59:7 - Explain.
-
Salaam OPF, aalmakto,
A) I quoted Tanveer's post for the Quranic references, not for the arguments. As for the stances being indefensible, you can state that all you please, but I have already shown this logically. If I remember correctly, you did not even respond to it and changed the subject. This I believe is on page 5. Abu Zahrah also ignored it wholesale. This is clear concealment of truth. Are we to obey your message when you barely believe in countering our arguments?
And those were all responded to in the relevant thread. In brief, the word Kitab= book does not mean only the Qur'an. It means the Qur'an and other things that fit within that definition and that does not exclude the authentic hadeeths.
B) If one truly believes hadeeths are false, one refuses them. This is what we are doing. It just so happens that the level of false ahadeeth is so high it is wiser to stop taking guidance from them all. Rejecting the hadeeth is one thing, but we are told that the Quran is the ONLY source of law, and the only source of truly authentic guidance. The hadeeth have uses such as history, to draw guidance from them leads people astray from the Quran. And those verses clearly show that obeying the messenger is = obeying the Quran. Your position on this is indefensible. Refusing baseless hadeeth when we have ahsan ul-hadeeth with us is not reactionary or extreme but beneficient.
1- There is no "clearly" to mean obeying the Qur'an alone.
2- Forcing obey the messenger to mean "only Qur'an" makes the qur'an poor in it's literal style and therefore you undermine it's uniqueness and miracle. It forces redundancy on fourty or more statements of the qur'an. Why would God repeat it so many times, when He really meant "only obey the Qur'an"?
3- It is not either hadeeth or Qur'an. It is Qur'an and then hadeeth. So a proper use of hadeeth does and should not move any person away from the Qur'an.
4- If there is only one hadeeth that is authentic and God ordered you to obey the messenger, then the effort to find that one authentic hadeeth is worth it. Why? because you are doing what God ordered you, seek knowledge.
5- Just repeating that you have demonstrated what you have never demonstrated does not make it so. A glance at that thread will show your weakness.C) I have already demonstrated what "obey the messenger" means. This takes roughly 3 steps of logic to deduce. It does not need inference, unlike obeying of Bukhari. When a certain piece of material comes to your way, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE MESSENGER TO PROVE THE MESSAGE PRESENTED IS AUTHENTIC. If obeying the messenger is obeying Allah, then lying against the messenger is lying against Allah. Who is more wicked than he who lies against Allah? Again, we have a fundamental point of logic being subverted by hadeethists. The burden of proof is on the compiler of ahadeeth to prove his hadeeth are true. If we take the reverse, we must conclude that there is a teapot orbiting the moon somewhere and an invisible pink unicorn ruling over Earth. The Quranic guideline, no less is in 1736 which affirms that we must prove the positive. A negative cannot be proven. Also, 49006 reinforces this point. To this I ask, who is more wicked than he who invents a lie against Allah? The hadeeth of stoning is such an example. There is no reason to propagate such falsehood.
1- actually, the people who reject the Qur'an will use your same argument (Quran has to prove itself) to reject Islam in general. So, you have no point because those same people will have to answer to their lord.
2- Islam is not about spoon feeding. It is about search and learning with humility. So, the burden does not fall off of you by claiming "burden of proof".
3- When a person limits the meaning of a term in the Qur'an to make it deliberately narrower than it's import, then that person is lying about God. This is what happens to a person that claims that obey the messenger means "only obey the Qur'an". If a person is insisting upon ignorance then that is a sin, especially if he knew that his or her knowledge of the Arabic is lacking, something that characterizes the majority here.
4- You seem to have forgotten that part of the message of the Qur'an is "Do not reject what should not be rejected, even if you do not like it". " Do not reject what you may not completely understand". Let us face it, this is why many of you guys reject hadeeth.
5- Hadeeth that is authentic can prove itself.D) You are again using fallacious logic to justify your POV. You associated "lack of consensus" with "Quran Alone". This is a human trait, not a "Quran alone" trait. As you say, some scholars decline the stoning, another accepts stoning, rejecting apostacy, Hanifah accepts alcohol, Malik says the alcoholic is a kafir who should be beaten with shoes, so on, and so on. The hadeeth can be taken in shreds. One can accept one hadith and reject another. The difference is, with the Quran alone, we accept the WHOLE Quran and everything in it, and we ascertain that our inherent weaknesses and biases prevent us from coming to the true meaning. In ahadeeth, this is the opposite, the meaning fits around the conclusion. What is the "asbab al-nuzool" for the hadeeth that states "Three things have evil omen, the black dog, the woman, and x" (I cannot remember what x is, most probably the serpent)? If we judge by other hadeeth presenting Quranic contexts, it seems the narrator was not... getting any.
E) There are verses that state the system/deen of Islam is built into everything, the human included. I'll see what I can do to find them. For instance, does any thinking human need 1736 to tell him that we have to prove information, not disprove it? Most certainly not. As I stated, clarity is equal to common sense. Where does Arabic enter the fray? When a meaning sounds preposterous, a simple study of the terminology used in the verses, combined with clarity/common sense and following the best meaning (391 will show the clearest meaning.
A system that insist on consensus on everything is a false system. A system that has consensus on nothing is a false system. That is your system. Islam has consensus in those core issues and allows diversity in other areas. You guys fail at that. When you fail at such a basic level, then one has to conclude that your system is more of bias (disguised as "common sense", "logic" and all your nice empty slogans) and then Qur'an, rather than Qur'an alone as you like to claim.
F) The hadeeth may reflect the knowledge of the language of the early group of Muslims - ASSUMING THEY ARE TRUE. We would also have to contend that they were immensely stupid and superstitious people, ASSUMING THEY ARE TRUE. Archaeology reveals sophistication, not stupidity. The hadeeth teach blood, violence and gore in places. Death for the thief. Why should we listen to such a stupid group of people (ASSUMING THEY aRE TRUE) when we have THE BEST hadeeth lying in front of us, waiting to be read?
And you read the Qur'an in your own images. Archeaology can be attractive to some of you because you can fill in the many blanks the way you like it. Stupidity is a matter of judgement. The Qur'an is full of statements about people who were labeled stupid when they were not. I would be careful when I use this word. It can come back and haunt me.
Thats where the big discord is I think between Quran alone and Hadith Followers. I find it difficult to follow men whom are not Prophets or Messengers, and were not alive during the time of Revelation. Those who collected the Hadith are no way different from you and me other than they lived a bit closer to the time of revelation. Who asked them to compile the Hadith? It was not God? Why did they feel the need to do it? Wasn't their religion complete?
1- We all learn from each other. Refusing to learn from someone who lived long ago, just because you do not believe that he knew better than you is not defensible. You can learn from someone that does not know as much as you do. On principle, you are wrong.
2- How can you arrive at such a conclusion that you know better, before you read what they have written and study it deeply.
3- People did not read the Qur'an and say this and that. People were taught the Qur'an from others who were taught the Qur'an from others. Those writings are the reflection of that learning process. You guys want to learn the Qur'an without help in learning it and as if it came from nothing. if you guys do not speak Arabic, then you are being told what it says and you have no way whether someone is lying to you. May be people like to be lied to and then they are responsible for their wrong decisions to follow a false teacher.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam OPF, aalmakto,
And those were all responded to in the relevant thread. In brief, the word Kitab= book does not mean only the Qur'an. It means the Qur'an and other things that fit within that definition and that does not exclude the authentic hadeeths.
1- There is no "clearly" to mean obeying the Qur'an alone.
2- Forcing obey the messenger to mean "only Qur'an" makes the qur'an poor in it's literal style and therefore you undermine it's uniqueness and miracle. It forces redundancy on fourty or more statements of the qur'an. Why would God repeat it so many times, when He really meant "only obey the Qur'an"?
3- It is not either hadeeth or Qur'an. It is Qur'an and then hadeeth. So a proper use of hadeeth does and should not move any person away from the Qur'an.
4- If there is only one hadeeth that is authentic and God ordered you to obey the messenger, then the effort to find that one authentic hadeeth is worth it. Why? because you are doing what God ordered you, seek knowledge.
5- Just repeating that you have demonstrated what you have never demonstrated does not make it so. A glance at that thread will show your weakness.
1- actually, the people who reject the Qur'an will use your same argument (Quran has to prove itself) to reject Islam in general. So, you have no point because those same people will have to answer to their lord.
2- Islam is not about spoon feeding. It is about search and learning with humility. So, the burden does not fall off of you by claiming "burden of proof".
3- When a person limits the meaning of a term in the Qur'an to make it deliberately narrower than it's import, then that person is lying about God. This is what happens to a person that claims that obey the messenger means "only obey the Qur'an". If a person is insisting upon ignorance then that is a sin, especially if he knew that his or her knowledge of the Arabic is lacking, something that characterizes the majority here.
4- You seem to have forgotten that part of the message of the Qur'an is "Do not reject what should not be rejected, even if you do not like it". " Do not reject what you may not completely understand". Let us face it, this is why many of you guys reject hadeeth.
5- Hadeeth that is authentic can prove itself.
A system that insist on consensus on everything is a false system. A system that has consensus on nothing is a false system. That is your system. Islam has consensus in those core issues and allows diversity in other areas. You guys fail at that. When you fail at such a basic level, then one has to conclude that your system is more of bias (disguised as "common sense", "logic" and all your nice empty slogans) and then Qur'an, rather than Qur'an alone as you like to claim.
And you read the Qur'an in your own images. Archeaology can be attractive to some of you because you can fill in the many blanks the way you like it. Stupidity is a matter of judgement. The Qur'an is full of statements about people who were labeled stupid when they were not. I would be careful when I use this word. It can come back and haunt me.
1- We all learn from each other. Refusing to learn from someone who lived long ago, just because you do not believe that he knew better than you is not defensible. You can learn from someone that does not know as much as you do. On principle, you are wrong.2- How can you arrive at such a conclusion that you know better, before you read what they have written and study it deeply.
3- People did not read the Qur'an and say this and that. People were taught the Qur'an from others who were taught the Qur'an from others. Those writings are the reflection of that learning process. You guys want to learn the Qur'an without help in learning it and as if it came from nothing. if you guys do not speak Arabic, then you are being told what it says and you have no way whether someone is lying to you. May be people like to be lied to and then they are responsible for their wrong decisions to follow a false teacher.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
1.) I already addressed the usage of kitab on Page 5
There is, of course, an exit clause somewhere that shows that law itself can be used according to the truth. Aside from the Quran, our next best method is not hearsay and conjecture, it is observation of the world around us. These things always lead back to the Quranic law. We find pornography is bad, hypocrisy is bad, there is harm in intoxicants, there is benefit in intoxicants, adultery is bad for society, religion should be free, so on, and so on. These can all be deduced WITHOUT the Quran. Slowly, the world catches on.
Our argument here is NOT that we should disobey the truth. Our argument is that these scholars do not speak truth, they speak horses*** (Egypt, Al-Azhar, breast feeding!?!). We are NOT to obey conjecture and hearsay, this is clearly outlined. We are to follow the best of the message (391. Allah's hadeeth is THE BEST of the hadeeth (3923). Why is this word not untranslated in the majority whereas when this noun is attributed to Bukhari it is left as such? Is this not a concealment of the truth?
2.) I originally wrote "Obeying the messenger is not restricted purely to the Quran" but I edited it out for various reasons. There is redundancy on many Quranic statements. Ar-Rahman has a single verse repeating throughout the surah.
Obeying the messenger can only mean obeying the Quran/verified truth from God as seen here
066.001
YUSUFALI O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.The messenger attempted to do something out of Allah's guidelines and he was rebuked.
3.) Good. I hope you will take this in mind on subjects such as stoning, apostacy, theft, adultery, fear of nushooz and many more subjects which have been distorted by ahadeeth.
4.) Yes, we already have this one hadeeth, it's called Quran.
5.) Please respond to the post on page 5. Then we shall know who is telling the truth. Simply responding that someone's post is indefensible does not make it so either.
1/6.) Definitely. And I will lead them straight to the inherent signs of Allah presented in the Quran. Those who are guided will follow, those who are misguided will toss it aside.
2/7.) As for burden of proof, now you are really mocking the deen. Please read 1736, and 4906, the burden of proof is on whoever seeks the positive, not the negative. One cannot prove a negative. Do you like to revel in such stupidity? The onus is on Bukhari to show his hadeeth are true. By critical analysis, this is flat out not so.
3/8.) It is a vast shame you did not read my post on page 5. The Sunnis fetter the Quran far more than this understanding in any case.
4/9.)
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 110Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar
I heard the Prophet saying. "Evil omen is in three things The horse, the woman and the house."
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 111
Narrated Sahl bin Sad Saidi
Allah's Apostle said "If there is any evil omen in anything, then it is in the woman, the horse and the house."
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 479
Narrated Ibn Abbas
Allah's Apostle said, "Seventy thousand people of my followers will enter Paradise without accounts, and they are those who do not practice Ar-Ruqya and do not see an evil omen in things, and put their trust in their Lord.
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 549
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas
The Prophet said, "The people were displayed in front of me and I saw one prophet passing by with a large group of his followers, and another prophet passing by with only a small group of people, and another prophet passing by with only ten (persons), and another prophet passing by with only five (persons), and another prophet passed by alone. And then I looked and saw a large multitude of people, so I asked Gabriel, "Are these people my followers?' He said, 'No, but look towards the horizon.' I looked and saw a very large multitude of people. Gabriel said. 'Those are your followers, and those are seventy thousand (persons) in front of them who will neither have any reckoning of their accounts nor will receive any punishment.' I asked, 'Why?' He said, 'For they used not to treat themselves with branding (cauterization) nor with Ruqya (get oneself treated by the recitation of some Verses of the Qur'an) and not to see evil omen in things, and they used to put their trust (only) in their Lord." On hearing that, 'Ukasha bin Mihsan got up and said (to the Prophet), "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet said, "O Allah, make him one of them." Then another man got up and said (to the Prophet), "Invoke Allah to make me one of them." The Prophet said, 'Ukasha has preceded you."
One needs only common sense...
5/10.) Yes, the Quran can prove itself.
A system that insist on consensus on everything is a false system. A system that has consensus on nothing is a false system. That is your system. Islam has consensus in those core issues and allows diversity in other areas. You guys fail at that. When you fail at such a basic level, then one has to conclude that your system is more of bias (disguised as "common sense", "logic" and all your nice empty slogans) and then Qur'an, rather than Qur'an alone as you like to claim.
A system that has consensus on everything is God's system. As for empty slogans, I sincerely dare you to refute any of the logic presented pertaining to the Quran. By doing so, you will simply demonstrate yourself as one who rejects the Quranic message.
And you read the Qur'an in your own images. Archeaology can be attractive to some of you because you can fill in the many blanks the way you like it. Stupidity is a matter of judgement. The Qur'an is full of statements about people who were labeled stupid when they were not. I would be careful when I use this word. It can come back and haunt me.
Conversely, we can say archaeology is not attractive to you because it exposes the Sunni cube circumambulation as a pagan practice. Concrete evidence is better than hearsay and conjecture. The people I labelled as stupid are the people described exactly as such in the hadeeth. Those that believe the Earth rests on the back of a giant bull, and when this bull shakes its head, an earthquake occurs, are stupid.
-
OPF,
I am up against time constraints, the last couple of days have been full for me, as I am attempting to acquire some property. But I just wanted to say a couple of things about your latest post. First, THE ONUS OF PROOF IS UPON THE ONE WHO MAKES THE CLAIM!!! We are not making any claims against someone or something you all are. So you have to prove your claim!!! And proof is not conjecture, for ALLAH says that conjecture avails naught against the truth (1036) Nor is proof something that doesn't make sense to you. For there are many verses in the Qur'an that someone without faith or sound grounded knowledge could say the same thing to you, and Hlatif made this point to you. A shame you keep making the same mistake. So because a Hdith don't make sense to you, does not at all dispel it as being untrue. It is like the american story of the fox (I think it was a fox) where he wanted some grapes, but could not reach them from the vine, so after trying and being unable, he just wrote it off and claimed, the grapes were sour (anyway). And this is your approach to this Deen, how sad, or maybe how scary, the equivalent of a fox.
And what was this report you cited about the earth on the back of a bull and etc. Where is this at? I have not ever read that, and I am not saying that I read everything, but that I know I have not. Please provide you source for this.
Finally, and the saddest part of your post it such ignorance as the following quote from you. It just goes to show how someone who really thinks they know, but are really seen to be ignorant when the light of truth is shed.
OPF, YOU STATED Conversely, we can say archaeology is not attractive to you because it exposes the Sunni cube circumambulation as a pagan practice. Concrete evidence is better than hearsay and conjecture
..AND ALLAH STATED THEN LET THEM END THEIR UNTIDINESS AND FULFILL THEIR VOWS AND PERFORM TAWAF (CIRCUMAMBULATION) AROUND THE ANCIENT HOUSE. (2229)
AND THIS ANCIENT HOUSE IS THAT CUBE THAT OPF, QUOTED TO BE FROM AMONGST THE PAGAN PRACTICES. SO, OPF, NOW YOU ARE INSINUATING THAT ALLAH, THE GOD THAT REVEALED THE QUR'AN IS CALLING THE BELIEVERS TO FOLLOW THE PAGAN PRACTICES? IS THIS WHAT YOU BELIEVE OPF? LETS TAKE A VOTE, SHOULD WE BELIEVE THE QUR'AN OR OPF? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE QUR'AN, SAY BYE TO OPF, YOU HAVE LOST YOUR STATUS AS THE LEAD SINGER OF THE CHORUS. -
Salaam OPF,
You want me to address your post on page 5. I will do that.
The Quran states that law itself is restricted to judgement through the Quran alone
Quote
006.114
YUSUFALI Say "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.
PICKTHAL Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.
SHAKIR Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers.006.115
YUSUFALI The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice None can change His words for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.
PICKTHAL Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.006.116
YUSUFALI Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture they do nothing but lie.
PICKTHAL If thou obeyedst most of those on earth they would mislead thee far from Allah's way. They follow naught but an opinion, and they do but guess.
SHAKIR And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie.006.117
YUSUFALI Thy Lord knoweth best who strayeth from His way He knoweth best who they are that receive His guidance.
PICKTHAL Lo! thy Lord, He knoweth best who erreth from His way; and He knoweth best (who are) the rightly guided.
SHAKIR Surely your Lord-- He best knows who goes astray from His way, and He best knows those who follow the right course.1- God is the best of judges and He judged that we obey the messenger.
2- Obeying the messenger is not obeying the majority.
3- The words of God are not limited to the Qur'an. In fact the sea can run dry without the words of God running out.
4- The book is not limited to the Qur'an. In addition it says that the book was sent to the messenger. You can contemplate "the book" in the Qur'an and you will find that it extends beyond the Qur'an. There is nothing to stop the orders of the prophet from being included in "the book" as mentioned in the above Ayat. This is the same as the word of God not being limited to the Qur'an. In fact the Qur'an says that "the book" entered the heart of the messenger and that is why He acted by the book and he spoke the book, even when it was not Qur'an.
5- As for the last Aya, it works against you. God does not ask us to follow the messenger if He knew that following the messenger meant that we follow false premises. Did God not know that people will make up hadeeth and then make others follow them? Why would he then ask us to follow the messenger when it can cause such confusion? Did God misplan for 1400 year till you guys came for the rescue?
6- Alternatively, God asked us to follow the messenger because He wanted us to follow him and not in the limited fashion that you claim.There is, of course, an exit clause somewhere that shows that law itself can be used according to the truth. Aside from the Quran, our next best method is not hearsay and conjecture, it is observation of the world around us. These things always lead back to the Quranic law. We find pornography is bad, hypocrisy is bad, there is harm in intoxicants, there is benefit in intoxicants, adultery is bad for society, religion should be free, so on, and so on. These can all be deduced WITHOUT the Quran. Slowly, the world catches on.
This the clause that you guys use to manipulate the Qur'an. It is clear in the posts of those who think that Jesus was a clone and that God did not part the sea. They are clearly present in the posts where you guys manipulate the language right and left to make the Qur'an in your image.
Our argument here is NOT that we should disobey the truth. Our argument is that these scholars do not speak truth, they speak horses*** (Egypt, Al-Azhar, breast feeding!?!). We are NOT to obey conjecture and hearsay, this is clearly outlined. We are to follow the best of the message (391. Allah's hadeeth is THE BEST of the hadeeth (3923). Why is this word not untranslated in the majority whereas when this noun is attributed to Bukhari it is left as such? Is this not a concealment of the truth?
God's hadeeth is the best hadeeth. It does not prevent people from following what his prophet said. God's hadeeth tells us to obey the messenger. So, I apply it. I do not give it lip service to read what I want. Obey the messenger does not mean obey a wrong scholar.
In other words they also followed conjecture and hearsay? The criterion is very simple, it is also called "the reading". Why did they choose to obey a different criterion when they had the BEST 114 chapter criterion sitting in front of them? Does error multiplying cause good? If these people are in error and you appeal to them to justify error, does that make it any better even taking into account the 1 1/2 millenia past? Not at all. The hadeeth history itself shows much judgement from other than the Quran, this is most evident in the Sunni/Shia rift. They are both Shia as far as I'm concerned.
If the early Muslims needed to resort to conjecture, then you will need it more. If you cannot see that they followed the Qur'an then that is in your eyes only. Your eyes are not really good judge, with all due respect. I do not follow them blindly, nor do I reject them blindly. I can see that following them is much better than following the great Imams of this site.
I just don't know where to start with this quote. The material is worthless. Just worthless. As for understanding the Quran in a narrow way, who is narrower, those who accept the Quran's application to everything or those who fetter the Quran through supposed events (i.e. conjecture and hearsay) that occured in the context of the revelation of a verse? It appears you do not understand the very meaning of conjecture or hearsay.
The ones who follow Hadeeth believe that the Qur'an is wide enough to encompass all hadeeth within it and more. You guys however narrow it to make it incapable to encompass hadeeth. This narrowness makes you face an inadequate Qur'an that cannot answer much. Then you will switch to "detailed only in what we need", but that does not cut it either, becaue even what you need, you are incapable of finding as Salat and Sawm and Zakat.
Let's give you a clue - Person A told me Person B said that Person C said that Person D was dining with his mother, Person E who told him that Person F saw the Prophet talking to Person G who was told "..." - THAT is hearsay, that is conjecture. There is a game played in nursery, it's called "Chinese Whispers". The isnad of a hadeeth in this game is relatively just as long in this pre-school game. The isnad is fully authentic and 100% verified to be so.
This does not have to happen if person A asked person B to repeat first what he heard and to put it in writing. Your example has many weaknesses.
Clarity is reasonably quantifiable/equal to all. By this, I mean that we can call something clear if a possible interpretation of it needs no additional information beyond common sense. Sectarians cannot agree what salat, sawm, zakat, hajj consist of either. A shia will say one thing and that same shia will be kafir in the eyes of a Sunni.
1 - It is clear. I have full confidence, faith that the Quran itself is clear and that confused people are making it unclear.
Then you are right. The error is not in the Qur'an, but you guys then are a confused bunch, by your own judgement.
The differences between Sunnis and Shias are negligible in those areas. The differences between you guys are not. Is masjid Al haram in your brain or a building or an institute of higher learning? Is it in Mecca or Jerusalem or some kind of ruin somewhere between Jordan and Saudi Arabia? That is your example.
2/7.) As for burden of proof, now you are really mocking the deen. Please read 1736, and 4906, the burden of proof is on whoever seeks the positive, not the negative. One cannot prove a negative. Do you like to revel in such stupidity? The onus is on Bukhari to show his hadeeth are true. By critical analysis, this is flat out not so.
You shot yourself in the mouth here. Aya 1736 says
Itha Jaakum fasiqun binabain fatabayyanoo= If someone comes with news then clarify it. The job of clarifying is on us according to the Aya and not on the one who brought the news.The burden of proof is also dependant on the assertion of the person. If a person insists that something never happened, then he has to prove it. If a person insists that something happened then he has to prove it. The one who insists on something has to prove it. The best that a person that can say about the negative is "I am not aware of it happening" but that does not negate that it may have happened. The person that keeps the possibilities open does not have to bring proofs. If you cannot prove a negative, then you cannot negate the positive.
2.) I originally wrote "Obeying the messenger is not restricted purely to the Quran" but I edited it out for various reasons. There is redundancy on many Quranic statements. Ar-Rahman has a single verse repeating throughout the surah.
The Qur'an does repeat the statement for emphasis. The Qur'an though never uses two words with the exact meaning in the same sentence. That is not it's style and it makes poor literary style that is against the opinion that every word has it's place. Two words overlapping, sure. Two words identical is not true. However, you guys make it do that a lot to manipulate it's meanings.
066.001
YUSUFALI O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.Ok, so God rebuked him here, but did not take the message from him, nor retract the order to obey him, nor retracted the order to have safety in him. The way you put them together is that this is an isolated incident and that the order still stands for us. Notice that God did not ask us not to obey the messenger despite this. Why? because it was isolated or because it is not enough to change the rule of God to obey the messenger.
A system that has consensus on everything is God's system. As for empty slogans, I sincerely dare you to refute any of the logic presented pertaining to the Quran. By doing so, you will simply demonstrate yourself as one who rejects the Quranic message
What I wrote about you guys is that you have consensus on nothing. The Sunnis and the Shias have consensus on somethings. I do not fight God's words. I do fight your false system that uses a word of truth "God alone" to introduce falsehood "bias and then God alone". The degree of divergence of views depends on the degree of bias. It is then rampant here. What examples to bring Are the Jinn humans, bad spirits, egos, savage people, leaders and followers? or any of that nonsense. This is in the system that is presented in this forum under the banner "Qur'an alone".
Conversely, we can say archaeology is not attractive to you because it exposes the Sunni cube circumambulation as a pagan practice. Concrete evidence is better than hearsay and conjecture. The people I labelled as stupid are the people described exactly as such in the hadeeth. Those that believe the Earth rests on the back of a giant bull, and when this bull shakes its head, an earthquake occurs, are stupid.
I will ignore this nonsense. However define worship when it comes to this cube thing.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Peace hlatif,
God's hadeeth is the best hadeeth. It does not prevent people from following what his prophet said. God's hadeeth tells us to obey the messenger. So, I apply it. I do not give it lip service to read what I want. Obey the messenger does not mean obey a wrong scholar.
OK is there a minimum number of hadith that one needs to apply it...
Volume 7, Book 69, Number 504
Narrated 'Aisha
The Prophet used to like sweet edible things and honey.Will Qur?an and eating honey suffice?
-
Salaam Nun,
If mockery makes you happy, then I am happy for your transient moment of happiness. If however you are asking a serious question then the answer is like this
It is not a matter of numbers. It is a matter of principle. It means that if a hadeeth is judged as correct and you have no objective proof that it is incorrect, then you are bound by it.
Will your opinion of a hadeeth being against the Qur'an be enough for you to reject a hadeeth? Yes on two conditions
1- The judgement is only for that particular hadeeth. You cannot use to reject others.
2- The acceptance that your opinion in that regards is subjective and therefore subject for corrections or modifications once other proofs are available.Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Peace,
Excuse my intrusion so late into the thread but I had a couple of comments based on the last post.
It is not a matter of numbers. It is a matter of principle. It means that if a hadeeth is judged as correct and you have no objective proof that it is incorrect, then you are bound by it.
I can understand being bound by all the verses in the quran, but anything other is a matter of choice if one sees truth in it. It is not something held to be to be bound by on the same level as one can't reject parts of the Quran and accept some but one can with other works. It is a matter of perspective how anything other than the quran is judged to be truth.
1- The judgement is only for that particular hadeeth. You cannot use to reject others.
Same for any information. All "nuggets" of information should be judged on their own merit and if being used in addition or in tandem with a guide such as the Quran, is firstly examined for contradictions and then comparisions. If there are no comparisions or contradictions, then common sense/knowledge/wisdom etc will be the judge. It doesn't mean one is just bound by it in the latter case.
2- The acceptance that your opinion in that regards is subjective and therefore subject for corrections or modifications once other proofs are available.
Once again, should be used for all information regardless of "hadeeth" as used in the traditional understanding or not.
-
Salaam Savage Carrot,
I can understand being bound by all the verses in the quran, but anything other is a matter of choice if one sees truth in it. It is not something held to be to be bound by on the same level as one can't reject parts of the Quran and accept some but one can with other works. It is a matter of perspective how anything other than the quran is judged to be truth.
There is no disagreement about following all the Qur'an. However, the "obey the messenger" is binding and for all what the messenger says unless pointed out by God. In fact, there is an Aya that declares Kufr on people who "have safety in some and reject some". the "some" has two binding meanings
1- Safety in some messengers and reject others.
2- Safety in some of what the messenger says and not all.So, if you are bound by the Qur'an, then the Qur'an binds you to accepting anything that you conclude was ordered by the prophet.
As for the familiar refrain on this site as "common sense" wisdom and all that. I am afraid that is a veneer to refuse something according to biases. The people who rejected the resurrection after death used very strong "common sense". No one that we know truly came back from the dead. If you accept the resurrection, then what keeps you from accepting things that are lesser in defying our perception?!The criteria of common sense and "logic" is not reliable. If a person does not learn how to question the logicality of his or her common sense, then that person has not learnt some of the simpler and more important messages of the Qur'an. The lesson of Taqwa= consciousness and the lesson of avoidance of hawa= bias.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam OPF,
You want me to address your post on page 5. I will do that.
1- God is the best of judges and He judged that we obey the messenger.
2- Obeying the messenger is not obeying the majority.
3- The words of God are not limited to the Qur'an. In fact the sea can run dry without the words of God running out.
4- The book is not limited to the Qur'an. In addition it says that the book was sent to the messenger. You can contemplate "the book" in the Qur'an and you will find that it extends beyond the Qur'an. There is nothing to stop the orders of the prophet from being included in "the book" as mentioned in the above Ayat. This is the same as the word of God not being limited to the Qur'an. In fact the Qur'an says that "the book" entered the heart of the messenger and that is why He acted by the book and he spoke the book, even when it was not Qur'an.
5- As for the last Aya, it works against you. God does not ask us to follow the messenger if He knew that following the messenger meant that we follow false premises. Did God not know that people will make up hadeeth and then make others follow them? Why would he then ask us to follow the messenger when it can cause such confusion? Did God misplan for 1400 year till you guys came for the rescue?
6- Alternatively, God asked us to follow the messenger because He wanted us to follow him and not in the limited fashion that you claim.
This the clause that you guys use to manipulate the Qur'an. It is clear in the posts of those who think that Jesus was a clone and that God did not part the sea. They are clearly present in the posts where you guys manipulate the language right and left to make the Qur'an in your image.
God's hadeeth is the best hadeeth. It does not prevent people from following what his prophet said. God's hadeeth tells us to obey the messenger. So, I apply it. I do not give it lip service to read what I want. Obey the messenger does not mean obey a wrong scholar.
If the early Muslims needed to resort to conjecture, then you will need it more. If you cannot see that they followed the Qur'an then that is in your eyes only. Your eyes are not really good judge, with all due respect. I do not follow them blindly, nor do I reject them blindly. I can see that following them is much better than following the great Imams of this site.
The ones who follow Hadeeth believe that the Qur'an is wide enough to encompass all hadeeth within it and more. You guys however narrow it to make it incapable to encompass hadeeth. This narrowness makes you face an inadequate Qur'an that cannot answer much. Then you will switch to "detailed only in what we need", but that does not cut it either, becaue even what you need, you are incapable of finding as Salat and Sawm and Zakat.
This does not have to happen if person A asked person B to repeat first what he heard and to put it in writing. Your example has many weaknesses.
Then you are right. The error is not in the Qur'an, but you guys then are a confused bunch, by your own judgement.The differences between Sunnis and Shias are negligible in those areas. The differences between you guys are not. Is masjid Al haram in your brain or a building or an institute of higher learning? Is it in Mecca or Jerusalem or some kind of ruin somewhere between Jordan and Saudi Arabia? That is your example.
You shot yourself in the mouth here. Aya 1736 says
Itha Jaakum fasiqun binabain fatabayyanoo= If someone comes with news then clarify it. The job of clarifying is on us according to the Aya and not on the one who brought the news.The burden of proof is also dependant on the assertion of the person. If a person insists that something never happened, then he has to prove it. If a person insists that something happened then he has to prove it. The one who insists on something has to prove it. The best that a person that can say about the negative is "I am not aware of it happening" but that does not negate that it may have happened. The person that keeps the possibilities open does not have to bring proofs. If you cannot prove a negative, then you cannot negate the positive.
The Qur'an does repeat the statement for emphasis. The Qur'an though never uses two words with the exact meaning in the same sentence. That is not it's style and it makes poor literary style that is against the opinion that every word has it's place. Two words overlapping, sure. Two words identical is not true. However, you guys make it do that a lot to manipulate it's meanings.
Ok, so God rebuked him here, but did not take the message from him, nor retract the order to obey him, nor retracted the order to have safety in him. The way you put them together is that this is an isolated incident and that the order still stands for us. Notice that God did not ask us not to obey the messenger despite this. Why? because it was isolated or because it is not enough to change the rule of God to obey the messenger.
What I wrote about you guys is that you have consensus on nothing. The Sunnis and the Shias have consensus on somethings. I do not fight God's words. I do fight your false system that uses a word of truth "God alone" to introduce falsehood "bias and then God alone". The degree of divergence of views depends on the degree of bias. It is then rampant here. What examples to bring Are the Jinn humans, bad spirits, egos, savage people, leaders and followers? or any of that nonsense. This is in the system that is presented in this forum under the banner "Qur'an alone".
I will ignore this nonsense. However define worship when it comes to this cube thing.Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
- Good. No disagreement.
- How so? Sunnis are arguably the majority.
- I said as such. That statement carries more than that single usage. It means that when Allah states "this Quran is explained in detail", and also states "the entire oceans would be drained before my words will run out", the Quran is... explained in detail. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
- Presumably you are talking about 297. According to hadeeth, the prophet started messengership at 40. It was not in his heart for this period. Also in a hadeeth, the prophet fell asleep drunk at a wedding party.
- Ah! Catch 22. 316 and 6112, read it. Alllah not only anticipated wicked people creating baseless hadeeth to divert from the Quran, he also warned us to not follow them! Allah is the best of plotters, as they say. Also, those who write the book with their own hands, read it - 279. 6835-40 - read it. In which hadeeth will you believe? Did God misplan in the 3000 year period preceding Jesus? What of the 600 year period between Jesus's death and Muhammad's birth? Was there a misplan? Or is it that the majority simply ignored the word of the scripture, just like you are doing? I do not accept baseless ahadeeth, thank you very much. This argument is very common, and not in a good sense. A Jew can use this on a Christian, a Christian on a Muslim. Pay attention to reality, people were misguided, Allah guides whom Allah pleases. The majority are not guided according to the Quran.
- You are right, I will begin to trade in camels immediately. Even though the messenger stated that he only followed that which was revealed to him. So, I'm going to attempt to purchase a few hadeeth books for a camel, will they laugh in my face?
This the clause that you guys use to manipulate the Qur'an. It is clear in the posts of those who think that Jesus was a clone and that God did not part the sea. They are clearly present in the posts where you guys manipulate the language right and left to make the Qur'an in your image.
I see. As opposed to manipulating Quran to fit ahadeeth. Let's see some examples, those people will also be called to account by the best of judges.
God's hadeeth is the best hadeeth. It does not prevent people from following what his prophet said. God's hadeeth tells us to obey the messenger. So, I apply it. I do not give it lip service to read what I want. Obey the messenger does not mean obey a wrong scholar.
God tells us not to accept baseless ahadeeth. God tells us to ensure all our information can be verified. God tells us 'do not say "we have faith", rather say "we submit to the lord of the worlds" and allow faith then to enter your hearts'. Obey the messenger does not mean obeying baseless hadeeth. Obeying the messenger does not mean obeying easily tamperable chains of transmission.
Which reminds me. I will stick this in super large bold font since you have ignored this from the time I presented it. Possibly because it undermines 2 key tenets of your argument, the context of verses/moment of revelation and isnad.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE QURAN CAN BE VERIFIED AS THE WORD OF GOD TODAY AS IT IS?
If the early Muslims needed to resort to conjecture, then you will need it more. If you cannot see that they followed the Qur'an then that is in your eyes only. Your eyes are not really good judge, with all due respect. I do not follow them blindly, nor do I reject them blindly. I can see that following them is much better than following the great Imams of this site.
I completely do not believe the early Muslims needed to resort to conjecture. They had the best of hadeeth amongst them. What I do believe is that Bukhari's portrayal of early Muslims is baseless fabrication. Go right ahead and stone monkeys and black dogs, take care not to allow a woman to pass in front of your prayer mat lest you be sent down to the lowest level of hell.
The ones who follow Hadeeth believe that the Qur'an is wide enough to encompass all hadeeth within it and more. You guys however narrow it to make it incapable to encompass hadeeth. This narrowness makes you face an inadequate Qur'an that cannot answer much. Then you will switch to "detailed only in what we need", but that does not cut it either, becaue even what you need, you are incapable of finding as Salat and Sawm and Zakat.
Purely generic statement. The sheer idea that "The Quran is wide enough to encompass all hadeeth within it and more" is subjective. Not only that, if it encompasses all hadeeth, we do not need any hadeeth but the Quran itself. The rest of the sentence was filled with pure strawman arguments.
This does not have to happen if person A asked person B to repeat first what he heard and to put it in writing. Your example has many weaknesses.
Then you are right. The error is not in the Qur'an, but you guys then are a confused bunch, by your own judgement.The hadeeth were orally transmitted for most of the time. As for the latter statement, nobody has even stated or implied that there is a "confused bunch". You simply took an admission of human error and spun it into yet another strawman fallacy. Hadeeth scholars fall far below in terms of human error.
The differences between Sunnis and Shias are negligible in those areas. The differences between you guys are not. Is masjid Al haram in your brain or a building or an institute of higher learning? Is it in Mecca or Jerusalem or some kind of ruin somewhere between Jordan and Saudi Arabia? That is your example.
Keep that to the respective debates. This is the equivalent of me asking you to prove that the Quran is the word of God here and now. It is a completely seperate debate. As for the differences, do we curse Yazid or do we not? Do we uphold Ahlul-Bayt or do we uphold the sunnah? Are you genuinely so blind that you cannot see the blatant and obvious manipulation between two "authentic" ahadeeth? What of mut'a? Masjid Al-Haram is trivial compared to the rift between sectarians. This perception is only reversed when one seeks rites of worship from the Quran instead of guidance. Just as the name of the messenger is essentially irrelevant, one can follow the Quran without touching this subject.
You shot yourself in the mouth here. Aya 1736 says
Itha Jaakum fasiqun binabain fatabayyanoo= If someone comes with news then clarify it. The job of clarifying is on us according to the Aya and not on the one who brought the news.I believe you have the wrong aya, that's not 1736. Regardless, how are you going to clarify this news? Do we magically infer our clarified statements? No, must derive our information from either the person bearing the news or other sources. From what we have "clarified" of hadeeth, they are baseless and nothing more.
The burden of proof is also dependant on the assertion of the person. If a person insists that something never happened, then he has to prove it. If a person insists that something happened then he has to prove it. The one who insists on something has to prove it. The best that a person that can say about the negative is "I am not aware of it happening" but that does not negate that it may have happened. The person that keeps the possibilities open does not have to bring proofs. If you cannot prove a negative, then you cannot negate the positive.
Invalid argument (though it is correct). For instance, a hadeeth states that the Earth rests on the horns of a bull. Earthquakes occur when it shakes its head. Can you ever disprove this? No. Can you disprove that there is a teapot orbiting Mars right now? No. Can you disprove that Buraq the magical flying horse is currently in prison for DUI on Pluto? No. Each of those notions is preposterous. Yet, they cannot be disproved. We still can negate them, at least the hadeeth version. Plate tectonics, it's called.
The Qur'an does repeat the statement for emphasis. The Qur'an though never uses two words with the exact meaning in the same sentence. That is not it's style and it makes poor literary style that is against the opinion that every word has it's place. Two words overlapping, sure. Two words identical is not true. However, you guys make it do that a lot to manipulate it's meanings.
784-5 also has a direct repeating statement with the same meaning. As for two words identical, you again present a strawman argument. Nobody said the two words are identical. The point is, obeying Allah, and obeying the messenger is inferred to mean the Quran and truth. If it were obeying the messenger alone, then we would have problems. If it were "obey Allah" alone, we would also have problems.
Ok, so God rebuked him here, but did not take the message from him, nor retract the order to obey him, nor retracted the order to have safety in him. The way you put them together is that this is an isolated incident and that the order still stands for us. Notice that God did not ask us not to obey the messenger despite this. Why? because it was isolated or because it is not enough to change the rule of God to obey the messenger.
There is also another incident with the blind man, I believe. There are many examples of messengers erring.
What I wrote about you guys is that you have consensus on nothing. The Sunnis and the Shias have consensus on somethings. I do not fight God's words. I do fight your false system that uses a word of truth "God alone" to introduce falsehood "bias and then God alone". The degree of divergence of views depends on the degree of bias. It is then rampant here.
You do not fight God's words? In which hadeeth do you believe? As for "God alone", I also have issues with that. God alone is a universal term. As for divergence, the hadeeth open far more to divergence than the Quran. One can be a strict Salafi or such. A dictator chooses to ignore a few hadeeth and implement the hadeeth for punishments. Also, this argument is purely irrelevant. Quran alone is not restricted to the group of people here, nor is Sunni-ism restricted to you and Abu Zahrah.
What examples to bring Are the Jinn humans, bad spirits, egos, savage people, leaders and followers? or any of that nonsense. This is in the system that is presented in this forum under the banner "Qur'an alone".
Again you quote a trivial issue. A cursory study of the Quran immediately discounts several of those viewpoints in any case. Also, they can be all of the above. It simply depends on whether "jinn" is a static term or not, much like whether "muslim" is also a static term or not, or even whether "hadeeth" is a static term or not.
I will ignore this nonsense. However define worship when it comes to this cube thing.
Why is it nonsense? Archaeology says that the cube is an old pagan practice. Hadeeths state that the Earth rests on the horns of a bull. So why is it nonsense? Or are you beginning to find your way out of accepting baseless ahadeeth?
-
So, if you are bound by the Qur'an, then the Qur'an binds you to accepting anything that you conclude was ordered by the prophet.
And it is in this 'conclusion' thereby we differ.
The Bukhari bias aside, where are all of the 'encyclopedic' hadith collections of the Arab and Arabic speaking scholars who were living around Mecca and Medina after the time of the Prophet's death? If it was so necessary for all this information to be kept in writing alongside the Qur'an, why didn't they band together and compile what needed to be done?
We can come to two conclusions
- There were no 'Islamic scholars' at that time.
- If there were, then they chose to not write and compile additional information.
-
Salaam Savage Carrot,
There is no disagreement about following all the Qur'an. However, the "obey the messenger" is binding and for all what the messenger says unless pointed out by God. In fact, there is an Aya that declares Kufr on people who "have safety in some and reject some". the "some" has two binding meanings
1- Safety in some messengers and reject others.
2- Safety in some of what the messenger says and not all.So, if you are bound by the Qur'an, then the Qur'an binds you to accepting anything that you conclude was ordered by the prophet.
As for the familiar refrain on this site as "common sense" wisdom and all that. I am afraid that is a veneer to refuse something according to biases. The people who rejected the resurrection after death used very strong "common sense". No one that we know truly came back from the dead. If you accept the resurrection, then what keeps you from accepting things that are lesser in defying our perception?!The criteria of common sense and "logic" is not reliable. If a person does not learn how to question the logicality of his or her common sense, then that person has not learnt some of the simpler and more important messages of the Qur'an. The lesson of Taqwa= consciousness and the lesson of avoidance of hawa= bias.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
This principle applies equally to Sunnis who will reject x amount of hadeeth that allow for Shias to be shown as correct.
You are correct, common sense is not always reliable - to the untrained eye. Logic is ALWAYS reliable, it is a fundamental part of our psyche. No amount of brainwashing will take that away, simply bury it under fear, uncertainty and doubt. As for resurrection, an educated study into it in the Quran will easily show that it falls into common sense. For instance, if God can create us once, and God is omnipotent, is it sensible to say that he cannot repeat it? Not at all.
-
Salam hlatif,
There is no disagreement about following all the Qur'an. However, the "obey the messenger" is binding and for all what the messenger says unless pointed out by God. In fact, there is an Aya that declares Kufr on people who "have safety in some and reject some". the "some" has two binding meanings
1- Safety in some messengers and reject others.
2- Safety in some of what the messenger says and not all.So, if you are bound by the Qur'an, then the Qur'an binds you to accepting anything that you conclude was ordered by the prophet.
Obey the messenger is binding for what the messenger said in the Quran as that is the piece of work we have said to be protected by God in its entirety, which we can't accept or reject in parts. Since you yourself admit that we can accept and reject other narrations relative to circumstances, then it doesn't become binding, it is then open to accept or reject depending on circumstances which will differ from person to person.
The only "safety" here is what the messenger said recorded in the Quran which we can't reject.
So, if you are bound by the Qur'an, then the Qur'an binds you to accepting anything that you conclude was ordered by the prophet.
In the Quran obviously, of course.
As for the familiar refrain on this site as "common sense" wisdom and all that. I am afraid that is a veneer to refuse something according to biases. The people who rejected the resurrection after death used very strong "common sense". No one that we know truly came back from the dead. If you accept the resurrection, then what keeps you from accepting things that are lesser in defying our perception?!The criteria of common sense and "logic" is not reliable. If a person does not learn how to question the logicality of his or her common sense, then that person has not learnt some of the simpler and more important messages of the Qur'an. The lesson of Taqwa= consciousness and the lesson of avoidance of hawa= bias.
Using common sense along with the other options in the context which I used it in is perfectly valid. Nothing about accepting or rejecting things "defying perception". Perception is also something I think not usually constrained by only what we see, for example. I do think questioning is a good exercise to refine and ground beliefs/thoughts etc and to avoid/lessen bias by using our God given gifts. to add, I completely agree with OPF about logic, I think it is one of the innate gifts we have been blessed with, even a blind man can use logic
-
Also, let me add
006.114
YUSUFALI Say "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.
PICKTHAL Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.
SHAKIR Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers.006.115
YUSUFALI The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice None can change His words for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.
PICKTHAL Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. There is naught that can change His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.
SHAKIR And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.Al-Kitab's meaning cannot be abrogated, nor can it be accepted and rejected where convenient. The hadeeth do not follow this rule. Also, there is emphasis on taking law from God alone in 6114, it does not say Allah and his messenger but purely Allah.
-
If mockery makes you happy, then I am happy for your transient moment of happiness. If however you are asking a serious question then the answer is like this
It is not a matter of numbers. It is a matter of principle. It means that if a hadeeth is judged as correct and you have no objective proof that it is incorrect, then you are bound by it.Why mockery? Applying logic to simplest case is fundamental to solving/finding root issues.
Will Qur?an and eating honey suffice?
'Honey is a remedy for every illness and the Qur'an is a remedy for all illness of the mind, therefore I recommend to you both remedies, the Qur'an and honey.' (Bukhari)
Key difference, I take it only as advice (from Qur?an even) whilst you call it mandatory sunnah.
Now, we apply same principle to the rest; beards, eating with right hand, camel urine, stoning, etc.
I think I?ll stick with Qur?an ? thanks and have a fantastic day.
Peace
-
Salam hlatif,
Obey the messenger is binding for what the messenger said in the Quran as that is the piece of work we have said to be protected by God in its entirety, which we can't accept or reject in parts. Since you yourself admit that we can accept and reject other narrations relative to circumstances, then it doesn't become binding, it is then open to accept or reject depending on circumstances which will differ from person to person.
The only "safety" here is what the messenger said recorded in the Quran which we can't reject.
Salaam SC, all
To add to your point, hadeeths are called "ahadeeth nabawiyya prophetic hadeeths". Nowhere in the qur'aan do we find the command Obey the prophet.
-
Salaam all,
OPF
- How so? Sunnis are arguably the majority.
Sunnis and obey the messenger are two different things. The messenger Muhammad is one person. Sunnis uphold obeying the messenger in different fashions and ways.
- I said as such. That statement carries more than that single usage. It means that when Allah states "this Quran is explained in detail", and also states "the entire oceans would be drained before my words will run out", the Quran is... explained in detail. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.
The words of God that drain all the seas are "The book". the Qur'an as being God's speech is part of the book. The book that came to the heart of the messenger is part of that book. It contained the Qur'an within it, but is not limited to only the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not leave an indication that the prophet was limited to the Qur'an, nor that the book that came to his heart has to be restricted to only the Qur'an. Now, if you want to make the Qur'an as a wide book with the ability to hold a great deal of God's book within it, then it can encompass all the authentic hadeeths. Why then would you need hadeeth? to make you pay attention to things that you may have missed and that happens often.
- Presumably you are talking about 297. According to hadeeth, the prophet started messengership at 40. It was not in his heart for this period. Also in a hadeeth, the prophet fell asleep drunk at a wedding party.
He became the messenger when the message came to him. His sayings and acts before that time are not hadeeth, because they came from the person who was not yet messenger.
- Ah! Catch 22. 316 and 6112, read it. Alllah not only anticipated wicked people creating baseless hadeeth to divert from the Quran, he also warned us to not follow them! Allah is the best of plotters, as they say. Also, those who write the book with their own hands, read it - 279. 6835-40 - read it. In which hadeeth will you believe? Did God misplan in the 3000 year period preceding Jesus? What of the 600 year period between Jesus's death and Muhammad's birth? Was there a misplan? Or is it that the majority simply ignored the word of the scripture, just like you are doing? I do not accept baseless ahadeeth, thank you very much. This argument is very common, and not in a good sense. A Jew can use this on a Christian, a Christian on a Muslim. Pay attention to reality, people were misguided, Allah guides whom Allah pleases. The majority are not guided according to the Quran.
The wicked people in those ayat are any person who brings false data and presents it as truth. That person can bring false hadeeth and he can bring false understanding of the Qur'an. That is what God called Tahreef= Edging the words beyond their borders. So, do not give me a holier than though attitude. I can see a few people on this forum where this Aya fits fully. The use of the word "hadeeth" in that Aya does not refer to hadeeth. It refers to any vain useless talk and that includes stuff that comes out of your theological background.
- You are right, I will begin to trade in camels immediately. Even though the messenger stated that he only followed that which was revealed to him. So, I'm going to attempt to purchase a few hadeeth books for a camel, will they laugh in my face?
You can enjoy the state of mind you are in. If all what you get from hadeeth is camels, then the problem is not with the hadeeth, but the one who is reading them.
God tells us not to accept baseless ahadeeth. God tells us to ensure all our information can be verified. God tells us 'do not say "we have faith", rather say "we submit to the lord of the worlds" and allow faith then to enter your hearts'. Obey the messenger does not mean obeying baseless hadeeth. Obeying the messenger does not mean obeying easily tamperable chains of transmission.
Well you chose one Aya that was directed to a particular group "desert Arabs" and made it the rule for all. God tells us to say Amanna= We made ourselves safe (in Him) all the time in the Qur'an. Obeying the messenger does not mean throw away anything you do not like.
Which reminds me. I will stick this in super large bold font since you have ignored this from the time I presented it. Possibly because it undermines 2 key tenets of your argument, the context of verses/moment of revelation and isnad.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE QURAN CAN BE VERIFIED AS THE WORD OF GOD TODAY AS IT IS?
I do and I also believe that the Qur'an verifies the authentic hadeeths, including at least the majority of what you consider as contradicting the Qur'an. I also believe in giving each word of the Qur'an it's weight and full range. So, when it says "obey the messenger" I will not manipulate to mean "only Qur'an". Each word has it's proper place.
I completely do not believe the early Muslims needed to resort to conjecture.
Prove it, now that you have rejected any material that came from them. This is the most interesting conjecture. You refuse to study their material and then you make a judgement out of nothing. Very interesting.
Purely generic statement. The sheer idea that "The Quran is wide enough to encompass all hadeeth within it and more" is subjective. Not only that, if it encompasses all hadeeth, we do not need any hadeeth but the Quran itself.
Because people miss many things as they read the Qur'an. It is good to have pointers for those who contemplate.
The hadeeth were orally transmitted for most of the time.
Prove it as you reject hadeeth. The hadeeth says that it was often written and read to the person who narrated it.
Keep that to the respective debates. This is the equivalent of me asking you to prove that the Quran is the word of God here and now. It is a completely seperate debate. As for the differences, do we curse Yazid or do we not? Do we uphold Ahlul-Bayt or do we uphold the sunnah? Are you genuinely so blind that you cannot see the blatant and obvious manipulation between two "authentic" ahadeeth? What of mut'a? Masjid Al-Haram is trivial compared to the rift between sectarians.
I disagree with them on issues, but I pray with them in the same place and go to hajj with them and we both fast at the same time and when we pray, we face the same place. I will do the same with any of you who prays the way I do. The issue of Yazeed will not make or brake my Islam or theirs, nor the issue of Ahlulbayt. May be you have not heard of the Amman message of Muslim unity.
I believe you have the wrong aya, that's not 1736. Regardless, how are you going to clarify this news? Do we magically infer our clarified statements? No, must derive our information from either the person bearing the news or other sources. From what we have "clarified" of hadeeth, they are baseless and nothing more.
You are right. It was 496 which you pointed in the same paragraph. Both Ayat ask us to look and authenticate but they do not ask the other to present his or her credentials. Both Ayat also give us the tools of authentification. It is the the ear, the eye and the heart and mind. Notice how the eye and the ear, the objective ones came before the heart, the subjective one. You guys however, reject on purely subjective grounds.
Invalid argument (though it is correct). For instance, a hadeeth states that the Earth rests on the horns of a bull. Earthquakes occur when it shakes its head. Can you ever disprove this? No. Can you disprove that there is a teapot orbiting Mars right now? No. Can you disprove that Buraq the magical flying horse is currently in prison for DUI on Pluto? No. Each of those notions is preposterous. Yet, they cannot be disproved. We still can negate them, at least the hadeeth version. Plate tectonics, it's called.
When you bring those alleged hadeeths, I will deal with them. Otherwise, I will be entertained.
784-5 also has a direct repeating statement with the same meaning. As for two words identical, you again present a strawman argument. Nobody said the two words are identical. The point is, obeying Allah, and obeying the messenger is inferred to mean the Quran and truth. If it were obeying the messenger alone, then we would have problems. If it were "obey Allah" alone, we would also have problems.
1- It is repeating the same word and not two words that say the exact same thing.
2- They are separated by Thumma which indicates sequence and increased emphasis.As for the reasoning, it is not convincing, especially since it has caused muslims to stray for 1400 years obeying the messenger. Did God miscalculate? And make an error in judgement? Where is his protection of his message? that he allowed those sunnis to play havoc with it? Was the Qur'an not clear? then how come?
You end up again undermining the literary miracle of the Qur'an as you make such nonsense. You also make God a lier since His message that He was supposed to protect it. Oh He protected pieces of paper only with no way to understand them, since the people it came to are long gone and their material is unreliable. That is as close to greek mythology as one can get.
You do not fight God's words? In which hadeeth do you believe? As for "God alone", I also have issues with that. God alone is a universal term. As for divergence, the hadeeth open far more to divergence than the Quran. One can be a strict Salafi or such. A dictator chooses to ignore a few hadeeth and implement the hadeeth for punishments. Also, this argument is purely irrelevant. Quran alone is not restricted to the group of people here, nor is Sunni-ism restricted to you and Abu Zahrah.
When a group has consensus on some common ground, as in core issues, but agreeing to divergence in others, then they get into unity within diversity. That is the human condition. However, no consensus on anything is failure and that is your case.
Why is it nonsense? Archaeology says that the cube is an old pagan practice. Hadeeths state that the Earth rests on the horns of a bull. So why is it nonsense? Or are you beginning to find your way out of accepting baseless ahadeeth?
Anything that humans did in their past and that still do is a mix of right and wrong. The pagan did many wrong things, but that does not stop them from doing a few right things as keeping up a house for prayer. The Qur'an does not deny that they used the same place that we call Masjid Haram for prayer. It just mentions that the prayer was false, even though the place was not.
This principle applies equally to Sunnis who will reject x amount of hadeeth that allow for Shias to be shown as correct.
You are correct, common sense is not always reliable - to the untrained eye. Logic is ALWAYS reliable, it is a fundamental part of our psyche. No amount of brainwashing will take that away, simply bury it under fear, uncertainty and doubt. As for resurrection, an educated study into it in the Quran will easily show that it falls into common sense. For instance, if God can create us once, and God is omnipotent, is it sensible to say that he cannot repeat it? Not at all.
Sunnis apply the same authentification methods on the hadeeths of the Shia and do not reject them all. Shias acknowledge that their hadeeths have weaknesses in them. May be Logic is correct, but not your "logic". You will do well to question yourself a few times. It is not healthy when a person thinks that they got it all. I am talking about myself and yourself here.
Al-Kitab's meaning cannot be abrogated, nor can it be accepted and rejected where convenient. The hadeeth do not follow this rule. Also, there is emphasis on taking law from God alone in 6114, it does not say Allah and his messenger but purely Allah.
Words are conceptual and the context makes their meaning wider or narrower. Al Kitab is used to point to God's words. It can be used to mean something wide or something narrow and the decider is the context. This is clear as one watches the different uses of the word. So, in the Ayat of 2113-117, the word Kitab came unlimited by context. Therefore you have nothing to support your limiting it to "Qur'an only" Same thing in the Aya that said that Al Kitab came to the heart of the messenger. There is nothing to limit it to "Qur'an only". That is why none of you can claim that the only thing that the messenger Got was the Qur'an.
Take care and have a great day. I may need to write a small note to the others as well.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
The Bukhari bias aside, where are all of the 'encyclopedic' hadith collections of the Arab and Arabic speaking scholars who were living around Mecca and Medina after the time of the Prophet's death? If it was so necessary for all this information to be kept in writing alongside the Qur'an, why didn't they band together and compile what needed to be done?
We can come to two conclusions
- There were no 'Islamic scholars' at that time.
- If there were, then they chose to not write and compile additional information.
I thought that you said that you read hadeeth books. There were many scholars in all those cities and material was written well before Bukhari. Some older books are still available from Tayalisi to Abdul Razzaq and others. The schools of thought of Fiqh came all of them before Bukhari and they were born out of that scholarship.
Obey the messenger is binding for what the messenger said in the Quran as that is the piece of work we have said to be protected by God in its entirety, which we can't accept or reject in parts.
Wrong. There is no proof that it is only Qur'an. Also, God promised to protect the message. The message can encompass the Qur'an and more, or it can be the Qur'an with the authentic hadeeth encompassed within it. Of course you will say but how can we authenticate it? The answer is that authentic hadeeth is present in that collection and it is the job of the person to look for it. It is not the job of the regular person to do it, but the regular person cannot reject it, at least not in principle.
Salaam SC, all
To add to your point, hadeeths are called "ahadeeth nabawiyya prophetic hadeeths". Nowhere in the qur'aan do we find the command Obey the prophet.
Wow. Well, the prophet was also the messenger. The two are designations for one person. God did not make him messenger one day and prophet another so that he can be rejected. That is in some dreams of people in this forum who claim messengership or who claim that so and so are messengers. A claim that they use to make themselves be followed, because otherwise, they have no chance.
Another point. One can change the name easily to Ahadeeth Rasooliyyah and no one in Sunni Islam will be bothered by it.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
Wow. Well, the prophet was also the messenger. The two are designations for one person. God did not make him messenger one day and prophet another so that he can be rejected. That is in some dreams of people in this forum who claim messengership or who claim that so and so are messengers. A claim that they use to make themselves be followed, because otherwise, they have no chance.Another point. One can change the name easily to Ahadeeth Rasooliyyah and no one in Sunni Islam will be bothered by it.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
Do you mean on your CV you mention your favorite dish and how you deal with your wife?
Prophet and messenger are not the same and are not used interchangeably, that's why we have many of "Obey the messenger", because the message is alive, and none of "Obey the prophet", because the prophet is dead. God chooses His words very carefully. It would be meaningless to be asked to obey a dead man.
And the fact is that they did not call it ahaadith rasuuliyya and they dare not, even now. They would go to any length..call it divine revelation...call it abrogators of the qur'aan but would not dare call it rasuuliyya.
-
Wrong. There is no proof that it is only Qur'an. Also, God promised to protect the message. The message can encompass the Qur'an and more, or it can be the Qur'an with the authentic hadeeth encompassed within it. Of course you will say but how can we authenticate it? The answer is that authentic hadeeth is present in that collection and it is the job of the person to look for it. It is not the job of the regular person to do it, but the regular person cannot reject it, at least not in principle.
To say that statement is wrong when we ALL agree that the Quran itself is protected regardless of anything else and that all the sayings of the messenger in the Quran are part and parcel (of the Quran as we all know it) which is protected... is very strange. That remains true/correct regardless of what else one might wish to add into the "The Quran's Encompassing Protected Message Inclusive Of Other Stuff Also".
So, to clarify your statement above, are you saying that there is more to the Quran than what we all know is already there? Or is it that only the "authentic sayings of the prophet or as Samia kindly contributed (thanks sis), the "authentic" ahadeeth nabawiyya make up the extended Quran? Which btw, individuals have the choice to accept or reject based on subjectivity/differing circumstances? Which individuals have to hunt for and and then verify (and then accept/reject/be neutral on, based on differing circumstances) taking up much of their time/effort for something that might well be totally useless and futile depending on the narration in question instead of following what is already present, already authenticated and without a shadow of a doubt i.e the Quran as we know it?
I can understand doing it for research or interest but to claim that it is binding, incumbent and a divine duty/order in addition to what we all already know i.e. the Quran is really reaching, since the cans and mights are theories that uptil now have not been verified with any solid/direct proof/evidence and are instead contradicted by many verses posted here alone, in which one has direct evidence and inferences that the Quran is all we really need for our spiritual success.
Basically I look at this as an effort to make the "prophetic sayings" outside the quran divinely protected and a divine order to follow by saying it's part of the Quran. Of course we first must find them and verify them which is going to be every man and woman's duty and will differ from person to person. The others label it as sunna/prophetic sayings seperate from the Quran but must be followed and this goes a step ahead, throws that label away and wants to make it into the Quran! Full marks for doing away with traditional fetters I must say, this is just as (dare I say it) shockingly radical as the "God Alone Movement".
Truth or authentic "hadeeth" span time and/or cultures/boundaries, thus leading back to my previous quote as to how everything must be examined and then accepted/rejected et al. There is no binding on we "must accept/reject it all" if it doesn't contradict the Quran or is not proven wrong. The difference once again is, we accept the whole Quran, not bits and pieces, but we can accept bits and pieces of other stuff making it relative, subjective and dependent hence non-binding...extraneous to our spiritual success especially when one is following the Quran.
P.S. I wish I knew how to tm my phrases with that little copyright icon...
-
Peace all
Verses like 332 are open to interpretation. "Obey the messenger" does not mean follow separate religious laws/Muhammad's 7th century Arab traditions. It is open to ther interpretations. For example, what sister Nadia explained. This verse is mutashabihat or multi meaning, and people twist it fit their pre-conceived notions (37).
However, verses like 6114 (below) are mukhamat or firm/clear in meaning (again referring back to 37). Let's look at 6114
6114 "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture mufassalan/clearly explained?" Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.
6114 uses "mufassalan" as you an see, which means clearly explained. This is not open to interpretation. It means just that it's clearly explained. So with this in mind, what need is there for ahadith to explain the Quran? None, because a clearly explained scripture does not need an outside source to explain it.
Peace