Is Prophet Muhammad?s duty to deliver Quran only?: No
-
There are worthless questions and good questions. And your questions are not good. It takes an intelligent person to pose a good question.
Dear guest, you were the one that brought the subject up and you are the one that claims a righteous person would say 'i do it this way' etc and you still refuse to say how you do it, so your posts are pretty worthless to this point don't you think?
I was once told by a teacher that there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers, that was a teacher of Islam, how right she was.
I will leave you to think WHY you had to start insulting me instead of just answer the question, that is yours to bear, not mine.
peace
-
I'm using the word sunnah here as the pre-Islamic Arabs would have used it i.e. culture or normative practice. So the normative practice of the Prophet would have been preserved by the sahaba and their progeny by imitation and not through verbatim transmissions.
yes I agree thatBest guide, you mean.
Of course ;DI think we both agree that the Prophet understood and implemented the Qur'an the way a Prophet should. If you were alive during his time you would no doubt have attempted to copy his ways and understanding of the Qur'an. Qur'an can never be understood in a vacuum, it needs humans to use their natural and acquired knowledge to make sense of it. So for the early Medinians, that extra knowledge came from the established practice of their forefathers, i.e. the sahaba. They didn't need hadith, nor did they seek it. The sunnah of the Prophet was alive and vibrant as far as they were concerned.
yes I agree the prophet understood and implemented Quran the way a prophet should and if I had been blessed to have been alive in his day I would have followed him round like I was glued to his shib shibs to soak up as much knowledge as I could from him. yes Quran does need humans to use their natural and acquired and combined, I will add, knowledge and thats why I have always read everything I could on Islam, good bad and indifferent, to make an informed choice in what i personally see as how I should follow it. There is, as with anything in following forefathers, an element of 'was that really there' though, if you understand what I mean. We are warned about following what our forefathers followed and not looking ourselves, and this is what I am getting at. What Muhammed did and said that WE need are in Quran. Whether he wiped his socks or took them off is not here or there if you understand me and is just a part of what the MAN did. What I think I mean is that there would have been things he did AS Muhammed the MAN that have nothing to do with the revelation but have found their way into Islam BECAUSE he did them, does that make sense?
Hence, this is a game of percentages and perceptions. How likely was it that the early Medinians started making 3 extra prayers obligatory? How likely was it that old pagan practises re-appeared into the normal practise of those Muslims? It goes back to my point of trying to understand the Qur'an as an isolated book. Muslims may choose to use the living sunnah as a framework for how they make sense of the Qur'an. Muslims may decide that the chance of gross innovation in Medina was small, and so will use this as a reference point.
yes but the biggest problem is that there are so many who have been brainwashed into recitation only, dont think, dont ask questions. i have been told that asking questions will bring me out of the 'fold of Islam' and reduce my faith! the Book is no longer looked at by so many unless they 'read' it or recite it, they dont STUDY what it means because the 'scholars' did that for them, they don't question and if they do they accept whatever answer they get even if it makes no sense because they are scared that if 'the answer' makes no sense they have lost their deen and Allah has drawn a veil on their hearts. It is from reading hadith that I have come to the conclusion to reject and find my answers from Quran but by the same token I still think there are many WISE hadith, whether they really were from Muhammed or not, but I cannot take them as the huge part of islam that they are taken by the majority because too many are not in any way the same 'religion' as the Quran is.I think it's about supplementary knowledge and the wider human experience. We can never truly appreciate the Quranic verses about orbiting planets without science, particularly telescopes and space travel. Does that mean we're following something not from Islam (i.e. science)? No, of course not. We're using other forms of knowledge to shed light on the Quran. But we must firmly believe that scientific discoveries cannot explain Quran completely, and scientific knowledge is subject to change. So this is how I understand the sunnah of the Prophet. We have a limited and somewhat flawed grasp of what his sunnah was, but through this historical account we may choose to interpret Quran. I see nothing wrong with this, as long as we acknowledge that just like scientific discoveries, sunnah cannot completely explain Quran and will always be subject to revision.
Yes I agree with you but Quran also says the sunnah of Allah and not the sunnah of Muhammed. There were other prophets and messengers including Jesus whose sunnah seems to be one of total peace, nothing wrong in following that one too but the sunnah of the absolute correct way is sunnah of Allah that all those will have followed correctly and never is subject to change. Science is wonderful as it shows us more of the wonders of the signs of Allah that we wouldnt have understood before as deeply as we do now. I have a 60 minute Hubble video which is so amazing you just sit like o Subhanallah!Conjecture? I suppose so, but again I look at it differently. Those who follow the sunnah are (or should be) using it as spectacles to look at the Quran. It may not be entirely accurate, but they should be referencing it against the Quran anyway. There's no way of doing anything unQuranic with this method. Again, it's like putting on ?science spectacles? when reading verses about planets. Or putting on ?history spectacles? when reading about the Romans in Quran. We do it unwittingly, but we always understand the Quran by using other types of natural truths. I include the living sunnah or established Islamic practises within these other types of knowledge.
I agree but same again its easier for most to watch a schollar on TV or listen to the imam than it is to reference sunnah with Quran. Most people I know use Quran for recital or 'reading' with eyes alone, mouths alone, no thought, no mind, no heart, no 'what does that really mean' at all, which is sad.And as a rejecter of sunnah you are justified in your position. We're suggesting that the early Muslims had a far more flexible approach to the sunnah and were not interested in ossifying it the way post-Shafi'i scholars did. That flexibility can be re-established today. There are Muslims today who go through the hadith literature and reject those that contradict Qur'an, the spirit of Islam and those that are no longer relevant. You may argue ?well what's the point of hadith then?? but that would be missing the point. These Muslims who embrace that kind of sunnah are far more flexible and are still using the Quran as the ultimate source of truth. Me and you may not find five prayers in the Quran, but ?living sunnis? (followers of a living sunnah) may find some obscure references because they have chosen to use the established tradition as supplementary knowledge. Again, I see no problem with this.
I see no problem in looking at hadith literature and using some and rejecting those that contradict Quran and the spirit of islam, and using others BUT not as a solid 'this IS Islam' as IMHO nothing else is SOLID as Quran is. I have said there are some lovely hadith and very wise ones too which are totally in the spirit of Islam, but those tend to be the rejected ones if you put them forward to a hadith follower laugh
I am just trying to expell the myth that people cannot understand Quran without hadith and that people cannot be muslim without following these, of which the vast majority have never even LOOKED at but follow anyway coz the guy on the tv says this is Islam. Its scary just how this opens doors wide to changing this religion and people stop LOOKING at the book without a veil over the eyes that only allows them to see the words and not THINK about them, not FEEL them. peace
-
Dear Mushu,
I still doubt that Ayisha had even got a clue what you were talking about.
But I could have not explained it better then you due to my constraint in English language.Thanks.
thats odd as you are managing very well with wayfinder and managing to correct my spellings, so i can only assume your post here was solely to have a dig at me
and you have STLL not managed to answer the question I have been asking you for pages now and you have wayfinder back whose answers you also dont like. )
can you ever back anything you claim up raj?
-
I am aware of your silly unrighteous tactic and tricks. That will not work with me. In fact any righteous person will detect your phoniness right way.
A righteous person would have said this is how I do it and that it consistent with Prophet Muhammad?s way for such and such reason. Allah has already exposed you for what you are.
Learn from leaders and righteous person as you are unable to comprehend the Quran correctly.
I have just gone through these 16 pages and I have noticed that you and raj have not answered any questions asked of you but both wayfinder and I have answered all yours. You have picked out of our replies and totally ignored the questions asked and have used that we have said to ask more, in the hope that the ones you are ignoring will be forgotten. you have now resorted to nastiness because i pulled you up on one, which you still have not answered. that is your tactics and tricks which are glaringly obvious for anyone reading through this thread which you started in an attempt to claim the hadith are the wisdom outside Quran but you dont have the guts or committment to say it. A righteous person will stand by thier belief and defend it, you have not showed that and have resorted to nasties. If this is what you have learned from your supposed righteous leaders then they are not righteous and you have not grasped any of it or what righteousness even is.
peace
-
can you ever back anything you claim up raj?
Rajah
Ayisha poses worth less questions.back up
guest
There are worthless questions and good questions. And your questions are not good. It takes an intelligent person to pose a good question.
I still have more back-ups.
Ayisha
I have just gone through these 16 pages and I have noticed that you and raj have not answered any questions asked of you but both wayfinder and I have answered all yours
Hey WAY FINDER you are lucky one, got an "strong" ally.
-
yes I agree the prophet understood and implemented Quran the way a prophet should and if I had been blessed to have been alive in his day I would have followed him round like I was glued to his shib shibs to soak up as much knowledge as I could from him. yes Quran does need humans to use their natural and acquired and combined, I will add, knowledge and thats why I have always read everything I could on Islam, good bad and indifferent, to make an informed choice in what i personally see as how I should follow it. There is, as with anything in following forefathers, an element of 'was that really there' though, if you understand what I mean. We are warned about following what our forefathers followed and not looking ourselves, and this is what I am getting at. What Muhammed did and said that WE need are in Quran. Whether he wiped his socks or took them off is not here or there if you understand me and is just a part of what the MAN did. What I think I mean is that there would have been things he did AS Muhammed the MAN that have nothing to do with the revelation but have found their way into Islam BECAUSE he did them, does that make sense?
The separation between the man and the Prophet would not necessarily have been clear to all the sahaba. The Quran says he was an excellent example and so I don't see the harm in blurring the lines a little i.e. between the man and the Prophet. The problem is when we claim that every minute detail of his life was revelatory and incumbent for us to follow. That's what we're fighting today but that wasn't the attitude of the earlier Muslims. They were far more flexible. As for following their forefathers, in this instance I think they were completely justified. They were following the previous generation not because of misplaced veneration, but because their fathers actually lived with the Prophet or were at least his contemporaries. It would have been arrogant and unwise for the tabi'een to dismiss the hereditary knowledge at their disposal.
yes but the biggest problem is that there are so many who have been brainwashed into recitation only, dont think, dont ask questions. i have been told that asking questions will bring me out of the 'fold of Islam' and reduce my faith! the Book is no longer looked at by so many unless they 'read' it or recite it, they dont STUDY what it means because the 'scholars' did that for them, they don't question and if they do they accept whatever answer they get even if it makes no sense because they are scared that if 'the answer' makes no sense they have lost their deen and Allah has drawn a veil on their hearts. It is from reading hadith that I have come to the conclusion to reject and find my answers from Quran but by the same token I still think there are many WISE hadith, whether they really were from Muhammed or not, but I cannot take them as the huge part of islam that they are taken by the majority because too many are not in any way the same 'religion' as the Quran is.
Which is why I'm not arguing for hadith, per se. Hadith leads to the types of problems you've just mentioned. The claim of Fazlur Rahman is you can know what the sunnah of the Prophet is without hadith, but through observing common, established practises of the Muslims. It's an interesting theory that I'm going to try and look into.
Yes I agree with you but Quran also says the sunnah of Allah and not the sunnah of Muhammed. There were other prophets and messengers including Jesus whose sunnah seems to be one of total peace, nothing wrong in following that one too but the sunnah of the absolute correct way is sunnah of Allah that all those will have followed correctly and never is subject to change. Science is wonderful as it shows us more of the wonders of the signs of Allah that we wouldnt have understood before as deeply as we do now. I have a 60 minute Hubble video which is so amazing you just sit like Subhanallah!
The sunnah of Allah isn't the only sunnah. Muslims today follow the sunnah of the scientific method whenever embarking on new technological feats. Nothing wrong with that. Modern day Muslim economists may follow the sunnah of Keynesian economics or the sunnah of the Austrians. Nothing wrong with that either. Muslims who follow the Quran are following the sunnah of Allah but how they interpret the Quran will depend, amongst other things, on whether they try to use the living sunnah of the Prophet.
Just to re-iterate my point about the impossibility of understanding the Quran in a vacuum ? are you aware of Muslims who try to prove the evolution theory through Quran? I'm sure you are. So here we have Muslims who are using a scientific theory (which by the the admission of its own proponents can never be fully proved because of the huge time needed for significant macro changes to happen) to try and shed light on Quran. Isn't this similar to those Muslims who use the sunnah to understand Quran? In both cases, there are doubts to the truth of their position, yet they both interpret the Quran using their supplementary knowledge/world view. I think this is something to be celebrated and encouraged i.e. pluralism of thoughts and ideas giving Quran maximum potency.
I agree but same again its easier for most to watch a schollar on TV or listen to the imam than it is to reference sunnah with Quran. Most people I know use Quran for recital or 'reading' with eyes alone, mouths alone, no thought, no mind, no heart, no 'what does that really mean' at all, which is sad.
Yes, it's sad. It can only be challenged through education and making the masses aware of the reality.
I see no problem in looking at hadith literature and using some and rejecting those that contradict Quran and the spirit of islam, and using others BUT not as a solid 'this IS Islam' as IMHO nothing else is SOLID as Quran is. I have said there are some lovely hadith and very wise ones too which are totally in the spirit of Islam, but those tend to be the rejected ones if you put them forward to a hadith follower
That's my position also. In the same way, it would be wrong for us to tell Muslims that the sunnah of the Prophet has no place in Islam and has no use. If we can pry the sunnah away from the grips of hadith you would have a far more dynamic sunnah which would be a benefit to many Muslims who wish to have a connection with tradition.
I am just trying to expell the myth that people cannot understand Quran without hadith and that people cannot be muslim without following these, of which the vast majority have never even LOOKED at but follow anyway coz the guy on the tv says this is Islam. Its scary just how this opens doors wide to changing this religion and people stop LOOKING at the book without a veil over the eyes that only allows them to see the words and not THINK about them, not FEEL them.
What's even more scary is that the above used to be me a few months ago. I look back at that time now and cringe at what a bigot I was at times. But alhamdulillah that's all in the past and I think I'm stronger for it. I'm determined to not become a bigot in the other direction either i.e. become a Qur'an only Muslim and deny traditionalist Muslims the opportunity to use the sunnah of the Prophet to elucidate Quran. I just want Muslims to realize as I did that debasing the Quran by making it subservient to the hadith scholars is bad news.
-
Truth vs. falsehood is independent of time.
Allah?s system does not change. Therefore, according to your logic it is an old system. Are you implying that we should lose it because it is old?
It's not about truth vs. falsehood, it's about practical implementations. Those have to change over time, otherwise faith becomes absurd and not applicable.
For example You don't use camels for transportation although the Qur'an tells us to and although we can safely assume the prophet did. So are you changing God's system or saying that it is outdated? Of course not, you are adapting it to your time and circumstances, which makes perfect sense.
-
Peace Rajaah
Whether you are happy or sad with my answer does not count at all... because if that would have been the standard, then let me tell you that you have not answered 99% of what I had asked you since the beginning of this discussion...
I do not know what seems so obvious to you... But I really know what is NOT obvious in your sight... It is the clear style linguistic style of the quran and the detailed presentation of all those who played some role or that other during the revelation of the Quran...
What you have FAILED to notice is that...
ALL the claims made in the Quran by UNBELIEVERS are FALSE.. None of their CLAIMS are TRUE... They are depicted as cheats and liars.. They lied constantly in each and every of their statement... Each and every of their quote is filled with one or all of these sickness which is arrogance, lies, doubts,fabrications, pretention, insincerity, dishonesty and the list goes on... NONE of their claims is true and NONE of them has been taken as serious... They have been constantly labelled as liars... They claimed that Muhammad was a sorceror, a madman, a fool, a fabricator, a magician... and ALL of these were lies... Because they said it, that does not mean Muhammad was truly what they claimed him to be... Although they themselves knew it very well.. But they rejected him mainly due to their arrogance as they did not want to lose the reigns of authority... Bear in mind that most of these arguments between Muhammad (pbuh) and the disbelievers are with those who were currently the leaders... The discussion always went on with the leaders and those who always opposed the messengers are the leaders...
Back to their claims on Ar-Rahmaan... They knew him very well... But they had ZERO intention to accept anything from Muhammad(pbuh)... or do you suggests Muhammad explained them and they accepted Islam?? Do you? Do you think God would have quoted their blatant denial of the messenger in this case? I leave this on you to decide...
Way Finder
I am extremely disappointed by your answer.
You think that the Book of Allah that does not need any explanation is more concerned with effect or style rather than content or meaning.
From your post it is evident that you are not sure.Why to Al-Rehman? and What is Al-Rehman? there is hell lot of difference for any one to see.
Regarding inscription I have posted before, which you seem not bothered to read about, an inscription of 1000 Km away does not make it necessary to be recognized by people in Makkah and Quran is pointing towards that fact.It must be stated at the outset that the list of polytheistic divinities mentioned in the inscriptions do not constitute a south Arabian pantheon per se. An appraisal of the archaeological sites where divinities are praised or invoked leads one to the conclusion that the majority of divinities had a special relationship with a particular family, tribe or Kingdom.
?Athtar was the only divinity common to the entire population of South Arabia, whereas other divinities were only worshiped in one kingdom only, or individualized with a specific title or qualifying name.
pp. 85-87; J. Ryckmans, "The Old South Arabian Religion", in W. Daum (Ed.), Yemen 3000 Years Of Art And Civilization In Arabia Felix, 1987?, Pinguin-Verlag (Innsbruck) and Umschau-Verlag (Frankfurt/Main), p. 107.What ever claim you make it is quite obvious that Al-Rehman was something most of the audience of Muhammad Peace is upon him had never heard off, and the Messenger of Allah explained to them.
For example for a while let us say that they Knew who Al-Rehman was, but to them it was one of deity as you mentioned, still Messenger of Allah needed to explain to them about Al-Rehman.Allah Ho Akbar
Praise be to Allah the lord of Abraham, Ram, Buddha, Musa, Essa, Muhammad , Mine and yours.
-
Mushu
What's even more scary is that the above used to be me a few months ago. I look back at that time now and cringe at what a bigot I was at times. But alhamdulillah that's all in the past and I think I'm stronger for it. I'm determined to not become a bigot in the other direction either i.e. become a Qur'an only Muslim and deny traditionalist Muslims the opportunity to use the sunnah of the Prophet to elucidate Quran. I just want Muslims to realize as I did that debasing the Quran by making it subservient to the hadith scholars is bad news.
excellent yet again.
You are an example of following
2143
Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves;......I remember my initial posts at this forum, when I used this Ayat, to show Quran alone extremists that the best way is Middle way.
-
The separation between the man and the Prophet would not necessarily have been clear to all the sahaba. The Quran says he was an excellent example and so I don't see the harm in blurring the lines a little i.e. between the man and the Prophet.
Absolutely, he was a fine character and a trustworthy man even before his prophethood.The problem is when we claim that every minute detail of his life was revelatory and incumbent for us to follow. That's what we're fighting today but that wasn't the attitude of the earlier Muslims. They were far more flexible. As for following their forefathers, in this instance I think they were completely justified. They were following the previous generation not because of misplaced veneration, but because their fathers actually lived with the Prophet or were at least his contemporaries. It would have been arrogant and unwise for the tabi'een to dismiss the hereditary knowledge at their disposal.
Totally agree with your first statement here! and THAT is what my 'problem' is with the majority of Muslims today. Agree with the rest also.Which is why I'm not arguing for hadith, per se. Hadith leads to the types of problems you've just mentioned. The claim of Fazlur Rahman is you can know what the sunnah of the Prophet is without hadith, but through observing common, established practises of the Muslims. It's an interesting theory that I'm going to try and look into.
i would be interested in what you find.The sunnah of Allah isn't the only sunnah. Muslims today follow the sunnah of the scientific method whenever embarking on new technological feats. Nothing wrong with that. Modern day Muslim economists may follow the sunnah of Keynesian economics or the sunnah of the Austrians. Nothing wrong with that either. Muslims who follow the Quran are following the sunnah of Allah but how they interpret the Quran will depend, amongst other things, on whether they try to use the living sunnah of the Prophet.
yes I agree with that too, now I see that you are saying the IS a separation that can be made between hadith and sunnah and that sunnah is NOT necessarily derived from hadith, not many look at that way though, or look at it that way. 'the prophet did/said this' is generally FROM hadith but to me more of the real sunnah of the prophet can actually be found in Quran.Just to re-iterate my point about the impossibility of understanding the Quran in a vacuum ? are you aware of Muslims who try to prove the evolution theory through Quran? I'm sure you are. So here we have Muslims who are using a scientific theory (which by the the admission of its own proponents can never be fully proved because of the huge time needed for significant macro changes to happen) to try and shed light on Quran. Isn't this similar to those Muslims who use the sunnah to understand Quran? In both cases, there are doubts to the truth of their position, yet they both interpret the Quran using their supplementary knowledge/world view. I think this is something to be celebrated and encouraged i.e. pluralism of thoughts and ideas giving Quran maximum potency.
Personally i dont do evolution and rather go with the big bang, which I can personally see in Quran, but yes you are right in that we have to use what knowledge we have now to shed light on Quran as I would liken it to the Temples of Ancient Egypt in that barely 5% of what's there has been found ;D The more we find out scientifically the more things will come to light. A friend of my husbands recently was here all excited as he had been shown a verse that had been 'proven' about not seeing your hand when so far underwater which Muhammed wouldnt have known then as there was no deep sea diving as we know of ;DProblem is using sunnah to understand Quran up to now has come from hadith, of which many are just too rediculous for words IMO and make a great prophet into an idiot and a liar, and that is why I do not believe the majority are even from him at all, its not that I dont want to beleive he said these things, its that I cannot believe knowing what Quran SAYS and then hearing silly hadith that anyone who knew Quran would not possibly believe Muhammed said them..
Yes, it's sad. It can only be challenged through education and making the masses aware of the reality.
but to educate on this you have to get past the barrier that is pulled up of 'you are not a muslim unless you follow hadith and sunnah it is Islam' and as you see from here that turns people nasty.That's my position also. In the same way, it would be wrong for us to tell Muslims that the sunnah of the Prophet has no place in Islam and has no use. If we can pry the sunnah away from the grips of hadith you would have a far more dynamic sunnah which would be a benefit to many Muslims who wish to have a connection with tradition.
yes, but doing that is almost impossible and HAS to come from those with an open mind as the closed ones just close tighter and do WANT to know.What's even more scary is that the above used to be me a few months ago. I look back at that time now and cringe at what a bigot I was at times. But alhamdulillah that's all in the past and I think I'm stronger for it. I'm determined to not become a bigot in the other direction either i.e. become a Qur'an only Muslim and deny traditionalist Muslims the opportunity to use the sunnah of the Prophet to elucidate Quran. I just want Muslims to realize as I did that debasing the Quran by making it subservient to the hadith scholars is bad news.
Alhamdulillah you changed your opinions for the better and inshaAllah we all can do that. peace
-
Mushu
excellent yet again.You are an example of following
2143
Thus, have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves;......I remember my initial posts at this forum, when I used this Ayat, to show Quran alone extremists that the best way is Middle way.
and have continued to show your justly balanced behaviour and middle way since then peace
-
WAY FINDER
Bear in mind that most of these arguments between Muhammad (pbuh) and the disbelievers are with those who were currently the leaders... The discussion always went on with the leaders and those who always opposed the messengers are the leaders...
I would like to see your source for that? Interesting.
Way Finder
Back to their claims on Ar-Rahmaan... They knew him very well... But they had ZERO intention to accept anything from Muhammad(pbuh)... or do you suggests Muhammad explained them and they accepted Islam??
Again I will ask your source for that? because Quran tells another story.
Even if they knew him still they wanted to Know why "Ar-Rehman" it is a name of deity? Why Muhammad peace is upon him is using it for Allah (which was not the question, it was "What is Al-Rehman"?).
Off course all the early Muslims accepted Islam due to Muhammad peace is upon him. -
Way Finder
because if that would have been the standard, then let me tell you that you have not answered 99% of what I had asked you since the beginning of this discussion...
I think you have been influenced by one of our sweet and sour member Ayisha.
Can you re-post them or even direct me to those questions you are talking about. -
Way Finder
I think you have been influenced by one of our sweet and sour member Ayisha.
Can you re-post them or even direct me to those questions you are talking about.hiya sweetie, sour one here. Please answer my questions too, I wont even have to direct you to them, I have them here
What do you think Hikmah is raj?
Where are the explanations of the verses Muhammed explained, you said extracted, to where?
Thank you sweetie mwauh mwuah peace
-
Ayisha
Khalid Zaheer a student of Javed Ghamidi sahib has also tried to distinguish Sunnah from Hadith, but not quite as good as Fazalur Rehman, but following is good quoteWe know that the prophet, alaihissalaam, travelled on the backs of camels, horses, and donkeys; he advised people to resort to the medicines that were available during his times; he had his own taste for dishes which were different from the tastes of others; and he fought battles with swords and other forms of equipment of warfare that were available during his times. Muslim scholars have never considered any of these acts of him as sunnah, because they have nothing to do with religion.
-
Ayisha
Thank you sweetie mwauh mwuah
sure you should thank me, but there are still few questions left to be answered by you.
Ayisha
hiya sweetie, sour one here. Please answer my questions too, I wont even have to direct you to them, I have them here
What do you think Hikmah is raj?Have you not read posts of Mushu? He has explained it in much better English then mine.
To me Hikmah is the Wisdom provided to Messenger of Allah to understand the Book of Allah, and any one he chooses.by Burhan
Al-Hikmah or wisdom means a total insight and having sound judgment concerning a matter or situation through understanding cause and effect phenomena.Al-Hikmah constitutes one of the three major teachings of Prophet Muhammad (p). Verse 2129 of the Qur'an, below, expresses Prophet Muhammad's mission with the three major categories Al-Kitab (The knowledge of the Holy Qur'an), al-Hikmah (the wisdom) and al-Tazkiyah (the inner-self purification). Each category is dependent upon the other. These three fundamental teachings combined are the foundations required to make the character of a true Muslim.
al-Quran
"Our Lord! send among them an Apostle of their own, who shall rehearse Your signs to them and instruct them in the Holy Qur'an (al-Kitab) and wisdom (Hikmah), and sanctify them (yuzakeehim), for You are the Exalted in Might, the Wise."Teaching wisdom is an integral part of the mission of the earlier Prophets. The Qur?an speaks of Prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus (p) how they were sent to teach wisdom along with their respective scriptures.
Scientific DefinitionIbn al-Qay'im al-Jawziyah in his book, Madarij al-Salikeen
"Knowing and understanding the genuine nature of matters; the knowledge of relating results (effects) to causes as relevant to the physical composition and function of the matter, and with respect to Allah's natural law (qadarun) and revealed law (shar'an) regarding the matter." -
WAY FINDER
I would like to see your source for that? Interesting.And similarly, We did not send before you any warner into a city except that its affluent said, "Indeed, we found our fathers upon a religion, and we are, in their footsteps, following.
Way Finder
Again I will ask your source for that? because Quran tells another story.
Even if they knew him still they wanted to Know why "Ar-Rehman" it is a name of deity? Why Muhammad peace is upon him is using it for Allah (which was not the question, it was "What is Al-Rehman"?).
Off course all the early Muslims accepted Islam due to Muhammad peace is upon him.The problem is not about knowing or not knowing... as I see.. U did not understand anything from what I said and you pretend to be smart again... If their problem was about knowledge.. they would have said...' Should we worship something we don't know' .... but again... knowledge is not their problem... and knowledge was never their problem... Their objection was regarding their submission to the Amr(order) of the messenger and lower themselves... and instead of being followed... they would themselves become a follower... Read the post above again... Or you may bypass it and take the UNBELIEVERS as truthful/trustworthy/sincere people... this is your take... Leaders/affluent people always opposed the messengers and always objected to become followers.
26111 They said "Shall we believe in thee when it is the meanest that follow thee?"
As I told you, each and every of their focus has to be shifted from polytheism to monotheism and this was done through revelations..