Some questions regarding Islam
-
Here Sunni arguments, Why Hadith is more than Quran-Book Alone.
"Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that God has created? Perhaps their time is drawing near; so IN WHICH HADITH AFTER THIS ONE WILL THEY BELIEVE?"heavens and earth, is Allah's Hadith.
according to Sunni Scholars, Hadith Bukhari a collection of, Muhammad retelling Allah's Hadith.
Don't you all Hadith-Rejectors see the Futility against Hadith Bukhari?
Dear Producer,
Would you let us know where on this earth do you belong, I mean within the existing ideological spectrum? Are you a Muslim, a Sunni, a Christian, a Jew, or what not? Or, you just keep arguing just for the sake of argument itself? Please let us know. It helps us to readjust and refine our communications and make them more useful/helpful to one another, and not wasting our time and energy for nothing and at the end, not getting anywhere either!
Peace,
Khalil -
Here Sunni arguments, Why Hadith is more than Quran-Book Alone.
"Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that God has created? Perhaps their time is drawing near; so IN WHICH HADITH AFTER THIS ONE WILL THEY BELIEVE?"heavens and earth, is Allah's Hadith.
according to Sunni Scholars, Hadith Bukhari a collection of, Muhammad retelling Allah's Hadith.
Don't you all Hadith-Rejectors see the Futility against Hadith Bukhari?
It is a Valid argument. The Only Verse of Quran that Clearly Forbids Bukhari's Misleading Hadith are this;
Quran 316
And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech/Hadith to mislead from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.What other Verse from the Quran, Forbids Bukhari's Misleading Hadith? (I'm not free from mistake, if there's more verse like Quran 316, I agree to be corrected)
Peace. Forgive me, If I injured/cause loss to anyone.
-
Dear Producer,
Would you let us know where on this earth do you belong, I mean within the existing ideological spectrum? Are you a Muslim, a Sunni, a Christian, a Jew, or what not? Or, you just keep arguing just for the sake of argument itself? Please let us know. It helps us to readjust and refine our communications and make them more useful/helpful to one another, and not wasting our time and energy for nothing and at the end, not getting anywhere either!
Peace,
KhalilSalaam Khalil
I also thought Producer was bit of a space-nut, posting the same question over and over again. But I started getting interested in his question and it is a very very valid one. Not for a QA muslim, but for a sunni.
Check out this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603010.msg286291#new
-
I think the Aisha age thing comes from the Talmudic influence in Islam.
"The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a ?man? (See, "Judaism and Homosexuality A Marriage Made in Hell" Thus they exempted him from God?s Mosaic Law ?You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination? (Lev. 1822) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, ?All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not." 5 Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can't "throw guilt" on the active offender, morally or legally. 6
A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised "?the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act." 7 The Talmud also says, "A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her (as wife)." 8 Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy. "
http//www.truthtellers.org/alerts/pedophiliasecret.html
If you look at the age given its very similar to the Aisha hadiths.
So probably Jewish converts brought this tradition with them and later Muslim authorities traced this tradition to Muhammad to make it religiously binding.
Herbet Berg PhD
Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur'an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. "The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ?living tradition? as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school." And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafii that ?sunna? was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafii argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes thatTwo generations before Shafi
i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafii to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ?living tradition? (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra'y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.
Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur'an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra'y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur'an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra'y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra'y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too "found" hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools? founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that "where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses."
In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths "a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority." Likewise,
Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra'y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.
And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were "able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material." Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that
In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet?s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.
http//people.uncw.edu/bergh/
-
Hey everyone. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you all. As you probably know, it is currently fashionable in some circles to argue that Islam sanctions terrorism and wishes to establish a global caliphate. the usual 'proofs' are the history of the Islamic empires and koranic verses sanctioning violence. How do you respond to these claims? Another argument (propogated by some Muslims too) is that the Prophet married Aisha when she was nine. A case in point is this Islamic site which aims to refute the claims of reformist Muslims that she was older
http//www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Refutation_to_Muslim_Apologetics_against_Aisha's_Age_of_Consummation
How do you respond to such people?
Read my above post regarding Aisha. As far as terrorism, the Koran is very clear about the use of force
As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 608-9
Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ?Our Lord is God.? 2239-40
As far as Caliphate, thats not a Koranic concept.