Controversial Muslim preacher to speak in Calgary

[Super19]

I don't know how anyone can listen to Dr. Philips garbage and decide it's not that bad. The guy says it acceptable to murder gays in areas where islamic law is being enforced. So the only thing stopping the murdre of gays here is that islamic law isn't enforced, yet.

This guy is awful. He skates the line around hate laws, and so he isn't doing anything illegal. But he is an awful awful human being.

[Special Ed]

Feel free to move to a Muslim country anytime...

[taxi]

If that's what you think, I don't know how your Islam differs from the Islam of the so called extremists. The scary thing is that if you decide to be Muslim and take a trip to Egypt or something, you think you'd be justified in killing all the gays.

edit: And Dr. Philips did not say that, it's just what you wanted to hear me thinks.

[Buddhas Hand]

So yeah, I wouldn't say he's one of the crazies of Islam/religion.

[AK_19]

I'm a Muslim and felt like I needed to clarify a few things. The Quran doesn't really say much at all about homosexuality and definitely does not make it punishable by death.

The hadith, however, does condemn it quite clearly for Muslims. If one were to follow the hadith than one could not both live a gay lifestyle and be a Muslim. The hadith is a collection of tales and secondary writing done during the time of Muhammad which many Muslims use to help them "understand" the Quran and get a more concrete/definitive ruling on things. However, the collections of hadiths and using them as sources was ordained illegal by the immediate predecessors of Muhammad (ironically this was a hadith). I believe it was Omar who did a public burning off them. For whatever reason they caught on again and the collection of hadiths we use today were collected 200-300 years after Muhammad's death. Obviously this all calls into question the valdity of following the hadith so strictly with so many questions surroundin it.

It should also be noted being Muslim binds you to believing/following the Quran, but not the hadith. As it's already happening now in Canada, Islam is slowly seperating itself from the hadith and with it what a lot of people would consider immoral practices.

[taxi]

I'm a Muslim and felt like I needed to clarify a few things. The Quran doesn't really say much at all about homosexuality and definitely does not make it punishable by death.

The hadith, however, does condemn it quite clearly for Muslims. If one were to follow the hadith than one could not both live a gay lifestyle and be a Muslim. The hadith is a collection of tales and secondary writing done during the time of Muhammad which many Muslims use to help them "understand" the Quran and get a more concrete/definitive ruling on things. However, the collections of hadiths and using them as sources was ordained illegal by the immediate predecessors of Muhammad (ironically this was a hadith). I believe it was Omar who did a public burning off them. For whatever reason they caught on again and the collection of hadiths we use today were collected 200-300 years after Muhammad's death. Obviously this all calls into question the valdity of following the hadith so strictly with so many questions surroundin it.

It should also be noted being Muslim binds you to believing/following the Quran, but not the hadith. As it's already happening now in Canada, Islam is slowly seperating itself from the hadith and with it what a lot of people would consider immoral practices.

[VICanucksfan5551]

Non-Muslims are exempt. And people would have to do a lot of spying which isn't Islamic to actually catch Muslims in the act and and take it to the Sharia courts. In any case, none of these laws are applicable today to anyone because of no Caliphate. So if you do hear it happening today, this DIY Sharia is totally wrong and condemnable. Dr Bilal Philips did not say any Muslim can kill any Muslim having gay sex or committing adultery. It's definetly not as barbaric as 'I see you having sex you're not supposed to have, so I'm going to kill you now".

And I'm not a hadith verifier just as you aren't.

[AK_19]

Great Post.

Not a muslim, but from what I can see, the Hadiths are more based around contemporary life in the time they were written and the interpretations of islam at the time. They seem to be heavily based on their contemporary culture and not islamic laws. They also seem to contradict themselves. Many of the hadiths also seem to be impossible to follow in modern culture, and extremists cherry pick which ones they want to follow in order to support their own political agendas.

From the perspective of a muslim, is this close?

[Super19]

I've often heard that non-Muslims are exempt from Sharia (except in the case of apostasy, blasphemy, proselytizing of other religions, etc.). I'm curious to know what the basis for this is. I'm not doubting that it's scripturally-supported, I'm just unaware of where it's says so.

[DarthNinja]

I'm a Muslim and felt like I needed to clarify a few things. The Quran doesn't really say much at all about homosexuality and definitely does not make it punishable by death.

The hadith, however, does condemn it quite clearly for Muslims. If one were to follow the hadith than one could not both live a gay lifestyle and be a Muslim. The hadith is a collection of tales and secondary writing done during the time of Muhammad which many Muslims use to help them "understand" the Quran and get a more concrete/definitive ruling on things. However, the collections of hadiths and using them as sources was ordained illegal by the immediate predecessors of Muhammad (ironically this was a hadith). I believe it was Omar who did a public burning off them. For whatever reason they caught on again and the collection of hadiths we use today were collected 200-300 years after Muhammad's death. Obviously this all calls into question the valdity of following the hadith so strictly with so many questions surroundin it.

It should also be noted being Muslim binds you to believing/following the Quran, but not the hadith. As it's already happening now in Canada, Islam is slowly seperating itself from the hadith and with it what a lot of people would consider immoral practices.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Oh, religion. How we could certainly do without..

[DarthNinja]

Great Post.

Not a muslim, but from what I can see, the Hadiths are more based around contemporary life in the time they were written and the interpretations of islam at the time. They seem to be heavily based on their contemporary culture and not islamic laws. They also seem to contradict themselves. Many of the hadiths also seem to be impossible to follow in modern culture, and extremists cherry pick which ones they want to follow in order to support their own political agendas.

From the perspective of a muslim, is this close?

[DarthNinja]

I've often heard that non-Muslims are exempt from Sharia (except in the case of apostasy, blasphemy, proselytizing of other religions, etc.). I'm curious to know what the basis for this is. I'm not doubting that it's scripturally-supported, I'm just unaware of where it's says so.

Good on you for using some common sense and defying orthodox convention when it comes to the morality espoused in the hadith. I know Quranists often get a lot of flack from other Muslims. I've only read Bukhari at length, and there are a ton of cringe-worthy passages in there.

[AK_19]

What you have written here is actually incorrect on many levels.

Firstly, the Qur'an says enough about homosexuality for us to know that an entire nation was destroyed because of it and also that when the people of Sodom asked Lot (pbuh) to join them in their activity, they were blinded.

I've heard that interpretation and it's honestly a rediculous one to take on. The ayaa clearly stated that whatever it was that was sinful was one that was never comitted by people/creations before him. To believe that no two men ever had sex before Lot is a rediulous stance to take. I definitely prescribe to Averroes philosophy in that reason and the Quran must coexist completely. If it doesn't it's because the Quran is being misinterpreted.

What you also say about an individual leading a gay lifestyle unable to be Muslim is completely incorrect . The act of homosexuality in Islam (like adultery) is considered a major sin that can be repented for but it does not negate or nullify their Islam.

No it just nullifies their life.

I'd like to see your proof for this.

If using the Hadith as sources were rendered 'illegal' then how did they pray? How did they know how much Zakah to give? How did they perform Hajj? Why did they continue to pray Taraweeh in jam'ah in Ramadan? (for example).

These are relatively arbitrary things. The importance of Zakat, prayer, fasting is the intent behind it. If the exact method to perform Hajj, exact amount to pay Zakat, and the compulsory need to pray Taraweeh were so important they would've been included in the Quran. I have no issues of someone using the methods of the hadith as a means to the ends given in the Quran, as long as they don't all of a sudden consider them compulsory/mandatory by Islam.

(12:111) Verily, there is a lesson to be drawn from their stories for men who possess intelligence. This (Quran) is not a fabricated Hadith; On the contrary, it confirms that which came before it, it provides a detailed explanation of everything, as well as guidance and mercy for people who believe.

(31:6) Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadiths to divert from the path of God without knowledge, and take it (the Quran) as a mockery. These have incurred a humiliating retribution.

(45:6) These are God’s verses which we recite to you truthfully. Therefore, in which Hadith other than GOD and His verses do they believe?

Muslims follow the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is the fundamental and traditional concept in Islam and straying from these fundamentals is what leads to extremism. The Sunnah includes authentic Hadith narrated by the Prophet (pbuh) or by his Sahabah ® describing the Prophet's actions (pbuh) as determined by a number of stringent criteria (such as the chain of narration must go all the way back to the original individual with no breaks in the chain).

What you say is actually incorrect because it was Umar's idea to compile the Sunnah into one book. He consulted with other Sahabah about this and they agreed to it but after praying istikhaarah for a month he decided not to do it because Abu Bakr at the time was compiling the Qur'an into one book he did not want to take focus away from this. He never burned any Hadith and such statements have long ago been proven as fabrications. This was covered in detail by the great scholar ibn Hazm.

Source it. As far as I understand the reason the collection of it didn't happen until 200 years later was because the Caliphs were all strongly against it.

Furthermore, Umar's own words that were reported as authentic contradict this very notion. He stated 'preserve knowledge by writing it down'.

Which is why, according to Sunni Hadith, he rejected Muhammad's request to write down his will when he was ill?

If you are going to bring this up, then Abu Bakr ® at first did not want to compile the Qur'an into one book either.

Agreed here.

People often do not realize that this religion was not practiced or implemented as or by a set of texts. Unlike many of us today, people memorized the Qur'an and Sunnah and made these the basis for their daily lives and this was the real preservation.

Even during the beginning of Muhammad's prophethood (pbuh) when he forbade the people from writing anything from him except for Qur'an, he still made exceptions like for example when he allowed Abdullah ibn Amr Al-Aas to write Hadith from him when nobody else was allowed (Abdullah ibn Amr compiled over 6000 Hadith directly from the Prophet Muhammad).

Source? If its a hadith then the point is moot. You can't use support from the hadith when the hadith itself is what's being discussed here in terms of validity.

Hammam Munabbih learned Hadith directly from the Sahabah Abu Hurayrah ® and compiled them and some of these compilations still exist today in some libraries.

You actually have it backwards. The Sunnah always existed but it was not until numerous years after the Prophet's death that groups came about rejecting the Sunnah. Perhaps the earliest were the M'utazilah, who were condemned heavily for doing so by the great scholar Hasan Al-Basri - who was a tabi', raised by one of the Prophet's wives and grew up in the Prophet's house in Madinah (pbuh).

Can you blame them when even the scholars themselves rejected the vast majority of them? I believe it was either only 2% or 6% were credible for Al-Bukhari.

Rejecting the Sunnah is also what leads to so many different and differing interpretations regarding the Qur'an.

You do realize with the Hadith we have over 80 sects of Islam? Different interpretations are inevitable because we are human not because we are without the hadith. On top of that the hadith just ends up creating new fires by putting out old ones when you consider disagreements on its validity and which ones to follow/ignore.