Are the Quran aloners hurting the refomist cause?
-
Wouldn't the conclusion be that the messenger isn't always referring to Muhammad, hence "messenger"
Or am I wrong?
Before going to other questionsPlease clear what I understood.
I repeat the question
You saidNo just the impossible verses cannot be done.
I asked you
Now you are on the right path;
Probably you want to say that the verse
459
is possible to carry out nowadays?
Am I correct to understand you ?Please answer this question then we will move to other questions so that material is settled in an organized manner.
-
Salaam Navid,
Thank you for presenting those verses. But could you tell me your thoughts on 7750, especially in the context of the rest of sura 77?
7750
Correct, you are supposed to have Iman= safety and trust in the Qur'an. That same Qur'an tells you to have Iman= safety and trust in the messenger and to obey him in so many occasions. If you have true Iman in the Qur'an then you follow what it says and not manipulate it as you are trying to imply.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam Navid,
Correct, you are supposed to have Iman= safety and trust in the Qur'an. That same Qur'an tells you to have Iman= safety and trust in the messenger and to obey him in so many occasions. If you have true Iman in the Qur'an then you follow what it says and not manipulate it as you are trying to imply.Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
You are correct, if you have iman in the Quran you will not need to resort to hearing hearsay and conjecture about hearsay.
-
Salaam Navid,
Correct, you are supposed to have Iman= safety and trust in the Qur'an. That same Qur'an tells you to have Iman= safety and trust in the messenger and to obey him in so many occasions. If you have true Iman in the Qur'an then you follow what it says and not manipulate it as you are trying to imply.Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
So 7750 (among other countless verses) does not apply? The quran, using CLEAR verses tells you to not follow any other hadith aside the quran, to follow God only and the quran only which is complete and clearly explained, that the quran cites EVERY example, etc. These verses are indisputable. There is only ONE way to interpret them. Yet you deny these verses through upholding the hadith.
Now, let's compare what I said above to the reason you uphold the hadith, which is based on ONE quote that is manipulated to get one meaning. "Obey the messenger" DOES NOT have ONE meaning (to follow everything prophet muhammad does through the narration of long chains, gathered after the prophet's death). "Obey the messenger" can be intepreted in different ways. However, you stick to one interpretation and use that to uphold the hadith.
Do you see the difference? Please approach this with an open mind. How could you not see this?
Please, explain your thoughts on verses such as 7750. What does it mean by "Which hadith after this will they believe?"
Peace
-
So 7750 (among other countless verses) does not apply? The quran, using CLEAR verses tells you to not follow any other hadith aside the quran, to follow God only and the quran only which is complete and clearly explained, that the quran cites EVERY example, etc. These verses are indisputable. There is only ONE way to interpret them. Yet you deny these verses through upholding the hadith.
Wrong understanding. It suggests that any other hadeeth that is contradictory to the Qur'an is rejected and not just any other hadeeth. If you truly mean what you say then you should not write anything because that is a "hadeeth that God asked you reject" according to your faulty understanding. However, neither you nor OPF will stop giving "hadeeth" but will always believe wrongly that only the "hadeeth of the prohet is rejected here". That is what is called hypocrisy.
Take care
Hussein
-
Wrong understanding. It suggests that any other hadeeth that is contradictory to the Qur'an is rejected and not just any other hadeeth. If you truly mean what you say then you should not write anything because that is a "hadeeth that God asked you reject" according to your faulty understanding. However, neither you nor OPF will stop giving "hadeeth" but will always believe wrongly that only the "hadeeth of the prohet is rejected here". That is what is called hypocrisy.
Take care
Hussein
Where does it suggest that it is hadith contradictory the quran? The quran repeatedly (not only 7750) implies that you should not follow any other hadith other than the quran, as divine guidance. How can you reject this?
That is one thing you are not understanding, you are the one manipulating, brother. You say that "hadith" in the quran refers to everything other than your hadith (irony it is the same word). I (and I'm asssuming OPF), on the other hand, follow logic and the quran, and take it to refer to ANY OTHER hadith aside from the quran. This is undeniable.
Peace
-
Your "logic" or the "lack of it" is expressed in your "hadeeth". According to you I need to reject the hadeeth that contains your logic per 7750.
As far where I got my understanding. From the Aya and the ones before it and after it. The Qur'an was challenging the ones who reject it because they felt safe in an alternative that contradicts it. The Qur'an does not reject any hadeeth that is consistent with it or that supports it, including the hadeeth that is attributed to the prophet.
Hussein
-
Your "logic" or the "lack of it" is expressed in your "hadeeth". According to you I need to reject the hadeeth that contains your logic per 7750.
What?
As far where I got my understanding. From the Aya and the ones before it and after it. The Qur'an was challenging the ones who reject it because they felt safe in an alternative that contradicts it. The Qur'an does not reject any hadeeth that is consistent with it or that supports it, including the hadeeth that is attributed to the prophet.
Hussein
The fact of the matter is that you are ADDING divine laws on to the deen by following "hadith other than the quran. Not only do you take divine guidance/laws from humans, some ahadith DO in fact contradict the quran. Regardless, again, you are taking divine laws from other hadith than the quran. This is what the quran warns against, and you do not see it.
-
So 7750 (among other countless verses) does not apply? The quran, using CLEAR verses tells you to not follow any other hadith aside the quran, to follow God only and the quran only which is complete and clearly explained, that the quran cites EVERY example, etc. These verses are indisputable. There is only ONE way to interpret them. Yet you deny these verses through upholding the hadith.
Now, let's compare what I said above to the reason you uphold the hadith, which is based on ONE quote that is manipulated to get one meaning. "Obey the messenger" DOES NOT have ONE meaning (to follow everything prophet muhammad does through the narration of long chains, gathered after the prophet's death). "Obey the messenger" can be intepreted in different ways. However, you stick to one interpretation and use that to uphold the hadith.
Do you see the difference? Please approach this with an open mind. How could you not see this?
Please, explain your thoughts on verses such as 7750. What does it mean by "Which hadith after this will they believe?"
Peace
Dear Navid ;
I give you an example;
A country has a constituition .Constituition decrees
"Obey the constituition only and whosoever betrays will be punished
That is true .Now in the constituition there is another provision of appointing "governors" in different states (provinces ) of the country.Constituition also decrees that governors should be obeyed.
What do you think that this obeying of Governors is
-obedience of constituition or
-disobedience of the constituition??????????
I will be waiting for you thoughtful reply -
Dear Navid ;
I give you an example;
A country has a constituition .Constituition decrees
"Obey the constituition only and whosoever betrays will be punished
That is true .Now in the constituition there is another provision of appointing "governors" in different states (provinces ) of the country.Constituition also decrees that governors should be obeyed.
What do you think that this obeying of Governors is
-obedience of constituition or
-disobedience of the constituition??????????
I will be waiting for you thoughtful replyWith the context of "obey the consitution only and whosoever betrays it will be punished," it is painfully clear that nothing else should be followed beside it as this commandment is clear Obey only the constitution. Now, with this in mind, why on earth would you interpret (out of various interpretations, as opposed to ONE interpretation in "obey only the constitution" obey the governors as to mean something beside the constitution.
Similarly
-The quran says it should only be followed (a clear sign, with no other interpretation).
-It also says to obey the MESSENGER (not the human Muhammad, remember quran does not run out of words).
-You choose ONE interpretation of "obey the messenger" and use it to follow something in addition to the quran, when in reality, it could mean anything else since it is not clear like "follow only the quran."
-Thus, there is a contradiction.This is very easy to see.
-
With the context of "obey the consitution only and whosoever betrays it will be punished," it is painfully clear that nothing else should be followed beside it as this commandment is clear Obey only the constitution. Now, with this in mind, why on earth would you interpret (out of various interpretations, as opposed to ONE interpretation in "obey only the constitution" obey the governors as to mean something beside the constitution.
Similarly
-The quran says it should only be followed (a clear sign, with no other interpretation).
-It also says to obey the MESSENGER (not the human Muhammad, remember quran does not run out of words).
-You choose ONE interpretation of "obey the messenger" and use it to follow something in addition to the quran, when in reality, it could mean anything else since it is not clear like "follow only the quran."
-Thus, there is a contradiction.This is very easy to see.
Actually if you could answer my question straightforward ,the things would have been easier.
When "obey the governor " is written in the constituition ,it means
"obeying the governor " is exactly "obeying the constituition" .Because we are obeying him because of constituitional decree.If someone disobeys the governor ,in fact he is disobeying the constituition and that is betraying.
Your said;-It also says to obey the MESSENGER (not the human Muhammad, remember quran does not run out of words).
I agree with you.Every one has different roles to play.
e.g a man may be- a doctor
- a father
- a brother
- a friend
at one time.Exactly a governer may have all these roles to play.
This is a bit natural that those orders of him which are concerned his constituitnal duty ,people are bound to obey them not those orders which are non-constituinal are not supposed to be obeyed by the people.
But one has to decide which order is - constituitional
- non constituinal
Now see another scenario;
constituition says that things should be provided on cheaper rates.
Governor being the administrator of state takes some step to carry out this "order " of the constituition to provide cheaper goods to the people.Don't you think that his taking of that step to fullfil the requirement of the constituition is actually in capacity of a "governer " not in the capacity of a friend or father or husband.
people are bound to obey those steps ordered by the governor.
Quran is a constituition along with assigning "Muhammad PBUH " as Rasool.
All his steps taken for implementation of the constituition should be obeyed e.g.
Quran says = Say Salat
Prophet tells = How to say salatQuran says = perform Hajj
prophet tells = how to perform Hajjand so on .
No one says that it is essential to wear same dress as he used to wear (as it is usually propagated by quranists) or starts travelling by horses or camels because Holy Prophet used to ride by them..This is wrong concept of Sunna.
please come up if there is any other question. -
Actually if you could answer my question straightforward ,the things would have been easier.
When "obey the governor " is written in the constituition ,it means
"obeying the governor " is exactly "obeying the constituition" .Because we are obeying him because of constituitional decree.If someone disobeys the governor ,in fact he is disobeying the constituition and that is betraying.
Your said;Yes, exactly.
That doesn't mean obey something outside of the constitution (that in fact add on to the constitution and contradict it), that has been reported about the governor down long chains of narration. Again, you have not responded to what I posted because there is no logical response and deep within you, you know this. You are going against the quran in adding on divine laws/guidance to it, which aside from it being against the quran, is in it of itself flawed, as I showed, and you didn't respond to
-The quran says it should only be followed (a clear sign, with no other interpretation).
-It also says to obey the MESSENGER (not the human Muhammad, remember quran does not run out of words).
-You choose ONE interpretation of "obey the messenger" and use it to follow something in addition to the quran, when in reality, it could mean anything else since it is not clear like "follow only the quran."
-Thus, there is a contradiction.I agree with you.Every one has different roles to play.
e.g a man may be- a doctor
- a father
- a brother
- a friend
at one time.Exactly a governer may have all these roles to play.
This is a bit natural that those orders of him which are concerned his constituitnal duty ,people are bound to obey them not those orders which are non-constituinal are not supposed to be obeyed by the people.
But one has to decide which order is - constituitional
- non constituinal
Now see another scenario;
constituition says that things should be provided on cheaper rates.
Governor being the administrator of state takes some step to carry out this "order " of the constituition to provide cheaper goods to the people.Don't you think that his taking of that step to fullfil the requirement of the constituition is actually in capacity of a "governer " not in the capacity of a friend or father or husband.
people are bound to obey those steps ordered by the governor.
Quran is a constituition along with assigning "Muhammad PBUH " as Rasool.
All his steps taken for implementation of the constituition should be obeyed e.g.
Quran says = Say Salat
Prophet tells = How to say salatQuran says = perform Hajj
prophet tells = how to perform Hajjand so on .
No one says that it is essential to wear same dress as he used to wear (as it is usually propagated by quranists) or starts travelling by horses or camels because Holy Prophet used to ride by them..This is wrong concept of Sunna.
please come up if there is any other question.Not only are you believing everything humans that gathered long chains of narration regarding muhammad as the absolute truth, you are adding on to the quran. There is no need to do this.
-
Yes, exactly.
That doesn't mean obey something outside of the constitution (that in fact add on to the constitution and contradict it), that has been reported about the governor down long chains of narration. Again, you have not responded to what I posted because there is no logical response and deep within you, you know this. You are going against the quran in adding on divine laws/guidance to it, which aside from it being against the quran, is in it of itself flawed, as I showed, and you didn't respond to
-The quran says it should only be followed (a clear sign, with no other interpretation).
-It also says to obey the MESSENGER (not the human Muhammad, remember quran does not run out of words).
-You choose ONE interpretation of "obey the messenger" and use it to follow something in addition to the quran, when in reality, it could mean anything else since it is not clear like "follow only the quran."
-Thus, there is a contradiction.Not only are you believing everything humans that gathered long chains of narration regarding muhammad as the absolute truth, you are adding on to the quran. There is no need to do this.
Dear Navid;
You are jumping to some topic very prematurely.
First of all you should decide if the Holy Prophet has got the duty to explain the 'methods of Ibada" as I have mentioned and that we are bound to obey him.Then this question will arise if those explanations are preserved or not.
The Quran has clearly assigned him three roles;3164
1Recitation of verses
2Teaching of Book + Hikma (philosophy)
3Purification of soulsThese were his constituinal duties(Quranic)
Do you agree with this or not ??