Islamism ???

[humanfirst]

Islam asks to treat the minorities (Non Muslims) with fairness and equity, as long as they don't commit physical aggression. (Reflecting the time when Muslims were a very small minority)

With respect to prophet muhammeds rule in medina, which you claim to treat non Muslims with fairness and equality-can you deny any of these-
1.The non muslims were supposed to pay jizya which is conveniently left without an upper limit while muslim zakat was capped at 2.5%..
2.The value of testimony of a non muslim in court was only half of those of a muslim..
3.A non Muslim leaving his religion and becoming muslim was encouraged while a muslim apostate was supposed to be killed..
4.Instead of punishing the guilty, brutal measures of collective punishment were enacted by muhammed to pursue his political agenda-case of jewish tribe banu nadir for eg:where muhammed started the trouble by demanding banu nadir a share of blood money for murder committed by some muslims outside medina and ended up evicting the entire tribe..

As I said earlier..The modern westernised islamists can prop up a modern version by omitting unwanted parts,it cannot remain that way because there will always be millions of muslims whose sense of right and wrong depends only on what quran said or what prophet muhammed said/did..They will fight the modernises islamists till the 7th century version is established without omissions and facelifts..

 

[Kompromat]

With respect to prophet muhammeds rule in medina, which you claim to treat non Muslims with fairness and equality-can you deny any of these-
1.The non muslims were supposed to pay jizya which is conveniently left without an upper limit while muslim zakat was capped at 2.5%..
2.The value of testimony of a non muslim in court was only half of those of a muslim..
3.A non Muslim leaving his religion and becoming muslim was encouraged while a muslim apostate was supposed to be killed..
4.Instead of punishing the guilty, brutal measures of collective punishment were enacted by muhammed to pursue his political agenda-case of jewish tribe banu nadir for eg:where muhammed started the trouble by demanding banu nadir a share of blood money for murder committed by some muslims outside medina and ended up evicting the entire tribe..

As I said earlier..The modern westernised islamists can prop up a modern version by omitting unwanted parts,it cannot remain that way because there will always be millions of muslims whose sense of right and wrong depends only on what quran said or what prophet muhammed said/did..They will fight the modernises islamists till the 7th century version is established without omissions and facelifts..

Provide a source for this.

 

[PurpleButcher]

For threads like these,

Say, "O disbelievers, [1] I do not worship that which you worship, [2] nor do you worship the One whom I worship. [3] And neither I am going to worship that which you have worshipped, [4] nor will you worship the One whom I worship. [5] For you is your faith, and for me, my faith." [6]

Surah Kafiron

 

[M. Sarmad]

Allow me to say that you are trying to impose your point of view rather than challenging the argument. Why do I need to repeat what I just said earlier? Cherry picked verses you posted without knowledge. I don't think I ever said that the Quran is not clear or un detailed. What I was saying is that you need the Authentic Hadith to explain it otherwise we would have not known how to pray am I right? Can you point out any verse in the Quran which explains the method of praying? You will not find it because we have come to know how to pray through the illustration given in Hadith. Without the Hadith anyone can come up with his/her own interpretation.

Cherry picked verses ? Are there any verses in Holy Quran which tell us otherwise ? No There are not !! as Quran , unlike Hadith , is not self contradicting .

When Quran itself says that its fully detailed and Allah has not left anything out of Quran , then how can you say that it is impossible to understand Quran without Hadith ? Dont you think your argument contradicts with Quranic teachings ??

About how to pray from Quran :
What Iranians and Saudis refuse to realize! | Page 18

Put your own words and not Abdu Rub? His claims are not supported but shouting in the air. The prophet said don't write my saying at his time only for a purpose that not to be mixed with the Quran in one manuscript. That happened when the Quran has not been written down but memorized. What is funny is that you don't believe in Hadith yet you use Hadith to prove your pointThe Quran also was transmitted orally and was first collected after the death of the prophet.The Authentic Hadith criteria is unchallengeable. You yourself don't know what the criteria and methods were used, have you read the science of Hadith and reporters or just posting every crap that you find in the internet? Hadith are categorized into Authentic, Weak, false. Here we are talking about the Authentic Hadith.

Wrong again . The Authentic Hadith criteria is not unchallengeable . It has been successfully challenged by many including prominent Muslim scholars .

And your argument that prophet (pbuh) forbade writing down of Hadith so that it may not get mixed with Quran is not acceptable academically .

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate(orally) from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).

Imam Nawawi , in his Sharah of Sahih Muslim , writes that Prophet forbade writing down of hadith during the initial times of Islam so it may not get mixed with Quran , and on certain occasions prophet gave permission to write down his sayings . a century later , A "Ijma" (consensus) of Muslim Scholars legitimized Writing down of Hadith collections . There are two problems in accepting this .

Firstly .

1) The verses in which Allah himself took the responsibility of protection of Quran were revealed in Mecca . After this , there was no point in fearing that Quran may get mixed with Hadith or get abrogated

2) The Hadith in Sahih Muslim which tells us that prophet forbade writing down Hadith is narrated by two companions , Abu Huraira r.a & Abu Saeed Khudri r.a .(I assume you are aware of criteria of Hadith selection adopted by Muslim)
Abu Huraira r.a embraced Islam 3 or 4 years before demise of prophet
Abu Saeed was a ansari who could not participate in battle of Uhud because he was too young at that time

So essentially this Hadith is from the last time of prophet (pbuh) in Medina . Long after the revelation of verses that confirmed Quran will be protected by Allah himself . Also In this Hadith the prophet tells his companions to erase all previous hadith writings (which he had allowed on certain occasions) .

Secondly , A Ijma cant rule out Sunnah

So this explanation cant be accepted academically .

Also there are other similar reports in other collections which confirm that Prophet forbade writing down of Hadith . This practice was continued by Khulfa e Rashideen .

According to one report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr burned his own notes of hadith (said to be some 500), after being very uneasy about these notes.[ Rahim, M. Abdur, The History of Hadith Compilation (in Bengali), p. 290, quoted by Jamilul Bashar, “Sangsker” (in Bengali, means Reformation), published by Young Muslim Society, New York, 2002, pp. 11.]


During the caliphate of Umer r.a, “the problem of hadith forgery was so serious that he prohibited hadith transmission altogether.”[ Brown, Daniel W., 1996 (paperback 1999), op. cit., p. 96.]

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi says, and [so does] al-Dhahabi in Tadhkira al-Huffaz, that 'Umar b. al-Khattab imprisoned three companions in Medina. These were Abu Darda, Ibn Mas'ud and Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari due to their excessive narration of traditions. Furthermore, 'Umar commanded the companions to bring the books of traditions at their disposal to him. They thought he wanted to organize them in a way so that there would be no differences between them. They brought their books, he burnt them all in the fire. (Also Tabqat e Saad v5 p141)

The reason Umer r.a gave was :

Hazrat Umar said to people, "I had thought of getting the Ahadith written, but then I thought of those nations that have passed on before you. They wrote books and fell on them, and left the scripture of Allah alone. (Tadween Hadith page 394)

And unfortunately that happened a century later

Hadith were written down against the teachings of prophet (pbuh) on the orders of Ummayad rulers for political purposes

Ibn e Shihab Zuhri was the first one to compile hadith

Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was the first one to compile Ahadees [fath ul bari by ibne hajar]

Imam Malik (d. 179) said, "The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri"[Ibne abi Hatim Al Razi, aljarrah wa altadeel p.20 vol 1]

And Al-Zuhri himself is reported to have said: ‘We disapproved of recording knowledge [meaning hadith] until these rulers forced us to do so. After that we saw no reason to forbid Muslims to do so.’” (Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, II, ii, p. 135)


In the passage of his Muhammedanische Studien, Goldziher puts forward in detail the theory that Umayyad caliph `Abd al-Malik, by erecting the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, intended to outsmart his rival `Abdallah b. al-Zubayr, who exploited the holiness of Makkah, his capital, for his own political ends. Goldziher wrote:

When the Umayyad Caliph `Abd al-Malik wished the stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival `Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had to recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that the obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka`ba ordained in Islamic Law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may make pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.(I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies(Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, pp. 44-45.)

So Hadith writing was forbidden by prophet and his successors but later unbanned by rulers for political purposes

You are hitting right and left. I bit you don't know what you have just spelled up there. Mohammed ibn AbduWahhab started his dawa without any involvement in politics. This word Wahhabi was first started by Ibrahim Basha and the Ottomans. The Ottomans didn't rule Naijd nor Makkah and Madina were under their rule but in alliance with the Hashemite. Mixture of history fabrication, false allegations and astonishing claims, not sure if it was deliberate or lack of knowledge? Lies upon lies.

I am not lying , I am ready to discuss historical facts in a academic way if you are willing

@Aeronaut :
Discussing theology may be banned
Why ban discussing History ?
We need to read our history more and more so we may realize that no sect is completely right , and no sect is completely wrong . Only then we can tolerate other sects

 

[Arabian Legend]

Cherry picked verses ? Are there any verses in Holy Quran which tell us otherwise ? No There are not !! as Quran , unlike Hadith , is not self contradicting .

That is not how it works if you will keep ignoring what I wrote in my previous posts. You are jumping in my throat rather than engaging in the debate. How about we keep it short instead of copy paste.

First, This is not a debate about the Quran vs the Hadith because these two are in agreement with each other. The Hadith explains the Quran simple as that. Second, The Authentic Hadith is not self contradicting.

When Quran itself says that its fully detailed and Allah has not left anything out of Quran , then how can you say that it is impossible to understand Quran without Hadith ? Dont you think your argument contradicts with Quranic teachings ??

No, because the Quran says

1-Obey Allah and his messenger.
2-Quran reveled to be explained and cleared to the people by his messenger and to clear to them what has been revealed to them.
3- There has been for you in the messenger an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope in Allah and the last day.

So again, the purpose of all prophet is to explain and teach the revelation and not to recite the revelation.


1-In the Authentic Hadith the prophet says pray as you have seen me praying. Do the way I do.
2-Take from me your hajj rites

About how to pray from Quran :
What Iranians and Saudis refuse to realize! | Page 18

Is it hard for you to put it in one sentence. As I said before the Hadith is part of the revelation because the prophet doesn't speak from his own inclination. The Number of Salah and the time, number of Rakat, The Zakat, Nisab, Hajj rituals..etc all these aren't mentioned in the Quran but have been explained by the Prophet. That is why Allah sent his prophet to clear the message to teach them how to perform their religious obligations.

Wrong again . The Authentic Hadith criteria is not unchallengeable . It has been successfully challenged by many including prominent Muslim scholars .

Anyone can says it wrong but wrong is an empty word. No emphasis, no references. A blow in the air.

And your argument that prophet (pbuh) forbade writing down of Hadith so that it may not get mixed with Quran is not acceptable academically .



Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do not take down anything from me, and he who took down anything from me except the Quran, he should erase that and narrate(orally) from me, for there is no harm in it and he who attributed any falsehood to me-and Hammam said: I think he also said:" deliberately" -he should in fact find his abode in the Hell-Fire (Sahih Muslim, Book 042, Chapter 17, Number 7147).

Imam Nawawi , in his Sharah of Sahih Muslim , writes that Prophet forbade writing down of hadith during the initial times of Islam so it may not get mixed with Quran , and on certain occasions prophet gave permission to write down his sayings . a century later , A "Ijma" (consensus) of Muslim Scholars legitimized Writing down of Hadith collections . There are two problems in accepting this .

Firstly .

1) The verses in which Allah himself took the responsibility of protection of Quran were revealed in Mecca . After this , there was no point in fearing that Quran may get mixed with Hadith or get abrogated

2) The Hadith in Sahih Muslim which tells us that prophet forbade writing down Hadith is narrated by two companions , Abu Huraira r.a & Abu Saeed Khudri r.a .(I assume you are aware of criteria of Hadith selection adopted by Muslim)
Abu Huraira r.a embraced Islam 3 or 4 years before demise of prophet
Abu Saeed was a ansari who could not participate in battle of Uhud because he was too young at that time

So essentially this Hadith is from the last time of prophet (pbuh) in Medina . Long after the revelation of verses that confirmed Quran will be protected by Allah himself . Also In this Hadith the prophet tells his companions to erase all previous hadith writings (which he had allowed on certain occasions) .

Secondly , A Ijma cant rule out Sunnah

So this explanation cant be accepted academically .

Also there are other similar reports in other collections which confirm that Prophet forbade writing down of Hadith . This practice was continued by Khulfa e Rashideen .

According to one report, the first Caliph Abu Bakr burned his own notes of hadith (said to be some 500), after being very uneasy about these notes.[ Rahim, M. Abdur, The History of Hadith Compilation (in Bengali), p. 290, quoted by Jamilul Bashar, “Sangsker” (in Bengali, means Reformation), published by Young Muslim Society, New York, 2002, pp. 11.]


During the caliphate of Umer r.a, “the problem of hadith forgery was so serious that he prohibited hadith transmission altogether.”[ Brown, Daniel W., 1996 (paperback 1999), op. cit., p. 96.]

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi says, and [so does] al-Dhahabi in Tadhkira al-Huffaz, that 'Umar b. al-Khattab imprisoned three companions in Medina. These were Abu Darda, Ibn Mas'ud and Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari due to their excessive narration of traditions. Furthermore, 'Umar commanded the companions to bring the books of traditions at their disposal to him. They thought he wanted to organize them in a way so that there would be no differences between them. They brought their books, he burnt them all in the fire. (Also Tabqat e Saad v5 p141)

The reason Umer r.a gave was :

Hazrat Umar said to people, "I had thought of getting the Ahadith written, but then I thought of those nations that have passed on before you. They wrote books and fell on them, and left the scripture of Allah alone. (Tadween Hadith page 394)

And unfortunately that happened a century later

Hadith were written down against the teachings of prophet (pbuh) on the orders of Ummayad rulers for political purposes

Ibn e Shihab Zuhri was the first one to compile hadith

Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri was the first one to compile Ahadees [fath ul bari by ibne hajar]

Imam Malik (d. 179) said, "The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri"[Ibne abi Hatim Al Razi, aljarrah wa altadeel p.20 vol 1]

And Al-Zuhri himself is reported to have said: ‘We disapproved of recording knowledge [meaning hadith] until these rulers forced us to do so. After that we saw no reason to forbid Muslims to do so.’” (Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, II, ii, p. 135)


In the passage of his Muhammedanische Studien, Goldziher puts forward in detail the theory that Umayyad caliph `Abd al-Malik, by erecting the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, intended to outsmart his rival `Abdallah b. al-Zubayr, who exploited the holiness of Makkah, his capital, for his own political ends. Goldziher wrote:

When the Umayyad Caliph `Abd al-Malik wished the stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival `Abd Allah b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijaz to pay him homage, he had to recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that the obligatory circumambulation (tawaf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka`ba ordained in Islamic Law. The pious theologian al-Zuhri was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may make pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.(I. Goldziher (Ed. S. M. Stern), Muslim Studies(Muhammedanische Studien), 1971, Volume II, Atherton: New York and Aldine: Chicago, pp. 44-45.)

So Hadith writing was forbidden by prophet and his successors but later unbanned by rulers for political purposes

You are not getting what I wrote before. I can now post many Hadith that the prophet had allowed some companions to write his saying which means the prohibition was not absolute. When the prophet says don't write from me he said it to a specific group of companions known as the writers of the revelation and other companions involved in the memorization of the revelation for one purpose not to be mixed with the Quran in one manuscript and to keep concentration on memorizing and to separate the writers of the revelation from the writers of his saying. I don't know why you jump to conclusion without basic knowledge. Some of the Hadith you posted above are talking out of context and its true meaning in the events where happened.

As I said earlier that Muslims and the whole society at that time were completely adherence to the Prophet teaching and there was no need to write down his saying as he was among them. He also said convey from me even if it is one verse and the Quran was conveyed already through him, that implies the Hadith should be conveyed as well.

I don't like to copy-paste thing rather than read and understand and then discuss but since you copy-paste trying to desperately win this debate here is a link refuting what you wrote.

Refuting The Argument From Hadith In Which The Prophet Says "Do Not Write Down Anything From Me Except Qur'an"Refuting The Argument From Hadith In Which The Prophet Says "Do Not Write Down Anything From Me Except Qur'an"

Enjoy.

I am not lying , I am ready to discuss historical facts in a academic way if you are willing

Whatever you want Im all eras.

 

[rockstar08]

In a democracy, if majority of the people want to keep it in the national politics, who am i to say otherwise?

Similarly, if majority are against it then it should not be included.

Isn't this what democracy is?

but dont you think **** are confused between shariya and democracy ?
same as when peoples say democracy didnt failed in pak but leaders , same as why are we letting taliban to be representatives of shariya ? ? tomorrow any shia leader can stand up with 10,000 fighters are forced pakistan to implement their version of shariya .. we will become joke for everyone ...

in democracy you have to respect everyone's point of views , if pakistani peoples wants shariya than govt should provide and put a check and balance on it

Modern republic is much more than open sex

de monstquieu's concept of three branches of gov cannot be found in any Islamic principles

This in my view is one of the biggest handicap for theocracy and Mullahs and Ayatullahs

They are trying to use single person power aka KSA in a modern world

like riding a donkey cart on motorway

buddy why are you giving examples from today's world ?? this is not the mistake of Islam or shariya if you choose wrong heroes to give example's of .... if i say Hitler is best example for being a patriotic than ?? would you except ? ? forget about mulla and aytuallah ... islam is not about them , islamic way of life is like galaxy the more you explore it , they more you know it ...

Correct. I hope that my argument is clear too. Western philosophies have not been a success in the Muslim world and cannot be, due to the fact that our social dynamics are different.

yeah i agree we can not mixed oil in water , its not going to dissolve

 

[rockstar08]

not to preach or anything.

But reading Quran has shown me no "intimidation" of cosmic nature,.

It simply says if you do good deeds, you will be in good shape
and if you end up doing bad deeds, well then you are hosed,

There is no fire from the sky coming down every time someone forks his neighbor,

It is just a general lesson for individuals.

Ufortunately in their zeal to rule our @rses our Mullah of politicians have made Quran and Islam into some kind of regime to stone and murder people, whistling while chopping hands and feet. This I say is stone age ideology aka idiot-ology

thats punishments , not for individuals but for betterment of society , today you steal a pencil and get away tomorrow you will steal a whole pencil box , human psychology 1.1

Well that is not a good example for Pakistan.

Because American constitution at least guaranteed equality, freedom, and justice to majority whites.

No one can say that about majority in Pakistan.

Hope you understand

hahahahha are you sure ?? i dont think so bro
you are giving a example of equality on an act of racism

 

[rockstar08]

How many Muslim homes have been subjected to mob violence?

How many Muslim doctors were stopped from going to their clinic hospital

How many Muslim kids were told not to come to school

How many Muslim mosques have been fire bombed while 100s of worshippers were inside

How many Muslim graves have been vandalized.

either its one or 100 , sin is sin man ... 1 human life is precious , you can not just say that in pak they kill 100 christian and in usa they kill 30 muslims ( for example ) .... i hope you get my point ... and probably you are giving a lot of your example from west , have you ever been in usa ?? in how many cities you been through ?? 4-5 or maybe 10 ...
and i can give you a similar example of a guy from norway who kill 30-35 kids on a island and a planted a car bomb in oslo , read his story and you will understand what i mean here

 

[Commander T]

So what's wrong with Islam being a way of life ???

@FaujHistorian

nothing wrong in it.....Islam is a way of life, a complete set of rules to develop a society....but problem is, are you following Islam or a set of rules developed my Mullah in order to achieve it political goals....... ?

What's wrong with Islam guiding social and political as well as personal life ???

Islam Guides personal, social and political life......offcource it does......but Islam never says that a religious scholar should dictate state policies, neither directly nor indirectly(through his followers, fatwa and common people).....infact it prohibts that.....

 

[Commander T]

With respect to prophet muhammeds rule in medina, which you claim to treat non Muslims with fairness and equality-can you deny any of these-
1.The non muslims were supposed to pay jizya which is conveniently left without an upper limit while muslim zakat was capped at 2.5%..
2.The value of testimony of a non muslim in court was only half of those of a muslim..
3.A non Muslim leaving his religion and becoming muslim was encouraged while a muslim apostate was supposed to be killed..
4.Instead of punishing the guilty, brutal measures of collective punishment were enacted by muhammed to pursue his political agenda-case of jewish tribe banu nadir for eg:where muhammed started the trouble by demanding banu nadir a share of blood money for murder committed by some muslims outside medina and ended up evicting the entire tribe..

1: Jiziya was supposed to be payed by those people who were captured after war,or who were in muslim protection(not those who were in agreement with muslims).... If you say that jews of madina payed jaziya when in agreement with muslim....provide proof...i challenge...
2: I challenge prove it....never in all 4 caliphate periods was even a siungle case like that....but yes, testimony of women(either muslim or non muslim) was half the testimony of men.....this is the case
3: There is no such punishment at all in islam...this is a bullshit of modern mullah .... give the name of single person who was exicuted because of leaving islam.....Infact i can provide you a details of that agreement in which it was stated that if a muslim goes back to Infidels, he shall not be returned but if an infidel becaome muskim and run to madina he will be returned to his masters who can do whatever they want to him.... He (PBUH) was "Rehmat ul aalamin" ..... if you read the history carefully then you will know that even when armies arranged themselves in battlefield He PBUH used to give them 3 options 1:Accept Islamand be out brother.. 2: Give us jaziya and we will protect you 3: And the last option is if you don't accept the above 2 then be prepare for war ( even when both parties were prepared for war, a last chance and a peice of hope was used to be given to prvent war)
4: Muslims were in agreement with jews that "Jews enemy will be our enemy and jew,s friend will be our friend and vice versa and if an outsider tries to attack any of parties in agreement all the parties will defend against the enemies...." .......in this case muslims and jews were become one united country and if there was some issue in the case that Prophet PBUH demanded share of blood money from jews then there must have been some participation of jews in murder done. And Prophet PBUH is such a person in history that not even his worst enemies can say that he did unjustice in his entire life.......but i am 100%sure that either this particular issue is maniupulated or you are taking it outside the context....provide the full event detail in which prophet demanded blood money for murder done by some muslim..

 

[M. Sarmad]

That is not how it works if you will keep ignoring what I wrote in my previous posts. You are jumping in my throat rather than engaging in the debate. How about we keep it short instead of copy paste.
First, This is not a debate about the Quran vs the Hadith because these two are in agreement with each other. The Hadith explains the Quran simple as that. Second, The Authentic Hadith is not self contradicting.

Firstly I am not copy pasting anything here and I have kept it very short . Secondly Quran and Hadith are not in agreement and as per Quran , Hadith is not needed when we have Quran (I quoted clear Quranic verses) . You are missing a crucial point here . Not what prophet said was wrong (as it could not be) , but what was attributed to him (i.e Hadith) centuries later is mostly conjecture . No matter how hard you try , it is logically impossible to compile what prophet (pbuh) actually said , 200 years after his death ( two centuries of political turmoils) .

No, because the Quran says
1-Obey Allah and his messenger.
2-Quran reveled to be explained and cleared to the people by his messenger and to clear to them what has been revealed to them.
3- There has been for you in the messenger an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope in Allah and the last day.
So again, the purpose of all prophet is to explain and teach the revelation and not to recite the revelation.
1-In the Authentic Hadith the prophet says pray as you have seen me praying. Do the way I do.
2-Take from me your hajj rites

And how does it prove that following Hadith Collections/conjecture (compiled two centuries after Quran) is mandatory ????
You can not obey Allah without obeying his messenger , as Allah did not talk to people directly but through his messenger (i.e Quran)!!

Anyone can says it wrong but wrong is an empty word. No emphasis, no references. A blow in the air.

Did you even try to read through ?? please read again . The founder of Hadith Science (Ibn e Shihab Zuhri) himself admitted that writing down ahadith was prohibited by messenger , he did not want to do that but rulers forced him to do so( for political reasons .) Also, do you know that the founder of Hadith Science , Zuhri , who is a main narrator of Bukhari & Muslim , has been accused of "Tadlees"(Hadith Fabrication) by some of the greatest scholars (Including Imam Shafi) !!??

You are not getting what I wrote before. I can now post many Hadith that the prophet had allowed some companions to write his saying which means the prohibition was not absolute. When the prophet says don't write from me he said it to a specific group of companions known as the writers of the revelation and other companions involved in the memorization of the revelation for one purpose not to be mixed with the Quran in one manuscript and to keep concentration on memorizing and to separate the writers of the revelation from the writers of his saying. I don't know why you jump to conclusion without basic knowledge. Some of the Hadith you posted above are talking out of context and its true meaning in the events where happened.
As I said earlier that Muslims and the whole society at that time were completely adherence to the Prophet teaching and there was no need to write down his saying as he was among them. He also said convey from me even if it is one verse and the Quran was conveyed already through him, that implies the Hadith should be conveyed as well.

I know that prophet allowed some companions to write down Ahadith . But later(towards the end of his life) he ordered to erase every written material (other than Quran) . Later on , The Khulfa e Rashideen also did not allow writing down of Ahadith .

And the link you posted to refute my claim says exactly what I am saying :

Al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim:

"Al-Qaadi said: there were many disputes among the Sahaabah and Taabi'een concerning the writing down of knowledge. Many of them regarded this as being makrooh, but most of them regarded it as permissible. This dispute is no longer an issue.

Sahabah (notably Khulfa e Rashideen) did not consider it permissible to write down Ahadith . Some Tabieen did . Read the content of site you posted , come back and read my argument and you may know that I have refuted the claim that hadith writing was prohibited initially only .

 

[VCheng]

Not what prophet said was wrong (as it could not be) , but what was attributed to him (i.e Hadith) centuries later is mostly conjecture . No matter how hard you try , it is logically impossible to compile what prophet (pbuh) actually said , 200 years after his death ( two centuries of political turmoils) .

A very important point that bears repeating and keeping in mind always.

 

[Audio]

That is a social problem. You don't understand the complex web of sectarianism in Pakistan. People don't get justice from the courts so they turn towards vigilantism, for example criminal groups and Mullahs who can insight violence against anyone.
We can't fix this problem in a night exactly as you can't fix your racial issues overnight.

It's been several nights now. BS answer anyway. When was the last time white folk marched with pitchforks on ghetto's?

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

With respect to prophet muhammeds rule in medina, which you claim to treat non Muslims with fairness and equality-can you deny any of these-
1.The non muslims were supposed to pay jizya which is conveniently left without an upper limit while muslim zakat was capped at 2.5%..

You are comparing apple( Zakat : a tax on assets ) with orange(Jaziya : a head-tax ). Jaziya was never fixed(no upper or lower limit) in history and It was all depends from the time, the place and most importantly the person. A rich or middle class Muslim would be more happy with a fixed head tax (jaziya) rather than with a tax defined as a percentage of his assets. I would be better with jaziya in united kingdom than paying all sort of taxes( Road tax, council tax,income tax, visa tax(fees) etc

2.The value of testimony of a non muslim in court was only half of those of a muslim..

Can you elaborate it bit further with references from Islamic sources? Are we talking about criminal trails here?

3.A non Muslim leaving his religion and becoming muslim was encouraged while a muslim apostate was supposed to be killed..

I would ask you to give me real life examples of those Muslims who have been killed because of changing their beliefs. You become Muslim when you born in Muslim family without any choice or you become Muslim when you accept the message of Islam from deep heart once you get the ability of understanding and thinking for yourself. If a child born in Muslim family and think Islam is not right religion for him after he become adult then would he be apostate ? How when he never accepted islam in the first place? Do you think all Muslims are following Islam right now ? How you are going to determine the beliefs of people in their heart in order to punish them for apostasy? What evidence will be required to prove it in court? What actually constitute apostasy ? Simply changing your beliefs or to rebel against your ex religion Islam or Islamic country? If some Indian guy change their nationality then its fine but if they betrays their country and become traitor then they will be punished

 

[Arabian Legend]

Firstly I am not copy pasting anything here and I have kept it very short . Secondly Quran and Hadith are not in agreement and as per Quran , Hadith is not needed when we have Quran (I quoted clear Quranic verses) .

Your problem is that you are beating around the bush.

Here let me address your two points as well as to add some clarification

• Hadith is not needed !
• Quran and Hadith are in disagreement !

I think I have given you enough examples to what is Hadith and why we do need Hadith but It seems that you still don't get the definition of Hadith in the first place in which we have to agree upon first because it clear that you are confused by differentiating the Quran from the Hadith, although I mentioned the definition earlier in one of my previous posts but not a big deal repeating myself again.

Hadith is the actions and the sayings of the prophet. These actions and sayings came not after the revelation of the Quran but along with it. Whatever the prophet said or done was the demonstration of the message given to him. Every verse revealed to the Prophet was translated by him either orally or physically or both. The translation was recorded during his life time by some of his companions, later collected and classified during the fifth Khalifa in Islam Umar Ibn AbudAlaziz. So For you to understand Quran you must read the Hadith and I have provided some example before like the method of praying, Zakat and Hajj rituals and for you to understand the Hadith you must relate it to the Quran.So, neither the Quran contradict with Hadith nor the opposite because these two are in correspondence with each other. Claiming that the Quran says Hadith is not needed or in disagreement can't be true as per the Quran.

We were told in the Quran that: he It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom - although they were before in clear error -

So let us open the English dictionary and find out the meaning of the word ''teach''.

Teach: is to show or explain to (someone) how to do something.

Conclusion is, the teaching of the Quran shown and explained by the prophet is in the Hadith.

You are missing a crucial point here . Not what prophet said was wrong (as it could not be) , but what was attributed to him (i.e Hadith) centuries later is mostly conjecture .


No matter how hard you try , it is logically impossible to compile what prophet (pbuh) actually said , 200 years after his death ( two centuries of political turmoils) .

You are throwing in so many random things and unsupported claims.First you say the Hadith is not needed and in disagreement with the Quran and now you say its mostly conjecture which is all untrue. For you to say that you will have to go through Hadith and then support your statement that Hadith is conjecture. On what basis exactly you said that?

The Hadith was recorded by the prophet's companions and trust-worthies like for example Abu-Huraira who narrated, reported and recorded the most during the prophet lifetime not centuries after as you described it not only that but by a successive chain of narration. I'm not sure if you are familiar with these terms. Also the sophistication of the language used in the Hadith can not be corrupted or edited to the point that any incorrect vowel sound messes up the whole meaning and make it ambiguous and that goes against the Arabic grammars as well as the criteria used in the science of Hadith and Reporter. Later as I said it was officially collected by Umar II fearing that it might get lost And it happened after the Quran was completely memorized and taught in the whole society. Also guess what ! Many literatures/poetries contain many of Hadith and Im sure that you are aware of Arabic literatures and its sophistication metre, pattern and rhythmic structure, sound symbolism..etc. Any small thing change in verses or verses lines demolish the whole thing, something very very hard to challenge.

And how does it prove that following Hadith Collections/conjecture (compiled two centuries after Quran) is mandatory ????
You can not obey Allah without obeying his messenger , as Allah did not talk to people directly but through his messenger (i.e Quran)!!

That is not the understanding of the Hadith ! Really? mandatory? The Hadith didn't come with anything new other than explaining the revelation. Tattoos is not permissible in Islam yet the prohibition of it not mentioned directly in the Quran but illustrated in the Hadith of the prophet whom we should obey. Yet no single Muslim wear a tattoo. Does that ring any bell? I hope I made myself clear here.

Did you even try to read through ?? please read again . The founder of Hadith Science (Ibn e Shihab Zuhri) himself admitted that writing down ahadith was prohibited by messenger , he did not want to do that but rulers forced him to do so( for political reasons .) Also, do you know that the founder of Hadith Science , Zuhri , who is a main narrator of Bukhari & Muslim , has been accused of "Tadlees"(Hadith Fabrication) by some of the greatest scholars (Including Imam Shafi) !!??

Here comes again with the same issue? Do you understand the meaning of un-absolute prohibition that was only made for a specific group in a specific time before the complete revelation of the Quran. Secondly, Hadith was not collected for a political reason this is absurd claim. Dude, believe it or not you don't know what are you saying? First the founder of the science of Hadith is not Al-Zuhri but Imam Ali Al-Madni. Imam Al-Zuhri was well known and reliable scholar among many Sahabh and his authorities in Hadith is beyond dispute as described by many scholars like Ibn Hajar and Al-Dahabi. The only one who accused him of Tadless was a jewish scholar in Islamic studies named Igaz Goldziher. This jewish scholar was politically motived against the Islamic empire during the era of the Umayyad dynasty. So if you wanna take from him go ahead.

Plus, Imam Zuhri was born and raised in Medina and your claim that Imam Bukhari main narrator is not right for the fact that Imam Ahamd and Malik collected and studied Hadith before Imam Bukhari was born. Not to mention the great Imam and scholars Tardmdi and Muslim, Abu Daw'd and Nisani. Also the science of Hadith and reporter have left nothing for any unreliable Hadith because it takes into account three things:

• Chain of narration and reporters
• Matan
• Isnad

You will find one Hadith reported from different people with the same Isnad and Matan supported by a successive chain of narration.

You really need to take a look at the Science of Hadith and Reporter.

I know that prophet allowed some companions to write down Ahadith . But later(towards the end of his life) he ordered to erase every written material (other than Quran) . Later on , The Khulfa e Rashideen also did not allow writing down of Ahadith .
And the link you posted to refute my claim says exactly what I am saying :
Al-Nawawi said in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim:
"Al-Qaadi said: there were many disputes among the Sahaabah and Taabi'een concerning the writing down of knowledge. Many of them regarded this as being makrooh, but most of them regarded it as permissible. This dispute is no longer an issue.


Sahabah (notably Khulfa e Rashideen) did not consider it permissible to write down Ahadith . Some Tabieen did . Read the content of site you posted , come back and read my argument and you may know that I have refuted the claim that hadith writing was prohibited initially only .

Im fully aware of what I have wrote. And no you didn't refute any claim, Your whole posts are reckless. You didn't read carefully what in that link. You only took what suits your point ignoring the rest without any clarification.

Umar Ibn Al-Khatab collected the Hadith in one volume but later decided that People should concentrate on memorization the Quran first and there was no need to collect the Hadith as I explained that the society was adherence to what the prophet said and did. And Later Umar II ordered it officially.

Now don't tell me the so many who studied Hadith and verified it throughout history till this day are wrong and you are right !