"Muslims Should be Put Under Surveillance"

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:The compilations were made with the consent and help of Caliphs after the Prophet's death, those people were the ones that "organized" should i say, the Hadiths

This is not true according to many accounts, hadith was compiled under later ummayed kings and preached by their clerics

Umar banned the compilation of hadith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Umar%27s_ban_on_hadith

I have no information of that, what i relay was what i had been taught in my school years...

To add to conversation (I'll have to apologize in advance since I don't know most of the direct translations) :

The Shite minority of Islam also have Marjaas, people that you follow that "update" Islam if you will. You choose a Marjaa to follow, and whatever that Marjaa says is Islam law. Islam is a progressive religion, and as such needs "updating".

When I say "Updating" I don't mean REPLACING. However, it is known all over the world that marijuana is prohibited in Islam. Mostly, for being a class A drug. Now, studies are revealing that marijuana might not be as bad as we first assumed (despite some studies also giving sideaffects), but the day that marijuana is classified as a class B drug, the Marjaa will come out and declare that marijuana is not strictly prohibited, just frowned upon.

VivaStPauli wrote:
Because Religion isn't rooted in reality, or reason, and therefor shouldn't influence spheres of public living, that should be governed rationally. You can believe whatever you want, but when you influence millions of lives, you shouldn't believe anything, and go with facts.

Religion isn't rooted in reality or reason? How can you assume that? You're looking at an incredibly huge category (Religion in general) that you're not an expert in and making a generalization about the category. Just because you don't follow any particular religion, doesn't mean that religious philosophies in general can, on principal, be dismissed as irrational. You don't seem to understand that even while completely ignoring the 'God' part of religion, you can still mind some great, rational, and humane morals to base a society on. There's no reason why religion should be banished from government and politics, especially if the public has voted in favor of using said religion to govern society.

Denying that is, quite simply, anti-democracy.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:The compilations were made with the consent and help of Caliphs after the Prophet's death, those people were the ones that "organized" should i say, the Hadiths

This is not true according to many accounts, hadith was compiled under later ummayed kings and preached by their clerics

Umar banned the compilation of hadith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Umar%27s_ban_on_hadith

Dude, you're sources are just as shaky as you claim the sources for Hadith are. It boils down once again to, word of mouth. If you deny Hadiths because you don't believe the sources are good enough, then you must also deny the opinion that Umar (RA) banned the compilation of Hadith.

ACMRox wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:The compilations were made with the consent and help of Caliphs after the Prophet's death, those people were the ones that "organized" should i say, the Hadiths

This is not true according to many accounts, hadith was compiled under later ummayed kings and preached by their clerics

Umar banned the compilation of hadith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Umar%27s_ban_on_hadith

Dude, you're sources are just as shaky as you claim the sources for Hadith are. It boils down once again to, word of mouth. If you deny Hadiths because you don't believe the sources are good enough, then you must also deny the opinion that Umar (RA) banned the compilation of Hadith.

That is exactly my point, things are too shaky. And just like I should deny recounts of Umars opinion because the sources are not good enough, you must also believe Umar banned the compilation of hadith. How can anyone hold these scripts as sacred is beyond my comprehension when its obvious that not many cared for them in the first era after mohammed. When you have contradictory evidence it means that you cant say that either proves anything beyond reasonable doubt, doing so is just irrational.

What Sunni Muslims consider the most sacred book after the Quran, the saheeh of Bukari, is nothing but an incomplete unpolished un-reviewed copy of what Bukari intended it to be. Bukari died before completing his book and people took his drafts as the ultimate truth. In fact he was only collecting everything that seemed to have a reliable source, and since he wasnt a scholar his goal was just to collect hadeeth without disregarding anything that contradicted with the teachings of the Quran. That was supposed to be the second phase of his work but he died before he could do that.

ACMRox wrote: Just because you don't follow any particular religion, doesn't mean that religious philosophies in general can, on principal, be dismissed as irrational.

It's pretty easy though.

NYPD to end Muslim surveillance

The greatest efforts need to be put in to prevent another terrorist attack in this country. Whether surveillance particularly accomplished that, who knows. It's pretty hard to come with an ideal solution here, i.e. one that recognizes the rights of the Muslim community and at the same time enhances national security.

Touching on Zizzles comment, I believe the Muslim community need to be educated on the "science" of A-Hadith (authentic hadith).. So much evidence to suggest that hadiths cannot be considered authentic, regardless of whether or not some are true or morally acceptable..

A) The "science" of determining authentic hadith from false hadith is flawed. How studies of Hadith can be referred to as a science is really beyond me
B) Hadith itself is inherintly un-islamic due to various contradictions it has with the Qu'ran
C) Authentic Hadith have various inconsistencies themselves. There is even a hadith where Muhammad even forbids his followers to write anything he says down!
D) The Qu'ran quite explicitly states that it is complete and that no other texts are required to adhere to Islamic principles correctly, anything else is less important, any specifics you can draw conclusions using both the text and common sense.
E) In fact many scholars believe that the prihibition of Hadith led to the Golden Age Of Islam, an age which many questionable organisations use as a war-cry to enthuse young impressionable muslims.

It is absurd when you think that there are laws that still exist today which are based around these texts, these texts which are the alleged word of a prophet, that were spread by word of mouth and eventually written down, 300 years after his death. Mind boggling really.

For those who despise Islam, if you actually take the time to look into it, ignore any sources that stem from Hadith or scholars who include hadith in their discourse, you will see it is morally astute, however ridiculous you may believe it is.

I guess a criticism of the Muslim community could be that the educated choose to ignore the evidence, refusing to use their common sense and refuse to step away from the herd, allowing bigoted, chauvanistic and power hungry clerics to run the show and speak for the community.

I should say objectively educated in Hadith. So not be Sheikhs at the local mosque.
Maybe in schools.
Not to teach kids "hey look how ridiculous these texts are"... maybe incorporate it into History lessons. First thing I learned in Ancient History was to recognise the difference between primary and secondary sources. To believe in Hadith defies the very first rule of History studies.