Can anybody answer these simple questions ??

unknownuser

Peace Hussein,

Your following God alone is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.

Your following the messenger is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.

Use the mirror...

Too bad for brother Hussein because

The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise."
The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise even if he commits adultery and even if he steals (i.e. even if he commits great sins)."
Adhana fi al-nasi anna man shahida an La ilaha illallah wahdahu la sharika lahu mukhlisan dakhala al-janna. "It was proclaimed among the people that whoever witnesses that there is no god except Allah, alone, without partner, enters Paradise."

8a. Man shahida an La ilaha illallah dakhala al-janna. "Whoever witnesses that there is no god but Allah alone enters Paradise."

And others. Ref http//www.sunnah.org/aqida/forty_hadith_merits_tahlil.htm#_ftn2

Please notice the fork in logic here. The correct logic is that "Whoever believes in Allah Alone", which is the minimum condition since it is spelt by itself in a separate saying, "will go to paradise". Bearing witness is optional, as is "Muhammad is his messenger".

yuck

ade_cool

Peace Leoxyz,

Peace to all
Did Muhammad (PBUH) exist "
What was his father's name ?
When did he start getting revelation ?
How did he spend his days and nights?
How many wives did he have?
Did Battle of Badar & Uhad take place ?
How did Muhammad (PBUH) used to say Salat ? (How many times /day) and How many Rakaat were there in each Salaat?
Was ther "Adhaan" before each Salaat or not at his time?
If Adhaan was there how were its words compiled ?

Please answer these questions ,rest will come forward.
With reference please.

I hope you are in the best condition when you read my post. I am not answering your questions directly here. I just want to share a bit which I believe related to your questions.

Just like other sunnis, when I was sunni I was taught about the history of the prophet. Here is the short version of the history
His father's name is Abdullah who died before the prophet was born. At the age of six, his mother died. Then he was raised by his grandfather Abdul Mutallib. At the age of eight, his grandfather passed away. Thereafter his uncle Abu Talib raised him. When the prophet was twenty five years old, Khadijah, a rich merchant widow, proposed marriage. She was forty when they got married. And then at the age of forty, he became the prophet after receiving the revelations for the first time. And ever since the prophet received revelations, he taught it to the people until he died at the age of around sixty.

That is from my memory. And if you want references, there are many out there such as
http//www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html
(just googling by yourself)

That is a very very short history taught to us. Now let us compare a portion of that history with quran. Before we proceed, I just want to remind you that one of the characteristics of the believers is they believe in the ghayb (the unseen) revealed to them from God. For example, the prophet and all believers believe in the ghayb revealed to them in quran even though they were not present.

344 This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger.) by inspiration Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).

Now, let's take a look at one of the ghayb, revealed to us from Our Lord.

1723 Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour.

The ayat above reveals the ghayb to us that at the time the prophet received revelations he still had both father and mother. If we compare the ghayb revealed to us and the narrations collected centuries after the demise of the prophet, we can see clearly they are very different. This difference is not a small difference at all because one is telling us the prophet had no father when he was born and had no mother when he was six while the other is telling us he still had both at the time he received revelations.

Wassalam,
Ade

hlatif

Salaam all, OPF,

Firstly, I meant the term "hadeeth", not the entire phrase. Can you deny that "baseless hadeeth" does not encompass ALL hadeeth that are baseless?. If you remember, information is to be verified especially if it can harms people (ref 496). So, each such hadeeth will be taken accordingly (please do not keep perpetuating that strawman, it has already been repeatedly clarified that baseless hadeeth are rejected). Remember that the slightest thing can cause harm to people.

You cannot according to the Arabic language say I take only hadeeth without lahwa when the two are interlinked and inseparable. LAHWA alhadeeth is sayings that lead to nothing. period. I will link to another one of your statements that shows your poor logic

1736 coupled with other verses such as 496 and 316 make it clear that baseless information that will cause people to stray from the path of Allah and may cause harm to people should be rejected if authentication fails. Please remember that the state PRIOR to hearing this news is a state of not knowing, which is equivalent to the state of the information not existing, which in turn is equivalent to the information being false. If the information is true, then the equivalent state prior to hearing news is assuming without verification. I simply do not understand how you can miss such simple logic. You also misunderstood my argument. The argument is simple - by not verifying the information according to 1736 and instead using BELIEF to carry on, you are in error. The meaning of 1736 was correctly used, and there was no issue as to whether it meant reject or accept.

Wow. Unless you believe that you know every thing, then your statement has to be false. What you do not know can be true or false. It is true if it is existant and false if not existant. So, you have to verify everything you hear and not discard it completely. There are Ayat of the Qur'an that talk about people who reject statments of the Qur'an because "it did not make sense to them".

Secondly, statements of people, "hadeeth" are not only two categories as you like to think. They are three
1- Statements that you can prove are true.

2- Statements that you prove are false. Those are "baseless hadeeth".

3- Statements that you cannot prove that they are true nor false. Those are not baseless hadeeth until you can prove them false. Those are the ones that God asks you to verify or try to verify and God does not ask you to reject it but to be careful with it as in 1736.

As for the ayat being supressed - 242-245 has the ruling. Please explain where the Quran makes a distinction between adultery and fornication, with reference. More specifically, please explain how the term "zina" does not mean both. There is also a difference in the punishment - 425 shows halving it, 3330 doubled for wives of the prophet. Please explain how you halve and double stoning. Of course, 3330 places the emphasis on God, so you can leave that, but you still must explain how punishment is halved.

The two Aya that you are putting forth are not talking about Zina per se. They are talking about Fahisha. Fahisha is more encompassing and therefore the double and half are about many things. I do not support stoning, but I do not reject hadeeth. I have my own way of doing it but that is not the scope of this discussion. However, the supporters of stoning will say. The rule of general and particular applies here and it can fit nicely. If you want to kick out the hadeeths of stoning, then go for it, you will not make all the hadeeth body baseless.

Finally, please keep in mind the difference between intention and stupidity/obliviousness. Remember Occam's Razor and in this case, the rule "Without all information, never attribute evil intent to what can be ascribed to as stupidity". Yes, I agree that people intentionally concealing truth should never be in such a position.

I will definitely give some of you the benefit of the doubt. Others are different. You all act as intelligent people with great understanding. You bring about an air of arrogance. The Qur'an is a small book and easily researchable, so missing important points in it is often because of bad intent rather than simple stupidity. At least one expects you guys to be a little more humble, which is a rare commodity amongst you.

The Qur'an talked about congregation Salat on fridays and congregation prayers with the messenger leading. You cannot have a congregation Salat when there is not a minimum of consensus.

Please provide a reference for the underlined and emphasised words. Otherwise correct.

Read surat Al Jumaa and the Ayat around 4102

Please explain why 4 traditionalists and 3 contemporaries translated f-s-l as "exposition" instead of "clarification" and 1 extrapolated the meaning.

Ask them. Generally, it is difficult for a translator to translate the concept of a word here "fsl" into another concept that fits perfectly. Their trials fit with part of the concept of fsl but not all and it misses on fine points.

My book of Arabic grammar simply says the prefix "al" indicated definiteness and nothing else. Please avoid the circular argument. They evidently knew of many rasool before Muhammad, please explain why "obey the messenger" was not taken to mean Jesus even though Jesus died 600 years prior, whereas it suddenly means "Muhammad" when Muhammad died 1400 years prior. The only argument you can put forth is that they had a living messenger amongst them - well, I have news for you - there are no messengers/prophets amongst us now.

Well, your book meant by definiteness that it is known to the listener. If your book did not mean that then look at other books of Sibawaeh and Raghib and you will find. The people of the time knew about other messengers, but they knew only one. ALRASOOL can mean other messengers if the context indicated it. The context of "obey the messenger" points only to one that they knew. For us, it still points to the same one. If the Qur'an wanted to say generic, it would have said Atioo rasoola= obey messenger. It DID NOT say that.

Incorrect. It is divergence "when you all read the same clear and detailed book, but arrive at a widely varying understandings". Please understand. It is CONJECTURE BASED ON HEARSAY when you say "X said that Y said that Z said that A said that B said that G said that H said that R was with rasuloolullah who said ABCDEFG" and then take this HEARSAY and find another "B said that I said that L said that D said that N said that E said that H said that R was with rasuloolullah who said ABCDEHG" and create a CONJECTURE that because both X and B said the same initial narrator, then X and B are correct. There is no way to verify this without a time machine. It is HEARSAY, and this is undeniable and will never be otherwise.

Sorry to burst your bubble. It is not divergence when at on one end of the spectrum, some of you pray like me and on the other end, they accuse them of idol worship. Those two ends are mutually exclusive. There are many things that one can get from the isnad system that is different from your rants.

You are correct. When the evidence mounts up, however, especially in this given case (simple verification can be found by referring to the very simple experiment done by Joseph Priestly - like the "science" of unverifiable hearsay, this is also very very simple, a school child can do it). Please remember 1736, this rules out history in certain ways. As for what they attacked, that can also be refuted wholesale. Where are your sources? Answering Islam and others which depend on dubious translations, out of context verses and other things and partly, the work of Sunnis themselves extrapolating "miracles" from the Quran which have never existed. There is a difference between "miracle" and "sign".

I am sorry. Your bring me an Aya that says "We make out of green trees fire" and then you make this into a big scientific theory. Cosmicdancer will have a hey day with that. They knew already that green trees become fire. I do not want to say that the Qur'an does not contain scientific stuff, but I am bringing your stretch out. This case does not cut it. Additionally, the Qur''an says things that some consider unscientific. "putting clay together and making it man" and so on and so forth. Ah wait, I forget, then you will have to forget about them for a while or play with them linguistically to make them fit. All this is a sign of faith built on shaky grounds. I am glad that you have faith. I worry about the shaky grounds or the conditional grounds on which it stands.

Please read 19108. Please explain what the "first day" means without referring to unverifiable conjecture and hearsay.

First day means first day in 9108. I then need to ask you
1- What does masjid mean? in that Aya?
2- When was that first day? or it did not happen untill your time?

1.) Please answer the question. This is rather important. Did Abraham say "amen" in his prayers or did he not? The definition of Islam is irrelevant.

An Aya in surat Al baqara says that "you shall not be asked about what they were doing" God is not going to ask me. Why would I then have to answer you? that would be a Qur'anic baseless hadeeth.

2.) Please explain whether or not Muhammad said "amen" in his personal salat or not. All I wish to know is whether they used this word.

According to Bukhari he said but not always and he did not consider it part of the Qur'an.

3.) Please then explain why Ahl Hadeeth (collective term, not colloquial) feel it is necessary to bear witness on something we have never seen and cannot possibly bear witness except through the Quran itself (631 and others, please notice the context of 631), as the word of Allah (ref circular argument).

God does not ask us to witness on things that do not yet exist. As for things that existed, then we have to witness about them if we have enough evidence that they existed. The Qur'an is evidence that Muhammad existed, that he was a messenger and a prophet at the same time and that he was the messenger that was addressed in the Qur'an. If you witness that the Qur'an is the book of God, then you will have to, by default, witness that it came to His messenger Muhammad, (pbuh).

4.) So Allah suddenly changes the deen practiced by Abraham and others. I see. Please provide evidence with respect to the Quran if you are indeed truthful.

See answer number 1 as well as the Aya of abrogation in 2106

The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise."
The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise even if he commits adultery and even if he steals (i.e. even if he commits great sins)."

You say it in your heart and mind and tongue. Saying on the tongue without presence in the heart and mind does not count.

Adhana fi al-nasi anna man shahida an La ilaha illallah wahdahu la sharika lahu mukhlisan dakhala al-janna. "It was proclaimed among the people that whoever witnesses that there is no god except Allah, alone, without partner, enters Paradise."

8a. Man shahida an La ilaha illallah dakhala al-janna. "Whoever witnesses that there is no god but Allah alone enters Paradise."

Witnessing is based on factual knowledge. The knowledge came to you and you witness accordingly. God provided us with all sorts of knowledge to witness His presence. If you believe the Qur'an and the Qur'an tells you that God witnesses that He is one, then will you not consider this knowledge? or not? Will you reject that God witnessed about himself as being proof, the strongest ever proof of His existance?

Ade cool,

The Aya starts with the single you and then moves to plural you when talking about parents. It was not talking to the prophet alone except at it's beginning. Your conclusion is then too stretched.

Take care all and have a great day.

Hussein

unknownuser

Peace, thanks for the reply.

You cannot according to the Arabic language say I take only hadeeth without lahwa when the two are interlinked and inseparable. LAHWA alhadeeth is sayings that lead to nothing. period. I will link to another one of your statements that shows your poor logic
Wow. Unless you believe that you know every thing, then your statement has to be false. What you do not know can be true or false. It is true if it is existant and false if not existant. So, you have to verify everything you hear and not discard it completely. There are Ayat of the Qur'an that talk about people who reject statments of the Qur'an because "it did not make sense to them".

Again you misunderstood. I am of the understanding "lahwa" restricts "ahadeeth" to the extent that only baseless hadeeth are included. So it makes a distinction - hadeeth with basis and hadeeth without basis. Please show the failed logic there. Judging by a different post of yours, you seem to believe I take "lahwa al-hadeeth" to mean all hadeeth. There is a distinction/delineation there. Please read my response to that. You would love to pin the "munkar e-hadeeth" label on me, a common tactic. You would be somewhat right in that respect, as I do indeed reject baseless hadeeth.

I will link to another one of your statements that shows your poor logic
Wow. Unless you believe that you know every thing, then your statement has to be false. What you do not know can be true or false. It is true if it is existant and false if not existant. So, you have to verify everything you hear and not discard it completely. There are Ayat of the Qur'an that talk about people who reject statments of the Qur'an because "it did not make sense to them".

It appears I have to walk you through it. In REALITY, is there any falsehood? In this universe, are there any square circles, or invisible pink unicorns? No. This is self-evident because a circle and square are two distinct things, invisible and pink are also distinct and they are mutually incompatible. So, in reality, there is truth and truth only. 2 + 2 = 4, a simple truth. 2 apples combined with 2 more apples will make 4 apples existing, not 5 and not 4. Thus, it can be said that falsehood is that which does not exist, and truth is that which exists. Which you already said. I don't understand why you had a hiccup here. Now, suppose I place you atop a cliff and you are blindfolded. I tell you that there is a huge bouncy castle at the bottom of this cliff. You also have a parachute in your hand. You MUST jump.

What would you prefer Have faith in me, telling you there is a bouncy castle at the bottom (remember that you are blindfolded and have no method of perception to verify this aside from my own hadeeth), or simply use the parachute and be safe regardless of the truth or falsehood of my statement? Why will you choose the parachute here, but the hadeeth when it comes to the deen? Remember - do not trade God's revelations for cheap words (544). This simple thought experiment shows beyond doubt that the logic is correct, not weak. Please remember that there is no "sahih, hasan, da'if, or mauda when it comes to logic, there is only truth, and falsehood.

Secondly, statements of people, "hadeeth" are not only two categories as you like to think. They are three
1- Statements that you can prove are true.

2- Statements that you prove are false. Those are "baseless hadeeth".

3- Statements that you cannot prove that they are true nor false. Those are not baseless hadeeth until you can prove them false. Those are the ones that God asks you to verify or try to verify and God does not ask you to reject it but to be careful with it as in 1736.

Item 3 centers on the fallacious notion that something is true until proven false. Incorrect. False until proven truth, sorry. In case 3, they are indeed baseless. Baselessness does not mean truth or falsehood, baselessness means whether or not the information is of use. Every hadeeth can thus be classified as thus, and false hadeeth are always baseless. Hadeeth with a base are those backed by the Quran and contemporary evidence, including common sense. Baseless hadeeth can be absolute truth yet still baseless. Regardless, you fully agreed with my logic (truth is existant, falsehood isn't) but skirted the issue in any case, without considering the obvious options. May I remind you that we are here not to "win" but to make the truth distinct and as such, objectiveness is a requirement.

The two Aya that you are putting forth are not talking about Zina per se. They are talking about Fahisha. Fahisha is more encompassing and therefore the double and half are about many things. I do not support stoning, but I do not reject hadeeth. I have my own way of doing it but that is not the scope of this discussion. However, the supporters of stoning will say. The rule of general and particular applies here and it can fit nicely. If you want to kick out the hadeeths of stoning, then go for it, you will not make all the hadeeth body baseless.

Fahisha, an even more encompassing term. So there is no distinction but there is even more generalisation. As for the hadeeth of stoning, the Quran itself kicks out these hadeeth as baseless. Is it not funny that when a Quran alone person interprets a verse differently or puts forth exegesis, they are accused of "tahreef", yet this is simply called "abrogation"? Truly ridiculous.

I will definitely give some of you the benefit of the doubt. Others are different. You all act as intelligent people with great understanding. You bring about an air of arrogance. The Qur'an is a small book and easily researchable, so missing important points in it is often because of bad intent rather than simple stupidity. At least one expects you guys to be a little more humble, which is a rare commodity amongst you.

The same can be said for all sides. Please refrain from personal attacks and stay on topic. Arrogance depends on perception. I don't believe I have ever accused someone of acting arrogant even when my blood boiled from their statements and I expect similar courtesy.

Read surat Al Jumaa and the Ayat around 4102Ask them. Generally, it is difficult for a translator to translate the concept of a word here "fsl" into another concept that fits perfectly. Their trials fit with part of the concept of fsl but not all and it misses on fine points.Well, your book meant by definiteness that it is known to the listener. If your book did not mean that then look at other books of Sibawaeh and Raghib and you will find. The people of the time knew about other messengers, but they knew only one. ALRASOOL can mean other messengers if the context indicated it. The context of "obey the messenger" points only to one that they knew. For us, it still points to the same one. If the Qur'an wanted to say generic, it would have said Atioo rasoola= obey messenger. It DID NOT say that.

I sought a reference for the term "Friday". Not the congregation. The specific act of Friday Sabbath, sorry, congregation. By your own admission, you have stated f-s-l does convey the perception of detail, in addition to distinctness. Partially or not.

The people of the time knew about other messengers, but they knew only one.

Argument addressed. Sorry, but I know nobody called "Muhammad" who claims to be a prophet and messenger of Allah. This is, of course, part of the "Muhammad is the messenger to all mankind" doctrine. Even when it is clear he is the seal of the nabis, not rasools, and when Allah states that messengers will come to all people on the verge of destruction (2859). Look again, the destruction of peoples, i.e. genocide has NEVER ceased in human history. One Quranic aya is nearing fulfillment (17104) in the state of Israel, who are indeed a mingled crowd and who even have declared themselves to have the same name as in the Quran. Such fallacious thoughts and idealogy comes from people with an equally fallacious perception of Allah as anthropomorphic, actively judging on people, even when clear signs are shown to them that they memorize.

ALRASOOL can mean other messengers if the context indicated it. The context of "obey the messenger" points only to one that they knew. For us, it still points to the same one. If the Qur'an wanted to say generic, it would have said Atioo rasoola= obey messenger. It DID NOT say that.

Of course, when hadeeth are advocated. So

Hadeeth should be used because Quran says "Obey the messenger", and hadeeth state the messenger is Muhammad.

The Quran on the other hand clarifies this in a far better way - Muhammad practised exactly the same deen as of his predecessors (4213) and exactly the same message (16123), meaning that directly or indirectly, OBEYING THE MESSENGER IS A GENERIC TERM (688-90). Language alone does not convey that. If Arabic is anything like English, using the indefinite article in such a context would also be extremely poor language.

Sorry to burst your bubble. It is not divergence when at on one end of the spectrum, some of you pray like me and on the other end, they accuse them of idol worship. Those two ends are mutually exclusive. There are many things that one can get from the isnad system that is different from your rants.

Free-minds forum is not an organisation as far as I see and people are free to believe what they wish. For instance, there is zero consensus on whether God exists or not on this forum, let alone salat. This tends to happen when multiple individuals come together from various approaches of life and each have their own story to tell. As for accusations of idol worship, if it is backed up, then it is correct, period, otherwise it is slander. This also reminds me, if you would like to explain why I am condemned to hell by hadeeth for not obeying the ritualistic salat even as 443 states that one must understand salat to do it. Also, please explain what benefits the act of sunni flavour ritual salat itself brings forth. Not the act of adhering to a routine 5 times a day, because I could also do sit-ups 5 times a day, but the simple act of those rituals. What benefit does a person derive from uttering foreign incantations 5 times a day, please explain.

Finally, I would like to see evidence for these many things that can be derived from the chinese whispers chain, and if it is not conjecture or baseless hadeeth, then I will accept it as I accept certain hadeeth, even though the Quran itself negates any necessity.

I am sorry. Your bring me an Aya that says "We make out of green trees fire" and then you make this into a big scientific theory. Cosmicdancer will have a hey day with that. They knew already that green trees become fire. I do not want to say that the Qur'an does not contain scientific stuff, but I am bringing your stretch out. This case does not cut it. Additionally, the Qur''an says things that some consider unscientific. "putting clay together and making it man" and so on and so forth. Ah wait, I forget, then you will have to forget about them for a while or play with them linguistically to make them fit. All this is a sign of faith built on shaky grounds. I am glad that you have faith. I worry about the shaky grounds or the conditional grounds on which it stands.

Incorrect. The beauty of Quran is that the understanding comes from the superficial understanding that "if I burn this tree, fire comes out" to the slightly deeper "photosynthesis results in oxygen and the green pigment is associated with this process". So, there is no blame on me if I make it to be a "big scientific theory". Indeed, it is "big scientific FACT". Remember the distinction between truth and falsehood, truth exists, falsehood does not. The simple fact remains that the truth here EXISTS, the Quran puts this truth, and there is NOTHING you can do to negate this in favour of your precious hearsay narrations. I do not give two s***s if "cosmicdancer will have a hey day with that", I care only about reality, what is apparent and the distinction between truth and falsehood. This is indeed made clear, if we go back to the f-s-l root. Please, PLEASE show me where there is stretching. It is pure logical truth there as far as I percieve.

As for putting clay together to make men, please read what theory Richard Dawkins, the greatest contemporary islamophobe, subscribes to in terms of the origin of man. Again, your futile attempt to negate Quranic wisdom with hearsay narrations based on hearsay narrations comes directly back into your face. Clayparticles is a standing theory as of yet. It is only a matter of time. There is zero faith here. I have personally verified that which I can of this, and there are no shaky grounds or conditional grounds as far as I see. So, please explain and put forth your evidence that "the case does not cut it" if you are truthful. But if you cannot, I have only one thing to say to you

Who is more wicked than he who forges a lie against Allah (excerpt 693)

By rejecting science, you reject reality, and by rejecting reality, you consequently reject the Quran, you are simply digging a very deep hole for yourself through this act - if you are indeed rejecting it all - please clarify whether you do not accept

a) All of science
b) The Quran
c) The work of scientists who claim the Quran does not agree with their views, ex. clay man origins.

First day means first day in 9108. I then need to ask you
1- What does masjid mean? in that Aya?
2- When was that first day? or it did not happen untill your time?

Thank you.

1 - Masjid is defined in the next and preceding ayat. The distinction there is made between physical and conceptual. It is also made distinct which is physical and which is conceptual.
2 - Is this question intended as satire?

An Aya in surat Al baqara says that "you shall not be asked about what they were doing" God is not going to ask me. Why would I then have to answer you? that would be a Qur'anic baseless hadeeth.

It is important because deen is all-encompassing and if Muhammad only followed the deen of Nuh and Moses and others including Abraham, then it can only follow he performed the concept of salat in precisely the same way - since this is indeed a fundamental part of the deen for those who believe and are versed. Presumeably you will be asked about whether you followed the deen of Ibrahim and Muhammad, since that is the very deen by that the righteous will be judged and determined as such. We are not talking specifically about the prophets, but by the deen they followed. The deen does not change, salat is an integral part of the deen, simple as that. If Abraham did indeed say "amen" in his prayers, it would shed new meaning on 2134

According to Bukhari he said but not always and he did not consider it part of the Qur'an.

Thank you. It is a good thing 2134 is there, and the prophet was only human.

God does not ask us to witness on things that do not yet exist. As for things that existed, then we have to witness about them if we have enough evidence that they existed. The Qur'an is evidence that Muhammad existed, that he was a messenger and a prophet at the same time and that he was the messenger that was addressed in the Qur'an. If you witness that the Qur'an is the book of God, then you will have to, by default, witness that it came to His messenger Muhammad, (pbuh).

The Quran does not command us to bear witness anything of the two, in this life, period. The only such mention I see places those who bear witness as hypocrites. Please provide a reference for this statement

If you witness that the Qur'an is the book of God, then you will have to, by default, witness that it came to His messenger Muhammad, (pbuh).

I would like a direct link or logic showing Muhammad to be sent the Quran; in the Quran.

See answer number 1 as well as the Aya of abrogation in 2106

Ah yes, the most important ayat of the hearsay followers used to justify their hearsay and inject it into the deen, just as malware writers use buffer overflows to give credence to their code and inject it into the host process. Unfortunately, 2106 is distorted in such a way.

For instance, the same phrase in some verses of the rest of the Quran

And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure. S. 2118

Yet if thou shouldst bring to those that have been given the Book every sign (ayatun), they will not follow thy direction; thou art not a follower of their direction, neither are they followers of one another's direction. If thou followest their caprices, after the knowledge that has come to thee, then thou wilt surely be among the evildoers. S. 2145

They also say, 'Why has no sign (ayatun) been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say 'Surely God is able to send down a sign (ayatan), but most of them know not.' S. 637

They have sworn by God the most earnest oaths if a sign (ayatun) comes to them they will believe in it. Say 'Signs (al-ayatu) are only with God.' What will make you realize that, when it comes, they will not believe? S. 6109

They say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say 'The Unseen belongs only to God. Then watch and wait; I shall be with you watching and waiting.' S. 1020

The unbelievers say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Thou art ONLY a warner, and a guide to every people. S. 137

So, of course, it means "signs" unless it is used to place Allah's digital signature on malware. And amongst them are those who accept baseless ahadeeth to distract from God's revelations...

The deen is never changed, but Allah brings forth different signs each time. Makes far more sense for an omnipotent, omniscient being, one would say.

You say it in your heart and mind and tongue. Saying on the tongue without presence in the heart and mind does not count.

Irrelevant detail. "Qul" in Arabic has very similar connotations to "say" in English and the meaning I intended (as in the quote) fits well within.

Witnessing is based on factual knowledge. The knowledge came to you and you witness accordingly. God provided us with all sorts of knowledge to witness His presence. If you believe the Qur'an and the Qur'an tells you that God witnesses that He is one, then will you not consider this knowledge? or not? Will you reject that God witnessed about himself as being proof, the strongest ever proof of His existance?

So God tells me that he has created the worlds, so I should claim I have created the worlds? Remember, Allah alone is sufficient as a witness (479, 4166; malaika's witness negated). So, when God bears witness that Muhammad is his messenger and God is the lord of the worlds, I bear witness that God has beared witness that Muhammad is his messenger and God is the lord of the words. Significant difference, but something that flies over the heads of people.

Perhaps the most obvious sign thus far that Quran alone is 100% viable is that I have thus far yet to use any external source aside from the Quran and the physical reality to justify it, and I am also rehashing very, very old arguments - which will continue to make sense, regardless of time.

To each their own.

Edit Addendum -

An Aya in surat Al baqara says that "you shall not be asked about what they were doing" God is not going to ask me. Why would I then have to answer you? that would be a Qur'anic baseless hadeeth.

Please note that this logic can be reversed (verse 2134) and negates the primary concept of Sunni-ism wholesale, the idea that sunnah = practices of the messenger because Muhammad followed the deen of Abraham and Muslims are commanded to also follow the deen of Abraham, directly. In addition to that, it follows logically that if Abraham is hailed as the origination point of Islam, or one of the origination points, then the term sunnah must clearly mean "practice of Abraham" not "practice of Muhammad". This either means the "sunna" is ever changing (see tahreed, hearsay, abrogation) or that the sunna does not exist in the form ascribed to by traditionalists.

Well, your book meant by definiteness that it is known to the listener

Just a clarification, definiteness in this context is meant as the idea of adding "the" to a noun, indefiniteness hence signifies adding "a" to a noun. These are very common linguistic terms.

2130 shows Islam described as the deen of Abraham, please show a reference that describes Islam as the deen of Muhammad.

More to follow, possibly. I know there are possibly certain points of the argument I have failed to address, and certain points where I have failed to make further logical exposition.

Leoxyz

2130 shows Islam described as the deen of Abraham, please show a reference that describes Islam as the deen of Muhammad.

.

Another tampering
Actual aya is
2130

Show me where is this description in this aya "islam described as deen of Ibrahim"

unknownuser

Another tampering
Actual aya is
2130

Show me where is this description in this aya "islam described as deen of Ibrahim"

Sorry, my mistake. The word is millat and hence religion, not deen. I was relying on memory and memory failed. Also, translations use deen and millat and religion interchangeably.

Regardless, ad-deen is compared to the millat of Abraham in 2278.

Sorry to disturb your highness, brother Agent Smith. In any case, please direct your questions to Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthal and Muhammad Habeeb Shakir.

In any case, nice try. Shame it did not work this time. Better luck next time. Etc.

Leoxyz

Sorry, my mistake. The word is millat and hence religion, not deen. I was relying on memory and memory failed. Also, translations use deen and millat and religion interchangeably.

Regardless, ad-deen is compared to millat in 2278.

Sorry to disturb your highness, brother Agent Smith. In any case, please direct your questions to Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthal and Muhammad Habeeb Shakir.

Dear Brother ;
That is nice to see that you have started realizing your faults.Inshallah one day you will will be on right path.
You said

Sorry to disturb your highness, brother Agent Smith.

Regarding it I would like to remind you an aya

4911

unknownuser

I would also like to remind you that the point still stands based on 2278. A simple human error is precisely that, a simple human error, and if our brother Hussein wished, he could have easily called that to attention (not that your calling was in vain).

As for the aya, I am well aware of that. Please remember that the reason for such a nickname is self-evident. Your continued criticism is borderline arrogance, again, something self-evident.

Please have a read through of this http//www.islamworld.net/faults.html

Leoxyz

Please have a read through of this http//www.islamworld.net/faults.html

Dear
Again it is a good sign.
This link is full of Ahadeeth;
Thanks for accepting the importance of Ahadeeth.
Allah has responded to my prayer in my previous thread.
Again I appreciate your courage to accept the Truth.

unknownuser

Dear
Again it is a good sign.
This link is full of Ahadeeth;
Thanks for accepting the importance of Ahadeeth.
Allah has responded to my prayer in my previous thread.
Again I appreciate your courage to accept the Truth.

Actually, please read up on "devil's advocate". Inshallah you will find it. If the seal is broken.

The funny thing is that you need hearsay to tell you a universal truth. But this can be expected from he who enquires about optional details.

Leoxyz

Actually, please read up on "devil's advocate". Inshallah you will find it. If the seal is broken.

The funny thing is that you need hearsay to tell you a universal truth. But this can be expected from he who enquires about optional details.

Dear
You are taking the shelter of "Ahadeeth" .Why?
Have I ever quoted a single hadeeth ?
This is what I am stating again and again.Quranists have double standards.
If something appeals their wishes ,they get its support.
If something does not appeal their wishes ,they reject it.
This is a fresh example.
Bashing ahadeeths ,then taking their shelter ? Is this not "Licking one's own vomit"??
The Holy Quran says
613

unknownuser

Dear
You are taking the shelter of "Ahadeeth" .Why?
Have I ever quoted a single hadeeth ?
This is what I am stating again and again.Quranists have double standards.
If something appeals their wishes ,they get its support.
If something does not appeal their wishes ,they reject it.
This is a fresh example.
Bashing ahadeeths ,then taking their shelter ? Is this not "Licking one's own vomit"??
The Holy Quran says
613

Sorry, I do not take shelter. The exact same wisdom in those hadeeths is instilled in cultural values around the world, and I grew up learning that, with absolutely no hadeeth needed. For one who claims to follow hadeeth, it is notable you seem to reject these. Can I ask you whether these are indeed lahwa al-hadeeth?

Now that you have posted this, please also look up "strawman argument".

Leoxyz

Sorry, I do not take shelter. The exact same wisdom in those hadeeths is instilled in cultural values around the world, and I grew up learning that, with absolutely no hadeeth needed. For one who claims to follow hadeeth, it is notable you seem to reject these. Can I ask you whether these are indeed lahwa al-hadeeth?

Now that you have posted this, please also look up "strawman argument".

Dear
If you did not take shelter ,why did you quote the link ??
Please do not try to distract the matter under discussion i.e your taking shelter under the Hadeeth cover.

unknownuser

Dear
If you did not take shelter ,why did you quote the link ??
Please do not try to distract the matter under discussion i.e your taking shelter under the Hadeeth cover.

Can you please post what you know about "devil's advocate" otherwise it will be confirmed for all to see that you are of al-munafiqeen, those who say one thing and practice another.

Leoxyz

Can you please post what you know about "devil's advocate" otherwise it will be confirmed for all to see that you are of al-munafiqeen, those who say one thing and practice another.

496

hlatif

Salaam OPF,

I am not going to respond to all of your post. There is lots of back and forth and people can read both points of views. I want to address some interesting statements

3- Statements that you cannot prove that they are true nor false. Those are not baseless hadeeth until you can prove them false. Those are the ones that God asks you to verify or try to verify and God does not ask you to reject it but to be careful with it as in 1736.

Item 3 centers on the fallacious notion that something is true until proven false. Incorrect. False until proven truth, sorry. In case 3, they are indeed baseless.

Your logic is lacking. The majority of things in the world fall in number three. The best that you can do is withold judgement until further proof. Rejection outright is wrong. One can easily ask you this question

Prove that God is existant? Yes you will go about all the proofs that you have and the person will come back and say. Those are no proofs because I am not observing God. Many times, you accept things not because of proofs, but because of trust and safety in them. This all falls under item number three.

As for the congregation prayer. The Aya says If called to Salat on the day of Jumaa, then leave the selling and move for the remembrance of Allah. What is being called for? and how did they remember Allah? if you believe that they implemented this rule?

As for the Muhammad business. There are two places that you have to remember

Muhammadun rasoolullah= Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.
Wama muhammadun illa rasoolun qad khlat min qablihi arrusulu, afain mata aw qutila inqalbtum ala AAqabikum= And Muhammad is but a messenger, the messengers left before him. So, if he died or was killed, you turn away on the back of your feet.

When you put those two together, then you will get that he was the only messenger of that time and that the people who were addressed knew who their messenger was.

If the Qur'an said the above, then I will witness. Actually, the witnessing is mentioned in many places. You omitted them all and only remembered the hypocrites. You will do well by studying the term. Here is one "Wauktubna maa alshahideena= and write us amongst the witnesses." It is the witnesses to the truth.

As for the first day of the establishing of the Masjid, it was with that messenger 1400 years ago and it was established on good basis as per the Qur'an. As for you guys, you believe that it was established on weak basis so as to disappear until your smart brains came to make things up.

This is my last post on this. Take care and have a great day.

Hussein

unknownuser

496

So in other words, you have no knowledge? 496 has very little to do with the concept of playing devil's advocate.

unknownuser