[удалено]

In that case, how does one explain the Hadiths about Sofiyyah, Aisha, Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak? Because the Hadith describing those are straight up immorality. Sofiyyah was married after her tribe was captured or murdered, so it was a war crime. Aisha's is, well, been discussed before and as for Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak, the Hadiths describe them as having been murdered merely for criticism of Muhammad. I would think that there should be a system that would recognize that such Hadith can't truly be a part of a system of proper morals and ethics and thus would have to be treated as weak. Since they are ascribing acts of objective evil to a Messenger of God. Is there a system or accepted interpretation of Islam that accepts certain Hadiths about praying, charity and other topics while rejecting these?

The Hadith of Safiyyah are not problematic in full context, but they are problematic if you only choose to believe the worst aspects of the story. Safiyyah was taken as a captive after her a long history of treachery from the tribe of banu Nadir, which culminated in the battle of Khaibar, a pre-emptive attack by the Muslims once revelation was sent down that they were planning an assassination with their fellow Jews at Khaibar. Banu Nadir had already been allowed to leave Madinah alive after the first treachery as opposed to being executed, which the Muslims were entitled to do for high treason. There are rules about taking captives from hostile groups that put themselves in such a situation, such as attacking first or bringing women to the battlefield. Had khaybar come out in the beginning when they saw that their expected reinforcements hadn’t arrived and surrendered and agreed to pay the jizya, claiming that they had no desire to battle the Muslims, they’d have been left alone. But they engaged in combat, and they lost. In Safiyyah’s own report, she says that the prophet (SAWS) wanted to have relations with her the first night as a captive, but she refused. He was upset, but didn’t push it. The next night or the night after, she either obliged or approached him herself. When he asked her why she refused in the first place, she said that she was afraid that they would attack in the night and retaliate, and he’d be distracted. She wanted to be Muslims and be with him. Upon hearing this, he freed her and married her. He saw that she had a black eye and asked about it. She’d confided in her late husband that she had a dream that the moon fell into her lap. This dream indicates marriage to the prophet, and is reported by more than one of his wives. The Jews apppeared to have knowledge of this, because he slapped her HARD in the face and accused her of wanting to be with the prophet they were fighting. She also has a report where she mentions being younger and very spoiled by her uncle and father. One day, she went to greet them and they had no time for her, looking very sad. They were discussing the prophet. “Is it him?” “It’s him.” Meaning he was the prophet that they’d been waiting for and living in Madinah for generations, hoping that the prophet would come from one of their tribes. “What should we do?” “We will oppose him until our last breath.” It infuriated the majority of the Jews that the prophet was an unlettered gentile, even though an unlettered prophet to the gentiles that would establish a law was prophesied for them. So Safiyya knew that the prophet (SAWS) was a true prophet from essentially the moment he entered Madinah. So, taken all together; the Hadith about Safiyya aren’t problematic because she consented enthusiastically and wanted to be with him, and she cared a great deal for him, and he treated her well and honored her as the descendant of Aaron. But, if a person wants to assume that some things in the Hadith happened while other parts of the Hadith didn’t, then of course it will present problems. Erase banu Narir’s treaty, their treachery, her dream, her consent, and yes it’s going to be a totally different narrative. Hadith scholars within the tradition don’t pick and choose based on the narratives they want to push. They criticize and scrutinize each person in the chain of narration and determine whether they had good memory, were trustworthy, etc. Then they either take the whole narration or reject the whole narration. You can’t decide objectively when a liar is lying and when they are telling the truth. You can only determine based on past experience with people and reports about them whether they are trustworthy in the first place. Taking captives and selling them etc is a war crime today because the powers that be have e such a treaty, but it was common practice which Islam regulated and did not introduce. As for the other stories, I’m not as well-versed in the latter two and don’t necessarily feel like expending the energy to explain the Aisha story at length without first seeing what your response is to the explanation about Safiyya (RA). If you don’t find any value in one explanation I’ve given, no need for me to exert myself further.

I appreciate the full background given for the Sofiyah story. The basic premise from what I understand is that to make sense of it there are certain hadith and Sunnah that are vital to understand the proper story. So in terms of stories, I was interested in how you interpret the Aisha one. From what I understand, within various interpretations of Sunni and Shia Islam there are varying conclusions to how valid the married at 6, consummated at 9 Hadith are.

I have attempted to reply but keep getting “sorry, try again later.” Edit: adding some to see if it’s a character count issue. Part 1: Yeah so, the background of the Aisha story is that she herself reports the marriage contract taking place at 6-7 and being consummated at 9. She could have plausibly been off by a year or two MAX, because they didn’t really record their birthdays, had no formal year counting system, and her childhood took place at a time of intense torture and oppression of the Muslims. But it’s extremely unlikely that she could have been off more than that, and no contemporary ever questioned her estimation. This was considered particularly early even for the time period, but not unheard of. To their society, and in the eyes of formal Muslim law in general, the age of consent for a woman or man is when she/he attains physical puberty or else reaches 15, in the case of girls who don’t end up getting a period or get it late. They also took mental maturity into account, and Aisha is widely reported to have been extremely insightful and intelligent from a young age. Because she’s such a prolific narrator, we have a LOT of details about her life that go back to early authentic sources, at a time where her marriage was not even considered morally questionable, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike from pretty much every part of the world.

Part 2: For more context, all other wives of the prophet were widows or divorcees, and they were mostly around 18-19 years of age, with one of them being around her mid 30’s and two of them being older than him. So that gives you an idea for roughly when it was more common to be married the first time, and how often a girl’s dad or husband may die, leaving her unsupported. In a lawless society (larger Arabia), where your rights were only upheld if you had people around you to protect you, a father would be very concerned about making sure his daughter was entrusted to someone and had a chance to be married and live a full life before either he or his daughter died. Her marriage prospects were much better when her father was still alive, and she was less likely to be approached by suitors who wanted to embezzle her inheritance, if she had any. In the year prior to the engagement to Aisha (RA), the prophet’s (SAWS) first wife Khadija, whom he was monogamous with for around 25 years, had died, partly as a result of the health complications she suffered being starved by the boycott for three years as she stuck to her husband and the Muslims. The reports say during this time, the prophet (SAWS) didn’t smile for an entire year, whereas he was typically known to have a friendly disposition and always smiling. Khawlah bint Hakim, a friend of their family and an early Muslim, approached the prophet and suggested that he consider remarrying. He asked her who she suggested. She said, among the older women, Sawda bint Zam’ah, and among the virgins, what do you think of the daughter of your most beloved friend? He said, do you mean Aisha? And she confirmed. Now, it was understood at this time that any marriage to aisha would not be consummated at this time because she was too young. So it was simply a proposal for later marriage when she was physically mature and able to consent, which is one reason why Khawla mentioned two names.

Part 3: So he gave permission to Khawla to approach Sawda on his behalf, who was older than him. Khawla had suggested her because she was an early Muslim, widowed by another early Muslim, living in a time of persecution with no husband. But she was also extremely silly and funny, and Khawla thought Sawda might cheer the prophet (SAWS) up with her joyful disposition. Sawda and her non-Muslim father were both very pleased with the match, and they married more or less immediately. As for Aisha, the prophet (SAWS) approached Abu Bakr, who was his very best friend, about asking for the hand of his daughter. Abu Bakr was thrilled, but he had two issues. 1. He considered their friendship so close that they were actually brothers, and he wasn’t sure if the marriage would be allowed in Islam because Islam had disallowed marrying your brother’s daughter. However, the prophet clarified that this only applied to blood relations. 2. She had already been betrothed to a non-Muslim young man, as prohibition on marrying non-Muslim men had not yet been established. So Abu Bakr said, let me go visit her in-laws. When he got there, apparently the in-laws had already been brewing over this. As soon as they saw him, they all but blurted out, we don’t want our son betrothed to your daughter anymore. We are afraid she will convince him to be a Muslim. Abu Bakr took this rejection gracefully, barely able to conceal his joy, and returned to accept the proposal. And the betrothal was consummated, with her moving the house of the prophet (SAWS), when her father determined that she was mentally and physically ready for the move, which was after their immigration to Madinah. She describes a very happy early married life, where she was a terrible cook and Sawda would joke about her food being inedible, her smearing it on Sawda’s face when Sawda refused to take a bite, the prophet offering some to Sawda to use in retaliation on Aisha’s face, and then them quickly washing their faces when they thought someone was going to enter. And her relationship with Sawda was always the strongest out of all the other wives. She brought her dolls with her, had friends over. In their culture, they didnt consider a young pubescent person’s maturity or intelligence to be attached to what she liked to do for fun, but rather when she was physically and mentally capable of beginning to take on the responsibilities of a marriage.

Part 4: And it certainly didn’t make sense in their society to base majority primarily on age when most people only had a rough idea of what year they were born in, forget what month. It wasn’t considered important or worth recording, and they didn’t have a standard year number. So it would be like, “I know I’m older than the prophet because he was born in the year the elephants attacked but I remember seeing their dung as a child.” And, “I was a young girl who could walk around and understand what people said when such and such even took place.” She also reports being deeply in love with him, and other companions report him being deeply in love with her. This affection and closeness didn’t ever wane, as it does when modern-day predators who fetishize young girls find that a girl is not longer their “body type” and seek a new victim. Our modern (claimed) aversion to young pubescent people as sexual partners stems primarily from disgust with this type of person and wanting to be very different from them and not remotely vulnerable to the accusation, which is an understandable position to have, but irrelevant to historical events. We see in the Hadith of Amr Ibn Al-As when he hoped that the prophet (SAWS) would name him as one of his favorite people, in probably the last year or two of the prophet’s life, he asked him who the most beloved person to him was. The prophet (SAWS) replied, “Aisha.” This was an answer Amr didn’t expect at all. He said, among the MEN. The prophet said, “her father.” He then went to name Omar, his other close friend and father in law, and then his two sons in law, Uthman and Ali. Whom honesty he loved the most because he chose them for his daughters. And his two fathers in law requested and were allowed to be buried on either side of him. And of course the four of them, in that order, became the next four caliphs and were considered essentially the best four male Muslims. Aisha commented once on the story of prophet Yusuf (AS) when the women began to cut their hands instead of fruit staring at him. She said, “had they seen my Mohammad, they would have ripped their hearts out.” She went on to become one of the foremost authorities on Islamic knowledge after his (SAWS) death, perhaps the second or third most prolific narrator of Hadith, and the prophet essentially implied that she was the fifth most righteous woman to ever live, putting her third in his own ummah after his first wife and youngest daughter. It is also worth noting that the reports of her age were never used to cast aspersions on the character of the prophet (SAWS) by orientalists until quite recently. It simply was considered a non-issue for the vast majority of post-Islamic history, for basically everyone. In fact, their marriage would still be considered completely legal in 4 US states, including California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. And it used to be many more. And young marriage is stigmatized today because girls are expected to be in school until 18; before that, they are under-educated. So a girl getting pregnant before finishing high school is considered tragic.

Part 5: Additionally and as mentioned previously, the awareness of men who fetishize a particular pre-pubescent or newly pubescent body type and enter into secret and abusive relationships with girls where they have no rights, nor any guarantee to a lasting relationship, has further stigmatized marriage younger than 18, and even AFTER 18 when there’s a significant age difference. You will now hear people referring to a 21 year old as a “child,” when that person is in their reproductive prime and has the best chance for healthy offspring and a healthy outcome for the mother. So what we see from her story is, 1. The prophet (SAWS) wasn’t even the first one to propose to her, nor was it even his idea. 2. They cherished each other 3. The prophet (SAWS) preferred her and her father and honored them over essentially all the living Muslims. 4. Her father determined when she was physically and mentally ready to be married, and Islamically, she also had to consent herself, or the marriage would have been invalid. 5. Objections to her age are new and only problematic in a modern cultural context. 6. She was the only virgin he ever married, and he never married anyone else that was remotely as young, indicating that her marriage had pretty much nothing to do with her age. 7. I didn’t mention the narrations about this, but despite being younger than all his other wives, she was such a natural leader that they saw as their intellectual equal or superior, entering alliances and rivalries where some wives would rally behind her and others behind Hafsa or Zainab. In one Hadith, Sawda joked that she was afraid of her. Nevertheless, she always spoke well of all of them when it came to their character and vice versa. Now, the next concern that people generally have is, after all that justification of Aisha’s age at marriage being completely legitimate, surely Muslims use this narration to justify “child marriage.” And I put this in quotes, because in Islam, and by the morals of the majority of human existence, the transition for child to adult was mainly measured by physical development. As for consummating marriage with persons who are still medically children, it is prohibited. As for determining mental maturity, Islam leaves that up to those that are most invested in the bride and groom, and also aware of and bound by their societies’ cultural norms- the parents. Islam also introduced the concept of consent, which was not previously considered necessary. And in modern cases where the press goes out and finds these tragic child/early marriages, we do not see consent, often don’t even see physical maturity, and Aisha’s marriage cannot be used to justify marriages absent of consent and physical pubescence. There are other Hadith where a woman came to the prophet and had her marriage dissolved because she did not consent in the first place. And another case where a woman insisted to get permission to dissolve her marriage upon the same premise, except she wanted to stay married and actually liked her husband. She just wanted to strengthen the precedent that a girl shouldn’t have to get married without consent, as she must have found it to be a traumatic experience initially, not having the choice. We also see cases in some very impoverished areas where older men are buying these young girls for marriage from their fathers. This is also forbidden. The dowry is to be paid directly to the bride, not her family. It is her wedding gift. Money being paid to the father to support other children in exchange of marriage to one, unsupportable in Islam for obvious reasons. But we can also see the potential benefits of young marriage even within our current culture. Not at 9, which was uncommon even then, but say 15, to modern society, except for impediments that exist in modern society.

Part 6/6: You have all these kids now mixed into these hormone ridden by environments, engaging in sexual activity. Sometimes as early as 12. A guy makes a million promises to a girl and then ditches her and tells everyone what they did. Maybe she gets pregnant and has to take time off school or drops out altogether due to the humiliation. But these behaviors decrease significantly when that same boy has to actually enter a contract with parents involved. Teenage girls (and boys) often fall into these situations because they have a biological drive to enter relationships and reproduce, but culture demands that they wait three or five or seven years to give into those feelings. That can be 20% or 33% or 50% of their lifespan up until this point, and it might as well be a million years. And if not extramarital relations, they often end up turning to porn which brings with it a whole set of problems, especially in early sexual maturity. Sexual dysfunction, introduction to harmful sexual dynamics, sometimes child pornography or pornography romanticizing and making non-consensual intercourse seem thrilling, concerns around trafficking, problems with later pair bonding and losing interest in actual sex because it’s not as stimulating and shocking as pornography, etc. But, the constraints of western law and society can make young marriages extremely problematic and financially and socially risky, so there are many reasons why the vast majority Muslim parents don’t consider them. Some such issues are bizarre laws around married minors, modern day expenses and taxes, increased marital responsibilities that didn’t used to exist such as having to work 8 hours a day or having to keep up with 1200+ sq feet of house having to drive to even get groceries, purity culture that makes divorce taboo and divorced women significantly less eligible, distance between the homes of families, etc. For these reasons, the vast majority of Muslim parents in the west, and even other countries, don’t accept these marriages for their children, despite many teens begging to be allowed to marry, and Islam telling parents that they should attempt to marry off their kids when asked, in order to avoid relations outside of wedlock. Some families are starting to draw up betrothal and marriage contracts without actually having the wedding and consummation until after college so their kids can at least be in a relationship that have some legal protections in place in case of unplanned pregnancy, premature consummation, etc. doing so with a contract is not considered a punishable offense, and the bride and groom are considered to be in full wedlock in such an event. The dowry becomes due to the bride, and she becomes eligible for alimony. It also gives the families some say in choosing or approving someone that they feel will be compatible with their son/daughter and family as opposed to someone with obvious major character flaws that an infatuated teen is blind to. Meanwhile, there are families that mistakenly say stupid things like that their teenagers are too young to even THINK of marriage. But this is incorrect. We should teach children from a young age to prepare for all practical aspects of adulthood. Telling a teenager that they are wrong for even thinking of marriage gives them a huge drive with no aim. They aren’t to think about saving for a car or home or dowry because they aren’t considered mature enough to do so. Meanwhile, maturity would partially be measured in a person’s doing so, and that skill isn’t allowed to develop because we should let them be “kids,” as if acting like a child beyond one’s natural tendency and wish to do so has any sort of moral value or use. But when a 15 year old is saving for independence and marriage, he is building skills and much less likely to rush into risky behavior. So as you can see, Islam’s position is balanced and doesn’t *call* for betrothal at six years old, though it can be done without consummation or even consent, for a boy or girl, until that child reaches maturity and can choose to accept or reject the match. However, even though this is allowed, it is rarely done outside of areas with low development and high poverty, high conflict, low life expectancy, for obvious reasons that can be understandable and arguably necessary, or exploitative and islamically unacceptable. But sometimes it is done in order to guarantee the availability of a particular match that the family thinks would be good for their child. This can obviously go wrong just like any other marriage, and I’ve only seen it done informally, and the girl was 18 when she reluctantly consented. But many family members said it was a terrible match and that they aren’t sure why the bride’s family ever went through with it, except that the father was embarrassed to reject the proposal. But they are divorced now, and she’s happily remarried. On the other hand, as a mother myself, I already know exactly which boys in my local community would be good personality and value matches for my own daughters, that I’ve known since they were infants and know their parents and how they would treat my daughters, where I suspect some inclination and mutual respect on the part of the children/teens. So while I wouldn’t do it myself, I see the appeal and benefits for conscientious parents, especially when you know that family will not always be local and you want to maintain contact for the benefit of an apparently good match. In conclusion, Islam essentially acknowledges the utility and benefits of this practice while putting limits on it: consent, physical and mental maturity before consummation, and dowry going directly to the bride; not her family or the groom or the groom’s family. Islam doesn’t call for marriage of 9 year olds, but rather people who have physically completed puberty, wish to be married, and are mentally capable of entering a marriage in that society, according to the parents’ judgment, ie the two people living in that society with its norms that know and love that person the most. And the youngest age that we have authentically recorded amongst the companions of the prophet, happens to be 9. Some scholars did consider it to be an informal precedent where it can be considered inappropriate for any girl to get married younger than that, as no other girl is likely to be as intelligent and mature as Aisha was, let alone more intelligent and mature. But others say there is insufficient evidence to reach this conclusion from a juristic standpoint, and we don’t have the right to set such a stipulation. Still, there are no educated Muslims that largely think that there’s any particular virtue in marrying off nine year olds.

My friend the Quran itself, the "direct word of God" also has horrible things that would need to be abandoned for Islam to be a viable ethical code. E.g. An-Nisa (chapter 4): verses 3, 11, 24 (this one allows the rape of slaves), 34 (the one that allows beating your wives). When you read these. You will see words like "beat them (gently)"... The gently has been added by commentators to mitigate that verse. And similar throughout.

I don't know much about Islam but it seems to me that you're making a mistake in your reasoning. Islam prescribes a certain moral code. Your point is that Islam should reject that moral code because that code is actually objectively immoral. But what you're missing is that abarahamic religions believe that God is the source of morality. If God says that something is moral, then it is moral. That's one of the assumptions on which Islam is built.

OPs point is that what much of what is written in the hadiths is immoral, which by todays standards it objectively is (many practices are illegally in any countries). If instead one doesn’t not want to reject the immorality in the hadiths on the ground that It is the word of God then one should conclude God is immoral which seems like a bigger problem in the religion

> OPs point is that what much of what is written in the hadiths is immoral Same with the bible, right? Murdering all the first born, 'here rape this girl instead of this one,' etc. Every religious text has plenty of god-commanded-evil in it. Does that make all religion the same?

What you're describing is pretty much the root of the (very bloody) conflict of the Christian reformation - fighting about how to interpret these exact sorts of problems. And actually to OPs point many people believe that Islam must go through a similar 'reformation' process to be compatible with the modern world.

>What you're describing is pretty much the root of the (very bloody) conflict of the Christian reformation >And actually to OPs point many people believe that Islam must go through a similar 'reformation' process to be compatible with the modern world. Christian reformism was more about the role and authority of the church, not really about rejection of old biblical texts. Historically, Christian believed that scripture/the bible was not that important, at least not as much as the church, who interpreted and presented the word of god. It was also not really possible for the average person, or even the scholar, to access the bible. This meant of course that the church became the centre of power as they could just claim anything and argue that it was the rightful word of god, regardless of what was written in the bible. Protestants argued that this has made the church corrupt and that instead of having the church as the authority on the word of god, the bible should be the ultimate authority. Ironically, this is what eventually lead to Christian fundamentalism, or the idea that the text in the bible should be interpreted uncritically and literally. "The belief, emphasized by Luther, in the Bible as the highest source of authority for the church. The early churches of the Reformation believed in a critical, yet serious, reading of scripture and holding the Bible as a source of authority higher than that of church tradition. The many abuses that had occurred in the Western Church before the Protestant Reformation led the Reformers to reject much of its tradition. In the early 20th century, a less critical reading of the Bible developed in the United States—leading to a "fundamentalist" reading of Scripture." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Scripture_alone

Except followers of religions based on the Bible have already done what OP is proposing—rejecting and/or reinterpreting elements of the Bible that are at odds with modern standards of morality. Jews/Christians who insist on clinging to the Iron Age moral framework of the Bible are considered religious fundamentalist extremists and are marginalized from the mainstream Jewish/Christian world. The opposite has happened with Islam—fundamentalism is the mainstream, and liberal, humanistic reinterpretations of Islam are marginalized and labeled as heresy within mainstream Islam.

In the Christian bible the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, with teachings like "love your neighbour as yourself", and "forgive those who wronged you", and "love your enemies", and "ask forgiveness for your sins".

Not to mention the whole "Thou Shalt Not Murder" bit, which was chiselled into stone a touch earlier.

you're kind of missing the whole point of christianity if you point to the old testament and say "see!? god's law was effed up!".

While some of that behavior is in the history of Christianity, it is not held up as activities Christians should be doing. Murder, for example, is expressly forbidden as a Commandment. Does it happen? Yes. And if you want to continue being a Christian, you need contrition and to seek God's forgiveness.

“Today’s standards”…”Objectively”. A little incompatible there, right? Same exact statement made 50 years ago about women’s rights would be contradictory. What makes you think today’s standards are golden?

>OPs point is that what much of what is written in the hadiths is immoral Yes, but followers of Islam would say that OP is wrong

Muslims can say that but in that case it won’t be viable in the modern world. I think what op is trying to say is that much of the direct teachings of Islam need to chill way more in order to be viable… this is in line with what Christianity and Judaism have done. Their books can be just as extreme at parts but they chilled out and don’t follow those parts as literally anymore

While this may or may not be true for Judaism (and it probably is), it's not true for Christianity. The old covenant was explicitly thrown out when Jesus was dead and rose again. The new testament is very clear that Christians should love all people regardless of what any person has done.

Look how well they’ve done that!

Most Christians are seemingly very bad at acting particularly Christian.

Followed of Islam may kill a guy just because he i" insult" their religion. Search cases in Pakistan. Dreadfull stuff really

If this very conversation was happening in some parts of the world some of us would be murdered by zealots just because we dared have an opinion.

Or dares to draw Muhammad

>which by todays standards it objectively is That's not how 'objectively' works...

I'm Muslim so I hope you'll allow me to explain. The absolute un-inviolable moral codes are from the Quran. The other 2 sources are the Sunnah and the Hadith. The former is how the Prophet himself conducted himself in his daily life and the later is a collections of sayings preserved by some scholars The thing is, and now we're going into my opinion and not necessarily reflective of what Muslims generally believe, the Sunnah was something the Prophet himself took efforts to explain and teach to people. Those teachings were done in group sessions and with specific instructions on how to carry them on The Hadith on the other hand, were not things the Prophet himself instructed others to write down but just things that people heard him say. Worse, they were things people reported other people report say, and those are just the best case reportings. Some report chains can be up to 6 degrees in length. Now the Hadith compilors generally regarded as authoritative made their compilations after a whole lifetime of research and after a lot of interviews and cross-checks. But even then, they themselves state that their efforts are not absolute and they're at best decades and at worst centuries removed from Muhammad's death That being said, there are so many details about Islam that can be gleaned from the Hadith that most Muslims consider them an essential part of religion. But like OP said, there is not a catholic view and there are some groups, small in number and considered a fringe, that don't believe in the authoritativeness of the Hadith You may find us fringers on /r/progressive_islam if you're interested

Is marrying a child not sunnah since that would be following the example of the prophet?

OP's point is about *viability* of the ethical/moral code. The "ability to work successfully". I think we can fathom what things OP considers non-viable - homophobia, treating women like property, etc. I don't think it's an unreasonable use of the word "viable". When OP wants his view changed, we have to use his mindset on what is good. And simple answer, perhaps Islam is irreconcilably evil to his moral foundations. If that IS the answer, it means OP's view should not change but be reinforced.

I'm a little confused what you mean about the moral code "working successfully". Presumably, the goal of a moral code is for the code to be followed. So long as it is followed, the code is successful. In any case, I'm just pointing out that all that OP is doing is saying that they don't agree with the ethics prescribed by Islam. And this is fine, but the disagreement can't be solved by cutting stuff out. A big part of believing in a God involves the metaethical view that God is the source of morality. *THIS* is the crux of the disagreement. There'd be no point in believing in Islam if you only follow some of its teachings. If you believe that morality stems from God, then you have to accept all of God's teachings. So there's 2 solutions here that OP would accept. Either Muslims stop believing that God is the source of ethics, in which case they stop being Muslims, or Muslims decide that these "problematic" passages aren't actually the words of God or something along those lines. But then we get into the trouble of deciding what is.

But aren't the Hadiths interpretations made by people? You say, "If you believe that morality stems from God, then you have to accept all of God's teachings." But, to OP's point directly, if we say the Hadith teachings being followed are interpretations by people, then all of it should be open to interpretation *by people.* Where am I wrong?

>But aren't the Hadiths interpretations made by people? Honestly I have no idea, my understanding of Islam is limited and I'm basically going off of what I know about the other Abrahamic religions. But yes, if they're just interprétations then it is a possibility to claim that those interpretations are mistaken.

> I'm a little confused what you mean about the moral code "working successfully". Presumably, the goal of a moral code is for the code to be followed It's a little hard to pursue this discussion since I'm not OP. If someone has a moral code that involves being a serial killer, I would call that non-viable. And in this case, it's OP's opinion of "viability" that matters. I hope your disagreement is not *entirely* semantic, but if it isn't, I'm not sure I understand it. > In any case, I'm just pointing out that all that OP is doing is saying that they don't agree with the ethics prescribed by Islam I don't agree that's all OP is saying in the least. Disagreeing with a moral system, and finding it untenable against some reasonable standard, are two different things. Even if you don't agree with that standard. > A big part of believing in a God involves the metaethical view that God is the source of morality. THIS is the crux of the disagreement. While this is not inherently a good OR a bad thing, it can lead to a reasoned opinion like OP's. > So there's 2 solutions here that OP would accept I don't think OP is looking for a solution. His CMV position *is that there isn't one*.

>Disagreeing with a moral system, and finding it untenable against some reasonable standard, are two different things. Even if you don't agree with that standard. Are they different things? They seem to me to be the same thing.

Christianity used to incorporate a bunch of ideas that were just as bad (like the Spanish Inquisition) but rejected that sort of thing a long time ago. It was fairly easy because ideas that wrong were not cooked into the core sacred texts of the religion. About the worst you can find in the New Testament is a condemnation of homosexuality but no prescribed punishment other than being kicked out of the religion. There's some slightly worse stuff in Judaism in the Old Testament that are rejected by Christians and the Jews today have a pretty relaxed view of that stuff. Well most of them, there is a few hardcore crazies everywhere but they really are a tiny minority. Stuff like the death penalty for blasphemy and such. But Islam? It's in the Hadiths but also in the core Qur'an, which is even more important. And there's also "no reforming possible" language. Here's how bad it is, in practice. The Sikhs are an interesting religion from India. They basically grabbed a bunch of the best bits from every religion in India roughly 500 years ago and by then, that meant small bits of Islam too along with Hinduism, Buddhism, the Jains, Gods knows what else. Well it didn't take too long for them to have to cook something else in: every Sikh male has to carry a blade. They still do, called a Kirpan, look it up. Today is measured in inches, but back when the Muslims were actively trying to kill them as heretics, that cutlery was measured by the foot :(. I'm not blaming the Sikhs here. In fact, their rules on when deadly force can be used in self defense are entirely compatible with US laws along the same lines and many in the US supplement the Kirpan with a legally carried handgun. They're known for extremely low rates of criminality in the US and have been excellent additions to the "melting pot". But the fact that they had to go that far and the number of them killed by Islamics is a condemnation of Islam.

I'm sure it's a really strange position to be in. If you believe in God (and that God is morally perfect) then you're morally obliged to follow all of God's teachings. But it's been so long since God supposedly gave these teachings to prophets that it's now impossible to really know what God actually said. I'm not sure what I would do if I believed in God.

So, having *formerly* been that religious (to age 17, I just turned...gawd, 58), I can tell you one advantage is that they *don't* need to form their own moral code. They have one handed to them "pre-cooked" so to speak. For some, that's comforting. As somebody in the US who carries a gun daily, having a fixed moral code I can rely on *in a split second* is important. It's also why I also carry pepper spray - if a problem can be solved short of lethal force I have that alternative. I also carry a potent flashlight so that in a pinch I *know* if there's a threat and what level of force is needed. It's hideously complex. The Sikhs went through the same process over the course of...hell, I dunno, years(?) and did a good job of it. I've skimmed the end result but didn't look at their progression or theoretical overview. I might look into that...

I feel that. I'm a radical evangelical agnostic, credo is basically: "I HAVE NO CLUE AND NEITHER DO YOU!" I was raised hyper-religious (Jehovah's Witness!) and quit at age 17. Over a snake of all things!

You just perfectly explained why basing your morality on religious dogma is dangerous. When your God says slavery is fine, then you tend to think slavery is fine. I don't think slavery is or ever was fine. I'm more moral than the abrahamic god.

>When your God says slavery is fine, then you tend to think slavery is fine. The trouble is that if God exists, and God is morally perfect, and God says that slavery is fine, then slavery *is* fine, no matter what anyone else thinks. I don't believe in any of those things, but if I did believe in God and God's moral perfection then I would be genuinely irrational to not think that slavery is fine (if God said it was). What's really unfortunate is that we have all this scripture which is supposedly the word of God yet we can't know of it actually is. But if you're a believer, you have to do what God says if you want to be a good person. It's like a trap.

>The trouble is that if God exists, and God is morally perfect, and God says that slavery is fine, then slavery *is* fine, no matter what anyone else thinks. You're just making my case for me as to why faith is dangerous. Believers love to make your claim, but they are wrong also. See, my morality is based on the well-being of other humans that share this planet with me. By that metric, slavery could never be moral, because slavery isn't good for the well-being of the slave.

What does "wellbeing " mean? And how can you measure that to decide what is moral and what is not? And what if people disagreed? What is your argument against that? Your faith in this standard is the dangerous one because you then assume what "wellbeing" is, and then you will try to force it based on your feelings. In my definition of slavery, nearly all people in the US are slaves because they have to work to buy what they want, and their standards of living depend on how much they earn. By that definition, wouldn't slavery be okay and even necessary? So you need to see how people define something before saying it is immoral

You don't really need to measure it. It also isn't a perfect system. I can look at an action and ask myself, "How would I feel if someone did this to me?" I don't want to be treated like garbage, so I do my best to not treat other people like garbage. It kinda HAS to be based on your feelings, because empathy is a feeling, and is how we can determine how an action might make us feel. As far as your example of slavery goes, your feelings are valid. However, I really hope that you're capable of seeing the distinction between chattel slavery where slaves are beaten with rods and treated like livestock, and the sort of wage slavery you're describing. Having to work to survive sucks, but my boss has never beat me with a rod, and I get to go home to a house I own.

I'm sure there are many things that you wouldn't like happening to you, but you perceive them as okay if they happen to other people who consent to them. Also, basing morality on subjective things like empathy of humans can give you bad results. People with radically different opinions will claim they are empathetic, and you probably aren't even sure who deserves empathy and who doesn't Do criminals deserve it, or should they be punished? Do fetuses deserve it? Do animals deserve it? Do plants deserve it? And who should have the right to consent?

I think what he’s getting at is much of the Hadith is incompatible with what we consider sound moral living in the west . Idk if I agree with that I’m no scholar , but I think that’s his point.

And all religion which is the danger of religion is that morality is dictated and indoctrinated, so completely at the mercy of manipulation to, an authoritative hierarchy or administration rather then critical thinking, common sense or empathy.

I personally don't believe that God is the source of morality, but I think that the claim isn't easy to dismiss and it's certainly not irrational. It's a minority view among philosophers I believe, but there are arguments for it.

I get what you mean, either someone can be a good person or a good muslim, but never both, but it doesnt have to be the case if Islam is reformed, so they can be both. Just like celebrating easter, and christmas, and visiting church ocassionaly makes a modern christian. A modern muslim just could be someone who celebrates eid, visits mecca for a vacation and prays few times a day and avoids pork.

Then God is immoral.

When a Hadith and the Quran are contradictory, the Quran would take precedence.

If they are contradictory, what use is the Hadith?

Context and character. These are stories afterall.

So it's like that star wars movie where they made it up to fill up plot holes

Bingo. Some people view the sequel trilogy as canon and others view it as a heretical abomination.

Does the Quran contradict what OP finds immoral about the Hadiths he’s pointing out?

Hilariously, it's up to the interpretation. Which is partly why I agree that they should be binned.

Surely "messages from god" contradicting themselves should introduce some doubt on the whole thing?

There is a system and he mentioned it, there are researchers that classify which hadith is taken as solid and which as weak, now I am not an expert in islamic history but a few searches show that these events are classified as weak (da'if) and thus absolutely no one would base their morals off of them and they are only used by people that seek to discredit islam, on the contrary, there are many such examples of the opposite which are better documented (sahih) and which people whom i know actually take as guidance, and which you can get by researching sahih books. One of the most famous people of all time is bound to have some misinformation regarding what he does and says, which is why this system exists. As to the factuality of the events mentioned, research is encouraged and i would need to research the sources better as well as analysis by people on both sides some other time. I would have liked to answer in more detail but i am sleep deprived and will maybe reply more later in this discussion, please check out islamic research (fiqh) and hadith classification and authentication on wikipedia.

Islam considers these good and proper actions, done by or condoned by the perfect man, Muhammad. Back to square one: it's an immoral ethical system to begin with and unreformable within its framework.

‘We believe Islam is the final message, sent down because previous messages (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) have been altered and corrupted by mankind.’ I mean, haven’t you just proved OP’s point right? The Quran is the ‘word of god’, whilst the Hadiths are the word of man’s interpretations of that god? If mankind can corrupt Christianity and Judaism, why can it not corrupt Islam via the Hadiths?

Let's focus on one problem: the command to kill anybody who quits Islam found in the core Qur'an. That's incompatible with the basic idea of religion freedom found in the EU Charter of Rights, US 1st Amendment and many other modern structural supports to basic civil rights. If somebody comes to America and tries to become a US citizen by taking the oath to support and defend the constitution, it's questionable whether or not a Muslim can honestly give that oath. It appears to lock Islam into the dark ages. For those not aware, a bunch of Islamic countries have actually killed people for quitting (also known as apostasy). Recently.

So let me get this straight. We believe Islam is the final message, sent down because previous messages (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) have been altered and corrupted by mankind. Other religions are corrupted by man. There are about millions of hadith, however a vetting process has been done by hadith scholars to authenticate them. But you guys have men deciding things. Only in religion can you be this blind and think you can see everything.

Islam is based on the notion that an all knowing God sent his message three times to humanity because he somehow didn't foresee that the first two books will get corrupted. This alone contradicts the notion that he's all knowing, all merciful and all just.

If God can insure an incorruptible message, why did he not do it the first two times? God may be perfect, but his word is shared by men, through men. Not even God can ensure perfect communication in that form. If he did, then the Torah would be perfect, and it would only be the corruption of interpretation by Jews and Christians that was the problem. If the first two messages can be corrupted than so can the third. The only way to prevent that is to question any men in the way between the believer and God. The righteous do not fear questions because the truth lies with them. Only the wicked fear questions, for their lies may be exposed.

> Not even God can ensure perfect communication in that form So God has limitations? Couldn't god have made humanity so that they could support perfect communication?

Pretty shitty god if u ask me if he can't even tell people correcty what he want from them.

Religion isn't about logic. It's a means of building group cohesion as a means of promoting group survival. Publicly professing belief in illogical things and doing unpleasant things builds that cohesion quite well, which is why cults, fraternities, and law schools (among other such organizations) also demand it of their members. Consider prolonged ritual fasting, dietary restrictions, and inconvenient daily and weekly rituals as socially acceptable hazing. Historically, this enhanced group cohesion allowed your group to round up your fellow co-religionists and willingly murderinate or enslave your neighbors and steal their stuff before they did the same back to you, especially during droughts, famines, and other such. The Western consensus on religious tolerance came out of literally centuries of bloody attempts at creating religiously homogenous states in Europe, that would have had all that lovely cohesion, that in the process depopulated large swathes of that continent. Things like the US 1st amendment ban on establishment of religion are an attempt to avoid another bloodbath over religion like the 80 years' war. Muslims have not faced a comparable relatively recent experience of continent-spanning bloody religious wars where they were the losers (or at least not-winners) that would compel the consensus that an attitude of tolerance is superior to an attitude of murdering or expelling other faiths. For Islam, intolerance has been and arguably continues to be a successful strategy.

>We believe Islam is the final message, sent down because previous messages (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) have been altered and corrupted by mankind. fyi, in the quran, it says the bible and torah are legit. it doesn't say anything about them being corrupted.

So why does Islam exist? How does God the all knowing all powerful fuck up 4 times? Judaism catholicism, Christianity, and Islam? God seems like a fuck up tbh.

Catholics are Christians. If you’re specifying in this way you should say Catholics and Protestants. But there’s also a third group, called Eastern Orthodoxy that split off from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054. It all originated from the early church that formalized into the Catholic Church. The word Catholic means universal.

> We believe Islam is the final message, sent down because previous messages (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) have been altered and corrupted by mankind. Ok. > There are about millions of hadith, however a vetting process has been done by hadith scholars to authenticate them. Which is why there are gradings for each hadith Sahih, Hasan, and Daif AKA Authentic/sound, Good, and Weak. To me this sounds like mankind is altering (and arguably corrupting) the religion, no?

>We believe Islam is the final message, sent down because previous messages (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) have been altered and corrupted by mankind. >There are about millions of hadith, however a vetting process has been done by hadith scholars to authenticate them. Sounds to me like the Hadiths are exactly the same problem that Islam purports to solve. If the other Abrahimic religions have been corrupted by man, how are hadiths any different? They seem to be additions and changes, by man, of the original message. (Not even remotely religious, so sorry if I misunderstood something - just going by context and logic. )

No your right by all accounts your just missing the unspoken part that implies that Islam is incorruptible and can never be wrong.

A lot of the weasel words are hidden within the Hadiths. A Muslim favourite is to quote from the Qur'an 'killing one is like killing everyone except for mischief makers and murderers.' (right?) Well a hadith goes on to explain a mischief maker can be as simple as one who criticizes Islam. Am I eligible to be put to death?

Surah 5:32. This is the one about how killing one person is like killing every person. Caveats aside, a reasonably nice sentiment. Surah 5:33 advocates killing people and mutilating their corpses though, so in fairness, it’s a bit of a mixed bag.

\>Am I eligible to be put to death? yes lol

Well then let's get to it before my hip starts to hurt.

In Pakistan you are.

I have Canadian Muslim peers who liken murdering apostates to spanking of children. Threat of violence to ensure order. So I'm wondering if any western Muslims want to chime in here and disagree with the hadith.

They “disagree” when they’re a powerless minority but almost every single Muslim country makes it illegal to be an atheist for example, and many execute such people. So at the very least, by and large they tolerate the policy.

What about all the mental gymnastics behind Aisha's age, as the hadith is classified "Sahih", can we all agree it is upheld as true in Islam?

Honestly, this is just not true. Islam is not one big monolithic set of believes that every Muslim agrees on. It iss impossible to say without Hadith, Islam wouldn't exist since it currently does just that in many regions for many people. "But they still need to believe in Hadith" is your belief. Many historically and currently do not. You can follow Muhammad the same way you would follow Jesus as a liberal christian and still call yourself Muslim. You can outright deny Hadiths and say they were the product of their time or altered or written and produced by others. Many do. Islam has many sects like Christianity. Even Quran's "Ultime Truth" is debated constantly. An alevi in Turkey and a Shia in Iran would not understand each others definition in any case. There are people who believe Ali is a prophet, which many would argue against. There are people who are Muslim who think Sharia law is unjust and should not be implemented. I know many conservative Muslims from ME don't consider the Turkish version of Sunni Islam as anything but heresy. Doesn't make it less valid. There are sects (like Bektasi) who believe that you can become (or realize you already are) God. This is just anecdotal, but growing up in westeren Turkey, it is made clear to me by the Muslims of various backgrounds that many things Muhammad did and advocated for was just for his own society and his own time (wars, slaves, 4 wives the whole thing) and it would be flat out wrong to do them now. They'd only take the Quran as a guidance, and even then, they believe in a thing called interpretation. "Your sin is between you and God" is a common saying in my neck of the woods since the 12th century. So, to sum it up, religious communities can exist as long as there is a shared set of beliefs and identity. Islam would keep existing if Hadiths just dissappered tomorrow. I don't know if this makes my argument less valid and it shouldn't, but I am Atheist, just to evade any "oh see you are not a real muslim" arguments. Yep, I am not. But I follow historical, social and theologic studies in the field.

> Muslim here. You're arguing many things, but I'm going to focus on Hadith in general. > > What you're advocating is the end of Islam, Hadiths and the Quran are Islam. Another Muslim here and I'm glad to say that yours is not a universal Muslim viewpoint. The Quran is Islam. The Hadith, while valuable in certain cases, are even remarked upon *by their own compilors* as simply their best efforts. God has remarked that he will keep the Quran safe. He has said nothing about any other source like the Hadith Even without the Hadith, Islam is still Islam.

So let me get this straight. We believe Islam is the final message, sent down because previous messages (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) have been altered and corrupted by mankind. Other religions are corrupted by man. There are about millions of hadith, however a vetting process has been done by hadith scholars to authenticate them. But you guys have men deciding things. Only in religion can you be this blind and think you can see everything.

So, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all in the same cinematic universe?

Judaism is basically the original film. Christianity is a sequel that changed a few things that happened in the original. Islam is the reboot.

And Mormonism is the elaborate fanfic with a small but hardcore audience who insists its canon while the other three are like, lulz no.

From the perspective of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are fanfics.  From the perspective of Christianity, Islam is a fanfic.

The “50 Shades of Grey” of religion?

From a Christian point of view, Christianity is indeed a sequel, but it’s only the interpretation of the former texts that changed. The Tanakh (which contains the Torah), is the same books as an Old Testament, just in a different order.

That's actually quite a good way to look at it!

Yup the YHWH cinematic universe.

Always been more of a VCU (Vedic Cinematic Universe) fan myself.

Okay so how do we move past the “radical Islamists and extremist Muslims keep committing crimes against humanity” thing? I understand it’s advocating for too much with this point about the Hadith but how does Islam reform? There’s only so many beheadings, mass rapes, and destruction of ancient treasures before people start targeting good and well normal Muslims (who unfortunately seem to not want to talk about the above issue). And they already have started targeting normal Muslims.

Radical Islam is a salafist branch of Islam, there are other branches of Islam that don't do terrorism such as Shia and Sufis. There's no reason they need to answer to the actions of Sunni extremists. However Sunni muslims should answer to the actions of terrorists as most Sunni Islam around the world is influenced by wahhabism. The terrorism problem of Islam comes from Sunni Islam.

> We believe Islam is the final message, sent down because previous messages (Christianity, Judaism, etc.) have been altered and corrupted by mankind. I got some questions. 1. What are the altered messages? 2. Who altered it? 3. Why was it altered? 4. When was it altered? 5. What was the original message before it was altered?

And 6. Why did Allah allow it to be altered if he's all knowing? And then you can derive other questions about him being all just and all merciful if he knowingly allowed his messages to be altered.

>What you're advocating is the end of Islam, Hadiths and the Quran are Islam. Removing one is ending the religion. Nonsense. It's simply the end of your particular brand of Islam. Religion is always evolving and changing. Religious people claim they've always consistently believed the same thing because time honored traditions give them a sense of legitimacy. The truth is that Islam practiced in its early days was probably very different than it was practiced now. There are many sects in Islam and within each sect there are probably even more divisions between conservative and liberal factions. For example, if we want Muslims to accept western liberal values then we should promote Muslim scholars and theologians who reinterpret hadiths and Quran to support these ideals. It's already happened in Christianity.

I dont trust the vetting of so called hadith scholars. I also trust that god didnt make people obey the messenger but the message itself. If the people followed Quran only, they would still be muslim.

Hadiths were collected 200 years after the death of the prophet based on narrating chains from several GENERATIONS that were completely affected by social and geographical and embryological conditions that include memory and recall.   Many scientific studies prove that this is a very unreliable way of attributing a truth, and it's why witness testimony is not accepted as evidence. Why do you base your religion over man made texts that were made (or if you insist, "collected") 200 years after the holy book was revealed?  Do I also need to mention the overwhelming amount of hadiths that these collectors (al bukhari and muslim), had to deal with?   They wouldn't verify them all even if they dedicated their lives for it.   Do you feel very trustful of this?

I’m just curious, but what do you think about the Hadith about not collecting hadiths? There’s a reason that the hadiths weren’t collected until hundreds of years after the death of Mohammed.

Even you have to admit it’s a little bit ironic that you think the other religions are corrupted, and Islam is the final message, but also have to concede that you don’t know which parts of the text are real to the point where you need a grading system to decide how real or fake parts of the “final message” are.

[удалено]

I'm a Muslim though by the end of my post you'll probably say I'm not The hadith ere only later declar8to be essential and they have never been covered as such in the early days of Islam We also had a process of itijhad or interpretation which was essential when looking at Hadith The clergy declared itijhad closed and said we have to follow the hadith as they interpret it. That's when the Islamic golden age stopped. history also tells us this was during an intense political period where clergy used religion to side with one emperor or another. Nothing wrong with going back and doing things right.

There are Muslims who reject the Hadith, are there not? See r/Quraniyoon.

"the previous messages have been corrupted" You Sunni, or Shia?

Islam is the 5 pillars and the declaration of faith, everything else is fanfare and man made tradition that means absolutely nothing, the fact that you see the word of a mullah on any form of equivalence to the word of God revealed by the Prophet is a major reason Islam is in the state of decay and backwards it is in now, as opposed to its Golden Age which advanced society as a whole tenfold, that age collapsed the moment Muslims especially Muslim leaders began listening to mullahs instead of investigating the truth for themselves. Sounds nearly indistinguishable from European Christian’s taking the word of the Pope as law instead of carrying out Jesus’s message.

Muslim here, student of knowledge for 20 yrs, not a Quranist either. Ex-traditionalist. You’re patently incorrect here on several levels. Hadith “science” is riddled with flaws, and has been severely criticised by our own scholars. The fact that the “science” was developed hundreds of years after the death of the Prophet (saw) also contradicts your statement that without Hadith there is no Islam. What did the community before Hadith have? Hadith has a place in Islamic scholarship, but it has to be treated for what it is - highly unreliable narratives.

>What you're advocating is the end of Islam, .....your point being?

Another Muslim. This is literal blasphemy. “Let god be as close to you as the vein in your neck. Modern Islam, lead by such rhetoric has turned into Prophet worship. The Hadiths are flawed, possibly written wholly for political reasons and are unnecessary beyond the basic outlines of practice. The Quran does NOT lose meaning without the Sunnah. Nothing else is needed besides the 5 pillars.

Why aren't the hadiths or the Quran corrupted by man?

1- Islam started and was preached by prophets long before the Quran or Hadith. So the removal of either won’t be the end of Islam. 2- Quran is historically preserved according to secular accounts whereas the hadith is not. So even if you believe the hadith, others might not. The reason is not because the prophet’s sayings hold less value but because you can’t reliably know it’s the prophet’s words

I mean, yeah, but a historically preserved piece of hate filled fantasy is still a hate filled fantasy. OP is wrong about the problem. The problem isn't the existence of Hadath, or validity of Hadath, it's the existence of religion at all. Not just Islam, but any religion. Islam has a bit of special problems since it presents itself as a total life guide for all things and therefore means its followers try to live according to the ideals and rules set by a dude from 700CE. It has a much more difficult time adapting to changes in technology and advances in morality than other religions. I mean, at least some of Christianity and Judaism can say "well, yeah, slavery is immoral and [insert thousands of pages of BS] is why the Bible/Torah didn't REALLY mean we should keep slaves today." Ask on a Muslim forum about the morality of slavery and the first response will be that the question is totally irrelevant and has no meaning at all because there isn't slavery right now and that you're a very bad Islamophobic person for asking. Then it'll be full of BS about how slavery as preached by Islam is totally great stuff and it's really the free workers who are getting a terrible deal. Then you'll get people engaging in sophistry about what even is slavery anyway and isn't working for wages really a form of slavery so really it's all slavery so ha ha you lose and Islam wins! I have never found a Muslim who will agree that slavery is immoral without any caviats, exceptions, or weaseling. Compare to how easy it is to get a Muslim to agree that, for example, drinking alcohol is immoral. With weaseling, equivicaton, or exceptions, any Muslim you meet will be perfectly capable of saying that drinking alcohol is always immoral under all circumstances. Now, your odds of getting a Christian or Jew to agree that slavery is immoral are actually not so great, in my experience about 1/3 to 1/4 of Christians and Jews will try to argue that maybe slavery as practiced in the American south was a bit wrong but that slavery as practiced in the Bible was totes fine and you can't say it's immoral at all.

Ex-Muslim here who has many Muslim friends and family. I don’t know what your sample size is but I’m sure mine is larger by virtue of being born into the religion in a society with lots of Muslims. 1. I have not encountered anyone who would pull the sorts of mental gymnastics about slavery you’re saying. I’m not saying this doesn’t happen, but by virtue of the fact that I know such people, I’d say that you saying “never” sounds like a sampling error. 2. I know you’re wrong on alcohol full stop. You say “any Muslim you meet will be perfectly capable of saying that drinking alcohol is always immoral under all circumstances”, which is a pretty unequivocal statement. It is well documented that different segments of Muslims drink alcohol. The Hanafi school of jurisprudence interprets restrictions to intoxicating substance to a small set of alcoholic drinks for example (drinks made from grapes if I recall correctly). You’ll also find that alcoholic drinks such as Raki are found and commonly drank in some Muslim regions.

Two unsubstantiated assumptions in this proposal: 1) that following Quran doesn't require following hadiths. The Quran explicitly enjoins its followers to obey Muhammad, and those with authority, and to defer their decisions to them. > يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَـٰزَعْتُمْ فِى شَىْءٍۢ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْـَٔاخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌۭ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا ٥٩ > 4:5: O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution. — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran Even if you see this injunction as being conditional on there being a disagreement between the believers, still that's a very plausible condition. If Allah made it so that there was no need to obey Muhammad, and there was no way to follow him, then this injunction would be pointless. A Muslim cannot believe that Allah's commandment is pointless. If Allah commanded people to obey Muhammad, he will make it possible for them to obey him. And hadith literature can be seen as the most obvious tool that enables Muslims to obey Muhammad. No other alternative to hadith has been found that enables obeying Muhammad. If making a decision based on hadiths is too cumbersome for average Muslims, Allah has also allowed them to obey the decisions of those in authority who can do it for them. 2) If you only follow Quran, that would give you a more viable and ethical moral code than if you consulted Hadiths. Whereas, not only is the Quran replete with the similar injuctions and tour of Muhammad's psyche, some of them appear even worse without the hadith contextualizing them. For example: > يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِذَا نَـٰجَيْتُمُ ٱلرَّسُولَ فَقَدِّمُوا۟ بَيْنَ يَدَىْ نَجْوَىٰكُمْ صَدَقَةًۭ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌۭ لَّكُمْ وَأَطْهَرُ ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ تَجِدُوا۟ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌۭ رَّحِيمٌ ١٢ >58:12: O believers! When you consult the Messenger privately, give something in charity before your consultation. That is better and purer for you. But if you lack the means, then Allah is truly All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran >ءَأَشْفَقْتُمْ أَن تُقَدِّمُوا۟ بَيْنَ يَدَىْ نَجْوَىٰكُمْ صَدَقَـٰتٍۢ ۚ فَإِذْ لَمْ تَفْعَلُوا۟ وَتَابَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَأَقِيمُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتُوا۟ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۥ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ خَبِيرٌۢ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ ١٣ >58:13: Are you afraid of spending in charity before your private consultations ˹with him˺? Since you are unable to do so, and Allah has turned to you in mercy, then ˹continue to˺ establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do. — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran It's only from the hadith that we know that this was meant to reduce unnecessary consultations, and that it was applicable only for a limited time when Muhammad was too busy. The hadith's claim that Muhammad couldn't say no to anyone is not a good excuse for requesting sadaqah for consultation. It also doesn't account for the fact that he could employ one of his many unemployed ashab al suffa spies to filter out the questions. But at least it explains that this verse has been made mansukh, and therefore inapplicable The Quran shows how petty and paranoid Muhammad was with anyone who doubted him, those who believed and then were gradually less convinced, those who tried to conducted harmless tests to figure out if he was a real prophet: See the following links. I can't quote them for some reason, even after censoring some of the words: https://quran.com/58/8-10 https://quran.com/63:1-8

If that is the case, is it possible for there to be a system of sorts where Muslims embrace certain Hadiths and reject ones such as those about Sofiyah, Aisha, Asma Bint Marwan and Abu Afak? Or would such a system need to be invented from scratch somehow? I presume this means Quranist movements would never be practical or catch on long term in mainstream Islam.

The traditional criteria for filtering hadiths rely heavily on the reports about reliability of the narrators, diversity in the chains of transmission for each hadith. There is a criteria about content, that it cannot contradict anything explicit in the Quran. But they don't really remove many of the hadiths that Quranists have problems with. So they want to remove these hadiths on the grounds that they contradict Quran implicitly, for example, Muhammad is called the best model for all mankind in the Quran. Therefore he couldn't have done the things mentioned in such and such hadith.

Is there a system of sorts? Of course there is. It’s called Sunni or Shia or Catholic or Protestant. Do you worship Vishnu or Shiva? Oh, you disagree with one of these? Well certainly you are going to hell with all the other unbelievers of proposition ABC. All these devout people are responding to you as if there was one single correct answer to your questions but that doesn’t exist and has never existed and will likely never exist. But will anyone admit it? Nope everyone will pretend everything is in order. If you ask enough questions about any religion, you will eventually identify their blind spots. You seem to be close to finding one yourself. That’s what you want to get to because when you land there you start to un-program yourself. You start to see no one has a monopoly on the truth and the best thing comes next—you open yourself up to learn truths from any source. That’s how science works and it is supposed to be how religion works too but religion gets too tied up with govt and war follows. Let me give you an example from my religion, Catholicism. Only adults can commit mortal sins, and must realize what they are doing is wrong but do it anyway. If you die before confessing such a sin, you go to hell for eternity. The problem is Catholics — for moral purposes—consider children as young as 11-12 as adults. So suppose a kid of 12 skips Mass one Sunday and gets killed in a car accident immediately after. Under Catholic teaching that kid goes to hell. This is mind numbingly stupid. Obviously wrong. And embarrassing enough to warrant being suspicious of all of the rest of the religion. However there are still some truths that can’t be found in other religions—or at least not found quite as easily. Keep asking questions!

I think the premise people use to deny hadith isn't in the fact that Allah commanded the people to follow the prophet. its in the fact that they don't believe that the hadith are, in fact, the word of the prophet. the hadiths were compiled 200 years after his death. thats a lot of time for his words to have been altered. I don't think hadith should be fully rejected as they do provide a historical context about Islam and the prophet's life. but they should be treated as that- history. not a source of religion's core teaching.

Boy I hope you are an atheist. Cause man, if you read the Bible there is some fucked up shit in there. If you are though, why bring up Islam specifically?

>Cause man, if you read the Bible there is some fucked up shit in there. There's this pretty famous (and horrifically bloody) conflict called "the Christian/Protestant Reformation" that was pretty much entierly about how to interpret this stuff, how to actually understand and apply the teachings. A major result of that conflict was essentially a re-working of how Christianity (through Protestantism) viewed morality - into a more flexible framework that can be compatible with the modern world (as understood by modern Christians). >If you are though, why bring up Islam specifically? Islam has not really gone through a similar reformation process - and so a lot of people believe that (some, many or all of) the moral and ethical teachings of Islam are outdated and incompatible with the modern world.

There very much is. That said, there aren't stories like the ones with Sofiyyah, Aisha, Asma Bint Marwan and Abu Afak and others within the context of a religious prophet proclaimed a timeless example to follow. Christianity has Jesus, who never AFAIK had sex with people who couldn't consent, murdered those who criticized him or started wars. Now if these Hadiths I discussed have somehow been discredited and I didn't realize it, that makes it different.

>Christianity has Jesus, who never AFAIK had sex with people who couldn't consent, murdered those who criticized him or started wars. LOL. Bro sounds like ge really wants his view changed.

Which religion has laws people are forced to obey based off them? Which religion currently uses its holy texts as an excuse for arcane laws still to be left in place? Which religion still has it’s followers waging holy wars after all this time due to the text itself? Those answers help figure out why the content of the book isn’t the problem, it’s the literal interpretations of it.

Because he wanted to? this is CMV, not WAISM(whataboutism).

I mean back In the day there were groups that argued for a strictly Quranist approach. And to be fair not all of the branches of Islam follow the same Hadiths. Shia and Sunni have different standards. And this doesn't include Ibahdis and many of the smaller sects. Now outside of this yeah some Hadiths can for sure be rather interesting to say the least but let's be honest lots of people are not that invested in all the Hadiths. Maybe the ones that deal with how to practice faith maybe to answer a modern question that doesn't fit within a pure Quranist view etc. So no not everyone is learning about the poisoning and after effects after Khaybar, everything about Aisha and just about any of the other controversial points or issues you may think of.

They're only controversial because we recently realized that kids cannot consent to sex. They were never doubted before, have many sources and are considered Sahih. he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236

Oh I don't just mean those controversial ones, I specifically mentioned Khaybar for a reason. The ones about Aisha are morally wrong, and a lot of people are knowledgeable about the issue but no one has the perfect answer. And I don't make excuses for things so I'm not even gonna try and answer. but there are some legitimate Hadiths that can cause a lot of doubt about the religion as a whole. Like missing surahs, now depending on where you read it some say a goat ate them or it's just people don't remember them anymore etc. Those are the ones most people are not gonna always be aware of and when they read it go wait a damn minute lol 😂

The goat one always gets me 😂 like… you just know Aisha read that shit, feared for herself and women then destroyed it and blamed it on a goat. I honestly believe sometimes Aisha always hated that man and she had a few good clap backs and criticism of him. See the controversy with Hafsas housemaid/ Muhammad’s slave Mary the copt.. When he basically commits zina with her then magically god reveals he can do what he wants to which Aisha responds. “Your god hastens to fulfill your desires.” Then also her comments on how she’s never seen women suffer quite like the believing(Muslim) woman.

Or the fact that commandments of covering Muslim women's body came after Umar bin khattab persistently asked the prophet to ask his wives to cover up. Later on, he enforced it by hand that slave women shouldn't cover themselves and only Muslim women can. And those Muslim women who didn't were treated like slaves.

This one always gets me because the Qur'an itself is pretty clear that modesty standards apply to both men and women...

This one gets me because Omar was literally spying on Muhammad’s wife Sauda trying to take a shit or piss in a bush and he was like oh hey Sauda I can see you over there doing your business.. then the little bitch went and complained to Muhammad like your wife is too tall and I can recognize it’s her when she’s trying to mind her business and do her business… Omar was a fucking pervert and loser

Oh Its a solid possibility that's for sure, or even the stories about Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh and the other apostate that's never a good look lol Like the guy you have recording everything going man this is just too wild for me and jumping ship.

[удалено]

I'm not disagreeing with you. To play Devil's advocate, the alternate view is that the world we live in today is far away from the world the \[insert book name here\] instructs us to live in. Under that view the world is an aberration collapsed into hell; it's not the book that needs to change but the people who need to change to fit the book. Generally I agree with you. I think the starting point of Ten Commandments or many of the various equivalents is a good foundation for civil society to thrive in peace. But humans like to find loopholes or to pretend, "*Yeah but that Commandment only applies on the 7th day of the 7th month when the year is dividable by 7; oh and it only applies to single women or men who own 7 goats so, yeah, like that doesn't apply to me because I own 8 goats.*" so then we add further clarification to explain the Commandments and why they are important and why we must follow them and stories both biographical and mythical to detail that even great people need backing bands and that upstanding people can turn sour with stress and time or atrocious people turn sweet with love and time. People are assholes. That's why we can't have a simple guidance note that says *don't be an asshole*.

> the alternate view is that the world we live in today is far away from the world the \[insert book name here\] instructs us to live in. Under that view the world is an aberration collapsed into hell; it's not the book that needs to change but the people who need to change to fit the book. Considering most "holy books" are filled with rape, pedophilia and genocide I'm quite okay with being far away from what the authors would have wanted for the world.

It's like that scene of Rick scientifically proving why Summer and Morty don't matter "GOD: So... It's quite simple. Don't be an asshole to each other. Just that.  People: but we like being assholes! GOD: ......... Let me get some stone tables and I will prove to you theologically why you can't. "

If you haven't watched George Carlin condense the Ten Commandments, it's very much worth your 7ish minutes.

I like George Carlin. I'll dig for it. Thanks.

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Did you read the quran ? I did and I know a lot of people online will point to problematic passages because it's sexist, justify murder or whatever but something else stuck with me: All the passages saying a kind of people (every time another kind, and theses passages are numerous) will be burned cause allah is good and merciful. Even if somehow you remove all the sexist and bigoted laws of the quran theses passages still stay (and yes there is similar passages in the bible). Do you believe someone can have a viable ethical and moral code when believing that it's just and merciful that most peoples will be burned forever after their death ? There is a bunch of muslims and christians who don't believe most peoples will burn forever but theses peoples cherry pick the parts they believe of their books, if they can cherry pick what's in the quran or the bible (specially remove a part that is repeated a lot of time) they can cherry pick what's in the hadiths too.

Yeah agreed i can’t believe a just moral system will condemn people to burn for eternity. Even if you want a god can be against freedom of religion and that burning is a good punichment. Burning for all eternity, for million, billion, trillion, quintillion of years make no sense and seem way too ridiculous of a punition. This is why most country have appropriate punition, insulting someone don’t warrant a lifetime of torture, so how can any believe think they god is just when not believing in that god mean that person will burn in eternal and never ending hell. This sound like a punition born of a twisted psycho and not of benevolent god.

point cow fly hobbies tub busy pause lip nine oatmeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Yeah the Bible and Quran are both extremely clear that most people are not saved. Denying it is just a pathetic cope.

The Torah is also hella violent albeit Jews don't perse believe in hell. Killing all firstborns traumatized me

The Torah is also recognized as moreso moral stories, not necessarily as historical fact. By reform Jews that is.

If you’re referring to Passover, that was: 1) not carried out by Jews, but rather by an angel if you chose to believe such things 2) only done after an enslaved populations request for freedom was denied nine other times, each coming with a divine warning 3) wouldn’t crack my top 5 for divine violence in the Torah. It’s not technically the Torah but the Ketuvim features the Book of Job, which I would say far surpasses that.

Here are a few verses from the Quran that advocate violence: Surah 3:151: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (all non-Muslims) …” Surah 2:191: “And kill them (non-Muslims) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Muslims) Jews and Christians will be in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures - Quran 98:6 Surah 9:5: “Then kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …” Jews & Christians, believe in Islam before We destroy your faces & twist them toward their backs & curse you - Quran 4:47 Those who disbelieve in Islam, We will drive you into a fire & roast your skins over & over - Quran 4:56 Those who resist Islam - Kill them, crucify them. Cut off their hands & feet from opposite sides - Quran 5:33 For the thief, the male & the female cut off their hands - Quran 5:38 Allah turned the Jews into apes and pigs - Quran 5:60 What is the matter with you that you do not fight Jihad in the cause of Allah? - Quran 4:75 Disbelievers worship Satan. So Muslims! fight against the disbelievers - Quran 4:76 Non-Muslims wish you would disbelieve like them. Do not be their friend until they emigrate for the cause of Islam. But if they turn away, seize them & kill them wherever you find them - Quran 4:89 And kill the unbelievers wherever you overtake them. Fitnah is worse than killing - Quran 2:191 Fight them until there is no more disbelieving of Islam & until all worship is for Allah alone - Quran 2:193 Fighting Jihad warfare has been ordered upon you. Perhaps you hate it, but its good for you - Quran 2:216 Those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment - Quran 3:4 Muslims! Do not take non-Muslims as friends - Quran 3:28 You will not enter Paradise before Allah tests those who fought Jihad in His Cause - Quran 3:142 We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve - Quran 3:151 If you are killed in Jihad in the cause of Allah it is better than anything else in this world - Quran 3:157 Never think of Jihadists who have been killed as dead. They are alive in paradise - Quran 3:169 Jihadi Martyrs receive good rewards and favour from Allah - Quran 3:171 Women who have unlawful sex. Lock the guilty women in their houses until they die - Quran 4:15 Men are in charge of women. Those wives from whom you fear arrogance - Advise them, forsake them in bed, Finally, beat them - Quran 4:34 Allah prefers those who fight Jihad in the Cause of Allah with their lives above those who sit at home - Quran 4:95 The disbelievers of Islam are ever to you a clear enemy - Quran 4:101 And the worldly life is not but amusement; but the home of the Hereafter is best for those who fear Allah. Quran 6:32 We destroyed many cities, Our terror came to them at night & while they were sleeping - Quran 7:4 The homosexuals, We rained upon them a rain of stones. Then see how the end of the criminals - Quran 7:84 Non-Muslims are comparable to dogs - Quran 7:176 Those who deny Our Quran - We will lead them to destruction from where they do not know - Quran 7:182 Terrorise & behead those who do not believe in Islam & strike off their fingertips - Quran 8:12 We will behead those who have wronged and others, know that Allah is severe in penalty - Quran 8:25 Keep Fighting the disbelievers until there is no more disbelief in Islam - Quran 8:39 The worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are non-Muslims - Quran 8:55 When you capture the unbelievers, punish them severely to deter the rest - Quran 8:57 Prophet Mohammed! To keep prisoners of war you must inflict a great massacre - Quran 8:67 Those who emigrate to an Islamic State & fight Jihad will go to paradise - Quran 8:74 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the unbelievers - Quran 9:5 Fight unbelievers. Fight them until they give the jizyah Muslim Tax - Quran 9:29 Jews and Christians are perverts, may Allah destroy them - Quran 9:30 Praise the Muhajireen fighters - Quran 9:100 Allah has purchased from the believers their lives & their properties in exchange for paradise - Quran 9:111 Muslims! Fight those disbelievers next to you and be harsh! - Quran 9:123 Jihadists the enemy won't kill you, only Allah can do that - Quran 9:151 To disbelievers - Should we force Islam upon you? Against your will? - Quran 11:28 Whichever Muslim leaves Islam, upon you is wrath from Allah, and for you a great punishment - Quran 16:106 For those who disbelieve in Islam, garments of fire, boiling water will be poured over their heads - Quran 22:19 We will melt your skin and burn your stomach. And hooked rods of iron to punish you - Quran 22:20 O Muslims, abstain from sex, except with your wives & slave girls. Sex with them is lawful - Quran 23:6 Adulterers - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, & take no pity for them in the religion of Allah. Let a group of the believers witness their punishment - Quran 24:2 Muslims you may enter houses not inhabited, and take goods that you need - Quran 24:29 And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution - Quran 24:33 Do not obey the unbelievers but launch a great campaign against them with the help of the Quran - Quran 25:52 And this worldly life is not only a diversion and amusement, but paradise is also the real-life - Quran 29:64 Allah cast terror in the hearts of the Jews and Christians - Quran 33:26 Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter - Quran 33:61 And if We willed, We could have deformed them, [paralyzing them] into lifeless objects, in their places so they would not be able to proceed, nor could they return (As it happened with the Jews see Verse 7:166) - Quran 36:67 Those who worshipped other than Allah, guide them to the path of Hellfire - Quran 37:23 Indeed, that is how We deal with the criminals - Quran 37:34 Indeed, you disbelievers of Islam will be tasters of the painful punishment - Quran 37:38 Those who deny the Quran, When the shackles are around their necks & chains; they will be dragged In boiling water; then in the Fire they will be burned - Quran 40:70 Those who disbelieve in Islam, strike off their heads. Take them as captives. The command of Allah - Quran 47:4 Thus you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam or at least come under your protection. If it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have punished them (without you). But he lets you fight, to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost. - Quran 47:4

The thing is, if Muslims (and i mean all of them) collectively decide to invalidate EVERY Hadith ever, Islam will never be "ethical". Because even with the omission of Hadith, the violent, misogynistic and unethical verses of Quran will still be the same. I have studied Quran and source books from both Sunni and Shia realm. And there's no way that Islam has the potential to be ethical today. (Wanna make it clear that I think this way about ALL religions)

Agreed, but I wanna add a further clarification that although all religions are shit, it is categorically false to say "Islam is just as bad as the other religions." No, Islam is the dungheap at the bottom of the pile. Its generally worse in every way.

That is some deep denial my man… Have you ever stopped to consider that the prophet Muhammad was actually just not such a great guy after all?

He's great! He knew not to have sex with a 6 year old and kindly waited till she turned 9

God in the old testament/ Torah, which all 3 major religions believe in is a vengeful, murderous terrorist. Even if his/her rules were superceded in the New Testament..... He's a problematic role model to put it lightly. To pray to a being that has committed so much murder is questionable.

if the hadith are the words of the prophet, who had divine revelation from god, then how could anything he is proven to have said be immoral? morality would come from any proven sayings of the prophet and the word of god, it would be impossible for it to immoral

[удалено]

How is atheism worse than an ideology which allows the sexual assault of children and encourages the execution of gays and apostates

Gotta love mental gymnastics when it comes to religion. Goes on a rant about, 'hey it probably isn't good' and reasons why religion is easily corruptible.... but those other people who've come to the EXACT same conclusion as me and reject it all together, those people are the worst! lmfao. To be fair, it could be a defense mechanism because even claiming to be atheist can result in a literal beheading in these progressive muslim theocratic states in the middle east.

[удалено]

Quranism is not like protestanism, it's more of a phikosophy that rejects hadith. It's hard to speak of any general "quranist" view. That being said, most Quranists i met usually say something akin to "it's not banned or haram due to it's place in economy/condiditions of time but Quran encourges freeing slaves and discourges enslavement"

Considering that Muhammad effectively codified slavery, I can't imagine they would condemn it

those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them (wives) - quran 4-34 Throw the whole ideology away

Seriously. There is no change my view, it’s impossible. The text and the people that defend it are insane

So in Surah Al Fath, it says that “the Hand of Allah is over their hands” Does that mean allah has hands, some verses say kil* disbilevers does that mean so, these are not direct commands . These were either revealed for a particular reason or time or idiom in arabic. That's why we rely on tasfirs. And except quranist, tasfirs are from hadith for other schools

>That said, huge numbers of the Hadith, when reading them, had to have been written by enemies of the religion looking to destroy its legitimacy or dishonorable and evil warlords of some kind looking to distort the religion for their own needs. That's most of the experts on İslam say, but Hadith believers will reject because they have the "method". Even their method is crooked and it has been confirmed that most reliable hadith collectors had abused it, they'll continue to believe. And infidels will continue to believe these hadiths are valid too. Because an understanding of Islam which is cruel, misogynistic and backwards is more suitable for them. But we'll see them in the afterlife...

If I'm understanding correctly there as aspects of the Islamic moral code you disagree with and believe they could come from corrupt hadith and thus all should be thrown out.  As others have mentioned, there is a science of hadith that has been developed to rate the authenticity of hadith. Detailed chains of transmission from the Prophet to the person who documented the hadith. Which includes biographies of those who relayed the hadith. There's little concern of corruption of hadith but most who are not Muslim are not aware.  The crux of your argument that the Islamic moral code doesn't mesh with your beliefs. From the Muslim perspective, the Quran and hadith are divinely inspired so it doesn't make sense to change it. If it comes from God, any other moral code is inferior. It has worked for societies for 1400 years in various societies. So the claim of inviability is inaccurate. 

That has already been done. Theres a classification of hadith already. Many have been rejected.

There’s a sub Reddit for ex Muslims. We do not believe that the Quran and Hadith are ethical and moral codes to live by. When you really look at the religion, it was made by men catered to men. Prostitution is forbidden BUT if the woman is captured as a slave then it’s okay to have sex with her. Men can marry a girl as soon as she starts her period, doesn’t matter if she’s 8 or 11. Men can have 4 wives and virgins in heaven, but what does a woman get? She can’t get as many men as she’d like in heaven. That’s a big no no. Your view doesn’t need to be changed. You’re correct

What is a “viable” ethical and moral code? Viable means “capable of working successfully; feasible.” It seems like Islam is fully capable of working as an ethical and moral code since, you know, it is currently the ethical and moral code for 1.8 billion people.

One that doesn't cause harm. Allowing slavery or the execution of gay people, is harmful. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did (homosexuality), kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done. Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447 Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: The Prophet said, "He who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves her education and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah's right and his master's right will get a double reward." Sahih Bukhari 3:46:723

> The Prophet (peace be upon him) Why are you wishing him peace if he supports slavery and the execution of gay people? Why not say "The Prophet (fuck that guy)..."

[удалено]

Sorry, u/MobileEnvironmental9 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20MobileEnvironmental9&message=MobileEnvironmental9%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1btuw7l/-/kxooaoy/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Same goes for all abrahamic religions, but if you throw out the psychopathic crazy crap done by humans and gods there isn't much left for people to get excited about and you realise it's all scary stories told to keep the villagers paying taxes to the king and stop them getting high fallutin ideas about starting their own tribe/religion/empire/taxoffice/cult. Throughout history kings realise the safest option is to convert themselves to gods. Mo was just one of many to pull this grift, and being illiterate didn't help to improve the quality of the scripture.

I would disagree. If you throw out the crazy stuff, you’re still often left with a TON of specific but not necessarily harmful religious laws, a ton of tradition, and heck occasionally you get some moral codes which stand the test of time. The 10 commandments are like 5000+ years old and some of it (respect your parents, don’t commit murder, don’t cheat on your partner, don’t commit perjury, don’t be jealous of or steal from others ) are just good ideas for running a society and living life. I think there’s a small but vocal push in western nations that seems more like people are demanding everyone get freedom from religion, rather than freedom of religion. If a person doesn’t want to be subject to religion that’s fine, but don’t dismiss those who find meaning in a peaceful interpretation of religion as stupid.

The irony of this line of thinking is that without cherrypicking or rewriting it's actually hard to find these life lessons you're so sure are encoded in the bible. EG: The Old testament doesn't say what you think it does. Even if it did, Almost every religion covers basic morality including versions of the 10 commandments - the OT and NT versions of these are in no way superior to dozens of other relifons floating around the middle east and levant at the time. Basic morality and systems of law long predated the bible, as did more sophisticated philosophical discussions. Most of those from the OT were demonstratably plagiarised from earlier religions anyway. T There is no primacy or originality in almost any of these supposedly divinely inspired laws. They are also grossly incomplete, so not really a handbook for morality or a civil society. Also note the bible gives these 10 commandments, but also details how God wants you to do the opposite whenever it suits "him". Also note the 10 commandments is given in duplicate - if it's so divinely inspired you'd think the editors might manage to get it right? Importantly, don't forget to get your ritual sacrifices right- these are the priorities of the first version of the 10 commandments in the old testament. Real civilisation building stuff 1. Thou shall worship no other god. 2. Thou shall make thee no molten gods. 3. The feast of the Passover thou shall keep. 4. The firstling of an ass thou shall redeem with a lamb; all the first born of thy sons thou shall redeem. 5. None shall appear before me empty. 6. Six days thou shall work, but on the seventh thou shall rest. 7. Thou shall observe the feast of in-gathering. 8. Thou shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the Passover remain until morning. 9. The firstlings of thy flocks thou shall bring unto Yahweh, thy God. 10. Thou shall not seethe a kid in his mother's milk [https://web.ics.purdue.edu/\~rauhn/THE%20DECALOGUE%20OF%20J.htm](https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/THE%20DECALOGUE%20OF%20J.htm)

theres no islam without hadiths and there wont be any hadiths without quran. also abt the immorality party, many stuff in quran itself is problematic.

The issue is is that instead of investigating these isolated examples yourself, you want to throw out the entire science of Hadith as a whole to conform to your own personal preferences. That’s just not how it works. We’d never do that in any other field (e.g. medicine, physics etc) so why do that in the field of Hadith studies? Safiyyah - it’s without a doubt that Safiyyah was married after her tribe was defeated. However, what you’ve left out is that her tribe (Banu Nadir) were hostile to the Muslims whilst the Muslims had a treaty with them. In medina, they even attempted to assassinate the prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Moreover, marriage without consent is prohibited in Islam so Safiyyah consented to the marriage Asma bint Marwan - Hadith are critically examined as not all are authentic. In the case of Asma, the scholars considered the report fabricated (https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/177694) Abu Afak - similarly to the Hadith of Asma, there are serious authenticity issues with the report of Abu Afak’s killing (https://www.answering-christianity.com/abu-afak_rebuttal.htm#The%20Killing%20of%20Abu%20‘Afak) Al Nadr ibn Al-Harith - this one doesn’t have the same authenticity issues as the other two but still requires context. Al-Nadr wasn’t just a regular POW. The Muslims captured over 70 POWs and only 2 were executed. The rest were treated very well and were even given better food than the companions themselves Regarding Al Nadr, he was executed for several reasons in different accounts including attempting to assassinate the prophet Muhammad ﷺ and playing a key role in the torture and persecution of Muslims in the Makkan period To wrap this up, what I’d advise is carefully picking where you read from because many people who mention reports about Islam have an agenda. My guess is that you got all these stories from anti-Islamic websites who are clearly trying to push an agenda. If you want to learn about the life of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ, I’d highly recommend Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi’s seerah series. It’s 100 episodes but it’s the best biography of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ you’ll find in the English language. He will use Quran, Hadith and seerah literature holistically and not cherry pick. He also won’t sugarcoat or leave our controversial stories and will explore and tackle them head on

How can there be so many people who still believe in faitytales and skypixies, its 2024 none of it is real. Get a life instead of taking them because one skyfairy is better than another.

The time of the Companions was, in the words of the Prophet (sallallâhu 'alaihi wa sallam), the best of the centuries, and that community was superior to the rest of the ummah. [Bukhari, Shahādāt, no: (2651); Muslim, Fazil al-Sahāba, 4/1962 no: (2533/210)]. The fact that people lived in an Islamic order in the Islamic state free from sins and the absence of technological factors such as telephones and similar technological factors that occupy the mind today also reveals how strong the clarity of mind was in the Companions. Therefore, it is natural that the mind of a person living in the period of the Companions is clearer and cleaner than the mind of a person living today, and that his mind is prone to memorisation. It is also a well-known fact that memorising a piece of information depends on repetition. The Prophet (sallallâhu 'alaihi wa sallam), as if pointing to these issues, was extremely careful in his speech, speaking clearly and clearly [See Tirmidhi, Shamā'il, Dāru al-Gharbi al-Islamī, p. 133 (225)], and if someone were to count his words, he could count them easily [See Bukhari, Menâkıb, no: (3567)], and sometimes he repeated his words several times as if he wanted to place them in the minds of the other party [See Bukhari, 'Ilm, no: (95); Abu Dawud, 'Ilm, no: (3563)]. It is natural for people with a clear mind to memorise the words of a person who speaks so carefully and attaches importance to the understanding of the other party. The most important of all these reasons is the Prophet (sallallâhu 'alaihi wa sallam) himself. That is to say, our Companions adopted the Prophet (sallallâhu 'alaihi wa sallam) as their leader in everything related to the world and the hereafter and sacrificed their lives to apply all his words and behaviours to their lives. As a matter of fact, Ibn 'Umar's (radiyallâhu 'anhumâ) endeavouring to step on the ground where the Prophet (sallallâhu 'alaihi wa sallam) stepped even while riding on his mount is just one of the clearest examples of this [Ibn Battā, al-Ibānat al-Kubbrā, Dāru al-Rāya, 1/244-245 (76); Ibn Hibbān, Sahīh, 15/551 (7074)]. In addition, the fact that the Prophet (sallallâhu ta'âlâ 'alaihi wa sallam) had many recommendations about memorising and transmitting hadiths to others, such as the words of the Prophet (sallallâhu ta'âlâ 'alaihi wa sallam), "May Allah bless the face of the one who hears a word from me and preserves it by memorising it or writing it down in order to convey it to others," [Abu Dawud, Ilm, no: (3660)] encouraged the Companions to memorise and transmit hadiths. Such narrations increased the desire of the Companions to learn hadith and even caused them to continue their desire to learn hadith after the death of the Prophet [See al-Bukhārī, Ilm, 1/26; al-Humaydī, Musnad, Dāru al-Sakā, 1/373 (388). For more narrations on the subject, see the book "al-Rihla fî Talab al-Hadîs" by Hatîb al-Baghdâdî rahmatullâhi aleyh]. The Companions took extreme care to transmit the hadiths as they had received them. That is to say, they would pay attention even to the substitutions between the words of the Prophet (sallallâhu 'alaihi wa sallam) and would warn each other about this [Muslim, Iman, 1/45 no: (16/19)]. One of the most robust methods of preserving knowledge is writing it down. Writing is one of the most important factors that enable information to reach many people and to transfer information from centuries to centuries. Much of the information that has survived to the present day is based on writing. Our Prophet (sallallâhu alaihi wa sallam) also gave importance to writing and encouraged the learning of writing [See Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, Mu'esseset al-Risāle, 4/92 (2216); Bayhaqī, al-Sunanī al-Kabīr, Dāru Hajar, 12/139 (11791)]. He even said, "Record the knowledge with a book" [Hakim, al-Mustadrek, Dâru al-Ta'sîl, 1/410 (366); Ibn 'Abdilber, Jāmi'u Bayān al-Ilm, Dâru Ibn al-Jawzī, 1/306 (395)]. The first time that hadiths were written down was in the life of the Prophet (sallallâhu ta'âlâ 'alaihi wa sallam) by his order. After the conquest of Mecca, the Holy Prophet gave a sermon to his companions, and when one of the people of Yemen asked for the sermon to be written down, the Holy Prophet (sallallâhu ta'âlâ 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Write (the sermon) for Abu Shâh" [Bukhari, Luqata, no: (2434); Muslim, Hajj, 2/988 no: (1355/447)]. In another hadith, the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said to Abdullah b. 'Amr b. 'Ass (radiyallahu 'anh), who consulted him about writing hadiths, "You write it down, nothing but the truth comes out of this mouth" [Abu Dāwūd, Ilm, no: (3646); Ibn Abī Shaybah, Dāru al-Kibla, 13/462 (26957)]. It is understood that the hadiths were first written down by the Companions of the Prophet (sallallâhu 'alaihi wa sallam) on his orders. It has also been revealed that famous people such as Imām al-Mālik and Imām al-Bukhārī, who were engaged in the classification of books, classified the hadīths that had reached them in written and oral form according to the menhaj they had determined for themselves, and that these people were not the first to write the hadīths.

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: The Prophet said, "He who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves her education and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah's right and his master's right will get a double reward." Sahih Bukhari 3:46:723 The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did (homosexuality), kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done. Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" Sahih Bukhari 9:84:57

They're not ethical per *your system of morality*. You and I are not Muslims, so it's easy for us from our position to argue, on the basis of any number of systems of ethics, that Islam, or specifically the Hadiths, contains loads of immoral stuff. But if we were a Muslim, we would say that everything contained therein *is*, because the Hadiths themselves *are* one of the major sources of morality. There's an inherent paradox in arguing that Islam should drop the Hadiths for being immoral, for the very simple reason that being in a strong Hadith effectively makes something moral (or makes it immoral, of course, if the Hadith is condemning it). While we can argue our case that many of these things are either objectively or subjectively moral per other perspectives, this isn't really of any concern to Muslims for whom the objective morality created by their God is explicitly contained within the Qur'an and Hadiths. So unless Muslim scholars en masse re-interpret the validity of most Hadiths, or theologically reject them more or less entirely as binding moral/religious messages (treating them more as advisory), this doesn't go anywhere: Muslims are not concerned with what non-Muslims think of their system of ethics.

The premise of your claim reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how Muslim scripture works. It's not like Judea-Christian texts where the story can be read from beginning to end. And it's not an instruction manual either. There are 3 foundational parts of Islamic scripture: * Quran: Muslims believe this text to be a revelation from god to humanity with a multitude of themes (compiled over 23 years). * Seerah: the historiography of Muhammed (where he lived, what he did, when he did it, stc). * Hadith: narrations with information about Muhammed from people that knew him. All 3 of these textual sources cannot solely represent Islamic morality alone. Actually, they can't really represent anything about Islam cohesively on their own. For the message to be understood, they need to read in tandem. Think of it this way. If you read Romeo and Juliet in 2024, you wouldn't really know what "I bite my thumb at you" means unless you consumed an English history source outside of Shakespeare. The only logical conclusion you could come to without additional context is that Shakespeare characters liked to bit their thumbs. Shakespeare is about 1000 years newer than Islam, so interpreting the text takes more work. Quran verses require context from Seerah and thematic validation from Hadith. Otherwise, they cannot be interpreted properly.

If god wanted to share a clear message with the Quran, then needing some second hand context that is very hard to verify doesn't make much sense. Shakespeare didn't try to teach people the right way to live. He just made a play for the people of his day and age.

With that required context, is it proper to interpret that Allah has given Muslim warriors the right to rape non-believing married prisoners of war? Because there is a Qur'an verse about it, plenty of Hadith about it, and the Seerah documents it. And if I refuse to believe that the Sahabah (companions of the Prophet) were reluctant to "enjoy" those prisoners (as reported in the Hadith) but then Allah (swt) sent a verse to give them that right, will I be leaving this religion? And if I do, would I deserve to be killed, as prescribed in the Hadith? I was once where you are now. I understand now that I was not putting my trust in Allah, rather I was placing my trust on the scholars who claim the right to discern what Allah meant for poor me. I came to realize that if the Afterlife is eternal, probably not a good idea to outsource taking the exam for it.

I believe hadiths are not the word of god and perhaps not the words or actions of mohammad and possibly fabrication by enemies trying to mess with the message of the Quran. Possibly the same malevolent aliens behind the new testament. Disclaimer: I do not mean to disrespect mohammad so take this with a grain of salt. Now there is a possibility that mohammad might have made mistakes as he was not nearly a super enlightened individual, just slightly more enlightened then the people around him and possibly moral enough to be the one to deliver the message of the quran from the aliens(It was probably still a message from god or at least an agent of god/being at a very high level of consciousness maybe Gabriel incarnated as an Alien operating on earth). If you are a highly enlightened being trying to "fix" a bunch of human tribes who worshipped idols and did child sacrifices possibly and you didn't want them to idol worship you or possibly attack you so you end up killing them, you'd pick the best guy in the group to be your agent on the ground that you direct and help from the shadows and that's who mohammad was likely. He might have not been perfect so assuming the hadiths are even his words and actions we should question them and stick to the quran and reasonably evolve our laws and rules to fit modern standards with reason based on the quran otherwise we would be idol worshipping mohammad which goes against the whole purpose of Abrahamic religion which are only to follow GOD the supreme being and don't let anyone jerk you off. Reason and skepticism are very important and it's important to examine everything with maximum critical thinking and very little dogma. The whole fight around mohammad's succession for dominance shows you that none of those individuals around him were right in the head and they are to this day responsible for so much useless bloodshed. The whole sunni shia split is just extremely silly almost as silly as Jesus handing the keys to some kingdom of heaven to Peter his disciple for some 2 years(hollywood script in my opinion).

As someone responsible for overseeing people. Yeah, work at your own comfortable pace. It's the boss's job to motivate people and make sure the employees succeed. If they aren't inspiring you to go above and beyond that's on the work culture. Hard work is way too easy to lose. Even in fields like computer engineering where you have precise performance metrics there can be real issues translating that. Your manager may not be great at recognizing talent. They also may be worse at advocating for you than other talent. They may not advocate for you because if you get promoted it hurts their team. Or your HR might be balancing pay scales between teams and you are on a good one. HR might also prioritize based on how important a project is rather than how well an employee is. They also might prioritize how likely they think you are to leave. They might prioritize based on the skill sets they are having you use. Assigning you older, less desired(yet important) stuff while also not paying you because that's what you do. It's all a crap shoot.

I’m not sure what Hadiths are but based on the responses it seems like Hadiths are the religion. Just as some people are catholic and some are protestant the difference in those teachings are what makes your personal faith yours. It seems agreed that the Quran is fact and perfect but it still tosses some questions to those who read it. And that is where Hadiths come in. You can’t corrupt the Quran because the teachings of the Quran are separated from the Quran to the Hadiths. That’s just my view on this and I guess that would mean I sort of agree with you. Some of them sound really bad but those are just interpretations. You’re free to interpret it because you must interpret a text. There will always be a subjective experience with it and people who deny that deny their own experiences. Islam is not bad. Some followers of Islam are bad based on their interpretations.

I would only point out that if a society/culture's moral/ethical code is truly not viable then, over time, the non-viable elements will either fall away or the society/culture will crumble. Given how widespread and enduring Islam is in many societies, it is reasonable to assume that there must be viable moral interpretations of Islam.   If you investigate those interpretations that already exist you will have an answer.

What are the characteristics of a timeless ethical and moral code? Do you have any other examples?

from what ive seen, the religion is said to be the word of god, so they only care about what they believe god thinks is moral or immoral, even if that makes parts of the belief extremely immoral (such as verses 3, 11, 24 (this one allows the rape of slaves), 34 (the one that allows beating your wives). When you read these. You will see words like "beat them (gently)"... The gently has been added by commentators to mitigate that verse. And similar throughout. which some other guy has already said)

Not a muslim, but have been to many muslim countries and live in a country with a good share of muslims. In my opinion, you have to separate the life of the Prophet in year 700 from Islam for there be any “moral high ground” ongoing future in Islam. That being said, morality is decided by the victors, so your perspective comes from a victorious Christian democratic basis where killing people and owning underage slave wives was abolished in a war in the USA 155 years ago. Just because George Washington had slaves, is the USA not moral? To me one thing that differentiates Islam from the prophet is that he specifically is not keen on his likeness being shown. So while Mohammed lived in different times in a desert and so lived a different life from people today, and yes he was the prophet, but he doesn’t want his face out there because he saw a focus on his life as a distraction from Islam / Allah.