For Pir Sahab and Islam is the religion of the Arabs! part trois continued!

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Nov 26, 2006 at 14:32

My dear Pir you still did not tell us what on earth is Pir and pardah? and why do you use Urdu words after all islam is the religion of the Arabs and the language of Islam is Arabic and not Urdu.

Then you wrote:

>While (Bilal) calling for prayers (azaan) he used to pronounce SAA for SHA

This begs the following questions:

1. How do you know that Bilal if he ever existed pronounced the Arabic letter Sheen as the Arabic letter Seen? Were you there? and let me guess the source of this little Pakistani gem must be either a bogus anachronistic hadith or is it the unhistorical sira (more later)?So which one is it?

2. Are you also aware that the racist Arabs looked at the whole world from the languages point of view as 3Arabi vs. 3Ajami? Persians (3Ajam) that were shaping Islam in their own way (70% of al-3Ulum al-Islamiya were composed by Persians and non of them spoke perefect Arabic but still shaped the language and the religion of the Arabs in their own Persian way, and part of it was to compose adadith (plural of hadith) that will in effect make it OK for a good Muslim like Bilal to have lahja (accent) when speaking Arabic by inventing this little gem about the letter sheen and seen so why not Persians can be good Muslims even if they have an accent when speaking Arabic?Do you see how silly the whole thing is?

Now enter tablighees like you saying that it is OK to mangle the Arabic language because Bilal did the same. But this is far from the truth as your Allah is an Arab who only knew Hijazi Arabic! So much for the linguistic imperialism of the Arabs! It is also clear to me that this Bilal tradition if it ever existed is: ananchronistic and therefore bogus!

Then you babble about the hadees (sic) being _absolutely_correct then you write:

>I am talking about hadees ee sahih

Tsk....tsh...tsk...it is: al-Hadith al-sahih. So why did you not write this in the first place? Why are you such a careless writer?

So you agree that some Ahadith (p) are indeed bogus and some Ahadith are indeed anachronistic as in the Bilal tradition, if so would you like to change your rather silly statement that all the hadith literature is _absolutely _correct? And while we are at it fix your poor Arabic!

So much for the bogus hadith! And your assertions so far are just as bogus.

Then you wrote:

>...hadees ee zaeef whose authencity has not been proved or accepted by all scholars

This little gem raises many questions:

1. Why do you mangle the Arabic language? it is al-hadith al-da3eef repeat after me: al-hadith al-da3eef. Your allah does not like a funny lahja!

2. So you admit that some ahadith are bogus! Right? So how do we establish what is a real hadith and what is a bogus hadith? Well let me help you Muslims tell us that the way to find out is to examine the Isnad. Oh you do not know any Arabic Isnad is the chain of transmission of a matn (the substance of the hadith) but my dear Pir if some ahadith are bogus and anachronistic as we have established we should supect that isnads can be just as bogus! Right? So much for the hadith and for being absolutely correct and for foolish tablighees.

3. You also mention that muslim scholars (if there is an oxymoron this is the one) do not always agree on what is a hadith sahih? Right? if so who is right and who is wrong when Shaikh al-Azhar tells us that FGM or female circumcision is sunna based of the infamous "makrouma" hadith, but you in Pakistan do not believe such hadith. So who is right and who is wrong? It is either Muhammad said such a thing or he did not!

And then you come and tell us that the hadith is absolutely correct? Shame on you!

As for Michael Cook's book did you really read it? and did you understand what he is saying? I very much doubt it because if you knew what he is really saying you would not have quoted his book as a source.

Now let me help you he is saying that the sira is _unhistorical_! This means it is bogus history! and for the little quote from his book he is really saying that the author of the Qur'an assumes that the reader of the Qur'an is already familiar with the Bible. this is what is called the referential nature of the Quranic discourse which could very well mean that the Qur'an is a midrash! No midrash is a Hebrew word (gasp)!

I doubt very much that you understood what I just wrote.

Next is Islam really the religion of the Arabs? Stay tuned.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".