Uh, what?Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam
Uh, what?Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam
Most ancient people believe our origins came from the stars. This is a conversation that needs a bottle of whiskey and Google.There is a theory (probably not very believable, but more believable than today’s religions) that in those religions (and actually early Judaism too), they were just reporting the events that happened. Like some advanced alien civilization being on Earth, maybe even having wars with each other. Of course, the stories got changed over the time, but some laser weapon could have looked like Zeus’ lighting, and so on.
I never actually said anything negative about Aisha herself. I believe when it is written that Aisha and Muhammed had geniune affection for each other, the point of contention is just her very young age when they married and all that. I totally believe she developed into a very intelligent, strong and mature woman.That's the one thing you've said right despite your and Shamana's unabated mis-contexting. Aisha (RA) was indeed one of a kind, at 16 she was superior in intellect and maturity than any men (and women) around her at the time except her husband of course. Considering the men you mentioned above that is no small feat (Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, etc RA). They would go to her for the most difficult of social, political or religious understanding because she possessed something they didn't. At 16!! Not quite the expected psychological behaviour of a child sex victim.
I accept she was really young, I mean really young, when married. But she was mature a lot sooner than any girl probably before or after. Note, the Prophet (SAAW) did not marry any other young girl not did any of his followers. If you and Shamana are truly open minded you would read the hundreds of books on her attributes and qualities. Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam. It's quite common, even among those that think they're open minded. They still prefer hearing the Daily Mail headlines of the religion lest they succumb to this mystical/secretive religion. And it is pretty much mystical/secretive because they want it to remain so, just taking Quranic blurbs where necessary to fit their arguments.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I think people are getting bored of this discussion.
It's the age old Four Caliphs rule versus Ali RA (the fourth Caliph). In Sunni literature Ali RA may have disagreed on minor governance elements of the other three Caliphs but recognised their seniority and his place in line for leadership. Aisha RA narrated 100s/1000s of hadiths supporting this version. Shi'as disregard anything the other three Caliphs have said and done (hadiths) which includes Aisha's hadiths and support. They are all considered usurpers and enemies of their Islam.Incidentally Aisha is viewed not so favorably in the Shi’i historiography.
Interesting reading here on that issue...There's no clear cut evidence/scholarly opinion on Aisha's age anyway, there are evidences that she was a lot older than the age of 9 that is normally brandished. Personally I don't accept the younger position.
When did I say ‘All Muslims are terrorists’? Please quote and report that post.That's the one thing you've said right despite your and Shamana's unabated mis-contexting. Aisha (RA) was indeed one of a kind, at 16 she was superior in intellect and maturity than any men (and women) around her at the time except her husband of course. Considering the men you mentioned above that is no small feat (Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, etc RA). They would go to her for the most difficult of social, political or religious understanding because she possessed something they didn't. At 16!! Not quite the expected psychological behaviour of a child sex victim.
I accept she was really young, I mean really young, when married. But she was mature a lot sooner than any girl probably before or after. Note, the Prophet (SAAW) did not marry any other young girl not did any of his followers. If you and Shamana are truly open minded you would read the hundreds of books on her attributes and qualities. Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam. It's quite common, even among those that think they're open minded. They still prefer hearing the Daily Mail headlines of the religion lest they succumb to this mystical/secretive religion. And it is pretty much mystical/secretive because they want it to remain so, just taking Quranic blurbs where necessary to fit their arguments.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I think people are getting bored of this discussion.
This is written by somebody who believes all hadith in bukhari are authentic, which is a position I don't agree with.Interesting reading here on that issue...
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/faraz-m...rical-revisionism-and-modernist-presumptions/
So who do you agree with, and why?This is written by somebody who believes all hadith in bukhari are authentic, which is a position I don't agree with.
Of course she is not. Shi have a fetish on Ali, and Aisha fought a civil war against him. Two of the closest people of Muhammad (with Ali getting the heaven ticket while alive according to Sunni), what a nice bunch of guys.Incidentally Aisha is viewed not so favorably in the Shi’i historiography.
It's a subject of interest since it's 2nd biggest religion in the world and has vast influence on a huge amount of people. No, I do not necessarily consider the Hadith to 100% true, but consider them part of puzzle. I had before requested what is considered to be the most historically accurate biography of Muhammed and I was told "The Sealed Nectar" by Safiur-Rahmen. I was wondering whether there is another biography that has a consensus among historians as being the most valid biography of Muhammed. Do you know one?I'll only target one of your examples for now. Why do you concern yourself with the Hadith and what it teaches to muslims? Do you believe in the Hadith? Do you believe them as valid sources?
It looks very Schizoprenic
Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.This is written by somebody who believes all hadith in bukhari are authentic, which is a position I don't agree with.
So true. There was a post where you referred to him with name, and he quoted you referring to you with name (or the other way around). Was confused as feck.It looks very Schizoprenic
It just adds to the mystery of whole topic.So true. There was a post where you referred to him with name, and he quoted you referring to you with name (or the other way around). Was confused as feck.
Each hadith should be scrutinised on its own merits, to say every single hadith in Bukhari and Muslim is authentic isn't true.Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.
Do you not accept it perhaps, cause it does not agree with your viewpoint of child marriages? By accepting the Hadith, it makes either child marriages okay, or Muhammad not a very nice man. Rejecting the Hadith solves the issue though, which makes rejecting it very desirable. But then, where to stop on rejecting hadiths? And for that matter Quran verses too (human sperm most definitely is not created on spine).
Ok, I admit it that it is a very open-minded viewpoint, and if I was a Muslim, I would have likely done the same.Each hadith should be scrutinised on its own merits, to say every single hadith in Bukhari and Muslim is authentic isn't true.
If you know how hadith science works you will understand how each one is scrutinised, there have been many scholars who have looked at each hadith chain in detail, it's upto the person to make a their own decision. FYI the Aisha hadiths have been weakened.Ok, I admit it that it is a very open-minded viewpoint, and if I was a Muslim, I would have likely done the same.
The problem though, is how to decide what is authentic or not, considering that all the other things which might contradict it, have lower authority than Bihari/Muslim. Now for some hadiths is easy to dismiss, for example, Muhammad didn’t travel the entire universe in a single night. But for the social hadiths, that becomes very hard to dismiss.
For what is worth, I find genuinely interesting to know why you reject the Hadith. Based on what other hadiths (or events) you think it is not true?
I actually came across a quite uncomfortable passage In The Sealed nectar where Abu Bakr is conducting a raid on a village and the children attemps to flee, but he prevents them from fleeing because he sees amongst the children a pretty arab girl. I did not take notes while reading the book or bookmark the controversial passages, but I can always find them, it just takes a long a time. But yeah it does not shine nicely on Abu Bakr who were counted among the best of muslims and muhammeds more or less 2nd in command and father to one of his wives.Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.
Do you not accept it perhaps, cause it does not agree with your viewpoint of child marriages? By accepting the Hadith, it makes either child marriages okay, or Muhammad not a very nice man. Rejecting the Hadith solves the issue though, which makes rejecting it very desirable. But then, where to stop on rejecting hadiths? And for that matter Quran verses too (human sperm most definitely is not created on spine).
If you do not consider the hadith to be 100% why do you then use them as one of your resources to point out negatives? https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/246 This is a Hadith. Are you going to believe this or not?It's a subject of interest since it's 2nd biggest religion in the world and has vast influence on a huge amount of people. No, I do not necessarily consider the Hadith to 100% true, but consider them part of puzzle. I had before requested what is considered to be the most historically accurate biography of Muhammed and I was told "The Sealed Nectar" by Safiur-Rahmen. I was wondering whether there is another biography that has a consensus among historians as being the most valid biography of Muhammed. Do you know one?
My intial interest in the dark sides of Islam was sparked by this since I am Danish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...uhammad_cartoons_controversy#Violent_protests
You are factually wrong here. By all accounts that is not what is reported or believed to have happened. Besides, even if it did you realize this is Islamic history and not Islam right?Of course she is not. Shi have a fetish on Ali, and Aisha fought a civil war against him. Two of the closest people of Muhammad (with Ali getting the heaven ticket while alive according to Sunni), what a nice bunch of guys.
Sunni try to avoid talking that Muhammad’s nephew and Muhammad’s preferred wife lead thousands to their death by fighting each other.
Your first problem is generalizing more than a billion people of the same religion to have the exact same beliefs. You will get different answers. Secondly, them becoming false is not unlikely at all if you read a little into the compilation methods and contradictions within same resources.Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.
Do you not accept it perhaps, cause it does not agree with your viewpoint of child marriages? By accepting the Hadith, it makes either child marriages okay, or Muhammad not a very nice man. Rejecting the Hadith solves the issue though, which makes rejecting it very desirable. But then, where to stop on rejecting hadiths? And for that matter Quran verses too (human sperm most definitely is not created on spine).
Yes, but surely not all those of Islamic faith consider the Quran to be literally true either? That can't be the case for such a large and diverse array of people.Your first problem is generalizing more than a billion people of the same religion to have the exact same beliefs. You will get different answers. Secondly, them becoming false is not unlikely at all if you read a little into the compilation methods and contradictions within same resources.
The reason Hadith are rejected by some is because in Islamic belief the Quran is considered the divine word of God while Hadith are considered historical accounts compiled by man. Upon the completion of Islam, the Hadith did not exist and came into birth years later.
Tell me how I am wrong, and how the Battle of the Camel did not happen.You are factually wrong here. By all accounts that is not what is reported or believed to have happened. Besides, even if it did you realize this is Islamic history and not Islam right?
Sure, if Hadith does against Quran, that disqualifies that hadith. But this is not what happened here, Quran said nothing about Aisha.Your first problem is generalizing more than a billion people of the same religion to have the exact same beliefs. You will get different answers. Secondly, them becoming false is not unlikely at all if you read a little into the compilation methods and contradictions within same resources.
The reason Hadith are rejected by some is because in Islamic belief the Quran is considered the divine word of God while Hadith are considered historical accounts compiled by man. Upon the completion of Islam, the Hadith did not exist and came into birth years later.
Every one of those I know, do exactly that. The problem is that Quran says itself that everything there is true, and it will be protected from Allah until the end of days. Not a single letter of it will be changed from humans. Dismissing some inconvenient part of Quran is as a big blasphemy as it can be.Yes, but surely not all those of Islamic faith consider the Quran to be literally true either? That can't be the case for such a large and diverse array of people.
Well, if we aren't going to use the Quran, the hadith and historical sources, who should we rely on to get a picture of the life of Muhammed? Who would you rely on? Yes the book I read is full of miracles which of course is where I am willing to suspend my belief. I have a few superstious inclinations so I don't entirely write off supernatural phenomena, but Muhammed healing people's wounds with his saliva would probably only be believeable for me if I did indeed believe in a All-mighty creator God called Allah and if I believed Muhammed was his prophet. I don't believe that there is an Al-mighty god called Allah so I would find it difficult to believe that Muhammed had attained supernatural powers.If you do not consider the hadith to be 100% why do you then use them as one of your resources to point out negatives? https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/246 This is a Hadith. Are you going to believe this or not?
You are factually wrong here. By all accounts that is not what is reported or believed to have happened. Besides, even if it did you realize this is Islamic history and not Islam right?
You'll find exceptions of course and people who still don't follow it anyway but fundamentally, what unites almost all Muslims, regardless of political, social, religious etc views is that almost all of them believe that the Quran is the unchanged and literal word of god.Yes, but surely not all those of Islamic faith consider the Quran to be literally true either? That can't be the case for such a large and diverse array of people.
Lots of Christians believe this about the Bible as well.It is supposed to be the verbatim word of God
Thank you. So in general, the Quran would be considered to be more literal than, say, the Bible is on average by Christians? In the sense that, whilst of course open to interpretation, the content of the Quran is inherently true?You'll find exceptions of course and people who still don't follow it anyway but fundamentally, what unites almost all Muslims, regardless of political, social, religious etc views is that almost all of them believe that the Quran is the unchanged and literal word of god.
Yes, indeed. I'm trying to understand if that's, basically, similar to Christianity in that there is something of a "pick and choose" approach as is the case with many Christians regarding the Bible. May be it's a tough question to answer I guess.Lots of Christians believe this about the Bible as well.
Might sound obvious to say, but they’re two different texts which serve different functions within the quite different contexts of each faith. So trying to draw direct analogies between them often leads to more confusion and less understanding.Yes, indeed. I'm trying to understand if that's, basically, similar to Christianity in that there is something of a "pick and choose" approach as is the case with many Christians regarding the Bible. May be it's a tough question to answer I guess.
Yes, I suspect so. I feel my question may not be helpful but I'm trying to get some base understanding of how a very different religion and its philosophies are structured through the prism of a religion I'm more familiar with which may well be foolhardy.Might sound obvious to say, but they’re two different texts which serve different functions within the quite different contexts of each faith. So trying to draw direct analogies between them often leads to more confusion and less understanding.
It would depend on the denomination of Christianity you're looking at. Views on the literal nature of the Bible vary between them.Yes, indeed. I'm trying to understand if that's, basically, similar to Christianity in that there is something of a "pick and choose" approach as is the case with many Christians regarding the Bible. May be it's a tough question to answer I guess.
It is difficult to compare directly of course. I think the difference is perhaps that the overwhelming majority of muslims (that I've met anyway) will say that the Quran is the literal word of god, unchanged since Muhammed was alive. All Muhammed did was collect the messages and others wrote them down word for word. It does therefore make it a bit more difficult to exclude some of the harsher let's say aspects.Thank you. So in general, the Quran would be considered to be more literal than, say, the Bible is on average by Christians? In the sense that, whilst of course open to interpretation, the content of the Quran is inherently true?
It’s an understandable impulse, but it’s nearly always best to try to understand these things in their own terms.Yes, I suspect so. I feel my question may not be helpful but I'm trying to get some base understanding of how a very different religion and its philosophies are structured through the prism of a religion I'm more familiar with which may well be foolhardy.
Thanks, that's the most informed article I've seen so far on the subject.Interesting reading here on that issue...
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/faraz-m...rical-revisionism-and-modernist-presumptions/
I'm interested to know your thoughts on it being dismissed so easily further up the page here.Thanks, that's the most informed article I've seen so far on the subject.