Objectives

- To reaffirm the Universal Human Rights, Freedom and Equity as Fundamental principles of the Qur'an.
- To reaffirm orthodox sharia partly violates principles of Human rights, Freedom and Equity.

ForeWord - 14 years old Muhammad al Motteri murdered in Iraq for looking effeminate and gay.

Iraqi boy of 14, killed for looking gay

The gruesome murder of the 14 years old boy in Iraq few days ago have sparked condemnation worldwide. No doubt, traditional Muslim scholars would condemn this as usual but unless the ideology and mentality behind such hate and violence is admitted and condemned, more will be hunted and killed on grounds of homosexuality.

"Ahh" the apologists will say, "Vigilante justice not acceptable in Islam". Cut the crap! Vigilante justice or court justice, once homosexuality is proven, the penalty is death in Sunnite or Shiite religion. That is bad enough.

Continue Below

Qur'an doesn't necessarily condemn effeminate men, emasculate women or homosexuals. Public and uninhibited expression of self-indulgent lust between males is what the people of Lot were guilty of. Even then, it is God that punished the people. Not Lot, not the believers. We leave the punishment to God.

Unfortunately, Muslims reject the Qur'an for hearsay. So, in Iraq, though no full implementation of sharia and homosexuality is not criminalized; in bid to 'rid their society of evil', fanatic Muslims take upon the task of killing homosexuals outside the judicial system.

Continue Below

Self righteousness & Hypocrisy. Holier than thou! A Muslim whose own traditions relay that the messenger consummated his marriage with a 9 years old kid, whom he had married at 6 years of age. Pedophilia?! Such Muslim have no right to condemn to death two gays in private, consensual romantic or marital affair.

Warning:

I'm an heterodox Muslim, Qur'an I accept, Hadith and Ijma I reject for my doctrines. Thus, my views on Universal Human Rights, Freedom and Equity(UHRFE) do not conform with mainstream orthodox Islamic view.

My intent here is not necessary to portray Qur'an as a book for UHRFE, for the Qur'an is a text, open to reader's interpretation. And depending on the reader, Qur'an may be proponent or opponent of UHRFE. Individuals' interpretation of Qur'an is influenced by their mindset and pre-conceived notions prior studying Qur'an.

Continue Below

My intent is to present an interpretation of Qur'an in harmony with UHRFE. Hence, I reject the "official" interpretation of the mullahs adopted from ancient jurists like Ibn Hanbal and exegetes like Ibn Kathir, heavily influenced by hadith.

There is no official interpretation of Qur'an and no one group of persons have the monopoly over interpreting Qur'an. For those bored of the mainstream interpretation opposed to UHRFE, this thread may be worth following.

Continue Below

NB: Puzzled? Why do I reject Hadith? Study my thread, Why Qur'an Alone 2.0. And follow my thread, Muslim: Monotheist Vs Anti-monotheist.

Some muslims are reasonable afterall. Never knew that Mohammed actually married an infact for real, maybe thats where the Lifeless one got his inspiration.

Why Notable Muslim Voices Rarely Affirm Universal Human Rights

Simply because, full orthodox sharia is in violation of Universal Human Rights, Freedom & Equity(UHRFE). Be it stoning adulterers, amputating thieves, estimating women's testimony to be worth half of men's, prohibition of a Muslim from inheriting from non-Muslim and vice versa, etc.

As sharia largely contradicts UHRFE, for a conservative orthodox Muslim to affirm UHRFE will be ignorance or deceit. Hence, the Organization of Islamic countries(OIC) unveiled the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam(CDHRI) several decades after the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) in the 20th century. Of course, the CDHRI is basically inadequate and repeals many of the rights in UDHR.

Continue Below

So, notable Muslim figures, scholars or Imams rarely assert gay rights or rights of religious minorities like Christians, Baha'is and Jews residing in the Muslim world as second class citizens. And except for the ban on female motorists, these figures rarely criticize the Islamist regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Muslims who understand and reject sharia for UHRFE exist, but for fear of backlash from the Muslim community or persecution by the Muslim authorities, most of them opt not to speak out. The few that do speak out have only little following from the community and often have to deal with undesirable consequences.

usermane:
Self righteousness & Hypocrisy. Holier than thou! A Muslim whose own traditions relay that the messenger consummated his marriage with a 9 years old kid, whom he had married at 6 years of age. Pedophilia?! Such Muslim have no right to condemn to death two gays in private, consensual romantic or marital affair.

Although I am not pro 9 year old hadith. I am only for or against it base on whoever i talk to. I personally do not believe the hadith is valid base on ayah of Quran which portrays wife of the prophet(saw) as woman. But according to hadith, a girl at 6 to 9 is still a child or young girl base on another hadith which portrays Aisha(ra) playing with a doll. That's my reason for rejecting the hadith when i dialogue with fellow muslims.

But when i dialogue with christian, bcus they have ulterior motives to mock our prophet(saw), i simply point several reasons why they can not mock him and get away with it. My arguments against them on this issue are as follow:


according to some christian literature, Mary, a young girl at 12 married to 99 year old Josef


historically, many non-muslim cultures, clergymen, kings, warriors etc both pre-medieval and post medieval era married young girls as young as 10 -15 yrs of age


in our contemporary world, western world especially, looking into thier marriageable age by state, shows that a girl can marry as young as 15, 16 etc depending on state.


we have bunch of pre-teen who have babies everywhere like roaches




These 4 points highlighted are enough to shut them up. When it comes to you however, going by your analysis up there, you failed to reason logically. You forgot that you can hardly find any muslim male who marry a girl as young as 6-9. No one follow the hadith (sunnah). But you applied 1400 years old documented evidence to non-practical act in 2018 and then compared to a condemnable act of homosexual. Therefore, you are very illogical. If you can identify a 50 year old muslim man who marries 6 yr old child in our time, only then you may be right about pedophilia. But guess what?. The only place pedophilia is obvious and still in existence is in christianity (vatican). You have no point at this time. Or if you wanna talk about child abuse, you will find it there too in the name of baptism


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-nUicOvaXY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zzZBku-s-s

Backlash Against Muslims that are pro-Universal Human rights(UHRFE)

For Muslims in Muslim majority countries, speaking for UHRFE can be suicidal. Many have been imprisoned(Raif Badawi), executed(Muhammad Taha) or assassinated(Farag Foda) for condemning sharia and indirectly demanding UHRFE.

As for the west, any Muslim is free to speak against sharia & for UHRFE, but it is daunting as such speakers often face death threats. Aside death threats, intimidation, emotional blackmail, slander are among the backlash from the fanatics of the Muslim community against Muslims pro-UHRFE & anti-sharia.

Continue Below

My Ordeal as a Muslim anti-sharia & Pro-UHRFE

For instance, some few weeks ago, I dialogued on this forum with a Muslim, Em. I expressed my disapproval of governments like Saudi Arabia imposing "Islam" on the people; like banning business during salat or enforcing headscarf on women.

I believe we as Muslims have no right to force anyone to wear a headscarf or dismiss their activity for salat, or avoid public eating in days of Ramadan. We may enjoin people to what we believe are Islamic doctrines, but we must never coerce them or penalize them if they refuse.

Continue Below

I point out to Em that many Muslims oppose imposing "Islam" and they respect individual Muslim right & freedom to comply or not comply. Here is Em's reply:

You're just trying hard to take Islam away from people. But guess what? It won't work. Many westerners are coming to Islam. They're gonna be disappointed if they see you speak like this. It is shameful of you.

https://www.nairaland.com/1794405/islam-muslims-side-talk-station/154#71959994

Continue Below

This is emotional blackmail. He tries to guilt trip me with slander of hindering Islam, simply because I affirm no Muslim should be forced by Muslim authorities to do salat. Emotional blackmail is wicked tool employed by abusive people, sociopath and narcissist to subjugate their victims' minds into giving in.

I have never hindered anyone from Islam, salat. Never. But at least 4 days monthly, 48 days yearly and 40 days post natal, Em and his co-traditional Muslims literally ban women post puberty from salat. Yet, some Muslim maniac have the audacity to cast aspersion on my motive?

Continue Below

To add more fire to the emotional blackmail, Em concludes with; "It is shameful of you".

How tactless, how sad. How much more hideous and obnoxious can a man get? And in his subsequent posts after I lashed out at him, he regresses into intimidation by gloating and taunting, and further emotional blackmail.

Continue Below

Wary of slanders & blackmail from Muslims like Em, very few Muslims in favor of UHRFE dare to speak up even if they live in free societies like US, Nigeria or UK. In this forum alone, except my own threads, you'll find no other thread that espouse an interpretation of Islam harmonious with UHRFE.

I... had to develop thick skin to retain my sanity when dealing with fanatic Muslims, Muslims that would have murdered me under sharia governance for my writings, Muslims that share the same ideology with ISIS but only differ from ISIS on military tactics or fealty to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

You were given exactly what you wanted hear and now you are fuming?

Em and his co-traditional Muslims literally ban women post puberty from salat.

I don't get you ^^^

Freedom of Speech - Freedom to Blaspheme

A collection of verses on people ridiculing Islam will be dealt with here. Qur'an does disapproves blasphemy, but harmonious with freedom of speech, it stops short of stipulating earthly penalty to be meted out on blasphemers.

Continue Below

Qur'an 9:65-66

If you ask them they say, "We were only jesting and playing." Say, "Is it God and His signs and His messenger you were mocking?" Do not apologize, for you have rejected after your acknowledgement. Even if We pardon one group from you, We will punish another group, because they were criminals.

No penalty decreed here. God's conclusion as underlined indicate that the fate of the blasphemers lie with Him, He will apparently decide whom among them to pardon and whom to punish. This leaves no responsibility of their fate to Muslims.

Continue Below

Qur'an 4:140

It has been sent down to you in the book, that when you hear God's signs being rejected and ridiculed in, then do not sit with them until they move on to a different subject; if not, then you are like them. God will gather the hypocrites and the ingrates in hell all together.

Another verse, blasphemers here again, no penalty legislated. Muslims are required to just avoid the company of blasphemers. This is the limit concerning blasphemy; God will decide the fate of the blasphemers, leave their presence while they blaspheme, return once they stop. No more, no less.

Continue Below

But what about Qur'an 9:12

If they break their oaths after their pledge, and they defame your religion; then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.

Continue Below

Reading Qur'an 9:12 in context, blasphemy was only punishable for the polytheists in Muhammad's days who violated their treaty and harmed or killed Muslims. Once Muhammad conquered Mecca, these polytheists were to pay with their life, but God instructed Muslims to pardon the criminals if they embraced Islam.

If after embracing Islam, these criminals still defame Islam, it proves they never sincerely repented & embraced Islam. Thus, Muslims are permitted to fight them. The permit to fight here is against the treacherous polytheist in those days, not non-Muslims/Muslims in every generation and era that blaspheme.

usermane:
Reading Qur'an 9:12 in context, blasphemy was only punishable for the polytheists in Muhammad's days who violated their treaty and harmed or killed Muslims. Once Muhammad conquered Mecca, these polytheists were to pay with their life, but God instructed Muslims to pardon the criminals if they embraced Islam.

If after embracing Islam, these criminals still defame Islam, it proves they never sincerely repented & embraced Islam. Thus, Muslims are permitted to fight them. The permit to fight here is against the treacherous polytheist in those days, not non-Muslims/Muslims in every generation and era that blaspheme.

See how beautifully you defended this ayah. But to non-muslims, it is "violent satanic verse" regardless of what you think of the ayah bcus they have made up thier mind. My point is, you brilliantly restricted the yah to "context of war" against specific group of people, polytheists of Mecca in prophet Muhammad's days, who violated their treaty and harmed muslims.

So if you can defend this brilliantly, why then you refused to apply the same context with this hadith you used to criticize "traditional muslims"?. This hadith:



“I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.” (Fath al-Bari, volume 1, page 95) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) [Abridged by A Group of Scholars Under The Supervision Of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri. Maktaba Dar-us-Salam – Second Edition, 2003] volume 4, page 377)”

We should bring together all the narrations and verses that mention the context in which the Prophet made this statement and interpret them comprehensively and consistently, rather than taking a single narration out of context. Other narrations make clear that “fighting the people” here refers to the Arab tribes who rebelled against the authority of the Muslim community in Mecca after the city was liberated from the idolatrous aristocracy. The demand for them to accept Islam was not to compel individuals to practice Islam, but rather to compel them to accept that the holy city would no longer serve as a pilgrimage site for idols.

When we analysed the report in its historical context, we saw that the Prophet (p) gave amnesty and forgave the polytheists for the wrong they had done to the Muslims and their non-Muslim ally, Banu Khuza’a.

The polytheists Makkans with Banu Bakr attacked and murdered members of Banu Khuza’a, an ally of Prophet Muhammed. Previous to this incident, the Quraysh agreed to a treaty two years back promising not to break the treaty they agreed too with the Muslims. Soon after, the Quraysh with Banu Bakr attacked and murdered members of Muhammed’s ally, the Banu Khuza’a tribe. This led to the conquest of Makkah.

“The Messenger of Allah said: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: ‘La ilaha illallah’. So when they say that, their blood and their wealth are safe from me, except for a right, and their reckoning is for Allah.” Then he recited: So remind them – ‘YOU ARE ONLY ONE WHO REMINDS. YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR OVER THEM’ (Quran 88:21-22). (Jami at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3341 (Eng. Tran., Sahih, Darussalam))

This is also reported in Sahih Muslim:

“It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur’an): "THOU ART NOT OVER THEM A WARDEN” (lxxxviii (88), 22).” (Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 32 http://sunnah.com/muslim/1/35 )

Pay close attention to both reports where the following is said:

“YOU ARE ONLY ONE WHO REMINDS. YOU ARE NOT A DICTATOR OVER THEM’ (Quran 88:21-22).”

And:

“then he (the Holy Prophet) RECITED (this verse of the Holy Qur’an):” THOU ART NOT OVER THEM A WARDEN” (lxxxviii (88), 22).”

The Prophet (p) is literally quoting word for word Quran 88:21-22. So what is the significance of these words some may ask? Well, since we know for a fact that he quoted those words in the same sentence of fighting the idolaters, the verse shows that the Prophet (p) forbade forced conversion. He commanded his companions not to forcefully convert anyone.

Classical to contemporary scholars all agree that this verse was revealed to the Prophet (p) that forcing someone to convert to Islam is categorically forbidden (Haram). Let’s read S. 88:21-22,

Told you before it is in context of war. Nothing more

usermane:
Freedom of Speech - Freedom to Blaspheme

A collection of verses on people ridiculing Islam will be dealt with here. Qur'an does disapproves blasphemy, but harmonious with freedom of speech, it stops short of stipulating earthly penalty to be meted out on blasphemers.

Continue Below

usermane:
Qur'an 9:65-66


No penalty decreed here. God's conclusion as underlined indicate that the fate of the blasphemers lie with Him, he will apparently decide whom among them to pardon and whom to punish. This leaves no responsibility of their fate to Muslims.

Continue Below

Here we go. This is non-Muslim country enforcing blasphemy law. If you don't understand Quran, kindly step aside.

More verses for Freedom to blaspheme

15:94-97

So proclaim what you have been commanded and turn away from the polytheists. We're sufficient for you against the mockers. Those who set up with God another god; they will come to know. We know your chest is strained by what they say.

Muhammad never punished those who blasphemed and mocked him, he turned away from them. This is how Muslims should respond when Islam is insulted or blasphemed, if they indeed accept that God is sufficient for them.

Continue below

13:32

Messengers before you were ridiculed, but I gave respite to those who rejected, then I took them. Then how was My punishment?

This indicate the fate of those who ridicule Islam lies not with Muslims, but with God. He grant them respite first, then eventually punish them.

33:48

Do not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and ignore their insults, put your trust in God; God suffices as an advocate.

Again, an instruction to ignore those who insult Islam. All from the Qur'an.

usermane:
More verses for Freedom to blaspheme

15:94-95
So proclaim what you have been commanded and turn away from the polytheists. We're sufficient for you against the mockers. Those who sat up with God another god; they will come to know. We know your chest is strained by what they say.

Muhammad never punished or those who blasphemed and mocked him, he turned away from them. This is how Muslims should respond when Islam is insulted or blasphemed, if they indeed accept that God is sufficient for them.

Continue below

usermane:
Qur'an 16:44 is often cited as proof that clarification of Qur'an constitute Muhammad's role.

In light of the aforementioned verses, a more adequate interpretation of this verse is that Muhammad clarifies the Qur'an, but he does so by reciting the verses that clarify other verses in the Qur'an that might have seem unclear to the people.

You are a super literalistsalafist

Empiree:
You are a super literalist salafist

Is this an oxymoron or a paradox?

A literalist is a person who adheres to the literal representation of a statement or law.

A Salafist/Salafy/Wahabi/Ahl-Sunnah is a person who follows the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad according to the understanding of his companions and their students!

Now, how can a literalist be a Salafist?

Rashduct4luv:



Is this an oxymoron or a paradox?

A literalist is a person who adheres to the literal representation of a statement or law.

A Salafist/Salafy/Wahabi/Ahl-Sunnah is a person who follows the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad according to the understanding of his companions and their students!

Now, how can a literalist be a Salafist?

if you know you know this guy also holds on to literal representation and he submits to the text as you do. "We hear and we obey" is what he believes.