₦airaland Forum

3/5. Anti-Islamic and paganist significance of the animal sacrifice.
Still keen on Eid? OK.

Eid to Muslims signifies Abraham’s utmost faith in God, proved by his willingness to sacrifice his only son at the altar on direct instruction from God. This belief that a God of good and justice will test his servant by an instruction to commit evil, to kill his own innocent son is beyond blasphemy. It is reminiscent of pagan customs where human murder sacrifices to appease the gods are conducted periodically.

I theorize that such paganist belief have been imported into traditional Islam from Judaic traditions. Not only does Judaism promulgate such beliefs, but in fact there are reports that certain Jewish sect(s) literally undertook human murder ritual sacrifice as dictated by their traditions.

www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html - Human sacrifice, the Talmud and Moloch Problem.

The Qur’an never confirm such belief, in contrary, it explains that Abraham had wrongly resolved from a dream that God was instructing him to murder his son.(Qur'an 37:102-106).

2/5. The Eid day:
In traditional Islam, Qur’an is an abstract book interpolated and extrapolated by traditions of Muslim ancestors. So Eid-el-Adha has come to be the biggest Muslim festival despite not even the slightest mention in the Qur’an.

The problem though is this; Hajj may be performed anytime within a period of months, it is not limited to 5 days in Dhul Hajj(Qur'an 2:197). Thus, animal sacrifice as Hajj rite cannot be limited to just the 1-3 specific (10-12 Dhul Hijjah) days that mark Eid-el-Adha.
Since animal sacrifice can be done anytime over a window of months for hajj. Basically, no single day can be assigned for Eid-el-Adha.

1/5. The Arafat Day:
Proceeding the Eid day, Muslims fast annually on the 9th of Dhul Hijjah. Of course, it is not in the Qur’an and of course the fast in the Qur’an only pertains to Ramadan, sin atonement or compensation for lapses in hajj rites. Therefore, this is an inherited practice that the Muslim ancestors attribute to Muhammad. But Muhammad lived by the Qur’an and had no authority to invent doctrine and promise rewards.

Yes. And if it stopped at that, it wouldn't be too bad. But Muslims then say that the reward for this fast is forgiveness of all their sins for the "current year as well as for the coming year".

Say what?! The Lord forgives sins that have not even been committed yet? How ridiculous!

I critique Eid-el-Adha in this article. I've been wanting to do for several years, but until I put my pen to paper only recently, even I did not realize how fundamentally flawed the subject is.

This is of course a critique of a Muslim doctrine and however polite I put my words, people are bound to be hurt, and few will be too hurt to even proceed beyond the title.
But I’m afraid, the truth has to be said, and if it mean stepping on a few toes, then so be it.

According to one of my readers;

Maybe you should ask yourself what they have turned Jesus to in the name of freedom of speech. Jesus is nothing but a p*rnstar to them. So, no there is no room for trash talk against prophet of Islam. He's not for sale.

Apparently, this person sees himself as the personal protector of Muhammad's reputation, the Muhammad that his own traditions slander remorselessly. Kind of like an abusive spouse protecting their spouse from an aggressive neighbor. Yet, look again at Muslim traditions narrating Muhammad's nightly intercourse with 9 wives, Muhammad's sexual power of 10 men. "Who" is depicting "Who" a p*ornstar? Isn't this psychological projection of guilt?

Now, even with Muslims criminalizing blasphemy in their countries and protesting against blasphemous cartoons in the West, they are still doing a poor job in protecting Muhammad's reputation. Much poorer than Christians do to protect Christ's reputation. Christians do not revere religious texts that record questionable and filthy details about Christ. Even the harshest critics of Christianity respect Jesus, never call him a rapist, pedophile, slave master, misogynist or murderer.

Unfortunately, this is not the case for Muhammad. As Muslims from the onset revere religious texts that bear degrading and shameful reports on Muhammad, they open the door for character assassination of their own prophet. They then constantly need to defend his reputation. Kind of like a man trying to rescue his family from a house fire started by his own cigarette.

Blasphemy by Muslims against Islam

Hadith books are notorious for negative portrayal of the Prophet. Take an example in hadith on Aisha's marriage and consummation at the childhood age of 9. Hadith report that Aisha at the time was so young that she still played on swings and with dolls along with her girl-friends. For a child at this age to be exposed to sex is child molestation.
By crediting these hadith, the Muslims indirectly portray Muhammad a child molester, pedophile. Today, non-Muslims blaspheme by directly calling Muhammad a child molester, but Muslims are not innocent victims of 'hate speech' in any case. They are just as blasphemous as the non-Muslims.

The books of hadith pack so much details of Muhammad's sexual life that it makes one wonder if Muhammad really was the modest bashful man that Muslims visualize him as. Hadith exist on Muhammad cohabiting with a captive woman in a tent guarded by his companion after the defeat of Khaybar.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/94
The History of al- Tabari, Volume 39, page 185

Hadith on Muhammad having intercourse with all his wives(9 or 11) in a single night also exists.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/5/21

But as the Muslim community is bereft of enlightenment and intellectual honesty, the hadith are rarely ever admitted and all the grievances are channeled on those non-Muslims that express low opinions of Muhammad after reading such hadith.

They harm and murder people for simply criticizing Muhammad, for saying Muhammad did nothing for humanity. Then, they go to the mosque to 'send greetings' to Muhammad. And they say the are protecting the reputation of Muhammad.

Response to more damage control

We received even more damage control from a particular reader. This reader is dedicated, very dedicated to distracting us, by collecting stories from the western world to justify what we condemn in the Muslim traditions. He is non-stop, he is relentless and even when we expose all flaws in his analogies, he keeps coming.

He writes that; "I want you to sincerely read on Aafia Siddiqui from various sources".

Why not? We've exposed the injustice by fanatic Muslims and their religious traditions for so long, it is only justice that we turn our attention to the injustice by fanatic Christians and their religious tradition.

As we read Aafia Siddiqui, we could not help but feel bad for the poor woman. This Pakistani have been persecuted and incarcerated by American Christian court for insulting Christianity. A US Christian politician that spoke in her defense was assassinated, just as Salman Taseer was assassinated for defending Aasia Bibi. An American Muslim representative that spoke in her defense was assassinated, just as Shabbaz Bhatti was assassinated for speaking in defense of Aasia Bibi.

We wholeheartedly, agree with this reader. We see that Aasia Bibi's sentence by the Pakistan court is justified, given the US court sentence on Aafia Siddiqu for the same offense as Aasia Bibi.

In the near future we will open a thread on Christian traditions, how these traditions sanction all kinds of injustice and human right violations and how modern Christians continue to observe these traditions.

Fate of Blasphemers in Muslim world

Apostasy and Blasphemy seem to go hand in hand. You'll have noticed this in the cases I listed for hadith #5, most convicted apostates in the Muslim world also face charges of blasphemy. But here are a few exceptions with satirical commentary.

1. Aasia Bibi
A Pakistani Christian convicted of blasphemy in 2010 and sentenced to death. But is still in prison till date. Her personal account on the event leading to her arrest can be read here; https://nypost.com/2013/08/25/sentenced-to-death-for-a-sip-of-water/

She'd been in a heated quarrel with a Muslim co-worker and it deteriorated into snide remarks about Jesus and Muhammad.
Here are the words that incriminated her;
Aasia: I'm not going to convert(to Islam). I believe in my religion and Jesus, he died for the sin of man. What did Muhammad do for man? Why should I convert to Islam?

Auzubillah Minash Shaitan Rajeem! Damn it!! Kill this woman already. Why's the court still waiting?

How dare you Aasia, how dare you!? Do you understand what this mean!? You've insulted the noble Prophet Muhammad(SAW), the greatest man to ever live, the greatest Prophet of Allah!! Jesus will return as a Muslim, he'll follow the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad(SAW), he'll finally die a Muslim and we'll bury him in the tomb we've reserved for him beside Prophet Muhammad(SAW)'s tomb in Madina.

How dare you compare Jesus with our Prophet. We respect Jesus, but Prophet Muhammad(SAW) is the greatest Prophet. Ever! Aasia, you've been sentenced to death deservedly, you brought this upon yourself.

But Aasia, there is hope for you. You know, Islam is a religion of peace. We Muslims respect human lives, we don't want to kill you. We want to spare you. But you just have to convert, convert to our peaceful religion.

Say this, repeat after me;
Ash-hadu 'an laa'i-laa-ha 'il-lal-laa-hu
wa 'ash-ha-du 'anna mu-ham-ma-dan 'ab-du-hoo wa ra-soo-luh

Say it and we'll revoke your death sentence.

See? It's easy. Allah is most forgiving, most merciful. Is there any religion on earth that grant blasphemers this much mercy?

2. Salman Rusdie
In 1988, Salman Rusdie published The Satanic Verses. A novel with a subplot that borrows elements from traditional Islamic history. Rushdie's characters were rough analogs of traditional Islamic characters including the Prophet. But Rushdie portrays these characters in a much negative light.
There was immediate outrage, fatwas were issued, Rushdie and all those who partook in writing, editing and publishing the books were condemned to death. As weeks and months followed, several of Rushdie's editors and publishers would be hunted and slain by fanatic Muslims.
Rushdie at UK at the time of publishing is still alive today, thank to British government security.

See? These kuffars have been insulting our religion for ages. Now, I know I haven't read The Satanic Verses and I know I will never read it. But damn, I swear Rushdie insulted our religion. This is what they said, right?

Why would anyone insult a beautiful religion like Islam? I mean seriously, have they read Ibn Kathir, have they read At tirmidhi, have they read Ibn Ishaq or At Tabari.

We take our religion very serious, unlike these kuffars. Wallahi, we will kill those who insult Islam, we will behead them, we will not spare a single one of them. We cannot continue like this.

respect80: I need a sound minded Muslim to give a
logical reason or reasons as to why Islam
followers love to obstruct and hinder
people's movements by blocking major
roads especially on Fridays all in the name of
Friday prayers.

If you are asking this question, you already know there can be no logical reason. If we had an ideal government, this wouldn't be allowed at all.

Response to some damage control for Hadith #6

We've received another bucket full of damage control. Let's see what the writer got.

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.

The writer continue to draw faulty parallels to reach half-ass conclusion.
The US is a far better country than anything the sharia activists promise, but it is still evidently flawed. And there are NGOs exposing and condemning what they see as breach of human freedom by FBI and CIA. The American public will never support the execution of anyone for speaking trash about Trump. This is one thing.
Another thing, in the US or Nigeria, you can write a newspaper column or article and publications criticizing Presidents. Sometimes these writers accuse the presidents of trashy things, but they get away with it.

In traditional Islamic law, even polite criticism of Muhammad is not allowed, not even on the internet forums like this. This is far worse than what happens in US or Nigeria.

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.

It'll be great if the writer reference the passage in the constitution legalizing execution and perhaps torture of people who insult the president.

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

.

Nigeria does not officially condone vigilante justice against criminals. Traditional Islam condones it. If a man is lynched in public for stealing a bag of rice in Nigeria, the lynch mob is condemned by the law and will probably be arrested. If a man is lynched to death for criticizing or insulting Muhammad, the lynch mob are justified under traditional Islam.

The persistence on damage control by the writer proves the problem with traditional Muslim society. His arguments are the same ones you'll hear from the likes of Zakir Naik, Yasir Qadhir, Bilal Philips, Khalid Yasin, Yusuf Qaradawi, Nouman Ali Khan, Jonathan Brown and almost every local Muslim imam, many of whom get paid to "guide" people in Islam.

There is a difference between a flawed government system like the US that doesn't attribute it laws to God and a flawed government system like Saudi Arabia and Iran that attribute their laws to God. The former is better in that there is room for change and improvement, while the latter is worse as it is unchangeable. Those who attribute man-made laws to God commit an enormous sin.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

One of my favorite post. Good old days.

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"?

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?

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?

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.

The make up is too much

#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.

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.

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.

#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.

Conclusion:

Thenceforth, the Abbasid Sunnis dominated the heart of Muslimdom, persecuting all other Muslim sects and divisions. Causing the Shiites to flee, converge in north Africa, eventually establish their own empires and codify their own hadith.

Peace

Mutazilah

Historians do not all agree that Mutazilah emerged from the Shiites, but given the emphasis on dialectical reasoning on both sides, a connection between the the two can be made. The Mut'azilah were Arabs of the early Abbasid era, so influenced by Greek philosophy that if they bore any connection with Shiism, they parted with it completely and turned to a philosophical interpretation of Islam.

Obviously, this philosophical approach to the Qur'an detract from the authority of hadith , drawing the ire of the Sunnite Imams. But the Mutazilah would enjoy political tolerance and even prominence under three consecutive early Abbasid caliphs, even though these caliphs were Sunnites. Their eventual fall from grace cemented the dominance of Sunnism in the caliphate, and till their extinction, they remain a truly noble sect innocent of any hadith fabrication.

Sunnism

Commencing with the reign of Ali, the Shiites eventually got to taste the power they'd longed for. But it would not last. The Kharijites first, and then the Umayyads persisted as a thorn on their side. The Shiite leadership were eventually overcome by the Umayyads, who cemented their dynasty after upon laying to waste Hussein, his family and much of the Shiites.

The Umayyad who were relatively secularists did not need religious justification for their flagrant corruption. What they needed was a narrative to counter the widespread Shiite narrative of Imamah that still posed a political threat, even after the tragedy of Karbala. So, Abu Hurayra was employed to demean Ali, while the Shiites exalted him; to endorse the Ummayad while the Shiites denounced them. And thus, Sunnism was conceived. Sunnism is therefore a reaction to Shiism, not a precursor to Shiism.

By the end of the Umayyad reign, fabricated hadith had become propaganda by both the warring Sunnite Umayyad and Shiites factions. In cooperation with the Abbasids, the Shiites succeeded in toppling the Umayyads after nearly a century. But on attaining power, the Abbasids immediately ditched the Shiites, all their doctrines, all their bargains, and declared a Sunnite caliphate.

The Shiite had been fooled. The Abbasid recommenced Hadith fabrication and commenced its documentation. They could not go back on their promise to establish an Islamic state, so hadith fabrication became a means to qualify all their tyranny and transgressions as Islam. The Umayyads had conceived Sunnism, while the Abbasid shaped and fleshed it.

Kharijites

Next comes the infamous Kharijites whose brutality and barbarity seem to have clouded other aspects of their creed. Yet for all their overbearance, they were the product of Ali-Muawiya endless conflict that was tearing apart the empire. In sharp contrast from the Shiites, they were a democratic group and understood better than other sects that Belief without Righteousness is Disbelief. And even though they went overboard with this, it would be inaccurate to define them as just another terrorist group.

The early Kharijites differed on the validity of hadith, lending credit to the argument that hadith rejection is no recent phenomenon. As such it is unlikely that they resorted to hadith fabrication for vindication. Rather, defamatory hadith were fabricated against them. Again, these hadith were passed down till date and Sunnis and Shiites reinterpret them as in indicative of modern Muslim insurgents.

Disclaimer: This is rather an historical piece, and as such is not perfect. No history is perfect. But whatever is written here is verifiable from traditional Muslim and western historic works of early Islam.

Shiism

In the wake of Muhammad's death and interval preluding his burial, Abu Bakr As Sadik and Umar ibn Khatab quietly abandoned Muhammad's family for Saqifa. There, the Ansar were gathered at short notice deliberating on Muhammad's political successor. Sure enough, the duo arrived in time to convince the Ansar to select Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr won the vote of the Ansar, won the vote of most Muhajirun despite the contentious nature of his appointment.

Yet there were those bent on Ali bin Abu Talib and his descendants as the rightful heir of the caliphate, they rejected Abu Bakr, and they began to recite hadith bolstering their claims. These hadith survived till date and Sunnis and Shiites continue to disagree on on their meaning.

Thus the Shiites were the first sect to emerge with a distinct ideology, but for much of the pre-Ummayad era they did not pose much political threat, despite their apprehension for the regimes of prior Ali.

#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.