Islam

They stick to Quran and hadiths compeletely. Islam says that Quran is directly dictated to Muhammad by God and hadiths are descriptions of Muhammad's behaviour and life, and he is considered as the all-time perfect example for Muslims. All of this means that they are the ultimate sources for Islam. Both Talibans and ISIL tend to follow them with 100 percent accuracy

See, the Quran has several interpretations, depending on the Hafiz (Islamic scholar) or the seminary, most of the ones we read in English or other languages other than Urdu/Persian/Arabic etc. are biased since they are written by non-Muslims, so we cannot judge them unless we read in those languages I mentioned, the interpretations followed by the IS or Taliban are more stricter ones (radical), the ones governing Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. are less strict ones. The interpretation matters a lot for everything from the Quran to the Gita and Gurbani to the Bible. For
example

[Surah 9:5] But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Now what is the interpretation of polytheist here, did it mean the atheists, or did it mean the irreligious people, or did it mean other religions, in the Arabic/Urdu version the word used here is 'Kafir' which can be loosely translated to a non-believer. The way a scholar interprets them is the way it is presented.

In [9.6] we see a clarification: Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

So, can killing a just religious be a correct act? This is another paradox which directly prohibits modern terrorism.

Hoping to see your response.

See, the Quran has several interpretations, depending on the Hafiz (Islamic scholar) or the seminary, most of the ones we read in English or other languages other than Urdu/Persian/Arabic etc. are biased since they are written by non-Muslims, so we cannot judge them unless we read in those languages I mentioned, the interpretations followed by the IS or Taliban are more stricter ones (radical), the ones governing Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. are less strict ones. The interpretation matters a lot for everything from the Quran to the Gita and Gurbani to the Bible. For
example

[Surah 9:5] But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Now what is the interpretation of polytheist here, did it mean the atheists, or did it mean the irreligious people, or did it mean other religions, in the Arabic/Urdu version the word used here is 'Kafir' which can be loosely translated to a non-believer. The way a scholar interprets them is the way it is presented.

In [9.6] we see a clarification: Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

So, can killing a just religious be a correct act? This is another paradox which directly prohibits modern terrorism.

Hoping to see your response.

Thanks, I haven't known the content of these 2 surahs. But, both of them teach Muslims to hate their enemies. Even Surah 9:6 says that - that Muslims can be merciful and respectful to non-Muslims who aren't hostile towards them, but what with non-Muslims who are hostile towards them?

The thing which is problematic is that they claim that Quran is directly dictated by God. As we all agree, God can't make mistakes. Yet Quran is full of contradictions/abrogations, which is impossible if it is directly dictated by God because God can't make mistakes. It can only be 2 of these things:

1) God can make mistakes

2) Quran is not written by God

Which one of these 2 sounds more logical?

Thanks, I haven't known the content of these 2 surahs. But, both of them teach Muslims to hate their enemies. Even Surah 9:6 says that - that Muslims can be merciful and respectful to non-Muslims who aren't hostile towards them, but what with non-Muslims who are hostile towards them?

The thing which is problematic is that they claim that Quran is directly dictated by God. As we all agree, God can't make mistakes. Yet Quran is full of contradictions/abrogations, which is impossible if it is directly dictated by God because God can't make mistakes. It can only be 2 of these things:

1) God can make mistakes

2) Quran is not written by God

Which one of these 2 sounds more logical?

Quran was narrated by Muhammed who was a messenger/prophet, he was not Allah(god) himself so he can make mistakes.

Quran was narrated by Muhammed who was a messenger/prophet, he was not Allah(god) himself so he can make mistakes.

That means that Quran is prone to mistakes. Since the primary source of Islam is Quran, that means Islam is prone to mistakes which brings all Islamic teachings into the question as well as Divine nature of it. I'm glad we concluded and discussed this peacefully.

Btw, if any Muslim write or say what me and you wrote here, he is a heretic according to Islam because he negates the core Islamic teaching- that Quran is directly narrated by God.

That means that Quran is prone to mistakes. Since the primary source of Islam is Quran, that means Islam is prone to mistakes which brings all Islamic teachings into the question as well as Divine nature of it. I'm glad we concluded and discussed this peacefully.

Btw, if any Muslim write or say what me and you wrote here, he is a heretic according to Islam because he negates the core Islamic teaching- that Quran is directly narrated by God.

narrated to Gabriel to Muhammed, Quran is Muhammed's edition to the one given by Gabriel in entirety. Now see, that is the fundamental issue with Islam, they have no tolerance for questioning the religion. That's what I like about Sanatan Dharm as it's meant to be, we are free to edit, change or update our texts and interpret them as we feel, nothing is forced (in modern times this principle is however violated). If a Muslim was to give out his interpretation of Islam and it differed from the Quranic Islam, he would likely be executed for blasphemy or being a heretic. In Sanatan Dharm, we don't have a fixed god rather energies personified, the teachings are flexible, you are free to question and ask. The religion of Islam prohibits Dissent to the last degree so yes what you say is true.

See, the Quran has several interpretations, depending on the Hafiz (Islamic scholar) or the seminary, most of the ones we read in English or other languages other than Urdu/Persian/Arabic etc. are biased since they are written by non-Muslims, so we cannot judge them unless we read in those languages I mentioned, the interpretations followed by the IS or Taliban are more stricter ones (radical), the ones governing Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. are less strict ones. The interpretation matters a lot for everything from the Quran to the Gita and Gurbani to the Bible. For
example

[Surah 9:5] But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Now what is the interpretation of polytheist here, did it mean the atheists, or did it mean the irreligious people, or did it mean other religions, in the Arabic/Urdu version the word used here is 'Kafir' which can be loosely translated to a non-believer. The way a scholar interprets them is the way it is presented.

In [9.6] we see a clarification: Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.

So, can killing a just religious be a correct act? This is another paradox which directly prohibits modern terrorism.

Hoping to see your response.

First thing first, without having some elementary knowledge of tafseer, the text misleads. Latter, you must have some elemantrary knowledge of Islamic terminology. You use the word "polytheist" in your translation, the actual word used in text is "Mushrikeen" which means people who associate partners with God. Slicing the surah to pieces absolutely misleads. You should exegete it according to its historical context.

From historical persepective, these verses were directly mentioning the idolaters of Arabia. In the sixth year of Hijri the Muslims and the idolaters made a treaty. Part of the treaty was that neither parties would attack the other, nor would they attack any of their allies. On this they agreed and went their ways. It didn’t take long when the Banu Bakr tribe (who were an ally of Quraysh) attacked and killed many of Banu Khuza’a tribe (they were allies of the Muslims). The Quraysh being in the middle, the Muslims would have presumed that they would have tried to stop their ally (Banu Bakr) attacking and killing Banu Khuza’a. Quraysh were the first to breach the terms of the treaty.

You overlook this crucial verses following:

"9:13 What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers."

The end of the four months, and the slaying of the idolaters, refers to those who broke the treaty, and fought against the Muslims. As the previous verse showed, not all idolaters were fought against. Only those who broke the treaty and actively participated in warfare were dealt with.

9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

The punishment which the Muslims would have inflicted were only aimed at those who actively took up arms against the Muslims and broke the pact. This verse shows that the idolaters that were at peace and weren’t siding with the enemy were left alone.

9:6 And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then ma ke him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

From this verse we can see that those who wanted peace and stopped their hostilities, after hearing the recitation of the Quran – they were allowed to go freely anywhere they wished.

All in all, this text is referring to a specific historical event. That's not a divine and universal license to kill.

Speaking of radical Islamists, They disregard the reasons for the revelation of the verses , the conditions of the time, and the holistic or universal message of the Qur’an. They take the verses at face value—according to their literal, word-for-word meanings—and apply them directly to the present day. They prioritize the verses concerning *jihad* and *qital* (armed combat)—which were revealed specifically during periods of war and struggle—over verses applicable to times of peace or the general principles governing relations with non-Muslims. They declare all Muslims and Islamic governments that do not think like them—and do not accept their own narrow interpretation of Sharia and their claim to the "caliphate"—to be "polytheists" or "infidels." They reject the fourteen-century accumulation of Islamic jurisprudence, exegesis, theology, and civilization, dismissing traditional schools of thought as "false" or "heretical innovations." They claim to reduce religion solely to a superficial reading of the early period. They use Quranic verses not as a guide to divine justice and mercy, but as an ideological stepping stone to establish an authoritarian and violence-based political power—a "state."

Same way, you disregard the reason for the revelation of the verse, the conditions of the time. You take take the word-for-word meanings and apply them directly to the present day and having a twisted conclusion. Mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust only.

First thing first, without having some elementary knowledge of tafseer, the text misleads. Latter, you must have some elemantrary knowledge of Islamic terminology. You use the word "polytheist" in your translation, the actual word used in text is "Mushrikeen" which means people who associate partners with God. Slicing the surah to pieces absolutely misleads. You should exegete it according to its historical context.

From historical persepective, these verses were directly mentioning the idolaters of Arabia. In the sixth year of Hijri the Muslims and the idolaters made a treaty. Part of the treaty was that neither parties would attack the other, nor would they attack any of their allies. On this they agreed and went their ways. It didn’t take long when the Banu Bakr tribe (who were an ally of Quraysh) attacked and killed many of Banu Khuza’a tribe (they were allies of the Muslims). The Quraysh being in the middle, the Muslims would have presumed that they would have tried to stop their ally (Banu Bakr) attacking and killing Banu Khuza’a. Quraysh were the first to breach the terms of the treaty.

You overlook this crucial verses following:

"9:13 What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers."

The end of the four months, and the slaying of the idolaters, refers to those who broke the treaty, and fought against the Muslims. As the previous verse showed, not all idolaters were fought against. Only those who broke the treaty and actively participated in warfare were dealt with.

9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

The punishment which the Muslims would have inflicted were only aimed at those who actively took up arms against the Muslims and broke the pact. This verse shows that the idolaters that were at peace and weren’t siding with the enemy were left alone.

9:6 And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then ma ke him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

From this verse we can see that those who wanted peace and stopped their hostilities, after hearing the recitation of the Quran – they were allowed to go freely anywhere they wished.

All in all, this text is referring to a specific historical event. That's not a divine and universal license to kill.

Speaking of radical Islamists, They disregard the reasons for the revelation of the verses , the conditions of the time, and the holistic or universal message of the Qur’an. They take the verses at face value—according to their literal, word-for-word meanings—and apply them directly to the present day. They prioritize the verses concerning *jihad* and *qital* (armed combat)—which were revealed specifically during periods of war and struggle—over verses applicable to times of peace or the general principles governing relations with non-Muslims. They declare all Muslims and Islamic governments that do not think like them—and do not accept their own narrow interpretation of Sharia and their claim to the "caliphate"—to be "polytheists" or "infidels." They reject the fourteen-century accumulation of Islamic jurisprudence, exegesis, theology, and civilization, dismissing traditional schools of thought as "false" or "heretical innovations." They claim to reduce religion solely to a superficial reading of the early period. They use Quranic verses not as a guide to divine justice and mercy, but as an ideological stepping stone to establish an authoritarian and violence-based political power—a "state."

Same way, you disregard the reason for the revelation of the verse, the conditions of the time. You take take the word-for-word meanings and apply them directly to the present day and having a twisted conclusion. Mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust only.

Thank you for your clarification. Still, I have to ask this: if we decide to reject word-for-word meanings and we decide to stick to historical context, is it fair to start doing it as well when we talk about for example inquisition, crusader wars, Old Testament and other things from history?

Who has the authority to clarify hadiths and Quran and what's the source of that person(s) authority? What if Islamic schoolars disagree about something (Aisha's age is one of the examples), how to decide who has right and who doesn't? If somebody's explanations differ from Quran and hadiths, which one should be taken as relevant and which one should be ignored according to Islam - Quran and hadiths or schoolars' explanations? Which one hold the primate in Islam?

The premise says when judging Muhammad's behaviour we have to take into account historical context because he has lived 1400 years before us. Fine. If we think a bit we get a conclusion that if those crimes (according to nowadays standards) were accepted 1400 years ago, then they should be even more accepted for example 2000 years ago since society was more backward 2000 years ago than it was 1400 years ago. That leads us to the next question: was Jesus a pedophile, warlord, misogynist, rapist, slave owner and mass serial killer?

First thing first, without having some elementary knowledge of tafseer, the text misleads. Latter, you must have some elemantrary knowledge of Islamic terminology. You use the word "polytheist" in your translation, the actual word used in text is "Mushrikeen" which means people who associate partners with God. Slicing the surah to pieces absolutely misleads. You should exegete it according to its historical context.

From historical persepective, these verses were directly mentioning the idolaters of Arabia. In the sixth year of Hijri the Muslims and the idolaters made a treaty. Part of the treaty was that neither parties would attack the other, nor would they attack any of their allies. On this they agreed and went their ways. It didn’t take long when the Banu Bakr tribe (who were an ally of Quraysh) attacked and killed many of Banu Khuza’a tribe (they were allies of the Muslims). The Quraysh being in the middle, the Muslims would have presumed that they would have tried to stop their ally (Banu Bakr) attacking and killing Banu Khuza’a. Quraysh were the first to breach the terms of the treaty.

You overlook this crucial verses following:

"9:13 What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers."

The end of the four months, and the slaying of the idolaters, refers to those who broke the treaty, and fought against the Muslims. As the previous verse showed, not all idolaters were fought against. Only those who broke the treaty and actively participated in warfare were dealt with.

9:4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).

The punishment which the Muslims would have inflicted were only aimed at those who actively took up arms against the Muslims and broke the pact. This verse shows that the idolaters that were at peace and weren’t siding with the enemy were left alone.

9:6 And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then ma ke him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.

From this verse we can see that those who wanted peace and stopped their hostilities, after hearing the recitation of the Quran – they were allowed to go freely anywhere they wished.

All in all, this text is referring to a specific historical event. That's not a divine and universal license to kill.

Speaking of radical Islamists, They disregard the reasons for the revelation of the verses , the conditions of the time, and the holistic or universal message of the Qur’an. They take the verses at face value—according to their literal, word-for-word meanings—and apply them directly to the present day. They prioritize the verses concerning *jihad* and *qital* (armed combat)—which were revealed specifically during periods of war and struggle—over verses applicable to times of peace or the general principles governing relations with non-Muslims. They declare all Muslims and Islamic governments that do not think like them—and do not accept their own narrow interpretation of Sharia and their claim to the "caliphate"—to be "polytheists" or "infidels." They reject the fourteen-century accumulation of Islamic jurisprudence, exegesis, theology, and civilization, dismissing traditional schools of thought as "false" or "heretical innovations." They claim to reduce religion solely to a superficial reading of the early period. They use Quranic verses not as a guide to divine justice and mercy, but as an ideological stepping stone to establish an authoritarian and violence-based political power—a "state."

Same way, you disregard the reason for the revelation of the verse, the conditions of the time. You take take the word-for-word meanings and apply them directly to the present day and having a twisted conclusion. Mutual ignorance breeds mutual distrust only.

Like, I said, we can't rely on interpretations, for I obviously used English interpretations as I do not know Arabic, Persian or Urdu, well thanks for enlightening us.

Thank you for your clarification. Still, I have to ask this: if we decide to reject word-for-word meanings and we decide to stick to historical context, is it fair to start doing it as well when we talk about for example inquisition, crusader wars, Old Testament and other things from history?

Who has the authority to clarify hadiths and Quran and what's the source of that person(s) authority? What if Islamic schoolars disagree about something (Aisha's age is one of the examples), how to decide who has right and who doesn't? If somebody's explanations differ from Quran and hadiths, which one should be taken as relevant and which one should be ignored according to Islam - Quran and hadiths or schoolars' explanations? Which one hold the primate in Islam?

The premise says when judging Muhammad's behaviour we have to take into account historical context because he has lived 1400 years before us. Fine. If we think a bit we get a conclusion that if those crimes (according to nowadays standards) were accepted 1400 years ago, then they should be even more accepted for example 2000 years ago since society was more backward 2000 years ago than it was 1400 years ago. That leads us to the next question: was Jesus a pedophile, warlord, misogynist, rapist, slave owner and mass serial killer?

Well, as far I know various seminaries, clerics and some members of certain Ulamas often debate and reach their own conclusions, it depends upon the follower to accept or reject their opinions when it comes to the Quran and the Hadiths.

See, interpreting these old religious texts is akin to reading the constitution, we don't really understand it in entirety there might be deeper meanings and loopholes and that is why you need a lawyer, like the laws of most nation are written in complex English or Latin, the texts are written in very old scripts and dialects, which are difficult to interpret correctly in the modern context. So that is why reaching a conclusion is rather difficult.

I will get an example from the bible:
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"

Well did Jesus mean that one shall not kill anything be it Human or animal, or did it refer to the order to not murder fellow Humans.

Most modern Bibles view this as 'thou shall not murder', but who are they to decide?

And as for Jesus being what a dangerous terrorist might be, in the context of Islam he is viewed as a great preacher and a prophet, only not in the same league as Muhammed. [As far as I am aware]

Thank you for your clarification. Still, I have to ask this: if we decide to reject word-for-word meanings and we decide to stick to historical context, is it fair to start doing it as well when we talk about for example inquisition, crusader wars, Old Testament and other things from history?

Who has the authority to clarify hadiths and Quran and what's the source of that person(s) authority? What if Islamic schoolars disagree about something (Aisha's age is one of the examples), how to decide who has right and who doesn't? If somebody's explanations differ from Quran and hadiths, which one should be taken as relevant and which one should be ignored according to Islam - Quran and hadiths or schoolars' explanations? Which one hold the primate in Islam?

The premise says when judging Muhammad's behaviour we have to take into account historical context because he has lived 1400 years before us. Fine. If we think a bit we get a conclusion that if those crimes (according to nowadays standards) were accepted 1400 years ago, then they should be even more accepted for example 2000 years ago since society was more backward 2000 years ago than it was 1400 years ago. That leads us to the next question: was Jesus a pedophile, warlord, misogynist, rapist, slave owner and mass serial killer?

To make a further clarification I must add that "historical context" is not the only criteria for exegeting. When deciphering the meaning of a verse, one first looks at other similar verses in the Quran. Parts of the Quran explain other parts, forming a cohesive whole. In this very example we may have a closer look on Al-BAQARAH 2:190: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." This one is a universal order, not a case specific order. Easy to see it allows a "defensive licence" only. Knowing the events and the social and historical conditions under which the verses were revealed enables one to correctly grasp the purpose of the ruling. Instead of deriving a ruling by isolating a single verse, it is necessary to take into account the Quran's overarching themes (justice, morality, and the oneness of God). Let me give an example from Old Testament. Samuel 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” If we disregard contemporary events and the social and historical conditions, and take it as word-for-word meanings, then we are badly misleaded.

Who has the authority to clarify hadiths and Quran and what's the source of that person(s) authority? Good question. The generally accepted rule in Islamic philosophy - yes there is a credit for philosophy in Islam - is this: Clear (unadulterated/sound) reason and authentic (correct) transmitted knowledge (revelation) never contradict each other. If we perceive a contradiction, there could be two reasons for this: 1- Our reasoning is flawed, or we lack information. 2- We may be misinterpreting the religious text (missing its metaphorical or contextual meaning). Logic is not an arbiter over religion; it is the most fundamental key and tool for understanding, interpreting, and living religion. Dozens of verses in the Quran contain expressions such as "Will you not then use your reason?" (*E-fela ta'kılun*), "Do you not reflect?" (*E-fela tetefekkerun*), or "Take heed, O people of insight!" As an example, regarding to the matter of Aisha's age, I will use a combination of logic and historical facts. We know that before becoming betrothed to the Mohammad, Aisha was betrothed to Jubayr, the son of Mut'im ibn Adi. When Mut‘im’s family decided against the marriage of his son to the daughter of Abu Bakr—whose family had become Muslim—Abu Bakr gave his daughter in marriage to the Mohammad. If Aisha was six years old when he married Mohammad, she must have been born four years after the beginning of his prophethood. Simple maths talk in this very place. How is it possible, under these circumstances, for Abu Bakr—who had embraced Islam in the very early days—to have agreed to give his daughter in marriage to a family of idolaters? It appears that, well before Abu Bakr embraced Islam, a proposal for Aisha’s hand was made by a polytheistic family, and her father accepted it. Had this proposal occurred after Abu Bakr had accepted Islam, Abu Bakr—being a companion of Mohammad—would never have considered giving his daughter to a polytheistic family. In that case, Aisha was born before the advent of Islam and had even reached the age where a family might seek her hand in marriage. It must be acknowledged that Aisha was born at least five or six years prior to the emergence of Islam. Consequently, she would have been at least 14 or 15 years old at the time the Mohammad sought her hand. Arab society also has its own distinctive forms of marriage, traditions, customs, and social norms. Just as it is inappropriate for someone examining historical events to act like a judge, it is also inappropriate for them to adopt a defensive approach. It is a fact that this marriage took place at an early age. However, this age is not at odds with the marriage culture of that society.

If the age at which Aisha married been contrary to the customs, traditions, and social norms of Arab society, the Mohammad would have faced severe criticism—particularly in Medina—from his staunchest enemies, including the Jews and the Hypocrites. Indeed, events such as the Mohammad’s marriage to Zaynab, the change of the *qibla* (direction of prayer), and the shedding of blood during the sacred months in the Nakhla Expedition—led by Abdullah ibn Jahsh—provoked harsh criticism of the Mohammad and his companions by the Meccan polytheists and the Jews. Mohammad and the Muslims, whose every move and action was closely monitored by their adversaries, faced criticism whenever they acted in a manner contrary to the prevailing social norms. From this, one can conclude that Aisha’s age at marriage was a practice accepted by that society.

To accurately understand past events—to the extent that conditions and sources permit—and to arrive at the truth, one must not evaluate the past using the value judgments and standards of the present.

Whether Jesus, Muhammad, or Moses, they are spiritual and social revolutionaries who emerged in a harsh region like the Middle East and succeeded in transforming their societies in a positive sense. If the superstitions propagated by their successors are clouding our minds today, it is solely because we have stopped using our reason. That's my reflection on the matter. Please accept my apologies for the dreadfully long text.

"Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"

Well did Jesus mean that one shall not kill anything be it Human or animal, or did it refer to the order to not murder fellow Humans.

Most modern Bibles view this as 'thou shall not murder', but who are they to decide?"

Linguists maybe. The original Hebrew word used is ratsaḥ which specifically means unauthorized, premeditated, or intentional killing (murder). The commandment establishes the sanctity of human life. If you know holistic message in Testaments, then you can easily detect the meaning.

To make a further clarification I must add that "historical context" is not the only criteria for exegeting. When deciphering the meaning of a verse, one first looks at other similar verses in the Quran. Parts of the Quran explain other parts, forming a cohesive whole. In this very example we may have a closer look on Al-BAQARAH 2:190: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors." This one is a universal order, not a case specific order. Easy to see it allows a "defensive licence" only. Knowing the events and the social and historical conditions under which the verses were revealed enables one to correctly grasp the purpose of the ruling. Instead of deriving a ruling by isolating a single verse, it is necessary to take into account the Quran's overarching themes (justice, morality, and the oneness of God). Let me give an example from Old Testament. Samuel 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” If we disregard contemporary events and the social and historical conditions, and take it as word-for-word meanings, then we are badly misleaded.

Who has the authority to clarify hadiths and Quran and what's the source of that person(s) authority? Good question. The generally accepted rule in Islamic philosophy - yes there is a credit for philosophy in Islam - is this: Clear (unadulterated/sound) reason and authentic (correct) transmitted knowledge (revelation) never contradict each other. If we perceive a contradiction, there could be two reasons for this: 1- Our reasoning is flawed, or we lack information. 2- We may be misinterpreting the religious text (missing its metaphorical or contextual meaning). Logic is not an arbiter over religion; it is the most fundamental key and tool for understanding, interpreting, and living religion. Dozens of verses in the Quran contain expressions such as "Will you not then use your reason?" (*E-fela ta'kılun*), "Do you not reflect?" (*E-fela tetefekkerun*), or "Take heed, O people of insight!" As an example, regarding to the matter of Aisha's age, I will use a combination of logic and historical facts. We know that before becoming betrothed to the Mohammad, Aisha was betrothed to Jubayr, the son of Mut'im ibn Adi. When Mut‘im’s family decided against the marriage of his son to the daughter of Abu Bakr—whose family had become Muslim—Abu Bakr gave his daughter in marriage to the Mohammad. If Aisha was six years old when he married Mohammad, she must have been born four years after the beginning of his prophethood. Simple maths talk in this very place. How is it possible, under these circumstances, for Abu Bakr—who had embraced Islam in the very early days—to have agreed to give his daughter in marriage to a family of idolaters? It appears that, well before Abu Bakr embraced Islam, a proposal for Aisha’s hand was made by a polytheistic family, and her father accepted it. Had this proposal occurred after Abu Bakr had accepted Islam, Abu Bakr—being a companion of Mohammad—would never have considered giving his daughter to a polytheistic family. In that case, Aisha was born before the advent of Islam and had even reached the age where a family might seek her hand in marriage. It must be acknowledged that Aisha was born at least five or six years prior to the emergence of Islam. Consequently, she would have been at least 14 or 15 years old at the time the Mohammad sought her hand. Arab society also has its own distinctive forms of marriage, traditions, customs, and social norms. Just as it is inappropriate for someone examining historical events to act like a judge, it is also inappropriate for them to adopt a defensive approach. It is a fact that this marriage took place at an early age. However, this age is not at odds with the marriage culture of that society.

If the age at which Aisha married been contrary to the customs, traditions, and social norms of Arab society, the Mohammad would have faced severe criticism—particularly in Medina—from his staunchest enemies, including the Jews and the Hypocrites. Indeed, events such as the Mohammad’s marriage to Zaynab, the change of the *qibla* (direction of prayer), and the shedding of blood during the sacred months in the Nakhla Expedition—led by Abdullah ibn Jahsh—provoked harsh criticism of the Mohammad and his companions by the Meccan polytheists and the Jews. Mohammad and the Muslims, whose every move and action was closely monitored by their adversaries, faced criticism whenever they acted in a manner contrary to the prevailing social norms. From this, one can conclude that Aisha’s age at marriage was a practice accepted by that society.

To accurately understand past events—to the extent that conditions and sources permit—and to arrive at the truth, one must not evaluate the past using the value judgments and standards of the present.

Whether Jesus, Muhammad, or Moses, they are spiritual and social revolutionaries who emerged in a harsh region like the Middle East and succeeded in transforming their societies in a positive sense. If the superstitions propagated by their successors are clouding our minds today, it is solely because we have stopped using our reason. That's my reflection on the matter. Please accept my apologies for the dreadfully long text.

"Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"

Well did Jesus mean that one shall not kill anything be it Human or animal, or did it refer to the order to not murder fellow Humans.

Most modern Bibles view this as 'thou shall not murder', but who are they to decide?"

Linguists maybe. The original Hebrew word used is ratsaḥ which specifically means unauthorized, premeditated, or intentional killing (murder). The commandment establishes the sanctity of human life. If you know holistic message in Testaments, then you can easily detect the meaning.

Please don't apology for long and thoughtful answers, you took a time and reply which I appreciate very much and all I can say is thank you again😊. The only one in the forums who should relatively often apologise to people is me because I feel I sometimes cross the line when I engage in discussions.

The reason I asked that is because Islamic schoolar with the name Farid (Farid Responds on yt) teaches that Aisha was as young as it's written in hadiths. Talibans also teach that. That's why it's confusing; how God can tell different things to one schoolar and another thing to other schoolars? Why Muhammad didn't leave any explicit instructions whom to trust? If Allah didn't order him to do that, is it reasonable to ask would God leave the people confused and divided wigh false acclaims? If Islam teaches that Quran and hadiths are the primary sources of understandings is it logical that we look upon them if 2 or more schoolars disagree? The ancient Greek word for somebody who throws false accusations is diabalo -> diablo -> devil. Could it be that Muhammad was inspired by Devil and that Allah is the Devil? Jesus also told that there will be fake prophets who would come after Him. St Paul said that Devil masks in the angel of light - maybe angel Gabriel from Muhammad's cave wasn't angel Gabriel. There is still the question which remaint unanswered: would Jesus, just as Muhammad, also be considered by today's standards as a pedophile, rapist, mass serial murderer and warlord? Like we all know, He has lived even earlier than Muhammad and His people were under the occupation by Roman Empire so it was definetly not the easy time to live. Yet there are no recordings that He was a pedophile, rapist, mass murderer or warlord, His messages are full of love and forgiveness even within today's context. I don't know, but for me it seem more logical to follow Him rather than Muhammad because of that.

Exodus has happened a long before Jesus was born, Moses was the first one who saw the Ten Commandments. Whom should we not kill it's easy to understand - all Abrahamic religions teach that only humans have immortal souls. Also, Jesus ate animals. If we use common sense and if we kisten to our conscience, we understand that we mustn't kill or torture animals for fun, only for eating. The same thing with the plants. Speaking about modern Bibles and original Bible it's enough to ask who gave to King James and to other inventors the authority to change the original Bible, to check Mt 16:18 (along with historical facts and common sense) to see who has the authority given by Christ to preach Christianity and to check what Jesus and St Paul said about false prophets. But, let's stick to topic since people are here to talk about Islam, not about Christian denominations

Please don't apology for long and thoughtful answers, you took a time and reply which I appreciate very much and all I can say is thank you again😊. The only one in the forums who should relatively often apologise to people is me because I feel I sometimes cross the line when I engage in discussions.

The reason I asked that is because Islamic schoolar with the name Farid (Farid Responds on yt) teaches that Aisha was as young as it's written in hadiths. Talibans also teach that. That's why it's confusing; how God can tell different things to one schoolar and another thing to other schoolars? Why Muhammad didn't leave any explicit instructions whom to trust? If Allah didn't order him to do that, is it reasonable to ask would God leave the people confused and divided wigh false acclaims? If Islam teaches that Quran and hadiths are the primary sources of understandings is it logical that we look upon them if 2 or more schoolars disagree? The ancient Greek word for somebody who throws false accusations is diabalo -> diablo -> devil. Could it be that Muhammad was inspired by Devil and that Allah is the Devil? Jesus also told that there will be fake prophets who would come after Him. St Paul said that Devil masks in the angel of light - maybe angel Gabriel from Muhammad's cave wasn't angel Gabriel. There is still the question which remaint unanswered: would Jesus, just as Muhammad, also be considered by today's standards as a pedophile, rapist, mass serial murderer and warlord? Like we all know, He has lived even earlier than Muhammad and His people were under the occupation by Roman Empire so it was definetly not the easy time to live. Yet there are no recordings that He was a pedophile, rapist, mass murderer or warlord, His messages are full of love and forgiveness even within today's context. I don't know, but for me it seem more logical to follow Him rather than Muhammad because of that.

Exodus has happened a long before Jesus was born, Moses was the first one who saw the Ten Commandments. Whom should we not kill it's easy to understand - all Abrahamic religions teach that only humans have immortal souls. Also, Jesus ate animals. If we use common sense and if we kisten to our conscience, we understand that we mustn't kill or torture animals for fun, only for eating. The same thing with the plants. Speaking about modern Bibles and original Bible it's enough to ask who gave to King James and to other inventors the authority to change the original Bible, to check Mt 16:18 (along with historical facts and common sense) to see who has the authority given by Christ to preach Christianity and to check what Jesus and St Paul said about false prophets. But, let's stick to topic since people are here to talk about Islam, not about Christian denominations

Regarding to the matter of hadiths, I must add some crucial information. During the Umayyad period (661–750), the narration of hadiths began to be used as a political tool to secure political legitimacy and suppress opposition; this development marked a critical turning point in the rise of hadith fabrication. Unfortunately, the religion presented as “Islam” today—starting notably with the Umayyad era and culminating during the Abbasid period—exhibits a structure intermingled with the products of a movement of fabrication. This “Islam” is not an understanding of the faith that derives its foundations solely from the Quran—that is, one that regards the Quran as sufficient in matters of religion. Rather, this is the “Islam” that underwent reformation at the hands of the Umayyads and Abbasids. This counter-reformation was carried out by making religion burdensome and obscure, placing it in conflict with human nature, and isolating women from society. With the advent of the Umayyad era, figures like Abu Hurayra and Ka'b—who had been rebuked during the era of the Four Caliphs for their narrations of hadiths—were suddenly held in high esteem.

After the passing of our Mohammad, Abu Bakr the first Caliph gathered the people and said to them: “You are narrating differing hadiths from the Messenger of Allah. Consequently, those who come after you will fall into even greater disagreements. Do not narrate any hadiths from the Messenger of Allah. To those who ask you to narrate hadiths, say: ‘Here is the Book of Allah among us; deem lawful what it declares lawful, and deem forbidden what it declares forbidden.’”

Hadiths had proliferated during the time of Umar. Umar asked the people to bring the sheets of hadiths they possessed. He then ordered them to be burned, stating: “These are the *Mishnah* of the Muslims, just like the *Mishnah* of the People of the Book.” Uthman threatened to send Abu Hurayrah to the mountains of Devş and to exile Ka‘b to the mountains of Kırede because they narrated so many hadiths. Those who contradict clear verses regarding the sufficiency of the Quran and defy the Mohammad’s command prohibiting the recording of hadiths resort to mechanisms such as reinterpretation or willful ignorance when faced with the stance of the Companions. Yet, all these mechanisms—and the falsehoods attributed to the Companions—cannot erase the fact that not a single written page of hadith from the era of the Four Caliphs has reached us. For example the phrase "Kill whoever changes their religion," found among the public or in certain sources, is a hadith, not a verse. Quran verses does not mention the execution of apostates as a worldly punishment; on the contrary, it emphasizes that the punishment is deferred to the Hereafter. Fabricated Islam says, "If the Quran and Hadith contradict each other, the ruling is based on the Hadith." At this point do we need need any devil at all? You would have a perfect mechanism to serve your will under the cover of religion.

The information given by lexicographers regarding the word "hars" is in complete agreement with the approach in the verses of the Quran where this word is used. At the root of hars lies submission to conjecture, lack of observation, and hearsay. The result of this is that those who deviate into hars surrender to boundless falsehood, ignorance, and brainlessness. This is how fabricated Islam today became into a pit of superstitions.