Questioning the Hadeeth

Dear Urstruly and Echoboom.

This is recent report by RAND. If you havent read it, please do read it.


http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1716/MR1716.pdf

Its 88 pages, but very interesting. Just read the suggestions/recommendation in the end of it atleast.

Regards.

Gibran

I have no problem with your article. It is your opinion. This post is out of context.

It is time the Muslim countries got togather and did something about the terrorists who killed these 12 poor innocent Nepalese in Iraq. What had Nepal or these innocent people done to be treated like this?

And instead of going into the intricacies of Islam and its laws, I wish the Muslims spent more time preaching others to be just good human beings.

And left the aspect of being a good Muslim or no-Muslim to the Divine.

NHK

Two generations of excess petroleum products seems to have given some people the opportunity to waste a lot of time and energy. Once they are back to earning a living by whatever other means, matters shall setlle down.

Till then, each person to his or her own interpretations.

Good luck.

re: this article
Simply beautiful!
I like the following:
``My friends, if God wanted to dictate our daily lives, then he could have done so by revealing volumes and volumes of the Quran. Yet the Quran is deliberately vague as to the details of rituals, daily activities and never seems to come across as imposing in any particular sense. Has anyone considered that maybe God is not meant to be a babysitter...``
God also has left the passages vague because he knows that as society evolves, values change, customs change. He seemed to have enough faith in mankind to think that they will evolve with the times!
I now see why Islam is so problematic in this day and age.
Hadith is based on the Prophet`s teachings on various aspects of life. Modern day mullahs look at the hadith written many centuries ago and tell the common man how to behave, how to conduct himself/herself. They do not interpret the teachings of the prophet based on the context. Mullahs even go to the extent of speculating what Prophet would have done in so and so situation even if the Prophet had never been in such a situation! No wonder, Islam is caught in a time warp.

``There was tolerance with the non Muslims, there was education and there was unity. There were people who strived to be better human beings. These are the keys to success, not extremism, not corruption and not die hard conservatism.``
Wise words.
It bothers me as a non-muslim to hear the news of some Nepalese workers killed (beheaded?) in Iraq because they were not muslims and the perpetrators of the crime wanted to punish them. Have the clerics in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or any other muslim country condemned this crime? Is this not a crime against Islam itself? Does Islam preach that it is OK to behead or kill someone in the name of religion?
Muslims seem to find glory in their past. Their heroes are also perpetrators of great crimes against humanities.
Read the following Url to know what i mean:
LETTER FROM LONDON: Demons from the past —Irfan Husain
(http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=401745

Excerpts:

1. ``The reason I mention this period of history is to try and understand the bitterness that must exist in many Hindu minds over the Muslim conquest of their country. In his Story of Civilisation, Will Durant writes: “The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest in history”. While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enouh to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.

Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.``

2. ``These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage.

3. ``One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines. And many Hindus converted to Islam to further their military or civil service careers. As a result of this intermingling, despite proud boasts of pure bloodlines, most Pakistanis have many Hindu ancestors.

This reality makes the Hindu-Muslim divide all the more bitter, for it pits brother against brother.``
So, Islam, in the subcontinental context, has divided a great culture into Islamic Pakistan (that denies everything that India owns) and a non-islamic India. This also has become the very basis of friction between the 2 communities. Indian hindus are willing to embrace the 100 million or more muslims and other diverse cultures but Pakistan would have nothing of the sort and will only accept what is Islamic.
Here then is Islam at its worst. If it is a religion of brotherhood, does it then only preach brotherhood and love only among its adherents to the exclusion of others? What kind of religion would that be then?
Also, why do muslims consider their bloody past glorious? Because it made some muslim rulers gloriour in victory? How does that automatically transfer glory to the general populace?
Most hindus would say that India`s glorious past was when Ashoka ruled India. This great king renounced warfare as a means of statecraft after the bloody Kalinga war, adopted Buddhism as a state religon (and most hindus have no problem with that either) and ushered in an era of peace. Hindus would not associate any violent acts of the past as glorious. Even though our scriptures are full of violence (the Epic war in Mahabharata being one such eg), no glory is attached to them. Violence is never preached even though our scriptures say that it is OK to defend righteousness with violence if necessary.
Why do muslim clergy preach violence at the drop of hat even while claiming Islam is a religion of peace? Why do they defend violent acts like the recent killings of innocent Nepalese or women and children in bus in Hazra? This is what non-muslims cannot understand.
Sridhar

Gibram: I am sure this is an interesting article. Must admit I have not read it as yet. I thought I would light a little fire on the rear of the clown echosqueeeeeeek and the overclever sattar2.

Are you questioning the hadith? You believe in the Quran which was sent through the Prophet (pbuh) but you don’t believe in his hadith? How is that possible? I mean the Quran did not come down as written text and it was not even compiled in book form till several years later, primarily because people memorized it and believed that writing the word of Allah with human hands was sacrilegious. You have written this huge article using selective quotes from the Quran which suit your cause. Are you ashamed of being Muslim? Do you pray five times a day? Do you give zakat? Or do these also need to be examined with the hadith. By the way where do you find the Sunnah of the Rasool (PBUH) if not through the hadith?
And what’s the whole deal with this sudden attack of moderation? Moderation seems to be the new Pakistani buzz word. Moderate this moderate that enlighten this enlighten that.

echoboom #11 I see the chamcha of the Great Prophet Maududi (the one who is further removed from islam than the ahmedis whom he condemns), the one whose life revolves around proving himself to be non-slave to goras, is delighted to present some pictures where there are gora faces listening to the Great Mullah whatshisface. If you had half a brain, you would see the irony in this.

sattar2: i see my name being taken in vain! ha! ha! you claim that ``and Tahmed fell for this claim``

Would you care to cut and paste my response based on which you make this claim that I fell for your cleverness, o great genius and trickster??

Gibran,

Would you like to quote some hadeeth which are in contrast to Quran? It would be better if you do so.

Dear Gibran,
The Quran says that God is Most Gracious and Most Merciful. What are the other attributes of God according to it? For eg: Does the Quran say that he is omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipresent? Is he jealous (as in the old testament)? Did he create man in his own image, i.e, he is humaniform? I ask you because you seem to be a scholar of Islam.

Thanks,

Again as usual Gibran I appreciate the sentiment behind this Article, but I am confused as to the premise of the call of moderation you seem to voicing in it. Isnt this one sided Moderation. The bourgeosie questioning a culture to advance primarily to meet up with the overwhelming capitalist culture of the world. This is a crucial juncture in our history, where we have turned around and are righteously asking the questions about the most basic tenets of our religion. The manifestation that through our worldy outlook, we have somehow grown wiser than centuries of evolution of the thought of men. I am all for moderation and modernising, but will it transform us into someone who we will not recognise anymore, unless we wear the glasses of another culture.

Is this the Final Lap?

True story: there was once a great prophet who taught great things and after he left this earth, his followers passed along his teachings through oral methods. Nearly two hundred years later, these were compiled in the forms of books called gospels. There were nearly seventeen hundred gospels written – all with different texts, teachings, often one contradicting others - but the council of Nicea in Rome decided that only four would be adopted into the official church teachings......

Gibran, can you let me know the source of this story?

Thanks

#21 by rsridhar on September 1, 2004 9:56pm PT

I also agree with NHK Saheb. We need to be good humans first and condemn the gruesome murder of the 12 innocent nepalese with the same passion we hold against the American occupation of Iraq.
But the issues raised by Gibran are also very pertinent in the present context and is the first step towards rejection of the dangerous literalists like Maulana Maududi. I hope these issues are taken in the right spirit and are not allowed to be buried again by those who shout the loudest and raise the bogey of Islam-in-danger.

For those who are interested in how some Christians and Jews have used hadeeth to spread lies about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, pls take a few minutes to visit this site

www.prophetofdoom.net

its absolutely amazing, he has used hadeeth from tarbari, Bukhari and other obscure sources to paint a picture which is unheard off, malicious and hate filled.

Please do not mistake the above to be an anti-Jew or anti - Christian message, there are malicous people in all faiths, however, it is important for Muslims to realize the extent to which hadeeth were manipulated and the lies that have been spread citing it.

Asadm says:
``You believe in the Quran which was sent through the Prophet (pbuh) but you don’t believe in his hadith? How is that possible? I mean the Quran did not come down as written text and it was not even compiled in book form till several years later, primarily because people memorized it and believed that writing the word of Allah with human hands was sacrilegious. You have written this huge article using selective quotes from the Quran which suit your cause. Are you ashamed of being Muslim? Do you pray five times a day? Do you give zakat? Or do these also need to be examined with the hadith``

Is this joker who does not even know how the Quran was compiled defending hadeeth? I do not wish to debate a man who wants to use his gut reaction as his stated facts. My friend, read the article....i have pointed out difference between sunnah and hadeeth, i have also gone in detail as to how they were collected. i have also pointed out the consequences.
As for people being afraid to collect Quran - what a bunch of nonsense - i suggest you need to do some research before you come up with garbage like that!!

Gibran Bham

Dear Nazaryat

If you had read the article - you would have realized that our viewpoints are incohesion. This article isnt about being a good or bad Muslim - Im not a Mulla or a scholar and Im not worried about anyone`s salvation!
Many problems that exist in the Muslim world - intolerance, supression of women and division are all a consequence of this unreliable science of hadeeth. To solve a problem you have to get to the root, just as the so called war on terror is a bunch of nonsense because unless you can identify what motivates the terrorists - you can never completely `win`.
After Sept 11, people in America forgot to ask one question - WHY????
Since we are not Americans, let us focus on our own societies - so people say WHY? Why poverty, Why instability? Why extremism? Its not all the fault of the Jews (somebody tell Echobbom) - lets take responsibility and work to make things better! This is my humble contribution.