Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Tragic.. though he sounds like he's had his mind poisoned by politics just as much as religion. Can't believe how well the mom handled it.
fecking enraging…
Why?
This is what she gets for marrying him.
Loathsome cnut right here...
I guess the Constitutional Convention was like Noah’s Flood where god had to wipe out his screw up from the first try.
Could you reference the hadiths that narrate this? because I'm not quite familiar with this this specific episode.
Last edited:
Tax ‘em all…
Essentially these are the stories of both Rayhana and Safiyyah where their tribes males/fathers/husbands were all massacred and they were taken as slavewomen. Safiyyah agreed to become a wife out of fear where as Rayhana did not and was taken as a concubine Rayhana.
After years of virtual stalemate between himself and the Meccan army, Muhammad decided to plunder the Jewish village of Khaybar, to the north of Madinah. Khaybar was a fertile oasis filled with lush palm trees flourishing vegetation. Furthermore, the Jewish inhabitants, many of whom were expelled from Madinah by Muhammad just a few years earlier, were skilled craftsmen with stores of gold and valuable weaponry. Muhammad gathered his troops on the outskirts of the town. Preparing his armies for a surprise raid at dawn, he shouted “When we descend upon their precincts, terrible indeed shall be the morning of those who had been warned!”
With that, Muhammad’s men descended upon the sleeping town, wreaking havoc, cutting palm trees, killing men, and enslaving women. One of the men that was captured was Kinana. Kinana was rumored to have knowledge of the location of a great treasure. Muhammad had his men torture Kinana to learn the treasure’s location, threatening him with death if he refused to disclose it. After finding the treasure, Muhammad had Kinana killed.
As the village lay in defeat, the bloodied and bruised bodies of the dead scattered about the rode, Muhammad had his men tie up the women and force them into sexual slavery. The women, bounded by rope and completely distraught, were screaming, wailing, pulling at their own hair and rubbing their faces in dust. Walking by, Muhammad referred to them as “she devils.” He gave orders to his companions to “chose whatever women they wanted.”
One of those women was 17 year old Safiyyah Bint Huyay. Safiyyah was the daughter of the tribe’s chief. She was also the wife of Kinana, whom Muhammad had tortured and killed earlier. Once Muhammad learned of her status, and of her striking beauty, he ordered her to be reserved for himself. He threw his cloak over her to show that she was his property.
She was cleaned, beautified, and prepared for the pleasure of the 60 year old self proclaimed prophet—the same man who ordered the raiding of her village, the enslavement of her friends, the murder of her father, and the torture and death of her husband.
Al- Bukhari Narrates:
Narrated Abdul Aziz:
Anas said, "When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there (early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, ‘Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, ‘With his army.’) We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’" Anas added: "The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, ‘Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.’ He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-Sawaq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walima (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367)
Ibn Hisham states:
“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766)
Have you taken this from CEMB? Copy and paste?
I'd suggest they are a pointless source and mostly fabricated and out right lies usually
Islam is no different to any other major religion that has caused and continues to cause violence throughout history. That's what religions do, you need religion to control people's thoughts and actions, free of opposition. It's as much a political tool as it is that the people at the top truly feel that rules they apply come from God to them.
Don’t forget money maker.
See I disagree with this. A basic understanding of religions and how they came about was about letting go of the status quo. It was about going against society as it was. To release one self from the shackles of control.
From Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad there was persecution and torture because they went against the prevailing norms of society.
That said organised religion today is some of what you say. Because people aren't religious imo. If they were temples, churches and mosques would be destroyed and the so called purveyors of religion put in shackles
I hope one day (past my lifetime), people will look back at religion the same way we look at slavery. Wondering how religion was an accepted practice with so much power in everyday life.
This is pretty much inevitable but as you say, probably not in our lifetimes unfortunately.
Slavery hasn't gone away. It's just changed and done cleverly.
Similarly the very things religion fought against are being implemented cleverly.
Most research seems to indicate an increase in religion. Iirc pew centre said it grew by about 10% ish
With a vast, vast majority of that coming from birth rates in the more religious developing world.
Religions aren’t converting people to grow, they’re birthing them.
Not to mention, you're automatically Muslim if you're born into a Muslim family. And the penalty for leaving Islam under Islamic law if you don't repent is death. That's how a Mafia operates.
On the subject of slavery, Muhammad and his best mates were slavers. He was kind enough to free his own slaves the day before he knew he was dying which was also conveniently when he didn't need them anymore. I don't think it's a coincidence that Saudi Arabia and Yemen were two of the last countries to abolish legalised slavery back in 1968-1970. And Mauritania in 1981.
Last edited:
The one from Al- Bukhari is on Sunnah.com. Is that a fabrication as well? As far as I understand hadiths from Al- Bukhari are considered to be authoritive. It is referenced to be in (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367). Which I am not going to buy and read just see whether its in there.
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:371
Last edited:
Amen to that.
What is the difference in a nutshell between Saudi Arabia's legal system and true and proper Islamic jurisprudence?
This is a good post. However my point is and was simple. The rush to label any killer who is slightly tanned and has a link to a "Muslim" country and once visited a mosque is there for all to see.
The vegan eating big Mac is a good example for me of how these things work.
In Islam we also have the new Muslim who is gradually learning and adapting. However as a fundamental rule the likes of NOI, qadiani, certain Shia can never be Muslim. These are the equivalent of eating a big Mac daily and saying I'm vegan.
What we need to do is look at what a religion is and its core values. If a Muslim sounding guy says X but the religion says Y then it's not Islamic. It's as simple as that.
The apostasy and death issue is clear too. Becoming a non Muslim doesn't carry in itself a death penalty. One of the Prophets wives was married to someone else when they emigrated to Abyssinia. He became non Muslim. Wasn't killed. The ones killed were the ones who became non Muslim and started to create mischief for the Muslims. In short attacked them.
These things have contexts. I get tired of seeing statements being made. And just attributed to any religion.
When it comes to Islamic jurisprudence there are set guidelines. Any differing without source makes it unislamic.
Of you had a bucket of water and put one drop of urine in it is it still water? If jurisprudence was water and a country was the drop them it's no longer Islamic jurisprudence.
If that makes sense. Saudis constitution and the rights it gives to the monarchy is enough to make it non islamic
Religion is a personal thing, unfortunately no sooner do nation states start using it does it then become corrupted.
You're always going to get nutjobs in every most belief systems (some more than in others). Just look at right wing terrorism in the US recently. It would be hard to blame Christians for militants who vaguely attach themselves to Christianity to advance their nationalist or power seeking ambitions. Joseph Kony, David Koresh, and Jim Jones are other examples of this. You wouldn't hold Christianity responsible for any of these, despite there being some things in the Bible that could be construed as condoning violence in the present.
I was talking about how it could have been allowed to kill Rushdie were he to partake in an Islamic trial. I'm not talking about a few nutjobs but a tenet of a religion.
That would obviously depend on which country - most would probably have him executed, but then again the vast majority of the middle east is authoritarian ranging from absolute monarchies to faux democracy dictatorships.
Last edited:
Yes it is, there's many well read people there who read these stories and consequentially questioned their religion. I used to be a Muslim myself, that is how I came across the website. But are you suggesting Al- Bukhari and Ibn Hisham are pointless sources? Because both are quoted there and one has been verified for you in this thread.
Are you a Quranist who rejects all Hadith sources? I would understand this as the Hadith were writen 250-300 years, so none of them are reliable in terms of witness testimony surely anymore than the stories of Robin Hood. In turn many more were probably doctored many years after this because of the different peoples agendas. Both Muslims and none Muslims generally accept this.
Are you aware that the Quran states that the earth is flat? Do you agree with this? I can point you to other scientific mistakes in the Quran if you are interested.
The Qur'an and Hadith are mainly very clear for man kind and it is clear from those that there is not a single country that can call itself a true Khilafah (jurisprudence). Some may be 90% there but that is basically 0%, as stated quite clearly. It's all or nothing, no in-between.
The leaders of those countries can say what they like. As we have seen, they pretty much do and say what they please anyway (Khashogi again, women rights, etc). Yes they are challenged by mainstream scholars.
And what Raoul said:
I think in this debate over "who is a Muslim?" and "what makes something Islamic?", Muslims and non-Muslims often tend to talk past each other. They each approach the debate in different terms. I don't want to offend you, but reading your posts on this forum you come across as a Muslim who is particularly concerned with strictly demarcating the boundaries of your faith. For the sake of this argument, I will assume this concern springs from a genuine desire to ensure that your community, family, etc. are not led astray and remain true to what you believe to be the straight path.
Non-Muslims simply don't share these concerns when considering the questions set out above. Since we don't accept the fundamental basis of Islam - belief in the unity/oneness of God and the finality of Muhammad's mission - debates and conflicts among those who do claim adherence to these fundamentals - but differ over their details, interpretation, and consequences - simply appear as intra-Muslim debates. So when we think about who is a Muslim or what makes something Islamic, for the most part we are less interested in whatever ideal of Islam an individual Muslim might aspire to fulfil, and more concerned with the actual historical product of Muhammad's mission. In other words, there is little reason for a non-Muslim to deny the Islamic nature of a particular group or individual as long as their conviction that they are Islamic appears sincere and their identity is recognizably a historical product of the idea embodied in the shahada.
We can of course identify those trends among Muslims which have established the dominance of their interpretation (what we might call orthodoxy) in history, and conversely recognize other trends and movements whose ideas have been more peripheral (heterodoxy). So for example, it is common for non-Muslims to consider the jurisprudence of the four madhahib as constituting orthodoxy in Islam, while, say, the Isma'ilis would often be considered a somewhat heterodox group or sect. But in the terms in which we think about these things, both are recognizably Islamic. For non-Muslims, the establishment of dominance or orthodoxy is not a marker of religious truth or correctness in Islam, but simply a product of the forces of history.
Last edited:
I think this is spot on in identifying why these threads derail quickly.
Great post.
I'm not someone who frequents that site a lot but enough to know that there is often a clear agenda and purposeful mistranslations and misguidance.
The hadith of al Bukhari etc are not pointless in terms of what they intended however not all are accurate (Hasan daeef etc which you will understand as an ex Muslim). Basically they are not all equal and not all taken as rulings. The recorders recorded but not all are points of reference or to be used for deriving rulings.
I'm not a quranist. I take the understanding of Qur'an, sunnah and actions of the sahabah (and tabieen and tabtabieen).
Muslims who understand the Deen don't take the view you have portrayed of the hadith. The sources are verified in chains and are accurate. The categorisation of the hadith is key. As is the chain.
The Qur'an doesn't state that the earth is flat. Never has. And yeah I welcome any mistakes you can point out.
Furthermore, the person who wrote the commentary/interpretation of the hadith added a lot of things that hadith didn't say, it was quite bizzare. It seems they were writing what they wanted to hear rather than what it said.