Islam: Qur'an and Hadeeth

[TELL ME YA CHEESIN FAM?]

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.

Which part?

 

[Oville]

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.



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

Pact of Umar - Wikipedia

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?



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.



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.

Not a muslim or the least bit religous but everything you fear about the text in Quran can be found in the text of the other Abrahamic religions. If your gonna talk about the ancient buddhist and hindu libraries being burnt you should at least mention the wave of violent buddhist and hindu attacks on Muslims for eating beef and other meat. The muslim majority world has been plagued by theocracy but sociological evidence has shown that fundamentalism arises from institutional impositions of religion. When you have a government based on secular humanistic beliefs people become less inclined to impose fundamental religious practices on people.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Which part?

The whole concept of picking and choosing what aspect of the faith to follow.

People come to these rationalizations that it would be ok to drive a truck into a crowd of people or blow up a building because someone made an image of The Prophet

 

[TELL ME YA CHEESIN FAM?]

Heh I don't think we're on the same wavelength breh

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Not a muslim or the least bit religous but everything you fear about the text in Quran can be found in the text of the other Abrahamic religions. If your gonna talk about the ancient buddhist and hindu libraries being burnt you should at least mention the wave of violent buddhist and hindu attacks on Muslims for eating beef and other meat. The muslim majority world has been plagued by theocracy but sociological evidence has shown that fundamentalism arises from institutional impositions of religion. When you have a government based on secular humanistic beliefs people become less inclined to impose fundamental religious practices on people.

I'm not a fan of any of the abrahamic religions, Islam is just the worst of the 3 in the present day.

I'm sorry but I don't think the rest of your post makes any sense. India is one of the most religiously diverse places in the world and has been for a very long time. There's only one religion that can't seem to get along with the rest of them. I'll let you take a wild guess which one that is.

 

[Oville]

I'm not a fan of any of the abrahamic religions, Islam is just the worst of the 3 in the present day.

I'm sorry but I don't think the rest of your post makes any sense. India is one of the most religiously diverse places in the world and has been for a very long time. There's only one religion that can't seem to get along with the rest of them. I'll let you take a wild guess which one that is.

Since when has religious diversity necessarily dampened conflict among religions. Here's an article that talks about the subject.

Christians and Muslims Face More Persecution by Hindu Extremists in India, Groups Say | VICE News

 

[LoStranger]

Hinduism is just as vile, racist and violent as Islam......they're even bigoted towards Sikhs.

 

[BocaRear]

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.



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

Pact of Umar - Wikipedia

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?



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.



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.

See you're creating a false dilemna here, it's not an "either or" sort of dilemna at all.
There is NO question that quranic law supersedes hadiths.
Again, quranic law explicitly states that there is no compulsion in religion and also that it is strictly forbidden to kill innocent people. Is this true or false?

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.


Surah 49:13

Moreover, you talk about Jihad. Do you know what the meaning of Jihad is? It refers to the internal struggle in regards to seeking to attain religious piety. Militiary jihad is in regards to the "Just war" concept and is part of the larger concept of spiritual jihad. In regards to the concept of a Just war/casus belli here is the criteria:

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ received his first divine revelations in Mecca and he peacefully preached the message of Islam to the Meccans for thirteen years until an intolerable level of persecution forced him and his followers to flee to the nearby town of Yathrib (later known as Medina). Despite emigrating outside of Mecca, the Meccans headed by the Quraish aristocracy vowed to exterminate the newly formed religious community.



Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.’


Qur’an 2:190


the instructions of the Prophet are as follows: “Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman” “Do not kill the monks in monasteries” or “Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” During a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the ground and observed: “She was not fighting. How then she came to be killed?” Thus non-combatants are guaranteed security of life even if their state is at war with an Islamic state.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

See you're creating a false dilemna here, it's not an "either or" sort of dilemna at all.
There is NO question that quranic law supersedes hadiths.
Again, quranic law explicitly states that there is no compulsion in religion and also that it is strictly forbidden to kill innocent people. Is this true or false?

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.


Surah 49:13

Moreover, you talk about Jihad. Do you know what the meaning of Jihad is? It refers to the internal struggle in regards to seeking to attain religious piety. Militiary jihad is in regards to the "Just war" concept and is part of the larger concept of spiritual jihad. In regards to the concept of a Just war/casus belli here is the criteria:

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ received his first divine revelations in Mecca and he peacefully preached the message of Islam to the Meccans for thirteen years until an intolerable level of persecution forced him and his followers to flee to the nearby town of Yathrib (later known as Medina). Despite emigrating outside of Mecca, the Meccans headed by the Quraish aristocracy vowed to exterminate the newly formed religious community.



Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.’


Qur’an 2:190


the instructions of the Prophet are as follows: “Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman” “Do not kill the monks in monasteries” or “Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship.” During a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the ground and observed: “She was not fighting. How then she came to be killed?” Thus non-combatants are guaranteed security of life even if their state is at war with an Islamic state.

You keep talking about the context of war, but you fail to realize that war was always initiated by the Muslims in order to spread Islam.

Surah 2:193

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

So in other words, fight them until they become Muslims....and here is a another ayat which contradicts the "no compulsion in religion" narrative:

Surah 3:83

Do they seek other than the religion of Allâh (the true Islâmic Monotheism worshipping none but Allâh Alone), while to Him submitted all creatures in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly. And to Him shall they all be returned.

Unwillingly submit? Islam means submission, does it not?

Also, you did not respond to the treaty of Umar and how it lays out how to treat non-Muslims living under Muslim rule. Are those policies acceptable to you? Are they within the spirit of Islam? If Islam was not militaristic in nature, why wasn't it content to remain contained within the Arabian peninsula? Why take over other lands and bring them under Islamic rule?

Do you believe, as is Sunni standard, that when Jesus comes back he will abolish the Jizyah and kill all those who refuse to accept Islam? If so, how can this be the case when the Qur'an, which according to you is against such things, is supposed to be the final revelation until the day of judgement?

Also, it's funny you choose to end your post with an even from hadeeth, again...picking and choosing what you want to accept and discard. I'd rather look at Islam and Islamic history in total. That is the only honest approach. And when you do that, it becomes clear as day that Islam has always been attached to violence and intolerance.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Not a muslim or the least bit religous but everything you fear about the text in Quran can be found in the text of the other Abrahamic religions. If your gonna talk about the ancient buddhist and hindu libraries being burnt you should at least mention the wave of violent buddhist and hindu attacks on Muslims for eating beef and other meat. The muslim majority world has been plagued by theocracy but sociological evidence has shown that fundamentalism arises from institutional impositions of religion. When you have a government based on secular humanistic beliefs people become less inclined to impose fundamental religious practices on people.

Muslims have engaged in genocidal attacks on Hindus throughout the subcontinents history, these events can be easily referenced. So many ancient temples throughout North India were destroyed by Muslim invaders. How you can compare that to sparse, isolated attacks on Muslims in India today fueled by political strife is beyond me.

India is a secular country, and always has been by nature.

When the Jews were being killed by both Christians and Muslims, they fled to India.

When the Zoroastrians/Parsis were being killed by Muslims and targeted for genocide, they fled to India.

When the Bahai community was being killed by Muslims they fled to India.

Today, the majority of Zoroastrians and Bahai's live in India where they have historically flourished unmolested as opposed to their experience living under Muslim rule. The Bahai faith started under the Ottomans but today their most famous temple, the Lotus temple, is located in India. Probably because if they tried to build one in an Islamic country it would be destroyed.

Sorry, but your false equivalencies don't measure up to reality.

 

[the cac mamba]

does the quran make the bible fake? and vice versa?

 

[Oville]

Muslims have engaged in genocidal attacks on Hindus throughout the subcontinents history, these events can be easily referenced. So many ancient temples throughout North India were destroyed by Muslim invaders. How you can compare that to sparse, isolated attacks on Muslims in India today fueled by political strife is beyond me.

India is a secular country, and always has been by nature.

When the Jews were being killed by both Christians and Muslims, they fled to India.

When the Zoroastrians/Parsis were being killed by Muslims and targeted for genocide, they fled to India.

When the Bahai community was being killed by Muslims they fled to India.

Today, the majority of Zoroastrians and Bahai's live in India where they have historically flourished unmolested as opposed to their experience living under Muslim rule. The Bahai faith started under the Ottomans but today their most famous temple, the Lotus temple, is located in India. Probably because if they tried to build one in an Islamic country it would be destroyed.

Sorry, but your false equivalencies don't measure up to reality.

Its only a false equivalency, if I'm saying its equivalent. I'm just making the case that people can twist religion into whatever they want it to be. The persecution that the Hindu's in the article I posted weren't attacking the muslims and christians due to any retaliatory purpose. They were attacking them for eating an animal which is sacred to their religion.

 

[88m3]

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

This remains my experience