Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Hadiths the cause of islamic terrorism?
I've read the Qur'an and found it to be the most advanced religious book as far as the Abrahamic faiths are concerned, I mean its scientific, it teaches peace, charity, Jihad (Greater and lesser, the lesser being DEFENSIVE warfare) which makes more sense then the christian belief of turn the other cheek. The hadiths are where you find all the nonsense like how to wipe your arse a certain way, brush your teeth a certain way, muhammad having sexual intercourse with a nine year old... and ALOT of other crap. So to get to the point, there is a small muslim sect called Quranists, who follow the quran only, wouldnt the world be better off if all the muslims were quranists? Wouldnt islam be better off? The quranists by the way are persecuted alot for their rejection of hadiths, and oddly enough muhammad himself said: ‘Do not write anything from me except the verses of the Quran. If there are any of you who have written anything other than Quran, he must destroy it. You can only report orally from me; there is no objection to this. And, whoever tells a lie referring to me should prepare his place in Hell!'"
I believe hadiths are the cause of most problems in islam, they are also where the shariah law comes from, which is also an absurdity. If im wrong in anything i have said about islam, please feel free to correct me, nicely...
P.S. the hadiths also prohibit music!!! which is like my greatest passion! what kind of almighty god would prohibit music (when i say music, i mean the instruments, voice only is allowed)??? daily i try to get my friend from saudi arabia to reject just that one hadith to no avail...lol
I believe hadiths are the cause of most problems in islam, they are also where the shariah law comes from, which is also an absurdity. If im wrong in anything i have said about islam, please feel free to correct me, nicely...
P.S. the hadiths also prohibit music!!! which is like my greatest passion! what kind of almighty god would prohibit music (when i say music, i mean the instruments, voice only is allowed)??? daily i try to get my friend from saudi arabia to reject just that one hadith to no avail...lol
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Could I ask what your point is?
You sound as if you're picking an argument.
I really wouldn't try it, if I were you.
Ok?
I honestly have no idea what your point here is. Perhaps you could rephrase the question because you seem to asking many things. I can address the thread topic however.
I would not say that the hadiths are responsible for the the terrorism we are saying today in the Islamic world. To understand the Koran, you have to understand that it is not written in chronological order like the Bible is. Instead, it is written from longest to shortest chapters.
Thus, "later" divine injunctions in the Koran (revealed later, though not necessarily later in the physical book) serve to cancel out conflicting earlier injunctions. For instance, the verse of the sword, (Surah 9: 27) "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" comes as one of the last injunctions given by God during Muhammed's lifetime.
That verse among others is one of the chief causes for the jihadist violence we see today. If you ever get the chance to read any of the writings of Zawahiri or Osama bin-Laden, you will see that they are filled with scripture citations.
Of course I must add the truism before anyone else does that there are thugs and killers who have used the cover of faith for all sorts of heinous crimes, but fundamental Islam demands jihad warfare against unbelievers everywhere. It is unique to the best of my knowledge in the family of modern religions, in that it directly calls for violent, physical warfare against non-Muslims.
My point is that while many religions have problems, there is a very unique problem in Islam that stems from the Koranic injunctions to holy war.
I think that all faiths - regardless of how advanced their teachings maybe - are products of their environment and the culture that gave them birth..
Islam grew out of a very tribal society. In a barren , harsh desert environment, where each family was its own tribe, where there were frequent raids and attacks, and where women carried the honor of the tribe or family - but were also most at risk of attack.
The teachings of Islam, its phrasing, its thoughts the way it practises - all of that is reflective of the society and culture it grew out of...
In my understanding -the hadiths were meant to add extra insight into the quaran,to fill in some of the gaps.. to give it more depth...
if you look at any religion which has written scriptures, from judaism to christianity to Hinduism - they all have core texts with supporting scriptures ... Islam is no differant...
And I dont think the Quran is neccesarrily more advanced than the bible or Torah - its just that it was written only about 1500 years ago - where as the torah was written more than 3000 years ago and for a nomadic desert tribal people - so obviously there would be advancements in scientific understanding and thinking on women etc ...
its dangerous to make such sweeping statements about faith.. none of us see the world with the same eyes and all of us are capable of putting our own meanings into scriptures...
I dont think the hadiths are responsible for islamic terrorism ... i think iits human beings and thier often primitive desires and impulses
Yeah sorry, i was in a hurry when i wrote this, i reread it and i dont think i was clear, i am trying to start an argument but a clean one if its possible.
The main questions are, in your opinions, dont you think the world would be better off if all or most muslims were quranists? if islam would be better off if muslims were mostly quranist? or better off without the hadiths?
Channah, even if the hadiths werent completely responsible for islamic terrorism, you must admit they are responsible for oppression of women, silly things like how to do this and how to do that, for misinterpretation of jihad at least in some part, and alot of primitive crap you would think were merely ancient arab traditions being saved through the excuse of "muhammad said or did this".
9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, [even if they are] of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Al quaeda and others look only at this ayat which tells you what to do when you are at war, however you must still follow the rules of jihad which Shaykh Jalal Abualrub explained...
These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
just wanted to clear up that ayat
But if the quran is very clear on what jihad is (so clear you wonder why there are even islamic terrorists, and have support in the first place...), and al quaeda and others are obviously not obeying the rules, so where do they get their justification? hadiths maybe?
That would be their choice, not ours.
But if I had an opinion, I would be of the opinion that it would be better if Muslims were Buddhists.
Why exactly do you see a need to discuss this on a Buddhist forum?
There is no such thing as a 'clean' argument. And this debate (better called) will solve nothing, because we neither seek influence, nor do we have it.
So you'll get precious little feedback from anyone on this.
Other than perhaps KnightofBuddha, who seems to have laid aside most things Buddhist to discuss in depth and usually frequents the forum to engage in mostly political discussion.... (No offence KoB, but I would say that's about right..... wouldn't you?)
so unless you wish to discuss this as a person studying Buddhism, and from a Buddhist perspective, then I see no point in this thread really continuing.
I suggest that if you and KoB wish to continue 'chatting' about this, you do it via PM.
I see no place for it within a Buddhist forum, in its present state.
__________________