but if you want to focus on muslims as people ,lets do it .if these 4 hypothetical scenrarios would be true would muslims still were going to be good ?
1 if muslim countries were more numerous than non muslim
2 if muslim countries were a lot stronger than non muslim ones.
3 if muslim countries were more united (in religion)
4 if muslim countries were richer than christian countries and instead of muslims coming to christian countries for work you had the
Last edited by clone; January 13, 2016 at 04:54 PM.
When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in... Who will our invaders be? From whence will they come?” ― Robert E. Howard
True Islam is the Quran. It's the only text and the only material that you shouldn't contradict.
realy what about the hadiths?
When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in... Who will our invaders be? From whence will they come?” ― Robert E. Howard
this small minority of exremists are the true islam.
No, they are not.
Their actions go against the Quran and the Sunnah. There is a convincing argument to be made that they are not even mu'minin. Studies have been done which show that the average terrorist has a very poor knowledge of the Quran, the Hadith and no information about the religion they claim to follow. Many of them are in it for reasons of wanting to belong, wanting prestige, wanting an escape from their lives, wanting power and money. A lot of them come from lives of drugs, petty crime, gangs, domestic abuse and other bad situations. Religion is typically not an important part of their lives, prior to joining whatever organisation they join.
Originally Posted by clone
1 if muslim countries were more numerous than non muslim
2 if muslim counries were a lot stronger than non muslim ones.
3 if muslim countries were more united (in religion)
4 if muslim countries were richer than christian countries and instead of muslims coming to christian countries for work you had the opposite
i wonder in this case how common would the so called "moderate" muslims woul be. Islam started to "become" "good" (i am talking about islam not individual people) when it could no longer fight the west or its neighbors
this is a good website about islam http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Islam_and_peace.htm
1). I don't think it's the number that's important, it's more about political, economic and military strength
2). In this case, I am convinced that many of our problems would not exist. Much of the extremism ultimately stems from a sense of injustice, combined with powerlessness and failure in the face of foreign exploiters. This generates a lot of anger and resentment, which is channelled into extremist groups. If the Muslim nations were stronger than their neighbours, the source of this anger would cease to exist, and there would no longer be any support for such groups.
3). Pretty similar to the point above, division in the Muslim world simply serves to weaken the interests of Muslims everywhere and allows opportunities for enemies such as Israel to occupy territory by military force, against the will of the native inhabitants. If Islam was united, these enemies would never dare to behave in so presumptious a manner.
4). This is the real crux of the matter. Economic might usually translates into political and military might. If Muslim countries were richer than the rest of the world, they would automatically become much more powerful. It's widely known that poverty, unemployment and lack of education contribute to extremism. If these factors were removed and people were provided with good, steady jobs, a reliable source of income, rising prosperity and better education, much of the appeal of extremist groups would fade away. It's been proved before in Germany in the 1930s and it is the same in any country, any place, any time. Economic prosperity is the best antidote to extremism that there is.
Your quote "Islam started to "become" "good" when it could no longer fight the west or its neighbors" has things almost exactly wrong, in my opinion. Actually, the exact opposite is true: Islam started to have problems, precisely when Muslim countries became weaker than their neighbours. The extremism is a direct result of weakness in the Islamic world. Restore those countries to strength, and the problem would vanish virtually overnight.
We can look to history to confirm the truth of what I'm saying. It's no coincidence that the Golden Age of Arabic science and learning and culture was at precisely the time when the Islamic empires were at their strongest politically, militarily and economically. These were confident, outward looking societies that absorbed influences and ideas from all over the world and produced great advances in every field of human endeavour.
Extremism is a direct result of weakness, failure and desperation. Remove those factors, and you remove the extremism, whether it is Communism and Fascism in the 20th century or Islamist extremism in the 21st. The prime motivations are political and economic. Sad though it is, it always ultimately comes down to power and money.
Last edited by bigdaddy1204; January 14, 2016 at 05:27 AM.
They're not regarded as holy texts even by the people that use them. Many Hadith stories contradict each other. Same stories even differ based on who you hear it from. You can use them selectively if you want. Pretty much all do. It's pretty much an accessory to Islam.
They're not regarded as holy texts even by the people that use them. Many Hadith stories contradict each other. Same stories even differ based on who you hear it from. You can use them selectively if you want. Pretty much all do. It's pretty much an accessory to Islam.
Even if they are not regarded as holy texts they are regarded as sacred to the muslim religion
(wikipedia :The mainstream Sunni sect has generally accepts Bukhari's collection as sacred, despite its many shortcomings) lets take bukhari as an example. how can muslims believe in a prophet that did this
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bukhari:V4B52N270-271 “The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? [Context note: Ashraf was a Jewish poet who wrote some things against Muhammad.] He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like [i.e., lie].’ Muhammad said, ‘I allow you.’ ” Tabari 7:94 “Ashraf suspected no evil when Maslama cried, ‘Smite the enemy of Allah!’ So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him. Maslama said, ‘I remembered my dagger and I seized it. I thrust it into the lower part of his body. I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals. Allah’s enemy fell to the ground.’ ” Ishaq:368 “We carried his head back to Muhammad during the night, saluted the Prophet as he stood praying, and cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been slain, and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’ ” Tabari 7:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’” Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ ”
When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in... Who will our invaders be? From whence will they come?” ― Robert E. Howard
Even if they are not regarded as holy texts they are regarded as sacred to the muslim religion
(wikipedia :The mainstream Sunni sect has generally accepts Bukhari's collection as sacred, despite its many shortcomings) lets take bukhari as an example. how can muslims believe in a prophet that did this
Ashraf's tribe Banu Alnadeer were in a peace treaty with the Muslims and Ashraf inciting the tribes of Mecca to fight the Muslims was in violation with the rules of the treaty which he was bound by.
Ashraf also plotted to have Muhammad assassinated. He openly called for an attack on Medina. He made an alliance with the Quraysh (who were at war with Medina) and then attempted to infiltrate Medina to carry out his plan.
His demise is no different from what the British did to Josef Jakobs, a captured German spy, in 1940 during World War 2. Jakobs was shot by a military firing squad. It was the standard penalty for high treason, even in the modern era.
The incident may not be authentic, in any case:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The incident is of questionable authenticity (if it even happened at all).
In Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari the story giving details about the killing of Ka’b is attributed to Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Abbas and Akrama. None of them were eye witnesses of the event. None of them heard the Prophet ordering his killing and none of them spoke on their own authority. Jabir bin Abdullah was a minor when the alleged incident took place. He was not even allowed to participate in the battle of Uhud because of his age, which took place after the alleged killing. Ibn Abbas was in Makka at the time of this incident and still a child, even younger than Jabir. Ikrama was the servant of Ibn Abbas and in the words of Yahya bin Saeed al Ansari and many others, was a liar.
This has led some commentators to state: "With so much evidence against the alleged incident, it should have been rejected by Muslim scholars and muhaditheen" long ago.
Last edited by bigdaddy1204; January 14, 2016 at 07:40 AM.
Ashraf had made an alliance with the Quraysh against the early Muslims. Ashraf's tribe Banu Alnadeer were in a peace treaty with the Muslims and Kaab inciting the tribes of Mecca to fight the Muslims was in violation with the rules of the treaty which he was bound by.
in bukhari it say that the reason he wanted ashraf killed was "He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle." plus that doesnt justify they way they killed him "Ibn Maslamah was troubled that this assassination would involve lying to Ka'b, but Muhammad gave him a dispensation to do so.[5]They took Ka'b out for a walk late at night and killed him.[4]" nor it justifies this
Ishaq:368 “We carried his head back to Muhammad during the night, saluted the Prophet as he stood praying, and cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been slain, and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause.
When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in... Who will our invaders be? From whence will they come?” ― Robert E. Howard
Even if they are not regarded as holy texts they are regarded as sacred to the muslim religion
(wikipedia :The mainstream Sunni sect has generally accepts Bukhari's collection as sacred, despite its many shortcomings) lets take bukhari as an example. how can muslims believe in a prophet that did this
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bukhari:V4B52N270-271 “The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? [Context note: Ashraf was a Jewish poet who wrote some things against Muhammad.] He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like [i.e., lie].’ Muhammad said, ‘I allow you.’ ” Tabari 7:94 “Ashraf suspected no evil when Maslama cried, ‘Smite the enemy of Allah!’ So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him. Maslama said, ‘I remembered my dagger and I seized it. I thrust it into the lower part of his body. I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals. Allah’s enemy fell to the ground.’ ” Ishaq:368 “We carried his head back to Muhammad during the night, saluted the Prophet as he stood praying, and cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been slain, and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’ ” Tabari 7:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’” Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ ”
They could be said to be sacred in the daily usage of the word, yes, but not in the way Quran is.
Non-Muslims and extremists love to use the Hadith. They love it. Not because Muslims learn about these Hadith in their daily lives. Most probably haven't ever even seen them in their lives. One side uses such stories to justify their acts. The other side uses them to attack Islam. Meanwhile regular Muslims are oblivious.
The hadith I'm more familiar with are ones like this:
One day, Muhammad was sitting at home. The call to Friday prayer began, but Muhammad's favourite cat Muezza was sleeping on the sleeve of his prayer robe. Rather than wake the cat, Muhammad cut the sleeve from his robe, leaving the cat undisturbed. - Sahih al Muslim
This hadith is often used as an illustration of Muhammad's kindness to animals. He was a man so kind-hearted and caring that he would rather inconvenience himself than cause even the smallest harm to a pet cat. If he was this generous with pets, this is the kind of person he was with everyone.
Last edited by bigdaddy1204; January 14, 2016 at 08:28 AM.
The hadith I'm more familiar with are ones like this:
One day, Muhammad was sitting at home. The call to Friday prayer began, but Muhammad's favourite cat Muezza was sleeping on the sleeve of his prayer robe. Rather than wake the cat, Muhammad cut the sleeve from his robe, leaving the cat undisturbed. - Sahih al Muslim
This hadith is often used as an illustration of Muhammad's kindness to animals. He was a man so kind-hearted and caring that he would rather inconvenience himself than cause even the smallest harm to a pet cat. If he was this generous with pets, this is the kind of person he was with everyone.
He was nice to his cat because it was his cat. He was not nice to dogs or female adulterers or critical poets. The idea that he was some kind of hyper-empathetic pacifist is laugh-out-loud stupid. Funnily enough Hitler was also very nice to animals and was even a vegetarian.
There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany[1] among the country's leadership. Adolf Hitler and his top officials took a variety of measures to ensure animals were protected.[2] Many Nazi leaders, including Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal rights and conservation. Several Nazis wereenvironmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime.[3]Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals.[4]Göring was a professed animal lover and conservationist,[5] who, on instructions from Hitler, committed Germans who violated Nazi animal welfare laws to concentration camps. In his private diaries, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a vegetarian whose hatred of the Jewish and Christian religions in large part stemmed from the ethical distinction these faiths drew between the value of humans and the value of other animals; Goebbels also mentions that Hitler planned to ban slaughterhouses in the German Reich following the conclusion of World War II.[6]
Funnily enough Hitler was also very nice to animals and was even a vegetarian.
This is Reductio ad Hitlerum. It is also an example of Godwin's Law. For those not familiar,
"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once a comparison involving Hitler or Nazis is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card".
Last edited by bigdaddy1204; January 14, 2016 at 10:37 AM.
They could be said to be sacred in the daily usage of the word, yes, but not in the way Quran is.
Non-Muslims and extremists love to use the Hadith. They love it. Not because Muslims learn about these Hadith in their daily lives. Most probably haven't ever even seen them in their lives. One side uses such stories to justify their acts. The other side uses them to attack Islam. Meanwhile regular Muslims are oblivious.
either muslims use hadiths(all of them) or they dont ,saying that hadiths has nothing to do with our religion. in wikipedia they say that for muslims(at least sunni) bukhari is the most trusted hadith,so you believe those too
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bukhari:V4B52N270-271 “The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? [Context note: Ashraf was a Jewish poet who wrote some things against Muhammad.] He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like [i.e., lie].’ Muhammad said, ‘I allow you.’ ” Tabari 7:94 “Ashraf suspected no evil when Maslama cried, ‘Smite the enemy of Allah!’ So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him. Maslama said, ‘I remembered my dagger and I seized it. I thrust it into the lower part of his body. I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals. Allah’s enemy fell to the ground.’ ” Ishaq:368 “We carried his head back to Muhammad during the night, saluted the Prophet as he stood praying, and cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been slain, and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’ ” Tabari 7:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’” Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ ”
1 i have heard a similar story about hitler. what a wonderfull man ,he realy loved his dog and he was a vegeterian =) 2 i wonder why they didnt teach you about
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ ”
When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in... Who will our invaders be? From whence will they come?” ― Robert E. Howard
either muslims use hadiths(all of them) or they dont ,saying that hadiths has nothing to do with our religion. in wikipedia they say that for muslims(at least sunni) bukhari is the most trusted hadith,so you believe those too
It's a bit more complicated than that I'm afraid. It is correct that Bukhari is one of the two most trusted collections of Hadiths but some of the stories have to be taken with a pinch of salt. The main problem I have with the quotes above is that they appear to contradict the basic teachings of Islam. Especially the bit about killing Jews who come into your power. This was never a general policy; the Quran says they are to be treated with respect and allowed freedom of worship.
The Quran is authoritative; the hadiths are not. Therefore, if there is a conflict between any individual Hadith and the Quran, the Quran wins. It is also worth being aware that there are many thousands of hadiths, and the accuracy of many of them is debated. They can be a useful guide, but they must be considered within the context of Islam as a whole.
A shorter way of explaining it would be to simply say that the story of Ashraf is of questionable authenticity, and I would suspect it as a fabrication. As I posted above, none of the authors who told this story were even there! So it's questionable whether it even happened. The story is in any case overruled by more positive messages coming from other hadith and from the Quran.
1 i have heard a similar story about hitler. what a wonderfull man ,he realy loved his dog and he was a vegeterian =)
See post #512.
In addition, you are basically ignoring the message of the hadith about Muezza the cat, but that story is not the only one, there are others similar. So you're basically saying one hadith is more important than another. This could be a possible argument, but you'd need to provide something a bit better than Hitler to explain why the hadith about Muezza is not valid and the one you listed is.
Last edited by bigdaddy1204; January 14, 2016 at 10:59 AM.
either muslims use hadiths(all of them) or they dont ,saying that hadiths has nothing to do with our religion. in wikipedia they say that for muslims(at least sunni) bukhari is the most trusted hadith,so you believe those too
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bukhari:V4B52N270-271 “The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? [Context note: Ashraf was a Jewish poet who wrote some things against Muhammad.] He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like [i.e., lie].’ Muhammad said, ‘I allow you.’ ” Tabari 7:94 “Ashraf suspected no evil when Maslama cried, ‘Smite the enemy of Allah!’ So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him. Maslama said, ‘I remembered my dagger and I seized it. I thrust it into the lower part of his body. I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals. Allah’s enemy fell to the ground.’ ” Ishaq:368 “We carried his head back to Muhammad during the night, saluted the Prophet as he stood praying, and cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been slain, and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’ ” Tabari 7:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’” Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ ”
That's physically not possible. How can you use all of something that contradicts itself in so many ways? You can't. It's quite ridicilous to suggest that Muslims, Sunnis in this case, know, accept, and cherish every single Hadith. They don't. They can't. Are you claiming to know what I personally believe too?
This is Reductio ad Hitlerum. It is also an example of Godwin's Law. For those not familiar,
"There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once a comparison involving Hitler or Nazis is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card".
You said that Muhamad's kindness toward his cat was evidence that he was such an empathetic and kind individual that he couldn't even hurt a cat. I'm just asking why doesn't this logic apply to Hitler or any individual who is nice to his pet?
That's physically not possible. How can you use all of something that contradicts itself in so many ways? You can't. It's quite ridicilous to suggest that Muslims, Sunnis in this case, know, accept, and cherish every single Hadith. They don't. They can't. Are you claiming to know what I personally believe too?
The vast majority of Sunnis know, accept and cherish at least the Sahih (authentic) hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, which contain a significant percentage of the lifestyle and laws of Islam, such as how one must perform the daily prayers. These are not contradictory and fringe hadiths. The only fringe person is you ironically, who apparently holds the rather extreme view that the only thing that matters is the Quran. This opinion is denounced by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, representing almost 90% of Muslims.
It's a bit more complicated than that I'm afraid. It is correct that Bukhari is one of the two most trusted collections of Hadiths but some of the stories have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
See post #512.
In addition, you are basically ignoring the message of the hadith about Muezza the cat, but that story is not the only one, there are others similar. So you're basically saying one hadith is more important than another. This could be a possible argument, but you'd need to provide something a bit better than Hitler to explain why the hadith about Muezza is not valid and the one you listed is.
thats the problem . before you changed your post you said that some hadith doesnt have sources and shouldnt be taken into acount.
1 last time i heard quran doesnt have sources but you believe it. did an angel come into you or to a historian and said that quran is true?why you dont believe the hadiths
2 why you dont believe the hadiths about mohamed and ashraf and you believe the ones about muezza? did the spirit of the cat spoke to you or something
When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in... Who will our invaders be? From whence will they come?” ― Robert E. Howard
The vast majority of Sunnis know, accept and cherish at least the Sahih (authentic) hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, which contain a significant percentage of the lifestyle and laws of Islam, such as how one must perform the daily prayers. These are not contradictory and fringe hadiths. The only fringe person is you ironically, who apparently holds the rather extreme view that the only thing that matters is the Quran. This opinion is denounced by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, representing almost 90% of Muslims.
Source on the bold part?
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 747:
I heard Anas bin Malik describing the Prophet saying, "He was of medium height amongst the people, neither tall nor short; he had a rosy color, neither absolutely white nor deep brown; his hair was neither completely curly nor quite lank. Divine Inspiration was revealed to him when he was forty years old. He stayed ten years in Mecca receiving the Divine Inspiration, and stayed in Medina for ten more years. When he expired, he had scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard." Rabi'a said, "I saw some of his hairs and it was red. When I asked about that, I was told that it turned red because of scent."
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 748:
Allah's Apostle was neither very tall nor short, neither absolutely white nor deep brown. His hair was neither curly nor lank. Allah sent him (as an Apostle) when he was forty years old. Afterwards he resided in Mecca for ten years and in Medina for ten more years. When Allah took him unto Him, there was scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard.
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 190:
Allah's Apostle was inspired Divinely at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Mecca for thirteen years, and then was ordered to migrate, and he migrated to Medina and stayed there for ten years and then died.
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 242:
Allah's Apostle started receiving the Divine Inspiration at the age of forty. Then he stayed in Mecca for thirteen years, receiving the Divine Revelation. Then he was ordered to migrate and he lived as an Emigrant for ten years and then died at the age of sixty-three (years).
thats the problem . before you changed your post you said that some hadith doesnt have sources and shouldnt be taken into acount.
1 last time i heard quran doesnt have sources but you believe it. did an angel come into you or to a historian and said that quran is true?why you dont believe the hadiths
2 why you dont believe the hadiths about mohamed and ashraf and you believe the ones about muezza? did the spirit of the cat spoke to you or something
1). The main reason is that the Quran is a better historical source because it was written much closer to the time of the events it describes - we have Qurans that were created within 20 years of Muhammad's life. By comparison, the Hadiths are less reliable, because they were collected into books 200 years after Muhammad's time. Although the two main collections, Bukhari and al-Muslim, tried to sort out which hadiths were reliable and which ones were not, they were working a long time after the events described and so their work is not perfect. That's why the Quran is preferred.
2). Because the one about Muezza is more consistent with other things that I know about Muhammad. It fits much better with his personality and actions in his life, and also with what the Quran says and also with many other hadiths. Whereas the story about Ashraf doesn't fit so well (even though Ashraf had tried to assassinate Muhammad, and had broken his treaty).
Re: ISIL and Islam
Originally Posted by Maiar93
Reply With Quote
