It is irrelevant because it is a "Sunni" Hadith? What makes it "Sunni"? The fact that it's in Sunan Abu Dawud?" You're flat out wrong, because the only way it would be irrelevant is if it had a weak isnad and was not sahih, which it does/is not. I'm curious why you believe Sunnis "created the term Shia". Shia means followers in Arabic, and was an Arabic word well before Muhammad was born. The people who killed Uthman called themselves Shiʻat-ul Ali (followers of Ali). Where have I discriminated them? And you are posting contradictory concepts here. If both are true, the Qur'an and Sunnah are the ones labeling them as non-Muslims. Not me.
I really hope nobody thinks the couple of idiots in this thread represent a majority of Muslims. At the same time, after reading this forum and speaking with some of my Muslim friends the problems within the Muslim community are bigger then any of us want to admit. It is easier for me to think that a vast majority of Muslims are open minded and willing to except others. But quite the contrary is true. This in turn is quite depressing as I don't think it truly represents Islam and what Muhammed had in mind.
And you have been calling me and a few others here Islamists. Not to mention calling me "r****ded" (an affront to your parents), and "stupid" constantly. If you're gonna whine about name calling, how about not engaging in it? Makes you look more and more like a Nazi hypocrite.
I don't think showtang is aware of this, actually, and neither is penda45 (they are kind of similar). Both seem sincere but blind to me. Mathloom, why do you sometimes sound so reasonable, and then suddenly you slip and something crazy comes out ?
In my opinion I don't consider Ahmadis to be Muslims. I do not consider them kafir because that is a term reserved for atheists, pagans, and those who reject the oneness of God. "What should be done with these people"? WTF? Nothing... This isn't Nazi Germany. Why should other Muslims avoid interacting and buying from them? Do you somehow believe that all Muslims avoid interacting and buying things from non-Muslims?
Islamist is a vague term. Depending on perspective, one could view it as a positive or negative term. You don't take it as a compliment? If not, why not? Yeah. Sorry. Not. I wish I could take it back, but every additional post you make just makes it more obvious.
No, because apparently that is what many in Pakistan believe. And judging from your posts here and how you speak in derogatory terms of people who do not happen to share your exact views, I was (and am) unsure of how much that influences your actual attitude and real-life behavior. It happens a lot, it seems. Not in "Nazi Germany". In Pakistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8744092.stm Why Pakistan's Ahmadi community is officially detested By Mohammed Hanif BBC News, Karachi When a Pakistani Muslim applies for a passport or national ID card, they are asked to sign an oath that no Muslim anywhere in the world is asked to sign. The oath goes like this: "I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims." Like millions of other Pakistanis, I have signed this oath several times without giving much thought to exactly what Mr Ahmad stands for, or what the technical difference between Lahoris or Qadianis is. I want my passport, and if I have to sign up to a fatwa to get it, so be it. But like millions of people from my generation I also remember that when I was growing up, the minority Ahmadi sect were considered just another Muslim sect. Non-Muslims Like scores of others I had friends who were Ahmadis. We played cricket together, and sometimes, when our parents ordered us off to the mosque, we even prayed side by side. Ahmadis are despised by many Pakistanis Last month, when more than 90 Ahmadis were massacred in two mosques in Lahore, I remembered the precise moment in 1974 when it all began to change. There were street protests by religious parties against Ahmadis demanding that they should be declared non-Muslims. One day I saw some bearded activists standing outside a clothes merchant's shop in our town, chanting anti-Ahmadi slogans and turning customers away, telling them that buying clothes from Ahmadis was haram - forbidden. At the time I was learning to memorise the Koran from a very kind, mild-mannered teacher. I asked him what exactly was wrong with the Ahmadis. He explained to me that they didn't believe that the Prophet Muhammad was the last and the final messenger. I said OK, maybe that makes them kafirs, infidels, but who says that kafirs can't sell cloth? My teacher's response was a full-handed slap, so sudden, so unexpected that it rang in my ears for days to come. That same year Pakistan's first elected parliament declared Ahmadis non-Muslims. Then in 1984 Pakistan's military dictator and self-appointed guardian of the faith General Zia-ul-Haq inserted that oath in the constitution that we are all required to sign. Because of the new laws, Ahmadis have been sent to prison simply for using the Muslim greeting Assalamu alaikum, or putting a Koranic verse in a greeting card. Heretic Over the last three decades the hatred against Ahmadis has become so widespread that Pakistan is now embarrassed by the only Nobel laureate it has ever produced. Attacks on Ahmadis are beconing increasingly commonplace Dr Abdus Salam Khan won the Nobel Prize for physics and, as a proud Pakistani, accepted his award in national dress. But he was an Ahmadi so there is no monument to celebrate him, no universities named after him. The word "Muslim" on his gravestone has been erased. Even the town he is buried in has been renamed in an attempt to erase our collective memory. This hatred was evident in the reactions to the massacre. TV channels were more obsessed with making sure that in their broadcasts Ahmadi mosques were called "places of worship". When you refuse to call a place of worship by its proper name, you are implying that it's not a mosque, it's not a church, it's not a synagogue, it's a place where godless people do godless things. And all the various Islamic political parties, whose leaders often refuse to pray together, are united on this. When Pakistan's main opposition leader Nawaz Sharif used the phrase "our brothers" for the murdered Ahmadis, leaders from 11 political parties came together to condemn him and threatened to issue a fatwa declaring him a heretic. Over the last three decades the siege has been so palpable that those Ahmadis who couldn't afford to emigrate have taken to hiding their identity. If you want to destroy someone in public life it's enough to drop a hint that they are Ahmadi. In the 1980s, the former chief minister of Punjab and current federal minister didn't attend his own mother's funeral because there were rumours that she was an Ahmadi. When the funerals of the massacred Ahmadis took place there were no officials, no politicians present. Pakistan's liberal bloggers and some English-language columnists did write along the lines that Ahmadi blood is on our hands. Others were adamant that it was yet another Friday, yet another massacre by the Pakistani Taliban, and we should just fight this sort of terrorism and leave the sectarian debates alone. Two incidents in the past week made me realise how pathological our response was. At a vigil to mark the massacre, where a handful of people had turned up, a passer-by asked me "Are you an Ahmadi?" My own loud and aggressive denial surprised me. Then an Ahmadi friend whose father survived the Lahore massacre wrote to me saying: "You know we have been living like this for decades. [Did] something like this have to happen for you to speak up?"
So because it happens in Pakistan, you somehow believed I would agree with that sentiment? Despite the fact that not a few posts ago I told you Pakistan was a failed country? Does that somehow make sense in your mind?
No, because you appear to be a very aggressive person who has been speaking in aggressive and derogatory terms of (muslim and non-muslim) people who do not share your views.
Because Sunni Hadith is only valid to SUNNIS. lol Compiled by Sunnis. Written by Sunnis. Collected by Sunnis. Categorized by Sunnis. Without the approval of the Prophet PBUH. Do you understand that these were not rational people? Sunnis created the label "Shia" for this group of people. Realizing that this means creation of a sect, they subsequently called them non-Muslims, and started claiming "we are not a sect, we are just Muslims" as if laying claim to Islam. You are implying that they have deviated from the Quran when they haven't done so anymore than anyone else. They are every bit as Muslim as you are. Even in Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet PBUH says to follow his example and that of the subsequent Khalifas. Ali is a khalifa, so they are as right to emulate him as Sunnis are to obsess over imitating the actions of the Prophet PBUH. The Quran has provided characteristics of a group of people. It does not name names. It does not specifiy a group of people. Most importantly, the Quran is meant to be from God. The Sunnah has absolutely no right to call people kuffaar. As per the Quran, the Prophet PBUH is the messenger for the delivery of the Quran. I can't fathom how you come to the conclusion that you, through multiple religious leaders, through Bukhari, through another chain of people, through the Prophet PBUH can label someone a Kaafir. To make it clear: no human, including the Prophet PBUH, can decide which group of people the verse is referring to unless it is expressly stated. The Quran is meant to apply to all times, which means that if the verse is in fact referring to Shia, then the verse was obsolete for the period of time when there were no sects following the revelation of the verse. Can a Quranic verse be obsolete?
Why do you argue so much based on what is written in the Quran, which was written by men many centuries ago? It just seems to be kind of a circular reference. How does it prove that you are wrong or right if you happen to know what some other dude wrote down like 1300 or so years ago, and you can somehow squeeze what you are saying into seemingly being in accordance what that dude wrote a long time ago?
Wow. Insane. One night I miss out and this happens. Too late to reply to many of the posts, some I agree with some I don't, but I will say this: to be "labeled" a Muslim there is one thing you need to believe in, and that is the creed of Islam, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is his messenger." If you believe that, you are Muslim. If you don't, then you are not. Simple. Any belief other than that, it is left to Allah to decide whether you are Muslim or not (apart from maybe a few obvious things). As far as Ismaili's go, I'm not sure what to think about them. Every time I've tried to talk to an Ismaili about their beliefs they tend to avoid the conversation. Every time I've tried to go to one of their centers to maybe see what they are all about, I've gotten kicked out. And I don't trust any online sources for obvious reasons. So, for now, I'm undecided (unless they do believe in the creed of Islam). As far as sects go, I really don't like to label myself as Sunni or Ahlal Sunnah Wa al Jam'ah or anything, but it seems with so many different belief systems within Islam I am forced to.
Not rational people? Mind explaining what made Bukhari an irrational person? A hadith is a hadith. If the train of narration is credible and it is authentic, that is all that should matter. This particular hadith is narrated by Awf ibn Malik, and he was neither Sunni nor Shia. According to you, Shia Muslims should reject the hadith entirely because, even though it is authentic, it was compiled by a Sunni. Do you fail to see how illogical that is? Have a source for the claim that Sunnis created the label Shia (despite Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr calling himself "Shi'at-ul Ali" [follower of Ali]). What a vague response. They disagree with the shahada. The shahada is the statement of a Muslim. Umm, no the Prophet (pbuh) does not say to follow the example of the subsequent caliphs. You have the hadith messed up, and stating it ignorantly like that is innovation: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel. Whenever a Prophet died, another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will, soon be Khalifahs and they will number many. They asked 'What then do you order us?' He said: fulfill allegiance to them one by one. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what He entrusted them with. Do you see anything to do with emulation there? Ali was Caliph and was part of the al-Khulafa ar-Rashidun, but that does not make him infallible.
1) No, a hadith is not a hadith. The credibility is subjective and dependant on the opinion of regular people. Your claim to authenticity is based on Bukhari deciding, in many cases after a person is dead, that the person would never lie. Think about this for a second. A guy from Bukhara (North West of Iran) comes to the gulf, and starts collecting the words of the Prophet PBUH and decides through impromptu interviews that a deceased person was honest and would never lie. His criteria is that he must establish that the people who narrated the hadiths are HONEST and TRUSTWORTHY. Furthermore, we both know that there was a huge movement of liars attempting to CREATE hadith for personal gain. As an example I offer you the guy who narrated that the Prophet PBUH said that eating eggplant improves your chances of going to heaven. Subsequently he was found to have made this up because he was selling eggplants . Or the brief time period where people started believing that the Prophet PBUH was created from light? I urge you to read Bukhari's book of false hadiths which gives a fantastic window into the environment at the time. This is not a spiritual, goody-goody environment. This is an environment filled with people out for revenge, commercial profit, apostasy, and sometimes outright slander. The Sahaba, according to Sunni Islam, is almost anyone who saw the Prophet PBUH. Consider the fact that there is an entire Sura ((#63) dedicated to liars among the Muslims whom the Prophet PBUH could not even distinguish at times. How does that hold up? THESE ARE NOT RATIONAL PEOPLE. BUKHARI IS A HUMAN BEING AND HIS METHOD WAS THE BEST AT THE TIME BUT NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH TO ELIMINATE ALL LIES. So when a shiite tells you "we don't accept hadiths from so and so" they have good reason to do so. They are simply disagreeing with Bukhari using equivalent methods of cross-checking. So no, a hadith is not a hadith, because the chain of narration is incredibly subjective and prone to error simply because there are humans involved in a fiercely political environment during an economic boom. To even say that the SAHIH hadith are all accurate is blasphemous and goes against the Quran. Only the Quran can be Sahih. Everything else is flawed, and since we can not make it 100% accurate and determine exactly where the errors are, you are essentially participating in a gambling process hoping that there were no errors in relaying the stories. Bukhari never intended for you people to do to his work what you have done with it. He intended to simply say "this is what i could find, this is who said it, this is what I could find out about their personality." It was never meant to be a tool for creating law or (astaghfurAllah) supplementing the Quran. It was simply meant to grab a snapshot of something before it dissapeared. But it is what it is: a collection of stories from people who tried to recollect what the Prophet PBUH said. Some were evil liars, some were decent honest people, and some just didnt remember the facts perfectly. 2) You would not accept a non-Sunni source, and obviously no Sunni source would claim to have done this. You are well aware that the historic period we are discussing was rarely, if ever, directly seen by independent third parties. 3) They don't disagree with the shahada. They just insist on remaining bitter that Ali was not the first Khalifah and keep bringing it up with the shahada. But they do not disagree with Laa Illaaha Illa Allah or Muhammadun Rasul Allah. If I said that God is one and Jesus PBUH was his Prophet, I wouldn't be disagreeing with the shahada, would I? 4) I was hoping you would claim this. Pwnage from Imam Nawawi's Fourty Hadiths: Look it up, ask your parents, your friends, your imam, everyone. FYI, if not for Khalifas creating law for you, then slavery would still be allowed for you. Do you think God allows you to take a slave now? Ali was a human, and the Prophet PBUH was a human and they are both fallible. The only difference between the two according to the Quran is that the Prophet PBUH was protected from error only in his role as messenger of the Quran. This is why the Prophet PBUH made errors in that he made haram what was halal (Quran 66:1) and when he "frowned" at a blind man annoying him with questions (80:1). Key lessons: the Prophet PBUH can mess up, and most important, he can't create law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread is evidence of why we just try to keep a low profile. As in every religion, some sects are persecuted and some are the persecutors. And yes, we say the Shahada on a daily basis. lmao, you should see Toronto or Vancouver then, not many Mexicans though
Haha, I spent 7 months in Toronto for work a couple years ago (and a good amount of time in Vancouver just hanging out). Didn't notice the Ismailis, but did notice the sheer number of South Asians (especially Punjabi Sikhs) in both cities.
