What Really Makes Muslims Leave Islam – Part 2

78c0f6af57bce7a2a6f6ec3cdff649c9

Adil returns with a much needed sequel to his previous article on the growing wave of Muslim apostasy…

Please skip the introduction if you have read part 1

Which conversation topic is likeliest to cause the most exquisite discomfort amongst Muslims? ISIS? Dress codes? Whether our financial transactions are ‘Sharia compliant’ or not? Saudi Arabia? Allegedly Muslim Grooming gangs? All of the above and more can, and do. Often. However, the lofty first prize easily goes to the subject of Muslims leaving the faith; so much so, that it is discussed little in proportion to the importance of the issue. Perhaps, we feel that bringing the topic into the open legitimises the concept or perhaps we feel that discussing apostasy makes us appear weak and defeatist. Regardless, the phenomenon is real, and almost certainly growing. As I Muslim, I do not believe that there exist ‘valid’ grounds for apostasy, but I have to accept that there are some that warrant empathy as opposed to ostracisation. I also agree with the reality of many of the reasons that Muslims who question Islam give, though I may disagree with the conclusions drawn from them.

This is the first of a series of articles where I discuss and reflect on some of the reasons for the rise of atheism and agnosticism in the Muslim communities in the West and worldwide. My hope is that Muslims can recognise these problems and avoid perpetuating one. Meanwhile, I hope that doubting Muslims will re-evaluate some of their reasons; though this article is no debunking exercise. Following the original article in the series, in no particular order whatsoever I discuss a further five reasons for why many Muslims start doubting Islam.

6) Muslims start to distrust influential Muslim speakers who may eloquently critique Islamophobia but show tacit acceptance and complicity towards extreme or intolerant Muslim speakers or activists.

As a discussed in the previous article, human beings have double standards; perhaps this is as inevitable as sin itself, but as Muslims we are clearly warned against them, and told to stand for justice, regardless of who it is against.

O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do (Qur’an 5:8)

O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God’s claim takes precedence over [the claims of] either of them. Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice: for if you distort [the truth], behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do! (Qur’an 4:135)

A couple of meanings here are clear and unambiguous; first, the Qur’an recognises that we are not saints and that we will invariably detest people, but it reminds us to be just even to those we hate, equating this with God consciousness. Secondly, we are told to stand for justice even if it is against ourselves or our families. At no point is there small print telling us to give a Muslim whose name pops up on an adultery website the benefit of the doubt if we wouldn’t do the same for a non Muslim too. Making excuses for people who are on ‘the same side,’ is undeniably common amongst most people; secular societies (and ironically named anti extremist organisations) for instance, persistently make excuses in favour for outright anti-Muslim neocon warmongers like Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Sam Harris, and others. But how can we cry foul play when we do exactly the same, even though we have a religious mandate not to and they do not?

Many Muslim websites and spokespeople articulately and skilfully de-construct anti-Muslim bias and prejudice in the media; CAGE do, iERA do, 5 Pillarz does; hard-line activists of Hizbut Tahir can be very perceptive when it comes to de constructing Islamophobia too. But where is that perception when it comes to Muslim extremists? Trawl through the pages of certain Dawah carriers (some who laughably fancy themselves as human rights activists) and you’ll see articles on Zionism, Islamophobia, anti-Muslim bigotry, Western foreign policy and critiques of secular liberalism; but seldom if ever, a criticism of Muslim extremists. If pushed, most of these individuals and organisations will denounce ISIS and perhaps Al Muhajiroun (a group of murderers, and a laughable band of moronic provocateurs respectively), but critique of any ultraconservative ‘scholars’ who advocate anything slightly less than mass murder will either be disregarded, or elicit frenzied accusations of modernism and heresy. Criticise Ibn Baz for his excommunication of people who disagreed with his ‘cosmology,’ or still living ‘scholars’ like Haitham al Haddad for calling Osama Bin Laden a martyr (albeit one whose ‘methods’ he disagrees with), or for clearly condoning domestic violence, and at best, you’ll be faced with a mountain of emotional blackmail in the name of ‘unity’. It is indeed ironic that the Muslims who try to stifle criticism of scholars in the name of ‘unity’ are usually defending scholars who advocate sectarianism of the worst kind; often denouncing any non Salafist perspectives, and have such a stringent criteria for what makes a Muslim or even a valid prayer (according to one ‘Dawahman,’ most Muslims haven’t ever said a prayer that ‘counts’ anyway); that they would consider virtually all other Muslims as disbelievers anyway.

But hey, isn’t ‘making excuses for your brothers’ a good thing anyway? Even if Al Haddad is just a little bit on the hard-line side (you know, for insisting that even closet apostasy should be punishable by death, or that domestic violence is okay, or that Jews are the enemies of God, or that homosexuality is worse than murder), he’s a man of knowledge right? Part of the Ummah. Okay, then we can surely give some slack to the chairman of the ‘anti extremist’ Quilliam foundation for defending his ‘sister’ Ayaan Hirsi Ali who thinks Islam should be crushed; or Benjamin Netanyahu for defending his settler ‘brothers,’ or ‘comedian’ Bill Maher for defending anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders. Right? Or are only Muslims allowed to have double standards in defending repugnant views?

 

7) Many Muslim parents teach their children about Islam horrendously, or not at all

Many non Muslims (including some of my Christian friends who say this as complement) assume that most young Muslims are brought up to be very religious by their parents, and are given a thorough religious education (or ‘indoctrination,’ for many militant secularists who see any form of religious upbringing as such). The reality of the upbringing of your average Muslim child is very different however; and more akin to a sponge like absorption of ideas and practices rather than actually being taught very much of note. Children simply see their parents doing ‘Muslim things,’ and copy them. It is not uncommon for a parent to teach their child how to pray, and perhaps sprinkle their children with whatever hadiths appear to fit their parental wants, but this is usually where it ends. I genuinely struggle to think of any of my Muslim peers who have meaningful theological conversations with their parents, or have been taught anything remotely academic by them. At best, parents will often tick the ‘teach the children about Islam’ box by sending their child to a Qur’an class, often led by an uneducated village elder who can barely speak English.

We will pay dearly for this lack of education whilst living in the West. In a Muslim majority country, the ‘Muslim ideas,’ and the general belief that Islam represents reality, will generally be absorbed by young people growing up in that society, even if parents give their children scant religious education. In Western countries however, the general sense that Islam represents reality is clearly absent, so young Muslims will only be absorbing the general idea that Islam is true at home, and the general notion that no religion is especially worth following outside. Living in such a society need not be problematic, provided the individual has a reasonable understanding of why his/her faith at least adds up, or is relevant to daily life. However, the unfortunate reality is that most Muslims are philosophically and theologically illiterate, and simply following Islam from learnt behaviour, which provides no defence should the individual be faced by his/her own self or others with ‘why’ questions.

(Two outstanding books for young Muslims living in the West are the excellent Struggling to Surrender and Losing my Religion by Dr Jeffrey Lang)

8) Many Muslims are brought up hating going to the Mosque, often for understandable reasons, and they stop going at the first opportunity

Unfortunately many mosques in the modern age, for want of a better term, suck. It is unsurprising therefore, that many Muslims who are dragged there as children, cease to attend at the first possible opportunity. This is not necessarily accompanied by abandonment of their faith, but the alienation from the religious establishment increases the probability, if not with the current generation, then the next one. It is very common for mosques and Islamic centres to have awful or non-existent provision for women (who, if anything should be given greatest priority as they have the leading role in raising the next generation), and are a boring at best environment for children. Unlike in the days of the Prophet when the mosque would be characterised by the happiness and playing of children, many mosques in Britain are a child’s worst nightmare. On a good day, a children’s ‘Islamic class’ may only be boring, with the children learning how to scribe Arabic words (which naturally they are never told the meanings of). Other days however might feature being scolded or beaten by a barely literate village elder who was appointed as ‘maulvi saab‘ because he originates from the same village as whichever family has the dominant position in the mosque.

What are the implications for otherwise intelligent Muslim kids, who are being ‘educated’ by unintelligent ‘teachers,’ and learning about things which they can’t understand in an unintelligent manner? At school they learn about the mind expanding and multifaceted sciences. They learn about drama, love, tragedy and war in English. They learn to think critically in History, they learn about people and culture and customs in geography. Their teachers (generally) know how to connect with them, and explain, and compassionately try to help them learn from mistakes.  

Then they go to the mosque; learning very little, by someone who can’t teach, can barely reason, has very little critical thinking ability, and even less compassion. Of course, this is not a logical proof that Islam is backward (just as having a numerically illiterate maths teacher with anger problems and progressive neurodegeneration would not prove that maths sucks), but to put it mildly, negative associations are made, and ‘Islamic education’ becomes synonymous with backward, boring, pointless and judgemental dogma.

Furthermore, many mosques show worryingly little interest in actually doing ‘good things,’ i.e actions which will positively impact on other human beings. Many of them are completely apolitical and are content with being pointless and irrelevant to the world around them, even with global ‘Muslim issues.’ Others which supposedly raise for good causes will on principle only do so with typical ‘Muslim causes’ (i.e. Syria or Palestine) and show little or no interest in additionally helping their non Muslim neighbours. Unsurprisingly, common khutbas [sermons] tend to be pointless (such as making the Jummah Khutbahs nothing more than sermons on how important Jummah is) , irrelevant, dogmatic (like raving about Christians celebrating their festivals by getting drunk) and sometimes spoken either in another language; or by someone in broken English, who is clueless about life in their host country. 

By contrast, the last church I visited put just about every mosque I have attended to shame; they counselled youths with mental health issues, they raised food for a local foodbank, they had leaflets about corporate tax fraud, human trafficking and racism amongst other things, and they had material promoting ethical lifestyles. Tragically for them, like most churches they have a relatively small following, most of whom are older, whilst our mosques (almost in spite of what happens in them) often have a much larger one. But how long for? How many more people can we alienate before we see a complete exodus from the next generation?

9) The decline of Christianity and rise of atheism means that Muslims share a far more different notion of reality to their neighbours

Few Muslim – Christian debates in the West end in conversion from the Muslim side. The number of Western Muslims who convert to Christianity has been fairly minimal, even when Christianity was followed by a higher proportion of the populace then it is today. The number of Muslims who have turned to atheism or agnosticism (that is, beyond merely lacking certainty or harbouring a few doubts; which I believe is still compatible with considering oneself a believer) however is far greater. Both Islam and Christianity share many paradigms; the existence of God, the reality of revelation, and the general sense that we serve something higher. I argue that a Muslim population living in a majority practising Christian society is generally unlikely to convert en-masse to Christianity as to do so would require more than merely drifting from Islamic teachings, but actually embracing specific Christian doctrines. Even should an individual become somewhat apathetic with regard to Islamic teachings, chances are, they would remain Muslim; as they live in a society that holds that God is a reality, and on balance, the Muslim notion of monotheism appears more intuitive for most people then the doctrine of the trinity. It seems unlikely that being in a predominantly Christian society would make Muslims ‘drift into’ embracing specific Christian beliefs, but far more likely that they would drift into non-theistic beliefs in a more atheistic society.

Of course, it is very possible for Muslims to thrive in an atheistic society, and to make their friends and neighbours open to the possibility of God. This however would require seemingly sparse concepts like a common understanding of basic philosophy and Islamic theology; some significant Muslim representation in science, more progressive Islamic scholarship, and more human decency and proactiveness from the Muslim communities as a whole.

10) Violent extremism committed by Muslims, regardless of disingenuous media reporting, is a reality, and causes Muslims to have doubts

I hesitated before including this one at all, because I have pondered as to whether violence carried out in the name of Islam is actually significant direct source of apostasy. Whilst the internet is full of strident voices claiming to have left Islam after discovering that the Qur’an tells you to decapitate non Muslims, feast on their bone marrow and drink their spinal fluid, I have yet to meet an ex-Muslim in real life who actually considers Islam to be terroristic. Some have I have spoken to have thought it to be austere and possibly harsh (an unsurprising result of effectively being told that harshness and difficulty in Islam = authenticity, a point to be discussed later), but not inherently violent.

That said, I still believe that violence committed by adherents of any religion including Islam can potentially facilitate apostasy. When violence is (or appears to be) everywhere, the presence of God is harder for people to see, and the appeal of the emotional problem of evil becomes increasingly credible. People become jaded when seeing killers claiming to represent their faith and inevitably ask the question ‘is this really worth it?’ Would God send down a revelation which is so easy to abuse or misinterpret that any sort of violent interpretation is plausible?

We can say that one should ‘judge by texts’ and not a few bad apples, but even a few fractions of a percent of the entire Muslim population represents tens of thousands of people, who currently get a disproportionate amount of airtime.

Sure there are credible responses to these doubts; that many violent Muslims are theologically (if not completely) illiterate, that many reasons for violent extremism are actually secular dressed in religious garb, that Islamophobia, Neocon foreign policy and Muslim extremism are all part of one vicious positive feedback cycle, that it has been non-Muslims have committed the worst genocides of recent history, that much of the media is disingenuous, and so forth. Regardless of this, and the fact that other forms of violence often get swept under the carpet or attributed to non-ideological factors (like mental illness; the standard get out clause after a Caucasian goes on a shooting rampage); violence and oppression carried out by Muslims exists, and even ill-intended motives of those who report it does not somehow diminish its reality. Just because the Daily Mail is an Islamophobic rag doesn’t mean that Mohammad Emwazi (‘Jihadi John’) didn’t join ISIS nor that this wasn’t somehow alarming…just because the Mail had lots of coverage on it!

Yes, sections of the media are Islamophobic, they might distort, misreport and even outright lie; but they need something to work with. If there was no ISIS, no Boko Haram, no Taliban, no Al Shabaab and no Al Qaeda, this would be much harder. Would some especially twisted Islamophobes try anyway? Of course, but the vacuousness of their arguments would be exposed with pitiful ease. Ultimately we must accept that whether we have a monopoly on violence or not (and I believe the latter is true), unless we make a concerted effort for peace, starting from our homes, then our communities in humanity, and ultimately the world around us, more Muslims will become jaded, distrustful, cynical and resentful towards more and more of their co-religionists, and ultimately Islam itself.

I hope that my second article has given readers food for thought and as always I would love to see constructive critique of the ideas put forth here. Stay tuned for the next in the series and have a blessed day.

Recommended reading:

Islam and the Destiny of Man (Gai Eaton)

Losing my religion: A cry for help (Jeffrey Lang)

The Message of the Quran (Muhammad Asad; this is a Quran with extensive commentary)

Islam and the fate of others: The salvation question (Dr Mohammad Hassan Khalil)

Hanafi Principles of testing Hadith (Shaykh Atabek Shukurov)

Reasoning with God (Khaled Abou el Fadl)

Advertisements

131 thoughts on “What Really Makes Muslims Leave Islam – Part 2

  1. Good article, but you are only focusing on the violence that can scare Muslims away from Islam. You also have to talk about the rational part; some Muslims have left Islam because of factually incorrect (from a scientific point of view) material contained in some ahadith.

      • Google them. The ahadith about Adam’s height, fertilization (before the embryo), and extreme cold/hot weather (according to the hadith, they are the result of hell breathing out).

    • I have only written 10 points so far (between 2 articles); but there are many more ofc and I will Inshallah discuss Hadith in future too. That said I havent heard of many instances of people leaving Islam because of unscientific hadith. All the issues with authenticity aside (and there are many), even if it was historically and clear cut proven that the Prophet said something clearly at odds with science, all this would reflect would be the lack of understanding of a particular aspect of natural laws at the time. It would have no bearing on whether Muhammad (pbuh) was a Prophet or not.

      • ”I havent head of many instances of people leaving Islam because of unscientific hadith.”
        I agree. The vast majority of apostates left Islam because of moral issues. The problem is that violence doesn’t make something untrue. In order to prove that Islam is a false religion, you have to point out mistakes/contradictions in the Qur’an or in well attested sayings of the Prophet (pbuh).

        You said that all these errors ”would reflect would ne the lack of understanding of a particular aspect of natural laws at the time.”
        This can be true for the hadith about the cross pollination of date palms in Madinah. But, if the wording of the narration (if it can be traced back to the Prophet (pbuh)) goes as follow: ”Allah did something…”, there can be a problem.

  2. [very long, frankly not worth it unless you have a lot of free time] There is a spiritual aspect to this discussion that I feel we are missing here. If you abandon the salat and other obligatory rituals you will lose your iman . That is what happened with me. I stopped praying when I went to university because most of my friends were non-Muslims and most importantly my parents were not around. I used to consider the scientific miracles of the quran to be a solid foundation for believing that Islam was true and when they were revealed to be deceptive and more importantly exposed numerous other verses to be read as scientific inaccuracies and mistakes, I gradually lost my faith. The problem of evil was another cause of torment . I became a vegetarian and a very pessimistic anti-natalist. I was convinced that there was no way around the anti-natalist argument .( If the child you will bring into existence might go to hell for eternity it is always better not to bring it into existence hoping that it might go to paradise) I spent almost an year like this.I still used to attend Jumuah, I don’t know why. Then I learned about the ‘fine-tuning of the universe’ and the ‘hard problems of consciousness’ and I came to regard God and an afterlife as logical possibilities . I remained an anti-natalist but I embraced a sort of perennialist view of all religions. I started going to the mosque once again. It’s kinda funny, I used to stand it salat and try various mindful meditation techniques. I decided to lead a spiritual life but I was never going to accept that the Qur’an is the word of God (Auodhubillah). It was a divine revelation. Just that.

    I started visiting this site, I started listening to Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi and I started feeling that orthodox Islam could be defended philosophically every bit as eloquent as the new atheism. I was almost killed one day in a road accident. I couldn’t stop thinking about what it would’ve been like if I had died? Is there an afterlife? I don’t remember exactly when or how I reverted to orthodox Islam, but I did. I believe it was Ghazzali who said that ‘iman is a light that Allah puts in your heart’ and I believe this is absolutely true. I believe with more conviction than I ever did and it is not because of anything except that Allah wants me to believe and I pray that He doesn’t take away this blessing, the greatest of all blessings, from me.

    • Thank you so much for your comment – I am sure that lots of people read it and related to it. I certainly was moved by it an benefited.

      I would strongly encourage you to turn your thoughts into an article!

  3. We live in a society in which, as Nietzsche put it, ‘God is dead’ and I don’t think Muslims in Britain, America or anywhere else in ‘the west’ (whatever that is) have seriously come to terms with that. I think the point you make here about Muslims being brought up theologically illiterate is a really valid one, if you look at many ex-Muslims or even ‘in name only Muslims’ they really don’t know their tradition at all and it’s often frustratingly simple misconceptions that eventually break the camels back. That being said loosing faith is a prolonged process, you don’t simply read or see something then become an atheist, it’s a whole process that leads up to that and the No. 1 culprit is the outright Puritanism of many Muslims.

    Here in Britain or America we live in a very different socio-cultural environment from the traditional societies in “the hungry nations”, a lot of the things that aren’t problematic in Africa, Asia or the Middle East are here. We can be proud that Islam is soo universal and flexible that it has been able to meld into and adapt to each society it encountered without, as Christianity did, trying to remould the culture of a people to fit some Church passion narrative. That great flexibility of customary legislation in Fiqh has to be exercised here too, some types of Fiqh rulings may have to be adapted or dropped (I’m not an expert here), but these days it’s really difficult. We might have great scholars who have studied their tradition, like Sheikh Atabek, but we have far fewer scholars who understand both their tradition and the general intellectual cultural-atmosphere. Traditional scholars are out on the look out for any tell tale signs of Salafism/Wahabism/Modernism and Puritans are diehard opposed to anything different from what their local ‘Madrassa’ Imam taught them. Try advocating a more ‘nuanced’ attitude towards veiling/hijab or gender and sexual ethics, due to the monsterous amount of porn addiction in Muslim communities, and you’ll have a dozen Deobandis, Brelvis and Salafis foaming at the mouth.

    I think we also have to seriously deal with the fact that religion is just unpopular these days. Shoving people into mosques and running them through a series of mandatory practices without any explanation as to why they are important isn’t the way to go. There is no love in it. Maybe a greater emphasis on Tasawwuf or Philosophy, like that of Suhrawardi, Ibn Arabi, Muhammad Iqbal or Mulla Sadra, is a better way to get Muslims to be actively involved and interested in Islam, to establish some real love for it and at the same time provide it some solid defence against the attacks of ‘New Atheists’.

      • Of course he’s still Muslim.
        People just immediately start to think ‘apostasy’ when someone gets sick and tired of Salafis crap and retires from, public life.
        He did a talk in a mosque in Manchester just last year.

  4. when the perception about ”sharia law” is reduced to flogging people and stoning adulterers, backwardness, and misogynism. believe it or not in my country some idiots from puritans and anti-islam folks alike who actually voice out if there is no flogging sinners then it’s not sharia law.

    I frequently faced people emailing me who told me they doubt Islam, and usually the political double standard and wahhabi terrorism are not among the top list (though it’s included as well). my top list were : 1) severe life hardship causing them to distrust God, 2) apostasy’s death sentence, 3) Aisha’s age, 4) slavery and concubinage, 5) eternal hell

    there is saying from Ahmad Deedat (rahimullah), ”the biggest enemy of Islam is ignorant muslims whose actions destroy the image of Islam. so when people look at him they will think Islam is the like of him”.

  5. “We can be proud that Islam is soo universal and flexible that it has been able to meld into and adapt to each society it encountered without, as Christianity did, trying to remould the culture of a people to fit some Church passion narrative.”

    Honestly, this is total BS, the kind of vague hearsay that crumbles as soon as you start to clarify for a minute or two.
    Which “people” was remoulded ? Last time I checked, the first Christians suffered centuries of persecution before Christianity even became a remotely relevant political force. Christianity created the nations/culture/peoples of the West out of the mess of the fallen Roman Empire. Following Christ’s saying “My reign is not of this world” and “Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s”, Christianity practices the strict distinction between temporal and spiritual matters, to the point that it has no “embedded” civil law (this is in sharp contrast to sharia law in Islam). A Christian is basically indifferent to the political system he’s living under ; he can accept a monarchy, a democracy, even Muslim rule, as long as the laws do not break the Ten Commandements and do not hinder religious practice.
    In practice, the Christian nations’ law was an incredibly diverse mixture of local traditions and Roman law. In modern times the post-Christian nations more and more substituted the Christian traditions with political unitarianism based on Roman law.

    “remould the culture of a people” is not necessarily a bad thing. Didn’t Islam remould the culture of the Meccan polytheists ?

    And your quote is yet another example of the surprising rule that Muslims today can only assess Islam by comparing it with Christianity, can only praise Islam by declaring it better than Christianity.

    • Catholic Commentator, The Islamic State is not that bad as many people think. It gave Christians the chance to live in peace in its territory. Of course the Islamic State has some faults but there is much propaganda out there too.

      • You are that same retard who posted before as ‘Ninja Turtle’ and got banned multiple times it seems> You also admitted to being non-Muslim

        You have mental problems and will probably not last long given how bad they seems from your posts.

        I hope ISIS makes you into a sex slave since you like them so much. You will probably enjoy it.

        Moron.

      • I am not a supporter of the Islamic State and I found this website a couple of days ago.
        I made this comment because Catholic Commentator said Christians could accept Islamic rulers and I wanted to know if he thinks that Christians could accept to live in IS.

      • Well, you phrased your comment in a really bad way. And saying ‘they are not that bad’ sounds like support to most people.

      • Yes I see what you mean. What I try to do in all issues is not presenting anything better than it is but also not worse than it is. We do not need to present ISIS more extreme than they are and it is even dangerous for Islam if we do. Presenting Jihadists as mere thugs with no moral principles gives the perception to non-Muslims that you can get all kind of bad things (murder, rape..) out of Islam without limits. So even though IS-Jihadis do many crimes they do not do all crimes one could suggest or we hear.

        For example that what I mentioned regarding Christians. They do consider murdering random kuffar civilians in Western countries good. But they offer Syrian and Iraqi Christians the citizenship under the Dhimma.

        The other example is rape. They do indeed rape Yazidi women and it is totally unislamic. But this rape is not the usual war crime rape we know from every war. It is something like marital rape. A man can only rape his own slave and he cannot hand her to someone else for sex. The next one would have to wait the Iddah period like after divorcing a normal woman.
        Note that I do not defend this rape. I consider every kind of forced sex whether it is a wife or slave to be unislamic and a sin. Only consensual sex with a slave is allowed and this is surely not the case in the Islamic State.

        IS-Jihadis do have limits for their actions. And these limits are the fundamental limits Islam gives which they cannot deny like they did with other Islamic limits.

    • ” Following Christ’s saying “My reign is not of this world” and “Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s”, Christianity practices the strict distinction between temporal and spiritual matters, to the point that it has no “embedded” civil law (this is in sharp contrast to sharia law in Islam).”

      lol, bart ehrman is showing in his latest articles that the historical jesus thought that this world was his reign. according to ehrman, the reason why pilate got jesus nailed was because jesus said to him he was the king of the jews.

      http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-death-as-king-of-the-jews/

      the whole “give to ceaser what is ceasar’s” is not from the mouth of historical jesus but from the mouth of the gospel writers. tyiran shekels were used back then not roman dinari

      enjoy these dicussions here

      http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2061&start=90

      https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/matthew-the-%CF%84%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%8E%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82-toll-collector-and-the-authorship-of-the-first-gospel/

  6. What is the meaning of the hadeeth “Do not inveigh against time (waqt) for Allaah is time waqt)”?Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) relates to us that Allah says: “The son of Adam offends Me when he curses time, for I am time. In My hand is the affair.I alternate the night and the day.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî(4826) and Sahîh Muslim (2246)].
    Does this mean Allah is time?

    • Allah is not time. That hadith cannot be taken literally brother, assuming it meets our conditions, which it almost certainly does not as it clashes with Quran.

  7. @robert2016

    «  lol, bart ehrman is showing in his latest articles that the historical jesus thought »

    lol, you probably don’t realize that Bart Ehrman’s method is the anti-historical method par excellence.
    History is about expounding the contemporary or earliest, better-attested evidence.
    Bart Ehrman’s methodology consists in claiming 99% of the contemporary or earliest, better-attested evidence is faked or unreliable.
    When you take out the bluff and hype around it, Ehrman’s theory if true shows that the historical method fails to deliver us anything meaningful about Jesus, that the historical Jesus is « unknowable ».
    As a Muslim Ehrman-fan put it, « this only tells what Jesus is not »

    « the whole “give to ceaser what is ceasar’s” is not from the mouth of historical jesus but from the mouth of the gospel writers. tyiran shekels were used back then not roman dinari »

    Really ? How surprising that the Roman rule could interfere in the most intimate religious affairs of the palestinian Jews  such as the election of the High Priest, yet accepted a foreign currency …

    • “Christianity practices the strict distinction between temporal and spiritual matters, to the point that it has no “embedded” civil law (this is in sharp contrast to sharia law in Islam).”

      like a god who needs to appease his own death sentence by violently getting punished by his own divine wrath? that is all unseen, isn’t it? but then, after jesus has appeased himself through violent physical and spiritual bloody human sacrificial ritual , what will the son of man do? when the jews question him, he boastfully says:

      mark 14 :61

      Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah,[j] the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 Jesus said, “I am; and
      ‘you will see the Son of Man
      seated at the right hand of the Power,’
      and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
      mark 15:

      as we all know, jesus thought he was going to bring divine law through disgusting violence which is more violent than anything man has seen. even in john, his violent angels could be deployed any minute to rescue him from trouble, but since jesus was set out to do the VIOLENT self execution prescribed , according to him, in the torah, it would be silly for disciples to fight when a diety wants to do a bloody sacrificial ritual to himself(MARK has no REBUKE for the ear chopping). jesus was a man who thought that he was going to get vengeance for his elect. but the story changes, look at john

      john:
      36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

      CONTRAST to mark. notice that john has no more use of the son of man and puts his jesus into a kingdom which is present “now my kingdom…”
      johns jesus’ acknowledges that marks jesus has FAILED to return .
      john’s jesus is a developed christian jesus. second century saw a lot of developed jesus’ and so did paul.

      jesus’ claim “my servants would fight …” makes no sense if we read that just earlier his buddy DID slice of an ear to PREVENT arrest. jesus’ “my servants would fight…” makes no sense if we read that he told them to purchase swords and that two were ENOUGH

      pontius pilate FINDING out that jesus TOLD his disiples to purchase swords would have pissed pilate off enough to crucify jesus upside down, right? we note that christian gospel writers were careful enough to CHOOSE what they had their jesus say to pontius pilate . they can have jesus BOAST in front of the jewish authorities but pacify jesus in front of pagan pontius pilate.

      hey jesus, “son of man”

      children don’t live by the sword

      Deuteronomy 1:34 When Yahweh heard what you said, he was angry and solemnly swore: 35 “Not a man of this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your forefathers, 36 except Caleb son of Jephunneh. He will see it, and I will give him and his descendants the land he set his feet on, because he followed Yahweh wholeheartedly.” 37 Because of you Yahweh became angry with me also and said, “You shall not enter it, either. 38 But your assistant, Joshua son of Nun, will enter it. Encourage him, because he will lead Israel to inherit it. 39 And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad–they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.”

      yet jesus and his father and the spirit gave the COMMAND to execute CHILDREN and unborn.

  8. @mansubzero

    Congratulations for the name you chose. “Man-sub-zero” is a name that really suits you!

    So you’re a Christianophobe, obviously. But are you a Muslim or Non-Muslim Christianophobe ? This is not very clear from what you’ve written. My guess would be that you’re not Muslim, judging from excerpts like

    “as we all know, jesus thought he was going to bring divine law through disgusting violence which is more violent than anything man has seen.”

    I feel Muslims would not attribute such ugly, unheard-of thoughts to Jesus.

    “johns jesus’ acknowledges that marks jesus has FAILED to return .”

    So in the meantime, Mark’s readers were too stupid to notice the discrepancy for themselves and needed John to notice it for them ? That’s the usual “I’m soo much smarter than people in ancient times” self-congratulatory wishful thinking.

    In reality, the apocalytiptic predictions in Mark have been understood from day one as being a “multiple prophecy” that would be fulfilled in different ways at different moments in time. From day one, Christians understood the passage as referring both
    to an immediately coming catastrophy (the destruction of the Temple) and the much later Second Coming (which also exists in a slightly different from in Islamic belief).

    A historical proof for this is that when Titus started his siege of Jerusalem, the Christians correctly realized that some of Jesus’ prophecies were about to be fulfilled and correctly “fled to the mountains” as Jesus has advised them to, while the disbelieving Jews stayed and were destroyed as Jesus had warned them.

    “jesus’ claim “my servants would fight …” makes no sense if we read that just earlier his buddy DID slice of an ear to PREVENT arrest.”

    Read the whole passage. Jesus rebuked him and cured the ear.
    What did you quote that passage from Deuteronomy 1 for ?

    • “So in the meantime, Mark’s readers were too stupid to notice the discrepancy for themselves and needed John to notice it for them ? That’s the usual “I’m soo much smarter than people in ancient times” self-congratulatory wishful thinking.”

      mark 14 :61
      Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah,[j] the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 Jesus said, “I am; and
      ‘you will see the Son of Man
      seated at the right hand of the Power,’
      and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”

      christians like you are too stupid to notice discrepancies, why would marks readers be any different? why do the words in mark 14:61 completely disappear in the gospel of john?

      i quote

      ” We see this growth as the Gospels progress from views of Jesus given in Mark and then in Matthew and Luke and finally in John. The view of Jesus matures as the early Christians have more time to think about and re-interpret the stories they have about him.”

      you can’t even see the different between ” you WILL see the son of man…” vs

      john:
      36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

      “but NOW my kingdom…”

      so john , writing decades later has his jesus say ” but NOW my kingdom…” in the PRESENT tense.
      but mark has no use for present tense, does he?
      his militant messiah is going to come back in the life time of the high priest.

      you couldn’t even see that when the slicer takes of the ear, there is NO rebuke in marks version. what we see is that marks jesus replies to the people who came to arrest him and not the one who sliced the ear. marks jesus gives a very odd reply to those who came to arrest him. they came to arrest to protect the streets from militant like him and it is the job of arresting authorities to carry weapons with them. “you came with swords and clubs…”
      what other thing does he want them to come with? roses and chocolates?

      there is no healing of the ear in the earliest version

      “A historical proof for this is that when Titus started his siege of Jerusalem, the Christians correctly realized that some of Jesus’ prophecies were about to be fulfilled and correctly “fled to the mountains” as Jesus has advised them to, while the disbelieving Jews stayed and were destroyed as Jesus had warned them.”

      1. christians had a problem that the end did not come after 70 ce.
      2. all logical reading of text implies that your failed and nailed “messiah” made link between his return and the desolation.

      “So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (24:15-16)

      3.in JUDEA
      4. in matthew , we clearly see that “let the reader” understand means sacrilege in the holy place.
      5. so when did christians and jews from all over judea flee to the mountains?
      6. no arrival of the the “son of man” .

      7.

      “Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

      8 no “son of man” no “redemption” after “desolation”

      quote:
      Second, when Jesus told his disciples to flee to the mountains, he was giving them some very poor advice. As N. T. Wright notes, “This is scarcely to be taken as a reference, after the event, to the actual happenings of AD 66-70. For a start, Titus and his legions were occupying the Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus, the two highest hills overlooking Jerusalem; fleeing to the hills would mean surrender and/or death.”

      N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 353.

      quote :

      Jesus ben Hananiah was certainly on safer ground, as he kept his prediction of the temple’s destruction rather vague.
      Stark says that Jesus was wrong because Jesus says that his coming is after the temple is destroyed, so his coming cannot be equated with the temple’s destruction, but must refer to a bodily appearance, which never happened. Stark assumes that the “abomination that causes desolation” is the desolation itself. It’s not. Jesus says that there is still time to escape at that point. The armies have surrounded Jerusalem and the destruction is “near” (Luke 21:20). The armies of the Roman General Vespasian surrounded Jerusalem in A.D. 68; the temple was not destroyed until August-September of A.D. 70.

      • quoting starks reply to the last quote

        First of all, it’s not clear what Mr. Warren is suggesting the “abomination that causes desolation” is. He says it is not the desolation itself. OK. The only hint he gives as to what it is is in his reference to Luke 21:20: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.” Is Mr. Warren suggesting that the abomination is the surrounding of Jerusalem by the Roman armies? It seems that’s what he is saying, but again he’s unclear so I could be wrong. What I think he’s suggesting is this: The abomination that causes desolation is the surrounding of Jerusalem by Roman armies in 68 CE, and the desolation itself is the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. If this is what he intends to say, this is frankly a rather silly interpretation. Note here also that Luke does not even use the term “abomination that causes desolation.” Only Matthew and Mark use the term. But Jesus’ use of the term was a reference back to its use in Daniel as a code for the desecration of the temple when Antiochus IV sacrificed a pig to Zeus on the temple altar. That was the “abomination that causes desolation” in Daniel. So when Jesus picks up that term and applies it to the Roman invasion, he means that Rome will desecrate the temple. I would not say that the “abomination that causes desolation” and the “desolation itself” are the same thing, even though Mr. Warren claims my whole case somehow rests on that alleged assumption. Obviously the desolation is subsequent to the abomination, but it is clear that the abomination refers to the desecration of the temple.

      • quote:
        At any rate, all of this is moot, and completely irrelevant to my argument, as well as to the text itself. Jesus clearly says that the temple will be destroyed and that the Son of Man will return to gather elect, all within one generation of Jesus’ lifetime. There’s no getting around that, as I’ve argued extensively in my eighth chapter, and Mr. Warren’s protestations certainly haven’t managed to get around it.

  9. I’ve recently discovered this blog and spent all last night and now this afternoon reading it. What can I say? It is like everything I’ve been thinking for years now all put in one place.

    I converted some years ago now, maybe 6, and it was like a bait and switch. I had read the Qur’an, listened to it, and thought it was simply one of the most profound things I’d ever discovered. Ever since then, my faith has been in a constant state of shifting. The reality is that when I ignore the Muslims, ignore the hadith, ignore the “sharia”, ignore the “madhabs”, and just take the Qur’an, my prayers, my hijab… I feel great, like I’ve discovered the way, like I’m on the path. This is disingenous though. All those things I’m avoiding ARE a part of Islam, a BIG part of it. The problem is that no one ever really made it seem that way.

    I remember talking to Muslims early on who told me “Don’t worry about hadith. They will just confuse you. Focus on Qur’an. That is most important.” That’s not the reality of modern day Islam at all though. You never hear people quote the Qur’an outside of a few famous dua’s. It’s all hadith. Prophet said this. Bukhari narrated this. Aisha said that. Stone people, kill apostates, women are stupid, going to hell, inferior, the Prophet loved to take sex slaves, and all sorts of other horrible things.

    Of course when you bring this up to someone they get mad, defensive, and the reason that you can’t accept these things is because you’ve been poisoned (or in my case raised) in the “evil” Western world. Well, the “evil” Western world imparted enough morality in me to know that throwing STONES at a person who is probably begging for their LIFE until they die is an unspeakably cruel act.

    There is no recourse for a convert like me. Like your site has astutely pointed out in articles, I either turn my brain off and become a zombie, become a “solitary” Muslim (this isn’t Wicca), or simply apostate. I’m leaning to option 3. No, I’m not gloating… I’m angry, and beyond anger, I’m sad. My heart is literally broken.

    I’ve tried to find help, to find answers… it’s always the same “crypto-Salafist” garbage. I hate that movement. I shouldn’t hate anyone, or anything, but I hate that movement.

    I feel that the simple, elegant, merciful message of the Qur’an, and the heart soaring interpretations of the likes of the Sufis has been totally suppressed, marginalized, and hijacked by extremists, and people who are too afraid to offend them.

    I nearly spit out my drink when I saw someone -FINALLY- call out Johnathan Brown here. I remember at one point respecting him and watching a video he did on troubling hadith. His response was to blame the Muslims who question the hadith, not actually deal with why some hadith were problematic for believers. I was floored, but not surprised.

    Hamza Yusuf has, at least nominally, kept my faith alive with his lectures about the heart and whatnot, but even he is trying to “explain away” things like stoning people.

    I’m sorry, it is untennable for me. God is a God of mercy. The “Loving One”. The “Most Merciful”. You love for others what you love for yourself. You love what God loves. God loves mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and giving people second chances, in reality, God gives us WAY more than just a second chance.

    Yet… we’re rationalizing why it’s OK to stone people, or kill them, and we’re more worried about “the gays and feminsts” than we are about the fact that ISIS is recruiting IN OUR MOSQUES?! How long are Muslims going to blame “The West” (the very countries that have taken them in and given them assistance in many cases) for their problems? Every Muslim I know in my town is richer, more affluent, and their children are better educated than me with no student loan debt. You think most working class whites can currently say that? Yet I’m suppose to believe that the Muslim world ails SOLELY because of “the West who hates the Muslims”? No doubt Western foreign policy has caused untold chaos, and harm, but as Muslims we aren’t taught to play the victim, we are taught to change things in ourselves, as a people, and then God will help us.

    I see no effort to do so. I just see an apathetic blame game, while we remain too afraid to call this Salafi-Jihadism out for what it is: a malevolent cancer that is killing us.

    Your article about how Muslim scholars denounce ISIS while defending the very same hadith and fatwa that they use to commit their atrocities… just… what can I say? It’s what I’ve always been thinking.

    I know this sounds angry, I’m sorry for that… but these things have been bottled up now for years… trying to find people who understand or have mercy is almost impossible. They just re-assure you and pat you on the back, but give you no real intellectual tools or spiritual guidance as to how to reconcile these feelings.

    I’m at my wit’s end. My heart is broken. I wanted to be a lover of God, a wild seeker on the path. I wanted to follow the teachings of the man who was called “a mercy to the world”. Taken in a vacuum this seems almost possible, but in the context of current day Islam… I see very little mercy. I see a religion whose leaders are impotent and too egotistical to admit, “Maybe we are wrong.”

    I don’t want to leave Islam, but I fear that is the door I’ve come to after years. I simply cannot do this anymore. I will not. I have one life to live. I’m a grown, married woman now, a spiritual identity is important to me, it’s a bedrock for me. When my faith is in crisis then I am in crisis. My husband too has fallen away from Islam. He stopped practicing long ago. I spent part of last night talking with him about this, and surprise surprise, it was like this website read his mind too.

    I just don’t think I can do this anymore. The mental gymnastics are too much, and as an English speaking, white American woman you simply do not have the tools to properly address the “Salafi arguments” with any kind of real intellectual clout. The writers on this site are truly gifted, intelligent, and are beyond me in all matters of philosophy and theology and fiqh and everything else. I am humbled by some of the awesome ability I’ve seen demonstrated here on a mere blog. Take it for what you will.

    For me though I still feel powerless and alone, and that isn’t going to change. I have some comfort knowing that Allah is merciful. Maybe Allah will understand on the Last Day. “Why did you stop calling yourself a Muslim?” “Because the Muslims only made the dunya harder for me, Loving One. I failed you my Beloved.”

    Maybe Allah will take mercy upon his lowly lover. Until then, my heart is broken.

    • I don’t know what to say…you were very honest and honesty is all God really expects of us. Imam Maturidi basically defined ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ in terms of a person’s honesty with the evidence and not just labels or creeds.

      What you have said is too important to just put in the comments section, I will put it as a post and will also try to make some remarks so that people can benefit, although to be honest, you said it all and I agree completely.

      This is the way Muslims and scholars have set up ‘Islam’ now: definitely, honest and humane people will think of leaving due to all of the crap Muslims and their ‘Imams’ pretend is religion. All of that is lies they told on behalf of God. God will certainly ‘reward’ them for it. That is why God promised to protect only Quran and never ‘Islam’, it is very obvious he was telling us that this would happen and ‘Islam’ would be corrupted. It is only because God made it impossible to corrupt Quran that they could not do that, otherwise they definitely would have – still, they tried their best by changing the meanings of the words and using Arabic dictionaries from such unreliable sources as the Abassids state-sponsored scholars.

      Definitely, this comment merits a much more in depth response and I will endeavour comment on and explore the many important points expressed so well in this comment further, in a post.

    • As salamu alaykum

      Dear Heart Broken,

      There is much truth to what you have written. I would be delighted if you would give me a chance to provide you with a clear Quranic Centric approach to Islam. I as well am a convert who passed similarly through the same issues which led to.distrust and anger. However, with much help in re-evaluating our interpretations to Islam, I found no honest and academic alternative but to stick to its core teaching the Quran (The Furqan).

      If interested to hear what I have to say please do provide a means to contact you.

      May God make easy on you.

      Stay safe.

      Your brother,
      Hamza .

    • Aslamu’Alaykum dear Sister,
      First of all, I pray that Allah keeps you within the fold of Islam and strengthens your faith in Him.

      I have to say that you are brutally honest and should be commended for it. You are certainly not alone, make no mistake about it – a lot of people (like myself) are at pains with what I term “T-shirt” Islam. You know, wearing Islam when it conveniently suits your needs and then throw it off as soon as you’ve stained it/ finished abusing it. I too am absolutely sick of all the sectarian strife that ravages our faith. I’m from the UK and I have had to encounter Salafism, Deobandism, Brelwis etc. so much so that I’ve decided to become a loner amongst the Muslim community. This sectarianism pretty much leads to competition as to who can be the most puritanical group and offer the most harshest punishment. Worst of all, Hadith is the context that it takes place in and the Qur’an really isn’t given a thought. I never knew that stuff like stoning, apostasy etc. didn’t have to be punished by death (until I was informed of true Hanafi teachings). In fact, I was once told that if a student of Abu Hanifa disagreed with him e.g. Imam Abu Yusuf, then the latter’s opinion should be taken no matter what. That begged the question: if you’re going to dismiss the opinion of the founder of the Hanafi school in such a manner, why bother use him at all?

      I have to say I was suffering a major spiritual crisis before I came across this wonderful website. I find myself spiritually liberated and may Allah عز و جل reward all those who try to earnestly seek the truth and live as the best human beings as possible.

      PS is it possible for the contributors of this website to publish an article dealing with the Mu’tazila school of thought? From my sub continental education, all I’ve been told is that they used intellect to interpret things and that they are bad. Like really bad. Would be helpful if an explanation can be made available insha’Allah

      • Yeah, they are not really bad at all.
        They were hated by Mujassims and Salafis as well as Muhaditheen. Since Deobandis and Brelwis and other Salafi groups love these people, they demonise their enemies i,e the Mutazzila.
        Also, most of the Mutazzila were Hanafi, and these groups (mujassims, Muhaditheen and Hanbalis) had hatred for Hanafis
        It is a drama these people engage in since they take narrations from the Kahawarij (killers of Ali) and Yazidis (killers and rapers of Sahabah) so they don’t want to be questioned about that. So they talk about Mutazzila instead.
        Just ask them: who is worse: Mutazzila or Khawarij and how come you take narrations from Khawarij (the narrations about killing apostates are from Ikrima who was Khawarij – i,e they believed that basically all Sahabah are kaafir).

        You can get full details and references in this excellent book:

        http://www.avicennaacademy.com/mustalah-book/

      • Jazak’Allah for the much needed information.
        Some interesting related information regarding the Mu’tazila/Hanbali rivalry that became particularly heated in the 900s. The Hanbali Al Barbahari is the centre of it all really. (Note how close he was to Abbasid leadership)

        Al-Barbahari was the leader of a number of violent, invasive pogroms during the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad due to sectarian views. His audience was strong in the Hanbalite quarter of the city.[8] He was very influential among the urban lower classes, and exploited popular grievances to foment what often turned into mob violence against religious minorities and supposed sinners.[2][9] Under the influence of al-Barbahari and popular pressure of his followers, the Caliphs Al-Muqtadir and Al-Qahir enforced Hanbalism as the state creed, executing al-Barbahari’s enemies and even burying renowned Muslim historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, considered a heretic by al-Barbahari as well as most Hanbalites at the time, in secret due to fears of mob violence were a funeral to be held at the public graveyard.[9]

        The efforts of al-Barbahari and the Baghdad Hanbalites were put to an end in 935 by the new Caliph Ar-Radi. Al-Barbahari had ordered mobs to break into any homes suspected of containing wine or musical instruments and organized groups of men to interrogate couples in public streets to ensure conservative conduct in public.[9] The mobs looted shops, not all necessarily selling illegal contraband, and physically attacked female entertainers.[10] Ar-Radi ended the favored status of the Hanbalites, condemning them publicly for promoting anthropotheism, assault, persecution of Shia Muslims and veneration of the grave of Ahmad ibn Hanbal while simultaneously prohibiting the veneration of graves of Ali and his descendants.[11]

        Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hasan_ibn_%27Ali_al-Barbahari

        People, this is why sectarian violence is just wrong. It creates endless cycle of violence that scars generations.

  10. ” As a famous hadith says, Islam came as a stranger and it will leave as a stranger…”

    Indeed. It is far easier to show the truth and value of Islam via its “discontinuity” with respect to earlier revelation – its uniquely “new” character, rather than whatever “continuity” it has with Judaism and Christianity.

    Thus, the views that “Islam is predicted in earlier revelations” and “Earlier revelations are corrupted beyond recognition” coexist in Islam, but the second view is largely dominant.

    While it may well be true for example that Muhammad is prophesised in the Bible, the fact is that the early Muslims did not bother to record proofs of that. Their attention was elsewhere. This is very different from Christianity which defines
    itself as the fulfilment of another religion, with which it shares most of it sacred texts – as noted by some quranic verse.

  11. As Salamu Alaykum

    The Prophet did not take any “sex slaves”. He had consensual intercourse with women that were slaves. In Islamic history there were many rulers who had slaves solely for sex. But this was never the case for the Prophet.

    I am more Shia-inclined although I am not a full Twelver-Shiite. So I understand what you mean in your criticism about Salafism. But you should know that things like stoning are not Salafi things and they are not just based on Sunni Ahadith. According to Sunnis this punishment is established through the Khulafa too. And according to the way of Ahl ul Bayt Stoning of adulterers is clearly part of Islam. There is not much space to negate this. Allah revealed verse 44 in Surah Maidah because some Jews denied stoning for adulterers. We should always ask ourselves why Allah created mankind. Allah has the right to order things like stoning. We know that Allah commands only justice.

    • Allah never told me to stone anyone in the Qur’an. He told me to forgive even the person who murders my own family, because that is better for me.

      Where is the logical leap occurring that we go from being encouraged to forgive a murderer, but we are supposed to blindly be OK with stoning someone? Think about that. Tying someone up, burying a living person halfway into the ground, up to their waist or chest. It probably makes it hard to breathe. On top of that, the whole time they are begging for their life. Then people get together and throw rocks at them until, eventually, they die. It’s a bloodly, merciless, terrifying way to die. It riles a mob of people up into taking life into their own hands. “Let’s get together and stone her!” How is that any different than when the Europeans would delight in watching a “witch burn” or watching someone hang? Where is the Islam? The taqwa? The mercy? The concern over this person’s soul? Where is the humanity?

      Do you know what my reading of the Qur’an would make me want to do in that situation? Run in front of that person and say “STOP! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!?!?” I literally could cry just thinking about such a thing.

      It would be one thing if this was some unpleasant part of history, something practiced that was firmly cultural, that we’ve now put behind us, but no, it’s something that people are told they “must” accept in Islam today, or “you have a problem with God”. I mean, literally, you have people who tell you that you’re a “Quranist” if you are against this.

      You find Allah on the way of tears, the way of the open heart, not the way of violence. You fear the prayer of the oppressed, not the guns or the swords.

      It is clear to me that the Islam that I have experienced in the quiet of my house at night, all alone, and the Islam that I feel when I sit in nature and listen to the heartbeat of creation, the living universe that sings back to the One, is radically different from the Islam that many other people are experiencing in this world.

      I just don’t know where the logic is. It’s like going from 1-600 mph in two seconds. On one hand: forgive murderers. On the other: stone people. Kill apostates.

      Come on. And neither of these commands are even in the Qur’an? Sorry, it just seems suspicious to me. There are plenty of hadith that we can read and go back to the Qur’an and verify the nature of that hadith with the Qur’an itself. But something so serious as ending the life of another human being, something the Qur’an takes VERY seriously, we are just supposed to accept without question, and because people did it a long time ago? So what if they were Muslim?

      Jews have stoned people too. Some cultures ate people, some sacrificed women and children. Christians burned people alive. They were all pretty convinced they were doing the right thing too. No more than you or I. So where do we draw the line? We have no problem condemning the American’s bombing of the Middle East, rightfully so, or the actions of Israel against the Palestinians (you know, they think they are following God’s command too!) but when it comes to the blood on OUR hands it’s suddenly OK and “off limits” to questions? No.

      Is it a sin to look at the harm, the suffering, caused by an action, no matter how “right” we think we are, and to take a step back and consider that if we say we serve and represent a merciful God, then perhaps this is NOT the right thing to do?

      If something is literally turning people away from Islam then should we just have such an ego and heedlessly press forward? Something that… isn’t even in the Qur’an?

      I don’t know. I can’t wrap my head around it. I don’t have a problem with “Tawhid”. I don’t know how the Oneness of God has anything to do with this issue tbh. No one here has questioned or denied the unity of the Divine.

      • I already told you that you should not mistake logic with emotional ethical arguing. Tawhid is not only the numerical Oneness of Allah but everything that has to do with his existence. This is logical. Tawhid is based on logic and Aql. Islamic Law is based on scripture. Reasoning is only used when there are no sources and it has to be really logical and not emotional and based on Western ethics. What you and mmmcrlmu say is not logical. It is pseudo-rationalist liberal faggot unislamic arguing.

        Fear Allah for what you said about Israel! There is a difference between Muslims and kuffar!!!! There is a difference that matters!

      • I know I said that you are banned but I will leave this comment since it shows how dumb and mental you are!

        Also, you openly said that aql and reason is only if there is not text. So you proved my point of how dumb you are. If you were born into a Hindu family, you would be Hindu then. Just follow the texts. Also, your decision to use text instead of aql is still based on aql, so it just proves how utterly stupid and misguided you are. Honestly, how do you survive? Someone as dumb as you should have been run over by a parked car or something by know.

        I didn’t even make any points yet about stoning. I can write a lot about that but didn’t even get a chance to examine the issue from text nor aql because you are too dumb. Evil and stupid people don’t have the right to talk about religion or anything else.

      • Oh, and everyone can see for yourself your comments about ISIS and your support of them. I deleted your ‘explanation’ as that was just more support of them. I don’t think you know what ‘support’ means (along with ‘Tawhid’, ‘justice’ and lots of other things)

      • LOL.

        See guys? Didn’t I tell you that these takfiri guys are mental and need a harsh response?

        Thanks for proving my point…in the best possible way.

      • If you want a concise, honest yet in depth study of Islam, I cannot but help to recommend the works of the late Ottoman scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi 1877-1960 (Allah have mercy on his soul) – specifically the 5,000 + Risale-i-Nur written in atrocious conditions such as imprisonment. He was well aware of the condition of the Muslims across the world and advocated a return the Islam’s 1st and primary source: The Glorious Qur’an (Note: He wasn’t a Quranist as some ignorant suggest, he simply acknowledged that the Muslims had in effect, abandoned the Qur’an and its teaching.) One work I’ve read of his on the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his miracles, he uses loads of Hadith to prove his prophethood with no ambiguous or unclear interpretations.

        In his works, he constantly seeks to put everything into dialogue; the Qur’an, science, philosophy, Sufism etc. The best thing is that Nursi really reflects the beauty of the Qur’an and how it upholds Justice, Mercy amongst others. You can be left to make your own judgement without anyone telling you otherwise. The modern age could do with another Nursi – I seriously rank him as one the greatest scholars and intellectual this religion has ever produced.

        A final point: “Mankind has three problems: Discrimination, poverty and ignorance. Discrimination can be solved with love and compassion, poverty with sharing…and ignorance can only be resolved by education.”

        What a human.

      • And so you have, I think I came across it a while ago when I was viewing some articles. Either way, wisdom should be taken onboard and reinforced to all generations.

      • Outstanding post ‘heart broken.’ You could have also added that the Qur’an prescribes corporal punishment for adultary, which obviously is very different to stoning someone to death! however what the ‘hadithists’ come back with is

        ”no this is fornication, but stoning to death is sunnah, you dont agree with it, you’re a kafir blah blah blah”

        Right, so God decided to prescribe a punishment for the lesser crime but then ommited the one for the greater crime…sure…

        Also according to the hadithists God was silent in his book about what to actually do with people who left the faith but then sowed loads of confusion by saying there should be no compulsion in religion….even though he really wanted us to kill people who stopped believing. Apparently this verse only refers to people who arent Muslim already….right.

  12. Stop talking rubbish on behalf of Allah you fool. Where did he command it?

    All of that is ahad. Same with the stories about the Caliphs and also the reason for revelation (‘LOL’ to the idea that the reason for revelation is stoning but Allah ‘forgot’ to command it and commanded the opposite instead. On top of that all those hadith that say it ‘used to be’ in Quran say it was ‘lost’ not ‘abrogated’, so now Muslims are so dumb they are willing to destroy authenticity and completeness of Quran to shoe horn in stoning of adulterers).

    Such crap. If God is not even going to talk about issues such as death penalty in Quran but had to leave it to hadith and ahad reports of judgements of Caliphs and opinion of scholars then what is the point of having Quran? To talk about side issues? If all the ‘important’ judgements and life and death issues are in ahad hadith and ‘rulings’ of scholars, how come God didn’t protect these or safeguard them like Quran? Use your brain you fool.

    Some of the hadith about stoning are mashoor but none are Muttawatir. Hanafis don’t accept punishments bases on ahad nor Mashoor. The same conflict that is there within Sunnis between Hanafis/Mutazzila and Muhaditheen is there within Shia with the Akhbareen being analogous to Muhaditheen. Go and study the basics before talking. Akhbareen and Muhaditheen both are happy to set up punishments and abrogation of Quran based on their reports. That is just their position, not that of Islam.

    Neither Sunnis nor Shia regard the Sahabah as infallible and that includes the Caliphs. Many times you will find Fuqaha disagreeing with the legal verdict of Umar, Aisha, Ali as well as Sahahbah disagreeing with each other. So opinion of Sahabah is not even an absolute proof and only Hanafis even accept opinion of Sahabah as legal basis for ruling amongstn the major Sunni schools (Malikis specify it to certain sahabah). Go and study fiqh – when Shafis talk about ijma and Qiyaas etc, where do they use opinion of sahabah to make judgements?

    Just look at this rubbish you are talking in public. How the hell do you know that Allah commands only justice? You just mean any garbage idiots attribute to Allah = justice. Otherwise show me your independent proof of what is justice, from aql/reason or anything else that you applied on this ‘command’ of stoning to check and make sure that it is justice. You didn’t.

    You just mean that whatever we say is justice. It is just nonsense semantics. If there was similar ‘proof’, for killing babies as there is for stoning adulterers, you guys would say that this is justice too, and many fools have hadith and fatwas about that too.

    • I do not want to discuss whether the Ahadith are sahih, mutawatir or whatever. Both the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah as well as the scholars on the path of Ahl al-Bayt have already cleared this topic. There is no single scholar who has ever denied it. Your Imam Abu Hanifah neither. Who wants to see the proofs can look it up.

      But what is very disappointing for me is the methodology of accepting and rejecting Islamic rules you seem to have. You have to be sincere to yourself and decide whether your rejection is based on proofs or on the way you have been brought up in Western society. Allah has the right to decide what the punishment is. It would be just if there was no stoning too. Stoning is totally just. Please do not mistake Aql and reason with some ethical principles which do not base in Tawhid.

      Tawhid is the fundamental principle of Islam and has to be the principle of any aqli reasoning. If you cannot accept that Allah commands you to kill then you have a problem with Tawhid. Allah commanded Rasulullah Ibrahim to kill his child son and he did not hesitate to do it. I fear you have a problem with Tawhid.

      • It is nothing to do with me being brought up in Western society, rather it is due to the way YOU have been brought up – as an idiot.

        I apologise to the readers in advance but unfortunately, the only language these homicidal takfiris understand is the harsh and offensive kind. So we have to give them their medicine or they won’t calm down and just keep hurting others.

        What a pathetic and idiotic specimen you are. You are going to get a rude reply since despite being an abject moron, you DARE to make takfir. Standard behaviour for all you guys. I remember your first comment here – you supported ISIS openly, so that tells us all we need to know, especially about your claim of being ‘shia’. As we know, there are a lot of shia supporting ISIS (LOL). I told you at that time that I know you are the same idiot who got banned before and who admitted he is not even Muslim. BTW, ‘Twelver Shia’ don’t call themselves that. Please work a bit harder on your cover story next time.

        You are exactly the kind of unthinking moronic zombie that the enemies of Islam love – you just need some excuse to kill. Firstly you lied and attributed stoning to God, then after lying on behalf of God did not help you and I challenged you on your garbage level of knowledge, you still won’t give up because filthy maniacs always need some excuses to kill. When you could not bring it from God nor from usool nor from Hadith now you have to bring opinion of scholars.

        Since opinion of Sahabah is not even binding (which you failed to address because you have no knowledge, only arousal at the thought of killing – maybe that is what you call ‘tawhid’) how come opinion of scholars is infallible? There are many scholars who denied it – even Imam Samarkandi and Khuduri Beg and many others. You are too stupid to know that – and don’t try to pretend that two groups of scholars who insulted each other so badly like the Ahlus Sunnah and Shi’a somehow you can use their contradictory statements as a proof. Either accept all of their contradictory statements as infallible or not. But you want to say they are accepted only when it comes to issue of killing adulterers. You are just a hypocrite.

        Anyway, there is no such principle in Islam as ‘taqleed’ of scholars on any issue of aqeeda nor killing. In Islam, we don’t kill people based on scholars ‘opinions’ anymore than we follow any aqeeda or any life and death opinion if it does not make sense. Since you are too stupid to demonstrate how it is ‘justice’ nor how it makes sense, you are basically a Nazi: ‘why are you killing that guy?’ ‘Because Imam Shafi said so’. Are you PROUD of that? Do you even realise how much of a disgrace to Islam and humanity you are? Lets just kill people even if it makes no sense and there is no proof from God because someone said so. So dumb.

        If you are so keen to not use your aql and to follow people, why don’t you just be an idol worshipper. How did you know tawhid is true? Was it because some scholar said so or by using the aql? If it is because of what some scholar said then if that scholar was a polytheist you would have followed him regardless then isn’t it? So is you tawhid based on aql/reason or what imams said? If it is because of what imams said then you are just lucky you did not meet the ‘Imams’ of Satan worshippers since you are happy to follow any crap which someone tells you without using your brain (admittedly, your brain is very weak so of course you wish to follow someone stronger i.e everyone). If it is by using the brain then you are hypocrite and homicidal maniac since you are willing to use it for tawhid and religion but not in stoning.

        Also Dumbo, how did you decide which scholar to follow in the first place? Wasn’t that with brain or was it some other organ (in your case, most likely your ass)? How did you decide that following scholars on the issue of killing was the correct thing? Wasn’t it with your brain? Or was it your penis?

        Either way, you are stupid and a blessing for the atheists and non-Muslims, because on the Day of Judgement, they can just say to God that they did not follow Islam because of people like you. It is an excellent excuse. I’m sure they will get a ‘pass’ from God because of that.

        Also, you are too stupid to understand about aql let alone Tawhid. Probably you don’t even understand what tawhid is either, since you did not understand aql, Quran nor fiqh or even hadith. You want to talk about proof but you did not bring any nor were you able to engage with any of the points I raised, all you could do is make takfir – and yet I did not even discuss the issue from Quran nor hadith nor usool nor bring the proofs yet because I could see you don’t have the mental equipment to engage in a discussion in the first place.

        You are such a galactic idiot that you didn’t even know the story of Ibrahim and his son; the very first thing he did was hesitate, he didn’t fulfil the order but asked PERMISSION from his son, and only when his son agreed did he take action. Don’t make out Prophet Ibrahim to be low-class like you – insulting the Prophets is kufr kiddo.

        It is funny you dare to make takfir on me by accusing me of being polytheist and having problems with ‘tawhid’ when it was you who lied about Quran and lied on behalf of God, so don’t worry about me, that makes you kaafir according to everyone, even atheists!

        You lied about Quran, Prophet Abraham and God AGAIN – you said he commanded us to kill, I already challenged you to show the command, and you failed and said it was the ‘opinion of the scholars’, who are fallible (unless you think the scholars ARE God. Certainly, you seem stupid enough) and in any case, even Abu Hanifa said you have to apply his principles and understanding, not blindly follow him. Anyway, I am not mentally challenged enough to kill someone just because Abu Hanifa said so. And you don’t even know the narrations about stoning attributed to Abu Hanifa. That is because you are dumb. Dumb people are always interested in violence but not evidence or academia.

        Here is my sincere advice if you are so interested in killing and not using aql, please do us all a favour and shut off your aql and kill yourself, that way you get your killing urges out and we will be rid of a foul specimen like you.

        This is called ‘win-win in ‘The West’.

      • Oh, an I almost forgot: banned (again), for, in this order:

        1) dangerous levels of stupidity
        2) complete failure to address or engage any of my points
        3) complete failure of making your own points
        4) For being the only ‘Shia’ in ISIS
        5) For making Takfir by saying I dislike tawhid

    • This is what I currently understand re stoning. I’ll explain through an example scenario. Please explain what is incorrect in my understanding from what you’ve studied/know is the correct understanding. *close your eyes kids, the following material is for 18+ viewers only*

      Context: Ottoman Empire… in modern times lol

      After watching an episode of “The Real Househusbands of Orange County” or “Handsome Little Liars” lol, a bored husband of an affluent noble woman invites his single 23 year old female neighbor for some “tea” (sex) while the wife is out at work. They proceed to have consensual tea in the kitchen located at the rear of the house (with curtains of large glass kitchen door open). The wife with 4 other female friends walk to the back of the house to enter from the kitchen door. Wife and friends look through the large glass door and see the husband’s teapot spout going into the cup of the girl lying on the kitchen table….

      All 5 women testify against the husband in court (the wife seeking death penalty). In this case (only speaking of the guilty party the death-penalty could apply to since it’s the issue in question), the judge CAN sentence the husband to death via stoning. If the judge does so:
      -The criminal can repent and receive a lesser punishment at any time from the time of sentencing up until and including the time of stoning. If he does repents or says he will repent, the judge is obliged to reduce the punishment. The options of lesser punishment on the table for the judge range from: public shaming, up to 39 public non-skin-tearing lashes, imprisonment, or fine paid to the spouse (x spouse).

      -If the husband does not repent or refuses to repent and trys escape from the stoning pit before or during stoning, it’s mandatory for the judge to issue a lesser punishment.

      So in essence, stoning can only be administered via consent.

      • “Yeah. You are just spamming.
        No one says that stoning is optional. Please go and set up your own madhab based on this ‘usool’ (which is the same as Salafis – taking random hadith about someone who volunteers for stoning and then making a general ruling out of it)…”

        You’re absolutely right. The way I came to the conclusion is unacceptable. This idea of stoning being optional is NOT something I have conviction in. It’s an idea that’s developed in my mind (perhaps unconsciously) over several years after reading and hearing snippets hear and there on stoning. I noticed the issue being mentioned very often on this website so I thought i’d take the opportunity to pitch the idea and get your feedback and possibly confirm it’s validity or invalidity. Again, thanks for the feedback and my apologies for spamming.

        FYI: the idea of optional death penalty CAN make sense in this context. The very possibility that you could choose to have yourself stoned to death for breach of marital contract symbolizes the severity of the breach. Marital contract breaches, especially when their are children involved, can have severe consequences on society (healthcare, taxation, violence etc.).

        @Jukti
        Here are some arguments against casual sex etc (from an atheist). You’ll need to keep in mind he’s very anti-government so he tries to promote a type of anarchism into his arguments.
        -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um3EmS9DKsI
        -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rYHf6mLb_M

      • So you can opt to have yourself stoned to death based on ahad narrations when suicide being haraam is mass transmitted? Does it make sense?

        So our desire to follow ahad narrations should be so strong that even if we are willing to die for them it is fine? Okay, I want to see how strong is your desire for the ahad narrations. The man to make Bukhari and these hadith famous is Ibn Hajar and the other Muhaditheen. They accept the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident and narrations about children going to Hell. Please show me your commitment to these narrations and demonstrate it ‘voluntarily’ like the stoning: Is Prophet Muhammad believer in those Pagan gods? Do children go to hell? Commitment should not only be demonstrated to adultery narrations, lets have it for these things too.

        Marital breakup and breach of contract have worse consequences than death? Not having a parent is better than having an adulterous one? Does it make sense? Go and tell that to any society and civilisation through history and see what they think of it.

        If we stone people to death with small stones AFTER lashing them first with no chance of mercy then what should be the punishment for murder? Being eaten by hungry rats? Burnt to death? What?

        Who decides the ‘severity’ of the breach? If it was God then why did he forget to mention it in Quran nor Muttawatir hadith? If it is you who decides the severity then who cares?

      • So you can opt to have yourself stoned to death based on ahad narrations when suicide being haraam is mass transmitted? Does it make sense?

        It obviously wasn’t considered suicide in the case of Ma’iz (IF the narrations I mentioned are true). Again the 1 in a billion scenario goes something like this:
        1. Adulterer (male): I’ve committed adultery, please stone me to death.
        2. Judge: Go away! Ask forgiveness from God.
        3. Adulterer: No please stone me to death… it’s the only way I think I’ll be able to relieve myself of this burden (sin). I want to follow Ma’iz’s example.
        4. Judge: [has a doctor check mental health to verify he’s sane, in case he needs to be admitted to a mental ward or something] = sound
        5. Judge: [conscious or unconscious question to self – have the global customs/treaties agreed to ban capital punishment via stoning?] = 14th century Arabia – nope.
        6. Judge: [should I really let this guy allow to be stoned?] = well, he asked for it.
        7. Judge: Ok, I order you to be stoned.

        Perhaps back in… I don’t know 16th century and prior, stoning was maybe a form of punishment not alien (but not necessarily common) to the Middle East… like skinning and burning alive was to North American native Indians. Although not alien, stoning may not necessarily have been the preferred method of punishment in adultery cases by the common people (people not in power). Also, it may have never really been given too much thought because its occurrence was extremely rare.

        “So our desire to follow ahad narrations should be so strong that even if we are willing to die for them it is fine?…”

        I have no DESIRE to follow ahad narrations. I have a desire to know the truth.

        Look, some form of association between adultery and stoning has always floated around in my mind for over 20 years. Severing that association won’t be easy for me since only until coming across your webstie, every Muslim I’ve known and have grown up with, have looked up to (including scholars who I’ve learned from formally and informally), have held and continue to hold some sort of belief that stoning is an unabrogated form of punishment, at least in the fairly impossible case of 4 upright witnesses giving testimony of their witnessing of penetration. In addition, and more importantly, there MAY BE an implication that the Rashidun got the stoning thing wrong (which isn’t impossible) since I’ve come across narrations r indicating 3 of the 4 Rashidun practiced it or never understood it to be abrogated. Your claim Umar R.A. “stopped lashing for fornication, let alone stoning for adultery,” is in of itself an indication Umar R.A. never understood it to be abrogated, at least before he stopped (since you haven’t given evidence for why he stopped). Perhaps your claim of abrogation can be strengthened if you could provide evidence the narrations which imply the Rashidun (Uthmaan, Umar, Ali, (r.a.)) practiced rajm or spoke of it as if it were not abrogated are weak. So can you please provide further reading on your claim of abrogation?

        Another possibility in regards to stoning is perhaps, similar to but not exactly like slavery, the form of punishment was intended to be gradually phased out and only serve a symbolic purpose as a deterrent, once all of the people in power stopped punishing criminals by skinning, roasting, burning, stoning etc.

        “Marital breakup and breach of contract have worse consequences than death?”

        It’s not the same… this is optional. But if the idea adultery-stoning was intended to reach us (contemporary Muslims) as an unabrogated concept only to serve as a deterrent then it does make sense.

        “Not having a parent is better than having an adulterous one? Does it make sense? Go and tell that to any society and civilisation through history and see what they think of it.

        This isn’t a valid argument. Losing a parent doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll forever be without 2 parents.

        As far as the Civilizational argument goes i.e. does the punishment fit the crime, for Arabs coming out of jahilia wherein live baby-burials went un-punished by people in power not too long before the coming the of Prophet s.a.w., perhaps there wasn’t much opposition, since it seemed to be confession-consent based.

        “If we stone people to death with small stones AFTER lashing them first with no chance of mercy then what should be the punishment for murder? Being eaten by hungry rats? Burnt to death? What?”

        I brought forth that narration as a possible indication stoning was not understood to be abrogated according to the Rashidun, since Ali MAY have stoned someone who ASKED for it. I also wanted to point out the idea of rulings could change based on maqasid etc. It’s incorrect to say there was no chance of mercy in that scenario. In that narration, he basically told her to get lost and repent but she insisted. His lashing and then stoning… I don’t know if they in fact both happened or just the one. If both happened it’s possible it was due to his independent reasoning. I don’t know.

        “Who decides the ‘severity’ of the breach? If it was God then why did he forget to mention it in Quran nor Muttawatir hadith? If it is you who decides the severity then who cares?”

        This is an excellent point. I don’t understand why and that’s why I came up with the idea it could actually be optional (given the right context) after having looked at the hadiths on wiki-Islam.

        Listen bro, I really appreciate you taking your time out to respond but just know that I’m not on the verge of apostasy here. So feel free to take your time to respond… or just tell me to piss off or whatever.

    • correction: The criminal has the chance to repent from the time of conviction up until and including the time of stoning and receive a lesser punishment.

      • Unless you are talking about the proper usooli Hanafis, but they don’t accept stoning at all, not this scenario, which I am sure you realise is absurd anyway: why have a death penalty that is optional on the victim of the penalty?
        Some of the later Hanafis who ‘sold out’ still said though that if the crowd is unwilling to stone then it is lifted.
        Anyway, stoning not accepted by Hanafis, I will supply details but this scenario you describe is silly isn’t it.

      • “…but this scenario you describe is silly isn’t it”

        You’re right… it is a very silly scenario. The guy was probably watching belly-dancing womens on some Saudi-funded arab channel lol. Ok the possibility of a Muslim getting caught as described AND refusing to repent from adultery because they believe it to be permissible (as implied) is impossible.

        “Yeah, that’s completely and utterly wrong. Who told you that?”

        I figured it was lol. In all honesty, I just mentally put together snippets from Islamic lectures I could remember off the top of my head and deduced stoning could only be administered if the victim consented to it lol

        I know this isn’t academic at all but if what’s presented on wiki-Islam re stoning is the primary evidence used to prove stoning can be administered without consent than the argument is very weak. From my perspective, after looking over all of the evidences wiki-Islam uses, the model cases for a stoning scenario, or the ones with at least some level of detail and that could potentially be classified as cases which rulings could be derived from (urf and other juristic devices aside), are the case of Ma’iz b Malik and the pregnant lady who confessed shortly after Ma’iz, both of which are presented in Sahih Muslim 17:4202 (full hadith below).

        With the case of Ma’iz, the hadith states:
        “Ma, iz b. Malik came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said to him: Messenger of Allah, purify me, whereupon he said: Woe be upon you, go back, ASK FORGIVENESS of Allah and turn to Him in REPENTANCE. He (the narrator) said that he went back not far, then came and said: Allah’s Messenger, purify me. whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon you, go back and ask forgiveness of Allah and turn to Him in repentance…”

        And then:

        “There is no repentance more excellent than the repentance of Ma’iz, for he came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and placing his hand in his (in the Holy Prophet’s) hand said: KILL ME WITH STONES. “
        So he refused the option to repent after having been given it several times and CHOSE to be stoned to death.
        The hadith also states Ma’iz fled but then STOPPED and the stoning was completed. I’m of the belief he voluntarily stopped given his determination in getting purified via stoning. Also, there is no indication in any of the other hadith re stoning as to what should happen if a person flees and changes their mind during stoning. Thus any ruling that’s derived for this scenario is assumption.

        The same hadith describes the case of the pregnant lady who confessed right after or shortly after Ma’iz was stoned. She also refused to repent and kept returning to be stoned to death. It just goes to show how determined she was in ensuring she was purified via stoning.

        Some may argue the option for repentance and consent only applies to those who confess. I do not see a difference between one who confesses and one who gets caught during the act or at a later time as a result of child-birth in this case. The confessor is someone who does not get caught in the act. The one who is caught during or after the act is one who did not get a chance to confess. Thus it would be unjust to give the confessor the option to repent or consent to stoning only.

        In regards to non-Muslims, Islamic law is optional for them in my understanding. They can choose to take marital disputes to Muslim courts if they wish. If they do so, it’s tazir as there are no prescribed punishments for non-Muslims since they don’t have a covenant with God to follow Islamic law (due to them being non-Muslim).

        -https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur’an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning
        – Sahih Muslim 17:4202 – Sulaiman b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma, iz b. Malik came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said to him: Messenger of Allah, purify me, whereupon he said: Woe be upon you, go back, ask forgiveness of Allah and turn to Him in repentance. He (the narrator) said that he went back not far, then came and said: Allah’s Messenger, purify me. whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon you, go back and ask forgiveness of Allah and turn to Him in repentance. He (the narrator) said that he went back not far, when he came and said: Allah’s Messenger, purify me. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said as he had said before. When it was the fourth time, Allah’s Messenger (may, peace be upon him) said: From what am I to purify you? He said: From adultery, Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) asked if he had been mad. He was informed that he was not mad. He said: Has he drunk wine? A person stood up and smelt his breath but noticed no smell of wine. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Have you committed adultery? He said: Yes. He made pronouncement about him and he was stoned to death. The people had been (divided) into two groups about him (Ma’iz). One of them said: He has been undone for his sins had encompassed him, whereas another said: There is no repentance more excellent than the repentance of Ma’iz, for he came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and placing his hand in his (in the Holy Prophet’s) hand said: Kill me with stones. (This controversy about Ma’iz) remained for two or three days. Then came Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to them (his Companions) as they were sitting. He greeted them with salutation and then sat down and said: Ask forgiveness for Ma’iz b. Malik. They said: May Allah forgive Ma’iz b. Malik. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: He (Ma’iz) has made such a repentance that if that were to be divided among a people, it would have been enough for all of them. He (the narrator) said: Then a woman of Ghamid, a branch of Azd, came to him and said: Messenger of of Allah, purify me, whereupon he said: Woe be upon you; go back and beg forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance. She said: I find that you intend to send me back as you sent back Ma’iz. b. Malik. He (the Holy, Prophet) said: What has happened to you? She said that she had become pregnant as a result of fornication. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Is it you (who has done that)? She said: Yes. He (the Holy Prophet) said to her: (You will not be punished) until you deliver what is there in your womb. One of the Ansar became responsible for her until she was delivered (of the child). He (that Ansari) came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said the woman of Ghamid has given birth to a child. He (the Holy Prophet) said: In that case we shall not stone her and so leave her infant with none to suckle him. One of the Ansar got up and said: Allah’s Apostle, let the responsibility of his suckling be upon me. She was then stoned to death.

      • Okay: Why are you killing innocent electrons by cut and pasting these hadith here?

        Did you read what I said about stoning?
        According to Hanafis like me, is hadith enough proof to give death penalty?

      • “The hadith also states Ma’iz fled but then STOPPED and the stoning was completed”

        I meant to say Sahih Muslim 17:4202 says Ma’iz stopped. Sahih Muslim 17:4205 makes no mention of the fleeing part.

        Sahih Muslim 17:4202:
        Abu Sa’id reported that a person belonging to the clan of Aslam, who was called Ma, iz b. Malik, came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have committed immorality (adultery), so inflict punishment upon me. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) turned him away again and again. He then asked his people (about the state of his mind). They said: We do not know of any ailment of his except that he has committed something about which he thinks that he would not be able to relieve himself of its burden but with the Hadd being imposed upon him. He (Ma’iz) came back to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he commanded us to stone him. We took him to the Baqi’ al-Gharqad (the graveyard of Medina). We neither tied him nor dug any ditch for him. We attacked him with bones, with clods and pebbles. He ran away and we ran after him until he came upon the stone ground (al-Harra) and stopped there and we stoned him with heavy stones of the Harra until he became motionless (lie died). He (the Holy Prophet) then addressed (us) in the evening saying Whenever we set forth on an expedition in the cause of Allah, some one of those connected with us shrieked (under the pressure of sexual lust) as the bleating of a male goat. It is essential that if a person having committed such a deed is brought to me, I should punish him. He neither begged forgiveness for him nor cursed him.

      • OK thank you. I looked up the Tafsir of Samarqandi at 4:15 and 24:2. In the first he says there is stoning for adultery. In the second nothing about stoning is mentioned but it says 100 lashes are only if the commiters of ‘zina’ are not married. Nothing else is added there.

        Before I do a word search can someone tell me place please?

      • “Did you read what I said about stoning?”

        Yes

        “According to Hanafis like me, is hadith enough proof to give death penalty?”

        No. Death penalty can only be GIVEN based on explicit proofs from Quran.

        Again, it seems to me rajm is optional for the married person who commits adultery. I’m not saying it’s mandatory to be given… or FORCED upon anyone.

        You’ll hate this but I’m going to kill a few more innocent electrons here with another example of someone ASKING to be stoned: From http://amuslimconvertoncemore.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-argument-against-rajm-stoning.html

        “Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (r.a.), he reported from Shaykh ‘Amir ibn ash-Sha‘bi (r.a.) that a woman named Shurahah came to ‘Ali ibn Abi Thalib (k.w.) and confessed her pregnancy through zina. ‘Ali (k.w.) tried to send her away, making excuses for her but SHE INSISTED ON HER PUNISHMENT. Left with no recourse, he had her flogged on Thursday and stoned to death on Friday and said, “We flogged in accordance with the Book of Allah and stoned in accordance with the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah.” This is proof that mere decades after the passing of our Prophet (s.a.w.), flogging of those who were to be stoned as practiced. This conflicts with Imam ash-Shafi‘i’s (r.a.) contention that flogging before rajm was abrogated.”

        Interestingly, the article on the website states Ali (r.a.) stopped banishment for Zina as he saw it be a source of fitnah (according to Imam Abu Bakr al-Jaswswasw (r.a.) recorded in his Ahkam al-Qur’an). This relates to the legal devices or recourses at the disposal of the judiciary and executive I mentioned e.g. maqasid, masalih mursala, and sad al-dhara’I’. In contemporary times, personally, I don’t think people should be stoned if they asked for it because it would cause fitnah.

      • Yeah. You are just spamming.
        No one says that stoning is optional. Please go and set up your own madhab based on this ‘usool’ (which is the same as Salafis – taking random hadith about someone who volunteers for stoning and then making a general ruling out of it).

        Plus that’s really stupid if you think about it.

  13. You tell me to not make “emotional arguments” then you come out with this: ” It is pseudo-rationalist liberal faggot unislamic arguing.”

    Uhh, if you say so. You want to know something else that is irrational? Giving people a “moral pass” just because they are Muslim. That doesn’t make us perfect. People are people, dude. No one is perfect. That’s for God alone. You’re so convinced that you have “the Truth tm.” that you aren’t willing to critically examine it, and when people question you they get called “faggots”?

    What kind of Qur’an did you read that tells you to speak like that to others? To fellow believers no less. I guess that’s why you called everyone here a “kuffar”, because you believe that the “kuffar” (fellow human beings) are fair game, right?

    It’s a level of navel gazing that I grew out of. I’m sorry.

    “O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one’s] faith. And whoever does not repent – then it is those who are the wrongdoers” Qur’an 49:11

    “Abu Zarr reported that the Holy Prophet said: No man accuses another man of being a sinner, or of being a kafir, but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him.”

    (Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44)

    • Allow me to recommend Khaled Abou El Fadls’ ‘Reasoning With God’. It really is an awesome attempt to take back the real Islam from the idiots and he is a rare example of a genuine Islamic scholar who has actual intelligence and knowledge. Most are charlatans: I tried for twenty years and found three genuine ones only so you always have to keep your wits about you but that’s what God demanded anyway.
      Also, especially for Americans, Jeffrey lang’s ‘Losing My Religion’ cannot be beaten.

    • I think that all these issues you rightly point out are the result of centuries of stagnation of Muslim thought (starting Circa 1566, end of Suleiman the Magnificent’s reign, a Maturidi BTW, as ruler of the Ottoman empire) + rise of anti-everything Wahhabism circa 1750 onwards.
      I study history and recommend everyone should to make sense of life. The collapse of Muslim political power post WW1 created a vacuum which extremists rushed to fill. Essentially, they seek to offer “true” Islam and oppose any other interpretation conflicting with theirs AKA everyone = Puritanism = Emphasis on Legalism
      They have a major issue with the West over the Colonial historical era which is why Terrorists nowadays often refer to historical events like the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) that created the modern middle East as we know it. As much as I abhor the Colonial era and what occurred in it, its happened. We can’t punish modern Europeans for something past Europeans did. But this is precisely the thinking they seek to trap you in. Besides, many European countries are home to many Muslims who are given many rights found lacking elsewhere.
      Just going to have to hang in there and hope that this condition can be rectified.

  14. Okay, so now we got rid of the buffoon takfir squad, let us have a look at the issue of adultery stoning properly:

    First of all, no one, Muslim or not, is obliged to believe in anything that doesn’t make sense. Otherwise we should have just stayed as idol worshippers or cannibals or whatever. And if Islam can’t make sense morally and intellectually, then it too does not deserve to be believed in, just like all the other false religions and ideologies: We are not afraid of morality nor reason as Islam is proved by them, as Quran said over 100 times. The End.

    So:

    1) Quran makes clear that punishment for adultery is lashing.

    2) Quran talks about ‘zina’. Zina is illict interocuse and can mean adultery OR fornication, there is no separate word for ‘adultery’. There is no way around this in Arabic language. Many Muslim ‘scholars’ try to lie and say Quran is only talking about fornication (sex without marriage where none of the parties are married) and not adultery. This is not true because of the word ‘zina’ meaning both and it’s also dumbness because it means that the Quran spoke in detail about the lesser offence but failed to mention the more serious offence which mandates death (according to these people). These people have the bizarre epistemic position that the Quran can talk about little issues (lashing) but leave the big issues (death by stoning) to hadith.

    3) There is actual Ijma (not the fake Ijma of Salafis and Deobandis etc) on the issue that if I am punished for something in this life then there is no further punishment. So if I am beheaded for murder, in the hereafter and Day of Judgement = no further punishment. I mention this because one of the arguments the scholars brought against stoning for adultery was that this makes it worse than say, killing a baby in cold blood: if I kill a baby, I have 1) the chance of leniency if the family forgives 2) A quick death if they do not. In the case of adultery – no chance of forgiveness or leniency and the punishment is much worse than beheading as it is stoning with SMALL stones and according to Hanbalis, you have to be lashed 100 times and THEN stoned to ‘respect’ Quranic punishment of lashing. So whichever way you look at it, since the punishment fits AND absolves the crime in Islam, according to ijma, then according to Muslims, adultery is worse than multiple child homicide, rape and paedophilia, which all have lesser punishments. Does this make sense? [note to dumb people: No, it does not]

    4) Hadiths about stoning – in Islamic law, the command for the previous nations (Jews,. Christians etc) remains unless Quran abrogates it. Stoning is there in Jewish law (they claim). All hadith about stoning are from before the revelation of the appropriate ayats of Quran and all alleged incidents took place before the Quranic ayat was revealed. For one incident, sahahbah were ‘not sure’ if was before or after. Anyway, I do not believe in any of these incidents to have been done by the Prophet but even if they were, the chronology makes clear they are abrogated by the command of lashing in the Quran – by the rules of the very people who claim to ‘prove’ stoning.

    5) None of hadith and narrations about stoning are Muttawatir nor most of then are even mashoor. It is absolutely not allowed to set up death penalty by anything other than Quran or Muttawtir hadith (hadith of a similar level of certainty as the Quran) according to Hanafis, and that is the only tenable position (same would go for the killing of apostates BTW).

    6) Umar (RA), who is usually wheeled out to support stoning, stopped even lashing people for fornication, let alone adultery.

    7) The argument that the Quran USED to contain ayats about stoning but God removed them for some reason – first of all, we actually HAVE this ayat – ‘the old man and old woman who commit adultery, stone them’, so how was it ‘lost’ as hadith say (see below). Second, none of the people who understand Quranic Arabic accept that this clumsy construction was EVER part of the Quran. Furthermore, we have reports from Sahabah saying that this was in the Torah, NOT the Quran and the narration about it being in the Quran is erroneous. Stoning fans conveniently overlook even the evidence of Sahabah and Tabaeen if it goes against them

    8) The idea that ayats can be abrogated for recitation but still acted on – as is argued for the alleged ayat about Stoning is incoherent to any thinking person.

    9) Hadith don’t say ayat was ‘abrogated’ but rather ‘lost’ – so The Quran is incomplete if you believe in stoning adulterers – the famous hadith of Asiah beloved by the enemies of Islam where she says she had these ayats written on here pillow and a goat ate them so they were lost. This casts the whole of Islam and Quran authenticity into question just for the sake of rescuing the punishment of stoning. It is the ‘interpretation’ of scholars that the ayats are ‘abrogated’ – the hadith says ‘lost’. But the we actually HAVE the alleged ayat from other narrations, so even the hadith don’t reflect reality.

    10) People claim that ‘no’ scholars said this – but there are huge scholars who denied stoning and their arguments will be much more academic than some rabid dawahgandist or Salafis waffler you see before you – and this was well before ‘pressure’ from the West – just some of them which Arabic readers can look up are: Imam Samarkandi, Khudari Bek, Ahmad Shaltut, Sheikh ul Al Azhar Abu Zahra, Ahmad Mustafa Sarqa – and these are just from the last century (obviously apart from Imam Samarkandi). So they will try to pretend that ‘no-one’ said this – but top scholars said it repeatedly.

    11) The hadith used to justify stoning in Bukhari – where the sahabah goes into the jungle and sees monkeys stoning each other for adultery. My question: do animals have to follow shariah, and according what rules were these monkeys married in the first place? And what about running around naked with your member swinging in the wind – is that allowed in the sharia of monkeys? Do we believe in such hadith?

    So there will be more details in my article and references, but these are easy and logical points which anyone can quickly understand and check up.

    • “4) Hadiths about stoning – in Islamic law, the command for the previous nations (Jews,. Christians etc) remains unless Quran abrogates it. Stoning is there in Jewish law (they claim). All hadith about stoning are from before the revelation of the appropriate ayats of Quran and all alleged incidents took place before the Quranic ayat was revealed. For one incident, sahahbah were ‘not sure’ if was before or after. Anyway, I do not believe in any of these incidents to have been done by the Prophet but even if they were, the chronology makes clear they are abrogated by the command of lashing in the Quran – by the rules of the very people who claim to ‘prove’ stoning.”

      Are there any books or articles in English I can read that elaborates on the argument that the “chronology makes clear” stoning was abrogated by the command of lashing?

      “6) Umar (RA), who is usually wheeled out to support stoning, stopped even lashing people for fornication, let alone adultery.
      Interesting.”

      I knew Umar (r.a.) suspended hud punishment for theft but didn’t know he also stopped lashing people for fornication. Did he stop it completely or suspend it? What was his reasoning behind it? Can I find this claim in History of Tabari? If not, are there any other books translated into English I can find this in?

      “7) The argument that the Quran USED to contain ayats about stoning but God removed them for some reason – first of all, we actually HAVE this ayat – ‘the old man and old woman who commit adultery, stone them’…”

      Which chapter and verse is this in?

  15. I have two questions. One is regarding the crime justice thing. What if stoning is indeed in the Thora? Wouldn’t this mean then that Allah commanded injustice before? Do you think that there was no stoning in the Thora?
    The second is about Abu Layth Samarqandi. Does he say this in the Tafsir? I know Imam Maturidi says there is stoning in his Tafsir.

    • We don’t know what is or is not in the Torah. Nor are we on the run in the desert from Pharoah and at war with Canaanites that we should worry about what is and is not justice for them . Nor do we know the religion of all the people who are allegedly stoned in the hadiths.
      So if someone is going to use the Torah as evidence for stoning, that’s really desperate. Its also totally pointless to speculate about was and was not in the Torah – we know that Jews practised it, doesn’t mean that it was authentic. Muslims are practising it to, doesn’t mean its authentic.

      I am interested to know how you know this about Imam Maturidi? Because his Tafsir is 1) not Translated 2) not published in its entirety 3) I only know one guy who can read his Arabic properly. Imam Samarkandi said it was abrogated by Quran.

      I love how something not being in Quran and totally irrational doesn’t bother people though.

      • There are many narrations that stoning was in the Thora. Maybe they can be disputed. But what I meant was if you think that stoning is categorically unjust in any case or only for the Qur’an-law?

        I would not claim to fully understand what Maturidi says but I think he affirmed it when I read it. Maybe I’m wrong.

      • Since we are not concerned with killing people based on our OWN narrations, we are even less concerned with killing them based on OUR narrations of what OTHER people’s scriptures said.

        The justice thing is very simple: What do YOU think 1) Justice is 2) Do you think that adultery having a worse punishment than murder is justice?

      • I do think that there is objective justice. That means that God does not bring any harm to anyone except for a fair reason or with later compensation. Justice is either established through the law or the ultimate judgement in the afterlife. But justice deals with harm in the first place. When a person is harmed physically, mentally or by stealing then there is an objective basis for justice. Harm is something objectively conceivable independent of any religious belief and solely based on materialism.
        But as for fornication, adultery, murder, drugs there is no objective materialistic basis for law-making. In secular law there are some pragmatic reasons for outlawing murder and drugs but these acts cannot be ruled under justice which means compensation. There is a dogma needed to outlaw them. It is God who sanctifies marriage, life, sexual chastity etc..
        I included murder into these because a painless murder is not causing any harm to the killed person. Only the family is harmed in various ways. So it could be put under the justice principle of course.

        Because of this I do not agree with your analogy between murder and adultery. Adultery is a sin because it breaks the holy marriage. Murder is either harm or it is a crime because it breaks the sanctity of life given by God. Whatever way you see murder, the sanctity of marriage is what matters for the punishment. Therefore I do not agree with your justice-argument.

        But I have no objections to your scriptural criticism of stoning for adultery.

      • Yeah, I think you are rather confused:

        You said you believe in ‘objective’ justice but you avoid telling us how we know this ‘objectively’ – you say it is established by text. So how is that objective and how can we ‘know’ it? I’m not being pedantic – if you want to kill people, especially by stoning, I want precision. Likewise:

        When a person is harmed physically, mentally or by stealing then…Harm is something objectively conceivable independent of any religious belief and solely based on materialism.
        But as for fornication, adultery, murder, drugs there is no objective materialistic basis for law-making. In secular law there are some pragmatic reasons for outlawing murder and drugs but these acts cannot be ruled under justice which means compensation

        This doesn’t actually make complete sense if you think about it: you say mental harm is objectively harmful because it has a material basis, then you start talking about no objective materialistic basis for law making in the cases of drugs or adultery. What, are they ‘spiritual’ drugs? Do I commit adultery with my spiritual penis? All of these are physical acts and no different to stealing: it is breach of contract, loss of property, physical harm etc. I don’t know where you got this physical non-physical distinction from in crime nor justice. That doesn’t really even exist in Western Law. Perhaps you mean ’emotional’ harm. But that is there in practically all crimes as well. As for why they cannot be rules under justice and a ‘dogma’ is needed, there are plenty of secular laws which outlaw stuff like drugs. And all law is a dogma anyway, whether religious or not. So there was no point, imho, of talking about all of that.

        You see, I didn’t make an analogy: I said that the punishment should fit the crime as in Islam, that is what is stated by ijma: punishment absolves the crime and no punishment in there hereafter. So if I get killed for murder in this life, in the next life, no punishment. Ijma. Only Saudi scholars of last century went against that ijma. So if punishment fits the crime, then how come punishment for adultery is worse than killing a baby? This is not really analogy nor qiyaas. It is a simple comparison. And that is why I asked you if you agree that the punishment for adultery should be worse than for murder and you didn’t answer that:

        Is it JUSTICE that the PUNISHMENT for ADULTERY is WORSE in ISLAM than for MURDER?

        Simple question. Give your yes/no answer and then your ‘objective’ reasoning.

        Forgive me for being harsh – but look at your reply: you are telling me that ‘adultery is a sin’. Did I BLOOMING WELL say that it WASN’T!? I said that death penalty is not valid for adultery and from that you deduced that I think adultery is not a sin? What the hell?

        Let me ask you: which is the worse sin: adultery of kufr? Obviously kufr. So how come there is not death penalty for kufr or being a kaafir or worshipping idols. Riba is worse than adultery. Is there death penalty for it? Quran commands you to give extra charity and use Aql. What is the punishment for not doing it? Nothing. So where did you get this ‘Usool’ of every bad thing needing punishment? And if adultery is needing death penalty then being kaafir according to that logic should be mass genocide!

        So look, obviously you are smart. But please think properly.

        You said you do not agree with my justice argument: then since my argument was that it is not justice that adultery has worse punishment than killing a baby, you are saying that adultery is worse than child murder and rape of children? Please show me how this is the case ‘objectively’ or otherwise stop being silly.

        Another thing which you seem to have failed to think of is that since in punishing adultery you will kill two people, it will have the same consequences as TWO murders: if you claim that adultery breaks up families and causes emotional harm to children, what do you think killing their mum or dad does? The same. All of the harms of murder – cutting short the lives, depriving the relatives, are there with adultery killing too. If adultery is betrayal and breach of contract, then do we punish all breach of contracts with death then? If it harms family or breaks up family, should we punish anything which harms or breaks up family by death, such as: alcoholism, drug use, domestic violence, emotional torture etc. If you say it causes harm in society, should we punish all of the things which cause harm in society with death? Why just adultery? What is special about it? Is it a ‘mystery’ and only God knows why it is so bad? But then how come God never said that?

        Lastly, I think you tried to make the argument above that since adultery and murder can both be ‘painless’ to the victim, they are somehow equal. I can’t let this go.

        I’m sorry, but that is simply RIDICULOUS. Are you saying that if I KILL you painlessly and take away the rest of your life, potential earnings and contributions to society and time with your family, that is THE SAME as me having sex with some woman who is not my wife? Painless murder doesn’t cause harm? WTH?! Isn’t that TOTALLY MENTAL? Is that you definition of ‘objective justice’?

  16. An excellent blog – glad to have discovered it! To ‘Heart Broken’ who is considering leaving Islam because of the harshness of the ‘Islam’ she sees around her or hears of: I’m sorry to hear that. I know people in similar situations and the answer, for me, is to read Rumi’s Masnavi and to read the books and stories of the Sufis. And, if there is a genuine Sufi Shaykh in your area, join his group. I was lucky enough to have met the great Shaykh Nazim (q). His deputies like Shaykh Hisham are still around….they preach nothing but pure Love. Hope that helps and never despair. 🙂 You can drop me a message if it helps. I believe our Prophet is the Mercy to ALL Creation and true Islam is described by Ibn Arabi in his words, ‘I follow the religion of Love’. Unfortunately to many Muslims have turned Islam into something horrible which it is not.

    “I have not sent thee (O’ Prophet) except as a Mercy unto all the Worlds”.

    • Most of the Sufis are charlatans. Hisham Kabbani is one of the few genuine ones.
      Also, Atabek Shukurov.
      Don’t really know any other famous ones that are reliable

      • Well, Nuh Ha Mim Keller and Timothy Winter from among the English speakers come to mind though one might not count the latter if tariqa is what defines a “Sufi”. There’s al-Ninowy too. Habib Umar from Yemen does not strike me as a charlatan.

    • Just to add to this peaceful message

      A famous Turkish poetic line written by the Ottoman ruler Suleiman the Magnificent

      “The people think of wealth and power as the greatest fate,

      But in this world a spell of health is the best state.
      What men call sovereignty is a worldly strife and constant war;
      Worship of God is the highest throne, the happiest of all estates.”

      Newsflash – Every Ottoman Sultan was a Sufi; well versed in poetry and literature exploring meanings of life.
      But “they” don’t want you to know that…

  17. “They” also don’t want you to know about his Harem and how many death penalties for apostasy on Sufis he executed. Make up fairy tales about your own nation.

    • Interesting points, and I’d like to hear more (but in 600 years or whatever of Ottoman rule there are bound to be numerous bad eggs, I hope you are not cherry picking) BUT what’s with on the one hand telling him to restrain his ‘Turkophilia’ and then on the pother going all nationalist and telling him to stick to making up stories about his ‘own’ country?

    • By “they”, I meant full on genocidal killing extremists in case anyone was wondering

      Well Tolga, if you want me to start cherry picking like your are doing yourself, please allow me

      Sultan Mehmed II (1451-1481), Conquerer of Istanbul, had 17 of his brothers strangled to eliminate competition
      Sultan Murad IV (1623-1640) – Reported to have had 200 concubines drowned

      There are some SUBJECTIVE details of some Ottoman Sultan lives. Because they were all bad men and anything good that they did, doesn’t deserved to be mentioned/should be countered with a negative. Please note that life is like that. Nothing is black and white.

      Suleiman the Magnificent was perhaps the greatest Islamic Ruler (in terms of territory) considering he ruled over that largest Muslim empire the world has ever witnessed. I mentioned one of his poetic lines to add to Rumi786 peaceful comment. Was that such a bad thing to do considering that it prompted you to bring up some “irrelevant to the comment section” details of the Sultan’s actions???

      You’re right, I didn’t want to mention the “harem” because I’m not really that interested in the personal, intimate lives of people. I mean, that’s peverted. But you don’t seem to mind that…

      Don’t make it out as if all Sufis were innocent. They were not. Sure some innocent people died but its Allah عز و جل  fair judgement that will be recompense. That is why Muslims believe in Ultimate Divine Justice, is it not?

      If you want to accuse me of “Turkophilia” go ahead, it doesn’t bother me. I have mentioned the Umayyads and Abbasids as well as Mughals and Safavids on other article comments (but your bias towards me seemed to blind you from it). But I will not start having to irrelevantly mention some aspects of an Ottoman Muslim’s life if it doesn’t need to be mentioned especially in regards to the topic being discussed.

      Nationalism doesn’t really have a ring with me either.

      Don’t comment if its just to start launching personal attacks. Extremists may be interested in hiring you…

      • I see that you are not ignorant about the Ottomans so sorry. But it seemed to me. Especially when you mentioned Ebusuud Efendi I got a stroke.

        I am often confronted with Ottoman nostalgia which has nothing to do with reality. There is no sense in inventing things about history to comfort one’s opinion. If it is not about reality you could invent this also about your own nation. You don’t need another one. But I see that you are not doing this so sorry again.

        We need to reform Islam and not to pretend as if everything was alright until the Salafis came. Salafis can prove most of their rules with non-Salafi scholars from the past.

      • Alhamdulilah and apologies accepted. I understand your points too. Too often, many Muslims, with a romanticised version of Islamic history, drone on and on about how glorious the past was (as if nothing bad ever happened). Believe me, I was once too like this in my earlier years until I actually started researching Islamic history with an objective approach combined with the Islamic theological approach that this world contains GOOD and BAD. Personally, I agree that nostalgia is abused in so much that people start inventing lies e.g. Umar رضي الله عنه burnt books because they contained “useless” knowledge. You can guess which group advocated this today…

        If anything, its Muslim who need to reform to reform (not Islam). Our present situation is centuries of sectarianism and ignorance manifesting itself on a global scale.

        I look forward to your replies

        PS if I came across you negatively or aggressively in response to your other comments, please forgive me. I feel that my ego overtook my state. Jazak’Allah

      • This is the way that genuine and noble people carry out dialogue. You can hardly ever see it nowadays and never from the Muslim scholars. It is a good lesson to the readers.

        They can prove their rules by ‘picking and mixing’ scholars from the past, however, anyone can do that, but to get all of their rules consistently in one place, they can only resort to the Hashwee Mujassim scholars, who have always been there as a minority and reached their peak with Ibn Taimia etc. So they are a distinct and heretical sect but not a new one and their ideas were there for a very long time, especially amongst Hanbalis and Muhaditheen. Sunnis scholars today try to hide this and act like The Four Madhabs and Asharis and Maturidis are some kind of mutual appreciation society, which is nonsense.

        I mean come on, Hanbalis say that Hanafis should pay jizya. Hardly a ‘love in’ was it?

      • My main point is that these “genocidal killing extremists” could also use the Shaykhulislams to justify what they do perfectly. They could also use most classical fiqh books from the four madhhabs. They don’t need Ibn Taymiyya and Abdul Wahhab. Classical Islam is not much different from Salafi Islam. Only those who are called classical Muslims today have updated to our age and changed many things but, like one of the articles on this site says, out of convenience and not out of conviction. On the other hand, the Salafis managed to uphold their version over the centuries or they were able to bring it back.
        We need a total reform and not going back to classical scholars.

      • Ahh but therein lies the issue. It’s people like Ibn Taymiyya and Abdul Wahab, who did not have ,unlike Ebusuud Effendi, links to a major Islamic power. (I suppose Abdul Wahab did have the support of the Saud family but at this time, it was really a tribe of bandits if anything. Nothing on the scale of an empire.). What strikes me is that despite this, their legacy of hate continues to this day. Not many people even know of Ebusuud or have read his fatawas. Anything controversial the Shaykh did was really time specific because the legacy has not survived to this day in a manifested form other than an objective fact. Ibn Taymiyya and co, on the other hand, are readily quoted today to justify violence and mass scale killings. And its certainly not Sunnis who agree on the whole.

      • You showed excellent behaviour and etiquette with your reply.

        But I would suggest that you made a mistake: just because today people are dumb and lump everyone under ‘Sunni scholars’ or whatever and just because many scholars in the past gave extreme fatwas, does not mean that ISIS for example can give its fatwas from any school. This is the error of lumping everyone together, irrespective of creed or epistemology, and just calling them the ‘Four Madhabs’. Also, just because that thread of violence etc has always been there does not mean it is the mainstream: you need the skills to identify it. So Shafis and Hanbalis have the virtually same mustalah of hadith, they and Salafis will usually be on one side and Malikis and Hanafis on the other. If you don’t know that or realise that Asharism is the theological orientation of the later Muhaditheen and Mutazzilism or Maturidisim is that of Hanafis and what stems from this, then of course you will get fooled and think ‘Oh look, Imam Al Ghazzali is saying the same as so and so’, that is because Asharis and Shafis and Hanbalis accept most of the same hadith and end up with most of the same fiqh and even Aqeeda positions. So their scholars will all say the same thing. Salafis took that hadith acceptance and anti-rationalism to its ‘logical’ extreme, and if you ask me, Salafis are very similar to ‘mainstream’ Hanbalis and Muhaditheen of the past. And before that there was the fight between the Hanafis and the Muhaditheen. And before that, Muhaditheen and Mutazzila, and before that, Muhaditheen and Murjiah and so on. So if you don’t know how to identify the ‘Salafi’ type groups then of course you will be stuck and think it is the position of classical Islam likewise, if you think ‘all of the Madhabs are correct’, you will be stuck again, as that is obviously not true; when Shafi and Ahmad are talking about killing non-Muslims without punishment and Abu Hanifa is saying no way, then they can’t both be right. Of course, it is the half truths of the Muslim scholars that caused this confusion. You can read more here:https://asharisassemble.com/2015/07/05/many-muslim-leaders-denounce-isis-out-of-convenience-not-conviction/

        But this modernism or overhaul is not going to work either, we saw that already: look at people like Abduh and groups like HT, they kept all of the problems in (by advocating anti-rationalists like Ibn Taimia etc) and then try to use rationalism too. They are just confused and will make other people confused. It is just like Protestantism, which made the issues worse not better. The usool and principles of Hanafism and others are meant to evolve anyway. obviously that is not happening, but the reason is not classical Islam but the predominance today of CERTAIN groups from Islam that usually were kept in their place: specifically muhaditheen and muhaditheen oriented Asharis (i.e most of them). Nearly all issues and fatwas today are narrated from them. You can read a wonderful book length treatment of this issue by Khaled Abou El Fadl in ‘Reasoning With God’

        So I dare anyone to show me killing of Apostates or stoning of adulterers or any of what ISIS does from HANAFI madhab – but from the Usoolis and not the later people who just became the same as the Shafis or whatever. So as I said here, Imam Samarkandi is denying Stoning, Zamakhshiri is denying ‘wife beating’, but TODAY, they all accept this stuff. How come?

  18. I think in general my reaction to this is to just leave behind the legalism of Islam. I get that it is a natural part of the faith for a lot of people, and I don’t want to say it’s not important, because obviously that’s not true either, but the nascent Muslims weren’t obsessed with legalism. At least it doesn’t seem like they were.

    As someone who lives in America though and who was born here and has no connection to Middle Eastern culture beyond Islam, I see very little reason to continue pursuing what, from the perspective of an American born woman, are idiosyncrasies with the Qur’an. These things being the legalism that arises out of Islamic scholarship.

    There is enough mass-transmitted “physical” Sunnah like the prayers to get by without knowing what Imam Malik said about forgetting if you washed your ears during wudu. Or the more serious issues we are talking about here. Look, at the end of the day, rationally speaking, I live in a secular democracy. I don’t need to think about whether or not the Ottoman’s stoned people or whether or not Saudi Arabia not letting women drive is “real Islam”. Let them sort it out. It doesn’t apply to me.

    That probably sounds dim, and maybe ethically irresponsible, but if I keep going down the rabbit-hole I’m just going to lose my Islam. I think, as far as your average Muslim living in a secular democracy goes, the Qur’an and a solid tafsir is enough. With things coming out now like “The Study Qur’an” and whatnot this is becoming easier to come by. Up until now I’ve found Yusuf Ali to be palatable to the modern mind, at least the modern theist who is willing to accept that not everything our society does is ethical. I have a feeling when I get my hands on the new translation he might be replaced in some respects.

    The alternative to me is to drown in a really rigid interpretation of Islam that is just not doable for me. So yeah, that’s where I’ve come. I love the Qur’an too much to toss it behind my back. My reading isn’t the reading of everyone else, yeah, I’m a hippy, so sue me. I’m OK with that. God has asked me to be responsible for my own soul in the best way that I can figure out. He gave the Qur’an as help for that. If someone has a problem with me taking that stance, then build a bridge, because I’m not losing my religion to appease the imaginary “Ummah” that people like to pretend exists in any kind of cohesive sense.

    • We need to study our own history first and foremost to gain a sound understanding as to why we have reached this point (of almost no return).
      Interesting to note that the religious class prior to the Colonial era dominated the political and social scene and this no doubt has left its mark amongst religious scholars as well as the effects of colonialism (during and after)

      The Ottoman Empire – Influenced by the Kadızadeli movement (1630-1680) who were anti Sufi and dominated the government with aggressive foreign policies.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadizadeli

      Safavid Persia – Influenced by the radical Usuli Shia movement during the 1600s (dominant still today in Iran). They are practically the Wahhabi equivalent who often clashed with the Shah all the way until the 1979 Revolution when they deposed the ruler.

      The Mughal Empire of India – Aurangzeb (1659-1707) enforced Sharia Law in the subcontinent, Hindus, Sikhs stc. rebelled = Collapse of the Empire = Britain took advantage

      (Note: All of these religious classes dominated in the 1600s – just when the West were beginning to become more technologically and scientifically advanced)

      The “Legalism” you refer to has its roots before the Colonial era but its during and after this period that the “Ulama” decided to be more strict in their approach as we see today. Wahhabism has also played a major role in leading to it.
      Effectively, its Utopia building and as we all know, Utopias are mere fantasies. The Umayyad and Abbasid leaders (with some exceptions) allowed Muslims to explore freely without repercussions. Considering Muslims were fewer in number in those days, the ruling class feared nothing for the future of Islam (at least in theory) otherwise every ruler should have been more conservative and stricter in their approach to society.
      I find it peculiar that despite Hanafis being widespread, they all seem to adopt the same approach to every matter. Like, where’s are the other alternative interpretations that can be derived from the Madhab? Salafis and the like do the same with no room for any other interpretation; are we paralleling them?
      Well that’s what I see from my perspective anyways.
      Feel free to critique my view

    • You once again put it wonderfully. I agree completely and don’t think it is ethically irresponsible at all. Quite the opposite. I wouldn’t bother too much with the tafsirs either. I find Muhammad Asad to be the best for any Western audience – perhaps more so that The Study Quran too, ebcause although that uses a lot of different sources, some of them are not that reliable.

      • I think a neutral environment would be better.

        But the point is that there is no objective basis to call murder worse than adultery. Who says that life is more valued than marriage? It is God who decides what is valued more.
        And the other point is that justice will be established at the Day of Judgement for murderers too. Who say that there will not be any punishment for pains the murdered victim had in the hereafter? The death penalty is painless but I do not agree that it dissolves the sin and there will not be any further punishment.
        If you think like that you will get even more problems. That would mean that someone who cared that his victim dies painless will get the same punishment as someone who did not care for this or even tortured the victim. This is even more unjust.

      • Who says life is more valuable than marriage?

        Everyone who isn’t mental for starters.

        So divorce should be same as murder then? You are chatting rubbish isn’t it?

      • Seems to me that some people are just commenting on matters they clearly have no knowledge of at all. They haven’t bothered to study or construct proper arguments but who cares? The internet gives you free licence to be stupid and make others stupid by blindly following/not thinking for yourself. The etiquette regarding debating and open discourse is sadly forgotten in our times.
        Sad that mmmclmru and Catholic Commentator have to go through a lot of trouble just go refute the ignorance of others on this comments section and its worse when people don’t recognise they have made a mistake.
        If you don’t know something:
        1) Ask and understand the reply (then ask more for further understanding)
        2) Stay quiet

        It may not be someone’s intention but unfortunately Salafi thinking is creeping in with all these comments. I advise caution to all those who comment. Please, let it reflect the level of intellect Allah gave you…

      • I am sorry if I appear disrespectful. I am not trying to say that I have all the answers or I am smarter than you. But it just appears that you don’t look at what the other person is saying and then you don’t follow one way consistently. So it appears you are trying to make stoning legitimate by any means.

        So you said we can know God is just rationally. But then later you said that it is God saying that adultery is bad that makes it bad or otherwise we wouldn’t know. But if we know God is just rationally, it means we must be able to ‘judge’ his decisions rationally, otherwise atheist will ask you ‘why is stoning necessary?’ You will say because God said so. He will say how do you know that God is just then? And you will say ‘because he said so’. Which means you don’t ‘know’, you just believe, and have no basis for this belief. If your basis for this belief is that you know that God exists through aql, then therefore he must be just, that is not correct. If you say you know that the Quran is the word of God and anything in it is just, then you have a similar problems, but stoning is not in the Quran anyway, so you are just stuck.

        When you keep going in circles like this, people will get fed up and angry with you. But that is not necessarily your fault, but on top of that you are INSISTING on this adultery thing despite all these holes in your argument. That will make people fed up and angry and they will not respect you because they will say ‘here is a typical Muslim, he is wiling to kill people without good proof’

        And you made me annoyed by talking about how do we know adultery is bad etc when we never denied that it was bad, nor that public adultery is lashed according to Islam. You have the Salafi mentality that for anything that is bad, God should give the death penalty. So it should be there for Riba which is worse than adultery or disrespecting your parents etc. If you claim that since we don’t know adultery is bad through aql so we can’t know that it is not as bad as murder, then that also doesn’t make sense because if you don’t know how bad adultery is then how do you justify that is as bad as murder? If you say God told you, then where is it in Quran or Muttawatir hadith? And even if he told you, if you can’t understand nor explain his justice, how do you know he is just at all? It is like saying that you know God is ‘one’ and then I ask you what does ‘one’ mean? And you reply ‘don’t know’ or ‘whatever God says’.

        So I am sorry for the rude replies, but your way of asking is very annoying and provocative. Also, you don’t come across as trying to engage but insisting on your point, but then not backing it up. So people get angry.

        Your best argument could be: ‘Adultery is as bad as murder or deserving of a worse punishment because God says so’. To which I can say: ‘show me where he says so’. If it is in hadith then be consistent and accept all of the ‘Sahih’ hadith, including the ones that accuse Prophet Muhammad of kufr (Allah forbid) etc.

        Also, you don’t have any text, including ahad hadith that says either that adultery is as bad as murder NOR that it isn’t. There is no explanation given AT ALL in the sources people use to justify stoning. So you are stuck. Then if you use your intellect to ‘explain’ it, then why can’t I use my intellect to deny it?

        Consistency and honesty are the keys to true understanding and knowledge.

  19. “Who says that life is more valued than marriage? ”

    God said so, from my Catholic viewpoint. The ten commandments are enumerated in order of importance.
    Also, most atheists would have no problem with that hierarchy, they’d call it common sense.
    As Chesterton said, “someone who is skeptical about the value of life can often be convinced back, by having a gun pointed to his head.”
    If you had to choose between murdered and being cheated on by your wife, which would you prefer ?

    • Crushing one of the Ten Commandments is punished the same way always in the Thora. What would you say about the argument that stoning for adultery would be unjust because murder is worse?

      • @Jukti

        “Crushing one of the Ten Commandments is punished the same way always in the Thora”

        Eew! This is complete rubbish. Go read the Thora, or the bottom of the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

        “What would you say about the argument that stoning for adultery would be unjust because murder is worse?”

        That’s a standard fallacy, of course. That’s maliciously confusing a lesser punishment with no punishment at all.

      • Just to clarify, I do think that according to Islam life is more valued than marriage but I say that this cannot be said per se. This is something God declares.

      • @Jukti

        Why did Allah give humans fitra and ‘aql? Is it not to determine right from wrong? Why do you believe in Qur’an in the first place? Is it not because of your fitra and ‘aql?

      • The question was what justice is. For me justice is the compensation of harm i.e “Eye for an eye”. In offenses like adultery there is no basis for this compensation. It is only a sin because God valued marriage. You could say it is breaking a contract but also normal fornication is punished. How does the “aql” tell you that consensual sex outside of marriage is bad?

        “Aql’ tells us what is possible and impossible. God not existing is impossible. Therefore I believe in the Qur’an.
        Adultery and fornication could be allowed. Both ways would be possible but it is God who specifies it.

      • Yeah. You are just waffling and repeatedly saying the same things I already answered. Either you are being stupid or if you are sincere, you need to take time and think about what both I and Catholic Commentator said.

        And again you keep saying that adultery is bad and how do we know that. Catholic Commentator explained it to you though I doubt he is going to have anymore luck with you (especially as you wanted to bizzarely move the discussion to some forum because you thought this wasn’t ‘neutral’. Sheesh) but discussion wasn’t about that. It was about whether it is rational that adultery is worse than murder in terms of punishment.

        You really are confused or just being a dick. Because you were the one that said that we can know the justice of God’s rulings rationally. If you don’t know what is right and wrong rationally then how do you know God is just in the first place? Because he said he was? So you can’t prove that God is just then? Atheists will be happy.

        Also, you said that there will be punishment for murder in the hereafter even after you were punished in this life. Show me where it says that.
        There is concensus on that. Show me anyone who disagrees apart from yourself. And a few 21st Century Saudi scholars.

        So you just made up a new principle. Well done.

      • Look at this annoying nonsense you are spouting.

        Where did God or anyone else say that job of aql is only to tell what is possible or not.

        I don’t think it is possible to teach people like you. Issue is psychological not lacking knowledge or intellect. You just insist on half assed rationalism and making up new principles.

  20. @Jukti

    “How does the “aql” tell you that consensual sex outside of marriage is bad? ”

    Would you agree that too much “sex outside of marriage” is bad ? Would you agree that practising “sex outside of marriage” 20 times a day (say) is bad for your health and pretty much everything else ?

    The problem with “sex outside of marriage” is that, like all other drugs, it is addictive and eventually renders one useless for everything else.

    Does your aql tell you that heroin is bad ? You can’t argue from experience can you (unless you’re a recovering drug addict).

    If you show me people who practised zina without going too far, I’ll show you near them a religion or laws that had a limitating, sobering effect on them.

    Some people even say that much of the excitement in zina comes from the prohibition, and that zina becomes boring when there is no law forbidding it.

    Ironically, you yourself are a proof of that. You plead for zina and demand extreme punishment for it at the same time. The contradiction is only apparent. Deep down inside you, you know that in order to practice the zina you want in a “safe” way you need some severe punsihment to deter you from going too far.

  21. “anti-Muslim neocon warmongers like Bill Maher”

    Let me see if I get this straight. The most leftist TV presenter in the US, one of the most vocal media personalities to oppose the war in Iraq from day 1 and who constantly campaigns for Washington to not only not send troops to Syria and the Arab Gulf but to also remove the existing ones, a guy who historically associates himself among the most ardent critics of conservatism and militarism in America and who invites Muslim guests to his panel almost in a monthly basis (his show only broadcasting 4 times per month), a dude who supported marches of Nation of Islam when they were fighting police racism and segregation, is an anti-Muslim neocon warmonger because he mocks islamic extremism (as he does with all others) and points out to exactly the same problems that the author of this article does. Ok.

    The author ironically commits the exact same thing he is condemning in his text above. When he points out that “Muslims start to distrust influential Muslim speakers who may eloquently critique Islamophobia but show tacit acceptance and complicity towards extreme or intolerant Muslim speakers or activists. ” In this case, if it is the author pointing out the problems then we should hear respectfully because it is a Muslim, one of us. Now if it is Bill Maher, an atheist,t hen all of a sudden it’s purely islamophobic offenses from a neocon war-monger. Yeah, give us a break.

  22. I have a question. Isn’t it bad that people will go to hell for adultery? Because being in hell for one or two hours is far worse than being stoned. And if people actually go to hell for adultery and theft and so on then what is the problem in their being stoned in this world?

    • I understand where you are coming from but first we have to establish whether this ‘fire and brimstone, one mistake and you are screwed’ brand of religion is true or not.

      Where does God say you go to Hell for adultery?
      Where did this thing of ‘each major sin results’ in Hell come from?
      In fact, where is the list of sins that lead to Hell in the Quran?

      So quite apart from repentance, and forgiveness – which does not have to be asked for, there is no necessary link between Hell and adultery at all. Further, you have to check up the hierarchy of sins in Islam – according to the most reliable group of scholars (including Al Ghazzali) there are only seven or eight major sins (and even those don’t guarantee Hell). According to early Hanafis, neither adultery nor fornication nor homosexuality are amongst these major sins and count as ‘fa’isha‘ – intermediate sins. Which makes sense, since it is dumb to say that both murder and adultery are ‘major’ sins and this trivialises murder.

      Generally, the role of sins of a sexual nature is very much exaggerated by scholars and dominant groups today and in the past. There is probably a deep psychological reason for this, but God himself did not say you go to Hell just for adultery or homosexuality. Muslims don’t seem to realise that not every sin results in violence or the death penalty, Some of the most heinous sins have no formal punishment attached to them. Likewise, adultery being bad doesn’t mean everything bad leads to Hellfire.

  23. Zik Khe –

    “The most leftist TV presenter in the US.”
    Oh, you mean the anti-vaxxer?
    You mean the guy who supports drone strikes on US citizens?
    The guy who defended and supported Netanyahu’s racism when he said “those Arabs are FLOODING the ballot boxes” (Bibi is almost universally hated by the left, btw)?
    The guy who implicitly supported internment camps?

    Regardless of his views in the past, his views on Arabs and Muslims NOW align very closely with those of neocons.

    Bill Maher is what we would call a “9/11 liberal” here in the U.S., and liberals like myself don’t actually take him seriously. And if you think he’s the most leftist TV presenter in the United States . . . oh my, you’re horribly mistaken.

    Hubert John –

    Assuming you’re not just trolling–it’s basically impossible to know who will go to heaven or who will go to hell unless they were an absolute saint or monster, and it’s incredibly dumb and arrogant to say “well they’ll go to hell anyway, so what’s wrong with stoning them?” Theft and adultery are sins, yes, but whether they manage to land a person in hell is frankly no-one’s business but their own (and if that’s the only thing a person is guilty of, they’re in better shape than a lot of people.) The justification you just brought up is to equate your own knowledge, actions, and judgement to God’s and is really fatalistic–which is horribly arrogant as best and skirts the line of shirk at worst. It also spits in the face of God being merciful and the commandments from him to forgive as much as we can.
    tl;dr lol no that’s a completely moronic justification

    • I certainly hope there’s more like you in the states Lily. You’ve pretty much said what I would have said, just better 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s