aneeshm
Deity
In debates concerning Islam, lots of people maintain, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that Islam is a religion of peace.
The usual refutation is a set of verses from the Quran which explicitly preach hatred.
The usual response to that is that the verses were taken out of context, and that they need a proper "interpretation" to get at their true meaning.
It is at this point that debate comes to a standstill, because this is a point so contentious that argument over it can go on back and forth practically forever.
However, most people ignore the fact that the Quran is merely the text, it is the Hadith, or collection of incidents from the Prophet's life, which provide both the context, and the instantiation of the principles given in the Quran.
Also, the Hadith are quite simple in nature, requiring no "interpretation". They are like little moral fables. One of the reasons they are ignored is that, though they are the primary source of Islamic law even now, they are not given a "holy" status. They are, however, as important to the religion as the Quran is, at least in practical matters.
How do the people who claim that "Islam is a religion of peace" reconcile themselves with Hadith like the following:
Though I was aware of the Prophet's brutality (he was, after all, living in a tribal society, where blood and honour were intimately involved with the law), this took my opinion of him to a new low.
Would the Defenders of the Islamic Faith please tell me how the "interpret" this particular Hadith?
It is only recently that I have started seriously investigating the Hadith, and I will post more instances and findings as I go along.
The real problem, IMO, is not that these Hadith exist, but that such Hadith, and the life of such a man, is used as the source of modern Islamic law, which has caused and still causes untold suffering all over the world. If they were just stories in a book, nobody would really give a damn.
The usual refutation is a set of verses from the Quran which explicitly preach hatred.
The usual response to that is that the verses were taken out of context, and that they need a proper "interpretation" to get at their true meaning.
It is at this point that debate comes to a standstill, because this is a point so contentious that argument over it can go on back and forth practically forever.
However, most people ignore the fact that the Quran is merely the text, it is the Hadith, or collection of incidents from the Prophet's life, which provide both the context, and the instantiation of the principles given in the Quran.
Also, the Hadith are quite simple in nature, requiring no "interpretation". They are like little moral fables. One of the reasons they are ignored is that, though they are the primary source of Islamic law even now, they are not given a "holy" status. They are, however, as important to the religion as the Quran is, at least in practical matters.
How do the people who claim that "Islam is a religion of peace" reconcile themselves with Hadith like the following:
Though I was aware of the Prophet's brutality (he was, after all, living in a tribal society, where blood and honour were intimately involved with the law), this took my opinion of him to a new low.
Would the Defenders of the Islamic Faith please tell me how the "interpret" this particular Hadith?
It is only recently that I have started seriously investigating the Hadith, and I will post more instances and findings as I go along.
The real problem, IMO, is not that these Hadith exist, but that such Hadith, and the life of such a man, is used as the source of modern Islamic law, which has caused and still causes untold suffering all over the world. If they were just stories in a book, nobody would really give a damn.
