Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:


Good advise!

Annie Anthrax wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:


Yes this is the mainstream view - unfortunately. I confess to swallowing it too, until I started to read about the importance of free thinking in the Quran. The call for muslims to understand truth by using their "intellect" or "reason" comes up time and time again - it is a central theme. The conventional view on the Ahadith - that someone from the 10th century tells us that it is 'sahih', and that automatically prevents us from using reason to question them - is anathema to the Quranic message.

And *WHY* is it considered proper for muslims to accept these man-made anecdotes of a mere mortal man as on the same level of authority as the Quran? It makes no sense.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:


The Ahadith are a mind-bogglingly large collection of anecdotes about The Prophet - running into the 10s of thousands, even if we include only the sahih collection. The problem with them is that they were only recorded on paper about 200 years after Muhammad's death, and it is a known fact - even amongst the most ardent hadith followers - that the vast majority of them are fake - either created to demonise The Prophet by islam's political enemies, or to promote the political agenda of a particular political group or rulers - eg one hadith says that Allah will only remember the good deeds of the Caliph, not the bad - obviously fabricated by a particular Caliph, or supporter of that Caliph. At this stage, the ahadith only existed through oral tradition, and so several islamic scholars - such as Bukhari and Muslim and Abu Dauod - began the task of trying to determine which ones were authentic. Their method was to analyse the 'isnad' - chain of transmission (John narrated to Bob who narrated to Joe......[until it goes as far back as one of The Prophet's contemporaries] who heard The Prophet say...) - and to determine the character and reliability of each and every narrator in the chain. Thus Bukhari is said to have wittled down a pile of some 200 thousand to just over 6 thousand - or around 2 thousand unique ahadith after taking into account the same stories repeated by different narrators.

Anyway, thats a rather long-winded summary of what they are. The key issue around Quran vs ahadith, is that the quran mostly leaves out the details of how muslims should practice their faith. This includes the political/social aspects of how an "islamic state" should run. So understandably, those muslims who insist on an publicly intrusive islam that creates a full social and political system, the quran is wholly inadequate, and they must look to the ahadith for instruction on these. My problem is that the rules and systems muslims who advocate the sharia state come up with, are merely the rules and systems that a mere mortal ruler came up with for the needs of his people in a very specific time and place. Nowhere does it say those practices are divinely inspired, and must therefore be followed by all muslims for all time.

... "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 8:58pm:


The Quran is in no way a manual for how to run a state. There are a few specifics - eg laws around marriage, witness testimony in legal matters, rules of engagement in war, and not a lot else. Nearly all of the things you hear about being part of the sharia come from the ahadith - including the most notorious things like stoning for adultery and death for apostasy.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 8:58pm:


Both those theories have been debated by muslims and non-muslims alike. Another more radical theory is that it is left deliberately open - to leave room for adaptation for the specific circumstances of any given muslim society. Or even more radical - perhaps it is not even meant as a system of government (shock horror!). The Quran after all, is overwhelmingly - perhaps 95%+ about the personal responsibilities - that are purely a matter between the individual and God, and not matters for the state to interfere with. And this is an actual islamic movement that goes right back to the dawn of islam. They were called the "murjiites" - which in arabic means "postponers" - they advocated "postponing" all judgment of muslims in matters of faith until the only true judge - God - makes His judgements. Or in other words, they advocated a state that didn't police or judge citizens on matters of faith - which is really just following the Quran.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 9:41pm:


You know, FD, you seem to have rather an unusual fixation with this topic.   

You are aware I hope that the Bible condones sex with slaves, FD?   It was afterall, common practice in most slave owning societies of antiquity and medieval times.  However, that's straying from the topic of the thread...

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:


Are you able to back this up with verifiable evidence?

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:


Please back this statement up with hard evidence, or shut up.

Please define "Islamophobes"

Adamant wrote on Aug 15^th, 2014 at 10:55pm:


It is the multiple of "Islamophobe", Adamant.   

Please explain?