Challenging the basis of Shari'a law

[Spite]

Yet another Muslim thread!

 

Background:

 

There are two main sources of Islamic law. Firstly the Quran, and secondly the tradition, which includes the historical record of the life of Muhammad (Sunnah) and also his recorded sayings (Hadith).

 

Muslims believe the Quran to he the literal word of God- Muhammed wasn't passing a message, he was literally repeating what God (or the angel Gabriel) was saying to him. If you read the book you'll find firstly that a lot of the passages start with "Say!" because Muhammed is literally being told to repeat what he's being told. You'll also notice it's quite garbled and out of sequence. Because it was recorded as Muhammad was talking, and never edited (only compiled), it often doesn't make a great deal of sense. Unlike the torah and the Bible it wasn't really edited for flow.

 

The Hadith and Sunnah were written long after Muhammad died, in a different country. Their power lies in the fact that the Quran commands believers to emulate the prophet. So if Muhammad says he loves lamb chops and sits down to put on trousers, these things are seen as good.

 

The Hadiths and Sunnah have two criticisms. Firstly that Muhammad's throwaway comments are his, not the word of God like the Quran. Secondly they were written so long after his death their veracity is to be doubted.

 

Early Muslim scholars recognised this and divided his sayings into books depending on their reliability. It got to the point where people were "remembering" how Muhammad had said various things to justify their position. They divided sayings into "reliable", "unreliable" and "bullshit" basically. To try and make them as reliable as possible, they tried to trace back the Chinese whispers and verify the reliability of each source. If a saying fit with the Quran, went back through a bunch of known trustworthy people to the prophet, then it was reliable. If it magically appeared and someone heard Muhammad mutter it once when they were changing his bathwater, it probably wasn't reliable.

 

So to come back to the point, Islamic law is heavily reliant on the Hadiths for its basis. Especially regarding the ever controversial laws surrounding sex and women.

 

For example, the Quran says:

 

"your wives are a tilth to you, so go to your tilth when and how you will, and send for yourselves beforehand"

 

This is interpreted to mean you should only have sex with women vaginally because you're supposed to plant your seed (tilth) with them.

 

However it isn't explicitly backed up anywhere in the Quran. However it is backed up by the Hadiths, one of which amusingly says:

 

"cursed is he...who has sex with a woman through her back passage"

 

There are loads of examples of this. For example though the Quran says homosexuality is wrong, it says that two men who have sex can be forgiven if they repent with no punishment. In the Hadiths it says they should be killed.

 

Since a lot of the 'extreme' Islamic law comes from the Hadiths, not the Quran, we have to question how much comes from the people who compiled them not Muhammad. At the time the Hadiths were compiled, there was active dispute between rational and traditional factions in the caliphate. The Hadiths were compiled after the traditionalists won. To me this makes them somewhat a political tool and lacking in authenticity.

 

Discuss.

 

 

Ps. This thread is not on whether Islam is good or bad, immigration, or race. It is about the veracity of the Hadiths and whether their lack of contemporary sources undermines much of Islamic law. This has been a debate in Islam for over a thousand years.

[Prezyan]

From what I just read, wouldn't it be obvious that the Hadiths do not have any actual basis? If the Quran, as you said, is supposed to be the literal word of God, then who cares what the Hadiths say? As you stated, the Quran says the homosexuality is wrong but can be forgiven, whilst the Hadiths say they should be killed; wouldn't in the event of a direct conflict between the two, one would always refer to the Quran as being correct?

 

It just seems more logical for me, that if I was a muslim, I'd hold the Hadiths with a grain of salt when being compared to, ya know, the literal word of God.

 

What I do wonder is why Islamic law is reliant on the Hadiths for basis. I'm sure a lot of rational muslims would realize such radicalism from the Hadiths have no place, so I wonder how the Hadiths gained more authority than the Quran in such matters.

[Spite]

The Quran always takes precedent. Hadith that contradict the Quran are taken to be fabricated (or bullshit as I put it). The argument is that the Quran says people should do what Muhammad did and emulate him, and the Hadiths are a collection of things attributed to him as sayings. Some of them have multiple sources, but as I said often it's a single chain of references and it does seem strange to me that so much of Islamic law relies on them.

 

Actually at one point the caliph said that they were bullshit, and a scholar responded by saying that if he disregarded some of the Hadith, he would disregard all of them. Since the Hadith represented his right to rule and also his legal system, he changed his mind.

[Mike Haggar]

Not being versed in Islamic theology, I can only comment that all religious scriptures must be taken on faith to some extent. While I might dislike the same teachings that you use as an example, I don't think you can simply debunk an entire set of teachings that way. Forgive my Western background for a moment, but a Christian would consider it lunacy to claim the New Testament was wrong because it contradicts the Old Testament (it does, a lot). Generally, they consider the New Testament as an update to the beliefs, although why fundamentalists think they can eat pork while shaming homosexuality when both are banned in the Old Testament only is beyond my ken. 

 

Maybe the Sharia supporters consider new revelations as better interpretations of the old one? Many of them are still horrible people, but any sort of abstract religion is difficult to debunk solely on its face. That's why concrete religions died out, because it's easy to see that Mt. Olympus is empty once you get to the top. I can't prove that some completely hidden force doesn't run the universe, even if it's actually Spiiderman.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Mike Haggar

[Spite]

The whole Bible is airbrushed by numerous translations, rewriting and so on. The whole point of the Quran is it is unedited - that's why you have to read it in Arabic, to ensure there is no confusion.

 

To clarify, the Hadiths are not seen as divine revelation in any way. They are merely the word of the prophet. People are supposed to emulate the prophet.

 

Hadiths were passed down as oral tradition from the prophet's death in 632ad until around 870ad when the first of the six major Hadith collections used in Sunni Islam was compiled.

 

To establish some sort of authenticity, they traced the oral tradition. To put it in a trite way, it reads "Mike told me John told him Alex told him that the prophet said..." they then evaluate whether Mike, John and Alex are reliable and give the Hadith a reliability stamp between reliable, unreliable and nonsense.

 

So essentially the criticism is that the whole Hadith collection is the end product of Chinese whispers. It's almost certain the prophet didn't say all of them, and people just made stuff up that sounded like something he'd say. All Islamic scholars agree that there are false Hadiths, they just disagree which ones aren't true.

 

The problem is that only about six hundred verses of the Quran relate to laws, and mostly the big ones like murder, armed robbery and adultery. There's nothing in there about drinking beer or masturbating, that all came from later sources.

 

To be honest, apart from the fact that the Quran explicitly states punishments, there isn't much in there that would differ from most legal codes.

[Spite]

If I enter a woman through her back passage and repent do I get un-cursed?

As you're not a muslim, it doesn't apply to you anyway. But if you were a muslim, it would depend really. It's not generally seen as a serious matter, though it is unclean and grounds for your wife to ask for divorce if you do it.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

 For example though the Quran says homosexuality is wrong, it says that two men who have sex can be forgiven if they repent with no punishment. In the Hadiths it says they should be killed.

 

There is no contradiction between the Quran and authentic or "sahih" Hadith.

 

The fact that the Quran says anyone who sincerely repents after sinning will not only be forgiven by God (the most merciful) but their bad deeds would be counted as though they were good deeds... does not contradict Hadith which specifically speak about law and order... for example: If a murderer repents - yes, God in his supreme mercy can forgive him - but the police are still required to punish him if they catch him and the same thing is true in the case of homosexual crimes. 

 

The Prophet (saw) said: "Avoid these sins that Allah has forbidden, but whoever does any of them, let him conceal himself with the concealment of Allah and repent to Allah, for whoever tells us of what he has done, we will carry out (the punishment prescribed in) the Book of Allah on him.â€... so criminal who have sincerely repented are actually commanded to conceal themselves and NOT to hand themselves over to the police to be punished... where is the contradiction? The aim is prevention of sin/crime and not punishment. 

 

The Hadith in which the prophet Muhammad (saw) ordered capital punishment for those found guilty of committing the criminal act of MSM: "Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut (Lot), kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."

 

Is referring to the unrepentant sinners who are still engaged in that criminal activity and it is perfectly in line with the Noble Quran:

 

"And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." But the answer of his people was only that they said, "Evict them from your city! Indeed, they are men who keep themselves pure." So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was of those who remained [with the evildoers]. And We rained upon them a rain [of stones]. Then see how was the end of the criminals."

 

Hadith are sayings of the Prophet (saw) and Muslims are instructed numerous times in the Quran to obey Allah (Quran) and obey his Messenger (Hadith): "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result."

 

You can not be a Muslim and only follow the Quran.

[Buorhann]

Welcome back, Ibrahim.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

"And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed], except by right, and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty. Multiplied for him is the punishment on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein humiliated - Except for those who repent, believe (in Islamic Monotheism), and do righteous work. For them Allah will replace their evil deeds with good. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful." (Quran 25:68-70)

 

If I enter a woman through her back passage and repent do I get un-cursed?

 

(+Believe +Do righteous work) Yes. 

 

Welcome back, Ibrahim.

 

Thanks. I'm very busy with work so not fully back but trying to be more active on the forums.

[Spite]

For the sake of everyone, when you give quotes can you reference them?

 

I wasn't arguing about specific Hadiths, I was arguing that their basis itself is questionable. You say that some Hadiths are beyond question, and it is true that these are normally ones which do not contradict and in fact supplement the Quran. However these were still oral traditions recorded by a man, after being passed down through men for generations. Therefore they do not have the same authenticity as the Quran or contemporary accounts of the prophet.

 

It is known that Muhammad Al-Bukhari collected over 300,000 Hadith or oral records of tradition relating to the prophet, but removing repetition he chose only to include 2600 in his book, which remains the most authoritive book of Hadith. That means he himself judged what was and wasn't a saying of the prophet.

 

As Muhammad was the last prophet, Al-Bukhari was not divinely guided. At best he was guided by Muhammad, though he never claimed that. He was merely a scholar collecting written traditions.

 

It is clear that Al-Bukhari felt that most of the Hadith he collected were not reliable. He used stringent methodology. Later Hadith collectors were not so stringent. I'm not sure how if Al-Bukhari himself had doubts over authenticity how his own work can be taken as divine authority or the proven word of Muhammad.

[Ayayay]

You can not be a Muslim and only follow the Quran.

Who are you to judge?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Who are you to judge?

 

I'm sorry, I'm trying, but all i keep re-reading is a meaningless arrangement of words.

 

This is the fatwa of countless Muslim scholars and part of the aqeedah (creed and belief) of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah (Sunnis).

[Ayayay]

I'm sorry, I'm trying, but all i keep re-reading is a meaningless arrangement of words.

 

This is the fatwa of countless Muslim scholars and part of the aqeedah (creed and belief) of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah (Sunnis).

 

tbh, if I didn't know you're a troll I'd actually post shit but you are so I'm not.

[Rozalia]

I do wonder why you've challenged me on all those times I said Islam in the west needs to be reformed if you're then going to make a thread like this. My view on the Hadiths and how worthwhile they are to keep is quite obvious. 

 

You can not be a Muslim and only follow the Quran.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

 

Yeah yeah we know, apostates and they should be killed yadda yadda.

 

What if she asks for it? Like vocally says "I would like to fornicate through my anal passage".

Would it be ok then?

 

I assume you're then supposed to beat her but... what if she is into that too? We'll need to wait for Ibrahim to answer, he's the supposed expert on Islamic punishments on women due to his ISIS senpais. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Rozalia

[Hereno]

What if she asks for it? Like vocally says "I would like to fornicate through my anal passage".

Would it be ok then?

if she actually seriously uses the phrase "i would like to fornicate through my anal passage", the correct option is to dump/divorce her

[Spite]

What if she asks for it? Like vocally says "I would like to fornicate through my anal passage".

Would it be ok then?

The Quran is vague on anal sex, but the Hadiths explicitly forbid it.

 

The example of Lut that Ibrahim quoted earlier is the only outright condemnation of sodomy in the Quran, and it is actually bound up in a whole bunch of other stuff to do with consent and pedastry. Homosexuality was quietly ignored so long as it wasn't public and men married during most of history because of that.

 

 

I do wonder why you've challenged me on all those times I said Islam in the west needs to be reformed if you're then going to make a thread like this. My view on the Hadiths and how worthwhile they are to keep is quite obvious. 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

 

Yeah yeah we know, apostates and they should be killed yadda yadda.

 

 

I assume you're then supposed to beat her but... what if she is into that too? We'll need to wait for Ibrahim to answer, he's the supposed expert on Islamic punishments on women due to his ISIS senpais. 

 

I'm not anti-Islamic, I'm debating a scholarly topic about the veracity of the Hadiths, their historicity and so forth. You just make crude jokes about how Muslim women ask to be beaten for pleasure. If you're not going to respond on an intellectual level, please stay out the thread. I'm not interested in debating specific Hadiths unless you're debating their origin.

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm trying, but all i keep re-reading is a meaningless arrangement of words.

 

This is the fatwa of countless Muslim scholars and part of the aqeedah (creed and belief) of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah (Sunnis).

 

 

tbh, if I didn't know you're a troll I'd actually post shit but you are so I'm not.

 

Actually on this, Ibrahim is sort of correct. The Quran specifically commands its followers to obey and emulate the prophet, in the same way that the New Testament holds up Jesus as a figure of emulation. To be Muslim, you are supposed to emulate the prophet (who represents the "best" man picked by God) just as Jesus is a role model for Christians. 

 

The life of the prophet and his sayings are the two reliable written examples of his life and teachings (the Quran is the word of God not Muhammad) and so Muslims turn to this as the next highest source of religious law.

 

Third is consensus, which essentially means previous decisions made by wise scholars in Islamic law.

 

Fourth is reason- which basically means that based on the three above you can make your own decision based on the morality outlined in the Quran.

 

 

Arguably the necessity for the Hadiths came from the lack of an organised priesthood. Essentially you had a situation where anyone who was qualified in Islamic law could make judgements and proclamations. In those days, it was purely based on the Quran, with local customs taken into account (called the Sunna at the time). The Hadiths filled in the gaps the Quran left, otherwise you'd have had the faith splintering into a million different sects as soon as the first Caliphate ended.

[Ayayay]

Actually on this, Ibrahim is sort of correct. The Quran specifically commands its followers to obey and emulate the prophet, in the same way that the New Testament holds up Jesus as a figure of emulation. To be Muslim, you are supposed to emulate the prophet (who represents the "best" man picked by God) just as Jesus is a role model for Christians. 

That's not what he said. He said "You can not be a Muslim and only follow the Quran." which is wholly untrue. To be a Muslim the only real requirement is that you believe in the Shahada. You can be a bad Muslim and not pray or whatever but that doesn't make you a non-Muslim.

[Rozalia]

I'm not anti-Islamic, I'm debating a scholarly topic about the veracity of the Hadiths, their historicity and so forth. You just make crude jokes about how Muslim women ask to be beaten for pleasure. If you're not going to respond on an intellectual level, please stay out the thread. I'm not interested in debating specific Hadiths unless you're debating their origin.

 

Did I say somewhere you were anti-Islamic? No, and if the point was that me talking about reform is anti-Islamic than you're no better questioning the Hadiths as you are. I mentioned specific Hadiths? No, in fact when I talk of the reform I'm of the view that throwing them all out entirely would be best so I don't need to quote specific Hadiths saying X, they're all trash in my book.

 

No, I did not make a crude joke about how Muslim women ask to be beaten for pleasure. I'm not blind, I can see your little tricks quite clearly so stop trying 'em.

[Spite]

That's not what he said. He said "You can not be a Muslim and only follow the Quran." which is wholly untrue. To be a Muslim the only real requirement is that you believe in the Shahada. You can be a bad Muslim and not pray or whatever but that doesn't make you a non-Muslim.

 

Except that's not true. The Shahada is a declamation of faith, but it's not the whole faith. It is one of the central mysteries of the faith. 

 

When you say the Shahada, and understand it, you mean you commit yourself to the word of God (Quran) in its totality.

 

The Quran includes a command that you emulate the prophet. Therefore the theological basis for the Hadiths is in the Quran itself. Being a Muslim is about emulating and following the example of Muhammad. The point I'm making is that many of the Hadiths are not as certainly the word of the prophet as Muslims would wish.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

That's not what he said. He said "You can not be a Muslim and only follow the Quran." which is wholly untrue. To be a Muslim the only real requirement is that you believe in the Shahada. You can be a bad Muslim and not pray or whatever but that doesn't make you a non-Muslim.

 

There is a difference between a Muslim who knows it's obligatory for a Muslim to pray 5 times a day but is lazy and someone who outright refuses to pray or doesn't believe it's obligatory to pray 5 times a day. The latter are considered to be apostates whilst the former is considered to be a Muslim who is religiously corrupt (fasiq). 

 

10 nullifiers of Islam.

[Mike Haggar]

Except that's not true. The Shahada is a declamation of faith, but it's not the whole faith. It is one of the central mysteries of the faith. 

 

When you say the Shahada, and understand it, you mean you commit yourself to the word of God (Quran) in its totality.

 

The Quran includes a command that you emulate the prophet. Therefore the theological basis for the Hadiths is in the Quran itself. Being a Muslim is about emulating and following the example of Muhammad. The point I'm making is that many of the Hadiths are not as certainly the word of the prophet as Muslims would wish.

And this brings us to what appears to be the central problem. Your requirements for "emulating" the prophet appears to be different than those that impose Sharia law. You take it as an article of faith that the Quran is the sum total of Islam. They have faith that the Hadiths extend it. Since it's an issue of faith in basic assumptions, neither side can reason their way to a victory.

[Spite]

And this brings us to what appears to be the central problem. Your requirements for "emulating" the prophet appears to be different than those that impose Sharia law. You take it as an article of faith that the Quran is the sum total of Islam. They have faith that the Hadiths extend it. Since it's an issue of faith in basic assumptions, neither side can reason their way to a victory.

I'm not sure if you just didn't read my OP but this isn't what I'm saying at all. Sharia law isn't some extremist version of Islamic law, it is Islamic law. It's partially based on the Quran, partially on Hadiths, partially on consensus and reason. I accept that the Islamic faith extends beyond the Quran, though the Quran is the most important part of the faith since it is the literal word of God. I am not disputing whether or not the life and sayings of Muhammad are to be taken as an example to emulate, I am disputing the accuracy, veracity and historicity of the Hadiths as documented. I don't think, and neither do most medieval scholars, that all the Hadiths are accurate representations of Muhammad

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I'm not sure if you just didn't read my OP but this isn't what I'm saying at all. Sharia law isn't some extremist version of Islamic law, it is Islamic law. It's partially based on the Quran, partially on Hadiths, partially on consensus and reason. I accept that the Islamic faith extends beyond the Quran, though the Quran is the most important part of the faith since it is the literal word of God. I am not disputing whether or not the life and sayings of Muhammad are to be taken as an example to emulate, I am disputing the accuracy, veracity and historicity of the Hadiths as documented. I don't think, and neither do most medieval scholars, that all the Hadiths are accurate representations of Muhammad

 

Can I just say... you're too informed about Islam to not be Muslim

 

And Yes, we acknowledge that not all Hadith are authentic and that's why we only follow authentic (Sahih) Ahadith and reject the fabricated ones (which are known).

[Captain_Vietnam]

Seriously. We need need to focus on anal sex more.

I need to read the Bible again and see if it's forbidden there too..

injury can cause by anal sex. unnatural. god made sex to between man and woman not man and man or man on woman like man on man

 

anal sex should be ban as it dangerous! we ban drugs i think anal sex as well.

 

anal sex is both dangerous and sin against god!

 

in vietnam people dont have anal sex as they know it wrong!

[Ayayay]

I'm bored, let's have fun \o/

 

You can not be a Muslim and only follow the Quran.

Is the Quran not complete then? Yes or no?