There are a few Controversial Hadiths

 

Bismi Allahi Al Rahmani Al Raheemi

ASA WR WB to believing Muslim friends

May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon Nabi Muhammad (epbuh):

Someone used a controversial Hadith that assigns a Shaitan if you are late for Fajr salaat to make you sleepy and lazy all day. Personally, I am rarely late. But we have to be careful of the words that we use. Our Words can either bring a harvest of blessings or harvest of disastrous losses. Are not Shaitans insulting, harmful and injurious to people? Is it something to toy with? Does Allah (swt) use Shaitans to assist Him? When we look at the contemporary Romans are they not some of the most productive people in the world? Are they dealing with Chronic Fatigue and Narcolepsy while under the Government of the Kitab? While I would not wish it on them should those under the Government of the Quran have such a clause and condition on Fajr salaat? Should we place Shaitans in the homes of the people who believe to watch to see if they make a mistake? Will it follow the rules of why it was assigned? That is a Hell. Why wish such a thing on each other when Nabi Muhammad (saws) said to spread the salaams in order to share love that would make you worthy of Jannah? 

Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“You will not enter Paradise until you believe, and you will not believe until you love one another. Shall I not tell you of that which will strengthen love between you? Spread (the greeting of) salaam amongst yourselves.”

(Narrated by Muslim, 81).

To Surahtul Kahfi in the form of mancave.

When one chooses to use a "controversial" hadith, one should ask if they'd want it pronounced upon them. But we should also have an innate sense of reservation or shame about giving Amr to a "controversial" Hadith that would be harmful and injurious to another innocent Muslim.
Some hadiths are sound, and some are not sound. We have to permit the Amr of the Quranul Kareem to overrule/divorce any Hadith that is in conflict with any of the Laws, Principles and Rights within the Quran. That is needed for eternity. Those who do not, then the loss is their own.
The Sahabas would remove something that would be injurious, harmful or a trip hazard in the road or path. 

Life narrowed down and being raised up blind through turning away from the Words of Allah.

Don't dabble with magic (Suhr, Jibt or Taghut). Can click any of the graphics to enlarge them.

A list of a handful of Controversial Hadiths. There are a few others to be careful of using on one another. The graphic concerning Wazara is intended to be combined with the black graphic beneath it making for a concerning scenario for the Hadith that is mentioned in the Wazara graphic.

Do not assist the adversary of a Muslim (which would be the evil one) against the Muslim. Do not ransom them to the evil ones. And there are a couple of other don'ts.

Ok, without thinking that I am crazy please check below how I grinded out the processing of this Hadith above to add to that it conflicts with the Holy Quran, and to explore the 4 possible scenarios or possible sequences of negative and positive, and which one the above Hadith contained in it. Lusts and Desires could connote "Ease" the Hellfire is made easy and the Paradise is made difficult...but according to the Quran that is for those who give the lie to the best.

We have to stop and sometimes ask ourselves, "What are we commanding in the Fellowship of the Spirit of Allah (swt)?" An example from Luke in the Injeel of what Amr or Command in the Spirit can do.

Blog Post: "How Allah and the Holy Quran Judge the Zalimun."
https://muhakeem1abdullah1.blogspot.com/2021/02/how-allah-and-quran-judge-zalimun.html

The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment concerning Traditional and NonTraditional Marriages

Bismi Allahi Al Rahmani Al Raheemi

ASA WR WB to believing Muslim friends.

May the peace and blessings of Allah (swt) be upon Nabi Muhammad (epbuh)

I have one more reflection today. I mentioned this one before. It is worth another mention. Give me a minute to compose it here.

Our Government is largely comprised of 2 Parties. Democrats considered liberals and left, and Republicans considered conservative and right. Democrats are strongly for the common wealth and good to the people, and the will of the people. Republicans tend to be more for the working class, wealthy, conserving and focusing on the wealth of the nation...defense, etc. Democrats will sometimes be willing to court the votes of those with nontraditional values to obtain votes. While Republicans will stand with traditional values, and maintaining wealth. But, the people in need, sick, poor, elderly could end up throwaways.

So, our Constitution has a lot of laws. The 1st Amendment establishes freedom of religion. But there is a clause known as the Establishment Clause which basically says that Government will be neither for nor against religion. The Founders did not want one branch of religion to come into power and then persecute another branch, and back in them days it was largely denominational differences of the Church and possibly some Judaic. But, different branches of the Church would have been prone to persecuting another branch of the Church. In the case of Wallace v Jaffree was referenced another case called Lemon v Kurtzman and it is from this case that we get what is called, "The Lemon Test" regarding enacting legislation or laws about religion. I will quote:

"Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; Second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; Finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." page 43 of Wallace v Jaffree

So, the point here is that nontraditional sexual practices should be regarded as a religion. This is supported by an Ayah of Quranul Kareem when Allah (swt) says, "following after your own desires can be considered like your god and religion", "45:23. Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart (and understanding), and put a cover on his sight. Who, then, will guide him after Allah (has withdrawn Guidance)? Will ye not then receive admonition?"

So, seeing nontraditional sexuality established as a religion, then our Government should make nontraditional sexualities subject to the Establishment Clause in which Government is neither for nor against religion. You don't want to create a climate of persecution but also do not want to put nontraditional sexualities on steroids. Basically send it back to "Don't ask. Don't tell."