Betrayed, Arabized

[President Camacho]

It should be noted that there is a spectrum of beliefs within Islam about this subject -- about the number and validity of hadiths.

At one extreme, you have people who follow only the Qur'an because only that is God's word. Everything else, including the hadiths, are man made and, according to them, are optional at best.

My friend, would you allow me to use these statements of yours in some other thread pertaining to the doubts on differing versions of Islam?

 

[Developereo]

My friend, would you allow me to use these statements of yours in some other thread pertaining to the doubts on differing versions of Islam?

Well, I am no expert on Islam by any stretch.
It's just that there was a poster on PDF some time back who claimed to be a Quranist.

 

[President Camacho]

Well, I am no expert on Islam by any stretch.
It's just that there was a poster on PDF some time back who claimed to be a Quranist.

That's not what I really meant brother.

It is just that the main cause of the terrorists that harm Pakistan will be defeated if they are proven (beyond doubt) to be going against the religion in whatever they do. That way, they will not be able to recruit others in the name of religion.

I hope you understand what I mean there, because I would never use yours, or anyone else's, statements merely to score some brownie points. I am just wondering about this approach, that's all.

 

[Developereo]

That's not what I really meant brother.

It is just that the main cause of the terrorists that harm Pakistan will be defeated if they are proven (beyond doubt) to be going against the religion in whatever they do. That way, they will not be able to recruit others in the name of religion.

I hope you understand what I mean there, because I would never use yours, or anyone else's, statements merely to score some brownie points. I am just wondering about this approach, that's all.

If it were that easy....
(Sorry, but I doubt your chances of success).

 

[Sinnerman108]

That's not what I really meant brother.

It is just that the main cause of the terrorists that harm Pakistan will be defeated if they are proven (beyond doubt) to be going against the religion in whatever they do. That way, they will not be able to recruit others in the name of religion.

I hope you understand what I mean there, because I would never use yours, or anyone else's, statements merely to score some brownie points. I am just wondering about this approach, that's all.

The only thing that the terrorists thrive on, is vengeance.
There are many many many examples of atrocities against Muslims.
with spare parts available so abundantly you can not stop them from inventing.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

this is an aayat.

It appears to be a hadith from Sahih Bukhari:

SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 69: Drinks

... and it makes absolutely no sense, in terms of making 'wearing silk, listening to music and dancing' a 'sin and forbidden in Islam'.

What this hadith, and others like it, appear to be are attempts by regressive and patriarchal 'scholars' to concoct 'religious doctrine' justifying their regressive and intolerant personal views.

I see absolutely no rational reason to prevent wearing silk, listening to music and dancing, in any religion - why on earth would God/Allah bother with such trivial restrictions?

He is Allah/God, not a 'jailer'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Assalam alaikum

bhai those who follow only quran and they stick to it tomorrow they will make fajr prayer 4 raka'a , maghrib prayr 5 and 3sr, 7
without hadeeth

So what if they did?

It is the reason behind prayer that counts, not whether you perform the 'calisthenics of prayer' perfectly.

Quite frankly, if it is not in the Quran, then Allah did not intend for it to be 'cast in stone'.

Our ulema spend a lot of time on hadeeth ( on asool ) and most of the muslims agreed upon the rules doesnot matter if some minor percentage didnot agree.

If various Islamic scholars want to come to consensus on how to 'perform prayers' and what not, then that is fine, but let us not pretend that just because the reach a consensus on such issues using 'Hadith', that what they say is Allah's command. It is not, it is merely their interpretation.

I like ur last part maybe who knows kalima and five pillars will be happy on judgement day then most scholars

Any individual, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Ahmadi, Hindu or Jew, who believes in, and advocates for, respect, equal rights and freedom for all human beings, regardless of their race or beliefs, is more than likely going to have a better standing in the eyes of God than the Mullahs, Priests and Rabbis who promote intolerance, hatred and discrimination against those whose beliefs are different.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is just that the main cause of the terrorists that harm Pakistan will be defeated if they are proven (beyond doubt) to be going against the religion in whatever they do. That way, they will not be able to recruit others in the name of religion.

Please look at the example of the so called 'hadith' against 'silk, music and dancing' - there are many more such as these with far more vile consequences. Look at these 'interpretations of Islam' and realize that the issue is not 'Arabization', it is the corruption of religion and the promotion of intolerance and regressive values by mainstream Islamic scholars the world over.

Sahih Bukhari is not 'Arab culture', it is not 'solely promoted by Arabs', it is a collection of Hadith accepted widely across the Muslim world. Merely casting these regressive interpretations of Islam as 'Arabization' will not win this ideological war - a discourse and 'cleansing of Islam' (from perversions like this particular Hadith) has to occur in every Muslim society, and it has to occur based on a refutation and rejection of this regressive poison that has been turned into religions canon.

 

[jayron]

It appears to be a hadith from Sahih Bukhari:

SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 69: Drinks

... and it makes absolutely no sense, in terms of making 'wearing silk, listening to music and dancing' a 'sin and forbidden in Islam'.

What this hadith, and others like it, appear to be are attempts by regressive and patriarchal 'scholars' to concoct 'religious doctrine' justifying their regressive and intolerant personal views.

I see absolutely no rational reason to prevent wearing silk, listening to music and dancing, in any religion - why on earth would God/Allah bother with such trivial restrictions?

He is Allah/God, not a 'jailer'.

You cannot seek rationality in religion. That's why it is called "belief". I don't find any rationality behind banning pork in islam or banning beef in Hinduism either. The best way of going about it is to adapt to the situation and be flexible.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You cannot seek rationality in religion. That's why it is called "belief". I don't find any rationality behind banning pork in islam or banning beef in Hinduism either. The best way of going about it is to adapt to the situation and be flexible.

Well the rationale, at that time, behind banning pork was that it was a '****** creature' that ate pretty much anything (I have read news reports of domestic pigs attacking, killing and eating small children even). So while the '****** creature' part may no longer hold, given modern livestock rearing practices, I can see some rationale behind the original decision.

On the other hand, I see no rationale behind banning silk, music and dancing - doing all three does not put one in danger of becoming 'gay' or 'sexually promiscuous' does it?

Music has always served me well in helping me to focus when studying or working on some tedious project.

 

[T-Faz]

You cannot seek rationality in religion. That's why it is called "belief". I don't find any rationality behind banning pork in islam or banning beef in Hinduism either. The best way of going about it is to adapt to the situation and be flexible.

There is scientific reasoning for everything that Islam forbids in the Quran.

The Hadith is a different matter though.

 

[jayron]

Well the rationale, at that time, behind banning pork was that it was a '****** creature' that ate pretty much anything (I have read news reports of domestic pigs attacking, killing and eating small children even). So while the '****** creature' part may no longer hold, given modern livestock rearing practices, I can see some rationale behind the original decision.

On the other hand, I see no rationale behind banning silk, music and dancing - doing all three does not put one in danger of becoming 'gay' or 'sexually promiscuous' does it?

Music has always served me well in helping me to focus when studying or working on some tedious project.

Most of the ancient religions discouraged indulgence. Jesus is said to be with the poor; Buddha said desire leads to all evils; Hinduism keeps "sanyasa" in high regard. Similarly, music, dance etc are seen as indulgence and is being looked down upon by these people.

As you said pigs were seen as "****** creatures". But nowadays, Chickens in chicken farms are probably dirtier than pigs. will that change the rules? No. coz its a part of islamic belief.

I totally support your view.But I am just wondering how to deal with religious beliefs that some times may not suit the contemporary way of life.

 

[VCheng]

You cannot seek rationality in religion. That's why it is called "belief". ........................

There is scientific reasoning for everything that Islam forbids in the Quran.

.................................

Dogmatic belief can never be judged by logic.

Exactly why it is not appropriate to seek ANY justification for what is in the Quran, specially regarding what is forbidden or permitted, for these allowances are part of dogmatic belief.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dogmatic belief can never be judged by logic.

Exactly why it is not appropriate to seek ANY justification for what is in the Quran, specially regarding what is forbidden or permitted, for these allowances are part of dogmatic belief.

The proponents of a theocratic State (Islamic Law/Shariah Law) would argue that it is Islam/Allah that commands an 'Islamic State'.

Given that view, I don't see how it would be possible to change the direction of Pakistan's society and culture without taking on 'dogmatic beliefs' and reinterpreting them.

There are two possible paths to take:

1. Challenge the theocratic State - Come up against dogmatic belief calling for an Islamic State, as well as the belief that Pakistan was formed to be an 'Islamic State'.

2. Do not challenge the theocratic State, but challenge regressive interpretations of faith and regressive laws, and try and bring about change one step at a time from 'within'.

 

[VCheng]

The proponents of a theocratic State (Islamic Law/Shariah Law) would argue that it is Islam/Allah that commands an 'Islamic State'.

Given that view, I don't see how it would be possible to change the direction of Pakistan's society and culture without taking on 'dogmatic beliefs' and reinterpreting them.

As long as the reinterpretation is done in a manner that is acceptable to the general masses, it will stick. Using science may work in some aspects, for example hygiene, but in other, more critical areas, emphasis on tolerance of diversity as an article of faith may work better.