Can any muslim try explaining these 'peculiar' islamic Hadiths?

[Dan Zebiri]

Correction, barny, Moose has already said more than 3 times in various posts that he rejects all the sunni hadiths.

Interesting how strange islamic bed-fellows you have become. You, a sunni islamophile, moose-a shiite, and shunya - from the Bahais whom muslims consider complete heretics.

Wsalaam, Dan.

[barnasha]

Correction, barny, Moose has already said more than 3 times in various posts that he rejects all the sunni hadiths.

Interesting how strange islamic bed-fellows you have become. You, a sunni islamophile, moose-a shiite, and shunya - from the Bahais whom muslims consider complete heretics.

Wsalaam, Dan.

What exactly are you correcting?

I will point out again that moose has nothing to do with this argument, it would be best if you stick to the topic at hand.

[Dan Zebiri]

The FACT that the sunni-shia divide in Islam is a serious problem for the credibility of Islam, and this divide is a hostile and permanent one.

OUTside of this Theologyweb forum of course...;-)

You were trying to distract us again, by claiming that i was 'more contentious' than the sunnis and the shias...etc.

So, I corrected that notion.

Dan.

[barnasha]

The FACT that the sunni-shia divide in Islam is a serious problem for the credibility of Islam, and this divide is a hostile and permanent one.

I don't see why. Islam explicitly cannot have any sects. You are speaking of the history of the peoples who take the faith of Islam. The people who follow a principle do not constitute it, "the map is not the territory".

The Protestant-Catholic or East-West divides in Christianity aren't "serious problems for" its "credibility".

[Dan Zebiri]

No it does not! The Protestant reformation churches, the Roman Catholic church and the eastern orthodox churches all share and confess a common Creed THAT UNITES US, DESPITE our denominational differences.

These creeds precede and pre-date any schism or divide that happened later on in the churches history.

The Apostles Creed
The Nicene Creed in 325 AD.
The Ephesian Creed 431 AD.
The Creed Confession of Chalcedon 451 AD.

Are all shared by the churched you mention in your post - but these unite us and bind us tigether, without prejudice.

Not so in the Sunni - Shia divide.

The Shia's reject ALL the 4 ('rightly guided') Caliphs except Ali.

They also reject ALL the Sunni Hadiths and the Sunni version of Muhammad's Sunna.

And the Sunnis do they very same against the Shias.

And they go to war against each other and will never tolerate to be governed by the other side, over their respective dead bodies --- eg. Iraq insurgency that is going on even now!

Dan.

[barnasha]

No it does not! The Protestant reformation churches, the Roman Catholic church and the eastern orthodox churches all share and confess a common Creed THAT UNITES US, DESPITE our denominational differences.

These creeds precede and pre-date any schism or divide that happened later on in the churches history.

The Apostles Creed
The Nicene Creed in 325 AD.
The Ephesian Creed 431 AD.
The Creed Confession of Chalcedon 451 AD.

Are all shared by the churched you mention in your post - but these unite us and bind us tigether, without prejudice.

Not so in the Sunni - Shia divide.

how would you assert so? considering the Shia and Sunni share the exact same creed, which unites them just the same, I wonder what the reasoning behind your claims would be...

[Dan Zebiri]

Sunni and Shia Muslims are bitterly and irrevocably DIVIDED AND broken up by their Hadiths. The hadiths are the sources for the 'sunna' or tradition of Muhammad for sunnis to emulate. BUT Shias reject totally the Sunni hadiths and so the 'sunna' for them is far different altogether.

This is the real facts that cause the major and irreparable divide between these 2 sections of islam. Regardless of whether the same creed is used.

Anyway, there are also many nonsensical and ridiculous Hadiths in the Sunni Hadiths, for which the Anti-Hadith Muslims (from Sunni background) are now advocating the total rejection and disavowal of using them altogether.

Christians of all the major groups have no such fundamental & major dividing cracks between these groups.

Dan.

how would you assert so? considering the Shia and Sunni share the exact same creed, which unites them just the same, I wonder what the reasoning behind your claims would be...

[barnasha]

Sunni and Shia Muslims are bitterly and irrevocably DIVIDED AND broken up by their Hadiths. The hadiths are the sources for the 'sunna' or tradition of Muhammad for sunnis to emulate. BUT Shias reject totally the Sunni hadiths and so the 'sunna' for them is far different altogether.

Except sunni hadith science and shia hadith science come from the same sources, and there is a huge overlap, PLEASE GO READ ABOUT IMAM JAAFARI instead of making yourself look like someone who is all talk BUT REFUSES TO DO EVEN 5 MINUTES OF RESEARCH.

I apologize for the capital letters, please don't think I am yelling. These are important points.

This is the real facts that cause the major and irreparable divide between these 2 sections of islam. Regardless of whether the same creed is used.

Anyway, there are also many nonsensical and ridiculous Hadiths in the Sunni Hadiths, for which the Anti-Hadith Muslims (from Sunni background) are now advocating the total rejection and disavowal of using them altogether.

Christians of all the major groups have no such fundamental & major dividing cracks between these groups.

Dan.

Until you become knowledgable about these subjects and cite relevant sources it is hard to take anything you say for much value.

[Dan Zebiri]

The point is, islamophile barney, the sciences may be similar, but it makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in the rift and the divide-up between sunni and shia!

They may follow the sciences of 'isnad/sanad and matn' but the overlap you wish to assume does not remove the FUNDAMENTAL DIVIDE between Sunni and shia! They may follow the 'apostolic succession rule' eg.khilafat rasulliyyah etc, but the conclusions BOTH sects arrive at the widest divergence.

Instead of reinforcing your point, this fact actually erodes and mitigates against your idea and still cannot and does not resolve the theological, communal or socio-political DIVIDE between sunnis and shias.

Dan.

[barnasha]

your reference to political things in regards to things of theological value is most puzzling to me

[Dan Zebiri]

Barney,

Because your blind infatuation with Islam has completely blocked you from either SEEING or TELLING the truths and the true practices of Muslims according to their theology! Or BOTH!

Islam and the Quran is a political faith, not just a religion that teaches about the afterlife!

The Quran teaches about THIS life and also how TO RULE A COUNTRY or nations, as ad-daulah, so Islam does NOT SEPARATE the mosque and the state like the Governments in the west where you live, do!

Running or administering a country or nation in the 'proper islamic way' is part and parcel of the Islamic sharia and system, based on the Sunna and the Quran.

You should know that but pretend not to know!

Dan.

your reference to political things in regards to things of theological value is most puzzling to me

[barnasha]

What I am interested or "infatuated" with has little to do with the argument at hand, does it?

How would you back up your blithe assertion that Islam and the Quran are a "political faith" ?

[Dan Zebiri]

Islam is both a deen - A 'religion' and a 'deen ad-daulah' - a religion of the STATE'

Go here to read:

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=3&gl=my

[barnasha]

Islam is both a deen - A 'religion' and a 'deen ad-daulah' - a religion of the STATE'

Go here to read:

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=3&gl=my

Your source clearly differentiates between deen ("religion" or way of life) and state:

"FROM the understanding that Islam is a comprehensive way of life that pertains to both its character as a religion and a state (Deen and Daulah), the conception of an Islamic State is derived."

Thus, the "Islamic State", according to your source, is not Islam - but something derived therefrom.

[Dan Zebiri]

Barnasha,

Of course, islam is therefore a religion that has regulations and rules on how to GOVERN and to RULE countries and nations.

Thats what is found in the sharia - islamic jurisprudence / laws, It wants to be involved not just at the level of personal religion, but it wants to be involved politically at the level of ruling and running a state.

AN islamic state cannot be anything other than from islam!

Islam dictates how to run that state, it has punishments for crimes and rewards for compliance to the islamic system.

Can you imagine an islamic state based on Buddhist precepts and teachings, your ulemas will immediately label that as Kuffar - OR infidelity!!

Dan Z.

Your source clearly differentiates between deen ("religion" or way of life) and state:

"FROM the understanding that Islam is a comprehensive way of life that pertains to both its character as a religion and a state (Deen and Daulah), the conception of an Islamic State is derived."

Thus, the "Islamic State", according to your source, is not Islam - but something derived therefrom.