Topics

1

General Issues / Questions / Looking back at my Sunnah V Hadith arguments

« on: March 11, 2013, 03:12:10 PM »

The following is my first thread I opened back in 2007. One of the blessings of being Quranist is that you get to see how your views have changed as you continue the journey. My goal here is to look back and see where I think I went wrong. This is from the thread called "hadith versus sunnah". I have two posts I posted one of them is response to Arnold Yassin. I have bolded the parts where I see my arguments were flawed due to assumptions, something that many of us still have.



Quote from: Arnold Yasin on May 14, 2007, 06:52:29 AM

Peace,

To say Sunnah did survive untouched is naieve in my point of view. Just as people followed Hadith, and the whole of Islam changed, the same way people changed the Sunnah they orignally followed. Although people do not read Hadith, their scholars and Imams do, and they eventualy decide the customs. This can be seen with all the sects around the world.

And yes of course there are similarities with other religions as Islam has always been propagated. But the point is that it is the Quran that is the Criterion for knowing which traditions are true and which ones are man-made.

But in this argument, the Quran is looked through the glasses of Sunnah, instead of the Sunnah through the glasses of the Quran.

End Quote


Islam did not changed. Most Muslims around the world never read hadiths and do not know who Bukhari is. The hadith wars the occur in mosques occurs in North American and European mosques cause they are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood type groups(Isna etc). The idea of hadith being heard by people is a recent phenomena due to the information technology the past 60 years which helped groups like the muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabi Islam to spread. Their is no way that Muslims for over 50 years were praying a certain way and then the Ummayids and Abbsids made everybody change the way they prayed. Even something as basic as where to face when praying can be changed by the Ummayids and the Abbasids. Hadith do not alter whats been established and for almost 400 years after the prophet even the Ulema class was still primitive. They grew as time went along. Even when we see Al Shafi arguing the case for hadiths against the Mutazilites and the other rivaling schools, nobody was disputing the rituals of Islam. Other religions did not spread by the prophet and his companions so even the basicrituals was established by narration later but in Islam the religion spread straight from the oven.

Anyways hadith itself does not show the whole way to pray, there are many parts of the salaat that was not mentioned in hadiths yet everybody prays that way. So where did they get that ? The notion that for 5o years the religion spread in a certain way and then the Umayyids(who did not even care about religion and were secular) could have then followed everybody to alter the rituals and then the Abbasids did the same is impossible to conceive. The reality the first book of hadith(Muwatta) was compiled 160 years after the hijra and that it somehow manage to alter how Muslims pray or fast or do haj is hard to believe. Why was there no revolution and revolt by the people against people trying to change the Qibla or haj from the way they were used to doing it for 50 years. !0 with the prophet and 40 with the 4 Caliphs. Even the 4 Caliphs were surrounded by thousands of companions.

Now I can understand that the prophet prayed 5 times a day and others and the Muslim jurist later on made 5 as an obligation when its really 3 or 2 or 4 or 8 thats obligatory, that may have taken place. Another words the Sunnah is 5 but not all 5 are obligatory that may be possible. But to say that something as obvious as Qibla or haj which everybody would easily memorize and pass on to their children and family can be altered is far fetched.

Also:

Recently there has been a wide and emerging discussion about the old question of hadiths and its role in Islam. There has also been the emergence of various ideological trends that is now beginning to re-examine the traditional thought and thinking in Islam that is dominated by the Sunni and Shia Islam. That is the traditional hadith oriented Islam that has dominated Islam for now 1,000 years at least in theory.

However for those who chose to eleminate hadiths and those who vehemently defend them, there is an issue that both sides are not taking into account. That is the difference between hadith and the Sunnah.

The Sunnah as understood in Arabic and the Quran is the accepted set of a'mal(deeds). It is an act, behaviour or physical outcome that is accepted, repeating and repetitive. The Quran tells us reaping what we sow is the Sunnah of this life. Also the opposition thepeophets faced is the sunnah of this life. Therefore sunnah hear means the established physical and behavioral patterns of this life like trial and tribulation, evil and righteousness and war and famine and so on.

It was the practice [approved] of God amongst those of old that have passed away. And the Command of God is a decree determined. (33:38)   

Now are they but looking for the way the ancients were dealt with? But no change will thou find in  God's way [of dealing]: No turning off wilt thou Find in God's way [of dealing]. (35:43) 

Here the term Sunnah is translated as approved practice or God's way. These are a'mal(actions, behaviors and physical characters) that is established as a norm and a law of life. What we refer to in general term as "this is life".

The prophetic Sunnah is the established, accepted, normative and repeated behaviour and deeds of the prophet. It is not based on a specific speech or act, but what is the established behavioral characteristics of the prophet. While hadith may vary due to circumstance, the sunnah does not. Treating the neighbours kindly is a sunnah(established repetitive norm and deed) of the prophet. The prayers at night, the fasting of ramadan and the friday prayers and funeral prayers, are all the prophet's sunnah. We must not confuse the two. Muslims prayed 5 times a day, prayed the friday prayers, celebrated eid, made haj to mecca and payed the zakat long before hadiths were compiled and made public. The first hadith officially compiled was the Muwatta of Imam Malik about 160 years after the hijra in the begining of the Abbasid era. Bukhari and Muslim was even later by almost 100 years. By then the Quran reached China probably and Muslims have prayed and made haj and celebrated Eid for 160 years without knowing any of these hadiths. In fact the traditional sholars and fiqh only began to emerge in large numbers during the Abbasid era. We did not perform these because of a hadith from Abu Huraira or Ibn Al Abbas or Aesha. Muslims make the azan and wudu and make salam to each other the way the Sunnah was. This Sunnah was watched, performed and then passed down by thousands of the companions and not the handfull we see in Bukhari's or Muslim's collections. It is not based on memerizing a speech but observing and set of behavior and rituals and practicing them and passing that practice to others. These are not single narrated testimonies or eye witness but was expressed by mass transmission. This is how the Quran came to us.

While these established Sunnah were passed down to us by the companions, hadiths were not designed like the Quran. Hadiths were based on specific speeches and narrations witnessed by a few and on a specific occasion. Hadiths were not compiled and codified by the 4 Caliphs like the Quran. It was actually discouraged for various reasons. It was not even witnessed by the majority of companions and nearly all are single narrations.The defenders of hadith rightfully ask the Quranites, how do you know how to pray and when, the answer we should say that we do not get that from hadiths since no hadiths explain the whole salaat but we got it from the companions who followed the prophet's Sunnah.

The current definition of Sunnah prevailing in thje Sunni world, was constructed by Imam Al shafi who believed Sunnah must be grounded with a specific hadith. But sunnah is never specific, its always general and its not based on a speech, but an act or behaviour which is consistent and repetitive. The prophet always prayed and payed the zakat and performed haj and so did the companions, they learned that by example and passed it along. It was their dudy to do so, hadiths meanwhile were actually forbidden and were never written down and were passed down mostly from a handful of the companions many were either very young or knew the prophet for a short time. In fact the 4 caliphs represent less that 3% of the hadiths in the Sunni collections.

For more on this:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14273.msg126703#msg126703

End quote



Lets look at this:

"Why was there no revolution and revolt by the people against people trying to change the Qibla or haj from the way they were used to doing it for 50 years".

This was the assumption everything was based upon. But this is a flawed assumption. Because this assumes that there was a specific ritual established. But if there was not than why revolt? If lets say the Ummayids introduced the 5 daily prayers due to Judaic or Persian influence than to assume that there would have been some revolt due to this innovation assumes that this 5 daily prayers is against Islam. But it is not. The assumption I made was that I did not differentiate between something stipulated in the Quran versus something that contradicts the Quran. This explains why the Mutaziltes did not object to the 5 daily prayers. It is not necessarily has to do whether this is a prophetic or practice or not but whether this practice contradicts the Quran or not.

This explains why the Mutaziltes emerged during the beginnings of the Abbasid Empire because this was when the notion of an Islamic State emerged. It was this, and not the rituals of Islam that the Mutaziltes objected to. Given the despotic nature of Abbasid rule the only way that such a state can be an Islamic state was to introduce new concepts to Islam. The rituals that was established by the Ummayids now became the state religion to be imposed and therefore maing binding what the Quran did not. Also many laws now have to be manufactured that can only come from hadiths. This explains why the need for hadiths emerged with the Abbasids.

It was Shariah law as understood today that was the reason why the Mutaziltes emerged as now the issue became not only making binding what the Quran did not but also introducing many concepts in Islam that violated the Quranic commands.

A Quranist can accept what is not stipulated in the Quran but does not contradict the Quran as long as its not made binding. This explains why there wa sno revolt or an emergence of any challenges until there was an attempt to make things binding. This also explains why most of us are here. Its Shariah law that brought many of us here because that is how we learned many aspects of Sunni Islam previously hidden from us. The fall of Sufi islam and the rise of the Salfia Islam is bringing about the rise of the Quranist as the rise of the notion of an islamic state by the Abbasids brought about the rise of the Mutaziltes.



In Shāfi'ī's source theory the possibility of abrogation between the Sunna and the Qur'ān was vehemently denied:
 
Arguing determinedly that any verbal discrepancies between the Qur'ān and the reported sayings or reports of the practices of Muhammed- the Sunna of the Prophet- were merely illusory and could always be removed on the basis of a satisfactory understanding of the mechanism of revelation and the function of the prophet-figure, Shāfi'ī set his face decidedly against any acceptance of the idea then current that in all such cases the Qur'ān had abrogated the Sunna, or the Sunna the Qur'ān.[12][13]
 
This stance was a reaction to larger developments within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the reformulation of the Fiqh away from early foreign or regional influences[14] and toward more eminently Islamic bases such as the Qur'ān. This assertion of Qur'ānic primacy was accompanied by calls for an abandonment of the Sunna. Shāfi'ī's insistence upon the impossibility of contradiction between Sunna and Qur'ān can thus be seen as one component in this larger effort of rescuing the Sunna:
 
He campaigned tirelessly to justify use of the Sunna as the second primary source alongside the Kur'ān against those who would accord the hadīth no role in the derivation of the sharī'a on the argument that the degree of conflict in the hadīth, the inadequacies of the guarantee against corruption, fraud or error afforded by the isnāds rendered the hadīth unfit for the sacred role of declaring the divine intent underlying the Kur'ān's declarations.[15]
 
Asked point-blank whether the Sunna could ever be abrogated by the Qur'ān, Shāfi'ī had bluntly replied [in the Risāla] that that could never happen. Were the Sunna to be abrogated by the Qur'ān, the Prophet would immediately introduce a second sunna to indicate that his first sunna had been abrogated by his second sunna- in order to demonstrate that a thing can be abrogated only by its like (mithlihi) [ cf. Q.2:106].[16]
 
Later scholars, writing when the juridicial legitimacy of the Sunna could be taken for granted (thanks largely to Shāfi'ī's efforts!), were less inclined to adopt his inflexible stance. To their minds the reality of this sort of inter-source abrogation was proven by several "indisputable" instances: the changing of the qibla towards Mecca and away from Jerusalem, and the introduction of the penalty of stoning for adultery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)


The Mu`tazili grammarian and author of the Qur'anic commentary Jami` al-Ta'wil li-Muhkam al-Tanzil, Abu Muslim al-Asfahani (254-322), was reputed to have denied intra-Qur'anic naskh altogether. Al-Razi and al-Shawkani refuted him in al-Mahsul and Irshad al-Fusul respectively, but others (such as Ibn Daqiq al-`Id and the contemporary scholar `Ali Hasabullah) justified his stance as a difference in terminology only (khilaf lafzi) - due, for example, to interpreting the word aya as "(super)natural sign" or "previous Scriptures" rather than "Qur'anic verse," or a reconsideration of purported abrogation to be mere specification (ikhtisas). Hence al-Qarafi's rebuttal, when al-Razi questioned the claim of consensus on the existence of abrogation: "Agreement has indeed formed over meaning; difference is only over naming."

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Abrogation_(Naskh)

The Mutaziltes rejected abrogation of any kind and wanted to do away with the Sunnah and return to the Quran. But this only took place with the rise of the Abbasids who wanted to establish the so called Islamic state.



When the Umayyads were overthrown by the 'Abbasids in I32/750, Islamic law, though still in its formative stage, had acquired its essential features; the need of Arab Muslim society for a new legal system had been filled. The early 'Abbasids continued and reinforced the islamizing trend which had become more and more noticeable under the later Umayyads. For reasons of dynastic policy, and in order to differentiate themselves from their predecessors, the 'Abbasids posed as the protagonists of Islam, attracted specialists in religious law to their court, consultet them on problems within their competence, and set out to translate their doctrines into practice. But this effort was shortlived. The early specialists who had formulated their doctrine not on the basis of, but in a certain opposition to, Umayyad popular and administrative practice, had been ahead of realities, and now the early 'Abbasids and their religious advisers were unable to carry the whole of society with them. This double-sided effect of the 'Abbasid revolution shows itself clearly in the development of the office of qadi. The qadi was not any more the legal secretary of the governor; he was normally appointed by the caliph, and until relieved of his office, he must apply nothing but the sacred law, without interference from the government. But theoretically independent though they were, the qadis had to rely on the political authorities for the execution of their judgments, and being bound by the formal rules of the Islamic law of evidence, their inability to deal with criminal cases became apparent. (Under the Umayyads, they or the governors themselves had exercised whatever criminal justice came within their competence.) Therefore the administration of the greater part of criminal justice was taken over by the police, and it remained outside the sphere of practical application of Islamic law. The centralizing tendency of the early 'Abbasids also led, perhaps under the influence of a feature of Sasanian administration, to the creation of the office of chief qadi. It was originally an honoriflc title given to the qadi of the capital, but the chief qadi soon became one of the most important counsellors of the caliph, and the appointment and dismissal of the other qadis, under the authority of the caliph, became the main function of his office.

The caliph, too, was given a place in the religious law of Islam. He was endowed with the attributes of a religious scholar and lawyer, bound to the sacred law in the same way as qadis were bound to it, and given the same right to the exercise of personal opinion as was admitted by the schools of law. The caliph retained full judicial power, the qadis were merely his delegates, but he did not have the right to legislate; he could only make administrative regulations within the limits laid down by the sacred law, and the qadis were obliged to follow his instructions within those limits. This doctrine disregarded the fact that what was actually legislation on the part of the caliphs of Medina, and particularly of the Umayyads, had to a great extent entered the fabric of Islamic law. The later caliphs and other secular rulers often enacted new rules; but although this was in fact legislation, the rulers used to call it administration, and they maintained the fiction that their regulations served only to apply, to supplement, and to enforce the sacred law. This ambiguity pervaded the whole of Islamic administration during the Middle Ages and beyond. In practice, the rulers were generally content with making regulations on matters which had escaped the control of the qads~, such as police, taxation and criminal justice. The most important examples of this kind of secular law are the siyasa of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt which applied to the military ruling class, and, later, the qanun-nama of the Ottoman sultans. Only in the present generation has a secular, modernist legislation, directly aimed at modifying Islamic law in its traditional form, come into being; this became possible only through the reception of Western political ideas. But the postulate that law, as well as other human relationships, must be ruled by religion, has become an essential part of the outlook of the Muslim Arabs, including the modernists among them.

Joseph Schacht- Origin of Islamic Law


So there you have it.

2

General Issues / Questions / What the salafi violence in Tunisia and Mali is telling us and why its important

« on: February 22, 2013, 12:04:45 AM »

It is never fun when you are someone like me who is outside of the mainstream. It often feels like you are always kicked out of the party. Like prophet Jeremiah in the Bible who had to live outside the walls of Jerusalem after being shunned by his people and even his family. But one thing that an outsider has is the ability to detect the future and see where things are heading. Being outside the walls of the city we are able to see whats surrounding the city. Something that those inside can not do.

The Arab revolutions is truly a turning point. A turning point in the sense that for the first time the culture of the political authority that have ruled the Muslim world since the Caliph Ali’s death in the 7th century is being challenged. Young youths are calling for social justice, dignity and political freedom. This is unprecedent in Middle East history.

For the first time the autocratic nature of governance is being challenged. Like the French revolution that paved the way for major political changes in Europe, the Tunisian revolution has paved the way for rapid and fast changing polical change in the Middle East. The speed of change of course is one major difference between the French and the Tunisian revolution. But there is another important distinction. The French revolution challenged both the political and the religious authorities of their day while the Tunisian and Arab revolutions limited itself to challenging the political authority. As in Egypt and elsewhere, the Tunisian masses convinced themelves that there is no contradiction between the calls for social justice, freedom and more transparency and Shariah law. In Egypt for instances the masses overwhelmingly supported article 2 of the constitution that stipulates that Shariah law is the main legislative authority of the state.

Many Islamic groups and some of the clerics openly claimed that Shariah law is fully compatible with democracy and equality of all citizens under the law and freedom. Secularism? What secularism? There is no need for secularism. Islamic law is the best system and secularism is not needed. For many Muslims secularism is an admittance of defeat and that something is wrong with Islam. For most Muslims Shariah law is fully integrated with their understaning of Islam since it carries the Islam brand. For people like me outside the mainstream, I have to simply watch this deception and half truths. I have no piece of the microphone. The dictator does not want my kind of Islam around. But he is gone now, and my kind will soon be appearing at a tv station and radio and book store nearby you.

What it shows is that modernity is having an enormous impact with the Muslim masses and Muslims like everybody else are attracted to modernity and democracy. It has no become a universal philosophy. It has become impossible to reverse this and many Islamic groups and authorities have joined the bandwagon. The idea here is that there is no contradiction between Shariah Law and democracy. The liberal authorities often have to walk a tight rope between their fears of an Islamic state and appearing to be against Islam to the masses. Many Islamic groups like the Tunisian Nahda party and the Muslim brotherhood have joined the democracy party. There has been no real religious debate and no real religious revision. Just like that Islam and democracy became one.

There is a reason for all this. Not having a viable alternative, Muslims have no real choice but to accept the authority of Shariah law. Many do not know what it is but are leaving that responsibility to the clerics. The clerics though are hiding for the most part. A few have spoken out but most of them are hiding. A person like me keeps a close eye on the clerics since it is them who have the power of the fatwa and enjoy the highest religious authority with the Muslim masses. Unlike the Islamic parties who only care about coming to power, the clerics have to follow the juristic teachings of their sects.

It is my belief that the clerics see a worrying future. A future where the inevitable clash between democracy and Shariah law is going to have to happen. But they are keeping it to themselves. This is why the rising violence now in Tunisia between the salafi groups and the intellectuals and Tunisian government is so important for someone like me. Because it exposes many aspect of the Islamic orthodoxies that the clerics have hidden from the masses. Unlike the Sufis who shun politics and avoid legalism in the public domian, the salafis very much are interested in the public domain. It is true that the salafi persuasion has some theological differences with the tradition Sunni orthodoxy, their legalism however is very much within the confinements of Sunni Islam.

The salafis after failing to gain votes in the election in Tunisia for example decided to take to the streets issuing death fatwas to some intellectuals, smashing magazine stalls and attacking cinemas. This is not new, it has happened in the past in many places. But whats new is unlike the past there is no political dictatorship to distract the masses. Everybody is slowly seeing that the only ones standing in the way of a free democratic society are the salafis. The salafis claim that Shariah law is the law of the land and it should be implimented. Unlike the others, they are very sincere with their dogma and believe democracy is kufr. They are labelled extremist and militants by the Arab media. In Tunisia they have now become a security concern. I think a similar situation could be happening in Libya. Why this issue is so important to me is that sooner or later it forces the clerics to come out to the open. Muslims are told that these groups are extremist and do not reflect the true spirit of Islam. They will head towards the clerics to force them to comment on the issue and issue fatwas. In the past the clerics were seen as puppets of the dictators who issued fatwas they way the dictator wanted. Now they are exposed. They will be running out of excuses. Often there will be debates between the salafis and moderate clerics. The debate will end in a stalemate with neither side winning. Two interpretation of the same Islam. Both relying on the same sources but differ on how it should be applied and by whom. The history of Islam is all about the battle for authority. Something that the Roman Chruch never had to worry about since the Romans always had authority. The Meccan dynasties in islam like Ummayids and Abbasids and Fatimids were nobodies but carried the prophet’s geneology. There only rise to fame was they were his descendants. Authority for them was a constant struggle. The emergence of the sects was a way for them to establish that authority. It will get ugly.

What will Muslims discover then?

They will discover that there is nothing the salafis are doing that is against Shariah law. They will discover that there is nothing extreme about what the salafis are saying or doing. In fact the salafis will come out as being more honest and sincere. The Shariah law is compatible with democracy bubble will burst. The clerics can not override the authorities of many Sunni clerics of the past who authroized such behaviors and attitude we see by many of these so called extremist groups.. After all the Sunni orthodoxies overwhelmingly gave authority to the ruler who is now gone. Any group or organization can claim to be the ruler and the emir now. There is nothing in Sunni or Shia Islam called elections and political parties and constitution. True there is nothing in these that contradict the Sunni or Shia Islam but there is no reason why a Sunni or Shia can not refuse such authority. The salafis can always claim democracy is kufr, and if the government does not want to apply apostasy law than they will take matters in their own hands. There is very little the clerics can do.

But shhhhh….. Don’t say that to anyone you see. These guys are extremist and are not following true Islam. What are you saying? Islam is peace and freedom and all that. But deep down Muslim are somewhat suspicious. Why are these groups flourishing as they are? Why are they unable to be stopped? They have now reached Mali and Nigeria demanding Shariah law and in Nigeria in fact they are blowing churches. The sufi cover has blown away. The prayer beads and zikr chants and shaking of the heads has gone, and a very different face is now appearing. No doubt the clerics are feeling the heat. Shariah law after all was never designed for a democracy. It emerged during the Abbasid empire to help create a theocracy for an absolute monarchy that can compete with the Byzantinians and unify the Muslim empire under one legal authority under the Sultan. It was designed to give religious legitimacy and authority to the rulers of the Muslim Empire. All of them were dictators who rules with an iron fist.

Sooner or later Muslims will have to stop burrying their heads in the sand. They will discover that extremism is here to stay. They will discover that the extremist have their support in many aspects of Shariah law itself. Muslims will be the only people in the world unable to impliment a democracy. They will have three choices then. Either they accept the status quo and accept that there will always be challenges to a free democracy , apostate from Islam or look for an alternative interpretation of Islam that they so far do not know exist.

They can always forget about democracy altogether. This certainly will end the problem. But by the look of it and the sacrifices many youths are willing to take to bring about a free and democratic societies this is highly unlikely. In fact I think its impossible as humans are a product of their environment.

So you do the math.

Where there is a demand there will always be a supply.

3

Discuss Latest News/Events / Saudi preacher spared after raping, killing daughter

« on: February 03, 2013, 08:59:21 PM »

RIYADH — A Saudi preacher who raped his five-year-old daughter and tortured her to death has been sentenced to pay "blood money" to the mother after having served a short jail term, activists said on Saturday.

Lamia al-Ghamdi was admitted to hospital on December 25, 2011 with multiple injuries, including a crushed skull, broken ribs and left arm, extensive bruising and burns, the activists said. She died last October 22.

Fayhan al-Ghamdi, an Islamic preacher and regular guest on Muslim television networks, confessed to having used cables and a cane to inflict the injuries, the activists from the group "Women to Drive" said in a statement.

They said the father had doubted Lama's virginity and had her checked up by a medic.

Randa al-Kaleeb, a social worker from the hospital where Lama was admitted, said the girl's back was broken and that she had been raped "everywhere", according to the group.

According to the victim's mother, hospital staff told her that her "child's rectum had been torn open and the abuser had attempted to burn it closed."

The activists said that the judge had ruled the prosecution could only seek "blood money (compensation for the next of kin under Islamic law) and the time the defendant had served in prison since Lama's death suffices as punishment."

Three Saudi activists, including Manal al-Sharif, have raised objections to the ruling.

The ruling is based on Islamic laws that a father cannot be executed for murdering his children, nor can husbands be executed for murdering their wives, activists said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hWYxPtXRyBxjuyYj859eXIG0B6GQ?docId=CNG.080187721352f1c2b6b1f4dbc6e0a3fe.7f1

4

Discuss Latest News/Events / The Quran and the Israel/Palestine conflict - is it our cause?

« on: November 22, 2012, 06:12:16 AM »

I was wondering, although I do support the Palestinian right to a homeland of their own and I don't agree with how Zionism applied its vision and I don't support what is happening in Israel now with Netanyahu and war and settlers going on. In the end however Palestinains are Sunnis and Israel is Pharisaic. They are far closer to each other religiously than anyone of them is to us.

A Palestinian state can persecute us as heretics probably even more than a Judaic state will since we maybe seen as apostates, at least the ones from our community who were born Sunnis or Shias. Both don't believe in freedom although the Muslims are more honest about that.

We are also far threatening to the Islamic sects than we are to the Jews since we advocate an alternative interpretation of Islam. I am very anti-neocon and I detest the zionist activist in America who practice self deception and act like parasytes. But religiously speaking what actually is the difference (to us) between the two? Hamas as we know is a branch of the Muslim brotherhood. They certainly don't tolerate us. Abbas is not much different, when push comes to shove he will be loyal to Sunni Islam. He is a secular Sunni, but Sunni nevertheless.

Food for thought. I fear that Quranist will be sucked into this conflict without being aware of our reality. Especially the Arab Quranist who can allow their ethnicity to dictate their thinking. We have no friends among the Muslims or Jews. Muslims are somewhat more honest about their agenda than the Jews are but that could be because Muslims are large in numbers while Jews often have to use proxy to impliment their agenda. Like how they are using America right now. Jews have done this many times in their history especially in Europe. This led to rise of anti-semitism. Both these communities can never assimilate outside their communities. Muslims want to dominate others while Jews try to exploit others. The Talmud and Sunnah makes it impossible to assimilate with others. They are like I said very similar in many ways. Muslims see themselves as a dominant theocracy while Jews see themselves as an exclusive minority. Both don't believe in an eye for an eye justice (proportional justice). Muslims believe in deterence as justice (punishment can be harsher than the crime) while Jews believe a Jew can demand disproportionate justice. So one believes in an eye for an eye lash while the other believes a Jewish eye for a thousand gentile eye. They have different tactics due to their circumstances but their strategy is one. Both are abrogationist with one deeply sectarian while the other deeply ethnocentric. The Quran is non sectarian and non ethnocentric. Both have a very problematic historic record.

I don't particularly oppose zionism as a concept. The Quran did talk about the Israelite people but never the land called Israel. It did talk about a promised land but did not actually say where and when and it did say the Israelites violated the commandments repeatedly. So the Quran can not be used to support or denounce zionism as a vision (a homeland for the Jews). But i do believe zionism was a colonial enterprise that displaced the indigeneous. But is this really our conflict?

Food for thought.

5

Hadith Discussions / Most hadith narrations in Bukhari are by 4 personalities only

« on: September 01, 2012, 07:48:45 PM »

I am not sure how accurate this is. But these are the narrators (supposed companions who narrate the hadith) in Bukhari's collection

Total number of traditions in 9 volumns of Bukhari:       7068


Aisha the mother of faithful:    1250   (17.68%)

Abu Hurairah:            1100  (15.56%)

Ibn-Umar, son of Umar:  1100  (15.56%)

Anas-Ibn-Malik:        900 (12.73%)

Abdullah-Ibn-Abbas:    700 (9.9%)

Jabir-Ibn-Abdullah:   275 (3.89%)



Abu-Musa-Ashari:   165 (2.33%)

Abu-Said-Al-Khedri:   130 (1.84%)

Ali-Ibn-Abitaleeb:   79 (1.11%)

Umar-Ibn-Khattab:  50 (0.71%)

Umm Salamh:    48 (0.68%)

Abdullah-Ibn-Masud:   45 (0.64%)

Muawiyah-Ibn-Abusofyan:  10 (0.14%)

Hasan-Ibn-Ali:   8 (0.11%)

Ali-Ibn-Husain:  6 (0.08%)

Husain-Ibn-Ali:   2 (0.03%)

(83% on the whole)




The first six equal 72.5%.

Nearly half of Bukhari's hadiths are by the first three (49%) !!!   

The 4 caliphs are barely 2%.   

Ibn Abbas was according to sunni sources 22 years old when Muhammad died, Abu Hurreira according to sunni sources has been with the prophet 3 years, Ibn Umar was 18 years old when the prophet died and Anas ibn Malik was about 20.

6

Questions/Comments on the Quran / Hadiths on slavery - ultimate deception

« on: August 29, 2012, 12:56:07 AM »

693
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave." Said bin Marjana said that he narrated that Hadith to 'Ali bin Al-Husain and he freed his slave for whom 'Abdullah bin Ja'far had offered him ten thousand Dirhams or one-thousand Dinars. 

 
 694
 Narrated Abu Dhar: I asked the Prophet, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause." I then asked, "What is the best kind of manumission (of slaves)?" He replied, "The manumission of the most expensive slave and the most beloved by his master." I said, "If I cannot afford to do that?" He said, "Help the weak or do good for a person who cannot work for himself." I said, "If I cannot do that?" He said, "Refrain from harming others for this will be regarded as a charitable deed for your own good." 

 
 695
Narrated Asma' bint Abu Bakr: The Prophet ordered us to free slaves at the time of solar eclipses. 

 
 696
Narrated Asma' bint Abu Bakr: We were ordered to free slaves at the time of lunar eclipses. 

 
697
 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "Whoever manumits a slave owned by two masters, should manumit him completely (not partially) if he is rich after having its price evaluated." 

 
 698
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever frees his share of a common slave and he has sufficient money to free him completely, should let its price be estimated by a just man and give his partners the price of their shares and manumit the slave; otherwise (i.e. if he has not sufficient money) he manumits the slave partially." 

 
 699
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever manumits his share of a slave, then it is essential for him to get that slave manumitted' completely as long as he has the money to do so. If he has not sufficient money to pay the price of the other shares (after the price of the slave is evaluated justly), the manumitted manumits the slave partially in proportion to his share. 

 
 700
Narrated 'Ubaidullah: as above BRIEFLY. 

 
 701
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "He who manumits his share of a slave and has money sufficient to free the remaining portion of that slave's price (justly estimated) then he should manumit him (by giving the rest of his price to the other co-owners)." Nafi' added, "Otherwise the slave is partially free." Aiyub is not sure whether the last statement was said by Nafi' or it was a part of the Hadith. 

 
 702
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: That he used to give his verdict regarding the male or female slaves owned by more than one master, one of whom may manumit his share of the slave. Ibn 'Umar used to say in such a case, "The manumitted should manumit the slave completely if he has sufficient money to pay the rest of the price of that slave (which is to be justly estimated) and the other share-holders are to take the price of their shares and the slave is freed (released from slavery)." Ibn 'Umar narrated this verdict from the Prophet. 
 

So now you know why Muslims do not know about slavery in Islam. Because these are the hadiths (in Bukhari) that are being preached in mosques. My brother a few days ago told me Islam abolished slavery. Very little is known about Islamic history and slavery. It was seen as a practice done like smuggling or piracy. Illegal activities that can not be stopped. Very few Muslims actually believe that Islam actually encouraged slavery. Often clerics will not disclose such information that is now slowly coming out. Even a casual reading of these hadiths gives the impression that Islam abolished slavery.


Now read this


Detaining prisoners

Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims’ best interests  .  He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter. The purpose behind detaining prisoners is so that the Muslims may be protected from their evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life.

Ahkaam al-Sijn wa’l-Sujana’ wa Mu’aamalat al-Sujana’ fi’l-Islam by Hasan Abi’l-Ghuddah, 256

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/13241

Now compare the two and tell me which is the one you will likely hear in a Friday khutbah.

The blue part are the Quranic part.


Joseph Schacht

The need of creating some kind of theoretical justification for what so far had been an instinctive reliance on the opinions of the majority, led, from the first decades of the second/eighth century onwards, to the living tradition being retrojected, and to its being ascribed to some of the great hgures of the past. This process, too, began in Kufa, where the stage of doctrine achieved in the time of Hammad b. Abi Sulayman (d. I20/738) was attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i (d. 95-6/7I3-I5). The Medinese followed suit and retrojected their own teaching to a number of ancient authorities who had died about the turn of the century, some of whom later became known as the 'seven jurists of Medina'. At the same time as the doctrine of the school of Kufa was retrospectively attributed to Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, a similar body of doctrine was directly connected with the very beginnings of Islam in Kufa by being attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Prophet who had come to live in that city, and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i became the main transmitter of that body of doctrine, too. In the same way, other Companions of the Prophet became the eponyms of the schools of Medina and of Mecca. One further step in the search for a solid theoretical foundation of the doctrine of the ancient schools was taken in 'Iraq, very early in the second/eighth century, when the term ' Sunna of the Prophet ' was transferred from its political and theological into a legal context, and identified with the sunna, the ideal practice of the local community and the corresponding doctrine of its scholars. This term, which was taken over by the school of Syria, expressed the axiom that the practice of the Muslims derived from the practice of the Prophet, but it did not as yet imply the existence of positive information in the form of ' Traditions ' (Hadith), that the Prophet by his words or acts had in fact originated or approved any particular practice. It was not long before these Traditions, too, came into existence, and the persons who put them into circulation were the Traditionists.

The ancient schools of law themselves represented, in one aspect, an Islamic opposition to popular and administrative practice under the later Umayyads, and the opposition group which developed into the Traditionist movement emphasized this tendency. As long as a Companion of the Prophet had been the final authority for the doctrine of a school on a particular point, it was sufficient for a divergent doctrine to be put under the aegis of another Companion of equal or even higher authority, as happened in Kufa where all kinds of minority opinions were attributed to the Caliph 'Ali, who had made Kufa his capital. But after the general authority of the Prophet himself had been invoked by identifying the established doctrine with his sunna, a more specific reference to him was needed, and there appeared detailed statements or 'Traditions' which claimed to be the reports of ear- or eye-witnesses on the words or acts of the Prophet, handed down orally by an uninterrupted chain of trustworthy persons. Very soon the emphasis shifted from proposing certain opinions in opposition to the ancient schools to disseminating Traditions from the Prophet as such, and the movement of the Traditionists, which was to develop into a separate branch of Islamic religious learning, came into being. It was the main thesis of the Traditionists that formal Traditions from the Prophet superseded the living tradition of the school. The Traditionists existed in all great centres of Islam, where they formed groups in opposition to, but nevertheless in contact with, the local schools of law. Initially the ancient schools offered strong resistance to the disturbing element represented by the Traditions, but they had no real defence against their rising tide; they had to express their own doctrines in Traditions which allegedly went back to the Prophet, and to take increasing notice of the Traditions produced by their opponents. Finally the outlines and many details of Islamic law were cast into the form of Traditions from the Prophet. In this way, one of the greatest and most successful literary fictions came into being.

So to legalize slavery they had to make it Muhammedan as this was the only authority they can agree with. But in doing so they had to use deception less they might taint their brand. They needed Muhammad's authority to legalize slavery and prisoners abuse as the RULER wanted, but they had to make sure they don't taint him in Muslim eyes or they will start to reject the Sunnah.

7

General Issues / Questions / Imam Al Nawawiy's understanding of kufr.

« on: August 28, 2012, 01:01:07 AM »

The passage from Imam An-Nawawiy’s Rawdat At-Taalibiin

1.A person who calls the Prophet ﷺ as black has blasphemed and become infidel as he has attributed to him a trait that is not his.

 2.A person who says that the Prophet ﷺ died before he got revelation has blasphemed and become infidel as he has attributed to him a trait that is not his.

 3.A person says that the Prophet ﷺ was not Qurashiy, that is, from the Quraysh tribe, has blasphemed and become infidel as he has attributed to him a trait that is not his.

 4.A person who says that prophethood is acquired or earned due to one’s deeds has blasphemed and become infidel EVEN IF he doesn’t directly claim prophethood.

 5.A person who says that he can reach the rank of prophethood due to the purity of his heart has blasphemed and become kafir EVEN IF he doesn’t directly claim prophethood.

 6.A person who says that he receives prophetic revelation (wahiy) has blasphemed and become kafir EVEN IF he does not directly claim prophethood.

 7.A person who says that he enters jannah, or eats from its fruits or embraces its houris, he has become a kafir.

 8.A person who negates any text of the Quran,  he is a kafir.

 9.A person who negates a Sunnah/saying of the Prophet ﷺ that is conclusively taken upon its explicit meanings, he has certainly become kafir.

 10.A person who does not do takfeer (declare kafir) of people who profess a faith other than Islam, such as christians, jews, buddhists, atheists, etc. – he is a kafir by the consensus of scholars – EVEN IF he claims to be Muslim or acts like them.

 11.A person who even DOUBTS in the takfeer of people who profess a faith other than Islam, he is a kafir by consensus of scholars – EVEN IF he claims to be Muslim or acts like them.

 12.A person who authenticates or praises or appraises the faith/s of those who profess a religion other than Islam – he is a kafir by the consensus of scholars – EVEN IF he claims to be Muslim or acts like them.

 13.A person who says implicitly or explicitly, that the ENTIRE Muslim ummah is misguided, he is a kafir by the consensus of scholars – EVEN IF he claims to be Muslim or acts like them.

 14.A person who does takfeer of the sahaba (companions of the Prophet ﷺ) – he is a kafir by the consensus of scholars – EVEN IF he claims to be Muslim or acts like them.

 15.A person who does deeds upon which the Muslim ummah is unanimous that they can’t be committed except by a kafir – he is a kafir by the consensus of scholars – EVEN IF he claims to be Muslim or acts like them. Such deeds include things like wearing the cross, prostrating to the cross, prostrating to fire, prostrating to idols, walking to churches, synagogues, temples, etc. along with their congregations, wearing their specific attires and uniforms like their zunnar (sashes/ropes they tie around the waist), wearing the jewish skull caps, growing one’s sidelocks like the jews, wearing jewish-specific hats, wearing christian priests head gear, wearing the specific attire of buddhist monks, marking one’s forehead with markings specific to hindus, tying and braiding one’s hairs and beards like the hindus and sikhs do, joining their choirs and/or singing their religious songs, and other such things.

 16.Likewise, a person who denies the existence or sanctity of Holy Makkah,or the Ka’bah, or the Holy Mosque, he is a kafir by consensus. Also note that the same rulings would apply to denying the existence and/or sanctity of the Prophet’s ﷺ mosque in Madinah.

 17.Likewise, a person who denies an integral or the sanctity, or the obligation of the Hajj, he is a kafir by consensus. Also note that denial of the sanctity or the obligation of any obligatory act of worship or its integrals (like the number of rak’ats in prayers) constitutes apostasy.

 18.Likewise, a person who doubts the Makkah known to Muslims as being the real Makkah, he too is a kafir by consensus.

 19.Just as a person who denies any part of the text of the Quran is a kafir – a person becomes a filthy infidel even by changing any part of the Quran, either changing directly the textual content, or by changing the established meaning/implication espoused by any part of the Quran   as taught by the Prophet ﷺ and his inheritors the sahaba. 

 20.A person who denies the miracles of the prophets becomes a filthy infidel by consensus of Muslim scholars, for he is denying many explicit verses of the Quran. 

 21.A person who says that the creation of the skies and the earth are not proofs for Allah’s existence, has become a kafir.

 22.A person who denies paradise, or hellfire, or rising from the dead on the day of judgment, or the giving account of one’s deeds – he has become a filthy infidel by consensus of Muslim scholars.

 23.A person who accepts paradise and/or hellfire and/or rising from the dead on the day of judgment and/or giving account for his deeds – but still tries to be smart and says that the meanings and implications of these things are something other than that unanimously known by Muslims (which means that those are the meanings taught by the Prophet ﷺ and passed on by mass transmission) – he too is a kafir by consensus of scholars.

 24.A person who says that imams are superior to prophets, he is a kafir. Please also note that saying that ANY non-prophet IS – or CAN BE – equal to or superior to ANY prophet  – is kufr.

http://iloveimamrabbani.wordpress.com/tag/shafiiys-call-christians-and-jews-kafirs/

8

Discuss Latest News/Events / 9 Years old Pakistan girl jailed, accused of blasphemy

« on: August 21, 2012, 06:17:24 AM »

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A Christian girl was sent to a Pakistani prison after being accused by her furious Muslim neighbors of burning pages of the Islamic holy book, the Quran, in violation of the country's strict blasphemy laws.

A police official said Monday there was little evidence that pages of the book had been burned and that the case would likely be dropped. But hundreds of angry neighbors gathered outside the girl's home last week demanding action in a case raising new concerns about religious extremism in this conservative Muslim country.

Some human rights officials and media reports said the girl was mentally handicapped. Police gave conflicting reports of her age as 11 and 16.

Under Pakistan's blasphemy laws, anyone found guilty of insulting Islam's Prophet Muhammad or defiling the holy book, or Quran, can face life in prison or even execution. Critics say the laws are often misused to harass non-Muslims or target individuals.

Police put the girl in jail for 14 days on Thursday after neighbors said they believed a Christian girl had burned pages of a Quran, gathering outside her house in a poor outlying district of Islamabad, said police officer Zabi Ullah. He suggested she was being held for her protection.

"About 500 to 600 people had gathered outside her house in Islamabad and they were very emotional, angry and they might have harmed her if we had not quickly reacted," Ullah said.

Almost everyone in the girl's neighborhood insisted she had burned the Quran's pages, even though police said they had found no evidence of it. One police official, Qasim Niazi, said when the girl was brought to the police station, she had a shopping bag that contained various religious and Arabic-language papers that had been partly burned, but there was no Quran.

Some residents claimed they actually saw burnt pages of Quran — either at the local mosque or at the girl's house. Few people in Pakistan actually speak or read Arabic, so often assume that anything they see with Arabic script is believed to be from the Quran, sometimes the only Arabic-language book people have seen.

But one police officer familiar with the girl's case said the matter would likely be dropped once the investigation is completed and the atmosphere is defused, saying there was "nothing much to the case." He did not want to be identified due to the sensitivity of the case.

A spokesperson for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Farhatullah Babar, said the president has taken "serious note" of reports of the girl's arrest and has asked the Interior Ministry to look into the case.

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland called the case "deeply disturbing".

"We urge the government of Pakistan to protect not just its religious minority citizens but also women and girls," she said.

The Associated Press is withholding the girl's name; the AP does not generally identify juveniles under 18 who are accused of crimes.

The case demonstrates the deep emotion that suspected blasphemy cases can evoke in a country where religion Many critics say the blasphemy laws are often abused.

"It has been exploited by individuals to settle personal scores, to grab land, to violate the rights of non-Muslims, to basically harass them," said the head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Zora Yusuf.

Those convicted of blasphemy can spend years in prison and often face mob justice by extremists when they finally do get out. In July, thousands of people dragged a man accused of desecrating the Quran from a police station in the central city of Bahawalpur, beat him to death and then set his body on fire.

Attempts to revoke or alter the blasphemy laws have been met with violent opposition. Last year, two prominent political figures who spoke out against the laws were killed in attacks that basically ended any attempts at reform.

The girl's jailing terrified her Christian neighbors, many of whom left their homes in fear after the incident. One resident said Muslims used to object to the noise when Christians sang songs during their services. After the girl was accused he said senior members of the Muslim community pressured landlords to evict Christian tenants.

But Muslim residents insisted they treated their neighbors with respect, and said Christians needed to respect Islamic traditions and culture.

"Their priest should tell them that they should respect the call for prayer. They should respect the mosque and the Quran," said Haji Pervez, one of several Muslims gathered at the local mosque less than 100 yards (meters) from the grey concrete house where the Christian girl lived.

"This is what should have happened. We are standing in the house of God. This incident has happened and it is true. It was not good."

"Even a 3-year-old, 4-year-old child knows: "This is Muslim. This is Christian. This is our religion," said shopkeeper Mohammed Ilyas.

Associated Press writers Munir Ahmed and Zarar Khan in Islamabad and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-20/pakistan-police-investigating-girl-for-blasphemy

 

9

General Issues / Questions / Shirk creation stories and how they share a common theology

« on: June 12, 2012, 12:48:09 AM »

Creation Myths

It doesn't seem as though Europagans made a big deal of focusing on a specific creation tale as core to their orthodoxy. Egyptians had five or six different creation myths, you can easily identify three or four different creation myths for the Greeks, poetic tellings of Greek lore. In every one of those cases of pagan creation myths, there is no one creator god. I don't think that traditional pagandom has a notion of an individual being that created the world. It does seem as though pagan religions had no creator god, even if they did have a "first god". [Also: Greek myths online]

Everybody understands the idea of a first cause. Monotheism assumes that the first cause goes on to becomes the all creator owner-operator, omnipotent. For pagans, the logical first causes are usually long gone. This makes the current gods of mortals well removed from the first cause, even though the stories are full of individual gods creating individual parts of the world, right down to stories described as happening to humans just like us. For example, there is Athena creating spiders by shriveling Arachne into the first spider. So the creation story in pagan lore is, in a sense, always ongoing.

One of the common first cause stories is the sacrifice of the first being. That's well reviewed in Norse lore, where the first being, the giant Ymir is formed from frost. The first cause in Norse lore appears to be a cow (Audhumla); fire and ice come together and create rime, and then a cow (also uncreated) comes along and licks the salty rime and so the first being emerges. In time, Odin and his two brothers come along, slay Ymir, and make the world out of his body. The ancient Indo-Europeans generally thought of the sky as a hard bowl of stone which was pierced to allow the light of the upper heavens through it. This is directly reflected in Vedic lore. In one of the Hindu creation stories—and again there are several, in any pagan system you'll find a number of creation stories—has an overt sacrifice, where the first being is sacrificed, and from his parts are made the world. [Also: Norse lore online]

So the first cause is always long gone, long buried, way in the distant past. The first cause in pagan lore is almost never part of the current management of the cosmos. And I think that leads to the whole notion in paganism of a kind of devolvement of power. Since power isn't centralized in any one being in pagan lore, there's not a kind of dependence that monotheism teaches. We don't find ourselves forced to submit our will to the All-Will in order to be doing what the Divine wants us to be doing. The gods are the biggest, brightest, smartest, oldest beings that are willing to talk to us, and most of the lore makes it clear that there are plenty of other big beings that don't really talk to us or want anything to do with us, maybe don't even like us. And then you've got the long list of beings that

http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/discussing-pagan-theology.html

Norse creation story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_OBq865VjI&feature=related

Hinduism creation story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTy49JlgJZE

Ancient Egyptian creation story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNxZqINCyj4

Ancient Greek creation story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75kDb2OqBWI&feature=related

The Incas creation story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayR4zAV43qk&feature=related

Germanic creation story

10

Discuss Latest News/Events / Young woman in Sudan given stoning to death sentence.

« on: June 02, 2012, 10:05:30 AM »

Young woman sentenced to death by stoning in Sudan
 
Thu, May 31 13:49 PM EDT

By Alexander Dziadosz
 
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - A Sudanese woman, believed to be around 20, has been sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery, and is being held near Khartoum, shackled in prison with her baby son, rights groups and lawyers said on Thursday.
 
Campaigners condemned the ruling, saying it violated international standards and raised concerns that Sudan might start applying sharia, or Islamic law, more strictly following the secession of mostly non-Muslim South Sudan last year.
 
The woman, Intisar Sharif Abdalla, was sentenced by the Ombada criminal court on April 22, court documents seen by Reuters showed.
 
Two lawyers assigned to her case, who declined to be named, said they were launching an appeal adding Abdalla appeared to be under severe psychological strain.
 
"She's in dire need of a psychiatrist because she appears to be in a state of shock from the social and family pressures she's under," one lawyer said.
 
Abdalla was illiterate and did not have a lawyer or interpreter in the courtroom, although Arabic is not her native language, the lawyers and activists added.
 
Arabic is the main language in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation, though a wide range of smaller languages are also spoken, particularly in tribal areas. It was unclear where Abdalla came from.
 
Officials in Sudan's justice and information ministries said they could not immediately comment on the case when Reuters contacted them by phone.
 
Abdalla's exact age has not been confirmed, but activists said she was believed to be around 20, although some reports indicated she could be younger.
 
"The case certainly raises concerns about how judges are interpreting and applying the laws of Sudan," Jehanne Henry, a senior research at advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said.
 
ISLAMIC LAW
 
Floggings are a common punishment in Sudan for crimes like drinking alcohol and adultery. But sentences of stoning are rare.
 
Following a 1989 coup, Sudan introduced laws that took sharia as their main source and hosted militants including Osama bin Laden.
 
While the government has since sought to improve its image internationally by distancing itself from radical Islamists, it is still one of only a few countries to list death by stoning in its statutes.
 
In 2010, Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir said the country would adopt a fully Islamic constitution following the secession of the south, agreed under a 2005 peace deal that ended decades of civil war.
 
Most people in South Sudan are Christian or follow traditional African beliefs.
 
The Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA), a network of civil society groups, said Abdalla was still in danger despite the appeal.
 
"Although this appeal is in process, Intisar ostensibly remains at risk of being stoned and in real terms, her life is still very much on the line," it said in a statement.
 
In 2010, the case of Lubna Hussein, a Sudanese U.N. official, sparked international furor when she was sentenced to flogging for wearing trousers.
 
Fahima Hashim, a women's rights activist following Abdalla's case, said sentences were often inconsistent in Sudan because the legal system gave authority to judges to decide punishments. Previous stoning sentences had not been carried out, she said.
 
Hashim called for the reform of articles in Sudan's criminal code which she said harm women's rights, including one used in Abdalla's case.
 
As long as this articles remained unchanged, execution by stoning would not be out of the question, she said. "It's a threat. It could happen."
 
(Additional reporting by Khalid Abdelaziz)

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE84U10Y20120531?irpc=932