Once in a while the news are filled about a group of radical, extremist Muslims who slaughter people and commit the most unthinkable crimes under the name of Islam. ISIS is a recent example. If you ask such people that why they are committing such obvious wrong deeds and still consider it the command of the God, they would answer that they are trusting a Muslim scholar and that they receive the commands of the God through him. Based on this trust they consider the scholar's commands equivalent to the God's commands and blindly follow the scholar's instructions to make the God happy. But does not this method sound too similar to shirk, the exact opposite of Islam's primary message, which is not following anybody except the God? How did this happen? How did that origin with the most clear message came to this obvious contradictory point?
In the "Belief vs. Trust" article, we show that in the current understanding of Islam believing in God is interpreted as trusting a religious package preached by the local religious scholars. After analyzing the roots of such interpretation, the article shows that key element that legitimizes the incorporation of trusting scholars into religious practice is considering Hadith as a pillar of Islam. The current Islam which is mixed with Hadith has become so complicated that leaves an ordinary Muslim with no solution but seeking the advice of some Hadith experts (or scholars) about "what Islam says".
Then in the "Islam Without Hadith" article, we list the pros and cons of existence of Hadith in the current Islamic practice, and show that by eliminating Hadith not only we do not lose any of the core Islamic values but also we are given the chance to rediscover the Simple Islam, the religion which guides us to nothing but reasonable, beautiful deeds. In Simple Islam, which is free from the complexities of Hadith, there is no space for religious scholars to instruct their blind followers to such unbelievable crimes.
In the "Belief vs. Trust" article, we show that in the current understanding of Islam believing in God is interpreted as trusting a religious package preached by the local religious scholars. After analyzing the roots of such interpretation, the article shows that key element that legitimizes the incorporation of trusting scholars into religious practice is considering Hadith as a pillar of Islam. The current Islam which is mixed with Hadith has become so complicated that leaves an ordinary Muslim with no solution but seeking the advice of some Hadith experts (or scholars) about "what Islam says".
Then in the "Islam Without Hadith" article, we list the pros and cons of existence of Hadith in the current Islamic practice, and show that by eliminating Hadith not only we do not lose any of the core Islamic values but also we are given the chance to rediscover the Simple Islam, the religion which guides us to nothing but reasonable, beautiful deeds. In Simple Islam, which is free from the complexities of Hadith, there is no space for religious scholars to instruct their blind followers to such unbelievable crimes.
Criticisms of Simple Islam
No comments:
Post a Comment