The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Jolthig]

Amin, just respect Sah not wanting you to reply so we don't have another pointless argument. That's how I backed out of my argument with him the other night. We don't want to flare up pointless fights, and I certainly don't wish to be a part of it.

[Herskerstad]

Well that depends, we did know he was under the effect of an evil spell for a long time where he was imagining him having sexual intercourse when he in fact was not.

Well the Hadith doesn't specify what he was supposedly imagining according to Bukhari unless if you have a more detailed hadith.

Even then, the Hadith isn't very specific and I find it very questionable even when it's put in Sahih category.

If Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is not authentic, then none of them are. That's literally as old and as integral as you find em.

But it does reference he was imagining himself to have sex when he did not have so which even if imposed crazy is still crazy.

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet continued for such-and-such a period imagining that he has had sexual relation with his wife, and in fact he had not. One day he said, to me, "O 'Aisha! Allah has instructed me regarding a matter about which I had asked Him. There came to me two men, one of them sat near my feet and the other near my head. The one near my feet, asked the one near my head (pointing at me), 'What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic. The first one asked, 'Who has worked magic on him?' The other replied, 'Lubaid bin A'sam." The first one asked, 'What material (did use?).' The other replied, 'The skin of the pollen of a male date tree with a comb and the hair stuck to it, Kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan.'" Then the Prophet went to that well and said, "This is the same well which was shown to me in the dream. The tops of its datepalm trees look like the heads of the devils, and its water looks like the Henna infusion."...'Aisha added, "(The magician) Lubaid bin A'sam was a man from Bani Zuraiq, an ally of the Jews." Bukhari vol.8 book 73 no.89 p.57

[Jolthig]

Well the Hadith doesn't specify what he was supposedly imagining according to Bukhari unless if you have a more detailed hadith.

Even then, the Hadith isn't very specific and I find it very questionable even when it's put in Sahih category.

If Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is not authentic, then none of them are. That's literally as old and as integral as you find em.

I never said all of Bukhari and Muslim aren't authentic. Only that which is in accordance with the Quran.

But it does reference he was imagining himself to have sex when he did not have so which even if imposed crazy is still crazy.

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet continued for such-and-such a period imagining that he has had sexual relation with his wife, and in fact he had not. One day he said, to me, "O 'Aisha! Allah has instructed me regarding a matter about which I had asked Him. There came to me two men, one of them sat near my feet and the other near my head. The one near my feet, asked the one near my head (pointing at me), 'What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic. The first one asked, 'Who has worked magic on him?' The other replied, 'Lubaid bin A'sam." The first one asked, 'What material (did use?).' The other replied, 'The skin of the pollen of a male date tree with a comb and the hair stuck to it, Kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan.'" Then the Prophet went to that well and said, "This is the same well which was shown to me in the dream. The tops of its datepalm trees look like the heads of the devils, and its water looks like the Henna infusion."...'Aisha added, "(The magician) Lubaid bin A'sam was a man from Bani Zuraiq, an ally of the Jews." Bukhari vol.8 book 73 no.89 p.57

Still seems rather strange to me.

[Herskerstad]

Problem with that as a standard is multiple. You don't get the five pillars from the quran. You virtually don't get to know anything in detail about Muhammad. It's having both healthy and poisonous fruits from the same tree. It's not really a standard that can be objective beyond interpretation, ect.

[Jolthig]

Problem with that as a standard is multiple. You don't get the five pillars from the quran. You virtually don't get to know anything in detail about Muhammad. It's having both healthy and poisonous fruits from the same tree. It's not really a standard that can be objective beyond interpretation, ect.

The Quran only gives you the commandments directly from God according to Islam. Sure, it may not cover all of Muhammads life but it's pure monotheism in its best form. And this is where the Sunnah derives from. Then comes Hadith. Hadith will tell you the narrations of certain events whether true or not, but the Sunnah is purely derived from the Quran, for it is Muhammads example. This is why I say we go by Hadith that's in accordance with the Quran. This is also the view of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his book, Noah's Ark.

[Herskerstad]

Problem with that as a standard is multiple. You don't get the five pillars from the quran. You virtually don't get to know anything in detail about Muhammad. It's having both healthy and poisonous fruits from the same tree. It's not really a standard that can be objective beyond interpretation, ect.

The Quran only gives you the commandments directly from God according to Islam. Sure, it may not cover all of Muhammads life but it's pure monotheism in its best form. And this is where the Sunnah derives from. Then comes Hadith. Hadith will tell you the narrations of certain events whether true or not, but the Sunnah is purely derived from the Quran, for it is Muhammads example. This is why I say we go by Hadith that's in accordance with the Quran. This is also the view of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his book, Noah's Ark.

Well hadith comes close to our understanding of a biography, and yes there will always be issues with oral traditions since they are compiled later into text, however, it is completely unreliable to selectively chapters that one agree with and chapters which one do not agree with from the same collections of closer compatriots to Muhammad himself, because one would require equal scepticism of an hadith saying Muhammad liberated slaves to an hadith saying Muhammad traded slaves. If one would interpret Islam to stand for the latter, it would not overwrite the closer to the earth interpretation of Muhammad's very companions speaking of the former. It would equally mean it would be problematic to adopt certain standard practices sourced only from the hadiths because all of it's virtually been rendered apocryphal by the standard alone. It becomes very much a game of "My Islam" rather than "Islam as we know it in history"

[Jolthig]

The Quran only gives you the commandments directly from God according to Islam. Sure, it may not cover all of Muhammads life but it's pure monotheism in its best form. And this is where the Sunnah derives from. Then comes Hadith. Hadith will tell you the narrations of certain events whether true or not, but the Sunnah is purely derived from the Quran, for it is Muhammads example. This is why I say we go by Hadith that's in accordance with the Quran. This is also the view of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in his book, Noah's Ark.

Well hadith comes close to our understanding of a biography, and yes there will always be issues with oral traditions since they are compiled later into text, however, it is completely unreliable to selectively chapters that one agree with and chapters which one do not agree with from the same collections of closer compatriots to Muhammad himself, because one would require equal scepticism of an hadith saying Muhammad liberated slaves to an hadith saying Muhammad traded slaves. If one would interpret Islam to stand for the latter, it would not overwrite the closer to the earth interpretation of Muhammad's very companions speaking of the former. It would equally mean it would be problematic to adopt certain standard practices sourced only from the hadiths because all of it's virtually been rendered apocryphal by the standard alone. It becomes very much a game of "My Islam" rather than "Islam as we know it in history"

It's not about picking Hadith that we personally agree or disagree with. It's about whether or not the Hadith is in line with the teachings of the Quran or not. Do remember, according to Sahih Hadith itself, the Quran was the first written document to be written. It was fully compiled into one volume after Muhammad passed away. I'm not denying a lot of Hadith of what you were mentioning were in circulation during the two centuries between his death and when the Sahihs were compiled, but if we're going to judge Hadith by history, why not start with the Quran, since it's the first written document?

[Herskerstad]

Well hadith comes close to our understanding of a biography, and yes there will always be issues with oral traditions since they are compiled later into text, however, it is completely unreliable to selectively chapters that one agree with and chapters which one do not agree with from the same collections of closer compatriots to Muhammad himself, because one would require equal scepticism of an hadith saying Muhammad liberated slaves to an hadith saying Muhammad traded slaves. If one would interpret Islam to stand for the latter, it would not overwrite the closer to the earth interpretation of Muhammad's very companions speaking of the former. It would equally mean it would be problematic to adopt certain standard practices sourced only from the hadiths because all of it's virtually been rendered apocryphal by the standard alone. It becomes very much a game of "My Islam" rather than "Islam as we know it in history"

It's not about picking Hadith that we personally agree or disagree with. It's about whether or not the Hadith is in line with the teachings of the Quran or not. Do remember, according to Sahih Hadith itself, the Quran was the first written document to be written. It was fully compiled into one volume after Muhammad passed away. I'm not denying a lot of Hadith of what you were mentioning were in circulation during the two centuries between his death and when the Sahihs were compiled, but if we're going to judge Hadith by history, why not start with the Quran, since it's the first written document?

The argument is not that the quran should be judged completely separate form the hadiths, but the Quran is extremely limited in terms of the life of Muhammad, his role as a judge, warlord, ect and the Sunnah itself. Now I know you're not Sunni, but this is more an argument of standards. There are certain core practices in the five pillars that you won't find in the quran and it would be rather strange for example to have five daily prayers religiously as a doctrine while affirming only hadiths that have co-refrences directly in the Quran. It would be equally esoteric to find the message on Muhammad being under a spell to be one that reeks of error, but say find one of Muhammad doing something virtuous unreported in the quran as seeming right. It is a standard that is the very opposite of the criterion of embarrassment, only taking that which sounds good because all about a figure must be good even if his closest compatriots affirm otherwise. In fact a statement becomes especially believable if it affirms the flaws of someone by their closest compatriots. It's the same reason we don't take verbatim the early records of military leaders as, pre-Herodotus, a lot of it was simply propaganda, but take very seriously the internal critics who give differing accounts of the battle.

[Dolf Krieg]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

1. That last bit is a bit ambiguous, don't ya think?
2. Sunan Abu Dawud lists two different punishments for bestiality
5. This one is just so loaded and ridiculous, I'm not even going to bother.

If you're going to criticize Islam, at least do it well, dude.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

I'm fairly certain that Satan also attempted to sway Jesus, just sayin'...

Abrahamic religions in general are far from perfect, but they do share a common point, which is that they all worship the same God, despite the radically different interpretations of him.

[Greater Cesnica]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

I'm fairly certain that Satan also attempted to sway Jesus, just sayin'...

Abrahamic religions in general are far from perfect, but they do share a common point, which is that they all worship the same God, despite the radically different interpretations of him.

Apparently, all you need to get to Heaven is a belief in One God and an ounce of good deeds. Ted Bundy was a Methodist, and volunteered at a suicide hotline. He also saved a young boy from drowning. Immaterial is the fact he murdered and raped 100+ women and girls.

Allah better have allocated for him a special place of sodomy in Jahanaam for him.

[Greater Cesnica]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

1. That last bit is a bit ambiguous, don't ya think?
2. Sunan Abu Dawud lists two different punishments for bestiality
5. This one is just so loaded and ridiculous, I'm not even going to bother.

If you're going to criticize Islam, at least do it well, dude.

You're right and all, and a non-muslim too!

+respect 50

[Negarakita]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

>Islam violent
>Proud American Ultranationalist.
I believe the people. US Citizens is the Master Race. And anyone who dares speak Death to America deserves death. I am an American. I am a Patriot. I am an Ultranationalist

Le big think

[Jolthig]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

No they don't. Not a single verse of the Quran says kill infidels if they reject Allah. And yes, I agree we do not worship the same God as you worship Jesus and I worship Allah.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

Where in the Quran or Hadith does it say this? To my knowledge, Islam advocates none of this.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

Allah's mind is the same in the Quran.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

There are no Satanic Verses. That allegation has been debunked by the Surah itself where that allegation stems from which is 53.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

As WVC said, wasn't your own god tempted by Satan? And where does it say Muhammad was tempted?

[Jolthig]

It's not about picking Hadith that we personally agree or disagree with. It's about whether or not the Hadith is in line with the teachings of the Quran or not. Do remember, according to Sahih Hadith itself, the Quran was the first written document to be written. It was fully compiled into one volume after Muhammad passed away. I'm not denying a lot of Hadith of what you were mentioning were in circulation during the two centuries between his death and when the Sahihs were compiled, but if we're going to judge Hadith by history, why not start with the Quran, since it's the first written document?

The argument is not that the quran should be judged completely separate form the hadiths, but the Quran is extremely limited in terms of the life of Muhammad, his role as a judge, warlord, ect and the Sunnah itself. Now I know you're not Sunni, but this is more an argument of standards. There are certain core practices in the five pillars that you won't find in the quran and it would be rather strange for example to have five daily prayers religiously as a doctrine while affirming only hadiths that have co-refrences directly in the Quran. It would be equally esoteric to find the message on Muhammad being under a spell to be one that reeks of error, but say find one of Muhammad doing something virtuous unreported in the quran as seeming right. It is a standard that is the very opposite of the criterion of embarrassment, only taking that which sounds good because all about a figure must be good even if his closest compatriots affirm otherwise. In fact a statement becomes especially believable if it affirms the flaws of someone by their closest compatriots. It's the same reason we don't take verbatim the early records of military leaders as, pre-Herodotus, a lot of it was simply propaganda, but take very seriously the internal critics who give differing accounts of the battle.

As I said I believe in a previous post, there is a difference between Sunnah and a Hadith that does offer any advice on the Quran. The five daily prayers is in accordance with the Quran as the Quran says to worship in the early morning, the afternoon, evenings, and night time. The Sunnah shows how to do that since Muhammad was the recipient of the Quran. So not sure what point you're trying to make.

I only reject that Hadith because it just seems odd. Even if it has a consistent and uncorrupted narration.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Islamic tenants allow for some pretty heinous things. Things that proves that Islam and Christians DO NOT worship the same God.

1.) Muslims may kill infidels if they reject Allah. The bible only condones killing for War time. Or if God tells his prophets they must cleanse the lands.

No they don't. Not a single verse of the Quran says kill infidels if they reject Allah. And yes, I agree we do not worship the same God as you worship Jesus and I worship Allah.

2.) Muslim men may have sex with animals and still remain clean. God says if a woman presents herself to a Donkey to lie with it as a man. The Ass is to he killed as well as her. Beastiality has zero tolerance.

Where in the Quran or Hadith does it say this? To my knowledge, Islam advocates none of this.

3.) Allah changes his mind too often in the Koran. God does not change.

Allah's mind is the same in the Quran.

4.) If the Koran is Perfect why is there the Satanic verses.

There are no Satanic Verses. That allegation has been debunked by the Surah itself where that allegation stems from which is 53.

5.) Muhommed was not a perfect Prophet. If he was perfect like Christ. He then wouldn't be able to be tempted by Satan.

As WVC said, wasn't your own god tempted by Satan? And where does it say Muhammad was tempted?

It was the PROPHET (i.e. Jesus) that was tempted by Satan, not God.

That said, Satan's whole backstory is that he fell from grace in the eyes of God, thus implying that he might've formerly been trusted by God.

[Jolthig]

No they don't. Not a single verse of the Quran says kill infidels if they reject Allah. And yes, I agree we do not worship the same God as you worship Jesus and I worship Allah.


Where in the Quran or Hadith does it say this? To my knowledge, Islam advocates none of this.


Allah's mind is the same in the Quran.


There are no Satanic Verses. That allegation has been debunked by the Surah itself where that allegation stems from which is 53.


As WVC said, wasn't your own god tempted by Satan? And where does it say Muhammad was tempted?

It was the PROPHET (i.e. Jesus) that was tempted by Satan, not God.

That said, Satan's whole backstory is that he fell from grace in the eyes of God, thus implying that he might've formerly been trusted by God.

Most Christians believe Jesus is God.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

It was the PROPHET (i.e. Jesus) that was tempted by Satan, not God.

That said, Satan's whole backstory is that he fell from grace in the eyes of God, thus implying that he might've formerly been trusted by God.

Most Christians believe Jesus is God.

The whole concept of the Holy Trinity is fairly f*cky, I'm not gonna lie.

I never quite understood it in my communion and confirmation classes.

[Loben]

Most Christians believe Jesus is God.

The whole concept of the Holy Trinity is fairly f*cky, I'm not gonna lie.

I never quite understood it in my communion and confirmation classes.

The father is the son is the holy spirit is the father.

[Greater Cesnica]

Most Christians believe Jesus is God.

The whole concept of the Holy Trinity is fairly f*cky, I'm not gonna lie.

I never quite understood it in my communion and confirmation classes.

Uh, I got this.

So God made a covenant to the Jews, promising a Messiah to save their spiritual beings and souls.

Jesus was the fulfillment of that covenant, and died for our sins. Jews today reject that Jesus was the Messiah, and are still waiting for one.

The Holy Spirit is God's very Spiritual essence, the medium through which God acts.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Most Christians believe Jesus is God.

The whole concept of the Holy Trinity is fairly f*cky, I'm not gonna lie.

I never quite understood it in my communion and confirmation classes.

The Father, Son and Spirit are all God. They're equal but not identical in what exactly they do.

[Jolthig]

Most Christians believe Jesus is God.

The whole concept of the Holy Trinity is fairly f*cky, I'm not gonna lie.

I never quite understood it in my communion and confirmation classes.

Agreed. A lot of explanations for it are ridiculous.

[Greater Cesnica]

The whole concept of the Holy Trinity is fairly f*cky, I'm not gonna lie.

I never quite understood it in my communion and confirmation classes.

Agreed. A lot of explanations for it are ridiculous.

What about mine?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The whole concept of the Holy Trinity is fairly f*cky, I'm not gonna lie.

I never quite understood it in my communion and confirmation classes.

Agreed. A lot of explanations for it are ridiculous.

It is believed by some that the concept of the trinity in Christianity is nothing but an absorption of pagan influences into it due to contact with pagan religions throughout its history.