Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, there have been politicians who have convinced people that specific groups pose a threat and need to be destroyed. Hitler did that with the Jews and other people that meet his "Standards" for being a German. He also used the creation of a common enemy to unite Germany into supporting Nazism. The same thing may be happening in North Korea.
.While some despots do use religion as a tool and it can be quite effective, that does not necessarily mean it is a fault of the religion. It takes several otyer factrs such as:, a very intelligent but evil leader, an ignorant populace, a disaster or calamity that can be used as a focal point. Which is what may be the forces behind ISIS.
Very true, but what happens when a religion, in its infancy, is shaped and fashioned in and through war and conquest as Islam appear to have been. I ask, because again, in some ways, it seemed to have taken a blueprint from the pages of the bible, but before I touch on that, as I point out elsewhere, I am willing to accept the idea that Muhammad and his followers were products of their times with SOME revolutionary ideas, yes, but still products of their time. The customs, traditions. practices and ways of justice and wars of the day shaped the religious ideas, it seems.
What I see is a man who became disillusioned with the religion(s) of his people (of which, some things he retained), perhaps influenced by the monotheistic ideas of the local Jews, the desert holy men and even the Gnostic ideas of Christians to formulate his own religious revolution. The idea that his revelations were probably unique or divinely inspired does not impress me because his story was the story of biblical characters thousands of years before him, notably, men like Moses OR the mythical figure known as Moses.
As JuJu pointed out or seemed to imply, it appears that in some cases, Muhammad's ambitions shaped his religion and if he wanted "A" then Allah conveniently commanded or endorsed "A." It is akin to the quote (and I paraphrase): "I always find it funny that what some people desire, their God also seems to desire the very same thing." He dislikes who they dislike and love who they love, BUT it is flipped around.
If we turn to the Bible, Numbers 31, for example, we read an account where Moses, allegedly speaking for God, commands his army to go and take vengeance on the Midianites. For the immediate critic like me, one has to wonder why God always seems to need human agents to carry out his mission of destruction. That should the first red flag. Now, not that I believe any god had ANYTHING to do with this mission, but the story is fascinating, in that, it gives us a detailed account of how the ambitions of a man, mixed in with the understanding that he has a special relationship with some deity, speaks for it and communes with it in order to pass on instruction to others from it, works. You see a strong similarity, in MY opinion, how Muhammad must have operated.
In getting back to the story, the Hebrew army goes off on the mission and commits wholesale slaughter, but the army has a heart and spares children and women. This angers Moses so he orders the deaths of ALL the male children (to apparently prevent revenge possibilities) and ALL the women who were not virgins (not sure how this process was carried out to determine this). The only captives they were to keep alive were the virgin girls and they were to be divided up to the soldiers. Out of this campaign, the Israelites acquired loot AND women.
Now, why do we find such a story of vengeance in the Bible? What was the motive and why was there a need to kill the non virgin women? If we go back a few chapters, we read an account where one Israelite man was seduced by a Midianite woman and they proceeded to lead other Israelites into some type of religious orgy. Clues gleaned from the text appear to indicate that the orgy led to a "plague from the lord" (READ: an outbreak of STDs, apparently). To stem the outbreak, one zealous Israelite, impaled the guilty couple which then led to an in house slaughter of all guilty persons who were led away from the god of Israel. So, a few chapters later, we have Moses, supposedly speaking for God, commanding the Israelite army to go avenge this occasion. The observation that sexually active women = plague from the lord, probably was not lost on Moses when he ordered that all the non virgin Midianite women be killed.
Now, it's been YEARS since I read about Muhammad's conquest of his hometown of Mecca, but I know he tried to convert them to his new religious ideas and they rejected him and even attacked him in Medina. I am not saying Islam is the religion of "turn the other cheek," but he nor the religion was above taking revenge and Allah was of course, complicit with the idea and Muhammad marched on Mecca and doled out the necessary vengeance just like Moses did to the Midianites.
Last edited by InsaneInDaMembrane; 12-10-2015 at 07:05 PM..
I want to tell All fellow members that we as Muslims hate ISIS more then Non-Muslim Why? because non-muslims dont know about islam and they hate ISIS for their actions but we (Muslims) hate them not only for their actions but also we know the teachings of Islam and we know they have nothing to do with Islam. They are enemies of Islam and Humanity as well. So we hate them more because they are spreading propaganda and misconceptions about Islam.
I understand 80% or more Muslims hate ISIS and their terrible evils and violence.
However the BIG QUESTION is are they [ISIS] going against Allah's words in the Quran [Muhammad's words in the Hadiths]?
My claim is, while the ISIS of Muslims would have committed certain sins [repentable and pardonable], but on a net overall basis they are more truer Muslims than most moderates [you] because they comply with a greater % of the terms and conditions in the Quran and a part of their obligations in their covenant with Allah.
Say if the total terms and conditions within the covenant with Allah is 100%.
I believe objectively, the average Muslims of ISIS are likely to comply with 80% of the terms of their agreement with Allah.
The average moderates [presumable you are one] are likely to comply with 50% of their obligations in accordance to the Quran.
Therefore if you hate the Muslims of ISIS [overall] you could be hating Allah's words as well which the Muslims of ISIS comply as best as they can.
Btw, I am not a supporter of ISIS but only giving objective views on the issue.
I don't you know the Quran and its essence more thoroughly than the Muslims of ISIS. Given the psychology of any theist, theists are likely to be very bias and they have to. Theists are not likely to see the 500 pounds gorilla in the room in the theistic contexts.
If the Muslims of ISIS are so heinous while they are complying with the essence and details of the Quran, then we have to relook at the ultimate cause, i.e. the Quran and Islam [in part not whole].
This is what Continuum is, I believe, trying to get at.
Nah.. that is not my point.
Quote:
ISIS followers find justification for their evils in the very same book Woodrow finds peaceful mandates. Muslims like Woodrow and modern day Christians, find ways to rationalize away or skirt around or DIRECT orders or examples found in their holy books. In fact, contents are sometimes contradictory and vague and allows for these dual or wide open interpretations.
So at least you recognize there are evil laden elements in the Quran which ISIS [as Muslims] rely upon to commit the terrible evils and violent acts.
I agree there are abominable evil element in the Old Testaments [OT] which are far worst than what is in the Quran. There are also evil and violent laden elements in the New Testaments [NT] of Jesus Christ.
However there is a difference between Christianity and Islam in their holy texts.
Christianity rely mainly on the NT and it override whatever is in the OT.
Whilst the NT do contain evil laden elements, there is an overriding doctrine of pacifism from Jesus, i.e. 'love your enemies,' give the other cheek, 'love this and love that' and the likes.
Therefore if any Christian were to kill any one without real moral justifications, s/he is likely to be rebuked by God on Judgment Day who would yell; WTF I told you to 'love your enemies' not kill them like you have done!
On the other hand with the Quran there is a no-holds-barred with the evil and violent laden elements. There is no overriding pacifist ruling like 'love your enemies' or something similar.
Even with the Quran's 5:32 'kill one is as if kill mankind' is full of holes [the exception for a vaguely termed 'corruption'] for Muslims to carry out their carnage on non-Muslims.
In addition the Quran is spearheaded by Chapter 9 which is full of evils, violence and hate from Muhammad directed at non-Muslims.
Yes, both the Bible and Quran do contain evil laden elements, but the difference is the Bible [NT] has an overriding pacifist law while the Quran has a no-holds-barred passport for SOME evil prone Muslims to carry out their terrible evil and violence act which is glaringly evident in reality.
Note this difference;
1. The evils and violence committed by SOME Christians are labeled 'Religion-Related Violence'.
2. The evils and violence committed by SOME Muslims are labeled 'Religion-Inspired-Violence' directly from their holy texts.
When apologists cannot see the difference between 1 & 2 this is why humanity is fire-fighting the issue instead of tacking the ultimate root cause. In this sense, the apologists for Islam are in fact indirectly complicit to the evil and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims.
Very true, they are the greatest threat to Islam that has been seen for many centuries. Not only are they killing Muslim they are convincing non-Muslims that they are the only true Muslims, resulting in us being hated iby many people. Even here on this forum one can see the hatred they have caused against Islam.
Reading these posts one can see that some, probably many, non-Muslims believe ISIS represents Islam
But again this has all been foretold and the world is unfolding in accordance with prophecy. Nearly all of the lesser signs have been completed and ISIS seems to be completing, the last of the minor signs and some of the major signs.
I don't agree the majority of non-Muslims believe ISIS represent Islam. Many will insist ISIS has nothing to do with Islam and this has been repeatedly stated by all the leaders of the world and most media. Many others associate ISIS as a part [not whole] of Islam.
However for a person like me to know the Quran thoroughly [with reasonable credibility and objectively] I am very sure the acts of ISIS are committed with a high compliance to what is expected of their contractual obligations within the covenant they made with Allah with the promise of eternal life in paradise that is filled with sensual delights.
It is very incorrect and ironic that you accused of those who voice out against Islam [actually in part] as haters of Islam when it is Islam-in-part that is initiating and condoning the hatred against non-Muslims. This is an objective fact as can be proven from the tons of evil laden verses in the Quran that inspire SOME naturally exiting evil prone Muslims [20%] to commit terrible evils and violence around the world.
This is similar to a Nazi member [perhaps an innocent one] complaining why are the rest of the world are hating Nazism.
Btw, the Quran [in part-Medinian not whole] is worst than the Main Kampf.
As a control and contrast you can evaluate yourself by asking, where there are no such prevalent anti-, negative views and so-called hatred against Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism, while there are minimal negative views directed as Christianity and Judaism which are not focused on violent acts.
As a Muslim you must first acknowledge the objective fact the Quran-in-part thus Islam-in-part has inherent evil elements which inspire the 20% of evil prone Muslims and this point need to be addressed humanity.
Last edited by Continuum; 12-10-2015 at 10:03 PM..
Continuum Wrote:
However the BIG QUESTION is are they [ISIS] going against Allah's words in the Quran [Muhammad's words in the Hadiths]?
My claim is, while the ISIS of Muslims would have committed certain sins [repentable and pardonable], but on a net overall basis they are more truer Muslims than most moderates [you] because they comply with a greater % of the terms and conditions in the Quran and a part of their obligations in their covenant with Allah.
Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will be dissension and division in my nation and a people will come with beautiful words but evil deeds. They recite the Quran but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target and they will not return until the arrow returns to its notch. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them.” They said, “O Messenger of Allah, what is their sign?” The Prophet said, “Shaving.” Al-Kirmani said, “Shaving could mean that they shave the head, the beard, and all of their hair, or shaving could be a rhetorical expression for their extremism in killing and contradicting the religious commands.”
Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 4765, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani.
Now Match this Hadith with ISIS, This hadith is pointing towards ISIS without a doubt. As I said earlier if someone know about the teachings of Islam He can clearly see they are on the wrong path, actually they are winning in their cause which is spreading misconceptions about Islam just like they successfully made you believe that they are representing Islam.
Narrated Yusair bin 'Amr: I asked Sahl bin Hunaif, "Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about Al-Khawarij?" He said, "I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq. "There will appear in it (i.e, Iraq) some people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out from (leave) Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body.' " (Sahih Bukhari; Book #84, Hadith #68)
I think there should be no confusion about ISIS now even the place of this Fitna is also mentioned by Muhammad (PBUH)
Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “There will be dissension and division in my nation and a people will come with beautiful words but evil deeds. They recite the Quran but it will not pass beyond their throats. They will leave the religion as an arrow leaves its target and they will not return until the arrow returns to its notch. They are the worst of the creation. Blessed are those who fight them and are killed by them. They call to the Book of Allah but they have nothing to do with it. Whoever fights them is better to Allah than them.” They said, “O Messenger of Allah, what is their sign?” The Prophet said, “Shaving.” Al-Kirmani said, “Shaving could mean that they shave the head, the beard, and all of their hair, or shaving could be a rhetorical expression for their extremism in killing and contradicting the religious commands.”
Source: Sunan Abu Dawud 4765, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani.
Now Match this Hadith with ISIS, This hadith is pointing towards ISIS without a doubt. As I said earlier if someone know about the teachings of Islam He can clearly see they are on the wrong path, actually they are winning in their cause which is spreading misconceptions about Islam just like they successfully made you believe that they are representing Islam.
Note I put the Hadiths in a bracket and I don't give credibility to any Hadiths unless they are in alignment with the Quran, i.e. the sole words of Allah.
So where are the Quranic verses that support Sunan Abu Dawud 4765?
If you refer to the Quran, do make sure to take into account its meaning in the context of the whole of the Quran. [we have discussed this between posters here many times].
For example;
Where the Hadiths approved of stoning to death for adultery, that is not approved with the Quran, i.e. Allah's ordination. This would apply to any Hadiths that do not comply with the Quran, the words of Allah.
However, where the Hadiths permit and condone the casting of terrors upon non-Muslims, that is permissible and condoned by Allah in the Quran.
3:151. We [Allah] shall cast terror into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto Allah partners [idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their [infidels] habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong doers [infidels].
59:2 ... But Allah reached them [Jews] from a place whereof they [Jews] reckoned not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they [Jews] ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers [Muslims]. ...
There are many verses and examples of Allah casting terrors onto non-Muslims and those non-Muslims of old.
In the "Reliance of the Traveller", a very authoritative Sunni guide, it is advocated Muslims should sustain terrors in the hearts of non-Muslims at least twice a year!
Now if ISIS adopt what Allah has permitted and condoned in the Quran, what is so sinful of ISIS if they cast terrors on non-Muslims and other Muslims [apostate in their view]. According to the Quran, the Muslims of ISIS will get higher merit points in the Iliyin [book].
Note 'casting terror' by Allah is merely one example. There are tons of evil and negative elements which are directed against the non-Muslims in the Quran. You may probably argue this are time-based, i.e. relevant to 7th century circumstances. I say they are not time based but rather those stories, etc. expound the universal principles for Muslims to abide to eternally.
Note the point that these are Muslims of ISIS, they have be VERY fearful of Allah and thus would not dare to go against the words of Allah. Therefore we can infer the Muslims of ISIS being VERY fearful [of going to Hell] would do their very best to be good Muslims and being Islamic to ensure they please Allah.
Just in case you want to comment on the verses and the Quran, note WHO ARE YOU [me or any one] as fallible human beings to make judgments against Allah's words in the Quran?
In addition there is no central authority to decide what is right and wrong.
The most critical point here is the Muslims of ISIS are very confident they are right in complying with what is conveyed in the Quran and they have acted as obliged with the terms and conditions of the covenant they have made with Allah.
I wonder if you are aware you as a Muslim has explicitly or implicitly made a covenant [religious agreement or contract] with Allah and you have to execute your side of promise to comply with the terms and conditions set up by Allah with the Quran only and not from any other sources.
As a party to a contract [covenant with Allah] you have to comply to the terms of the contract and not go against it, especially it is with Allah, the all powerful, who has promised in the contract to resurrect the Muslim after physical death, judge them and award the good Muslim an eternal life in heaven with maximal sensual delights.
Last edited by Continuum; 12-11-2015 at 01:11 AM..
Very true, but what happens when a religion, in its infancy, is shaped and fashioned in and through war and conquest as Islam appear to have been. I ask, because again, in some ways, it seemed to have taken a blueprint from the pages of the bible, but before I touch on that, as I point out elsewhere, I am willing to accept the idea that Muhammad and his followers were products of their times with SOME revolutionary ideas, yes, but still products of their time. The customs, traditions. practices and ways of justice and wars of the day shaped the religious ideas, it seems.
What I see is a man who became disillusioned with the religion(s) of his people (of which, some things he retained), perhaps influenced by the monotheistic ideas of the local Jews, the desert holy men and even the Gnostic ideas of Christians to formulate his own religious revolution. The idea that his revelations were probably unique or divinely inspired does not impress me because his story was the story of biblical characters thousands of years before him, notably, men like Moses OR the mythical figure known as Moses.
As JuJu pointed out or seemed to imply, it appears that in some cases, Muhammad's ambitions shaped his religion and if he wanted "A" then Allah conveniently commanded or endorsed "A." It is akin to the quote (and I paraphrase): "I always find it funny that what some people desire, their God also seems to desire the very same thing." He dislikes who they dislike and love who they love, BUT it is flipped around.
If we turn to the Bible, Numbers 31, for example, we read an account where Moses, allegedly speaking for God, commands his army to go and take vengeance on the Midianites. For the immediate critic like me, one has to wonder why God always seems to need human agents to carry out his mission of destruction. That should the first red flag. Now, not that I believe any god had ANYTHING to do with this mission, but the story is fascinating, in that, it gives us a detailed account of how the ambitions of a man, mixed in with the understanding that he has a special relationship with some deity, speaks for it and communes with it in order to pass on instruction to others from it, works. You see a strong similarity, in MY opinion, how Muhammad must have operated.
In getting back to the story, the Hebrew army goes off on the mission and commits wholesale slaughter, but the army has a heart and spares children and women. This angers Moses so he orders the deaths of ALL the male children (to apparently prevent revenge possibilities) and ALL the women who were not virgins (not sure how this process was carried out to determine this). The only captives they were to keep alive were the virgin girls and they were to be divided up to the soldiers. Out of this campaign, the Israelites acquired loot AND women.
Now, why do we find such a story of vengeance in the Bible? What was the motive and why was there a need to kill the non virgin women? If we go back a few chapters, we read an account where one Israelite man was seduced by a Midianite woman and they proceeded to lead other Israelites into some type of religious orgy. Clues gleaned from the text appear to indicate that the orgy led to a "plague from the lord" (READ: an outbreak of STDs, apparently). To stem the outbreak, one zealous Israelite, impaled the guilty couple which then led to an in house slaughter of all guilty persons who were led away from the god of Israel. So, a few chapters later, we have Moses, supposedly speaking for God, commanding the Israelite army to go avenge this occasion. The observation that sexually active women = plague from the lord, probably was not lost on Moses when he ordered that all the non virgin Midianite women be killed.
Now, it's been YEARS since I read about Muhammad's conquest of his hometown of Mecca, but I know he tried to convert them to his new religious ideas and they rejected him and even attacked him in Medina. I am not saying Islam is the religion of "turn the other cheek," but he nor the religion was above taking revenge and Allah was of course, complicit with the idea and Muhammad marched on Mecca and doled out the necessary vengeance just like Moses did to the Midianites.
The very first thing to understand is the Qur'an is not a new revelation and Islam is not a new religion. The Qur'an can be described as being a condensed compilation of all previous scriptures with the errors removed. The Qur'an is not an instruction book on how to perform Islam, it is an explanation on why we should and a verification of the past revelations.
Two of the 6 common beliefs of all Muslims are:
3. Belief in the holy books
4 Belief in the Prophets...
e.g. Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Dawud (David), Isa (Jesus).
Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final prophet.
We do consider the 3 Previous scriptures Torah, Psalm and Gospel of Jesus to be part of Islam. Muhammad(saws) is simply the last and final Prophet of the same revelation that was given to all the previous Prophets. We humans went astray from it every time. Muhammad(saws) and the Qur'an are our last chance to not mess it up again.
We are to obey all of the previous Prophets(PBUT) in regards to what we can verify as being their actual teachings. Jews, Sabeeans and Christians that actually followed the teachings of the Prophets are/were Mulsims as they performed Islam -Worhip/Submission to the one true God(swt) Islam is not new It was performed by humans beginning with Adam.
Many people accuse Muhammad(saws) of plagiarism because it's message can be found in past scriptures.
The Qur'an and Islam are not new,
to an Arabic speaker when a Christian or Jew says they are not Muslim, the question that immediately comes to mind for an Arabic Speaking Muslim is "Then how can you be a Christian of Jew if you do not worship God(swt)?" To not perform Islam means the person has to be either an Atheist or an Idolator
Muslims do not see Islam as being the name of a religion, rather it is the action of submitting and worshiping God(swt) to the best of one's knowledge and ability.
Variations of the 5 pillars of Islam can be found in Judaism and Christianity. Although neither still follow all 5.
That is also another reason I do not believe ISIS is Islamic. They follow the Qur'an as if it was an instruction manual for performing Islam and ignore all other Scripture.
The very first thing to understand is the Qur'an is not a new revelation and Islam is not a new religion. The Qur'an can be described as being a condensed compilation of all previous scriptures with the errors removed. The Qur'an is not an instruction book on how to perform Islam, it is an explanation on why we should and a verification of the past revelations.
Two of the 6 common beliefs of all Muslims are:
3. Belief in the holy books
4 Belief in the Prophets...
e.g. Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Dawud (David), Isa (Jesus).
Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final prophet.
We do consider the 3 Previous scriptures Torah, Psalm and Gospel of Jesus to be part of Islam. Muhammad(saws) is simply the last and final Prophet of the same revelation that was given to all the previous Prophets. We humans went astray from it every time. Muhammad(saws) and the Qur'an are our last chance to not mess it up again.
We are to obey all of the previous Prophets(PBUT) in regards to what we can verify as being their actual teachings. Jews, Sabeeans and Christians that actually followed the teachings of the Prophets are/were Mulsims as they performed Islam -Worhip/Submission to the one true God(swt) Islam is not new It was performed by humans beginning with Adam.
Many people accuse Muhammad(saws) of plagiarism because it's message can be found in past scriptures.
The Qur'an and Islam are not new,
to an Arabic speaker when a Christian or Jew says they are not Muslim, the question that immediately comes to mind for an Arabic Speaking Muslim is "Then how can you be a Christian of Jew if you do not worship God(swt)?" To not perform Islam means the person has to be either an Atheist or an Idolator
Muslims do not see Islam as being the name of a religion, rather it is the action of submitting and worshiping God(swt) to the best of one's knowledge and ability.
Variations of the 5 pillars of Islam can be found in Judaism and Christianity. Although neither still follow all 5.
That is also another reason I do not believe ISIS is Islamic. They follow the Qur'an as if it was an instruction manual for performing Islam and ignore all other Scripture.
Sorry if I gave the impression that Islam was 'new' when in fact I tried to point out that Islam and its main character RESEMBLES much of what we read in the Jewish Old Testament. What I implied by 'new' is that his religious ideas were revolutionary in a polytheistic place like the Arabian peninsula at that time.
It is not surprising Muhammad's Islam closely resembles the older faiths of Judaism and Christianity and also not surprising he believed his his revelations were more pure and complete than the older faiths. It is natural that he would make claims that THEIRs is corrupt or that the adherents are not following it the right way, but mine is pure and this is the way you do it, to sell his message. It is a classic sales pitch.
Yes, Muhammad was a religious pioneer, not unlike many others before him who found issues in the established religions and then formed their own with heavy elements from the one(s) they emerged from. Buddhism springing from Hinduism is one example. Christianity springing from Judaism is another. Even within my former Christian faith, you find one sect forming from another sect that the new sect had religious differences with like the Anglicans springing from the Catholics or Seventh Day Adventists emerging from the Baptists and so on. In just about EVERY case, the new condemns the old as being corrupt, not sincere any more, losing their way, etc.
I remember when I was a teenager and a super devout Christian, I used to go up into the hills behind our home. It was a time when I read the bible vociferously. I was enamored with the Old Testament prophets. I loved the way they were imbued with power and the fierce way they pronounced the judgment of God on the disobedient Israelites. So, seeking the same power (as we were promised as Christians), I used to separate myself and head to the hills to pray. I became so convinced that the other young people in my church were not serious enough. I believed they were slackers who barely knew their bibles and did not take prayer seriously enough. I also believed the end was near and that the people on my island were forsaking God and not preparing themselves for Jesus' return. I became so emboldened, I began preaching in my school and asking to preach in church. I felt called. I felt as if God was speaking through me. I felt I had the message my people needed to hear. It got so wild, I would write letters to people, declaring the return of the lord and the need to repent.
To me, this is how I view Muhammad. I come away with the idea the man was contemplative and was probably wading through all the religious ideas he heard in Mecca's marketplace and on his trips to places like Antioch, Syria, a hotbed for early Christianity. I am sure he also viewed his own people as religiously backward; people who had not religiously evolved from the primitive past. With all of this rolling around in his head, he headed to the hills to meditate and like me, really began to believe he was "hearing from God" and feeling compelled to go preach religious revolution to his people AND others that HE had the right and perfect message.
Last edited by InsaneInDaMembrane; 12-11-2015 at 07:47 AM..
there has been alot of questioning around a hadeeth found in Sunan Abu Dawud 2:2150 or Sunan Abi Dawud 2155 regarding its content. The issue has stemmed around a translation of the hadeeth collection. The issue stems round the following section of the hadeeth:
" Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So, Allaah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse... "
But the confusion is easily resolved when we return back to the arabic text of the hadeeth in question.
The section that has been translated above is the following:
أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَحَرَّجُوا مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَزْوَاجِهِنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فِي ذَلِكَ
The arabic text above contains no reference to "in the presence of". These words are simply not present.
Infact this hadeeth, with the same wording, has been recorded in Saheeh Muslim. take a look at the popular translation of this hadeeth:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:
" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end). [2]
Notice here the same wording of the section in question with the translation being:
أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَحَرَّجُوا مِنْ غِشْيَانِهِنَّ مِنْ أَجْلِ أَزْوَاجِهِنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فِي ذَلِكَ
The Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that.
We can instantly see that there has been a mistake in the translation of the hadeeth in Sunan Abu Dawud.
This is further emphasised by the Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud by Yasir Qadhi and published by Darussalam. It reads:
Abu Sa'eed Al-KhudrI narrated that the Messenger of Allah sent an expedition to Awas on the Day of Uunain, and they met the enemy, fought them, and won the battle. They captured some slaves, but some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah felt uncomfortable in having relations with them because of their pagan husbands. At this, Allah revealed: "And chaste, free women, except for those whom your right hand possesses..."meaning that they are allowed for you after their waiting periods have finished. [3]
To sum up. The translation of the Sunan Abu Dawud hadeeth contains a grave mistake. The Arabic text doesnt contain the phrase "in the presence of". This is further shown by the translation of Saheeh Muslim, which contains the hadeeth with the same wording, and the translation of Sunan Abu Dawud provided by Darussalam.
I am glad you replied.
To sum up, even if we decide you are right and the husbands were not watching the mass rape, it is still MASS RAPE. Muhammed and his gang MASS RAPE WOMEN with Allah's encouragement. The husbands watching, or not, is not the big issue. MASS RAPE is the big issue.
And not only does Allah give permission and encouragement to mass rape THESE women, but ALL women who are slaves or captives (the right hand possesses).
Do you think Allah was bad to give his full permission and encouragement for Muhammed and his men to MASS RAPE these women and girls?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
