Ok ... So what do you people believe (exactly) ?

Edip_Yuksel

Dear cOde

Below is an article I have written more than decade ago at http//www.19.org/index.php?aid=304

Why Trash All Hadith besides the Quran as Authority in Islam?
Edip Yuksel

After witnessing the comparison between the hadith and the Quran, how can a sound mind still insist on hadith? How can still call those books sharif, or sahih, or authentic? How can they forgive the hadith narrators and collectors who sold them all kinds of lies and stories, containing so much ignorance and distortion? How can they get angry at Salman Rushdi, while much worse insults charged against Muhammad by hadith narrators and collectors?

When followers of hadith and sunna cannot defend the nonsensical and contradictory hadiths (narrations) abundant in their so-called authentic hadith books, they suggest to pick and chose those hadiths that are not contradictory to the Quran. The following brief argument with a Sunnite shows how deceptive and meaningless this apparently innocent suggestion. We call these people compromisers, or Selective Sunnis. Let's now follow a debate between a Selective Sunni and a Monotheist Muslim

Sunni

How can you claim that several thousand sahih hadiths are necessarily false while you cite only a few sahih hadiths which have debatable contents? Is this not generalization from scanty data?
Why do you assume that either all sahih hadiths should be rejected or all of them should be accepted? Why not judge each hadith based on its individual merit according to all the available data about its isnad, its transmitters, and so on?
Suppose we cease to use hadith as a source of information about the Prophet, his life, and his career. Then we notice that the Qur'an itself says very little about the Prophet's life. It also says nothing about how it was complied.
The historicity of the Quran is based on hadiths. It is from hadiths that we know how the Quran was complied. It is also from hadith that we know about the life of the Prophet.

Muslim

If any book contains a few lies (which we have more than just "few" examples), then, the endorsement of that book is not reliable. If you see dozens of repeated fabrications introduced as trustworthy (sahih) hadith, then, how can you still rely on other narration of the same book?
Judging each hadith on its individual merit may seem attractive for those who are not satisfied with God's book, but it is a waste of time and a deceptive method. If the signature of narrators (sanad) cannot provide authenticity about the source of hadith, then, our only guide to decide on the content of hadiths (matn) will be our personal wish or our current inclinations. How can we decide which hadith has a merit? How can we decide which hadiths is accurate? We may say "by comparing them with the Quran!" But, what this really mean? If it is "me" who will compare a hadith to the Quran, if it is again "me" who will judge whether it contradicts the Quran or not, then, I will end up with "hadith" which supports "my" personal understanding of the Quran. In this case hadith cannot function as an explanation of the Quran. They will be confirmation or justification of my understanding of the Quran; with literally tasteless, grammatically lame language.... Furthermore, what about hadiths that bring extra duties and prohibitions?
Again, there are many hadiths about the prophet's life, which you cannot accept them with a sober mind. They are narrated repeatedly in many so-called authentic books. We cannot create a history out of a mishmash of narration by a subjective method of pick and choose. We can create many conflicting portraits of Muhammad out of those hadiths. As for pure historical events that isolated from their moral and religious implications, they are not part of the religion, and we don't need them for our salvation. I never said "we should not read hadith." In fact, we can study hadith books to get an approximate idea about the people and events of those times. We can even construct a "conjecture" about the history, without attributing them to God or his prophet. Please don't forget that the "history" is not immune of filtration, censorship and distortion of ruling class. You can see many different versions of histories (!) regarding the era of early Islam . Just read Sunny and Shiite histories.
We cannot disregard God's frequent assertion that the Quran is sufficiently detailed, complete, clear, and easy to understand. What do you think about the verse 1746? "When you preach your Lord, in the Quran ALONE, they run away with aversion."
Hadith books are full of contradictory teachings. They eventually lead us to a sanctified and justified sectarian division in the name of the Prophet. Their very nature is another proof that hadith collections cannot be divine, since God, characterize his word and religion being not having contradiction "Why do they not study the Quran careful? If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions." (482). This verse clearly refutes the traditional argument that hadith books contain other revelations besides the Quran, since the followers of Hadith and Sunna wrongly attribute verses about the Quran to hadith, such as "Your friend (Muhammad) is not astray, nor is he deceived. Nor is he speaking out of a personal desire. It is a divine inspiration." (532-4). Furthermore, verses 3927-28 describes the Quran and the following verse distinguish the divine teaching from other teachings. "God cites the example of a man who deals with disputing partners, compared to a man who deals with only one man. Are they the same? Praise be to God; most of them do not know." (3929). Obviously, hadith narrators and collections are "disputing partners," while the Quran is a consistent source.
Our conviction regarding the divinity of the Quran and even its protection does not come from our trust to the number of people, but from the evidence contained in the book, which is another number, a number that is not appreciated by those who determine the truth based on the number of heads with turbans.
We reject Hadith because we respect Muhammad. No sound person would like to have people born several centuries after him roam the earth and collect hearsay attributed to him. Besides, if Muhammad and his supporters really believed that the Quran was not sufficient for guidance, an ambiguous book, or lacked details, then, surely they would be the first ones who would write them down and collect them in books. After all, their numbers were in hundreds of thousands and they had plenty of wealth. They could afford some ink, papyrus paper or leather, and some brain cells, for such an important task. They would not leave it for a guy from far Bukhara or his ilk, more than two hundred years to collect hadiths in a land soaked with blood because of sectarian wars. Besides, Muhammad had many unemployed or handicapped people around who would gladly volunteer for such mission. The traditional excuse fabricated for Prophet Muhammad and his supporters is absurd. Supposedly, Muhammad and his followers feared that people would mix the Quran with hadiths. This is nonsense. They were smart enough to distinguish both, and there were enough people to keep track of them.

Besides, it is the followers of hadith and sunna themselves who claim that the Quran was a "literary miracle". If their claim of "literary miracle" were true, then it would be much easier to separate the verses of the Quran from hadith. Let's assume that they could not really distinguish the text of the Quran from Muhammad's words, then couldn't they simply mark the pages of the scripture with the letter Q for the Quran and letter H for Hadith, or let some record only the Quran, or simply color code their covers? Or allocate leather for the Quran and paper for hadith, or vise versa? They could find many ways to keep different books separate from each other. They did not need to study rocket science or have computer technology to accomplish that primitive task. The collectors of hadiths wished that people would accept their assertion that Muhammad and his supporters did not have ink, paper or leather, mind, and care to collect hadith before them. No wonder, they even fabricated a few hadiths claiming that Muhammad's companions were competing with dogs for bones to write on the verses of the Quran!

Well, most likely, Muhammad feared that people would mix his words with the Quran. Not the primitive way that is depicted by the Sunnis and Shiites, since as we pointed out, there were many ways to eliminate that concern. But the real concern of Muhammad was different. Because of the warnings of the Quran, he feared that Muslims would follow the footsteps of Jews and would create their own Mishna, Gomorra, and Talmud hadith would be considered as an authority, as another source besides the Quran, setting him as partner with God! Ironically, the followers of hadith and sunna accomplished exactly that. They did not need to publish the text of hadith together with the Quran--though they have done that in many commentaries--they have been doing worse. Though they usually have kept hadith separate from the Quran physically, as far as for the purpose of guidance and religious authority, they mix it with the Quran. Even worse, they make the understanding of the Quran dependant to the understanding of hadith, thereby elevating hadith to position of authority over the Quran. Thus, if indeed Muhammad was worried about people mixing his words with the Quran, the followers of hadith proved his worries right centuries after him, they did not only mix his words with the Quran, they mixed thousands of fabrication and nonsense attributed to him. See 2530; 597.

Give me one, only one "hadith" that you think is necessary for my salvation besides the Quran. If you are not ready to discuss the necessity and accuracy of a single hadith, then please give inviting people to hadith and Sunna.

Further Discussion

Sunni The bound collection of testimony from any court is certain to contain some lies and some errors. The reliability of any piece of evidence remains debatable. Where the narrators agree, where there is no irreconcilable conflict with the Qur'an, where the hadith is not offensive to tawhid, etc., we may well be justified in accepting it as reliable. And if a collector collects a thousand hadith and makes a few errors, neither is he to be condemned as unreliable.

Muslim Not a single court will accept the testimony of Bukhari who collected contradictory hadiths about the Prophet Muhammad, narrated from generation to generation 200 years after his departure. You try to minimize the number and size of errors. There hundreds lies, not "few errors." And they are grave ones They attribute stupid and contradictory laws and words to God. They create a men-made religion in the name of God! They are full of insult to God and his messenger. They are not trivial, since God Almighty does not accept those "few errors" as trivial

" . . . Who is more evil than the one who fabricates lies and attributes them to God?" (296

Sunni If the hadith are not mutawwatir, the monotheist Muslim should know by now that most scholars would say that one is free to disregard it, though not necessarily without peril. The issue the Muslim raises about the difficulties of decision regarding hadith also apply to personal interpretation of the Qur'an. No, the Qur'an makes it clear, we cannot disregard any evidence out of hand, not even the evidence of an unrighteous man; how much less the evidence of those against whom we have no evidence of unrighteousness or lack of caution?

Muslim First, can you please tell us how many mutawatir (accepted with consensus) Hadith are there. What are they and where are they? Second, can you give me few names of those "most scholars" who would say that I am free to disregard non-mutawatir hadiths? As far as for evidences.... Sure, we cannot disregard evidences for our daily affair, even of an unrighteous man. But, God's religion is not left to the mercy of those evidences. God explained and sufficiently detailed his religion in his book, which is described as complete, detailed, and perfect. It does not contain any doubt. Furthermore, God promised to preserve it. An He did it with a unique mathematical system which hypocrites and disbelievers are unable to see.

Sunni I have answered The Muslim about of a number of these hadith. Certainly, I personally have trouble with certain hadith; however, I must always ask myself whether or not it is my own view which is in error, rather than the hadith. Perhaps there is something I have not thought of.

For example, there is a hadith, which The Muslim loves to cite mentioning the drinking of camel's urine, which he seems to believe, is particularly ridiculous. Does he base this on a scientific study of the virtues of drinking camel's urine? I think not. Nor does he ever mention that nomadic peoples, not just Arabs but including them, often consume the waste products of their animals. So "cannot accept" is definitely culturally conditioned. But no one has claimed that drinking camels' urine is required of any Muslim.

Muslim Well, the prescription of camel's urine in that hadith is the minor problem. You can even find some Sunni doctors who pontificate that camel's urine is panacea for every disease. The big problem was about gouging their eyes after pruning all their legs and hands, etc. You craftily skipped that part.

Sunni The Muslim confuses Hadith and Sunna. Hadith is only one of a number of major sources of Sunna, other major sources being the Qur'an and the practice of the community. The latter is how we generally learn to pray, by the way. To answer the question about necessity of hadith without going deeply into the whole concept of necessity is impossible.

But I will answer this way if a hadith transmits a wisdom necessary in a particular situation, and one turns away from that wisdom merely because it was a hadith (and not some other preferred modality), then one becomes culpable for failure to act correctly in the situation. This could, indeed lead to hell-fire. Of course, the same is true of the Qur'an, or even the preaching of a Christian.

Muslim If you think that some one is wrong and even misguided because of his rejection of hadith and that person challenges you with that question you don't answer like you did above. You did not or could not answer my challenge. Answering questions is not an act of writing irrelevant lines after the question. Please come to the point.

Wakas

Do the ahl-e-Quran challenge 5 as the number
of prayers in a day?

PeAcE

Which part of "there is no official agenda" did you not understand? There is no offical position/doctrine/agenda/views.

drfazl

Salam everyone

I just found out about this site and this "Ahl-e-Quran" movement through
another forum. Ive done some lookin around and I have 2 questions

#1

Isn't rejecting all the ahadith just as bad as accepting all of them?

Ahl e Quran is the only way of the prophet and not an invented or innovated movement. Hadith is weird for a muslim in this angle. If you have any dispute come back to this Book you have rejected and deviated away. Allah had made this Book easy to practice to attain successes. Muhammad lived this Book and stood a beautiful model for us to believe and follow this Book alone. This is the only way of all the prophets. And we are to follow all the prophets like Muhammad did following the Quran.

.

c0de

Edip Yuksel + Wakas + drfazl

@ Edip

Thanks bro, that was very informative. I actually just finished a lengthy
debate with a sunni on another forum myself too. handshake

@ Wakas

Whoa, relax bud. Whats with all this passive aggressiveness huh? police peace

@ Dr. Fazl

Bro, technically, I have been an "ahl-e-Quran" for a long time now, akshully.
I was just surprised (and a little shocked) to find out that there is an actual
group of you guys out there and apparently I am one of them! I just wanted to
make sure this "ahl-e-Quran" was not just another sect, and it seems that it is
not. Which is fine by me

sun

Hope

Peace

Isn't rejecting all the ahadith just as bad as accepting all of them?
The hadith compilations are far from infallible, agreed. But does it necessarily
mean that all ahadith must be rejected?

In my own personal opinion, yes , they must be rejected.

456 These are God's revelations that We recite to you with truth. So, in which narration after God and His revelations do they believe?

I can definitely see the logic
in rejecting the entire hadith literature, as I used to reject all of it myself too
at one time (but then again, I was also ahl-e-hadith for a time yuck)

So where do you stand right now ???

so forgive me if I am a little skeptical of all the movements that start with
the words "ahl-e-....." Just makes it seem like another sect masquerading as
the holy chosen whatever

Ahl-e- is just a word implying the a group/party of people chosing specific sector, i dont think you should stand skeptical to it, the important is the belifs and thoughts of those ahl-e-, also in the quran , a word is present which carry the same sectorian meaning, again the main point is which part/group?

2353 But the affair was disputed between them into segments. Every group happy with what it had.

5819 The devil has overtaken them, and has caused them to forget the remembrance of God. These are the party of the devil. Absolutely, the party of the devil are the losers.

5822 God is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. These are the party of God. Most assuredly, the party of God are the winners.

What is the ultimate goal of the "Ahl-e-Quran" movement? Do they actually
believe that they can fix the problems of the ummah through this "dialogue"?
I mean, if their goal is a "reformation" or "revolution" then they are no
better then any other socialistic world improvers.. Basically, the question I am
asking is Do they actually believe they can fix this planet or this ummah?
Cuz if they do... then they have to be just as crazy as everyone else...

if you are implying to ahl-alquran site of dr Ahmed sobhy mansour, well i think they are not after fixing any problem, but the problem of complete unawarness of the ture god religion which is the quran, they aim is to emphesize the falsehood of Ahadith El bukhari and his mates, by highlighteing the marked controversy between them and the quran, aiming that moslems take God's book as their main and only source for guidance. if there are articles in politics and so in that site , there are articles in all aspects of life in this site too ).

peace

Hope

Peace

Seems i posted before reading your last post

Bigmo

Peace

Seems i posted before reading your last post D

Ahmed Subhi Mansour tends to follow a message he feels would not get him into trouble or would not make ordinary Egyptians shun him. Because the term used by the media( Quraniyoon )he thinks sounds somewhat radical, he uses Ahl AlQuran. He also accepts the rituals of Islam as Muslims follow them with very minor modification. So he does believe the 5 prayers and the rikaats of Sunni/Shia Islam is legit, he accepts the pilgrimage as it is except the black stone he also accepts Ramadan as it is. The problem with him is in doing so and his believing these things are obligatory, he shuned many other Koranist to gain acceptance from the large Sunni world who might feel overwhelmed if these rituals are questioned.

But like Samia here once said, in the end the Koran is the Koran. And the very people he manages to influence would be attracted to different interpretations of the Koran and many will rather take a strick Koranist line refusing to accept anything not explicitly mentioned in the Koran. He can't control how people would respond once they refuse hadiths. In his own website and forum he got nailed by many others who questioned the validity of these rituals and he banned the discussion(he couldn't resond convincingly) but you can't keep conrolling the debate. But he is a good step especially in conservative Arab societies like Egypt who might refuse to question hadiths for the simple fact that it would also question the legitimacy of these rituals. Many Muslims still dream of going to haj and might get intimadated by some of the discussions here.

I do symphatize with some of his concerns, but I think in the end he should represent the people in this forum and many do not accept the legitimacy of these rituals and not try to go after the bigger prize. He tries to use "we got it from our father Ibraheem" argument and to be frank many of those who participated in those discussion with him in his forum pointed out to him is arguments are weak. Its one thing to say we should hold on to these rituals for unity sake, its another to say we got them from prophet Ibraheem. But if he then says that they are obligatory then he shunned most Koranist as most do not accept them as obligatory. In fact I don't think a person can be a Koranist if he believes these rituals are obligatory. But he would find that once these ideas spread most people(especially youths) would rather come here in this forum or set up ones similar to them then remain in his domain.

Other will tell you that they accept the practiced Sunnah rather than hadiths because practiced Sunnah did not come to us from hadiths. I have looked into that argument before and was attracted to it but when you are not able to show how these practiced Sunnah came from the prophet and was ordered by the prophet, when you see many of these practiced Sunnah(haj, 5 salat, qibla, zakat amount, friday prayers, etc) can be found in similar religious traditions of the past, when you are not able to convince those who chose to be skeptical and insist in Koranic proof it won't take you along before you realize its a weak argument. Its an argument for unity but this unity can not be done except at the expense of the other peoples of the Earth who might chose to practice their faith in God differently. Most of all, for me at least, my now acceptance of the previous scriptures as authoritative has rendered these rituals at best just a way among many other ways to worship God, no more no less. The Koran led me to these previous scriptures(Torah and Gospel) and now my thinking is much broader and my understanding of worship is much less dogmatic and rigid. I realize now that its not the rituals thats important, its to whom you are doing them for. But whats interesting is many of those who claim to strictly follow the Koran refuse to accept the Koranic verses regarding the authority of the previous scriptures raising question as to their reasons for that.

This raises an important question as to the intentions and desires of many who were attracted to the Koranist point of view. Many might see themselves as "reformist" of the MUSLIM world or of the ISLAMIC faith and might see the previous scriptures as unnecessary extra baggage. They tend to focus their attention to the Muslim world where the authority of the Koran ia already accepted. Others might see themselves as post modernist and might see the previous scriptures as more problematic than the Koran. The ambiguity and vagueness of many Koranic verses make it easier to interpret these verses in post modernist standards. The previous scriptures can be too detailed to interpret them that way. Others simply are extremely skeptical of anything outside the Koran and they see the previous scriptures are structured similarly to the hadiths of Sunni/Shia sects. And yet others see the Koran as a summary of these previous scriptures and thus no reason is needed to dwell any further since what is needed to be known is all in the Koran. They rely on the fact that the Koran says its fully detailed and an exposition of all things.

There is also political motivation. Some want a secular Muslim society and see in eleminating hadiths an easy way to render Sunni/Shia shariah law obsolete. Many who suuport Ahmad Subhi Mansour tend to be secularist and see in the Koranic view point a counter to political and legal Islam.

Others may be attracted to science and see the koran as more logical than hadiths. And yet others see the Koranic point of view as a solution to the sectarian problem the Muslim world is afflicted with and the violence that follows that. Many moderate Muslims tend to be sickened by the sectarian violence which they blame on different hadith traditions and see the Koran as a unifier since these sects have the same Koran.

So we all are using the Koran for our own reasons. Because of this nobody owns the right of takfir since in many ways everyone has enough evidence from the Koran to counter the other but never enough to fully justify himself against the other. The Koran is much easier to invoke defensively than offensively.

c0de

@ Bigmo

In fact I don't think a person can be a Koranist if he believes these rituals are obligatory.

Salam bro,

I totally understand your skepticism, but I think that you will have a hard time proving
your argument. To question the number of prayers, you are not questioning hadiths, but
the practices of people which have been handed down through generations. This is a whole
different ball game. Unless you can prove that this practice of 5 prayers has not always been
uniform throughout the history of the ummah, then you do not really have a case. This is what
Imaam Maliki did for example, if any hadith contradicted the practices of the people of Medinah he
would reject it.

3 times for prayer are clearly mentioned in the Quran, and the 2 times that are not mentioned
specifically can be seen to be included in those 3 parts of the day that are mentioned.
The importance of prayer is something which is highlighted over and over again in the Quran.
So this is not even a hadith issue.

PeAcE dude

Bigmo

@ Bigmo

Salam bro,

I totally understand your skepticism, but I think that you will have a hard time proving
your argument. To question the number of prayers, you are not questioning hadiths, but
the practices of people which have been handed down through generations. This is a whole
different ball game. Unless you can prove that this practice of 5 prayers has not always been
uniform throughout the history of the ummah, then you do not really have a case.

3 times for prayer are clearly mentioned in the Quran, and the 2 times that are not mentioned
specifically can be seen to be included in those 3 parts of the day that are mentioned.
The importance of prayer is something which is highlighted over and over again in the Quran.
So this is not even a hadith issue.

The 5 pilars of Islam are all mentioned in the Quran as articles of faith.
The problem is not the 5 pillars, it is the additional points of "aqeedah" that
have been introduced through extra-Quranic sources e.g. the belief in the mehdi,
and the return of Jesus PBUH, and the authority granted to these so called "scholars"

PeAcE dude

I am not sure about that. I have been there before. I put up a many points but if you try to PROVE that these traditions came to us from the prophet then you face this big problem.

After 30 years after Muhammad passed away the former pagan foes of Muhammad now turned Muslims came to power, the Ummayids. Muawiya who set up the Ummayid empire his mother was Hind who traditions say chewed the liver of Hamza. His father was Abu Sufyan, a big enemy of Muhammad. The Ummayid stayed in power for 100 years before they were overthrown by the Abbasids, also from Mecca and have in their history a long animosity with Muhammad. You know have a situation where Abu Bakr ruled for 2 years, Umar for 10 and was assasinated, Uthman 14 years and was assasinated and in fact at one time tradition say Abu Bakr's son, Muhammad, tried to lead an attack against Uthman. Uthman was an Ummayid and when he was assasinated, Ali supposedly came to power. Aisha(who was an Ummayid) and Muawaiya led a battle against him. Ali was of course was from Banu Hashim. After him one his many sons, Hussein led a battle against Muawiya and co. He lost. The Ummayids then ruled as i said for 100 years. So you have a tricky situation in how these traditions came to us.

As far as the 5 salat are concerned, it is still hard to explain why the Koran never mentioned the 5 salat. Its one thing to say we need the Sunnah to know how to pray but its another thing when the number 5 is never mentioned anywhere in the Koran. This given the fact that salat is mentioned 50 times in the Koran but the 5 salat is never mentioned. We have verses about how to make Wudu yet we have no verses about the number 5. I have had discussions with Muslims who would insist the 5 salat are mentioned. They can't believe that its never mentioned.

As far as Haj is concerned its probably the biggest problem here and this is why. The Ummayids and later the Abbasids were both from Mecca. If they were from Medina than there would be no susipicion but given the fact that they are from mecca, the Ummayids especially have a vested economic inters to create an obligatory pilgrimage there. Especially if you believe they were already using the Ka'ba as a form of worship. The political division between the Ummayids and the civil wars betwen them when a rival tried to built another ka'ba says a lot about the political implications of the Ka'ba for the political dynasty. You also had a situation when one ummayid ruled jerusalem while another Mecca and the various hadiths where on says pilgrimage is only to Mecca and Medina and another saying pilgrimage can be made to all three. In fact Western scholars believed that the ruler in Jerusalem released the hadiths that pilgrimage is to all three while his rivals in Hejaz came up with a counter hadith saying pilgrimage is only to Mecca and Medina and therefore cutting off his pilgrimage revenues.

I guess what i am trying to say is in a historic climate such as the Islamic one where you have all these conflicts and differences and wars and where you have tribes who were known to be the enemies of the prophet raisng quickly to power and thus controlling the discourse from early on you end up with a tricky situation. And I am here only scratching the surface, its no coincidence that Sunni scholars forbid the discussion about these conflicts since they change your perception about Islamic history.

Yes you are right that these rituals did not come through hadiths, but the rise of former Meccan pagans to power so early on in Islamic history makes that history suspect to many. If there were no partcilur rituals initially then it wpould have been easy to make on eup. If there were then it would have been somewhat more difficult. This is a point I missed earlier where I always assumed that there were uniform rituals and it would have been hard to eleminate them without some kind of revolt. But if there weren't any then it would have been easier to make one up or to modify them somewhat for political reasons.

If there was all those rikaas and all these Haj rituals established by Muhammad and his companion then it would heve been a challenge to change them, but if there weren't and the earlier Muslims were less rigid about them then its easier to make one up to create a uniform society thats much easier to control. Just look at Al Saud and how their capture of Mecca and Medina benefited them both politically and econimically. Imagine if people stoped performing the pilgrimage there. What status will Saudi Arabia have? And I have not even talked about the similarities these rituals have with Zoroastrianism(5 salat), arab paganism(ka'ba) and friday prayers(Judaism and Christianity) etc.

So you right that these rituals did not come from hadiths but its harder to go beyond that. Those over here who question these rituals however can only just question them. They have tried to prove that but to no avail. They have tried to come up with a Koranic interpretation but to no avail. So where do we go from here? Are we to try to come up with answers we can't come up with. Or should we accept that perhaps its not that important.

Righteousness does not consist in whether you turn your faces towards the east or the west; what is righteous is to believe in Allah and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and in times of war. Such as do so are people of truth. Such are the Allah-fearing. (Al-Baqara, 177)

Maybe its wise to leave it at that.

Wakas

peace,

@ Wakas

Whoa, relax bud. Whats with all this passive aggressiveness huh? police peace

Perhaps I could have been less blunt/abrasive, sorry.

Unless you can prove that this practice of 5 prayers has not always been
uniform throughout the history of the ummah, then you do not really have a case.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

3 times for prayer are clearly mentioned in the Quran, and the 2 times that are not mentioned
specifically can be seen to be included in those 3 parts of the day that are mentioned.

I strongly recommend re-reading The Quran. A minimum of two times for upholding the salat/bond has clearly been proven in this forum. As far as I'm aware no long term active forum member disagrees with this.

The importance of prayer is something which is highlighted over and over again in the Quran.

No, the importance of upholding the "salat" is highlighted over and over again in The Quran. You may find the following simple challenge interesting
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597919.msg194459#msg194459

The above is open to all.

c0de

Bigmo + Wakas

Before I respond specifically to the points in your post, I would like to
point out that the number of 5 prayers can be very soundly supported
through the Quran itself. First of all

...Prayer indeed has been enjoined on the believers at fixed times.
4103

This verse makes it clear that there are fixed times and therefore a fixed number
of the contact prayers, (i.e the number is not arbitrary). Then there is the verse 1778
which broadly defines all the 5 times together

"Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and
the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed."

Notice that the words "from" and "until" are used, which indicate that the number
of prayers must be more then 3. And since there is another verse in the
Quran which mentions a "middle prayer" (223 it is clear that this number must
be an odd number. So we know that it must be more then 3, and and odd number.
This is Quranic evidence for the number 5. Taken together with the unbroken practice of
Muslims over generations (unless you can prove otherwise) is proof enough that
the established number of prayers is 5.

@ Bigmo

Yes you are right that these rituals did not come through hadiths, but the rise of former Meccan pagans to power so early on in Islamic history makes that history suspect to many.

Is this mere suspicion enough to reject the practice? As I said, you would have to provide
evidence that there was a time when the Muslims used to pray any more or less then 5 contact prayers.
Also, you will have to admit that your argument is completely based on circumstantial evidence. This is what
I meant when I said that you will have a hard time proving the number 5 is wrong. I do appreciate the detail
and effort. But you have admit that it is basically all speculation.

@ Wakas

I strongly recommend re-reading The Quran.

I "re-read" pages of it every mourning.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy

Not when there is evidence within the Quran. Then the popularity becomes
supporting evidence, and not a fallacy.

No, the importance of upholding the "salat" is highlighted over and over again in The Quran. You may find the following simple challenge interesting

Observe the following verses which were part of the list you gave.
The first two verses clearly mention bowing down and standing as part of the contact prayer.
And the last verse clearly indicates that there is a set form and length to each prayer,
as we are allowed to shorten it during travel.

And Keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those that bow down.
243

Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
2.238

And when you journey in the earth there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer...
4101

Basically, there is a lot of stuff that is not based in the Quran which you can challenge,
but the 5 contact prayers, their methods, and timings, this is not extra-Quranic. It is
a very essential obligation mentioned in the Quran.

Perhaps I could have been less blunt/abrasive, sorry.

No worries bro handshake

TheNabi

Peace

If this is going to turn into a tread concerning salaat I will have to cut some of the posts and put them in the appropriate section, otherwise, start a new thread about your concerns.

Joe

Bigmo

Bigmo + Wakas

Before I respond specifically to the points in your post, I would like to
point out that the number of 5 prayers can be very soundly supported
through the Quran itself. First of all

...Prayer indeed has been enjoined on the believers at fixed times.
4103

This verse makes it clear that there are fixed times and therefore a fixed number
of the contact prayers, (i.e the number is not arbitrary). Then there is the verse 1778
which broadly defines all the 5 times together

"Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and
the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed."

Notice that the words "from" and "until" are used, which indicate that the number
of prayers must be more then 3. And since there is another verse in the
Quran which mentions a "middle prayer" (223 it is clear that this number must
be an odd number. So we know that it must be more then 3, and and odd number.
This is Quranic evidence for the number 5. Taken together with the unbroken practice of
Muslims over generations (unless you can prove otherwise) is proof enough that
the established number of prayers is 5.

@ Bigmo

Is this mere suspicion enough to reject the practice? As I said, you would have to provide
evidence that there was a time when the Muslims used to pray any more or less then 5 contact prayers.
Also, you will have to admit that your argument is completely based on circumstantial evidence. This is what
I meant when I said that you will have a hard time proving the number 5 is wrong. I do appreciate the detail
and effort. But you have admit that it is basically all speculation.

@ Wakas

I "re-read" pages of it every mourning.

Not when there is evidence within the Quran. Then the popularity becomes
supporting evidence, and not a fallacy.

Observe the following verses which were part of the list you gave.
The first two verses clearly mention bowing down and standing as part of the contact prayer.
And the last verse clearly indicates that there is a set form and length to each prayer,
as we are allowed to shorten it during travel.

And Keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those that bow down.
243

Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
2.238

And when you journey in the earth there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer...
4101

Basically, there is a lot of stuff that is not based in the Quran which you can challenge,
but the 5 contact prayers, their methods, and timings, this is not extra-Quranic. It is
a very essential obligation mentioned in the Quran.

No worries bro handshake

Not all of them are alike of the People of the book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long and then prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and they (hasten in emulation) in (all) good works; they are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.

And there are certainly among the people of the Book those who believe in Allah in the revelation to you and in the revelation to them bowing in humility to Allah they will not sell the signs of Allah for a miserable gain! for them is a reward with their Lord and Allah is swift in account.

16.48. Do they not look at Allah.s creation, (even) among (inanimate) things,- How their (very) shadows turn round, from the right and the left, prostrating themselves to Allah, and that in the humblest manner?

So we see that prostration is mentioned in the Koran but we see no specific standard for the salat you say. Its not whether the 5 salat are Sunnah or not its the question whether its the only way.

drfazl

If the acting salat is so important than the salat in action, then it is never possible. Muhammad accepted from Allah, the 50 times salat per day on his ascent to heaven to meet Allah. Only for the people's sake who will never follow the prophet Muhammad in this regard, he had to scale 50 down by heavily bargaining through nine meetings with Him reducing each time by 5 waqts. Then also Musa says the followers cannot pray so much. But muhammad was only ashamed to go to Allah again; had he done so definitely Allah would have removed the last remaining 5 waqts also. So it is not at all wrong to do away with the ritual, acting - the salat.

But one thing is definite! Muhammad would have surely followed 50 waqts every day because he had accepted the same from Allah and never bargained for reduction for himself but did so only for the fake people at large who will claim to follow him. What do the hadith followers have to say about the timings that muhammad observed daily for his 50 waqts prayer, if it is acting salat?

.

Bigmo

If the acting salat is so important than the salat in action, then it is never possible. Muhammad accepted from Allah, the 50 times salat per day on his ascent to heaven to meet Allah. Only for the people's sake who will never follow the prophet Muhammad in this regard, he had to scale 50 down by heavily bargaining through nine meetings with Him reducing each time by 5 waqts. Then also Musa says the followers cannot pray so much. But muhammad was only ashamed to go to Allah again; had he done so definitely Allah would have removed the last remaining 5 waqts also. So it is not at all wrong to do away with the ritual, acting - the salat.

But one thing is definite! Muhammad would have surely followed 50 waqts every day because he had accepted the same from Allah and never bargained for reduction for himself but did so only for the fake people at large who will claim to follow him. What do the hadith followers have to say about the timings that muhammad observed daily for his 50 waqts prayer, if it is acting salat?

.

If people complained that 5 is too much then it is useful to tell them " be happy, it should have been 50".

c0de

@ All

I have created a separate thread in the appropriate section.
Guys, Please respond here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597936.0

Also, my initial questions in the first post are still open for anyone )

drfazl

If people complained that 5 is too much then it is useful to tell them " be happy, it should have been 50".

It is 50, if you are a true follower of Muhammad. 50 is ordained! 5 is bargained.

c0de

It is 50, if you are a true follower of Muhammad. 50 is ordained! 5 is bargained.

Bro the discussion on this issue has been moved to the following thread

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597936.msg194613#msg194613

Btw, this discussion is not about who is a "true follower" of the Prophet.