Muhammad Wrote the quran
-
lol, since when mate we use the hadith as evidences?
Hadith may be innacurate, but you can nevertheless find out some things from it.
How do you think historians go about their business? All historical reports just like hadith are subject to bias and innacuracies, it is the job of the historian to do their best with the information at hand.
mate anyone who uses hadith as evidences is a double faced clear cut hypocrite
What I said was
Well well, look's like there may be more information at hand than thought, hadith never ceases to amaze me...
I didn't imply it as an evidence, if you read 15 posts up you'll understand what I mean.
However I am confused, don't you use hadith as a source of how you pray and other religious things?
Hadith is contextual whether people like that or not, simply because it's a source of historical information, everything from its flawed science to its use of sanads can be anaylsed.
-
Peace Ahmad
When I say "literate to some degree" I mean so in the sense that all people have a different degree of literal ability. No one is excatly alike. So the bearer of glad tidings may have been quite versed or not or anything in between or to one of the 2 extremes. That is what I mean by literate to some degree. I cannot measure his, your, or mine own literacy, but I'm sure each of us on this here forum are literate to some degree, each moreso or less than another.
When something has some degree of falsehood to it I do not think it is totally false as a whole. Since you're talking about the ahadeeth let's say the process is a lie (in how it was derived) or that it is fundamentally flawed. If it mentions that there is a hereafter, a future that is following my present condition I will be inclined to agree because I believe there is such a future. Now if I am correct in my belief, which coincides with the teaching of the ahadeeth than it shows me that the ahadeeth is not totally a literature of conjecture though it may boast of much conjecture.
You can expose my belief to be a conjecture, and it is true, it is a guess, but it is no wild guess in my opinion. With the evidence I've been able to piece together I would not think my conjecture is far from the truth of the matter. I'm sorry for using the word conjecture to mean lie, it should be a different word, but conjecture is more in line with guessing or having that miniscule evidence of which you are accusing me. As I said, I do not think I am making a wild guest when I say the bearer of glad tidings had some degree of literacy.
I say that muslimeen do not need to follow the laws of the quran because not all muslimeen are mumin.
Joe
-
Hadith may be innacurate, but you can nevertheless find out some things from it.
That is not the point, we are not discussing history, we are discussing what is sanctioned by Allah in His Quran, do you agree?
How do you think historians go about their business? All historical reports just like hadith are subject to bias and innacuracies, it is the job of the historian to do their best with the information at hand.
Of course and I love readinig about history, but again we are talking about what is sanctioned in the Quran, that is the whole thing, in here, on FI, or on FFI, now some are conjecturing that the prophet wrote the Quran, some are conjecruring that the prophet didn't write the Quran, and others don't conjecture and just don't know,
which one you go for?
What I said was
I didn't imply it as an evidence, if you read 15 posts up you'll understand what I mean.
actually I was not implying that you use it as evidence, i was only implying that Tanveer ised it as evidence
However I am confused, don't you use hadith as a source of how you pray and other religious things?
well, I actually never read any hadith to teach me salat, I learnt ikt from my parents, then I found it logical and does not follow the Quran, so I follow it, however I really wish that I can pray more than 5 times a day, It id a dream for me to be able to do it 100 times a day and 10 Rakkaa on each one, will I be punished by God you reckon for doing so?
Hadith is contextual whether people like that or not, simply because it's a source of historical information, everything from its flawed science to its use of sanads can be anaylsed.
will you use to confirm what is snactioned by Allah in His Quran?
remember the hadith did not snaction the Salat, the Salat was sanctioned by Allah in the Quran, the hadith only explained it, and it is wrong to call it salat hadith, it was actually a sunnah inherited from the prophet until it reached my parents, i.e I don't need hadith for it
Salam
-
which one you go for?
Read about 17 posts back and you'll see.
-
Peace all,
Looks like one of the posters here has difficulty understanding what is being used as evidence and what is being used to expose the sectarian's hypocrisy.
The quoted hadeeth was supposed to expose the sectarians' hypocrisy and the contradictory nature of the sectarian ahadeeth and not to be used as "evidence". The evidence from al-qur'aan is enough proof of the Prophet's ability to write after the start of revelation, and if a sectarian hadeeth contains something that is confirmed by al-qur'aan, then only that part of the sectarian hadeeth can be taken as the truth.
Looks like one of the posters here also has difficulty understanding the following
In 255, the rejecters' false accusation about the Prophet is that al-qur'aan is just tales of the ancients that he wrote after being dictated to him by other people and that false accusation could have been made only if the Prophet knew how to write.
In other words, no one would have been able to make that false accustaion if the Prophet NEVER knew how to write !
-
Peace Ahmad
When I say "literate to some degree" I mean so in the sense that all people have a different degree of literal ability. No one is excatly alike. So the bearer of glad tidings may have been quite versed or not or anything in between or to one of the 2 extremes. That is what I mean by literate to some degree. I cannot measure his, your, or mine own literacy, but I'm sure each of us on this here forum are literate to some degree, each moreso or less than another.
When something has some degree of falsehood to it I do not think it is totally false as a whole. Since you're talking about the ahadeeth let's say the process is a lie (in how it was derived) or that it is fundamentally flawed. If it mentions that there is a hereafter, a future that is following my present condition I will be inclined to agree because I believe there is such a future. Now if I am correct in my belief, which coincides with the teaching of the ahadeeth than it shows me that the ahadeeth is not totally a literature of conjecture though it may boast of much conjecture.
You can expose my belief to be a conjecture, and it is true, it is a guess, but it is no wild guess in my opinion. With the evidence I've been able to piece together I would not think my conjecture is far from the truth of the matter. I'm sorry for using the word conjecture to mean lie, it should be a different word, but conjecture is more in line with guessing or having that miniscule evidence of which you are accusing me. As I said, I do not think I am making a wild guest when I say the bearer of glad tidings had some degree of literacy.
I say that muslimeen do not need to follow the laws of the quran because not all muslimeen are mumin.
Joe
Salm mate
just a quick comment to make it berief,
we have to cut it short in here, because you are trying to back up a flawed statement with another flawed one, while we discussed that many times on FM and I provided zillions of Quran evidneces that the Muslim is the highest level of belief, i.e. every Muslim is a believer but not every believer is a Muslim
i.e. we reached a dead end and we must stop
Salam
-
Read about 17 posts back and you'll see.
I know, I have read it, but my comment was not really directed at you, it was smartly put down directed at another member that i donlt want to discuss matters with him
do you get it?
-
Peace
Then we can stop talking about what I meant about muslimeen following laws. You're the one who raised the question. Surely we can continue to discuss the issue of the literacy of the bearer of good news.
Joe
Salam
Sure
did you find the verse in the Quran that tells us conclusivly that mohammad wrote the whole Quran with his own hands?
Thanks
-
Peace all,
not every believer is a Muslim
The above contradicts with 2278 which talks about all believers being muslims
2277 O you who believe, kneel and prostrate and serve your Lord and do good that you may succeed.
2278 And strive in the cause of God its truly deserved striving. He is the One who has chosen you, and He has made no hardship for you in the system, the creed of your father Abraham; He is the One who named you 'those who have submitted' (almuslimeen) from before as well as in this. So let the messenger be witness over you and you be witness over the people. So honor the connection and contribute towards betterment and hold tight to God, He is your patron. What an excellent Patron, and what an excellent Supporter.The addressees here are the believers and their being called "almuslimeen" proves that all believers are muslims.
-
Peace
None of the evidence I come up with for anything is "conclusive" in my opinion because I am open to grow and not remain stagnant with an opinion. I believe the evidence I provided in the article is strong enough to make a point that the bearer of glad tidings was literate to some degree.
Joe
-
Peace all,
lol, since when mate we use the hadith as evidences?
it was smartly put down directed at another member that i donlt want to discuss matters with him
This proves that the author of the above quotes lacks the ability to understand what is being said, thus proving the futility of carrying any reasonable discussion with him.
-
Peace
None of the evidence I come up with for anything is "conclusive" in my opinion
Salam
We are in agreement then
The evidnece that Mohammad wrote the Quran is not conclusive and can't be fact
however do you agree that many ignorant Muslims take it as a fact?
Salam
-
Yep let's turn the subject to defame Ahmed, lol, I knew it it it will happen,
well I never claimed to be master in english nor I'm spell bound
now let's get this thread back on track
where is the verse or verses in the Quran that tell us that Mohammad wrote the whole Quran with his own hands?
Thanks -
Peace all,
2948 is proof that the Prophet learned how to write after the start of revelation
2948 You were not reciting any scripture before this (qablihi), nor were you writing one down by your hand. In that case, the doubters would have had reason.
The word "qablihi" in this verse is significant which means "before this revelation came." Thus al-qur'aan has put the record straight that the Prophet could read and write after the start of revelation.
The assertion that the Prophet was not writing ANY SCRIPTURE BEFORE THIS (this referring to the WHOLE QUR'AAN), proves that the Prophet wrote the WHOLE QUR'AAN with his hand, otherwise 2948 would become meaningless.
-
Peace
I think people do follow shaky evidence as genuine often enough. It happens.
You told me my evidence was weak, but I'm telling you I believe it to be strong and I'll tell you why.
1- In 96/1-5 one is shown the import to read and how God teaches.
2- The word umme refers to one who is ignorant of divine precepts, not to one lacking literacy.
Joe
-
Hello All
Please remember what the thread is all about, here it is highlighted
I am having a discussion with my freind who does not believe that Quran was written by Muhammad with his own hands.I already quoted him sura 25 verse 5 but still he insist on more evidence.Can any one help me find more verses from the quran or a suitable article which could help me in convincing my freind.
Thanks
-
Peace Ahmed
It's not to defame you. It's to encourage patience with your lack of knowledge/command of the english language, or in this case grammar.
Joe
Thanks for your kindness, on the other hand you can correct all my grammar and english mistakes and I won't refute back
Cheers