BUKHARY'S HADITHS CORRUPTING ISLAM, 1
AHMED OKLA
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Many of the Muslims on this forum and other forums and in generalm, talk
about the Hadiths collection with a respect that matches and sometimes
exceeds that of the Quran. While the Quran does not leave any doubt as to
where God wants us to look for the guidance and perfect happiness, those
who do not believe God in His own words usually find in the Hadiths and
Sunna a refuge that has been condemned by the Quran repeatedly. God
already informed us in the Quran that His book is the BEST HADITHS
39:23,and that we should only seek His Hadiths (Quran) 7:185, and asks
why the people are not satisfied with His words, 45:6 !!
Imam Al-Bukhary or Bukhary for short, is just one of several scholars who
decided to collect the Hadiths and Sunna despite the clear prohibition by
the Prophet Muhammed himself and all the Khalifas who followed him of
collecting and writing anything but the Quran.
Many of the Muslims today look at Bukhary with a respect he did' nt
deserve or earn. His elevation to the level of a Saint by some Muslims and
Scholars who came after him made of his books of Hadiths and Sunna a secd
called the BEST HADITH.
A recent post of the nine volumes of Sahih Bukhary with all the blasphemy
in them, all the corruption and all the lies prompted this post.
While modern Christianity is the product of Paul's corruption and
hallucination , many aspects in what is now known as traditional Islam is
the product of corruption of people or their products, like Bukhary .
As soon as the Muslims deserted the Quran in favor of the Hadiths and
Sunna
books, their true Islam was corrupted and their practice of Islam today
is but a reflection of the Islam of the Scholars like Bukhary, Moslem,
Nesaay,
Termezy, Abu-Daoud...etc. and not a reflection of the Islam (Submission in
English) presented to us and practiced by our beloved Prophet Muhammed.
While those who defend Bukhary praise his methodology of collecting the
hadiths for his book known as "Sahih Al-Bukhary", they only reflect
ignorance with what Bukhary actually collected in his book .
Not only did Bukhary broke the rules that he claimed he used to ensure the
authenticity of the hadiths but his own personal feelings, political
alliance and
hatred to people like Ali Ibn Abu Talib affected his choice of what
hadiths to list in
his book and what hadiths to refuse. He cared less about the content of
the hadiths itself . He listed many hadiths that contradict the Quran,
contradict other hadiths , contradict common sense, insult God, insult the
Prophet Muhammed, insult the Prophet's wives and his family .
The position that Bukhary took regarding Ali Ibn-Abu Talib Vs his position
towards Maaouiah is but a reflection of the political corruption of
Bukhary and his bias in listing the Hadiths that put down Ali while making
of his ardent enemy Maaouiah, a pure and righteous man despite his known
corruption and defiance of the simple Islamic laws.
Bukhary narrated Many Hadiths in his book that the public call "Sahih"
(Authentic) for people who were considered liars, corrupted and
untrustworthy. Muslim Scholars who came after him were afraid to expose
the truth and the shortcoming of Bukhary and other scholars of Hadiths and
Sunna like him. As a simple example, in the famous book "Al-Mustadrek",
the author states that Bukhary listed Hadiths taken from 434 persons who
were not accepted by Moslem for his book "Sahih Moslem" as good
trustworthy people. On the other hand Moslem accepted for his book 625
persons who narrated Hadiths ,who were refused by Bukhary.
The corruption of Islam by Hadiths and Sunna started right during the
Prophet's life and soon after his death. This collection of the so called
Hadiths and Sunna was condemned by God, the Prophet and the Sahaba
(companions of the Prophet). This act reached its peak by the end of the
second Hijra century when the famous six books (references) of Hadiths
were written.
God Almighty predicted this corruption and told us in 6:112-113 why He
permitted
this corruption to happen.
"We have permitted the enemies of every prophet - human and jinn devils -
to inspire in each other FANCY WORDS , in order to deceive. Had your Lord
willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their
FABRICATIONS. This is to let the minds of those who do not believe in the
Hereafter listen to such FABRICATIONS, and accept them, and thus expose
their real convictions." [6:112-113]
God also told us ahead of time that the messenger will
complain to Him on the day of Judgment of the Muslims DESERTING THE QURAN
(not deserting the Hadiths and Sunna). See 25:30
WILL CONTINUE UNDER OTHER NUMBRE 2,3,4....ETC GOD WILLING
SALAM
AHMED
Mohammad A Ali
AHMED OKLA (ahme...@aol.com) wrote:
: The corruption of Islam by Hadiths and Sunna started right during the
: Prophet's life and soon after his death. This collection of the so called
: Hadiths and Sunna was condemned by God, the Prophet and the Sahaba
: (companions of the Prophet). This act reached its peak by the end of the
: second Hijra century when the famous six books (references) of Hadiths
: were written.
Then, in a post with the title "OUR PROPHET MUHAMMED & QURAN ALONE," the
same gentleman wrote:
> from the Quran . After the death of the Prophet Muhammed and for over 200
> years, the early Muslims uphold the Quran ALONE and refused to have any
> other
> book but the QURAN. Hadiths books have several Hadiths in which the
> Prophet Muhammed allegedly condemned the writing of any other books but
> the Quran. He knew what his message was, Quran ALONE
> It was in the era of Khalifa, Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz, that the writing of
> Hadiths and Sunna books were allowed. Since then the majority of the
> Muslims
> have been following the ALTERED religion , not the religion that the
> prophet Muhammed brought them. This new shape of the religion left the
> Quran on the side
> and instead depended heavily on the man made books of Hadiths and Sunna.
So first we are told that this deviation called Hadith and Sunna
always existed, but reached its peak two hundred years after the
Prophet's (SAAW) death. Then in another post, we are told by the same
gentleman that for 200 years only Quran was upheld and nothing else.
So which of the two is it? Perhaps, the gentleman would be well
advised to get his facts straight before unleashing volumes of
undocumented and unsubstantiated ravings and rantings on this
newgroup.
Getting back to the issue of Bukhari, perhaps the gentleman would be
kind enough to provide us with the exact details as to the
authentication procedure used, and its shortcomings. This would be
more desirable than raising a dozen different points without
substantiating a single one of them.
Azam
Y Rapido
Mohammad A Ali wrote:
> So first we are told that this deviation called Hadith and Sunna
> always existed, but reached its peak two hundred years after the
> Prophet's (SAAW) death. Then in another post, we are told by the same
> gentleman that for 200 years only Quran was upheld and nothing else.
> So which of the two is it?
rap: Wasselam It is BOTH. Human mind and logic, as well as metaphors
used to convey the ideas are often "vectors" and not "scalars", except
that the Aristotelian "minds" can not fathom that. The original posting
of Mr. Okla clearly indicates that greatest MAJORITY (the overwhelming
majority!) of the people upheld ONLY Quran (as they were commanded by
God and his Prophet Muhammad) ... while so-called "Science of Hadtithe",
the man-made oligarchic/thoecratic abusive intervention started CREEPING
INTO the religion of God, the Islam. It is a GRADUAL PROCESS.
You know, sir, there is a joke, that you and the one who think like
you might reflect upon once in a while: "It is Time that prevents
everything from happening at once".
Good morning
G
AHMED OKLA
Azam writes:
Subject: Re: BUKHARY'S HADITHS CORRUPTING ISLAM, 1
From: m...@red.seas.upenn.edu (Mohammad A Ali)
Date: 1 Jun 1996 15:54:29 GMT
Azam >> So first we are told that this deviation called Hadith and Sunna
always existed, but reached its peak two hundred years after the
Prophet's (SAAW) death. Then in another post, we are told by the same
gentleman that for 200 years only Quran was upheld and nothing else.
So which of the two is it? <<
People always tried to write what they heard from the prophet but he told
them not to, and according to some hadiths narrated by Abu Hurarya, the
prophet Muhammed collected what they wrote and burn them. Despite the fact
that few people disobeyed and insisted on writing hadiths, the majority
then uphold the Quran ALONE. There is no contradiction here. The official
permission to write hadiths books was given during the reign of Omar Ibn
Abdel Aziz.
MORE IMPORTANT is to remember that the Prophet Muhammed HIMSELF did not
write or allow the writing of hadiths. If the Prophet Muhammed was
interested in writing hadiths as a second source for this great religin,
he would have left behind him two books, the Quran and the hadiths BUT HE
DID NOT, He ONLY LEFT the QURAN.
Azam >> Getting back to the issue of Bukhari, perhaps the gentleman would
be
kind enough to provide us with the exact details as to the
authentication procedure used, and its shortcomings. This would be
more desirable than raising a dozen different points without
substantiating a single one of them.<<
Looking at some of what Bukhary collected in his book is good enough
evidence for the corruption of his methods. If you like to have some
examples let me know.
SALAM
AHMED
Tawfique Hasan Chowdhury
> AHMED OKLA (ahme...@aol.com) wrote:
> : The corruption of Islam by Hadiths and Sunna started right during the
> : Prophet's life and soon after his death. This collection of the so called
> : Hadiths and Sunna was condemned by God, the Prophet and the Sahaba
> : (companions of the Prophet). This act reached its peak by the end of the
> : second Hijra century when the famous six books (references) of Hadiths
> : were written.
>
This is totally wrong. Collection of Hadith was never condemned by the
Prophet, but was given second preference to collection of the Quran.
> > book but the QURAN. Hadiths books have several Hadiths in which the
> > Prophet Muhammed allegedly condemned the writing of any other books but
> > the Quran. He knew what his message was, Quran ALONE
Ahmad Okla has made the same mistake as those people who don't look at
the context of the Hadith and understand what the Prophet (SAW) meant by
the Hadith. Let me explain.
These Hadiths that were quoted from the Prophet are all daif except 1 of
them. In the Hadith the Prophet explicitly told the people to not write
the Hadith down. But the context as explained by Scholars like Ibn Qayyim
Al-Jawziyyah is that at the time when this Hadith was recorded, the
people had a single piece of paper and were writing down the revelation
of the Quran on it. So, the Prophet told the people not to write down
Hadith on the same piece of paper lest the people confuse between the
Hadith and the Quran. Some early scholars were of the opinion of the
former. Thus scholars like Imam Az-Zuhri didn't favour writing down of
Hadith. It was only after Umar bin Abdul-Aziz came to power, that he
after having understood the context of the Hadith realized that the
Prophet never forbade, but encouraged (reported in other Sahih Hadith)
the recording of Hadith. Thus Umar bin Abdul-Aziz commanded Zuhri to
record hadith, which he finally did (compiled a book of 400 Sahih hadith).
In the time of Umar, he encouraged the learning of the Quran, because in
a lot of wars, many Hafizs of the Quran (learnt the Quran by Heart) died.
Thus, in order to preserve the Quran in the minds of the muslims, he
encourage learning the Quran. It was after that, when the Quran was more
widely known, that the Khalif encouraged Hadith. But this in no way means
that the Hadith is haram (as Ahmad Okla states). Allah, and His Prophet
never forbade the collecting of the Hadith, rather the Prophet announced
Heaven to those who learnt the Hadith (and memorized it) and transmitted it in
its pure form.
> > It was in the era of Khalifa, Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz, that the writing of
> > Hadiths and Sunna books were allowed. Since then the majority of the
> > Muslims
> > have been following the ALTERED religion , not the religion that the
> > prophet Muhammed brought them. This new shape of the religion left the
> > Quran on the side
> > and instead depended heavily on the man made books of Hadiths and Sunna.
I warn all Muslims to be aware of Ahmad Okla. He is out to corrupt the
religion of Allah. He quotes things out of no where and makes it seem
that hadith is forbidden. The Prophet had said in a Sahih Hadith :
"There will come after me a people who will say : We follow only the
Quran. Do not Associate with them, nor converse with them."
I warn Ahmad Okla to repent as he is committing the greatest sin :
Talking about Allah and His religion about which he was no knowledge.
(According to Ibn Qayyim, this is the greatest sin a person can do,
because Shirk derives from this).
Mohammad Tawfique
Defender of the Religion
Behnam Sadeghi
Regarding the writing of hadiths:
AHMED OKLA <ahme...@aol.com> wrote:
> . . . according to some hadiths narrated by Abu Hurarya, the
> prophet Muhammed collected what they wrote and burn them.
I do not remember having seen such a hadith.
There are hadiths which claim that the Prophet prohibited writing hadiths,
and others which claim that he approved it. But I recall no hadith to
the effect that the Prophet Muhammad collected and burned hadiths. So,
if I am in error, I would appreciate it if Mr. Okla cites and quotes the
hadith he has in mind. I do remember a hadith about Abu Bakr (or Umar?)
burning his own personal collection of hadiths some time after the Prophet's
death, but that is different from what Mr. Okla reports.
For this topic of the role of writing in early Islam, the best source I am
aware of is volume 2 of Nabia Abbott's _Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri_.
I have deleted the rest of Mr. Okla's article, and encourage readers
to consult Abbott instead of the stuff posted in SRI. Most of the material
posted in SRI is unreliable.
Behnam
shawki Hamdan
Tawfique Hasan Chowdhury wrote (to Ahmad Okla)
> These Hadiths that were quoted from the Prophet are all daif except 1
> of them. In the Hadith the Prophet explicitly told the people to not
> write the Hadith down. But the context as explained by Scholars like
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah is that at the time when this Hadith was
> recorded, the people had a single piece of paper and were writing down
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is the best one I've heard so far ! It is still morning, and while
laughing I almost spilled a cup of coffee on my computer keyboard. I
would have held you responsible for the computer repair bill :-)
Subhana Allah, idol worship has historically been denied by the
idolators. Even on the Day of Judgment all the idolators will be playing
victim as if God does not know what is trully in their hearts. They will
be in contant denial throughout their eternal abode in Hell. O'yes
Tawfique you and I know from the Qur'an that Hell is eternal. Don't let
Lomax's linguistic twisting change that. The way I see it you maybe
roomates on that day.
Ahmad:
< It was in the era of Khalifa, Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz, that the writing
of Hadiths and Sunna books were allowed. Since then the majority of
the Muslims have been following the ALTERED religion , not the
religion that the prophet Muhammed brought them. This new shape of the
religion left the Quran on the side and instead depended heavily on
the man made books of Hadiths and Sunna.>
> I warn all Muslims to be aware of Ahmad Okla. He is out to corrupt the
> religion of Allah. He quotes things out of no where and makes it seem
> that hadith is forbidden. The Prophet had said in a Sahih Hadith :
> "There will come after me a people who will say : We follow only the
> Quran. Do not Associate with them, nor converse with them."
Whoa! Good one ! I have in fact seen that hadith, but never imgined
anyone to be naive enough to post it. But there is an exception to every
rule, isn't there. Do you not see the above hadith is anti-Qur'anic ? Do
you honestly believe the prophet of God was anti-Qur'anic ?
First you accuse the prophet of being illiterate despite 23 of extensive
teaching by God. Then you accuse him of being anti-Qur'anic. And you give
yourself a name like Muhammad. What next ?
Well, I have news for you Mr. Scholarly corruption follower. The prophet
of Allah knew how to read and write even before the Qur'an was revealed
to him. He did not need anyone to write the Qur'an for him. Furthermore,
God condemns ANY man-made source of religious law outside the Qur'an. So
forget hadith as evidence. Ahmad merely uises it to show you that you do
not follow the Qur'an, and nor do you follow the hadith. Thus: "haqqa
alayhim al-qawlu fahum laa yu'minoon".
I would think real hard if I were you. Idol worship is an unforgivable
sin if maintained till death. When the moment of truth comes you will be
biting your fingers in regret for allowing slander and lies against the
prophet of Allah.
The rest of Yawfiq's articles was just as useless as the beginning. Since
my time is valuable, I would rather spend it on worthwhile matters.
Read the Qur'an friend. There is so much you can learn !
Wassalaam.
Shawki
AHMED OKLA
Tawfique writes:
Subject: Re: A Challenge to Ahmad Okla
From: Tawfique Hasan Chowdhury <ha...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Date: 5 Jun 1996 18:59:36 -0700
>> This is totally wrong. Collection of Hadith was never condemned by the
Prophet, but was given second preference to collection of the Quran.<<
This is totally wrong, Tawfique. Even those who disagree with me admit
that Hadiths books condmened the writing of Hadiths but they present their
own theories about it. If you can quote some of these haditsh that give
second preference to writing of hadiths , please do, so I can give you the
hadiths that condemn the writing of hadith.
>> These Hadiths that were quoted from the Prophet are all daif except 1
of
them. In the Hadith the Prophet explicitly told the people to not write
the Hadith down.<<
Accepting your statment, one is enough for the truth.
>> But the context as explained by Scholars like Ibn Qayyim
Al-Jawziyyah is that at the time when this Hadith was recorded, the
people had a single piece of paper and were writing down the revelation
of the Quran on it. So, the Prophet told the people not to write down
Hadith on the same piece of paper lest the people confuse between the
Hadith and the Quran.<<
Nice fairy tale. Of course they have to invent some other stories to
prove their points. While Quran is clearly condemning all hadiths but the
Quran (for this religin), the hadiths books refute your own story.
From Ibn Hanbal;
Zayd Ibn Thabit (The Prophet's closest revelation writer) visited the
Khalifa
Mu'aawiyah (more than 30 years after the Prophet's death), and told him a
story about the Prophet. Mu'aawiyah liked the story and ordered someone to
write it down. But Zayd said. " the messenger of God ordered us NEVER to
write anything of his hadith,"
This happened 30 years after the prophet's death. and Zayed still remember
not to write but the Quran.
>> . Thus scholars like Imam Az-Zuhri didn't favour writing down of
Hadith. It was only after Umar bin Abdul-Aziz came to power, that he
after having understood the context of the Hadith realized that the
Prophet never forbade, but encouraged (reported in other Sahih Hadith)
the recording of Hadith.<<
Here you are presenting TWISTED facts. The reason Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz
permitted the writing of Hadiths was becasue he realized that hundreds of
thousands of lies were invented by the so called Muslims at that time and
attributed them to the prophet. He thought by allowing the writing of
Hadiths he will stop these lies. He did not care about what God says in
the Quran or what the prophet or the four guided Khalifas did before him.
>> Thus Umar bin Abdul-Aziz commanded Zuhri to record hadith, which he
finally did (compiled a book of 400 Sahih hadith).<<
Even accepting this as a fact. 400 hadiths during Ibn Abdul Aziz, became 6
million hadiths later. How many lies were there.
How can any sane human beinhg think God would allow the corruption of His
religon by inventing 5,999,600 lies and add them to his Great religion.
God promised to protect His religion. He protected the Quran, not Hadiths,
Or did He ?!
>> ........... But this in no way means that the Hadith is haram (as Ahmad
Okla states). Allah, and His Prophet never forbade the collecting of the
Hadith, rather the Prophet announced Heaven to those who learnt the Hadith
(and memorized it) and transmitted it in its pure form. <<
Again Tawfique is using his fairy tales to prove nothing. Here is few of
what God said about Hadith using the exact word hadith. It does not matter
what Ahmed, Tawfique, Lomax, or any one states, What God states is what
counts
"Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the
earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever
occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which
HADITH, besides this do they believe in?" 7:185
"Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless
HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without
knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a
shameful retribution." 31:6
"These are God's revelations that we recite to you
truthfully. In which HADITH other than God and His
revelations do they believe?" 45:6
>>. The Prophet had said in a Sahih Hadith :
"There will come after me a people who will say : We follow only the
Quran. Do not Associate with them, nor converse with them."<<
Another fabrication form the Hadiths books. Our beloved Prophet did not
know the future as God is teaching us in the Quran. Do you believe God ?!
See 7:188
I warn Tawfique to repent as he is committing the greatest sin :
Talking about Allah and His religion about which he might not have
knowledge.
Refusing to believe God in His book is a great sin.
SALAM
AHMED
Tawfique Hasan Chowdhury
On 6 Jun 1996, shawki Hamdan wrote:
> Tawfique Hasan Chowdhury wrote (to Ahmad Okla)
> > ...Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah is that at the time when this Hadith was
> > recorded, the people had a single piece of paper and were writing
> > down the hadith and the Quran on the same piece of paper.
> Subhana Allah, idol worship has historically been denied by the
> idolators. Even on the Day of Judgment all the idolators will be playing
> victim as if God does not know what is trully in their hearts. They will
> be in contant denial throughout their eternal abode in Hell. O'yes
> Tawfique you and I know from the Qur'an that Hell is eternal. Don't let
> Lomax's linguistic twisting change that. The way I see it you maybe
> roomates on that day.
I see that you have condemned me to hell. You have even accused me of
being an idolator while I profess that none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah. You say that the corrupt islam you follow in
your denail of validity of hadith is the truth. Then if it be the truth, make
dua to Allah to destroy me because you say I am an idolator, as I will make
dua to Allah to destroy you. I ask Allah to destroy all those who corrupt
this religion of His and to reward the defenders of this religion. All those
who read this email, I ask you to read my email on this soc.religion.islam
Re:'A Challenge to Ahamd Okla' and make a decision for yourself if I am an
idolator or not. The Prophet had said in one hadith : "Verily, slandering a
muslim is like killing him." This hadith is Sahih and found in Muslim.
I have taken my complaint to Allah and he will certainly judge between you
and me on the day of judgement. Till then, I not going to write to you
anymore. See you on the Day of Judgement.
Muhammad Tawfique
AHMED OKLA
Behnam writes
Subject: Re: BUKHARY'S HADITHS CORRUPTING ISLAM, 1
From: beh...@argo.rice.edu (Behnam Sadeghi)
Date: 5 Jun 1996 22:18:25 -0700
>> I do not remember having seen such a hadith.<<
May be I quoted them wrong, I should have said, the people burned them.
Here is two Hadiths
**** The famous book, "Ulum Al-Hadith" by Ibn Al-Salah, reports a hadith
by Abu Hurayra in which Abu Hurayra said the messenger of God came out to
us while we were writing his hadiths and said; "What are you writing?" We
said, "Hadiths that we hear from you, messenger of God." He said, "A book
other than the book of God ?!" We said, "Should we talk about you?" He
said, Talk about me, that would be fine, but those who will lie will go to
Hell. Abu Hurayra said, we collected what we wrote of Hadiths and burned
them in fire.
**** In the famous book, "Taq-yeed Al-Ilm", Abu Hurayra said, the
messenger of God was informed that some people are writing his hadiths. He
took to the pulpit of the mosque and said, "What are these books that I
heard you wrote? I am just a human being. Anyone who has any of these
writings should bring it here. Abu Hurayra said we collected all these and
burned them in fire.
SALAM
AHMED
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
shawki Hamdan <sha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
{it had been written]
>> The Prophet had said in a Sahih Hadith :
>> "There will come after me a people who will say : We follow only the
>> Quran. Do not Associate with them, nor converse with them."
>Whoa! Good one ! I have in fact seen that hadith, but never imgined
>anyone to be naive enough to post it. But there is an exception to every
>rule, isn't there. Do you not see the above hadith is anti-Qur'anic ? Do
>you honestly believe the prophet of God was anti-Qur'anic ?
The hadith has been posted elsewhere by another. No, the hadith is not
anti-Qur'anic. Rather, it refers to those who imagine that their own
understanding of the Qur'an is superior to that of the Prophet. I have
no idea whether the hadith itself is sahih or not, but the principle
is sound. We see elsewhere in this newsgroup a posting detailing a
clear proof that there was a sunna, commanded by Allah, and binding on
all the believers, which was not in the Qur'an; and those who refused
to follow this sunna were, to use the label applied by Khalifa to
them, hypocrites (see his note in Final Testament to 2:142-145).
The Khalifite heresy does not stand up under careful examination; it
is largely maintained by a collection of looney tunes (a technical
term which I use on the authority of Jeremiah, who is a psychological
professional). Among the Khalifites are a few sincere ones (such as, I
suspect, Ayesha Musa), who have largely been attracted by the appeal,
which is understandable, of the concept of simply dumping the whole
mixed bag of tradition in favor of a direct approach to the Qur'an;
but reality is not quite so simple. "Follow Allah *and* follow the
Messenger." We cannot dismiss a report of what the Prophet, SAS, said
and did merely because, theoretically, such reports are merely rumors.
Sometimes, in ordinary life, we rely on rumors: it depends on the
source as well as the content. In other words, ijtihad, the struggle
of interpretation, is required.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@gate.ioa.com
P.O. Box 25133
Asheville, NC 28813
AYMusa
Salaamun alaikum. Actually, Mr. Tawfique is not following the history
he claims to accept. The book "Taqyid al-`Ilm" of al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi
lists pages of traditions that show the Muhammad, his companions, and their
successors forbid the writing down of hadiths. To make the claim that
only one of them is sahih and that it really means don't write something
on the same paper is baseless, unless you can provide a detailed discussion
of the dozens of stories and why they are not authentic.
Also, it is well-known that during his reign Umar ibn al-Khattab had people,
including prominent companions of Muhammad, imprisoned, flogged, or otherwise
punished for relating hadith. Muslims have been covering up, and ignoring
important historical facts for centuries.
--
AYMusa
Jeremiah McAuliffe
mar...@gate.ioa.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) wrote:
> looney tunes (a technical
>term which I use on the authority of Jeremiah, who is a psychological
>professional).
Salaams,
<laughing> I think "fruitcakes" was the operative term. "Looney tunes"
applies only to many of my fellow academics....<G>
I would like to point out another aspect of the Khalifite heresy (and
I am glad to hear it being called what I think it is-- this bundle of
teachings is horrendous and destructive to healthy
religio-spirituality, imho) which has been brought up before: they
are, in essence, in denial of history/memory. We all know the cliche
of those who forget history.... Psychologically, to suppress or
repress memory is often a sick kind of thing to do....
Now, the history/memory the Khalifites reject is not that of some
horrible trauma, the suppression or repression of which might help
protect the person who was traumatized. No, they are rejecting the
memory of a man who was undoubtedly a wonderful guy-- even if you
don't think he was a messenger from God as I do.
The history they reject is the history of humanity's engagement with
the Qur'an. Cleary, *clearly*, such a history is worthy of maintenance
and study! While the Qur'an should always effect us like it is "brand
new"-- i.e. we always feel somewhat stunned and surprised by it-- our
encounter and exploration of it as individuals will always be in
"shura"-- in consultation with others also so engaged with the
Qur'an-- the history that *is* our Muslim tradition. This is even more
excellent when we take into account that we study the Qur'an with
people from a variety of cultures and in a variety of historical
settings....
The Khalifites, in their overweening spiritual pride, reject the need
to dialogue over the Qur'an. They "know" what it means.... No sincere
believer that I know of would EVER approach Scripture with such an
attitude. The Khalifites do not tremble.....
Jeremiah McAuliffe
ali...@city-net.com
-------------------------------------------
Visit Dr. Jihad's Page 'O Heavy Things!
http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
AHMED OKLA
Jeremiah writes:
Subject: Re: A Challenge to Ahmad Okla
From: ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe)
Date: 10 Jun 1996 18:45:55 GMT
>> Now, the history/memory the Khalifites reject is not that of some
horrible trauma, the suppression or repression of which might help
protect the person who was traumatized. No, they are rejecting the
memory of a man who was undoubtedly a wonderful guy-- even if you
don't think he was a messenger from God as I do.<<
Jeremiah who is a Muhammedan, is confused as he was in the past. We
never said we reject history, but we reject the corrupted
history. Hadiths, as have been proven by the Hadithists, to be 99.9%
corrupted should be treated as corrupted or possibly corrupted history
and not treated as religious laws. God already told his true
believers, not to accept any other hadiths but the Quran. Muhammedans
do not accept that teaching of God. Hadiths can be a source of
history not religion.
>> The Khalifites, in their overweening spiritual pride, reject the need
to dialogue over the Qur'an. They "know" what it means.... No sincere
believer that I know of would EVER approach Scripture with such an
attitude. <<
Jeremiah, a Muhammedan, still cannot get himself to believe GOD in the
Quran when GOD says that He (GOD) is the One to explain the Quran,
75:19 and that Quran is EASY. His supposedly "sincere" believers" may
not be any more sincere than any disbeliever who think of himself as
righteous. Quran is the word, Quran is the message. Muhammedans who
cannot accept God's words as complete will never get it from the Quran
they are prevented by God.
"Who is more wicked than one who is
reminded of the verses of His Lord, then disregard them,
while unaware of his sin ? Consequently, we place shields on
their hearts, to prevent them from understanding (Quran),
and deafness in their ears. Thus, if you invite them to the
guidance, they can NEVER EVER be guided." 18:57
SALAM
AHMED
Y Rapido
Mr. McAuliffe wrote:
> Lomax: looney tunes (a technical term which I use on the authority of Jeremiah, who is a psychological professional).
Salaams,
McAuliffe: <laughing> I think "fruitcakes" was the operative term.
"Looney tunes" applies only to many of my fellow academics....
rapido: <not laughing only lying on the couch and staring at the
ceiling> Wasselam. Well, well, well, ... predictable people make
predictable postings. After Mr. McAuliffe called some people
"fruitcakes" on this forum, one could have immediately predicted that
his next move is going to be giving a (FREE!) psychoanalysis to those
"fruitcakes". So, indeed, here we have it, the whole muddy bowl of
fruit-punch by Mr. McA:
McAuliffe: I would like to point out another aspect of the Khalifite
heresy (and I am glad to hear it being called what I think it is-- this
bundle of teachings is horrendous and destructive to healthy
religio-spirituality, imho) which has been brought up before: they are,
in essence, in denial of history/memory. We all know the cliche of those
who forget history.... Psychologically, to suppress or repress memory
is often a sick kind of thing to do....
rapido: Nice to see people get along so well as Mr. McAuliffe, Mr.
Lomax, Mr. Rice, Mr. Katz, ... they are all beocming quite chummy with
each other. Cozy arrangement indeed.
Number one, there exist no such "school of thought" as Khalifatism.
That label is an invention of Mr. McAuliffe and other people who
obviously need to label Muslims more than they need their living bread.
But, that is a well established pattern in the history of Mankind and
in the history of Islam in particular. It was always a desire and a
strategy of Oligarchy, misguided people and open declared enemies of
Islam to apply "divide and conquer" scheme against the Muslims. As long
as they had Muslims divided in as many contesting and too often bitterly
opposing and quarreling "schools of thought" as possible, the "divide
and conquer brigade" were pleased with their intervention. That is why
they MANUFACTURED "schools of thought", "sects", "teachings" etc. in
great numbers. The more - the merrier. There is nothing new in that
strategy: those interventions were made even when Prophet Muhammad was
alive and there is a Quranic proof of that. Therefore, one can see
that all these interventions to water down, distort, demean and
disrespect God s word revealed in the Quran ALONE are as old as the
Quran itself !
So we see that even the people who preach that Quran is the one and the
only written source of islamic guidance have not been spared from
labeling and defamation by none other, of course, than the ones who
uphold man-made written sources of quasi-islamic guidance, the so-called
"Sunnah of the Prophet" and "Science of Hadith". That comes as no
surprise one would be surprised if they acted differently. That is
all so very very predictable.
Mr. McAuliffe blames preaching that Quran is the one and the only
written source of divine guidance on nothing less than a psychological
problem of "denial". Well, we know better, don t we ?! The only denial
that is truly relevant is that God denied to Bukhari, Dawuud, Tirmizi,
and all others any right to write these books of Hadith.
Mr. McAuliffe calls the problem he invented a "denial of history". That
is where he is wrong. There exists "History of Islam" as a subject
people who uphold Quran ALNOE never denied that. However, Islam is NOT
History nor is it "made up" of events that occured after full revelation
of Quran and Quran OLNY. Islam is a submission to the will of God.
History is only a Science it is a Science that researches, documents
and comments responsibly and rationally all events that occurred on this
planet during the passage of time ... Islam is not in a same or similar
category with the History, because History is only one of the many
sciences that Mankind developed as its learning and living tool. Would
Mr. McAuliffe be surprised if he was told him that if, for example,
Prophet Muhammad never lived before 19th Century C.E. and did not reveal
the Quran when he actually did (1400 years ago), we could have in
essence the same true Islam today if Prophet Muhammad appeared, say, one
hundred years ago (19th Century C.E.). What is Divine is TIMELESS.
That is the spirit and the word of Quran. Human study and description
of historical events, no matter how accurate (or mostly inaccurate) can
not and must not be turned into some sort of equivalent of Divine
revelation or its "obligatory appendix", and so on and so forth.
The only denial that is relevant here, is denial of "History as
Religion" (or "History as Divine revelation"). History is merely a
Science and nothing more, and nothing less.
Mr. McAuliffe: Now, the history/memory the Khalifites reject is not that
of some horrible trauma, the suppression or repression of which might
help protect the person who was traumatized. No, they are rejecting the
memory of a man who was undoubtedly a wonderful guy-- even if you don't
think he was a messenger from God as I do.
rap: More psychoanalytical freebies distributed by Mr. McAuliffe.
Thank you but no thank you [ Nancy Reagan: "Just say no!"]. There is no
trauma. Do not panic. Preaching Quran ALONE is only good and careful
reading of Quran by some dedicated honest Muslims.
Mr. McAuliffe: The history they reject is the history of humanity's
engagement with the Qur'an.
rap: Once again, History is a science History is not Islam. On the
other hand, something like a College subject named "History of Islam" is
welcome but, that subject "History of Islam" is not Divine revelation,
no matter who wrote it. Only God can give divine revelations and
initiate divine inspirations. Quran, the Divine revelation, is TIMELESS
and is revealed only by God through his final Prophet Muhammad.
McAuliffe: Cleary, *clearly*, such a history is worthy of maintenance
and study!
rap: Nobody asked people to reject study of History. Au contraire
proper study of History is important in one s education. Many people
who lived during the past 14 centuries delivered us many writings about
Islam, Quran, Khalifas, philosophies derived from Quranic (and other)
guidance, and so on an so forth. Those writings belong to branches of
human learning such as: History, Philosophy, Sociology, Politology, ...
etc.
... and, oh, yes, Psychology ... how can one forget that ...
Thanks for a free exam Mr. McAuliffe, let s do it again sometimes.
AYMusa
Salaamun alaikum. Mr. McAullife would have people think that
following the Qur'an only as a source of religious law and guidance
is a denial of history. He is right that all people have a history
which they cannot and should not deny. The majority of the world's
Muslims deny their own history everyday. They reject it in favor of
the history of the Arabs, who make up only a small minority of the
world's Muslims. To deny one's history and culture and to try to
adopt a history and culture which is alien is indeed dangerous. That
is why the so-called "Sunna of Muhammad" has done such grave damage
to Islam. In following the sunna of medieval Arabs, Muslims the world
over have forgotten their own history and what makes them who they are.
But the Qur'an is for all people of all backgrounds, at all times.
We must take the Qur'an and apply it, as is, without rejecting our
language, culture, and history.
In an earlier message, Mr. McAullife compared following Muhammad's sunna
to following the sunna of sports heros and rock stars. He suggested
that since people normally follow someone's sunna (such as sports and
rock stars), one would be better of following Muhammad's sunna. But,
what Mr. McAullife failed to mention was that the most often used synonym
for "hero" (his choice) is "idol." People routinely refer to sports
figures and rock stars as their "idols." So, what Mr. McAullife's
message really says is, since you're going to idolize someone anyway,
it is better to pick Muhammad as an idol than a rock star or sports
figure.
Mr. McAullife has given us very strong and compelling arguements against
following the so-called "Sunna of Muhammad." He has shown us that
it is both dangerous and foolhardy. Praise be to God.
--
AYMusa
shawki Hamdan
Tawfique Hasan Chowdhury wrote:
> I see that you have condemned me to hell. You have even accused me of
> being an idolator while I profess that none has the right to be
> worshipped but Allah.
Then why don't you stop after the shahada is complete and perfect as that
uttered by God, His angels, and those who possess knowledge in 3:18 ?
Why do you think that the shahada of Allah is incomplete ?
Why do you mention the names of departed human messengers in your salat
when God's forbids you in 72:18 ?
Why do you disobey God when He tells you that the Wudu is four steps in
5:6 ?
> You say that the corrupt islam you follow in your denail of validity of
> hadith is the truth. Then if it be the truth, make dua to Allah to
> destroy me because you say I am an idolator,
I do not supplicate to God to destroy people. I call upon Him to guide
them and show them the error in their ways before there comes a day when
no intercession will be useful.
> as I will make dua to Allah to destroy you.
That is your previledge. God does not respond to du'aa of evil.
> I ask Allah to destroy all those who corrupt this religion of His and
> to reward the defenders of this religion.
I call upon Allah to do the same exact thing. But do you know whom this
du'aa falls on ?
> All those who read this email, I ask you to read my email on this
> soc.religion.islam Re:'A Challenge to Ahamd Okla' and make a decision
> for yourself if I am an idolator or not.
Please quit crying for the sympathy of the crowd. No one here will save
you on the Day of Judgment. Your actions in this world are what
determines your destiney. The good news is that ALL sins are forgivable
by Allah, even idolatry unless it is maintained till death.
> The Prophet had said in one hadith : "Verily, slandering a
> muslim is like killing him." This hadith is Sahih and found in Muslim.
God said that anyone who disregards His revelation is deaf and blind and
that he will never ever get guided. See 18:57. I merely utter the truth
of God's words. You utter some stories attributed to His departed
prophet. What does that tell you ?
> I have taken my complaint to Allah and he will certainly judge between
> you and me on the day of judgement. Till then, I not going to write to
> you anymore. See you on the Day of Judgement.
"Fatamannaw al-mawta in kuntum saadiqeen" or "Wish upon death if you are
truthful" (2:94). Indeed God will be the Judge on that Day. But He has
given us clear warnings in the Qur'an that unless we worship Him alone we
will end up in Hell. There will be no friends and no intercessors besides
God.
Think about it Tawfique. I am not your enemy. Your enemy is within you in
the form of "Qareen".
Peace,
Shawki
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Y Rapido <rap...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Mr. McAuliffe wrote:
>
>rapido: <not laughing only lying on the couch and staring at the
>ceiling>
That might be part of your problem. I'm sure there is a sick or
elderly shut-in who could use some chit-chat or needs some errands
run. Why not get up and find them?
> After Mr. McAuliffe called some people
>"fruitcakes"
Not "some people", Shawki. People who actually believe your bundle of
teachings: 19, rejection of sunnah, etc.
>Number one, there exist no such "school of thought" as Khalifatism.
Sure there is. Its a whole and easily identifiable bundle of teachings
tracing back to Rashad Khalifa. Only someone out of touch with reality
could say otherwise.
>That label is an invention of Mr. McAuliffe and other people who
>obviously need to label Muslims more than they need their living bread.
Boy. That makes sense. Almost.
>MANUFACTURED "schools of thought", "sects", "teachings" etc. in
>great numbers. The more - the merrier.
So *that's* why you manufactured yet another group! Hope yer merry as
can be about it.
You've done exactly what you appear to condemn!
Good job! Thatta boy! Way to go!
>Mr. McAuliffe blames preaching that Quran is the one and the only
>written source of divine guidance on nothing less than a psychological
>problem of "denial".
Oh, I've written quite a bit more than that about it, Shawki. Your
disingenuousnous is showing again.
> Islam is a submission to the will of God.
>History is only a Science
Submission to the will of God entails doing science. God tells us to
look at history as one part of learning His patterns and ways. Or
didn't you get to that part in the Qur'an yet?
In light of my understanding of the Qur'an, NOTHING is "only".... it
is all of profound significance for healthy religio-spirituality. You
betray your non-tawheedian monotheism.... your essentially dualistic
view of reality... how "Western" of you! ;-)
> it is a Science that researches, documents
>and comments responsibly and rationally all events that occurred on this
>planet during the passage of time
It would not be too difficult to find more accurate definitions. First
of all, it is a human, not a natural science, and so the issue of
hermeneutics raises its ugly head.... it does not research events, but
rather accounts of events.
>Mr. McAuliffe be surprised if he was told him that if, for example,
>Prophet Muhammad never lived before 19th Century C.E. and did not reveal
>the Quran when he actually did (1400 years ago), we could have in
>essence the same true Islam today
NOTHING you or your cohorts would say would surprise me at this point.
But I agree... if Muhammad did not live, and we did not have the
Qur'an, we could still see Islam "in essence"-- which is the key
phrase. It would not be a Qur'anic version of Islam. I am sure that
even today there are many, many people who are practicing Islam "in
essence" though they have never encountered the Qur'an, or have not
yet been able to accept it as revelation (such things often take
time-- with prayers for Jochen <G!>). As anyone who has visited my Web
site knows, I distinguish precisely such a point by talking of
Islam&Muslim 1 and 2.
But that's not the issue, is it? The issue is the Qur'an and its
proper understanding, and the integration of history/memory into that
understanding. Your group's teachings reject such a movement of
integration.
> Human study and description
>of historical events, no matter how accurate (or mostly inaccurate) can
>not and must not be turned into some sort of equivalent of Divine
>revelation or its "obligatory appendix",
Cant' keep your thoughts straight? Combining these two options is very
confused of you and we have now moved from consideration of the hadith
literature in relation to the Qur'an to history per se. Two different
things.
Yes, according to my understanding of the Qur'an history can indeed be
some sort of equivalent of Divine revelation. God constantly tells us
in the Qur'an (*reminding* us) to look at history....
No, the hadith literature cannot be some sort of equivalent of
revelation, but yes, it can indeed be an obligatory appendix...
>and so on and so forth.
Mmmmm. Yes. How true.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
Y Rapido <rap...@eskimo.com> wrote:
Jeremiah wrote:
Not "some people", Shawki. People who actually believe your bundle of
teachings: 19, rejection of sunnah, etc.
Oh, sorry. I called Y Rapido "Shawki".
Well, the monochrome tone of this group's collective posting confuse
my apprehension of individual uniqueness. Sorry.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
ahme...@aol.com (AHMED OKLA) wrote:
>. We
>never said we reject history, but we reject the corrupted
>history.
What you say and what you do are two different things. "History" is
not "corrupted". The accounts we have of history may be "corrupted"
but even to use such a term is, imho, a wrong use of the term and
displays a misunderstanding of basic historical studies. (This is also
the case for those Muslims who call the Bible "corrupted". It is not
corrupted, it is what it is, and it is a *certain literary genre*. But
that's another issue.)
> Hadiths, as have been proven by the Hadithists, to be 99.9%
>corrupted should be treated as corrupted or possibly corrupted history
>and not treated as religious laws.
It seems like you contradicted yourself here. Regardless, you are
touching on points regarding the hadith literature where I might agree
with you. There is a definate problem with how we understand the
hadith literature today. But this does not necessarily imply the need
for a complete rejection of the literature, nor does it imply
rejection of "sunnah" as a foundation of the Islamic tradition. (which
you did not bring up here, but is part of your bundle of teachings on
these types of topics.)
99.9%?? Well, we know your group's track record with statistical types
of information..... <ahem> ..."moronic" comes to mind.
Not "corrupted" history, which doesn't even make sense. Rather, we
would need to ask how the hadith may or may not reflect history
subsequent to Muhammad, i.e. taking into account cultural, political
and other issues as we today would take them into account. The
compilers attempted to do this, according to their methods. We today
would need to examine their methods and add some new components... one
of which would be an understanding of Muhammad, or rather the accounts
about Muhammad, within his cultural milieu.
I agree that the hadith should not be treated as "religious laws" as
you use it here. I agree that it seems as if many Muslims do indeed do
so and tread close to idolatry and superstition because of it. I
disagree and condemn your extremist response to such a situation.
However, I do think the hadith literature should be amongst our first
tools for deriving meaning from the Qur'an-- i.e. its proper
interpretation. This makes sense. Though I know your group acts out of
cultic sensibilities....
>God already told his true
>believers, not to accept any other hadiths but the Quran. Muhammedans
>do not accept that teaching of God. Hadiths can be a source of
>history not religion.
God tells us to look at creation. To look beyond the Qur'an. To learn
His sunnan in creation, to look at the patterns. This includes the
study of history, and thus the accounts we have of history-- our
memories. "You pass by their ruins... have you no sense?"
You violate tawheed with such a statement that something is a source
of "this" but not of "that". ALL is a source of religion..... As I've
written before.... your group is monotheist, but you are not
tawheedian monotheists.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
AYMusa <71620...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Salaamun alaikum. Mr. McAullife would have people think that
>following the Qur'an only as a source of religious law and guidance
>is a denial of history.
Oh, there is that reading comprehension problem again! No, AYMusa, I
did not imply any such thing. Rather, your group's rejection of hadith
and sunna are a rejection of history/memory.
If you couldn't get that from a usenet post how could you possibly get
true meaning from the Qur'an?