Yeah i dropped that part because i was sure you would mistaken it, maybe intentinonally. I said that particularly for the azl thing. There's no rape thing in Islamic history. Only stupid people would believe and claim that. Look at the historic records.
Kai Hagbard wrote:In reply to Unite
Unite writes:
This Kai Hagburg has an intention in quoting hadith, but not Quran.
Kai replies
Actually I did quote the Koran in the same manner as I quoted the Hadith, I even linked the two together to show their mutual consistence.
Unite writes:
The way hadiths evolved resembles that of bibles.
Kai replies:
I can assure you that neither, archaeology, neither church history, neither the evidence from manuscripts prove your statement. On the other hand if you consider it a problem that a holy book in its revealed sections was gathered after the actual passing away or the absence of the (lets call it) inaugurator, then the Koran will certainly not pass the test, as Islamic history clearly reveals the gathering of the Koran, the missed portions, the burning of Korans and the changing of the Koranic text.
Unite writes:
They were not written down in the early years of Islam, but narrated through chain of narrators. When they were first started to be written down by collectors of hadith, a few centuries had already passed. The authors of hadith collectors paid attention to chain of narrators and developed a methodology to analyse the health and soundness of the hadith. Hadiths were tagged weak, strong, famous, fabrication etc. according to the number & strenght of the chain(s).
Kai replies:
I agree with you, however, the New Testament writings were not written down 100-200 years after Jesus had ascended to heaven. The writings of the New Testament began no less than thirty years after and continued until the end of the first century. There are even indications that the Gospels may have been writing even much earlier to the era of Jesus Christ.
Unite writes:
So, in Islamic law hadiths have value only after Qur'an. Hadith have a value as commentaries to, and practical applications of, Qur'anic verses. Any hadith cannot be in contrast with Quranic principles. And, if there are contrasting hadiths on the same issue, after analysis of the strength, the one more in line with spirit of Quran is taken. A Muslim cannot rush to apply a (so-called) hadith without thinking what God has to say on the issue. Qur'an is infallible, but hadiths are not. See hadiths in this light.
Kai replies:
Again I agree with you. However, then you cannot condemn me for interpreting the Koran by the use of Hadith’s, actually I am following the law of interpretation. Secondly, I have not rushed into the matter, since my post clearly revealed that I used Hadiths which did not contrast with the Koran, such as Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc. Every Hadith that I have mentioned is in full agreement with the Koranic context.
Unite writes:
On the other hand, it is apparent that Muslims does not have a shameful history like the old and modern crusades. Be honest and open-minded in drawing conclusions on Islamic society.
Kai replies
I think you need to look at the full picture of history Unite. I agree that the crusades were shameful, and I don’t think any true believer backs up such atrocities, well, in that case he as departed from the true path.
However, you need to understand the full historical context of it. Middle East, North Africa used to be Christian before the Muslim invasion prior to any crusades. Thus in one sense we can say that the crusaders despite of their shame full attitude were just re-invading so called Christian territories. The Christians had not invaded this territories in the first place, thus the first invaders were not Christians but Muslims. Secondly, Islamic cruelty marks history as well, just take Turkey beginning of 20 century, where approximately 2 million Christians were exterminated for being Christians, or how about looking at how Turkey became Islamic?
Peace,
Kai