Nozzi: By trashing Bukhari you have trashed Koranic context

Submitted by Plato (India), May 31, 2009 at 10:53

Nozzi you write:

>>You have used the story that is mentioned in the book of Sahih Bukhari to be the words of Allah and that has made a silliest mistake in the interpretation of Quran.<<

Have you trashed Bukhari? Without Bukhari and the hadiths of other Muslim scholars you have only the Koran, and the Koran makes no sense without the hadith and sirah. You cannot interpret the Koran without the hadith. I have asked you before, what sense does the Surah 111 make without them?

>> Quran is indeed the message of Allah and the book of Sahih Bukhari is not the message of Allah and you must not use the story to mislead all the muslims. <<

023.005-006 YUSUFALI: Who abstain from sex,
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,

This message from Allah does not specifiy that the captive slave women who can be raped have to be Muslims. Anyway what difference does it make, whether Muslim or non-Muslim helpless women are allowed to be raped by the Koran.

And this message of Allah for Muhamad clearly says the prophet can have sex with his captive women: 033.050 YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;..

The verse does not say that he can have bed only Muslim slave girls (where or from which tribe in Arabia could he have captured Muslim women?) If what you say is true this verse surely could have misled Muhammad as Allah does not specify whether he can bed only Muslim slaves.

As you can see, Nozzi, I don't need Bukhari's and the other hadith to make my point. The Koran clearly allows the rape of captive women, Muslim or non-Muslim.

>>The book of Sahih Bukhari is simply the story of the past and how could this be treated to be the message of Allah due to people like you, non-muslims, tend to abuse the Holy Quran and to use your interpretation of the story of Sahih Bukhari to be treated as the words of Allah.<<

I have not said anywhere that Bukahri is the word of Allah. I demonstrated to you that Muslims are allowed to commit the crime of rape against slave girls by Allah's prophet.

>>The Holy Quran has a clear definition of muslims or Islam and that is those that believe in Allah and the Last Judgment Day. However, you make a mistake here and that is to use the story of Sahih Bukhari to be treated as the message of Allah. Allah has mentioned in Quran 4:3 that cannot be disputable by all muslims that muslims must not associate with muslims and yet you use your interpretation of Sahih Bukhari to replace the meaning of Allah. If the meaning …………… Allah since Quran is the book to be undisputable to be accepted universally among muslim people to be trully the message of Allah and none else.<<

I have not used Bukhari as a replacement for the Koran, and you know it. Go back and read my posts for confirmation.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".