Who are you to decide which hadith are 'speculative' and which aren't?
It's my opinion based on logic. The hadith are hearsay, they were written 200 years after the death of Mohamed. The hadith contain internal and external contradictions.
I think Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim were more well-informed than you.
Hearsay, their evidence was based on the testimony of others, can Imam Bukhari and Muslim, cannot prove, someone was telling the truth. There was no protocol to to verify if the person who was relating a hadith was telling the truth, on many occasions, hadiths from Mohammed's blood line were never questioned, there was not a questioning process to determine the validity of a adith, it was only based on if another person corroborated the same adith then it was accepted that adith must be true, yet we know truth cannot be measured in mass appeal.
And there are many more hadith in which he mandated the death penalty for apostasy. Which is precisely why ALL five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the punishment for apostasy is death.
The "no-compulsion" line was contradicted in the very next verse and abrogated by many later verses. You can't hide behind the "no-compulsion" snippet forever.
Lets accept for the sake of argument Mohammad did indeed say "KILL" anyone who leaves Islam... Yet, we see that if a woman apostates from Islam, she is not "KILLED" she is imprisoned until she accepts Islam as true. Now do you understand how this is actually inconsistent with what Mohammad supposedly said according to the hadith, and what we have to day as "Sharia" - this makes your argument weak at best.
So as you can see, verse 256 gives the impression that there should be no compulsion in religion.... but the very next verse says that those who "reject faith" will dwell in the hellfire forever.
Note, firstly, ALLAH says no compulsion in "religion" but the next verse says those who would be condemned to hell are those who "reject FAITH" now this has a different meaning, if you ask me.
Religion in Arabic is:
Means to have belief in god or gods.
Faith in Arabic is:
Now if we look at the first verse bearing in my the right definition we get the following: 2:256
Let there be no compulsion in the belief of god or gods: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. - King Tut Translation.
Next verse would read:
Allah is the Protector of those who have honesty: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject honesty (knowingly) the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever). - King Tut Translation.
You see now it makes sense. It means those who reject honestly will be put into hell. The emphasis is on honesty. And not the belief in god, the problem is the translations we have currently are poor at best.
You obey the Quran AND the hadith.
I use my own intelligence, I truly believe in Allah, he is just and forgiving.
^ Nonsense. If you don't have to accept the hadith then can you show me, for example, where it tells you in the Quran how to pray your salah? Where are the instructions on how to do this? They're certainly not in the Quran.
LOl, so for 200 years after Mohammed had died, Muslims didn't pray until Bakari came and showed them? lol your argument is nonessential. It is illogical.
Now spare a thought for the millions of women who DON'T want to wear the niqab or hijab, but are forced to wear it because their pious husbands or fathers are trying to follow their religion... which says that the veil is compulsary for women and that if they fear disobedience from their wives then they can beat them.
Well you can blame Islam for the actions of a few ignorant individuals. But I blame the women for being lax, and not reading the scriptures thierselfs and challenging the men.