The Hadith, source of Islamic atrocities.

[Aupmanyav]

African Rulers of India: Janjira, Sachin, Adoni, Ahmadnagar, Bengal Sultanate.

Dr. Kenneth Robbins, author of “African elites in India”, is of the opinion that it is necessary to shed light on the ruling status of Africans in India. .. “A major difference in the history of African presence in the rest of the world and that in India is that racial discrimination was not a feature. Nowhere else in the world had they ruled.”
African rulers of India: That part of our history we choose to forget

 

[loverofhumanity]

I studied the Quran and Islam for the past 10 years or so, and at one stage I saw that the explanations Muslim Scholars gave me on various problem verses was always one of opinion.
It works this way.
I might find a verse that say

• You should wage war against the Christian and Jew.
• The Muslim scholar will then tell me to read everything in context, to which I agree.
• He will inform me that this is only allowed when Muslims are attacked. Then If the attacker stops being agressive, the Muslims should allow the attacker to make peace.
• I will ask him what does it mean that Muslims should fight in the way of Allah against those who wage war against him.
• and he will reply that if Muslims are attacked they should fight back, he will give me a whole story of how I will react if someone attacks my mother, or kills my wife etc.

Therefore, if one reasons out of the Quran alone, it is not easy to get to the bottom of why Muslims do the terrible things such as suicide bombings, Honor Killings, beheadings and so forth.

But this all becomes clear once you get hold of the Hadith and read what Muhammad said and did.
Then the Muslim scholar is silenced because they never thought that the English translations of their 2nd most holy scriptures will be read by the Western Judeo Christian civilisation.
The Hadith is the acts and utterances Muhammad made during his life, which was remembered by his Wifes and companions after he died in 632AD.

The oldest hadith was collected by Al Bukhari and completed in 850Ad, more than 200 years after Muhammad died.
There are 6 Imam's who Muslims consider to be truthfull collectors, and which they follow. I only use Al Bukhari, because it is the closest to Muhammads time, even though 200 years off, and the result is, no one can critisize my research.
The way Muslims wear long beards, short moustaches, their clothing and head cover, their words, prayers, greetings, going to toilet, washing, having intercourse, everything is dictated by the hadith.
So, here is the reason why Muslims act as they do.

Only the Quran is the Word of God both to Sunni and Shia and anything which contradicts it is false. Many fabricated hadiths were created by His enemies to slander Prophet Muhammad during His lifetime and afterwards thousands upon thousands by the Abbasids and Umayyads to try and justify their disobedience to the Quran.

The Quran alone promoted peace and integration never war and violence.

 

[Shad]

Ahmadiyyas and Bahais don't, because they do not have the power. Allah changed the direction of bowing (Qibla) after Mohammad came to power.

Sure power could easily alter policy.

 

[Shad]

Thank you, Shad. You are a good person, not giving way to hate.

Action speaks volume. The Ahmadiyya have done a lot of good in Canada. Also they have embrace Canada rather than Canada having to embrace them. This is what I call the difference between shared values vs blind multiculturalism The former naturally results in multiculturalism while the later never wants to evaluate the culture until something horrible happens.

Now we have conservative Muslims bring back ideas like sex based segregation in private and public life. That is a major step back.

 

[Shad]

Fighting for Allah or Islam that means Jihad doesn't means war or kill or harm to other religion etc. Do you know the proper meaning of Jihad??? You should learn quran well. Don't judge anything by your tinny knowledge. Learn quran fully then comment

Jihad has been used for political wars. The Ottomans joined the Central Powers in WW1 in a declaration of Jihad.

 

[Shad]

Notice that there are two sets of hadith, the Sunni version and the Shia version. You are discussing the Sunni version.

What I don't understand is how they find the context of the Hadiths since it consists of bits and pieces of information without much saying the context. Muslims have shown me hadith explaining a Quran verse and I often ask "where does the hadith say it is referring to that verse?"

The Sunni are the dominate branch mind you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Sunni are the dominate branch mind you.

They are yeah. But both sides originate from the beginning and split because of politics. And as far as i know we do not know whose history is true. So addressing the Sunni hadith would only impact them and not the rest.

 

[Shad]

They are yeah. But both sides originate from the beginning and split because of politics. And as far as i know we do not know whose history is true. So addressing the Sunni hadith would only impact them and not the rest.

My point was being the dominant branch will tend to be the one most know due to basic communication used to share knowledge.

I doubt either is true. The methods are not very reliable

 

[Samael_Khan]

My point was being the dominant branch will tend to be the one most know due to basic communication used to share knowledge.

I doubt either is true. The methods are not very reliable

Ahh... OK. I didn't get your point earlier.

It is very difficult to get a solid answer from muslims about the methods as well.

 

[Shad]

Ahh... OK. I didn't get your point earlier.

It is very difficult to get a solid answer from muslims about the methods as well.

The method relies heavily on trust as a primary called Chain of Narration. A modern term would be Chinese whispers or telephone but with the assumption no one in the chain made a mistake. Person A heard so and so then told the author. Person B heard so and so from Person C. I think one chain is 11 people long. So 11 people passed this information in order until the 11th told the author.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The method relies heavily on trust as a primary called Chain of Narration. A modern term would be Chinese whispers or telephone but with the assumption no one in the chain made a mistake. Person A heard so and so then told the author. Person B heard so and so from Person C. I think one chain is 11 people long. So 11 people passed this information in order until the 11th told the author.

My problem that I addressed with a muslim colleague about the hadith is this:

Bukhari apparently destroyed most of the hadiths that he collected because he claimed that they "weren't trustworthy". How do we trust that what he is saying is true and he didn't just throw away damning evidence against muhammed and Islam? How do we know that he was correct?

The same thing happened with the Quran. Uthman compiled a standardised text and burnt the rest. Who is to say that he didn't make up his own stuff in the standardised version?

They counter this by saying that the original muslims could recite the verses and detect mistakes. But where is the proof of that?

Itb is all based on unfounded trust in people that nobody today knows.

 

[Shad]

My problem that I addressed with a muslim colleague about the hadith is this:

Bukhari apparently destroyed most of the hadiths that he collected because he claimed that they "weren't trustworthy". How do we trust that what he is saying is true and he didn't just throw away damning evidence against muhammed and Islam? How do we know that he was correct?

The same thing happened with the Quran. Uthman compiled a standardised text and burnt the rest. Who is to say that he didn't make up his own stuff in the standardised version?

They counter this by saying that the original muslims could recite the verses and detect mistakes. But where is the proof of that?

Itb is all based on unfounded trust in people that nobody today knows.

Pretty much. However without the shield of doctrine and dogma people are rejecting various narrations for whatever reason. The religious class has issues influencing people it can not control. Scholars and layman alike.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Pretty much. However without the shield of doctrine and dogma people are rejecting various narrations for whatever reason. The religious class has issues influencing people it can not control. Scholars and layman alike.

Yeah. It seems like they choose narrations depending on whether they like it or not. Often when they encounter a damning narration, they say it isn't authentic as a reaction.

 

[Wasp]

Jihad has been used for political wars. The Ottomans joined the Central Powers in WW1 in a declaration of Jihad.

Jihad is also political of course. What kind of war isn't political?

 

[Neutral Name]

Action speaks volume. The Ahmadiyya have done a lot of good in Canada. Also they have embrace Canada rather than Canada having to embrace them. This is what I call the difference between shared values vs blind multiculturalism The former naturally results in multiculturalism while the later never wants to evaluate the culture until something horrible happens.

Now we have conservative Muslims bring back ideas like sex based segregation in private and public life. That is a major step back.

I don't know if you are in Canada but in the U.S. we have conservative "Christians", just as bad.

 

[Neutral Name]

Indians are generally reserved people. Yes, we have fair people among us as well as dark-skinned (most of our Gods are supposed to be dark-skinned). We have citizens of African origin. They have been here for centuries and have adjusted very well as a part of the Indian society (Siddis, Hubshis - Gujarat, Hyderbad). Some of them were kings of their principalities. What we do not like is 'frivolity'. Most conflicts with Africans in India are because of that. Drinking, loud music, etc.

And they look just as nice in Indian clothes (in spite of the poverty of the people in the image. Not all such are poor).

Contribution to Indian archtecture: The shaking minarets of Sidi Bashir Mosque (you push one, the other also tilts), World's most beautiful lattice at Sayyed Sidi Mosque, Ahmedabad (They are very beautiful).

Malik Ambar (Founder of the Aurangabad city in Maharashtra - Malik Ambar - Wikipedia), Janjira Fort, Nawab Ibrahim Mohammad Yakut Khan II of Sachin, Gujarat.

I did always think that the East African coast was very near India and so people must have gotten together from both areas.

In regard to loud music, drinking, etc. does that mean that many people in India don't like any Americans? Many of us do that and, having many friends from the Philippines, I know that some other non-Americans also like frivolity. I go to parties and have a lot of fun. Also, I love Bollywood movies. They always make India look like a really fun, frivolous place. What is the difference?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In regard to loud music, drinking, etc. does that mean that many people in India don't like any Americans? Also, I love Bollywood movies. They always make India look like a really fun, frivolous place. What is the difference?

Yeah, you are right. Indians (Hindus and Muslims, both) do not appreciate 'frivolous' behavior in public, whether Americans do it or Chinese or any other. We have no problem with people enjoying themselves in private without disturbing others. As I said, we are a bit conservative. There are festival times when it would not be objected. Bollywood too is considered very 'frivolous'. These are films and not real life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only the Quran is the Word of God both to Sunni and Shia and anything which contradicts it is false. Many fabricated hadiths were created by His enemies to slander Prophet Muhammad during His lifetime and afterwards thousands upon thousands by the Abbasids and Umayyads to try and justify their disobedience to the Quran.

So says a Bahai who would not agree that Mohammad is 'Khātam al-Anbiyā'.

Itb is all based on unfounded trust in people that nobody today knows.

Extend this to include whether there were any messages or even that there is a God, whether for Christians, Muslims, Hindus or any other.

 

[Neutral Name]

Yeah, you are right. Indians (Hindus and Muslims, both) do not appreciate 'frivolous' behavior in public, whether Americans do it or Chinese or any other. We have no problem with people enjoying themselves in private without disturbing others. As I said, we are a bit conservative. There are festival times when it would not be objected. Bollywood too is considered very 'frivolous'. These are films and not real life.

Well, I get that Bollywood is not real life. It is very fantastic and so much fun but I didn't know that many people from India were conservative. I am not conservative at all. I'm not sure that I am understanding all of this.

 

[danieldemol]

Action speaks volume. The Ahmadiyya have done a lot of good in Canada. Also they have embrace Canada rather than Canada having to embrace them. This is what I call the difference between shared values vs blind multiculturalism The former naturally results in multiculturalism while the later never wants to evaluate the culture until something horrible happens.

That is precisely why it is so valid to criticise certain Hadith, because even in a country like Indonesia where only 54% believe that Shariah is revealed by God and only 18% of the 72% who believe Shariah should be made the law of the land also believe the death penalty should be applied for apostates we see this;

Spoiler: Contains graphic violence

Doesn't take much intelligence to picture what goes on in countries like Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Palestine where the percentages are much much higher does it?