Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
1
General Issues / Questions / Re: Why do most Muslims remain Sunnis
« Last post by Fusion on Today at 12:12:57 PM »
why would you cut ties to your community and stop mingling with them socially?
Do they force you to commit shirk or say things against God? if yes then stay away and thank God you are given Hidaya.
Otherwise you should be with them, perhaps some one could get inspiration from you and be guided, after all you were one of em before until God opened up your eyes and you start to see things clearly.

I never stopped mingling with my folks and they all know my position but then I dont force myself upon them, I try to say my point in a very soft way. There is no need to bash hadiths outright, just take hadith out of context and when confronted with a topic, read quran and give references. However you must also understand and read arabic because that will put a lot of weight on what you are saying... its not a criteria but it matters. Like we learn other things, we as Quran only believers should also try to learn Arabic. With me personally, I find it so comforting when I was able to read most of quran without translation and it really goes deep into your heart.

12:2
Indeed, We, We have sent it down, (as) a Quran in Arabic so that you may understand.

2
General Issues / Questions / Re: Why do most Muslims remain Sunnis
« Last post by jkhan on Today at 04:24:12 AM »
Peace

Some seem really sincere like they want to please God, be a good person, and enter heaven. Some are semi-religious and not that interested in figuring things out on a deeper level. Others are more Muslim by name and just see it as part of their identity or culture and nothing they seriously care about. Some unfortunately are egotistic and care more about looking like a good Muslim to others than seeking the truth. Do they all just not question enough? A lot of these people are smart as well and probably more intelligent than me in other areas of life yet they can't figure out the true message of the Qur'an?

(I became a Quran aloner because I kept questioning why God never literally commanded us to follow hadith, what evidence do we have that sahih hadith are to be followed if they're not preserved like the Qur'an? Why do the hadith contain extra laws outside of the Qur'an if the hadith are supposed to only explain Quranic laws? Why are there harsh/ strange laws in hadith? etc. Had I not questioned these things, I may have stayed being a Sunni.)

Is it an emotional attachment to Sunni Islam, Sunni parents, or the community? Fear of losing their Sunni connections and unity? Practicing Sunni Muslims read the Qur'an in English so this shows that they're trying to figure out the meaning of the Qur'an. Then again, speaking from personal experience, some hadith used to give me hope and were pleasant to read like you felt part of a bigger community when you read the pleasant hadith...the ones that teach you to be kind, not to steal, etc., or comforting ones like the ones that state that you will see believing relatives after death, etc. and then gives you examples of how so and so saw their dead relative. Sometimes hadith did give you hope for the hereafter, etc. Going to the mosque even as a female gave you a sense of unity, watching stuff like Islam Channel made me feel like I was part of something bigger and I did feel a sense of unity, Eid prayers, bonding over the normal/ pleasant parts of Sunni Islam with friends, Muslim events etc. I guess you really do miss out on this sense of unity once you turn to the Qur'an alone.

17:84 " Say, "Each works according to his manner, but your Lord is most knowing of who is guided in way."

So don't forget majority will fail..  And that's the statement of Satan and that will happen for sure except God's true Ibadi...  They are but little.  .
3
General Issues / Questions / Re: Why do most Muslims remain Sunnis
« Last post by good logic on Today at 12:47:54 AM »
The best way to find out is to ask a direct questionnaire online to all sunnis or a similar question to all people of the world like:
Why do you follow the religion you are now or.find yourself in?

It may not give an accurate measure but it will serve as a basis of thinking and reflection for some.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
4
General Issues / Questions / Re: Why do most Muslims remain Sunnis
« Last post by Jafar on Yesterday at 07:04:16 PM »
Some seem really sincere

Many if not most are actually really sincere.
Many if not most do NOT blindly follow all the things found inside (holy) books, whether it's Torah, Bible, Quran, Hadith, Constitution etc. They process it and only accept things which resonate well with their own conscience and reject those which do not, although they don't admit it, usually because of the fear being labelled with 'bad label' from their own society.

Quote
I guess you really do miss out on this sense of unity once you turn to the Qur'an alone.

Since I do not exclusively identify myself to only a specific label/name I can relate and unite with anyone who are sincere,  regardless of their label.
As I've mentioned islam is an attitude and not (merely) label or name of a specific religion.
You can find people with such attitude nearly in any label, religion, cult, sect, ideology, nationality, races, ethnicity.

5
General Issues / Questions / Why do most Muslims remain Sunnis
« Last post by Sarah on Yesterday at 05:38:01 PM »
Peace

Some seem really sincere like they want to please God, be a good person, and enter heaven. Some are semi-religious and not that interested in figuring things out on a deeper level. Others are more Muslim by name and just see it as part of their identity or culture and nothing they seriously care about. Some unfortunately are egotistic and care more about looking like a good Muslim to others than seeking the truth. Do they all just not question enough? A lot of these people are smart as well and probably more intelligent than me in other areas of life yet they can't figure out the true message of the Qur'an?

(I became a Quran aloner because I kept questioning why God never literally commanded us to follow hadith, what evidence do we have that sahih hadith are to be followed if they're not preserved like the Qur'an? Why do the hadith contain extra laws outside of the Qur'an if the hadith are supposed to only explain Quranic laws? Why are there harsh/ strange laws in hadith? etc. Had I not questioned these things, I may have stayed being a Sunni.)

Is it an emotional attachment to Sunni Islam, Sunni parents, or the community? Fear of losing their Sunni connections and unity? Practicing Sunni Muslims read the Qur'an in English so this shows that they're trying to figure out the meaning of the Qur'an. Then again, speaking from personal experience, some hadith used to give me hope and were pleasant to read like you felt part of a bigger community when you read the pleasant hadith...the ones that teach you to be kind, not to steal, etc., or comforting ones like the ones that state that you will see believing relatives after death, etc. and then gives you examples of how so and so saw their dead relative. Sometimes hadith did give you hope for the hereafter, etc. Going to the mosque even as a female gave you a sense of unity, watching stuff like Islam Channel made me feel like I was part of something bigger and I did feel a sense of unity, Eid prayers, bonding over the normal/ pleasant parts of Sunni Islam with friends, Muslim events etc. I guess you really do miss out on this sense of unity once you turn to the Qur'an alone.


 
6
Hadith Discussions / Re: How do you define the following of Muhammad's footsteps?
« Last post by amin on Yesterday at 05:15:45 AM »
Simply copying some actions or applying some verses for all cases could be misleading, theres a Quranic verse(3/7) related to this, wherein some messages are basic but some not basic and unspecified, applied only for specific cases, it means those are not the same answer to every similar case, following Hadiths with blind belief is also similar, only the guided or people of understanding, can understand where and how those can be applied.
7
The war in Ukraine to maintain the European Union under tutelage
by Thierry Meyssan
It is difficult to admit, but the Anglo-Saxons do not hide from it. To paraphrase a famous quote from the first Secretary General of the Alliance, Nato was designed to "keep Russia out, the Americans in and the European Union under trusteeship". There is no other possible interpretation of the continuation of the useless "sanctions" against Moscow and the vain and deadly fighting in Ukraine.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) | 24 JANUARY 2023
عربي DEUTSCH ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ ESPAÑOL FRANÇAIS ITALIANO NEDERLANDS PORTUGUÊS РУССКИЙ


But why have Josep Borrell, Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen, who have been convicted of corruption and proven incompetent, become the leaders of the European Union? To do what Jens Stoltenberg tells them.
It has been almost a year since the Russian army entered Ukraine to implement Security Council Resolution 2202. NATO, rejecting this reason, considers that Russia invaded Ukraine to annex it. In four oblasts, the referendums on joining the Russian Federation seem to confirm Nato’s interpretation, except that the history of Novorossia confirms Russia’s explanation. The two narratives continue in parallel, without ever overlapping.

For my part, having edited a daily newsletter during the Kosovo war [1], I remember that the Nato narrative at the time was contested by all the Balkan news agencies, without my having the means to know who was right. Two days after the end of the conflict, journalists from the Atlantic Alliance countries were able to go to the scene and see that they had been fooled. The regional news agencies were right. Nato had been lying all along. Later, when I was a member of the Libyan government, NATO, which had a Security Council mandate to protect the population, misused it to overthrow the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, killing 120,000 of the people it was supposed to protect.
These experiences show us that the West lies shamelessly to cover its actions.

Today, NATO assures us that it is not at war since it has not deployed any troops in Ukraine. However, we are witnessing, on the one hand, gigantic arms transfers to Ukraine so that the Ukrainian integral nationalists [2], trained by NATO, resist Moscow and, on the other hand, an economic war, also without precedent, to destroy the Russian economy. Given the scale of this war by Ukrainians, a confrontation between NATO and Russia seems possible at any moment.

A new World War is however highly unlikely, at least in the short term: indeed, the actions already contradict the NATO narrative.

The war goes on and on. Not because the two sides are equal, but because NATO does not want to confront Russia. We saw this three months ago at the G20 summit in Bali. With Russia’s agreement, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky intervened in the debates on video from Kiev. He called for Russia’s exclusion from the G20, as it had been from the G8 after Crimea joined the Russian Federation. To his surprise and that of the Nato members present at the summit, the United States and the United Kingdom did not support him [3]. Washington and London agreed that there was a line that should not be crossed. And for good reason: modern Russian weapons are far superior to those of Nato, whose technology dates from the 1990s. In the event of a confrontation, there is no doubt that Russia would suffer, but that it would crush the West within days.

In the light of this event, we must re-read what is happening before our eyes.
The influx of weapons to Ukraine is a decoy: the majority of the materials sent do not reach the battlefield. We announced that they would be sent to start another war in the Sahel [4], which the President of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, has publicly confirmed by attesting that many of the weapons destined for Ukraine were already in the hands of African jihadists [5]. In any case, building up an arsenal of odds and ends, adding weapons of different ages and calibers, is useless. No one has the logistics to supply fighters with multiple munitions. The conclusion is that these weapons are not being given to Ukraine to win.

The New York Times sounded the alarm by explaining that the Western defense industry is unable to produce sufficient weapons and ammunition. Stocks are already depleted and Western armies are being forced to give away the materials needed for their own defense. This was confirmed by the US Secretary of the Navy, Carlos Del Toro, who warned about the current stripping of the US military [6]. He said that if the US military-industrial complex does not manage to produce more weapons than Russia within six months, the US military will not be able to accomplish its mission.

First of all, if US politicians want to start Armageddon, they do not have the means to do it in the next six months and probably will not have them afterwards either.


Let us now study the economic war. Let’s leave aside its camouflage under a chastened vocabulary: "sanctions". I have already dealt with this issue and pointed out that they are not court decisions and are illegal under international law. Let’s look at currencies. The dollar crushed the ruble for two months, then it went back down to the value it had from 2015 to 2020, without Russia having borrowed massively. In other words, the so-called "sanctions" had a negligible effect on Russia. They severely disrupted its trade for the first two months, but are no longer a problem today. Moreover, they did not cost the US anything and did not affect it at all.

We know that, while prohibiting their allies from importing Russian hydrocarbons, the United States is importing them via India and thus replenishing the stocks from which they drew during the first months of the conflict [7].

On the other hand, we are observing an upheaval in the European economy, which is forced to borrow massively to support the Kiev regime. We have no statistics on the extent of these loans, nor do we know who the creditors are. It is clear, however, that European governments are appealing to Washington under the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022. Everything the Europeans give to Ukraine has a cost, but it will not be accounted for until after the war. Only then will the bill be established. And it will be exorbitant. Until then, everything is fine.

The sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines on September 26, 2022, was not claimed afterwards, but beforehand by US President Joe Biden on February 7, 2022, at the White House, in the presence of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. It is true that he only committed himself to destroying Nord Stream 2 in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, but this was only because the journalist who interviewed him had framed the subject without daring to imagine that he could also do so for Nord Stream 1. By this declaration and even more so by this sabotage, Washington has shown the contempt in which it holds its German ally. Nothing has changed since the first Secretary General of NATO, Lord Ismay, declared that the real aim of the Alliance was "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" [8]. The Soviet Union disappeared and Germany took the lead in the European Union. If he were still alive, Lord Ismay would probably say that the objective of NATO is to keep Russia out, the Americans in, and the European Union under control.

Germany, for whom the sabotage of these pipelines is the most serious blow since the end of the Second World War, took it without flinching. At the same time, it swallowed the Biden plan to rescue the US economy at the expense of the German car industry. To all this, it reacted by moving closer to China and avoiding anger with Poland, the new US asset in Europe. It is now proposing to rebuild its industry by developing munitions factories for the Alliance.

As a result, Germany’s acceptance of US suzerainty has been shared by the European Union, which Berlin controls [9].

Second remark: the Germans and the members of the European Union as a whole have taken note of a decline in their standard of living. They are, together with the Ukrainians, the only victims of the current war, and they have come to terms with it.

In 1992, when the Russian Federation had just been born on the ruins of the Soviet Union, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, commissioned the Straussian [10] Paul Wolfowitz to write a report which has only come to us largely redacted. Excerpts from the original report published by the New York Times and the Washington Post show that Washington no longer considered Russia a threat, but the European Union a potential rival [11]. It stated: "While the United States supports the project of European integration, we must be careful to prevent the emergence of a purely European security system that would undermine NATO, especially its integrated military command structure. In other words, Washington approves of a European defence subordinate to NATO, but is ready to destroy the European Union if it imagines itself becoming a political power capable of standing up to it.

The current U.S. strategy, which does not weaken Russia but the European Union under the pretext of fighting Russia, is the second concrete application of the Wolfowitz doctrine. Its first application, in 2003, consisted in punishing Jacques Chirac’s France and Gerhard Schröder’s Germany for having opposed NATO’s destruction of Iraq [12].

This is exactly what the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said at a press conference after the Allies’ meeting in Ramstein on January 20. While he had demanded that each participant donate weapons to Kiev, he acknowledged that "This year, it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from every inch of Russian-occupied Ukraine. In other words, the Allies must bleed, but there is no hope of winning anything in 2023 over Russia.

Third remark: This war is not being waged against Moscow, but to weaken the European Union.

Thierry Meyssan
Translation
Roger Lagassé
Printable version RSS Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Viber
STAY IN TOUCH
8
Hadith Discussions / Re: How do you define the following of Muhammad's footsteps?
« Last post by good logic on January 27, 2023, 11:27:51 AM »
The prophet will not disobey GOD and take the authority for himself or share it with GOD.
GOD is ever living and the sole authority for His deen.
The prophet had  a message to deliver and  he did that  very well.
 Why would GOD bother to send us His message /words?  So that the prophet can take over the authority and replace GOD s words by his own? 

Would that not make him a partner with GOD?
It just does not make sense to put Sunnah and hadiths-men s words- as equal or above GOD s words!!!  Is this not shirk?

GOD bless.
Peace.
9
I think sunnah is just the abstract concept indicating the prophets authority.

Many people see this authority written into the message of the Quran.

The hadith is an effort to transmit that concept via oral and written traditions following various methodologies.

I feel like sunnah is above and beyond hadith. I see it in a similar way to sharia and fiqh. Fiqh is the human understand of God's Sharia.
10
Hadith Discussions / Re: How do you define the following of Muhammad's footsteps?
« Last post by amin on January 27, 2023, 04:27:24 AM »
Mohammed is the praised one, the praised one's actions needs to be validated by people and proved right for the society, for example covering our heads, its still good for those who live in deserts, the way we dress, the way we clean ourselves depends on the resources we get, the way we greet others, the way we lead our lives, but before everything we should make sure we are muslims and as muslims we submit everything to Him, Being muslim which is completely different than being an Arab. I cannot say, 'I copy and do everything on what  the praised one did', so i automatically become a muslim, to be a muslim or lead a Islamic way is completely different and thats what we learn in Quran.
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10