Why do you reject hadiths

rameez

The Quran uses a singular verb when talking about Quran and Hikmah. This is Al Shafi's logic. It even tells the prophets wives to recite the Quran and Hikmah. I hear a Sunni scholar saying the recite here is the Sunnah!!!! This is called desperation.

Most of the commentators agree that it is hadith/sunnah

rameez

Please take a look at my thread specifically on Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger. Hope this may solve your problem, inshaAllah.

mmKhan

Thanks, I am reading it

rameez

The problem here is that you are assuming that Quran and messenger are two seperate things. So let me go with you anyways. What do you do if the Quran and the messenger are saying contradictory things? Who do you obey?

Quran and messenger are not two separate things ??

I will follow Quran and that saying of Messenger is surely considered as fabrication or error.

Bigmo

Quran and messenger are not two separate things ??

I will follow Quran and that saying of Messenger is surely considered as fabrication or error.

Ok then. But you do know this is against what both Sunnis and Shias believe as they believe in abrogation.

Now let me ask you another question.

Could the messenger make obligatory what the Quran did not? Could he add legislation the Quran did not?

rameez

Ok then. But you do know this is against what both Sunnis and Shias believe as they believe in abrogation.

Yes , concept of abrogation is in the Quran. There is a difference in abrogation and contradiction, in that sense Quran is also contradictory.

Now let me ask you another question.

Could the messenger make obligatory what the Quran did not? Could he add legislation the Quran did not?

Yes of course. That is the main theme of the verses like "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger", "Who obeys Messenger has obeyed Allah" etc......

rameez

Peace Rameez,

Take a look at these links

http//www.detailedquran.com/quran_data/Obey_Allah_And_Messenger.htm
http//www.detailedquran.com/quran_data/The_Only_Revelation.htm

Following links will help

http//www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_quran_is_complete_and_therefore_we_don_t_need_hadith_
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/HadithProject1.htm

Bigmo

Yes , concept of abrogation is in the Quran. There is a difference in abrogation and contradiction, in that sense Quran is also contradictory.

Yes of course. That is the main theme of the verses like "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger", "Who obeys Messenger has obeyed Allah" etc......

Than I don't think there is really a point of discussing with you since nobody here is going to accept abrogation. There really is no point being a Quranist if you believe in abrogation as it renders the verses of the Quran irrelevant and obsolete. Abrogation has a beginning but no end. It ends any authority for the Quran. I see this debate going in circles.

unknownuser

Just a little side not

Not all Sunnis agree with the doctrine of abrogation, check out what my favorite commentator, Muhammad Asad says

2106
Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar
ones. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

87 The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical
dispensation by that of the Qur'an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many
Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message&quot occurring in this, context is also used to
denote a "verse;" of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message).
Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage
that certain verses of the Qur'an have been "abrogated" by God's command before the
revelation of the Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion -
which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs
of his manuscript - deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not
exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of
the Qur'an to have been "abrogated". At the root of the so-called "doctrine of abrogation"
may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur'anic passage
with another a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in
question had been "abrogated". This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no
unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the "doctrine of abrogation" as to which, and
how many, Qur'an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this
alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context
of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it.
In short, the "doctrine of abrogation" has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must
be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur'anic
passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understoood, correctly, as "message",
and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews
and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible
for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to
any part of the Qur'an itself.

Maha

He just delivered the message of God to me. If i didn't accept the message i m disobeying God not the messenger. If messenger would have delivered his own message than yes i would have disobeyed him. If I today reject Quran it do not means I am disobeying Messenger , because today Quran has not reached me through Messenger it has reached through different sources.

It is not disobedience it is rejection. Disobedience means if I reject YOUR message when I am required to follow it.

I didn't separate Him from the Message, instead I am saying that Message orders me to Obey the Messenger. The point is it is not Messenger's message, it is God's message. Messenger is just a man in the middle delivering the message.

Yes , so how can I obey the Messenger ? Today I have complete Quran and I don't have any Messenger. When I read this Ayah "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" , what should I do ? If I write a book and ask a publisher to publish it and sell , There is no point in mentioning "Obey Me and Obey the publisher", unless the publisher have some knowledge to convey other than the contained in book.

Again , if the whole message is in the Quran than it is sufficient to say "Obey Allah" ..or say "Follow Quran" . There is no point in stating "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger". Today He didn't tell me to believe in Quran . There are no words of Him in Quran which tells me to believe in it. It is Allah's word.

You didn't read the whole verse I think. It says "Whom we inspired". The arabic word used is n which according to corpus Quran means "We revealed" and many translators has mentioned "we revealed". So it is obvious it is talking about the Messenger because He was inspired or it was revealed to Him.
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16&verse=43

This discussion is going in circus . I don't want to repeat myself. You keep insisting that obeying messenger means obeying Hadith while I keep repeating that obeying the messenger means obeying Quran and that messenger isn't limited to Mohammed. In another thread you are defending sexual slavery and rape. Really, there is no point in discussing with hadithers when they can't even distinguish between right or wrong.

Peace

Bigmo

Following links will help

http//www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_quran_is_complete_and_therefore_we_don_t_need_hadith_
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/HadithProject1.htm

See the problem with the link you give that it recognizes or only discusses what certain Quranist believe.

"Quranites usually point to the verses of the Quran which state that the Quran is fully detailed and clear and that there is nothing left out of the Quran. Therefore, they ask the question, "Why do we need the Hadith?""

There re however many Quranist who don't have a problem with hadith as long as it does not contradict the Quran. But since you believe in abrogation than that means anytime a hadith comes that can be verified that it contradicts the Quran abrogation will be used to nullify the Quranic verse that contradicts that hadith. This means all kinds of laws and legislations can be added since you also believe the Sunnah can add legislation. So it can npot only delete but add also. So what is the use of the Quran then?

"And We have sent down unto you (O Prophet) the book explaining (tibyanan) everything and as a guidance, and mercy, and glad tidings for those who have surrendered (to God) (1689). "

"Here the words "explaining everything" are said to show that we need no source of guidance other than the Qur'an. Once again we should not abandon the use of aql (reason) and fikr (reflection) in interpreting any verse, since the Qur'an itself tells us to use these. Now aql and fikr immediately tell us that we cannot take this verse in an absolute sense. For we would then have to take "everything" literally. But that is obviously impossible, since there are clearly things that the Qur'an does not explain; for example, the rules of Chinese grammar or the way to fix your computer. Thus common sense requires that we qualify "everything" as something like "everything that is relevant to religion, spirituality, and morality Reason further requires us to bring another element in the understanding of this verse and that is that many statements in a text have a context both within the text as a whole and in the circumstances in which the statements were made. This is why we find it easier to understand books written in our own time and in the society in which we live than those written in a different time and place in the former case we know not only the context within the books themselves but also the context provided by external circumstances; whereas in the latter case we know the context within the books but we have much less knowledge of the external context. Now the Qur'an no doubt rises as far above its context as it is possible for a book written in a human language to do, but still it has both types of contexts. Hence the Qur'an explains everything only when its verses are interpreted by taking into account both the context within the book as a whole as well as the context of circumstances, practices, and events that are assumed in those statements. Now this latter context is provided partly by the Hadith."

The problem here is he is taking explaining of the Quran or clarifying of the Quran beyond salvation. The Quran is talking about everything a person needs ofr his salvation is tgere not everything he needs to understand everything in the Quran. The Quran itself says there are verses that nobody will understand but the core message is made clear for us. He also is talking about context. This is the argument of "asbab al nuzool" where we have hadiths that tells us why the verse came down and on what occasion. Many times the context that the verse appears in the Quran is ignored and also the other verses elsewhere in the Quran that may elaborate on the topic. He then uses the same logic for all the verses of the Quran that talks about the Quran as sufficient for guidance.

"And We have indeed coined for humanity every kind of similitude (mathal) in this Qur'an that they may reflect (3927; see also 1789, 1854, 305.

Again, this statement should be understood in the same way as the statement that the Qur'an explains everything."

He also says

There are other verses showing that the Prophet's involvement in his work as the messenger was much deeper than that of a mere deliveryman. The Qur'an says

Have We not opened your breast (O Prophet). And lifted from you the burden that was weighing down your back (941-3).

From these verses it becomes clear that a great deal happened within the soul of the Prophet before he embarked on his mission. Simply conveying a message as a postman need not have involved such inner back-breaking struggles
"

The problem here is he is downplaying the mission of the prophet. He is not delivering a pizza brickwall, he is delivering God's message. Once again it is not understanding the magnitude of that mission. The Quran itself says to the prophet in surat Taha that the Quran was not brought down to you to suffer. Yet he is saying the opposite. He sees that mission as a postman mission. Yet the Quran tells us that the prophet reached a point where he thought the only thing he is getting from this mission is a struggle.

rameez

This discussion is going in circus . I don't want to repeat myself. You keep insisting that obeying messenger means obeying Hadith while I keep repeating that obeying the messenger means obeying Quran and that messenger isn't limited to Mohammed.

I only argued that Obeying Messenger clearly implies that there is something outside Quran that we have to follow and that is the Messenger. you call it sunnah , hadith or whatever. But the verses I quoted are clearly referring to the person on whom Quran was revealed. If it was not Muhammad, who was that ?

In another thread you are defending sexual slavery and rape.

Peace

I never defend sexual slavery and rape. I am just arguing about the concept of "right hand possesses" , there is no rape or sex slavery in this.

Really, there is no point in discussing with hadithers when they can't even distinguish between right or wrong.

Did i use hadiths in any comment of mine ? except clarifying the concept of niqab to someone who posted the hadith of abu dawud. In the beginning I said that I have no agenda of converting anyone or to get converted, that is why many comments back I said that we should stop this discussion as enough of evidence is provided from both sides.

rameez

Just a little side not

Not all Sunnis agree with the doctrine of abrogation, check out what my favorite commentator, Muhammad Asad says

2106
Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar
ones. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

87 The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical
dispensation by that of the Qur'an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many
Muslim theologians. The word ayah ("message&quot occurring in this, context is also used to
denote a "verse;" of the Qur'an (because every one of these verses contains a message).
Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage
that certain verses of the Qur'an have been "abrogated" by God's command before the
revelation of the Qur'an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion -
which calls to mind the image of a human author correcting, on second thought, the proofs
of his manuscript - deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not
exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever, declared a verse of
the Qur'an to have been "abrogated". At the root of the so-called "doctrine of abrogation"
may lie the inability of some of the early commentators to reconcile one Qur'anic passage
with another a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in
question had been "abrogated". This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no
unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the "doctrine of abrogation" as to which, and
how many, Qur'an verses have been affected by it; and, furthermore, as to whether this
alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse in question from the context
of the Qur'an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it.
In short, the "doctrine of abrogation" has no basis whatever in historical fact, and must
be rejected. On the other hand, the apparent difficulty in interpreting the above Qur'anic
passage disappears immediately if the term ayah is understoood, correctly, as "message",
and if we read this verse in conjunction with the preceding one, which states that the Jews
and the Christians refuse to accept any revelation which might supersede that of the Bible
for, if read in this way, the abrogation relates to the earlier divine messages and not to
any part of the Qur'an itself.

I have not read His work. All mainstream sunni schools agree on the concept of abrogation.

Here are top commentaries on 2106 , after commentaries I will post Hadiths.

Tafsir Ibn Abbas
Then Allah mentions what was abrogated of the Qur'an and that which was not abrogated, as a direct reference to the claim of the Quraysh who said to the Prophet O Muhammad! Why do you command us to do something and then forbid it, saying (Such of Our revelations as We abrogate) We do not erase a verse that was acted upon before and which is now not acted upon (or cause to be forgotten) or leave unabrogated so that it is acted upon, (We bring one better) We send Gabriel with that which more profitable and easier to act upon (or the like) in reward, benefit and action. (Knowest thou not) O Muhammad (that Allah is Able to do all things?) of the abrogated and unabrogated.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
Ibn Abi Talhah said that Ibn Abbas said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We abrogate. Also, Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We erase. Also, Ibn Abi Najih said that Mujahid said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We keep the words, but change the meaning. He related these words to the companions of Abdullah bin Masud. Ibn Abi Hatim said that similar statements were mentioned by Abu Al-Aliyah and Muhammad bin Kab Al-Qurazi. Also As-Suddi said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We erase it. Further, Ibn Abi Hatim said that it means, "Erase and raise it, such as erasing the following wordings (from the Qur'an), The married adulterer and the married adulteress stone them to death,' and, If the son of Adam had two valleys of gold, he would seek a third.' Ibn Jarir stated that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever ruling we repeal in an Ayah by making the allowed unlawful and the unlawful allowed. The Nasakh only occurs with commandments, prohibitions, permissions, and so forth. As for stories, they do not undergo Nasakh. The word, Nasakh' literally means, to copy a book'. The meaning of Nasakh in the case of commandments is removing the commandment and replacing it by another. And whether the Nasakh involves the wordings, the ruling or both, it is still called Nasakh. Allah said next, (or Nunsiha (cause it to be forgotten)). Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn Abbas said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh or Nunsiha) means, "Whatever Ayah We repeal or uphold without change. Also, Mujahid said that the companions of Ibn Masud (who read this word Nansa'ha) said that it means, "We uphold its wording and change its ruling. Further, Ubayd bin Umayr, Mujahid and Ata' said, Nansa'ha' means, "We delay it (i.e., do not abrogate it). Further, Atiyyah Al-Awfi said that the Ayah means, "We delay repealing it. This is the same Tafsir provided by As-Suddi and Ar-Rabibin Anas.Abdur-Razzaq said that Mamar said that Qatadah said about Allah's statement, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten) "Allah made His Prophet forget what He willed and He abrogated what He will. Allah's said, (We bring a better one or similar to it), better, relates to the benefit provided for the one it addresses, as reported from Ali bin Abi Talhah that Ibn `Abbas said,
(We bring a better one) means, "We bring forth a more beneficial ruling, that is also easier for you. Also, As-Suddi said that,
(We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We bring forth a better Ayah, or similar to that which was repealed. Qatadah also said that,
(We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We replace it by an Ayah more facilitating, permitting, commanding, or prohibiting.

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn
When the disbelievers began to deride the matter of abrogation, saying that one day Muhammad enjoins his Companions to one thing and then the next day he forbids it, God revealed And whatever verse (m is the conditional particle), that has been revealed containing a judgement, We abrogate, either together with its recital or not ; there is a variant reading, nunsikh, meaning ? We command you or Gabriel to abrogate?, or postpone, so that We do not reveal the judgement contained in it, and We withhold its recital or retain it in the Preserved Tablet; a variant reading is nunsih, from ?to forget? so ? or We make you forget, that is, We erase from your heart?; the response to the conditional sentence is We bring a better, one that is more beneficial for servants, either because it is easier or contains much reward; or the like of it, in terms of religious obligation and reward; do you not know that God has power over all things?, including abrogating and substituting ? (the interrogative here is meant as an affirmative).

Mariful Quran
Verse 106 speaks of Allah abrogating certain verses or making men forget others.The first phrase of the verse , thus covers all the possible forms in which a verse of the Quran can be abrogated.

If Yousuf Ali do not accept abrogation and he is a sunni , then how he interpret the following hadiths

Sahih Bukhari 66034
Narrated Salama
When the Divine Revelation
"For those who can fast, they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day," (2.184) was revealed, it was permissible for one to give a ransom and give up fasting, till the Verse succeeding it was revealed and abrogated it.

Sahih Bukhari 66053
Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair
I said to 'Uthman bin 'Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place."

Sahih Bukhari 66060
Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair I said to 'Uthman, "This Verse which is in Surat-al-Baqara "Those of you who die and leave widows behind...without turning them out." has been abrogated by another Verse. Why then do you write it (in the Qur'an)?" 'Uthman said. "Leave it (where it is), O the son of my brother, for I will not shift anything of it (i.e. the Quran) from its original position."

Sahih Bukhari 66068
Narrated Ibn 'Umar This Verse--"Whether you show what is in your minds or conceal it.." (2.284) was abrogated.

MASOOMboy

Peace Rameez,

Let us try to understand the concept in a different way ..

Let me start by asking you a very simple question ?

Which is more important of the two , A) Message B ) Messenger ?

Its really common sense that messengers are required only If their is a message.
Their has to be a message for the messenger to deliver or else nobody needs a messenger without a message.

Coming back to your argument of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" Its a message in literal sense. Now , Is Allah directly commanding/ sent us that message or the Qur'an was revealed in a form of book on a mountain top ? No right ? Allah is ordering us through a messenger, So first of all people need to believe that a Person X is a messenger of Allah and he is delivering a certain message from Allah.
As per our knowledge of history , how many people during the time of Prophet Mohammed were atheist ?
Let us find out,

Jews were not atheist
Christians were not atheist
City Arab were not atheist
Nomad Arabs were also not atheist

So, it means that more than 99% of population around Prophet Mohammed were believers in God.
Now Imagine God Telling those Believers- in- God that "Only Obey God/Allah"
what do you think they would have said ? For sure they would have told that we already Obey God.
nobody would have listen to Prophet Mohammed or would have taken him seriously because they could have thought that we are already "Obeying God". What about the message of Qur'an then ?
That's the reason Allah is Ordering people that If you Obey/Believe in God/Allah then Obey/believer the Messenger as well.
So once people believe in a messenger then they will obey his message and that message is Qur'an.
the fact of the matter is if someone is Obeying the Qur'an then he is Obeying the messenger as well as The Allah / GOD

Regards,

Andya_Primanda

You are correct about hadith , but you misunderstood that ruling of niqab is derived from this hadith alone. And niqab is not fardh by jamhoor. Those who make it necessary argue using different hadiths and the verse of Quran.

As far as that hadith is concerned, it defines the female aurat as the face and hands, and Abu Dawud himself said it is mursal. Most traditional Muslims I know consider that hadith as authoritative in defining the female aurat, and they do not consider the niqab (face veil) as mandatory.

Well, you asked for a weak hadith followed by the majority, and I give you that. I think I have made my case, and we agree that Asma's female aurat hadith is weak. It is not me that said the hadith is weak, it is the collector himself, Abu Dawud. God knows why that weak hadith becomes so popular and followed by millions. If only the millions knew what they were following.

See, even with hadiths that has been filtered, Muslims still disagree.

Bigmo

Peace Rameez,

Let us try to understand the concept in a different way ..

Let me start by asking you a very simple question ?

Which is more important of the two , A) Message B ) Messenger ?

Its really common sense that messengers are required only If their is a message.
Their has to be a message for the messenger to deliver or else nobody needs a messenger without a message.

Coming back to your argument of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" Its a message in literal sense. Now , Is Allah directly commanding/ sent us that message or the Qur'an was revealed in a form of book on a mountain top ? No right ? Allah is ordering us through a messenger, So first of all people need to believe that a Person X is a messenger of Allah and he is delivering a certain message from Allah.
As per our knowledge of history , how many people during the time of Prophet Mohammed were atheist ?
Let us find out,

Jews were not atheist
Christians were not atheist
City Arab were not atheist
Nomad Arabs were also not atheist

So, it means that more than 99% of population around Prophet Mohammed were believers in God.
Now Imagine God Telling those Believers- in- God that "Only Obey God/Allah"
what do you think they would have said ? For sure they would have told that we already Obey God.
nobody would have listen to Prophet Mohammed or would have taken him seriously because they could have thought that we are already "Obeying God". What about the message of Qur'an then ?
That's the reason Allah is Ordering people that If you Obey/Believe in God/Allah then Obey/believer the Messenger as well.
So once people believe in a messenger then they will obey his message and that message is Qur'an.
the fact of the matter is if someone is Obeying the Qur'an then he is Obeying the messenger as well as The Allah / GOD

Regards,

Most of the obey the messenger verses of the Quran has been abrogated by both Sunni and Shia authorities since the same verses limit the prophet's authority to impose himself on those who wish not to believe in him. So the sets wanting to create an Islamic theocracy with the ruler enjoing absolute authority over the masses abrogated those verses relying on verse 9.5. Most Quranist may not be ware of that. It is impossible for the Sunni auhority to accept those verses since it means there is freedom to disbelieve.

479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper."

24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

6412 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message

3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper

8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe

So the same verses that tells us to obey the messenger are the same verses that tells the prophet to respect people's freedom and limits his authority to impose himself. This means people have the freedom to believe or not which means there is absolute freedom. The sects of course reject that completely so they abrogated those verses. Now the uranist have arrived they are trying to revive those verses but in doing so they will also highlight the contradiction between the Quran and themselves. They are stuck.

So I think in time they will focus on the Quran and wisdom verses.

good_logic

Peace rameez.

I am back! just briefly.

You convinced me to consider " hadith"? I found this hadith for you to ponder!

Shown below are two such Hadiths taken from the Hadithists' most reliable sources, Sahih Muslim and Is-haah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

The Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran."

This Hadith states that the prophet maintained his anti-hadith stand until death.

Hadith rejecting all "hadiths"? Or has this hadith been abrogated as well? ( In it you can find anything you want?)

Peace and thank you.

rameez

As far as that hadith is concerned, it defines the female aurat as the face and hands, and Abu Dawud himself said it is mursal. Most traditional Muslims I know consider that hadith as authoritative in defining the female aurat, and they do not consider the niqab (face veil) as mandatory.

Well, you asked for a weak hadith followed by the majority, and I give you that. I think I have made my case, and we agree that Asma's female aurat hadith is weak. It is not me that said the hadith is weak, it is the collector himself, Abu Dawud. God knows why that weak hadith becomes so popular and followed by millions. If only the millions knew what they were following.

See, even with hadiths that has been filtered, Muslims still disagree.

Who says that Abu Dawud has 100% authentic hadiths ? That is why you have all people of knowledge stating that it is "weak" . And you didn't read the links I provided, I said "Ruling of face veil is NOT BASED on this Hadith". Kindly read the links and you will get the idea what i was saying

rameez

Peace Rameez,

Let us try to understand the concept in a different way ..

Let me start by asking you a very simple question ?

Which is more important of the two , A) Message B ) Messenger ?

Its really common sense that messengers are required only If their is a message.
Their has to be a message for the messenger to deliver or else nobody needs a messenger without a message.

Coming back to your argument of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" Its a message in literal sense. Now , Is Allah directly commanding/ sent us that message or the Qur'an was revealed in a form of book on a mountain top ? No right ? Allah is ordering us through a messenger, So first of all people need to believe that a Person X is a messenger of Allah and he is delivering a certain message from Allah.
As per our knowledge of history , how many people during the time of Prophet Mohammed were atheist ?
Let us find out,

Jews were not atheist
Christians were not atheist
City Arab were not atheist
Nomad Arabs were also not atheist

So, it means that more than 99% of population around Prophet Mohammed were believers in God.
Now Imagine God Telling those Believers- in- God that "Only Obey God/Allah"
what do you think they would have said ? For sure they would have told that we already Obey God.
nobody would have listen to Prophet Mohammed or would have taken him seriously because they could have thought that we are already "Obeying God". What about the message of Qur'an then ?
That's the reason Allah is Ordering people that If you Obey/Believe in God/Allah then Obey/believer the Messenger as well.
So once people believe in a messenger then they will obey his message and that message is Qur'an.
the fact of the matter is if someone is Obeying the Qur'an then he is Obeying the messenger as well as The Allah / GOD

Regards,

Its your point of view which is based on confusion and interpreting in a way you want. I don't agree with this.

Can you please tell me the definition of Shirk ?

rameez

Peace rameez.

I am back! just briefly.

You convinced me to consider " hadith"? I found this hadith for you to ponder!

Shown below are two such Hadiths taken from the Hadithists' most reliable sources, Sahih Muslim and Is-haah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

The Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran."

This Hadith states that the prophet maintained his anti-hadith stand until death.

Hadith rejecting all "hadiths"? Or has this hadith been abrogated as well? ( In it you can find anything you want?)

Peace and thank you.

This link has sufficient explanation
http//www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_from_hadith_in_which_the_prophet_says__do_not_write_down_anything_from_me_except_qur_an__

That is why Quran asks you to "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger and those who are in authority". (459)

Quran orders believers not all should go in battle , but some must learn "religion".

And it is not for the believers to go forth all at once. For there should separate from every division of them a group to obtain understanding in the religion and warn their people when they return to them that they might be cautious. (9122)

rameez