Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Czechanada]

Im a quranist, but that term sometimes makes other muslims see me as "not one of them". In islam we are told to obey allah and follow the prophet, which is the guidence in the quran. My dad drinks, moderately, because the quran doesnt say its haram, just implies that there are bad things to it. Aishas age is irrelevant and not mentioned in the quran. There are many questionable hadiths that were written to insult islam. And all were written way after the death of the prophet. If there are muslims that dont see what I see then thats ok. Allah knows best and we should be able to talk about our differences like civilized people

I disagree with your views. As a Hanafi, I believe that Islam's teachings are based on both the Quran and Sunnah. According to this jurisprudence, to reject the Ahadith is Kufr or Transgression depending on the Hadith and it's chain of narrators. And even in the Quran, it is mentioned that drinking alcohol is sin (reference; 2:219). Hadith have a grading scale to determine whether they are trustworthy or not. I mean not to insult you but rather to express my opinion and defense for my beliefs.

I must politely disagree as well, for I feel that only the Zaidi and Ja'fari madhabs are legitimate.

[Dasha Kovachevich]

I disagree with your views. As a Hanafi, I believe that Islam's teachings are based on both the Quran and Sunnah. According to this jurisprudence, to reject the Ahadith is Kufr or Transgression depending on the Hadith and it's chain of narrators. And even in the Quran, it is mentioned that drinking alcohol is sin (reference; 2:219). Hadith have a grading scale to determine whether they are trustworthy or not. I mean not to insult you but rather to express my opinion and defense for my beliefs.

first of all, it's ok to disagree with me (I'm not insulted at all), as long as one thing is clear, Muslims shouldnt be split, and discussing faith and peaceful dialogue is what our prophet has fought to protect. Sunni, Shia, Sufi, etc, we should remember that the ummah is one. Now about the verse, it doesn't forbid alcohol, it just mentioned in it is sin and benefit, the sin outweighing the benefit. Thinking rationally, alcohol consumption in moderation is not harmful and does not impair judgement, and according to the Qur'an itself is not haram. I think the thing here is that the hadiths were compiled some hundreds of years after the death of the prophet. The Qur'an made it clear that it's the only source of truth:

"These are God's revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?" 45:6
"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114
“And when Our revelations are recited to him, he turns away in arrogance as if he never heard them and as if there is deafness in his ears. Give him news of a painful punishment." 31:7

these are just some examples. Following the prophet is a tenant of Islam, and the Qur'an was recited to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) through Gabriel. So following the Quran is following the prophet and obeying Allah

"Obey God and obey the messenger. If you shall turn away then the sole duty of the messenger is to clear delivery." 64:12

[Western Arab Empire]

I disagree with your views. As a Hanafi, I believe that Islam's teachings are based on both the Quran and Sunnah. According to this jurisprudence, to reject the Ahadith is Kufr or Transgression depending on the Hadith and it's chain of narrators. And even in the Quran, it is mentioned that drinking alcohol is sin (reference; 2:219). Hadith have a grading scale to determine whether they are trustworthy or not. I mean not to insult you but rather to express my opinion and defense for my beliefs.

first of all, it's ok to disagree with me (I'm not insulted at all), as long as one thing is clear, Muslims shouldnt be split, and discussing faith and peaceful dialogue is what our prophet has fought to protect. Sunni, Shia, Sufi, etc, we should remember that the ummah is one. Now about the verse, it doesn't forbid alcohol, it just mentioned in it is sin and benefit, the sin outweighing the benefit. Thinking rationally, alcohol consumption in moderation is not harmful and does not impair judgement, and according to the Qur'an itself is not haram. I think the thing here is that the hadiths were compiled some hundreds of years after the death of the prophet. The Qur'an made it clear that it's the only source of truth:

"These are God's revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?" 45:6
"Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114
“And when Our revelations are recited to him, he turns away in arrogance as if he never heard them and as if there is deafness in his ears. Give him news of a painful punishment." 31:7

these are just some examples. Following the prophet is a tenant of Islam, and the Qur'an was recited to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) through Gabriel. So following the Quran is following the prophet and obeying Allah

"Obey God and obey the messenger. If you shall turn away then the sole duty of the messenger is to clear delivery." 64:12

"Say (O Muhammad): ‘if you (truly) love Allah, follow me! Allah will then love you and forgive your sins.’ And Allah is All Forgiving, All Merciful."(3:31)
This ayat states that in order for you to be able to love Allah, you have to follow the Sunnah. if you do, then Allah will love you.

"But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment." (4:14)
this Ayat states the importance of following and obeying both Allah and his Rasul (Quran and Sunnah)

"Let those who oppose the Messenger’s order beware of a fitnah (trial) to befall them, or a painful torment to be inflicted upon them." (24:63)
"Whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allaah; verily, Allaah is severe in punishment." (59:7)
These Ayat states the punishment of not following the Sunnah

[Dasha Kovachevich]

"Say (O Muhammad): ‘if you (truly) love Allah, follow me! Allah will then love you and forgive your sins.’ And Allah is All Forgiving, All Merciful."(3:31)
This ayat states that in order for you to be able to love Allah, you have to follow the Sunnah. if you do, then Allah will love you.

"But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment." (4:14)
this Ayat states the importance of following and obeying both Allah and his Rasul (Quran and Sunnah)

"Let those who oppose the Messenger’s order beware of a fitnah (trial) to befall them, or a painful torment to be inflicted upon them." (24:63)
"Whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allaah; verily, Allaah is severe in punishment." (59:7)
These Ayat states the punishment of not following the Sunnah

I agree with those verses totally but to interpret them to mean following a set of hear-say hadiths I think is a grave mistake.
What do the compiled hadiths have to say about this?
The Prophet said, “Do not write down anything from me except the Quran.” [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Moslim, Zuhd, Book 42, Number 7147]
of course then comes the question of "some hadiths are fabricated, some are not, which one is correct?", well seeing as the Qur'an is made "easy" then we shouldn't seek anything other than the Qur'an. Following the Prophet is following his message from Allah. If Allah revealed something to the Prophet, then he conveyed it to the people, at this point the people should follow the Prophet, thereby following Allah.
Basically, if the Prophet wanted hadiths other than the Qur'an, they would have existed during his time, and not some hundreds of years after. Ever play telephone in school with a group of classmates and one thing whispered to one comes back a different message.
But I appreciate you discussing this with me! thank you for that

[Glorious Wonderland]

I must politely disagree as well, for I feel that only the Zaidi and Ja'fari madhabs are legitimate.

I politely disagree, please don't listen to the Arabs. We Qarmatians are chosen by Allah Himself, not the superstitious Mohammedans who worship a black stone in the middle of the desert. Now turn to the great fire as the Mahdi hath command.

"Say (O Muhammad): ‘if you (truly) love Allah, follow me! Allah will then love you and forgive your sins.’ And Allah is All Forgiving, All Merciful."(3:31)
This ayat states that in order for you to be able to love Allah, you have to follow the Sunnah. if you do, then Allah will love you.

"But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment." (4:14)
this Ayat states the importance of following and obeying both Allah and his Rasul (Quran and Sunnah)

"Let those who oppose the Messenger’s order beware of a fitnah (trial) to befall them, or a painful torment to be inflicted upon them." (24:63)
"Whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allaah; verily, Allaah is severe in punishment." (59:7)
These Ayat states the punishment of not following the Sunnah

I believe those verses refer to Qur'an itself. 'Follow the Prophet' should not be defined as blindly follow the supposed words of him or every bit of his way of life, but follow the words of God that are descended to the Prophet. That is, the Qur'an.

[Western Arab Empire]

"Say (O Muhammad): ‘if you (truly) love Allah, follow me! Allah will then love you and forgive your sins.’ And Allah is All Forgiving, All Merciful."(3:31)
This ayat states that in order for you to be able to love Allah, you have to follow the Sunnah. if you do, then Allah will love you.

"But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment." (4:14)
this Ayat states the importance of following and obeying both Allah and his Rasul (Quran and Sunnah)

"Let those who oppose the Messenger’s order beware of a fitnah (trial) to befall them, or a painful torment to be inflicted upon them." (24:63)
"Whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And fear Allaah; verily, Allaah is severe in punishment." (59:7)
These Ayat states the punishment of not following the Sunnah

I believe those verses refer to Qur'an itself. 'Follow the Prophet' should not be defined as blindly follow the supposed words of him or every bit of his way of life, but follow the words of God that are descended to the Prophet. That is, the Qur'an.

The Prophet (SAW) was a living and walking Quran. He acted upon it, and we learn from him how to act and behave according to the Hadith and Sunnah.

[Dasha Kovachevich]

The Prophet (SAW) was a living and walking Quran. He acted upon it, and we learn from him how to act and behave according to the Hadith and Sunnah.

and how do you know the Hadith and Sunnah are true? They are still hear-say

[Islamic Commune]

I've been reading this thread for a while. I suggest you guys try to get a copy of, "Islam and the West" by Bernard Lewis. He actually does a good job of explaining the difference between the two, and could probably answer the questions of many regarding the fundamentals of Islam and its nature.

Other than that:

I agree that the Qur'an first and foremost is the main source of legislation for Islam. Hadith is secondary and I believe it should only be used if the Hadith is certain. Saying that, not all the Hadith are true, and a lot contradict themselves, so to trust Hadith entirely is not the best option. Of course, the last source of legislation should be human intellect and reason, which is permitted and encouraged by the Qur'an.

There was the name of a scholar who believed that the Qur'an should be interpreted by human reason and intellect, and should be constantly reinterpreted as human beings gain a better understanding of the universe around them. I think his name was Avicenna, and his ideas were repressed.

[Dasha Kovachevich]

There was the name of a scholar who believed that the Qur'an should be interpreted by human reason and intellect, and should be constantly reinterpreted as human beings gain a better understanding of the universe around them. I think his name was Avicenna, and his ideas were repressed.

well just look at the state of Muslims today....shows how far from Islam we really are as a whole Ummah. I think us Muslims need to connect more to the actual Qur'an and not these supposed narratives of "it was reported that the prophet" etc.

[Islamic Commune]

The state of Muslims today is a result of a lack of political, economical and social unity that is obligated for us in the Qur'an.

We as a community have only been united for around 30 years after the death of the Messenger (PBUH). The momentum created during this time did spawn civilizations yes, but the decline was inevitable with the lack of unity.

The Hadith and various scholarly interpretations (Hanbali, hanafi, whatever) are fine, but Muslims have made the mistake of considering their scholarly interpretations more important than the Qur'an, which is one cause of disunity. Because we were irresponsible with the Hadith, and that is expected because it was not divine revelation, the Qur'an should be the major source of legislation, as it was during even the Rashidun Caliphate.

Heck, even the Caliphs of the Rashidun did not allow people to record Hadith so that people do not mistake them for divine revelation.

[Dasha Kovachevich]

The state of Muslims today is a result of a lack of political, economical and social unity that is obligated for us in the Qur'an.

We as a community have only been united for around 30 years after the death of the Messenger (PBUH). The momentum created during this time did spawn civilizations yes, but the decline was inevitable with the lack of unity.

The Hadith and various scholarly interpretations (Hanbali, hanafi, whatever) are fine, but Muslims have made the mistake of considering their scholarly interpretations more important than the Qur'an, which is one cause of disunity. Because we were irresponsible with the Hadith, and that is expected because it was not divine revelation, the Qur'an should be the major source of legislation, as it was during even the Rashidun Caliphate.

Heck, even the Caliphs of the Rashidun did not allow people to record Hadith so that people do not mistake them for divine revelation.

that's very true. The hadiths brought about all this division and sectarianism in the Muslim Ummah. They ask "are you Muslim?" followed by "What sect?"...this is against unity in Islam. Sure we all have our differences, but we need to return to calling ourselves Muslims and using our reason and logic to return to our Qur'ans

[Glorious Wonderland]

The Prophet (SAW) was a living and walking Quran. He acted upon it, and we learn from him how to act and behave according to the Hadith and Sunnah.

What's the purpose of the 'living and walking' Qur'an if there's already the Qur'an itself?

The state of Muslims today is a result of a lack of political, economical and social unity that is obligated for us in the Qur'an.

I think the utopian concept of 'Ummah's unity' is impossible, considering the vastly different practices of Islam by a billion of Muslims worldwide. What should be required to progress is tolerance to celebrate the differences. A humanistic interpretation of Qur'an which isn't so 6th Century wouldn't hurt, too.

Most of Muslims today are trapped in severe siege mentality.

[Sabah]

Most of Muslims today are trapped in severe siege mentality.

Indeed, just take a look at Malaysia. Banning the use of the arabic words 'Allah' because they're afraid of the christian minority.

[Glorious Wonderland]

Most of Muslims today are trapped in severe siege mentality.

Indeed, just take a look at Malaysia. Banning the use of the arabic words 'Allah' because they're afraid of the christian minority.

'Afraid' is not an exact word. In fact, it's more of obsession of superiority and purification towards the Christians. At least, that's what I assumed.

[Seljuq Kyiv]

Most of Muslims today are trapped in severe siege mentality.

Indeed, just take a look at Malaysia. Banning the use of the arabic words 'Allah' because they're afraid of the christian minority.

It's rather a case of calling gold argentum. Allah (THE God) implies oneness, and is not compatible with the Christian Trinity. If there is THE God the Father and THE God the Son, which is THE God?

There are tons of other words they can use, like Tuhan, Rabb, Ilah, Tanri, etc.

The state of Muslims today is a result of a lack of political, economical and social unity that is obligated for us in the Qur'an.

We as a community have only been united for around 30 years after the death of the Messenger (PBUH). The momentum created during this time did spawn civilizations yes, but the decline was inevitable with the lack of unity.

The Hadith and various scholarly interpretations (Hanbali, hanafi, whatever) are fine, but Muslims have made the mistake of considering their scholarly interpretations more important than the Qur'an, which is one cause of disunity. Because we were irresponsible with the Hadith, and that is expected because it was not divine revelation, the Qur'an should be the major source of legislation, as it was during even the Rashidun Caliphate.

Heck, even the Caliphs of the Rashidun did not allow people to record Hadith so that people do not mistake them for divine revelation.

My opinion is that the hadith is to provide context and an explanation of Quranic verses, and they should supplement and not supplant the word of God.

God made the Prophets infallible from errors that would affect their message. It would only make sense to follow their example in every aspect of life, as a son/daughter, as a parent, as a spouse, as a student, as a follower, as a leader, as a teacher, as a preacher, etc.

By the way, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah are compatible with each other and do not refute nor dispute any of the four's Muslimness, so in this regard whether you're Hanbali or Shafi'i you are already united.

[Islamic Commune]

I think the utopian concept of 'Ummah's unity' is impossible, considering the vastly different practices of Islam by a billion of Muslims worldwide.

I do not think it is impossible, I think it just needs an educated population and a will. No one ever expected Europeans to get even close to their economic union just half a century ago, but they have done that regardless, and their unity grows stronger by the year.

Consider this: Europe is a completely diverse continent, with different people, languages, cultures,histories and even religions. In comparison, most Muslims have the same moral code with some cultural diversity, most know the Arabic language, Muslims definitely embrace the same history and even if Muslims are diverse ethnically, the Muslim knows that all humans originate from one source.

And to be honest, Islam is not practised that diversely around the world. I'm here in Canada, and the Muslims in Canada practice the same way as Muslims in Egypt, in Libya and in Syria, and I've been to those places. There may be some sort of difference over the interpretation of history between Shi'as and Sunnis, but the fundamentals of the religion for both of these "sects" is largely the same.

The point is, there is very little difference between Muslims around the world, and diversity does not prevent unity, as the European Union has showed us. Though we might need some sort of catalyst to happen to convince people that we need to act as one community.

A humanistic interpretation of Qur'an which isn't so 6th Century wouldn't hurt, too.

You forget that some of the ideas made by Islam in the 6th Century, such as property rights, rule of law, welfare, freedom of religion (for non-Muslims), rights of the slave (And priority of emancipating slaves, mind you), consultation of the people (Shura), were not prevalent until the Enlightenment period, which occurred 1,000 years after the foundation of Islam. The religion already beat many other ideologies in terms of humanism, but indeed it was corrupted after the Rashidun Caliphate, when the Arabs returned to their barbaric culture over the moral code of Islam, and started to practice hereditary rule.

[Arcortus]

Never really had any strong feelings towards Muslims even as an American where it seems that you ether hate them or your one of them (obviously not true but you guys get what I'm saying) and I've always sort of had an interest in religion and the history. I've been expecially interested in the Sufi school of Islam as I find it intriguing.

[Dasha Kovachevich]

Never really had any strong feelings towards Muslims even as an American where it seems that you ether hate them or your one of them (obviously not true but you guys get what I'm saying) and I've always sort of had an interest in religion and the history. I've been expecially interested in the Sufi school of Islam as I find it intriguing.

God willing you will revert to Islam

[Western Arab Empire]

Never really had any strong feelings towards Muslims even as an American where it seems that you ether hate them or your one of them (obviously not true but you guys get what I'm saying) and I've always sort of had an interest in religion and the history. I've been expecially interested in the Sufi school of Islam as I find it intriguing.

God willing you will revert to Islam

Inshallah

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

Never really had any strong feelings towards Muslims even as an American where it seems that you ether hate them or your one of them (obviously not true but you guys get what I'm saying) and I've always sort of had an interest in religion and the history. I've been expecially interested in the Sufi school of Islam as I find it intriguing.

The way of Islam.

[Czechanada]

I think the utopian concept of 'Ummah's unity' is impossible, considering the vastly different practices of Islam by a billion of Muslims worldwide.

I do not think it is impossible, I think it just needs an educated population and a will. No one ever expected Europeans to get even close to their economic union just half a century ago, but they have done that regardless, and their unity grows stronger by the year.

Consider this: Europe is a completely diverse continent, with different people, languages, cultures,histories and even religions. In comparison, most Muslims have the same moral code with some cultural diversity, most know the Arabic language, Muslims definitely embrace the same history and even if Muslims are diverse ethnically, the Muslim knows that all humans originate from one source.

And to be honest, Islam is not practised that diversely around the world. I'm here in Canada, and the Muslims in Canada practice the same way as Muslims in Egypt, in Libya and in Syria, and I've been to those places. There may be some sort of difference over the interpretation of history between Shi'as and Sunnis, but the fundamentals of the religion for both of these "sects" is largely the same.

The point is, there is very little difference between Muslims around the world, and diversity does not prevent unity, as the European Union has showed us. Though we might need some sort of catalyst to happen to convince people that we need to act as one community.

A humanistic interpretation of Qur'an which isn't so 6th Century wouldn't hurt, too.

You forget that some of the ideas made by Islam in the 6th Century, such as property rights, rule of law, welfare, freedom of religion (for non-Muslims), rights of the slave (And priority of emancipating slaves, mind you), consultation of the people (Shura), were not prevalent until the Enlightenment period, which occurred 1,000 years after the foundation of Islam. The religion already beat many other ideologies in terms of humanism, but indeed it was corrupted after the Rashidun Caliphate, when the Arabs returned to their barbaric culture over the moral code of Islam, and started to practice hereditary rule.

You really seem to be ignoring the history of the Byzantine Empire...

[Islamic Commune]

You really seem to be ignoring the history of the Byzantine Empire...

Could you explain, please? I might have missed something, yes.

[Glorious Wonderland]

It's rather a case of calling gold argentum. Allah (THE God) implies oneness, and is not compatible with the Christian Trinity. If there is THE God the Father and THE God the Son, which is THE God?

There are tons of other words they can use, like Tuhan, Rabb, Ilah, Tanri, etc.

Yeah, right. I don't believe Malaysian government bans the usage of word 'Allah' because they're concerned about the Christian teachings of God, if that's what you implied. It appears because they're under delusion that Allah should be used exclusively by Muslims, and Christians using His name is a kind of blasphemy or staining the purity or whatever. Which is a silly reasoning.

And I don't understand why Muslims are soo obsessed with concept of unity.

[Czechanada]

You really seem to be ignoring the history of the Byzantine Empire...

Could you explain, please? I might have missed something, yes.

You forget that some of the ideas made by Islam in the 6th Century, such as property rights, rule of law, welfare, freedom of religion (for non-Muslims), rights of the slave (And priority of emancipating slaves, mind you), consultation of the people (Shura), were not prevalent until the Enlightenment period, which occurred 1,000 years after the foundation of Islam. The religion already beat many other ideologies in terms of humanism, but indeed it was corrupted after the Rashidun Caliphate, when the Arabs returned to their barbaric culture over the moral code of Islam, and started to practice hereditary rule.

All of these concepts that you speak were nothing new. The rule of law was already done by the Code of Hammurabi.

Property rights and welfare for example, were championed by Empress Theodora through her additions to the Justinian Code.

All the alleged rights of the slave seem to have been lifted word for word from Zoroastrianism.

There are many other examples.

[Tulija]

Islam, as an ideology, is based upon a lot of very questionable and frankly anachronistic tenets. Fortunately we can see that the majority of Muslims themselves do not practice the call to arms against kafirs, but unfortunately, a great many do support the death of apostates, and yet more the subjugation of women, modern practice of Sharia law etc. Wherever Islam is allowed to rule as law, as is seen in the Middle East, a great many liberal rights are subsumed under the strength of an authoritarian, absolute belief system.

How people can say an absolute, unquestionable belief can be reconciled with our liberal, Western ideals I am not sure. It is purely on the basis of Muslims ignoring the less tenable teachings that they can assimilate. They are more reasoned and calm than their teachings openly ask them to be. I will not cower from attacking the backward and narrow minded beliefs in the Quran and Hadiths, to give but two large examples. And likewise, I will not allow talk of the good verses found within those texts, to cloud our discussion of the stronger, more barbaric also within.

To use metaphor, a drink equal parts orange juice and acid, will naturally and logically be spat out for its corrosive nature - even if it carries with it some flavour. Calls to holy war, a complete set of unalterable laws, and oppression, are not cancelled out by contradictory calls for peace.