Are Muslims okay with Muhammed actions?

[Sam_777]

**There is no punishment of stoning in Islam. **

**Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4192: **
“'Ubada b. as-Samit reported that whenever Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.”

صحيح مسلم- الحدود- حد الزنى:
كان نبي الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏إذا أنزل عليه ‏ ‏كرب ‏ ‏لذلك ‏ ‏وتربد ‏ ‏له وجهه قال فأنزل عليه ذات يوم فلقي كذلك فلما سري عنه قال ‏ ‏خذوا عني فقد جعل الله لهن ‏ ‏سبيلا ‏ ‏الثيب ‏ ‏بالثيب ‏ ‏والبكر بالبكر الثيب جلد مائة ثم ‏ ‏رجم ‏ ‏بالحجارة والبكر جلد مائة ثم نفي سنة
​

(E) (A)

Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4193:
“This hadith has been reported on the authority of Qatada with the same chain of transmitters except with this variation that the unmarried is to be lashed and exiled, and the married one is to be lashed and stoned. There is neither any mention of one year nor that of one hundred.”

صحيح مسلم- الحدود- حد الزنى:
قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏خذوا عني خذوا عني قد جعل الله لهن ‏ ‏سبيلا ‏ ‏البكر بالبكر جلد مائة ونفي سنة ‏ ‏والثيب بالثيب ‏ ‏جلد مائة ‏ ‏والرجم ‏
​

(E) (A)

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

**Sahih Muslim, **

Revelation came to the Prophet (pbuh) during long 23 years. I read long ago that till any verse comes on a specific matter , Prophet (pbuh) followed the previous holy book .

2/3 Stoning cases could be take place before the Quranic verses of lashing ( chapter light ).
Other options are also mentioned in Quran like confined in home . But no mention of stoning.

 

[planten]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

Revelation came to the Prophet (pbuh) during long 23 years. I read long ago that till any verse comes on a specific matter , Prophet (pbuh) followed the previous holy book .

2/3 Stoning cases could be take place before the Quranic verses of lashing ( chapter light ).
Other options are also mentioned in Quran like confined in home . But no mention of stoning.

**Thank you Muslim Woman, That is true. The prophet used to act on the commands of the previous revelation (law) that was the law of Moses a.s. The prophet did stone some people before the chapter 24 was revealed in Madinah in year 05 (after Hijrah.)

He even used to pray to Allah facing Jerusalem for many (13) years in Makkah and for one year in Madinah too. When the order for change of Qiblah was revelead, after that he never used to face to Jerusalem.

There is no stoning of any kind in Islam. Of course, if a peron is a rapist or kills the lady after rape then it would be legal to kill him by any means. 100 Lashes may not apply to such person because he would be treated as a murderer…**

 

[Reuben_J]

**Agabriel, The punishment of stoning was for the Jews and Jesus. But Jesus could not implement that punishment being under the Roman rule. he could have been convicted of murder. He however could not deny that the right punishment for adultery was stoning to death.

Therefore, he cleverly avoided the problem by saying that the punishment is stoning to death and it should be implemented but the first stone should be thrown by any one who was not involved in adultery himself… Since every one was sunk deep in adultery in those people, so all went away. Only Jesus was left. He also let the lady go away.

**

Simply hogwash.

Jesus did not condemn the lady because he came not to condemn but to save. And no man should condemn another - that’s the message. It’s all about forgiveness. Too bad this contradict what Mohammad taught.

 

[Agabriel]

**Agabriel, thanks for coming back with clarifictations. islamic laws are in the Quran. Please show where the Quran says " it is the victim who is considered the criminal ". I feel that you are assuming things.

Can you tell me, from your book that " It is the rapist who is the criminal."???

I will be happy to learn something about christianity. Thanks in advance. Also please do not go by what the Muslims are doing. Otherwise go by what the christians are doing too. **

Not understood. Please come by the Quran and do not blame by what the present day Mulsims are doing. I will also not quetion you about what the present day christians are doing in Paris and U.K.

**I am not taking the history from the Quran. It is general knowledge that Jesus was Jew. So was his mother. He had a law to follow which he supported. That law was the law of Moses a.s. which he had come to follow and fulfil.

There was stoning in that law. There is no punishment of stoning in Islam. That is what I had written. If it is history or the knowledge of the scripture, you may decide please. But let me know if I am right**.

this is one of the most inane posts I have read. YOU NEED A BIBLE OR A QURAN TO TELL YOU THAT A MAN WHO RAPES A WOMAN, OR A CHILD, IS A CRIMINAL!?!

And that is exactly what Muhammad did, he raped a child.

And as for the stonings that is exactly what Muhammad commanded several times - for women to be stoned. And you two feel self-righteous because sometimes the woman is whipped instead.

And I bet you wonder why so many are disgusted with Islam, or the behavior of Muhammad AND Muslims over all of this.

Keep wondering.

 

[planten]

this is one of the most inane posts I have read. YOU NEED A BIBLE OR A QURAN TO TELL YOU THAT A MAN WHO RAPES A WOMAN, OR A CHILD, IS A CRIMINAL!?!

And that is exactly what Muhammad did, he raped a child.

And as for the stonings that is exactly what Muhammad commanded several times - for women to be stoned. And you two feel self-righteous because sometimes the woman is whipped instead.

And I bet you wonder why so many are disgusted with Islam, or the behavior of Muhammad AND Muslims over all of this.

Keep wondering.

** Agabriel, No wonder. No wonder you had nothing to say in reply to my post. You had ascribed some wrong words to our religion. I asked you the reference. You had none. So why did you accuse our faith?.

Then I asked you to show me something from your book (bible) which you had claimed for your faith. Again you had nothing. So what are you doing here? Just typing from your mind. It appears that you do not have any bible and you have never seen the bible…**

 

[neploho]

Where did the Father of Jesus do anything like torutue victims, throw them out in the desert to dehydrate and starve, premit 50 year old prophets to sleep with 9 year old females, ect…?

I have given you examples. You don’t consider death by burning or stoning torture?

dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/406550

 

[neploho]

this is one of the most inane posts I have read. YOU NEED A BIBLE OR A QURAN TO TELL YOU THAT A MAN WHO RAPES A WOMAN, OR A CHILD, IS A CRIMINAL!?!

And that is exactly what Muhammad did, he raped a child.

And as for the stonings that is exactly what Muhammad commanded several times - for women to be stoned. And you two feel self-righteous because sometimes the woman is whipped instead.

And I bet you wonder why so many are disgusted with Islam, or the behavior of Muhammad AND Muslims over all of this.

Keep wondering.

What a bunch on hypocrisy.

Your Bible contains just as much, in fact quite a bit more, savagery, barbarism, draconian punishments, and torture by divine mandate. But we should be disgusted with Islam. Unlike an enlightened faith like Christianity which takes orders from a God who orders the execution of those who break the Sabbath. Who orders savagery and genocide on a level that would make Slobodan Milošević blush. Who considers burning a fitting capital offense for certain offenses?. If only the God of Islam and his prophet were as enlightened as your God and prophets, then perhaps rather than give pagans the opportunity to convert they could just slaughter them wholesale man, woman, and child. Perhaps Allah and Muhammad should have extended to the Meccans the same love, mercy and compassion your God and his prophets extended the Canaanites.

 

[inJESUS]

Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet, that is why his actions are coloured by the belief that he is a prophet. But if we deprive Muhammad of the divine aura Muslims put around his head and assess his actions as a normal human being, we are left with a man who used to sleep with eleven women on a single day, a man who married his adopted son’s wife, a man who was caught up with a slave woman on his bed’s wife, a man whose child wife used to clean up his semen off his clothes, a man who thighed this child wife, a man who allowed himself more women than the rest of humanity in the name of God, a man who was to be obeyed even if he lusted for a married woman, a man who cursed people only because they didn’t follow his belief and a man who killed and asked people to be killed based on belief. The problem beside all this is not only its moral side but the fact that God supposedly called such a man the best of creatures and here lies the catastrophe. Can Muslims apply the same to Jesus and come up with one immoral thing He did? am positive they’d wish Muhammad did nothing of the above but since he is supposed to be a prophet, then they turn evil into good. If Muhammad compared to Jesus is the best of creatures, then Jesus is simply God in the Quran’s standard of morality.

 

[planten]

Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet, that is why his actions are coloured by the belief that he is a prophet. But if we deprive Muhammad of the divine aura Muslims put around his head and assess his actions as a normal human being, we are left with a man who used to sleep with eleven women on a single day, a man who married his adopted son’s wife, a man who was caught up with a slave woman on his bed’s wife, a man whose child wife used to clean up his semen off his clothes, a man who thighed this child wife, a man who allowed himself more women than the rest of humanity in the name of God, a man who was to be obeyed even if he lusted for a married woman, a man who cursed people only because they didn’t follow his belief and a man who killed and asked people to be killed based on belief. The problem beside all this is not only its moral side but the fact that God supposedly called such a man the best of creatures and here lies the catastrophe. Can Muslims apply the same to Jesus and come up with one immoral thing He did? am positive they’d wish Muhammad did nothing of the above but since he is supposed to be a prophet, then they turn evil into good. If Muhammad compared to Jesus is the best of creatures, then Jesus is simply God in the Quran’s standard of morality.

** inJesus, where have you been?? Have you just come out of a catholic missionary school?? I have just colored a few lines of your unethical blast against the best man who ever lived on earth. Can you show me even one of your allegations from the Quran?.

Muhammad lived a life according to Quran. You show me any of what you have written from the Quran. Your Jesus did not live any life which could be supported by divine words. There was no bible. He did not leve any bible. It was written after Jesus went away suddenly and went forever not to be seen or heard again.

Some people who knew Jesus wrote about what Jesus did in a short period of three years only. What was the end result. He was put on the cross and he was calling his God for help. You people have made up many false stories about Jesus and you want the world to believe those irrational, impossible, unnatural false stories. At the same time you are all busy blaming the best man who lived on earth, who authenticated the good work of Jesus too.

Tell me who else besides Muhammad spoke good words about Jesus? Any Hindu, or Budhist or Jew or leader of any other religion?? None at all. But you people are totally misguided and thankless people.

The best thing for you christians is to keep preaching your faith without abusing others and let others also preach the articles of their faith. And let the people judge the good and bad points of each faith.

**

 

[inJESUS]

What a bunch on hypocrisy.

Your Bible contains just as much, in fact quite a bit more, savagery, barbarism, draconian punishments, and torture by divine mandate. But we should be disgusted with Islam. Unlike an enlightened faith like Christianity which takes orders from a God who orders the execution of those who break the Sabbath. Who orders savagery and genocide on a level that would make Slobodan Milošević blush. Who considers burning a fitting capital offense for certain offenses?. If only the God of Islam and his prophet were as enlightened as your God and prophets, then perhaps rather than give pagans the opportunity to convert they could just slaughter them wholesale man, woman, and child. Perhaps Allah and Muhammad should have extended to the Meccans the same love, mercy and compassion your God and his prophets extended the Canaanites.

no there isn’t hypocrisy, there is someone who totally misunderstands the OT from both Jewish and Christian perspective.

You once mentioned about killing children for disobeying their fathers, but you were told that this never happened and the same applies to the understanding of capital punishment in Judaism where Jews know that death penalty is commanded but its application renders it almost impossible. In other words, death is the result of too many if not most sins in the OT but the same OT renders its application almost impossible that is why what Muhammad did in a few years puts to shame what the sanhedrin did for ages because the sanhedrin called itself a murderous court if 1 person was killed in 70 years.

Regarding the Canaanites and other OT wars, none of them happened in the name of converting people to Judaism and God talks about giving people hundreds of years to change their wicked ways before punishing them, be it the canaanites or even punishing the Hebrews themselves. The OT wars were descriptive, not prescriptice as in Islam and whereas the OT wars were confined to limited geographic areas and limited nations and times that are finished as soon as they finished because they are part of history and not eternal legislations, in Islam wars are prescriptive and not limited to time, nation or geography. In other words, you are comparing between historical and none-legislative wars which finished and which were descriptive of that time and that nation and that land to legislative wars launched in the name of conversion and which aren’t limited to neither nation nor land nor geography. Wars and Jihad in Islam are legislative, part of Islam and as soon as Muhammad died they continued their wars against people who did not attack them whereas in the OT they are descriptive, part of the history that happened at that time and against people who kept attacking the hebrews and sometimes wars against the Hebrews themselves as a punishment.

 

[inJESUS]

** Can you show me even one of your allegations from the Quran?.**
no wonder many Muslims hate the sunna of Muhammad and reject it totally…that’s exactly because it shows who Muhammad was and the fact that you reject these allegations is enough proof of what we’re talking about. Believe me, it’s much more honourable to reject these hadith than to accept them and call them good because not only it is calling evil good but it is lowering and insulting God’s Holiness to call such actions the best of the best.

 

[neploho]

no there isn’t hypocrisy, there is someone who totally misunderstands the OT from both Jewish and Christian perspective.

You once mentioned about killing children for disobeying their fathers, but you were told that this never happened and the same applies to the understanding of capital punishment in Judaism where Jews know that death penalty is commanded but its application renders it almost impossible. In other words, death is the result of too many if not most sins in the OT but the same OT renders its application almost impossible that is why what Muhammad did in a few years puts to shame what the sanhedrin did for ages because the sanhedrin called itself a murderous court if 1 person was killed in 70 years.

Very few individuals were killed in the Rabbinic courts because the Talmudic commentaries which, to their credit, erected a great deal of barriers in applying the death penalty as far as I know. Traditional Islamic law could also erect enough barriers to make stoning for adultry and other capital offenses a theoretical and but not practically applicable punishment. There are two problems in this regard. Christianity, the religion of the individual I was responding to, does not recognize the Talmud as divinely inspired. Even if the rabbinic discourses did make the standards of evidence and other factors so high that in Judaic societies they were rarely enforced, the fact still remains that the God of the Old Testament considers breaking the Sabbath a capital offense. And yes, Leviticus does command the death of a child who curses his parents.

Regarding the Canaanites and other OT wars, none of them happened in the name of converting people to Judaism and God talks about giving people hundreds of years to change their wicked ways before punishing them, be it the canaanites or even punishing the Hebrews themselves. The OT wars were descriptive, not prescriptice as in Islam and whereas the OT wars were confined to limited geographic areas and limited nations and times that are finished as soon as they finished because they are part of history and not eternal legislations, in Islam wars are prescriptive and not limited to time, nation or geography. In other words, you are comparing between historical and none-legislative wars which finished and which were descriptive of that time and that nation and that land to legislative wars launched in the name of conversion and which aren’t limited to neither nation nor land nor geography. Wars and Jihad in Islam are legislative, part of Islam and as soon as Muhammad died they continued their wars against people who did not attack them whereas in the OT they are descriptive, part of the history that happened at that time and against people who kept attacking the hebrews and sometimes wars against the Hebrews themselves as a punishment.

That is a common response, but not related to my point. To start with I never claimed the wars in the OT were intended to continue through time or intended to convert the native population. I called them what they were, genocide. Ethnic cleansing. My comments were not in any way constructed to claim Judaism is somehow a threat today because of the barbarism in their past, my comments were directed to the point that the God of the Old Testament was just as savage, cruel, and draconian as anything in Islam. It is hypocritical for Christians to pretend that mass slaughter by divine fiat is some perversion of Islam totally out of line with the “Judeo Christian” tradition. The criminal code and foreign relations of the God and prophets of the Old Testament were no more enlightened, merciful or compassionate than that of Islam’s God and prophet.

 

[inJESUS]

It is interesting to see Muslims’ reaction to the allegations against Muhammad. We have those who reject the hadiths totally , and those who reject a good deal of them even if authentic , and those who pick and choose from the hadith, and those who accuse Jews of writing bad hadiths about Muhammad, and those who accuse the best Islamic mufassirin of Israeliyyat and inaccuracy and the Sunni who accuse the Shia of forged hadiths that put Muhammad’s morality to shame, and the Shia who accuse the Sunni of forged hadith which put Muhammad’s morality to shame. All kind of allegations and accusations and rejections flying among Muslims and the reason is clear : they show Muhammad for who he was.

Planten, if you want Quranic verses, please refer to Muhammad’s marriage to Zainab, the wife of who was supposed to be like his son and which was the basis for the teaching that a man is supposed to divorce his wife if Muhammad wanted her, then the verse refering to his sexual priviledges ( not to other believers as if women are prophethood’s gift) and the verse attacking Muhammad’s wives aisha and Hafsa ( because they caught him with his sex slave according to the “authentic” hadith that you reject) and while searching take a look at the OT and tell us where does God issue a law giving unlimited women for a man because he is a prophet.

 

[neploho]

no wonder many Muslims hate the sunna of Muhammad and reject it totally…that’s exactly because it shows who Muhammad was and the fact that you reject these allegations is enough proof of what we’re talking about. Believe me, it’s much more honourable to reject these hadith than to accept them and call them good because not only it is calling evil good but it is lowering and insulting God’s Holiness to call such actions the best of the best.

No they don’t. They were collected decades and decades after Muhammad died and many are non-sense, obviously apocryphal, or clearly borrowed from Christian and Jewish sources. In the case of the Sunni the primary collection was done by an figure on the hard conservative side of Islamic thought at the time which favored harsh justice and order. Many were obviously fabricated to given Muhammad features attractive to Arab culture at the time. Things like an extraordinary libido (for instance having sex with eleven women a night, if that one is true then as far as I’m concerned he did have divine help)

The idea that the Hadith usurp the Qur’an as a primary source for understanding Muhammad is laughable.

 

[inJESUS]

There are two problems in this regard. Christianity, the religion of the individual I was responding to, does not recognize the Talmud as divinely inspired.

that is beside the point because i was replying to how the Jews understood the OT’s commands of capital punishment, and the barriers to applying them are taken from the OT and since we believe that Jesus fully knew the law and its implications and reasons and goals and did not teach what Muhammad thought but reflected the correct Jewish understanding, then it wouldn’t be correct to compare what Muhammad did to the laws he failed to understand…in other words, muhammad has no right to trespass not only Jewish law but even Jesus’ explanation of the law…Muhammad is guilty of misunderstanding and misapplying the law and this is reflected in his stoning and killing people and his followers kept stoning and killing after after him which again puts to shame what the sanhedrin did for ages because he neither understood the implication of law nor its application, or impossibility of application thereof and cannot therefore be said to neither reflect Jewish nor Jesus’ teaching of the law nor can be absolved of what he did by simply stating that the OT says this or that.

Even if the rabbinic discourses did make the standards of evidence and other factors so high that in Judaic societies they were rarely enforced, the fact still remains that the God of the Old Testament considers breaking the Sabbath a capital offense. And yes, Leviticus does command the death of a child who curses his parents.

 

[inJESUS]

No they don’t. They were collected decades and decades after Muhammad died and many are non-sense, obviously apocryphal, or clearly borrowed from Christian and Jewish sources. In the case of the Sunni the primary collection was done by an figure on the hard conservative side of Islamic thought at the time which favored harsh justice and order. Many were obviously fabricated to given Muhammad features attractive to Arab culture at the time. Things like an extraordinary libido (for instance having sex with eleven women a night, if that one is true then as far as I’m concerned he did have divine help)

The idea that the Hadith usurp the Qur’an as a primary source for understanding Muhammad is laughable.

this isn’t my problem, this is the problem of Islam if Allah did not preserve the teachings of Muhammad. What i know is what the best scholars of Islam reported and explained, be it from among Muhammad’s companions or his household and both don’t present us with someone fit to be called the best of creatures and this is what i find laughable because my own dad fits to be called the best of creatures more than Muhammad. Am not saying this because i don’t believe he was a prophet…there were and are many false prophets but who did not do what Muhammad did so just because someone is not a prophet does not mean we will speak badly about his deeds or characters but what the best Islamic sources report are enough to call a blade a blade. And if we reject the hadith as historical records then we are left with an incoherent book with incoherent ideas and chapters and theme which renders such a book as God’s masterpiece more than a laughable idea…rather hilarious but this is what the Quran claims.

 

[neploho]

this isn’t my problem, this is the problem of Islam if Allah did not preserve the teachings of Muhammad. What i know is what the best scholars of Islam reported and explained, be it from among Muhammad’s companions or his household and both don’t present us with someone fit to be called the best of creatures and this is what i find laughable because my own dad fits to be called the best of creatures more than Muhammad. Am not saying this because i don’t believe he was a prophet…there were and are many false prophets but who did not do what Muhammad did so just because someone is not a prophet does not mean we will speak badly about his deeds or characters but what the best Islamic sources report are enough to call a blade a blade. And if we reject the hadith as historical records then we are left with an incoherent book with incoherent ideas and chapters and theme which renders such a book as God’s masterpiece more than a laughable idea…rather hilarious but this is what the Quran claims.

lol, well it is your problem if you are claiming we get the “true” Muhammad by reading the Hadith. You want to accecpt the Hadith as good recorders of Muhammad when it involves things he did you view as bad, but don’t accecpt the good ones. If you want to say we need to accept the Hadith at face value when judging what sort of man Islam holds as the greatest of creation then you also have to accecpt the Hadith which record him as a man of the utmost integrity and honesty. A man who cut off his garmet’s arm to avoid waking a sleeping cat or ordered his men to march around an anthill to avoid crushing them. But of course you don’t accecpt the positive Hadith at face value do you?

Your method is both dishonest and historically ludacris.

 

[josie_L]

What a bunch on hypocrisy.

Your Bible contains just as much, in fact quite a bit more, savagery, barbarism, draconian punishments, and torture by divine mandate. But we should be disgusted with Islam. Unlike an enlightened faith like Christianity which takes orders from a God who orders the execution of those who break the Sabbath. Who orders savagery and genocide on a level that would make Slobodan Milošević blush. Who considers burning a fitting capital offense for certain offenses?. If only the God of Islam and his prophet were as enlightened as your God and prophets, then perhaps rather than give pagans the opportunity to convert they could just slaughter them wholesale man, woman, and child. Perhaps Allah and Muhammad should have extended to the Meccans the same love, mercy and compassion your God and his prophets extended the Canaanites.

What part of the New Testament do you not understand, Christians are under a new covenant with Christ, as such, do you see any violence being committed by Christians in the Bible? If indeed Mohammed was a true prophet, how does one go from Christianity which exulted peace, love and mercy, to barbarism as enacted by the most holy and exalted of men, Mohammed?

P.S. Using people such as Milosevic as an example of Christianity is ridiculous, for he did not live up to the Christian standard set out by Christ. In other words he is a poor example of what Christians should be like.

 

[josie_L]

lol, well it is your problem if you are claiming we get the “true” Muhammad by reading the Hadith. You want to accecpt the Hadith as good recorders of Muhammad when it involves things he did you view as bad, but don’t accecpt the good ones. If you want to say we need to accept the Hadith at face value when judging what sort of man Islam holds as the greatest of creation then you also have to accecpt the Hadith which record him as a man of the utmost integrity and honesty. A man who cut off his garmet’s arm to avoid waking a sleeping cat or ordered his men to march around an anthill to avoid crushing them. But of course you don’t accecpt the positive Hadith at face value do you?

Your method is both dishonest and historically ludacris.

So the man was sometimes good and at other times, evil, does that sound like a sane man to you?