₦airaland Forum

Empiree:
This is poor submission on your part

May be so. But the implication of the Hadith is my utimate point. If the likes of Abu Bakr had been guaranteed paradise, the messenger would not have said; "But I do not know what you'll do after me". And Abu Bakr would not have wept.

Empiree:
Egyptian leader mocked hijab in 1958

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=978982428918793&id=276157035868006

It wasn't mockery and wasn't hijab in itself. It was more of undermining compulsory headcover for women as in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Please, collect and digest information adequately from alternate sources before copy and pasting.

basugar441:
Ha..... thought you were done with your skewed thoughts on Islam. Still on the path of "Quran alone"...... May Allah grant you shifa

Sorry to disappoint you, sugar man. But I'll be sure to contact you when I'm done with my skewed thoughts...... May Allah grant you sabr

AbdelKabir:
Do you also believe Allaah does not know they will probably be misled when he said:

"So if they believe in the like of that which you believe, then they are rightly guided, but if they turn away, then they are only in schism "(Qur'an 2: 137)

Read and digest the verse again. It says nothing about the companions and their descendants remaining steadfast till death.

Allaah also says:

And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers' way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination.(Qur'an 4:115)

Allaah even made it clearer here that if you don't follow their path you are going to hell.

The believers' path is the Qur'an. And I follow the Qur'an. As for the companions and their descendants there is no irrefutable proof that they remained in the path. From existing evidences, most of them wavered, very few remained steadfast.

So have you seen your compound ignorance? You claim to follow only the Qur'an and yet don't know anything about it except what you read online....

And what do you know about the Qur'an? That it encourage terrorism and bloodshed for the sake of Islamic state, that it sentence a thief to amputation for stealing a tuber of cassava?

I'm willing to entertain your criticism of my writings here. But if you become too much of a nuisance, I won't hesitate to deal with you.

The Messenger said over the martyrs of Uhud, "I testify for them." Abu Bakr as-Siddiq said, "Messenger of Allah! Are we not their brothers? We entered Islam as they entered Islam and we did jihad as they did jihad." The Messenger said, "Yes, but I do not know what you will do after me." Abu Bakr wept profusely and said, "Are we really going to out-live you!" ---------- Book of Jihad: Muwatta Malik

Hence, there is clear possibility that earlier Muslim generations were misled and have misled subsequent Muslim generations.

The Qur'an did not guarantee them paradise, it reveals paradise has been prepared for them. Paradise is prepared for the good-doers, but if these good-doers later slip into evil, they never reach paradise.

With that in mind, No one knows if the earliest companions remained in good till death. Not even Muhammad according to the following hadith;

Continue below

Qur'an 9:97-110 explain that among the early Muslim Arabs with Muhammad were those adamant in hypocrisy and highly liable to transgress the Qur'anic standards. At least, these verses require us to be cautious of the traditions and practices relayed from early Muslims.

But what about Muhammad's nearest companions, the Muhajiroon & Ansar? Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Aisha, Abu Hurayra etc. Didn't Qur'an guarantee them paradise? Didn't they meet the Muhammad and learn from him?

Continue below

Could much of the early Muslims have deviated from Monotheism?

The view among Muslims on salvation is that it is easily attainable if one sticks with consensus on laws and doctrines. The 'consensus' refers to the view of the majority of the scholars or community from the first three generations of Muslims.

But if Christians and Jews have been misled by their early jurists, it is not impossible that Muslims have been misled also by theirs. Qur'an 25:30 already foretold Muhammad's testimony on the last day; his people(Arabs) abandoned the Qur'an.

Continue below

Table of Contents

Could much of the early Muslims have deviated from Monotheism?

Obedience - To God Alone

Obey God and Obey the Messenger

Obedience to God Alone - Obedience to Qur'an Alone

Are Hadith Divine Revelations from God?

Are Hadith Divine Wisdom(Hikma) granted to Muhammad?

Did Muhammad explain/clarify the Qur'an?

More Verses Implying Qur'an is Clear & Self-explanatory

Why Our Guide is Not Muhammad

Muhammad's legislation: The Messenger Vs The Chief

Salat, Fasting, Zakat & Hajj according to God Alone.

Example: How Hadith Turns Muslims From God

Belief in Intercession is Polythesim

Few Hadith on Intercession breeding Complacency and downplaying Good deeds

The Two Testimonies and Polytheism

Veneration & Invocation of Muhammad: Polytheism or Not?

Empiree:
my only critisms are around Ottoman and yazidi.

As for sahaba, nope.

Since Allah has praised them, and well pleased with them, then, I have no objection.

Please read these verses; 9:97-110. To know the different kinds of sahabas that surrounded Muhammad. God is well pleased with anyone who do good, and promise them paradise. But this does not imply they remain infallible till death.

You can say what you want. They fought so that you can have Islam today and make salat in peace without non-Muslims shutting you up.

Oh, I must thank them for bringing Islam to me. And must overlook the lives their jihad cost.

With or without their effort, Qur'an confirms that Islam will reach the people. No need to go initiate war with neighboring countries.

Empiree:
you did until I clamped you. I can see how you now try to say "it is not all traditional Muslims". Good to hear

You have no proof. Depending on the subject, I might use the word; some, few or most. I never use the word; all.
Sometimes I just say "traditional Muslims", but I don't expect readers to assume I mean all Muslims.

The truth is you're unhappy that I criticize your ideology and so have accused me of many things like "seeking to please Christians, overlooking transgression of Christian West, demonizing Muslims, Dajjal etc."

I'm sure I did in the past on this platform. Maybe not with you but someone else. And no, you aren't following Sunnah yet but I will give you benefit of the doubt.

You never did in the past. And I highly doubt you can. Know why? Because you'll end up disapproving the actions of the "sahabas". And you do not disapprove the sahabas, do you? No. They're too perfect for that.

Therefore, I see no reason you bashing
"traditional muslims".

Show me where I bashed traditional Muslims. Please show me. I task myself with criticizing sharia and Hadith. I may cite practical application of such Hadith by Muslims but I never accuse all Muslims of desiring their application.

I guess this is what you mean by peacemaker right?

Yes.

You wanna reform?. Reform yourself first by accepting the Sunnah of the messages

I'm already striving to reform by following his sunnah(Qur'an). You who cannot even condemn your doctrine of offensive military jihad is the one that need reform.

Empiree:
F isn't your position clear where you stand now?. When I brought this up you have nothing to say but this?. I brought picture of John M. posing with terrorists but you said nothing. If these things don't ring bell to you, then, what's the point of having convos with ya, humm

John M is not new to me. If you read my thread on Trump Muslim ban, you'll see that I realize the secret role of Western government agents in fueling wars in the middle east.

It was for that reason, I refuse Muslims or any peacemaker from settling in those countries because they inevitably contribute to wars. But you jumped in to oppose me. Because, beyond this constant victimhood narrative on your part, you and many Muslims only pay lip service to the plight of those victims of "Christian Jihad" in the middle east.

Yet am not bias enough to think western Christians generally approve the role of their own countries militaries in these wars, especially in 2018.

I ask again, how many Muslims condemn offensive Jihad by Islamic States?

Empiree:
Don't forget this

This is British.

This is one of their mutawwatir hadith

This is what you mean by Hadith? If I bring to you the statement for jihad by a military commander of Muslims in the WW1, will you treat it as Hadith?

how relevant this is?

Since you said Christians haven't moved on, I wanted to show you that there is a reason why Muslims like you can at least settle in the Christian countries in 2018. You think this would've been possible a few centuries ago?

Oh, and Saudi Arabia is not the heartland of Islam. Makkah is the only site that qualifies for such a title. There were Christians and Jews all over Arabia even after Muhammad.

consult your Old Testament. You like
searching for ahadith that suit you, why is
this difficult to search?. Those pictures you
saw are pictures of the British authority.
Take it or leave it.

You're d one making the claims, so present the Hadith. I'm not a Christian and I know relatively little about their texts. Which is why I speak little about them. Christians have their issues but I believe Christian reformists are better fit to address them. So no need to feel victimized or picked on by my criticisms.

And so far as we speak, the percentage of CHRISTIANs who condemned highlighted part is below 40(%).

I'm not exaggerating. I'm speaking from experience. More and more Americans are coming out to condemn the war by US or Israel. There've been protests, condemnatory remarks by numerous organizations consisting of Christians.

I ask you again, how many Muslims condemn offensive jihad by legal Muslim state military?

"according to some muslims". This is not evidence. It is Haram for average people to
kill someone even if the alleged victims were
guilty. Only court has the right to do that.
Simple

Khomeini is not just some Muslim.

no, the ayat is talking about individual sense. Authority has the right to set law and punish offenders.

You have no proof for this. The individuals constitute the authority. The verses speaks directly to Muslims in general.

You commit blasphemy against Hinduism by slaughtering cows.
You commit blasphemy against Christianity by freely preaching Jesus is not Lord, even in Christian countries.

Humble yourself. If you feel your faith insulted, turn away. The most you can do is to admonish the blasphemers.

I'm sure by now hebdo would have preferred to be sent to jail than his current situation in the grave now because he's not finding it funny down there anymore. But I don't support his killing like rat.

Love how you confidently say this. Despite your traditions contain blasphemous depiction of Muhammad. Sex with a 9 years old kid. Pedophilia is pedophilia even in the 7th century. But yea, this is not blasphemy because Hadith narrators were Muslims.

Empiree:
"moved on"?. Seriously bro?. Which world you live?. They moved on but the text still crystal clear blue black in their literature?. You are fantastic

So I respectfully reject your idea that they moved on. Move on my foot. Look at attachments

You can't reject my idea because you're witness to it. It's because they've moved on or are moving on that Muslims like you have been able to settle in their countries, practicing & propagating your faith while enjoining rights that citizens of Muslim countries can only dream of.

I was gonna to show you 8 mins video the other day that was shot 10years ago in response to Pope Benedict 16's comments. The Christian guy tried to explain separation of church and state by saying Bible and Christianity can not be held responsible for crimes committed by CHRISTIAN politicians like GWB and Blair.

He said further that "on the other hand, you muslims said Islam is way of life and there is no separation of mosque and state. Therefore, whatever Muslims do, Islam and Qur'an muslims be held responsible. This is exactly what I tried to explain to you before.

So fine, this is the way it is. He tried to play smart but he forgot that when GWB invaded Iraq, there written on there on guns John 3:16 and they had bunch of Western pastors travelled to Iraq to preach Gospels to the point that a pastor preached to his congregation that "I think my God is good God but their (muslims) God is the devil." Apart from that, GWB said God told him to destroy Iraq. So tell me how they moved on, bro?. Average Christians don't have to involve in any of these acts. Their CHRISTIAN leaders are doing it for them unlike Muslims who don't have Central authority.

Perhaps, we may still find traces of extremist Christianity here and there. But I have met too many American Christians that condemn the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. I have met those who regret the crusades in the middle ages, who condemn Israel.
Average Christians today don't recognize the authority of presidents in their religious affair.

But how many Muslims condemn the invasion of Persia and Byzantium empire by early Muslims? How many condemn the ISIS like take over of Saudi Arabia by Wahhabists few centuries ago? How many Muslims denounce Jihad by Islamic state?

Do you get the picture yet?. So when I said there is no physical evidence that muslims did these barbaric acts you saw in these pictures, I'm taking about Muslim authority not average citizens. But in those pictures, those who carried out these evil acts were people in authority not average white CHRISTIANs. You understand?. So do you see clear difference in treatments btw Islamic authority and Christian authority?.

You didn't cite the Hadith that motivated those Christian authorities to mistreat blacks.
If you call these authorities Christian authorities, you need to cite the Christian sahih Hadith that influenced them.

Very simple. Was their act of disrespecting Sacred Book moral?. I bet you it is immoral.

You didn't indicate if this was extrajudicial killings but I believed it was. Therefore, was it justified for them to be killed in that manner without due process in court?. Answer is no.

Their killing was extrajudicial. According to some Muslims, it's justified to kill a blasphemer without court approval, as long as there is clear evidence against the blasphemer. I keep reminding you of the Hadith of the blind man.

I remind you of Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1988.

Therefore, both sides are guilty. Only authority has the right to carry out execution. And if authority did, they would right to do that. But you would still blame that on "traditional muslims" forgetting that this is authority.

I do not blame all traditional Muslims directly for every mess in Muslim states. Can you show me where I did that? What I generally blame traditional Muslims is ignorance and silence to the problem.

@underlined, this is the problem. Court has no right to do this. Please read Qur'an 4:140, 6:68-69.

You're indirectly saying Charlie Hebdo cartoonists deserve death. Which is the kind of mentality that motivated Charlie Hebdo shooters. Such a mentality is not common among Christians like it is among Muslims.

Empiree:
My point is, since you like critisizing traditional Muslims historically, the reason I posted these pictures was to show you that they had barbaric historic moment, too. So I asked which documented speeches (tradition, in another word, hadith) they used or that instructed them to carry out these inhumane activities?. Isn't they're Bible?

Their Bible? I highly doubt it. Unless I can find Bible passages condoning these.

Yes, there are some barbarity(aside maltreatment of blacks) that can be found in Bible & have been justification for crimes in the past.

But Christians have moved on. You rarely find Christians that want to kill apostates or stone adulterers.

Even at that, there is no physical evidence that muslims treated humans (similar way) as seen in these pictures. You only read "barbaric ahadith" (Muslim tradition) but there is no physical evidence that many of those instructions in the our Hadith were carried out.

I have covered some physical evidences in modern times. There are historical and contemporary examples.

2012
In Pakistan, a Christian couple were burnt to death in a kiln for allegedly dumping a copy of Qur'an with refuse. Still recall the Hadith of the blind man that killed his slave-wife?

1990s
In Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Farag Foda for blasphemy and apostasy.

To say there is no physical evidence that these Hadith were implemented is insensitive to all the victims in past and present.

Empiree:
Usermane,

perhaps there are "ahadith" these folks followed too that instructed them to carry out these acts in their traditional beliefs

I never said EVERY mischief in the Muslim world is due to Hadith.
But a lot of them owed to hadith and general interpretation of Islam(Ijma). And I have proved that over and over. So what is the point in these photos?

You're ass hurt because I call out the state oppression of individuals in the Muslim world, justified with sharia. Isn't that right?

Essential Reading:

1. Undercover Polytheism

More like an overview of this thread. It outlined 5 elements in traditional Islamic doctrines that deeply violate monotheism.

Disclaimer:

I'm not a traditional Muslim, but heterodox one. So my views here do not represent traditional or mainstream Islam.

I'm heterodox in that I take the Qur'an to be the only authority in Islam. No Hadith, No Imam, No Ijma.

Objectives

This thread will be periodically updated to:

- analyze the Qur'anic verses on monotheism, a concept grossly misunderstood due to evil machinations of the enemies of God.

- scrutinize the practices and doctrines of mainstream Islam highlighting the anti-monotheistic components that need to be purged.

- educate Muslims on monotheism and thus beware of associating partners with God.

ForeWord

Qur'an: 4:48 God does not forgive that partners be set up with Him, and He forgives what is beside that for whom He wills. Whoever sets up partners with God has indeed invented a great sin.

Qur'an: 12:106 The majority of mankind do not believe in God without remaining polytheist.

The Qur'an is clear that most mankind, including Muslims, associate partners with God even while believing in Him. May the Lord count us among the monotheists.

Acknowledgement

This thread has been created to expose the evil face of hadith that is often denied or distorted to resemble contemporary secular democratic laws or policies.

Regardless of whether one agrees that hadith should be rejected as authority in Islam, any observant Muslim that that embraces Qur'anic spirit of human rights and freedom will find this thread a breath of fresh air.

I take pride in the fact that I'm the only Muslim on the section that condemns abusive and backward teachings parroted as hadith and sunnah.

Table of Content Now Available

A Table of content has been posted in the introductory post of the thread. This is to ease the reader in surfing through topics that span over 100 posts and 5 pages.

https://www.nairaland.com/4594366/why-quran-alone-2.0#69014448

This is a repost of the third post that had been deleted. After reading, click on the link at the bottom to return you to the next(fourth) post chronologically.

lexiconkabeer: (1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

I reserve much respect exclusively for lexiconkabeer for staying honest to the truth. The assertion and brevity in his post sums it up, he has the backing of the scholars. Something that none of his opponents on this thread can boast of. Here's to his proof;

- Hadith on unconditional killing of apostates
- All the schools of law in traditional Islam stipulate death sentence for leaving Islam.
- The first civil war in traditional Muslim history was launched by Abu Bakr as Sadik against apostates.

With this much evidence for killing apostates, it will be impossible to convince some Muslims otherwise. Thus, whether 40%, 30%, 20% or 10%, as long as there is this much hefty evidence in traditional Islam, there'll always be those that stand with lexiconkabeer.

It's why it's long overdue for traditional Islamic teachings to be reformed. As long as the orthodox teachings from the middle ages remain canon, we'll never have a community of Muslims that agree on freedom for apostasy.

Next(4th) Post

So, I wrote a satire pointing this out. And as evident, Empyree took the satire literal, writing that I proved his point. Beyond this, I laughed at my screen and took off for a week.

Through this episode, Empyree neither condemned the 'Islamic' republic nor the blasphemy law. And this is not necessarily a surprising thing, for it's proof of his degree of high-handedness as a person or Muslim.

As typical, Empyree delve in with poor analogy, a pathetic attempt to excuse the 'Islamic' republic or portray me as bias.
Empyree ask of me to read Aafia Siddiqui.

But Aafia Siddiqui is a poor analogy with Aasia Bibi. Aafia was not charged for blasphemy or criticizing anyone or ideology. Aafia is on charge of terrorism(Innocent? That's a different story). Comparing Aafia with Aasia is like comparing apples with orange.

A Poor Refutation & Letting the sleeping dogs lie

Hadith #6 proved the action of Charlie Hebdo shooters conform with traditional Islam and thus exposed Muslims that shamelessly deceive the naive and gullible.

As another proof of injustice & evil espoused by 'hadith and sunnah', I cite the case of Aasia Bibi on death row in 'Islamic' Republic of Pakistan for saying, "What did Muhammad do for the world?" in a reproachful tone during a religious quarrel with a Muslim neighbor.

I couldn't deal with it, standing behind an imam that is reciting silently? You don't even know if he is reciting or not. If he recites aloud, all you hear is a foreign language that you don't understand, that the Imam himself may not understand, that up to 70% or more of the congregation do not understand.

Salat has a puporse that transcends unity or uniformity in procedure among Muslims.

Bye To Traditionalists' Congregational Salat

Untill 2013, I was very active in Sunnite and Sufite Mosques. The more I investigated Islam, the more the traditionalist salat seem pretentious, bereft of substance.

Silent or excessively loud recitation, invoking Muhammad, singing verses and humming, all in violation of Qur'an and Reason.

So, if an observer remark that Muslims' Salat is just singing and humming, does this mean Muslims just enter the mosque, singing anything and humming?

No?! Likewise, the Qur'an 8:35 is no indication that the Arabs were just clapping and whistling.

After the Imam sings the Verse, a Bass, a Chorus can be heard from congregants behind the Imam; "Aaaaameeeen". This usually comes with a Humming sound. A novice listener won't even know it is "Amin".

Notice how similar this is to a Church choir, only difference is that Christians may add little music.

Singing, Humming & Clapping/Whistling in Traditionalists' salat

Clapping/Whistling:
Already explained above.

Singing & Humming:
To an observer, the recitation of Imam is akin to Singing. Imam treats the Qur'an passages like lyrics, he sings them like musical Verse sang by professional singers.