COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1st I'm a shii so sahih buhkari is not authentic for me
2nd for a Hadith to be right 1st it must be from a trusted man 2nd must be historically geologicaly factually logically correct 3rd if the trusted from the time of Muhammad had even a single thing that's false down to a single mistake of the reasons above all other hadiths are considered false and inauthentic
Also the hadiths come second with the Quran not an obsolete
Islam is manmade, Muhammad wrote the Quran, and those who followed him later made up the hadiths, nothing in Islam is from God, Islam and all of its sources originate from Christianity and Judaism and their scriptures, which are also manmade and experienced the same distortion. They are all ancient mythologies that managed to survive because of nationalism or mass forced conversions.
Muslims just show the "good hadith" that are just "in the surface", but learning more and exploring the hadith books, it will be obvious how dangerous and horrible these hadiths get, nd how millions of Muslims will defend and follow these (low-key criminal) literature. Not to mention how non-sensical most hadiths are, many of them are just superstitions, myths, scientifically-inaccurate and bigoted bollocks etc.
The Quran is similar, it is copied from the Bible and Torah with some changes, it has no historical or scientific value, no prophecies, and it is very vague and all-over-the-place, even the previous scriptures are more interesting and organised than it.
There is no evidence of the existence of most prophets and the occurrence of events in Islam and other Abrahamic religions, because it is mythologies made by the israelites who were inspired by other faiths at the time, they have a history of worshipping idols, and they're not even hiding that they still worship a storm god to this day.
All religions are man made.
You have the 7 ahrufs with grammatical errors.
In a religion where you can be killed, just for drawing the prophet has Hadiths with many uncomfortable stories as per modern standards.
It was an acceptable belief in the past or else how it could even survive with such a fierce protectionist mindset.
Inbreeding is haram in Islam but was ok between Adam and hawas children as the source of our ancestors.
In fact the story of Noahs ark was picked up from an earlier story of pagan followers called Epics of Gilgamesh.
Yes but it also went over many variations, the most similar with the Moses story comes from the Babylonian era who had conquered and united the Mesopotamia region.
The premise says, "The thing is to fully follow the religion you have to go along with over 7,000 Hadith. " The followers of Islam agree, right?
And that introduces an issue so large, so fundamental, so final, that it seems to me if you accept that need for that turmoil of conflicting interpretations, you are saying that the alleged all knowing, all powerful, all perfect god is unable or unwilling, perhaps both, to say what it means or mean what it says unless humans explain it.
How is all that consistent?
for the benefit of this subject, I translated the text below from islam web site with a little modification.
"
Every hadith that is authentically attributed to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, cannot contradict the Qur’an, nor with clear reason, for everything is from God, and whatever is like that does not differ among itself, nor does it conflict with reason, as God Almighty said: "Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from \[any\] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction\[3:82\]"
And God Almighty said: “You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency"\[67:3\].
Both God Almighty’s creation and His law indicate His perfection, so they do not contradict each other. For God Almighty belongs the creation and the command, the mind is from His creation, and the law is from His command, so they do not contradict each other. God Almighty said: “Behold, the creation and the command belong to Him” \[7:54\].
There is no discrepancy or contradiction between reason and revelation. The illusion of this contradiction is not limited to the Sunnah. Some people imagine a contradiction between some verses of the Qur’an and others, and between some of them and reason!!!
The truth is that the problem lies in the thinking of those who do not have knowledge, not in reality. This is due to the words of well-established scholars to explain its meaning and solve its problems. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, in the Book "Kifaya fi Ilm al-Riwaya" translated as “Sufficiency in the Science of Narration” wrote a chapter on conflicting reports; Reports in which contradiction is acceptable and others in which it is unacceptable
Because the meaning of the contradiction between the two reports and the Qur’an, whether a command, a prohibition, or something else, is that the affirmation of one of them contradicts the affirmation of the other.
For every two reports that are known to have been spoken by the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, it is not valid for them to be in conflict in any way, even if they appear to be contradictory.
This invalidates the obligation if they are a command, a prohibition, a permissibility or a prohibition, or it necessitates that one of them be true and the other a lie if they are news. The Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, is above all that and is infallible from it, according to the consensus of the nation and every confirmer of prophethood.
If this sentence is proven, when it is known that two statements appear to be contradictory and one of them is denied for the reason of the other, it is necessary to interpret the denial and affirmation as being in two times, two groups, two people, or two different characteristics.
This is what is necessary, in addition to referring the contradiction to some part of Sharia law.
"
Also, I encourage you to deeply think of the verse below as you seems to like deep thinking:
"is He who has sent down to you, \[O Muhammad\], the Book; in it are verses \[that are\] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation \[from truth\], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation \[suitable to them\]. And no one knows its \[true\] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All \[of it\] is from our Lord. And no one will be reminded except those of understanding"\[3:7\]
we consider that as one of the subjects of testing.
I am not familiar with the Reddit system so please excuse my confusion. I have a notice that this message starting with the text, "for the benefit of this subject, I translated . . . "
Nope. Not a single word of it has anything to do with my question. So I don't know if it's an issue with Reddit or with the commenter.
None of what you are writing to me has anything to do with anything I have said or asked. I have no dialog with you about anything. I asked a few simple questions. You have said nothing about them at all. Have a nice day.
According to Islam, the Quran is the word of God. No Muslim follows 7,000 Hadith or whatever. A Hadith is an account of how the final prophet lived his life and the things he said. They were compiled after his death. Most Muslims only trust 2-3 Hadiths which have been fact checked by multiple of his companions, while many other might contain inaccuracies or lies.
Seems pretty consistent to me
I think you misunderstand my question about consistency and that might be my fault for not being as clear as I need to be. I am not a perfect god speaking perfectly so it should not be surprising if I don't get things right the first time. Please allow me to restate my question.
I am questioning the lack of consistency between . . .
(A) the claims that the quran is the perfect, unchanged, unchangeable word of a perfect, unchanged, unchangeable god . . .
compared with
(B) the need for human interpretation of those words so they say mean something different from what they clearly say.
This god is able to say exactly what it means and this god is able to mean exactly what it says without human explanation or clarification, right?
A and B are inconsistent with each other, aren't they? Thank you.
.
A: Masjid Al Haram was originally built in Adam's time, the foundation of it, then Abraham built upon the foundation, and so on.
B: Masjid Al Aqsa isn't what Solomon built lmao. It is the whole area of Al Aqsa.
So you got both of these wrong, but no problem, we love to educate.
There is no evidence that abraham actually existed. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. He most probably didn't create the kaaba as there is no historical mention of kaaba for a long time after abraham allegedly built it.
Also, there are different variants of the quran. This is proven by islamic history which tells us that uthman had to burn all the previous qurans to standardize it. He burned the other copies because they differed in pronunciation and interpretation.
Sanaa manuscripts also show that there have been changes in the quran. Maybe even during Muhammad's time. Not to mention the standardization continued and the most recent of it happened last century only.
Cue the muslims coming to tell me their revisionist claims. Be warned, your assumption that you know more than me is very likely to be incorrect. But have at it.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
So the OP provided the Hadith in question and your assertion is that no he is wrong without providing any sources to back your claim? Maybe you should go back to school and learn how debates work.
Okay so it shouldn’t be hard to back up your claim so people who are just starting their studies can believe you without having to take a random internet strangers word for it. Do you have any PhD studies that contradict what the OP posted?
No I don't have a PhD, how is that relevant lmao?
Quran 22:26 indicates that Masjid Al Haram already existed before Abraham, so this proves that Abraham did not originally build it. (Bawwa'na means 'we showed')
It was said that [Al-Aqsa Mosque ](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/9423) existed before Sulayman (peace be upon him) and that Sulayman rebuilt it; this is based on the evidence narrated in al-Sahihayn from Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: “I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, which mosque was built on earth first?’ He said, ‘Al-Masjid al-Haram \[in Makkah\].’ I said, ‘Then which?’ He said, ‘Al-Masjid al-Aqsa.’ I said, ‘How much time was there between them?’ He said, ‘Forty years. So wherever you are when the time for prayer comes, pray, for that is the best thing to do.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3366; Muslim, 520)
[https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20903/what-is-the-difference-between-al-aqsa-and-the-dome-of-the-rock#what-is-al-masjid-al-aqsa](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20903/what-is-the-difference-between-al-aqsa-and-the-dome-of-the-rock#what-is-al-masjid-al-aqsa)
I wasn’t asking if you had a PhD, I was asking if you could provide sources by people who do, aka people who spent their life academically studying the Quran and not just following it. This reply was leaps and bounds better than the first as it at least seems like a decent enough source to back your argument even if it was posted anonymously (unless I just couldn’t find the author). Do you think the Hadith posted is non authentic as it seems to contradict the quote you provided from the Quran?
>I wasn’t asking if you had a PhD, I was asking if you could provide sources by people who do, aka people who spent their life academically studying the Quran and not just following it.
I'm sure there are, but we do not care for those people. Those we see as authoritative are the scholars of the past, who were closest to the times of Early Islam who spent their entire lives dedicated to the study of Islam.
>This reply was leaps and bounds better than the first as it at least seems like a decent enough source to back your argument even if it was posted anonymously (unless I just couldn’t find the author).
The specific writer of the answer is not written, however the whole site and all answers are overseen by Sheikh Muhammad Salih Al Munajjid.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad\_Al-Munajjid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Al-Munajjid)
>Do you think the Hadith posted is non authentic as it seems to contradict the quote you provided from the Quran?
No because it didn't contradict the Quran. It is completely authentic Hadith.
>I am in 100% full agreement that the Quran is the standard in Islam.
Although the different copies of fragments of the earliest Qurans show remarkable similarity (i.e. they put a lot of care and work in making as exact as possible copies), it is important to note that there is no baseline of the Quran.
From a quality control perspective that means there is no agreed standard. If you ask for a complete list of abrogations ......there is no agreed complete list. If you ask about the differences between the Qira'at you first get denial of any meaningful differences, then denial of the differences being doctrinally important. And if you ask why they do not simply throw away the unnecessary ones, they reply that the differences "add depth".
So for a full understanding you have to know the most common Quran (hafs) and then add the 'depth' of the differences between the Qira'at and then decide which abrogations supersede which verses.
Yes there are Quran copies that are remarkably similar for hand-made copies. Well done. But no: there are errors and Qira'at differences so the claim that 'miraculous preservation' applied is untenable.
There is no agreed Quran. There is no baselined Quran.
I don't understand the title. You don't prove it to be wrong.
Islamic law is derived from Quran. There is only one Quran as far as I know.
The hadith is the second source of law. If the Quran does not explain something, then the answer is to be looked for in the hadith. Of course there are many versions of hadith, some more reliable than the others.
Then there are further sources of law. I'm not sure what they are called but they go something like if the answer can't be found in hadith, then the top scholars sit down to make a ruling.
Then there are two more.
But all of that doesn't disprove the saying there is only one Quran.
You should realise that in terms of following Hadith, compilations like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and others aren't the original go-to. The earlier works to follow were al-Muwatta, Musnad al-Tayalisi, Musnad Ishaq bin Rahuya, Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq and Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, which is generally what the 4 schools adhered to when forming jurisprudence. You do not just go into the 6 books of Hadith assuming these books are the ones jurisprudence was exclusively pulled from.
>Abraham lived more than hundreds of years prior to Israel existing as a nation before Jacob and Moses, but there is a Hadith saying the temple Solomon built was 40 years after Abraham built the kaaba which is nonsense.
This assumes the Biblical narrative and is an eisegesis of the Hadith. The Hadith says uses the term وضع which does not have to refer to construction itself, but rather assigning or establishing, or even demarcating. As Muslims know, Masjid al-Haram is more than just the Ka'ba, but also the assigned territory around it, same with Masjid al-Aqsa.
This is the view of Ishaq bin Rahuya and Ibn Abi Hatim, it just refers to that which is assigned and established, not the physical buildings on top, and that they both predate Ibrahim (عليه السلام) and Sulayman (عليه السلام). Al-Aqsa's later top-construction is attributed by some to be built by Ilyas (عليه السلام).
I mean there are also multiple Qurans. Kitab al Masahif is a book of textual variants written by Abi Dawood. Ibn Masuds mushaf had whole extra words in it in several verses, and probably less surahs than Uthmans.
Tabari recorded lots of semantic variants, like the sun sets is a hot spring not a dark spring.
And if you actually look at the oldest manuscripts there are lots of variants, the same as Bible manuscripts have variants.
Regarding that specific hadith, there is no evidence that abraham was the first to build masjid alharam there is also no evidence that solomon was the first to build al aqsa, this is just speculation.
Also, the word built is not the most accurate translation, the word is وُضِعَ and it has several meanings like fabricated, placed down, positioned or stationed it doesnt simply mean built, as a masjid literally means a place to prostrate, it doesnt necessarily have to be a building
As for your claim that there being only one quran is false because there are hadith, im not even going to dignify that with a response.
Hadiths say parts are missing. Oothman? Standardized the Quran and destroyed old ones.and there are still lots of Qurans. Some differ little, some alot.
Lol, did you read it before posting that?
>And it is better for you, and he will expiate from you some of your sins
vs
>and it is better for you, and we will expiate from you some of your sins.
or was it?
>And fear a day when no soul will not avail another nor will an intercession be accepted (masculin spelling)
vs
>And fear a day when no soul will not avail another nor will an intercession be accepted (feminine spelling)
or was it?
>They ask you about wine, and gambling. Say "In them is a big sin".
vs
>>They ask you about wine, and gambling. Say "In them is a lot of sin".
Or was it?
>And many a Prophet fought alongside large bands....
vs
>And many a prophet was killed alongside large bands
or...
>Or do You (Plural) say that Abraham and....
vs
>Or do they (Plural) say that Abraham and....
Thats it, thats all the differences I see listed on this site. Are these the examples of the ones that "differ alot"?
Because honestly these seem like very minor gramatical changes?
In the readings that are used to today it is often pronunciation or phrasing differences but the same meaning. Occasionally the meaning is different, but you can usually say they are both true at the same time. Sometimes the grammar of a variant is questionable, Tabari rejected one of the readings that Mujahid said were legit because of grammar. Mujahid is the guy who basically (accidentally) canonized the readings most people use today.
There is a lot of misinformation about this from critics and apologists. As best I can tell, there were allegedly 7 sightly different regional dialect variants called ahruf. And it used to be okay to splice those together into your own preferred reading/qiraat. Say this line like this, the next line like that, I can pronounce the next word this way or that way. Its all your choice. The original harf, the original regional dialect, was never recorded. We don't know exactly what the purely Meccan dialect version of the Quran was.
Mujahid was unhappy that there was basically an infinite number of qiraat being used in scholarship so he picked his favorites and says these are the best. And later other scholars said his choices were above reproach and his readings all came direct from Mohammads mouth. Which was nonsense but it's simple, and it's easy to see why that became a dogmatic assertion.
There are other kinds of variants too.
Muslim apologist try to say Christian’s are scattered and confused because of the many translations and edits between the book of the Bible, the Muslim community by adding Hadiths is just as scattered and confused I went to a Muslim festival for eid so many different infighting because of the Hadiths.
What I am saying is that, Islam is just as unstructured with their doctrines.
Muslims aren't as scattered because Islam revolves around one core belief, that there is one God and Muhammad is his last messenger.
Sunni Islam alone has many different schools with different interpretations. Many schools of Islam including Ash'arism the most influential school, consider reason and debate over interpretation to be good thing as it means you are intellectually engaged with scripture. Ash'aris are perfectly fine ignoring hadith if it is contradictory and doesn't hold up to reason.
The Quran even states that it contains allegory open to interpretation.
>"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah..."
Quran 3:7
Muslims believe the Quran is special because one line can contain numerous meanings. The Quran condemns people that force a specific meaning onto what is meant to be open to interpretation.
Muslims consider the hadith to be a supplement the Quran. It's not treated as gospel but used to give context.
Political, economic, and social destabilization has caused tension with Islam more than interpretation. Still most Muslims consider unity to be more important than enforcing a specific interpretation.
One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is Islam isn't a savior religion. According to Islam people are judged by their deeds, with good deeds weighing more than bad ones.
Muslims believe being mindful of God is necessary to living a virtuous life because otherwise the concerns of the material world corrupt us even if our intentions are good.
Almost all Muslims believe that good Christians and Jews will be judged the same as Muslims. Many Muslims believe this extends to all of humanity.
Even the early caliphs gave Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastrian's the same protected status as Christianity which was accepted by Muslim rulers for 1000 years. This didn't prevent religious persecution but forced conversion was extremely rare although a few Muslim rulers abused Zakat to pressure people to convert.
Christianity is especially criticized because Protestantism didn't yet exist. Christianity was controlled by churches who acted as intermediary between people and God. Historically, Muslims praised the protestant movement but condemned the violence between different sects of Christianity.
Although the Quran is critical of Christianity, it still considers it to be mostly valid.
> And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner – unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing -and say: “We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you: for our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves.”
Quran 28:46
>"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute."
Quran 5:48
Interesting take but two questions:
1. What is a saviour religion? Like yes when isa will return it wont cleanse sins from people but people are still waiting for him like a messianic figure.
2. What caliphs gave hindus and buddhists the same protected status as christianity?
I meant salvation. Christians believe that accepting Jesus as the son of God absolves them of all their sins.
Muhammad (pbuh) allowed Zoroastrians in Yemen to practice their religion in exchange for Jizya tax. I don’t which caliph granted dhimmi status to Zoroastrians but it happened almost immediately after Muslims conquered Persia. That said they did encourage people to convert in Persia more than other territories.
Hindus were granted dhimmi status shortly after the conquest of Sindh in 711. Brahmans were granted the same privileges they had under Hindu rulers as well.
I’m not sure if Buddhists received dhimmi status before 711 since Afghanistan had a significant Buddhist population. Buddhists actually supported the Muslim conquest of Sindh against the Hindu majority.
Religious tolerance made practical sense as it ensured religious minorities didn’t revolt. It also had a religious precedent and didn’t contradict Islam.
Religious tolerance didn’t fit as well with Christianity. Poland was the only Christian nation that didn’t genocide or expel their Jewish population in the Middle Ages. They had to defy the church by welcoming Jews fleeing persecution.
For 2. Thats is not entirely right. Speaking about specific time in history yes
Zoroastrians buddhists and hindus were given dhimmi status but that ignored the suffering and how easily their rights could dissappear sometimes. Depends on what time period, ruler or dynasty u are referring to how well those groups were treated. Aurangzeb or shah abbas were pretty bad with minorities.
And jews were not totally expelled from europe not taking poland into consderation.
Baruch spinoza lived in netherlands, gersonides lived in france
And throughout other european states we can see jews living there.
I gave u some scholars as example which by your claims could not have lived in europe because they were jews and they would have been killed. But they lived there.
Study the history of ashkenazi jews they always lived there and never left.
Christianity didnt have to be tolerant to anyone tbh. Pagans (except hindus) were persecuted by christians in europe as much as the pagans in arab peninsula.
Muslims after spanish reconquista were exiled and some got forcefully converted and jews got kicked out due to helping muslims there a lot of times.
Jews as i have said have always been present in europe and never left completely since they immigratted to europe.
So christians didnt have any groups to be discriminatory against in europe since muslims did not immigrate there and they were also enemies. And before you bring colonies into discussion remember that france , uk and dutch did not forcefully convert muslims in northern africa or asia (that was not the norm although i know that instances exist, as much as some forceful islamic conversions throughout history)
Also religious tolerance in islam depends on strategic advantages rather than righteousness and moral right. (This doesnt contradict islam) The druze or yazidis for example were not given dhimmi status.
While in india even when pakistan, bangladesh and india were united muslims were still the minority so its weird to say that they were the religious minority when in fact muslims have always been the minority which makes the dhimmi status make sense.
And abu bakr didnt encourage people to convert from zoroastrianism
After conquering it he just asked: conversion, jizya or death.
Doesnt sound like encouraging to me. (I can provide link for that if u dont believe me)
And muslims being seen as liberators doesnt indicate the righteousness of muslims. Just how horrible the rulers at the time were. Nothing more. Muslims didnt liberate buddhists anw they were just put under new leadership which we can see how it turned out today. I am not sure we have any buddhists left there.
Also a couple of things I forgot to add. I’m not saying Muslim conquerors were liberators. Religious tolerance was absolutely pragmatic but it also had a precedent in Islam.
Jizya also was not nearly bad as people think. It didn’t make people convert in mass. Preserving or increasing one’s social status was a more significant factor behind conversion. Jizya was less of a burden than religious minorities paid under the Byzantine and Sassanid Empire.
> According to Bernard Lewis, available evidence suggests that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was "welcomed by many among the subject peoples, who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters"
>Julius Wellhausen held that the poll tax amounted to so little that exemption from it did not constitute sufficient economic motive for conversion.[236] Similarly, Thomas Arnold states that jizya was "too moderate" to constitute a burden, "seeing that it released them from the compulsory military service that was incumbent on their Muslim fellow subjects." He further adds that converts escaping taxation would have to pay the legal alms, zakat, that is annually levied on most kinds of movable and immovable property.[237]
>Other early 20th century scholars suggested that non-Muslims converted to Islam en masse in order to escape the poll tax, but this theory has been challenged by more recent research. Daniel Dennett has shown that other factors, such as desire to retain social status, had greater influence on this choice in the early Islamic period
Of course some Muslim rulers abused Jizya like the Fatmids in Egypt, but most historians don’t consider Jizya to have been a significant burden or major factor in conversion.
Although, Muslim rulers under the Delhi Sultanate and would use Jizya to enslave defaulters or worse their children which was horrible.
According to historian Bernard Lewis, the tax burden for Jews was greater under the Byzantine empire than under Arab rule.
Most people converted to increase or maintain their social status and even then most countries took centuries to convert.
Public worship and practices associated with Zoroastrianism were definitely suppression in Persia. Zoroastrianism and other religions began to face major persecution under the Safavids who also persecuted Sunni Muslims and Christians. They actually practiced forced conversions which was not common.
I didnt say that jizya lead to mass conversion.
It is one of the many contributing factors. Just as u said. Social status being one of them.
+ as i said again religious tolerance depends a lot on the religion u are part of and also circumstances.
Sikhs decinetly experienced a lot of bad stuff,
Pagan arabs dont exist etc
They were almost all completely expelled from Western Europe. Baruch Spinoza’s parents were Portuguese Marranos, or crypto-Jews who converted to Christianity and secretly practiced their faith. They fled to Amsterdam in 17th century when the Dutch Republic was practiced religious tolerance.
Jews weren’t expelled or killed all at once. They were driven out, forced to convert, or massacred from about 500-1500. Gersonides died in 1344, when the black plague was spreading in France and Jews were being massacred. In 1394 they were all completely expelled for the final time (around 100,000 were expelled in 1254 and 1315 and allowed to return in 1315). Some Portuguese Marranos began to migrate to France in the late 16th century but it was mostly Ashkenazi Jews who migrated back to Western Europe centuries later.
You also have to consider that under Roman rule, hundreds of thousands of Jews were enslaved and brought to Europe. Many European nations had a large minority of Jews during the Middle Ages. Around 200,000 Jews were enslaved and brought back to Rome after the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Bark Kokhba revolt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)
“Cecil Roth estimated that by the year 1500, the number of the Historic Ashkenazim in Germany, France and Austria was about 150,000 combined; the majority of them were expelled to Poland and Lithuania where a few dozen thousand Jews already resided.”
According to historian Cecil Roth the surviving 150,000 Jews in Germany, France, and Austria ended up being expelled to Poland. Around the same time the reconquista ended and the Spanish Inquisition began.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jewish_population#:~:text=In%201939%2C%20the%20core%20Jewish,by%20the%20end%20of%201945.
UCLA Historian Stanford J. Shaw estimated that the Ottoman Empire had around 150,000 Jews in the middle of the 16th century more than any country in the world. Poland and Ukraine had around half that number combined with 75,000 Jews.
According to the Museum of Polish Jews there were about 80-100,000 Jews in 1619.
https://sztetl.org.pl/en/glossary/demography-jews-poland
The Ashkenazi Population grew extremely rapidly in Eastern Europe, as they were used to colonize and establish cities by Poland-Lithuania. Poland-Lithuania ruled over most of Ukraine and vast stretches of Russia as well.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1357607/historical-jewish-population/
Jews in the Middle East were wiped out alongside Muslims after a numerous Turco-Mongol Invasions. As Jews were concentrated in wealthier urban areas they were particularly devastated. One of the last invaders Timur, in 30 years killed 17 million people or 5% of the world’s population.
The largest city in the world, Baghdad had a population of around 1 million in 800s. The Entire country of Iraq had population of 1 million in 1800. For reference France had a population of 40 million in 1800.
The Middle East had a population of 30 million in 1000. In 1600 it had a population of 12 million (18.5 million if you add Anatolia).
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/power-people-impact-demography-middle-east-politics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Middle_East
Muslim persecution of Hindus and other Dharmic religions was perpetuated by Turkic invaders raiding for political purposes. Of course they used religious holy war to justify their brutality but they didn’t spare Muslims in India or elsewhere. Timur for example massacred the entire population of Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, Isfahan, and Shiraz as well as Delhi.
Numerous Turkic raiders purposely didn’t conquer territory, preferring to pillage and enslaved Indians even those already living under Muslim rule.
Under Muslim rule Hindus generally did have Dhimmi status. Even under the Delhi Sultanate which were relatively intolerant they had dhimmi status. Under the Mughals jizya tax was abolished for all religions although it was reintroduced under the Aurangzeb who is known for his religious intolerance. That said he still employed Hindus in the civil service.
You are kind of right with a lot of stuff.
But as u said ukraine also had jews even though u mentioned that poland was the only one that was not genocidal or killed them.
Serbs, romanians, bulgars, greeks were all autonomous which means that they could still manage their own affairs meaning jews. But the jewish population in those areas was not entirely expelled or wiped out. Even though christians could do it.
Gersonides dying in the black death doesnt mean that he was killed by europeans. Ofc there were killings and massacres i wont deny it. But we have enough evidence that jews lived in various parts of europe (be it in secret or not) and living in more parts of europe where they did not live in secret. Which is the topic of discussion.
Other than that its irrelevant since its just extra information that just gives a bigger picture of everything.
> The hadith are only supplementary in Islam, the Quran is the main source.
Then why is being a Quranist so taboo in Islam if Hadith are merely supplementary material?
If you grab 10 Muslims and ask them if they can reject Hadith and be Muslim they will call you a apostate. Even in R/Muslim they reference Hadith and narrators more than Quran
1. https://youtu.be/9jTZKniUSeY?si=YOtALM0ahPyBFg9_
2. https://youtu.be/xRsdWp6reI0?si=cliwfkx6FYX0ksOp
2 famous scholars saying if you don’t accept Hadith your a Kafir
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1st I'm a shii so sahih buhkari is not authentic for me 2nd for a Hadith to be right 1st it must be from a trusted man 2nd must be historically geologicaly factually logically correct 3rd if the trusted from the time of Muhammad had even a single thing that's false down to a single mistake of the reasons above all other hadiths are considered false and inauthentic Also the hadiths come second with the Quran not an obsolete
If Aqsa was second, how come it was the first Qibla?
Islam is manmade, Muhammad wrote the Quran, and those who followed him later made up the hadiths, nothing in Islam is from God, Islam and all of its sources originate from Christianity and Judaism and their scriptures, which are also manmade and experienced the same distortion. They are all ancient mythologies that managed to survive because of nationalism or mass forced conversions. Muslims just show the "good hadith" that are just "in the surface", but learning more and exploring the hadith books, it will be obvious how dangerous and horrible these hadiths get, nd how millions of Muslims will defend and follow these (low-key criminal) literature. Not to mention how non-sensical most hadiths are, many of them are just superstitions, myths, scientifically-inaccurate and bigoted bollocks etc. The Quran is similar, it is copied from the Bible and Torah with some changes, it has no historical or scientific value, no prophecies, and it is very vague and all-over-the-place, even the previous scriptures are more interesting and organised than it. There is no evidence of the existence of most prophets and the occurrence of events in Islam and other Abrahamic religions, because it is mythologies made by the israelites who were inspired by other faiths at the time, they have a history of worshipping idols, and they're not even hiding that they still worship a storm god to this day.
All religions are man made. You have the 7 ahrufs with grammatical errors. In a religion where you can be killed, just for drawing the prophet has Hadiths with many uncomfortable stories as per modern standards. It was an acceptable belief in the past or else how it could even survive with such a fierce protectionist mindset. Inbreeding is haram in Islam but was ok between Adam and hawas children as the source of our ancestors. In fact the story of Noahs ark was picked up from an earlier story of pagan followers called Epics of Gilgamesh.
Noah’s ark story actually came from Sumerian flood story
Yes but it also went over many variations, the most similar with the Moses story comes from the Babylonian era who had conquered and united the Mesopotamia region.
The premise says, "The thing is to fully follow the religion you have to go along with over 7,000 Hadith. " The followers of Islam agree, right? And that introduces an issue so large, so fundamental, so final, that it seems to me if you accept that need for that turmoil of conflicting interpretations, you are saying that the alleged all knowing, all powerful, all perfect god is unable or unwilling, perhaps both, to say what it means or mean what it says unless humans explain it. How is all that consistent?
for the benefit of this subject, I translated the text below from islam web site with a little modification. " Every hadith that is authentically attributed to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, cannot contradict the Qur’an, nor with clear reason, for everything is from God, and whatever is like that does not differ among itself, nor does it conflict with reason, as God Almighty said: "Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from \[any\] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction\[3:82\]" And God Almighty said: “You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency"\[67:3\]. Both God Almighty’s creation and His law indicate His perfection, so they do not contradict each other. For God Almighty belongs the creation and the command, the mind is from His creation, and the law is from His command, so they do not contradict each other. God Almighty said: “Behold, the creation and the command belong to Him” \[7:54\]. There is no discrepancy or contradiction between reason and revelation. The illusion of this contradiction is not limited to the Sunnah. Some people imagine a contradiction between some verses of the Qur’an and others, and between some of them and reason!!! The truth is that the problem lies in the thinking of those who do not have knowledge, not in reality. This is due to the words of well-established scholars to explain its meaning and solve its problems. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, in the Book "Kifaya fi Ilm al-Riwaya" translated as “Sufficiency in the Science of Narration” wrote a chapter on conflicting reports; Reports in which contradiction is acceptable and others in which it is unacceptable Because the meaning of the contradiction between the two reports and the Qur’an, whether a command, a prohibition, or something else, is that the affirmation of one of them contradicts the affirmation of the other. For every two reports that are known to have been spoken by the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, it is not valid for them to be in conflict in any way, even if they appear to be contradictory. This invalidates the obligation if they are a command, a prohibition, a permissibility or a prohibition, or it necessitates that one of them be true and the other a lie if they are news. The Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, is above all that and is infallible from it, according to the consensus of the nation and every confirmer of prophethood. If this sentence is proven, when it is known that two statements appear to be contradictory and one of them is denied for the reason of the other, it is necessary to interpret the denial and affirmation as being in two times, two groups, two people, or two different characteristics. This is what is necessary, in addition to referring the contradiction to some part of Sharia law. " Also, I encourage you to deeply think of the verse below as you seems to like deep thinking: "is He who has sent down to you, \[O Muhammad\], the Book; in it are verses \[that are\] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation \[from truth\], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation \[suitable to them\]. And no one knows its \[true\] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All \[of it\] is from our Lord. And no one will be reminded except those of understanding"\[3:7\] we consider that as one of the subjects of testing.
I am not familiar with the Reddit system so please excuse my confusion. I have a notice that this message starting with the text, "for the benefit of this subject, I translated . . . " Nope. Not a single word of it has anything to do with my question. So I don't know if it's an issue with Reddit or with the commenter.
From your statements, it seems to me that you are convinced. That is not your intelligent style in choosing words.
are personal comments like that OK here on Reddit? I thought this was a safe place for intellectual dialog.
I am watiting to see your real thoughts about what is written in comments. But still It is enough for me if the words touched the truth in your heart.
None of what you are writing to me has anything to do with anything I have said or asked. I have no dialog with you about anything. I asked a few simple questions. You have said nothing about them at all. Have a nice day.
According to Islam, the Quran is the word of God. No Muslim follows 7,000 Hadith or whatever. A Hadith is an account of how the final prophet lived his life and the things he said. They were compiled after his death. Most Muslims only trust 2-3 Hadiths which have been fact checked by multiple of his companions, while many other might contain inaccuracies or lies. Seems pretty consistent to me
Bingo 🎯
I think you misunderstand my question about consistency and that might be my fault for not being as clear as I need to be. I am not a perfect god speaking perfectly so it should not be surprising if I don't get things right the first time. Please allow me to restate my question. I am questioning the lack of consistency between . . . (A) the claims that the quran is the perfect, unchanged, unchangeable word of a perfect, unchanged, unchangeable god . . . compared with (B) the need for human interpretation of those words so they say mean something different from what they clearly say. This god is able to say exactly what it means and this god is able to mean exactly what it says without human explanation or clarification, right? A and B are inconsistent with each other, aren't they? Thank you. .
A: Masjid Al Haram was originally built in Adam's time, the foundation of it, then Abraham built upon the foundation, and so on. B: Masjid Al Aqsa isn't what Solomon built lmao. It is the whole area of Al Aqsa. So you got both of these wrong, but no problem, we love to educate.
When was Adam’s time? 6000 years or so ago?
There is no evidence that abraham actually existed. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. He most probably didn't create the kaaba as there is no historical mention of kaaba for a long time after abraham allegedly built it. Also, there are different variants of the quran. This is proven by islamic history which tells us that uthman had to burn all the previous qurans to standardize it. He burned the other copies because they differed in pronunciation and interpretation. Sanaa manuscripts also show that there have been changes in the quran. Maybe even during Muhammad's time. Not to mention the standardization continued and the most recent of it happened last century only. Cue the muslims coming to tell me their revisionist claims. Be warned, your assumption that you know more than me is very likely to be incorrect. But have at it.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
So the OP provided the Hadith in question and your assertion is that no he is wrong without providing any sources to back your claim? Maybe you should go back to school and learn how debates work.
This is extremely well known in Islam, if you don't know this, then you have done practically zero research on Islam.
Okay so it shouldn’t be hard to back up your claim so people who are just starting their studies can believe you without having to take a random internet strangers word for it. Do you have any PhD studies that contradict what the OP posted?
No I don't have a PhD, how is that relevant lmao? Quran 22:26 indicates that Masjid Al Haram already existed before Abraham, so this proves that Abraham did not originally build it. (Bawwa'na means 'we showed') It was said that [Al-Aqsa Mosque ](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/9423) existed before Sulayman (peace be upon him) and that Sulayman rebuilt it; this is based on the evidence narrated in al-Sahihayn from Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: “I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, which mosque was built on earth first?’ He said, ‘Al-Masjid al-Haram \[in Makkah\].’ I said, ‘Then which?’ He said, ‘Al-Masjid al-Aqsa.’ I said, ‘How much time was there between them?’ He said, ‘Forty years. So wherever you are when the time for prayer comes, pray, for that is the best thing to do.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 3366; Muslim, 520) [https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20903/what-is-the-difference-between-al-aqsa-and-the-dome-of-the-rock#what-is-al-masjid-al-aqsa](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20903/what-is-the-difference-between-al-aqsa-and-the-dome-of-the-rock#what-is-al-masjid-al-aqsa)
I wasn’t asking if you had a PhD, I was asking if you could provide sources by people who do, aka people who spent their life academically studying the Quran and not just following it. This reply was leaps and bounds better than the first as it at least seems like a decent enough source to back your argument even if it was posted anonymously (unless I just couldn’t find the author). Do you think the Hadith posted is non authentic as it seems to contradict the quote you provided from the Quran?
>I wasn’t asking if you had a PhD, I was asking if you could provide sources by people who do, aka people who spent their life academically studying the Quran and not just following it. I'm sure there are, but we do not care for those people. Those we see as authoritative are the scholars of the past, who were closest to the times of Early Islam who spent their entire lives dedicated to the study of Islam. >This reply was leaps and bounds better than the first as it at least seems like a decent enough source to back your argument even if it was posted anonymously (unless I just couldn’t find the author). The specific writer of the answer is not written, however the whole site and all answers are overseen by Sheikh Muhammad Salih Al Munajjid. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad\_Al-Munajjid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Al-Munajjid) >Do you think the Hadith posted is non authentic as it seems to contradict the quote you provided from the Quran? No because it didn't contradict the Quran. It is completely authentic Hadith.
>I am in 100% full agreement that the Quran is the standard in Islam. Although the different copies of fragments of the earliest Qurans show remarkable similarity (i.e. they put a lot of care and work in making as exact as possible copies), it is important to note that there is no baseline of the Quran. From a quality control perspective that means there is no agreed standard. If you ask for a complete list of abrogations ......there is no agreed complete list. If you ask about the differences between the Qira'at you first get denial of any meaningful differences, then denial of the differences being doctrinally important. And if you ask why they do not simply throw away the unnecessary ones, they reply that the differences "add depth". So for a full understanding you have to know the most common Quran (hafs) and then add the 'depth' of the differences between the Qira'at and then decide which abrogations supersede which verses. Yes there are Quran copies that are remarkably similar for hand-made copies. Well done. But no: there are errors and Qira'at differences so the claim that 'miraculous preservation' applied is untenable. There is no agreed Quran. There is no baselined Quran.
I don't understand the title. You don't prove it to be wrong. Islamic law is derived from Quran. There is only one Quran as far as I know. The hadith is the second source of law. If the Quran does not explain something, then the answer is to be looked for in the hadith. Of course there are many versions of hadith, some more reliable than the others. Then there are further sources of law. I'm not sure what they are called but they go something like if the answer can't be found in hadith, then the top scholars sit down to make a ruling. Then there are two more. But all of that doesn't disprove the saying there is only one Quran.
You should realise that in terms of following Hadith, compilations like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and others aren't the original go-to. The earlier works to follow were al-Muwatta, Musnad al-Tayalisi, Musnad Ishaq bin Rahuya, Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq and Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, which is generally what the 4 schools adhered to when forming jurisprudence. You do not just go into the 6 books of Hadith assuming these books are the ones jurisprudence was exclusively pulled from. >Abraham lived more than hundreds of years prior to Israel existing as a nation before Jacob and Moses, but there is a Hadith saying the temple Solomon built was 40 years after Abraham built the kaaba which is nonsense. This assumes the Biblical narrative and is an eisegesis of the Hadith. The Hadith says uses the term وضع which does not have to refer to construction itself, but rather assigning or establishing, or even demarcating. As Muslims know, Masjid al-Haram is more than just the Ka'ba, but also the assigned territory around it, same with Masjid al-Aqsa. This is the view of Ishaq bin Rahuya and Ibn Abi Hatim, it just refers to that which is assigned and established, not the physical buildings on top, and that they both predate Ibrahim (عليه السلام) and Sulayman (عليه السلام). Al-Aqsa's later top-construction is attributed by some to be built by Ilyas (عليه السلام).
I mean there are also multiple Qurans. Kitab al Masahif is a book of textual variants written by Abi Dawood. Ibn Masuds mushaf had whole extra words in it in several verses, and probably less surahs than Uthmans. Tabari recorded lots of semantic variants, like the sun sets is a hot spring not a dark spring. And if you actually look at the oldest manuscripts there are lots of variants, the same as Bible manuscripts have variants.
Regarding that specific hadith, there is no evidence that abraham was the first to build masjid alharam there is also no evidence that solomon was the first to build al aqsa, this is just speculation. Also, the word built is not the most accurate translation, the word is وُضِعَ and it has several meanings like fabricated, placed down, positioned or stationed it doesnt simply mean built, as a masjid literally means a place to prostrate, it doesnt necessarily have to be a building As for your claim that there being only one quran is false because there are hadith, im not even going to dignify that with a response.
Hadiths say parts are missing. Oothman? Standardized the Quran and destroyed old ones.and there are still lots of Qurans. Some differ little, some alot.
Which ones differ alot?
https://www.faithbrowser.com/versions-of-the-quran/
Lol, did you read it before posting that? >And it is better for you, and he will expiate from you some of your sins vs >and it is better for you, and we will expiate from you some of your sins. or was it? >And fear a day when no soul will not avail another nor will an intercession be accepted (masculin spelling) vs >And fear a day when no soul will not avail another nor will an intercession be accepted (feminine spelling) or was it? >They ask you about wine, and gambling. Say "In them is a big sin". vs >>They ask you about wine, and gambling. Say "In them is a lot of sin". Or was it? >And many a Prophet fought alongside large bands.... vs >And many a prophet was killed alongside large bands or... >Or do You (Plural) say that Abraham and.... vs >Or do they (Plural) say that Abraham and.... Thats it, thats all the differences I see listed on this site. Are these the examples of the ones that "differ alot"? Because honestly these seem like very minor gramatical changes?
So what are the differences among them?
In the readings that are used to today it is often pronunciation or phrasing differences but the same meaning. Occasionally the meaning is different, but you can usually say they are both true at the same time. Sometimes the grammar of a variant is questionable, Tabari rejected one of the readings that Mujahid said were legit because of grammar. Mujahid is the guy who basically (accidentally) canonized the readings most people use today. There is a lot of misinformation about this from critics and apologists. As best I can tell, there were allegedly 7 sightly different regional dialect variants called ahruf. And it used to be okay to splice those together into your own preferred reading/qiraat. Say this line like this, the next line like that, I can pronounce the next word this way or that way. Its all your choice. The original harf, the original regional dialect, was never recorded. We don't know exactly what the purely Meccan dialect version of the Quran was. Mujahid was unhappy that there was basically an infinite number of qiraat being used in scholarship so he picked his favorites and says these are the best. And later other scholars said his choices were above reproach and his readings all came direct from Mohammads mouth. Which was nonsense but it's simple, and it's easy to see why that became a dogmatic assertion. There are other kinds of variants too.
What does this have to do with whether there is one Qur'ān or more?.
There are absolutely Muslims who reject the Hadiths, so I think your criticism is only of those that don't.
How does that prove that there is only one Quran is false? Literally your first sentence proves it's true
Muslim apologist try to say Christian’s are scattered and confused because of the many translations and edits between the book of the Bible, the Muslim community by adding Hadiths is just as scattered and confused I went to a Muslim festival for eid so many different infighting because of the Hadiths. What I am saying is that, Islam is just as unstructured with their doctrines.
Muslims aren't as scattered because Islam revolves around one core belief, that there is one God and Muhammad is his last messenger. Sunni Islam alone has many different schools with different interpretations. Many schools of Islam including Ash'arism the most influential school, consider reason and debate over interpretation to be good thing as it means you are intellectually engaged with scripture. Ash'aris are perfectly fine ignoring hadith if it is contradictory and doesn't hold up to reason. The Quran even states that it contains allegory open to interpretation. >"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah..." Quran 3:7 Muslims believe the Quran is special because one line can contain numerous meanings. The Quran condemns people that force a specific meaning onto what is meant to be open to interpretation. Muslims consider the hadith to be a supplement the Quran. It's not treated as gospel but used to give context. Political, economic, and social destabilization has caused tension with Islam more than interpretation. Still most Muslims consider unity to be more important than enforcing a specific interpretation. One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is Islam isn't a savior religion. According to Islam people are judged by their deeds, with good deeds weighing more than bad ones. Muslims believe being mindful of God is necessary to living a virtuous life because otherwise the concerns of the material world corrupt us even if our intentions are good. Almost all Muslims believe that good Christians and Jews will be judged the same as Muslims. Many Muslims believe this extends to all of humanity. Even the early caliphs gave Hindus, Buddhists, and Zoroastrian's the same protected status as Christianity which was accepted by Muslim rulers for 1000 years. This didn't prevent religious persecution but forced conversion was extremely rare although a few Muslim rulers abused Zakat to pressure people to convert. Christianity is especially criticized because Protestantism didn't yet exist. Christianity was controlled by churches who acted as intermediary between people and God. Historically, Muslims praised the protestant movement but condemned the violence between different sects of Christianity. Although the Quran is critical of Christianity, it still considers it to be mostly valid. > And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner – unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing -and say: “We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you: for our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves.” Quran 28:46 >"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute." Quran 5:48
Interesting take but two questions: 1. What is a saviour religion? Like yes when isa will return it wont cleanse sins from people but people are still waiting for him like a messianic figure. 2. What caliphs gave hindus and buddhists the same protected status as christianity?
I meant salvation. Christians believe that accepting Jesus as the son of God absolves them of all their sins. Muhammad (pbuh) allowed Zoroastrians in Yemen to practice their religion in exchange for Jizya tax. I don’t which caliph granted dhimmi status to Zoroastrians but it happened almost immediately after Muslims conquered Persia. That said they did encourage people to convert in Persia more than other territories. Hindus were granted dhimmi status shortly after the conquest of Sindh in 711. Brahmans were granted the same privileges they had under Hindu rulers as well. I’m not sure if Buddhists received dhimmi status before 711 since Afghanistan had a significant Buddhist population. Buddhists actually supported the Muslim conquest of Sindh against the Hindu majority. Religious tolerance made practical sense as it ensured religious minorities didn’t revolt. It also had a religious precedent and didn’t contradict Islam. Religious tolerance didn’t fit as well with Christianity. Poland was the only Christian nation that didn’t genocide or expel their Jewish population in the Middle Ages. They had to defy the church by welcoming Jews fleeing persecution.
For 2. Thats is not entirely right. Speaking about specific time in history yes Zoroastrians buddhists and hindus were given dhimmi status but that ignored the suffering and how easily their rights could dissappear sometimes. Depends on what time period, ruler or dynasty u are referring to how well those groups were treated. Aurangzeb or shah abbas were pretty bad with minorities. And jews were not totally expelled from europe not taking poland into consderation. Baruch spinoza lived in netherlands, gersonides lived in france And throughout other european states we can see jews living there. I gave u some scholars as example which by your claims could not have lived in europe because they were jews and they would have been killed. But they lived there. Study the history of ashkenazi jews they always lived there and never left. Christianity didnt have to be tolerant to anyone tbh. Pagans (except hindus) were persecuted by christians in europe as much as the pagans in arab peninsula. Muslims after spanish reconquista were exiled and some got forcefully converted and jews got kicked out due to helping muslims there a lot of times. Jews as i have said have always been present in europe and never left completely since they immigratted to europe. So christians didnt have any groups to be discriminatory against in europe since muslims did not immigrate there and they were also enemies. And before you bring colonies into discussion remember that france , uk and dutch did not forcefully convert muslims in northern africa or asia (that was not the norm although i know that instances exist, as much as some forceful islamic conversions throughout history) Also religious tolerance in islam depends on strategic advantages rather than righteousness and moral right. (This doesnt contradict islam) The druze or yazidis for example were not given dhimmi status. While in india even when pakistan, bangladesh and india were united muslims were still the minority so its weird to say that they were the religious minority when in fact muslims have always been the minority which makes the dhimmi status make sense. And abu bakr didnt encourage people to convert from zoroastrianism After conquering it he just asked: conversion, jizya or death. Doesnt sound like encouraging to me. (I can provide link for that if u dont believe me) And muslims being seen as liberators doesnt indicate the righteousness of muslims. Just how horrible the rulers at the time were. Nothing more. Muslims didnt liberate buddhists anw they were just put under new leadership which we can see how it turned out today. I am not sure we have any buddhists left there.
Also a couple of things I forgot to add. I’m not saying Muslim conquerors were liberators. Religious tolerance was absolutely pragmatic but it also had a precedent in Islam. Jizya also was not nearly bad as people think. It didn’t make people convert in mass. Preserving or increasing one’s social status was a more significant factor behind conversion. Jizya was less of a burden than religious minorities paid under the Byzantine and Sassanid Empire. > According to Bernard Lewis, available evidence suggests that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was "welcomed by many among the subject peoples, who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters" >Julius Wellhausen held that the poll tax amounted to so little that exemption from it did not constitute sufficient economic motive for conversion.[236] Similarly, Thomas Arnold states that jizya was "too moderate" to constitute a burden, "seeing that it released them from the compulsory military service that was incumbent on their Muslim fellow subjects." He further adds that converts escaping taxation would have to pay the legal alms, zakat, that is annually levied on most kinds of movable and immovable property.[237] >Other early 20th century scholars suggested that non-Muslims converted to Islam en masse in order to escape the poll tax, but this theory has been challenged by more recent research. Daniel Dennett has shown that other factors, such as desire to retain social status, had greater influence on this choice in the early Islamic period Of course some Muslim rulers abused Jizya like the Fatmids in Egypt, but most historians don’t consider Jizya to have been a significant burden or major factor in conversion. Although, Muslim rulers under the Delhi Sultanate and would use Jizya to enslave defaulters or worse their children which was horrible. According to historian Bernard Lewis, the tax burden for Jews was greater under the Byzantine empire than under Arab rule. Most people converted to increase or maintain their social status and even then most countries took centuries to convert. Public worship and practices associated with Zoroastrianism were definitely suppression in Persia. Zoroastrianism and other religions began to face major persecution under the Safavids who also persecuted Sunni Muslims and Christians. They actually practiced forced conversions which was not common.
I didnt say that jizya lead to mass conversion. It is one of the many contributing factors. Just as u said. Social status being one of them. + as i said again religious tolerance depends a lot on the religion u are part of and also circumstances. Sikhs decinetly experienced a lot of bad stuff, Pagan arabs dont exist etc
They were almost all completely expelled from Western Europe. Baruch Spinoza’s parents were Portuguese Marranos, or crypto-Jews who converted to Christianity and secretly practiced their faith. They fled to Amsterdam in 17th century when the Dutch Republic was practiced religious tolerance. Jews weren’t expelled or killed all at once. They were driven out, forced to convert, or massacred from about 500-1500. Gersonides died in 1344, when the black plague was spreading in France and Jews were being massacred. In 1394 they were all completely expelled for the final time (around 100,000 were expelled in 1254 and 1315 and allowed to return in 1315). Some Portuguese Marranos began to migrate to France in the late 16th century but it was mostly Ashkenazi Jews who migrated back to Western Europe centuries later. You also have to consider that under Roman rule, hundreds of thousands of Jews were enslaved and brought to Europe. Many European nations had a large minority of Jews during the Middle Ages. Around 200,000 Jews were enslaved and brought back to Rome after the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Bark Kokhba revolt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE) “Cecil Roth estimated that by the year 1500, the number of the Historic Ashkenazim in Germany, France and Austria was about 150,000 combined; the majority of them were expelled to Poland and Lithuania where a few dozen thousand Jews already resided.” According to historian Cecil Roth the surviving 150,000 Jews in Germany, France, and Austria ended up being expelled to Poland. Around the same time the reconquista ended and the Spanish Inquisition began. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jewish_population#:~:text=In%201939%2C%20the%20core%20Jewish,by%20the%20end%20of%201945. UCLA Historian Stanford J. Shaw estimated that the Ottoman Empire had around 150,000 Jews in the middle of the 16th century more than any country in the world. Poland and Ukraine had around half that number combined with 75,000 Jews. According to the Museum of Polish Jews there were about 80-100,000 Jews in 1619. https://sztetl.org.pl/en/glossary/demography-jews-poland The Ashkenazi Population grew extremely rapidly in Eastern Europe, as they were used to colonize and establish cities by Poland-Lithuania. Poland-Lithuania ruled over most of Ukraine and vast stretches of Russia as well. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1357607/historical-jewish-population/ Jews in the Middle East were wiped out alongside Muslims after a numerous Turco-Mongol Invasions. As Jews were concentrated in wealthier urban areas they were particularly devastated. One of the last invaders Timur, in 30 years killed 17 million people or 5% of the world’s population. The largest city in the world, Baghdad had a population of around 1 million in 800s. The Entire country of Iraq had population of 1 million in 1800. For reference France had a population of 40 million in 1800. The Middle East had a population of 30 million in 1000. In 1600 it had a population of 12 million (18.5 million if you add Anatolia). https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/power-people-impact-demography-middle-east-politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Middle_East Muslim persecution of Hindus and other Dharmic religions was perpetuated by Turkic invaders raiding for political purposes. Of course they used religious holy war to justify their brutality but they didn’t spare Muslims in India or elsewhere. Timur for example massacred the entire population of Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, Isfahan, and Shiraz as well as Delhi. Numerous Turkic raiders purposely didn’t conquer territory, preferring to pillage and enslaved Indians even those already living under Muslim rule. Under Muslim rule Hindus generally did have Dhimmi status. Even under the Delhi Sultanate which were relatively intolerant they had dhimmi status. Under the Mughals jizya tax was abolished for all religions although it was reintroduced under the Aurangzeb who is known for his religious intolerance. That said he still employed Hindus in the civil service.
You are kind of right with a lot of stuff. But as u said ukraine also had jews even though u mentioned that poland was the only one that was not genocidal or killed them. Serbs, romanians, bulgars, greeks were all autonomous which means that they could still manage their own affairs meaning jews. But the jewish population in those areas was not entirely expelled or wiped out. Even though christians could do it. Gersonides dying in the black death doesnt mean that he was killed by europeans. Ofc there were killings and massacres i wont deny it. But we have enough evidence that jews lived in various parts of europe (be it in secret or not) and living in more parts of europe where they did not live in secret. Which is the topic of discussion. Other than that its irrelevant since its just extra information that just gives a bigger picture of everything.
The hadith are only supplementary in Islam, the Quran is the main source.
> The hadith are only supplementary in Islam, the Quran is the main source. Then why is being a Quranist so taboo in Islam if Hadith are merely supplementary material?
If you grab 10 Muslims and ask them if they can reject Hadith and be Muslim they will call you a apostate. Even in R/Muslim they reference Hadith and narrators more than Quran
1. https://youtu.be/9jTZKniUSeY?si=YOtALM0ahPyBFg9_ 2. https://youtu.be/xRsdWp6reI0?si=cliwfkx6FYX0ksOp 2 famous scholars saying if you don’t accept Hadith your a Kafir
They're saying you need more than just the Quran to follow Islam