Proof Qur'an-alone is Error
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- Is the Sultan/ruler in Saudia unjust? I told you there are hadith "scholars" backing him up and doing "baya" for him. He is not considered a sovereign king as is commonly understood in the English language but more like David and Solomon in the Quran according to those "scholars" who have studied the hadith IN THE HEARTLAND of your "islam". In your understanding they should have the best understanding of quran and hadith. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
Depends of what he is propaganding and the appreciation of the ruler at that time. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal have been imprisoned for his thoughts and he is one of the 4 madhahibs.
JK- So in that case don't you see how disastrous this system is? It'd even lead to Muslims getting killed cause anytime the ruler can decide such and such opinions are too much kuffur. That's why freedom of expression is so important and there should be no law to bar or worse execute people for exercizing them. And you are attribuing this system to GOD and His messenger just because of some writing that says the Prophet said to kill apostates for which there is no evidence that any modern court and most people in their daily lifes wouldnt accept? What kinna logic is that?
Whether in an islamic states or not, it's the same, it's up to the ruler to decide, people are not judges.
JK- But what happen to such a person. Would you hand him in to the ruler? In that case should the ruler order him to be killed too for murder according to shariah? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- Is the Sultan/ruler in Saudia unjust? I told you there are hadith "scholars" backing him up and doing "baya" for him. He is not considered a sovereign king as is commonly understood in the English language but more like David and Solomon in the Quran according to those "scholars" who have studied the hadith IN THE HEARTLAND of your "islam". In your understanding they should have the best understanding of quran and hadith. GOD Bless!
He is not helping Islam.
Theres also alot of scholars that dont back him at all.
The law is clear 'amrukom shura beinakom'
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- So in that case don't you see how disastrous this system is? It'd even lead to Muslims getting killed cause anytime the ruler can decide such and such opinions are too much kuffur. That's why freedom of expression is so important and there should be no law to bar or worse execute people for exercizing them. And you are attribuing this system to GOD and His messenger just because of some writing that says the Prophet said to kill apostates for which there is no evidence that any modern court and most people in their daily lifes wouldnt accept? What kinna logic is that?
I said ; it depends of what he is propaganding.
JK- But what happen to such a person. Would you hand him in to the ruler? In that case should the ruler order him to be killed too for murder according to shariah? GOD Bless!
In a perfect world, if we suppose that the ruler is a true muslim without bias and that the man propaganded serious stuff and were very active and opposed to the government, the ruler would follow the steps of the prophet and turn his head and ask the man to leave. That is my understanding of the situation as the prophet would have done because he was an example of mercyfullness.
-
Whether in an islamic states or not, it's the same, it's up to the ruler to decide, people are not judges.
you mean rulers like Osama bin Laden and saddam hussain? They decided it was not 'Islamic' for women to be educated or go out of the house. Taliban executed thousands on a football field, according to 'sharia'
-
The salaat in the mosque ; it is stated in quran, the prophet said that men must pray in mosques and it also sounds right to me as I realise that the goal of islam is to achieve the community unification so I follow.
How can a community be "unified" when half of its members are missing? hypno
The Qur'an tells "the believers" to gather for prayer, the verse in question is not exclusively addressing males.
Yet the majority of scholars tell us that Friday prayer is an obligation only for men. Interestingly, most of them don't even quote hadith to support their view; the reason they give is usually that women "are busy with children and household things" etc.
So the majority of Muslims worldwide believe that prayer in congregation is obligatory for men but not for women, despite the fact that the Qur'an says otherwise and that there aren't even any other proofs for that claim. And I am supposed to follow that majority because so many people can't err?!?
& -
In a perfect world, if we suppose that the ruler is a true muslim without bias and that the man propaganded serious stuff and were very active and opposed to the government, the ruler would follow the steps of the prophet and turn his head and ask the man to leave. That is my understanding of the situation as the prophet would have done because he was an example of mercyfullness.
We do not live in a perfect world.
-
Depends of what he is propaganding and the appreciation of the ruler at that time. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal have been imprisoned for his thoughts and he is one of the 4 madhahibs.
Whether in an islamic states or not, it's the same, it's up to the ruler to decide, people are not judges.
Another punishment not found in the quran.
-
None of which you can provide as you have no knowledge of ilm ul rijal. You were taught that the science of hadith is so thorough, so precise and so scientific that it eradicates 99.9% of falsehood. This, of course, is untrue. Any investigation by you will inevitably end up in your scholars shutting you out, convincing you that you need a 10 year alim course before you can begin to understand the subject. You will never know why matn criticism stopped after the compilation of the 6 "sahih" collections. You will never objectively question why it took 200 years before these books were compiled. You will ignore the fact that the rashidun caliphs refused to compile them, despite the growing availability of writing tools.
You pay lip service to the verses that say the quran is fully detailed. On the one hand you affirm it with your tongue but disbelieve it with your heart when you want rituals presented to you on a plate provided by hadith. It disturbs your heart to think Allah wants you to decide your own zakat rate based on your disposable income without giving you a fixed number. It's disturbing to think that there may not be a set number of rakats for salat, and that Allah requires sincerity and not numbers. It is worrying that there is no mention of the messiah returning to destroy all other religions and return you to glory. To put it bluntly, the quran is simply not enough.
Very well said. peace
-
Peace "Badr",
He is not helping Islam.
JK- That's what you are saying. The hadith "scholars" in Saudia would state otherwise.
Theres also alot of scholars that dont back him at all.
JK- So which "scholars" should we follow? According to you it should make llogically more sense to follow those closer to the heart land where Muhammad came given that these and other "scholars" have otherwise both studied quran and hadith.
The law is clear 'amrukom shura beinakom'
JK- So what? The ruler in Saudia consults the "scholars" there and they back him up. That's the whole point. Nothing in that system should be unislamic there according to you. IF you insist that they are unislamic then everyone can calll anyone unislamic even according to you and there would never be any true "Islam". GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- The Quran also defines some limits in our understanding like specific times, performing wudu before doing it, bowing and prostrating(though not everyone agrees but i still do), trying best to focus on GOD Alone. Within these we are free to act. Additionally any of these limits can also be challenged if someone comes up with a better interpreation.
You have the best interpretation, why don't follow what the best of mankind use to do ?
JK- In that case it's fine and no I don't always assume that at times I do.
) thanx
JK- I agree it is clear to "cut the hands" BUT as to how much, that is not clear. This is why I belevie GOD gave the example of the story above in Joseph. What a coinidence that He mentions the same word for "cut" in there and also that particular part of Josephs story is missing even in the Bible, though much of the rest is there too.
But alot of scolar jews confirm this story such as Louis Ginzberg in his Legends of the Jews. The stories are not necessarily siupposed to be told in full detail every time.
JK- 596 Y.Ali awful to you is the pursuit of water-game(saad-ya-daal ul BAHR(ba-Ha-ra) and its use for food...
Pickthall; To hunt and to eat the fish of the seaHanfi school of thought says by this only fish are allowed whilst shafi and the others say all game from the water is halal. GOD Bless!
I knoiw nothing about this story o
JK- Yes and we think that we are holding fast to the rope of GOD by 1st independetly and without bias trying to study his word. THEN we come together and check each other. Otherwise we would be full of biases and coudlnt tell whether GOD is actually saying x,y,z or just our desires AS YOU ACUSE OF. Infact it is group thinking like your system where it leads Qurnaic verses and hadith as well to be understood according to your desire, instead of reason and logic. GOD Bless!
The few companions of Muhammad led to a big community with the help of alot of great commanders that spent the religion of god and now the few of you make nothing but derive from this Umma of Islam.
-
Peace "Badr",
I said ; it depends of what he is propaganding.
JK- Lets say he is propagating that one should no longer stone married adulterers, no longer should women have to wear the headcovering or the husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances.
In a perfect world, if we suppose that the ruler is a true muslim without bias
JK- Which is practically never possible.
and that the man propaganded serious stuff
JK- Who decides whether the stuff is serious or not?
and were very active and opposed to the government, the ruler would follow the steps of the prophet and turn his head and ask the man to leave. That is my understanding of the situation as the prophet would have done because he was an example of mercyfullness.
JK- Still he could decide as you mentioned earlier that he's not serious and order him to be killed which is the whole point and the real danger. The person will be at the mercy of one man the ruler in this case for merely saying something. It can't get anymore dangerous than that. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr"
You have the best interpretation, why don't follow what the best of mankind use to do ?
JK- Coz we have no evidence of anything of the messenger doing/commanding outside of the Quran. HOW MANY times do i have to repeat this. ALSO NOWEHERE does ther Quran say that muhammad was the best of mankind.
thanx
JK- Your welcome.
But alot of scolar jews confirm this story such as Louis Ginzberg in his Legends of the Jews. The stories are not necessarily siupposed to be told in full detail every time.
JK- The most important book of the Jews is the OT Bible. That doesnt mention it. Could be that it is somewhere else but the fact that the Quran chose this to highlight is cannot be a coincidence and it explains perfectly that "cut the hand" does not just mean "cut the whole hand".
I knoiw nothing about this story o
JK- Well then it's about time you do some google search on this and ask your local hanfi and shafi "scholars". For hanfi Read
http//www.sailanmuslim.com/news/list-of-animals-that-are-halal-and-haram-according-to-the-hanafi-school/
Shafis sa all creatures permanetly in water "As for aquatic animals - meaning those that cannot live outside of water - it is permissible to eat them whether they resemble normal fish or not, even if they resemble dogs or other impermissible terrestrial (i.e., land) animals."
http//qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2813&CATE=347The few companions of Muhammad led to a big community with the help of alot of great commanders that spent the religion of god and now the few of you make nothing but derive from this Umma of Islam.
JK- WERE YOU THERE OR HAVE EVIDENCE? This statement of yours would appear to us to be very arrogant as if you were actually there or have evidence, as acceepted in courts today, of what was going on back then. I repeatedly said that you don't. I can claim that the Prophet Muhammad did exactly as to what I undersdtand from the Quran. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- Lets say he is propagating that one should no longer stone married adulterers, no longer should women have to wear the headcovering or the husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances.
no longer stone married adulterer ; you know I think it is not permissible nowerdays so I would agree with him.
no longer should women have to wear the headcovering ; it's up to the women.
he husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances ; of course no even under sharia law.
JK- Which is practically never possible.
I agree, but it will come a time where it will be back with the Mahdi.
JK- Who decides whether the stuff is serious or not?
the ruler, the khalif.
JK- Still he could decide as you mentioned earlier that he's not serious and order him to be killed which is the whole point and the real danger. The person will be at the mercy of one man the ruler in this case for merely saying something. It can't get anymore dangerous than that. GOD Bless!
Must be a wise ruler, otherwise
Whoever dies aggrived/treated unjustly/oppressed goes to heaven (of course it up to God to judge if he's a muslim or not then)
-
Peace "Badr"
JK- Coz we have no evidence of anything of the messenger doing/commanding outside of the Quran. HOW MANY times do i have to repeat this. ALSO NOWEHERE does ther Quran say that muhammad was the best of mankind.
You want to call it no evidence I like to see it as evidence logically, historically and with common sens.
JK- The most important book of the Jews is the OT Bible. That doesnt mention it. Could be that it is somewhere else but the fact that the Quran chose this to highlight is cannot be a coincidence and it explains perfectly that "cut the hand" does not just mean "cut the whole hand".
1-Or it was god choice not to mentionned.
2-Or it disappeared with all the alterations of that corrupted book.
3-cut the whole hand or cut the finger, it's cutting.
JK- Well then it's about time you do some google search on this and ask your local hanfi and shafi "scholars". For hanfi Read
http//www.sailanmuslim.com/news/list-of-animals-that-are-halal-and-haram-according-to-the-hanafi-school/
Shafis sa all creatures permanetly in water "As for aquatic animals - meaning those that cannot live outside of water - it is permissible to eat them whether they resemble normal fish or not, even if they resemble dogs or other impermissible terrestrial (i.e., land) animals."
http//qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2813&CATE=347I'll check it later.
JK- WERE YOU THERE OR HAVE EVIDENCE? This statement of yours would appear to us to be very arrogant as if you were actually there or have evidence, as acceepted in courts today, of what was going on back then. I repeatedly said that you don't. I can claim that the Prophet Muhammad did exactly as to what I undersdtand from the Quran. GOD Bless!
Why your Iman is so frail that you need a court evidence ?
-
Peace "Badr",
no longer stone married adulterer ; you know I think it is not permissible nowerdays so I would agree with him.
JK- No i said in an Islamic state, if it were there, this man gets up and makes this claim?
no longer should women have to wear the headcovering ; it's up to the women.
JK- Do you sincerely beleive that or is this taqiyya? If you yourself be the ruler of what you consider a true islamic state, would you allow women to roam the public streets there without hijab?
he husband having the permission to beat her under any circumstances ; of course no even under sharia law.
JK- The "not" applied to the complete sentence. What I meant is the man propagates "women should NOT ALLOWED TO BE BEATEN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES by their husbands".
I agree, but it will come a time where it will be back with the Mahdi.
JK- You are welcome to believe that but you have no evidence for it.
the ruler, the khalif.
JK- That's the danger.
Must be a wise ruler, otherwise
JK- A wise ruler today can become unwise tomorrow or due to certain unpredictable emotional fluctuations. It is VERY DANGEROUS to allow a ruler to decide what people can say and what not. This is one of the core problems with "shariah".
Whoever dies aggrived/treated unjustly/oppressed goes to heaven (of course it up to God to judge if he's a muslim or not then)
JK- This is a lame excuse. It means that sharia is not capable of producing a just system on earth as comapred to the secular system where rulers cannot decide to imprison or kill people based on what they say. Infact even in case of murder the death penalty is being systematically abolished. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
You want to call it no evidence I like to see it as evidence logically, historically and with common sens.
JK- I dont and most of the secular world doesnt plus most of the indepedent courts don't, plus the majority of scientists in the world, who've shown they're capable though their application, also don't. That leaves you along with medieval "scholars" and occassional historians and that even without archaelogical backup. Need i say more?
1-Or it was god choice not to mentionned.
JK- Yes ofcourse it was His choice but every choice of God has a reason and the one I stated seems to be very reasonable.
2-Or it disappeared with all the alterations of that corrupted book.
JK- Even if so this is also ultimately controlled by GOD isn't it? Why did GOD allow this particular part to disappear?
3-cut the whole hand or cut the finger, it's cutting.
JK- OR make a cut into the hand as one were to cut him/herself with a knife. In any case the entire hand need not be cut AND THAT was the point.
I'll check it later.
Why your Iman is so frail that you need a court evidence ?
JK- I don't necessarily need it for my personal beliefs and/or interpretations of the Quran but if i want to enforce a law on someone else then this would be required otherwise anyone can say I'm conviced that GOD told me to kill x,y,z beucase he/she is an apostate and be given permission to go right ahead. Can't work that way and so until ANY relgion, including any type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court, based on indepednent and scientific principles, it cannot be given permission to enforce it's laws upon anyone which incldues making a seprate "islamic" state WITHOUT facing war from the rest of the world. This needs to be understood. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- No i said in an Islamic state, if it were there, this man gets up and makes this claim?
In an islamic state he most probabely won't do it but if he does he will be considered as a revolution setter. If I was the ruler (and nowerdays) I would probabely talk with him and keep him from turning the people against the government by reasonating him. I wish I will never be a ruler of the islamic world, what a responsability !
JK- Do you sincerely beleive that or is this taqiyya? If you yourself be the ruler of what you consider a true islamic state, would you allow women to roam the public streets there without hijab?
I dont know what is taqiya, all I know is that it is something for shiia but the exact explanation no idea. I'll check it tho.
JK- The "not" applied to the complete sentence. What I meant is the man propagates "women should NOT ALLOWED TO BE BEATEN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES by their husbands".
Of course in no way a man must beat a woman, if you follow hadeeth when the prophet have been asked about the beating verse, he said with a siwak stick and lightly on the hand, wich is like nothing. He forbid to beat animals on the face so let alone women, what these people who beat their wives do is wrong all day. They dont understand islam.
JK- You are welcome to believe that but you have no evidence for it.
"only" a hadeeth sahih.
JK- That's the danger.
Not necessarily.
JK- A wise ruler today can become unwise tomorrow or due to certain unpredictable emotional fluctuations. It is VERY DANGEROUS to allow a ruler to decide what people can say and what not. This is one of the core problems with "shariah".
You allow a president to do it with all its fluctuation.
JK- This is a lame excuse. It means that sharia is not capable of producing a just system on earth as comapred to the secular system where rulers cannot decide to imprison or kill people based on what they say. Infact even in case of murder the death penalty is being systematically abolished. GOD Bless!
Sharia must be capable but people are biased, especially nowerdays.
-
Peace "Badr",
JK- I dont and most of the secular world doesnt plus most of the indepedent courts don't, plus the majority of scientists in the world, who've shown they're capable though their application, also don't. That leaves you along with medieval "scholars" and occassional historians and that even without archaelogical backup. Need i say more?
You must be proud to belong to the muslim world and not to back your claim with what the secular world think.
JK- Yes ofcourse it was His choice but every choice of God has a reason and the one I stated seems to be very reasonable.
Not all the time, I think it's a coincidence and you pushing it too far to prove your point if you only contradicted it by saying not all the hand.
JK- Even if so this is also ultimately controlled by GOD isn't it? Why did GOD allow this particular part to disappear?
) funny question, and why other parts? why not this part ?
JK- OR make a cut into the hand as one were to cut him/herself with a knife. In any case the entire hand need not be cut AND THAT was the point.
if it was a small knife cut you will argue why a cut anyway why not a sting then why not a poke etc....
JK- I don't necessarily need it for my personal beliefs and/or interpretations of the Quran but if i want to enforce a law on someone else then this would be required otherwise anyone can say I'm conviced that GOD told me to kill x,y,z beucase he/she is an apostate and be given permission to go right ahead. Can't work that way and so until ANY relgion, including any type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court, based on indepednent and scientific principles, it cannot be given permission to enforce it's laws upon anyone which incldues making a seprate "islamic" state WITHOUT facing war from the rest of the world. This needs to be understood. GOD Bless!
"ny type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court" ??? do you read what you type ?
-
Peace "Badr",
In an islamic state he most probabely won't do it but if he does he will be considered as a revolution setter. If I was the ruler (and nowerdays) I would probabely talk with him and keep him from turning the people against the government by reasonating him. I wish I will never be a ruler of the islamic world, what a responsability !
JK- Ok but what if he insists on his views? Would you keep on reasoning indefinitely, if he doesnt use physical force at any time but also keeps on insisitng with his reason?
I dont know what is taqiya, all I know is that it is something for shiia but the exact explanation no idea. I'll check it tho.
JK- No sunnis apply it too. It means when they are not in a position of power they deliberately lie or hide many of the elemts they think secular or nonreligious people would consider violent and thus not make them accept "islam" if they heard them at the outset.
Of course in no way a man must beat a woman, if you follow hadeeth when the prophet have been asked about the beating verse, he said with a siwak stick and lightly on the hand, wich is like nothing. He forbid to beat animals on the face so let alone women, what these people who beat their wives do is wrong all day. They dont understand islam.
JK- Ok but if the man insists that a husband should not be allowed to even embarass his wife by hitting her physically with somehting as small as a siwak? ALSO what do you say about a husband having the right to have sex with his wife, even if she's not in the mood or just doesnt want to, at any time except those particularly laid down by sharia? As far as I know none of the "scholars" would accuse such a husband of rape even if the wife feels violate after the husband has forced himself upon her without her consent.
"only" a hadeeth sahih.
JK- Which is not evidence by any standard other than the religion's grp itself.
Not necessarily.
JK- It is. Perhaps you should study the middle ages in Europe. In that Era Church rulers had similar power. After the enlightenment people came out of these dark ages. What you're suggetsing will lead us right back into them.
You allow a president to do it with all its fluctuation.
JK- Western secular values do not give the president the right to put anyone in jail just by his decision alone, let alone by anything what he says. Infact leaders in the western world can be harshly and openly criticized, satiric pictures of them being drawn without them having the authority to imprison or even so much as to fine them. People have moved out of this. It maybe that some remnants of such laws are still leftover in the system but they'll also fade away sooner or later coz they're not compatible with the main pillar of the secular world i.e. freedom of expression.
Sharia must be capable but people are biased, especially nowerdays.
JK- Why shoudl people be biased now when there is much more competition now than ever before when people used to live in groups and vastly employed group thinking? Also this again sounds like leading upto the "no true scotsman fallacy". Many religions use it. Go and google it. GOD Bless!