Do Not Bash Muslims

[JosephZ]

setst777 said: ↑
You don’t understand Sharia or Islam. Sharia is the Gospel of Islam.There is no Islam without Sharia - founded on the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira.

Setst RE: You gave no reply to the above.

I have already given you my opinion Shari'a in this thread.

There is no relation between Shari'a and terror and I'm pretty sure what you believe about Shari'a is not the same as that of Muslims. Shari'a is not much different than halakhah in Judaism or the magisterium found in Catholicism.

Shari'a comes mostly from the Qur’an and Sunnah and is a guide used by Muslims to become closer to God through teaching values, providing a code of conduct, and giving religious commandments which guide Muslims on how to live their day to day lives. The word Shari'a literally translates into "the path" or "the way" and only applies to Muslims. It has no application to non-Muslims, so it's not something to be feared.

Once again you are confusing Sunni and Shia Islam with Wahhabism. The differences are easy to discern, as I have already shown - utilizing Islam’s own sources - what those differences are. You are deliberately ignoring the evidence.

For half of this thread I have been telling you that you are in error for not differentiating between the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow and Wahhabism, it's you that is confused and has been equating the sect of Wahhabism with the religion of Islam.

Setst RE: Wikiislam is founded by an ex-Shia Muslim, and supported by ex-Muslims. I am only concerned with the sources wikiislam is providing – Islam’s own sources. I listed wikiislam as the site from which I obtained the source material. Remember, do not attack or negatively label the messenger just because the sources disagrees with you. You have a habit of putting labels on things based on your own subjective bias.

Do Christian terrorist groups quoting the Bible to justify establishing a Christian state or to commit atrocities against non-Christians; and Christian extremists like the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, or Fred Phelps quoting the Bible make their views and actions Christian? Of course not, and in the same way, simply quoting Islamic texts doesn't make an individual or group's views and actions the authority of Islam.

Setst RE: Shafii Islam takes it as Gospel. For instance, wherever Shafii Islam is practiced in a country, so is female genital circumcision. Doesn't that mean that Shafii Muslims consider it authoritative for their faith?

Certainly not all Shafi'i Muslims. Some are more conservative than others and many are quite liberal in their interpretation of Islam. Even if every single Shaffi'i Muslim did take it as gospel, they are still only representing a minority of the world's Muslims (15-25% depending on the source). The majority of the world's Muslims don't adhere to the Shaffi'i school of thought, and of the 15 - 25% who do, many of those take a more liberal approach to Islamic law than what is found in the Reliance of the Traveller.

All four schools of Sunni, and Shia interpret Jihad in this manner.

That does not tell you what you need to know to understand what Islam teaches in Sunni and Shia and Salafii and Wahhabi – they all teach the same regarding Jihad

All four schools of Sunni and Shia? There are four primary schools of thought found in Sunni Islam, is that what you are trying to say?

[The reliance of the traveller], represents one of the finest and most reliable short works in Shafi'i jurisprudence,

Do you think there is any Muslim devotee of the Shafi'i school who will stand up to condemn what is written in the Reliance of the Traveller as false or wrong?

Most Muslims who follow Islam under the Shafi school of thought wouldn't know what is written in the Reliance of the Traveller. It's not written for the average Muslim on the street (Much less non-Muslims with no background in Islam), it's written specifically for those who practice Islamic law and those in the Islamic legal system. It would be like asking the average American what a book on the US Federal Criminal Code and Rules says about a particular rule or law. They would know little if anything about the book to begin with, and even after they read it they would still be ignorant of what they had just read.

Here again is what I have said about the Reliance of the Traveller earlier in this thread:

Reliance of the Traveler is an abridged legal manual. It is not an easy book to read and it's not the definite or the final authority on Islamic law. Here again is a portion of the text from the introduction.

The style of translating the basic text is an explanative one with interlinear commentary. The reason for commentary, briefly, is that this book, like others in Islamic law, is less the achievement of a particular author than the shared effort of a whole school of research and interpretation in explaining rules of divine origin. The cooperative nature of this effort may be seen in the multilayered character of its texts, whose primary authors often merely state the ruling of an act, lawful or unlawful, leaving matters of definition, conditions, and scriptural evidence for the commentator to supply, who in turn leaves important details for both writers of marginal notes and for living sheikhs to definitively interpret when teaching the work to their students. The sheikhs form a second key resource of textual commentary, a spoken one parallel to the written, and in previous centuries of traditional Islamic learning it was well known that no student could dispense with it. Living teachers were and are needed to explain terminological difficulties, eliminate ambiguities, and correct copyists' mistakes…

Have you ever been in a lawyers office? They have tons of books on their bookshelves to instruct them how laws were intended to be used, case studies, court rulings, etc. The reliance of the Traveler is just one book that Islamic legal scholars, attorneys, and judges use to help them on the subjects of law based on the history of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Hadiths. A non-Muslim reading this book without a solid background in Islamic studies and understanding of Islam will surely misinterpret what is written. How can a non-Muslim like yourself with no formal background in Islam, Islamic history, or law be expected to properly interpret everything written in an ancient 1200+ page Islamic law book?

What's important to note is that Reliance of the Traveller is one single source on Islamic law out of literally hundreds, yet you are taking it as gospel.

Reliance of the Traveler is an abridged legal manual. It is not an easy book to read and it's not the definite or the final authority on Islamic law, nor is it recognized as such by Islamic scholars.

Have you ever been in a lawyers office? They have tons of books on their bookshelves to instruct them how laws were intended to be used, case studies, court rulings, etc. The reliance of the Traveler is just one book that Islamic legal scholars, attorneys, and judges use to help them on the subjects of law based on the history of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Hadiths. A non-Muslim reading this book without a solid background in Islamic studies and understanding of Islam will surely misinterpret what is written. How can a non-Muslim like yourself with no formal background in Islam, Islamic history, or law be expected to properly interpret everything written in an ancient 1200+ page Islamic law book?

I can't stress enough that it is only one book of many on Islamic law. What's more, it's only an abridged legal manual.

What counts on this issue is, FGM is commanded in the authorized texts of the 4 main schools of the Sunni which represent 90% of all Muslims. The only solution to this is to ban the 4 main schools of Sunni, thus their jurisprudence - figh and also the Ahadith where these are sourced from. Can that be done?

JosephZ,
You cannot simply blabber what YOU personally think the 4 main schools of Sunni are about and what the devotees and lay-Muslims of the respective schools have to comply with.

Here's an Islamic source on the subject: https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Female-circumcision-and-its-standing-in-Islamic-law.pdf

Worst you reject the Reliance of Traveller as an authorized reference of the Shafi'i school.

Where have I done this?

 

[JosephZ]

Unlike Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim Abu Dawood Hadith are not declared by Sunni as Sahih, but rather Sunan.

Being Sahih or Sunan has no bearing whatsoever on the authenticity of a particular hadith.

Sunan is the common name given to the books that collect the hadiths of decree.

Hadiths started to be gathered together and written in the first half of the eighth century (second century H); books were written on certain issues beginning from the second half of that century; Sunans appeared when the hadiths about decrees were compiled in the same order as fiqh books.

"Kitabus-Sunan fil-fiqh" by Makhul b. Abu Muslim and "as-Sunan" by Ibn Abu Aruba are the first examples of this genre, which classifies hadiths based on their topics.

Sunans usually include hadiths about belief, worshipping, muamalat (transactions) and uqubat (penalties). The words, deeds and approvals the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) are included in those works along with the fatwas of the Companions and Tabiun.

The first two books of the six hadith books called "Kutub as-Sitta" written in the ninth century (third century H) are "Sahihayn" by Bukhari and Muslim; the other four books are Sunan books called Kutub al-Arbaa or"Sunan al-Arbaa" by Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasai and Ibn Majah.

What does that prove??? Most religious practices within Christianity or any other religion predate those religions. Is the idea that one particular act or teaching of a religion that was practiced or taught earlier automatically mean the religion is false? Where is your common sense?

This is what you said:

Female genital circumcision is founded on the Allah and His Prophet and is presently practiced in at least 30 countries

What that proved is that female circumcision isn't founded on Allah and the prophet Muhammad.

So you say that female genital circumcision has nothing to do with Islam? You just are really naïve about Islam. I already quoted Reliance of the Traveller – Sunni Sharia Figh.

Here is what the introduction to the Reliance of the Traveller says:

The present volume, 'Umdat al-salik [The reliance of the traveller], represents one of the finest and most reliable short works in Shafi'i jurisprudence,

Therefore the Muslims who are followers of the Shafi'i Schools will have to comply with the 'Reliance of the Traveller' as advised by the clergy of the Shafi'i Schools.

As I have said already, Reliance of the Traveller is one single source on Islamic law out of literally hundreds and is not the gospel when it comes to "Sunni Sharia Figh." Is that even a proper term?

The majority of Sunni Muslims don't follow all that is written in the Reliance of the Traveller.

Setst RE: That is not a very educated response. Hadith The fitrah is five things, including circumcision... Note that the rule of hadith dictate that if it is not mentioned specifically or if the pronouns do not point to a certain gender, then the hadith is valid for both sexes. Hence, the following hadiths are applicable for both men and women.

That was exactly my point in asking if Muslim women should trim their mustaches.

You were using that hadith to show that women were commanded be circumcised, but it in no way does this. Your way of looking at that particular hadith would also mean that women are required to trim their mustaches the same as men since you feel that everything in that hadith is applicable for both men and women.

That hadith doesn't command that a woman be circumcised.

And the outfits that these Muslim women wear are by no means shear or loose. Their outfits are securely wrapped around their bodies.

Maybe they just appear to be tight fitting from a distance? I think if you get close enough you will find that they are not nearly as tight fitting as you think they are. I mean even if you do a google search for Muslim women in a crowd, it's pretty clear that their garments are loose fitting.

 

[setst777]

Being Sahih or Sunan has no bearing whatsoever on the authenticity of a particular hadith.

setst777 said: ↑
You don’t understand Sharia or Islam. Sharia is the Gospel of Islam. There is no Islam without Sharia - founded on the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira.

Setst RE: You gave no reply to the above.

I have already given you my opinion Shari'a in this thread.

JosephZ said: ↑
There is no relation between Shari'a and terror and I'm pretty sure what you believe about Shari'a is not the same as that of Muslims. Shari'a is not much different than halakhah in Judaism or the magisterium found in Catholicism.

Shari'a comes mostly from the Qur’an and Sunnah and is a guide used by Muslims to become closer to God through teaching values, providing a code of conduct, and giving religious commandments which guide Muslims on how to live their day to day lives. The word Shari'a literally translates into "the path" or "the way" and only applies to Muslims. It has no application to non-Muslims, so it's not something to be feared.

Setst RE: I already responded to this. When you say there is no relation between Sharia and terror, you show that you only understand Sharia in part.

The part in particular that you neglect deals with unbelievers, how Muslims are to view unbelievers, how unbelievers are to be treated, and Jihad against unbelievers.

That is why Sharia is to be feared by non-believers.

setst777 said: ↑
Once again you are confusing Sunni and Shia Islam with Wahhabism. The differences are easy to discern, as I have already shown - utilizing Islam’s own sources - what those differences are. You are deliberately ignoring the evidence.

For half of this thread I have been telling you that you are in error for not differentiating between the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow and Wahhabism, it's you that is confused and has been equating the sect of Wahhabism with the religion of Islam.

Setst RE: So you say based on your subjective bias. However, I have shown from the most reliable sources from Sunni and Shia regarding Jihad (defensive and offensive), and it does not differ from Salafii or Wahhabi. Only the scope of Jihad differs; in that, Salafii and Wahhabi are far more intolerant of any Muslim who does not hold to its doctrine completely.

I am not talking about what you think most Muslims follow, I am describing to you the Sharia of Sunni and Shia Muslims that governs Sunni and Shia.

As long as Sharia (founded on the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira) exist, we will never see an end to the Jihad against unbelievers that exists within Islam since inception and is now taking place in the US and many other countries.

And Sharia can never be abolished, because the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira cannot be abrogated.

setst777 said: ↑
Wikiislam is founded by an ex-Shia Muslim, and supported by ex-Muslims. I am only concerned with the sources wikiislam is providing – Islam’s own sources. I listed wikiislam as the site from which I obtained the source material. Remember, do not attack or negatively label the messenger just because the sources disagrees with you. You have a habit of putting labels on things based on your own subjective bias.

Do Christian terrorist groups quoting the Bible to justify establishing a Christian state or to commit atrocities against non-Christians; and Christian extremists like the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, or Fred Phelps quoting the Bible make their views and actions Christian? Of course not, and in the same way, simply quoting Islamic texts doesn't make an individual or group's views and actions the authority of Islam.

Setst RE:
Do they? Which Passages do they quote?

This is really the crux of your flawed understanding of Islam… You divorce Islam from its core Scriptures, and rely on what you subjectively see Muslims do as describing Islam.

Christians would never divorce the NT Scriptures from their faith as you believe Muslims have done, just because some or many do not appear to follow Jesus. So your argument shows a very sorry state for Islam and Christianity, and of faith, if what you believe is true - that Islam or Christianity have nothing to do with their core Scriptures.

The Muslim core Scriptures command defensive and offensive jihad against unbelievers to establish their religion in the entire world. That is Islam, despite the fact that not every Muslim is out to behead every non-believer they see (jihad in stages). The danger is the Core Scriptures of Islam that causes faithful Muslims to carry out Jihad (in stages) just as Sharia outlines.

The Christian core Scriptures command total passiveness – evangelism through love – to establish their religion in the entire world. That is Christianity. The benefit of Christianity’s Core Scriptures is that they advocate peace and goodwill.

setst777 said: ↑
Shafii Islam takes it as Gospel. For instance, wherever Shafii Islam is practiced in a country, so is female genital circumcision. Doesn't that mean that Shafii Muslims consider it authoritative for their faith?

Certainly not all Shafi'i Muslims. Some are more conservative than others and many are quite liberal in their interpretation of Islam. Even if every single Shaffi'i Muslim did take it as gospel, they are still only representing a minority of the world's Muslims (15-25% depending on the source). The majority of the world's Muslims don't adhere to the Shaffi'i school of thought, and of the 15 - 25% who do, many of those take a more liberal approach to Islamic law than what is found in the Reliance of the Traveller.

Setst:
Once again, Islam and Sharia are not for you to subjectively divorce from Islam. Sharia is Islam.

Even if only 5% follow Sharia of Islam, that does not make Sharia less legitimate as the founding jurisprudence for Islam. That is the danger.

The Danger
As long as Sharia exists, even if only 5% of Muslims truly believe and follow Sharia at present, it is that 5% that will change the world and eventually bring many liberal Muslims into line with their faith creating a literal Armageddon on earth in due time.

We see this re-indoctrination of Muslims taking place in their mosques, Islamic organizations, in Universities and in Government.

Sharia is the issue, not the Muslims themselves.

Sharia is what commands Jihad of which the faithful will follow (in stages per Sharia).

Faithful Muslims follow Sharia to gain eternal life, just as faithful Christians follow the NT Scriptures for eternal life.

Sharia is why Iranians and many other Muslims of every major sect proclaim death to all polytheists, death to the US and death to Israel.
I quote:
Iranian pilgrims in Mecca call for Israel’s destruction, cry ‘Death to America’
8/12/2019 at 12:47 pm... Iranian pilgrims to the holiest site in Islam in the Saudi city of Mecca have used their hajj to call for Israel’s destruction and decry the Jewish state and the United States as “polytheists.”

At a “disavowal of polytheists” ceremony held at Mount Arafat, a message from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was read, and the crowd then chanted, “Death to America! Death to Israel!” according to a segment aired by Iran’s IRINN TV station on Saturday and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

“America is the enemy of Allah! Israel is the enemy of Allah [and] should be erased from the face of the Earth!” they continued.
Iranian pilgrims in Mecca call for Israel’s destruction, cry ‘Death to America’

Sharia is the danger.

setst777 said: ↑
All four schools of Sunni, and Shia interpret Jihad in this manner.

setst777 said: ↑
That does not tell you what you need to know to understand what Islam teaches in Sunni and Shia and Salafii and Wahhabi – they all teach the same regarding Jihad

All four schools of Sunni and Shia? There are four primary schools of thought found in Sunni Islam, is that what you are trying to say?

Setst RE: All four schools of Sunni, and also Shia teach identical regarding Jihad – that Jihad (defensive and offensive) against unbelievers is to continue (in stages) until the whole world is one religion – Islam. And Wahhabi and Salafii teach the same. The differences regard only the scope of Jihad as I have repeatedly shown.

JosephZ said: ↑
Reliance of the Traveler is an abridged legal manual. It is not an easy book to read and it's not the definite or the final authority on Islamic law. Here again is a portion of the text from the introduction.

Setst RE: Your flawed argument has already been refuted. We all agree that Sharia Figh for each sect within Islam is one of the legal sources. The other main sources are: the Qur’an, Hadith, Sira and Tafsir (Islam’s core legal Scriptures) which I have been generously quoting for you. Islam draws upon these sources to make judgments, but cannot change or alter the commands and teachings of Islam’s core Scriptures.

If there is a grey area that the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira do not specifically address, or seems unclear, then Muslims are encouraged to stand on the side of safety. As well, special Muslim Jurists (mufti) address such grey areas with “fatwa – non-binding opinions.”

Fatwa is never used to abrogate what Allah and His Messenger have already clearly commanded or demonstrated by word or action, only to make non-binding judgments on things that are not clearly addressed in Sharia.

Continued...

 

[setst777]

Bit's pretty clear that their garments are loose fitting.

Continued...

Here's an Islamic source on the subject: https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Female-circumcision-and-its-standing-in-Islamic-law.pdf

Setst RE: Keep in mind that alislam is an Ahmadiyya Muslim source representing the views of Ahmadiyya Muslims (their perspective).

“Al Islam
The Official Website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community”
https://www.alislam.org

Ahmadiyya Muslim’s represent only 1% of all Muslims, and many other Muslims do not consider Ahmadiyya Muslims to be real Muslims – mainly because they hold to another prophet besides Muhammad, and this other prophet (the Mahdi) supposedly abrogated Jihad against unbelievers. Obviously then, the Ahmadiyya are a contradiction to the core doctrine of the other sects of Islam even though they do follow the 5 pillars of Islam.

The pdf article is a good review of female circumcision by Islamic sources, but is discrimminately dismissing the Islamic texts as unreliable, or translated wrong by Muslim scholars, that disagrees with their specific Ahmadiyya view.

Also, I don’t recall that pdf quoting Sahih Muslim showing this female and male circumcision were the norm in Muhammad’s day…

Abu Musa reported: … What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.
Sahih Muslim 3:684

Notice that the uncircumcised are not even referred to or given attention – just the circumcised, showing female circumcision to be the norm.

When you cross this Hadith with Sahih Bukahri, you then come to a complete picture of female circumcision.

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”
Sahih Bukhari 5891; Muslim 527

setst777 said: ↑
Unlike Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim Abu Dawood Hadith are not declared by Sunni as Sahih, but rather Sunan.

Being Sahih or Sunan has no bearing whatsoever on the authenticity of a particular hadith.

Setst RE: Bukhari and Muslim are the only two of the Sunni Hadith to be called Sahih because they are considered to be the most sound and reliable.

SAHIHAYN
The works of Bukhari and Muslim are known as the Sahihayn (the two sahih). The hadith agreed upon by both are referred to as muttafaqun alayh and have been regarded as the soundest hadith.
UNIT THREE - SAHIH AND HASAN HADITH - North East Islamic Community Center

Sahih al-Bukhari
Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim.[1][2] The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct.[3] Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn.
Sahih al-Bukhari - Wikipedia

setst777 said: ↑
What does that prove??? Most religious practices within Christianity or any other religion predate those religions. Is the idea that one particular act or teaching of a religion that was practiced or taught earlier automatically mean the religion is false? Where is your common sense?

This is what you said:

setst777 said: ↑
Female genital circumcision is founded on the Allah and His Prophet and is presently practiced in at least 30 countries

What that proved is that female circumcision isn't founded on Allah and the prophet Muhammad.

Setst RE: Muslims do not practice female circumcision because it was a custom before Islam, but because Islam teaches that female circumcision is noble or required.

That is why Muslims carry out circumcision – to show themselves approved by Allah and His Messenger. The foundation of their belief regarding circumcision is Sharia.

The majority of Sunni Muslims don't follow all that is written in the Reliance of the Traveller.

Setst RE: Most Muslims do not completely follow Sharia of any Figh mainly because of the West, which now has the power.

The West’ human rights policies have been “enforced” on Islamic countries. This means that Sharia cannot be fully enforced at this time. How many times have I instructed about this? Answer: Many times.

This is a temporary situation until Islam once again gains ascendancy. Why? The reason is because Allah’s Law is to be made supreme over man-made infidel law. This is core doctrine of Sharia. That is why Muslims in foreign countries are pushing for Sharia in those lands.

setst777 said: ↑
Setst RE: That is not a very educated response. Hadith The fitrah is five things, including circumcision... Note that the rule of hadith dictate that if it is not mentioned specifically or if the pronouns do not point to a certain gender, then the hadith is valid for both sexes. Hence, the following hadiths are applicable for both men and women.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point in asking if Muslim women should trim their mustaches.

Setst RE: You are interpreting using your subjective thinking, and not how Islam interprets Sharia. Trimming the mustaches is only one of directives given. Yes, obviously men have mustaches, so that part applies to males.

setst777 said: ↑
And the outfits that these Muslim women wear are by no means shear or loose. Their outfits are securely wrapped around their bodies.

Maybe they just appear to be tight fitting from a distance? I think if you get close enough you will find that they are not nearly as tight fitting as you think they are. I mean even if you do a google search for Muslim women in a crowd, it's pretty clear that their garments are loose fitting.

Setst RE: What about your theory on dark colors absorbing heat from the body as evidence?

These women have clothes on underneath their black outer garments, as I can see around the neckline. The black absorbs heat (the light) from the sun making their life that much more burdensome.

As well, the Qur’an and Sahih Bukhari show that Allah commanded women to wear the burka – including veiling the face. As I said, the whole practice of covering women up so they are faceless and unseen is what Islam actually commands (even though not all Muslims practice covering the face). I brought this up because the six brain-washed women in the video were claiming Ms. Ali was doing that to them - making them faceless.

 

[Joyousperson]

I have already given you my opinion Shari'a in this thread.

JosephZ wrote:
The word Shari'a literally translates into "the path" or "the way" and only applies to Muslims. It has no application to non-Muslims, so it's not something to be feared.​

Below is the likely interpretation of Shariah

In Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable divine law and is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its human scholarly interpretations.​

God's immutable divine law has to come from God's immutable words, i.e. the Quran's 6236 verses. The term [ShR3: shir'ʿatan; Sharia is mentioned 3 times in the Quran, i.e. 5:48, 42:13, and 42:21.

5:48. And unto thee [Muhammad] have We revealed the Scripture [Quran] with the truth [haqq; pristine original], confirming whatever Scripture was before it [Quran], and a Watcher over it. So judge between them [Muslims] by that [revelation -Quran] which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their [infidels -sinners] desires [HWY; ahwāahum] away from the truth [haqq] which hath come unto thee. For each [Jews, Christians, Islamists] We have appointed a Divine Law [ShR3: shir'ʿatan; Sharia] and a traced-out way [path of actions & practices].​

On this issue, the Quran is the final revelation to all Muslims.

What!! nothing to fear of Islam??
Yes, the Shariah is not applicable to non-Muslims as a law they must comply with, but the Sharia is imperative upon Muslims to war against and commit violence upon non-Muslims as commanded in the Quran.

For half of this thread I have been telling you that you are in error for not differentiating between the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow and Wahhabism, it's you that is confused and has been equating the sect of Wahhabism with the religion of Islam.

Nope! YOU are totally wrong due to ignorance of Islam-proper.
What the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow is not Islam-proper but merely Islam at the basic entry 'kindergarten' level, i.e. conforming to the 5 pillars of Islam.

What Setst777 and I had been pointing out is not solely Wahhabism, but Muslims who practice the higher levels of Islam to please Allah. Such 'higher' or 'better' Muslim can come from any the Sunni or Shia schools, Wahabbism, individuals who adhere closely to the Sharia [commands] of Allah as per the Quran and supported by the Ahadith.

Do Christian terrorist groups quoting the Bible to justify establishing a Christian state or to commit atrocities against non-Christians; and Christian extremists like the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, or Fred Phelps quoting the Bible make their views and actions Christian? Of course not, and in the same way, simply quoting Islamic texts doesn't make an individual or group's views and actions the authority of Islam.

As usual - attempt to deflect the issue.

Christians who quote the Bible, Gospels, Acts or Epistles to commit terrible atrocities are not practicing Christianity-proper in such instances. This is because Christianity-proper has an injunction of an overriding pacifist maxim [love all - even enemies] that prohibit Christians from hating and killing non-Christians.

Christians who killed for the greater good or for personal reasons are doing such on their own free will and not based on Christianity's principles or laws.

Certainly not all Shafi'i Muslims. Some are more conservative than others and many are quite liberal in their interpretation of Islam. Even if every single Shaffi'i Muslim did take it as gospel, they are still only representing a minority of the world's Muslims (15-25% depending on the source). The majority of the world's Muslims don't adhere to the Shaffi'i school of thought, and of the 15 - 25% who do, many of those take a more liberal approach to Islamic law than what is found in the Reliance of the Traveller.

As quoted earlier, the four main schools of Sunni Islam has a 75% commonality in their Laws.
I don't have the evidence, but at this stage I believe they have the same views on Jihad as the Shaffi's schools as I had read in the Reliance of the Traveler.

Every of the main School of Sunni has their central constitution that represent their specific attributes.

Note authority of the Reliance of the Traveler to represent the Shafi'i school is based on this point;

The author of' Umdat al-salik, Ibn Naqib, closely follows the order and conclusions of Nawawi's encyclopedic al-Majmu': sharh al-Muhadhdhab [The compendium: an exegesis of "The rarefaction"] with its addendum, al- Takmila [The completion], by Ibn Naqib's own sheikh, Taqi ai-Din Subki.
The present volume is virtually an index of the conclusions of the Majmu', and readers interested in the evidence from Koran and hadith for the rulings of the present volume can find them there,​

It is true, the majority of Shafi'i Muslim do not adhere to what is fully represented in their constitution. But this does not make the constitution of the Shaffi'i school void.
The Muslims are hindered by social and human rights pressure to practice what is fully advocated in their constitution.
However given the opportunity, they will practice what is commanded because their desperate drive for salvation.

You will note everywhere the clergies [who are the knowledgeable] are pushing the envelope to install and practice what is truly represented by the Constitution of their School. Note for example Aceh in Indonesia and Brunei. It is the same with the Muslim in Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines, plus elsewhere, even in the UK,[certain aspects of Sharia are already practiced] USA.
They will pushed for 100% whenever they are given the opportunity, e.g. IS or when oppositions are weak.
As I had argued the underlying drive is related to the psychological impulse for salvation.

Most Muslims who follow Islam under the Shafi school of thought wouldn't know what is written in the Reliance of the Traveller. It's not written for the average Muslim on the street (Much less non-Muslims with no background in Islam), it's written specifically for those who practice Islamic law and those in the Islamic legal system. It would be like asking the average American what a book on the US Federal Criminal Code and Rules says about a particular rule or law. They would know little if anything about the book to begin with, and even after they read it they would still be ignorant of what they had just read.

The maxim 'Ignorance is no Defense' applies as law for the US Federal Criminal Code and Rules and it is the same with Allah's immutable divine laws. However the punishment will be lessen if there is real innocent ignorance.

What is very dangerous with Islam is the majority of Muslims are practicing 'kindergarten' Islam but there is the potential they can graduate up the levels to Islam-proper where the commands to war-against and commit violence upon non-Muslims are a religious duty to please Allah to qualify for a secure passage to paradise with eternal life.

Note every 1% increase to real Islam is 15 million Muslims which is very frightening especially with the efficient communications from the internet.

Here's an Islamic source on the subject: https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Female-circumcision-and-its-standing-in-Islamic-law.pdf

FGM is barbaric but this is not the critical issue.
What is critical is the terrible evil and violent acts that are commanded by Allah upon the non-Muslims.

 

[Joyousperson]

Link

JosephZ wrote:
Here is what the introduction to the Reliance of the Traveller says:

↑
The present volume, 'Umdat al-salik [The reliance of the traveller], represents one of the finest and most reliable short works in Shafi'i jurisprudence,
↑
Therefore the Muslims who are followers of the Shafi'i Schools will have to comply with the 'Reliance of the Traveller' as advised by the clergy of the Shafi'i Schools.​

As I have said already, Reliance of the Traveller is one single source on Islamic law out of literally hundreds and is not the gospel when it comes to "Sunni Sharia Figh." Is that even a proper term?
The majority of Sunni Muslims don't follow all that is written in the Reliance of the Traveller. ​

NOPE! The Reliance of the Traveller is not one single source of Islamic Law out of hundreds.
Where are the other hundreds?

What is Sharia [Sh R Ayn] re 5:48, 42:13, 42:31[implied], are the immutable divine laws from Allah in the Quran.

The Reliance of the Traveler is major text of the Shafi'i School representing a summary of the compendium of Laws extracted from the Quran and Ahadith that is adopted as the Constitution of the Shafi'i School for their Muslims devotees to follow;

The author of' Umdat al-salik, Ibn Naqib, closely follows the order and conclusions of Nawawi's encyclopedic al-Majmu': sharh al-Muhadhdhab [The compendium: an exegesis of "The rarefaction"] with its addendum, al- Takmila [The completion], by Ibn Naqib's own sheikh, Taqi ai-Din Subki.
The present volume is virtually an index of the conclusions of the Majmu', and readers interested in the evidence from Koran and hadith for the rulings of the present volume can find them there,​

What is happening is the clergy of the Shafi'i Schools and the others did not overload their devotees with the full compendium or constitution but issue fatwas from time to time.
For example the commands of 'Jihad' holy war re Book O:9 of the Reliance of the Traveler is not openly declared to the masses but they nevertheless remained in effect as divine laws within the constitution of the Shafi'i schools.

What has been going on is some of the clergy of the Shafi'i schools are influencing SOME Shafi'i Muslims on the Jihad and other terrible evil and violent elements to be truer Muslims thus gain higher favors from Allah.
What they are doing is they are practicing truer-Islam as per the Quran's 6236 verses, i.e. Allah's words.
No humans can judge they are wrong.

The real danger is when the potential of more Muslims from the ignorant majority are influenced to be truer-Muslims, i.e. graduating from 'kindergarten' level to grade school, college, PhD equivalence of Islam. Thence they will have to obey and comply with the commands of Allah to war against and commit violence upon non-Muslim as a religious duty to defend the religion of Islam.
You need to read the Quran thoroughly to understand the above point.

The main purpose of every Muslims is salvation, i.e. to avoid perdition, to get to paradise with eternal life. To attain the above the Muslim MUST comply with every command of Allah within the 6236 verses [including the 3400++ of evil and violent laden verses] of the Quran.
If not, how else?

 

[JosephZ]

I already responded to this. When you say there is no relation between Sharia and terror, you show that you only understand Sharia in part.

I am not talking about what you think most Muslims follow, I am describing to you the Sharia of Sunni and Shia Muslims that governs Sunni and Shia.

Aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites and shared here, what is your background in Islamic studies and your relationship with Muslims?

Setst RE:
Do they? Which Passages do they quote?

Here are a few examples from the US:

“Jews are the children of Satan. (John 8:44) — —- the Lord Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” -- Robert Bowers, before killing 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA

On April 27, 2019, John Earnest, a Christian terrorist who said he was inspired by Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and Martin Luther fired shots inside the Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, California killing one and injuring three others. Earnest wrote a seven-page letter before the shooting outlining his motives. Below are some excerpts from that letter.

Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make them one... Beyond the scope of time the Father and the Son made a covenant in eternity—that the Son would bring a people to Him that He may be glorified through them. I did not choose to be a Christian. The Father chose me. The Son saved me. And the Spirit keeps me... ...[They] take one quote from the Bible and grossly twist its meaning to serve their own evil purposes—meanwhile ignoring the encompassing history and context of the entire Bible and the wisdom it takes to apply God’s law in a broken world... A child can understand the concept of self-defense. It is unlawful and cowardly to stand on the sidelines as the European people are genocided around you... The Jew has forced our hand, and our response is completely justified. My God does not take kindly to the destruction of His creation... My God understands why I did what I did.

“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:24-25).

“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham […] Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not” (John 8:37-45).

“For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins away: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).

“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9).

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee” (Revelation 3:9).

There is no love without hatred. You cannot love God if you do not hate Satan. You cannot love righteousness if you do not also hate sin.

To my brothers in Christ of all races. Be strong... remember that you are secure in Christ.

From the website homepage of the Loyal White Knights of the KKK:

WE ARE The Loyal White Knights is a law abiding Christian Organization. We stand for pride in our race; and what our people have done past,present and future. We stand for freedom of speech, law and Order. We are here to protect our family,race and nation. To exemplify a pure patriotism towards our glorious country. We are always looking for good WHITE PEOPLE to join the Fight. Our Government for the past few years have been working hard to bring in the New World Order. They have already took God out of our schools. They have already passed Hate Crime Bills to silence the word of God on Gay marriages.These bills keep preachers from talking about Homosexuals in the churches.The Government is allowing all these illegal immigrants into our nation.

We whites all across America have the Ku Klux Klan; fighting for a Brighter Whiter America. Exodus 33:16 “so shall we be separated, I and all thy people,from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.” We are a traditional Klan and believe the Government is leading America down the wrong path.

In Genesis 21 verse 12 God gives Abraham and Sarah a son called Isaac. In Genesis 24 verses 1-4 God tells them not take a daughter of the Canaanites which are the true Jews of this time. Then later on Isaac has children in Genesis 25 verses 25-26 Esau and Jacob are born.In chapter 28 of Genesis Isaac tells Jacob not to marry a woman of Canaan or Jew. The seed line of Cain the one who killed Abel. You see God himself was even for racial separation and still is to this day. The crooked preachers of today scream Love thy Neighbor but in Leviticus 19 verse 18 it says “love thy neighbor of thy people”. The key words are thy people which mine are white people and those are the ones I’am suppose to be worried about is our Race.

In John 8 verses 30-44 Christ tells the Jews they are not of his seed but are of their father the devil.

In Romans chapter 2 verse 17-24 it shows that the Jews reject Christ and his teachings.It also says in verse 24 that through the Jews the word of God is twisted to the Gentiles which is a non Jew. So when a Jew speaks of God a Christian should never listen to their lies.

We as Loyal White Knights are soldiers of Christ who preach the truth. We are not racist but believe in racial separation as God intended it Gen.11:6-8. We want America back to the great Christian nation it once was.

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake; but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. We will keep fighting!!! Mark:13:13

You are interpreting using your subjective thinking, and not how Islam interprets Sharia. Trimming the mustaches is only one of directives given. Yes, obviously men have mustaches, so that part applies to males.

Keep in mind that alislam is an Ahmadiyya Muslim source representing the views of Ahmadiyya Muslims (their perspective).
The pdf article is a good review of female circumcision by Islamic sources, but is discrimminately dismissing the Islamic texts as unreliable, or translated wrong by Muslim scholars, that disagrees with their specific Ahmadiyya view.

You will find that the Ahmadiyya view on female circumcision is shared by the vast majority of Muslims from all backgrounds. I used that particular source because it was concise and easy to understand.

Here are two sources that also address female circumcision and cover all of the hadiths you quoted. They too come to the same conclusion that was present in the first link I shared:

https://egypt.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/d9174a63-2960-459b-9f78-b33ad795445e.pdf

https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/De-linking FGM from Islam final report.pdf

Here is the opinion from a source (Islamhelpline) you used earlier:

The act of circumcision was not started or initiated by Prophet Mohamed (saws), but was rather a Sunnah or tradition of the Noble Prophet Abraham (a.s.) which was practiced by the Jews and the Arabs even prior to the advent of Prophet Mohamed (saws).

The Messenger of Allah (saws) encouraged the believing men to practice circumcision and called it a characteristic of fitrah or nature for the men; but he (saws) did not encourage nor endorse nor command the womenfolk to practice circumcision.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 7.779 Narrated by Abu Huraira

I heard the Prophet (saws) saying. "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra (nature):, shaving the pubic hair, , clipping the nails, depilating the hair of the armpits, cutting the moustaches short and circumcision (for males)."

Circumcision for women is definitely not an Islamic rite, thus it would be best and purest if the believing women abstained from practicing it.

Whatever written of Truth and benefit is only due to Allahs Assistance and Guidance, and whatever of error is of me alone. Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.

Your brother and well wisher in Islam,

Burhan
I want information on circumcision of women. If - Islamhelpline

Is circumcision for girls allowed in islam?

The circumcision is not a Quranic commandment, but rather a Sunnah or tradition of Prophet Abraham (a.s.), which was followed by the Last Messenger of Allah, Mohamed ar Rasool Allah (saws).

The Sunnah is that the circumcision is only for the males of the Ummah, and not for the females. Some misguided sects in Islam do propagate the circumcision of females, but this is absolutely against the Sunnah; because there is absolutely no record in the authentic related traditions of the Prophet that his noble wives or daughters were ever circumcised.

Thus, at best, this circumcision of females is an innovation or bidah added several years after the death of the Prophet (saws). And this circumcision of females has more to do with culture and tradition than following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saws).
Is circumcision for girls allowed in islam? - Islamhelpline

And from Dr. Bilal Philips a Sunni Salafi who teaches a traditional, literal form of Islam.

Also, I don’t recall that pdf quoting Sahih Muslim showing this female and male circumcision were the norm in Muhammad’s day…

History tells us this, it's an accepted fact. It doesn't have to be found in the hadiths.

Bukhari and Muslim are the only two of the Sunni Hadith to be called Sahih because they are considered to be the most sound and reliable.

Bukhari and Muslim are called Sahih because they focused on putting only Sahih (Sound) hadiths in their collections. The naming of Bukhari and Muslim "Sahih" has no bearing on the authenticity, reliability, or the strength of the individual hadiths found in the hadith collections whether they use the term "Sunan" or "Sahih."

The ninth century CE produced six massive collections, which have won almost universal acceptance by the Sunnī community as the most authoritative. They are commonly known by the names of their compilers: al-Bukhārī (d. 870); Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj (d. 875); Abū Dāʿūd al-Sijistānī (d. 888); Ibn Mājah al- Qazwīnī (d. 887); Abū ʿĪsā al- Tirmidhī (d. 892); and Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Nasāʿī (d. 915).

The strength of individual hadiths are classified in the following way:

Sahih = Sound
Hasan = Good
Da'if = Weak
Maudu = Fabricated or Forged

Sunan abu Dawud contains hundreds of hadiths which are classified as being Sahih.

The hadith I provided to show that four witnesses are not required to prove rape is authentic and is classified as being hasan/good, so you were correct when you said it's not a Sahih narration, but it is never the less accepted, and one of the reasons why most Muslim scholars agree that four witnesses are not required for a woman to bring charges of rape against someone. She will still have to provide evidence that a rape took place of course, but not four witnesses.

Rape and adultery are classified differently in Islamic law, so the requirement of four witnesses in Qur'an 24:4 doesn't apply. More importantly, that verse doesn't apply because the four witnesses are required when a woman is being accused of adultery, not a man.

What about your theory on dark colors absorbing heat from the body as evidence? These women have clothes on underneath their black outer garments, as I can see around the neckline. The black absorbs heat (the light) from the sun making their life that much more burdensome.

Black does absorb heat from the sun at a faster pace than white, but black also absorbs the heat from your body as well. Throw a little wind into the mix and black is the better choice for wicking away the heat away from your core.

There are some interesting articles that go into more explanation.

"White clothing reflects sunlight, but also reflects internal heat back towards your body, so the net effect under identical conditions is less cooling than if you wore black."

via Straight Dope

"If there's even a little wind, black clothing is the better choice for those who want to keep cool, like goths who understandably don't like sweating through their make-up. So find something black to wear this summer."

via io9

As for having clothes underneath their outer garments, this can help in keeping cool as well, especially if the undergarment is also black or dark in color. After trying many combinations to try and stay cool and prevent sweating here in Mindanao where 90+ degree days are common year round, I have found that long dark colored pants with a black or dark blue t-shirt works best for me. On the rare days that it's cloudy and cool, I will wear light colored clothing.

the Qur’an and Sahih Bukhari show that Allah commanded women to wear the burka – including veiling the face. As I said, the whole practice of covering women up so they are faceless and unseen is what Islam actually commands (even though not all Muslims practice covering the face).

Hajib is a requirement in Islam, not wearing of the burka. There is no command for women to cover their faces, that is optional. Islamic extremists and some extremists regimes may require women to be completely covered, but it's not what Islam commands.

 

[JosephZ]

As quoted earlier, the four main schools of Sunni Islam has a 75% commonality in their Laws.
I don't have the evidence, but at this stage I believe they have the same views on Jihad as the Shaffi's schools as I had read in the Reliance of the Traveler.

Shaffi'i is the only school of thought that views jihad as being an offensive act rather than defensive.

Below is an excerpt from a well written and well sourced article titled "The concept of Jihad in Islamic Jurisprudence: its meaning and evolution throughout history."

The division of jihad into two main categories: offensive jihad and defensive jihad. Whilst the latter commenced only in case of attack against a Muslim territory, the former was “pro-active” or “preemptive” in character and considered a collective duty (excepted women, old people and children) to be fulfilled at least once a year outside Muslim territory.

Nonetheless, according to the majority of classic Islamic jurists belonging to the Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī schools of law, in the Qu’ran no reference or passage whatsoever supports the idea of attacking non-Muslims merely for their religion. This legal position is based on an interpretation of casus belli restricted only to armed aggression and/or religious persecution (fitnah) against Muslims, explicitly excluding religious diversity as a valid justification for commencing offensive jihad. Conversely, the fourth Sunni legal school, funded by al-Shāfi’ī in the eight century, maintained (an still does) that unbelief represents a just cause for waging offensive war, so introducing for the first time the idea of aggressive jihad.” However, the first position, that could be warily labeled as realist – and ‘more moderate’ – was also embraced by two eminent legal scholars of the classic era of Islam: al-Shaybānī (d. 189/804–5) and Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328).

Overall, although limited in the number of authors surveyed, the analysis of the above classic interpretations of jihad seems to confirm that “peace should characterize the normal and permanent relationship with non-Muslim,” for the “recourse to war is only justified in defense against enemy hostility and aggression.”

NOPE! The Reliance of the Traveller is not one single source of Islamic Law out of hundreds.
Where are the other hundreds?

Below is a list of several that can be found on Wikipedia, but it is far from being all inclusive since it is missing popular works such as Mukhtasar al Quduri, Muwatta Imam Malik, and Ascent to Felicity among others. There are literally hundreds and this can be confirmed by going to Islamic sites and searching for books on Islamic jurisprudence from the various schools of thought.

Hanafi
Usul al-fiqh by Abu Yusuf
Zahir al-Riwaya by Muhammad al-Shaybani
Works of Al-Tahawi
Al-Hidayah by Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani
Works of Rumi
Kanz ul-Daqaiq by abi Barakat 'Abd Allah bin Ahmed al-Nasafi
Works of Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi
Multaqa al-Abḥur by Ibrahim al-Halabi
Al-Bahr al-Raiq Sharh Kanz ul-Daqaiq by Ibn Nujaim al-Hanafi
Fath Ar-Rahman Fi Isbat-e-Madhhab an-Nu'man by Shaykh Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi
Fatawa-e-Alamgiri commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb
Works of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi
Fatawa Aziz by Shah Abdul Aziz
Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Dur al-Mukhtar by Ibn Abidin ash-shami
Works by Imdadullah Muhajir Makki
Fatawa-e-Razvia by Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi

Maliki
Al Mudawanna by Sahnun
Al Risalah by Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani
Works of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr
Works of Qadi Ayyad
Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtaṣid by Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
Works of Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi
Mukhtasar by Khalil ibn Ishaq al-Jundi
Al-Muwafaqaat fi Usool al-Sharia by Al-Shatibi

Shafi'i
Kitab al-Umm by ash-Shafi'i
Mukhtasar al Muzani by Al-Muzani
Al-Mabsut by Al-Bayhaqi
Ma`arifa al-Sunan wa al-Athar by Al-Bayhaqi
Al-wasit fi al-mathab by Al-Ghazali
Al-Maqasid by Al-Nawawi
Minhaj Ut Talibeen by Al-Nawawi
Tabaqat ash-Shafi'iyah by Ibn Kathir
Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (Reliance of the Traveller)
I'anat al-Talibin by Zayn al-Din Ahmed bin Muhammad al-Malibari

Hanbali
Kitab al-Masa`il by Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Wadih fi usul al-fiqh by Ibn Aqil
Futuh al-Ghaib by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Gilani
Kitab Sirr al-Asrar wa Mazhar al-Anwar by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Gilani
Siffat-ul As-Safwah by Ibn al-Jawzi
Al-Kaafi fi fiqh al-Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal by Ibn Qudamah
Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah
Kitab al-Furu by Ibn Muflih
Umdah fil Fiqh by al-Bahūtī

Shia
Urwa al-Wuthqa by Ayatollah Mohammed Kazem Yazdi
Shara'i' al-Islam fi masail al-halal wal-haram by Muhaqqiq al-Hilli
Jawahir Al Kalam by Ayatollah Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi
Madarik al-ahkam fi sharh shara'i' al-Islam by Ayatollah Muhammad Musawi al-Amili
Al-Mahasin by Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Barqi
Tawdih al-Masa'il by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani
Tawdih al-Masa'il by Grand Ayatollah Hossein Vahid Khorasani

List of Sunni books - Wikipedia
List of Shia books - Wikipedia

Once again, I can't stress enough that it is only one book of many (Hundreds) on Islamic law. What's more, it's only an abridged legal manual. You can't take a single book on Islamic law written by one man and say it speaks for all Salafis, much less all of Islam.

 

[setst777]

Here are a few examples from the US:

setst777 said: ↑
I already responded to this. When you say there is no relation between Sharia and terror, you show that you only understand Sharia in part.

setst777 said: ↑
I am not talking about what you think most Muslims follow, I am describing to you the Sharia of Sunni and Shia Muslims that governs Sunni and Shia.

Setst RE: You gave no reply to this.

setst777 said: ↑
Do they? Which Passages do they quote?

Here are a few examples from the US: …
will keep fighting!!! Mark:13:13

Setst RE: I have looked up all the verses and read them. The NT verses are as follows:

John 8:44, Matthew 27:24-25, John 8:37-45, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, Revelation 2:9, Revelation 3:9, Mark 13:13

Not one of them command Christians to fight the Jews, the polytheists or any unbelievers or enemies, or anyone else.

So those who use such Passages as some kind of command from God to kill others does not mean that is what the NT teaches anywhere. Anyone can take anything anyone says and use it support anything they want, but that does not mean that was the intent of the author as if the author was the cause of someone else's delusions.

In contrast, the Qur’an and Sahih Hadith and the Jurists of all four schools of Sunni, and also of Shia, and the best Tafsir agree, clearly commands Muslims to:

• terrorize,
• fight,
• kill,
• pillage,
• plunder,
• raid,
• slaughter,
• rape,
• enslave,
• sell,
• subjugate and
• utterly destroy all unbelievers, hypocrites and apostates

until the world is one religion - Islam. And that is exactly what Islam has done throughout 1400 years of conquest since Islam’s inception.

If you can’t see the difference, then that is not anyone’s problem but your own

setst777 said: ↑
You are interpreting using your subjective thinking, and not how Islam interprets Sharia. Trimming the mustaches is only one of directives given. Yes, obviously men have mustaches, so that part applies to males.

setst777 said: ↑
Keep in mind that alislam is an Ahmadiyya Muslim source representing the views of Ahmadiyya Muslims (their perspective).
The pdf article is a good review of female circumcision by Islamic sources, but is discrimminately dismissing the Islamic texts as unreliable, or translated wrong by Muslim scholars, that disagrees with their specific Ahmadiyya view.

You will find that the Ahmadiyya view on female circumcision is shared by the vast majority of Muslims from all backgrounds. I used that particular source because it was concise and easy to understand.

Here are two sources that also address female circumcision and cover all of the hadiths you quoted. They too come to the same conclusion that was present in the first link I shared:

https://egypt.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/d9174a63-2960-459b-9f78-b33ad795445e.pdf

https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/De-linking FGM from Islam final report.pdf

Here is the opinion from a source (Islamhelpline) you used earlier:

The act of circumcision was not started or initiated by Prophet Mohamed (saws), but was rather a Sunnah or tradition of the Noble Prophet Abraham (a.s.) which was practiced by the Jews and the Arabs even prior to the advent of Prophet Mohamed (saws).

The Messenger of Allah (saws) encouraged the believing men to practice circumcision and called it a characteristic of fitrah or nature for the men; but he (saws) did not encourage nor endorse nor command the womenfolk to practice circumcision.

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 7.779 Narrated by Abu Huraira

I heard the Prophet (saws) saying. "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra (nature):, shaving the pubic hair, , clipping the nails, depilating the hair of the armpits, cutting the moustaches short and circumcision (for males)."

Circumcision for women is definitely not an Islamic rite, thus it would be best and purest if the believing women abstained from practicing it.

Whatever written of Truth and benefit is only due to Allahs Assistance and Guidance, and whatever of error is of me alone. Allah Alone Knows Best and He is the Only Source of Strength.

Your brother and well wisher in Islam,

Burhan
I want information on circumcision of women. If - Islamhelpline

Is circumcision for girls allowed in islam?

The circumcision is not a Quranic commandment, but rather a Sunnah or tradition of Prophet Abraham (a.s.), which was followed by the Last Messenger of Allah, Mohamed ar Rasool Allah (saws).

The Sunnah is that the circumcision is only for the males of the Ummah, and not for the females. Some misguided sects in Islam do propagate the circumcision of females, but this is absolutely against the Sunnah; because there is absolutely no record in the authentic related traditions of the Prophet that his noble wives or daughters were ever circumcised.

Thus, at best, this circumcision of females is an innovation or bidah added several years after the death of the Prophet (saws). And this circumcision of females has more to do with culture and tradition than following the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (saws).
Is circumcision for girls allowed in islam? - Islamhelpline

And from Dr. Bilal Philips a Sunni Salafi who teaches a traditional, literal form of Islam.

Setst RE: There are many differing opinions, but the Sahih Hadith is clear that female circumcision is prescribed by Muhammad at the least. The Sharia figh of all four schools of Sunni bear this out. So who am I to judge Islam or its schools?

Are you hear to tell Islam what it should believe?

There are Muslim leaders today who are deliberately using taqyah to deceive you so you don’t feel hostile to Islam over its barbaric doctrine. So they will try to side-step or explain away what Allah or His Messenger have declared by word or action. However, every Muslim leader knows that no one but Allah can abrogate what Allah and His Messenger have established as a command or rule of conduct verbally or by action.

The Jurists' interpretation trump any interpretation of a lesser authority, no matter who scholarly.

>>>
The vast majority of Muslims give this right of independent reasoning to only four ancient Muslim theologians and jurists who lived in the first three centuries of Islam. These four fuqaha are:

Imam Abu Hanifa of Kufa
Imam Malik bin Anas of Medinah
Imam Muhammad al-Shafi of Medinah
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal of Baghdad

Although a number of other jurists also became popular during their times, only the above four are now recognized by the vast majority of Sunni Muslims.

The Four Schools of Law in Islam - Understanding Islam
>>>

What do the Jurists say?

Sunni view
The Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence view it as makruma for women ("noble", as opposed to obligatory).[2] For the Shafi'i school it is obligatory (wājib).[1][2][3]
Religious views on female genital mutilation - Wikipedia

Shia view
Shiite religious texts, such as the hadith transmitted by Al-Sadiq, state that "circumcision is makruma ("noble") for women.[77] FGM is performed within the Dawoodi Bohra community in India, Pakistan, Yemen and East Africa.[78]
Religious views on female genital mutilation - Wikipedia

Abu Musa reported: … What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.
Sahih Muslim 3:684

Notice that the uncircumcised are not even referred to or given attention – just the circumcised, showing female circumcision to be the norm.

When you cross this Hadith with Sahih Bukahri, you then come to a complete picture of female circumcision.

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”
Sahih Bukhari 5891; Muslim 527

setst777 said: ↑
Also, I don’t recall that pdf quoting Sahih Muslim showing this female and male circumcision were the norm in Muhammad’s day…

History tells us this, it's an accepted fact. It doesn't have to be found in the hadiths.

Setst RE: The only thing that matters in Islam is if Sharia teaches or commands it. Muslims are only following what Allah or Muhammad commanded or established as a rule of conduct by words (rules, commands, sayings) or actions.

Whether others practiced it before Islam is of no consequence. The issue is whether Islam teaches it.

The same is true for Christianity and its teachings. We do not follow Christian teachings because others followed similar teaching in the past. We follow Christian teachings because they are Christian.

If you can't understand this, then that is not anyone's fault but your own.

setst777 said: ↑
Bukhari and Muslim are the only two of the Sunni Hadith to be called Sahih because they are considered to be the most sound and reliable.

Bukhari and Muslim are called Sahih because they focused on putting only Sahih (Sound) hadiths in their collections. The naming of Bukhari and Muslim "Sahih" has no bearing on the authenticity, reliability, or the strength of the individual hadiths found in the hadith collections whether they use the term "Sunan" or "Sahih."

Setst RE: No bearing?

Bukhari and Muslim are the only two of the Sunni Hadith to be called Sahih because they are considered to be the most sound and reliable collection of Hadith. That is why they are declared “Sahih” rather than just “Sunan.” That is the bearing.

SAHIHAYN
The works of Bukhari and Muslim are known as the Sahihayn (the two sahih). The hadith agreed upon by both are referred to as muttafaqun alayh and have been regarded as the soundest hadith.
UNIT THREE - SAHIH AND HASAN HADITH - North East Islamic Community Center

Sahih al-Bukhari
Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim.[1][2] The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct.[3] Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn.
Sahih al-Bukhari - Wikipedia

Regarding rape and adultery…

Yes, a male is involved. However, a female must still have four witnesses to prove she is:

1. not guilty of adultery or fornication
2. that a man she is accusing of rape actually raped her

Quran (24:4) - "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them..."

Islamic Law across the board states that a woman accused of rape is required by law to have solid evidence if she is going to accuse others of raping her.

Four male witnesses that will testify on her behalf is the evidence excepted by all schools of Islam, or she could be accused by the court of false accusations against someone else, or adultery.

For instance:

1. The accused rapist confesses to his heinous crime; or
2. She produces four witnesses to justify her claim that so and so person(s) raped her.
3. There can be other types of evidence, but such evidence need not be accepted.

Does A Woman Need Four Witnesses To Prove Rape?
Rape and produce 4 witnesses - Islamhelpline

That is Islamic Law. If you don't like it, that is not the problem of Islam.

setst777 said: ↑
What about your theory on dark colors absorbing heat from the body as evidence? These women have clothes on underneath their black outer garments, as I can see around the neckline. The black absorbs heat (the light) from the sun making their life that much more burdensome.

Black does absorb heat from the sun at a faster pace than white, but black also absorbs the heat from your body as well. Throw a little wind into the mix and black is the better choice for wicking away the heat away from your core.

There are some interesting articles that go into more explanation.

"White clothing reflects sunlight, but also reflects internal heat back towards your body, so the net effect under identical conditions is less cooling than if you wore black."

via Straight Dope

"If there's even a little wind, black clothing is the better choice for those who want to keep cool, like goths who understandably don't like sweating through their make-up. So find something black to wear this summer."

via io9

As for having clothes underneath their outer garments, this can help in keeping cool as well, especially if the undergarment is also black or dark in color. After trying many combinations to try and stay cool and prevent sweating here in Mindanao where 90+ degree days are common year round, I have found that long dark colored pants with a black or dark blue t-shirt works best for me. On the rare days that it's cloudy and cool, I will wear light colored clothing.

Setst RE:
Goths come out at night, that is why they wear black.

White does not absorb heat from the body any more so than black does.

White does not reflect the heat itself, it reflects the light that produces the heat.

White reflects the sun’s light (that causes heat)
Black absorbs the sun’s light (that causes heat)

This is a scientific fact. If you can’t accept the truth, that is not my fault. The fault remains with you.

I wouldn't doubt if you believed the earth is flat too.

Continued...

 

[setst777]

Aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites and shared here, what is your background in Islamic studies and your relationship with Muslims?

Continued...

setst777 said: ↑
the Qur’an and Sahih Bukhari show that Allah commanded women to wear the burka – including veiling the face. As I said, the whole practice of covering women up so they are faceless and unseen is what Islam actually commands (even though not all Muslims practice covering the face).

Hajib is a requirement in Islam, not wearing of the burka. There is no command for women to cover their faces, that is optional. Islamic extremists and some extremists regimes may require women to be completely covered, but it's not what Islam commands.

Setst RE: Once again, you are calling Islam’s sacred books Islamic extremist. Yes, the Quran and Sahih Hadith actually do command it, but only two of the four schools of Sunni make it a requirement, while the other two do not. Shia women in Iran must cover their faces when in the presence of strangers.

The burka – which includes veiling the face – is understood in many Islamic countries even if not obligatory today, is based on Allah’s Word – the Qur’an.

Qur’an 33:53 [Allah speaking] If you ask his wives for anything, speak to them from behind a curtain. This is more chaste for your hearts and their hearts.

Qur’an 33:55 [Allah speaking]
It is no sin on them (the Prophet's wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother's sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves, and keep your duty to Allah. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Witness over everything.

Note: If not covering the face is not a sin among relatives, then it is a sin to have face uncovered before others.

The Burka Verse
Quran 33:59. [Allah speaking] O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Note: The Hadith refer to Qur'an 33:59 and 24:31 as the Burka verses come down from Allah. The Hadith makes clear that the context refers to face covering as we shall see shortly.

Qur’an 24:31 [Allah speaking] And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.)

Fatwa regarding Qur’an 24:31...
Ruling on covering the face, with detailed evidence - Islam Question & Answer
Allah commands the believing women to guard their chastity, and the command to guard their chastity also a command to follow all the means of doing that. No rational person would doubt that one of the means of doing so is covering the face, because uncovering it causes people to look at it and enjoy its beauty, and thence to initiate contact. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The eyes commit zina and their zina is by looking…” then he said, “… and the private part confirms that or denies it.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6612; Muslim, 2657

Covering the face - per the Quran - is compulsory...

Narrated 'Aisha: While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. [...]

Sahih Bukhari 5:59:462
Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

Sahih Bukhari 6:60:282
Narrated 'Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).

Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148
Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Apostle "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.' Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam'a went out and she was a tall woman. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). (See Hadith No. 148, Vol. 1)
Sahih Bukhari 8:74:257

So you see, these extremist Hadith and Quranic verses command that the women be veiled.

"The majority opinion which emerged during that time, predominant among Maliki and Hanafi jurists, held that women should cover everything except their faces in public. In contrast, most medieval Hanbali and Shafi'i jurists counted a woman's face among the awra, concluding that it should be veiled, except for the eyes."[25][23]
Burqa - Wikipedia

Continued...

 

[setst777]

Shaffi'i is the only school of thought that views jihad as being an offensive act rather than defensive.

Joyousperson said: ↑
As quoted earlier, the four main schools of Sunni Islam has a 75% commonality in their Laws.
I don't have the evidence, but at this stage I believe they have the same views on Jihad as the Shaffi's schools as I had read in the Reliance of the Traveler.

Shaffi'i is the only school of thought that views jihad as being an offensive act rather than defensive.

Below is an excerpt from a well written and well sourced article titled "The concept of Jihad in Islamic Jurisprudence: its meaning and evolution throughout history."

The division of jihad into two main categories: offensive jihad and defensive jihad. Whilst the latter commenced only in case of attack against a Muslim territory, the former was “pro-active” or “preemptive” in character and considered a collective duty (excepted women, old people and children) to be fulfilled at least once a year outside Muslim territory.

Nonetheless, according to the majority of classic Islamic jurists belonging to the Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī schools of law, in the Qu’ran no reference or passage whatsoever supports the idea of attacking non-Muslims merely for their religion. This legal position is based on an interpretation of casus belli restricted only to armed aggression and/or religious persecution (fitnah) against Muslims, explicitly excluding religious diversity as a valid justification for commencing offensive jihad. Conversely, the fourth Sunni legal school, funded by al-Shāfi’ī in the eight century, maintained (an still does) that unbelief represents a just cause for waging offensive war, so introducing for the first time the idea of aggressive jihad.” However, the first position, that could be warily labeled as realist – and ‘more moderate’ – was also embraced by two eminent legal scholars of the classic era of Islam: al-Shaybānī (d. 189/804–5) and Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328).

Overall, although limited in the number of authors surveyed, the analysis of the above classic interpretations of jihad seems to confirm that “peace should characterize the normal and permanent relationship with non-Muslim,” for the “recourse to war is only justified in defense against enemy hostility and aggression.”

Setst RE:
Regarding “classic interpretations of Jihad”

In Islam, the words of The Jurists are considered to have authority over all other scholars of lesser authority.

I quote Andrew Boston – The Legacy of Jihad, in response…

Start of Quote
<<<
Jihad – the consensus view of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and Shia Islam

This should put to rest the lie that jihad is a merely internal spiritual struggle or a merely defensive war or not mainstream.

“The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the great Muslim historian al-Tabari’s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al-Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636 CE), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar (the second “Rightly Guided Caliph”) reportedly said:

“Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.”15

Jihad was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah,” embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the eighth and ninth centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’anic verses (e.g., 9.5, 6; 9.29; 4.76-79; 2. 214-15; 8.39_42),16 and long chapters in the Traditions (i.e., hadith, acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, especially those recorded by al-Bukhari [d. 869] 17 and Muslim [d. 874] 18).

The consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear.

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), Maliki jurist:
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by certain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis [one of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.19

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), Hanbali jurist
Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words (e.g., by propaganda) and acts (e.g., by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare).20

From (primarily) the Hanafi school, (as given in the Hidayah of Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali of Marghinan (d. 1196):
It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war…. If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do 21

Al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ), Shafi’i jurist:
The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them … in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun…. Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger … it is forbidden to … begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached 22

Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), Maliki jurist, renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Sunni Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force…. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense…. Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations .-23

Finally, Shiite jurisprudence was in agreement with the Sunni consensus on the basic nature of jihad war, as reflected in this excerpt from the Jami-i-Abbasi (the popular Persian manual of Shia law) written by al-Amili (d.1622), a distinguished theologian under Shah Abbas I: “Islamic Holy war [jihad] against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam or pay the poll tax.”24

By the time of the classical Muslim historian al-Tabari’s death in 923, jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to the Indian subcontinent. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as on Christian lands in eastern Europe. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, as well as parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, more than a millennium of jihad had transpired.25 These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphalist jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slain or enslaved, the cities and villages that were pillaged, and the lands, treasure, and movable goods seized. Christian (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc.), as well as Hebrew sources and even the scant Hindu and Buddhist writings that survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests independently validate this narrative, and complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non-Muslim victims of jihad wars.26″
<<< End of Quote

Source: Andrew Boston, The Legacy of Jihad, Chapter 1, pages 26-28
Published by: Prometheus Books in 2005

Website: Jihad – the consensus view of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and Shia Islam

[VIDEO] Andrew Bostom: “The Rising Scourge of Islamic Antisemitism”, July 30, 2019

Joyousperson said: ↑
NOPE! The Reliance of the Traveller is not one single source of Islamic Law out of hundreds.
Where are the other hundreds?

Below is a list of several that can be found on Wikipedia, but it is far from being all inclusive since it is missing popular works such as Mukhtasar al Quduri, Muwatta Imam Malik, and Ascent to Felicity among others. There are literally hundreds and this can be confirmed by going to Islamic sites and searching for books on Islamic jurisprudence from the various schools of thought.

Hanafi
Usul al-fiqh by Abu Yusuf
Zahir al-Riwaya by Muhammad al-Shaybani
Works of Al-Tahawi
Al-Hidayah by Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani
Works of Rumi
Kanz ul-Daqaiq by abi Barakat 'Abd Allah bin Ahmed al-Nasafi
Works of Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi
Multaqa al-Abḥur by Ibrahim al-Halabi
Al-Bahr al-Raiq Sharh Kanz ul-Daqaiq by Ibn Nujaim al-Hanafi
Fath Ar-Rahman Fi Isbat-e-Madhhab an-Nu'man by Shaykh Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi
Fatawa-e-Alamgiri commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb
Works of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi
Fatawa Aziz by Shah Abdul Aziz
Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Dur al-Mukhtar by Ibn Abidin ash-shami
Works by Imdadullah Muhajir Makki
Fatawa-e-Razvia by Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi

Maliki
Al Mudawanna by Sahnun
Al Risalah by Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani
Works of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr
Works of Qadi Ayyad
Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtaṣid by Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
Works of Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi
Mukhtasar by Khalil ibn Ishaq al-Jundi
Al-Muwafaqaat fi Usool al-Sharia by Al-Shatibi

Shafi'i
Kitab al-Umm by ash-Shafi'i
Mukhtasar al Muzani by Al-Muzani
Al-Mabsut by Al-Bayhaqi
Ma`arifa al-Sunan wa al-Athar by Al-Bayhaqi
Al-wasit fi al-mathab by Al-Ghazali
Al-Maqasid by Al-Nawawi
Minhaj Ut Talibeen by Al-Nawawi
Tabaqat ash-Shafi'iyah by Ibn Kathir
Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (Reliance of the Traveller)
I'anat al-Talibin by Zayn al-Din Ahmed bin Muhammad al-Malibari

Hanbali
Kitab al-Masa`il by Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Wadih fi usul al-fiqh by Ibn Aqil
Futuh al-Ghaib by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Gilani
Kitab Sirr al-Asrar wa Mazhar al-Anwar by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Gilani
Siffat-ul As-Safwah by Ibn al-Jawzi
Al-Kaafi fi fiqh al-Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal by Ibn Qudamah
Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah
Kitab al-Furu by Ibn Muflih
Umdah fil Fiqh by al-Bahūtī

Shia
Urwa al-Wuthqa by Ayatollah Mohammed Kazem Yazdi
Shara'i' al-Islam fi masail al-halal wal-haram by Muhaqqiq al-Hilli
Jawahir Al Kalam by Ayatollah Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi
Madarik al-ahkam fi sharh shara'i' al-Islam by Ayatollah Muhammad Musawi al-Amili
Al-Mahasin by Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Barqi
Tawdih al-Masa'il by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani
Tawdih al-Masa'il by Grand Ayatollah Hossein Vahid Khorasani

List of Sunni books - Wikipedia
List of Shia books - Wikipedia

Once again, I can't stress enough that it is only one book of many (Hundreds) on Islamic law. What's more, it's only an abridged legal manual. You can't take a single book on Islamic law written by one man and say it speaks for all Salafis, much less all of Islam.

Setst RE: The consensus of all these sources on Jihad is that Jihad is defensive and offensive until Islam is the only religion. That is the consensus of the Jurists in all four schools of Sunni and also of Shia.

 

[Joyousperson]

Shaffi'i is the only school of thought that views jihad as being an offensive act rather than defensive.

Below is an excerpt from a well written and well sourced article titled "The concept of Jihad in Islamic Jurisprudence: its meaning and evolution throughout history."

The division of jihad into two main categories: offensive jihad and defensive jihad. Whilst the latter commenced only in case of attack against a Muslim territory, the former was “pro-active” or “preemptive” in character and considered a collective duty (excepted women, old people and children) to be fulfilled at least once a year outside Muslim territory.

Nonetheless, according to the majority of classic Islamic jurists belonging to the Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī schools of law, in the Qu’ran no reference or passage whatsoever supports the idea of attacking non-Muslims merely for their religion. This legal position is based on an interpretation of casus belli restricted only to armed aggression and/or religious persecution (fitnah) against Muslims, explicitly excluding religious diversity as a valid justification for commencing offensive jihad. Conversely, the fourth Sunni legal school, funded by al-Shāfi’ī in the eight century, maintained (an still does) that unbelief represents a just cause for waging offensive war, so introducing for the first time the idea of aggressive jihad.” However, the first position, that could be warily labeled as realist – and ‘more moderate’ – was also embraced by two eminent legal scholars of the classic era of Islam: al-Shaybānī (d. 189/804–5) and Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328).

Overall, although limited in the number of authors surveyed, the analysis of the above classic interpretations of jihad seems to confirm that “peace should characterize the normal and permanent relationship with non-Muslim,” for the “recourse to war is only justified in defense against enemy hostility and aggression.”

I will have to do more research on the Ḥanafī, Mālikī and Ḥanbalī schools of law.
Nonetheless, these 3 schools condone jihad or the “recourse to war is only justified in defense against enemy hostility and aggression.”

The above point re defensive jihad smashed and destroyed your argument that 9:5 and related verses re Jihad are to be confined to the specific historical incidents and period.

The use of the term 'aggression' in that article is too limited.
Note overall in the Quran, jihad is condone where there is fasad [threats, corruption, aggression, etc.]. Note 5:33 and similar verses;

5:33. The only reward [punishment] of those [infidels] who

1. make war [HRB: yuḥāribūna] upon Allah and His messenger and
2. strive [S3Y: wayasʿawna ] after corruption [FSD: fasādan; mischiefs, wronged] in the land

- will be that they [infidels] will be killed or crucified, or have their [infidels'] hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.
Such will be their [infidels] degradation [KhZY: khiz'yun] in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs [infidels] will be an awful doom; ​

The above is a general principle.
Therefore those who strive for 'fasad' in the land against Muslims can be killed via so called defensive jihad.
The term 'fasad' is very loosely defined in the Quran and so even the drawings of cartoons of Muhammad are also fasad against Islam.
WHO ARE YOU, me or any other to judge those Muslims are wrong on the above.

What is critical in the above article is the one related to the 'offensive jihad' of the Shafi'i School.

Conversely, the fourth Sunni legal school, funded by al-Shāfi’ī in the eight century, 37 maintained (an still does) that unbelief represents a just cause for waging offensive war, so introducing for the first time the idea of aggressive jihad.”38​

Now you are beginning to understand what [the Islamic Laws] your Shafi'i Muslims neighbors are subjected to.
The fact is most of your Shafi'i Muslim neighbors are merely devotees or lay-Muslims who had not yet been exposed or inducted with the true teachings of the Shafi'i Shariah Laws of Allah.
So beware! i.e. when they are exposed and evolved to be truer Shafi'i teachings.

Below is a list of several that can be found on Wikipedia, but it is far from being all inclusive since it is missing popular works such as Mukhtasar al Quduri, Muwatta Imam Malik, and Ascent to Felicity among others. There are literally hundreds and this can be confirmed by going to Islamic sites and searching for books on Islamic jurisprudence from the various schools of thought.

Hanafi
Usul al-fiqh by Abu Yusuf
Zahir al-Riwaya by Muhammad al-Shaybani
Works of Al-Tahawi
Al-Hidayah by Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani
Works of Rumi
Kanz ul-Daqaiq by abi Barakat 'Abd Allah bin Ahmed al-Nasafi
Works of Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi
Multaqa al-Abḥur by Ibrahim al-Halabi
Al-Bahr al-Raiq Sharh Kanz ul-Daqaiq by Ibn Nujaim al-Hanafi
Fath Ar-Rahman Fi Isbat-e-Madhhab an-Nu'man by Shaykh Abdul-Haqq Muhaddith Dehlavi
Fatawa-e-Alamgiri commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb
Works of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi
Fatawa Aziz by Shah Abdul Aziz
Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Dur al-Mukhtar by Ibn Abidin ash-shami
Works by Imdadullah Muhajir Makki
Fatawa-e-Razvia by Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi

Maliki
Al Mudawanna by Sahnun
Al Risalah by Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani
Works of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr
Works of Qadi Ayyad
Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtaṣid by Ibn Rushd (Averroes)
Works of Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi
Mukhtasar by Khalil ibn Ishaq al-Jundi
Al-Muwafaqaat fi Usool al-Sharia by Al-Shatibi

Shafi'i
Kitab al-Umm by ash-Shafi'i
Mukhtasar al Muzani by Al-Muzani
Al-Mabsut by Al-Bayhaqi
Ma`arifa al-Sunan wa al-Athar by Al-Bayhaqi
Al-wasit fi al-mathab by Al-Ghazali
Al-Maqasid by Al-Nawawi
Minhaj Ut Talibeen by Al-Nawawi
Tabaqat ash-Shafi'iyah by Ibn Kathir
Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (Reliance of the Traveller)
I'anat al-Talibin by Zayn al-Din Ahmed bin Muhammad al-Malibari

Hanbali
Kitab al-Masa`il by Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Wadih fi usul al-fiqh by Ibn Aqil
Futuh al-Ghaib by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Gilani
Kitab Sirr al-Asrar wa Mazhar al-Anwar by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Gilani
Siffat-ul As-Safwah by Ibn al-Jawzi
Al-Kaafi fi fiqh al-Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal by Ibn Qudamah
Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah
Kitab al-Furu by Ibn Muflih
Umdah fil Fiqh by al-Bahūtī

Shia
Urwa al-Wuthqa by Ayatollah Mohammed Kazem Yazdi
Shara'i' al-Islam fi masail al-halal wal-haram by Muhaqqiq al-Hilli
Jawahir Al Kalam by Ayatollah Muhammad Hasan al-Najafi
Madarik al-ahkam fi sharh shara'i' al-Islam by Ayatollah Muhammad Musawi al-Amili
Al-Mahasin by Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Barqi
Tawdih al-Masa'il by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani
Tawdih al-Masa'il by Grand Ayatollah Hossein Vahid Khorasani

List of Sunni books - Wikipedia
List of Shia books - Wikipedia

Once again, I can't stress enough that it is only one book of many (Hundreds) on Islamic law. What's more, it's only an abridged legal manual. You can't take a single book on Islamic law written by one man and say it speaks for all Salafis, much less all of Islam.

Your point is toothless.
There are no hundred books of each of the above schools that are to be the authorized texts of the respective schools' ideology
The most authoritative texts are the ones by the Founder of each school, i.e.

• the Hanafi school, founded by Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man.
• the Maliki school, founded by Malik ibn Anas.
• the Shafi'i school, founded by Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi'i.
• the Hanbali school, founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Whatever texts that are deemed to authoritative are those that are summaries of the founder's ideology, e.g. The Reliance of the Traveller and a few others.
NOPE, there are no other hundreds of books that represent the Shafi'i Schools or the other Schools.


Note this critical points from the article;

As noted by Fred Donner, for instance, the “Qur’anic text as a whole conveys an ambivalent attitude toward violence”, meaning that “deciding whether the Qur’an actually condones offensive war for the faith, or only defensive war, is really left to the judgment of the exegete.”85

Interestingly, after the escalation of terrorist attacks perpetrated by jihadist groups in the recent decades, several Muslim and western commentators have tried to minimize – if not extirpate – any trace of violence from Islam in order to appease the mounting pressure from western countries and to confute the cliché of an inherently violent religion.86 Yet, this attempt seems quite constrained, for a clear and direct relation between jihad and war (violent by its nature) cannot be denied. However, it is how the very concept of jihad is interpreted that really matters.
-Federico Borsari
​

Ambivalent!!
This is the point I have been arguing all along.
As I had pointed out, it is very natural [DNA wise] within any human group [Principles of Normal Distribution] for a percentile of humans within the group to take weird, irrational and extreme views.
Because it is embedded within the DNA, it is not possible to tweak or cure the problem.
Conservatively, 20% of all humans are naturally inclined to the negative for various reasons. In the case of Islam, there is a pool of 320 million negative prone Muslims.

These negative Muslims will be naturally drawn into the ambivalence of the concept of jihad [offensive and defensive] as condone in the Quran. The consequences to this is glaring evident from the terrible bad, evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims on non-Muslims.

 

[JosephZ]

setst777 said: ↑
I already responded to this. When you say there is no relation between Sharia and terror, you show that you only understand Sharia in part. setst777 said: ↑
I am not talking about what you think most Muslims follow, I am describing to you the Sharia of Sunni and Shia Muslims that governs Sunni and Shia.
Setst RE: You gave no reply to this.

You gave no reply to this:

Aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites and shared here, what is your background in Islamic studies and your relationship with Muslims?

There are many differing opinions, but the Sahih Hadith is clear that female circumcision is prescribed by Muhammad at the least.

If the hadith is clear, then why are there so many differing opinions?

Abu Musa reported: … What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.
Sahih Muslim 3:684 Notice that the uncircumcised are not even referred to or given attention – just the circumcised, showing female circumcision to be the norm.

Remember the answer I gave earlier?

I don’t recall that pdf quoting Sahih Muslim showing this female and male circumcision were the norm in Muhammad’s day…

History tells us this, it's an accepted fact. It doesn't have to be found in the hadiths.

Once again, this is where you have to look outside of Islamic sources and look at history. There is historical evidence that circumcision was prevalent among both Arab males and females prior to the existence of Islam, therefore, female circumcision was likely the norm in Muhammad's day. That hadith in no way is a command that females be circumcised.

Now let's look again at what the four schools of Sunni Islam teach (I couldn't find wikipedia's source that was in your quote, so I looked elsewhere to find the rulings):

1.In the Hanafî school of law (31% of the Muslims), female circumcision is permissible within itself but not considered to be a Sunnah. (i.e. no religious virtue). (Shami Fatawaa Rahimiyyah, Page 261, Vol. 6)

2. It is considered a preferred act (Mandub) for women in the Maliki school of law (25% of Muslims). They rely upon the Hadith of Umm `Atiyyah for this ruling. ( Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masâlik and Ashal al-Madarik Sharh Irshad al-Salik)

3. In the Shaf’i school of law (16% of Muslims), circumcision is considered an obligation for both men and women. This is the official ruling of that school of thought. Some Shaf`i scholars express the view that circumcision is obligatory for men and merely Sunnah for women. ( al-Majmu`)

4. In the Hanbali school of law (4% of Muslims), circumcision is obligatory for men and merely an honorable thing for women. It is not obligatory for them. The Hanbali jurist Ibn Qudamah observes: “This is the view of many people of knowledge. Imam Ahmad said that it is more emphatic for men.” (al-Mughni (1/115))

The Islamic schools of thought that represent the majority of the world's Muslims do not consider female circumcision to be a requirement.

Muslims do not practice female circumcision because it was a custom before Islam, but because Islam teaches that female circumcision is noble or required. That is why Muslims carry out circumcision – to show themselves approved by Allah and His Messenger. The foundation of their belief regarding circumcision is Sharia.

If this is true, then why are fewer than 10% of Muslim women being circumcised?

Bukhari and Muslim are the only two of the Sunni Hadith to be called Sahih because they are considered to be the most sound and reliable collection of Hadith. That is why they are declared “Sahih” rather than just “Sunan.” That is the bearing. SAHIHAYN The works of Bukhari and Muslim are known as the Sahihayn (the two sahih). The hadith agreed upon by both are referred to as muttafaqun alayh and have been regarded as the soundest hadith.

Once again, this has nothing at all to do with the authenticity and strength of the individual hadiths found in the four books of "Sunan." There are thousands of "Sahih" hadiths found in the four "Sunan" books that make up the canon of hadiths in Sunni Islam.

Sunan is the common name given to the books that collect the hadiths of decree.

Hadiths started to be gathered together and written in the first half of the eighth century (second century H); books were written on certain issues beginning from the second half of that century; Sunans appeared when the hadiths about decrees were compiled in the same order as fiqh books.

"Kitabus-Sunan fil-fiqh" by Makhul b. Abu Muslim and "as-Sunan" by Ibn Abu Aruba are the first examples of this genre, which classifies hadiths based on their topics.

Sunans usually include hadiths about belief, worshipping, muamalat (transactions) and uqubat (penalties). The words, deeds and approvals the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) are included in those works along with the fatwas of the Companions and Tabiun.

The first two books of the six hadith books called "Kutub as-Sitta" written in the ninth century (third century H) are "Sahihayn" by Bukhari and Muslim; the other four books are Sunan books called Kutub al-Arbaa or"Sunan al-Arbaa" by Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasai and Ibn Majah.

The source you provided agrees with what I have said in this thread on this.

Regarding rape and adultery…
Yes, a male is involved. However, a female must still have four witnesses to prove she is:
1. not guilty of adultery or fornication
2. that a man she is accusing of rape actually raped her
Quran (24:4) - "And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses, flog them..."
Islamic Law across the board states that a woman accused of rape is required by law to have solid evidence if she is going to accuse others of raping her.

You've got it backwards. Once again, Qur'an 24:4 requires four witnesses when a woman is being accused. I have highlighted the verse in your quote that will make this easy to see. And here are a couple of alternative translations.

Muhammad Sarwar: Those who accuse married women of committing adultery - but are not able to prove their accusation by producing four witness - must be flogged eighty lashes. Never accept their testimony thereafter because they are sinful,

Arberry: And those who cast it up on women in wedlock, and then bring not four witnesses, scourge them with eighty stripes, and do not accept any testimony of theirs ever; those -- they are the ungodly,

A woman's testimony alone is enough in Islam when it comes to rape.

The four witnesses are needed to prove adultery not rape and they are needed when a woman is being accused, not a man. The whole purpose of having four witnesses is to protect a woman against false allegations and from men who may have the intent of destroying a woman's reputation or to seek revenge against them.

Rape and adultery are classified differently in Islamic law, so the requirement of four witnesses in Qur'an 24:4 doesn't apply. More importantly, that verse doesn't apply because the four witnesses are required when a woman is being accused of adultery, not a man.

This Ayah states the prescribed punishment for making false accusations against chaste women, i.e., those who are free, adult and chaste. If the person who is falsely accused is a man, the same punishment of flogging also applies. If the accuser produces evidence that what he is saying is true, then the punishment does not apply. Allah said:

(and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the rebellious.)

If the accuser [Of the woman in Quran 24:4] cannot prove that what he is saying is true, then three rulings apply to him: (firstly) that he should be flogged with eighty stripes, (secondly) that his testimony should be rejected forever, and (thirdly) that he should be labelled as a rebellious who is not of good character, whether in the sight of Allah or of mankind.-- Ibn Kathir

The whole purpose of having four witnesses is to protect a woman against false allegations and from men who may have the intent of destroying a woman's reputation or to seek revenge against them. This rule also applies to men if they are falsely accused, but it's primary purpose is to protect women against false accusations.

Rape and produce 4 witnesses - Islamhelpline

Who publishes this website and what are their credentials?

The burka – which includes veiling the face – is understood in many Islamic countries even if not obligatory today, is based on Allah’s Word – the Qur’an.

Qur’an 33:55 [Allah speaking]
It is no sin on them (the Prophet's wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother's sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves, and keep your duty to Allah. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Witness over everything.

Note: If not covering the face is not a sin among relatives, then it is a sin to have face uncovered before others.
The Burka Verse
Quran 33:59. [Allah speaking] O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Qur’an 24:31 [Allah speaking] And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.)

Allah commands the believing women to guard their chastity, and the command to guard their chastity also a command to follow all the means of doing that. No rational person would doubt that one of the means of doing so is covering the face, because uncovering it causes people to look at it and enjoy its beauty, and thence to initiate contact. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The eyes commit zina and their zina is by looking…” then he said, “… and the private part confirms that or denies it.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6612; Muslim, 2657

Covering the face - per the Quran - is compulsory...
Narrated 'Aisha: While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'.

Sahih Bukhari 5:59:462
Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

Now let's look at how the above have been interpreted:

"The majority opinion which emerged during that time, predominant among Maliki and Hanafi jurists (Representing 56% of Muslims), held that women should cover everything except their faces in public. In contrast, most medieval Hanbali and Shafi'i jurists (Representing 20% of Muslims) counted a woman's face among the awra, concluding that it should be veiled, except for the eyes."[25][23]
Burqa - Wikipedia

Covering of the face is also not required in Shia Islam, so roughly only around 20% of Muslims fall into the Hanbali and Shafi'i schools of thought. This means that the majority of scholars and jurists of Islam have read the exact same verses from the Qur'an and hadiths as you have and concluded that the face of the woman doesn't need to be covered.

It's also important to know that the term "veil" in those verses and hadiths does not equate to a face covering.

So you see, these extremist Hadith and Quranic verses command that the women be veiled.

It's not the Islamic texts that are extremists, it's those who interpret them in a way to make them extreme.

Fatwa regarding Qur’an 24:31...
Ruling on covering the face, with detailed evidence - Islam Question & Answer

When getting information from IslamQA it's important to know that the material on that site is produced by Muhammad Al-Munajjid. He is a Salafi cleric who applies the teachings from the Salafi school of thought and Hanbali jurisprudence, both of which take a literal, strict, and puritanical approach to Islam, to answer questions on his website. Since his opinions and rulings come from a Salafi perspective/interpretation (A minority in Islam) and from Hanabali (An even smaller minority), much of what is found on his site would not be accepted as being representative of Islam by the majority of the world's Muslims.

 

[JosephZ]

those who use such Passages as some kind of command from God to kill others does not mean that is what the NT teaches anywhere. Anyone can take anything anyone says and use it support anything they want, but that does not mean that was the intent of the author as if the author was the cause of someone else's delusions.

Exactly!

In contrast, the Qur’an and Sahih Hadith and the Jurists of all four schools of Sunni, and also of Shia, and the best Tafsir agree, clearly commands Muslims to:

• terrorize,
• fight,
• kill,
• pillage,
• plunder,
• raid,
• slaughter,
• rape,
• enslave,
• sell,
• subjugate and
• utterly destroy all unbelievers, hypocrites and apostates

until the world is one religion - Islam. And that is exactly what Islam has done throughout 1400 years of conquest since Islam’s inception.

The above is your interpretation of Islam. Like you said "Anyone can take anything anyone says and use it support anything they want, but that does not mean that was the intent of the author(s)."

I quote Andrew Boston – The Legacy of Jihad, in response…

Who is Andrew Boston and what credentials does he bring to the table to write on a topic such as Islamic jihad?

Website: Jihad – the consensus view of the four Sunni Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and Shia Islam

Do you really believe this is a legitimate source for information about what Islam teaches? I mean the url should tell you everything you need to know: islamaphopic.wordpress

Look at the titles of these two blogs entries on the site: "How Muslims take over" and "Muslim infiltration of the Department of Homeland Security." The resource section even links to many well known anti-Islamic propagandists and anti-Islamic propaganda sites, many of which have been used as sources in this thread.

Setst RE: The consensus of all these sources on Jihad is that Jihad is defensive and offensive until Islam is the only religion. That is the consensus of the Jurists in all four schools of Sunni and also of Shia.

Here is what Muslims believe about jihad.

What Muslims Told Gallup "Jihad" Means to Them

Whatever its theological and historical underpinnings, it is clear that the concept of jihad has now acquired a more martial, politicized connotation among many Muslims.

Of the 10,004 adults we surveyed in our poll of predominantly Islamic countries, all but 674 were Muslims (most of the remainder being Lebanese Christians). We therefore received an overwhelming number of descriptions from Muslims in response to the request, "Please tell me in one word (or a very few words) what ‘jihad' means to you."

Of the thousands of self-crafted definitions we received, a significant minority did include some reference to "sacrificing one's life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause," or "fighting against the opponents of Islam." In four of the eight countries in which this question was asked (Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and Indonesia), this was the single most identifiable pattern within the verbatim responses received -- though in none of these countries save for Indonesia was it expressed by an outright majority. It is interesting to note that none of these four countries is ethnically Arab.

In the four Arab nations in which the question was asked (Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and Morocco), the most frequently articulated descriptions of jihad included references to one's "duty toward God," a "divine duty," or a "worship of God" -- with no explicit militaristic connotation at all.

There is no simple way to quantitatively summarize the full diversity of the verbatim replies we received to this open-ended question. However, in addition to the two broader groupings mentioned above, personal definitions also included (in roughly decreasing order of frequency) references to:

"a commitment to hard work" and "achieving one's goals in life"
"struggling to achieve a noble cause"
"promoting peace, harmony or cooperation, and assisting others" (interesting, in light of jihad's more frequently ascribed meaning)
and to simply "living the principles of Islam."

One thing is clear, however. Across the Ummah -- Islam's global community of believers -- the concept of jihad is considerably more nuanced than the single sense in which Western commentators invariably invoke the term.

 

[setst777]

You gave no reply to this:

You gave no reply to this:

setst777 said: ↑
I already responded to this. When you say there is no relation between Sharia and terror, you show that you only understand Sharia in part.

setst777 said: ↑
I am not talking about what you think most Muslims follow, I am describing to you the Sharia of Sunni and Shia Muslims that governs Sunni and Shia.

Setst RE: You gave no reply to this.

Aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites and shared here, what is your background in Islamic studies and your relationship with Muslims?

Setst RE: We are discussing Islam and its core Scriptures.

setst777 said: ↑
There are many differing opinions, but the Sahih Hadith is clear that female circumcision is prescribed by Muhammad at the least.

If the hadith is clear, then why are there so many differing opinions?

Setst RE: How many differing opinions are there among the four Islamic Jurists (Mufti)? Answer: Either female circumcision is recommended (noble) or it is mandatory. That is it.

Therefore, good Muslims who seek Allah’s approval will be circumcised. This has nothing to do with tradition or culture outside of Islam and has everything to do with Allah and His Messenger, and is Sharia.

setst777 said: ↑
Abu Musa reported: … What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.
Sahih Muslim 3:684

Notice that the uncircumcised are not even referred to or given attention – just the circumcised, showing female circumcision to be the norm.

Remember the answer I gave earlier?

Setst RE: Remember the answer I provided from Islam’s own sources? Very clear that circumcision is the norm within Islam per Muhammad’s own words and actions and from Sunni Islam all four Schools – recommended (noble) or obligatory.

What Islam teaches is the issue, not what civilizations may have practiced before Islam.

setst777 said: ↑
I don’t recall that pdf quoting Sahih Muslim showing this female and male circumcision were the norm in Muhammad’s day…

JosephZ said: ↑
History tells us this, it's an accepted fact. It doesn't have to be found in the hadiths.

The Islamic schools of thought that represent the majority of the world's Muslims do not consider female circumcision to be a requirement.

Setst RE: I never said it was. All four schools of Sunni and also Shia agree that female circumcision is either recommended (noble) or obligatory. Any Muslim who desires to please Allah will, therefore, be circumcised.

setst777 said: ↑
Muslims do not practice female circumcision because it was a custom before Islam, but because Islam teaches that female circumcision is noble or required. That is why Muslims carry out circumcision – to show themselves approved by Allah and His Messenger. The foundation of their belief regarding circumcision is Sharia.

If this is true, then why are fewer than 10% of Muslim women being circumcised?

Setst RE: “If this is true”??? It is true.

• If you understood Sharia you would not even question this.
• I quoted the four schools of Sunni for you regarding female circumcision.
• Unfortunately, you don’t even know that Muslims dress the way they do because of Sharia, so how could you possibly know about anything else regarding Sharia?
• You are oblivious to Sharia and Islam in general. Your knowledge obviously is derived from subjective bias as you have shown us repeatedly.

In Islamic countries female circumcision is extremely high, with some major Islamic countries showing over 90% females having been circumcised, over 200 million women in 30 countries – most are Islamic.

Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country - Wikipedia

Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia

However the real concern is if Islam recommends it or makes it obligatory. That is the issue. That is Sharia, just as the NT Scriptures are the Sharia for Christians.

Whatever customs existed before Islam has nothing to do with what Islam itself recommends or make obligatory from Allah and His Messenger,

Just as:

Whatever customs existed before Christianity has nothing to do with what Christianity recommends or makes obligatory from Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

setst777 said: ↑
Bukhari and Muslim are the only two of the Sunni Hadith to be called Sahih because they are considered to be the most sound and reliable collection of Hadith. That is why they are declared “Sahih” rather than just “Sunan.” That is the bearing. SAHIHAYN The works of Bukhari and Muslim are known as the Sahihayn (the two sahih). The hadith agreed upon by both are referred to as muttafaqun alayh and have been regarded as the soundest hadith.

The source you provided agrees with what I have said in this thread on this.

Setst RE: Since you agree with my sources, then what are you arguing about? Why waste time arguing about the evidence I gave when you agree with it?

What is quoted below is what I am agreeing with, and you also agree with.

"Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim.[1][2] The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct.[3]
Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn."

Since you say you also agree, then no issues.

SAHIHAYN
The works of Bukhari and Muslim are known as the Sahihayn (the two sahih). The hadith agreed upon by both are referred to as muttafaqun alayh and have been regarded as the soundest hadith.
UNIT THREE - SAHIH AND HASAN HADITH - North East Islamic Community Center

Sahih al-Bukhari
Sunni Muslims view this as one of the two most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim.[1][2] The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct.[3] Sahih al-Bukhari, together with Sahih Muslim is known as Sahihayn.
Sahih al-Bukhari - Wikipedia

You agree, so no issues.

setst777 said: ↑
For instance:
1. The accused rapist confesses to his heinous crime; or
2. She produces four witnesses to justify her claim that so and so person(s) raped her.
3. There can be other types of evidence, but such evidence need not be accepted.
Does A Woman Need Four Witnesses To Prove Rape?
Rape and produce 4 witnesses - Islamhelpline

Who publishes this website and what are their credentials?

Setst RE: I gave two websites in the above – both on Islamic Law regarding Qur’an 24:4. Their credentials are provided. I am not here to argue against what Islam already teaches as Islamic Law by my subjective bias. That is your job.

Continued...

 

[setst777]

You gave no reply to this:

Continued...

setst777 said: ↑
The burka – which includes veiling the face – is understood in many Islamic countries even if not obligatory today, is based on Allah’s Word – the Qur’an.

setst777 said: ↑
Qur’an 33:55 [Allah speaking]
It is no sin on them (the Prophet's wives, if they appear unveiled) before their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their brother's sons, or the sons of their sisters, or their own (believing) women, or their (female) slaves, and keep your duty to Allah. Verily, Allah is Ever All-Witness over everything.

setst777 said: ↑
Note: If not covering the face is not a sin among relatives, then it is a sin to have face uncovered before others.

The Burka Verse
Quran 33:59. [Allah speaking] O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

setst777 said: ↑
Qur’an 24:31 [Allah speaking] And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna(i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.)

setst777 said: ↑
Allah commands the believing women to guard their chastity, and the command to guard their chastity also a command to follow all the means of doing that. No rational person would doubt that one of the means of doing so is covering the face, because uncovering it causes people to look at it and enjoy its beauty, and thence to initiate contact. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The eyes commit zina and their zina is by looking…” then he said, “… and the private part confirms that or denies it.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6612; Muslim, 2657

setst777 said: ↑
Covering the face - per the Quran - is compulsory...

Narrated 'Aisha: While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'.

setst777 said: ↑
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:462
Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

**Now let's look at how the above have been interpreted:

Setst RE: Not so fast. You tell me first if veiling the face, except for the eyes, is a command of Allah in the Qur’an (the Burka verses) and Sahih Hadith – the sacred Scriptures you call “extremist”?

Narrated 'Aisha: While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. [...]
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 4141
In-book reference: Book 64, Hadith 185
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 462

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

Sahih Bukhari 5:59:462
Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:282

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

Narrated 'Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed.
So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).
Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Apostle "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.' Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam'a went out and she was a tall woman. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of Veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). (See Hadith No. 148, Vol. 1)
Sahih Bukhari 8:74:257

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

While the Qur’an and Hadith make it compulsory to veil the face except for the eyes per Allah’s command, the four Sunni Schools do differ on this, just as I noted by providing you the quotes from Wikipedia.

It's also important to know that the term "veil" in those verses and hadiths does not equate to a face covering.

Setst RE: The Qur’an and Hadith make is very plain to understand that veiling the face, except for the eyes, is what is meant. Why? The reason is because this is what the Qur’an and Hadith actually states in context.

LOOK at the verses I provided from the Qur’an and Sahih Hadeth. No need to re-interpret it.

setst777 said: ↑
So you see, these extremist Hadith and Quranic verses command that the women be veiled.

It's not the Islamic texts that are extremists, it's those who interpret them in a way to make them extreme.

Setst RE:

Who is the extremist that interpreted the following? …

Narrated 'Aisha: While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. [...]
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 4141
In-book reference: Book 64, Hadith 185
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 462

Who is the extremist that interpreted Allah’s command regarding the Qur’anic verses of the Burka being compulsory according to the above Sahih Bukhari Hadith?

Continued...

 

[setst777]

Exactly!

continued...

setst777 said: ↑
those who use such Passages as some kind of command from God to kill others does not mean that is what the NT teaches anywhere. Anyone can take anything anyone says and use it support anything they want, but that does not mean that was the intent of the author as if the author was the cause of someone else's delusions.

Exactly!

Setst RE: You make yourself look like you have no idea what you are saying. And that is what is so sad.

setst777 said: ↑
In contrast, the Qur’an and Sahih Hadith and the Jurists of all four schools of Sunni, and also of Shia, and the best Tafsir agree, clearly commands Muslims to:

• terrorize,
• fight,
• kill,
• pillage,
• plunder,
• raid,
• slaughter,
• rape,
• enslave,
• sell,
• subjugate and
• utterly destroy all unbelievers, hypocrites and apostates

until the world is one religion - Islam. And that is exactly what Islam has done throughout 1400 years of conquest since Islam’s inception.

The above is your interpretation of Islam.

Setst RE: I knew you never read the Qur’an, and have no idea what it states from the first time we started conversing.

You only know about Islam subjectively from what you see based on your own bias. All these words I listed should be familiar to you if you read the Qur’an, because those words are repeatedly applied to the conduct of Muhammad and Muslims in their Jihad against unbelievers per the command of Allah IN THE QUR’AN. You didn’t know this because you are a pretender and never studied anything in the Qur’an.

The only word not used is “rape.” However, when Muslims kill the family members of girls and women, burn their houses down and forcibly take the little girls and women to be their sex slaves to use and sell as they wish (the slaves’ previous marriages annulled by Allah) then we call this rape.

IN CONTRAST:

We don’t see any of these savage activities or words commanded or listed in the NT for Christians. We see JUST THE OPPOSITE.

Now do you understand what “Exactly!” is referring to, or are you still fuzzy?

**Like you said "Anyone can take anything anyone says and use it support anything they want, but that does not mean that was the intent of the author(s)."

Setst RE: Exactly! Now do you get it?

setst777 said: ↑
I quote Andrew Bostom – The Legacy of Jihad, in response…

Who is Andrew Bostom and what credentials does he bring to the table to write on a topic such as Islamic jihad?

Setst RE: I gave a link to his website, and his autobiography is also online.

If I give you sources to review, would you actually take the time to read them, or are you just spouting off?

Andrew Bostom is the first author in the world to translate the historical original primary and secondary source documents on the history of Islam into our language.

See: Andrew G. Bostom - Wikipedia

See: The Legacy of Jihad - Wikipedia

See: The Legacy of Jihad

See: https://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims-ebook/dp/B0046RDPZU

See: The Legacy of Jihad

[The Legacy of Jihad] | C-SPAN.org

setst777 said: ↑
The consensus of all these sources on Jihad is that Jihad is defensive and offensive until Islam is the only religion. That is the consensus of the Jurists in all four schools of Sunni and also of Shia.

Here is what Muslims believe about jihad.

setst RE: I only gave you what Islam commands per the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira, and the four Jurists (mufti) of Islam. If you disagree, then you are refuting Islam in order to subjectively force your opinions onto Islam.

No Westernized graphs or polls and political correctness can change what Islam actually teaches. So to use such as “evidence” to prove that Islam does not actually teach what it teaches is dishonest and is no evidence at all.

People like you is why the West is a sitting duck to the Islamic Jihad that is occurring all around us. You are totally oblivious to Islam and Jihad because you never studied Islam from their own sources.

 

[JosephZ]

For instance:
1. The accused rapist confesses to his heinous crime; or
2. She produces four witnesses to justify her claim that so and so person(s) raped her.
3. There can be other types of evidence, but such evidence need not be accepted.
Does A Woman Need Four Witnesses To Prove Rape?

Your source is condemning those requirements and supports what I have been telling you. You have taken the above out of context. The part you have quoted is talking about the laws in certain Islamic states:

Some noteworthy Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia... in states where this vague law of requiring 4 witnesses is still applicable... there are only two ways an Islamic court of that relevant country can convict the rapist(s):

1. The accused rapist confesses to his heinous crime; or
2. She produces four witnesses to justify her claim that so and so person raped her.

If the accused(s) deny the accusation, then like any other suit the burden of proof shifts to the party that accuses or levies the charges. If she is unable to prove her claim then the court may press against her the charges of false accusation – that is called as kazafin Islam.

Here is what your source says about the requirement of four witnesses:

Does A Woman Need Four Witnesses To Prove Rape?

The question I am going to highlight today is: does a woman need 4 witnesses to prove rape?

The answer is very short and it is NO. Islam or Sharia does not require any woman to produce eye-witnesses in order to corroborate her statement that she was raped.

If a woman claims that she is a victim of rape and she does not have any witnesses to prove her claim, then, as per Islam and Sharia, her words solely will be taken as the truth and there will be no need of witnesses at all, moreover as she is a victim who was raped so she will be treated honorably, free of any charges or blames.

“The adulterer and the adulteress — flog each one of them with a hundred stripes” - (An-Nur 24:3).

“…And those who calumniate chaste woman but brings not four witnesses — flog them eighty stripes and do not admit their evidence ever after” – (An-Nur 24:5).

In above-mentioned verses, it has been made very clear that the requirement of four witnesses arises to prove adultery and not rape, and not when the husband is being accused of unfaithfulness, but when the wife is being accused.
http://courtingthelaw.com/2016/05/05/commentary/does-a-woman-need-four-witnesses-to-prove-rape/
Now if the charge or accusation is right and true then they [The Accuser] have to produce four witnesses to support their claim. If they fail then accusers shall be punished for falsely accusing a chaste woman. Moreover, their testimony shall not be accepted in any other case ever.

Even after the production of four witnesses, if a woman swears upon her own innocence then again her words shall be taken as true and she shall be considered innocent.

4366, SUNAN ABU-DAWUD

In above mentioned Hadith Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) didn’t even ask the female victim to produce four witnesses or to provide any other evidence for corroboration. Muhammad (PBUH) took her words as true.

As per Hadith and Quran there are two major sexual crimes: first, adultery, which involves the consent of both parties, making both parties equally responsible for the sin. Second, rape, which is an act of non-consensual violence hence dealt with different legal proceedings and entails different punishments. Rape falls under the category of hiraba(terrorism and the promotion of terror) and is defined as any form of non-consensual sex, where the victim was coerced into the situation against her will.

 

[setst777]

Your source is condemning those requirements and supports what I have been telling you. You have taken the above out of context. The part you have quoted is talking about the laws in certain Islamic states:

Some noteworthy Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia... in states where this vague law of requiring 4 witnesses is still applicable... there are only two ways an Islamic court of that relevant country can convict the rapist(s):

1. The accused rapist confesses to his heinous crime; or
2. She produces four witnesses to justify her claim that so and so person raped her.

If the accused(s) deny the accusation, then like any other suit the burden of proof shifts to the party that accuses or levies the charges. If she is unable to prove her claim then the court may press against her the charges of false accusation – that is called as kazafin Islam.

Here is what your source says about the requirement of four witnesses:

Does A Woman Need Four Witnesses To Prove Rape?

The question I am going to highlight today is: does a woman need 4 witnesses to prove rape?

The answer is very short and it is NO. Islam or Sharia does not require any woman to produce eye-witnesses in order to corroborate her statement that she was raped.

If a woman claims that she is a victim of rape and she does not have any witnesses to prove her claim, then, as per Islam and Sharia, her words solely will be taken as the truth and there will be no need of witnesses at all, moreover as she is a victim who was raped so she will be treated honorably, free of any charges or blames.

“The adulterer and the adulteress — flog each one of them with a hundred stripes” - (An-Nur 24:3).

“…And those who calumniate chaste woman but brings not four witnesses — flog them eighty stripes and do not admit their evidence ever after” – (An-Nur 24:5).

In above-mentioned verses, it has been made very clear that the requirement of four witnesses arises to prove adultery and not rape, and not when the husband is being accused of unfaithfulness, but when the wife is being accused.
Now if the charge or accusation is right and true then they [The Accuser] have to produce four witnesses to support their claim. If they fail then accusers shall be punished for falsely accusing a chaste woman. Moreover, their testimony shall not be accepted in any other case ever.

Even after the production of four witnesses, if a woman swears upon her own innocence then again her words shall be taken as true and she shall be considered innocent.

4366, SUNAN ABU-DAWUD

In above mentioned Hadith Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) didn’t even ask the female victim to produce four witnesses or to provide any other evidence for corroboration. Muhammad (PBUH) took her words as true.

As per Hadith and Quran there are two major sexual crimes: first, adultery, which involves the consent of both parties, making both parties equally responsible for the sin. Second, rape, which is an act of non-consensual violence hence dealt with different legal proceedings and entails different punishments. Rape falls under the category of hiraba(terrorism and the promotion of terror) and is defined as any form of non-consensual sex, where the victim was coerced into the situation against her will.

setst RE: Nothing you wrote contradicts what I have been showing. I have already quoted that fact that if a women says she is raped then this is to be accepted as truth. However, if she is accusing a particular person or persons of raping her then she must have solid evidence. That is what I stated and quoted.

The best evidence is that which is most widely accepted, which is four male witnesses...

I quote from the very same source you quoted from that I previously provided you...

<<<
Some noteworthy Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia, still do have the same law applicable. It has been pointed out that the loose trial rules, as well as physical evidence, are not presented or declined due to the 4 witnesses rule of Sharia law.

Women who cannot produce these many witnesses often end up in jail themselves for adultery – a crime against the state mostly punishable by stoning to death. Under such a caricature system, rape victims have less reason to accuse anyone as a rapist.

So in states where this vague law of requiring 4 witnesses is still applicable, the issue pertaining to the production of four witnesses arises when a woman who is the victim of rape accuses some specific person or men raping her. In that case, there are only two ways an Islamic court of that relevant country can convict the rapist(s):

1. The accused rapist confesses to his heinous crime; or
2. She produces four witnesses to justify her claim that so and so person raped her.

If the accused(s) deny the accusation, then like any other suit the burden of proof shifts to the party that accuses or levies the charges.

If she is unable to prove her claim then the court may press against her the charges of false accusation – that is called as kazaf in Islam.

From this we can get a general concept that under no circumstances a woman, who is the victim of rape and claiming of being so, can be accused, convicted or punished for fornication or adultery (zina). All she needs to do is just make a statement that ‘I have been raped’ and her words will be taken as the truth.

The issue of production of 4 witnesses – in case a rape victim has seen the rapists and she wants them to be punished – is of utmost importance.
>>> End of Quote
Does A Woman Need Four Witnesses To Prove Rape?

This is all I have been saying, and is Islamic Law.

You disagreed, which was the reason I had to show you what Islamic Law actually taught. So if you disagree with Islamic Law are disagreeing with Islam, not me.

 

[JosephZ]

Aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites and shared here, what is your background in Islamic studies and your relationship with Muslims?

We are discussing Islam and its core Scriptures.

I will take that as meaning that you have no background in Islam or Islamic studies aside from what you have learned from notorious anti-Islamic websites since you have refused to answer the question after being asked multiple times.

I knew you never read the Qur’an, and have no idea what it states from the first time we started conversing. You only know about Islam subjectively from what you see based on your own bias. All these words I listed should be familiar to you if you read the Qur’an, because those words are repeatedly applied to the conduct of Muhammad and Muslims in their Jihad against unbelievers per the command of Allah IN THE QUR’AN. You didn’t know this because you are a pretender and never studied anything in the Qur’an.

You are totally oblivious to Islam and Jihad because you never studied Islam from their own sources.

My background in Islam

How many differing opinions are there among the four Islamic Jurists (Mufti)? Answer: Either female circumcision is recommended (noble) or it is mandatory. That is it.

This is not true. The Hanifi school of thought, the most followed school of thought in Islam, says female circumcision has no religious value.

There are five primary schools of thought in Islam by the way. 4 Sunni and 1 Shia

Therefore, good Muslims who seek Allah’s approval will be circumcised. This has nothing to do with tradition or culture outside of Islam and has everything to do with Allah and His Messenger, and is Sharia.

The reason female circumcision is seen as permissible and even honorable in all but two of the schools of thought is because it was already customary prior to the arrival of Islam. The two that make it obligatory are fundamentalist and represent only around 20% of the world's Muslim population, and even within those two schools there is disagreement on the subject of female circumcision. This is why less than 10% of Muslim women undergo this procedure.

Remember the answer I provided from Islam’s own sources? Very clear that circumcision is the norm within Islam per Muhammad’s own words and actions and from Sunni Islam all four Schools – recommended (noble) or obligatory.

What Islam teaches is the issue, not what civilizations may have practiced before Islam.

Once again, the reason female circumcision is seen as permissible and even honorable in all but two of the schools of thought is because it was already customary prior to the arrival of Islam.

All four schools of Sunni and also Shia agree that female circumcision is either recommended (noble) or obligatory. Any Muslim who desires to please Allah will, therefore, be circumcised.

If this were true, then more than 10% of the world's Muslim women would undergo female circumcision.

In Islamic countries female circumcision is extremely high, with some major Islamic countries showing over 90% females having been circumcised, over 200 million women in 30 countries – most are Islamic.

Not in all Islamic countries, in most Muslim majority countries the practice of female circumcision is not widespread and confined only to small regions or within certain tribes, and in some Islamic countries it's practically non-existent. And of those 200 million women, a large percentage of those are Christians.

I gave two websites in the above – both on Islamic Law regarding Qur’an 24:4. Their credentials are provided.

islamhelpline is anonymous and there are no names or credentials given on those who post content to it. The first one refuted your claims on the requirement of four witnesses.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 4141
In-book reference: Book 64, Hadith 185
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 462

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

No

Sahih Bukhari 6:60:282

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

No

Sahih Bukhari 1:4:148

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

No

Sahih Bukhari 8:74:257

Question: Is this verse Extremist?

No

Setst RE: The Qur’an and Hadith make is very plain to understand that veiling the face, except for the eyes, is what is meant. Why? The reason is because this is what the Qur’an and Hadith actually states in context.
LOOK at the verses I provided from the Qur’an and Sahih Hadeth. No need to re-interpret it.

I'm going to go with the interpretation of the majority of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence and the vast majority of the world's Muslims on this and agree with them that the face doesn't have to be covered.

I gave a link to his website, and his autobiography is also online.

He has absolutely no background in Islamic Studies or Islamic history, he's a medical doctor. Just because someone writes a book about Islam, it doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Bill Warner would be another good example.