This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

D&D Theology's "Ask About Islam" Thread Mk. IV

No, it would not be allowed. They would probably get away with it unless;

1. They go to the police and BOTH admit (on their own account) what they did.
2. If four people sitting on that train report the incident.

Why four?

I don't quite understand how, on the information that you know, you so easily concluded that "Islam can't be true"? I mean, did you dig up the whole of Africa and accurately analyzed all the old aged religions they followed?

Did you?

Clearly not.

I forgot you had a PhD in African traditional religion. My bad.
You can't say that I am wrong unless you have evidence that contradicts what I said.

I actually talked about this quite a bit, with more than one person, therefore I think I know more about it than you.

So I would recommend reading the following, which does a small bit of research into the matter, and shows the similarities of Monotheistic messages, of Stone aged religions in West Guinea, and Africa.

Both those sources a quite weak in what they prove.

The Kapauku believe the following:
Their God is manifested in the Sun and the Moon
The spirits of the dead can be called on by people to help them
The practice of magic is an essential part of religion, an magic plays a key role in all of their rituals
Both men and women can become priests
Spirits can be communicated to in dreams
The most important festival is called juwo - the pig feast - where pig is the only dish on offer
Diseases can be cured only through magic and sorcery
The only purpose of a dead person is to help the people still living
There is no heaven/hell senario - all people who die become spirits that live in the forest

It's laughable that you think the Kapauku have anything to do with Islam.

The Dinka people hold no relevence in this context, because they are catagorised as Animists, which clearly has nothing to do with Islam. They are from Sudan which, in comparison to the rest of the world, is right next to Israel/Judea. The Jews borrowed their creation myths from the Mesopotamians, so it seems logical that the Dinka people borrowed their creation myths from the Jews. After all, they are very close together.

As to where monotheism came from, it is a philosophical concept, and is not exclusive to Islam. Other cultures have come to this conclusion, and I find no evidence that this is in any way linked to Islam. In fact, if you bother look deeper into this, we find evidence much to the contrary.

Reply 1041

SaintSoldier

10

Original post by killa78

There are people that know of the religion and refuse to follow it.

I would say that it would be pretty stupid to say "I could follow the true religion, but allow that I'd prefer to just burn in hell for the rest of eternity."

Therefore I think "refuse" is the wrong word.

Prophets were sent at many different time periods and most were probably rejected.

What was the point then?

Does Allah not want prove that he exists? If you say that he does, but he prefers to take a passive, removed approach in order to test people, then what about the people who did not witness the revelation, but were born into culture that rejected their revelation?

Just because some South Africans follow a religion completely different to Islam doesn't mean much.

People have free will to pick their religion and how they live their lives.

Why is there no record of any prophets ever existing? Surely someone must have believed in each prophet?

Where have their books gone? Is there a revelation in Zulu, Xhosa or Sotho?

Why is it that the Jews got so many prophets, who became so famous, and the Africans got none?

The main evidence for believing that the prophets were sent to every nation is from the holy Quraan.

You cannot use the perpetrator of a theory as evidence. In the same way that I cannot be "evidence" for the theory that there is a diamond the size of a car on my street (you would have to ask other people to see whether that is true), you cannot use the Qur'an as evidence for anything that Islam proposes. That's like saying "it's true because it says it's true."

If we are to use the Qur'an as evidence however, then it disproves what you said. All of the prophets in the Qur'an were sent to a piece of land smaller than Wales, and no reference is made to any other prophets from any other culture. I would find the Qur'an far more interesting if it told the tales of prophets from Japan to America; and from Russia to Australia. None of this is found in the Qur'an or the Hadiths. Why not?

Reply 1042

Perseveranze

13

Original post by SaintSoldier

Why four?

Because that's the rule. I didn't make them up.

Common sense should tell you that the rules are there as a deterrent rather than a punishment.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Did you?

What do you mean "did I"? What kind of a come-back is that? Your the one who's making the claim, so you should be able to prove it.

Obviously you have not. You conclude based on the little knowledge of African religions we have, something which probably no one else was ignorant enough to do, but rather stay agnostic on the matter.

Original post by SaintSoldier

I actually talked about this quite a bit, with more than one person, therefore I think I know more about it than you.

Then it sounds like you didn't comprehend or understand what these "person(s)" said. How could you, when you hardly know much about Islam.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Both those sources a quite weak in what they prove.

No, those sources are actually proven. The implication is Monotheism, which is what the Islamic message is.

Not every messenger came with the Shariah, some simply came with the message of Monotheism, that they should believe that. Whatever else they believe is irelevant, and could be changes or additions to the belief.

As long as there's monotheism, that's what Islamic theology has always claimed.

From the link above, even though we still have very little fragments of information (like we do on all ancient religions), we can clearly see these implications to back up the Islamic argument.

Original post by SaintSoldier

As to where monotheism came from, it is a philosophical concept, and is not exclusive to Islam. Other cultures have come to this conclusion, and I find no evidence that this is in any way linked to Islam. In fact, if you bother look deeper into this, we find evidence much to the contrary.

You simply do not understand what you're talking about, and this comes from the lack of information on Islamic theology.

I'll say this once; Islam is not a new religion. Its rules, were never static.

It simply means, "Submission to God", who? The Monotheistic God.

Reply 1043

SaintSoldier

10

Original post by Perseveranze

Because that's the rule. I didn't make them up.

I know it's the rule, that's why I'm asking why it is the rule.

Common sense should tell you that the rules are there as a deterrent rather than a punishment.

It's not a massive deterent if all you need to do to avoid prosecution is to make sure that there are less than four witnesses present. Surely most crimes happen with less than four witnesses?

Your the one who's making the claim, so you should be able to prove it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_African_religion

If you notice, none of them have any prophets, as I stated initially. Even the Kapauku and the Dinka, which you noted earlier, do not have any prophets.

Surely, next to God, the most important person would be the prophet? How could they forget the name of their prophet?

Obviously you have not. You conclude based on the little knowledge of African religions we have, something which probably no one else was ignorant enough to do, but rather stay agnostic on the matter.

I find it highly pretentious of you to judge my knowledge of a subject, given that you have no idea what information I chose to display on this site, and what information I withheld for personal reasons.

Then it sounds like you didn't comprehend or understand what these "person(s)" said. How could you, when you hardly know much about Islam

Why do you assume that I didn't understand what they said? Because it doesn't agree with what you think? Classic Islamic approach.

Again with the presumptions, why are you so judgemental? I get the impression that you think I'm lying - if that is the case then there's no point in carrying this further, because all you will be thinking is "he's a dirty, greedy, lying kaffir, so he's obviously wrong." Tbh, judging by your posts on TSR, that's what you think all the time. But that may just be the tone you choose to adopt on here.

You have no knowledge about me, hence you shouldn't make such assumptions.

Just because I don't believe in Islam, doesn't mean I know nothing about it. Granted, I'm no scholar or anything like that, but I know more about it than most people

No, those sources are actually proven. The implication is Monotheism, which is what the Islamic message is.

It's also the message of other religions, and monotheism does not necessarily imply Islam. The two are not exclusive to each other.

Not every messenger came with the Shariah, some simply came with the message of Monotheism, that they should believe that.

Does it say that in the Qur'an?

As long as there's monotheism, that's what Islamic theology has always claimed.

It's also the theology of many other religions....

From the link above, even though we still have very little fragments of information (like we do on all ancient religions), we can clearly see these implications to back up the Islamic argument.

It's amazing how you take the smallest idea, and then say "Islam did it." There is no evidence to suggest that Islam is in any way implicated here, you are just stretching the evidence and using wishful thinking.

You simply do not understand what you're talking about, and this comes from the lack of information on Islamic theology.

As if you weren't being patronising already....

I'll say this once; Islam is not a new religion. Its rules, were never static.

Surely they would be similar to the present day Islam, as I wouldn't expect Allah to change his mind about various issues.

It simply means, "Submission to God", who? The Monotheistic God.

Look, I'm not stupid. I know this stuff already. You're just going around in circles.

Reply 1044

killa78

13

Original post by SaintSoldier

I would say that it would be pretty stupid to say "I could follow the true religion, but allow that I'd prefer to just burn in hell for the rest of eternity."

Therefore I think "refuse" is the wrong word.

What was the point then?

Does Allah not want prove that he exists? If you say that he does, but he prefers to take a passive, removed approach in order to test people, then what about the people who did not witness the revelation, but were born into culture that rejected their revelation?

Why is there no record of any prophets ever existing? Surely someone must have believed in each prophet?

Where have their books gone? Is there a revelation in Zulu, Xhosa or Sotho?

Why is it that the Jews got so many prophets, who became so famous, and the Africans got none?

You cannot use the perpetrator of a theory as evidence. In the same way that I cannot be "evidence" for the theory that there is a diamond the size of a car on my street (you would have to ask other people to see whether that is true), you cannot use the Qur'an as evidence for anything that Islam proposes. That's like saying "it's true because it says it's true."

If we are to use the Qur'an as evidence however, then it disproves what you said. All of the prophets in the Qur'an were sent to a piece of land smaller than Wales, and no reference is made to any other prophets from any other culture. I would find the Qur'an far more interesting if it told the tales of prophets from Japan to America; and from Russia to Australia. None of this is found in the Qur'an or the Hadiths. Why not?

Well. If you can't see it's the true religion, then you won't join it. Pretty simple. lol
It comes down to the person in the end, if they want to convert they will with Allah (swt) help.

Refuse is the right word...

You seem not to understand that humans have free will. A prophet could have been sent to them, but if the people didn't listen, they didn't want to.

How do you know the Africans didn't get any? As long as you have a monotheistic belief, you could be muslim.

The quraan says there were messengers for all nations. Just because it doesn't go into the intricacies doesn't mean it's false.

Reply 1045

Perseveranze

13

Original post by SaintSoldier

I know it's the rule, that's why I'm asking why it is the rule.

It's not a massive deterent if all you need to do to avoid prosecution is to make sure that there are less than four witnesses present. Surely most crimes happen with less than four witnesses?

Actually it is.

Regardless of the chances, just the fact that "there's a tiny chance" they could end up being whipped or (if married) executed is usually enough to think about. That's why no one does it in public (not even in secular/democratic societies), it more or less would happen in private, then it's their sins to think about. Usually it's repent, forget and not do it again.

The whole purpose of it is that it doesn't cause public chaos/corruption, and thus the deterrent is enough for people not to do it in public. If they do it in private, then it's a matter between them and God. It's the same with drinking alcohol, people could technically do it in their private homes, but not in public. And with privacy, there's protection, as no one is allowed to "spy" on you, thus their testimony becomes void.

Also the four witness rules is rather unique to sexual acts (from what I remember). Stuff like rape, and other crimes don't require four witnesses, but rather evidence based etc.

Original post by SaintSoldier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_African_religion

If you notice, none of them have any prophets, as I stated initially. Even the Kapauku and the Dinka, which you noted earlier, do not have any prophets.

Surely, next to God, the most important person would be the prophet? How could they forget the name of their prophet?

If none had prophets, then did the religion or belief come out of thin air? Every religion (or certainly most) MUST have had a founder, whether we know who that founder is, is irrelevant. Just because we might not know who the founder of that religion is, does not mean there was not one, which does not mean they were not a prophet.

Some believe Bhuddist was a prophet (in that he came with a message of Monotheism), and that his teachings (like Jesus(pbuh)) were corrupted by later believers.

Original post by SaintSoldier

I find it highly pretentious of you to judge my knowledge of a subject, given that you have no idea what information I chose to display on this site, and what information I withheld for personal reasons.

You don't know the basics of Islamic Monotheism.

Different Nations had different Shariah rules to follow. Not every Messenger came with God's Laws (Shariah). Some, like Noah(pbuh) came with the message of Monotheism alone. Which, as stated before, is the main and most important concept.

Also, not all messengers came with a divine Book.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Why do you assume that I didn't understand what they said? Because it doesn't agree with what you think? Classic Islamic approach.

So they told you, none of the ancient African religions had signs of Monotheistic beliefs? That they believed in Idols, spirits and multiple gods?

I doubt you asked the right questions. Even without strict tawheed, there's no doubt (from what we know so far) that some ancient African religions held Monotheism-based beliefs.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Again with the presumptions, why are you so judgemental? I get the impression that you think I'm lying - if that is the case then there's no point in carrying this further, because all you will be thinking is "he's a dirty, greedy, lying kaffir, so he's obviously wrong." Tbh, judging by your posts on TSR, that's what you think all the time. But that may just be the tone you choose to adopt on here.

Already answered above. And "my tone" lol? It's the Internet, you can't tell facial expressions :smile:

And I believe you, but I doubt your critical thinking here, on;

a) The rejection of any monotheistic based beliefs in Ancient africa.

b) The lack of understanding in Islamic monotheism, and it's theology in regards to historical understanding.

c) That we don't actually know that much about ancient religion. And that's why (from a secular perspective) people tend to remain agnostic on this matter. With Muslims, we believe in the statement of "every nation/tribe was sent a messenger", and can back it up with whatever evidences that implicate ancient religions with Monotheistic beliefs.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Just because I don't believe in Islam, doesn't mean I know nothing about it. Granted, I'm no scholar or anything like that, but I know more about it than most people

Watching Zakir Naik videos?

Original post by SaintSoldier

It's also the message of other religions, and monotheism does not necessarily imply Islam. The two are not exclusive to each other.

No one necessarily implied it, the fact that it could is good enough for Muslims. Which is why to make a judgment of "Islam isn't true" based on something like this is ignorance. Because you, yourself have no idea whether these monotheistic signs have anything to do with the Islamic sent messengers or not.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Does it say that in the Qur'an?

Yes, read the story of Noah(pbuh). Actually, thinking about it, telling people to "believe/Worship God" is Shariah in itself. Because it's a command in itself.

So my mistake, every messenger did come with a Shariah, even if it was to simply inform them of a Divine Being.

Original post by SaintSoldier

It's also the theology of many other religions....

That God sent messengers to every nation and tribe? If it is, then good for them, they can have stronger faith I suppose.

Original post by SaintSoldier

It's amazing how you take the smallest idea, and then say "Islam did it." There is no evidence to suggest that Islam is in any way implicated here, you are just stretching the evidence and using wishful thinking.

How on earth is it wishful thinking? Maybe if the Qur'an didn't make the claim, then it would be "wishful thinking". But the fact is, the Qur'an does make a claim, and we do see in many ancient tribes/nations of where monotheistic practices are evident.

It's you who's trying to deny it, without actually having the evidence to prove that.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Surely they would be similar to the present day Islam, as I wouldn't expect Allah to change his mind about various issues.

Throughout history, God has sent messengers to people all over the world, to guide them to the straight path that would lead them to happiness in this world and the one to follow. All messengers taught the same message about belief (the Qur’an teaches that all messengers called people to the worship of the One God), but the specific prescriptions of the divine laws regulating people’s lives varied according to the needs of his people and time.

http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Articles/AR00000256.aspx

It really is basic rationality. I'm sure the early messengers didn't have much to communicate, as at that time, communication may not have been so developed between people etc.

Original post by SaintSoldier

Look, I'm not stupid. I know this stuff already. You're just going around in circles.

Not really, I think after this, you should have a better understanding of;

a) Islamic theology on Monotheism.
b) How messengers were sent to nations/tribes
c) The regulations regarding the witnesses rule
d) And probably more if you read carefully.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1046

Hylean

15

Take the debate elsewhere, people. :colonhash:

Reply 1047

Prokaryotic_crap

18

Sallam,

If the Khilapha was established tonight for example, and we finally had a proper Islamic state, what country do you think will it most likely be similar too?

In particular, will the Islamic state have:

- A 'Committee for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice' a.k.a religious police like Saudi?

- Places of worship of other religions unlike Saudi

- Require women to wear the full Jilbab and not allowed to go far away without a Mahram like Saudi or regarding women be more liberal like the UAE?

Reply 1048

Iqbal007

19

Original post by Prokaryotic_crap

Sallam,

If the Khilapha was established tonight for example, and we finally had a proper Islamic state, what country do you think will it most likely be similar too?

In particular, will the Islamic state have:

- A 'Committee for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice' a.k.a religious police like Saudi?

- Places of worship of other religions unlike Saudi

- Require women to wear the full Jilbab and not allowed to go far away without a Mahram like Saudi or regarding women be more liberal like the UAE?

Wsalaam,

In all honesty, that isn't bound to happen at all, as to make such a establishment will require Mecca and Medina and lets be honest Saudi politics will get involvement, if they do, we'll just get corruption and cultural views imposed rather than Islam views only.

Reply 1049

Prokaryotic_crap

18

Original post by Iqbal007

Wsa[INDENT]laam,

In all honesty, that isn't bound to happen at all, as to make such a establishment will require Mecca and Medina and lets be honest Saudi politics will get involvement, if they do, we'll just get corruption and cultural views imposed rather than Islam views only.

I know brother, I'm asking if an Islamic state was to exist, would it have those things.

Reply 1050

Iqbal007

19

Original post by Prokaryotic_crap

I know brother, I'm asking if an Islamic state was to exist, would it have those things.

Well if they follow by example of the original ummah.............than it shouldn't at all..........but it will, because of corruption and so forth.

Reply 1051

Politricks

19

Seeing as Allah is prepared to burn people for an eternity for worshipping another god, does that make him a jealous god?

Reply 1052

Tpos

17

Original post by Politricks

Seeing as Allah is prepared to burn people for an eternity for worshipping another god, does that make him a jealous god?

No. The creator of the world has nothing to be jealous of his creation, nor do our deeds make any difference to His power.

Reply 1053

Politricks

19

Original post by Tpos

No. The creator of the world has nothing to be jealous of his creation, nor do our deeds make any difference to His power.

Also, explain how burning people for worshipping another god isn't jealousy?

Reply 1054

B-Man.

13

Original post by Politricks

Seeing as Allah is prepared to burn people for an eternity for worshipping another god, does that make him a jealous god?

Well, yes, if you consider the hadith below to be reliable, which many do.

"Allah is more jealous than I. Because of His jealousy Allah has prohibited abomination, both open and secret. And no person is more jealous of his honour than Allah."
~ Sahih Muslim 9,3572

The concept of God being jealous is nothing new to the Abrahamic scriptures. It even goes back to the Old Testament:

"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God"
~ Exodus 20:4-5

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1055

Politricks

19

Original post by B-Man.

x

Another question, how does one go about deciding which hadith is authenticated, and which hadith isn't?

Reply 1056

Perseveranze

13

Original post by B-Man.

Well, yes, if you consider the hadith below to be reliable, which many do.

"Allah is more jealous than I. Because of His jealousy Allah has prohibited abomination, both open and secret. And no person is more jealous of his honour than Allah."
~ Sahih Muslim 9,3572

The concept of God being jealous is nothing new to the Abrahamic scriptures. It even goes back to the Old Testament:

"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God"
~ Exodus 20:4-5

Not to be misunderstood by the western contextual understanding of Jealousy to the Islamic one. The word in the hadiths used is "Gheera", which in the Arabic context is a unique type of jealousy and is a positive attribute. (Generally speaking, the word in arabic for jealousy is "hasad", but hadiths use Gheera).

Based on a knowledgeable person's explanation; it's basically like protectiveness of one's honour, belongings, family etc. Like, a person (Islamically) should have Gheerah that would make him dislike it if another person went up to his wife/her husband and flirted with them or something, rather than have apathy. God is protective of His honour, and His "Jelous" (if you want to translate it as such) is a positive attribute, rather than the general association of the word which may imply desiring something someone else has or resentment.

From the English dictionary, I'd say this is the more accurate meaning;

Jealousy - vigilance in maintaining or guarding something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jealousy

Original post by Politricks

Another question, how does one go about deciding which hadith is authenticated, and which hadith isn't?

Through a method called "hadith sciences".

Read this, which is gives you a good outlook of how Hadiths are authenticated; http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/hadsciences.html

Also, HT recently posted a really good, brief explanation that I think is also definitely worth reading;

A main contention against this argument is that the narratives concerning the life of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) are not valid sources of knowledge. This contention is self-defeating in various ways. If the narratives of the life of the Prophet (upon whom be peace) are rejected, then all established history must be rejected, including World War 1, the battle of Hastings and the Norman invasion of Britain! The reason for this is that the historical science adopted by Islamic scholarship is far more nuanced and precise than the methods used by western historians.

The Islamic method of validating historical narrative is based upon the text (matn) and the chain of narration (isnad), both of which make up a hadith (pl. ahadith). The textual part of the hadith may sound right but it requires an authentic chain of narration with reliable reporters in order to be accepted. Abdullah b. al-Mubarak, the teacher of Imam Bukhari, said:

"The isnad is part of the religion: had it not been for the isnad, whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked."[12]

To summarise a vast science, the following broad classifications clearly show the depth and thoroughness of the science of hadith:

- According to the reference to a particular authority, e.g. the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), a Companion, or a Successor; such ahadith are called Marfu` (elevated), Mauquf (stopped) and Maqtu` (severed) respectively .
- According to the links in the isnad, i.e. whether the chain of reporters is interrupted or uninterrupted, e.g. Musnad (supported), Muttasil (continuous), Munqati (broken), Mu`allaq (hanging), Mu`dal (perplexing) and Mursal (hurried).
- According to the number of reporters involved in each stage of the isnad, e.g. Mutawatir (consecutive) and ahad (isolated), the latter being divided into Gharib (scarce, strange), `Aziz (rare, strong), and Mash'hur (famous).
- According to the manner in which the hadith has been reported, such as using the (Arabic) words 'an ("on the authority of"), haddathana ("he narrated to us"), akhbarana ("he informed us") or sami'tu ("I heard"). In this category falls the discussion about Mudallas (concealed) and Musalsal (uniformly-linked) ahadith.
- According to the nature of the matn and isnad, e.g. an addition by a reliable reporter, known as ziyadatu thiqah, or opposition by a lesser authority to a more reliable one, known as Shadhdh (irregular). In some cases, a text containing a vulgar expression, unreasonable remark or obviously-erroneous statement is rejected by the traditionists outright without consideration of the isnad: such a hadith is known as Munkar (denounced). If an expression or statement is proved to be an addition by a reporter to the text, it is declared as Mudraj (interpolated).
- According to a hidden defect found in the isnad or text of a hadith. Although this could be included in some of the previous categories, a hadith Mu`allal (defective hadith) is worthy to be explained separately. The defect can be caused in many ways; e.g. two types of hadith Mu`allal are known as Maqlub (overturned) and Mudtarib (shaky).
- According to the reliability and memory of the reporters; the final judgment on a hadith depends crucially on this factor: verdicts such as Sahih (sound), Hasan (good), Da`if (weak) and Maudu` (fabricated, forged) rest mainly upon the nature of the reporters in the isnad.[13]

In light of the above to reject the narratives that elucidate on the life of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) would be tantamount of rejecting all known historical truths because the science of hadith is far more thorough than the methodologies used is western history.

http://www.facebook.com/HamzaAndreasTzortzis/posts/464052843605155

And from a western Academia perspective;

The chains of transmitters were therefore carefully scrutinised to make sure that the persons named could in fact have met one another, that they could be trusted to repeat the story accurately, and that they did not hold any heretical views. This implied extensive biographical studies; and many biographical dictionaries have been preserved giving the basic information about a man's teachers and pupils, the views of later scholars (on his reliability as a transmitter) and the date of his death. This biography-based critique of Traditions helped considerably to form a more or less common mind among many men throughout the caliphate about what was to be accepted and what rejected. - W. M. Watt, What Is Islam?, 1968, Longman, Green & Co. Ltd., pp. 124-125.

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth. - Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1057

B-Man.

13

Original post by Politricks

Another question, how does one go about deciding which hadith is authenticated, and which hadith isn't?

I think you are probably more interested in which Hadiths are regarded as authentic by which Muslims. So in addition to what Perserveranze said these are the six major Hadith collections, in order of authenticity, which Sunni Muslims (around 90% of all Muslims) use:

1) Sahih Bukhari, collected by Imam Bukhari,
2) Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj,
3) Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i
4) Sunan Abu Dawood, collected by Abu Dawood
5) Jami al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi
6) Sunan ibn Majah, collected by Ibn Majah

These are the major hadith collections that Shia Muslims use:

1) Kitab al-Kafi
2) Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih
3) Tahdhib al-Ahkam
4) Al-Istibsar

Reply 1058

Reform

Original post by B-Man.

I think you are probably more interested in which Hadiths are regarded as authentic by which Muslims. So in addition to what Perserveranze said these are the six major Hadith collections, in order of authenticity, which Sunni Muslims (around 90% of all Muslims) use:

1) Sahih Bukhari, collected by Imam Bukhari,
2) Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj,
3) Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i
4) Sunan Abu Dawood, collected by Abu Dawood
5) Jami al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi
6) Sunan ibn Majah, collected by Ibn Majah

These are the major hadith collections that Shia Muslims use:

1) Kitab al-Kafi
2) Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih
3) Tahdhib al-Ahkam
4) Al-Istibsar

What about Musnad Ahmad?

Reply 1059

Tpos

17

Original post by Politricks

Also, explain how burning people for worshipping another god isn't jealousy?