Proof Qur'an-alone is Error
-
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!
-
Peace "Badr",
You must be proud to belong to the muslim world and not to back your claim with what the secular world think.
JK- But i don't want to belong to the hadith "muslim" world. Havnt i made this clear? If not let me tell you I consider the hadith followers the most corrupt and vile people of all. As for the Quran Alone Muslims we have a lot in common with secular people. They're much closer to us. Even enlightened Chrisians are closer to us. Hadith followers are like those in the dark ages. Nothing to be proud of in our understanding.
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- If you think it is a coincidence the argument here is over. I can't convince you then with this point but you admitted that one can cut fingers and thus not necessarily the whole hand.
) funny question, and why other parts? why not this part ?
JK- That was just an additional fact I pointed out. The MAIN argument is that the verse shows what "cut hands" can mean and it clearly shows it is not restricted to "cutting the entire hand".
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- Yes one can argue this and if the claimer has good points to justify then I can accept this. For now I take whatever I best understand of what constitutes a cut i.e. starting from the smallest possible mark that observably tears the skin using a sharp object.
"ny type of "Islam" proves itself in secular court" ??? do you read what you type ?
JK- by "Any type of "islam" i meant that any of the various schools of thoughts who all claim to be "islamic" and many call the others unislamic. To rephrase just substitute by "any group of people who claims to be the true Muslims and following true Islam". GOD Bless!
-
Peace "Badr",
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 really don't know I must find myself in this position and look at the fors and againsts, I can say I would emprison him or obligate him to quit the territory but maybe if I was really in the position I would act otherwise. If it becomes a menace to the security of the state I would put the general interest above the private one. I really don't know. Maybe I am not fit to rule the islamic world ;D
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.
it is a lie plain and simple, I never heard a single scholar talking about it.
No I'm not "taqaying" I'm really telling you what I know from the prophet sayings and acts.
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.
for the embarrassement ; I would obligate him to stop. But I don't think the women on whom this is applicable feel embarrassed, the "beating" is when the woman push it faaaaar away by been infidel and riculising her husband and doing all what it is not permissible to do even with our standards nowerdays (muslim and non muslims standards).
Of course it is not OK to have sex when the woman is not in the mood, this is non sense. I can't understand how you can ask such a question, do you really expect me to say "yes the man is allowed to have sex anytime he wants and the woman must shut her mouth" ????
JK- Which is not evidence by any standard other than the religion's grp itself.
Says johnny B.
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.
Middle ages kings only left the dark ages after their contact with islam (orthodox islam not quran-aloner islam).
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.
But as soon as it is a menace to the security they allow their police and secret services to do every thing.
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!
I'll check it.
-
You said I am a quran aloner and I am better now because I dont have to defend myself before people.
You are mistaken me with somebody else. I never said that.
Of course your family will accept you, why wouldnt they ?
Would you accept your child becoming Quran Alone person number 13?
In this case it is literal.
Matter of opinion. Please don't use your opinion to say that Quran Aloners cut the hands off thieves, that is not fair because I am not even going to enter quran interpretation quarrels with you, it will lead us nowhere.
Your are judgin people here not the prophet saying, of course there people who interpret hadith to accomplish their greedy goals.
I take your non-answer as a yes.
I am judging sunni islam as a religious system. If there is a flaw in the system that may allow bad people to take advantage of it, then it can surely not be the word of Allah. I know you are not a bad guy, Badr. Like I said before you seem very clever and knowledgable. Surely you must admit a tiny tiny bit that yes, sunni islam has its flaws since people can twist it to oppress and kill. -
You are mistaken me with somebody else. I never said that.Would you accept your child becoming Quran Alone person number 13?
Maybe number 20 in a few years if you keep growing.
Inshallah it wont happend with the help of God. But I wont accept it, I wont reject my child tho.
Matter of opinion. Please don't use your opinion to say that Quran Aloners cut the hands off thieves, that is not fair because I am not even going to enter quran interpretation quarrels with you, it will lead us nowhere.
Am I the only one not allowed to use his opinions ? otherwise all this forum wouldnt exist. Yall state only opinions, starting with "WE THINK we should referr only to quran"
I take your non-answer as a yes.
I am judging sunni islam as a religious system. If there is a flaw in the system that may allow bad people to take advantage of it, then it can surely not be the word of Allah. I know you are not a bad guy, Badr. Like I said before you seem very clever and knowledgable. Surely you must admit a tiny tiny bit that yes, sunni islam has its flaws since people can twist it to oppress and kill.Read my posts and you'll see that I admit it without shame, when people is involved theres flaws.
Thanks for the compliments and I return them to you.
-
Peace "Badr",
I really don't know I must find myself in this position and look at the fors and againsts, I can say I would emprison him or obligate him to quit the territory but maybe if I was really in the position I would act otherwise. If it becomes a menace to the security of the state I would put the general interest above the private one. I really don't know. Maybe I am not fit to rule the islamic world ;D
JK- We can rule out security issues since there is no physical harm done. He's expressing his opinion as to why in his view the system is flawed. Thats the point. It is insanity to imprison someone for that because it bars society from correecting itself via revision COZ as I said even if you have divinely isnpired scriptures you could have still misinterpreted them and there is no guarantee that any society will ever understand anything in them completely. This alone should make you think on this point.
it is a lie plain and simple, I never heard a single scholar talking about it.
JK- You are right in terms of the usage of the term itself in sunnism. They call it "idtirar" and it is to conceal the faith to protect ones belief. Although sunnis claim they cannot use this to hide the truth, they do for example when they call their "islam" a religion of peace where men and women have equal rights etc BUT when one studies the details this is not the case and they know it.
No I'm not "taqaying" I'm really telling you what I know from the prophet sayings and acts.
JK- Again what you and your group thinks it knows. "know" is a word reserved for things you get to know without any religious/ideological bias.
for the embarrassement ; I would obligate him to stop. But I don't think the women on whom this is applicable feel embarrassed,
JK- Lets take a poll with the women who have not been indoctrinated with this view and see how many will not feel embaraased kwnoing that their husbands acn discipline them with whatvever small stick, whilst they dont have the right explicit right to do the same.
the "beating" is when the woman push it faaaaar away by been infidel and riculising her husband and doing all what it is not permissible to do even with our standards nowerdays (muslim and non muslims standards).
JK- What if the husband went that far? Do you know that most women would feel embarrased by the very statement you made which implies it's mostly women who stray as comapred to men? If not make a poll and ask some of the women right here on this forum who once were sunnis.
According to todays standards ridicule in private btw husband and wife is not punshable at all as long as it's not physical. 2ndly what you're implying is that it's the woman whos most likely to do the ridicule and this embarasses women.Of course it is not OK to have sex when the woman is not in the mood, this is non sense. I can't understand how you can ask such a question, do you really expect me to say "yes the man is allowed to have sex anytime he wants and the woman must shut her mouth" ????
JK- Well I've not heard of any sunni school of thought who would punish a man for doing such except if she has her period and other times laid out by the sharia as ive mentioned. They all say, to my knowledge, a man can have sex with a woman when he desires, exceptions excluded, and she has to come to him "even if shes at the stove" as one hadith states
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwlW9Qq_zEc
SO what would you do to a man if a wife came to you complaining about this and you were the ruler?Says johnny B.
JK- You can go to any secular court or the majority of rational thinkers world wide and most of them, if not all would agree with me on this point. So NO it's not just me.
Middle ages kings only left the dark ages after their contact with islam (orthodox islam not quran-aloner islam).
JK- I don't agree with you because it makes logically no sense by definitioon. Think of it dark ages= killing apostates for 1. coming out meant abolishing this law first and formost. orthodox hadfith islam promotes the same as a fundamental to guard it's faith so how could it make them come out? Think my man.
But as soon as it is a menace to the security they allow their police and secret services to do every thing.
JK- Though Physical security is something different even there they have to be very careful not to violate the 1st amendment and laws are being revised accordingly. Critique of religion or political ideology cannot be condemned by the law under any circumstances. At best they can condemn by law if someone threatens to kill someone or give away government secrets, NEVER can they do so for cricizing any of the political ideologies laws or even the constituion itself without them being forced back by the 1st amendment, the core principle which guaratees freedom of expression for anyone in public.
I'll check it.
JK- Ok. GOD Bless!
-
That's what I've said, you really are convinced that you are that little group nope
I was sure that you are NOT gonna look at the aayaats of Allah quoted, but you will try to find a way out, and you did.
Unfortunately, without understanding the aayaats, you came up with a question that has NO relation at all.
So you mean the prophet Muhammad failed on delivering the message and on spreading it to the world ?
Where did you get this meaning from the aayaats that I quoted?
And let me tell you one thing. InshaAllah, we are small group and we will be IN Prophet Mohammed's group as he does the same as we are doing now by Allah's grace.
Upto 200 years or less , the people are on the correct path by holding AlQuraan alone as there was NO hadith available at that time.
After the collection of hadith, people took the wrong way and they misguide themselves and other by throwing Allah's book at back and gave more importance to hadith.
So, if you compare...
Lets assume upto 200 years = No. of people = less
After collection of hadith till date... approx. 1200 years = No. of people = moreThis way is OK for you to check the little group?
May Allah guide us all towards the correct PATH.
Mohammed M. Khan -
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.
Can you please quote the aayat like this, as you stated above? I was looking for the same since long
May Allah guide us all towards the Truth.
Mohammed M. Khan -
Peace "Badr",
JK- We can rule out security issues since there is no physical harm done. He's expressing his opinion as to why in his view the system is flawed. Thats the point. It is insanity to imprison someone for that because it bars society from correecting itself via revision COZ as I said even if you have divinely isnpired scriptures you could have still misinterpreted them and there is no guarantee that any society will ever understand anything in them completely. This alone should make you think on this point.
You call it correcting itself, I call it misleading.
I answered the points you stated (wife beating, propaganda, ...) from what sunni/orthodox islam say and you called me a taqiyi/yan/yer = a lyer. Each case is different and theres not a general rule so you can't say all hadith is bad.
Theres so much for us to learn from the prophet and from hadiths like "when three people are together, two of them souldnt whisper between themselves as the third can be saddened".
JK- You are right in terms of the usage of the term itself in sunnism. They call it "idtirar" and it is to conceal the faith to protect ones belief. Although sunnis claim they cannot use this to hide the truth, they do for example when they call their "islam" a religion of peace where men and women have equal rights etc BUT when one studies the details this is not the case and they know it.
You are totally wrong Islam did promote equality, is indeed a religion of peace and nobody's trying to hide the truth. I don't know who gave you that idea or what people you listened to but you're going the wrong route.
JK- Again what you and your group thinks it knows. "know" is a word reserved for things you get to know without any religious/ideological bias.
Of course it is according to written sayings and ahadith about the prophet lifetime.
JK- Lets take a poll with the women who have not been indoctrinated with this view and see how many will not feel embaraased kwnoing that their husbands acn discipline them with whatvever small stick, whilst they dont have the right explicit right to do the same.
This is the law of god, no need to take a poll.
JK- What if the husband went that far? Do you know that most women would feel embarrased by the very statement you made which implies it's mostly women who stray as comapred to men? If not make a poll and ask some of the women right here on this forum who once were sunnis.
According to todays standards ridicule in private btw husband and wife is not punshable at all as long as it's not physical. 2ndly what you're implying is that it's the woman whos most likely to do the ridicule and this embarasses women.I nowhere said its mostly women but we are talking about the women and a particular case that YOU suggested. So dont try to twist it and show yourself like the great women's defender. It's useless, I'm not here to please anyone, I give you the truth if you dont want it and like to call me a liar do as you please I will sleep exactely the same tonight.
JK- Well I've not heard of any sunni school of thought who would punish a man for doing such except if she has her period and other times laid out by the sharia as ive mentioned. They all say, to my knowledge, a man can have sex with a woman when he desires, exceptions excluded, and she has to come to him "even if shes at the stove" as one hadith states
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwlW9Qq_zEc
SO what would you do to a man if a wife came to you complaining about this and you were the ruler?I will chop his neck ! (just kidding)
I will send him in intensive care. (too)
I will ask the woman to have sex with him when he is tired and not in the mood. (seriously ))
I will cut his dick.
;D
JK- I don't agree with you because it makes logically no sense by definitioon. Think of it dark ages= killing apostates for 1. coming out meant abolishing this law first and formost. orthodox hadfith islam promotes the same as a fundamental to guard it's faith so how could it make them come out? Think my man.
This is history man, it's not my personal view, europe only left the dark ages because they were in contact with islam (through Andalusia and the Ottoman empire and all the orientalists etc...).
JK- Though Physical security is something different even there they have to be very careful not to violate the 1st amendment and laws are being revised accordingly. Critique of religion or political ideology cannot be condemned by the law under any circumstances. At best they can condemn by law if someone threatens to kill someone or give away government secrets, NEVER can they do so for cricizing any of the political ideologies laws or even the constituion itself without them being forced back by the 1st amendment, the core principle which guaratees freedom of expression for anyone in public.
No they do it even with only speculations, especially when it comes to islam.
-
Read my posts and you'll see that I admit it without shame, when people is involved theres flaws.
Yes of course, and I applaud you for acknowledging that there are flaws. You see, that is the core of Quran Alone. Recognizing that in people there are flaws, in God there is not. If we were to find the true path then we would be, in fact, flawless in our salaat to Allah.
The devout muslims who collected hadith were not ordered by Allah as prophet Muhammed was to receive and convey the Quran. Their work was a result of their love to God and Muhammed. It was an active choice they made, whereas Allah chose Muhammed. In other words, they were people, just like you and me, with flaws. They could not have been absolutely perfect in getting the narrations right, and just like any science is not absolute fact, the science of categorizing hadith is not absolute fact. To say otherwise would be grossly neglecting the nature of man. To say hadiths are absolutely correct is an impossiblilty because they were collected by men and categorized with a science created by man. And we all know men are not flawless, right? Let me stress this point again. There is absolutely no evidence that the collection of hadith was ordained by Allah. It was a result of man wanting to understand the Quran and prophet Muhammed. Therefore, the collections cannot be absolute without a doubt perfect.
So....In the hadith collections there should be at least one hadith that is ruled as reliable which is in fact, not the words of prophet Muhammed or based on islam. One that slipped through the net so to say. But in what category is it lurking? Is it the five pillar? The zakaat? The salaat? Which hadith is the one that will make man follow a path that is not intended?
Quran Alone has the answer. Instead of following something that can never be proven as perfect, follow what is absolute without a doubt perfect. If we find flaws in it, the flaw is in us. If we cannot understand, it is not the words that are difficult, it is our intellect that cannot comprehend.
-
Yes of course, and I applaud you for acknowledging that there are flaws. You see, that is the core of Quran Alone. Recognizing that in people there are flaws, in God there is not. If we were to find the true path then we would be, in fact, flawless in our salaat to Allah.
The devout muslims who collected hadith were not ordered by Allah as prophet Muhammed was to receive and convey the Quran. Their work was a result of their love to God and Muhammed. It was an active choice they made, whereas Allah chose Muhammed. In other words, they were people, just like you and me, with flaws. They could not have been absolutely perfect in getting the narrations right, and just like any science is not absolute fact, the science of categorizing hadith is not absolute fact. To say otherwise would be grossly neglecting the nature of man. To say hadiths are absolutely correct is an impossiblilty because they were collected by men and categorized with a science created by man. And we all know men are not flawless, right? Let me stress this point again. There is absolutely no evidence that the collection of hadith was ordained by Allah. It was a result of man wanting to understand the Quran and prophet Muhammed. Therefore, the collections cannot be absolute without a doubt perfect.
So....In the hadith collections there should be at least one hadith that is ruled as reliable which is in fact, not the words of prophet Muhammed or based on islam. One that slipped through the net so to say. But in what category is it lurking? Is it the five pillar? The zakaat? The salaat? Which hadith is the one that will make man follow a path that is not intended?
Quran Alone has the answer. Instead of following something that can never be proven as perfect, follow what is absolute without a doubt perfect. If we find flaws in it, the flaw is in us. If we cannot understand, it is not the words that are difficult, it is our intellect that cannot comprehend.
OF course I follow quran but I also follow hadith because even if you and I agree that it is not perfect, it easy to differentiate the right from the wrong, those who collected it themselves note that the person is not totally reliable or has lyed once. They admit when the hadeeth is munkar (refuted) or dhaif (feeble) etc...
But about the hadeeth I've posted (the 2 speaking and the 3rd sad )), theres alot of others like this who contains wisdom and would be from great advantage for all of us. And like I said god gave you a mind too so use it.
-
Can you please quote the aayat like this, as you stated above? I was looking for the same since long
May Allah guide us all towards the Truth.
Mohammed M. KhanNow you found it.
"Say, , "My Lord has ordered justice and that you maintain yourselves at every mosque, and invoke Him, sincere to Him in religion." Just as He originated you, you will return " (729)
-
OF course I follow quran but I also follow hadith because even if you and I agree that it is not perfect, it easy to differentiate the right from the wrong, those who collected it themselves note that the person is not totally reliable or has lyed once. They admit when the hadeeth is munkar (refuted) or dhaif (feeble) etc...
But about the hadeeth I've posted (the 2 speaking and the 3rd sad ), theres alot of others like this who contains wisdom and would be from great advantage for all of us. And like I said god gave you a mind too so use it.
So let me ask you, when there is a contradiction between hadith and Quran, which one do you follow?
Of course there is a lot of wisdom in hadith, I would never say otherwise. But the wisdom found is purely FYI. I cannot rely on a hadith to show me the way to understand islam, because what if the person being narrated didn't understand islam in the first place? There is no way to know that the person who heard prophet Muhammed teach actually really understood what the prophet was trying to convey. Eventhough the hadith collectors saw the source as reliable, the source was maybe misunderstood.... Or maybe the source was a complete idiot...... Maybe Muslim or Bukhari had a hidden agenda, who knows? The hadith collectors were all Persians, and they didn't exactly love the Arabs.....If I wanted to destroy my enemy I would strike from inside their ranks.....There is no way to know.....
That is the problem facing mainstream islam today, it uses hadith to make laws about almost everything, it even enters the inner most sanctuary of a married couple, telling them how to make love. I know Badr, you are not like that, but you have to face the fact that the same scholars who are guiding sunnis and shias to the right path also impose rules and laws that has nothing to do with islam. Islam is a system for mankind, it is not supposed say "bad muslim" if you happen to wipe your butt with the wrong hand.
-
Peace "Badr",
You call it correcting itself, I call it misleading.
JK- You have to give yourself the benefit of the doubt even viewing the history of "scholars" you accept they all had many differnet opions on one subject. This shows that no one can claim absolute truth and it would be disastrous if someone gets imprisoned or killed just coz of a view which later turns out was correct after all.
I answered the points you stated (wife beating, propaganda, ...) from what sunni/orthodox islam say and you called me a taqiyi/yan/yer = a lyer. Each case is different and theres not a general rule so you can't say all hadith is bad.
JK- I agree each case can be different but with shariah I havnt seen anything that practically makes much sense. ALSO i never said all hadith is bad in mch the same way that no religious scripture or general text written by anyone for that matter is all bad. The pt is it is not relibale enough to portray the details of what are to be our rellgious duties.
Theres so much for us to learn from the prophet and from hadiths like "when three people are together, two of them souldnt whisper between themselves as the third can be saddened".
JK- As I said if any statements in the hadith are backed up with archaelogical evidence, then we can take those hadith into account and say that they, and ONLY those, portray a genuine picture of what actually happened at tht time. Until now we dont have any.
You are totally wrong Islam did promote equality, is indeed a religion of peace and nobody's trying to hide the truth. I don't know who gave you that idea or what people you listened to but you're going the wrong route.
JK- You must have a very confused understanding of equality then. HOW is it equal when a woman cannot do hajj without a Mahram or go out alone more than a certain defined distance without a male mahram(one she cannot marry), or that she has to obey her husband as long as he doesnt command anything against shariah but the reverse need not be the case, or that her husband reserveds the right to beat her, however lightly and with whatever small stick, but she doesnt, or that a woman's witness is HALF that of a man's, or that a woman can only inherit half of that what a man does, or that a woman is curesed by angels if she doesnt please her husband but the reverse is not true, etc etc? HOW is that equality? Next what is peaceful about when you are allowed to use violence to inhibit critique of the system of "islam"? by no definition can this be called peaceful other than your own self made up definition of these terms.
Of course it is according to written sayings and ahadith about the prophet lifetime.
JK- 1st as i said there is no evidence linking them to the Prophet. 2ndly your interpretaions thereof. many "muslims" even understand various hadith differently.
This is the law of god, no need to take a poll.
JK- YOU made the claim that women wont find this embarrassing so I asked lets find out by asking them. ALSO that this is GOD'S law is said by YOUR group of "muslims" NOT GOD Himself. You think He did. At least admit tht much.
I nowhere said its mostly women but we are talking about the women and a particular case that YOU suggested. So dont try to twist it and show yourself like the great women's defender. It's useless, I'm not here to please anyone, I give you the truth if you dont want it and like to call me a liar do as you please I will sleep exactely the same tonight.
JK- I'll defend women whenever I want, wherever I want and however I fel appropriate. IS THT CLEAR? NOW you don't need to please anyone but so far your arguments DO NOT MAKE ANY SENSE and people will judge this by reading our discussion. As for you giving us the truth it makes me laugh. We claim that we are much closer to the Truth than you could ever be.
I will chop his neck ! (just kidding)
I will send him in intensive care. (too)
I will ask the woman to have sex with him when he is tired and not in the mood. (seriously ))
I will cut his dick.
JK- So you will punish him? Ok fine but can you justify that with shariah? I don't think you can because the husband has a right to do so. There is no rule against marital rape in hadith "islam".
;D
This is history man, it's not my personal view, europe only left the dark ages because they were in contact with islam (through Andalusia and the Ottoman empire and all the orientalists etc...).
JK- Didn't I just give you an example as to why this doesn't make sense? At best what codulve happened is that some scientists, who happened to be "Muslims(whether hadith followers or not is not clear)", contributed to the scienctific community in general. Thats it. Nothing to do with shariah. That didnt enlighten anyone and ive explained why CLEARLY.
No they do it even with only speculations, especially when it comes to islam.
JK- GET REAL. hadith "Islam" is currently enjoying the greatest proterction from the governments. They blame anyone who criticizes "islam" coz they say "it can put ppls lifes oin danger". Whilst "muslims" can say anything they like. I know this because there are so many hadith "muslim" grps here who talk loudly on the loudpeakers as well as in the UK shouting they want shariah with all the laws of cutting hands etc included and nobody jails them. Your turning things around here 180 degrees. GOD Bless!
-
Is Malcolm X a quran-aloner or does he follow also hadeeth ?
Peace,
with all due Respect.I don't know and I won't answer for his deeds. His religion/deeds to him and mine to me, AlhamdilAllah.
We'll all answer for our own deeds, yes? Therefore, we shouldn't argue/fight over hadeeth. So we disagree over sunnah and hadeeth, let's see where we agree and if we can find common ground, God willing.Peace.
-
Now you found it.
"Say, , "My Lord has ordered justice and that you maintain yourselves at every mosque, and invoke Him, sincere to Him in religion." Just as He originated you, you will return " (729)
Again a lie?
Please do not misquote the aayaats. How dare you do that? Don't you fear Allah? 729 never say 'Salaat' in the mosque, even the word 'Salaat' is not used in that aayat.
274
275
274 Then your hearts became hardened after that, they became like stone or even harder; but even from stone there are rivers that burst forth, and from them are those that crack so that the water comes forth, and from them are what descends from concern towards Allah; and Allah is not unaware of what you do.
275 Did you expect that they would believe with you, when a group of them had heard the words of Allah then altered them knowingly after having understood?May Allah forgive us and guide us all towards the correct Path.
Mohammed M. Khan