Core values.
-
I have to say I agree with your principles Noble, but I do wonder if the death penalty is really the appropriate punishment. I mean, I might support "disappearing" some particularly obnoxious gay activists to "send a message", so to speak (as a state policy of course, I am not in anyway endorsing individual violent acts), but why do you think that they should all be killed?
-
I have to say I agree with your principles Noble, but I do wonder if the death penalty is really the appropriate punishment. I mean, I might support "disappearing" some particularly obnoxious gay activists to "send a message", so to speak (as a state policy of course, I am not in anyway endorsing individual violent acts), but why do you think that they should all be killed?
To send a messsage? Thats deterence argument. Thats not a Quranic concept but a Sunni one. They believe the punishment can exceed the crime to act as a deterence. The Quran only recognizes proportional justice. An eye for an eye and not an eye for an eye lash.
-
To send a messsage? Thats deterence argument. Thats not a Quranic concept but a Sunni one. They believe the punishment can exceed the crime to act as a deterence. The Quran only recognizes proportional justice. An eye for an eye and not an eye for an eye lash.
Gonna need a source for that.
-
Gonna need a source for that.
I think the passage 540-50 establishes the principle of proportionality rather clearly, with 545 being translatable thus
And We have decreed for them in it that a life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and wounds to be similar; and whoever remits anything of it, then it will cancel sins for him. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the wicked.
-
I think the passage 540-50 establishes the principle of proportionality rather clearly, with 545 being translatable thus
Also
O ye who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for ye when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This is an alleviation from thine Lord and mercy. Anyone who transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution.
the sacred month is for the sacred month, and for violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. 2.194
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers
Proportional justice where apples for apples, oranges for oranges and grapes for grapes. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and a soul for a soul. Proportional justice and not deterence justice to send a message or disproportionate justice where apples for oranges, slaves for the free or a tooth for a jaw.
-
I think the passage 540-50 establishes the principle of proportionality rather clearly, with 545 being translatable thus
Nope.
That was in reference to the children of Israel. Quote it in context.
Also
O ye who believe, equivalence is the law decreed for ye when dealing with murder - the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. If one is pardoned by the victim's kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This is an alleviation from thine Lord and mercy. Anyone who transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution.
Emphasis on "when dealing with murder."
the sacred month is for the sacred month, and for violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. 2.194
Proportional justice where apples for apples, oranges for oranges and grapes for grapes. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and a soul for a soul. Proportional justice and not deterence justice to send a message or disproportionate justice where apples for oranges, slaves for the free or a tooth for a jaw.
Ok then. Let's rape rapists. Anything else would be unjust.
Oh but wait, "retribution" can mean anything. Try again. And oh yeah, the context of that verse is referring to war.
-
Nope.
That was in reference to the children of Israel. Quote it in context.
Emphasis on "when dealing with murder."
Ok then. Let's rape rapists. Anything else would be unjust.
Oh but wait, "retribution" can mean anything. Try again. And oh yeah, the context of that verse is referring to war.
Yes a soul for a sol but also eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, men for men and the free for the free. I also detect sarcasm in your tone.
The problem here is there is still many Sunni influences that you are holding on too. You sound sometimes desperate.
1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message
479-80 Say ?Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe.... Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith
24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach
6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance
As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authority to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.
The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themselves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else's right.
Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It?s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished by flogging just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It?s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the female members of the community. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal and causes pain and anguish.
The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.
In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.
However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile. The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.
But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostate. That?s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caught and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.
This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someone?s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.
To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial. There is a rumour about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab the founder or rather the revivalist of Salafism (some call it wahhabism) stoned a women to death. This was the only time in Islamic history that we heard such a thing.
Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed much aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. That?s very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.
One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the sects understand it. Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That?s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink inthe Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that?s very sad.
-
@Bigmo It's posts like your's that make it crystal clear to me that I need to study more about the history and evolution of Islam. You made a lot of points that I'd never heard before; I didn't know the controversial laws were old but unenforced, I thought it was all more recent and that was why you don't see it much in history. Could you recommend some good places to start?
-
Yes a soul for a sol but also eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, men for men and the free for the free. I also detect sarcasm in your tone.
The problem here is there is still many Sunni influences that you are holding on too. You sound sometimes desperate.
So what if I hold on to Sunni influences? Don't try and tell me that you're uninfluenced by anything except the Qur'an. You yourself admitted that you study economics, which is a source of authority that certainly isn't formulated by the Qur'an.
1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message
479-80 Say ?Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."
1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe.... Hence, we have not sent you with power to determine their Faith
24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach
6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
28.55-56 And when they hear vain talk, they turn away there from and say "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you we seek not the ignorant," It is true thou wilt not be able to guide whom thou lovest; but God guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance
As we can clearly see, many of the verses that talks about obeying the prophet also emphasizes the prophet's limited authority, something that the Islamic sects do not recognize. The ruler to them has the authority to punish people for what they consider sins like drinking alcohol, eating pork, not fasting Ramadan, watching pornos etc.
The Koran meanwhile focuses on crimes against another like stealing, killing, slandering of women falsely and oppression. It gave the believers the right to fight against those who fight them but not to transgress. It also gave people the right to defend themselves against evictions from their lands. There is no talk about punishing people for something that does not concern somebody else's right.
Adultery is the only place where the Koran diverted from this due to the fact that a adultery affects another party. Here the Koran sees adultery as affecting the other partner in a marriage. It?s a betrayal and a breaking of oath. But even then it placed strict standards on that but was lenient when it came to punishing slanders of women. Adultery needs four witnesses but the slander can get punished by flogging just from opening his mouth without four witnesses. It?s clear that the verse made it very difficult to implement on adultery but very easy to implement on the slanderer. Further reading of the verse about the Zani and Zania shows us that the issue came up concerning slandering of one of the female members of the community. But adultery still affects another party as its a breaking of an oath between a man and a woman and is an act of betrayal and causes pain and anguish.
The Koran cannot order the prophet to punish people for sins, that God's job. The Koran gave people the right and freedom to disbelieve let alone sin. Plus how the Koran understands sins is very different than how the sects understand sins.
In the end the sects had no choice but to abrogate many of these verses, usually invoking the "sword verse". They claim that many of these verses that gave the prophet limited authority(over those who chose to disobey him) has been abrogated by verse 9-5 or verse 9-29.
However these verses were about the wars with the pagans, and verse 9-13 and many other verses makes it clear who instigated these battles and why. The Jizya verse (9-29) also was claimed by the sects to be a tax to be paid by non Muslims in an Islamic state for protection. However Jizya never came concerning the Medina community where the prophet and his followers had a community. And only came upon the believers entering of Mecca. Jizya could have easily been compensation for the loss of property and homes that the believers suffered after being forced into exile. The Koran forbade prophets from seeking any form of reward. They can however accept charity on behalf of the believers.
But the Sunnah claimed otherwise. In it the prophet was ordered to fight the people till they acknowledge monotheism and also in it the prophet ordered the execution of those who apostate. That?s why they abrogated many of the verses that limited his authority. Then they simply transferred that authority to the Muslim ruler by default. The Ridda war story about Abu Bakr is a case study of this. In that story Abu Bakr apparently fought people for not paying Zakat. Now the authority was transferred from God to the prophet to one of his companions. This made it very easy to then transfer that authority to the ruler. This is why you see places where Shariah law is implemented filled with such concepts like searching cars for alcohol or flogging people for watching pornos or not wearing proper attire. None of this should concern anyone but it has become a punishable sin. God only punishes those who did not get caught and punished in this world. The sects claimed that once punished the sin falls away and disappears. You will not find such a concept in the Koran. There God punishes in a million ways and does not need humans to punish for him. I think the sects introduced this conc3ept to make people more accepting of this by making them think its better for them since God's punishment is more severe. They also introduced stoning the adulterer by claiming the Zina verse in the Koran is concerning fornification and not adultery. They claimed that the verse about stoning was lost and is not included in the Koran but the ruling remains.
This of course violated not only the freedom aspect of the Koran but also an eye for an eye and a life for a life. In the Koran, any punishment must be reciprocal and proportionate to the crime and it also must be targeted towards the actual perpetrators of the crime and not someone else associated to the criminal as the case with tribal laws that simply targets anyone from that tribe. They broke this by lower the bar for executions. Some Sunni scholars also gave the authority to execute homosexuals and enslave female prisoners and execute male prisoners. Something the Koran forbade. The Koran gave two options for prisoners, either freedom or ransom of some sort. They gave this authority to the ruler. This is all very sad as the taking of someone?s life is no easy matter in the Koran. God should take life and not humans, but if a person takes a life then he lost his right to live, but even then the Koran gave exile from the community as another option for murder especially if the person shows repentance. So an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth somehow ended up being an eye for an eye lash and a tooth for a jaw.
To be fair the Sunni orthodoxy rarely practiced some of these laws. We know of no time in history where adulterers were stoned to death. Apostasy was rarely practiced, unlike the Christians in Europe that practiced these laws left and right. So the Sunni jurist knew that some of these laws could be controversial. There is a rumour about Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab the founder or rather the revivalist of Salafism (some call it wahhabism) stoned a women to death. This was the only time in Islamic history that we heard such a thing.
Its very unfortunate the current Islamist in Iran and Sudan and the Salafis in generally never understood why these laws were controversial. But in doing so they exposed much aspect of the sects that people were not aware of. The Sufis provided a convenient cover as they shunned legalism. But even the clerics understood that these laws were controversial. Its not easy in Islam to execute outside of murder. But this wise tradition was broken. That?s very unfortunant as now we see the culture of death has spread among Muslims till Islam became synonymous with violence and killing. Once you lower the bar it spirals out of control.
The Koranic verses you quoted proclaimed that Muhammad wasn't sent as a keeper over men. Muhammad is dead. Nobody is talking about Muhammad enforcing anything.
One thing is crystal clear from all this. The Koran's take on human authority and freedom is RADICALLY different than how the sects understand it.
No. You have just asserted this.
Therefore the biggest difference between a Koranic state and a Sunni or Shia state will come in the form of the state's authority over the masses. It is this, more than anything else, that separates the Koran from the Sunnah. That?s why the Abbasids championed the Sunnah over the Mutazilites. The Mutaziltes couldn't find the ink inthe Koran to give them such draconian authority. The sects did that by first bringing the divine authority from God to prophet, then propet to Caliph (companions) and now that authority is in Omar Al Bashir, Khamenei, Mullah Omar and Al Saud. And that?s very sad.
So you don't believe in any authority except those which the Koran has explicitly sanctioned? I find that hard to believe.
-
So what if I hold on to Sunni influences? Don't try and tell me that you're uninfluenced by anything except the Qur'an. You yourself admitted that you study economics, which is a source of authority that certainly isn't formulated by the Qur'an.
The Koranic verses you quoted proclaimed that Muhammad wasn't sent as a keeper over men. Muhammad is dead. Nobody is talking about Muhammad enforcing anything.
No. You have just asserted this.
So you don't believe in any authority except those which the Koran has explicitly sanctioned? I find that hard to believe.
Detaining prisoners
Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims? best interests. He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter. The purpose behind detaining prisoners is so that the Muslims may be protected from their evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners? eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life.
Ahkaam al-Sijn wa?l-Sujana? wa Mu?aamalat al-Sujana? fi?l-Islam by Hasan Abi?l-Ghuddah, 256
http//islamqa.info/en/ref/13241
The blue part is Quranic while the red part come from hadith.
Drinking Alcohol
With regard to the punishment of the drinker in this world, the punishment is flogging, according to the consensus of the fuqaha?, because of the report narrated by Muslim (3281) from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him), who said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) flogged the one who had drunk wine with palm branches stripped of their leaves and with shoes.
But there is some difference of opinion as to the number of lashes. The majority of scholars are of the view that it is eighty lashes for a free man and forty for others.
They quoted as evidence the hadeeth of Anas quoted above, in which it says that a man who had drunk wine was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and he had him flogged forty times with two palm branches that had been stripped of their leaves. Abu Bakr also did likewise (during his caliphate). When ?Umar was the caliph, he consulted the people and ?Abd al-Rahmaan said, ?The minimum punishment is eighty,? so that is what ?Umar commanded.
The Sahaabah agreed with ?Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) and did not differ. The Council of Senior Scholars is agreed that the punishment for one who drinks wine is the hadd punishment, which is eighty lashes.
http//islamqa.info/en/ref/20037
As you can see whatever authority and decision reported about the prophet ha snow become the policy of an Islamic state where the ruler now enjoys that authority.
So your saying that Muhammad is dead has no relevance because the authority the hadith claim he had is now the authority of an Islamic state. How he dealt with prisoners and what he said about them becomes the policy of the Islamic state. The more authority reported about him the more authority the Islamic state and the ruler has. One of the goals as I said of the Sunnah was to establish absolute authority for the Abbasid Empire and its rulers. This was done by first claiming the prophet enjoyed absolute authority, authority of life and death on prisoners for example, and then transfering that authority to the Islamic state with the ruler making the decision.
-
Qatada related that Anas said, "The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, flogged people for wine with palm stalks and sandals, and Abu Bakr gave forty lashes."
-
Abu Usama related that Abu Hurayra said, "A man who had drunk wine was brought to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who said, 'Beat him.'' Abu Hurayra said, "Some of us hit with our hands and some with their garments. When it was over, some people said, 'May Allah disgrace you!' The Prophet said, 'No! Do not say that. Do not help Shaytan against him.'"
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
Sahih Bukhari 559459
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."
Sahih Bukhari 558148
So these hadiths are no just talking about a historic figure or a biography of a person. These hadiths are establishing the policy and authority of an Islamic state. Unable to find such authority in the Quran later Muslim authorities came up with stories such as this from the Sunnah to establish that as a Shariah law. And if the Quran commanded something they simply add more commands claiming its a Sunnah and if the Quran commanded something that contradicts what the Sunnah claims than they simply abrogate the verses of the Quran.
Hadiths are not just historic biographical stories. They are a legal document for an Islamic state.
There is no problem accepted any authority outside the Quran as long as it does not contradict the Quran as these hadiths do.
Sunnah and its place in Sunni Islam
The Sunnah comes in agreement with the Quran. It explains the meanings of what is unclear in the text, provides details for what is depicted in general terms, specifies what is general, and explains its injunctions and objectives. The Sunnah also comes with injunctions that are not provided by the Quran, but these are always in harmony with its principles, and they always advance the objectives that are outlined in the Quran.
The Sunnah is a practical expression of what is in the Quran. This expression takes many forms. Sometimes, it comes as an action performed by the Messenger. At other times, it is a statement that he made in response to something. Sometimes, it takes the form of a statement or action of one of the Companions that he neither prevented nor objected to. On the contrary, he remained silent about it or expressed his approval for it.
http//www.islamreligion.com/articles/655/
Now of course if the blue part of the above explanation was true than we would not have a problem. But its not. What they did was abrogate the verses of the Quran that stood in their way. Now they don't have to worry about any agreement with the Quran since any disagreement has been abrogated.
24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger, but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
426 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach
6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
You said
"The Koranic verses you quoted proclaimed that Muhammad wasn't sent as a keeper over men. Muhammad is dead. Nobody is talking about Muhammad enforcing anything."
That is right. Its now the Islamic state thats to enforce it. The more authority he is claimed to have to more authority the Islamic state now has over the masses. So we now have Mullah Omar, Umar Al Bashir, Al Saud and Ahmedenijad. And thats the agenda.
Abrogation is the key. By looking at what are the verses of the Quran the Sects abrogated and by what they replaced them with we can see the agenda. A dictatorial state with an absolute ruler where an individual has no freedom and authority over himself but all authority is transfered either to the family and most of all to the state. The Quran gives authority to the individual and this is what the Sects despised about the Quran. Freedom and proportional justice.
Out of the whole Quran, there are 124 verses that teach some tolerence towards non-Muslims...but here is the striking fact....all of these verses are void, and were abrogated by the last verse (supposedly) revealed upon Muhammad, and that is verse 95 listed above
Suyuti (One of the most respected authorities in Islam) in his book "Istenbat al tanzeel" says "Every thing in the Qur'an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 95."
Al-Shawkani in his book "Alsaylu Jarar" (4518-519) says "Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed. about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case."
Here we see a list of the verses that are claimed to have been abrogated. You can see verse 9.5 is the key verse used by the sects. By looking at what verses they claim that verse abrogated we can see the agenda quite clear. Islamic clerics don't like discussing abrogation since it exposes their agenda. But their days of deception are coming to an end.
http//www.wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrogations_in_the_Qur'an
Need I need to say more?
-