59:7 - Explain.
-
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
-
Salaam all,
Well, sister Samia, Rasool and Nabi are not the same designations. However, The prophet Muhammad was called Rasool and Nabi by God. So, if we call them Ahadeeth Nabawiyya, then they came from the messenger. God never assigned designations on when Muhammad was Rasool and when he was Nabi.
As for My CV, I put in it what matters to my job description. A rasool's job is giving people instructions to how to live their lives. So, he put in it that helps them live their life.
Sister Nadia, there is more to the Qur'an than what you read. So, yes you will get more insight on it from some people than others and the hadeeth helps you get that insight.
Is there in the hadeeth something that is not alluded to in the Qur'an? The answer of the scholars of hadeeth is no, but they pointed nuances and sensitive points that will not come to the attention to the person who reads it superficially. That is how I characterize the reading of the Qur'an on this site.
Open Mind, I am glad that you bring up the mutashabihat. It applies to many cases. For example when people limit the meaning of a statement to suit their bias. It can apply on you or me. However, it is the one who narrows the meaning when it is not needed that is blamed in there. That is the meaning of Taweel. As for the messenger, he did not create a new set of laws. They are linked.
The mufassalan is the book, which is not limited to the Qur'an. This is from the Qur'an itself.
Take care all.
Hussein
-
Open Mind, I am glad that you bring up the mutashabihat. It applies to many cases. For example when people limit the meaning of a statement to suit their bias. It can apply on you or me. However, it is the one who narrows the meaning when it is not needed that is blamed in there. That is the meaning of Taweel. As for the messenger, he did not create a new set of laws. They are linked.
It applies to verses that are open to interpretation. People use these verses and only use on interpretation to fit a whole set of doctrine. Yes, anyone can do this. The hadith as we know it creates news laws. For example, shaving the beard is a sin. This is not in the Quran. To say the hadith do not add laws is absurd.
The mufassalan is the book, which is not limited to the Qur'an. This is from the Qur'an itself.
The Book and The Message is always used in the Quran to refer to the Quran or God's Message. This is why you see "the Book/the Message" being used to refer to Moses' prophecies, Jesus' prophecies, etc. It is all one message. In no way can this be referring to emulating every little thing Muhammad does, 7th century Arab traditions.
Peace
-
Salaam open mind,
It applies to verses that are open to interpretation. People use these verses and only use on interpretation to fit a whole set of doctrine. Yes, anyone can do this. The hadith as we know it creates news laws. For example, shaving the beard is a sin. This is not in the Quran. To say the hadith do not add laws is absurd.
For example "obey the messenger" has to mean "obey only the Qur'an". That is a great example. As for the beard, no you do not have to have one.
As for the book. I advise you to read it again, because there is more to "the book" than the mentioned books.
Hussein
-
Salaam open mind,
For example "obey the messenger" has to mean "obey only the Qur'an". That is a great example. As for the beard, no you do not have to have one.As for the book. I advise you to read it again, because there is more to "the book" than the mentioned books.
Hussein
No, try to see logic. No one here says obey the messenger HAS TO mean obey the Quran. You use verses like this that are open to interpretation to say obey the messenger HAS TO mean follow hadith. We use verses like 6114 which only have one meaning to show that you do not need hadith. Do you see how you are at a logical disadvantage?
6114 says Quran is clearly explained, please tell me why you need outside source to explain it then?
Elaborate, please? How can you say the Message/the Book is referring to anything but the Quran?
Peace
-
6114 says that Al Kitab that Muhammad received is completely detailed. That is not necesarily synoymous with Qur'an. The Qur'an is included in it, but whether it is only Qur'an or Qur'an and more, or details of issues that are in the Qur'an but not detailed. That is all open to interpretations and you again limit it to only Qur'an. Not only that, but only the words of the Qur'an without leaving room for the messenger to explain it. Who is less logical now?
You are also wrong. I say obey the messenger means obey the Qur'an and obey the messenger as well outside of the Qur'an. I have the wider understanding than you do. That is why you are placing limitations on the meaning that is uncalled for. This is the group that God blamed in 37.
You also have to be honest with yourself. Why do you not like hadeeth? Because there are things in it that you do not like. May be it is time to question your taste in things, instead of putting all your energy on a theology that the Qur'an does not support.
As for Al kitab, it is Qur'an and more. It points to God's words. God's words will not finish while the seas will run dry if they were ink. Kitab is very wide.
Take care and have a good evening.
Hussein
-
6114 says that Al Kitab that Muhammad received is completely detailed. That is not necesarily synoymous with Qur'an. The Qur'an is included in it, but whether it is only Qur'an or Qur'an and more, or details of issues that are in the Qur'an but not detailed. That is all open to interpretations and you again limit it to only Qur'an. Not only that, but only the words of the Qur'an without leaving room for the messenger to explain it. Who is less logical now?
6114 says it is clearply explained. Al Kitab refers to the Message of God, the Quran. How can Al Kitab mean the Quran and Muhammad's hadith when it is used to refer to other prophets' prophecies?
You are also wrong. I say obey the messenger means obey the Qur'an and obey the messenger as well outside of the Qur'an. I have the wider understanding than you do. That is why you are placing limitations on the meaning that is uncalled for. This is the group that God blamed in 37.
You are still not understanding logic brother
"obey the messenger" does not necessarily mean obey the Quran AND obey additional laws/traditions of him. You are forcing one interpretation on a verse to fit your belief in hadith. I am using verses that are mukhamat and clear. Here are more
Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things GOD has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?
Which Hadith, other than this, do they uphold?
A scripture whose verses provide the complete details, in an Arabic Quran, for people who know.
In their history, there is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not fabricated Hadith; this (Quran) confirms all previous scriptures, <B>provides the details of everything</b>, and is a beacon and mercy for those who believe.
Why the need of outside sources to explain the Quran?
You also have to be honest with yourself. Why do you not like hadeeth? Because there are things in it that you do not like. May be it is time to question your taste in things, instead of putting all your energy on a theology that the Qur'an does not support.
No need to answer for me brother. I do not follow hadith because of above verses and because there are ahadith that go against each other, and the Quran.
As for Al kitab, it is Qur'an and more. It points to God's words. God's words will not finish while the seas will run dry if they were ink. Kitab is very wide.
Can you show me a verse where it says Al Kitab is the Quran and more?
Peace
-
Peace hlatif,
I have the wider understanding than you do...
As for Al kitab, it is Qur'an and more.
These and numerous verses say otherwise?
Wama kana hatha alquranu an yuftara min dooni Allahi walakin tasdeeqa allathee bayna yadayhi watafseela alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena
1037 This QUR'AN is not such as can be produced by other than Allah. on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.Taseen tilka ayatu alqurani wakitabin mubeenin
271 These are verses of the Qur'an,-a book that makes (things) clear;Waalqurani alhakeemi
362 By the Qur'an, full of Wisdom,-Kitabun fussilat ayatuhu quranan AAarabiyyan liqawmin yaAAlamoona
413 A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;-Can you show me a verse where it says Al Kitab is the Quran and more?
Al Kitab = Qur'an
Peace
-
As Salaamu Alaikum,
I see much has ensued since I been gone. Don't really know where to start. But since I was accused of not responding to one post, I will attempt to start there. But before I do, I would like to say that a friend of mine, OPF responded to at least two post after I left a rebuttal for him to respond to, and I have not seen anything about it.
Quote from OPF
DO YOU BELIEVE THE QURAN CAN BE VERIFIED AS THE WORD OF GOD TODAY AS IT IS?Yes, that is easy, but it is not simply by stating that the Qur'an said it. To do so is arguing from your belief, not from facts. And believe is not always substantial in proving anything. Proving FACTS, entail the useage of external agents to assure so, like history, congruity with known scientific realities (though not always a method in establishing such) and the like. As for the Qur'an, proving its veracity is contingent upon at the least these two factors. Lets take a look; History, which is first, because if you can't authenticate that something is from the source of claim, how can you even believe it in the first place. So before we even consider whether or not the Qur'an is from ALLAH or not is indifferent to the first fact of proving that this is the Qur'an that ALLAH is talking about! And that cannot be done from within the Qur'an alone. There has to be an external element to prove this, and if this is proved false, the whole thing is the same. Now, when looking at history, as it relates to the Qur'an, then there are two many factors, the Islamic method of preserving history and the non-Islamic way of preserving history. As for the non-Islamic way of preserving history, then it is basically through the method of examining and using respective contemporary sources that noted their history about given events. Some are reliable, some are not. So, already this type of approach can not be considered conclusive! Now, as for the Islamic way of preserving history, in particular of religious texts, then, ITS MAIN FACTOR IS THROUGH THE ISNAD SYSTEM. THIS IS JUST A FACT OF ISLAMIC HISTORY, THAT STRETCHES BACK OVER 14 CENTURIES AND WHICH INCLUDES THE HISTORY OF THE QUR'AN, HADITH AND VARIOUS RELIGIOUS TEXT OF STUDY. About this science of Isnad, it is a well proven thorough system of assuring the highest veracity of anything transmitted through the passage of time. And as it relates to the Qur'an it is even more essential, since the Qur'an must be completely accurate in not only its meanings, but its syntax. And anyone who has studied the science of Tajweed knows how serious an affair this is. A stretching of a vowel at the wrong time can completely alter the meaning. A slip in putting on the vowel marks can cause the same. AND WHEN THE QUR'AN WAS TRANSMITTED, IT WAS NOT THROUGH SCRIPT, IT WAS THROUGH THE ORAL RECITIATION THEREOF. AND PLEASE HERE THIS, IF ONE RECITED THE QUR'AN IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM MEMORY (AFTER HAVING LEARNED IT HIMSELF FROM A BOOK), BUT COULD NOT VERIFY A TEACHER THAT HE TOOK THAT FROM, HE WOULD BE DISMISSED AS A VALID QUR'AN PRESERVER (HAFITH). Why? Because without a teacher, you have no connection to anyone, and that means you cannot be traced back to the Messenger of ALLAH through an UNBROKEN CHAIN OF TRANSMITTERS THROUGH EVERY GENERATION BACK TO THE MESSENGER (S), BACK TO ANGEL JIBRIL (A), BACK TO THE LORD OF THE WORLDS, ALLAH, EXALTED IS HE! And at this point, after I have VERIFIED its historical authenticity, and is certain that the Qur'an that was revealed to the Prophet (S), is still in tact and is the same copy that I hold in my hand, now I can go and use the internal factors of the Qur'an to substantiate its Divine Authority!!! And I would encourage all of you to study the science of Tajweed. And anyone who says that this is not important, really is just waisting his time.
Next point, OPF you stated; 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. Here is something that ALLAH said, please, explain, what does this mean to you.
ALLAH said "BUT NO, BY YOUR LORD, THEY CANNOT (TRULY) BELIEVE, UNTIL THEY MAKE YOU, ( O MUHAMMAD), JUDGE CONCERNING OVER WHICH THEY DISPUTE AMONGST THEMSELVES AND THEN FIND WITHIN THEMSELVES NO DISCOMFORT FROM WHAT YOU HAVE JUDGED AND SUBMIT IN (FULL, WILLING) SUBMISSION." (465)
ALLAH said ("IT IS NOT FOR FOR A BELIEVING MAN OR BELIEVING WOMAN, WHEN ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER HAVE DECIDED A MATTER, THAT THEY SHOULD (THEREAFTER) HAVE ANY CHOICE ABOUT THEIR AFFAIR. AND WHOEVER DISOBEYS ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER HAS CERTAINLY STRAYED INTO CLEAR ERROR". (3336)
AND ALLAH SAID; "MAKE NOT THE CALLING OF THE MESSENGER AMONG YOU AS YOUR CALLING OF ONE ANOTHER. ALLAH KNOWS OF YOU WHO SLIP AWAY UNDER SHELTER. AND LET THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE MESSENGER'S COMMANDMENTS BEWARE, LEST SOME TRIAL BEFALL THEM OR A PAINFUL TORMENT BE INFLICTED ON THEM". (2463)
AND ALLAH SAID "AND WHEN IT IS SAID TO THEM, COME TO WHAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED AND TO THE MESSENGER, YOU SEE THE HYPOCRITES TURNING AWAY FROM YOU IN AVERSION". (461)
By ALLAH, I can bring dozens more, literally, but these should suffice. What I wanted everyone to see in these Ayat is that the distinction that ALLAH made between HIS word and command and that of the Messenger (S), please just read it, it is clear. So, one cannot absurdly claim that to obey the Messenger means follow the Qur'an. That makes absolutely no sense. For ALLAH has already told us to Obey ALLAH, then why to repeat it with and follow the Qur'an? In Ayah 460, this is even more clear, because ALLAH says "AND WHEN IT IS SAID TO THEM, COME TO WHAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED" Now does it make sense to state right after that and follow the Qur'an? It would read like this is it was together. AND WHEN IT IS SAID TO THEM, COME TO WHAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED AND FOLLOW THE QUR'AN. THE QUR'AN IS WHAT ALLAH REVEALED!!! So then what is the meaning of the second part; "AND TO THE MESSENGER"? Please answer that. Come to the Messenger (wa ila Ar-Rasul). This does not mean follow the Qur'an! It means exactly what it says, come to the Messenger, His way, His commands, His Sunnah, and all of this is found in the Authentic Hadith.
As for your statement; "Why is it nonsense? Archaeology says that the cube is an old pagan practice". Well my friend OPF, forget about what they say, what do you say? And then lets read what ALLAH says
"THEN LET THEM END THEIR UNTIDINESS AND FULFILL THEIR VOWS AND PERFORM TAWAF (CIRCUMMAMBALTION) AROUND THE ANCIENT HOUSE". (2229)I didn't do point for point, as my Brother Hlatif done a good job in bagging a lot of the other hot air you let out. But please, would you now respond to this. I have brought up your arguments, and dealt with them. The floor is now yours, and I will try to be a bit more structured and prompt, but I do have a lot of work to do on my end.
-
Salaam
My buddy Nun, back again with the same old stuff. What are you having fun? Because you sure not making any sense. Why are you still regurgitating your robotic responses? No one is arguing against what the Qur'an say, rather Hlatif and myself are just bringing you all alternative Ayat that clarify and particularize those very general ones that you are keep citing. You want to see some Ayat, then look at the refutation of OPF in my last post. Deal with those Ayat. And stop just pasting Ayat on the post that has no impact to the discussion, since we all already agree to those Ayat. Man, you are like the energizer bunny, you just keep beating the same old drum, on and on and on...
As for you open-minded, first and foremost, you need to go back and re-read your book on usool-at-tafsir or wherever you got your definitions from. Because the definition for mutashabihat is not verses that have more than one meaning, this is a gross error, and again indicative of your ignorance of Qur'an. Mutashabihat means ambiguous, unclear, meaning, we don't really know what the meaning is, and we should delve into it. That is the meaning of mutashabihat. Thus to claim an Ayah as you stated is Mutashabi, is just non-sense. Unless it is mutashabi only to you, and that may well be the case, because it obvious you don't know what it mean. And too state that 6114 is Muhkam, then maybe you just learned some terminology and was anxious to use it. That ayah has a context, and you cannot generalize it like that because look what ALLAH says in 465. To Make the Prophet (S) the judge. So is this a contradiction? Is the Qur'an contradicting itself? No, not at all, you people are contradicting it. You people want to you general Ayat against specific and vise versa and then claim how clear it is. Extremely strange, especially when you never deal with the Ayat that are posted to show you that your understanding of the Ayat that you have employed in incorrect. Please, respond to these Ayat! You can't, rather you press your automated button or responses using the same exact Ayat, and the same lines. People get with reality!!!
-
As for you open-minded, first and foremost, you need to go back and re-read your book on usool-at-tafsir or wherever you got your definitions from. Because the definition for mutashabihat is not verses that have more than one meaning, this is a gross error, and again indicative of your ignorance of Qur'an. Mutashabihat means ambiguous, unclear, meaning, we don't really know what the meaning is, and we should delve into it. That is the meaning of mutashabihat.
That is ultimately my point. It is ambiguous and essentially open to different interpretations, as I said. Further, the verse goes on to say no one but God knows the true "interpretation" or meaning.
Thus to claim an Ayah as you stated is Mutashabi, is just non-sense. Unless it is mutashabi only to you, and that may well be the case, because it obvious you don't know what it mean. And too state that 6114 is Muhkam, then maybe you just learned some terminology and was anxious to use it. That ayah has a context, and you cannot generalize it like that because look what ALLAH says in 465. To Make the Prophet (S) the judge.
6114 is clear. Tell me how the context goes against it being perfectly clear.
In regards to 465, look at 548-50
548-50 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute. And judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their wishes, and beware lest they divert you away from some of what God has sent down to you. If they turn away, then know that God wants to inflict them with some of their sins; and most of the people are corrupt. Is it the judgment of the days of ignorance that they seek? Who is better than God as a judge for a people that comprehend?
So is this a contradiction? Is the Qur'an contradicting itself? No, not at all, you people are contradicting it. You people want to you general Ayat against specific and vise versa and then claim how clear it is. Extremely strange, especially when you never deal with the Ayat that are posted to show you that your understanding of the Ayat that you have employed in incorrect. Please, respond to these Ayat! You can't, rather you press your automated button or responses using the same exact Ayat, and the same lines. People get with reality!!!
Nope, no contradiction at all. Read the verses above.
Peace
-
My buddy Nun, back again with the same old stuff. What are you having fun? Because you sure not making any sense. Why are you still regurgitating your robotic responses? No one is arguing against what the Qur'an say, rather Hlatif and myself are just bringing you all alternative Ayat that clarify and particularize those very general ones that you are keep citing. You want to see some Ayat, then look at the refutation of OPF in my last post. Deal with those Ayat. And stop just pasting Ayat on the post that has no impact to the discussion, since we all already agree to those Ayat.
People get with reality!!!
My buddy Abu, back again contradicting Qur?an with illogical absurdness and sure OPF wouldn?t mind?
ALLAH said "BUT NO, BY YOUR LORD, THEY CANNOT (TRULY) BELIEVE, UNTIL THEY MAKE YOU, ( O MUHAMMAD), JUDGE CONCERNING OVER WHICH THEY DISPUTE AMONGST THEMSELVES AND THEN FIND WITHIN THEMSELVES NO DISCOMFORT FROM WHAT YOU HAVE JUDGED AND SUBMIT IN (FULL, WILLING) SUBMISSION." (465)
Continue reading (in context) to see?
- If We had ordered them to sacrifice their lives or to leave their homes, very few of them would have done it But if they had done what they were (actually) told, it would have been best for them, and would have gone farthest to strengthen their (faith);
ALLAH said ("IT IS NOT FOR FOR A BELIEVING MAN OR BELIEVING WOMAN, WHEN ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER HAVE DECIDED A MATTER, THAT THEY SHOULD (THEREAFTER) HAVE ANY CHOICE ABOUT THEIR AFFAIR. AND WHOEVER DISOBEYS ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER HAS CERTAINLY STRAYED INTO CLEAR ERROR". (3336)
Once again, continue reading (in context) to see the clear example?
- Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah.s command must be fulfilled.
AND ALLAH SAID; "MAKE NOT THE CALLING OF THE MESSENGER AMONG YOU AS YOUR CALLING OF ONE ANOTHER. ALLAH KNOWS OF YOU WHO SLIP AWAY UNDER SHELTER. AND LET THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE MESSENGER'S COMMANDMENTS BEWARE, LEST SOME TRIAL BEFALL THEM OR A PAINFUL TORMENT BE INFLICTED ON THEM". (2463)
Once again, read (in context; verse prior this time) to see necessary details are all there?
- Only those are believers, who believe in Allah and His Messenger. when they are with him on a matter requiring collective action, they do not depart until they have asked for his leave; those who ask for thy leave are those who believe in Allah and His Messenger. so when they ask for thy leave, for some business of theirs, give leave to those of them whom thou wilt, and ask Allah for their forgiveness for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.
AND ALLAH SAID "AND WHEN IT IS SAID TO THEM, COME TO WHAT ALLAH HAS REVEALED AND TO THE MESSENGER, YOU SEE THE HYPOCRITES TURNING AWAY FROM YOU IN AVERSION". (461)
- Not possible to visit or go hang out with deceased people.
- We do have what was ?revealed? in Qur?an.
Oh, and I am having fun and really do like this sunnah?
'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)
Suggest you try reading Qur?an (for the mind) and honey goes good while reading... peace
-
Open minded,
again my friend, you are trying to use the Qur'an against the Qur'an. If you do that, it will never work for you and you will never understand it. Trying using the Qur'an, for the Qur'an, not against it. Meaning use one Ayah to help you understand another, like Hlatif and myself have been trying to do for you people.
And ambiguous or unclear Ayat are Ayat that we should NOT delve into. Although people may attempt to do so, and by default there will be various opinions. But this meaning has nothing to do with 332. This Ayah is not mutashabi by a long shot. And for you to state that is proof of you ignorance, and that is the truth of the matter. There is nothing mutashabi about " Say, Obey ALLAH and HIS Messenger. But if they turn away - then indeed, ALLAH does not like the disbelievers." (332)
And you are still quoting 6114, this is just unbelievable!!! I guess you have not got an update on your automated responses yet, huh?