7 Questions

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I'm not highlighting these to downplay atrocities committed in the name of religion -- but to point out that if you focus only on such atrocities you'll naturally think that religion is somehow a driving factor.

I understand. I was trying to get at something broader with my phrase “religious attitude,” that I think would apply to, say, the Nazis a ...[text shortened]... e in the name of their religion in the future... I’m happy just to use the word “extremist.”[/b]

I will try to answer your question but I have a comment on your post. And it may be part of my answer too.

The war "Jihad" of course interpreted evey where as violance, war or something like that. But the word itself in Arabic doesn't mean that. And what it imply in Islam is not ony war.

"Jihad" came derived from the Arabic verb "Jahad" (In Arabic almost all words should has an origin to a verb and derived from it)

This verb means hard, difficult or made with troubles (My translation is not accurate) but to make it close andother word derived from it is "Moghad" = tired.

So the direct meaning of the word doesn't imply vilonce or war. In Islam it simply any act that you do in hardship for the sake of GOD.

So under this definition many things may be named "Jihad":

The prophet Muhammed called self control and worship the "Big Jihad" = "Al Jihad Al Akbar"

And when his wife asked him about "Jihad for women" he replayed by the Pilgrimage.


You may call what I'm doing here "Jehad" too., because I'm really facing a lot of problems 🙂

And of course it include war because in the war there is a lot of struggling and one may loose his life.

The question here why all the other meaning of word disappeared and Muslim extremist and the West ignore all the other meanings and stick with the meaning commony understaned today. I think there are many reasons for that:

1. The most important thing is ignorance. Ignorance of Islam from both muslims and others. Islamic laws and faith is not being tought in schools or university (For example in Egypt my country only my university teach Islamic scinces which are many) . So most of Muslim youth don't know really know what Islam want from them. So they can be eseally told "Jihad is to kill others" and you know the rest. That is actually what happen.

On the othre side people in the west don't know Islam, so if you tell them by media , Muslims beilve in Jihad and they want to destroy your civlisation no one can argue that.


2. I think as lucifershammer said , politics and power control the destiny of the Majority. And the Majority is afraid because every one think of himself. The result is that if a voice came out to say somthing that doesn't match what politics want. The voice is elminated directly and the result is more and more of submission.

There are many voices in Islamic countries try to change, but they are very week and are not supported by the Majority.


I hope I made my Idea clear...........

Originally posted by ahosyney
I think you know that there are two sources for Islamic Laws: Quran and Hadith. Hadith is simply what the prophet Mohammed did or say. As you said in Quran it is 100 striks but it was narated that prophet Mohammed did punish a man and a women who admit adultery by death.

So as I said if they accused person didn't marry before the punishment is 100 strik ...[text shortened]... ough you may not be accused for it but you repentance will be incomplete. But GOD may accept it

Abu Yusuf [d. 183] records in al-Radd ‘ala Siyar al-Awza‘i:
The Prophet said: The hadith about me will spread. So what comes to you about me and is in agreement with the Qur`an is from me and what comes to you about me and is in conflict with the Qur’an is not from me.
Shafi‘i in his al-Risalah records the following hadith:
The Prophet said: After my death you will split up on the basis of different opinions. When something reaches you which is attributed to me, compare it with the Qur’an; when it corresponds with the Book, it is from me; that which is at variance with it is not from me.
Abu Yusuf [d. 183] accepted this hadith as authentic but Shafi‘i [d. 204] rejected it, calling it weak.
________________________________

Here is a detailed article (goes to 5 pages) examining and rejecting the hadith supporting al rajm—and rajm itself:

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning1.htm

The author’s conclusion, after extended analysis, is—

We thus see that the above traditions are fabrications, in which some supporters of al-rajm have tried to solve the difficulties raised by their belief in al-rajm. Each time they solved one difficulty by their stories, they created some more, which they then tried to solve by still more stories. May God guard us against the misleading power of the fabricators and those who too readily accept their concoctions.

In Part I we saw that if we start by accepting rajm as truly an Islamic punishment for adultery prescribed by God and his Messenger, then there is no reasonable explanation of why the Qur`an prescribes 100 lashes for zina` without ever mentioning rajm. Most supporters of rajm say that the Qur`anic penalty is for the unmarried person and rajm is for the married one. But as we saw in Chapter 1 there is incontrovertible evidence that the Qur`an covers both cases when it talks about zina` and its punishment. Moreover, this view does not offer a reasonable explanation of why the Qur`an left out the more important married case. This leads to the conclusion that there is real conflict between the penalty of rajm and the Qur`an. Recognizing this, some supporters of rajm have resorted to other explanations – that the Qur`an was abrogated by the ahadith about rajm or that the Qur`an did prescribe the penalty but the relevant verse was removed or got lost. But these explanations were seen to be no more tenable than the one that limits the Qur`anic penalty of 100 lashes to the unmarried case.

The reason that a vast majority of Muslims came to accept rajm is that they accepted the authenticity of ahadith that talk about it. But in view of the fact that the penalty of rajm is in conflict with the Qur`an or is at least problematic in the light of the Qur`an, the authenticity of the ahadith about rajm comes under serious suspicion. This requires that at the very least we should carefully examine these ahadith for their authenticity before accepting them, if not to reject them outright because of their contradiction with the Qur`an. But such an examination has not been done by the supporters of rajm. They are simply content to make a general appeal to the argument that rajm is prescribed or assumed in a large number of ahadith found in many Hadith collections with varied asanid and that therefore these ahadith are authentic.

When we have a large number of reports repeating a theme, we need to look at each report separately. The reliability of the whole group of reports is no greater than that of the most reliable of the individual reports. Consequently, if we do not find any one tradition that can be confidently declared as reliable, the whole group cannot be declared reliable. Moreover, in case of ahadith about rajm we need to use the strictest possible standards of reliability, since, as noted several times earlier, there are strong objections to their reliability on the basis of the Qur`an and since accepting them means taking a human life by a very painful method.

The following are less extended comments I found on other sites:

_________________________________

Criteria for the Evaluation of Matn

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practiced by others but were not known and practiced was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.

—http://www.rim.org/muslim/hadith.htm

_______________________________

Bukhari (Vol.8. Hadith No. 809): “Narrated Ibn Umar (RA): A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah’s Apostle (S) on a charge of committing illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them: ‘What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?’ They replied: ‘Our priests have innovated the blackening of faces with charcoal and Tajbiya’ (being mounted on a donkey, with their faces in opposite directions, then mortified in public). Abdullah bin Salaam said: ‘0 Allah’s Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah.’ The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajm (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salaam said to the Jew: ‘Lift up your hand.’ The Divine Verse of the Rajm was under his hand. So Allah’s Apostle (S) ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned.”

Abu Hurairah’s (RA) version in Sunan Abu Dawood: The Prophet (S) had already received the Divine Verse on punishment for adultery

“Narrated Abu Hurairah (This is Ma’mar’s version, which is more accurate): A man and a woman of the Jews committed fornication. Some of them said to the others: Let us go to the Prophet, FOR HE HAS BEEN SENT WITH AN EASY LAW. If he gives a judgment lighter than stoning, we shall accept it and argue about it with Allah, saying: IT IS A JUDGMENT OF ONE OF YOUR PROPHETS .. (the story continues). So I decide in accordance with what the Torah says. He then commanded regarding them and they were stoned to death.
“Az-Zuhri said: We have been informed that this verse has been revealed about them. ‘Verily. We did send down the Torah (to Moses), therein was guidance and light, by which the Prophets who submitted themselves to Allah’s Will, judged the Jews’.” (5:44) …. (Hadith 2093)

Tafseer-e-Usmani has yet another point of view: (Commentary on Surah An-Noor, Verse 2): “.... and his punishment is stoning, as given in Surah Maidah (Verse 43) with the reference of the Taurat: “How do they come to thee (0 Muhammad) for a Judgment while with them is the Taurat - it is the Decision of Allah.”

What a contradiction of Shabbeer Ahmad Usmani’s point of view, according to which the Prophet (S) had derived the law of stoning to death from the Taurat! ... and here we have Ibn Katheer contending that there WAS already a Rajm verse in existence but the Holy Prophet (S) REFUSED TO WRITE IT DOWN. WHY did the Nabi (S) refuse to write the verse down? Let the “maulanas” answer this question!

Conclusion:
(1) The Jews came to the Holy Prophet (S) because they were aware that HE HAS BEENSENT WITH AN EASY LAW, that is, 100 lashes for adultery, instead of their own (Jewish) law of stoning to death.
(2) Moulvi Shabbeer Ahmad Usmani contends that the Holy Prophet (S) derived this law of stoning to death from the Taurat, and that he even thanked Allah for the fact that he could revive a dead law.
(3) Ibn Katheer and Nasai tell us that the Prophet (S) REFUSED to write down an existing Divine verse about Rajm.
(4) Umar Ibn Khattaab (RA) and Ibn Abbas (RA) inform us that the Rajm verse was lost ~ abrogated. They are not sure on this point.
(5) Allamah Al-Suyuti, the eminent classical Mufassir, has this to say: “The Book (Qur’an) is before everybody and there is NO reference to Rajm in it whatsoever.”
After a thorough examination of all the Ahadith on the subject of stoning to death, he came to this conclusion: “The assertion that a verse about Rajm was revealed, is based on Ahadith that are AHAAD (isolated), and these CANNOT supersede the Quranic injunction (of 100 lashes) or cast doubt on its purity.” (Al-Suyuti. ITQAAN FEE ULOOM AL-QURAN. Vol. 2,P. 26)

—from ahttp://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/stoning_for_adultery.htm

___________________________________

“Shariah” is defined as ‘a body of doctrines that regulate the lives of those who profess Islam”. The doctrines are derived, inter alia, from two principal sources: the dictates of the Divine Being as enunciated in the Holy Quran, and the exemplary life of the Holy Prophet of Islam (S), referred to as the “Sunnah”.

Stoning to death has been emphasized time and again as the “Shariah” law. It most certainly is NOT! The punishment prescribed by the Shariah of the Quran is ONE HUNDRED LASHES each to the adulterer and the adulteress, in public. (24:2)

Continued...

Continued from above...

The Quran makes no distinction whatsoever (as the “maulanas” do!) between adultery and fornication, between married individuals and/or single persons. Zina, in the Quran, refers to adultery (sex outside marriage), and that’s that.

For a married slave-girl, the punishment is Half of that given to free women - that is, FIFTY stripes (4:25). If a woman is to be stoned to death, pray, how on earth can one HALVE this punishment? The silence of the legalists, jurists and Imams to this question is ear shattering! This, of course, indicates absolutely, and without the slightest shadow of a doubt whatsoever, that the Almighty NEVER prescribed stoning as punishment for adultery, but FLOGGING A HUNDRED TIMES.

Stoning to death for adultery is Biblical Shariah - NOT an Islamic Shariah. When a woman apprehended in adultery was brought to Hazrat Eesa (AS). He pronounced the time-honored verdict, he told the huge crowd: “Let him who is without sin among you, be the first to cast a stone at her.” (John-8). The entire crowd dispersed, realizing that not a single one among them was without sin. But Jesus himself could have stoned her, because he was without sin. But he did not. He told her to “go and sin no more”, thus showing his exemplary mercy and incomparable compassion to the woman!

—http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/stoning_to_death_is_not_shariah.htm

______________________________

I am not really qualified to argue this, so I will let you read these viewpoints of other Muslims (especially the first article), and make up your own mind. Be well.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will try to answer your question but I have a comment on your post. And it may be part of my answer too.

The war "Jihad" of course interpreted evey where as violance, war or something like that. But the word itself in Arabic doesn't mean that. And what it imply in Islam is not ony war.

"Jihad" came derived from the Arabic verb "Jahad" (In Arabic alm ...[text shortened]... upported by the Majority.


I hope I made my Idea clear...........

I understand. Thank you.

Originally posted by vistesd
Continued from above...

The Quran makes no distinction whatsoever (as the “maulanas” do!) between adultery and fornication, between married individuals and/or single persons. Zina, in the Quran, refers to adultery (sex outside marriage), and that’s that.

For a married slave-girl, the punishment is Half of that given to free women - that is, FIFTY strip ...[text shortened]... viewpoints of other Muslims (especially the first article), and make up your own mind. Be well.

I didn't have time to read the complete article. I got my second baby 15 hours ago and he is very noisy 🙂

Any way , as you know Sunah is complementry to Quran. Many Islamic telents are not described in details in Quran. The most clearer example is the Prayer. Quran is concentrating on the importance of the prayer and it is the most important part of the Muslim faith. Althoug the detiled describtion of the prayer is found in Suna, the practive it self, the number of powes and what a muslim should do, and the prayer timing. So without a trusted Suna Islam will lose most of its credibility. So Islamic scholars pay a great attention to Hadith and they way it is transmited from one generation to the next one starting from the Prophet to today. The hadith is not accepted unless every one in the narration chain is trusted. So there is no way that something is narated from the Prophet and he didn't really do or say.

Of course there are many ahadith that has an untrusted authers and they are well know and there are two complete Islamic branches of scince deal with this matter "Mostalah al Hadeth" and "Al Garh Wa El tadel" , they define a strict rules to acceot hadith , and to trust any person who narrate Hadith. This result in many Hadith Books that collect the Hadith from different sources and Judje them (Accepted or Not), the two most important books are of course Saheh Al Bukhari and Saheh Muslim. Every Hadith in each book is accepted from any muslim and there is no doubt that they are true act or say of the prophet. There are also other books that contain a majority of Accepted Hadith.

So If there is a hadith in Bukhari say that the Prophet accepted Rajm as a punishment of Zena. Then it happened.

Many of those who claim being Muslims attack Suna and try to prove Ideas such as the one you presented here, as a trial to destroy Islam or a create an new version of Islam that match their thoughts.


Imagin that the punishment of Zena is only 100 striks, Will be a good punishment of such a destructive crime for the morals of the Islamic doctrines.

I will try to find a time to read the whole article and come back to you.

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]I didn't have time to read the complete article. I got my second baby 15 hours ago and he is very noisy 🙂

Congrats ahosyney!!!!!!

Originally posted by ahosyney
I didn't have time to read the complete article. I got my second baby 15 hours ago and he is very noisy 🙂

CONGRATULATIONS!

Thank you all!!!

My congratulations also.