Peace.

July 2012
Usisky created a post with this title; Why Qur'an alone?, presenting an hour long YouTube session of Edip Yuksel and various web links promoting pristine Islam that is contained in the Qur'an, the whole Qur'an and only the Qur'an.

The spurious origins and shady teachings of hadith books would be the bone of contention of usisky's post and references.

July 2018
The subject of this thread will be no different from usisky's, but it will deal more directly on presenting the worst of hadith books, drawing parallels between Islam as belief system of Qur'an alone and Islam as a mix of Qur'an and sunnah/ahlul bayt.

So, this thread will be updated periodically with vile extracts from major hadith books of traditional Islam.

Thank you.


Table of Content:

NB: Some topics are covered in multiple posts. Ensure you've read everything on a topic by scrolling through the subsequent post.

Hadith #1: Hadith breeding aggression and intolerance

Apologist argument for Hadith #1

Key Points on Hadith #1

Hadith #2: Hadith slandering the messenger, breeding child abuse, child marriage and pedophilia

Hadith #3: Hadith objectifying women and breeding rape.

More Apologetics for Hadith #3

A Case of Child Marriage under sharia

Hadith #4: Hadith fostering Muslim supremacy, Aggression, and terrorism or imperialism

Abu Bakr As Sadik started terrorism in the name of Islam

Hadith #5: Hadith breeding hypocrisy, oppression and Murder

The miserable faith of the traditional Muslim apostates

Famous Muslim apostates and their fate in Recent times

Muslim Apostasy In Northern Nigeria

Ignoring Empyree

Hadith #6: Hadith legislating cold murder of blasphemers or Critics

My Opinion on Charlie Hebdo

Apologists on Hadith #6

Satire: Fate of Blasphemers in Muslim world

Insanely silly Analogy from Empyree

Blasphemy by Muslims against Islam

Hadith depict Muhammad like a Porn*star

Hadith #7: Hadith breeding stupidity and Ignorance

Muslim Ignorance in the 21st century

More Hadith breeding Stupidity & Ignorance: Combing Hair daily is haram, Yawning comes from Satan, Winter & Summer comes from Hell

Hadith as faulty basis for Tafsir

A Muslim's Guide To Study Qur'an

Lip service of Hadith defender to Qur'an

Traditional Muslims Don't Study Qur'an

Hadith #8: Hadith Fostering Muslim Supremacy, Injustice and Bias

Fatwa: Whether Muslim is killed for killing non-Muslim

Hadith #9: Hadith breeding Slavery

Prisoners of War(POW): Between Slavery and Imprisonment

Slavery & Jihad go hand in hand in Mainstream Islam

More cases of Hadith disapproving slave manumission

Hadith #10: Hadith promoting rape, concubines, fornication and adultery

Fatwa - Intercourse with female slaves

I seek to please none

More On Slavery

Message from a shrewd Christian Man

Traditional Muslim Method of deriving sharia Laws

The flaws of the Refutations by Empyree

What is my Mission

Arabs Observed Salat Before Muhammad, God Never Condemned their Procedure

Salat Without Hadith

An Analysis of Qur'an 8:35: Did Pre-Islamic Arabs Literally Clap & Whistle as Salat

Clapping & Whistling in the Arabs' Salat

Singing, Humming & Clapping/Whistling in Traditionalists' salat

Bye To Traditionalists' Congregational Salat

A Poor Refutation & Letting the sleeping dogs lie

Acknowledgement

#1

Hadith breeding aggression and intolerance

Sahih Muslim>Book of Greetings>Hadith 5389
“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.”

Usermane, how are you bro?.

You on vacation or what?.

Good to see you around.


So you are still on this warped manhaj?

Anyways, your position is respected. Just need you to reason outside the box a little.


I am of the opinion that you first need to agree that Islam has its history. Quran is not just a Book revealed without some sort of historical background. If you fail to understand this, which you have been doing actually, you will never get out of your cloister. I do welcome your fair criticisms of some hadith even if they are alleged to be sahih.


Some hadith are lapsed and can no longer be explained and they need to be discarded due to inavailability of the data. Some are explainable and still valid. Your approach however is the opposite. A sincere muslim would ask question about what this and that means before making up his mind but you aren't doing that actually. That's just sad.


The hadith you quoted in your second post is still valid for as long as it is placed in the right context. Also it is not valid if a muslim is to utilize it on average friendly Jews and christians. The reason the hadith is still valid now is bcus, the hadith is placed in THE BOOK ON MILITARY EXPEDITIONS , not a customary or general rule Banu Qurayza incident comes to mind. The 9th century Persian Islamic scholar Abu Isa Muḥammad ibn Isa as-Sulami ad-Darir al-Bughi at-Tirmidhi (824 – 892 CE) placed this Hadith in the category of “The Book on military expeditions”


Also, the 14/15th century Shafi’I scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (1372 – 1449 CE) placed this Hadith in the category of “The Book On J!had”. So it is quite clear that among classical scholars of Islam, they deemed this Hadith report to be in relation to war only. NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. Could have been problematic if it was conventional or customary rule (Fatwa) but it is not.


Objection?

Peace.

Now that we have seen our #1 hadith, let's see the popular argument for it.

The 9th century Persian Islamic scholar Abu Isa Muḥammad ibn Isa as-Sulami ad-Darir al-Bughi at-Tirmidhi (824 – 892 CE) placed this Hadith in the category of “The Book on military expeditions”

The 14/15th century Shafi’I scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (1372 – 1449 CE) placed this Hadith in the category of “The Book On Jihad”:

It is quite clear that among classical scholars of Islam, they deemed this Hadith report to be in relation to war only.

This is not tenable, since Imam Muslim placed it in Book of Greetings. Many cases, hadith applications are not limited by the book in hadith they occur.

The medieval sunni scholar Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350 CE) states that the Hadith was uttered in relation to when the Muslims “went out to Banu Quraizah”

Apparently, the inclusion of Christians in this hadith nullifies this argument. Unless there is a point in history at which Muhammad was simultaneously at war with both a Christians nation and Banu Qurayza Jews. Thus, this can't be limited to Banu Qurayza expenditure.

Also, please note that a related hadith to this warn Muslims not to return the complete salam to the Christians and Jews that initiate salam.

“It was narrated from Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman Al Juhani that the Messenger of Allah said: “I am riding to the Jews tomorrow. Do not initiate the greeting with them, and if they greet you, then say: Wa ‘alaikum (and also upon you)”. Sunan Ibn Majah

If the Muslims were so much in war with Jews and wont initiate salam to them, why even respond to their salam? This again, is untenable.
Also, why merely push the Jewish enemies to the narrowest side of the road? Was this all the Muslims could do to hurt their mortal enemies?

There are all kinds of unreasonable, untenable argument for this hadith and many other gross hadith by traditional scholars. But delving on all of them will detract from the this aim of this thread.

This is clearly a fabricated hadith at worst, a poorly reported hadith at best. Either way, it point to the flaw of science of hadith.

Empiree:
Usermane, how are you bro?.

You on vacation or what?.

Good to see you around.

Thanks pal. Not a vacation exactly. Got inspired for this thread by recent bitter experiences and reflections on my part, regarding the Muslim society.

I am of the opinion that you first need to agree that Islam has its history. Quran is not just a Book revealed without some sort of historical background. If you fail to understand this, which you have been doing actually, you will never get out of your cloister. I do welcome your fair criticisms of some hadith even if they are alleged to be sahih

I believe you've read my counter argument for this hadith by now. I should have posted it alongside the hadith yesterday, because I did sift through the argument for the hadith, even before I posted it. I have very rigorous modus operandi for hadith criticism, am no amateur.

usermane:
Peace.

Now that we have seen our #1 hadith, let's see the popular argument for it.



This is not tenable, since Imam Muslim placed it in Book of Greetings. Many cases, hadith applications are not limited by the book in hadith they occur.


Apparently, the inclusion of Christians in this hadith nullifies this argument. Unless there is a point in history at which Muhammad was simultaneously at war with both a Christians nation and Banu Qurayza Jews. Thus, this can't be limited to Banu Qurayza expenditure.

Also, please note that a related hadith to this warn Muslims not to return the complete salam to the Christians and Jews that initiate salam.

If the Muslims were so much in war with Jews and wont initiate salam to them, why even respond to their salam? This again, is untenable.
Also, why merely push the Jewish enemies to the narrowest side of the road? Was this all the Muslims could do to hurt their mortal enemies?

There are all kinds of unreasonable, untenable argument for this hadith and many other gross hadith by traditional scholars. But delving on all of them will detract from the this aim of this thread.

This is clearly a fabricated hadith at worst, a poorly reported hadith at best. Either way, it point to the flaw of science of hadith.


Thanks pal. Not a vacation exactly. Got inspired for this thread by recent bitter experiences and reflections on my part, regarding the Muslim society.


I believe you've read my counter argument for this hadith by now. I should have posted it alongside the hadith yesterday, because I did sift through the argument for the hadith, even before I posted it. I have very rigorous modus operandi for hadith criticism, am no amateur.

Oh no, dont get it wrong. I only cited Banu Qurayza due to its famous incident relating to the Jews. I didnt mean it is decisive in this case. There are of course series of wars and bickering between muslims and Jews. and pagan arabs.

Before i can even effectively reply you on this, you first all need to recognise islamic history in relation with Quran. Without this we may be wasting our time here. Yourself just cited a bit of history while ignoring facts on ground. As for your personal experience recently (maybe), that is a flimsy analysis here.

Empiree:
Oh no, dont get it wrong. I only cited Banu Qurayza due to its famous incident relating to the Jews. I didnt mean it is decisive in this case. There are of course series of wars and bickering between muslims and Jews. and pagan arabs.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I meant to tackle your argument and other arguments for this hadith, so I lumped them in together. I know you didn't point to Banu Qurayza, I didn't intend to misquote you.

Before i can even effectively reply you on this, you first all need to recognise islamic history in relation with Quran. Without this we may be wasting our time here. Yourself just cited a bit of history while ignoring facts on ground. As for your personal experience recently (maybe), that is a flimsy analysis here.

Hey man, go easy on me. Will you? It's too early. "Islamic history in relation to Qur'an?" How is that relevant to our discussion on this hadith? Or you mean "Islamic history in relation to hadith?" Hadith may have history but unless an historical event fit the hadith, it is untenable for me as a critic. I shouldn't have to state this.

Oh, and the only facts I have ignored are untenable facts, that don't add up.

Look, I'm not entering an endless squabble with you over this, I have many other hadith to cover. You're offended by me, by my critique of your beliefs? Create your own thread, article or publication exposing the irrationality of Qur'an alone, the evil it has and can cause, and how accepting hadith will better everyone, everything. Because, I'm tired of debating you and your likes on toxic hadith that continue to cause oppression and mischief for over 1400 years.

usermane:


Hey man, go easy on me. Will you? It's too early. "Islamic history in relation to Qur'an?" How is that relevant to our discussion on this hadith? Or you mean "Islamic history in relation to hadith?" Hadith may have history but unless an historical event fit the hadith, it is untenable for me as a critic. I shouldn't have to state this.

You think Quran revelation doesn't have historical attachment?. For instance, this verse, if a non-muslim reads it but doesn't understand and comes to you, of the questions they ask is, who is the verse referring to?. Without the background you gonna have hard time. The verse reads:


"Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof - for him is a great punishment." Q24:11

How would you know who's it is talking about?. The name of the victim and all those involved?. This is where history comes in. You can not reject history. Same applies to the Hadith in question.

Look, I'm not entering an endless squabble with you over this, I have many other hadith to cover. You're offended by me, by my critique of your beliefs? Create your own thread, article or publication exposing the irrationality of Qur'an alone, the evil it has and can cause, and how accepting hadith will better everyone, everything. Because, I'm tired of debating you and your likes on toxic hadith that continue to cause oppression and mischief for over 1400 years.

we are here. You have not succeeded getting away with your manhaj. I would imagine you dumped it long ago. It is okay to criticize some ahadith. I welcome that.

Now, we understand that QUR'AN may be understood in many forms. That's, use Quran to interpret Quran, Hadith to interpret QUR'AN, history to interpret Quran, intellect to interpret Qur'an, sahaba, philosophical interpretation of Qur'an, scientific interpretation, etc.

A Muslim may choose whichever he's comfortable with as long as he doesn't deviates from the basics.

The best of all these is Qur'an interpreting QUR'AN. But you being QUR'ANite aren't upon that either. If you do, you would not have deviated on the basic tenets.

A few noteworthy points about #1 hadith

Al Qurtubi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Uthaymeen, Ibn Malik and Ibn Qayyin share their interpretation of the phrase; "force them to the narrowest path of the road". You can find their exegesis here; Click. Scroll down the page to the bold blue font heading; NOW DOES NARROWING THE JEWS AND CHRISTIAN INDICATE INTOLERANCE OF ISLAM?

I wont get into how irrational their interpretations are. But it is interesting to see that none of them except Ibn Qayyin, relate this hadith to war situation or Banu Qurayza. Meaning that many scholars saw the hadith applicable even under general situations.

In Ibn Khathir's tafsir on Quran 4:89, this hadith is mentioned as proof against saying salaam to the people of the Book. And thus, Ibn Khathir does not limit the application of the hadith to only war enemies among the people of the Book.


I will just have to stop here and proceed to #2 hadith, but be rest assured, the rabbit hole goes very deep.

#2

Hadith slandering the messenger, breeding child abuse, child marriage and pedophilia.

Sunan Abu Dawud> Book of marriage> Chapter: Marriage to the young.

Narrated 'Aishah:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.


Popular argument for this hadith:

It was the culture and practice of the time and place. No one objected to it. Aisha was 9 at puberty and in every culture, women are marriageable at puberty

.

Those who put forth this arguments have also cited historic examples of ancient kings, biblical figures marrying girls as young as 7, 6 or less.
Here is why this argument proposed by Zakir Naik, Yasir Qadhi etc hold no water.

First, culture is no determinant of right from wrong and something that is generally accepted may not be generally good. Usury was cultural norm in the Arab's culture but Qur'an abolished it.

Secondly, even at puberty, a 9 years old is still a child. The reproductive system is not fully developed yet, and worse still, to put this child through sex and potentially a strenuous condition like pregnancy can be fatal.

This is not to forget that marriage and sex require a lot of mental and physical effort that a 6-9 years old is neither biologically nor psychologically mature for. Hadith report that Aisha was so young after marriage that she still played with toys, joined by other girls of her age.

Now, if you listen through the Muslim society or read through Muslim sites on the internet, there are other ridiculous defenses for this hadith, so ridiculous that I will not waste my precious time responding. I am a firm proponent of rationality in Islam and I will not accept just any explanation or interpretation.

Finally, some Muslims have done a little bit of historical research to estimate Aisha's age of marriage to about 17. This is applaudable not just because it absolve Muhammad all all their slanders, but it is proof of the failure of their own science of hadith.

Peace.

Usermane, the issue of child marriage is not a matter confined to Muslims. Last week in the USA, I forgot which state. News came up that some women are fighting to raise Marriageable age for girls from current limit (12yrs).

I'm just wondering why this is an issue when it comes to Islam. I smell hypocrisy. I only have two arguments on the issue depending on who in debating with. For now read the screenshots.
http://theconversation.com/child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-the-us-88846

So usermane, reality is, in the US, it seems underage is actually below 10 not 18 in the US at least. You know why?. I have never seen authority persecuted a guy consuming relationship with under 18 girl and above 10.

The ones they persecuted are always men sexually difiled 7yr old girl like a Nigerian man who was recently deported for having sexual relation with 7yr old girl in 2002 . So it appears to be norm throughout history of human to marry girls far below 18. It is not Islam thing.

Non-muslims are simply being hypocritical about it because Islam is involved.

The issue of Aisha however, quran is clear that she was a woman. There is evidence in the Qur'an that nabi(saw) married a woman (Aisha) not a child.

Specific age mentioned in the Hadith is irrelevant.

#3

Hadith objectifying women and breeding rape.

Sahih Bukhari> Book of Beginning of Creation
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."

Popular argument:

"This is meant to prevent wives from depriving husbands of sex. Just like a man must always fulfill his role in feeding and sheltering his wife, a woman must always fulfill her role in granting her husband sex. If she has a valid reason to refuse sex, such as illness, she won't be cursed.
A wife should not refuse this role, just as a husband must not refuse his role. There is nothing wrong with this hadith, it is not misogynist. In fact, it will prevent a husband from adultery and thus preserve the marriage."

I recall learning this hadith as early as my teenage years, in Junior Secondary School. At Islamic Religious Studies(IRS) classes or Muslim Student Society(MSS) weekly lectures. Young as I was, I remember feeling a little discomfort at it.

At first glance, the above argument seem convincing. It addresses sex deprivation and seek to avoid temptation to adultery on the part of the sex deprived husband. But there are disturbing issues with this argument that renders it ridiculous and untenable as defense for the cited hadith.

First, it dare compares sex to other roles as feeding and sheltering. The wives roles comparable to the aforementioned husband's roles include cooking, cleaning, laundry, caring for the children but not sex.
Sex is complicated and requires a mood, a psychological and hormonal state. Switching into such state is not akin to switching a light bulb, especially for women. This hadith ignores this completely.

Secondly, what are the genuine reasons permitting wives to decline sex? According to other hadith, a wife must accept her husband's call for sex even if she were baking a bread or riding a horse. Aside illness, it doesn't seem like there are more valid excuse for wives to decline sex.

Riyad as-Salihin » The Book of Miscellany
Abu 'Ali Talq bin 'Ali (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, she must go to him even if she is occupied with the oven".

So, what happens to a wife that refuse sex because she is in no mood for it tonight? Probably because she is upset over something, mentally preoccupied with something, or just don't want sex tonight because she already had it this not long ago. This hadith explain she'll be cursed by angels, the above argument defends it.

This relegates women to sex robots, whose feelings and affairs are disregarded for men's pleasure. Tantamount to rape, women are compelled to endure sex against their wishes, so that their husbands will not sleep in anger, so that the angels will not curse them.

^^^^

You simply looked for excuses to criticize the Hadith. The Hadith is valid but the alleged "tafsir" you quoted may not be the best line of argument but your explanation too doesn't hold water either.

"Popular argument" you quoted is not decisive.

Explanation for the Hadith evolves with time and not static. So what's the problem?

Further Argument for #3 Hadith

It applies to men as well. Don't think that because only wives are addressed, only wives will be cursed for refusing sex. Qur'an states that women have right over men as men have right over women. Men will be cursed for refusing sex without valid reasons.

This is premature extrapolation that contradict the Qur'an that it seek to appeal to. Recall the traditional tafsir already permit men to refuse sex with a misbehaving wife.

Can a woman refuse sex with a misbehaving husband? The Qur'an is silent on this. This is the beauty of Qur'an, it gives just enough details but leaves enough room for flexibility for critical thinking. The hadith and madhabs cramp every possible details into these rooms, limiting flexibility. And so, it becomes really cumbersome and burdensome.

The hadith #3 leaves no doubt that a woman can't refuse sex simply because she feel offended by her husband, by his misbehavior. She must lay aside her grievances for the time being and meet his sexual need at the moment.

See here is another thing. Even if we accept that the hadith applies to men as well, will that do any justice? It becomes the case of two wrongs, it doesn't make it right. Sex should be consensual, neither spouse should feel forced to satisfy the other's sexual demand.

If she is not in mood for sex, the angels won't curse her for refusing.

Well, if she is not in the mood, she's going to refuse. And if she is in the mood, she is not going to refuse. So who is this hadith addressing? Women in the mood but refuse sex? Ridiculous.

Sounds like you are confused altogether in the name of trying to rationalize your argument. Both Hadith and Quran are actually protecting women in this case.

Forget about individual men's approach to this issue for a moment. It may be easy for man to get another woman whether his wife comply or not. It is in her best interest. If she refuses most often it is a lose lose situation for her at least in our religious environment.

I'm not taking about Western world. A woman can easily go out and cheat too even she's married. But sincerely we know the consequences of that all the time. It is manifest today in their environment.

But if your are vouching for equality for both genders i would argue that by default, men always have certain degree of rights over women. Take it or leave it. However, I don't support husband forcing his wife to comply when it is obvious she's not physically fit at the moment or exhausted. But when it comes to mood, bro, spice it up she can't keep telling me she's not in the mood but in reality She's giving it to another man outside. So no, forget the mood. We spice it up and mood will be activated really quickly.

Listen bro, I have been in women's business before. I see pros and cons. There are women out there who will not respect you if you are not dominant. They want you to force sex on them. They are crazy and unpredictable. Excuse my language. So I have no reason to fault explaination in the Hadith and its tafsir. Eleven years ago I was talking to a Canadian base Nigerian lady and I asked her if she believes rape in relationship?. She said no. So don't let your irrational schism for Hadith cloud your judgement. And ofc, explanation of Hadith, just like Quran is not static.

Do you see how vile seemingly clever hadith can be?

If the reader wonders of the practical consequence of these hadith in modern tems, Noura Hussein provides a recent case for study. Not the best case there is to study the harmful influence of these hadith, but we can make speculations from it.

Briefly stated:
Noura's family compelled her to marry at 15, but she refused and ran away for three years. Her father forced her to complete the wedding ceremony in April 2017. After refusing to have sex with her husband on their "honeymoon," she says he raped her as his brother and two cousins restrained her. A day later her husband tried to rape her again, and she stabbed him to death.

The husband's family has denied that he raped Noura, arguing that the couple were married.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/africa/noura-hussein-sudan-appeal-intl/index.html


NB: We are speculating with the assumption that Noura's claims are true, given the context of the murder. But our assumptions may not be certainty, only God, Noura and her husband know the absolute truth. Also, keep in mind that Sudan is ruled partly by Sharia and there are reports that marital rape is not officially recognized as crime.


We are not about to blame this incidence entirely on Hadith teachings, we recognize the cultural influences existing in Sudanese society may prompt forced marriage or marital rape. Still, realize that an Islamically conservative sharia conscious society like Sudan may impart toxic teachings, that may indirectly yield forced marriage or forced intercourse in marriage.

Forced Marriage:
Quiet right, hadith Islam opposes forced marriage. So, we'll not blame this on hadith. We'll assume that Noura's parents hoped Noura will eventually consent, after all she was still their little girl and they had her best interest at heart.

Child Marriage:
Being 16 at the time of contract, Noura was still a child. Even if we argue otherwise, 16 is unnecessarily too early. And this uber early marriage could have been motivated by hadith teachings such as the #2 hadith on Aisha's age of marriage. At 16, Noura's parent probably but wrongly felt she was long overdue for a husband. And in their haste to lead her off to the altar, they inadvertently neglected her consent. Perhaps, if they lived free of societal pressure for early marriage, they might have done better.

Forced sex/Rape.
In a society teaching that women are obligated to constantly grant their husband sex, even if busy at the oven, there is a chance that Noura's husband took things overboard under subconscious influence of these teachings. These teachings like #3 hadith can give men an over-heightened sense of entitlement to sex. Give the devil an inch, he'll take a mile.

We feel really bad for Noura's husband, he is likely another product of these toxic Muslim teachings taught as Islam. If only he knew better, better than marrying a child; if only he was taught sex as a voluntary act of love from a wife rather than a formal obligation by a wife, he might have died under a better circumstance.


There may be no 100% guarantee that our speculation on this matter is accurate. But we can't deny that all of the wrong Noura suffered could have been influenced by hadith teaching.

^^^

Then there is no need to get hadith involved since writer himself acknowledged hadith is not to be blamed. What happened btw Noura and her husband is not uncommon in any given society. Since islam zeros out forced marriage and writer acknowledges this, case closed.

And finally, i don't believe in rape in marriage. Not all women even agree to this. Once you are married, you are entitled to each other. Society, and especially non-muslim societies can very hypocritical. Go on Youtube and watch experiment in modern society where a guy "sexually assaulted" his "girlfriend" in public. Reactions from people is different when reverse is the case. They pulled the guy and almost beat him up for harassing his girl. The next episode portrayed "his girlfriend" sexually assaulted her boyfriend (same people) but the society failed. No one gave a damn about the guy when the lady sexually assaulted him.

Instead, what they say is "guy, you must be stupid. A lady is asking for sex and you refused". Why not say the same to the lady when she was the 'victim'?. See society's double standards?. So mr, you still have no case against hadith in general.

#4
Hadith fostering Muslim supremacy, Aggression, and terrorism or imperialism

Jami` at-Tirmidhi » The Book on Faith »
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered to fight the people until they say La Ilaha Illallah", and if they say that, then their blood and wealth will be protected from me, except what it makes obligatory upon them, and their reckoning is up to Allah."


Popular Argument

The Islamophobes quote this hadith to vilify Islam, without taking into consideration the proper context of the hadith. Hadith must be understood under historical context. The 'people' in this hadith are the pagans who started a war with the early Muslims and Muhammad. It does not refer to any non-Muslim, especially of the people of the book

I'm gonna beg to differ. Again. Your context is untenable.
Hadith collectors reported an hadith on Ridda wars, where Umar invoked the above hadith to dissuade Abu-Bakr from fighting the defaulters in zakat. Umar cannot be invoking this hadith at this point, if its application was limited to Muhammad's time.

Sunan an-Nasa'i » The Book of Fighting [The Prohibition of Bloodshed]
Abu Hurairah said:
"When the Messenger of Allah [SAW] died, and Abu Bakr (became Khalifah) after him, and the 'Arabs reverted to Kufr, 'Umar said: 'O Abu Bakr, how can you fight the people when the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah, and whoever says La ilaha illallah, his wealth and his life are safe from me, except for a right that is due, and his reckoning will be with Allah, the Mighty and Sublime?'
Abu Bakr said: 'I will fight whoever separates Salah and Zakah, for Zakah is the compulsory right to be taken from wealth. By Allah, if they withhold from me a young goat that they used to give to the Messenger of Allah [SAW], I will fight them for withholding it.' 'Umar said: 'By Allah, as soon as I saw that Allah has expanded the chest of Abu Bakr to fighting, I knew that it was the truth.'"

In fact, a similar legislation to fight the people, including the people of the book can be found in other hadith. While the pagans have no option but Islam, the people of the book can pay tax to be spared their blood. This was the basis for the Arab invasion of Persia and Byzantine, which launched after Muhammad.

Sahih al-Bukhari » Book of Jizyah and Mawaada'ah »
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Nu`man bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied..... "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya". ......

Umar considered the Zoroastrians of conquered Persians pagans to be killed. He would not take tax from them like the people of the book, until a companion informed him that Muhammad collected tax from Zoroastrians.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi » The Book on Military Expeditions »
Narrated Bajalah:
That 'Umar would not take the Jizyah from the Zoroastrians until 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Awf informed him that the Prophet (ﷺ) took Jizyah from the Zoroastrians of Hajar."


Summary on Hadith #4
Non-Muslims are to be fought if;
a) they are pagans and refuse to accept Islam
b) they are people of the book, but refuse Islam and refuse tax.
c) it is legal to go invade non-Muslim territories that neither threaten nor harmed Muslim territories.

In the next post, I'll discuss potential of this hadith to influence past, present and future terrorism and imperialism in the name of God.

If we look from past till present and speculate on the future, we can see that the #4 hadith have inspired and may inspire forced conversion, terrorism or killing 'non-Muslims' in the name of Islam.

Let's go back in time, back to the earlier decades after Muhammad's death. The Kharijites are often slandered as the first Muslims to excommunicate, fight and kill other Muslims in the name of God. Modern scholars have even branded the Islamist militants like ISIS as Kharijites, alluding to this infamous domineering and violent sect of the 7th century.

But before the Kharijites, Abu Bakr As Sadik and his minions would set the precedent of excommunication, fighting and killing Muslims in the name of God, after Muhammad had passed on. An event regarded as the Ridda(Apostasy) War.

Muslim apologists say that Caliph Abu Bakr did not start the war, that it was the Arab apostates that drew the first blood. They proceed to cite Muslim historians corroborating this. History as we know often suffer from selective or recall bias, and in fact there are also histories explaining that Abu Bakr and his minions took the war to the 'apostates'.

For instance, Al Tabari recorded in his historical works that when Abu Bakr's army arrived at Banu Yerbu, they did not meet any opposition. In fact, they sought out the tribesmen, bound and exterminated them.
Another thing of note is Abu Bakr's letter to the tribesmen while his army mounted for their attack. In that letter which can be read here, there is no indication that the 'apostates' attacked or killed anyone or Muslim.(The History of Tabari: Conquest of Arabia/Volume 10, page 55-58)
Also, note that the 'apostates' were no monolithic group, the action of one group may not have represented all of them.

It is noteworthy that Hadith also confirm Abu Bakr started on the offense.

Sunan an-Nasa'i » The Book of Fighting [The Prohibition of Bloodshed]
Abu Hurairah said:
"When the Messenger of Allah [SAW] died, and Abu Bakr (became Khalifah) after him, and the 'Arabs reverted to Kufr, 'Umar said: 'O Abu Bakr, how can you fight the people when the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah, and whoever says La ilaha illallah, his wealth and his life are safe from me, except for a right that is due, and his reckoning will be with Allah, the Mighty and Sublime?'
Abu Bakr said: 'I will fight whoever separates Salah and Zakah, for Zakah is the compulsory right to be taken from wealth. By Allah, if they withhold from me a young goat that they used to give to the Messenger of Allah [SAW], I will fight them for withholding it.' 'Umar said: 'By Allah, as soon as I saw that Allah has expanded the chest of Abu Bakr to fighting, I knew that it was the truth.'"

We can tell from the hadith that Abu Bakr fought these people not because they were literally attacking the state, but because they did not pay him zakat. Abu Bakr interpreted Hadith #4 as legally binding even post Muhammad, he interpreted refusal to pay zakat as apostasy, he deemed the apostates as polytheists and he marched his army against them. If he fought the 'apostates' for their crimes, he would have mentioned this to Umar in the above hadith.

Abu Bakr and his minions were thus the very first group to terrorize people or Muslims in the name of Islam. Not the Kharijites.

In summary;

'Pagan'/Polytheists who reject Islam are to be fought and killed under sharia rule. The people of the book may be tolerated, as long as they pay tax, else death to them.

Sharia rule permit military conquest of non-Muslim territories to force 'pagans/polytheists to Islam or face death, and to force the people of the book to Islam or pay tax or face death.

Apostasy in mainstream Islam or Hadith based Islam is deeper than rejecting the Qur'an, refusal to pay zakat is tantamount to apostasy. If today, an entire village of Yemen, Malaysia or Sudan refuses to pay the zakat, they have become apostates and it is completely legal for the government to massacre them.

usermane:

We can tell from the hadith that Abu Bakr fought these people not because they were literally attacking the state, but because they did not pay him zakat. Abu Bakr interpreted Hadith #4 as legally binding even post Muhammad, he interpreted refusal to pay zakat as apostasy, he deemed the apostates as polytheists and he marched his army against them. If he fought the 'apostates' for their crimes, he would have mentioned this to Umar in the above hadith.

See this line, it is bcus at that time, not paying zakat, which is major tenet of islam is tantamount to major crime (polytheism). By my calculation, there are at least 52 different verses in the Quran where Allah speaks of obligatory ZAKAT unless you don't believe in those ayat which include but not limited to Q2:3, @2:43, Q2:83, Q2:110, Q2:177, Q2:196 etc

Now, in modern day western world Tax is their major tenet. I already illustrated US for you before. If you are a green card holder and you qualify for citizenship, at the time of filing, one major thing that authority will look at for consideration after crime history is your federal tax filing. If you didnt file your tax in the last 5 yrs of your permanent residence, or you missed a year, you will never be granted citizenship until you file it. And you will pay penalty.

If you are citizen and you evade tax, you are going to jail. Take Wesley Snipe and many other Americans as a case study. Also each year, there are about 3000 Americans who renounced their citizenship and relocate to another country due to Tax burden.


Also, if you are illegal immigrant or non-immigrant who intend to change status, and you have been living in the US for years, and lucky enough to have your change of status considered, the major thing they look for in your application is TAX. They wanna see if you paid taxes all these yrs you have been living in the country. If you didnt pay, you risk being denied and deported bcus you are not useful to them. Same thing may apply to green card holder as well if care is not taken.

Now, this shows important of Tax in the USA just as much as it is important in islam. From islam and Western perspectives, essence of paying taxes is pretty much the same. In islam, it is meant to alleviate poverty. In the USA, it is meant to take care of basic amenities. From the tax you pay is used to take care of elderly and disabled. Use for provide citizens needs. If you park your car on the street of NY, it means tax is paid on it but if it is not, by the time you return to your car, ticket agent would have fined you up to $100. Because this Zakat is no longer paid in Nigeria by the rich is the reason you have many poor people in the country and no one hold them accountable.


So you can see punishment you get in the West for missing or refusing to pay tax. Even though it is not incline towards religion, it is basically painful punishment if you are deported because of tax, which means you don't deserve to live in the country for refusing to pay your tax just like you dont deserve to live in the time of Abu Bakr(ra). Abu Bakr would have spared them if they agreed to pay just like US would spare you if you make payment arrangement. If you dont, you get deported or jailed. Understand?.


Now as we speak, anyone who buys a home in America (may be NY as least), there is 9/11 terrorism tax added to your mortgage. You dont believe?. Do your research. You have no option. it is added automatically. They may have exceptions but fact is, they charge you this tax. You cant tell them otherwise.

Hadith #5
Hadith breeding hypocrisy, oppression and Murder.

Al Kafi - Vol 7 - Book of legal penalties - Chapter 61 - Hadith 2
Narrated Abu Ja'far and Abu Abdullah regarding the apostate: 'He would be asked to repent. So if he repents, fine. Or else he would be killed.

Official definition of Apostasy in orthodox Islam
- Denying the divinity of Qur'an.
- Denying the validity of Hadith and Sunnah.
- Neglecting Salat, Zakat, Fasting.
- Rejecting Sharia.

If you are guilty of any of the above, you are basically a dead man under traditional Islamic law.

Argument #1

Apostates that quietly leave Islam will be spared. Only those apostates that attack Islam are killed. Because they will mislead the rest of the ummah or encourage more apostates.

Baseless, unfounded interpolation. Where in the hadith did you get this condition to spare apostates? Also, mislead the ummah and encourage apostasy?! Crap, how does this account for those apostates that return back to your religion after years?

You also want apostates to keep quiet even if they find something harmful about your religion, they should not warn others about it? I should remain in the closet about my apostasy? You're this arrogant in ignorance that you do not even consider the slightest chance that you may be misguided? Have you returned from the dead? Have you been assured by God that you are on His chosen path?

Argument #2

This applies only to those Muslims born and raised as Muslims. Muslim converts who leave Islam are allowed to live.

This is of the Shiite jurisprudence. But it doesn't really help any much. It is legalized murder.

Argument #3

The law exists to ensure honest and committed reverts. We don't want hypocrites entering and leaving the religion as they like.

Of course, how do you account for those raised as Muslims but want to leave Islam on adulthood? By criminalizing apostasy, these disillusioned Muslims cannot leave the religion openly. They become closet atheists and Christians. They profess Islam outdoors, but affirm another religion indoors because they don't want to be executed, persecuted or discriminated. In the middle east, in your ummah, there are hundreds of thousands of these hypocrites already.

Argument #4

Apostasy in Islam is treason. The state is Islam, rejecting Islam is turning against the state. It is treason, and the penalty for treason anywhere is death.

Joe, if you had any understanding of treason, you'd never make this comparison. You think treason is simple as rejecting the popular beliefs and traditions for a different one?

The ignorant traditional Muslims at first deny that their religion executes apostates. If proven wrong, they resort to their mullahs who dish them all kinds of sloppy arguments that even a primary 3 pupil shouldn't even take. Yet many of these Muslims; literates, educated, professionals take these arguments, chew on them and regurgitate them for any individual who is dumb enough.

It is a disturbing thing, for it seem like the mullahs count on the gullibility of the masses, and the masses never disappoint. For who in their right mind remain convinced of a religion that teach these, who in their right mind continue to trust the clergy of such a religion?

For every valid hadith you post to criticize, i will always bring forth examples from our modern world to prove their validity. I have given you one above but you shunned. It is okay.

The miserable faith of the traditional Muslim apostates

If you become an apostate in the traditional Muslim world, you've got two options:

A. Keep mute and keep pretending to be Muslim, for the sake of peace.
B. Announce to your family.

If you choose A, you will endure a life of frustrations & unfulfilment, performing rites that you couldn't care less about. But you will at least be spared of trouble.

In the traditional Muslim world, millions of people quietly renounce(d) their faith in this manner. Since they continue to visit the mosque or wear hijab, everyone count them Muslims.
But governments as Iran and Saudi regime acknowledge the growth of atheism in their land, as they can't identify these atheists hiding in plain sight, they resort to policies to banish them.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/1/atheists-in-muslim-world-growing-silent-minority/
http://mpc-journal.org/blog/2017/08/22/the-rise-of-arab-atheism/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

If you choose B, announcing to your family, they will first try convincing you to return to the faith. If this fails, they may resort to abusive tactics to coerce you. And if you still persist, they'll choose either of three options:

C. Permit you to be apostates but implore you to keep it secret from outside the family. Basically, this is kind of like option A. If your family love you enough and are not Islamists, they'll likely pick this option.

D. Disown you. If your family are Islamists but reside in a secular or irreligious society. It is going to be hard, you will continue to hurt and mourn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjVhjbLy2qE

E. Turn you in to the authorities. If your family are Islamists under sharia rule.

The first step of the authorities will be to peacefully invite you back to the faith. If this fail, the authorities will begin prosecution and threaten with prison or death sentences. It is at this point that charges of apostasy and blasphemy will be publicly leveled against you. But if you are fortunate enough that your case gains international outcry, the authorities may set you free or commute your sentence.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27318400

Even if you get away with apostasy, you are not a free man. You can never be free. The authorities will separate you from your spouse and kids, they'll monitor your activity even on the internet. You will be shunned, discriminated and your reputation will suffer.

In states like Bangladesh or Pakistan where there are no authorities formally handling apostates, the random Islamists on the street often lynch 'apostates/atheist' who speak out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_by_Islamic_extremists_in_Bangladesh

See all the hardship and suffering that comes with just saying "I don't want to be traditional Muslim anymore"?

Famous Muslim apostates and their fate in Recent times

Name: Muhammad Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir 2014
Country: Mauritania.
Current status: In prison.
Charges: Apostasy - Blogs criticizing Prophet Muhammad. Declared apostate and condemned to death by Muslim clerics and court.
Owing to international pressure, his execution was postponed and he was rather incarcerated. By late 2017, his sentence had been commuted to 2 years in prison. He remain in jail till date.

Name: Raif Badawi 2012
Country: Saudi Arabia
Current status: In Prison.
Charges: Apostasy - Condemning Islamic ultra conservatism and promoting liberal reform on internet.
Sentence: 10 years in prison, 1000 lashes, fine.

On grounds of apostasy, his family in-laws filed a court action to divorce him from his wife. Raif's wife remained loyal and defensive of him but had to flee the country after anonymous death threats.
In 2014, Raif's own lawyer driven by Raif's case launched an organization to monitor human rights in the country, but was charged and sentenced to 15 years in prison and 15 years travel ban for this.

Name: 25 Sudanese 2015
Country: Sudan
Charges: Apostasy - Hadith rejection and following a different interpretation of Islam.
Sentence; None, eventually freed on bail after serving nearly 5 months in prison prior to any trial.

Also read worth reading is the case of Sudanese Mariam Ibrahim 2014.

Name: Hashim Aghajari 2002
Country: Iran
Charge: Apostasy - Discouraging of blind imitation or obedience to clerics, criticism of mainstream Islam & reformist Muslim thoughts in speeches.
Sentence: Death, according to the clerics. The court commuted his sentence to 3 yrs in jail, 2 years probation and 5 years suspension of his social rights.
Currently: Freed.

Northern Nigeria

There is no official penalty for apostasy even under sharia rule in Nigeria. In 2000, after Sani Yerima institutionalized Sharia in Zamfara state, he expressed his regret that Federal Law did not allow provision to exercise death for apostasy. Regardless, he maintained that apostasy is crime and permitted non-judicial killing of apostates by any Muslim civilian.

Referenced in: Democratization and Islamic Law: The Sharia Conflict in Nigeria
By Johannes Harnischfege

usermane:
Famous Muslim apostates and their fate in Recent times

Name: Muhammad Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir 2014
Country: Mauritania.
Current status: In prison.
Charges: Apostasy - Blogs criticizing Prophet Muhammad. Declared apostate and condemned to death by Muslim clerics and court.
Owing to international pressure, his execution was postponed and he was rather incarcerated. By late 2017, his sentence had been commuted to 2 years in prison. He remain in jail till date.

Name: Raif Badawi 2012
Country: Saudi Arabia
Current status: In Prison.
Charges: Apostasy - Condemning Islamic ultra conservatism and promoting liberal reform on internet.
Sentence: 10 years in prison, 1000 lashes, fine.

On grounds of apostasy, his family in-laws filed a court action to divorce him from his wife. Raif's wife remained loyal and defensive of him but had to flee the country after anonymous death threats.
In 2014, Raif's own lawyer driven by Raif's case launched an organization to monitor human rights in the country, but was charged and sentenced to 15 years in prison and 15 years travel ban for this.

Name: 25 Sudanese 2015
Country: Sudan
Charges: Apostasy - Hadith rejection and following a different interpretation of Islam.
Sentence; None, eventually freed on bail after serving nearly 5 months in prison prior to any trial.

Also read worth reading is the case of Sudanese Mariam Ibrahim 2014.

Name: Hashim Aghajari 2002
Country: Iran
Charge: Apostasy - Discouraging of blind imitation or obedience to clerics, criticism of mainstream Islam & reformist Muslim thoughts in speeches.
Sentence: Death, according to the clerics. The court commuted his sentence to 3 yrs in jail, 2 years probation and 5 years suspension of his social rights.
Currently: Freed.

Your are wasting your time, buddy. They are guilty especially #1 on the list. Like it or not. Say something stupid online against US officials or president and see how you get locked up and key thrown away. You may say that's not religion but sorry, it doesn't make any difference bcuz they simply take religion out state.


Now how about Holocaust?. Why should someone jailed if he doesn't believe it?. Is it more important than the prophet Muhammad?. Insulting prophet of Islam is freedom of speech but denying and insulting holocaust is hate speech?. See double standards?



Punishment For Holocaust Denial Is Either Death Or Jail Time. Goes to show you that they set this law to show how important holocaust is. Why can't Muslims have law that punishes anyone who insults Islam, Quran and the prophet?.

Peace!

I have refused to reply our only other poster on this thread for two obvious reasons.

1. Damage control
All his justifications for the hadith so far hinges on damage control, drawing faulty parallels between policies in secular democracies and hadith oriented Islam. I need not to go down this rabbit hole even though I am sure that many of his co-religionists agree with him. Regardless, my job is done. Those who are sincere and aspire for freethinking should be able to see these hadith have no place in a civilized society.

2. Poor mannerism.
If you remember earlier on, I replied to his first post on the thread. The tone of his immediate response was harsh, he did tone down the harshness by modifying his words, but not before I saw it. I have engaged him since 2014, and I still think he need some attitude adjustment.

I think it takes a lot of effort to do what I do. It is really depressing reading these hadith, reading the pathetic apologetics for these hadith & reading about people oppressed by application of them. It feels like a nightmare and the last thing I want after this is reading an insensitive comment seemingly intended to hurt me.

Next Hadith will deal with Blasphemy.

Hadith #6
Hadith legislating cold murder of blasphemers.

Blasphemy in traditional Islam broadly constitute any act from desecration of Qur'an, swearing at Muhammad to mockery, scorn, censure or criticism of Islam, Muhammad or Qur'an.

You already know the hadith I'm about to discuss, one of the multitudes sahih hadith sanctioning Charlie Hebdo shooters or Theo Van Gough's murder. Now, before re-introducing the hadith, let's look at the condemnatory responses by notable Muslims leaders and organization to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Some non-Muslims call these responses taqiyya(deception), but I think this surpasses deception.

Al Azhar University in Egypt
The attack on Charlie Hebdo is a “criminal act.”
“Islam denounces any violence.”

Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy mosque in Paris
"I am extremely angry. These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their soul to hell.”
“This is not freedom. This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this.”

French Council of the Muslim Faith
"The French Council of the Muslim Faith and the Muslims of France strongly condemn this violent terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo magazine. This barbarous act is also an attack on democracy and freedom of the press.

Muslim Council of Britain
We condemn the attack on #CharlieHebdo. Whomever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justifies the taking of life.

Council on American-Islamic Relations
"We strongly condemn this brutal and cowardly attack and reiterate our repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures. The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions."

Saudi Arabia
“The kingdom…strongly condemns and denounces this cowardly terrorist act that is rejected by true Islamic religion as well as the rest of the religions and beliefs.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
“Those who kill and carry out violent and extremist acts unjustly in the name of jihad, religion or Islam provoke Islamophobia whether they wish it or not.”

Now let's look at what the traditions of these Muslim leaders and organization states on blasphemy like Charlie Hebdo.

Sunan Abi Dawud » Book of Prescribed Punishments
Bulugh al-Maram » Crimes (Qisas or Retaliation)
Ibn 'Abbas (RAA) narrated, ‘A blind man had a pregnant slave, who used to abuse the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and defame him. The blind man forbade her but she did not stop. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) so he took an axe, placed it on her belly, pressed it and killed her. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was told about it, and thereupon he said, “Oh people! Be witnesses that no Diyah is to be paid for her blood.”

See the contradiction between the Muslims' responses and the Muslims' traditions? I read those responses again, and again, it reeks pungently of depravity. If people have been massacred in line with your tradition but yet you refuse to come clean about it, you could as well condone the massacre.

These Muslim leaders and organizations parade themselves as salt of the earth, servants of God. Be warned, they are serpents, they'll lie, cheat and pretend to fool the people and the families of the victims.


Today, I'm in no mood to deal with the half-ass arguments for this hadith regurgitated by apologists. Instead, I'll take on Yasir Qadhir's apparent dishonesty in the light of Charlie Hebdo attack.

Yasir Qadhir: Our Prophet was verbally abused and physically harrased multiple times in Makkah. Never ONCE did any of the Companions go and murder those who did such deeds.
Do those who kill others in the name of the Prophet believe that they love him more than the companions?

He is telling only half truth. He failed to mention that Muhammad relocated from Makkah to Madinah and there, as portrayed in hadith, he instructed the assassinations and condoned murder of those who insulted him. Refer back to hadith #6.

Yasir Qadhir: And even for those who believe that the penalty for blasphemy should be death: by unanimous consensus of ALL the scholars of Islam, this must take place after a legitimate trial, by a qualified judge, appointed by a legitimate Islamic state. Under NO circumstances does Islam allow vigilante justice, for to open this door leads to chaos, confusion and bloodshed.

He is still not honest. There are traditional scholars that approve vigilante justice against blasphemers. Ayatollah Khomeini ordained vigilante justice against Salman Rushdie and all those involved in publishing Satanic Verses in 1988. In short, Muhammad's approval of the murder of the slave woman by her blind master in Hadith #6 is clearly justify vigilante justice in tradition Islam, given clear proof of blasphemy.

Yasir Qadhi, a PhD holder in Islamic studies is well aware of these ugly reality, but since he is pandering to ignorant people, he safely distorted and concealed the full facts.

Bro, you can say whatever you want. There are always examples for you in our contemporary world for every hadith you criticized. I have told you this before and will tell you again, that if you dare, in American democracy, despite promoting "freedom of speech", you dare not speak trash about US president without facing extra-judicial penalties. The only time you face justice system is if you make direct threat to the president. But if you say something stupid about president or the US constitution that is considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, but it doesn't go well with secret service, i can guarantee you that CIA and FBI will take you to secret location and teach the fvck up of you in their extra-judicial treatment bcus they can not legally persecute you in court.

If you wanna know what i am talking about try to read a groundbreaking work of investigative journalism, "The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism" by Trevor Aaronson

And the reason law enforcement do this kind of illegal treatment is bcus, it is somewhere in the constitution how to deal with people who run their mouth against the country or govt officials like the president. Yet they tell you they have freedom of speech. Now take a look at Nigeria where citizens kill fellow citizens just for stealing without trial. They set them on fire. Why would citizens do that?. It is called emotion outburst. The same way you will see some muslim rage when Islam, Allah, Quran or the prophet is abused.

Now take a look at Mr president how he got scared during speech when he heard someone shout "Allah Akbar"

https://www.facebook.com/ibntaofeeq.abdulazeez/posts/271525606972959

My Humble Opinion on Charlie Hebdo

You already know where I stand on the Charlie Hebdo shooting, I refuse to agree that the journalists or cartoonists brought the tragedy upon themselves. I look through the cartoons and my only thing that bothers me is the depiction of a nude Muhammad. I think, it is wrong to depict any historical figure naked. Including Hitler. Still, I'll not approve any punishment for the cartoonists.

PS: If Charlie Hebdo claims to be doing satire. It is not doing good enough satire on mainstream Islam. A true satire is comical but is capable of stimulating critical approach to the subject. There is a lot of filth in traditional Islamic teachings with ample potential for satire without driving fanatic Muslims to terror.