War of ideas between Shi’a & Sunni

[WildBlueYonder]

Hadith of the two weighty things
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The word "Hadith" refers to a saying of Muhammad. The "Hadith al-Thaqalayn" refers to a saying about "al-Thaqalayn", which translates to "the two weighty things." In this narration, Muhammad referred to the Quran and "Ahl al-Bayt" (his family) as the two weighty things. Although the Hadith is accepted by both Sunnis and Shi'as, the two groups differ on the exact wording of what Muhammad said, as well how to interpret these words
Sunni and Shi'a Concordance
Both Sunnis and Shi'as accept that Muhammad said the following:

"I m leaving among you something which is very important and should be followed, you will not go astray if you get hold of it after I am gone, one part of it being more important than the other: Allah's Book, which is a rope stretched from Heaven to Earth, and my close relatives, who belong to my household. These two will not separate from one another till they come down to the reservoir, so consider how you act regarding them after my departure." (Tirmidhi, Sahih Muslim)

Both Sunnis and Shi'as believe in respecting Ahl al-Bayt. However, it is only the Shi'as who claim that the Caliph (leader) of the Muslims must always be a descendant of Muhammad. Sunnis reject that it can only be Imam Ali, in whose household Muhammad was raised, whom Muhammad has chosen through the divine revelation to be the caliph of Muslim Ummah.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_two_weighty_things

Can I inject several observations on the saying in question;
1) in order for the quran to be that “rope from heaven”, it must stand as the word of god
2) can a book that contradicts itself, then says that god can change his mind, can add better saying than the former (abrogation), be such a book
3) if the book is more important than the messenger, why add his family into the equation
4) was Mohammad adding “shirk” already into the interpretation of the quran by his hadiths?
5) In a worldview where allah has no emotion, is so distant from man, is not like man at all, then , why would Mohammad say that his family (Ahl al-Bayt) was so important?
6) If family was so important to Mohammad, why didn’t allah grant him ‘male" heirs or any grandchildren that survived to carry his name for posterity during these 1375 odd years since his death?

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm I don't recall ever having any discussions on these with my Shia neighbor. Too bad he died.

 

[ashura]

I understand that the Quran gets its legitimacy from being the supposed Word of God, and for the sake of this discussion we can assume that's true. What gives the Hadith its legitimacy?

 

[S.A.M.]

I understand that the Quran gets its legitimacy from being the supposed Word of God, and for the sake of this discussion we can assume that's true. What gives the Hadith its legitimacy?

Personally I view the Hadith with the following points in mind

1. They are oral traditions collected from 100-400 years after Mohammeds death

2. They are collected mostly from lay people

3. Initially the Hadiths were just collected; it was only later that scholars realised there was no way to verify the truth of the statements and started citing them to assess accuracy

4. This resulted in two phenomena

4.1 there are many older hadiths with poor citation that may be accurate
4.2 there are many later hadiths with excellent citation that may be inaccurate

5. Citation merely indicates who said it, not the accuracy of the statements stated.

 

[pan]

Christians are so tedious.

I just want to make a few comments after reading all the posts above:

Regarding all the deaths caused by Christians in the name of Christianity:
I believe no mention was made of the Inquisition, which wiped out one quarter of the population of Europe! It was initiated in the 12th century and "ended" in the mid 19th century. Actually, the Church has never officially abolished it. In 1908 the Holy Office of the Inquisition was changed to The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and in 1965 the name was changed again, to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So the Church still endorses it, just quietly.

Regarding Jesus Christ's origin:
This is a fascinating topic, which truly deserves its own thread. I have researched this matter for over twenty years and can say with certainty that "He" never took human form. "Jesus" is simply another evolution from a long succession of pagan sun gods whose origin predates recorded history. His "birth" coincides with the Winter Solstice, which explains the date when Christmas is celebrated (as well as Easter and other important religious events, which mark the other 3 solstices.) Any reasonable amount of research will verify this information.

The Abraham-Isaac story:
Ah. This tale provides great insight into the dangerous minds of Christians. It indicates the marked difference between Morality vs Sin.
First and foremost, Morality recognizes that people have basic "rights" and reciprocal "duties" to not obstruct the rights of others. Essentially, morality is a prudential construct. It offers rules of human conduct, initiated by humans, mutually agreed upon by humans, and subject to revision by humans. Its purpose is, essentially, to provide an impartial system of justice to maintain social order and to protect humans from harm as a result of wrongful acts (injustice).

In sharp contrast, the religious construct of "Sin" does not recognize the rights of humans at all. Sin is simply acting—even thinking—contrary to the whims of a supernatural being. The existence of this being is a matter of "faith", (since there is no empirical or rational evidence to support the assertion that it exists), the entity is not able to take your calls, yet its authority is 100% absolute. Whew. This makes for a wild goose chase to determine how, exactly, such a dubious being wants humans to behave. Enter religious "authority". Yes, obliging "messengers of god" are everywhere and take many curious forms—from the wealthy Pope and Evangelical celebrity down to the local preacher—even a lay man can have visions that qualify as "divine revelations".

[No surprise, all these inspired prophets offer different—even conflicting—interpretations of what their god wants. The divine truth that the gullible believer finally adopts is, inevitably, a function of shopping for the most palatable truth or inheriting one from your parents.]

Now what is so disturbing about Abraham's decision to obey god's command to murder Isaac, his beloved son, is that this action is considered exemplary by Christians! Abraham is actually admired for making a noble "sacrifice". Of course, God is only "testing" Moses (us) to see if he (we) will do anything, regardless of its abhorrence to our sense of right and wrong. If we disobey—no matter what is asked of us—we sin.

That is what is so revealing about the Abraham fable, and what constitutes an unwitting warning in the Bible to all free thinkers: Beware of any person or "god" who asserts a higher jurisdiction over our inherent rights and subsequent morality, lest we invite tyranny.

-Andy