Learn the ahadith to better understand Islam

[Silouan]

Hadith # 14

On the authority of Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:

"The blood of a man who is a Muslim is not lawful (i.e. cannot be lawfully shed), save if he belongs to one of three (classes): a married man who is an adulterer; life for a life (i.e. for murder); one who is a deserter of his religion, abandoning the community.”

[Al-Bukhari & Muslim]

As for ‘deserting the religion’, the Muslim community is based on knowledge where ilm and da’wah are continuously being disseminated and conveyed. Thus people are aware of their religious obligations and the minds of the society are well-protected from being manipulated. All these measures have been set up by Islam to minimise the occurrences of these exceptional cases where the taking of a human life is allowed.

These truly are exceptional cases because during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, (and later during the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs) there were only a few cases where such violations or problems occurred.

This hadith places emphasis on the value of the human life and not on the punishments permissible for the three cases mentioned. Islam has put in place a system which leads to minimising the occurrences of the three cases. There are strategies, obligations, etc., which help the Muslims to avoid these acts.

.

This is a problematic hadith for me. While, the second point, life for a life is very logical. The other two points are very illogical and truly against the fitra state of human being.

To kill someone because they no longer believe in a religion, is against the fitra state of a human being. Man is born on fitra. I don’t care if Jews use to be believe in it and I don’t care if some Catholics use to hold this position. It is not fitra.

To kill someone because of adulter is another belief that is against fitra.

The very act of stoning anyone is against fitra.

The very act of killing is against fitra.

A human being who is not indoctrinated with a particular way of life or religion, would never accept killings or the stoning of anyone.

I thank the Lord, that I do not live in a Muslim country. I thank the Lord I do not live in a Muslim country. I thank the Lord I do not live in a Muslim country.

What is so sad about Muslims, is they don’t tell new Muslims, I have never heard a muslim, tell a disbeliever wanting to accept Islam, "You do know, that once you take Shahada, according to Islam the only way out is death, so are you sure you want to be Muslim???"

No Muslims do not tell non-Muslims that. They are so quick to invite non-Muslims to Islam and tell them, come just take the Shahada, you will see, once iman is in your heart, things will get better.

In Christ,

Silouan

 

[Ed_Rand]

To kill someone because they no longer believe in a religion, is against the fitra state of a human being. Man is born on fitra. I don’t care if Jews use to be believe in it and I don’t care if some Catholics use to hold this position. It is not fitra.

To kill someone because of adulter is another belief that is against fitra.

The very act of stoning anyone is against fitra.

The very act of killing is against fitra.

What is fitra?
Also, I think that as Christians, we must believe that God finds those punshments acceptable for those crimes. It was His Law that prescibed such harsh judgements on various peoples. I don’t believe he wants that for Christians, but we know He has ordered it before, and, in a way, He has ordered it again for Muslims.

 

[dzheremi]

While Islam does indeed exhort the believers to be kind and gentle to the unbelievers who do not fight them in their faith, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in his last sermon reminded his followers that all Muslims should treat each other as brothers and sisters

This is good on its surface, I suppose, but I find a basic problem with it that I would like to discuss with you, in as friendly terms as possible:

The idea of what it means to “fight” varies between religious communities. Consider, for instance, the differences in the Muslim and Christian interpretations of Matthew 10:34 that quotes Jesus saying: “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” I have read on this very board Muslims who quote this verse to say that Christianity also endorses something, if not completely the same, at least equivalent to the concept of jihad as it is set down in the Quran. Christians do not agree with this, because a serious reading of the Bible always includes the context in which a verse is found, and in context we find that Jesus is talking as he prepares his apostles to go out and preach His Word, which He knows will divide the world. So what a Muslim may see as endorsing fighting either in his scripture or that of another may not be seen the same way by everyone, just as a Christian who picks out certain surahs from the Quran or certain hadith and says that this proves that Islam endorses this or that must be careful to understand context and seek a reasonable explanation of the passage, if it is possible. So what are we to do, being of different religious communities with often conflicting ideas regarding what is right and what is not right to do in the name of God, when one party says they are oppressed or endangered by the other, and so decides they are religiously justified in retaliation, or even to strike first? I know too many Christians from around the world who have horrible stories of immigration from their homelands because local Muslims or Islamic authorities took them to be untrustworthy “Western” implants on their own land, forgetting that every place where Islam now predominates was once home to indigenous believers of Christianity, Judaism, or other religions. So the idea of who is “fighting” who, what being “protected” means, what being free to practice one’s religion means, are not the same for the non-Muslims and the Muslims. I do not think that the Christians or other non-Muslims will accept gratefully the Muslim definitions, just as the Muslims likewise would rather live by their own laws and customs than accept those of another religion. So there is a fundamental problem where we each look at the same situation, and the Christian says “this is junust” and the Muslim says “this is just”, or vice-versa, and of course neither will agree with the other’s view. So this crucial clause that we not “fight” you in your religion needs to be clarified. I am not comfortable with it in the least. It is possible that after it is clarified I will still reject it, but I would at least like to hear a Muslim’s honest explanation of what that idea of fighting in the faith means. I have seen answers to similar questions here that always pointed back to specific times during Muhammad’s life as a prophet of Islam, but when further clarification was asked as to how the surah is then relevant today, someone always came with a mention of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, as though the American military IS Christianity itself, and the Christians of today are equal to the pagans of Muhammad’s time, and hence NOT “protected people” (a problematic term itself, but that might be best discussed elsewhere), etc.

 

[Zlatan]

I have studied the canonical ahadith, i am utterly awed by the stupidity of Mohammeds statements which they record.

 

[inJESUS]

but we know He has ordered it before, and, in a way, He has ordered it again for Muslims.

which means Jesus’ covenant is replaced by something else, which opposes both OT and NT which say the Messianic covenant will rule forever…Muhammad simply has no right/authority whatsover to pick and choose from the Mosaic Law given only to the Israelites and yet insert the name Issa in his book and give the impression that the Messianic covenant never existed or was a duplicate of the Mosaic Law which goes yet again again against the OT which says the Lord will give another Covenant, different from the previous one.

 

[hamba2han]

Hadith # 15

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:

"Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day either speak good or be silent. Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day honour his neighbour. Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day honour his guest."

[Al-Bukhari & Muslim]

This hadith contains the rulings concerning the tongue and the behaviour of Muslims towards others. It also emphasises that we are responsible for what we say.

The responsibility of the Muslim regarding what he says is mentioned in the Qur’an:

"Not a word does he utter but there is a watcher by him ready to record it" … [Surah Qaf (50): ayat 18].

There are also other hadiths which state that the Muslim should be careful about what he says. His words can either, if they are pleasing to Allah, raise him to a higher level; or if his words displease Allah, they may cause him to be thrown into the Hellfire - as stated in a hadith recorded by Imam al-Bukhari. This shows that what we say can have a direct effect on whether it will benefit us or not.

In short, what the first part of this hadith is essentially saying is that either we say something beneficial and good or else we should keep silent.

The second part of this hadith stresses on being courteous and generous to our neighbours and guests. This is stated in the Qur’an - Surah An-Nisa’(4): ayat 36: "…do good to parents, relatives, orphans, the poor, the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possess."

In one hadith, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “Jibril kept advising me concerning the neighbour to the point that I thought that he would inherit from his neighbour.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. In another hadith [also recorded by Al-Bukhari and Muslim], it is stated: "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not harm his neighbour."

Another hadith records the Prophet, peace be upon him, as saying that the person who does not have complete faith (iman) is the one from whose affairs the neighbour is not safe. Al-Bukhari and Muslim also records another hadith which states that when you cook stew, you should add a little bit more water and give some to your neighbours. This sharing of food between neighbours can strengthen the relationships between them. We should be nice to our neighbours and share our food even if they are not Muslims.

 

[Ed_Rand]

which means Jesus’ covenant is replaced by something else, which opposes both OT and NT which say the Messianic covenant will rule forever…Muhammad simply has no right/authority whatsover to pick and choose from the Mosaic Law given only to the Israelites and yet insert the name Issa in his book and give the impression that the Messianic covenant never existed or was a duplicate of the Mosaic Law which goes yet again again against the OT which says the Lord will give another Covenant, different from the previous one.

I agree. But yet, in a way, God has made it so 1 billion people are tied to the family of Abraham in their own way. Instead of harping on the fact that Muhammad slaughtered Jesus’ teachings, we should wonder why God would give the world this curious mixture of Old and New Testament theology that is Islam. Think of what the world would be like without Islam. Islam has been a barrier to the West for many centuries. In today’s world, Islam is the only deterrent to the Pax Americana. I think God has a good reason for making it so.

 

[hamba2han]

This is a problematic hadith for me. While, the second point, life for a life is very logical. The other two points are very illogical and truly against the fitra state of human being.

To kill someone because they no longer believe in a religion, is against the fitra state of a human being. Man is born on fitra. I don’t care if Jews use to be believe in it and I don’t care if some Catholics use to hold this position. It is not fitra.

To kill someone because of adulter is another belief that is against fitra.

The very act of stoning anyone is against fitra.

The very act of killing is against fitra.

A human being who is not indoctrinated with a particular way of life or religion, would never accept killings or the stoning of anyone.

I thank the Lord, that I do not live in a Muslim country. I thank the Lord I do not live in a Muslim country. I thank the Lord I do not live in a Muslim country.

What is so sad about Muslims, is they don’t tell new Muslims, I have never heard a muslim, tell a disbeliever wanting to accept Islam, "You do know, that once you take Shahada, according to Islam the only way out is death, so are you sure you want to be Muslim???"

No Muslims do not tell non-Muslims that. They are so quick to invite non-Muslims to Islam and tell them, come just take the Shahada, you will see, once iman is in your heart, things will get better.

In Christ,

Silouan

This hadith is no more “harsh” than the commands of God Almighty relating to apostasy and adultery which are clearly stated in the Bible.

Any Christian or Jew who does not agree with this hadith is essentially attacking his or her own religion.

The needs and desires of His creations have not changed one bit since the time of Moses (pbuh)… and so why should the commands of the Creator have to change in order to suit the “modern times” of the creations?

 

[hamba2han]

This is good on its surface, I suppose, but I find a basic problem with it that I would like to discuss with you, in as friendly terms as possible:

The idea of what it means to “fight” varies between religious communities. Consider, for instance, the differences in the Muslim and Christian interpretations of Matthew 10:34 that quotes Jesus saying: “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” I have read on this very board Muslims who quote this verse to say that Christianity also endorses something, if not completely the same, at least equivalent to the concept of jihad as it is set down in the Quran. Christians do not agree with this, because a serious reading of the Bible always includes the context in which a verse is found, and in context we find that Jesus is talking as he prepares his apostles to go out and preach His Word, which He knows will divide the world. So what a Muslim may see as endorsing fighting either in his scripture or that of another may not be seen the same way by everyone, just as a Christian who picks out certain surahs from the Quran or certain hadith and says that this proves that Islam endorses this or that must be careful to understand context and seek a reasonable explanation of the passage, if it is possible. So what are we to do, being of different religious communities with often conflicting ideas regarding what is right and what is not right to do in the name of God, when one party says they are oppressed or endangered by the other, and so decides they are religiously justified in retaliation, or even to strike first? I know too many Christians from around the world who have horrible stories of immigration from their homelands because local Muslims or Islamic authorities took them to be untrustworthy “Western” implants on their own land, forgetting that every place where Islam now predominates was once home to indigenous believers of Christianity, Judaism, or other religions. So the idea of who is “fighting” who, what being “protected” means, what being free to practice one’s religion means, are not the same for the non-Muslims and the Muslims. I do not think that the Christians or other non-Muslims will accept gratefully the Muslim definitions, just as the Muslims likewise would rather live by their own laws and customs than accept those of another religion. So there is a fundamental problem where we each look at the same situation, and the Christian says “this is junust” and the Muslim says “this is just”, or vice-versa, and of course neither will agree with the other’s view. So this crucial clause that we not “fight” you in your religion needs to be clarified. I am not comfortable with it in the least. It is possible that after it is clarified I will still reject it, but I would at least like to hear a Muslim’s honest explanation of what that idea of fighting in the faith means. I have seen answers to similar questions here that always pointed back to specific times during Muhammad’s life as a prophet of Islam, but when further clarification was asked as to how the surah is then relevant today, someone always came with a mention of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, as though the American military IS Christianity itself, and the Christians of today are equal to the pagans of Muhammad’s time, and hence NOT “protected people” (a problematic term itself, but that might be best discussed elsewhere), etc.

Non-Muslims have lived safely and peacefully in Muslims lands ever since the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and they have freely practiced their faith to this day.

The Coptic Christians in Egypt and various other non-Muslim communities in many other Muslim countries is proof of this.

There may have been isolated cases of intolerance by Muslims at various instances in history but these are mere exceptions and certainly not the rule.

If you wish to know what the true position of Islam is on non-Muslim communities in Muslim lands, then you need to examine how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions treated the non-Muslim population during the early years of Islam.

 

[Ed_Rand]

Any Christian or Jew who does not agree with this hadith is essentially attacking his or her own religion.

You’re wrong about that. Things changed for Christians. We are no longer slaves to the Law. This is clear throughout the New Testament. There is an obvious example of this: “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

 

[R_not]

Non-Muslims have lived safely and peacefully in Muslims lands ever since the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and they have freely practiced their faith to this day.

The Coptic Christians in Egypt and various other non-Muslim communities in many other Muslim countries is proof of this.

There may have been isolated cases of intolerance by Muslims at various instances in history but these are mere exceptions and certainly not the rule.

If you wish to know what the true position of Islam is on non-Muslim communities in Muslim lands, then you need to examine how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions treated the non-Muslim population during the early years of Islam.

This is the most ignorant statement that I have yet to read. the intolerance of muslims towards the non-muslims in lands where sharia law is practiced is unrelenting. And there are no laws to protect the non-muslims against the jihadists either kidnapping and forcing the girls to convert and marry (which is slavery and rape), the destruction of their places of worship, and the outright killing of the non-muslims.

Even in lands where people think that they are living happily side by side are radicalizing at a much faster rate and there are no laws protecting those non-muslims either.

For a while, when the French were in the Middle East there was a curtailing of the violence against the non-muslims - but it has sped up in the last century.

Life in Iraq has grown worse for non-muslims:
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021806.php

Pope is worried about christians:
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021948.php

Indonesia:
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011038.php

Sudanese slave crucified by muslim master:
jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001481.php

coptic Christians in Egypt
youtube.com/watch?v=36TNd3c0K8Q

The stories abound of atrocities visited upon non-muslims in jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch

 

[dzheremi]

Non-Muslims have lived safely and peacefully in Muslims lands ever since the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and they have freely practiced their faith to this day.

I think this is an over-generalization, and besides does not answer my question: What is the Muslim definition of “fighting against them in their faith”? If it does not match that of the religious minorities over whom they govern, how can any religious minority in the Muslim lands ever be guaranteed any rights at all? If the different religious communities cannot come to some sort of consensus that is respectful to all, why then does the Muslim law dictate to the others? It is not true respect or freedom if a religious minority is not free to disagree with the dominant faith, no matter what it is. When Muslims come to the United States, for example, no one forces them to accept the dictates of Christianity in the same way that Christians or others in Pakistan, for instance, are not allowed to disagree with or condemn Muhammad’s teachings, lest they violate that country’s “anti-blasphemy” laws (which is odd, since Muhammad is NOT God, right?) which have been used to restrict their rights and intimidate them.

The Coptic Christians in Egypt and various other non-Muslim communities in many other Muslim countries is proof of this.

I strenously disagree with this. You should pick a better example than this, if you can find one. If things are so great between Egypts Coptic Christians and Muslims, why are the Copts protesting to demand equal rights? Could it be because things like this are happening? And this? And this?

There may have been isolated cases of intolerance by Muslims at various instances in history but these are mere exceptions and certainly not the rule.

This is true in the sense that each individual incident is an individual case, particular to one particular set of circumstances, but when all of these “isolated cases” are looked at in the light of the Muslim and Christian ethics as defined by their respective scriptures and teachings, a fair person can only conclude that there IS systematic discrimination against non-Muslims under Islam. This is the entire reason I brought up the idea of different definitions of what at first seem like common terms in my original post. What Islam allows and Christianity does not (and what Christianity allows and Islam does not) matters very much when we look at how the believers put their faith into practice. When discrimination results, we cannot turn our heads and say “well, this is an abhorration” if it in fact is not. That is not being truthful to the reality of the Christian experience in Muslim lands. I will not abandon my Coptic, Assyrian, Chaldean and other Christian brothers and sisters in this way, just as you must not abandon your Muslim brothers and sisters for the sake of a fruitless “peace” with those of other religions. We can agree on this, no?

If you wish to know what the true position of Islam is on non-Muslim communities in Muslim lands, then you need to examine how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions treated the non-Muslim population during the early years of Islam.

False. I do want to know this, but I cannot get a fair picture of it from the Quran or Hadith. These sources imbue the Muslim with a sense of justice or fairness towards others in his religion, so I can understand why you would say this, but the point of this post and my last one is that non-Muslims do not see it this way. We do not rejoice in being “people of the Book” when the Islamic authorities arrest and assault people for carrying that book, women are raped by psychotic people for reading it, and it is constantly mocked as false or mined for allusions to Muhammad that aren’t there by people who don’t actually believe in its contents. This is not religious freedom or tolerance, no matter what the Quran says about it one way or another.

 

[hamba2han]

You’re wrong about that. Things changed for Christians. We are no longer slaves to the Law. This is clear throughout the New Testament. There is an obvious example of this: “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Becoming a slave to the Creator is the key to true freedom and happiness in this world and to eternal bliss in the hereafter.

This was true in the past at the time of Prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), it is still true today and it will most certainly remain true till the Last Day when the world comes to an end.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Becoming a slave to the Creator is the key to true freedom and happiness in this world and to eternal bliss in the hereafter.

This was true in the past at the time of Prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), it is still true today and it will most certainly remain true till the Last Day when the world comes to an end.

I have no problem with my willing to be a slave to one who allows me my free will.

I have a problem with my willing to be a slave to one who doesn’t allow me my free will.

Allah, the misinterpreted mask of God, claims we simply ARE his slaves because we don’t possess a free will, as only he alone has free will.

God says otherwise, and refutes the mask allah quite well through the Church.

 

[Silouan]

This hadith is no more “harsh” than the commands of God Almighty relating to apostasy and adultery which are clearly stated in the Bible.

Any Christian or Jew who does not agree with this hadith is essentially attacking his or her own religion.

No, I strongly disagree with you. I am an Orthodox Christian, and the Orthodox Church has never held the opinion that an apostate must be killed.

So disagreeing with this hadith is not attracking my religion at all.

In Christ,

Silouan

 

[Silouan]

What is fitra?

Fitra is the natural inclination of a human being toward the truth, or the actual truth. It is believed by Muslims, that all human beings are born on fitra (this natural inclination toward the truth), but our parents make us Christians and Jews. Thus you will hear some Muslims say or believe that all human beings are born Muslims because they believe Islam is the truth, and that our parents made us Christians and Jews. Thus sometimes you will hear Muslim converts refer to themselves as reverts and not converts, because they see themselves as coming back to the original religion.

Also, I think that as Christians, we must believe that God finds those punshments acceptable for those crimes. It was His Law that prescibed such harsh judgements on various peoples. I don’t believe he wants that for Christians, but we know He has ordered it before, and, in a way, He has ordered it again for Muslims.

Well, I think it is essential that we develop a Christ consciousness. Meaning that we make make the Gospel our life and knowledge, that we make it our world view, and that we develop that state to accept and receive true knowledge from God the Father, directly from Him, then we as Christian we’ll be able to see clearly His Message and be able to understand why things are the way they are, in order to see things as they clearly are and not what they appear to be.

Jesus our Lord and Savior taught, “37 ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’** 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 22:37-40

These two commandments are referred to in legal terminology as maxiums. The basis of all the commandments of God return to these two principles. When a law no longer fulfills these two principles, it becomes obsolete. This is why when prophets come new law are implemented and old laws are aborgated. Religion is meant to be a living tradition, it is not meant to be fixed except in the spiritual principles such as the two above. This is what Jesus was trying to teach the Jews. They were so concerned about the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

Just like Muslims, they are so concerned about the letter of the law that they miss the spirit of the law. I respect the old law of Moses, but I understand it within the context it was revealed. It was meant for the people of that time. The world is constantly changing, evolving, and thus laws the outward aspect of the religion needs to move along with it, so that we as a people don’t become constricted.

Jesus did not leave us a Holy Book like the Quran, Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit, so that we would become one with God and be eternally in the will of the father. Jesus did not leave us secondary knowledge (ie like the Quran) He just sent us the Holy Spirit, in order that we may attain direct knowledge from God. Jesus did not want us to await another prophet like Moses or someone like Muhammad, Jesus wanted to make each one of us a prophet, in order that we recieve direct knowledge from God.

There are some Christians who believe that the profession of faith without action is enough, which is strongly criticised by Muslims, and the muslims are right. Faith is necessarily coupled with action, purifying the heart, in order that we may see God, ie reach Him. Blessed are those who are pure in heart for they shall see God. Hearts are not purified simply by believing in Christ.

This is what I believe from my studies of the New Testament.

In Christ,

Silouan**

 

[R_not]

Becoming a slave to the Creator is the key to true freedom and happiness in this world and to eternal bliss in the hereafter.

This was true in the past at the time of Prophets Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all), it is still true today and it will most certainly remain true till the Last Day when the world comes to an end.

Well, delete mohammed since his ‘prophethood’ isn’t established except in a muslim’s little gourd. Since mohammed did not bring peace, but violence and chaos.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Rand
What is fitra?

Fitra is the natural inclination of a human being toward the truth, or the actual truth. It is believed by Muslims, that all human beings are born on fitra (this natural inclination toward the truth), but our parents make us Christians and Jews.

Oooooo, this is VERY interesting!

Why? Because I so often run into “atheists”, and various other sorts of God-haters, who say, “Religion is a curse placed on children by their parents!”

This is usually caused by (somewhat) grown up children who wish to blame their parents for being “bad parents”, and “maiming them” in some fashion such that they were “cured” of their “curse of religion” by the contrast between their parents “abuse” and the “free good feelings” of their “peers (in atheism)”.

The coincidence between those “fleeing from God into atheism” and “fleeing from God into the mask of allah the slaver” may have at least ONE similar root cause.

 

[hamba2han]

Hadith # 16

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleases with him, reported that a man said to the Prophet, peace be upon him:

"Advise me! "The Prophet said, “Do not become angry and furious.” The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, "Do not become angry and furious."

[Al-Bukhari; Vol. 8 No. 137]

This hadith is also related by other scholars of hadith. In another narration, it is related as:

A man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and said, “Messenger of Allah, teach me some words which I can live by. Do not make them too much for me, lest I forget.” The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Do not be angry.” [Abu Daud]

Some scholars say that the Prophet, peace be upon him, knew that the man who asked him used to get angry often and that is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, gave him that particular advice. This view may lead to narrowing down and limiting the benefit of the hadith, whereas it is very comprehensive, far-reaching and applicable to all Muslims because everyone is subject to anger.

There are other Qur’anic verses and hadith that emphasize the need to avoid getting angry. Allah mentions the qualities of the muttaqin:

“Those who spend (in Allah’s cause) in prosperity and in adversity, who repress their anger, and who pardon men, verily, Allah loves the al-Muhsinun (the good-doers).” … [Surah Al-Imran (3) : Ayah 133-134]

In another hadith, Abu Hurairah related that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:

"A strong person is not the person who throws his adversaries to the ground. A strong person is the person who contains himself when he is angry." [Al-Bukhari; Book 47, No. 47.3.12]

And from the du’a (supplications) of the Prophet, peace be upon him:

"I ask you O Allah, for truthful speech during times of pleasure and anger" [Nasaai and Ahmad]

Socially, this hadith promotes better relationship among people. We need to restrain anger and be patient. We may dislike something in this life but it may have benefits that we do not know.

Our patience towards others who have been harsh on us may later lead them to think and change themselves to be better.

 

[Booklover]

Hadith # 16

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleases with him, reported that a man said to the Prophet, peace be upon him:

"Advise me! "The Prophet said, “Do not become angry and furious.” The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, "Do not become angry and furious."

[Al-Bukhari; Vol. 8 No. 137]

This hadith is also related by other scholars of hadith. In another narration, it is related as:

A man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and said, “Messenger of Allah, teach me some words which I can live by. Do not make them too much for me, lest I forget.” The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “Do not be angry.” [Abu Daud]

Some scholars say that the Prophet, peace be upon him, knew that the man who asked him used to get angry often and that is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, gave him that particular advice. This view may lead to narrowing down and limiting the benefit of the hadith, whereas it is very comprehensive, far-reaching and applicable to all Muslims because everyone is subject to anger.

There are other Qur’anic verses and hadith that emphasize the need to avoid getting angry. Allah mentions the qualities of the muttaqin:

“Those who spend (in Allah’s cause) in prosperity and in adversity, who repress their anger, and who pardon men, verily, Allah loves the al-Muhsinun (the good-doers).” … [Surah Al-Imran (3) : Ayah 133-134]

In another hadith, Abu Hurairah related that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:

"A strong person is not the person who throws his adversaries to the ground. A strong person is the person who contains himself when he is angry." [Al-Bukhari; Book 47, No. 47.3.12]

And from the du’a (supplications) of the Prophet, peace be upon him:

"I ask you O Allah, for truthful speech during times of pleasure and anger" [Nasaai and Ahmad]

Socially, this hadith promotes better relationship among people. We need to restrain anger and be patient. We may dislike something in this life but it may have benefits that we do not know.

Our patience towards others who have been harsh on us may later lead them to think and change themselves to be better.

Remind your co-religionists of that next time someone prints cartoons of Muhammad!

Vickie