Why I'm here: a Muslim. My Philosophy in life. What is yours;Muslim?

[Edwardo Piet]

[WinterHold]

11% is a big number in economy, you can picture what a city like New York would lose if 11% of the countrey's oil is gone. Moreover; you can count how many companies would close, yes America will not fall, but it will be damaged for a while.

Nothing would happen to new york. We have more oil..lol, we buy it from the middle east because they sell it cheap.  The umma really is powerless when it comes to the united states.  Allah, it would seem..is with us. 

First of all, there is no "Umma". The Islamic world today is a group of distinct countries with each swearing allegiance to a certain foreign force. For example Saudi Arabia has the USA, Syria has Russia, Egypt has the USA...etc. The Islamic countries are ruled by puppets who serve whoever pay higher.
You buy Oil from the M.E because it's a rare power source that doesn't exist anywhere but on special locations, and the M.E is one of them. Location, Location, Location.

There's a phrase about every great empire being destroyed from the inside before it's conquered from the outside. They definitely weren't at their best. They;d fallen from their prior slave state greatness by the beginning of the 1800's. The ottomans of old were badasses..ofc, so was rome, and every other now defunct empire. Fuck man, the british used to be even bigger ballers than all of em. Those assholes conquered the entire world.

The Ottomans drifted away from the morals and values that kept their state alive for so long; once they embraced the Turkish nationalism and began to rule their empire like European kings; they fell immediately.

[The Grand Nudger]

First of all, there is no "Umma". The Islamic world today is a group of distinct countries with each swearing allegiance to a certain foreign force. For example Saudi Arabia has the USA, Syria has Russia, Egypt has the USA...etc. The Islamic countries are ruled by puppets who serve whoever pay higher.
You buy Oil from the M.E because it's a rare power source that doesn't exist anywhere but on special locations, and the M.E is one of them. Location, Location, Location.

That;s the silliest thing I've ever heard.  If location were the determining factor we'd buy more than we do from the people we already buy most of our oil from.  It isn't.  

The Ottomans drifted away from the morals and values that kept their state alive for so long; once they embraced the Turkish nationalism and began to rule their empire like European kings; they fell immediately.

Yeah, that must have been it.  Had nothing to do with the collapse of their military superiority and constant rebellions from arab islamists.

[WinterHold]

What is wrong with supplementing our understanding of the Quran with the words of Mohammed and other contemporaries of the time?  (i.e. the hadith)

Who said that the Hadith is the word of Mohammed? Immediately after his death, civil wars hit the Islamic world and led to great divide in Islam, one that we still see until today (Sunni/Shiite division).

The Hadith cannot be trusted.

I believe in the Quran being the word of God, and I take a huge leap of faith in that process.
I can't do the same for Hadith books.

---

It;s an interesting question.  The most credible supplementals are authenticated by the exact same process that produced the quran.  It would seem that any notion that the hadith are fundamentally dubious would wrap up the quran as well.

I also think that it would be difficult to conceptualize or contextualize what islam was or is without all of those contemporary documents doing and being exactly that.

It's not the same.

For the Quran: you have direct speech (verses) that Mohammed himself recited and dictated on men called "Kottab al Wahee- Writers of the Revelation". Their job was to sit with Mohammed and write what he says. That is the Quran.

For the Hadith: after 100 years of Mohammed's death, some Muslims began a tradition of asking around for other things that Mohammed said. Scholars began to make libraries with the talks and rumors they heard, they wrote it down, and that is the Hadith.

They are totally different.

[WinterHold]

Bump.  Atlas, you never answered my question.  Given that it is an important question in relation to your beliefs, I'm repeating it in hopes you'll answer it.

What is wrong with supplementing our understanding of the Quran with the words of Mohammed and other contemporaries of the time?  (i.e. the hadith)

Just stressing on my answer: the Hadith cannot be trusted as an authentic source; i.e it doesn't satisfy the premise of it being a heavenly revelation.

---

Because it would hurt them, not us.  They need to sell it, we don;t need to buy it.  I

Are you sure about that? America is used to having plentiful amounts of oil. It can no longer produce it in any great quantities but most people there still drive massive gas guzzling cars.Not to mention that you generally need to drive everywhere. This is from a European perspective anyway.

It is a very needed commodity for the U.S's insane consumption, operating the joints of a modern empire with the size of the U.S would require crazy amounts of fuel, even the 11% Khem. is speaking about would have a key role.

---

Are you sure about that? America is used to having plentiful amounts of oil. It can no longer produce it in any great quantities but most people there still drive massive gas guzzling cars.Not to mention that you generally need to drive everywhere. This is from a European perspective anyway.

I;m entirely certain of it.  That's just how the math breaks down.  The margins imported from the middle east are replaceable.  We buy it from them because they sell it cheaper than their competitors and cheaper than we could produce it.  Not because we couldn;t buy form their competitors (we're fucking rich) or that we couldn;t produce it (we have idle production).

The middle east is losing it;s economic influence long before a post oil world.  Thats a part of the cause of all the unrest (and of islamic terrorism, for that matter).  Though some islamists (like our buddy here) still cling to a past in which they were somehow the lifeblood of civilization in the west and could effect it...in the face of their growing irrelevance.

The ME needs to get right, quick...or they'll end up like the man who made the finest buggy whips in town.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomps...75efbe3a77

Yes, the U.S -and the whole modern world- will probably get rid of oil in the future, but for now America do need that oil.
The past you speak about is "80 years ago". And it costed generations of Arabs to live under monarchs kept in power by American military protection:

The biggest losers would be the Arab oil states grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council, most of which are monarchies kept in power by a combination oil dollars and American military power.  Despite their oil revenues, none of these countries except Saudi Arabia has the wherewithal to defend itself against military pressure from Iran if America leaves the stage -- or for that matter from Iraq, which has repeatedly laid claim to oil fields in Kuwait and other nearby states.  The vacuum created by an American departure would force nations like Bahrain and Qatar to seek new military protectors, either by submitting to the influence of bigger regional powers or by reaching out to China.

That's "Forbes" saying; not me !

[Angrboda]

Just stressing on my answer: the Hadith cannot be trusted as an authentic source; i.e it doesn't satisfy the premise of it being a heavenly revelation.

What you mean to say is that it is your opinion that the hadith are unreliable. Other Muslims disagree with you. Are you the arbiter of what are and are not reliable accounts of Mohammed? Wikipedia has this to say about it's authority: "Quranic verses (such as 24:54, 33:21) enjoin Muslims to emulate Muhammad and obey his judgements, providing scriptural authority for ahadith." In addition, there does not appear to be an early tradition of Quranic authority and accurate preservation as Muslims claim, with the first manuscript copies of the Quran dating to 200 years after the time of Mohammed. What exactly is your so-called premise of it being a heavenly revelation? It doesn't appear that such is even necessary for the hadith to have authority.

---

I came across an interesting argument while googling.

Premise 1: Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not.

Premise 2: If the Bible is the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.

Premise 3: If the Bible is not the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Qur’an is not the Word of God.

A Simple Reason Why The Qur’an Cannot Be The Word of God

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Bump.  Atlas, you never answered my question.  Given that it is an important question in relation to your beliefs, I'm repeating it in hopes you'll answer it.

What is wrong with supplementing our understanding of the Quran with the words of Mohammed and other contemporaries of the time?  (i.e. the hadith)

The hadiths were written centuries after Mohammed supposedly bit the dust.  They are pure fiction.

[Abaddon_ire]

Bump.  Atlas, you never answered my question.  Given that it is an important question in relation to your beliefs, I'm repeating it in hopes you'll answer it.

The hadiths were written centuries after Mohammed supposedly bit the dust.  They are pure fiction.

Like the bible.

[WinterHold]

Just stressing on my answer: the Hadith cannot be trusted as an authentic source; i.e it doesn't satisfy the premise of it being a heavenly revelation.

What you mean to say is that it is your opinion that the hadith are unreliable.  Other Muslims disagree with you.  Are you the arbiter of what are and are not reliable accounts of Mohammed?  Wikipedia has this to say about it's authority: "Quranic verses (such as 24:54, 33:21) enjoin Muslims to emulate Muhammad and obey his judgements, providing scriptural authority for ahadith."  In addition, there does not appear to be an early tradition of Quranic authority and accurate preservation as Muslims claim, with the first manuscript copies of the Quran dating to 200 years after the time of Mohammed.  What exactly is your so-called premise of it being a heavenly revelation?  It doesn't appear that such is even necessary for the hadith to have authority.

---

No there are other Muslims with the same opinion, but they are not famous:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

Quranism (Arabic: القرآنية‎; al-Qur'āniyya) describes any form of Islam that accepts the Quran as revelation but rejects the religious authority, and/or authenticity of, the Hadith collections. Quranists follow the Quran alone; they believe that its message is clear and complete, and that it can therefore be fully understood without referencing the Hadith. They say that the Hadith literature was forged,[citation needed] as it had been written 250+ years after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

The concept exists from a very long time. I don't consider myself to be a part of the Quranism cult, but I sure am agreeing with on the Hadith for thee most part.

But I have some note on the verses (24:54 and 33:21):


For 24:54:

Sura 24, The Quran:
( 54 )   Say, "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon him is only that [duty] with which he has been charged, and upon you is that with which you have been charged. And if you obey him, you will be [rightly] guided. And there is not upon the Messenger except the [responsibility for] clear notification."

But the prophet is dead. Does his death mean that I follow whatever is said to me about him?
Then I would be a follower of rumors. There is no way to make sure that what is said in the Hadith truly dates to his time; that's 250+ years after his death !

It's the same reason I cited in my previous comment: the literature cannot be trusted.  It's not the authority of Mohammed that I'm rejecting; it's the authority of the Sunni/Shiite institution.

For 33:21

Sura 33, The Quran:
( 21 )   There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.

The commands of God to Mohammed is mentioned in the Quran. I expect him to follow all of them, and that is his pattern.
I don't need a book of rumors -Hadith- to distract me from the main Quranic verses.

Here's an example: Mohammed was ordered by God to pray in certain times:

Sura 29, The Quran:
( 45 )   Recite, [O Muhammad], what has been revealed to you of the Book and establish prayer. Indeed, prayer prohibits immorality and wrongdoing, and the remembrance of Allah is greater. And Allah knows that which you do.

Sura 11, The Quran:
( 114 )   And establish prayer at the two ends of the day and at the approach of the night. Indeed, good deeds do away with misdeeds. That is a reminder for those who remember.

And there many many more of these orders to Mohammed, ranging from praying, to paying the poor.
The Hadith is not really needed.

I came across an interesting argument while googling.

Premise 1: Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not.

Premise 2: If the Bible is the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.

Premise 3: If the Bible is not the Word of God, the Qur’an is not.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Qur’an is not the Word of God.

A Simple Reason Why The Qur’an Cannot Be The Word of God

The complete original Bible doesn't exist today, at least this is what I understand from this Quranic verse:

Sura 5, The Quran:

( 47 )   And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

( 48 )   And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

( 49 )   And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient.

( 50 )   Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain [in faith].

I put a bold over the important parts.
The "people of the Gospel" have correct beliefs but their way is corrupted beyond repair, for a Muslim I cannot adapt verses from their books before consulting the Quran: i.e the inclinations of their scholars ruined the day.

And moreover, the Christians of today are not the same Christians of yesterday to my knowledge. From what I know, they did change a lot, and the Bible itself changed a lot. Towards more inclination if you ask me.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

It;s an interesting question.  The most credible supplementals are authenticated by the exact same process that produced the quran.  It would seem that any notion that the hadith are fundamentally dubious would wrap up the quran as well.

I also think that it would be difficult to conceptualize or contextualize what islam was or is without all of those contemporary documents doing and being exactly that.

It's not the same.

For the Quran: you have direct speech (verses) that Mohammed himself recited and dictated on men called "Kottab al Wahee- Writers of the Revelation". Their job was to sit with Mohammed and write what he says. That is the Quran.

For the Hadith: after 100 years of Mohammed's death, some Muslims began a tradition of asking around for other things that Mohammed said. Scholars began to make libraries with the talks and rumors they heard, they wrote it down, and that is the Hadith.

They are totally different.

-Or so they say, by the exact same chain of custody through which the quran was manufactured.  Casting doubt on the one casts fundamental doubt on the other...but I appreciate that you began (before this rationalizing post) by bluntly describing the reality of the matter..not that they;re demonstrably different from each other..but that you make a massive leap of faith for one and not the other.

Personally, I;d stick to that, it has the benefit of being the truth without all the unnecessary baggage. There's no shame there, and no reason to tie your scrote into knots.