> Differences in approach to Islam between Optimist and Sunni Muslims

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

wrong. Umar, the second in command, the khalifa of Islam did not know two most important matter of the religion that the same Abu Sa'eed al-Khudree had to teach him when he was khalifa. All of the companions knew about it except him. Your trying to equate an ignorance of a thing as an assumption on having no knowledge on the basics of Islam is not only far fetched, but an extremely poor attempt on your part to justify the unjustifiable.

Dear brother Boriqee, now you say Umar (r) did not know two most important matters of the religion, and you also said Ali (r) (correcting it as Zaid Ibn Thabit) did not know whether the prophet revoked the ban on writing down hadiths and that is why Ali (correcting it as Zaid Ibn Thabit) reported in the following hadith;

Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said: "Zaid ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zaid said: The Apostle of Allah ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he erased it." (Abu-Dawood Hadith No.3640)

I am only asking you to show the courage to say that the above hadith is just mere a report, even according to you own explanation, stated by Ali (r) (correcting it as Zaid Ibn Thabit) due to his ignorance of a fact. Is this what you call devine presevation of "reminder of wisdom"? Can you still claim that Hadith is devine revelation? This was the same thing I was telling you from the beginning that they were all human beings and they can go wrong. And if Ali (r) (correcting it as Zaid Ibn Thabit) and Umar (r) (even Aisha (r) as I will explain below) can go wrong about some aspects of Islam, what about ordinary Sahabas. But you have been all along saying that each and every single thing reported in all hadiths are equal to devine revelation and that when Allah said he will protect and guard "Al Zikr" it also includes Hadiths.

Originally Posted by salman

I am bringing this out not to confuse others or to raise doubts in their hearts but for benefit of da'wah

Thank you brother Salman for explaining some aspects, indeed it cleared some points. I also do admit that, even assuming any permission is given by the prophet; it can not be a general permission. But there are some points to be cleared. Can you tell me why Aisha, the mother of the believers, reported to have differed on this point. I quote from the link you have has quoted;

Imam Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Qur’an 2:233 notes that
“It is reported in both Sahihs that `Aisha thought that if a woman gives her milk to an older person (meaning beyond the age of two years) then this will establish fosterage. This is also the opinion of `Ata’ Ibn Abu Rabah and Al-Laith Ibn Sa`d. Hence, `Aisha thought that it is permissible to suckle the man whom the woman needs to be allowed in her house. She used as evidence the Hadith of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Huzaifah, where the Prophet ordered Abu Huzaifah’s wife to give some of her milk to Salim, although he was a man, and ever since then, he used to enter her house freely. However, the rest of the Prophet’s wives did not agree with this opinion* and thought that this was only a special case. This is also the opinion of the Majority of the scholars (Al-Jumhour)”.

*Yes I also noticed a hadith from Muslim; Book 8 : Hadith 3429 where all other wives of the prophet say this is only an exception for Salim which is further corroborated by Imam Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi who states that all of the Prophet’s wives with the exception of Aisha (Allah be pleased with them all) considered this to be a special dispensation, and this is the view taken by the majority of early (salaf) and late (khalaf) scholars

So the issue is not as simple as being projected. Brother Al boriqee, use of words like "revisionist completely rape our religion and common sense" is of no use. I am only analyzing the issues as a sincere Muslim fully devoted to Allah. It is pertinent to note that even the initial hadith itself is attributed to Aisha and therefore whatever Aisha (reported to have) understood has got some relevance though it can not be accepted in any case. Why Aisha understood the issue in a different sense (which I do not believe a real fact)? It may be someone falsely attributing this to Aisha with the motive of getting some personal benefits and to justify a wrong doing just like this idiot Al Azhar mufti made a Fatwa.

Add to this, there is a reported hadith that talk about abrogation of 10 suckling verses with 5 suckling verses reported to have revealed towards the end of prophet’s life, and later the recitation was taken out from the Quran but the ruling is still valid!. Brother Al Boriqee, touch your heart and tell me are you feeling comfortable to accept a report that says there was a verse that stipulated 10 sucklings and later another verse was revealed (that too at the very last days of the prophet and history records many sahabas unknowingly reciting these verses even after prophet's death and later all agreed that it need not be recited!!). One simple question. Why Allah, the all knowing, did not reveal 5 sucklings verse in the first place? Why a verse which was revealed during the last days abrogating another verse and why it was again taken out from Quran immediately? And still the ruling mentined in that verse is still valid! Don’t tell me progressive hadeeth rejectionists can not understand the logic behind these.

Apart from this, if we assume that Aisha understood the prophet wrongly, as Ibn Kathir says, it will also create another problem. How can we say for sure that all statements attributed to Aisha in various hadiths reported by Aisha are correctly understood by Aisha from the prophet? Yes they are all human beings and they can make errors. Are you willing to admit this fact? Or do you still believe that all the people who carried the hadiths were infallible? And each and every hadith recorded by Imam Bukhari and Muslim are "devine revelations" which, as you say, Allah promised in his Kithab to protect?

[al-boriqee]

Various Absurdities of Hadeeth Rejectionism volume 2:

Originally Posted by optimist

Dear brother Boriqee, now you say Umar (r) did not know two most important matters of the religion, and you also said Ali (r) did not know whether the prophet revoked the ban on writing down hadiths and that is why Ali reported the following hadith;

I never said Ali did not know the revoking of the ban. How could I have said that when Ali himself compiled a book of hadeeth called "saheefa Ali". As usual, you are making up stuff based on warping the understanding of issues that have clearly been demonstrated to you.

Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab said: "Zaid ibn Thabit entered upon Mu'awiyah and asked him about a tradition. He ordered a man to write it. Zaid said: The Apostle of Allah ordered us not to write any of his traditions. So he erased it." (Abu-Dawood Hadith No.3640)

I understand that hadeeth and I have no problems with it because unlike yourself, I understand how that hadeeth was applied and what superceded (abrogated) that hadeeth. It is you who are in the dark as to how various hadeeth texts are to be understood.

I am only asking you to show the courage to say that the above hadith is just mere a report

How is affirming the obvious "courage". I know it is a report, it is a report about REVELATION given to Muhammad in which Muhmmad alaihi salatu salam gave a ruling based on wahi and THEN abrogated that ruling with another ruling based on wahi. So it is a report that is reporting "wahi".

, even according to you own explanation, stated by Ali (r) due to his ignorance of a fact.

again, I have no idea where you got this from. I never said Ali was ignorant when Im the one that told you that he compiled a hadeeth book IN LIGHT of KNOWING the earlier prophetic ban on writing them down. That is because Ali was a faaqih, he knew how to apply Islamic rulings FROM HADEETH that he heard from the prophet outside of the qur'an.

Is this what you call devine presevation of "reminder of wisdom"?

thats not what I call Divine revelation, that is what the Muslims from the Ummah of Muhammad called the preservation of the Divine Wisdom. Take your quarrel against the direct companions of the prophet for administering to us this very understanding.

Can you still claim that Hadith is devine revelation?

Wrong, We as Muslims claim that hadeeth are the exact preservation of revelation that was given to Muhammad, his guidance.

The command of Allah is to follow the Qur'an AND the Sunnah. Allah did not say "follow the Qur'an" full stop

look at what Allah says

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَ*ٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

i.e.

oh those of you who believe, obey Allah AND obey the Messenger

Again, as I told you before, the principle in the shariah is that Allah DOES NOT reveal useless repetition. When Allah says "AND" the significance of the thing that comes after and is denoting to the reader that it is DIFFERENT than the thing that comes before. In other words, when Allah said "Obey Allah AND Obey the Messenger" He is telling us that
1. it is a matter of obligation to follow the messenger
2. that whatever the messenger gives is BEYOND the speech of Allah. In other words, his speech is different, it is not Allah;s speech, but the OBLIGATION of obedience remains because he is one who is guided.

Secondly, Allah obligated upon us to follow the messenger. ANother shariah principle is brought forth by the Muslims that
"Allah does not obligate a matter upon the slave EXCEPT that they have the ability to do it"

that is the shariah principle. WHY?
because to acknowledge a reality outside of that entails kufr. If we assume that Allah obligates us with a matter that is beyond our capability, it is insinuating that Allah is an oppressor.

Thus, when He tells us to follow the messenger, then it is telling us that whatever the messenger said or did will be made known and clear to us. So the concept of hadeeth rejectionism is a concept that is built on kufr, for the argument of hadeeth rejectors is that "we have no way to ascertain the validity of a report from the prophet".

That argument entails Allah to be an oppressor for IF the Muslims DID NOT have the ability to ascertain the acts and guidance of the prophet, then you are insinuating Allah is an oppressor for revealing a command that we in reality have no ability to fulfill.

We have established that the Messenger (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is to be followed, however we must ask ourselves a question once again. In his infinite wisdom, Allah knew when he revealed this verse that the Messenger (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) would soon die and that his Ummah (nation) would carry on after his death. Understanding this, we must ask the question of how do we understand this verse of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam). Is it no longer applicable? Of course it is! The Sunnah is the explanation of the Qur'an. It is the Qur'an in practice.

This was the same thing I was telling you from the beginning that they were all human beings and they can go wrong.

that is WHY I told you before on the forum that we take the companions AS A WHOLE, all of them complement the other. That is why we have the Qur'an, whoever erred, the other made sure it was corrected. The same is with regards to the shariah, if Aisha was incorrect, we understood from OTHERS the correctness of the matter.

And if Ali (r) and Umar (r) (even Aisha (r) as I will explain below) can go wrong about some aspects of Islam, what about ordinary Sahabas.

as I said, the whole of what they were upon complements the fault of the other, so whatever your trying to insinuate, has no merit.

But you have been all along saying that each and every single thing reported in all hadiths are equal to devine revelation and that when Allah said he will protect and guard "Al Zikr" it also includes Hadiths.

yep, that is what we believe because we believe that Allah is not a liar, but hadeeth rejectionism is a method the lands one to these implications regardless of the intent of its adherent.

there is some more that i need to address in your rpely to salman, but not know

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

I never said Ali did not know the revoking of the ban. How could I have said that when Ali himself compiled a book of hadeeth called "saheefa Ali". As usual, you are making up stuff based on warping the understanding of issues that have clearly been demonstrated to you.

Sorry just a quick note; not Ali (r), it is Zyed Ibn Thabit

again, I have no idea where you got this from. I never said Ali was ignorant when Im the one that told you that he compiled a hadeeth book IN LIGHT of KNOWING the earlier prophetic ban on writing them down. That is because Ali was a faaqih, he knew how to apply Islamic rulings FROM HADEETH that he heard from the prophet outside of the qur'an.

Sorry, again Zyed ibn thabit.

[salman]

Originally Posted by optimist

Originally Posted by optimist

Thank you brother Salman for explaining some aspects, indeed it cleared some points.

wa iyyak, and what I brought forward clears up the whole thing while on the other hand you have to yet to admit your mistake publicly and rectify your previous statement and seeking Allah's forgiveness for rejecting an aspect of deen which has been authentically reported to us. This clearly shows your lack of sincerity and humbleness. A Muslim is humble and seeker of truth and not stubborn and holding onto falsehood. I told myself in past couple of weeks that i will be more gentle to you; however, you give me no opportunity to continue being gentle.

You have yet to explain to us on what basis you rejected that hadith or proposed a rejection! And why would you because it exposes your falsehood very clearly!

Originally Posted by optimist

I also do admit that, even assuming any permission is given by the prophet; it can not be a general permission.

Do you accept the hadith or no? Either prove that there is a need to make an assumption or correct your speech. Whether the permission is general or not is completely irrelevant at this point because we are not arguing about fiqhi implication of the hadith. Your argument is against the validity of hadith. Do you accept the hadith? Simple yes and no will suffice and if you reject it then tell us why you reject it i.e., what is your academic criteria to reject it?

Rest of the points in your post has been already addressed by akh boriqee but for some reasons you are ignoring them and keep repeting same thing over and over again.

As it has been told to you 50+ times already, they were the same people who narrated Qur'an to us so if you want to apply the infallible argument to ahadith then that will also apply to the Qur'an. Even if we go with your argument then it still doesn't explain why you accept some ahadith. It still doesn't explain your criteria for accepting some ahadith while rejecting others.

Lastly,

1) From now on, your posts in this thread will be deleted until you answer our questions directly and stop beating around the bush

2) this is the last thread where you will be allowed to continue any sort of falsehood discussion on this board. Consider it your last warning, in future, you will be banned along with your IP.

[optimist]

Salam,

Firstly let me tell you brother Salman, if you decide to ban me from the forum there is no need to block my IP address, because I will never ever come to this forum through another id. You can take my word for that.

Yes, I do admit your post did clear some misunderstanding because you explained how the suckling was done, but I do not believe this hadith (report) is true for the followings reasons.

(Note: I am not rejecting something prophet has said, I am only saying this is not the words of my prophet)

1. There are no supporting evidence in Islam to show that a grown up man suckling the milk using a cup will create a fosterage relationship. Whether it was an exceptional permission is not the relevant point. The question is; suppose if someone drinks the milk in this way (may be his act of drinking could be interpreted as a wrong doing) what will be the effect of his act? Will it create a fosterage relationship? This is the material question. If you say it will create a fosterate relationship it will contradict our understanding Salim's case is a special case, but if you say it will not create a fosterage relationship, we can not argue that in Salim's case it did indeed created a fosterage relationship. I hope you are able to follow my point.

2. The prophet would not “smile” and “laugh” when he gives an Islamic advice.

3. Assuming the hadith is true, the hadith narrators ought to have reported in the very same hadith that Salim was "suckled" by gathering her milk into a cup and drinking from this cup” especially because they are even mentioning Sahla asking prophet “How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man?”. And the reply provided in the hadith is only; “prophet smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man!” and then Allah’s messenger “laughed”!. The narrators made material omissions and gave unnecessarily stress to prophet “smiled” and “laughed” without explaining the situation properly. The intension of the chain of narrators of this particular hadith is doubtful.

4. Aisha, the mother of believers ‘reported’ to have taken this as general permission can not be also a true statement. What will happen if someone accepts the version of Aisha over and above the opinion of others and practice this in real life?

5. Reading the Quran we are able to get complete guidance regarding fosterage relationship and this hadith only create confusion in our minds and enemies of Islam uses this hadith to throw insult against our beloved prophet.

[salman]

^EPIC FAIL

and could you please tell me what kind of academic criteria is this to reject or accept a historical account? And has any masters of science of hadith or historian scholars have used this criteria?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

The command of Allah is to follow the Qur'an AND the Sunnah. Allah did not say "follow the Qur'an" full stop

look at what Allah says

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَ*ٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

i.e.

oh those of you who believe, obey Allah AND obey the Messenger

Again, as I told you before, the principle in the shariah is that Allah DOES NOT reveal useless repetition. When Allah says "AND" the significance of the thing that comes after and is denoting to the reader that it is DIFFERENT than the thing that comes before. In other words, when Allah said "Obey Allah AND Obey the Messenger" He is telling us that
1. it is a matter of obligation to follow the messenger
2. that whatever the messenger gives is BEYOND the speech of Allah. In other words, his speech is different, it is not Allah;s speech, but the OBLIGATION of obedience remains because he is one who is guided.

Brother Al Boriqee, you ignored my post number 38, where I addressed the logical error.

You are trying to imply that to follow Allah means to follow Quran and to follow Prophet means to follow Hadiths. Such an understanding is completely wrong. ‘To obey the Messenger’ does not mean a person or a group of people make their own collection of Messenger’s sayings and start to follow them? There is no basis for such an understanding.

According to Quran "Obey Allah and obey the messenger" does not mean seperate obedience. The "Messenger" means the one who brings a message. So, by this definition when Allah says, "Obey the Messenger" what does that mean? The Messenger is bringing Message from Allah, and therefore we must obey the Message He is giving us. That is why following the statement "obey Allah and his messenger" Allah repeatedly states the duty of the messenger;

“And obey Allah and obey the messenger and be cautious; but if you turn back, then know that only a clear deliverance of the message is (incumbent) on Our messenger [wa maa alaa rasulinal balaghul mubeen] (5: 92)

"And obey Allah and obey the messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our messenger devolves only the clear delivery (of the message) [wa maa alaa rasulinal balaghul mubeen]." (64: 12)

Say: Obey Allah and obey the messenger; but if you turn back, then on him rests that which is imposed on him and on you rests that which is imposed on you; and if you obey him, you are on the right way; and nothing rests on the messenger but clear delivering (of the message) [wa maa alaa rasulinal balaghul mubeen]. - (24: 54)


Notice the following verses also;

1. ‘And a proclamation from Allah and His Apostle [is herewith made] unto all mankind on this day of the Greatest Pilgrimage:………….’ - [9: 3]

Does anybody assume that one announcement came from Allah and ANOTHER from the Messenger? The answer is No! It was only from the LIPS of His Messenger, the prophet Muhammad, that they heard this announcement of immunity. Yet it has come from both Allah and His Messenger.

2. “The retribution for those who fight Allah and His messenger, and spread mischief in the land, is to be killed, or crucified, or to cut off their hands and feet on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land..." - (5: 33)

Endorsing the above Ayat, Maulana Maudoodi writes in Tafheemul Qur'an:
"To fight against Allah and His Messenger means waging war against the system which the Islamic government has established." (Tafheemul Qur'an vol. I, page 465)

3. “THEY WILL ASK thee about the spoils of war. Say: "All spoils of war belong to God and the Messenger.”(8:1)

The statement that "all spoils of war belong to God and the messenger" implies that no individual warrior has a claim to any war booty: it is public property, to be utilized or distributed by the government of an Islamic state.

Thus 'to obey Allah and Messenger' does not mean to obey the 'Qur'an and the Hadith'. Such an understanding is wrong.

I challenge you to show me any single verse from the Quran where Allah is directing us to follow prophet's haidiths. Actually even the term hadith itself nowhere used in the Quran in relation to prophet's hadiths.

@brother salman, I will answer your question later

[salman]

^did you realize that you just refuted and contradicted yourself? And jazak Allah khayr for taking your time to prove our point that whatever Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) brought is wahy from Allah and it is a one message and not two and there is no difference between them! I am sure akh boriqee gets my drift and I will leave rest to him.

First you say that whatever Messenger of Allah brings is from Allah and we are ordered to obey then at the end you make a completely opposite conclusion; hence, you end up contradicting yourself! Why is that!? Simply put, you don't even know what you are talking about.

If whatever Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) brought is from Allah then on what basis his statements are not from Allah? If the ahadith of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) are not from Allah and we are not ordered to follow them then why do you follow some of them and consider them part of deen? How do we differentiate between two kinds of statements delivered by the Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam): his own statements and the Qur'an? What I am asking is that how do we know when the statements/message he uttered is from Allah and when it is not? Did you get a revelation or did Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) himself dropped by your house to tell you this in secret?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

^did you realize that you just refuted and contradicted yourself? And jazak Allah khayr for taking your time to prove our point that whatever Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) brought is wahy from Allah and it is a one message and not two and there is no difference between them! I am sure akh boriqee gets my drift and I will leave rest to him.

First you say that whatever Messenger of Allah brings is from Allah and we are ordered to obey then at the end you make a completely opposite conclusion; hence, you end up contradicting yourself! Why is that!? Simply put, you don't even know what you are talking about.

If whatever Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) brought is from Allah then on what basis his statements are not from Allah? If the ahadith of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) are not from Allah and we are not ordered to follow them then why do you follow some of them and consider them part of deen? How do we differentiate between two kinds of statements delivered by the Messenger (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam): his own statements and the Qur'an? What I am asking is that how do we know when the statements/message he uttered is from Allah and when it is not? Did you get a revelation or did Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) himself dropped by your house to tell you this in secret?

Brother Salman, I did not say anywhere whatever the prophet did or said is Wahi or based on devine revelations. It is your interpretation. If that is the case, Allah would not have reprimanted the prophet in Quran at many places. I can show you many examples. Even you yourself aware, there are also many instances, the prophet changed his opinion accepting the opinion of other sahabas. If you say whatever prophet did or said was based on revelation it would also mean that the prophet is not a human being like us.

“Say, (Oh Muhammad), “I am no more than a human being like you…”-(18: 110)

The Prophet, a human being like us was the messenger only because of the message given to him, the Qur'an. The prophet did not receive any other revelations other than the Quran. The Messenger himself is made to confirm that the Wahi he is receiving is the Qur'an:

‘And this Qur'an has been revealed to me [uhiya ilayya ha_zal Qur'an] that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches?’ (6:19)

Allah Challenges people to produce something similar to the Revelation being sent down to the Messenger. Let us read these challenges:

‘And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then bring a Surah similar to it, and call your witnesses beside Allah if ye are truthful?’ (2:23)

Here we notice that as a challenge to WHAT ALLAH REVEALS to His slave, the people are told to bring a Surah. Here, Allah’s challenge to ‘bring a Surah similar to it’ against ‘that which We reveal unto Our slave’, establishes that What Allah is revealing to His slave is composed of Surahs, i.e. it is the Qur'an.

Then Allah forbids people from asking unnecessary questions when the Qur'an is revealed.

‘O you who believe! Do not put questions about things which if declared to you may trouble you, and if you question about them when the Qur'an is being revealed, they shall be declared to you; Allah pardons this, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.’ -(5:101)

The above restriction would have been meaningless if Prophet Muhammad had received other revelations besides the Qur'an. This proves that there were no other revelations besides the Qur'an.

This is (the Qur'an) a delivery [balaghu] for Humans; let them take warning there from, and let them know that He is the One God; let the People of understanding take heed - (14: 52)

The above Ayah points to IT [haza] meaning THIS IS (pointing to the Qur'an itself) is the delivery of the Messenger. This is further clarified in the following Ayah:

O Messenger! Proclaim [Baligh] what is sent down to you [ma Unzila Ilaika] from your Lord. If you do not, you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His message: - (5: 67)

Allah explains what is being revealed to the Prophet:

Ha Mim: A REVELATION from the Beneficent, the Merciful Allah: A BOOK, whereof the Ayat are explained in detail; - a QUR'AN in Arabic, for people who understand - (41:1-3).

[al-boriqee]

subhanallah

optimist, do you learn. the prophet said "the muslims does not fall into the same mistake twice"

so far we have literally 10 times throughout the forum where each time you fell into the blunder of hadeeth rejetionism, when our replies clarified the corruption of this tangent you went upon, which I may add was irrefutable considering your admission of being at fault, you still by and far continue to tread down the same road.

there has been a numbing factor that has taken place with your intellectual eptitude similar to a person who looses their ability to feel. such a person can put their hands on a fire and will not feel pain until their hand is burnt to a crisp and thus already too late.

Our psyche in terms of its relationship with everything His Lord told him which entails whatever His messenger told him is more detrimental than the person whose hands is numb, for when their hand is in danger without their sense knowing it, they can loose their hand, but with our thought patterns, we can loose our aakhira in the process.

Now I have to waste my time to raise to the ground these various religious malpractices you have thrown onto the forum.

when i am calmer and have more time, i'll address them inshallah