Auggie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 11:45am:


This may come as a shock to you, but even the most avowed 'traditionalists' (as in following the traditions of the prophet - aka ahadith) cherry pick which traditions they believe and follow. Even if they are declared "sahih" (authentic) - there's actually different grades of sahih - so there's 'Sahih Bukhari', widely regarded as the most authoritative, then there's Sahih Muslim and Sahih Dawud - the latter two are generally considered less authentic than Bukhari - even though they both carry the title 'sahih'. But even beyond that, scholars will take ahadith on a case by case basis - even within the 'sahih' collection. So they will declare that this sahih Dawud is more authentic than this other sahih Dawud - based on their own inspection of the 'isnad' (chain of transmission - ie so and so told so and so who told... etc) - even though Dawud himself deemed them both sahih.

So I think you are under appreciating how trully complicated ahadith study is, and there certainly isn't the simplistic "all or nothing" approach that you are implying. From my perspective, I see the traditionalist scholars have throughout the ages been entirely cynical in their cherry picking of the ahadith. Take hudud law - barbaric practices to control society that have no Quranic basis, and even directly contradict Quranic commands. Yet they conveniently emerge just as despotic autocrats start popping up in the caliphate, with rebellion rife. And lo and behold, so too did ahadith emerge that equated obedience to rulers to obedience to God - eg:

Whosoever obeys the ruler has obeyed me and whoever obeys me had obeyed Allaah; and he who disobeys the ruler has disobeyed me and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allaah. (Al-Bukhaaree and Muslim)

Auggie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 11:45am:


No one, not even "sunni tradition" claims that the ahadith are the omnipotent word of God. Do you straight away see a glaring difference between them and the Quran? Do you reckon thats kinda significant?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:


So, you know that the Medinan verses of the Quran urge followers to obey the Prophet and God??? The ahadith are deemed to be sayings of the Prophet. Second, the Prophet practised polygamy, warfare and slavery, so do you think that these practices are the best example of a human being?? You cannot say that Muhammad was the best example of a human being without condoning slavery, can you? Otherwise he was wrong.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:


Sorry, let me clarify. I was talking about within the Quran solely. The early Meccan verses are written in a very poetic manner, and were short, so that they could be memorized more easily orally. In my view, these verses are more representative of God's nature (as I believe it to be). As the tradition unfolds, the verses become longer and more simple until you get long prose in the Medinan verses, which includes legislation etc.

My view is that if God is omnipotent then why would he change the way He speaks? Presumably he was talking to the same group of people?? Someone like God shouldn't need to change His voice??

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 4:02pm:


You are half-right, half-wrong.

In the early verses of the Quran, Muhammad is referred to as a Warner. "Thou art but a Warner..." i.e. he is there to deliver the message of God to people. Initially he was a deliverer, as you say, but then he BECAME an enforcer in Medina. In fact, if you read it chronologically, the evolution is very clear: Muhammad was but a Warner but then he became a Prophet.

So, whilst you are correct and your interpretation would suffice, unfortunately his role evolved beyond a Warner to Prophet and Leader. It's interesting how the language and terminology changes significantly over time as the revelations come. And there is where my issue with it it: the tradition (as in every religion) evolves to meet the needs to the community over time. In this sense, Islam was seen as a progressive religion. Problem is that once Muhammad died, whatever progress had been hitherto was frozen in time.

I suggest you read the Quran in revelation order. There's a chronology developed by Theodor Noldeke, a German orientalism who orders the Quran according to the order in which it was revealed. Leileh Bakhtier also released a Quran in Revelation Order. When you read the Quran in this order, and divide each surah according to Meccan and Medinan verses, you clearly see how the Islamic tradition evolved from a spiritual monotheistic creed to a socio-political doctrine.

Now, my person argument is that the Quran is actually much shorter than the actual Quran. Initially the word Quran wasn't used. I can't remember where exactly, but the first mention of the Quran is quite early on in the revelation. Maybe those few surahs are the 'True' Quran, with everything else being aHadith or commentaries on the Quran. It's clear that the later verses were the product of human design.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 1:52pm:


So I am lying because you are ignorant of what I knew at the time? Or because I did not make a patently stupid assumption?

Are you actually arguing that I told a lie that just happened to be true?

Are you arguing that I told a lie that just happened to be true?

Is whether or not the statement is true at all relevant to whether it is a lie?

Gandalf is no different then any other religious person picking and choosing what they believe.

Religion is like a cafeteria. You pick and choose what you want and ignore what you don’t.

He is no different then any other religious person here.

Raven wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 11:47pm:


But you've got to admit he's got style and charisma, and always presents himself as the sort of imam our mosques should be stocked with.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 6^th, 2018 at 7:14pm:


Chapter 2 is full of spiritual contemplation, but it's also full of violence. It's the first revelation of Muhammad AFTER the migration to Medina. Chapter 9 and chapter 5 which are the latest surahs are more belligerent than surah 2 and therefore override surah 2 in importance.

I don't buy the fact that the entire Surah 9 is addressed to those with whom a treaty has been made. The initial verse deal with this but then it becomes universal. In fact the name of Surah 9 has nothing to do with treaties. Don't forget that the Quran consists of statements not related to each other.

Next argument