yes brov, there might be... that's why we have AUTHENTIC ones to lay eyes on isn't it?
I just have difficulty understanding how can they just eliminate those AUTHENTIC AHADEES and especially our Prophet's Sunnah from it all... ???
my dear bro,
their approach is that of the orientalists of the 19th century like caetani and later patricia crone who were more than willing to stick to islamic historical sources for anything negative about islam ( like conflict between muslims) but any positive reports were dismissed out of hand as simply propoganda.
their approach is that of the orientalists of the 19th century like caetani and later patricia crone who were more than willing to stick to islamic historical sources for anything negative about islam ( like conflict between muslims) but any positive reports were dismissed out of hand as simply propoganda.
I can see that.
And i'm glad to see you have ample knowledge on the subject. May Allah Bless ya.
If they could answer any single question in a proper manner... but unfortunately they can just wag their tongues... but the topic keeps derailing...
interesting to note ibn warraq the anti-islam polemical writer has relied heavily on his works.Furthermore Caetani is distinctly anti-Muhammad and above all anti-Alid and early companions.Caetani has great respect for ummayyads as empire builders and accuses trationalists of having a strong anti-ummayyad bias ( which is true as traditionalists were followers of Sunnah of Prophet )
Of course this is not new, its been around for 14 centuries!!! Where do you think the Quran has been?
What do orientals have to do with the Quran? And in fact after 9-11 Bukhari has been the Islam bashers favorite while the orientals of the 20th century never believed the hadiths were even reliable. The reason being that the Islam bashers see in these hadiths ample reason to bash Islam and its prophet. Thats all they care about hadiths for, other than that they don’t care about it and probably don’t believe. For slam bashers hadiths are like the hidden treasures they were not aware of before the internet came to be.
Orientals were looking at it from an academic angle. They were concerned about its reliability as a historic source. They rejected its authenticity even though it would have been much easier to them to accept it if they wantd to bash Islam. Even Crone attacked the Islam bashers and denied their accusations against the prophet. She now accepts the Quran as authentic but still considers hadiths sectarian.
But anyways, what does this all have to do with the Quran.
Maybe some of you are stuck with Ahlul Bayt and Ali and Hussein and none of these characters are Quranic and so that maybe the reason why the Quran is insufficient for you. But thats not the Quran’s fault. Why should the Quran talk about these things? What does this subject has to do with people’s salvation? Thats the reason why orientals can not accept hadiths because they see it as sectarian and they took off from a power struggle between Banu Umaya and Banu Hashim, both known for their rejection of the prophet and their attempt to kill him and his followers repeatedly when he was seen as a nobody. No historian can overlook the sectarian component especially when it deals with a political and tribal power struggle. The Quran does not waste its time in these things.
6.159 As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah. He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did
.......the position of Prophet Muhammad in islam and the majority consensus is that he was a man , a messanger, the best of the prophets .....
Man, your knowledge of Quran is so limited?????
Never thought that a person who opens a thread on the life of Mohammed pbuh will be ignorant of Sura Baqara's clear cut guidance.
*
2:285
This Messenger of OURS believes in that which has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers;
all of them believe in ALLAH, and in HIS angels, and in HIS Books, and
**
in HIS Messengers, saying, `We make no distinction between any of HIS Messengers;'........................................ *
**
How can you Mr. DR then make a distinction among the messenger by saying that Mohammed PBUH was the BEST?
This is precisely what Christians do. They make Jesus AH as the BESTest of the BEST by making him son of God.
Mohammad pbuh was just like any other messenger.
This is per Quran.
However you don't want to read Quran and rely totally on HISHTORY.
The result! Obviously an incorrect understanding of Islam let alone Messenger pbuh.
I hope you consider a humble request to update your basic knowledge about Messengers and Quran.
Khuda kay rasool nain kaha tha Quran ko follow kero.
Hum nain Quran to chor dia, or sunni sunnai baton per amal shoroo ker diya.
Ub daikho jitnay firqay hain, sub Khuda kay rasool kay naam per hain.
Just see Talibleesi quom. They are chopping heads in the name of Mohammed pbuh.
Sad isn't it.
so thats what it is you are probably a MQM or musharraf supporter who has a bone to pick with talibeen thats why u are presenting ut perverted arguments in the name of islam