Topics

[Aboriginal Creation story]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRPqtGywkCw

Please watch this lecture. Very important for Quranist. Plus see some creation stories to get understanding of Shirk theology. Verses of Quran concerning Shirk will now seem easy to comprehend .

Aboriginal Creation story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koxp_q46z0Q

Ancient Egyptian Creation story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTy49JlgJZE

Babylonian Creation story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta3XER76iGI

Greek Creation story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a3VJVrZOlU

It is all about "In the beginning there was....."


Good luck to all

After 9-11 there has been various debates about Islam. Some have said that the terrorist are Islam's true spoken. The so called moderates practice taqiya. Taqiya is the deliberate lying for the faith. They say Islam is a violent religion that commands Muslims to kill non Muslim. Non Muslims have 3 choices, either they convert, pay the jizya(tax) or die. They say Muhammad was peaceful for PR reasons and once strong showed his true colors and preached violent jihad. They say all the peaceful verses were abrogated after his final victory with this verse:

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And also this verse:

9.29. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This verses are chosen for a reason. When read alone it implies a command to attack until they convert. Of course there are other verses in the Koran that talks about fighting. But why do they tend to focus on this one? Its simple, the other verses tend to show the defensive nature of the jihad and also the malicious intent and behavior of the pagans. Thus never cited. Lets look at some of them:

2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression

Also:

2.217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

All these verses talks about fighting, however within these verses the defensive nature of the verses and the malicious behavior of the pagans is cited. Thus those who wish to attack Islam never cite those verses. Its a deliberate attempt to hide what the Koran as saying and using selective verses to imply what they know the verses does not mean.

Lets however look at the verse that is often cited. This time we will take the verses before and after it to see what is the context this verse is talking.

9.4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. 7. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.


Also in the same chapter it explains the reason behind all of these battles fought

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!


The verses clearly indicate that no forced conversion was there.There are standards that the Koran established for fighting.

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth . As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ?Our Lord is God.? 22:39-40

These verses show us clearly that the battles the believers fought was purely for defensive purposes as the believers were being persecuted because they believed in the teachings of the Quran. The pagans wanted the Quran to cease to exist and wanted the prophet and his followers to perish. This is why freedom of religion in the Quran is sacrosanct. The Koran more than any other literature guaranteed the absolute right for freedom of belief and expression and thought.


The Koran makes clear the job of the prophet:

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it??

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

But most of all the Koran asks the prophet himself this question:

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

Then again the Quran tells us:

109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine

There is nothing even called conquest in the Koran and there is nothing called paying taxes and offensive war and spreading faith by the sword are not Koranic whatsoever and is a direct disobedience to the orders of the Koran. Jizya in the Quran came when the believers were entering Mecca where they were forced into exile and left their homeland losing their livlihoods, homes and businesses. Jizya was never mentioned except upon the pagans of Mecca. Jizya was a war reparation and compensation for damages. The prophet was in Medina where many non believers lived under his domain but was never ordered to seek Jizya. Later Muslim authorities applied Jizya to anyone living under a Muslim ruler who are not Muslims as a form of tax. This is not the context it appears in the Quran.

So the Sunni/Shia concept that peaceful verses were abrogated by later verses that moved from defensive war to offensive has no backing from the Quran. This is because the permission allowed to fight has been outlined in the Quran. Only when provoked and forced should we fight. The prophet was a victim of religious coercion and persecution for religious propagation.

?The contemporary Islamic al-Azhar influential scholar, Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti, says in his well-known research: ?The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war which is demanded in Islamic law is not a defensive war, because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of Allah and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of Allah?s kingdom on Earth regardless the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive Holy War.? ?

?Al-Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73, but a case of delaying or postponing the command to fight the infidels until the Muslims become strong. When they were weak, they were commanded to endure and be patient. The first verse that was revealed in the Qur?an about fighting in Medina is Surah 2 verse 190, until Surah 9 was revealed, and it was cancelled by Surah 9 verse 5. ?

So we can see how the Islamic sects abrogated many the defensive war verses claiming verse 9.5 abrogated the defensive war only verses and changed it to offensive war. They believe in this due to the following hadith recorded in Bukhari's and Muslim's collections. Hadiths were compiled two centuries after the Quran was revealed.

Ibn ?Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, ?I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah.? (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)?

This hadith violates tens of Quranic commands about freedom and defensive war.


In the Quran we see the concept of religious persecution was a hallmark of pagan societies and oppressive tyrants.

They said: "O Shuayb! Much of what thou sayest we do not understand! In fact among us we see that thou hast no strength! Were it not for thy family, we should certainly have stoned thee! For thou hast among us no great position!" 11:91

(The father) replied: "Dost thou hate my gods, O Abraham? If thou forbear not, I will indeed stone thee : now get away from me for a good long while!" .19:46

The (people) said: "For us, We augur an evil omen from you: if ye desist not, we will certainly stone you , or a grievous punishment indeed will be inflicted on you by us." 36:18

They said: "If thou desist not, O Noah! thou shalt be stoned. 26.116

Pharaoh said, "Did you believe in him without my permission? This must be a conspiracy you schemed in the city, in order to take its people away. You will surely find out. "I will cut your hands and feet on alternate sides, then I will crucify you all." 7.123-124

All of these verses tell us how the prophets were persecuted for their religious propogation. The prophet of the Quran met the same fate. He was ordered to fight back and to complete the message of the Quran. But he was also ordered to limit his duty to preaching. If the people decide on him to judge between them than he is to do with justice.

Quran is peace

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi made international headlines earlier this year for calling for a reformation of Islam, but his government is proving itself less than willing to embrace Islamic reformists at home. Perhaps nothing has made this resistance more clear than the government-sanctioned campaign against Islam El-Beheiry, an Islamic scholar who made a name for himself on Egyptian airwaves for questioning the teachings of hardline preachers and encouraging a more critical approach to foundational Islamic texts.

On Saturday, an Egyptian court sentenced El-Beheiry to five years in prison on charges of contempt of religion, after the scholar was accused of blasphemy by the state-backed religious institution al-Azhar, the most prominent Sunni religious authority in the Muslim world. El-Beheiry?s sentencing follows the April cancellation of his religious talk show ?With Islam,? which was pulled off the air by a privately-owned satellite channel at the request of Azhar Grand Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayyeb.

The court ruling is representative of the sort of challenges that reformers like El-Beheiry face in Egypt, according to Egyptian author and journalist Hany Ghoraba. ?El-Beheiry represents a new generation of religious reformers outside the clergy and religious caste,? Ghoraba wrote in a commentary published Monday. ?His bold and unorthodox methods have gained him millions of supporters and many other enemies.? Among these enemies are the old guard of al-Azhar, which Ghoraba argued have been engaged in a campaign of character assassination against El-Beheiry since his rise to prominence.

The Islamic scholar has sparked debate since his show began airing in July 2013. El-Beheiry regularly featured clips of ultraconservative Salafi preachers, using them as a basis for dismantling long-held religious assumptions, including around hot-button issues like women?s rights and penalties for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

http://www.ibtimes.com/sisi-islam-reform-blasphemy-case-against-reformist-islam-el-beheiry-undercuts-1947460


He said the 4 Imams of Sunni Islam are worst than ISIS and called Hadith science garbage. His show is in Arabic and its hard hitting.

https://www.youtube.com/user/IslamBehery

This is for all you newbees here. Very good lecture about polytheism and its theology and commonalities.

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

Also i have done some searching about this subject also. It covers various polytheistic traditions in history and their creation stories.

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603937.0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS2g3t7tKN4

Very interesting.

[Question asked.]

I am writing this because too often we are asked by Sunnis and Shias the recurring question of "how do you guys know how to pray from Quran"? Where does it tells us how to pray in the Quran? And so on.

However what many do not know is that the obligation of 5 salaat and the prostration rituals (rika's) were established in Sunni Islam in the so called night journey (isra wal miraj) where the story is that Muhammad ascended to heaven on that night and met Gabriel and the 5 salat was established then and Gabriel also taught the prophet how to pray and how many prostration to perform and so on.

So the question is how do Sunni sources answer the question of how the prophet and the believers prayed before that if they prayed at all. We are looking at a time frame of more than 10 years when the prophet and believers were in Mecca since the night journey occurred after the migration (hijra).

Question asked.


145725: When was prayer made obligatory? How did the Muslims pray before prayer was made obligatory?

Is it true that prayer was made obligatory before the night of the Isra?? Did the Messenger pray in the manner that we pray now, with the same number of rak?ahs? When was prayer made obligatory at these times and in the manner that we pray now?
Praise be to Allah.

Al-Bukhaari (349) and Muslim (162) narrated from Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him) the famous hadeeth of the Isra? (Prophet?s Night Journey) in which it is reported that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

?Then Allah revealed what He revealed to me, and enjoined fifty prayers on me every day and night. I came back down to Moosa (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and he said: What did your Lord enjoin upon your ummah? I said: Fifty prayers. He said: Go back to your Lord and ask Him to reduce it... I kept going back and forth between my Lord, may He be blessed and exalted, and Moosa (peace be upon him), until He said: ?O Muhammad, they are five prayers each day and night, for every prayer there will be a tenfold (reward), and that is fifty prayers.?

The scholars are unanimously agreed that the five daily prayers were not made obligatory until this night. See the answer to question no. 143111

See also Fath al-Baari by Ibn Rajab (2/104).

Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

On the night of the Isra?, one and a half years before the Hijrah, Allah enjoined upon His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) the five daily prayers, and explained that there were conditions and essential parts and other matters having to do with them, bit by bit.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer (7/164).

Then Jibreel (peace be upon him) came down and taught the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) the times of the prayers:

Al-Bukhaari (522) and Muslim (611) narrated from Ibn Shihaab that ?Umar ibn ?Abd al-?Azeez delayed the prayer one day. ?Urwah ibn az-Zubayr entered upon him and told him that al-Mugheerah ibn Shu?bah delayed the prayer one day when he was in Kufah, and Abu Mas?ood al-Ansaari entered upon him and said: What is this, O Mugheerah? Do you not know that Jibreel came down and prayed, and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prayed, then he prayed and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prayed, then he prayed and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prayed, then he prayed and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prayed, then he prayed and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) prayed. Then he said: This is what has been enjoined upon me. ?Umar said to ?Urwah: Think what you are narrating, O ?Urwah! Is Jibreel the one who taught the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) the times of the prayers? ?Urwah said: That is what Basheer ibn Abi Mas?ood used to narrate from his father.

An-Nasaa?i (526) narrated that Jaabir ibn ?Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Jibreel (peace be upon him) came to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when the sun had passed its zenith and said: Get up, O Muhammad. That was when the sun had passed the meridian. Then he waited until the (length of) a man?s shadow was equal to his height, then he came to him for ?Asr and said: Get up, O Muhammad, and pray ?Asr. Then he waited until the sun set, then he came to him and said: Get up and pray Maghrib. So he got up and prayed it when the sun had set fully. Then he waited until the twilight had disappeared, then he came and said: Get up and pray ?Isha?, so he got up and prayed it? In this hadeeth it says: He (i.e., Jibreel) said: The period between two of these two times is the time to pray.

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh an-Nasaa?i.

?Abd ar-Razzaaq narrated in his Musannaf (1773) and Ibn Ishaaq narrated in his Seerah ? as it says in Fath al-Baari (2/286) ? that this happened on the morning after the night in which prayer was made obligatory.

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

(The scholars) did not differ concerning the fact that Jibreel (peace be upon him) came down on the morning following the night of the Isra?, when the sun passed its zenith, and taught the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) the prayer and its timings. End quote.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Jibreel?s explanation of the timings of the prayer came on the morning following the night of the Isra?. End quote.

Sharh al-?Umdah (4/148)

When the five daily prayers were first made obligatory, each prayer was two rak?ahs, then after the Hijrah, that was confirmed in the case of travel, and two rak?ahs were added for those who are not travelling, except Maghrib, which remained as it was. Al-Bukhaari (3935) and Muslim (685) narrated that ?Aa?ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: Prayer was enjoined with two rak?ahs, then when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) migrated, it was enjoined with four rak?ahs, but prayer whilst travelling remained as it had originally been.

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions used to pray before the five daily prayers were made obligatory.

It says in al-Mawsoo?ah al-Fiqhiyyah (27/52-53):

Prayer was originally enjoined in Makkah at the beginning of Islam, because there are Makkan verses that were revealed at the beginning of the Prophet?s mission that encourage praying. As for the five daily prayers in the form that is well-known, they were made obligatory on the night of the Isra? and Mi?raaj. End quote.

See also the answer to question no. 143111

Some of the scholars are of the view that prayer was made obligatory at the beginning, two rak?ahs in the morning and two rak?ahs in the afternoon.

Al-Haafiz (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Fath:

A number of scholars are of the view that before the Isra? there was no obligatory prescribed prayer, but prayers were offered at night, without any number of rak?ahs being specified. Al-Harbi was of the view that prayer was made obligatory, two rak?ahs in the morning and two rak?ahs in the afternoon. Ash-Shaafa?i narrated from some of the scholars that prayer at night was obligatory, then it was abrogated by the verse (interpretation of the meaning): ?So, recite you of the Quran as much as may be easy for you? [al-Muzammil 73:20]. So it became obligatory to pray for part of the night. Then that was abrogated by the five daily prayers. End quote.

He also said:

Before the Isra?, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) definitely used to pray, as did his companions, but there is a scholarly difference of opinion as to whether any kind of prayer was made obligatory before the five daily prayers or not. It was said that what was obligatory at first was prayer before sunrise and prayer before sunset. The evidence for that is the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): ?and glorify the praises of your Lord before the rising of the sun, and before its setting? [Ta-Ha 20:130], and similar verses. End quote.

See also Tafseer Ibn ?Atiyyah (1/204); at-Tahreer wa?t-Tanweer by Ibn ?Ashoor (24/75).

And Allah knows best.


http://islamqa.info/en/145725



So while they try to explain how they prayed before that and the confusion in their answer what they are saying really is there was no standard way of praying and everybody basically established their own prayers. Basically they prayed like Quranist did and did not need to know how to pray but established their own routine and methods. They were basically praying like Quranist.

This highlights Sunni hypocrisy where they ask us such question but fail to realize that nearly all Quranist understand praying the way the prophet and early Muslims understood it according to their own sources.

[These are some of the hadiths that inspires ISIS, Shabab, Boko Haram and other so called Jihadi groups.]

These are some of the hadiths that inspires ISIS, Shabab, Boko Haram and other so called Jihadi groups.


On the authority of `Abdullah ibn `Abbas that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "If you find anybody committing the act of the People of Lot (i.e. sodomy), then kill the one doing it and the one with whom it is done." This hadith is recorded by Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Dawud, and Imam At-Tirmidhi among others.


Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri: When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." Bukhari   

Narrated Aisha: No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. Abu Dawood

:Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. Abu Dawood

Narrated Ibn Umar: Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again). He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa, the tribe of Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina. Bukhari

"Awf ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said, 'The Jews split into 71 sects: one will enter Paradise and 70 will enter Hell. The Christians split into 72 sects: 71 will enter Hell and one will enter Paradise. By Him in Whose hand is my soul, my Ummah will split into 73 sects: one will enter Paradise and 72 will enter Hell.' Someone asked, 'O Messenger ofAllah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).' Awf ibn Malik is the only one who reported this Hadith, and its isnad is acceptable." And in another version of this Hadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) goes onto say that the saved sect, "...Are those who follow my and my Sahaba's path" (Tirmidhi, vol. 2, pg. 89)


Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ?Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ?Abbas who said, ?If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah?s Apostle forbade it, saying, ?Do not punish anybody with Allah?s punishment (fire).? I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah?s Apostle, ?Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him. Bukhari

Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them." Bukhari

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." Bukhari

Abu Musa said, ?I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash?ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah?s Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak ), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, ?O Abu Musa (O ?Abdullah bin Qais!).? I said, ?By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.? As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, ?We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or ?Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.?? The Prophet then sent Mu?adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu?adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu?adh asked, ?Who is this (man)?? Abu Muisa said, ?He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.? Then Abu Muisa requested Mu?adh to sit down but Mu?adh said, ?I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, ?Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, ?I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.?? Bukhari

Some people from the tribe of ?Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. Bukhari

Imam Shafi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said the Imam [supreme leader of the Muslims] is given the choice of killing the prisoners, showing them mercy, ransoming them or keeping them in bondage. This issue has been confirmed and has been proven in our book 'Al Ahkam.' (Tafsir of the Qur'an by Ibn Kathir [1])

According to the Qur'an a woman who has been captured by force falls in the category of a slave girl (kaniz). And because the Qur'an confines the use of force to the fighting (qital) in the way of God, thus according to the Qur'an a slave girl is that woman who falls in the hands of Muslims as a prisoner during the course of war waged in the way of God. (Maulana Maududi, Rasa'il wa Masa'il 3rd edition, Vol. III, p.102).


Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw. ( Bukhari )

'Umar b. Muhammad b. Zaid reported that he heard his father narrating from Ibn 'Umar that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had said. If bad luck is a fact, then it is in the horse, the woman and the house. (Bukhari)




As can be seen these hadiths are part of the Sunni doctrine which explains why the Islamic authorities are not able to stop them. They follow the same Islam.


Quranic Law Versus Shariah Law - Two different Islams    http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=20739

Just wondering if any of you witnessed any change in Muslims with the arrival of the these new groups like Boko Haram and ISIS and all this sectarian conflicts. Could many Muslims now be questioning their faith or even abandoning Islam all together? I wonder if this will support our cause or we might actually fall from grace from it.

I am asking this because a few years ago a person commenting on Quranist had this to say:

What do you get when you take out all faith from Islam and replace it with a cold rational materialism? You get a new brand of "Muslim" who calls himself a "Quran Aloner".... Granted not all of them are the same, and many are not as extreme as others, but one thing is certain: these are the people who will totally change the Islamic landscape within a century. This much is clear to me.

This might sound like dialectics (its not) but a counterpart to the rightist Taliban has arisen in the extreme secular left. These are the people who will take over the Muslim world (FOX News was wrong, it won't be Osama bin Laden). These "Quran Aloners" are a very small and fragmented minority today, mostly in the middle to upper classes. But they contain all the characteristics that a future mainstream movement needs to have and become the dominant Muslim denomination of the future. And all the work that the radical conservative Muslims are doing is directly contributing to their rise.

Their principles are diverse, but they have a few common beliefs. Almost all of them reject the "5 prayers" scheme. Some only accept 3, some reject the prayer totally, saying it was never meant to be an actual ritual. They also reject the significance of Mecca, and refuse to face it. Some of them believe that everything that takes place in Mecca is pagan idolatry.

These beliefs may sound very far fetched and crazy to the mainstream Muslims today, but it is very clear to me that that these beliefs will become the mainstream views within the Muslim ummah. It happened with Rome, with Christianity, it happened again with the Reformation. And the same will happen in the Muslim world... It is the same pattern with every new religion. If it attracts the middle-to-upper classes at first, you can bet it will keep expanding until it is the dominant force. There are no statistics, but I bet they are adding at least 40% new members per decade, just as the LDS Church. Such a growth, while it seems small at first, is exponential.

I don't really have much in common with mainstream Muslim sects either.. most of the time I am disagreeing with their beliefs... but this group of "Quran Aloners".... this is something completely different. Some of these people can hardly be considered Muslims at all, as some of them don't even believe in the finality of revelation, and feel that the Quran is "incomplete"... In my book, these people are much more dangerous then the Taliban, because their beliefs are much more attractive for the majority. Theirs will be a silent revolution, without weapons, without beheading... And all the conservative Wahabi Taliban types are only making it easier for them, because it is -Islam- which is being put on the chopping block because of their actions.

... This is inevitable. There is no way to stop this... Many Muslims will convert to their side in the coming decades. Anyone in fact who values a self-negating "rationality" above faith will join their ranks. Maybe another war, or two, is all that is needed for a major shift in ideology to take place.. and when the time comes, these people will be waiting to step up and offer their "solution": a complete reformation of Islam, stripped of all faith... Setting the stage for a slow evaporation and drift towards a total materialistic atheism in the Muslim world....

I say this is inevitable, because this time, unlike the time of the Mutazillites, there are no core battalions left in the Muslim world to hold back this tide of skepticism... Too much faith has eroded over the centuries... There are not going to be any more al-Thalabis or al-Ghazalis, this time... they will win.

End quote

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/this-is-how-islam-will-11195.html


What was concerning me is his analysis about the ideological shift that will occur.

Maybe another war, or two, is all that is needed for a major shift in ideology to take place.. and when the time comes, these people will be waiting to step up and offer their "solution"

I wonder if we are seeing this shift take place or is it too soon to tell. But events do seem to be going exactly like how he predicted but seems a lost sooner than he imagined.

[those who fight you, but do not transgress limits]

After 9-11 there has been various debates about Islam. Some have said that the terrorist are Islam's true spoken. The so called moderates practice taqiya. Taqiya is the deliberate lying for the faith. They say Islam is a violent religion that commands Muslims to kill non Muslim. Non Muslims have 3 choices, either they convert, pay the jizya(tax) or die. They say Muhammad was peaceful for PR reasons and once strong showed his true colors and preached violent jihad. They say all the peaceful verses were abrogated after his final victory with this verse:

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And also this verse:

9.29. Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This verses are chosen for a reason. When read alone it implies a command to attack until they convert. Of course there are other verses in the Koran that talks about fighting. But why do they tend to focus on this one? Its simple, the other verses tend to show the defensive nature of the jihad and also the malicious intent and behavior of the pagans. Thus never cited. Lets look at some of them:

2.190. Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors

2.191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith

2.193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God, but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression

Also:

2.217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offense); but graver is it in the sight of God to prevent access to the path of God, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

All these verses talks about fighting, however within these verses the defensive nature of the verses and the malicious behavior of the pagans is cited. Thus those who wish to attack Islam never cite those verses. Its a deliberate attempt to hide what the Koran as saying and using selective verses to imply what they know the verses does not mean.

Lets however look at the verse that is often cited. This time we will take the verses before and after it to see what is the context this verse is talking.

9.4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God loveth the righteous.

9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. 7. How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.


Also in the same chapter it explains the reason behind all of these battles fought

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!


The verses clearly indicate that no forced conversion was there.There are standards that the Koran established for fighting.

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth . As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ?Our Lord is God.? 22:39-40

These verses show us clearly that the battles the believers fought was purely for defensive purposes as the believers were being persecuted because they believed in the teachings of the Quran. The pagans wanted the Quran to cease to exist and wanted the prophet and his followers to perish. This is why freedom of religion in the Quran is sacrosanct. The Koran more than any other literature guaranteed the absolute right for freedom of belief and expression and thought.


The Koran makes clear the job of the prophet:

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

11:28 He (Noah) said "O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it??

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

But most of all the Koran asks the prophet himself this question:

10.99-100. If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand

Then again the Quran tells us:

109.1-6 Say : O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine

There is nothing even called conquest in the Koran and there is nothing called paying taxes and offensive war and spreading faith by the sword are not Koranic whatsoever and is a direct disobedience to the orders of the Koran. Jizya in the Quran came when the believers were entering Mecca where they were forced into exile and left their homeland losing their livelihoods, homes and businesses. Jizya was never mentioned except upon the pagans of Mecca. Jizya was a war reparation and compensation for damages. The prophet was in Medina where many non believers lived under his domain but was never ordered to seek Jizya. Later Muslim authorities applied Jizya to anyone living under a Muslim ruler who are not Muslims as a form of tax. This is not the context it appears in the Quran.




The Arabic term jizya appears in verse Quran 9:29, but the Qur'an does not specify jizya as a tax per head. According to Paul Heck, the jizya taxation seems to be a developed form of the Sassanian practice of taxation.[10]

Commentators disagree on the definition and derivation of the word jizya:
Shakir and Khalifa's English translations of the Qur'an render jizya as "tax", while Pickthal translates it as "tribute". Yusuf Ali prefers to transliterate the term as jizyah.
Yusuf Ali states "The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to the laws enforced by the Muslim State."[11]
Monqiz As-Saqqar attributes the word jizya to the root word jaza meaning "compensate" and defines it as "a sum of money given in return for protection".[12]
Ibn Al-Mutaraz derives the word from 'idjz?, meaning "substitute" or "sufficiency" because "it suffices as a substitute for the dhimmi's embracement of Islam."[12]
Yusuf al-Qaradawi says the word jizya is derived from the jazaa', meaning "reward", "return", or "compensation", and defines it as "a payment by the non-Muslim according to an agreement signed with the Muslim state".[13]
Edward William Lane, in An Arabic-English Lexicon defines jizya as a "tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection.[14]
Ibn Rushd explains that jizya is in fact a broader concept than just a head-tax. It also includes monies exacted in times of war ? what is normally understood in English by the word ?tribute? ? as well as levies (?ushr) on non-muslim merchants who are trading in the Dar al-Harb.[15]

In practice, the word is applied to a special type of tax, levied upon the non-Muslim adult males living under an Islamic state.

After the Norman conquest of Sicily, taxes imposed on the Muslim minority were also called the "jizya".[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya


Abrogation in Sunni/Shia Islam



?The contemporary Islamic al-Azhar influential scholar, Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti, says in his well-known research: ?The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war which is demanded in Islamic law is not a defensive war, because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of Allah and the construction of Islamic society and the establishment of Allah?s kingdom on Earth regardless the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive Holy War.? ?

?Al-Suyuti does not see 2:256 abrogated by 9:73, but a case of delaying or postponing the command to fight the infidels until the Muslims become strong. When they were weak, they were commanded to endure and be patient. The first verse that was revealed in the Qur?an about fighting in Medina is Surah 2 verse 190, until Surah 9 was revealed, and it was cancelled by Surah 9 verse 5. ?




So the Sunni/Shia concept that peaceful verses were abrogated by later verses that moved from defensive war to offensive has no backing from the Quran. This is because the permission allowed to fight has been outlined in the Quran. Only when provoked and forced should we fight. The prophet was a victim of religious coercion and persecution for religious propagation.

So we can see how the Islamic sects abrogated many the defensive war verses claiming verse 9.5 abrogated the defensive war only verses and changed it to offensive war. They believe in this due to the following hadith recorded in Bukhari's and Muslim's collections. Hadiths were compiled two centuries after the Quran was revealed.

Ibn ?Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, ?I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah.? (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)?

This hadith violates tens of Quranic commands about freedom and defensive war.


In the Quran we see the concept of religious persecution was a hallmark of pagan societies and oppressive tyrants.

They said: "O Shuayb! Much of what thou sayest we do not understand! In fact among us we see that thou hast no strength! Were it not for thy family, we should certainly have stoned thee! For thou hast among us no great position!" 11:91

(The father) replied: "Dost thou hate my gods, O Abraham? If thou forbear not, I will indeed stone thee : now get away from me for a good long while!" .19:46

The (people) said: "For us, We augur an evil omen from you: if ye desist not, we will certainly stone you , or a grievous punishment indeed will be inflicted on you by us." 36:18

They said: "If thou desist not, O Noah! thou shalt be stoned. 26.116

Pharaoh said, "Did you believe in him without my permission? This must be a conspiracy you schemed in the city, in order to take its people away. You will surely find out. "I will cut your hands and feet on alternate sides, then I will crucify you all." 7.123-124

All of these verses tell us how the prophets were persecuted for their religious propogation. The prophet of the Quran met the same fate. He was ordered to fight back and to complete the message of the Quran. But he was also ordered to limit his duty to preaching. If the people decide on him to judge between them than he is to do with justice.

Quran is peace

 


(CNN) -- A Christian woman in Sudan reportedly has until Thursday to either recant her faith or face a possible sentence of death.

Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, 27, was convicted by a Khartoum court this week of apostasy, or the renunciation of faith, Amnesty International said Wednesday, a day before the expected ruling. The court considers her to be Muslim.

According to the rights group, she was also convicted of adultery because her marriage to a Christian man was considered void under Sharia law.

"The fact that a woman could be sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion, is abhorrent and should never be even considered," Manar Idriss, Amnesty International's Sudan researcher, said in a statement.

"'Adultery' and 'apostasy' are acts which should not be considered crimes at all, let alone meet the international standard of 'most serious crimes' in relation to the death penalty. It is flagrant breach of international human rights law," the researcher said.

Ibrahim is eight months pregnant and currently in custody with her 20-month-old son, according to Amnesty International, which considers her a prisoner of conscience.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide, another rights group, described Ibrahim's case as follows:

She was born to a Sudanese Muslim father and an Ethiopian Orthodox mother. Her father left when she was 6 years old, and Ibrahim was raised by her mother as a Christian.

However, because her father was Muslim, she was considered by the courts to be the same, which would mean her marriage to a non-Muslim man is void.

In past cases involving pregnant or nursing women, the Sudanese government waited until the mother weaned her child before executing any sentence, said Christian Solidarity Worldwide spokeswoman Kiri Kankhwende.

After-hours attempts Wednesday to contact the Justice Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister in Sudan were unsuccessful.

Foreign embassies in Khartoum are urging the government there to reverse course.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/14/world/africa/sudan-christian-woman-apostasy/



Thank God for the Quran. 

[they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message]

16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message


4:79-80 Say: ?Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe.... Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

24.54. Say: "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.


42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you , for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger,( but if you turn away , for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou loves; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

67:25 26 And they ask, "When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?" Say, "The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner.."


As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authority to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching porn etc.

The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themselves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else's right.

Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It?s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It?s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the prophet?s wife presumably. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal.

The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.

In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority (over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.

However these verses were about the defensive wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came in the Quran concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile. The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.

But the Sunnah (hadiths) claimed otherwise. The Sunnah are the oral traditions claimed by the sects to be the word and deeds of Muhammad that were compiled some two centuries after Muhammad's death. The Sects claim that Muhammad received two revelations from God, one is the Quran the other they claimed are his personal saying and actions collected by later Islamic authorities (oral traditions). The Sects believe that the Sunnah has legal authoritiy and are binding and place a Quran like role when it comes to authority if not more. Almost 90% of Sharia law comes from there. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostate. That?s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Rather than question the hadiths (oral traditions) that claim the prophet believed he can coerce people to follow and obey him, they abrogated the verses of the Quran that contradicted those hadiths. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr (Muhammad's companion) is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying the Zakat which is a charity prescribed in the Quran. Now this absolute authority was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching porn or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. The sects believe God only punishes those who did not get caught in this life and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this concept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina (adultery) verse in the Koran is concerning fornication and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.

This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. The ruler decides the fate of prisoners of war where he can free but also execute. The Sunnah elevated the authority of the rulers of Islam by elevating Muhammad's authority. Thereby creating a legal precedence.This is all very sad as the taking of someone?s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth law (proportionate Justice) in the Koran somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw (disproportionate justice).

To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and abundantly especially in the middle ages. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial and therefore they tended to avoid them.

Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed much aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But the clerics understood that these laws were controversial as the raise the issue of whether they are in agreement with the Quran or not. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. That?s very unfortunate as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.

One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the Sunni/Shia sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That?s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink in the Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that?s very sad.

Some people have said that the Koran says that the Torah and Gospel are corrupted and its no longer a book of guidance. They say Muslims say so. Some Muslims even have said that anyone who still follows these scriptures is no longer a believer but a disbeliever and will go to hell. However when asked to provide their evidence from the Koran they are mute and confused. This is because what they say and the Koran are complete opposites. Lets look at the Koran and what it say:

Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)

But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)

Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. (Surah 2, Baqara, verse 85)

Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord...." (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 68)

If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)

Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth. (Surah 7, A'raf, verse 159)


As I did my research about this subject some time ago I was looking for where this evidence of the tampering and corruption is mentioned. How can God say the previous scriptures are corupted then order them to follow them. It even attacks those who refuse to follow it.

Whats more the Koran seems to indicate its a confirmation of the previous scriptures.

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Surah 5 Verse 48

It even uses the previous scripture as evidence for the validity of the Koran

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that) was before thee... (Surah 10, Jonah, verse 94)

Muslims who follow Sunni/Shia Islam say these verses are concerning to originals. But these scriptures have not changed since the days of the prophet. In fact they are the way are today long before the prophet. So what scriptures was the Koran talking about. They then point to this verse as evidence.

2.79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

This is then used to support the tampering of the scriptures. However upon close examination, I see they failed to look at the verse before it and after it.

2.78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

So the Koran is saying those poeple were making things up but never said the Book itself has been tampered since those people never knew the book. It was confusing at first but then the next verse explained it:

2.80 And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from God, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of God what ye do not know?"

This is not in the Torah but its refering to the Talmud. The supposed "oral" traditions the Rabbis say was passed down to them.

The Rabbinic tradition arose from the Pharisaic tradition after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. In general, it moved away from traditional Judaism's emphasis on an earthly future for Israel toward the concept of reward in the life to come.[4] Gehinom (Gehenna), according to rabbinic literature, is a place or state where the wicked are temporarily punished after death. �Gehenna� is sometimes translated as "hell", but the Christian view of hell differs from the Jewish view of Gehenna. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months.Those who are too wicked to reach paradise are sometimes said to be punished forever.[5] Other accounts reject the idea that a merciful God would punish anyone forever,[6] in which case those too wicked for purification are destroyed (see annihilationism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

Also in the Talmud:

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

3.75. Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it.

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

4.156 Quran
That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Also:

The Schindler's List Quote

The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives.

The book on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase:

"Whoever destroys the life of a single human being...it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ...it is as if he had preserved an entire world."

However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud.

In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler's List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that "whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world" (emphasis supplied). The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives.

The Koran tells us about this and condemns this:

5.32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land

"According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

"The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...

The koran tells us:

4.157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

The Talmud then say:

Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.

Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

The koran responds by:

And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 2.111-113

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

As for the Gospel

Jesus is reported to have said �he that hath seen me hath seen the Father� and �I am in the Father, and the Father in me� (John 14:9-10); but in the same passage he shortly goes on to add: �At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.� (John 14:20) Again, while Jesus does proclaim �I and my Father are one� (John 10:30), he also prays for his followers, �that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.� (John 17:21) Whatever the nature of the �oneness� Jesus is claiming exists between God and himself, it is apparently something that is supposed to hold between God and all Christians � in which case it can hardly be the relation of numerical identity.

Likewise, in the two New Testament passages where Jesus is said to have regarded himself as �equal with God� � John 5:18 and Philippians 2:6 � the Greek word translated �equal� is isos, which means �on the same level� or �of the same rank,� never �identical.� The claim that Jesus was God did not become Christian orthodoxy until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The orthodox reading of these passages seems natural today only because they are read through the lens of what �everybody knows� about Jesus� claims to divinity; few would find incarnationism in the texts unless they first brought it there.

An objector may point to the opening lines of the Gospel of John, which apparently identify the �Logos� with God (John 1:1) and the �Logos made flesh� with Jesus (John 1:14). Of course these lines were not spoken by Jesus, and so do not show that Jesus himself claimed to be God; but in any case, what exactly are they saying? The relation between God and the Logos seems to fall short of strict identity; the Greek, literally translated, says something like �the Logos was with the God, and God is what the Logos was� � an awkward construction clearly trying to express a subtler relation than identity. The term �Logos� is borrowed from Greek philosophy, where it means a thing�s abstract rational nature; the Logos that is �with� God and is what God is, is not God but God�s nature. To say that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, then, is simply to say that he is a physical embodiment of God�s nature. This hardly makes him identical with God, since all human beings are supposed to be created from God�s spirit (Genesis 2:7) and in God�s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27).

Indeed the New Testament authors clearly understand Jesus as offering everyone the opportunity to be sons (and daughters) of God and to partake of God�s nature:


�But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.� (John 1:12-13)

�For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.� (Romans 8:14-17)

�Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.� (1 John 3:2)
As the New Testament authors understand Jesus� message, being the �Son of God� is evidently not a status that Jesus claims for himself alone, but one that is open to all Christians;

http://praxeology.net/unblog02-04.htm

Clearly this has no basis in the Gospel, the Koran reiterates this:

People of the Book, do not go beyond the bounds in your religion, and say nought as to God but the Truth. The messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the messenger of God, and his word that he committed to Mary, and a spirit originating from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not 'Three'. Refrain, better is for you. God is only one God. Glory be to him-that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the Heavens and in the Earth; God suffices for a guardian. (4.171)

"And they say, The All-Merciful has taken unto Himself a son. You have indeed advanced something hideous. As if the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder and its mountain to fall down in the utter ruin for that they have attributed to the All-merciful a son; and behaves not the All-merciful to take a son. None there in the heavens and earth but comes to the All-Merciful as a servant" (Maryam 19:88-93)

There is nothing, absolutely nothing about corruption or tampering of previous scriptures. The Koran states that the Talmud is NOT the word of God and says the Christian priests are NOT following the Gospel but indeed they hide and conceal and take things out of context and following vain desires:

"They (i.e. Jews and Christians) changed words from their contexts and forgot a good part of the message given to them, and you will continue to find them -except a few among them- bent on new deceits�" (5:13)

There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, 'That is from God,' but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God and (well) they know it! (3,78)

Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. ( 2,85)

Some Christians say well what about this verse from the Koran:

(61.6) And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"

They say it not in the Gospel. However the Gospel confirms this and says says otherwise:

"But the Paraclete, the Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 14:26

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7

"When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me." John 15:26

"But when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak..." Jn. 16:13

"He shall glorify me." John 16:14

"He shall take mine and shall disclose it to you." John. 16:14

"He will teach you all things." John 14:26

"He will bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John. 14:26

"He will bear witness of me" John 15:26

Clearly Jesus is talking about someone who will say what is revealed to him and will not speak from his own desire.

The koran say:

53.3. Nor does he say of (his own) Desire.

53.4. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:

Also

203. If thou bring them not a revelation, they say: "Why hast thou not got it together?" Say: "I but follow what is revealed to me from my Lord: this is (nothing but) lights from your Lord, and Guidance, and mercy, for any who have faith."

21:107-109 (O Prophet?) 'We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:" Declare, "Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?' But if they turn away then say, "I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far."

Conclusion.

The Koran is here to support and confirm the previous scriptures. A reminder to many not to abandon the scriptures and follow men. The scriptures must be read as a WHOLE and not in isolation. This will ensure the divine protection that God has given them reach and guide us. Thus as a Koranist I reject abrogation and alternative sources for inspiration whether its hadiths or otherwise. Hadiths like the Talmud are supposed "oral" traditions that also emerged 2 to 3 centuries after Muhammad.The Koran as the Torah and Gospell explain themselves and must be read as a whole. Nothing hidden, ignored or claimed to be abrogated by some "oral" tradition that mysteriously emerges from nowehere 2 or 3 centuries after the Books.

Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. ( 2,85)

[Two prayers, one in the morning and one in the evening]

In Islam, Salah [prayer] went through a number of stages before it was finalized in the form that we have today. So, let?s go through these stages Insha Allah.

Stage 1: The 2nd or 3rd year of the Message

The obligation of Salah was received early in the Prophetic mission. When the Prophet (saw) received the message he was ordered to establish and perform prayer. After 40 days, Al Mudather and Al Muzamel were also revealed ordering him (saw) to stand up and perform prayer.

    Two prayers, one in the morning and one in the evening:

When prophet, received first revelation , he was immediately ordered to establish and perform prayer. Al Mudther and Muzamel were revealed 40 days after the first revelation, and in both the Prophet (saw) was asked to stand up and perform Salah. The format of the prayer was not specific, but the times were. They were two prayers, one in the morning and one in the evening.
?Patiently, then, persevere: for the Promise of Allah is true: and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and celebrate the Praises of thy Lord in the evening and in the morning.? [40:55]

    The first Qiblah was towards Jerusalem. The Prophet (saw) and his followers were instructed to face the direction of Jerusalem in Salah, and this continued for 15 years of the Prophet?s mission. Indeed, he (saw) prayed more towards Jerusalem than he (saw) did towards Makkah.

? . . .  We appointed the Qibla to which you used to face, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn on their heels (From the Faith). Indeed it was (A change) momentous, except to those guided by Allah. And never would Allah Make your faith of no effect. For Allah is to all people Most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful.? [2:143]
Was the form of Salah as we know it today? We don?t know. We don?t have much detail of how prayer was performed during that period of time, but we do know that it was performed two units [rak?as] at a time. We also know that Salah went through stages until it was finalized in the format we know today.

Stage 2: The Night Prayer

1. Night prayer [Tahajjud] was made obligatory upon the Prophet (saw) and the believers. So, imagine being asked to stand up in prayer for the most part of the night?so for instance 6 out of 8 hrs of the night. And this was every single night for a whole year, for Allah (SWT) says:
?O thou folded in garments! Stand (to prayer) by night, but not all night,- Half of it,- or a little less, Or a little more; and recite the Qur?an in slow, measured rhythmic tones.? [73:1-4]

3. The abrogation of the obligation of the Night Prayer [Tahajjud]. The Prophet (saw) and his followers continued in this strenuous vein, until the companions came to the Prophet (saw) and complained that it was very hard for them. We are talking here about every single night, so you can?t blame them. Allah (SWT) the Merciful, revealed this ayah offering them relief:

?Thy Lord doth know that thou standest forth (to prayer) nigh two-thirds of the night, or half the night, or a third of the night, and so doth a party of those with thee. But Allah doth appoint night and day in due measure He knoweth that ye are unable to keep count thereof. So He hath turned to you (in mercy): read ye, therefore, of the Qur?an as much as may be easy for you. He knoweth that there may be (some) among you in ill-health; others travelling through the land, seeking of Allah?s bounty; yet others fighting in Allah?s Cause, read ye, therefore, as much of the Qur?an as may be easy (for you); and establish regular Prayer and give regular Charity; and loan to Allah a Beautiful Loan. And whatever good ye send forth for your souls ye shall find it in Allah?s Presence,- yea, better and greater, in Reward and seek ye the Grace of Allah: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.? [73:20]

With this ayah, night prayer became an optional prayer. But old habits die hard, and the companions did not quit but continued their legacy with the Night Prayer?and we have so many wonderful examples of their stories with this great form of worship. When Aisha (raa) was asked about the Prophet?s night prayer she said:

?Have you not read the Surah, (O you wrapped up.). Verily, Allah made standing at night (for prayer) obligatory at the beginning of this Surah. So the Messenger of Allah and his Companions stood for an entire year during the night (in prayer) until their feet swelled. Allah held back the revelation of the end of this Surah for twelve months. Then, Allah revealed the lightening of this burden at the end of this Surah. Then, the standing for night prayer became voluntary after it used to be obligatory.? [Ahmed and Muslim]

http://lamyaalmas.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/stages-of-salah-in-islam-part-3-free-friday-of-divine-link-fiqh-of-salah-with-sh-yasir-birjas/


They always ask us how do you know how to pray without hadiths. Yet their own sources say the prophet and his companions early on prayed twice with no specific way to pray.   

[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]

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.

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.