More terrorism uncovered!

[smaneck]

Not referring to historians but to the Muslims who use the hadith.

That may be what you are referring to. I was responding to those making negative assessments of Muhammad, not the way Muslims understand Him.

 

[ecco]

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about your assertion that "Muhammad did begin hostilities in order to spread his religion and gain power – repeatedly and often." Theoretically that would be verifiable, except the Qur'an is the only contemporary source we have to the life of Muhammad.

As Hank77 put it so succinctly:

That is what you believe but that is not helpful seeing there are thousands and thousands of Muslims who do believe other writings such as the volumes of the hadith,​

What is written (scripturally) is important to people who want to justify actions with the authority of GOD.

When it is written and by whom it is written is only important to scholars and people who want to object to the BELIEVERS.

It is written that Muhammad authorized the beheading of 600. It is written that Muhammad spread Islam through the use of violence. It is written that Jesus fed the multitudes. It is written that Moses parted the red sea. It is written that Noah survived a world-wide flood.

That none of these events are contemporaneously verifiable matters not one bit to believers.

Meanwhile, back to...

Do you have contemporary evidence to show that "God summoned Bahá’u’lláh to deliver a new Revelation to humanity?

LOL. Claims to revelation can never be proved historically, because God and revelation are not subject to historical verification.

And yet you believe. I think you verified what Hank77 and I wrote.

 

[smaneck]

What is written (scripturally) is important to people who want to justify actions with the authority of GOD.

When it is written and by whom it is written is only important to scholars and people who want to object to the BELIEVERS.

Ahadith are not scripture.

It is written that Muhammad authorized the beheading of 600.

Not in scripture it isn't.

It is written that Muhammad spread Islam through the use of violence.

Where?

 

[ecco]

But, yes, apparently you can rape captive women.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm
This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):
The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)



Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands -​

​

That does not sound at all like a valid hadith.

In your opinion.

Allah doesn't talk directly to people

So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24)

OK. There is no explanation just how Allah "sent down" the verse in the Sura. Yet there it is.

and the verse in question while allowing for sexual relations with slaves does not say anything about raping them in front of their husbands.

My comment was about justification for rape, I wasn't discussing husbands.

Even ISIS doesn't do that.

Google "isis rape kurds". Do really believe it's all just Islamophobic propaganda.

While infamous for enslaving women and selling them as concubines, in the case of married women they always wait four months.

Oh goody.

I would not accept anything from that hate blog you are using.

I'm sure you wouldn't. Did you Google "isis rape kurds" yet? Are all those reports from "hate blogs"?
​

 

[ecco]

Sure. The ones based on the Qur'an are reliable.

So, in your opinion, nothing in the hadith is reliable.

That probably goes against the beliefs of most Muslims.

Muhammad was illiterate.

What is your point?

 

[Hank77]

Muslims mostly judge the reliability of a hadith by reputation of those who transmitted the story (isnad.) A hadith is deemed only as reliable as its weakest link. But have you ever played telephone? Whatever ends up at the other end is never the same as what you started with. On the other hand, ahadith are our only source which gives context to the Qur'an so we can't do without in completely. I would like to see a new science of hadith evolve, not such much for legal reasons but rather as part of the search for the historical Muhammad. We know slightly more about Him than we do Jesus historically speaking, but not that much more. However, better methodologies have evolved for biblical studies and I'd like to see higher criticism applied to ahadith as well.

Maybe if that could be done and agreed upon by Muslim scholars that could be the reformation that one of the Muslim men was saying is needed for Islam. It seems to me that is where the terrorist get a lot their steam from.

 

[ecco]

...Consider this exchange...

Ahadith are not scripture.

It is written that Muhammad authorized the beheading of 600.

Not in scripture it isn't.

It is written that Muhammad spread Islam through the use of violence.

Where?

...In light of this comment...

Muslims mostly judge the reliability of a hadith by reputation of those who transmitted the story (isnad.) A hadith is deemed only as reliable as its weakest link. But have you ever played telephone? Whatever ends up at the other end is never the same as what you started with. On the other hand, ahadith are our only source which gives context to the Qur'an so we can't do without in completely.

I would like to see a new science of hadith evolve, not such much for legal reasons but rather as part of the search for the historical Muhammad. We know slightly more about Him than we do Jesus historically speaking, but not that much more. However, better methodologies have evolved for biblical studies and I'd like to see higher criticism applied to ahadith as well.

If "ahadith is not scripture" why bother? Oh, wait. You did imply Muslims look to these writings for "context to the Qur'an". I'll wager that some Muslims put complete faith in some ahadith just as some Christians put complete faith into the writings of "Mark" and "Paul".

But again, why bother? Scientific studies have laid question to the authorship of the Gospels and the time of their writings. These scientific findings have not clarified anything anything in the minds of believers.

Believers will believe what they want to. It's not a matter of science and it's not a matter of playing "telephone". If it is written, some will read it as literal truth.

You also call for a "search for the historical Muhammad". What could this based on? You dismissed the Sira of Ibn Ishaq as being written too far after the actual events to be of any use.

Christians will use whatever they prefer to use to justify their beliefs and actions.
Anti-Christians will use whatever they prefer to use to justify their condemnations.
Muslims will use whatever they prefer to use to justify their beliefs and actions.
Anti-Muslims will use whatever they prefer to use to justify their condemnations.

Bahá’ís will use whatever they prefer to use to justify their beliefs and actions.
If and when it becomes widespread...
anti-Bahá’ís
will use whatever they prefer to use to justify their condemnations.

 

[smaneck]

OK. There is no explanation just how Allah "sent down" the verse in the Sura. Yet there it is.​

The verse says nothing about raping women in front of their husbands.

My comment was about justification for rape, I wasn't discussing husbands.

The hadith you cited did, which is what makes it suspect.

Google "isis rape kurds".

I've already conceded that the Qur'an like the Bible permits sex with women enslaved as a result of wars.

Do really believe it's all just Islamophobic propaganda.

Anything on the religionofpeace.com, pretty much.

Are all those reports from "hate blogs"?

We are discussing the hadith you cited which was from a hate blog. Try to stay on the same page.​

 

[smaneck]

What is your point?

He didn't write anything.

 

[smaneck]

You also call for a "search for the historical Muhammad". What could this based on? You dismissed the Sira of Ibn Ishaq as being written too far after the actual events to be of any use.

Didn't mention the Sirat, but a good deal of it utilizes ahadith which even Muslims regard as weak. But yes, the Sirat would be useful if we applied the methods of higher criticism to it.

 

[smaneck]

Maybe if that could be done and agreed upon by Muslim scholars that could be the reformation that one of the Muslim men was saying is needed for Islam. It seems to me that is where the terrorist get a lot their steam from.

The jihadists think they are the Reformation of Islam. Those that think Islam would be fine with a Reformation have forgotten what the Reformation was all about and how many millions of people died as a result. It is the Enlightenment that made the West tolerant, not the Reformation. In any case it wouldn't help as Will McCant who is currently the foremost expert on ISIS points out:

"Muslims who want to justify violence can find plenty of passages to cite—collections of hadith run into the hundreds of volumes. Nevertheless, Muslim political behavior has varied greatly throughout history. Some Muslims have cited Scripture to justify violence, and some have cited it to justify peace. If Scripture is a constant but the behavior of its followers is not, then one should look elsewhere to explain why some Muslims engage in terrorism. And if Islamic Scripture doesn’t automatically lead to terrorism, then one should not expect the reform of Islam to end terrorism. Indeed, even the ultratextualist followers of the self-proclaimed Islamic State ignore Scripture that is inconvenient for their brutal brand of insurgency.
Consider the Gospels, Scriptures that advocate far less violence than the Koran or the Hebrew Bible. Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek. Yet the crusaders murdered thousands in their rampage across the Middle East, and U.S. President George W. Bush, a devout Christian, invaded Iraq without military provocation. Readers may object to these examples, arguing that other factors were at play—but that is exactly the point: Christian Scripture doesn’t always determine the behavior of its followers, and the same goes for Islamic Scripture."

 

[Hank77]

Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek. Yet the crusaders murdered thousands in their rampage across the Middle East, and U.S. President George W. Bush, a devout Christian, invaded Iraq without military provocation. Readers may object to these examples, arguing that other factors were at play—but that is exactly the point: Christian Scripture doesn’t always determine the behavior of its followers, and the same goes for Islamic Scripture."

I agree with you that Christians don't always do what is right. But George Bush did not use scripture to justify Iraq. He said he prayed about it but that isn't the same thing, is it.

The crusades are an example of the Church taking over the power of the state, somehow thinking that they were some kind of theocracy. Their attempt at a theocracy, was built by men, not God.
Any time the church (any church) becomes the government there is going to be evil. Too much power corrupts good men. So your example of the crusades may be closer to what you are talking about.

 

[smaneck]

I agree with you that Christians don't always do what is right. But George Bush did not use scripture to justify Iraq. He said he prayed about it but that isn't the same thing, is it.

I'm not sure how much that matters. Reagan used a lot of scripture to justify his own aggressive foreign policy.

The crusades are an example of the Church taking over the power of the state, somehow thinking that they were some kind of theocracy. Their attempt at a theocracy, was built by men, not God.

The issue here is not theocracy, it is the extent to which members of a religion feels justified in using violence to achieve their ends. Granted the Church was able to use the Crusades to extend their powers over the political sphere, but they were by no means a theocracy.

Any time the church (any church) becomes the government there is going to be evil.Too much power corrupts good men. So your example of the crusades may be closer to what you are talking about.

Except Islam has no church or any other equivalent institution.

 

[ecco]

We are discussing the hadith you cited which was from a hate blog. Try to stay on the same page.

At this juncture the point of the discussion has gotten lost.

Here is my POV...
There is enough written in what many people consider authoritative religious writings to support many acts of violence; slavery, rape, killings.

It doesn't matter that some people believe "That's the OT, it doesn't apply any longer" or "That's a lesser hadith, it doesn't count". What matters is that some people will point to it as being indicative of what god wanted and apply it as they see fit.

 

[ecco]

Didn't mention the Sirat, but a good deal of it utilizes ahadith which even Muslims regard as weak. But yes, the Sirat would be useful if we applied the methods of higher criticism to it.

You're right. You didn't. That was AionPhanes who responded to a post directed to you.

​

 

[smaneck]

It doesn't matter that some people believe "That's the OT, it doesn't apply any longer" or "That's a lesser hadith, it doesn't count".

There is no such thing as a 'lesser hadith." Ahadith are categorized by their reliability that goes from sound to weak.

What matters is that some people will point to it as being indicative of what god wanted and apply it as they see fit.

Of course, they will. People are still people no matter which religion they belong to.