H
Hadi
Guest
what about the other prophecy ,when did Ishmael become great nation ?? and how
- Status
H
Hadi
Guest
I admire Mohammed and believe in his prohpethood…but I have NEVER said he is sinless…and based on many references,I don’t think Aisha was 9 at that time…see my post here.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5181471#post5181471
G
GraceDK
Guest
I see the arabs as the descendants of Ishmael, like I see the Jews as the descendants of Isaac who was the father of the chosen people who God walked with. Both of these are ethnic groups. These years many Jews are following secularism, new age and atheism. Many Arabs follow the god Allah. But the ethnicity does not change.
The Arabs have indeed multiplied according to Gods blessing. However… I know what you refer to. And no, I do not see the tragedy of Islam as a part of the blessing. Not at all.
I do believe however, that one day both Jews and Arabs will play together again like they did in the same passage in the persons of Isaac and Ismael when they were children.
The place where I see that most clearly already is the Christian congregations in Jerusalem where Jewish and Arab believers in Jesus Christ worship together and serve one another as brothers.
Peace.
G
GraceDK
Guest
Please Hadi…
tell me.,., what sins did he commit… and in what sura and hadith can I read it, and where can I read that he repented???
There are some established facts… that he massacred a whole tribe of Jews, married a 9 year old etc… are these also the sins you refer to?
And maybe it was not you… but then one of your sisters or brothers here said that all the prophets were sinless… therefore they called our Old Testament a distortion, because in the Old Testament, the prophets are humans full of flaws.
S
Sam_777
Guest
Excuse me Hadi, but your references are nothing infront of Bukhari & Muslim, and at the end its not what do you think, its what is authentic and what is approved my most Muslims.
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3309:
“'A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.”
صحيح مسلم - النكاح - تزويج الأب البكر الصغيرة:
تزوجني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لست سنين وبنى بي وأنا بنت تسع سنين قالت فقدمنا المدينة فوعكت شهرا فوفى شعري جميمة فأتتني أم رومان وأنا على أرجوحة ومعي صواحبي فصرخت بي فأتيتها وما أدري ما تريد بي فأخذت بيدي فأوقفتني على الباب فقلت هه هه حتى ذهب نفسي فأدخلتني بيتا فإذا نسوة من الأنصار فقلن على الخير والبركة وعلى خير طائر فأسلمتني إليهن فغسلن رأسي وأصلحنني فلم يرعني إلا ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ضحى فأسلمنني إليه
(E) (A) تزوجني رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لست سنين وبنى بي وأنا بنت تسع سنين قالت فقدمنا المدينة فوعكت شهرا فوفى شعري جميمة فأتتني أم رومان وأنا على أرجوحة ومعي صواحبي فصرخت بي فأتيتها وما أدري ما تريد بي فأخذت بيدي فأوقفتني على الباب فقلت هه هه حتى ذهب نفسي فأدخلتني بيتا فإذا نسوة من الأنصار فقلن على الخير والبركة وعلى خير طائر فأسلمتني إليهن فغسلن رأسي وأصلحنني فلم يرعني إلا ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ضحى فأسلمنني إليه
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
“*Narrated 'Aisha:*that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).”
صحيح البخاري - النكاح - إنكاح الرجل ولده الصغار:
حدثنا محمد بن يوسف حدثنا سفيان عن هشام عن أبيه عن عائشة رضي الله عنها
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تزوجها وهي بنت ست سنين وأدخلت عليه وهي بنت تسع ومكثت عنده تسعا
حدثنا محمد بن يوسف حدثنا سفيان عن هشام عن أبيه عن عائشة رضي الله عنها
أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تزوجها وهي بنت ست سنين وأدخلت عليه وهي بنت تسع ومكثت عنده تسعا
(E) (A)
S
Sam_777
Guest
G
GraceDK
Guest
Ahlan bik Sam
Thanks for correcting me… however, I am still a bit confused…
According to your article the people of Ishmael descent are now… assimilated into more than one group of people, or… extinct?
S
Sam_777
Guest
Ahlan biki too Grace
,Yes they assimilated into more than one group of people, and their genes are now mixed with many other tribes, the only way nowadays to know the origin of certain tribes is by tracing the family tree.
J
jakasaki
Guest
I was just reading on the SunniPath.com Library a bunch of hadiths and this one caught my eye.
I know mohamad has done many bad things while trying to spread islam, with wars, head chopping, caravan raiding, slave taking… etc… but I never knew about this…
I know mohamad has done many bad things while trying to spread islam, with wars, head chopping, caravan raiding, slave taking… etc… but I never knew about this…
Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth.
The more I read about islam the more disgusted I get with it. This is the action of a “prophet” of allah.
B
Booklover
Guest
A
a_slave_of_God
Guest
The more you attack the prophet of God (peace be upon him), the more ignorant you seem.
Al Hasan is the grand son of the prophet PBUH.
J
jakasaki
Guest
The sunna I posted is in your books. I didn’t make it up. There is NO attack on mohamd as you state.
And frankly, I don’t care if it’s his grandson, neighbor, brother in law or father.
A so called “prophet” of allah, does NOT stick his tongue down a little boys throat. It’s wrong on all levels.
S
Sam_777
Guest
:dts::Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/401494964_7b7b08ee5c.jpg
Source.
A
Agabriel
Guest
Sam, wow, that article was pretty racey! And I recall so many posts by Muslims calling us immoral. They pass it off in a religion and so therefore it becomes the norm.
This guy
is no loner sufficient, this guy is more like it! :bigyikes:It is even beyond this guy :tsktsk: because they don’t listen, or care, what we say about this behavior. They still think we are the immoral ones.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
You are ok with grandfather sexually kissing grandson?
K
koranist
Guest
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-Shafi
Two generations before Shafi
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. Herbert Berg-PhD
Real Islam is only Koran
i 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 that:Two 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. Herbert Berg-PhD
Real Islam is only Koran
J
jakasaki
Guest
The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic - but the last statement is interesting.
“Real islam is only koran” - is that why we see pictures and news of jihad men/women with face masks holding the koran in one hand and their weapon of choise on the other?
Indeed, real islam is only koran by these actions.
K
koranist
Guest
Its very relevant to the topic since the opening thread suggests that hadiths are used to accuse Muhammad or misconduct. Experience has taught me all the attacks you hear and see by people about Muhammad generally is hadith based.
Anyways its not the Koran that talks about going to war. Sunnis believe verse 9-29 abrogated the verses of the Koran and they have some hadiths regarding that. But i am not sure being a Christian you understand the role oral traditions play. Oral traditions is generally a semitic concept and it dominates both Judaism and Islam. Most Muslims do not know the difference between the Koran and the Sunnah. I know, I was one of them. I had to re-read the Koran all over again and change my way of thinking to the Koran’s. It was not an easy thing to do since many Muslims are raised on many stuff that they assume is Islamic. You can not do it on your own and you need help from those who study the Koran. Muslioms generally read and recite and even memorize the Koran but rarely study it. Usually they assume many things are Koranic. I can discuss the issue of war and fighting from a Koranic perspectives as i know the subject well. Generally speaking Sunnis and probably Shias believe verse 9-29 is the abrogation verse and believe it moved Muhamamd from a defensive war to an offensive war. There is nothing called offensive war or even conquest in the Koran.
J
jakasaki
Guest
BTW - welcome to CAF -
Very well then, since you are a “koranist” only, perhaps you should open a seperate thread to discuss the “koranist only” point of view of islam
And you didn’t answer my question: See quote below.
K
koranist
Guest
This hadith came to put a spin on verse 5.33. Lets look at it:
Chapter 5 tells us:
- Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah.: It was accepted from one, but not from the other. **Said the latter: “Be sure I will slay thee.” **“Surely,” said the former, "(Allah) doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.
- "If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds.
- “For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong.”
- The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.
- Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. “Woe is me!” said he; “Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?” then he became full of regrets-
- On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
- The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Here the Koran tells us about the story of Adam’s son where one apparently killed his brother. This crime of murder therefore has been there from day one. The Koran then says that a crime like murder is as if someone killed the whole of mankind and if he saves a life it is as if he saved the whole world. I think its because if it was the other way around then none of us will be here since we are(I think) the ancestors of the surviving son. The murder of our father is like the murder of all his children and their children too. Anyways the Koran says even after that the Jews commited excesses since the Talmud spined this verse and claimed this prohibition is for Jews and not mankind but this not the point here.
- Status