The Hadith, source of Islamic atrocities.

[dybmh]

I think that's the point. The idea that 1 Hadith collection supersedes the Qur'an is a flawed approach for understanding Islam.

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

Please sir, you are not being fair.

First Islam has many versions.
Second you are ignoring my point.
Third you are misrepresenting Islam in total.

 

[dybmh]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The experience I often have with apologists is that they play a sort of shell game. Over time and many discussions I've been told:

- You can't take the Quran at face value, you have to consider the context, as captured by the Hadith.
- You can't put too much weight on the Hadith, the Quran is the only true source.
- Only scholars can correctly interpret the scripture.

And so on.

As far as I'm concerned the scripture is extremely flawed. (Islamic scripture is not unique in this regard.) IMO, the source of the problem is that Muslims can't really agree that they're scripture is flawed. They must defend that which does not stand up to scrutiny. That puts us all in an untenable and dangerous situation.

I understand.

From my perspective: If a person is advocating against rape, war, murder, and dominance; then, where ever they find support for their position is OK by me.

 

[icehorse]

I understand.

From my perspective: If a person is advocating against rape, war, murder, and dominance; then, where ever they find support for their position is OK by me.

If people can find meaning and useful advice in an old book - that's no problem. The problems start to crop up as soon as claims are made that some old book is "INFALLIBLE". That claim has led to a lot of bloodshed down through the centuries.

 

[Mudramoksha]

Doesn't seem like you studied Islam for 10 years.

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

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Islam is not a pacifist religion (much like Judaism), but nowhere does it condone killing civilians or suicide attacks (suicide is a major sin in Islam).

 

[Mudramoksha]

The oldest hadith was collected by Al Bukhari and completed in 850Ad, more than 200 years after Muhammad died.

False.

Also, the only people that take Kitab al-Bukhari with anything more than a grain of salt are Salafis (who are a modern invention).
Before the past 100 or so years ago, Bukhari was never taken as a special collection.

no one can critisize my research.

*criticize

Aka, "I'm SA Huguenot and I'm exempt from criticism"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Check this out!
This is what Allah and Muhammad thinks of Women!

Book of Menstruation 27+210 The majority or dwellers in hell are women. They are deficient in intelligence. The deficiency of her religion is that she can not pray during her menses.

Book of eclipse 565 he majority of occupants in hell are women

Book of obligatory Charity 740 The majority occupants in hell are women. They are deficient in intelligence and in religion

Book of Jihad 1240 Evil omen is in the horse, women and the house

Book of creation 1369 The angels curses women that refuses sex to their husbands

Book of creation 1371 Women are the majority in hell

Book of Holy Battles 1700 Any country ruled by a woman will never be successful

Book of Holy Quran Virtues 1837 Women are an affliction to men

Book of Holy Quran Virtues 1860 The majority in hell are women

Book of Divorce 1876 A woman that got divorced for the third time, must first marry another, consummate the marriage, get divorced again, then can she return to the first husband

Book of Menstruation 212 Women are forbidden to follow a funeral procession

Book of selling 1024 A slave girl must be whipped if she commits adultery once and twice. The third time she must be sold.

Book of gifts and virtues 1163 Captive slave women can be given away to other men as slave wives

Book of conditions 1190 A women gets stoned to death for adultery

Book of Holy Battles 1650 If a woman wear a veil, she will not be considered as a slave in possession. if she does not, she is open hunting ground

Book on Quranic verses 1737 Mihammad instituted Temporary marriages for a few hours.by giving a woman as little as a garment (Mutwah marriage) (To have a Quickie during war?)

Somehow I think that's a bunch of bs. It was either fabricated or taken out of context. There's a rather famous hadith story about a prostitute that put her shoe in a well to give water to a thirsty dog and God forgave her sins for that act of kindness, but a woman who neglected her cat and they starved to death went to hell for it. The point is that is God wants kindness and mercy from his creations, which are a 180 from how you're trying to present things.

 

[Mudramoksha]

Big difference in writing what Muhammad says, and going around raping women after I killed their husbands and sons in the Name of God, wont you say?

It was heard from SA Huguenot, who heard it from Muhammad, who said:
"After I kill their husbands and sons I'll rape them in the name of God, won't you say?"
- Kitab al-Protestantism, book 3, part 8, hadith 4.​

 

[Mudramoksha]

Threads like these remind me why Protestant Christianity is such a mental illness

 

[Mudramoksha]

If people can find meaning and useful advice in an old book - that's no problem. The problems start to crop up as soon as claims are made that some old book is "INFALLIBLE".

The same book urges people to pursue intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, virtue and condemns people for being stupid. It also claims that being a Muslim is not in the name but in the heart. The opening chapter states that some people will claim they are Muslims but will go straight to hell. Obviously it's not a one-dimensional text.

As a Buddhist, I really find the Qur'an to be far more inspiring and challenging than the Bible (which is pathetic) or other scriptures. The Qur'an is very much like a Sutra, in a way.

 

[icehorse]

The same book urges people to pursue intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, virtue and condemns people for being stupid.

For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to grant you that the book has some good advice.

But once again, we're all told by Muslims that the book is INFALLIBLE. That it is PERFECT. That's the problem. If it's perfect, then that means the bad advice must also be perfect.

 

[Mudramoksha]

For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to grant you that the book has some good advice.

It doesn't "have" it, it "Is" it.

But once again, we're all told by Muslims that the book is INFALLIBLE. That it is PERFECT. That's the problem. If it's perfect, then that means the bad advice must also be perfect.

No, the book itself from the offset is a transmission, a direct revelation to Muhammad and the rest of humanity. This is what the book says about itself, not Muslims later on.
I think you are uncomfortable with the idea of divine revelation, so be it, your tag says "anti-theist", so it doesn't surprise me that you'd be triggered by such a concept.

In Buddhism we have concepts that have vague connections to such ideas (as revelations) but not on the grandiose universal scale as Islam. We believe there are other realms and intelligences out (or in) there we can connect with within the sphere of reality.
I don't think there's anything even remotely bad about the Qur'an, in my own experience. As I said, it's far better than anything in the Bible, hands down. The Bible is disturbing and offensive.
The only difference is Christians believe such things were "inspired", whereas Muslims have to deal with the intellectual science of Hadith analysis which is not a 'grab all' situation, it scrutinizes heavily. Most Muslims are aware that there are very revolting things in the Hadith, but they're not (except for Salafis) naive enough to accept such things just because it's in a Hadith collection on the basis of that alone.

The Qur'an is an entirely different thing to that again, and the Qur'an itself urges readers/listeners to reflect and meditate on it's verses. I really don't think you Icehorse, with all due respect, have much of a case.

 

[Wasp]

I have known many Muslims who are as loving as good Christians.

I guess that could be taken as a compliment..

 

[dybmh]

If people can find meaning and useful advice in an old book - that's no problem. The problems start to crop up as soon as claims are made that some old book is "INFALLIBLE". That claim has led to a lot of bloodshed down through the centuries.

For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to grant you that the book has some good advice.

But once again, we're all told by Muslims that the book is INFALLIBLE. That it is PERFECT. That's the problem. If it's perfect, then that means the bad advice must also be perfect.

It's a good point; but that is not the topic. Respectfully, it is a distraction. The topic is: A specific Hadith collection. Islam does not teach that 1 specific Hadith collection should be studied all by itself. Islam teaches that Hadith should be studied and compared to each other.

BTW: I think that labeling Hadith "Scripture" is inaccurate. Also, are there any Muslims anywhere that label Hadith "infallible"?

 

[icehorse]

It doesn't "have" it, it "Is" it.

No, the book itself from the offset is a transmission, a direct revelation to Muhammad and the rest of humanity. This is what the book says about itself, not Muslims later on.
I think you are uncomfortable with the idea of divine revelation, so be it, your tag says "anti-theist", so it doesn't surprise me that you'd be triggered by such a concept.

In Buddhism we have concepts that have vague connections to such ideas (as revelations) but not on the grandiose universal scale as Islam. We believe there are other realms and intelligences out (or in) there we can connect with within the sphere of reality.
I don't think there's anything even remotely bad about the Qur'an, in my own experience. As I said, it's far better than anything in the Bible, hands down. The Bible is disturbing and offensive.
The only difference is Christians believe such things were "inspired", whereas Muslims have to deal with the intellectual science of Hadith analysis which is not a 'grab all' situation, it scrutinizes heavily. Most Muslims are aware that there are very revolting things in the Hadith, but they're not (except for Salafis) naive enough to accept such things just because it's in a Hadith collection on the basis of that alone.

The Qur'an is an entirely different thing to that again, and the Qur'an itself urges readers/listeners to reflect and meditate on it's verses. I really don't think you Icehorse, with all due respect, have much of a case.

All due respect, you're talking about claims that Muslims make. They claim the book is a direct revelation. They have extremely weak evidence for this claim.

As for my discomfort with the idea of divine revelation, you're simply wrong. What I don't buy is ANY extraordinary claim without extraordinarily good evidence. So if Allah shows up today (or tomorrow or the next day or..), and starts providing reliable, repeatable, and predictable evidence that she's the creator of the universe, that's fine.

What I see is flawed scripture (and I'm happy to use a different term if you want to tell me a term that encompasses both the Quran and the Hadith). As for comparisons to the Bible, again for the sake of argument, I'm happy to grant you that the Bible is worse. That's an obvious ploy to try to shift the conversation. The Quran's merits - or lack thereof - stand on their own.

Now if you've read the Quran and you can say there is nothing "even remotely bad" about it, I really can't imagine your value system. Because the Quran is filled with hatred towards non-Muslims, misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, and calls for totalitarian society. Are your values aligned with those values?

 

[Mudramoksha]

All due respect, you're talking about claims that Muslims make. They claim the book is a direct revelation.

Well, yes. Your opinion there is as irrelevant as mine, I'm not a Muslim.

What I don't buy is ANY extraordinary claim without extraordinarily good evidence. So if Allah shows up today (or tomorrow or the next day or..), and starts providing reliable, repeatable, and predictable evidence that she's the creator of the universe, that's fine.

Yeah, blahdeblah.

That's an obvious ploy to try to shift the conversation.

It's not, but you should take things with more perspective. The Mahabharata of Hinduism has some vile stuff in it as well. The difference with Islam to the Bible, is that the Hadith are not the Bible and are not accepted without passing verification. The Hadith collections are filled with lots of slander towards Muhammad, this shouldn't come as a surprise when you find something that is not flattering in Hadith collections. Again, every Muslim knows this from the offset. Only Salafis take it at face-value.

Now if you've read the Quran and you can say there is nothing "even remotely bad" about it

Yes, correct, this is what I said about. I didn't say it without first having read the Qur'an cover-to-cover several times.

Because the Quran is filled with hatred towards non-Muslims, misogyny, homophobia, anti-semitism, and calls for totalitarian society.

Without evidence, these are just your subjective beliefs and opinions. I think your full of **** personally, if you actually think this and aren't just trying to be provocative. These things you assert, are the polar opposite of the Qur'an's values, and those of Muhammad's teachings.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all others; all monotheist books are just the same. I am the latest from Allah, and what I say has no option.

 

[dybmh]

What I see is flawed scripture (and I'm happy to use a different term if you want to tell me a term that encompasses both the Quran and the Hadith)

I don't think there is a term that encompasses them both, my friend. One is claimed to be divine; the other is rumor. They are opposites.

 

[dybmh]

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all others; all monotheist books are just the same. I am the latest from Allah, and what I say has no option.

No.

 

[Mudramoksha]

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all others; all monotheist books are just the same. I am the latest from Allah, and what I say has no option.

Lets see. So you state this, yet your tag says "I am an advaitist Hindu............and a strong atheist." The latter contradicts the former. You are a Monotheist if you follow Vedanta, that's pure fact. One cannot follow Vedanta and be an 'atheist' in any true sense, if you've actually read any of Adi Shankara's works and that of the rest of his tradition.

The terms like "theist", "atheist", "pantheist", "panentheist", "monist" etc don't exist in the original languages, they're modern english terms for these concepts.
The Jewish and Islamic concepts of Monotheism are generally synonymous with your Hindu concepts of Ultimate Reality, Islam itself even calls it the term "Ultimate Reality" but in arabic and obviously not sanskrit. Both Judaism and Islam emphasize that "God" cannot be separate from everything, else it would be a second "God" contradicting it's premise. Monotheism = Monism.
The only thing separating these things are your biases brought upon by language.