Islam What Do You Think Of Islam?

[AngloSikhPeace]

Uh huh. You do realise that the Quran does not mention "Muslim"? And if that position were true, the people of the book would be automatically out of heaven? And hell in the Quran implies a rather purgatory place, to purge one of his sins? All believers will go to hell. Even Yusuf Estes (i'm not a fan of his at all and he is orthodox and uses Sunni dogma to the max) said this.

Yusuf Estes is not orthodox, he's a Wahhabi. Same with a lot of the famous convert alims.

 

[choochoochan]

Yusuf Estes is not orthodox, he's a Wahhabi. Same with a lot of the famous convert alims.

Wahabism is closely related to Salafism. They rely on the Quran and Hadith without leaving any room whatsoever, for any questions to be raised regarding any of the two. Wahabism is orthodox for mostly middle eastern muslims, mainly the Saudis. I dunno about converts. The Taliban doctrine is inspired by Wahabism.

I am not too sure, but i think Wahabism is closely linked to the Hanbali madabhs and they think adherents of the Hanafi madhabs are close to being kaffirs for their allowance of reasoning.

 

[AngloSikhPeace]

Wahabism is closely related to Salafism. They rely on the Quran and Hadith without leaving any room whatsoever, for any questions to be raised regarding any of the two. Wahabism is orthodox for mostly middle eastern muslims, mainly the Saudis. I dunno about converts. The Taliban doctrine is inspired by Wahabism.

I am not too sure, but i think Wahabism is closely linked to the Hanbali madabhs and they think adherents of the Hanafi madhabs are close to being kaffirs for their allowance of reasoning.

You are correct that Wahhabism is virtually the same as Salafism, in fact you could say that every Wahhabi is a Salafi, but not every Salafi is a Wahhabi. Wahhabi Islam is basically just a Saudi thing and is very unpopular even with other Salafis (most Salafis consider the name an insult). Interestingly, despite the controversy over it in the West, Wahhabism is not really associated with terrorism, in fact the Saudi scholars preach deference to authority rather than rebellion. Other forms of Salafi Islam though are definitely violent, for example the al-Shabbab in Somali are a 100% Salafi organisation.

In the middle east outside of Arabia, Salafi Islam doesn't have a good reputation, iconoclastic militants are not normally well-liked guys, especially in countries like Syria or Egypt with really ancient Orthodox Sunni establishments.


The Taliban are not a Salafi or a Wahhabi group. They are instead influenced by the Deobandi school from the subcontinent, who have long since disowned the Taliban themselves. The Deobandi school itself was originally created in the 19th century as a kind of Indian branch of the Wahhabi movement, but again the current Deobandis have disowned the pro-Wahhabi parts of their roots. Though the rival Barelvis (part of the native, sufi-inclined subcontinental tradition) have not forgotten it, and use the old Wahhabi leanings of the Deobandis as a cudgel against them.

As for Madhabs, you are correct that in SA, most Wahhabis follow the Hanbali school. But firstly there are some legitimate anti-Wahhabi Hanbalis still around, in the UK there's the quite well-known Abu Jafar al-Hanbali for instance, who I was briefly taught by. Secondly, Salafis have no problem with the Hanafi school in specific. In fact, Salafism teaches that it is wrong to follow any particular madhab, and instead Muslims should pick and chose rulings from any school they happen to agree with. The Orthodox viewpoint on the other hand is that whilst all the four madhabs are valid, a Muslim should pick one and then follow the specific rulings from that school.

-----------------------

To the rest of SPN I apologise for this thick block of jargon!

 

[Abneet]

I wasn't forced to convert. In fact, i was never approached to convert.

I am a woman. The Quran gives women the same rights as men, while acknowledging that both are different. The man has an edge over women in terms of physical strength. Is that inaccurate?

Well your the first that I know of that converted without being forced too. Let me tell you this plain and simple. I have nothing against Islam what so ever. I let other religions be unless conflicts occur between different societies. When you mention People taking the Quran seriously it does happen very often. The ones that don't read it from word to word are the ones actually peaceful. The sharia Law is based on the Quran. Now tell me how is Saudi Arabia when it comes to women rights. They restrict their rights and make their lives living hell most of the time. Even in cases where woman end up in jail even being a victim for sexual abuse.

Also I see the point where people don't understand Islam since media in the western hemisphere has destroyed the image of Islam due to different things. But to be honest most terrorists are Muslims in Asia. Why? because their mission is to convert? Why because they say Allah commands us. Where do they get this information? The Quran itself. Literally you can't contradict my statement. I mean what else is their mission?

 

[Luckysingh]

It's usually a muslim boyfriend that helps instigate and ignite the ideas of conversion.
I apologise in advance if choochan had never had any such friend or is very far from falling under this banner.eacesign:

 

[choochoochan]

You are correct that Wahhabism is virtually the same as Salafism, in fact you could say that every Wahhabi is a Salafi, but not every Salafi is a Wahhabi. Wahhabi Islam is basically just a Saudi thing and is very unpopular even with other Salafis (most Salafis consider the name an insult). Interestingly, despite the controversy over it in the West, Wahhabism is not really associated with terrorism, in fact the Saudi scholars preach deference to authority rather than rebellion. Other forms of Salafi Islam though are definitely violent, for example the al-Shabbab in Somali are a 100% Salafi organisation.

In the middle east outside of Arabia, Salafi Islam doesn't have a good reputation, iconoclastic militants are not normally well-liked guys, especially in countries like Syria or Egypt with really ancient Orthodox Sunni establishments.


The Taliban are not a Salafi or a Wahhabi group. They are instead influenced by the Deobandi school from the subcontinent, who have long since disowned the Taliban themselves. The Deobandi school itself was originally created in the 19th century as a kind of Indian branch of the Wahhabi movement, but again the current Deobandis have disowned the pro-Wahhabi parts of their roots. Though the rival Barelvis (part of the native, sufi-inclined subcontinental tradition) have not forgotten it, and use the old Wahhabi leanings of the Deobandis as a cudgel against them.

As for Madhabs, you are correct that in SA, most Wahhabis follow the Hanbali school. But firstly there are some legitimate anti-Wahhabi Hanbalis still around, in the UK there's the quite well-known Abu Jafar al-Hanbali for instance, who I was briefly taught by. Secondly, Salafis have no problem with the Hanafi school in specific. In fact, Salafism teaches that it is wrong to follow any particular madhab, and instead Muslims should pick and chose rulings from any school they happen to agree with. The Orthodox viewpoint on the other hand is that whilst all the four madhabs are valid, a Muslim should pick one and then follow the specific rulings from that school.

-----------------------

To the rest of SPN I apologise for this thick block of jargon!

That's interesting. TBH, i've never gone into great details with the madhabs and the different Fiqhs. Thanks for this!

Whatever it may be, the Wahabbis scare me.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Uh huh. You do realise that the Quran does not mention "Muslim"?

Are you sure you're reading the Qur'an? Doesn't sound like it :/

http://quran.com/search?q=Muslim

And if that position were true, the people of the book would be automatically out of heaven?

And hell in the Quran implies a rather purgatory place, to purge one of his sins? All believers will go to hell. Even Yusuf Estes (i'm not a fan of his at all and he is orthodox and uses Sunni dogma to the max) said this.

Correctamundo! According to Islam, the people of the book ARE out of heaven.

The Qur'an makes it very clear that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were, at one point, pure and true. However, they became adulterated over time and no longer remain the word of God. All Christians and Jews, up until the time of Muhammad, if they followed their religions properly, will be going to heaven. However, after Muhammad came and established his religion, those Christians and Jews who heard about the message of Islam and rejected it, will be going to heaven. No 72 virgins for the people of the book, I am afraid.

I implore you to move away from what the Mullahs have proclaimed Islam to be. Can you do that? If anyone who refused to believe the hadiths are kaffirs, that would include the earliest muslims . Hadiths were not in the mainstay of Islam till al-shafi came about making it an important component of Islamic jurisprudence. In fact, there is a hadith where Muhammad prohibits the recording of his actions/statements except the Quran and the Quran itself makes a prohibition by stating what other hadith does Man want besides the Quran which is the perfect hadith.

I couldn't care less what the Mullahs have proclaimed Islam to be. Although I do wonder, what makes you think you are a greater authority on Islam than those people who have spent their entire lives studying it in depth? What makes you think your idea of Islam is somehow superior to that of the scholars?

In any case, you should spend some time reviewing Islamic history before making fallacious proclamations. Muhammad himself said that his Ummah would be split into 73 sects, and out of those 73, 72 will be going to hell and only one will be going to heaven. Someone asked, 'O Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).'

In other words, those Muslims who follow the path of Muhammad's Sahaba. 'Sunni' is short for 'ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah', which means, the people of the Sunnah [way of the Prophet Muhamamd] and the majority of Scholars; this name is used to desigante correct belief, for when minorities started to break away from the main-body of Muslims in the early days of Islam and started to form their own sects

You are not just disagreeing with me here, you are disagreeing with your own prophet.

One read of ONE hadith would explain to me at least, why they aren't to be trusted. A told B that B heard C telling D that E heard Muhammad saying or doing something. WOW. If that isn't hearsay evidence at its best, i dunno what is.

I really can't figure you out, you call yourself a Muslim but seem to have very limited knowledge on all-things Islamic. People don't just accept hadiths that some guy pulled out of his ***, there is a scientific method applied to determine which hadiths are authentic and which are not. You can close your eyes and cover your ears all you wish, but you are only fooling yourself. If you wish, I can post a link which shows you how authentic hadiths are determined and separated from the false ones.

Sorry, this is the Quranic rule i apply. To use critical thinking to everything before accepting anything.

The Qur'an also says that whosoever disobeys Allah AND His messenger is a disbeliever, by rejecting the hadiths, the Sunnah, the life-and times of the prophet, you have effectively taken yourself out of the folds of Islam. You can't pick and choose which verses you like and which you want to ignore. Either accept everything the Qur'an says, or don't accept anything at all.

I suggest you do the same. And as if i haven't heard that. Oh Kaffir! A proclamation by MAN! Shiver me timbers!:icecreamkudi:

I stand by everything I have said earlier. You need to re-educate yourself on your own religion and re-evaluate your religious stance.

 

[spnadmin]

Exploring Sikhi ji

I don't see any need to call the question on whether choochoochan is setting herself up as an authority or challenging accepted views. She has read, reflected and is now expressing her evaluation of what she has read and what she has absorbed. These are her opinions. Has she made any claim beyond that?

Who are the ultimate authorities? Who has the last word?

choochoochan says that she was a Sikh before she was a Muslim. Maybe she is bringing the Sikh tradition of parchaar to the Quran and had'ith. That is a novel twist and one that I have found intriguing. An engaged mind she has; a conformist she is not.

 

[choochoochan]

Well your the first that I know of that converted without being forced too. Let me tell you this plain and simple. I have nothing against Islam what so ever. I let other religions be unless conflicts occur between different societies. When you mention People taking the Quran seriously it does happen very often. The ones that don't read it from word to word are the ones actually peaceful. The sharia Law is based on the Quran. Now tell me how is Saudi Arabia when it comes to women rights. They restrict their rights and make their lives living hell most of the time. Even in cases where woman end up in jail even being a victim for sexual abuse.

Also I see the point where people don't understand Islam since media in the western hemisphere has destroyed the image of Islam due to different things. But to be honest most terrorists are Muslims in Asia. Why? because their mission is to convert? Why because they say Allah commands us. Where do they get this information? The Quran itself. Literally you can't contradict my statement. I mean what else is their mission?

Actually, most of Sharia law is based on ahadith.

As for SA, lemme give you an example. They prohibit women from driving cars but Aisha, and several other early muslim women rode horses into battle. I honestly, do not know where they got that from.

Conversions, these forced conversions are not something supported in light of the Quran. The verse quoted ad nauseum about there being no compulsion in religion, and the fact that the Quran states that there are false believers who pretend to be believers, and they can't fool God.

There is a lot of controversy in the Islamic world. For instance, the concept of mansukh and nasikh, where it is believed a large portion of the peaceful verses were replaced or abrogated by the more violent verses. A large chunk of those who practice forced conversions believe in the prevalance of the violent verses. They place reliance on a few verses or ayahs which say that none of the revelations are caused to be abrogated or forgotten only by the will of God, and if that is so, they are replaced by better verses. So, most of those who believe in this, would believe that only those who submit to the will of God, not the Jews or Christians would be allowed into paradise. And there shall be no olive branch to the unbelievers, but a sword forcing them to convert.

I do not believe in this and nor do a majority of Muslims. The key provision is cause to be forgotten. Those not in the Quran, are to be forgotten. One example is the punishment of Rajm (stoning). It is not in the Quran, but it is apparently derived from the hadiths. Stoning is prescribed in the Torah, but taken away in the Gospel. In the Quran, there is no mention of this.

Arrr! If we go into this, we have to look at the history of the hadith and i believe you can search for this, through Mr Google. I'm not in the business of proselyting anyone, lest i be accused of such activity.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Admin Ji,

Exploring Sikhi ji

I don't see any need to call the question on whether choochoochan is setting herself up as an authority or challenging accepted views. She has read, reflected and is now expressing her evaluation of what she has read and what she has absorbed. These are her opinions. Has she made any claim beyond that?

it was a rhetorical question, I do not expect a reply. I wanted her to reflect over it, I don't care if she answers back or not.

Who are the ultimate authorities? Who has the last word?

I don't know how it works in Sikhism, but in Islam, scholars are of great importance and must be obeyed. And this is not from the hadith, this is from the Qur'an. The fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree on the importance of Muhammad's Sunnah, and she rejects it, seems like she is cherry picking what she wants and disregarding what she doesn't like.

choochoochan says that she was a Sikh before she was a Muslim. Maybe she is bringing the Sikh tradition of parchaar to the Quran and had'ith. That is a novel twist and one that I have found intriguing. An engaged mind she has; a conformist she is not.

I have no idea what parchaar is.

Nevertheless, although it is great she has an engaged mind, it does not give her the right to call herself a Muslim and hold beliefs which are so clearly against Islamic teachings. Sikhism may allow for flexibility, but Islam is far less ambiguous. I don't make the rules.

 

[choochoochan]

Are you sure you're reading the Qur'an? Doesn't sound like it :/

http://quran.com/search?q=Muslim


Correctamundo! According to Islam, the people of the book ARE out of heaven.

The Qur'an makes it very clear that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were, at one point, pure and true. However, they became adulterated over time and no longer remain the word of God. All Christians and Jews, up until the time of Muhammad, if they followed their religions properly, will be going to heaven. However, after Muhammad came and established his religion, those Christians and Jews who heard about the message of Islam and rejected it, will be going to heaven. No 72 virgins for the people of the book, I am afraid.



I couldn't care less what the Mullahs have proclaimed Islam to be. Although I do wonder, what makes you think you are a greater authority on Islam than those people who have spent their entire lives studying it in depth? What makes you think your idea of Islam is somehow superior to that of the scholars?

In any case, you should spend some time reviewing Islamic history before making fallacious proclamations. Muhammad himself said that his Ummah would be split into 73 sects, and out of those 73, 72 will be going to hell and only one will be going to heaven. Someone asked, 'O Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him), who will they be?' He replied, 'The main body of the Muslims (al-Jama'ah).'

In other words, those Muslims who follow the path of Muhammad's Sahaba. 'Sunni' is short for 'ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah', which means, the people of the Sunnah [way of the Prophet Muhamamd] and the majority of Scholars; this name is used to desigante correct belief, for when minorities started to break away from the main-body of Muslims in the early days of Islam and started to form their own sects

You are not just disagreeing with me here, you are disagreeing with your own prophet.



I really can't figure you out, you call yourself a Muslim but seem to have very limited knowledge on all-things Islamic. People don't just accept hadiths that some guy pulled out of his ***, there is a scientific method applied to determine which hadiths are authentic and which are not. You can close your eyes and cover your ears all you wish, but you are only fooling yourself. If you wish, I can post a link which shows you how authentic hadiths are determined and separated from the false ones.



The Qur'an also says that whosoever disobeys Allah AND His messenger is a disbeliever, by rejecting the hadiths, the Sunnah, the life-and times of the prophet, you have effectively taken yourself out of the folds of Islam. You can't pick and choose which verses you like and which you want to ignore. Either accept everything the Qur'an says, or don't accept anything at all.



I stand by everything I have said earlier. You need to re-educate yourself on your own religion and re-evaluate your religious stance.

Blah blah blah

The science of the hadiths? You mean the one where they see whether they can "trace" the sayings to the Prophet?

The hadith are NOT the Sunnah. They are just assumed to be the Sunnah. If the Prophet comes before me NOW and tells me something, yea sure. But please do not expect me to respect the science of the hadiths just because the word "science" is in it. It is anything but scientific.

Here you go, your "science".

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/hadsciences.html

Where did you get the following concept from? Zakir Naik?? Oh "Dr" Naik.

"All Christians and Jews, up until the time of Muhammad, if they followed their religions properly, will be going to heaven. However, after Muhammad came and established his religion, those Christians and Jews who heard about the message of Islam and rejected it, will be going to heaven."

 

[choochoochan]

Exploring Sikhi ji

I don't see any need to call the question on whether choochoochan is setting herself up as an authority or challenging accepted views. She has read, reflected and is now expressing her evaluation of what she has read and what she has absorbed. These are her opinions. Has she made any claim beyond that?

Who are the ultimate authorities? Who has the last word?

choochoochan says that she was a Sikh before she was a Muslim. Maybe she is bringing the Sikh tradition of parchaar to the Quran and had'ith. That is a novel twist and one that I have found intriguing. An engaged mind she has; a conformist she is not.

I still revere the words of Guru Nanak above any of these fuddy duddy authorities of Islam. Seems to me, he got it right. Thanks for the kinds words, in any event.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

Blah blah blah

^^ The equivalent to shutting your eyes and covering your ears. Thank you for proving my point.

The science of the hadiths? You mean the one where they see whether they can "trace" the sayings to the Prophet?

The hadith are NOT the Sunnah. They are just assumed to be the Sunnah. If the Prophet comes before me NOW and tells me something, yea sure. But please do not expect me to respect the science of the hadiths just because the word "science" is in it. It is anything but scientific.

Here you go, your "science".

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/hadsciences.html

Here's a suggestion: read the link, maybe you'll learn something from it.

Please explain to me what is unscientific about the concept.

Let me make myself clear: I think that Islam, while it has some nice teachings, and I like the unity within the religion, is overall a very large load of baloney. I speak for no one but myself, so please do not think that my sentiments are shared by everyone on SPN.

Where did you get the following concept from? Zakir Naik?? Oh "Dr" Naik.

"All Christians and Jews, up until the time of Muhammad, if they followed their religions properly, will be going to heaven. However, after Muhammad came and established his religion, those Christians and Jews who heard about the message of Islam and rejected it, will be going to heaven."

Lool @ "Dr." Zakir Naik, I wouldn't pay him to diagnose my dog, the man is an absolute joke. No, I have not gotten my information from him. I have gotten it from the QUR'AN.

Look girl, I couldn't care less about your personal beliefs, if you want to practice a wishy-washy version of Islam which is denounced by over 99% of Muslims around the world, then by all means go ahead, I would even fight for your right to do so. But please do not make it sound like your version of Islam actually holds any merit, I do not want an uninformed non-Muslim to come on here, read your posts and get the wrong idea about Islam. Please do not take my posts as personal insults, I am simply pointing out that your beliefs are rejected by the vast vast vast vast vast majority of Muslims in the world, and that a lot of what you say contradicts the Qur'an.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

I still revere the words of Guru Nanak above any of these fuddy duddy authorities of Islam. Seems to me, he got it right. Thanks for the kinds words, in any event.

This is nice and everything, but it is also anti-Islamic. Guru Nanak was not a Muslim, to place greater value in his words than those of the "authorities of Islam" is in itself enough to make you an unbeliever.

Guru Nanak held many beliefs which were anti-Islamic, I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your stance on religion, because, and this is not my opinion but the opinion of the scholars, you are not a Muslim.

 

[choochoochan]

I don't know how it works in Sikhism, but in Islam, scholars are of great importance and must be obeyed. And this is not from the hadith, this is from the Qur'an. The fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree on the importance of Muhammad's Sunnah, and she rejects it, seems like she is cherry picking what she wants and disregarding what she doesn't like.

Where does it say in the Quran that scholars must be obeyed??? Surah 4:59?? those with authority amongst you?? Who gave the scholars the authority especially since their ways differ so greatly from the spirit of the Quran?? YOU? Where does anything in the Quran say that scholars must be obeyed? SCHOLARS.

Why do you keep ignoring the basic Quranic doctrine to use critical thinking and apply it to everything? Oh, i know why. Because you assume that we have delegated that bit to the "scholars". Have you heard these "scholars"? Some are so ridiculous.

 

[choochoochan]

^^ The equivalent to shutting your eyes and covering your ears. Thank you for proving my point.



Here's a suggestion: read the link, maybe you'll learn something from it.

Please explain to me what is unscientific about the concept.

Let me make myself clear: I think that Islam, while it has some nice teachings, and I like the unity within the religion, is overall a very large load of baloney. I speak for no one but myself, so please do not think that my sentiments are shared by everyone on SPN.



Lool @ "Dr." Zakir Naik, I wouldn't pay him to diagnose my dog, the man is an absolute joke. No, I have not gotten my information from him. I have gotten it from the QUR'AN.

Look girl, I couldn't care less about your personal beliefs, if you want to practice a wishy-washy version of Islam which is denounced by over 99% of Muslims around the world, then by all means go ahead, I would even fight for your right to do so. But please do not make it sound like your version of Islam actually holds any merit, I do not want an uninformed non-Muslim to come on here, read your posts and get the wrong idea about Islam. Please do not take my posts as personal insults, I am simply pointing out that your beliefs are rejected by the vast vast vast vast vast majority of Muslims in the world, and that a lot of what you say contradicts the Qur'an.

I believe those on this forum are educated and they can make their own judgments. They are rejected by majority of muslims. I agree with that, but i have no issues with that. Similarly, most Shia beliefs are rejected by Sunnis and vice versa. The point is, if my way is not right, then the earliest of muslims would all not be right, including the Prophet's buddy, Abu Bakr. Not Abu Hurayrah who doctored up most of the hadiths which are accepted to be "sahih".

 

[spnadmin]

Exploring Sikhi ji - I honestly don't know where to begin. So from the beginning.

Admin Ji,



it was a rhetorical question, I do not expect a reply. I wanted her to reflect over it, I don't care if she answers back or not.

Thanks for the clarification veer ji.
don't know how it works in Sikhism, but in Islam, scholars are of great importance and must be obeyed. And this is not from the hadith, this is from the Qur'an. The fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree on the importance of Muhammad's Sunnah, and she rejects it, seems like she is cherry picking what she wants and disregarding what she doesn't like.

Scholars are very important in Sikhi, and everyone is expected to be a scholar to the best of his/her ability. There are academic scholars with credentials. And there are lay scholars to coin a phrase, learned individuals who have made a life commitment to study of Sikhism, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sikh history. Scholars are respected but as far as I can tell never obeyed. That has a two-fold origin. Sikhism itself is founded on rebellion against the useless teachings of scholars who codified spirituality and prescribed moral behavior. In so doing they enhanced their social position in the world, while draining the vedic teachings of any ethical or spiritual value. The second half of this story is the importance put upon the spiritual journey to the Guru. The shabads tell us it is a journey made alone - You can travel in the footsteps of those Gurmukhs who have gone before you - but it is the journey of the individual. When you make the journey you help your loved ones over what is literally a "terrible world ocean" because the journey frees you from fear and through fearlessness you free others.

Intellectual independence and the ethical responsibility that comes with it is stuff of the Sikh soul



I have no idea what parchaar is.

In your 'explorations' you will run across this word more than once. Sikhs are enjoined by the Sikh Rehat Maryada to learn Gurmukhi, to study Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and to discuss it in sangat. A "vichaar" is one's understanding of the shabad. A "parchaar" is the sharing of it.



Nevertheless, although it is great she has an engaged mind, it does not give her the right to call herself a Muslim and hold beliefs which are so clearly against Islamic teachings. Sikhism may allow for flexibility, but Islam is far less ambiguous. I don't make the rules.

I honestly do not understand why this bothers you so much. If you are re-considering your earlier involvement with Islam and are exploring other paths, including Sikhi, why do you care? Are you trying to save choochoochan from the wages of ignorance or disobedience? Why the intensity?

 

[ExploringSikhi]

I don't know how it works in Sikhism, but in Islam, scholars are of great importance and must be obeyed. And this is not from the hadith, this is from the Qur'an. The fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree on the importance of Muhammad's Sunnah, and she rejects it, seems like she is cherry picking what she wants and disregarding what she doesn't like.

Where does it say in the Quran that scholars must be obeyed??? Surah 4:59?? those with authority amongst you?? Who gave the scholars the authority especially since their ways differ so greatly from the spirit of the Quran?? YOU? Where does anything in the Quran say that scholars must be obeyed? SCHOLARS.

Why do you keep ignoring the basic Quranic doctrine to use critical thinking and apply it to everything? Oh, i know why. Because you assume that we have delegated that bit to the "scholars". Have you heard these "scholars"? Some are so ridiculous.

No, not me. http://www.islamic-life.com/other-islamic-refutations/article-importance-scholarly-opinions-islam

"Muslims are obliged to ask scholars for their opinions regarding Islamic matters and off course their opinions must be sound and supported by correct understanding of Islam." (from the link).

When was the last time you went to a scholar and asked for clarification on Islamic theology? I bet my right arm no reputable scholar would say that what you believe is actually Islam.

This time I want an answer, what makes you think you are a greater authority on Islam than the scholars who have been studying it their entire lives?

 

[choochoochan]

I reject the science of the hadiths because it's a system of implying that hearsay evidence is acceptable. It's not and it will never be acceptable in my eyes. That's like believing chinese whispers! Science as defined by the dictionary includes methods for verification by observation and experimentation. This so called "science" is something so stark from any form of observation and experimentation that i dunno how the term science got stuck with it.

 

[ExploringSikhi]

I honestly do not understand why this bothers you so much. If you are re-considering your earlier involvement with Islam and are exploring other paths, including Sikhi, why do you care? Are you trying to save choochoochan from the wages of ignorance or disobedience? Why the intensity?

As a Sikh, I thought you would be able to understand it. What ever happened to upholding the truth at all costs? I don't care if it hurts her feelings or she doesn't wanna hear it, it doesn't make it any less true. She is pushing her personal opinion, I am pushing the opinion of the vast majority of reputable scholars in Islam.

This is something I am hoping everyone has already realized, back when she said that "all believers will go to hell" and that "being Muslim doesn't give you a special privilege to enter heaven", 2 statements which contradict the very essence of Islamic philosophy enshrined in the Qur'an, it became quite clear that she has very little understanding of the teachings of Islam. Forget about the hadiths, that is from the Qur'an, and she still got it wrong.

I believe it is very important to point out false beliefs. This is literally the equivalent to saying that Sikhism states you can be a slave to your 5 thieves and still achieve liberation. If you saw someone making those claims, I am sure you would point it out, even if the person may not like to hear it. I am doing the same thing.