you accept this hadeeth? If not, why? If so, what is the proper context that we should consider when reading this? If Islam doesn't seek to take over other lands and make them Muslim, in what context should we view the statement : "The earth belongs to Allah and his apostle?" It would be one thing if it said the earth belongs to Allah, yeah big deal every religion thinks the earth belongs to God, but what does Muhammad have to do with it? If a military leader and head of state tells you the earth belongs to him, what are you going to take from that?

"The Verse:--'You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.' means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."

Sahih Bukhari 60:80

Same question, do you accept this hadeeth? If not, why? If so, what is the proper context? Isn't putting someone in chains until they accept Islam literally the definition of "compulsion in religion?"

Can you please help me understand? Thanks.

 

[88m3]

The only place I've seen or heard people say you can ignore/pick and choose hadiths is HL and KTL.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[GetInTheTruck]

The only place I've seen or heard people say you can ignore/pick and choose hadiths is HL and KTL.

I've heard it offline too. But I usually heard that from Muslims who weren't really familiar with their religion aside from the fact that they were born into Muslim families.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

LOL, I don't think this is an example of that tbh. I think it's plain ignorance. Or in some cases a reluctance to accept what's pretty much clear as day. Most Muslims wouldn't even know what taqiyya is.

 

[cheek100]

I've heard hadiths are "suggestions"
And that only the Quran is law.
If I'm wrong, I apologize

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

LOL, I don't think this is an example of that tbh. I think it's plain ignorance. Or in some cases a reluctance to accept what's pretty much clear as day. Most Muslims wouldn't even know what taqiyya is.

Most of my muslim friends are probably awaiting a stoning if they go back to their parents homeland

Straight up apostates.:jordanhilarious:

But hey, when the penalty for leaving is death

 

[Menelik II]

the [ insert any other ancient doctrine that we now know is ridiculous and immoral ] doesn't count. .

most people just make it up as they go along, pick n choose bit they like.

 

[the cac mamba]

islam

 

[TELL ME YA CHEESIN FAM?]

Hadiths do matter.. but at the end of the day,some of them are just stories

Allah>>>>Muhammad(pbuh) & his companions,Imams etc
Qur'an>>>>Hadith

If God wanted Muslims to stone adulterers to death,he'd put it in the Qur'an
Hadith is part of the religion, just use your brain..nothing wrong in picking and choosing
The clerics are not infallible
Different sects use different versions of Hadith to support their beliefs

Shiites swear Muhammad(pbuh) named Ali as his successor before his death
Sunnis will call you crazy if u bring this up
There are jewels and game in most Hadiths,nothing wrong with soaking em in...if it sounds like it probably is

I still have Nahjul Balagha,Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim in the crib..but I'd rather read the Qur'an

There was a movement like a decade ago which tried to remind Muslims to focus on God's word.. not the Prophet,his companions or the Imams
Cause there's a lot of that going on in Islam even though it's forbidden

 

[Hamza B.]

This meme is so off base it's not even funny. Taqiyya does not mean what that definition says. In Sunni Islam, it is a concept where it is considered permissible to lie about your beliefs in order to save your own life. This is like when the Catholics were taking over Spain, and your choice was to convert or die. Even then, there is a scholarly debate if this type of deception is permissible. All Islamic scholars are agreed upon that it is certainly more honorable to proclaim your belief even it means being killed for it.

In Shiite tradition, taqiyya meant to hide your beliefs in certain aspects of doctrine while in Sunni-dominated lands to avoid persecution or penalties. Idiot anti-Muslim polemicists like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller have deceived people into thinking taqiyya means something totally different than it does. And of course, internet experts run with it.

Islam is open and clear. Islam is not a secret society like the Freemasons, where an elite class know the real truth, or a multi-tier cult like Scientology where only a few are given the "real" information. The most simple and least learned Muslim has the responsibility to convey what he/she knows, and to speak truth even when the people hate it.

And to the original poster, I gotta ask what do you believe in bro? I see you got the Pepe avatar. What's your angle?

Salaam.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This meme is so off base it's not even funny. Taqiyya does not mean what that definition says. In Sunni Islam, it is a concept where it is considered permissible to lie about your beliefs in order to save your own life. This is like when the Catholics were taking over Spain, and your choice was to convert or die. Even then, there is a scholarly debate if this type of deception is permissible. All Islamic scholars are agreed upon that it is certainly more honorable to proclaim your belief even it means being killed for it.

In Shiite tradition, taqiyya meant to hide your beliefs in certain aspects of doctrine while in Sunni-dominated lands to avoid persecution or penalties. Idiot anti-Muslim polemicists like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller have deceived people into thinking taqiyya means something totally different than it does. And of course, internet experts run with it.

Islam is open and clear. Islam is not a secret society like the Freemasons, where an elite class know the real truth, or a multi-tier cult like Scientology where only a few are given the "real" information. The most simple and least learned Muslim has the responsibility to convey what he/she knows, and to speak truth even when the people hate it.

And to the original poster, I gotta ask what do you believe in bro? I see you got the Pepe avatar. What's your angle?

Salaam.

pepe? yeah. thats not me.

Whats that gotta do with muslims moving the goalposts?

 

[BocaRear]

Since mods shut the other thread down for whatever reason, I wanted to give it a second shot and try to stay away from the inflammatory rhetoric.

Based on the responses to my previous posts and a PM convo, it seems that a routine response to those hadeeth which present Islam in a negative way is that hadeeth doesn't matter, only Qur'an.

But the Islamic standard, assuming you are a Sunni Muslim, (as I was) is that hadeeth = Sunnah. So I would like to know:

-Are the people who say this Sunni Muslims?

-If so, then aren't you abandoning Sunnah? Isn't this a bidha (innovation in religion)?

-If hadeeth doesn't matter, only Qur'an, when you go to pray, do you just do whatever you want? How do you know when to perform sujud, ruku, tasleem, etc? How do you know how many rakaats are in fajr, zhur, asr, maghrib, and isha? How do you know to break your fast with dates during Ramadaan? I am asking because none of this is in Qur'an, all of this comes from hadeeth/sunnah.

-Are there hadeeth you DO accept, or is it only those hadeeth which don't portray negatively? If so, isn't this a little hypocritical? In short, do you REALLY reject hadeeth, or do you only say so to avoid having an uncomfortable discussion about Islam?

@BocaRear I was banned from the other thread for derailment, so I hope you don't mind responding to you here.



Actually I am quoting them entirely within context, because as you know, the Qur'an was "revealed" over a period of 23 years, it did not come down in one shot according to tradition. Al Kafirun is a Meccan verse, it originated when the Muslims were new and vulnerable, they had no choice but to be docile. It wasn't until after the Muslims established their state in Medina and became a political and military force that they started to expand through violence. It started with Muhammad's re-entrance into Mecca, and then expansion outside the borders of Arabia, and yes it certainly was of the violent variety.

A couple of questions about context, maybe you can clear it up for me:



Sahih Bukhari 53:392

First, let me ask you, do you accept this hadeeth? If not, why? If so, what is the proper context that we should consider when reading this? If Islam doesn't seek to take over other lands and make them Muslim, in what context should we view the statement : "The earth belongs to Allah and his apostle?" It would be one thing if it said the earth belongs to Allah, yeah big deal every religion thinks the earth belongs to God, but what does Muhammad have to do with it? If a military leader and head of state tells you the earth belongs to him, what are you going to take from that?



Sahih Bukhari 60:80

Same question, do you accept this hadeeth? If not, why? If so, what is the proper context? Isn't putting someone in chains until they accept Islam literally the definition of "compulsion in religion?"

Can you please help me understand? Thanks.

It's not that the Hadith doesn't matter, it's that Quranic verses suprersede that of the Hadiths in a way that Federal law supersedes State laws. This is established within Islamic Jurisprudence. This hadith you have posted appears to contradict the quranic verse that asserts:

from Surah Al-Baqara 256

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing."

This is a Medinan Surah when the Muslims were well established in the year 622. This has been widely accepted by Islamic scholars as showcasing that there is Freedom of religion and the notion that Islam promotes forced conversion by the sword is simply false. This also supports the earlier surah I have posted. Under Islamic rule indeed people had the right to practice freedom of consciousness unlike under Christianity and that's evidenced in historical fact.

Show me a Quranic verse that promotes the killing of non-muslims on the basis of their religion outside of warfare.

When one of the most basic principles of Islam is Murder is haram then tell me how you can even think Islam promotes Terrorism?

Undoubtedly the Quran has violent verses in the context of war but so do every Abrahamic religion. These verses can be used and abused to

A) Convert people into extremist terrorists
B) Paint muslims as bigoted murderers

but neither is the case because the subject is much more profound than you're trying to depict. If that were the case why wouldn't every Islamic scholar come to the conclusion that killing non-muslims is permissable?

 

[GetInTheTruck]

It's not that the Hadith doesn't matter, it's that Quranic verses suprersede that of the Hadiths in a way that Federal law supersedes State laws. This is established within Islamic Jurisprudence. This hadith you have posted appears to contradict the quranic verse that asserts:

from Surah Al-Baqara 256

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

But this is what I mean by picking and choosing. The hadeeth I am quoting are mainly from bukhari and Muslim, which Islamic scholars ie; the religious authorities of your faith have accepted as authentic. This isn't some alt right concoction. It has been made clear that the hadeeth in these books are literally the Qur'an put into practice(Sunnah), it is the undeniable stance of Sunni Islam. You can't get upset at me or others for bringing them to light when they are a part of your religion, whether you find them palatable or not. Your excuses notwithstanding, when we examine Islamic history and how it spread beyond it's initial borders and the general attitude of Islam towards other faiths, past and present, your reasoning for handwaving the Sunnah away doesn't cut the mustard.

This has been widely accepted by Islamic scholars as showcasing that there is Freedom of religion and the notion that Islam promotes forced conversion by the sword is simply false. This also supports the earlier surah I have posted. Under Islamic rule indeed people had the right to practice freedom of consciousness unlike under Christianity and that's evidenced in historical fact

Here is the pact of umar, one of your righteous caliphs and an esteemed member of the sahaaba:

Pact of Umar - Wikipedia

• Prohibition against rebuilding destroyed churches, by day or night, in their own neighborhoods or those situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
• Prohibition against hanging a cross on the Churches.
• Muslims should be allowed to enter Churches (for shelter) in any time, both in day and night.
• Obliging the call of prayer by a bell or a kind of Gong (Nakos) to be low in volume.
• Prohibition of Christians and Jews against raising their voices at prayer times.
• Prohibition against teaching non-Muslim children the Qur'an.
• Christians were forbidden to show their religion in public, or to be seen with Christian books or symbols in public, on the roads or in the markets of the Muslims.
• Palm Sunday and Easter parades were banned.
• Funerals should be conducted quietly.
• Prohibition against burying non-Muslim dead near Muslims.
• Prohibition against raising a pig next to a Muslims neighbor.
• Christian were forbidden to sell Muslims alcoholic beverage.
• Christians were forbidden to provide cover or shelter for spies.
• Prohibition against telling a lie about Muslims.
• Obligation to show deference toward Muslims. If a Muslim wishes to sit, non-Muslim should be rise from his seats and let the Muslim sit.
• Prohibition against preaching Muslim to conversion out of Islam.
• Prohibition against preventing the conversion to Islam of some one who wants to convert.
• The appearance of the non-Muslims has to be different from those of the Muslims: Prohibition against wearing Qalansuwa (kind of dome that was used to wear by Bedouin), Bedouin turban (Amamh), Muslims shoes, and Sash to their waists. As to their heads, it was forbidden to comb the hair sidewise as the Muslim custom, and they were forced to cut the hair in the front of the head. Also non-Muslim shall not imitate the Arab-Muslim way of speech nor shall adopt the kunyas (Arabic byname, such as "abu Khattib").
• Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads' forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastrians to wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.
• Prohibition against riding animals in the Muslim custom, and prohibition against riding with a saddle.
• Prohibition against adopting a Muslim title of honor.
• Prohibition against engraving Arabic inscriptions on signet seals.
• Prohibition against any possession of weapons.
• Prohibition against teaching children the Koran.
• Non-Muslims must host a Muslim passerby for at least 3 days and feed him.
• Non-Muslims prohibited from buying a Muslim prisoner.
• Prohibition against taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
• Prohibition against non-Muslims to lead, govern or employ Muslims.
• If a non-Muslim beats a Muslim, his Dhimmi is removed.
• The worship places of non-Muslims must be lower in elevation than the lowest mosque in town.
• The houses of non-Muslims must not be taller in elevation than the houses of Muslims.
• Houses of the non-Muslims must be short so that each time that they would enter or exit their houses they would have to bend, in a way that it would remind them of their low status in the world

So essentially, according to Qur'an, there is no compulsion in religion, but we'll just treat non Muslims like garbage and extort them if they don't want to convert to Islam. Isn't this the very definition of compulsion?

If Islamic rule was so benevolent, why did so many zoroastrians flee to India? Maybe it's because Muslims were killing them wholesale and destroying their places of worship. Even in India, so many temples in North India were destroyed, ancient Buddhist and Hindu libraries of learning were razed to the ground....so what part of any of this stuff is supposed to be an example of tolerance?

Show me a Quranic verse that promotes the killing of non-muslims on the basis of their religion outside of warfare.

When one of the most basic principles of Islam is Murder is haram then tell me how you can even think Islam promotes Terrorism?

the context of war but so do every Abrahamic religion. These verses can be used and abused to

Well that's the thing, Islam has always been in a perpetual state of warfare, jihad in the cause of Islam and to spread it all over the earth is seen as one of it's sacraments, and a duty. And according to Sunnah, after Jesus comes back he will abolish the jizyah and kill anyone who doesn't want to accept Islam. Is this not a fact, yes or no?

When Muslims decide to go to war with a neighboring nation, and send emissaries there telling them to convert to Islam or prepare for battle, you can't sit back and rely on the excuse that oh well we are only allowed to kill during war. Muslims are always at war. That's the problem.

A) Convert people into extremist terrorists
B) Paint muslims as bigoted murderers

but neither is the case because the subject is much more profound than you're trying to depict. If that were the case why wouldn't every Islamic scholar come to the conclusion that killing non-muslims is permissable?

Again the problem is not with Muslims, it is with Islam. In the locked thread @Solomon Caine said that Islam will never change or reform itself. If that is the case it's not our fault when we rightfully call it a stagnant and repressive ideology.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Hadiths do matter.. but at the end of the day,some of them are just stories

Allah>>>>Muhammad(pbuh) & his companions,Imams etc
Qur'an>>>>Hadith

If God wanted Muslims to stone adulterers to death,he'd put it in the Qur'an
Hadith is part of the religion, just use your brain..nothing wrong in picking and choosing
The clerics are not infallible
Different sects use different versions of Hadith to support their beliefs

Shiites swear Muhammad(pbuh) named Ali as his successor before his death
Sunnis will call you crazy if u bring this up
There are jewels and game in most Hadiths,nothing wrong with soaking em in...if it sounds like it probably is

I still have Nahjul Balagha,Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim in the crib..but I'd rather read the Qur'an

There was a movement like a decade ago which tried to remind Muslims to focus on God's word.. not the Prophet,his companions or the Imams
Cause there's a lot of that going on in Islam even though it's forbidden

This is dangerous as fukk and is part of the reason for Islamic Extremism just like it's the reason for batshyt Christian fundies in the US.