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]

[Angrboda]

[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]

[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.