Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

Muslims are careful to avoid the sin of "shirk", or associating partners with Allah. There is no god but Allah, they say; and the things that they give to Allah, including their prayers and their worship, they give only to Allah.

But what about the things that Allah gives to them, the most important of which are tenets of Islam and the rules by which Muslims should live? Do they believe that Allah has a "partner" in determining these rules?

Apparently yes, for most Muslims. Allah spoke to Muslims through the Quran, which is supposed to be a complete guide to their religion; but most Muslims supplement this guide with the hadith and sunnah, which are words and teachings of Muhammad. In effect, they make the hadith and sunnah "partner" texts to the Quran, which would imply that Muhammad was a partner to Allah.

Muslims say that the hadith and sunnah don't add to the Quran, they only help to explain it. However, this is often not the case. The Quran simply tells Muslims to pray, for instance, and then leaves them free to pray sincerely from their hearts, in their own words. (To me, this should be the best kind of prayer.) The sunnah imposes additional rules on prayer, telling them exactly what to pray and how to pray. These rules are not in the Quran.

Nonetheless, many Muslims say that they follow the hadith and sunnah because the Quran commands them to obey Muhammad.   However, as is often said, the Quran is very careful in its choice of words; and if you look closely you will see that you are commanded to follow the Messenger, not Muhammad. And how does one obey a messenger? By obeying his message, of course. And that is the Quran.

In response, many Muslims say that "the message" includes more than just the Quran, that everything Muhammad said and did was guided by Allah and was thus part of the "message". This seems to make Muhammad into some kind of mindless automaton who never had an original thought or opinion of his own. Besides, the hadith themselves show that it is not true:
"If I had not found it hard for my followers or the people, I would have ordered them to clean their teeth with Siwak for every prayer." - Sahih Bukhari, Book 11, Hadith 12
"Were I not afraid that it would be hard for my followers (or for the people), I would order them to pray `Isha prayer at this time." - Sahih Bukhari, Book 94, Hadith 14
Isn't it clear from the above that the prayer rituals are being decided by Muhammad, not by Allah? And if those rituals are an essential and permanent part of Islam, then how do you escape the conclusion that Muhammad is behaving as a partner to Allah in creating the rules of Islam?

According to the Quran, Allah is eternal, and so is His authority. Allah's words are preserved with meticulous care and accuracy in the Quran for eternity (particularly in contrast to the hadith!), precisely because they were addressed to all Muslims for eternity. Only Allah makes the rules, and He does not share that rule-making authority with anyone.

By contrast, Muhammad, peace be upon him, is dead; and therefore his authority, which was not the same kind of law-making authority as Allah's, ended with his death. His authority and his commands were never intended to apply beyond his contemporaries, which is why (unlike the Quran) no special effort was made to preserve or collect his words during his lifetime and preserve them for posterity. To suppose otherwise is to impute to him the same kind of authority as Allah -- and that, IMHO, is shirk.

That's how I see it anyway. And that's how a growing number of progressive Muslims see it.

You may wonder why I, a non-Muslim, should even care about this question. The answer is that IMHO it is mainly the hadith and sunnah that keep Islam locked in the 7th century and unable to adapt to modernity. No doubt many Muslims think that is a good thing. They don't want to be "contaminated" by modern ideas. (Ironically, they don't mind being contaminated by all the technological and scientific innovations that spring from modernity.)

Unfortunately for them, the world has progressed to a point where it is no longer possible for one "tribe" to wall itself off from the rest of the world and live in medieval isolation. Like it or not, Muslims are part of the global village. We need to get along together; and for that, Islam needs to adapt. If it doesn't bend, it will break -- and we'll all suffer the consequences.

Thanks for your reply, AhmadJoyia. We have family visiting us for the Christmas/New Years season, so I won't have a lot of time for online discussions in the next couple of weeks. I will respond in the next few days, however. Thanks for your patience.

Ron Webb wrote: The "litmus test" I have been using for some time now to separate the moderates from the extremists is the question of apostasy. The Quran makes it clear that apostasy is a great sin, but (as far as I know) does not impose any penalty in this life and does not obligate other Muslims to take any action against an apostate. However, there are several hadith in which Muhammad clearly orders Muslims to kill apostates. Unless I am mistaken, all four of the major madhabs (Islamic schools of jurisprudence) have declared that apostates who refuse to recant should be killed; and every implementation of sharia that I know of includes this provision as well. So what do you think? Is the murder of apostates obligatory, or merely recommended? Or should we assume that Muhammad's commands were specific to the time and circumstances in which they were given, and were never intended to apply more than a thousand years later?

IMHO, the topic of apostasy among Muslims is quite confusing, mostly because of the definition of this term �apostate� used at the time of the Prophet and the way it is understood now. It is for sure that Quran clearly says there is no compulsion on religion. Then how is it possible for Muslims to award punishment, that too capital punishment, to a person who reverts back from Islam to his pervious religion? Is this not sheer violation of Quran�s clear message? Yes, indeed it is. However, the reason this is happening is because of the confusion this term �apostate� is causing. My MS Office Word program shows me the following synonyms: renouncer, defector, deserter, renegade, absconder, traitor, run-away. Apparently, they all look and mean the similar, but actually, there is a huge difference when the same term is used specifically in Military to imply Deserter or traitor or absconder, for which capital punishment seems justified. Now, at the time of the Prophet Mohammad, in and around Mecca & Medina, there were only binary tribes. Either with or against the Muslims and there was no third option. Thus, anyone leaving Muslims, for any reason, would end up in the enemy�s camp. It is for this reason probably, that confused many Muslims in distinguishing between the apostate from the faith VS the apostate from loyalties in fighting war.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: IMHO, the topic of apostasy among Muslims is quite confusing, mostly because of the definition of this term �apostate� used at the time of the Prophet and the way it is understood now. The hadith I am referring to do not explicitly use the word "apostate": Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17 Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260 Now, at the time of the Prophet Mohammad, in and around Mecca & Medina, there were only binary tribes. Either with or against the Muslims and there was no third option. Thus, anyone leaving Muslims, for any reason, would end up in the enemy�s camp. It is for this reason probably, that confused many Muslims in distinguishing between the apostate from the faith VS the apostate from loyalties in fighting war. This is a false dichotomy. Surely it is possible, and has always been possible, to reject Islam without being hostile to Muslims.

Your disagreement is obviously understandable. Nevertheless, please present your proof to support your disagreement. Also, please do ensure that your example/proof must belong to the period of time while the Prophet was alive.

Ron Webb wrote: Besides, the hadiths above are clearly talking about religious apostasy, not military treason.

In the presence of clear Quranic directive (eg 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion�.) , all ahadith contrary to it, can�t be accepted. IMHO, this is the Islamic principle 101. Secondly, it is not necessary to put so much emphasis on �exact words� especially when all we are reading is the English translation of Arabic words put into writing decades after and communicated through oral transmissions that too, based on human memory. For an example just compare the two hadiths (Volume 9, Book 83, Number 16, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 18) narrating the same incident about a girl. Although the narrator of both of them is the same person (i.e Anas) yet we find so much difference in their wordings.

Ron Webb wrote: If I were a Muslim, this issue alone would be sufficient for me to reject all hadith�.

This is not an objective approach.