The death of the Hadith, and the rise of excommunication in Islam.

a reply to: Sahabi

I don't believe we need to "know" how to pray. We simply need to know "to pray". Mankind has always found a local unity in rituals. But it is the coming together in the worship of one God who is the father of all that is the most important, and the foundation for a world progressing towards peace, even if we disagree on a few words or an interpretation

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Does excommunication actually mean anything to a zealot? I'm curious about this. Since zealotry is an extreme for of confirmation bias and echo chamberism, I'd say that someone ex-communicating a zealot wouldn't do much to deter their zeal or fundamentalism. They'll probably just turn around and lash out at the religious figure that ex-communicated them instead. Well that's the way I see it at least.

Though if it works and deters people from becoming terrorists, then do it.

Hadith is not going anywhere. I know Muslims who would rather die than be completely honest and open minded when approaching the subject. I've even told some about the hadiths that I found that were head scratchers and they refuse to believe such hadiths even exist (though I offered evidence).

The only solution is that Islam will have to be reformed from the inside.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Assalaamu alaikum rah'matullahi wa barakatu.

I agree, that is how prayer/worship ought to be. However, as an "organized" religion, if all ahadith are removed, Islam loses many facets of its culture, traditions, uniformity, and even wisdom sayings. For example, if we reject Hadith, we lose Muhammad's "Farewell Sermon",... we lose many of the sayings that protect and raise the status of women, such as the ahadith urging unparalleled respect for mothers,... we even lose many of the historical nuances that are missing from secular historic accounts, for many of the greatest biographies of Muhammad are based upon a composite of Hadith, tafsir, and accounts from the ummah.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not just to deter terrorism but as a symbol to the world that the Muslim community disavows the person kicked to the curb.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

"I still stand by the fact that the Hadith are keeping Islam (mainly Eastern Islam) in a perpetual dark age."

Assalaamu alaikum.

I would tend to conclude that the historic incidents and Qur'anic verses of intolerance, superiority complexes, violence, slaughter, and conquests of the Medinan-era of Muhammad's leadership is what is keeping Islam in the dark ages.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

"I still stand by the fact that the Hadith are keeping Islam (mainly Eastern Islam) in a perpetual dark age."

Assalaamu alaikum.

I would tend to conclude that the historic incidents and Qur'anic verses of intolerance, superiority complexes, violence, slaughter, and conquests of the Medinan-era of Muhammad's leadership is what is keeping Islam in the dark ages.

Eliminate the influence Hadith has on interpretation and you eliminate such misunderstanding of the Quran.

The Quran teaches a humble philosophy. The Hadith is where you find unwarranted violence and segregation. Concepts not supported by Mohammed, the Quran or Allah.

a reply to: Sahabi

The Hadith should be considered culturally and historically significant, I agree.

But Hadith are not religious documents and should not be considered necessary for understanding the Quran. The Quran itself says such.

a reply to: Isurrender73

You are of the opinion that the ahadith are not religious documents, yet are still significant,... so shall we nitpick only the hadith that one resonates with? Ignore each and every hadith that gives supplementary instruction on "how", "why", and "when" certain sunnah, traditions, teachings, and mannerisms were established? Nitpick between the ahadith that give purely historic accounts?,... nitpick the ahadith that depict Muhammad's Qur'anic commentary?,...

There must be some methodology. Believe all ahadith, believe some, reject some, reject all? As I mentioned, reject all hadith, and Islam loses much in the way of biographies, history, culture, traditions, and wisdom sayings.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not just to deter terrorism but as a symbol to the world that the Muslim community disavows the person kicked to the curb.

Yea, going by your previous thread where you showed everyone on ATS all the Muslims around the world speaking out against terrorism and extremism, I doubt this would have much affect. Though, I'm all for trying. I just wouldn't hold out too much hope. Realistically speaking.

a reply to: Isurrender73

"The Hadith is where you find unwarranted violence and segregation. Concepts not supported by Mohammed, the Quran or Allah."

That is not entirely true. We can correlate the hostility of suratul-tawba (9th Chapter, Qur'an) and other Medinan-era verses with the historic attacks and battles of conquest of Muhammad, all done preemptively and on foreign soil.

If you ask me, it is not so much that your dream/prayer is unachievable as it is undesirable. The religion is finalised, and no man (certainly not a living one) serves as its representation. I've often seen people talk yearningly about a Caliph, not realising that aside from the first few, the office has at worst been the home of barbarous and unislamic acts, and at best been a meaningless title inherited by a (sometimes benevolent) king added to the end of a long list of titles. The Caliphate wasn't abolished in 1924, it ceased to exist in any meaningful form in 661.
Back in the 7th century it might have been true that the fledgling muslim community needed a leader so they wouldn't be wiped out, but I'd say it isn't desirous or even useful today- If someone wished to teach me, I am very happy to learn, but no man has religious authority over me.

Especially not the power to excommunicate! No man has the right to tell someone else they are not muslim. Can you imagine the abuse that might lead to? You don't have to, because it is historical.

originally posted by: babloyi
If you ask me, it is not so much that your dream/prayer is unachievable as it is undesirable. The religion is finalised, and no man (certainly not a living one) serves as its representation. I've often seen people talk yearningly about a Caliph, not realising that aside from the first few, the office has at worst been the home of barbarous and unislamic acts, and at best been a meaningless title inherited by a (sometimes benevolent) king added to the end of a long list of titles. The Caliphate wasn't abolished in 1924, it ceased to exist in any meaningful form in 661.
Back in the 7th century it might have been true that the fledgling muslim community needed a leader so they wouldn't be wiped out, but I'd say it isn't desirous or even useful today- If someone wished to teach me, I am very happy to learn, but no man has religious authority over me.

Especially not the power to excommunicate! No man has the right to tell someone else they are not muslim. Can you imagine the abuse that might lead to? You don't have to, because it is historical.

Even from the beginning of the Caliphate (after the death of Muhammad) there was bloodshed amongst the ranks of the Muslims. This includes the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and the guy that was next in line after him. Matter of fact I think the 2nd or 3rd Caliph was killed by other Muslims (I think Uthman and Ali both were).

a reply to: tiidoc
Oh, sure, I didn't mean to imply that they were universally loved, or even that every decision they made was correct, simply that it was absolutely meaningless after that.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Isurrender73

"The Hadith is where you find unwarranted violence and segregation. Concepts not supported by Mohammed, the Quran or Allah."

That is not entirely true. We can correlate the hostility of suratul-tawba (9th Chapter, Qur'an) and other Medinan-era verses with the historic attacks and battles of conquest of Muhammad, all done preemptively and on foreign soil.

I am aware of the Jewish and British version of history. There is Muslim version of history that paints a different picture.

I don't believe Mohammed was the aggressor as the Quran clearly states Allah does like the aggressor. However Allah does permit you to hunt down your oppressors until every last one is defeated or until they ask for peace.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I am not aware of the Jewish and/or British accounts of Islamic history. My understandings of Islam come from my past adherence to the religion. I draw my information directly from the Qur'an, sahih hadith, critically acclaimed seerah (biographies), tafsir, as well as the understandings of the Sahabah, Tabi'un, Tabi al-Tabi'in, and sheikhs from various madh'habs and sects.

You believe that Muhammad was not an aggressor, I am of the opinion that he was not an aggressor during the Meccan era but did become the aggressor during the Medinan era. To you be your opinion, to me be mine.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Out of all Islamic methodologies, the traditions of the Sufis are my favorite. However, from a traditional Islamic view point, the Sufi traditions are outside the fold of Islam, being considered innovations and corruptions. I tend to side with the speculation that the foundations of Sufism actually predates Muhammadan Islam by a wide margin, sharing many aspects with ancient mysticism, esoterism, and occultism.

I also admire Sufism, technically a misnomer but I forgot the right term. It's mystical, and I love mysticism.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Very proud of you for expressing this, friend. I can understand that it takes courage to do so. I hope voices like yours never get lost in the madness.