Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And here I thought Joseph Smith was the whitest prophet ever.

To be fair, I thought the same and even more as, until quite recently, I thought he was also the most racist and pro-slavery prophet of all time.
Apparently not.

Mahomet is teaching us that Satan is a black man :

"The apostle said, "Whoever wants to see Satan let him take a look at Nabtal b. al-Harith!" He was a sturdy black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks. He used to come and talk to the apostle and listen to him and then carry what he had said to the hypocrites. It was he who said: "Muhammad is all ears: if anyone tells him anything he believes it." God sent down concerning him: "And of them are those who annoy the prophet and say he is all ears, Say: Good ears for you. He believes in God and trusts the believers and is a mercy for those of you who believe; and those who annoy the apostle of God for them there is a painful punishment." (Sura 9:61)

But also that Black people are doomed to hell :

On the Day when (some) faces will be whitened and (some) faces will be blackened; and as for those whose faces have been blackened, it will be said unto them: Disbelieved ye after your (profession of) belief? Then taste the punishment for that ye disbelieved. (Âl 'Imran 3:106)
And on the Day of Resurrection thou (Muhammad) seest those who lied concerning Allah with their faces blackened. Is not the home of the scorners in hell? (Az-Zumar 39:60)

And I'm not even talking about the fact that Mahomet successor instituted death penalty for anyone daring to say that Mahomet was a black man.

"Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said, "Anyone who says that the Prophet was black SHOULD BE KILLED." "

That hadith has to be verified as true, also, the Prophet (SAWS) was describing the person, not saying that he was the devil just cause he was 'black'.
For the Qur'anic verses, if you want to take every word of the Holy Qur'an literally, then yes, that's racist.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Also, this is a reason why Muslims don't show the face of the Prophet (SAWS). Arguments and/or debates like this one happen.

[Olerand]

Aelex, you can't accept every single hadith verse, because some ahadith contradict the Holy Qur'an. So Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) may have been white, maybe not. I think not, because he (SAWS) was born in the Mid East.
Olerand, the Holy Qur'an states that there's no compulsion in religion, so no, Jews wouldn't have to convert to Al-Islam whether they paid jizya or not. Besides, imo, in my ideal Islamic society, non-Muslims wouldn't follow Sharia unless there are Sharia laws that pertain to them. Actually, that should be in any Islamic nation, not my ideal one.

Key words here being "in my ideal Islamic society". The Quran, and by that I mean the Quran of Mecca, might "state that there is no compulsion in religion", but the ahadith say otherwise.

And before we enter this discussion for the one millionth, seven hundred thousandth, two hundred and thirtieth time, you do not determine what the ahadith say and which are true or false, the Ulama do.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Aelex, you can't accept every single hadith verse, because some ahadith contradict the Holy Qur'an. So Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) may have been white, maybe not. I think not, because he (SAWS) was born in the Mid East.
Olerand, the Holy Qur'an states that there's no compulsion in religion, so no, Jews wouldn't have to convert to Al-Islam whether they paid jizya or not. Besides, imo, in my ideal Islamic society, non-Muslims wouldn't follow Sharia unless there are Sharia laws that pertain to them. Actually, that should be in any Islamic nation, not my ideal one.

Key words here being "in my ideal Islamic society". The Quran, and by that I mean the Quran of Mecca, might "state that there is no compulsion in religion", but the ahadith say otherwise.

And before we enter this discussion for the one millionth, seven hundred thousandth, two hundred and thirtieth time, you do not determine what the ahadith say and which are true or false, the Ulama do.

It's blatantly obvious that that hadith verse is wrong if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an. I don't need the Ulama for that.
Also, there is no 'Qur'an of Mecca', the Holy Qur'an is the Holy Qur'an.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I only call the Ahadith verses false if the blatantly right-in-your-face contradict the Holy Qur'an. The others, Islamic historians would have to find out.

[Olerand]

Key words here being "in my ideal Islamic society". The Quran, and by that I mean the Quran of Mecca, might "state that there is no compulsion in religion", but the ahadith say otherwise.

And before we enter this discussion for the one millionth, seven hundred thousandth, two hundred and thirtieth time, you do not determine what the ahadith say and which are true or false, the Ulama do.

It's blatantly obvious that that hadith verse is wrong if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an. I don't need the Ulama for that.
Also, there is no 'Qur'an of Mecca', the Holy Qur'an is the Holy Qur'an.

There are, in effect, two Qurans. Not theologically, but historically. The Quran of Mecca, laid out when Muhammad was being oppressed in Mecca and spoke in favor of peace and tolerance. And the Quran of Medina, laid out when Muhammad was in Medina and readying for war, and that one is... distinctly less peaceful and tolerant.

Regardless, we've been through this a million times, and as the other Wahhabi poster has corrected, only the Ulama may explain the Ahadith and their validity. I will not reopen this issue.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It's blatantly obvious that that hadith verse is wrong if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an. I don't need the Ulama for that.
Also, there is no 'Qur'an of Mecca', the Holy Qur'an is the Holy Qur'an.

There are, in effect, two Qurans. Not theologically, but historically. The Quran of Mecca, laid out when Muhammad was being oppressed in Mecca and spoke in favor of peace and tolerance. And the Quran of Medina, laid out when Muhammad was in Medina and readying for war, and that one is... distinctly less peaceful and tolerant.

Regardless, we've been through this a million times, and as the other Wahhabi poster has corrected, only the Ulama may explain the Ahadith and their validity. I will not reopen this issue.

That doesn't show that it's 2 different books. There is only 1 Qur'an. The Holy Qur'an.
As to the Ahadith, even if it's seriously obvious, I can't say anything?

[Olerand]

There are, in effect, two Qurans. Not theologically, but historically. The Quran of Mecca, laid out when Muhammad was being oppressed in Mecca and spoke in favor of peace and tolerance. And the Quran of Medina, laid out when Muhammad was in Medina and readying for war, and that one is... distinctly less peaceful and tolerant.

Regardless, we've been through this a million times, and as the other Wahhabi poster has corrected, only the Ulama may explain the Ahadith and their validity. I will not reopen this issue.

That doesn't show that it's 2 different books. There is only 1 Qur'an. The Holy Qur'an.
As to the Ahadith, even if it's seriously obvious, I can't say anything?

Did I say it was two books? No. A book can be a single piece of work, and yet contain two chapters, two segments, two acts, etc.


Are you a Alim? No? Then no.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That doesn't show that it's 2 different books. There is only 1 Qur'an. The Holy Qur'an.
As to the Ahadith, even if it's seriously obvious, I can't say anything?

Did I say it was two books? No. A book can be a single piece of work, and yet contain two chapters, two segments, two acts, etc.


Are you a Alim? No? Then no.

Blatantly obvious contradictions must be decried by anyone.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Does this have to do with Sunni Islam?

[Olerand]

Does this have to do with Sunni Islam?

For the nth time, yes. Shia Islam is more open to Ijtihad (but you still need to be a Alim), although Ja'afarism is less so, and as Ja'afarism becomes the large majority of the Shia population, Ijtihad should decrease in importance too.

Did I say it was two books? No. A book can be a single piece of work, and yet contain two chapters, two segments, two acts, etc.


Are you a Alim? No? Then no.

Blatantly obvious contradictions must be decried by anyone.

Mhm, according to you. But you are not the authority on Islamic theological interpretations.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Does this have to do with Sunni Islam?

For the nth time, yes. Shia Islam is more open to Ijtihad (but you still need to be a Alim), although Ja'afarism is less so, and as Ja'afarism becomes the large majority of the Shia population, Ijtihad should decrease in importance too.

Blatantly obvious contradictions must be decried by anyone.

Mhm, according to you. But you are not the authority on Islamic theological interpretations.

1st paragraph: You do know that I'm non-Denominational right? Also, why do you side with Sunni Islam?
2nd paragraph: Still doesn't mean I can't say anything. But you do have a point though. I'm not the authority. They shouldn't be either. The Prophet (SAWS) is though.

[Olerand]

For the nth time, yes. Shia Islam is more open to Ijtihad (but you still need to be a Alim), although Ja'afarism is less so, and as Ja'afarism becomes the large majority of the Shia population, Ijtihad should decrease in importance too.


Mhm, according to you. But you are not the authority on Islamic theological interpretations.

1st paragraph: You do know that I'm non-Denominational right? Also, why do you side with Sunni Islam?
2nd paragraph: Still doesn't mean I can't say anything.

Like I and the other poster pointed out, even non-denominational Muslims still need to take a side on the split. You can claim to be non-denominational, but you will need to follow either Sunni or Shia regulations.

You can say what you like, I understand that you are in America, and America will not punish you for that. But you cannot determine what the Ahadith say, not theologically at least.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

1st paragraph: You do know that I'm non-Denominational right? Also, why do you side with Sunni Islam?
2nd paragraph: Still doesn't mean I can't say anything.

Like I and the other poster pointed out, even non-denominational Muslims still need to take a side on the split. You can claim to be non-denominational, but you will need to follow either Sunni or Shia regulations.

Well I don't. I follow what the Allah (SWT) and the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) say, not those who split the Deen. Those who split the Deen aren't associated with the Prophet (SAWS). No offense sects, just paraphrasing what the Holy Qur'an says.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oh yeah, I remember you calling a poster wahabbi. Who are you referring to?

[Olerand]

Oh yeah, I remember you calling a poster wahabbi. Who are you referring to?

Ghuraba.

[Bhikkustan]

Guys, I need your help for a RP. I dvlared a fatwa at a country that is profoundly anti Buddhist and I believe anti Muslim. Can you help me form a debate argument? We are having a debate of all Muslim leaders to determine its legitimacy.

Are you an imam in said rp?

It was an imam from my nation.

[Herskerstad]

Are you an imam in said rp?

It was an imam from my nation.

It really depends on the togetherness of the Ulema. If it is one Caliphate and the figure is of sufficient rank, then if it goes uncontested then it pretty much counts.

If it's more of nation-thing, then it will count, but generally only be acted upon locally unless the imam got exceptional reputation which goes beyond the nation he serves.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oh yeah, I remember you calling a poster wahabbi. Who are you referring to?

Ghuraba.

He's Sunni, not wahabbi.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Ghuraba.

He's Sunni, not wahabbi.

>implying sunnis can't be wahhabis
>wahhabism is literally a movement in sunni islam
>forty top keks

[El-Amin Caliphate]

He's Sunni, not wahabbi.

>implying sunnis can't be wahhabis
>wahhabism is literally a movement in sunni islam
>forty top keks

>Just because Wahabbism is a Sunni Islamic movement doesn't mean akhi is 1 of them.
>Never said they couldn't.
>No, just 1.

[Aelex]

>Just because Wahabbism is a Sunni Islamic movement doesn't mean akhi is 1 of them.
>Never said they couldn't.
>No, just 1.

>No. However, given that the condition sine qua non for being a wahabi is to be sunni, he can't be the former without also being the later.
>You wut, mate?
>Forty one, then.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

>Just because Wahabbism is a Sunni Islamic movement doesn't mean akhi is 1 of them.
>Never said they couldn't.
>No, just 1.

>No. However, given that the condition sine qua non for being a wahabi is to be sunni, he can't be the former without also being the later.
>You wut, mate?
>Forty one, then.

>True.
> CX thought that I typed that Sunnis can't be wahabbi. I corrected him.
>1 only.

[Behran]

Ghuraba.

He's Sunni, not wahabbi.

He is a wahabbi.

[Olerand]

Ghuraba.

He's Sunni, not wahabbi.

All Wahhabis are Sunni. And I am judging by his positions and mannerisms, which certainly suggest that he is Wahhabi. I also referred to him as a Wahhabist in another thread, and he did not correct me. So, I am presuming he is Wahhabi.