Is Prophet Muhammad?s duty to deliver Quran only?: No
-
Not everyone considers them to be the same. According to Fazlur Rahman, established tradition without hadith was one of the reasons for backward isnad growth. His argument was that the 2nd and 3rd generation of Muslims learnt Islam and practises from the sahaba through natural and fluid learning, and were not akin to demanding hadith to justify their actions. This only started happening post Imam Shafi'i who helped convince the Muslims that only actions that can be backed through an unbroken chain of narrators has any legitimate place in codified Islam. The point Rahman is making here is that the "sunnah" was established and passed on long before any hadith science developed. The teachings of the Prophet were a living sunnah and not a sunnah of verbatim transmissions. Once the hadith agenda kicked in, those Muslims who had learnt their Islam through the sahaba without hadith were now presented with a problem they had to either produce a hadith going back to the prophet justifying their practises or they had to abandon their position and submit to opposing opinions who had hadith. Hence the fabrication of hadith and backward growth of isnad.
Yes i agree that prophet Muhammed was living sunnah, the sunnah of ALLAH, not the sunnah of Muhammed. Muhammed followd Quran only. I also agree with backward growth of hadith as in 'this is what we practice now lets make it go back to the prophet' whether it did or not.I think what Rahman is pointing out is that living tradition is far more resilient than narrations. Fuqaha of the past recognised this, hence why Abu Hanifa and his student Malik considered the normative practise of the Medinians to be a good guide to what the Prophet's sunnah was, regardless of hadith. The argument is that the sunnah of the Prophet would have been resilient and would have survived almost in its entirety for a few generations without the need of hadith. The community of Muslims would have kept the sunnah alive through their actions. Perhaps this is what Raj means when he says history?
yes malik tended to look at the people of Medina BUT surely the 'good guide' is still Quran?
Who knows what Raj means but the community of Muslims very fast started to add and change what they thought of as the sunnah and this is why malik prefered the people of medina, which by his time could have also added and changed a few things too. different sects with different ideas where everywhere before the prophet was cold in his grave as the biggest problem, that was there while he was alive and has always been the biggest problem, again reared its head, and that was mixings of old paganism and old 'religious' traditions BACK into things.
From The Four Imams
In Malik's time there were many political upheavals but he refused to have anything to do with them and enjoyed the calm of a thoughtful scholar. In his time there were also many arguments about about the fatwas of the companions and the followers and their various merits. Malik preferred the position of the people of Medina. He made holding to it one of the basic principles of his method which he taught about in his lessons and wrote about in his letters, as we saw in his letter to Al-Layth. It was in his time too that various sects and erroneous ideas arose which we should note briefly along with Malik's view of them.Abu Hanifa met people from various Islamic sects and studied with some of them and examined their opinions.
the sect names are
Shia
Saba'ites
kaysanites
Zaydites
Imamites
The Ithna 'asharites (twelvers)
The Isma'ilis
The Kharijites
Murji'ites
Jabarites
Mu'tazilitesmany came about directly after the prophets death when the Arabs mixed again with people of the ancient religions.
I do tend to gravitate towards this view, although it has its obvious flaws. Innovations in religion are just as resilient as authentic sunnah. So how can we be sure that the early Medinians didn't add 3 daytime prayers to their religious practices? If they did, and it caught on, then Imam Malik et al would naturally conclude that the Prophet would have very likely to have prayed 5 times a day even though this might just be an innovation. I think for those who wish to follow this kind of natural sunnah, they must do so under the firm belief that these actions may not be from the Prophet. That way, you can follow the Qur'an in its entirety and not be forced to believe the community practise is on the same level.
ahh, posted above before digesting this sorry.So are you suggesting if people follow what is possibly or not, something the prophet did or not, that they have to have the firm belief that they may be following something NOT from Islam at all?
Then they are surely following conjecture aren't they? they are making an idol to follow when what HE followed is in the book that we do have.According to Rahman, we can know this by the established practise of early Muslims through historical records and not necessarily through hadith. That early tradition indicates a 5 prayer practise of the Prophet.
But early tradition also shows he would often pray all night long, how many is that counted as or is it one? he was off meditating and praying before he even received any revelation so there was already an established 'following' of something among the people which is deeper than that of a supposed 'new' religion. People will naturally be very fast to add any part of this that they will be convinced should be followed, this is exactly what the Jews and Christians did and exactly what was warned about in Quran. There is little history of islam that did not come from 'hadith' of some sort, even if it be passed from generation to generation. Here in Egypt they are SURE that FGM is Islamic, its not and was never practiced in Arabia but has always been practiced in Africa, so that is an old religious tradition that has been added to islam and yes there is a hadith from the prophet to 'prove' it. Why would that question have even been asked of the prophet if this practice never happened in Arabia?
-
I'm in process, the same with any subject matter (e.g. inheritance, fasting, timings, etc.);
Take it then you follow opinion/s handed down from a particular clergy of long ago and not careful Qur'an study?Peace Noon de Plume,
I follow the teaching of Prophet Muhammad that has been preserved by Allah. I also follow leaders/king appointed by Allah. I also follow the scholar. If I am a believer then I have to do this otherwise I would be violating the orders in the Quran. By studying the Quran carefully, I came to above conclusion.
2247 - Their prophet said to them, "GOD has appointed Taloot (Saul) to be your king." They said, "How can he have kingship over us when we are more worthy of kingship than he; he is not even rich?" He said, "GOD has chosen him over you, and has blessed him with an abundance in knowledge and in body." GOD grants His kingship to whomever He wills. GOD is Bounteous, Omniscient.
9122 - When the believers mobilize, not all of them shall do so. A few from each group shall mobilize by devoting their time to studying the religion. Thus, they can pass the knowledge on to their people when they return, that they may remain religiously informed.
-
I asked how YOU do it, considering you said the verses are not 'correctly understood' and that the 'correct understanding' has been preserved for us and that is the way Muhammed did it.
I seem to recall a thread that said wipe the foot and not wash it. It has nothing to do with dry ablution.
I do not recall the thread so I was obviously not involved in it nor was I the one that said that, so this reply to avoid answering the question is just smoke to avoid answering again
Your way gives rise to such nonsense.
my way? My way is in the clear verse you posted. The question was, what is YOUR way that YOU claimed was NOT clear in Quran and Muhammed gave explanation for, remember?Go follow a leader since you are not one.
My leader is Allah. I never claimed to be a leader.
Now tell how YOU do wudu and stop avoiding the question and throwing insults because you feel cornered.
-
How can you be so sure I am not doing it the same as the prophets did? You dont even know HOW I do any of it, you have based all your insuts on assumptions. How do you KNOW any of this? how do you KNOW how many times he prayed and how many I pray?
I am aware of your silly unrighteous tactic and tricks. That will not work with me. In fact any righteous person will detect your phoniness right way.
A righteous person would have said this is how I do it and that it consistent with Prophet Muhammad?s way for such and such reason. Allah has already exposed you for what you are.
Learn from leaders and righteous person as you are unable to comprehend the Quran correctly.
-
I am aware of your silly unrighteous tactic and tricks. That will not work with me. In fact any righteous person will detect your phoniness right way.
tactics and tricks like asking questions you refuse to answer you mean? ;DA righteous person would have said this is how I do it and that it consistent with Prophet Muhammad?s way for such and such reason. Allah has already exposed you for what you are.
seems like you have just exposed yourself for what you are. laugh You were the one that made a claim and I was the one that asked the question and you are the one that has NOT said 'this is how I do it'   -
Yes i agree that prophet Muhammed was living sunnah, the sunnah of ALLAH, not the sunnah of Muhammed. Muhammed followd Quran only. I also agree with backward growth of hadith as in 'this is what we practice now lets make it go back to the prophet' whether it did or not.
I'm using the word sunnah here as the pre-Islamic Arabs would have used it i.e. culture or normative practice. So the normative practice of the Prophet would have been preserved by the sahaba and their progeny by imitation and not through verbatim transmissions.
yes malik tended to look at the people of Medina BUT surely the 'good guide' is still Quran?
Best guide, you mean.
I think we both agree that the Prophet understood and implemented the Qur'an the way a Prophet should. If you were alive during his time you would no doubt have attempted to copy his ways and understanding of the Qur'an. Qur'an can never be understood in a vacuum, it needs humans to use their natural and acquired knowledge to make sense of it. So for the early Medinians, that extra knowledge came from the established practice of their forefathers, i.e. the sahaba. They didn't need hadith, nor did they seek it. The sunnah of the Prophet was alive and vibrant as far as they were concerned.
Who knows what Raj means but the community of Muslims very fast started to add and change what they thought of as the sunnah and this is why malik prefered the people of medina, which by his time could have also added and changed a few things too. different sects with different ideas where everywhere before the prophet was cold in his grave as the biggest problem, that was there while he was alive and has always been the biggest problem, again reared its head, and that was mixings of old paganism and old 'religious' traditions BACK into things.
Hence, this is a game of percentages and perceptions. How likely was it that the early Medinians started making 3 extra prayers obligatory? How likely was it that old pagan practises re-appeared into the normal practise of those Muslims? It goes back to my point of trying to understand the Qur'an as an isolated book. Muslims may choose to use the living sunnah as a framework for how they make sense of the Qur'an. Muslims may decide that the chance of gross innovation in Medina was small, and so will use this as a reference point.
ahh, posted above before digesting this sorry.
No problem.
So are you suggesting if people follow what is possibly or not, something the prophet did or not, that they have to have the firm belief that they may be following something NOT from Islam at all?
I think it's about supplementary knowledge and the wider human experience. We can never truly appreciate the Quranic verses about orbiting planets without science, particularly telescopes and space travel. Does that mean we're following something not from Islam (i.e. science)? No, of course not. We're using other forms of knowledge to shed light on the Quran. But we must firmly believe that scientific discoveries cannot explain Quran completely, and scientific knowledge is subject to change. So this is how I understand the sunnah of the Prophet. We have a limited and somewhat flawed grasp of what his sunnah was, but through this historical account we may choose to interpret Quran. I see nothing wrong with this, as long as we acknowledge that just like scientific discoveries, sunnah cannot completely explain Quran and will always be subject to revision.
Then they are surely following conjecture aren't they? they are making an idol to follow when what HE followed is in the book that we do have.
Conjecture? I suppose so, but again I look at it differently. Those who follow the sunnah are (or should be) using it as spectacles to look at the Quran. It may not be entirely accurate, but they should be referencing it against the Quran anyway. There's no way of doing anything unQuranic with this method. Again, it's like putting on ?science spectacles? when reading verses about planets. Or putting on ?history spectacles? when reading about the Romans in Quran. We do it unwittingly, but we always understand the Quran by using other types of natural truths. I include the living sunnah or established Islamic practises within these other types of knowledge.
But early tradition also shows he would often pray all night long, how many is that counted as or is it one? he was off meditating and praying before he even received any revelation so there was already an established 'following' of something among the people which is deeper than that of a supposed 'new' religion. People will naturally be very fast to add any part of this that they will be convinced should be followed, this is exactly what the Jews and Christians did and exactly what was warned about in Quran.
And as a rejecter of sunnah you are justified in your position. We're suggesting that the early Muslims had a far more flexible approach to the sunnah and were not interested in ossifying it the way post-Shafi'i scholars did. That flexibility can be re-established today. There are Muslims today who go through the hadith literature and reject those that contradict Qur'an, the spirit of Islam and those that are no longer relevant. You may argue ?well what's the point of hadith then?? but that would be missing the point. These Muslims who embrace that kind of sunnah are far more flexible and are still using the Quran as the ultimate source of truth. Me and you may not find five prayers in the Quran, but ?living sunnis? (followers of a living sunnah) may find some obscure references because they have chosen to use the established tradition as supplementary knowledge. Again, I see no problem with this.
-
Way Finder
Conjecture? are you sure it is Conjecture? You are proving that despite being well versed in Arabic You have no understanding of Quranhttp//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/25_60.png
And when it is said unto them Prostrate to al-Ramn! they say And what is al-Ramn? Are we to prostrate to whatever thou biddest us? And it increaseth aversion in them.
Will you not believe then?
Peace,
I think you are not able to grasp the 'rhetoric' presented to the Messenger(pbuh) as quoted in the Book... Obviously, they already knew about Allah, his daughters(according to them of course), maybe the whole family of Allah, as well as his powers... This includes Ar-Rahmaan.. Moreover, archeology support the fact that Ar-Rahmaan was well present due to the inscription being found...
The message of the verse above is very clear... these people had NO INTEREST in worshipping a single deity... moreover, one being proposed by the Messenger... Their quote above is just a rhetoric... Why are we to worship Ar-Rahmaan? What is Ar-Rahmaan compared to the Gods we are already praying? How does Ar-Rahmaan looks? Is it like our Gods we are already serving? Their divinity concept was not compatible with the one presented by Muhammad.. The main message of the verse is the refusal to submit to the messenger of God with vain talks..
You cannot say they did not KNOW in the literal sense because archeological findings disprove this... However, they did not know the true Ar-Rahmaan from those whom they have attributed such names.. this is more plausible.
Allah knows best.
-
Way Finder
I am extremely disappointed by your answer.
You think that the Book of Allah that does not need any explanation is more concerned with effect or style rather than content or meaning.
From your post it is evident that you are not sure.Why to Al-Rehman? and What is Al-Rehman? there is hell lot of difference for any one to see.
Regarding inscription I have posted before, which you seem not bothered to read about, an inscription of 1000 Km away does not make it necessary to be recognized by people in Makkah and Quran is pointing towards that fact.It must be stated at the outset that the list of polytheistic divinities mentioned in the inscriptions do not constitute a south Arabian pantheon per se. An appraisal of the archaeological sites where divinities are praised or invoked leads one to the conclusion that the majority of divinities had a special relationship with a particular family, tribe or Kingdom.
?Athtar was the only divinity common to the entire population of South Arabia, whereas other divinities were only worshiped in one kingdom only, or individualized with a specific title or qualifying name.
pp. 85-87; J. Ryckmans, "The Old South Arabian Religion", in W. Daum (Ed.), Yemen 3000 Years Of Art And Civilization In Arabia Felix, 1987?, Pinguin-Verlag (Innsbruck) and Umschau-Verlag (Frankfurt/Main), p. 107.What ever claim you make it is quite obvious that Al-Rehman was something most of the audience of Muhammad Peace is upon him had never heard off, and the Messenger of Allah explained to them.
For example for a while let us say that they Knew who Al-Rehman was, but to them it was one of deity as you mentioned, still Messenger of Allah needed to explain to them about Al-Rehman.Allah Ho Akbar
Praise be to Allah the lord of Abraham, Ram, Buddha, Musa, Essa, Muhammad , Mine and yours.
-
There are worthless questions and good questions. And your questions are not good. It takes an intelligent person to pose a good question.
Dear guest, you were the one that brought the subject up and you are the one that claims a righteous person would say 'i do it this way' etc and you still refuse to say how you do it, so your posts are pretty worthless to this point don't you think?
I was once told by a teacher that there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers, that was a teacher of Islam, how right she was.
I will leave you to think WHY you had to start insulting me instead of just answer the question, that is yours to bear, not mine.
peace
-
I'm using the word sunnah here as the pre-Islamic Arabs would have used it i.e. culture or normative practice. So the normative practice of the Prophet would have been preserved by the sahaba and their progeny by imitation and not through verbatim transmissions.
yes I agree thatBest guide, you mean.
Of course ;DI think we both agree that the Prophet understood and implemented the Qur'an the way a Prophet should. If you were alive during his time you would no doubt have attempted to copy his ways and understanding of the Qur'an. Qur'an can never be understood in a vacuum, it needs humans to use their natural and acquired knowledge to make sense of it. So for the early Medinians, that extra knowledge came from the established practice of their forefathers, i.e. the sahaba. They didn't need hadith, nor did they seek it. The sunnah of the Prophet was alive and vibrant as far as they were concerned.
yes I agree the prophet understood and implemented Quran the way a prophet should and if I had been blessed to have been alive in his day I would have followed him round like I was glued to his shib shibs to soak up as much knowledge as I could from him. yes Quran does need humans to use their natural and acquired and combined, I will add, knowledge and thats why I have always read everything I could on Islam, good bad and indifferent, to make an informed choice in what i personally see as how I should follow it. There is, as with anything in following forefathers, an element of 'was that really there' though, if you understand what I mean. We are warned about following what our forefathers followed and not looking ourselves, and this is what I am getting at. What Muhammed did and said that WE need are in Quran. Whether he wiped his socks or took them off is not here or there if you understand me and is just a part of what the MAN did. What I think I mean is that there would have been things he did AS Muhammed the MAN that have nothing to do with the revelation but have found their way into Islam BECAUSE he did them, does that make sense?
Hence, this is a game of percentages and perceptions. How likely was it that the early Medinians started making 3 extra prayers obligatory? How likely was it that old pagan practises re-appeared into the normal practise of those Muslims? It goes back to my point of trying to understand the Qur'an as an isolated book. Muslims may choose to use the living sunnah as a framework for how they make sense of the Qur'an. Muslims may decide that the chance of gross innovation in Medina was small, and so will use this as a reference point.
yes but the biggest problem is that there are so many who have been brainwashed into recitation only, dont think, dont ask questions. i have been told that asking questions will bring me out of the 'fold of Islam' and reduce my faith! the Book is no longer looked at by so many unless they 'read' it or recite it, they dont STUDY what it means because the 'scholars' did that for them, they don't question and if they do they accept whatever answer they get even if it makes no sense because they are scared that if 'the answer' makes no sense they have lost their deen and Allah has drawn a veil on their hearts. It is from reading hadith that I have come to the conclusion to reject and find my answers from Quran but by the same token I still think there are many WISE hadith, whether they really were from Muhammed or not, but I cannot take them as the huge part of islam that they are taken by the majority because too many are not in any way the same 'religion' as the Quran is.I think it's about supplementary knowledge and the wider human experience. We can never truly appreciate the Quranic verses about orbiting planets without science, particularly telescopes and space travel. Does that mean we're following something not from Islam (i.e. science)? No, of course not. We're using other forms of knowledge to shed light on the Quran. But we must firmly believe that scientific discoveries cannot explain Quran completely, and scientific knowledge is subject to change. So this is how I understand the sunnah of the Prophet. We have a limited and somewhat flawed grasp of what his sunnah was, but through this historical account we may choose to interpret Quran. I see nothing wrong with this, as long as we acknowledge that just like scientific discoveries, sunnah cannot completely explain Quran and will always be subject to revision.
Yes I agree with you but Quran also says the sunnah of Allah and not the sunnah of Muhammed. There were other prophets and messengers including Jesus whose sunnah seems to be one of total peace, nothing wrong in following that one too but the sunnah of the absolute correct way is sunnah of Allah that all those will have followed correctly and never is subject to change. Science is wonderful as it shows us more of the wonders of the signs of Allah that we wouldnt have understood before as deeply as we do now. I have a 60 minute Hubble video which is so amazing you just sit like o Subhanallah!Conjecture? I suppose so, but again I look at it differently. Those who follow the sunnah are (or should be) using it as spectacles to look at the Quran. It may not be entirely accurate, but they should be referencing it against the Quran anyway. There's no way of doing anything unQuranic with this method. Again, it's like putting on ?science spectacles? when reading verses about planets. Or putting on ?history spectacles? when reading about the Romans in Quran. We do it unwittingly, but we always understand the Quran by using other types of natural truths. I include the living sunnah or established Islamic practises within these other types of knowledge.
I agree but same again its easier for most to watch a schollar on TV or listen to the imam than it is to reference sunnah with Quran. Most people I know use Quran for recital or 'reading' with eyes alone, mouths alone, no thought, no mind, no heart, no 'what does that really mean' at all, which is sad.And as a rejecter of sunnah you are justified in your position. We're suggesting that the early Muslims had a far more flexible approach to the sunnah and were not interested in ossifying it the way post-Shafi'i scholars did. That flexibility can be re-established today. There are Muslims today who go through the hadith literature and reject those that contradict Qur'an, the spirit of Islam and those that are no longer relevant. You may argue ?well what's the point of hadith then?? but that would be missing the point. These Muslims who embrace that kind of sunnah are far more flexible and are still using the Quran as the ultimate source of truth. Me and you may not find five prayers in the Quran, but ?living sunnis? (followers of a living sunnah) may find some obscure references because they have chosen to use the established tradition as supplementary knowledge. Again, I see no problem with this.
I see no problem in looking at hadith literature and using some and rejecting those that contradict Quran and the spirit of islam, and using others BUT not as a solid 'this IS Islam' as IMHO nothing else is SOLID as Quran is. I have said there are some lovely hadith and very wise ones too which are totally in the spirit of Islam, but those tend to be the rejected ones if you put them forward to a hadith follower laugh
I am just trying to expell the myth that people cannot understand Quran without hadith and that people cannot be muslim without following these, of which the vast majority have never even LOOKED at but follow anyway coz the guy on the tv says this is Islam. Its scary just how this opens doors wide to changing this religion and people stop LOOKING at the book without a veil over the eyes that only allows them to see the words and not THINK about them, not FEEL them. peace
-
Dear Mushu,
I still doubt that Ayisha had even got a clue what you were talking about.
But I could have not explained it better then you due to my constraint in English language.Thanks.
thats odd as you are managing very well with wayfinder and managing to correct my spellings, so i can only assume your post here was solely to have a dig at me
and you have STLL not managed to answer the question I have been asking you for pages now and you have wayfinder back whose answers you also dont like. )
can you ever back anything you claim up raj?
-
I am aware of your silly unrighteous tactic and tricks. That will not work with me. In fact any righteous person will detect your phoniness right way.
A righteous person would have said this is how I do it and that it consistent with Prophet Muhammad?s way for such and such reason. Allah has already exposed you for what you are.
Learn from leaders and righteous person as you are unable to comprehend the Quran correctly.
I have just gone through these 16 pages and I have noticed that you and raj have not answered any questions asked of you but both wayfinder and I have answered all yours. You have picked out of our replies and totally ignored the questions asked and have used that we have said to ask more, in the hope that the ones you are ignoring will be forgotten. you have now resorted to nastiness because i pulled you up on one, which you still have not answered. that is your tactics and tricks which are glaringly obvious for anyone reading through this thread which you started in an attempt to claim the hadith are the wisdom outside Quran but you dont have the guts or committment to say it. A righteous person will stand by thier belief and defend it, you have not showed that and have resorted to nasties. If this is what you have learned from your supposed righteous leaders then they are not righteous and you have not grasped any of it or what righteousness even is.
peace
-
can you ever back anything you claim up raj?
Rajah
Ayisha poses worth less questions.back up
guest
There are worthless questions and good questions. And your questions are not good. It takes an intelligent person to pose a good question.
I still have more back-ups.
Ayisha
I have just gone through these 16 pages and I have noticed that you and raj have not answered any questions asked of you but both wayfinder and I have answered all yours
Hey WAY FINDER you are lucky one, got an "strong" ally.
-
yes I agree the prophet understood and implemented Quran the way a prophet should and if I had been blessed to have been alive in his day I would have followed him round like I was glued to his shib shibs to soak up as much knowledge as I could from him. yes Quran does need humans to use their natural and acquired and combined, I will add, knowledge and thats why I have always read everything I could on Islam, good bad and indifferent, to make an informed choice in what i personally see as how I should follow it. There is, as with anything in following forefathers, an element of 'was that really there' though, if you understand what I mean. We are warned about following what our forefathers followed and not looking ourselves, and this is what I am getting at. What Muhammed did and said that WE need are in Quran. Whether he wiped his socks or took them off is not here or there if you understand me and is just a part of what the MAN did. What I think I mean is that there would have been things he did AS Muhammed the MAN that have nothing to do with the revelation but have found their way into Islam BECAUSE he did them, does that make sense?
The separation between the man and the Prophet would not necessarily have been clear to all the sahaba. The Quran says he was an excellent example and so I don't see the harm in blurring the lines a little i.e. between the man and the Prophet. The problem is when we claim that every minute detail of his life was revelatory and incumbent for us to follow. That's what we're fighting today but that wasn't the attitude of the earlier Muslims. They were far more flexible. As for following their forefathers, in this instance I think they were completely justified. They were following the previous generation not because of misplaced veneration, but because their fathers actually lived with the Prophet or were at least his contemporaries. It would have been arrogant and unwise for the tabi'een to dismiss the hereditary knowledge at their disposal.
yes but the biggest problem is that there are so many who have been brainwashed into recitation only, dont think, dont ask questions. i have been told that asking questions will bring me out of the 'fold of Islam' and reduce my faith! the Book is no longer looked at by so many unless they 'read' it or recite it, they dont STUDY what it means because the 'scholars' did that for them, they don't question and if they do they accept whatever answer they get even if it makes no sense because they are scared that if 'the answer' makes no sense they have lost their deen and Allah has drawn a veil on their hearts. It is from reading hadith that I have come to the conclusion to reject and find my answers from Quran but by the same token I still think there are many WISE hadith, whether they really were from Muhammed or not, but I cannot take them as the huge part of islam that they are taken by the majority because too many are not in any way the same 'religion' as the Quran is.
Which is why I'm not arguing for hadith, per se. Hadith leads to the types of problems you've just mentioned. The claim of Fazlur Rahman is you can know what the sunnah of the Prophet is without hadith, but through observing common, established practises of the Muslims. It's an interesting theory that I'm going to try and look into.
Yes I agree with you but Quran also says the sunnah of Allah and not the sunnah of Muhammed. There were other prophets and messengers including Jesus whose sunnah seems to be one of total peace, nothing wrong in following that one too but the sunnah of the absolute correct way is sunnah of Allah that all those will have followed correctly and never is subject to change. Science is wonderful as it shows us more of the wonders of the signs of Allah that we wouldnt have understood before as deeply as we do now. I have a 60 minute Hubble video which is so amazing you just sit like Subhanallah!
The sunnah of Allah isn't the only sunnah. Muslims today follow the sunnah of the scientific method whenever embarking on new technological feats. Nothing wrong with that. Modern day Muslim economists may follow the sunnah of Keynesian economics or the sunnah of the Austrians. Nothing wrong with that either. Muslims who follow the Quran are following the sunnah of Allah but how they interpret the Quran will depend, amongst other things, on whether they try to use the living sunnah of the Prophet.
Just to re-iterate my point about the impossibility of understanding the Quran in a vacuum ? are you aware of Muslims who try to prove the evolution theory through Quran? I'm sure you are. So here we have Muslims who are using a scientific theory (which by the the admission of its own proponents can never be fully proved because of the huge time needed for significant macro changes to happen) to try and shed light on Quran. Isn't this similar to those Muslims who use the sunnah to understand Quran? In both cases, there are doubts to the truth of their position, yet they both interpret the Quran using their supplementary knowledge/world view. I think this is something to be celebrated and encouraged i.e. pluralism of thoughts and ideas giving Quran maximum potency.
I agree but same again its easier for most to watch a schollar on TV or listen to the imam than it is to reference sunnah with Quran. Most people I know use Quran for recital or 'reading' with eyes alone, mouths alone, no thought, no mind, no heart, no 'what does that really mean' at all, which is sad.
Yes, it's sad. It can only be challenged through education and making the masses aware of the reality.
I see no problem in looking at hadith literature and using some and rejecting those that contradict Quran and the spirit of islam, and using others BUT not as a solid 'this IS Islam' as IMHO nothing else is SOLID as Quran is. I have said there are some lovely hadith and very wise ones too which are totally in the spirit of Islam, but those tend to be the rejected ones if you put them forward to a hadith follower
That's my position also. In the same way, it would be wrong for us to tell Muslims that the sunnah of the Prophet has no place in Islam and has no use. If we can pry the sunnah away from the grips of hadith you would have a far more dynamic sunnah which would be a benefit to many Muslims who wish to have a connection with tradition.
I am just trying to expell the myth that people cannot understand Quran without hadith and that people cannot be muslim without following these, of which the vast majority have never even LOOKED at but follow anyway coz the guy on the tv says this is Islam. Its scary just how this opens doors wide to changing this religion and people stop LOOKING at the book without a veil over the eyes that only allows them to see the words and not THINK about them, not FEEL them.
What's even more scary is that the above used to be me a few months ago. I look back at that time now and cringe at what a bigot I was at times. But alhamdulillah that's all in the past and I think I'm stronger for it. I'm determined to not become a bigot in the other direction either i.e. become a Qur'an only Muslim and deny traditionalist Muslims the opportunity to use the sunnah of the Prophet to elucidate Quran. I just want Muslims to realize as I did that debasing the Quran by making it subservient to the hadith scholars is bad news.
-
Truth vs. falsehood is independent of time.
Allah?s system does not change. Therefore, according to your logic it is an old system. Are you implying that we should lose it because it is old?
It's not about truth vs. falsehood, it's about practical implementations. Those have to change over time, otherwise faith becomes absurd and not applicable.
For example You don't use camels for transportation although the Qur'an tells us to and although we can safely assume the prophet did. So are you changing God's system or saying that it is outdated? Of course not, you are adapting it to your time and circumstances, which makes perfect sense.