A norm throughout Muslim history, Hadith report the prevalence of slave trading among Muslims in Muhammad's days.

Sunan Ibn Majah » The Chapters on Manumission
Jabir bin `Abdullah was heard to say:
“We used to sell our slave women and the mothers of our children (Umahat Awaldina) when the Prophet (ﷺ) was still living among us, and we did not see anything wrong with that.”

Prisoners of War(POW): Between Slavery and Imprisonment

There is the argument that traditional Islam only enslaves POW and that it's more merciful to enslave POW than imprison them. Depending on circumstances, this may be true.

But bear in mind that these POW may be completely innocent, undeserving of losing their personal freedom. Recall Hadith #4, that commands Muslims to launch offensive war against non-Muslims. Then, those non-Muslims who actively join in defense to resist the Muslim invaders become POW or slaves on captivity.

Slavery & Jihad go hand in hand in Mainstream Islam

"Slavery is part of Islam. Slavery is part of Jihad, and Jihad will remain as long as there is Islam."

- Sheikh Saleh Al Fawzan
https://swap.stanford.edu/20090418061718/http://www.arabianews.org/english/article.cfm?qid=132&sid=2

Muslim caliphates from the reign of Abu Bakr in the 7th century to the Ottoman Turks in the 20th century ventured into offensive wars against non-Muslims, capturing and enslaving those who resisted their invasions. These slaves are inherited or bought by Muslims.

Now that we've established that Hadith encourage slavery, we now look into the slaves' rights. This leads to Hadith #10.

usermane:
Hadith #9
Hadith breeding Slavery

Usermane, how's market?

And why did you quoted some part that suits you and ignore others where he ended slavery or treated them kindly?.


And don't forget that slavery only ended in modern world physical but monetarily it is not

More cases of Hadith disapproving slave manumission

Sahih al-Bukhari » Book of Gifts
Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet (ﷺ ) said to her, "You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles."

Special thanks to our regular opponent for bringing up this Hadith. There can be no genuine reason in Islam to donate a slave instead of freeing such a slave. This Hadith show us how normal slavery is in traditional Islam.

Sunan an-Nasa'i » The Book of Funerals
It was narrated from 'Imran bin Husain that:
a man freed six slaves of his when he was
dying, and he did not have any wealth apart
from them.

News of that reached the Prophet and he was angry about that. He said: "I was thinking of not offering the funeral prapyer for him."

Then he called the slaves and divided them into three groups. He cast lost among them, then freed two and left four as slaves.

Similar to our first Hadith. Confirm slavery is OK in traditional Islam. Otherwise, the messenger would have honored the dying man's decision and raised money for him through alternative means to slave trading.

^^^^^
Keep in mind that the dying man in the above Hadith already freed the slaves. So basically, the messenger re-enslaved freed men. Very disturbing.

usermane:
More cases of Hadith disapproving slave manumission



Special thanks to our regular opponent for bringing up this Hadith. There can be no genuine reason in Islam to donate a slave instead of freeing such a slave. This Hadith show us how normal slavery is in traditional Islam..

You should rather sincerely ask yourself, did slavery start with advent of prophet muhammad?. If it didnt, then, generations before him who traded slavery, why did they not end it before prophet muhammad arrived?. They are more guilty than blaming islam for what is not. It is so suspicious that NT barely makes reference to slavery while OT is full mass slavery trades.

Why blame islam for what it didnt start?. Jews and christians were known for trading slaves prior to our prophet(saw). why did they not end it?. You really make no sense. I dont care what hadith say. What i care about is slavery existed before nabi Muhammad, and therefore, he wasn't responsible in any shape or form. Her did his best to end it. Appreciate his effort or get lost. As for modern christians making the same claims, they have no claims against our prophet either bcus slavery was in existence in the time of Jesus but for some reason they barely make reference to that by expunging their serious event from their bible. And since they claim Jesus is the same God of old testament, definitely their Jesus was well aware of slavery. Why did he not end it prior to 570 AD?

Similar to our first Hadith. Confirm slavery is OK in traditional Islam. Otherwise, the messenger would have honored the dying man's decision and raised money for him through alternative means to slave trading.

It was OK in the time of Jews and christians before Muhammad ibn Abdullah came. So whats the problem?

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

Sahih Muslim » The Book of Marriage
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported:
We took women captives, and we wanted to do coitus interruptus intercourse with them. We then asked Allah's Messen- ger (ﷺ) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judg- ment must be born.

With or without her consent, outside marriage, a slave master have unquestionable right to sex with his female slave. The slave is bound to submit to his sexual demand. This is traditional Islam for you.

Sunan an-Nasa'i » The Book of The At-Tatbiq
'Aishah said:
"I noticed that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was missing from bed, so I started to look for him, and I thought that he had gone to one of his concubines. Then my hand fell on him when he was prostrating

So, in a religion that frown upon even handshake between opposite genders, it is completely legit to cohabit with a slave or concubine without any binding marital contract. If this is not the height of hypocrisy, tell me what it.

Fatwa - Intercourse with female slaves

Praise be to Allaah.

It is not permissible for a man to have intercourse with anyone except his wife or his female slave (concubine). A wife becomes permissible after shar’i marriage and a concubine becomes permissible to the man who owns her.

She may originally be a prisoner of war, and a Muslim may obtain a concubine from the ruler or commander if he took part in fighting in jihad, or if he buys her from her owner.

She becomes permissible for him by virtue of his ownership after it is established that
she is not pregnant by waiting for one menstrual cycle, or until she has given birth if she is pregnant.

https://islamqa.info/en/20085

Some of the alleged ahadith you cited can not be found. I think you should post direct link to the source instead of copying just the Hadith.

I decided to be quiet yesterday when I couldn't find one of the Hadiths you posted. As for this one you posted saying that the prophet (saw) allowed his companions to have intercourse anyways with slave girls, can't find that either buy common sense tells us this is false. No religion in Earth permits rape, intercourse outside of marriage needless to say Islam.

Try to improve your source of information. And if you think you can please those mushrikun you are wasting your time. You could see how Christian guy scolded you the other day because regardless of how you try to paint 'traditional muslims" as you called them, they see you too as Muslim who is trying excuse himself.

Whom Do I Seek To Impress

Empiree:
Some of the alleged ahadith you cited can not be found. I think you should post direct link to the source instead of copying just the Hadith.

I already post the collection and the Book the hadith is located. E.g Sahih Bukhari >> Book of Jihad; Open Sahih Bukhari in either webpage or document, open to Book of Jihad, then find the hadith by launching the Find in Page dialog box, and enter the key words of the hadith.

I decided to be quiet yesterday when I couldn't find one of the Hadiths you posted. As for this one you posted saying that the prophet (saw) allowed his companions to have intercourse anyways with slave girls, can't find that either buy common sense tells us this is false. No religion in Earth permits rape, intercourse outside of marriage needless to say Islam.

I've already cited the evidence. And I have posted a fatwa as well. And all the Imams of fiqh permit it.

Try to improve your source of information. And if you think you can please those mushrikun you are wasting your time.

I never thought I could please anyone. If I did, I'll have been posting frequently in the Religion section, liking and sharing the comments of non-Muslims. Jeez, when last did I even discuss Islam with a non-Muslim in this forum?

You could see how Christian guy scolded you the other day because regardless of how you try to paint 'traditional muslims" as you called them, they see you too as Muslim who is trying excuse himself.

Really? What do you care? If he'd complimented me, you'll have said; "See? Even this mushrik is siding with you, shows you're misguided". And now that he indirectly sides with you that hadith are indispensable to practice Islam, you still find a way to turn it against me.

If you pay close attention, you'll see that tru2god as most staunch critics of Islam and Muhammad relish hadith and sunna. Just as much as you do. For them, the Qur'an is insufficient to fault Islam, they badly need hadith. So, I don't expect them to be my biggest fan.

Slavery & Traditional Islam, for the last time.

Empiree:
You should rather sincerely ask yourself, did slavery start with advent of prophet muhammad?. If it didnt, then, generations before him who traded slavery, why did they not end it before prophet muhammad arrived?. They are more guilty than blaming islam for what is not. It is so suspicious that NT barely makes reference to slavery while OT is full mass slavery trades.

Why blame islam for what it didnt start?. Jews and christians were known for trading slaves prior to our prophet(saw). why did they not end it?. You really make no sense. I dont care what hadith say. What i care about is slavery existed before nabi Muhammad, and therefore, he wasn't responsible in any shape or form. Her did his best to end it. Appreciate his effort or get lost. As for modern christians making the same claims, they have no claims against our prophet either bcus slavery was in existence in the time of Jesus but for some reason they barely make reference to that by expunging their serious event from their bible. And since they claim Jesus is the same God of old testament, definitely their Jesus was well aware of slavery. Why did he not end it prior to 570 AD?




It was OK in the time of Jews and christians before Muhammad ibn Abdullah came. So whats the problem?

All these responses prove you do not read. I have no doubt that the real Muhammad dissuaded enslavement. But the Muhammad portrayed in hadith did little to abolish slavery and much to sustain slavery.

He, according to your hadith ordered Muslims to invade non-Muslims and take their captives for slave. He re-enslaved former slaves to raise money and he preferred his wife to donate her slave rather than free the slave. These are hardly the actions of a man who did his best to end slavery.

Message from a shrewd Christian Man

true2god: You like throwing the phrase 'in pure Islam'. Are there pure and impure Islam? The fact remains, the Qur'an, by itself, is not coherent without the hadith and the sirah. Most ayah in the Qur'an do not make sense without the hadith to shed light on the context.

This is subjective. I know Muslim converts that never bought into hadith, and none of them ever complained that the Qur'an is too vague or incoherent.

To be honest, most Islamic scholars find the hadith more convenient than the Quran itself.

How convenient is understanding Islam through Hadith vs Qur'an? Do you know how many hadith are in existence? There were scholars of Islam before the first hadith book was collected. Many of such scholars like Abu Hanifa were neither good in hadith nor reliant on hadith.

Uthman ibn Affan did a very bad job when compiling this present Quran; many historical context were lost when most of the Hafiz died in the battle of yamama, a year after the death of Mohammed.

Well, I work with what I have. And I find the Qur'an detailed enough as it is.

To make up for the lost information, the hadith had to be introduced.

The proponents of hadith never saw hadith that way. At best, they saw it as explanation of the Qur'an, not continuation or completion.

To be Continued

true2god:
Your opinion is subjective here and do not represent the opinion of mainstream Islam.

Never claimed to represent mainstream Islam. Are you paying attention at all? I jumped off the mainstream Islam bandwagon 5 years ago and have never looked back. When last did you find me in Religion section squabbling with critics of mainstream Islam or even any version of Islam?

What I try to represent is pure Islam. The Qur'an, unadulterated with traditions of men.

The hadith, just like the Quran, is held in high esteem by all the 5 schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Although there is no divine inspiration attributable to it, the contents of the hadith contains over 80% of Islamic laws and practices.

I do not practice Islam as the mainstream. I identify as an heterodox, reformist or God/Qur'an alone Muslim.

You cannot undermine its importance in Islam just because some hadith narrations speak ill of Mohammed. You have to give them their credit, ditto their bias and inefficiencies.

You know, for a Christian and naysayer of Islam, you're doing a fine job promoting hadith and sunna. If you think I reject all hadith because a few irritate me, then you have a lot of catching up to do.

Traditional Muslim Method of deriving Laws

Hadith #8 proved to be anti-egalitarian and Muslim supremacist, yet certain Muslims seem to be content with it. Without dwelling on the bias and injustice behind such hadith, my attention here will be focused on Empyree's complaint.

On my posting a fatwa for Hadith #8, he(Empyree) said, directly, "You cannot use the opinion of some people(Islamweb.net) to criticize traditional Islam, it's injustice. You see there is differing opinions among the scholars. Are you sincere about this at all?"

In traditional Islam, the Qur'an and Hadith is constitution. The schools of jurisprudence are the judiciary; Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali & Ja'fari. Every society of traditional Muslims align with one school. Saudi Arabia - Hanbali, Iran - Ja'fari, Pakistan - Hanafi etc.

In legal matters like murder, sharia court bypasses the Qur'an and Hadith for the teachings of the school of jurisprudence. In all of the schools besides Hanafi, a Muslim murderer of a Christian is never to be executed for justice.

Continue below

Contd.

That is the view of the majority, roughly 80% of the jurists. Now, although hanafi jurists differ from the others in this case, the hanafi position is not set in stone even in Hanafi Muslim authorities. This is for one main reason.

The reason being that all the founders of the schools of jurisprudence ask of their followers to overlook their opinion if it contradict any sahih hadith. As the hanafi opinion contradict the hadith #8, it is probable that hanafi jurists may accept the majority position.

I urge Muslims to educate themselves. Take a break from contemporary speakers and scholars. Search online for books on traditional Islamic jurisprudence, written by the ancient imams and their students, free of sugarcoating. Read!!!!

Are you saying that Hadith 8 is meant to perpetrate injustice, that is, a Muslim should not be killed for killing disbeliever?. Is that what you considered "injustice"?. I just wanna clarify this.

I think I did respond to this earlier. But before you criticize the Hadith, you need to look into the Qur'an first on this issue since you Believe Quran alone.

We all know that Qur'an talks about paying price for killing believer by another believer by mistake. But when it comes to "normal killing" of disbeliever by believer, there is no evidence to kill believer in QUR'AN either.

Normal Killing after severe rage and dispute:

There is no evidence from the Glorious Quran that the Muslim who really lost himself and kills a Dhimmi, due to severe personal issues between them, must be punished to death. Certainly, the following Laws would apply:

Pay blood money to the slain person's family.

Free a believing slave.

--OR--

Fast 2 consecutive months if he can't afford the these expenses.


However, if the Muslim is a serial and cold killer, and one that just wants to kill, then he is one who spreads mischief. And here are the Laws for those who spread mischief and injustice in the land:


Quran: 2:27

Those who break God's Covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder what God Has ordered to be joined, and do mischief on earth: These cause loss (only) to themselves.


This was repeated in another verse


[028:077]


"But seek, with the (wealth) which God has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this world: but do thou good, as God has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions for) mischief in the land: for God loves not those who do mischief."


Finally, the punishment for such people is pronunced in this ayah.


[005:033]

The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;


But I don't see where it says to kill Muslim who kills a disbeliever. Go to Qur'an first before that hadith. You will see that Hadith is saying the same thing. I hope i made accurate reference to what you portrayed?

Empiree:
Are you saying that Hadith 8 is meant to perpetrate injustice, that is, a Muslim should not be killed for killing disbeliever?. Is that what you considered "injustice"?. I just wanna clarify this.

Yes.

I think I did respond to this earlier. But before you criticize the Hadith, you need to look into the Qur'an first on this issue since you Believe Quran alone.

We all know that Qur'an talks about paying price for killing believer by another believer by mistake. But when it comes to "normal killing" of disbeliever by believer, there is no evidence to kill believer in QUR'AN either.

Normal Killing after severe rage and dispute:

There is no evidence from the Glorious Quran that the Muslim who really lost himself and kills a Dhimmi, due to severe personal issues between them, must be punished to death. Certainly, the following Laws would apply:

Pay blood money to the slain person's family.

Free a believing slave.

--OR--

Fast 2 consecutive months if he can't afford the these expenses.


However, if the Muslim is a serial and cold killer, and one that just wants to kill, then he is one who spreads mischief. And here are the Laws for those who spread mischief and injustice in the land:


Quran: 2:27

Those who break God's Covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder what God Has ordered to be joined, and do mischief on earth: These cause loss (only) to themselves.


This was repeated in another verse


[028:077]


"But seek, with the (wealth) which God has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this world: but do thou good, as God has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions for) mischief in the land: for God loves not those who do mischief."


Finally, the punishment for such people is pronunced in this ayah.


[005:033]

The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;


But I don't see where it says to kill Muslim who kills a disbeliever. Go to Qur'an first before that hadith. You will see that Hadith is saying the same thing. I hope i made accurate reference to what you portrayed?

Qur'an 2:178 covers this subject. Never specifying the religious affiliation of the killer or the killed. Now, even if the Qur'an is silent on a Muslim that kills a non-Muslim, it is only justice and egalitarian that the death penalty is an option for such a Muslim.

usermane:

Yes.



Qur'an 2:178 covers this subject. Never specifying the religious affiliation of the killer or the killed. Now, even if the Qur'an is silent on a Muslim that kills a non-Muslim, it is only justice and egalitarian that the death penalty is an option for such a Muslim.

I know you don't care about historical context so I wont fret about it. I have always personally understood this verse in the context of Muslim community only but I could be wrong.

Also read it's context historically which appears have little to do with muslim community pre-Islam Arabs.

That aside, the reason your approach to the Hadith is wrong is in my first reply days ago. Hadith 8 doesn't perpetrate injustice at all. I truly hope you follow US news regularly?. You will see worst. This is why I always cite contemporary references anytime you bring up Hadith to criticize.

It seems to me that Imam Abu Hanifah of Hanafi was the only one who differed from the rest. This means Muslim authority may apply either methods (to kill to muslim who kills non-Muslim or not - like other schools) because the Ayah appears to be neutral if taken as is. But majority is what I am considering (Imam Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali, Jafarii) but I'm not against Hanafi either. It is good for back up against crazy muslims.


Now, I told you earlier that you never seen or barely seen a white man persecuted in other countries especially in Africa and ME. It is very rare. They applied methodologies of the major Islamic schools minus Hanafi. Also, if you are familiar with state of Florida, they have what they called "Stand Your Ground Law". A controversial law that breeds anarchy and injustice in the society. To explain this, it means, if you and I have argument in Florida and I push you with my bare hands, you have the right to gun me down or use force to kill me because I posed a threat to you.

See what I just said?. This sounds crazy to many people but it is real. Police will not arrest you for killing me because you are standing your ground. This law paves the way for white people in Florida to kill black people and many cases like this are currently docketed.

Let me give you another example but this is real one and it happened not long ago in Florida. A couple went to grocery store. They temporarily parked their car in the wrong spot (wheelchair lane) but his wife is sitting in the car while her boyfriend runs quickly to the store. A white man pulls up and tries to park in wheelchair lane which means he most likely has permit for that.

Seeing couple's car parked in the spot he pulls up to another space, gets out of his car and confronts the lady. Her man heard loud conversation and rushed out. He confronted white man as to why he's bothering his girlfriend?. We don't really know what they said to each other due to absence of audio. But the man pushed the white guy and he fell to the ground.

The next thing he did was he pulled his gun and shot dead the black man in the chest in the presence of his son and girlfriend.

This all captured on camera. Police refused to arrest the white man BECAUSE according to them, the black man posed a threat to him by pushing him. Therefore, the white guy was standing his ground. Simple right?.

But to you in Nigeria, this is nonsense, correct?.

Now I'm not trying to get into white and black thing. Just read the story and tell me what you think?.

Remember the black guy had no gun he only pushed him because he felt threatened someone was messing with his woman outside. To be honest he has no right to put his hands on him. But is that a deadly force?. Florida police said yes, it is.

But did the white guy has the right to confront the lady for parking in wrong parking spot to begin with?. Why not call the ticket agent or police to address it than taking law into his hands?.

So you can not make blanket statement that the Hadith perpetrates injustice. All these Western countries have their ways of protecting their citizens from being indicted or killed judicially in foreign land. They will instead extradite the accused or force the foreign govt to pardon him if it was so clear that their citizen was guilty.

But if you are foreign in their land and you commit offense, you will be indicted and sentenced. You will serve time. So the hadith is not wrong. You are wrong.

Now do I blame them for doing this to favor their own?. No. They do what is in their best interest. This is gray area Hadith 8 stands too.

Also remember that this same controversial Florida's Stand Your Ground Law aquitted many white people in Florida including George Zimmerman, a white guy who killed a black boy for walking in white neighborhood.

According to him, "I felt treatened".

The Refutations by Empyree

My history with Empyree goes way back, long before the creation of this thread. In the summer of 2014, where I dealt with Jizya and Zakat, he hopped in to defense of the orthodox view by analogies with Western states' taxation system.

This has been his way, justifying unjust orthodox views by analogies with western domestic policies. And you can see the same modus in his defense of all the hadith I criticized so far.

Aside these analogies fraught with faults, aside questioning my motives, his refutations of my argument suffer from inaccurate understanding of the very position that he seek to defend.

^^^^

How can a grown man, privileged to live in the developed world justify Hadith #8 as analogous to racist prejudice that excuses a white man who murdered a black man in US.?

For such reason, it can be really exhausting delving back and forth to address the inaccuracies that he prattles as refutations. Hence, my decision to sometimes let the sleeping dogs lie.

My Mission?

Empyree: For the mean time, like I have said before, there are always examples in our contemporary world for every Hadith you criticize bcus you are on a mission.

Owing to my thorough criticism of Islamic orthodoxy, sharia and Islamism, I've become a symbol of suspicion and contempt for the ignoramus and conservatives.

^^^^

Exposing the true faces of traditional Islam is what I seek. I hope by this, individual Muslims will better educate themselves and reform. I have no sinister motive.

But among those questioning my motives in this very forum, are agents of Islamist and terror organizations; the Sunnite Muslim Brotherhood and the Shiite Khomeinists. For now, I shall not name names. But they know themselves. They are the ones with sinister mission.

usermane:
^^^^

How can a grown man, privileged to live in the developed world justify Hadith #8 as analogous to racist prejudice that excuses a white man who murdered a black man in US.?

For such reason, it can be really exhausting delving back and forth to address the inaccuracies that he prattles as refutations. Hence, my decision to sometimes let the sleeping dogs lie.

I knew it. I said in my earlier post that this is not about race. It is the law itself. It is just uncommon that black man kills white man in Florida and Stand Your Ground Law is invoked. We are yet to see that. Until then, what is presumed now is that Stand Your Ground Law is unfair to some people and it give preference to certain people over another, the same way you think hadith 8 gives preference for Muslims.

I'm not trying to turn this to race thing. I saw with my two eyes a white cop murdered a white man (I think in Florida) inside hotel. And judge set the cop free. So this is not about race. This is about the law is unfair just as much as you think hadith 8 is unfair. Period.

You also failed to see that those people have separation of church and state. If they set a law, you don't see it as religious one. But if a Muslim country innocently sets a law that is independent of Islam, you still blame "traditional Islam" while you ignore theirs. This is exactly their plan.

Another example is Saudi banned women from driving. Just because it is Islamic country doesn't mean the law is Islamic. But they still blame religion. The reason for this is because we don't have separation of mosque and state. Is this difficult for you to understand?

The other point i raised which you ignore, is not domestic one. That is even inline with hadith 8. When was the last time Nigeria imprisoned British citizens?. Are there no British citizens that have committed crimes?.

Yes, they are. UK govt would ask for their extradition for the person to face lesser punishment or have his or her charges dropped because they believe they have better laws and better jail system. So they won't allow their citizen to be jailed outside. Quiet frankly, I support this. But Nigerian citizens in the UK will spend time in UK prison. Nigeria doesn't have power to extradite in most cases.

UK gives this preference for her citizens to display their dominant empire over her former colonies. Do you dare criticize this law?. How does this differ from Hadith 8?. I see no distinction between the two. This is what Hadith 8 stands for. Take it or leave it.

If my first analogy was inappropriate, is this one also inappropriate?. Answer please?. You failed to realize that many of these Western laws were tapped from Islam including their social wellfares during colonial rules. But the douchebags you called leaders in Africa failed to be utilize these fantastic Islamic principles.

Empiree:
I knew it. I said in my earlier post that this is not about race. It is the law itself. It is just uncommon that black man kills white man in Florida and Stand Your Ground Law is invoked. We are yet to see that. Until then, what is presumed now is that Stand Your Ground Law is unfair to some people and it give preference to certain people over another, the same way you think hadith 8 gives preference for Muslims.

I'm not trying to turn this to race thing. I saw with my two eyes a white cop murdered a white man (I think in Florida) inside hotel. And judge set the cop free. So this is not about race. This is about the law is unfair just as much as you think hadith 8 is unfair. Period.

OK. First, Stand your ground law is flawed. Need be scrapped or thoroughly modified. It shouldnt be OK to kill someone just cos you 'feel' threatened by them.

Secondly this is not good analogy for Hadith #8. On paper, Stand Your Ground Law can favor any one, of any demographic(Muslim, Non-Muslim, White, Black) for the homicide of someone from another demographic.

On paper, Hadith #8 only favors one demograhic(Muslims) for the homicide of one from another demographic(non-Muslims)

You also failed to see that those people have separation of church and state. If they set a law, you don't see it as religious one. But if a Muslim country innocently set a law that is independent of Islam, you still blame "traditional Islam" while you ignore theirs. This is exactly their plan.

I won't dispute this with you. It will be another rabbit hole. But look at the bright side in it, since they do not attribute their laws and policies to God, it's open to questioning and thus modification.

In Muslim countries, they openly attribute their laws to God. They invoke Islam, & say these laws are immutable. And accuse anyone that question the law of blasphemy and enemity to Islam.

Another example is Saudi banned women from driving. Just because it is Islamic country doesn't mean the law is Islamic. But they still blame religion. The reason for this is because we don't have separation of mosque and state. Is this difficult for you to understand.

I never blamed traditional Islam for Saudi ban on women driving. But I believe for the government to institute such a ban, the Muftis must have supported it.

Empiree:
The other point i raised which you ignore, is not domestic one. That is even inline with hadith 8. When was the last time Nigeria imprisoned British citizens?. Are there no British citizens that have committed crimes?.

Yes, they are. UK govt would ask for their extradition for the person to face lesser punishment or have his or her charges dropped because they believe they have better laws and better jail system. So they won't allow their citizen to be jailed outside. Quiet frankly, I support this. But Nigerian citizens in the UK will spend time in UK prison. Nigeria doesn't have power to extradite in most cases.

UK gives this preference for her citizens to display their dominant empire over her former colonies. Do you dare criticize this law?. How does this differ from Hadith 8?. I see no distinction between the two. This is what Hadith 8 stands for. Take it or leave it.

I criticize that law, it is unfair. If a white British commit murder abroad he must be liable to death sentence even if he's extradited. Same way, a Muslim should be liable to death sentence for murder of a non-Muslim even in an Islamic State.

Funny, for some reason, you think any one that criticize traditional Islam must be an ardent supporter of every policy in western democracies.

usermane:


I criticize that law, it is unfair. If a white British commit murder abroad he must be liable to death sentence even if he's extradited. Same way, a Muslim should be liable to death sentence for murder of a non-Muslim even in an Islamic State.

Good man. I have achieved my aim. You have just acknowledged my point. So there isn't a need to argue further. I can guarantee you that British will not execute their citizen who commits murder abroad. So let's just say it is a "law of favoritism". So now you have not only hadith 8 to condemn but theirs too. As long as they have theirs it is pointless to keep critisizing hadith that you don't feel fit.

Funny, for some reason, you think any one that criticize traditional Islam must be an ardent supporter of every policy in western democracies.

If I didn't put this pressure on you, you would not recognize my point. So I don't necessarily think you support "them".I just feel you are irrational sometimes. And one more thing, I don't see nothing really wrong with Western democracies by extension of its practices, they actually have elements of shariah compliant rules.

usermane:


OK. First, Stand your ground law is flawed. Need be scrapped or thoroughly modified. It shouldnt be OK to kill someone just cos you 'feel' threatened by them.

Secondly this is not good analogy for Hadith #8. On paper, Stand Your Ground Law can favor any one, of any demographic(Muslim, Non-Muslim, White, Black) for the homicide of someone from another demographic.

On paper, Hadith #8 only favors one demograhic(Muslims) for the homicide of one from another demographic(non-Muslims)



I won't dispute this with you. It will be another rabbit hole. But look at the bright side in it, since they do not attribute their laws and policies to God, it's open to questioning and thus modification.

In Muslim countries, they openly attribute their laws to God. They invoke Islam, & say these laws are immutable. And accuse anyone that question the law of blasphemy and enemity to Islam.



I never blamed traditional Islam for Saudi ban on women driving. But I believe for the government to institute such a ban, the Muftis must have supported it.

Lol, you went to research Stand Your Ground Law. I can tell from your writing Yes, on paper it is in favor of everyone. Unfortunately the reason it is mostly in a favor of White is because gun law (CCW -Conceal Carry Weapon) despite being there for every qualified citizens, if you as a black man should carry weapon, chances of getting killed by cop exist before knowing you are a legal CCW holder. This is why it is not common in Black community to CCW.

So I don't support this law whatsoever. It's dangerous

Arabs Observed Salat Before Muhammad, God Never Condemned their Procedure.

In Qur'an 8:35, God used the word 'salat' for the practices of the pre-Islamic Arabs whom He chastises. It's discernible that this verse doesn't condemn the salat procedure of the Arabs, it seem rather to condemn the carefree mindset of the Arabs to salat.

Muhammad could have learnt from these Arabs. Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians performed salat in Muhammad's days. Given the resemblance of traditionalist's salat with these religious communities', Muhammad could have borrowed a leaf from them.

Salat Without Hadith

Salat loosely translate to communication. Anyone actively, humbly and mindfully speaking to God is practically performing salat, regardless of their religion, regardless of their procedure. If the traditionalist's procedure of salat is the only acceptable one, the Qur'an would have alluded it.

Of course, going by the Qur'an alone, individual Muslims may have varying procedures of salat. So, for a congregational salat, such variation is easily addressed by mutual agreement on a specific procedure among congregants when they offer salat behind one imam.