Answering Christianity Research Center

The guy thought it was a black stone lol

"Black stone". Was the belief that touching any and all black stones erases sins?

You can also read:

• Arguments for and against the death penalty
• The Issue of Apostasy in Islam (Jonathan Brown)
• Resources: Apostasy and Freedom of Faith
• On Apostasy and Islam:100+ Notable Islamic Voices affirming the Freedom of Faith

This is not how the narration is understood by scholars, even conservative ones.

The narration, and others similar to it, refer to the understanding that there are ultimately going to be a fixed number of people who will reach Heaven and Hell. When a quantity of 10 humans manages to reach Heaven, a quantity of 10 humans will go to Hell - this in order to fulfill that final fixed number.

Heaven bound humans will be rewarded because of their belief and good deeds and not due to the disbelievers taking the burden of their sins. Believers who have committed sins will still have to pay their recompense in Hell, before they will be able to enter Heaven.

Similarly, individuals going to Hell is because of their disbelief and not to save Muslims.

For details, see Does the fact that a disbeliever will be a Muslim’s ransom from the Fire mean that none of the Muslims will ever enter the Fire?

Furthermore, a general principle regarding Hadith is that it cannot directly and explicitly contradict the Qur'an. If some narration appears to do so, then either the Hadith has been misunderstood or it is unreliable and therefore rejected.

On the "Jesus choosing to sacrifice himself" front, I wanted to ask, whether this sacrifice forgives all sins of Christians or just the "original sin" of apple eating. If it is all sins, then how could just one death be enough for all the atrocities that are committed by humans over thousands of years? And if it is just the "original sin", then why is this burden on the descendants of Adam and Eve who had absolutely nothing to do with that sin?

For those who would like a scholarly reference for this incident, see ⚛Qur'ān 4(Al-Nisa'):105 | Mufti Shafi Usmani, Tafseer-e-Ma'riful Qur'an (English).

— Point: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

The entire narration is:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

Source: https://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/2/18

As far as I've understood it, the narration is talking about people who have already become Muslims. I think pointing this out would've made a better, more accurate argument.

My understanding is based on the fact that it is an accepted fact non-Muslims cannot be forcefully converted, the "no compulsion is religion" argument; and if that wasn't enough, I doubt there is any difference of opinion on the matter that in Islam, non-Muslims are supposed to say Muslim prayers and pay Zakat (" the obligatory charity" in the above narration).

From my understanding this narration is a good example of things because they are so clear, it takes a longer time to realise what is obvious. The anti-Islamists, quite often, criticise Islam because, in their opinion, Islam forces non-Muslims living under Muslim rule to pay the Jizya tax. However, through this narration they also argue Islam calls for forcing non-Muslims to convert too. In other words, Islam taxes non-Muslims while at the same time it forces conversion thereby eliminating its non-Muslim population. Who is going to pay the Jizya, if all non-Muslims have to be eliminated?

This is a clear and obvious contradiction. Either there has to be a Jizya tax or there is to be forceful conversions. Both of these conditions cannot exist at the same time!

Therefore, the narration has to be talking only about Muslims and from here, you can see that this narration and others similar to it come forward during the Ridda wars after Prophet Muhammad's death.

Here you also quote Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, and I believe the quoted incident is unreliable, but I could be wrong here.

The "dictator" narration you quoted from Jami`at-Tirmidhi Hadith is not the evidence which refutes this person's argument. You accused him of misquoting the Hadith, the accusation is probably correct but, in my opinion, not because of the Tirmidhi Hadith but because of the Sahih Bukhari Hadith not quoted in full.

— Point: Prophet Muhammad "created a state".

Maybe a nitpick, but Prophet Muhammad did not go to Medina for the purpose of creating a government or state, its just that majority of the people there accepted him as their leader and that naturally gave him and his followers the government.

— Point: "Unlike in other religions, Islam has misogyny..."

Did he really say "unlike". Sure, there are a number of interpretations which can be argued as misogynistic (whether those interpretations are correct or not is another matter) but to say that other religions don't have similar or even worse problems is quite an extraordinary claim. But after this he contradicts himself, saying: "... to be fair there weren't many ideologies and thoughts that were very friendly with women in the past", but apparently unfriendly ideologies don't count as misogyny in front of this person.

— Point: Qur'an 2:282

You write that "it says that a woman may err due to her emotional attachment to her husband in court and the other woman can remind her". However, the verse explicitly does not indicate anything regarding any "emotional attachment".

A better argument would've been to point out the interpretation of those scholars who argue that the verse is only providing a recommendation about the witnesses, and it is completely silent on the question of whether a single woman's testimony would be accepted or not in a court of law. According to one source, even "Ibn Taymiyyah also reasoned the deficiency of using Qur'an 2:282 to prove evidentiary discrimination against women."
Source: https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/lectures/religion_fadel_0710.pdf

Khabib Nurmagomedov UFC 229 Post-fight Press Conference

@Mohamed Saif,

First, I should make clear that I'm not rejecting any Hadith, just asserting that different people have different thresholds of certainty. One group of Muslims can be completely fine with Akhbar-e-Ahad, while a second group cannot. And then there would be a third group in the middle: usually being fine with Akhbar-e-Ahad, unless they are related to extremely important matters such as capital punishments, in which case they would subscribe to the concept of no punishment in the presence of reasonable doubt, and Akhbar-e-Ahad would definitely figure as reasonable doubt for them.

As far as I've understood, on the matter of the Hadith being used as a source of Shariah, there are three important interpretations.

One is the complete and absolute belief in all Hadith literature. Even going to the extent of believing an activity not performed during the Prophet's time is also prohibited. For example, since birthdays were not celebrated by the Prophet's companions, therefore such an activity must be prohibited. From what I've seen, such interpretation is followed by the majority of lay/common Muslims. This is something, not even conservative scholars subscribe to since there are more than a few Hadith that contradict each other, or are known to be fabricated but still managed to get recorded in the Saheeh Hadith books. This interpretation is significant not because of theological evidence in support of it, but because of the large number of Muslims who believe in it.

Second is the belief that all Hadith are by-default part of God's everlasting Shariah unless there is some additional evidence that would put the Hadith in doubt. Suspicions, such as one Hadith being contradicted by a more historically reliable Hadith, or by some Qur'an verse etc. Most conservative scholars would subscribe to this interpretation.

In contradiction, the third group, practically speaking, follows the idea that Hadith are by-default not part of everlasting Shariah. They argue that since Prophet Muhammad was given the responsibility to spread the religion far and wide, to spread God's divine Shariah, its obligations and prohibitions to all the people of the world until the Day of Judgement, he must have fulfilled this obligation in as public a manner as possible. He must have mentioned such theological knowledge to as many people as possible, as has happened with the Qur'an and a smaller portion of the Hadith, the Muttawatar Ahadith. Rest of the scripture i.e. the Akhbar-e-Ahad, where the Prophet is found addressing only a few individuals were his personal opinions or recommendations in his capacity as the judge, leader, father, husband, elder etc. of his people. The Imam Muslim reported date palm grafting hadith is significant in this regard.

Akhbar-e-Ahad can be considered as part of divine Shariah only when they go along with the Qur'an - hadith cannot abrogate the Qur'an. When such appears to be happening, then that particular hadith is either historically unreliable or has its meaning misunderstood.

So how do we come to a proper conclusion?  Should Apostates be killed or not or should adulterers be stoned or not?  How are we supposed to implement the Shariah if we cant come to a certain conclusion?

Conclusions can be drawn in the same way they have been drawn for centuries. Going through all the evidence and deciding for oneself, which interpretation holds more water. In a lot of cases, which conclusion is right and which is incorrect is not as important as having sincere intentions and making sincere efforts to find the right path, no matter what that path may be.

A Muslim can become a scholar to be at the best position to come to the right conclusion, but since for general lay Muslims such is usually impractical, the easier method is to go through the brief evidence put forth by the eminent scholars of each interpretation.

Regarding which interpretation should be implemented, the Qur'an 42:38 concept of: اَمْرُهُم شُوْرٰی بَينَهُمْ (Muslims, who settle their affairs with mutual consultation) is the practical method which has been agreed upon by conservative scholars for centuries. However, unlike the current status quo, a good argument can be made for common Muslims to also become a part of this consultation by educating themselves on the limited related matter, instead of blindly accepting and believing in error prone humans.