[quote]yusef wrote:
this. It means a distinction between Islam and muslims must be made. [/quote]
Interesting. I have a friend who says something similar.
If you want me to elaborate, let me know.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
by the way - I’m half Syrian.
No kidding! Me too!
Cool.
[/quote]
Seriously? That’s awesome! Some of the best food in the world! and you have had to experienced the family discussion then - strangers would think we are about to strangle and murder each other and we’re just catching up on the news - lmao!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
yusef wrote:
this. It means a distinction between Islam and muslims must be made.
Interesting. I have a friend who says something similar.
If you want me to elaborate, let me know.[/quote]
please do . . .
[quote]yusef wrote:
As far as I know, it is not directly addressed in the quran, and the justification for the apostasy punishment is based on a hadith.
The argument is not uniform for it.
An argument against it is that ‘during Muhammad?s time apostasy involved treason and as such apostates were enemies of the state and deserved to be killed.’
I am not the best one to ask though.[/quote]
Thank you for your honest response - that is the explanation I was given as well - but then had that explanation countered by another scholar in the same mosque . . tense moment and then they were both silent . . .
It is that dual nature of Islam that concerns me the most - even when the more peaceful practitioners will not say that the more violent interpretations are wrong - they simply acknowledge validity on each interpretation and then go silent . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
yusef wrote:
this. It means a distinction between Islam and muslims must be made.
Interesting. I have a friend who says something similar.
If you want me to elaborate, let me know.
please do . . . [/quote]
I will ask my friend about it tomorrow and post a reply asap.
[quote]yusef wrote:
If you serve your punishment in this world, then the issue is over. I’m not sure if this does or doesn’t apply to apostasy, I fear making some kind of blanket statement and being horribly wrong about it.
[/quote]
I understand the justification of it, but at the same time it is barbaric to punish someone in that way.
Though Christ did say (and I paraphrase) better to pluck out an eye than burn in hell with 2 eyes.
Seems the Muslims take this reasoning literally.
[quote]yusef wrote:
There’s the argument that from an Islamic perspective it is best to receive your punishment in this world, then you are clear of it after you die. E.g. if you go unpunished for rape in this world, then the punishment after death will be greater unless you repent.
If you serve your punishment in this world, then the issue is over. I’m not sure if this does or doesn’t apply to apostasy, I fear making some kind of blanket statement and being horribly wrong about it. [/quote]
Assuming the “Islamic perspective” you present is right, it would mean that they kill them out of compassion. That is, to save them from eternal damnation. That’s at odds with the concept of being held accountable for one’s actions. If we accept the premise that somebody else can save you from Hell, it opens the door to indulgence being sold by self-declared gurus, worshipping saints, hereditary baraka, etc.
The concept that you one may absolve people’s sins by beating them up or killing them makes absolutely no sense. Especially since those punishments are almost always carried out against the victim’s will.
From my understanding of Islam, corporal punishments are used to deter people. Seeing somebody’s hand get chopped puts one off stealing much better than knowing somebody who’s been to jail. I don’t believe Islam prescribes the capital punishment for converting to another religion. But I do believe treason should be dealt with swiftly in binary situations. And I trust the prophet (saws) had enough wisdom to know when it was absolutely necessary to kill someone.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Isn’t that quite a bold statement given the nunber of times that he apparently did kill? [/quote]
Ok I’m going to briefly go against the advice I gave to my fellow Muslims earlier.
Chushin, if you can kindly provide examples of when the Prophet Muhammad killed without justice.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Considering that the koran was written 30 years after mohammad died, I find it difficult to believe that he made statements reffering to it. [/quote]
Actually the Qur’an was compiled and written during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhamamd by several of his companions as the Qur’an was being revealed.
[quote]lixy wrote:
From my understanding of Islam, corporal punishments are used to deter people. Seeing somebody’s hand get chopped puts one off stealing much better than knowing somebody who’s been to jail. [/quote]
Huh? Why not just adopt Hammurabi’s laws.
Or better yet, the Yasa of Genghis Khan.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Chushin, if you can kindly provide examples of when the Prophet Muhammad killed without justice. [/quote]
Provide us an example of when Christ did, or Buddha for that matter.
[quote]yusef wrote:
As far as I know, it is not directly addressed in the quran, and the justification for the apostasy punishment is based on a hadith.
The argument is not uniform for it.
An argument against it is that ‘during Muhammad?s time apostasy involved treason and as such apostates were enemies of the state and deserved to be killed.’
I am not the best one to ask though.[/quote]
Treason is rebellion against a government. The governmental aspect of Islam makes it fair game for harsh criticism.
Killing people for opposing the government is not a spiritual pursuit. It is certainly not something a holyman should be engaged in.
[quote]Shoebolt wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Considering that the koran was written 30 years after mohammad died, I find it difficult to believe that he made statements reffering to it.
Actually the Qur’an was compiled and written during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhamamd by several of his companions as the Qur’an was being revealed. [/quote]
That is not what I read. My understanding is after his death his followers compiled what was mostly oral traditions and wrote them down into a book.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM
At different times in Muhammed’s life the recitations would come to him; he would then repeat what he had heard and these would be memorized by certain people trained in remembering verses; some of these verses were written down on whatever was at hand. All these writings were collected in the caliphate of 'Uthman and the canonical text was established around 650 A.D.
The Qur’an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur’an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as “satanic” verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized.
After the death of Muhammad, the text of the Qur’an was written down in the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Until 'Uthman, one and only one written text existed. For over a decade after the death of Muhammad, the Qur’an remained primarily an oral text in the memories of the faithful.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Considering that the koran was written 30 years after mohammad died, I find it difficult to believe that he made statements reffering to it.
Actually the Qur’an was compiled and written during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhamamd by several of his companions as the Qur’an was being revealed.
That is not what I read. My understanding is after his death his followers compiled what was mostly oral traditions and wrote them down into a book.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM
At different times in Muhammed’s life the recitations would come to him; he would then repeat what he had heard and these would be memorized by certain people trained in remembering verses; some of these verses were written down on whatever was at hand. All these writings were collected in the caliphate of 'Uthman and the canonical text was established around 650 A.D.
The Qur’an was an oral text throughout the lifetime of Muhammad; it was also a fluid text. The complete text resided only in the memories of Muahmmad and his followers. As he added verses and reorganized the text, his followers would rememorize the text in the light of the additions or edits. This means that the Qur’an was a living text during the lifetime of Muhammad. Certain verses revealed to Muhammad were later repudiated by him as “satanic” verses revealed not by Gabriel but by Satan. These verses were expunged from the text that so many had memorized.
After the death of Muhammad, the text of the Qur’an was written down in the caliphate of Abu Bakr. Until 'Uthman, one and only one written text existed. For over a decade after the death of Muhammad, the Qur’an remained primarily an oral text in the memories of the faithful. [/quote]
I only skimmed it quickly, but the link you have posted has correct information. You’re just misunderstanding its content.
-
The entire Qur’an could be found in written form just before the Prophet Muhammad’s death (i.e. when revelation ceased). It was recorded by many of the Prophet’s companions (i.e disciples) such as Ubay ibn Ka’ab (one of many) as soon as it was revealed in the form of personal written copies (written on leather and bone). It was ALSO memorized in its entirety in the present order of chapters and verses by companions such as Zaid ibn Thabit (one of many). Zaid ibn Thabit actually witnessed the entire Qur’an being reviewed by the Prophet with the angel Gabriel in the month of Ramadan at least twice (or more I can’t remember at this moment in time). This will come in to the next point.
-
You are getting confused with the Qur’an being written down, and the Qur’an being compiled together. The first compilation was made by Abu Bakr, the first caliph. He was advised by other companions such as Umar ibn Khattab (the next caliph after Abu Bakr later passed away), to start a compilation of all the written records of the Qur’an. This initiative was headed by Zaid ibn Thabit (even though a few other companions had memorized the Qur’an too, he was the authority because he sat together with the Prophet when he was reviewing with Gabriel). All Zaid ibn Thabit had to do was compile the written records together into a physical Book together with the help of the other companions who had also memorized the Qur’an.
Summary:
- The Qur’an was already present in written form at the time of the Prophet death in the form of personal written copies of many companions.
- The act of compilation by Abu Bakr in the months following the Prophet’s passing is a separate event from the written recording of the Qur’an, which as I mentioned already occurred while the revelation was still being received by the Prophet Muhammad.
- This compilation of Abu Bakr was made into several copies during the time of Uthman.
Note:
I’m not going to go into detail about the issue of the ‘satanic verses’ simply because I would have to write an essay here.
In brief, there are no such thing as ‘satanic verses’ because the ahadeeth (narrations) that document it are da’eef (i.e. their chains of narration are weak either due to a weak/missing narrator - I don’t know the details of the weakness, although I could look it up if you wish).
A weak narration in the Islamic sciences is not usable as a proof or evidence or as a source of legal jurisprudence.