Traditional Sunni Challenge to Quranities

MesMorial

Salaam Antibhondo;

A traditional Qur'an-alone challenge for you

Please re-read the first six Sura of the Qur'an from the perspecitive of the Qur'an alone (i.e. from the perspective of the Qur'an). It is no good to look at ayat in isolation because that will take them out of context.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602031.0

You will find that all the "obey Allah and His messenger" arguments (and others) are addressed, though it is still unfinished.

The clear, complete and fully-detailed Qur'an tells us how to pray

http//allpoetry.com/column/2364536

(also it was passed down from Ibrahim (SAW) through people's parents. The current form is contradictory to Qur'an in some parts but we can see how it has been ritualised. Please read the entire article in-depth to see my personal viewpoint, although other Qur'an-aloners may disagree)

Khuda Hafiz

P.S. You asked for a verse which says that the Qur'an is fully-detailed by itself

?Again, We gave the Book to Musa to complete on him who would do good , and making plain all things and a guidance and a mercy, so that they should believe in the meeting of their Lord. And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and guard that mercy may be shown to you.?

6154-155

So do we need Musa's (SAW) ahadith?

progod

Mutaazilah,

Yeah, the salat is considered practical sunnah or sunnah 'amaliyyah, and not sunnah qawliyyah. The second is everything that came down in a hadeeth. The first however is general practice that has been preserved from generation to generation. Well, there is a story out there that I heard (i'll try to source it for you, but you can google it) about Harun Ar-rashid's persian mother threatening all of the religious authorities with death if they did not institute the Zoroastrian prayer as part of Islam. Very traditional, usually sephardic jews also pray in a very similar way. There is a guy on youtube named Omed Yashar I believe who demonstrates this jewish prayer. My hunch is that this was a foreign influence from Jews or Zoroastrians or both, that was canonized at some point because some leader and his puppet religious authorities thought it better that way. But I know I need some more evidence to really present this as my own solid opinion. You can go to my website www.quranists.com and go to the Quranic research link, and the Quran in Arabic link and then search Ka'abah or Ka'bah or Kabah. It will give you the Arabic and you will see it there plain as day. Tawaaf is in the Quran as well (but I remember right I've seen it connected to safa and marwah) and aside from that it is a part of the definition of al-'umrah. But there is no specific amount of times mentioned in the Quran nor have I ever seen the black stone mentioned in the Quran. And I cannot tell you or speculate on its origins or connection to the Ka'bah. If I discover something credible I will let you know.

As for the middle prayer as 'asr. I disagree with that, but I really don't want to discuss that here. I would have to read through some of Al-Jahiz's work and Zamakhashri's work to see if there are any hints at them praying the traditional prayer. Both of them were very prominent, intelligent and prolific Mu'tazilites. Have you seen Zamakhshari's work? Could you point me to where I could purchase it? He has a very lengthly linguistic tafsir of the Qurn which I am DYIING to read. Thanks.

Godbless,
Anwar

Mutazilaah

http//www.fadakbooks.com/taala.html is a link to Tafsir al-Kashshaf by Zamakhshari ... four volumes only 64 dollars ... but its in Arabic -(

mmkhan

Salaam Mutazilaah,

Please allow to say something.

So the Ahadith that describe the Salat are not mutawattir? Question then, why is it that the Shi'a who do not accept the Sunni canon of Ahadith happen to pray their Salat in the same ritual fashion?

Yes! Ahadith of Salaat are not mutawatir. Answer to your question above is, all the hadeeth that sunnis follow are written down by shias so the made sunnis follow their way of Salaat, handshake hence, same ritual fashion of Salaat.

I know the Qur'an mentions Masjid al Haram and 2127 says that Abraham built al bayti - the house ... but nothing about the Ka'bah. Please show me where the Qur'an mentions the Ka'bah? Black Stone? Random Tawaf or circling of the temple chanting here I am? I think all of this is from Ahadith.

597

597 Allah has made the Kaaba to be the Restricted Sanctuary; to enforce for the people, and for the restricted month, and for the donations, and for regulation; that is so you may know that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is in earth, and that Allah is aware of all things.

The middle prayer? What about it?

Allah said

4103

4103 So, when you have completed the contact prayer, then remember Allah while standing, or sitting, or on your sides. So, when you are relieved, then hold the contact prayer. Indeed, the contact prayer for the believers is a timed schedule.

Where are these TIMES not names?

2458

2458 O you who believe, let those who are maintained by your oaths, and those who have not yet attained puberty, request your permission regarding three times before the dawn contact prayer, and when you put off your attire from the noon time, and after the evening contact prayer. These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you. And Allah is Knowledgeable, Wise.

You can see that "Before the dawn " is a time + Salaat and "After the evening " is also a time + Salaat. Then how about the middle one/AlSalaat AlWusta? Let see

2238

2238 Maintain the contact prayers; and the middle contact prayer; and stand for Allah dutifully.

"The middle" is NOT the time.

Point to be noted

Salaat + Al + Fajr
Salaat + Al + Eishaan

Al + Salaat + Al + Wusta

Can you see the difference brother? For further details please follow http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601300.msg261111#msg261111

Even if the Salat was practiced by Muhammad (sa) that way, does it mean that when the Qur'an instructs people for Salat that it is instructing them and limiting them to only do how Muhammad (sa) performed his Salah? Isn't true that Muhammad (sa) according to your Ahadith used to make different hand and arm gestures at different times, thus changing the way he did his Salah? Isn't there a 'sahih' Hadith that says someone from the jama'ah or congregation during the Salah once said something random in Arabic, yaani, hamdan katheeran thoiyaban mubarakan feeh, and after the Salah, Rasul Allah (sa) said that thousands of angels descended on that person? So who is to say the Salah is limited to what Muhammad (sa) did?

Good point bro, MashaAllah.

May Allah guide us all towards the Truth pr
Mohammed M. Khan

antibhondo

Antibhondo,

I sent you a reply already. Feel free to respond to it in this discussion.

Brother Farhan
Assalamu Alaikum.

For the readers' sake, I represent my previous comment (which I sent to you as a message too) and your reply here
My comment

Your assumption that {{Mutawaatir hadeeth are in accordance with authentication of accounts found in 2411-13.}} has been found to be a wrong assumption.

Here are the ayats 2411-13 (Translated by Edip-Layth)
2411 Those who have brought forth the false accusation were a group from within you. Do not think it is bad for you, for it is good for you. Every person amongst them will have what he deserves of the sin. As for he who had the greatest portion of it, he will have a great retribution.

2412 If only when you heard it the acknowledging men and women should have thought good of themselves and said "This is an obvious lie!"

2413 If only they had brought four witnesses to it. If they did not have the witnesses, then these with God are the liars.

My explanation
These ayats clearly express that if someone brings up any allegation/accusation against someone, only then does he/she have to produce four witnesses. How do you relate these with any rumor or any news? Why would he/she produce four witness if the news is a normal news?

The quran does not require this. Please brother, do not make quran say something that it did not say at all.

Rather look at the following ayat
496 O you who acknowledge, if a wicked person comes to you with any news, then you shall investigate it. Lest you harm a people out of ignorance, then you will become regretful over what you have done.

This ayat indicates that if a wicked person comes with any news, then we should investigate. What if the news comes with someone who we know is definitely not wicked? This ayat requires no investigation against it, and there is no formal quranic constraint to accept the news!

However, here is a brief account of Mutawatir Hadith copied from this link http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout&cid=1158658487972

Your reply
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply-1

The ayat is specifically about women being accused of lewd behavior yes. However, it provides a template for verifying all sorts of accusations that cannot be taken lightly. Not only can an accusation against a woman's chastity not be taken lightly, but neither should an accusation that God's last prophet (God bless him) said or did something. So in order to verify such serious accusations we need to follow this template given to us for a similar serious situation. Either 4 witnesses or an account by the spouse will suffice. I understand the specific context of the ayat in question. What you do not understand is the reasoning behind this standard of four witnesses. It makes the accusation/rumor strong and reduces the ability that it was fabricated. The idea of mutawaatir, although not originally born from these Quranic verses proves this point. 4 or more independent witnesses provides the strongest standard for accepting an accusation and what essentially is a rumor. This is how we authenticate the rumourous accusation, and this is why the Quran stands up to this test, in that it is mutawaatir. And any hadeeth can be accepted as historical if it is also mutawaatir and does not contradict the strongest mutawaatir account, which is the Quran.
This is the reasoning and the truth of the matter, and there may be more truths behind this yet to be discovered. God knows best.

Reply-2

I also want to add that the parameters of the news found in the verses in surah 24 have specifically to do with history as well, i.e. something that has already happened, not something that is happening. In the end you can come up with alot of reason for why certain ayats are not applicable with our thinking or a certain issue. You may say dogs are haram, but yet they were halaal for the believers who aged in the cave. and there are many other things that many believe or disbelieve in now where the Quran shows that those very things were okay for previous people and does not forbid us these things. We can find out best guidance by examining the Quran and reality will show us that this is the best guidance. When it comes to serious accusations which could amount to slander concerning a personage's past events, specifically accusing a woman of adultery or fornication the Quran gives us the template to follow. The undeniable historical accuracy of mutwaatir hadeeth has proven that this is a truth that yields results.

As for traditional rituals being considered mutawaatir, mutawaatir up to who? There is not chain mutawaatir or ahadi that distinctly links many of these rituals, including the traditional form of salat back to the prophet Muhammad (God bless him). No one can give even 1 ahadi or sahih isnaad for this. Even the terms as Muslims use them do not have the same meaning in Classical Arabic. Making two rak'ah in Classical Arabic means to bow twice. No specifics. The specifics are given by theologians, not the Arabic language itself. A lot of people will call something mutawaatir when it is not, twisting the definition for mutawaatir, to include only the companions for instance or trying to say that because many people have been doing it for centuries they could not have made it up on their own. But this doesn't discount the fact that someone other than the prophet gave them this practice. They can't trace the practice through everyone that taught them back to the prophet, so there is not point in calling it saheeh, let alone mutawaatir.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At first I thank you that you acknowledged that the ayats (2411-13) are specifically about women being accused of lewd behavior .

Let me tell you one thing
The ayat 496 was specifically about investigation of any news/information coming through a fasikun. The ayat says that if a wicked person (fasikun) comes to you with any news, then you shall investigate it.

So the simple indication is that whenever a fasik brings a news/information, investigation is a Quranic requirement. If he is not a fasik, investigation is not a Quranic requirement.

This a very simple logical deduction .

If you want to apply 2411-13 ayats in this case, you have to first change the Ayat's base (the specificity to another which did not seem to me 1) simple and 2) logical. I am also not sure whether even all the Quranist people will support this).

May I ask you, brother, when you have got a simple Ayat, should you try to apply another Ayat by dislocating it?

A purity-test of your argument
Brother Farhan, if the accuser does not produce four witness, he/she becomes a LIAR, according to Quran; See
2413
If only they had brought four witnesses to it. If they did not have the witnesses, then these with God are the liars.

Now, if you apply this ayat to "any news", then the person who is not a fasiq, but cannot bring 4 witnesses becomes a liar.

But, the Ayat 496 does not even require any investigation at all, let alone four witnesses.

You think, brother Farhan, when quran is not requiring any investigation at all (i.e., not requiring any witness at all), your explanation of an Ayat, in that same situation requires not only investigation, but also four witnesses. And moreover, your explanation accuses the man (who is not fasiq) of lying with Allah!

To me, this is a simple refutation of your explanation!

I request the readers to read the portion article about Mutawatir Hadith. I re-mention the same here
Link http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout&cid=1158658487972

Depending on the number of the reporters of the hadith in each stage of the isnad, that is, in each generation of reporters, the hadith can be classified into the general categories of mutawatir or ahad (single) hadith. A mutawatir hadith is one that is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together (Al-Jaza?iri 33).

Al-Ghazali (d. AH 505) stipulates that a mutawatir narration be known by the sizeable number of its reporters equally in the beginning, in the middle, and at the end (Al-Jaza?iri 33). He is correct in this stipulation because some narrations or ideas, although known as mutawatir among some people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, are not originally mutawatir. There is no precise definition for a ?large number of reporters?; although the numbers 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 40, and 70? among others?have all been variously suggested as a minimum, the exact number is irrelevant. (Some reporters, for example, imams of Hadith, carry more weight, anyway, than others who are their contemporaries.) The important condition is that the possibility of coincidence or ?organized falsehood? be obviously negligible (Al-`Asqalani 8?9).

Examples of mutawatir practices are
the five daily prayers, fasting, zakah, the Hajj and recitation of the Qur?an. Among the verbal mutawatir hadiths, the following has been reported by at least 62 Companions from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and has been widely-known among the Muslims throughout the ages ?Whoever invents a lie and attributes it to me intentionally, let him prepare his seat in the Fire.?

Another very useful article to understand Mutawatir Hadith.
Link http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology
or
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutawatir#Mutawatir

Thank you.

progod

Peace,

Mutaazilah, thanks for that website I will be ordering it soon. Also a book I recommend which I saw on the website is 'A literary history of the Arabs.' It is an exellent book which I read from a University library. I have to check out Lisanul-Arab on there. I didn't see it. I paid about 400 dollars for it some 6 years ago. So to see those books so dirt cheap is AMAZING!!! I swear, reading through the dictionary has been the best thing for me. Yeah many times I have to cross reference or read it with a good Arabic/English dictionary but so many things have been clarified for me. Especially just in the past few months using al-baheth.com (all Arabic dictionaries, it will be a pain drudging through it for certain defintions but it is WELL worth it! Considering the edification you recieve in return.).

Antibhondo,

I just have a few quick points

So how is calling the righteous man who maybe DID see that woman fornicating or commiting an adultery a liar with God any different? You are proposing that this person being considered a liar is more just than the person who brought news which had to to with an accusation and/or a past event but was the only witness. Both of them can be telling the truth and NOT be liars, but their information is so unconfirmable that God says that their information is not to be taken as truth. I'll have to look up that word in that verse and see if it means 'liar' (I'm doing multiple things at this moment), but the result is still the same. Even if they are telling the truth and are of impeccable character if their information is not to be taken as true. Investigating is a process of gathering witnesses. I need to check that word 'wicked' too. However, no story should be left to run wild with only ONE source. All stories must be investigated. And the best way to do that is to gather or create multiple witnesses. It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things. You arbitrarily separate investigating/seeking out the truth of a matter from gathering witnesses, in this case 4. In many, many cases investigating involves just that; gathering multiple witnesses.

Godbless,
Anwar

ramzi

As-salamu 'alaykum,

This is an enquiry from a truth seeking student of knowledge. I am traditional Shafi'i Sunni, in the sense that I have studied formally with traditional scholars. This site and forum is very interesting and informative. I have found some useful resources here. However I have some questions that I would like to be addressed

Salaam Isa,

Most of the questions you ask are addressed in the video below

http//search.4shared.com/q/1/%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%89

If the link does not work then type into the search bar at www.4shared.com

Regards
Ramzi

antibhondo

Salam,

The Hadith followers attribute the writing of the Quran to "noble scribes" who jotted it all down (forgetting to jot down the verses on stoning which only Aysha had and which a goat later ate). The Quran tells us that Mohammed wrote the Quran down with his own hand (see 255 which acknowldges such).

The mastercopy was written by the prophet and any copies would have been under his supervision - this giving zero weight to any scribes who may have made copies as being in anyway a "source" of transmission.

Brother Layth
Assalamu Alaikum.

First of all, the word does not have only one meaning, and nor did every translator accept only that meaning. Look at Muhammad Asad's translation {{which he has caused to be written down}}

So, before any further discussion, let us look at Lane Arabic English Lexicon for

from this link http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf

It mentions three possible meanings here

he hath written them for himself
he hath asked to write them for him
he hath asked to dictate them to him

How could you know that only the first meaning is appropriate here, sir?

255
Translated by Edip-Layth
They said, "Mythologies of the ancient people; he wrote them down while they were being dictated to him morning and evening.

In the end note, Edip-Layth wrote Contemporaries of Muhammad knew that Muhammad was a literate person.

and
Translated by Muhammad Asad
And they say, ?Fables of ancient times which he has caused to be written down, so that they might be read out to him at morn and evening!"

In the end note, Muhammad Asad wrote
Because his contemporaries knew it that he was unlettered (ummi) and could not read and write.

I wonder, how could these translators know whether Muhammad (sm) was lettered or unlettered???

If this ayat is your only reference, please allow me to say, this ayat does not prove your point that {{The Quran tells us that Mohammed wrote the Quran down with his own hand (see 255 which acknowldges such)}}

Quran's expression, only by this ayat, is not clear, in this regard.However, it may be, that together with some other ayats it may clear the point whether Muhammad (sm) was lettered or unletterd. But, Be sure, ONLY this ayat cannot clear the issue, because any of the three meanings is possible to be here in place of .

Do you know any ayat else that support your point?

If the answer is NO, then, your assumption is dubious, which cannot be the assumption for further processing of any argument.

Even if the answer is YES, or, anyhow, you are proved to be correct in that Muhammad (sm) wrote Quran by his own hand, my question is, how does Quran's being written down by the Prophet's own hand prove that those who transmitted the Quran are not the same people who transmitted the hadith Huh?

You wrote

The mastercopy was written by the prophet and any copies would have been under his supervision - this giving zero weight to any scribes who may have made copies as being in anyway a "source" of transmission.

Please tell me, who told you that? How do you know this piece of information?

Then tell me, how would Muhammad (sm) know if someone had copied the Quran not letting him know? If any copy was made, out of Muhammad (sm)'s knowledge, and if that copy borne alteration made by the copier, and if that copy became the main copy somehow later on, how would Muhammad (sm) prevent that? And who is ensuring that this actually did not happen, i.e., what we now read as a Quran was actually that false Quran?

Please do not tell me that Allah himself has preserved the Quran or anything like that.

It might have happened very possibly that the person who altered the Quran (supposing that someone really altered the Quran) had inserted the ayat of "preservation", and Allah actually did not tell anywhere that that he will really preserve Quran.

And then tell mewhere is the copy that was really wrote down by Muhammad (sm) himself? And why, I repeat WHY do we get a copy other than Muhammad (SM)'s as the earliest copy?

Do you have any satisfactory answer, brother?

antibhondo

The Hukum for Wudu indicates that the hukum for Salat is ritual in nature...How so?

Well, together with the time and times mentioned in different ayats, the hukum for wudu makes me think that if every time "Salat" requires wudu, then it could be a ritual one. Sajda, Ruku... all these strengthens the indication.

The hukum for assembly Salat indicates that you cannot have a different meaning of your own for "Salat".... How so?

629
Translated by Edip-Layth
O you who acknowledge, if the contact prayer is called to on the day of assembly, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.
6210
Then, once the contact prayer is complete, you shall disperse through the land and seek God's provisions, and remember God frequently, so that you may succeed.

If you were allowed to have a different meaning of Salat, Allah would not make a system to DO "Salat" in Assembly.

Even if the Salat was practiced by Muhammad (sa) that way, does it mean that when the Qur'an instructs people for Salat that it is instructing them and limiting them to only do how Muhammad (sa) performed his Salah? Isn't true that Muhammad (sa) according to your Ahadith used to make different hand and arm gestures at different times, thus changing the way he did his Salah? Isn't there a 'sahih' Hadith that says someone from the jama'ah or congregation during the Salah once said something random in Arabic, yaani, hamdan katheeran thoiyaban mubarakan feeh, and after the Salah, Rasul Allah (sa) said that thousands of angels descended on that person? So who is to say the Salah is limited to what Muhammad (sa) did?

Did Quran say that everyone is allowed to obey Allah's command however he/she wishes? No, you don't. But you have commands to follow the messenger.

.....instructing them and limiting them to only do how Muhammad (sa) performed his Salah?

Yes sir, But the better wording is the method of Salah is limited to HOW MUHAMMAD (SM) OBEYED ALLAH's COMMAND REGARDING SALAT.Remeber, Muhammad (sm) was guided by the WAHY. and He was not allowed to follow anything other than WAHY. So, whatever he did to obey Allah's command, must have been divinely directed.If we were not follow him in the case of Salat, then don't you think that Allah should definitely and clearly state in the Quran that for this command and this command, you are not to follow messenger, and for the rest, you are?

About the differences....
I understand from this differences that these are really not very important issues for Salat. Those could be practiced according to any authentic (Shia/Sunni) Hadiths.

However, please visit the following link. When you want to reject something, know more about that to reject more strongly. It will help in the sense that if that is wrong, then by knowing more you will be more sure that it is wrong. And if it is right then more knowing will help change your viewpoint.

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/

May Allah guide us all to be in the right path.

Thank you brother, and Pray for me. I need that very much.

antibhondo

Peace,
So how is calling the righteous man who maybe DID see that woman fornicating or commiting an adultery a liar with God any different? You are proposing that this person being considered a liar is more just than the person who brought news which had to to with an accusation and/or a past event but was the only witness. Both of them can be telling the truth and NOT be liars, but their information is so unconfirmable that God says that their information is not to be taken as truth. I'll have to look up that word in that verse and see if it means 'liar' (I'm doing multiple things at this moment), but the result is still the same. Even if they are telling the truth and are of impeccable character if their information is not to be taken as true. Investigating is a process of gathering witnesses. I need to check that word 'wicked' too. However, no story should be left to run wild with only ONE source. All stories must be investigated. And the best way to do that is to gather or create multiple witnesses. It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things. You arbitrarily separate investigating/seeking out the truth of a matter from gathering witnesses, in this case 4. In many, many cases investigating involves just that; gathering multiple witnesses.

Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

Please take your time. You need not to be so quick. You can reply later. Just don't rush. I am not replying to your quick points. Just start waiting for your some cool reply.

It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things.

One thing only, please don't use this kind of tone with me. Please. I request you.

Thank you.

mmkhan

Salaam antibhondo,

The Hukum for Wudu indicates that the hukum for Salat is ritual in nature

bravo

Very nice point MashaAllah

Thank you brother, and Pray for me. I need that very much.

You are in my prayers, inshaAllah

May Allah guide us all towards the right path. pr
Mohammed M. Khan

progod

Antibhondo,
I said

It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things.

You said

One thing only, please don't use this kind of tone with me. Please. I request you
.

That's a tone? I didn't know that was a tone. I'm just calling it as I see it and hoping you can expand your thought on the issue a little better. Rather than pigeon-holing or making very constrained opinions on the issue. Believe me it wasn't a tone. But anyway, I made my points and I hope you understand them.

Godbless,
Anwar

antibhondo

Peace,
So how is calling the righteous man who maybe DID see that woman fornicating or commiting an adultery a liar with God any different? You are proposing that this person being considered a liar is more just than the person who brought news which had to to with an accusation and/or a past event but was the only witness. Both of them can be telling the truth and NOT be liars, but their information is so unconfirmable that God says that their information is not to be taken as truth. I'll have to look up that word in that verse and see if it means 'liar' (I'm doing multiple things at this moment), but the result is still the same. Even if they are telling the truth and are of impeccable character if their information is not to be taken as true. Investigating is a process of gathering witnesses. I need to check that word 'wicked' too. However, no story should be left to run wild with only ONE source. All stories must be investigated. And the best way to do that is to gather or create multiple witnesses. It seems you have a very narrow way of looking at things. You arbitrarily separate investigating/seeking out the truth of a matter from gathering witnesses, in this case 4. In many, many cases investigating involves just that; gathering multiple witnesses.

Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

Your last comment indicates that you are done with your comment so far. Ok, then lat us talk.

Probably I could not make myself clear. Let me try again. I said that if a fasiq man comes with any news , the news has to be investigated, and in this case investigation is a Quranic requirement.

This ayat does not speak anything about investigation of any news brought by a non-fasiq person.

You have to admit this first. Only then can the discussion proceed!

Now about the question, what if a non-fasiq person brings an accusatory news?
According to 244 & 2413, he (fasiq or non-fasiq) is also required to bring four witness, otherwise he will be punished by eighty lashes and will be treated as liar with God.

So, combining these ayats together, for a non-fasiq person, we can say that if a non-fasiq person brings any news other than accusatory ones, investigation is not a Quranic requirement. However, It does not mean that you are bound to accept the news. It does not mean either that you cannot do any investigation of the news. You can impose any condition that makes you sure that the news accepted through those condition are fault-free and without any doubt.

Just you cannot say that this was said by the Quran. You cannot say that this is a Quranic requirement, or according to this ayat or that ayat Mutawatir hadith should be.......What you think about the "should be" of any news from any person is completely your own speech. Please do not say something in the name of Quran, when it did not say it at all.

Muhamamd (sm) himself was not allowed to do so (6944-47).

Thank you. Pray for me.

antibhondo

Brother Layth, and Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

I am still awaiting your answers.

Thank you.

Layth

Salam Antibhondo,

My apologies, I have a bad habit of skipping over lengthy posts just because there is too many topics mixed in.

First of all, the word does not have only one meaning, and nor did every translator accept only that meaning. Look at Muhammad Asad's translation {{which he has caused to be written down}}

So, before any further discussion, let us look at Lane Arabic English Lexicon for

from this link http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf

It mentions three possible meanings here

he hath written them for himself
he hath asked to write them for him
he hath asked to dictate them to him

How could you know that only the first meaning is appropriate here, sir?

Because I am not infected with the subjectivity of the Sunnis/Shia who have made it as gospel that the prophet was a man who could neither read nor write.

My reading with all the other verses that speak of the revelation is that this accusation that was made is regarding the prophet's writing of the text. Also, from verse 8522, I would also argue that there is a "master copy" of the Quran somewhere on earth which is written on a tablet/stone.

If this ayat is your only reference, please allow me to say, this ayat does not prove your point that {{The Quran tells us that Mohammed wrote the Quran down with his own hand (see 255 which acknowldges such)}}

Quran's expression, only by this ayat, is not clear, in this regard.However, it may be, that together with some other ayats it may clear the point whether Muhammad (sm) was lettered or unletterd. But, Be sure, ONLY this ayat cannot clear the issue, because any of the three meanings is possible to be here in place of .

Do you know any ayat else that support your point?

If the answer is NO, then, your assumption is dubious, which cannot be the assumption for further processing of any argument.

Actually, there is no need to support any point since you are staring off with the "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate" and then proceeding to prove or disprove such false premise. The Quran has never told us Mohammed was illiterate (the Sunnis/Shia with their wrong understanding of "ummy" came-up with such conclusion). So the burden of proof to prove he was illiterate falls on you for making such claim.

Even if the answer is YES, or, anyhow, you are proved to be correct in that Muhammad (sm) wrote Quran by his own hand, my question is, how does Quran's being written down by the Prophet's own hand prove that those who transmitted the Quran are not the same people who transmitted the hadith Huh?

It takes away from the value that the hadith lovers are trying to associate to them. The argument that "the people who wrote the hadith are the same who wrote the Quran" is a false statement. The Quran was penned/written by the prophet, therefore anyone who came would only be copying what is already existing, not authoring something that did not exist in the written world. To bring a modern example the government of Saudi Arabia (American allies) have the biggest printing set-up of the Quran - does that act of copying give them any special authority or status? the answer is "no" because you know it is a simple copy job.

The mastercopy was written by the prophet and any copies would have been under his supervision - this giving zero weight to any scribes who may have made copies as being in anyway a "source" of transmission.

Please tell me, who told you that? How do you know this piece of information?

I know this from 8522.

Then tell me, how would Muhammad (sm) know if someone had copied the Quran not letting him know? If any copy was made, out of Muhammad (sm)'s knowledge, and if that copy borne alteration made by the copier, and if that copy became the main copy somehow later on, how would Muhammad (sm) prevent that? And who is ensuring that this actually did not happen, i.e., what we now read as a Quran was actually that false Quran?

Mohammed would not know nor could he have stopped this from happening. The only way to counter this is by finding the "master copy" which is written on tablet/stone.

Please do not tell me that Allah himself has preserved the Quran or anything like that.

It might have happened very possibly that the person who altered the Quran (supposing that someone really altered the Quran) had inserted the ayat of "preservation", and Allah actually did not tell anywhere that that he will really preserve Quran.

Your argument is correct. In-fact, you do not need to suppose this since the Quran(s) we have all have slight deviations (verse stops, rendition of certain words, etc.) and none of us are able to state with certainty which is the more correct Quran.

And then tell me where is the copy that was really wrote down by Muhammad (sm) himself? And why, I repeat WHY do we get a copy other than Muhammad (SM)'s as the earliest copy?

Do you have any satisfactory answer, brother?

It is waiting for you or me or any other truth seeker to find it...

Bigmo

Salam Antibhondo,

My apologies, I have a bad habit of skipping over lengthy posts just because there is too many topics mixed in.

Because I am not infected with the subjectivity of the Sunnis/Shia who have made it as gospel that the prophet was a man who could neither read nor write.

My reading with all the other verses that speak of the revelation is that this accusation that was made is regarding the prophet's writing of the text. Also, from verse 8522, I would also argue that there is a "master copy" of the Quran somewhere on earth which is written on a tablet/stone.

Actually, there is no need to support any point since you are staring off with the "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate" and then proceeding to prove or disprove such false premise. The Quran has never told us Mohammed was illiterate (the Sunnis/Shia with their wrong understanding of "ummy" came-up with such conclusion). So the burden of proof to prove he was illiterate falls on you for making such claim.

It takes away from the value that the hadith lovers are trying to associate to them. The argument that "the people who wrote the hadith are the same who wrote the Quran" is a false statement. The Quran was penned/written by the prophet, therefore anyone who came would only be copying what is already existing, not authoring something that did not exist in the written world. To bring a modern example the government of Saudi Arabia (American allies) have the biggest printing set-up of the Quran - does that act of copying give them any special authority or status? the answer is "no" because you know it is a simple copy job.

I know this from 8522.

Mohammed would not know nor could he have stopped this from happening. The only way to counter this is by finding the "master copy" which is written on tablet/stone.

Your argument is correct. In-fact, you do not need to suppose this since the Quran(s) we have all have slight deviations (verse stops, rendition of certain words, etc.) and none of us are able to state with certainty which is the more correct Quran.

It is waiting for you or me or any other truth seeker to find it...

Actually there are hadiths that says that the prophet only left behind after him a copy of the Quran and the compnaions never had any text except the Quran and few lines of general orders like freeing prisoners etc. Ahmed Rifai spoke about that yesterday on Egyptian TV on the Dream 2 Channel. There are many hadiths that contradict each other and most of all contradict what Sunni scholars say. If you speak Arabic you can look at the link I gave concerning Ahmed Rifai videos.

I agree with you that Ummi does not mean illiterate in the way we commonaly understand it. It can also mean gentile or lack of knowledge of the scriptures.

ramzi

Actually there are hadiths that says that the prophet only left behind after him a copy of the Quran and the compnaions never had any text except the Quran and few lines of general orders like freeing prisoners etc. Ahmed Rifai spoke about that yesterday on Egyptian TV on the Dream 2 Channel. There are many hadiths that contradict each other and most of all contradict what Sunni scholars say. If you speak Arabic you can look at the link I gave concerning Ahmed Rifai videos.

I agree with you that Ummi does not mean illiterate in the way we commonaly understand it. It can also mean gentile or lack of knowledge of the scriptures.

Salaam,

It's ADNAN Al-Rifai lol, not Ahmed

His first program can be found here, http//www.thekr.net/index.php/video

I don't agree with everything he says, but his main idea is correct.

Regards
Ramzi

antibhondo

Salam Antibhondo,

Because I am not infected with the subjectivity of the Sunnis/Shia who have made it as gospel that the prophet was a man who could neither read nor write.

My reading with all the other verses that speak of the revelation is that this accusation that was made is regarding the prophet's writing of the text. Also, from verse 8522, I would also argue that there is a "master copy" of the Quran somewhere on earth which is written on a tablet/stone.

First of all, please tell the authority of "quranix.net" that all the Transliterations of the ayats after 8517 are misplaced in the website. Please tell them to fix it.

So, you do not have any ayat that directly and clearly expresses whether Muhammad (sm) could write or could not. Basically, this ayat (255) itself is not sufficient to prove whether Muhammad (sm) was able to write. What you assume depends completely upon you. This ayat, however, does not negate the possibility that Muhammad (sm) could have wrote. But as long as you call yourself a Quran-only, you have to present definite proof from Quran ONLY. And, please, as long as Quran does not negate the possibility that Muhammad (sm) could not write, do not accuse anyone negatively for holding the concept that Muhammad (sm) could not write.

Actually, there is no need to support any point since you are staring off with the "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate" and then proceeding to prove or disprove such false premise. The Quran has never told us Mohammed was illiterate (the Sunnis/Shia with their wrong understanding of "ummy" came-up with such conclusion). So the burden of proof to prove he was illiterate falls on you for making such claim.

Let us look at the following ayat that tell us something else
2948
Translated by Edip-Layth
You were not reciting any book before this, nor were you writing one down by your hand. In that case, the doubters would have had reason.

This ayat confirms us about the literacy status of Muhammad (sm) before the revelation. It says that Muhammad (sm) never wrote anything by his own hand.

So, according to this ayat, your translation of 255 is definitely WRONG. The people who rejected of-course knew that Muhammad (sm) could not write anything. So, they could not have said that Muhammad (sm) wrote the fables. They had no reason to say that Muhammad (sm) wrote the mythologies himself.

So, it has also been proved that it is not "false premise" that "Mohammed was illiterate".

Now I ask you again,
Do you know any ayat else that support your point?

If the answer is NO, then, your assumption is dubious (that has already failed against 294, which cannot be the assumption for further processing of any argument.

I bet you will revise your previous answer now. So I am not going to go for the next points of your response.

Thank you.

(Please pray for me. I need that very much.)

progod

Peace,

Antibhondo,

I find it ridiculous that you think that not investigating news which one chooses to believe is acceptable and some how Quranic. That is why I did not respond to your post. Any news you believe in you should investigate. Do I really need to provide a Quranic verse for that? The Quran provides a template for the basis upon which we should accept without a doubt any serious news that comes to us, especially as it concerns as accusation.

Godbless,
Anwar

antibhondo

Peace,

Antibhondo,

I find it ridiculous that you think that not investigating news which one chooses to believe is acceptable and some how Quranic. That is why I did not respond to your post. Any news you believe in you should investigate. Do I really need to provide a Quranic verse for that? The Quran provides a template for the basis upon which we should accept without a doubt any serious news that comes to us, especially as it concerns as accusation.

Godbless,
Anwar

Brother Anwar
Assalamu Alaikum.

I could not make myself clear.

Please carefully read my following para

combining these ayats together, for a non-fasiq person, we can say that if a non-fasiq person brings any news other than accusatory ones, investigation is not a Quranic requirement. However, It does not mean that you are bound to accept the news. It does not mean either that you cannot do any investigation of the news. You can impose any condition that makes you sure that the news accepted through those condition are fault-free and without any doubt.

Just you cannot say that this was said by the Quran. You cannot say that this is a Quranic requirement, or according to this ayat or that ayat Mutawatir hadith should be.......What you think about the "should be" of any news from any person is completely your own speech. Please do not say something in the name of Quran, when it did not say it at all.

Muhamamd (sm) himself was not allowed to do so (6944-47).

You said {{Any news you believe in you should investigate. Do I really need to provide a Quranic verse for that?}}

Did I negate that? I just said that whatever "should" you want to apply, feel free to apply as long as it is not anti-quranic. But do not say that this "should" is said by quran if quran does not say that.

Thank you.