Why do you reject hadiths
-
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.
-
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
-
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 / GODRegards,
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 ?
-
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)
-
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.
Wrong. According to Wahabbis/Salafis,the verses are abrogated . Essence of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" is there and even supported by other verses. But their main reasoning about these verses are that when Muslims are minority or weak , they should live peacefully with Non Muslim until Muslims get power and establish Shariah. You do not believe in this , it doesn't mean they are wrong or they are right. This opinion is derived from Quran itself and Hadiths.
465 But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, , judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in submission.
332 Say, "Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.
-
Wrong. According to Wahabbis/Salafis,the verses are abrogated . Essence of "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger" is there and even supported by other verses. But their main reasoning about these verses are that when Muslims are minority or weak , they should live peacefully with Non Muslim until Muslims get power and establish Shariah. You do not believe in this , it doesn't mean they are wrong or they are right. This opinion is derived from Quran itself and Hadiths.
465 But no, by your Lord, they will not believe until they make you, , judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in submission.
332 Say, "Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers.
So let me get your right. You are saying that these verses are only relevant when Muslims are weak and when they establish Sharia these verses are no longer relevant. Why are they longer relevant and why should Shariah diverge from these verses? What you seem to be telling me is that only when Muslims were weak was their freedom because they couldn't do anything. Actually the verses are not indicative of that since the Quran did not say to do so because you are weak but to do because your job is to preach the message only and you were not sent to do more than that. This means its about the job ofd the prophet and not his ability to enforce. Anyways, I will go with you.
So when we do apply shariah in what way are these verses no longer relevant? And what are they to be replaced by?
-
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
Well, you asked for a weak hadith followed by majority. I give you one clearly stated as mursal by its collector.
And it is followed by a lot of Muslims and Muslimah, who believe the limits of female aurat is the whole body except for the face and hands.
Of course I'm not talking about niqab, because the Asma hadith does not say anything about niqab. I read the links but it's irrelevant to the point because we're not talking about niqab (which is not considered obligatory by the majority).
-
Well, you asked for a weak hadith followed by majority. I give you one clearly stated as mursal by its collector.
And it is followed by a lot of Muslims and Muslimah, who believe the limits of female aurat is the whole body except for the face and hands.
Of course I'm not talking about niqab, because the Asma hadith does not say anything about niqab. I read the links but it's irrelevant to the point because we're not talking about niqab (which is not considered obligatory by the majority).
Did you even read my comment ? Ruling of face veil is NOT DERIVED from this Hadith. This hadith is classed as weak and all agree. Ruling on face veil is derived FROM OTHER SOURCES.
-
So let me get your right. You are saying that these verses are only relevant when Muslims are weak and when they establish Sharia these verses are no longer relevant. Why are they longer relevant and why should Shariah diverge from these verses? What you seem to be telling me is that only when Muslims were weak was their freedom because they couldn't do anything. Actually the verses are not indicative of that since the Quran did not say to do so because you are weak but to do because your job is to preach the message only and you were not sent to do more than that. This means its about the job ofd the prophet and not his ability to enforce. Anyways, I will go with you.
So when we do apply shariah in what way are these verses no longer relevant? And what are they to be replaced by?
If you stop cherry picking the verses that suits your desires or sincerely learn your deen if you want to , you will see what I meant.
Salafis/Wahabbis have the following concept, Muslims should strive for Shariah law, once it is established and Islamic state is founded , people of the book will be asked to pay jizyah if they do not accept Islam (verse 929). All non muslims other than people of the book will be given time to leave the Islamic state if they do not accept Islam. (verses 91-5). If these non muslims have any peace treaty with muslims, Muslims will abide by the treaty as long as the period is stated in treaty.
All other school of thought have very similar idea but they say jizyah will be taken from all Non muslims and no one will be asked to leave the state. Because it was documented that Prophet and his companions took jizyah from All non muslims.
Now coming to the verses. No scholar says that "non muslims will be forced to accept Islam". The concept is that when Islamic state is established and Muslims are organized and have power , they will try their best to fight against Non Muslim countries to implement Sharia and non muslims will pay jizyah. No one will be forced to accept Islam.
-
If you stop cherry picking the verses that suits your desires or sincerely learn your deen if you want to , you will see what I meant.
Salafis/Wahabbis have the following concept, Muslims should strive for Shariah law, once it is established and Islamic state is founded , people of the book will be asked to pay jizyah if they do not accept Islam (verse 929). All non muslims other than people of the book will be given time to leave the Islamic state if they do not accept Islam. (verses 91-5). If these non muslims have any peace treaty with muslims, Muslims will abide by the treaty as long as the period is stated in treaty.
All other school of thought have very similar idea but they say jizyah will be taken from all Non muslims and no one will be asked to leave the state. Because it was documented that Prophet and his companions took jizyah from All non muslims.
Now coming to the verses. No scholar says that "non muslims will be forced to accept Islam". The concept is that when Islamic state is established and Muslims are organized and have power , they will try their best to fight against Non Muslim countries to implement Sharia and non muslims will pay jizyah. No one will be forced to accept Islam.
The verses I talked about is not concerning non Muslims only. many of these verses came during times of battle where some Muslims were not happy with the booty decisions. Anyways the issue of Jizya itself is problematic since Jizya appears in the Quran only when the believers were entering Mecca and was never talked about in Medina. Jizya is a compensation for the losses in property and homes that the believers suffered from when they were forced into exile by the Meccans. Jizya was talked about in the Koran on the party that forced the believers into exile and then fought them for their faith. Its a war reperation.
On what basis should non Muslims or otherwise pay any money to a Muslim ruler? The Quran says who is stingy is stingy on himself and who is generous is generous to himself. So how can this be imposed on people. You will never find a verse in the Quran that tells the prophet that he should force people to pay zakat or any money. The story of Abu Bakr going to war for the refusal of paying zakat is a classic case of how issues that contradict the Quran were made Islamic. This was an attempt to try to Islamicise taxation and give the rulers authority to impose laws in matters of faith. Now a ruler can impose Jizya and zakat and create armies to invade other lands and take their soldiers and women as slaves. No doubt this all was very convenient to the dictator but its not Quranic at all.
You
-
Did you even read my comment ? Ruling of face veil is NOT DERIVED from this Hadith. This hadith is classed as weak and all agree. Ruling on face veil is derived FROM OTHER SOURCES.
I know. I wasn't talking about the face veil.
As far as I know, that hadith is used to define the female aurat.
-
Peace rameez.
I read your link, I do not see This Hadith states that the prophet maintained his anti-hadith stand until death.
refuted.How can the messenger do something after he is dead? Whoever wrote his saying after he died,was not a messenger?
How can you say you are following the messenger/obeying the messenger?
Also whatever we quote to you from Qoran, you are going to use " abrogation" to refute it, even though GOD clearly says
6115 The word of your Lord is complete in truth and justice. ( do you need the word of Humans in religion?) Nothing shall abrogate HIS words. HE is the Hearer, the Omniscient.?
He also says He does not run out of words.
I can also see a lot of words, a lot of contradictions, a lot of confusion ( not understanding what GOD says) going on in your argument to justify hearsay. Not a shred of "proof/evidence" that it is from the messenger.
I wonder what you are going to make of the following?
6114 Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law ( and religion!); When HE has revealed to you this book fully detailed? ( No need for the words of men?) Those who received the scripture ( before you) recognise that it has been revealed from your Lord truthfully. (With proof that it is the word of GOD? ) You shall not harbour any doubt.?
6137 Thus were the idol worshippers duped by their idols ( made up rules/ misled by the words of men?) to the extent of killing their children. ( Like stoning for adultery ?) In fact their idols inflict great pain upon them ( invent laws/rules , Write their own books and claim it is from GOD,Mix in traditions, Add/ takeaway?) and confuse their religion for them? Disregard them and their fabrications.?
Peace.
-
The verses I talked about is not concerning non Muslims only. many of these verses came during times of battle where some Muslims were not happy with the booty decisions. Anyways the issue of Jizya itself is problematic since Jizya appears in the Quran only when the believers were entering Mecca and was never talked about in Medina. Jizya is a compensation for the losses in property and homes that the believers suffered from when they were forced into exile by the Meccans. Jizya was talked about in the Koran on the party that forced the believers into exile and then fought them for their faith. Its a war reperation.
On what basis should non Muslims or otherwise pay any money to a Muslim ruler? The Quran says who is stingy is stingy on himself and who is generous is generous to himself. So how can this be imposed on people. You will never find a verse in the Quran that tells the prophet that he should force people to pay zakat or any money. The story of Abu Bakr going to war for the refusal of paying zakat is a classic case of how issues that contradict the Quran were made Islamic. This was an attempt to try to Islamicise taxation and give the rulers authority to impose laws in matters of faith. Now a ruler can impose Jizya and zakat and create armies to invade other lands and take their soldiers and women as slaves. No doubt this all was very convenient to the dictator but its not Quranic at all.
You
Keep making up interpretations and be happy. All people of knowledge from 7th Century (who directly learned Islam from Muhammad) till 21st century are in error.
Everything is Quranic unless you stop making your wrong interpretation based on confusing statements.
Jizyah is another topic so this is not suitable to discuss in this thread. If i have time i will start as a separate thread or if you want you can start it as a separate thread.
-
rameez
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
How are the verses clearly referring to the person on whom quran was revealed? Messenger is not limited to muhammad.
Secondly I still dont see any bases that why 'messenger' shall apply something outside the quran when quran itself says, that it is the only religious source you are allowed to base your belief on. -
Keep making up interpretations and be happy. All people of knowledge from 7th Century (who directly learned Islam from Muhammad) till 21st century are in error.
Everything is Quranic unless you stop making your wrong interpretation based on confusing statements.
Jizyah is another topic so this is not suitable to discuss in this thread. If i have time i will start as a separate thread or if you want you can start it as a separate thread.
You did not answer my question. How is Muslims being majority and applying shariah law going to change the verses we were talking about? What is it going to be replaced by?
As far as your argument of Muslims being in error. The Sunnah emerged two centuries after Muhammad anyways. Plus this is the same argument Christians give. All those Christians are wrong they ask. The question is whether anything is considtent with the Quran.
Jizya if you read the Quran was imposed on the meccans upon the entering of the believers after their ineveitable defeat. many believers lost their homes and busineses and their livelihood when they were forced into exile. This is not a conquest or simply people of other faiths, just like the Quran allowed defnsive war the Quran allowed compensation for losses due to persecution. Later Muslim authorities applied that any non Muslim who live under Islamic rule. They also abrogated defensive war for offensive war with the hadith of "i was ordered to fight the people till they say la ilaha illa Allah" we find in Bukhari.
They later abrogated the freedom verses for "whoever changes his religion than kill him" hadith. Also in Bukhari's collection. They also violated the eye for an eye soul for a soul law of the Quran (proportionality justice). Often in Sunni Islam the punishment can exceed the crime in the name of deterence. The Quran does not recognize deterence but only recognizes proportional justice. Like a scale, the left side should be equal to the right side (the meezan). The punishment should always fit the crime. Amputation of a thief is a good example of how the hand for a hand law was violated. Here the punishment never can fit the crime. They also changed the criteria for faith in the Quran from the believe in God and the hereafter to the 5 pillars of Islam thereby introducing a concept of faith not backed by an explicit verse of the Quran and paving the way of labelling Jews and Christians who believe in God as infidels. They also introduced the obeying the tyrant concept whereby Muslims are ordered to obey the tyranic Muslim ruler and this opened the door for an opressive governments where no opposition can take place. We also have not gone yet to prisoners of war where the Quran allwoed two options, either freedom or ransom of some sort. Through hadiths they introduced two more, enslavement of female prisoners where sex with them is allowed and execution. Once again the tyranical ruler makes those decision. So now we have a Pharoah like government where the ruler has live and death authority. The Quran which considered eeding of prisoners as a charity act and ordered us to free the slaves whenever we can has now become a scripture attached with a religion that allows slavery for prisoners and even executing them. This is not the deen of Moses, but the deen of Pharoah.
-
This is my last reply on this topic . Nice discussion with you all and I respect your understanding and beliefs , but I do not agree with you and I do not have any hatred for you , everyone has its own reasons to believe or accept something or reject it. This is a long reply because in last I will give certain verses which I think are showing that there was something other than Quran given to Messenger (Muhammad).
Peace rameez.
I read your link, I do not see This Hadith states that the prophet maintained his anti-hadith stand until death.
refuted.How can the messenger do something after he is dead? Whoever wrote his saying after he died,was not a messenger?
How can you say you are following the messenger/obeying the messenger?
Well , "stand until death" is not there in the hadith and the link has not mentioned that. And other hadiths clarifies that Prophet gave permission to write down ahadeeths. Every narration has a background .
From the link
Bukhari Volume 001, Book 003, Hadith Number 111.
Narated By Ash-Sha'bi Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked Ali, 'Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the Qur'an)?' 'Ali replied, 'No, except Allah's Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).' Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked, 'What is (written) in this sheet of paper?' Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya (compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever). (See also Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 004, Book 053, Hadith Number 397, Volume 009, Book 083, Hadith Numbers 040 & 50
Bukhari Volume 008, Book 076, Hadith Number 480.
Narated By Warrad (The clerk of Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba) Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira "Write to me a narration you have heard from Allah's Apostle." So Al-Mughira wrote to him, "I heard him saying the following after each prayer 'La ilaha illal-lahu wahdahu la sharika lahu, lahu-l-mulk wa lahuI-hamd, wa huwa 'ala kulli Shai-in qadir.' He also used to forbid idle talk, asking too many questions (in religion), wasting money, preventing what should be given, and asking others for something (except in great need), being undutiful to mothers, and burying one's little daughters (alive)."
"The underlined phrase of the had?th clarifies that prohibition for writing had?th was not on account of negating its authority. The actual reason was that in the beginning of the revelation of the Holy Qur'?n, the companions of the Holy Prophet were not fully familiar with the Qur'?nic style, nor was the Holy Qur'?n compiled in a separate book form. In those days some companions began to write the ah?d?th along with the Qur'?nic text. Some explanations of the Holy Qur'?n given by the Holy Prophet were written by some of them mixed with the Qur'?nic verses without any distinction between the two. It was therefore feared that it would lead to confuse the Qur'?nic text with the ah?d?th."
At this stage, the Holy Prophet himself directed his companions to write down the ah?d?th. Some of his instructions in this respect are quoted below
-
One companion from the Ans?r complained to the Holy Prophet that he hears from him some ah?d?th, but he sometimes forgets them. The Holy Prophet said
"Seek help from your right hand," and pointed out to a writing. -
R?fi' ibn Khadij, the famous companion of the Holy Prophet says, "I said to the Holy Prophet we hear from you many things, should we write them down?" He repliedYou may write. There is no harm.
-
Sayyiduna Anas reports that the Holy Prophet has said
Preserve knowledge by writing. -
Sayyiduna Abu R?fi' sought permission from the Holy Prophet to write ah?d?th. The Holy Prophet () permitted him to do so.
It is reported that the ah?d?th written by Abu R?fi' were copied by other companions too. Salma, a pupil of Ibn 'Abb?s says
I saw some small wooden boards with 'Abdull?h Ibn 'Abb?s. He was writing on them some reports of the acts of the Holy Prophet which he acquired from Abu R?fi'.Also whatever we quote to you from Qoran, you are going to use " abrogation" to refute it, even though GOD clearly says
6115 The word of your Lord is complete in truth and justice. ( do you need the word of Humans in religion?) Nothing shall abrogate HIS words. HE is the Hearer, the Omniscient.?
But in another place it is clearly mentioned that we Abrogate a verse and bring another better than it.
It is so clear that "except Allah" no one can abrogates His statements. If hadiths abrogates anything the hadiths are sayings of Prophet and Prophet got them from Allah. Prophet didn't say anything about religion from his own will , he just said what Allah revealed to Him.
I can also see a lot of words, a lot of contradictions, a lot of confusion ( not understanding what GOD says) going on in your argument to justify hearsay. Not a shred of "proof/evidence" that it is from the messenger.
You are most welcome to point that out.
I wonder what you are going to make of the following?
6114 Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law ( and religion!); When HE has revealed to you this book fully detailed? ( No need for the words of men?) Those who received the scripture ( before you) recognise that it has been revealed from your Lord truthfully. (With proof that it is the word of GOD? ) You shall not harbour any doubt.?
6137 Thus were the idol worshippers duped by their idols ( made up rules/ misled by the words of men?) to the extent of killing their children. ( Like stoning for adultery ?) In fact their idols inflict great pain upon them ( invent laws/rules , Write their own books and claim it is from GOD,Mix in traditions, Add/ takeaway?) and confuse their religion for them? Disregard them and their fabrications.?
Peace.
Following are some examples which shows that there was something other than Quran that was given to Messenger.
And We did not appoint the Qiblah on which you were earlier, but that We might know the people who follow the Messenger as distinct from those who turn back on their heels. (2143) So turn your face towards al-Masjid al-Haraam. (2144)
Please explain which is the earlier Qiblah ? And how were the people who follow the Messenger were facing that Qiblah if is not mentioned in Quran ?
It is made lawful for you, in the nights of fasts, to have sex with your women. They are a cover for you, and you are a cover for them. All?h knew that you were betraying yourselves; so, He relented towards you and pardoned you. So, now you can have sexual intimacy with them, and seek what All?h has destined for you, and eat and drink until the white thread of the dawn becomes distinct from the black thread; then complete the fasts up to the night. (2187)
The following points with respect to this verse are worth consideration
(a) The verse confirms that having sex during the nights of Ramadaan was not lawful before.
(b) The people who had sex during the nights of Ramadaan before this verse was revealed are admonished by describing their act as "betraying themselves."
(c) The words, "so He relented towards you and pardoned you," indicate that their sexual act was a sin, because "relenting" and "pardoning" occur only after a person commits a sin.
(d) The words "so now you can have sexual intimacy with them" denote that it is only now that the sexual act during the nights of Ramadaan has been made lawful.All these points confirm the fact that the earlier prohibition of having sexual intercourse during the nights of Ramadaan was validly made by a competent authority, and the Muslims were bound to abide by it.
But there is no verse in the Holy Qur'?n to convey this prohibition.. It was enforced only by the Holy Prophet. Still, the Holy Qur'?n not only confirms it, but also treats it as if it were in its own words. It is due to the fact that the Holy Prophet did not enforce this prohibition by his own will, it was rather based on a revelation of All?h Almighty which is not contained in the Holy Qur'?n.And when All?h promised you that one of the two groups shall be for you. (87)
The point worth consideration here is that the promise of All?h to give the Muslims victory against any of the two groups is not there in the Holy Qur'?n.
And when the Prophet told one of his wives about a matter secretly; then, when she told about it, and All?h has disclosed it to him, he made known some part of it, and turned aside from some part; then, when he told her about it, she said, "Who told you this?" He said, "I was told by the All-Knowing, the All-Aware." (66 3)
How Allah disclosed this to Prophet ? because it is not mentioned in Quran anywhere.
Whatever date-trees you cut down, or left standing upon their roots, that was by the leave of All?h. (595)
It has been very directly mentioned in this verse that the Muslims cut down the trees with a leave from All?h. But nobody can point out to any verse in the Holy Qur'?n to the effect that the cutting of trees during the war is allowed. The question is from where did the Muslims acquire this leave from All?h?
Take due care of all the prayers and the middle prayer; and stand before All?h in total devotion. But if you are in fear, then (pray) on foot or riding, but when you are in peace, then recite the name of All?h in the way He taught you. (2238-239)
Now, the Holy Qur'?n directs the Muslims that in the state of peace they should perform the prayer in its normal way which has been taught to them by All?h. It is an express indication that the normal way of performing prayers has been taught to the Muslims by All?h Himself. But no such way has ever been mentioned in the Holy Qur'?n. There is no verse in the Holy Book mentioning the detailed way of performing prayer. It is only the Holy Prophet who educated the Muslims as to how they are to perform it. But the Holy Qur'?n holds the teaching of the Holy Prophet to be the teaching of All?h.
Those remaining behind will say, when you set forth after spoils to acquire them, "Let us follow you,"- desiring to change the words of All?h. Say, "You shall not follow us; so All?h has said earlier." (4815)
The emphasized words indicate that there was a previous word of All?h barring the participation of the hypocrites in the battle of Khaybar, and confining the battle to the participants of Hudaibiyah. But no such word exists anywhere in the Holy Qur'?n.
Move not your tongue with it in order to hasten it. It is on Us to gather it (in your heart) and to recite it. So, when We read it, follow its reading. Then it is on Us to explain it. (7516-19)
In the last sentence, All?h Almighty has promised the Holy Prophet to explain the verses of the Holy Qur'?n to him. It is evident that this explanation is something separate from the Holy Qur'?n itself. It is not the Holy Qur'?n. It is its explanation or its exegesis. Because first the verses are given then explanation , but Quran only contains verses not explanation , where is the explanation that Allah promised to explain after "reading" ?
And All?h has revealed upon you the Book and the wisdom, and has taught you what you did not know and the grace of All?h upon you has been great. (4113)
In this verse the revelation of the Wisdom has been mentioned as separate from the revelation of the Book. It indicates that the wisdom referred to here is something additional to the Holy Qur'?n, and it has also been revealed to the Holy Prophet by All?h Almighty
And it is not possible for a human being that All?h should speak to him, except by way of revelation or from behind a curtain, or that He should send a messenger and he reveals by His leave what He wills. (4251)
Now, out of these three modes, the revelation of the Holy Qur'?n was carried out through the third one, namely, through an angel who is identified in the verse by the word, "messenger." It is clearly settled by some other verses
Say Whoever be an enemy to Jibreel (Gabriel, the angel)! it is he who has brought it (the Qur'?n) down upon your heart by the permission of All?h. (297)
And truly it (the Qur'?n) is the revelation of the Lord of the worlds, brought down by the Faithful Spirit upon your heart, that you may be one of the warners, in a clear Arabic tongue. (26192-195)These verses are quite explicit on the point that the Holy Qur'?n has been revealed through an angel, named in the first verse as Jibreel, and in the second one as the Faithful Spirit; but the verse (4251) quoted above describes that there are two more ways of revelation. These two modes have also been used in the case of the Holy Prophet. It means that the revelation sent down to the Holy Prophet was not confined to the Holy Qur'?n, but there were other revelations, too. These revelations are termed as "unrecited revelation."
-
-
This is my last reply on this topic . Nice discussion with you all and I respect your understanding and beliefs , but I do not agree with you and I do not have any hatred for you , everyone has its own reasons to believe or accept something or reject it. This is a long reply because in last I will give certain verses which I think are showing that there was something other than Quran given to Messenger (Muhammad).
Peace -- before you run; post only one hadith other than Qur'an you are certain is true and stake your soul.
We want to be witnesses on the last day when you are questioned.
-
You did not answer my question. How is Muslims being majority and applying shariah law going to change the verses we were talking about? What is it going to be replaced by?
No verse will be changed unless it is confirmed that it is abrogated . I don't know what verses I said that they will be changed.
As far as your argument of Muslims being in error. The Sunnah emerged two centuries after Muhammad anyways. Plus this is the same argument Christians give. All those Christians are wrong they ask. The question is whether anything is considtent with the Quran.
Sunnah emerged two centuries after Muhammad ? That shows your sheer ignorance. Sunnah was there from the time of Muhammad, it was only recorded and compiled in books after 2 centuries, Companions of Muhammad and their generation were strictly following sunnah and it was passed verbally usually . It was compiled in books after 2 centuries but it was present from the time of Muhammad and after him.
So you are saying that Allah revealed his last and final deen and for 2 hundred years it was followed but after that some massive corruption occured that people forgot the real Quran and for more than 1000 years they followed wrong religion , but now 100 years back someone got the correct interpretation ?
Jizya if you read the Quran was imposed on the meccans upon the entering of the believers after their ineveitable defeat. many believers lost their homes and busineses and their livelihood when they were forced into exile. This is not a conquest or simply people of other faiths, just like the Quran allowed defnsive war the Quran allowed compensation for losses due to persecution. Later Muslim authorities applied that any non Muslim who live under Islamic rule. They also abrogated defensive war for offensive war with the hadith of "i was ordered to fight the people till they say la ilaha illa Allah" we find in Bukhari.
Yes , as i said keep making up interpretations , they were not entering , it was ordered for polytheists not to let them come near Masjid Al-Haram as they used to live at near by places and considered that place to be sacred. 929 mentioned People of the book not the polytheists. I don't know how you got that interpretation.
929 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
No where the verse talk about compensation etc.
They later abrogated the freedom verses for "whoever changes his religion than kill him" hadith. Also in Bukhari's collection.
They also violated the eye for an eye soul for a soul law of the Quran (proportionality justice). Often in Sunni Islam the punishment can exceed the crime in the name of deterence. The Quran does not recognize deterence but only recognizes proportional justice. Like a scale, the left side should be equal to the right side (the meezan). The punishment should always fit the crime. Amputation of a thief is a good example of how the hand for a hand law was violated. Here the punishment never can fit the crime. They also changed the criteria for faith in the Quran from the believe in God and the hereafter to the 5 pillars of Islam thereby introducing a concept of faith not backed by an explicit verse of the Quran and paving the way of labelling Jews and Christians who believe in God as infidels. They also introduced the obeying the tyrant concept whereby Muslims are ordered to obey the tyranic Muslim ruler and this opened the door for an opressive governments where no opposition can take place. We also have not gone yet to prisoners of war where the Quran allwoed two options, either freedom or ransom of some sort. Through hadiths they introduced two more, enslavement of female prisoners where sex with them is allowed and execution. Once again the tyranical ruler makes those decision. So now we have a Pharoah like government where the ruler has live and death authority. The Quran which considered eeding of prisoners as a charity act and ordered us to free the slaves whenever we can has now become a scripture attached with a religion that allows slavery for prisoners and even executing them. This is not the deen of Moses, but the deen of Pharoah.
Amputation of theif is not in Quran ? Eye for an eye is not in Quran ? Jews and Christians are not infidels ? I know you will quote 262 and 569 and as usual you will ignore all the verses that makes it an article of faith to believe in all books,messengers etc.
Okey so lets say we do not take women and children as captives instead free them . Then you have to explain "right hand possess" in 236,7030,424,3350 etc. It seems that I can take a woman and purchase her and she become my property (right hand possession) , is that ok ?
Oh, Deen of Moses ? Do you know what the deen of Moses was ? Quran says that people of Moses were ordered to kill each other when they worshipped calf . I think if any Muslim change his religion and take calf to worship , then his punishment is to get killed according to deen of Moses.
-
offtopic
Peace -- before you run; post only one hadith other than Qur'an you are certain is true and stake your soul.
We want to be witnesses on the last day when you are questioned.
I am not running, I just wanted to end the discussion ,I am here on this forum , okey will keep replying as you want to drag the conversation ,its your choice.
Can you quote a verse that you are sure is from God and true ?