Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her infant).
Can you say a bit more about the Hadith? Do all Muslims accept the entire body of work or does it differ?
As the transmission of Ahaadith went on, it became evident that the Hadith was being invaded by many forgeries. Therefore, scholars of Hadith formulated numerous methods of evaluation by which genuine Ahaadith could be sifted out of the mass of forgeries. These methods belong to either of the two disciplines essential for investigating the authenticity of Ahaadith: Fann-i-Riwaayat and Fann-i-Daraayat. Fann-i-Riwaayat, which has many branches, involves investigation of the complete chain of narrators going back to the original narrator of a particular version of the Hadith in question. This science, thus, investigates the bonafides, the moral character, truthfulness, and power of memory of the narrators.
Fann-i-Daraayat, on the other hand, investigates the authenticity of a Hadith by determining whether or not its subject-matter is acceptable.
A Hadith is accepted only when its authenticity has been established on the basis of both Fann-i-Riwaayat and Fann-i-Daraayat. Therefore, a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. Moreover, it should not be contradictory to any of these bases, and should have been transmitted by reliable sources'. A Hadith which meets these criteria is accepted as a bonafide record of the Sunnah and of information pertaining to Islam. However, the following points must be kept in mind which stem from these criteria:
1. No Hadith can present anything as religion which does not have its basis in the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. Therefore, whatever a Hadith presents would either be an explanation of a principle found in these sources or a branch emanating from that principle.
2. A Hadith must not be against the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles of human nature and intellect. In short, the Hadith in question must conform with the entire fabric of Islam.
3. A Hadith must have been transmitted by reliable sources.
The first two of these points relate to Fann-i-Daraayat and the last to Fann-i-Riwaayat.
Unfortunately, the scholars competent to analyse Ahaadith on the basis of these criteria are few, and the untrained eye is often confused while studying the Hadith. There are three mawjor reasons for this confusion:
1. Almost all the available written collections of Ahaadith, including the most revered ones, contain those Ahaadith which were analysed primarily on the basis of Riwaayat. Most Ahaadith, therefore, have to be analysed further on the basis of Fann-i-Daraayat before they can be accepted or rejected.
2. In most cases the context of a Hadith is not clear or is even left out. The reason is that a typical Hadith is what is called Riwaayat-bil-Maa'naa, which refers to such a Hadith the narrators of ir own words to convey the meaning.
Riwaayat-bil-Maa'naa has also led to complete distortion of the actual subject-matter in many cases. Occasional alteration in the text by mistakes in copying has also added to these problems.
3. Placing a Hadith in its right context is not the job of a layman. It requires a sound understanding and appreciation of the classics of Arabic literature of the Prophet's time and training in various disciplines necessary for understanding and analyzing any segment of the whole corpus of the sources of religious knowledge. In short, analysis, in the true sense of the word, of this historical record---the Hadith---is the job of a scholar. Unfortunately, this confusion pertaining to Ahaadith has given rise to some adverse reactions. People who have shown such reactions can be classified into two categories:
1. There are those who have reacted by formulating the erroneous premise that the Hadith can in no way be a reliable source of religious knowledge. This reaction went beyond all proportion when they confused the Hadith with the Sunnah and then refused to accept even the Sunnah as an original source.
2. On the other hand are those who tried to defend the status of the Sunnah as an original source but in the process lost sight of what they were actually defending. They too have come to regard the Sunnah and the Hadith as one and the same thing. Therefore, they consider those Ahaadith which have already been evaluated on the basis of Fann-i-Riwaayat as an unchallengeable source of knowledge even where the possibility of further analysis on the basis of Fann-i-Daraayat clearly exists.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her infant).
Can you say a bit more about the Hadith? Do all Muslims accept the entire body of work or does it differ?
The Hadith are the collection of the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH). They were thought to have been collected with painstaking care. There is even one story of a man who traveled thousands of miles to hear the Hadith from someone who claimed he knew one. But that man who made the claim was seen beating an animal and that Hadith was rejected as having an unreliable source. Still there are Hadith that are collected from people who were known to be in conflict with the Prophet's wife Aisha (PBUT). So I don't know how reliable they are. Some are called "sahih" for being the most solid and reliable, but even these are subject to human bias and flaws. They are not protected by God the way that the Quran is. They are not the word of God. Most people feel the Hadith provide details where the Quran is more general/vague. Most people question any Hadith that contradicts the Quran. Some people ignore them all together.
A Muslim can't just ignore them all together. If so, they whould not know how to pray. The Qur'an does not give the instructions for prayer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her infant).
Can you say a bit more about the Hadith? Do all Muslims accept the entire body of work or does it differ?
The Hadith are the collection of the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH). They were thought to have been collected with painstaking care. There is even one story of a man who traveled thousands of miles to hear the Hadith from someone who claimed he knew one. But that man who made the claim was seen beating an animal and that Hadith was rejected as having an unreliable source. Still there are Hadith that are collected from people who were known to be in conflict with the Prophet's wife Aisha (PBUT). So I don't know how reliable they are. Some are called "sahih" for being the most solid and reliable, but even these are subject to human bias and flaws. They are not protected by God the way that the Quran is. They are not the word of God. Most people feel the Hadith provide details where the Quran is more general/vague. Most people question any Hadith that contradicts the Quran. Some people ignore them all together.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her infant).
Can you say a bit more about the Hadith? Do all Muslims accept the entire body of work or does it differ?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her infant).
Can you say a bit more about the Hadith? Do all Muslims accept the entire body of work or does it differ?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her
-Albani declared Ibn Sa'd's chain of transmission to be weak as well, as it includes Al-Waqidi:
Ibn Sa'd ? Al-Waqidi ? 'Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl ? Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl
Al-Waqidi has been condemned as an untrustworthy narrator and has been frequently and severely criticized by scholars, thus his narrations have been abandoned by the majority of hadith scholars. Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "Al-Waqidi narrated 20,000 false hadith about the prophet". Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Albani said: "Al-Waqidi is a liar" while Al-Bukhari said he didn't include a single letter by Al-Waqidi in his hadith works.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
No, there is nothing in the Qur'an about mocking Muhammad (for Muslims or non-Muslims). It is the Hadith that talks about that and has the stories of the people that were killed for mocking Muhammad and Islam (including a mother while she was nursing her infant).
Anonymous wrote:Does the Quran require non-Muslims to not mock Mohammed or does it only prohibit Mulims?
Anonymous wrote:As our moderator likes to tell us, there are many different Islams. Muslima's, which I prefer, is one reading. But, you can call yourself a good Muslim and read it very differently.
It would be unfair to say that "everybody who doesn't interpret the Quran my way is a 'bad' Muslim." Best is to read the Quran yourself and come to your own interpretation.
Anonymous wrote:If OP's question is basically asking why the Paris attackers conducted the massacre at CH, there are several different issues.
1. Graven images (pictures of Mohammed). The Quran doesn't say a single word about this. It does speak to not worshiping idols/statues. But it doesn't say "you can't draw a portrait, sympathetic or unsympathetic, of Mohammed."
2. Blasphemy. You can look at this as Muslims who speak ill of their own god or prophet, which gets into debates about apostasy and appropriate punishments for it, that are irrelevant for OP's question. Another common interpretation of blasphemy is when non-believers mock your faith, in which case you need to look at ...
3. Non-believers who "oppress" Muslims or simply don't share the faith. This oppression could take the form of outright violence against Muslims, or ISIS or the Paris assassins might interpret it as disrespect. These are the quotes above.
Muslima gives blasphemy perspective (although it's worth pointing out that Mohammed was hardly a social outcast: in his own community he was a very wealthy man and a leader). If you want to understand the motives of the Paris attackers, they are taking the broader perspectives at (3) towards non-believers who oppress Muslims.
Anonymous wrote:PSA: if Al Queda or ISIS decide that it's blasphemy to wear pink, then the easily manipulated sheep who take up arms in the name of Allah will launch jihad on anyone wearing pink. Jihad and terrorism aren't grounded in real religious tenets. Rather, the militant extremist terrorist leaders use the religion to manipulate people. And some otherwise normal people buy into it. Pathetic.
Anonymous wrote:Whether Quran says anything about it or not, why mock something that holds such significance for people? What's the point? Just cause you can?
Same goes for any other religion. Religious convictions are a very emotional subject. Why stir the pot? Just let others be.
Anonymous wrote:Quran 4:89
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper
4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them
Now tell me honestly, do these verses give a free permission to kill any one anywhere? These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis. They were frightening the Muslim community of Madinah. One may say using the contemporary jargon that there were constant terrorist attacks on Madinah and in this situation Muslims were given permission to fight back the “terrorist”. These verses are not a permission for “terrorism” but they are a warning against the “terrorists.” But even in these warnings you can see how much restraint and care is emphasized.