(April 20, 2018 at 4:15 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: If you going to trust "Sahih" hadiths, yes, they are going to have a poison against Mohammad that absolutely would prove him evil if they were true.
The people who took the position of political, religious, and all levels of leadership, didn't believe in Mohammad, but just as previous revelations were distorted by the very deceivers who the books came to expose and counter with a real genuine leadership to balance the world out, and bring balance and justice to the world by exposing these deceivers and their falsehood, yes, Islam was also infiltrated.
This includes Sunni and Shiite hadiths.
There is poison in both of them. But don't be afraid of hadiths from any one to fall in your cup, for if one wing of a fly is poison, in the other is the cure.
The hadiths although filled with poison are also faced with insights. I suggest ignoring the rating of "good" "authentic" "weak" "established" "trusted" or "fabricated" and rather, only go them if you seek insights into Quran. That is they are only useful to perceives things in Quran and to compliment the Quran and when use towards other, to reinforce a proper interpretation of Quran that is proved by Quran but you start with the hadith to show the view, to show it's not your own and has proof in the legacy of those who knew the Quran best, lest every persons just babbles about the Quran with no proof what so ever claiming they have the right interpretation.
Yea, so sure, you can cherry pick the things you like and ignore the things that conflict with your empathy which did not come from old books of mythology, but were always in your evolution.
Lots of nasty crap in the Jewish OT and Bible too.
I think most humans ARE decent, but for all the people that use their holy book to justify good, there are plenty that use that same holy book to justify harm to others.
Our evolutionary tribalism is why even under the same umbrella label, there are always sub sects that fight each other over how to interpret the holy writing and or whom to follow and how to follow, for good or bad.
IT IS CHERRY PICKING in every religion, both the non violent sects and the violent sects.
Point is, be it a non violent Christian, or non violent Jew or non violent Muslim, there are other competing sub sects in all those religions who read the same holy writings and justify violence. Point is, if there were a "correct" interpretation, there would be no argument between different sects of the same religions.
Religion has never been, nor ever will be a perfect way of conducting political diplomacy. You CANT get rid of any religion, no. But if all sides think they got it right, and all sub sects think they got it right, then all that can do is cause division.
BUT, if everyone decides to leave religion outside of politics, and everyone agrees to protect everyone equally, then anything political can be based on common needs instead of common religious beliefs.
