Why do you reject hadiths

Andya_Primanda

sun
If any consensus is there on the awra based on this Hadith alone, kindly give me the reference.

Well, I don't know how to answer this because from my own experience with the majority of traditionalist Muslims around me (Sunni using Syafi'i fiqh and some other minor variations) it is only that Asma' hadith which is used to define the female aurat. I don't know whether there are other hadith regarding the same matter. And I am not familiar with the situation in other countries or sects.

However, usually when people are taught about the female aurat, the teachers just say the limits are the whole body except for the face and hands, no mention of why it is so. It's common in religious teaching here (and maybe anywhere) to "cut the explanation" and urge laypeople to just obey. It is a practice I don't approve; we should know the reason and basis for everything we are told to believe.

hawk99

Peace,

here's a repost from me earlier, maybe shorter is better!

one tool the devil uses are mistranslations of the Quran.
another way is to invent other sources of authority that add or subtract from
from what (Quran) God says. Remember what happened to the previous scriptures

Do you expect them to believe as you do, when some of them used to hear the word of GOD, then distort it, with full understanding thereof, and deliberately?

To protect yourself from shaytayn (who has many faces and schemes) it would be wise to trust none other than God.
Remember judgement day is coming! play it safe.

Peace

Noon_waalqalami

Now let me ask you to quote a verse and PROVE THAT IT WAS REVEALED TO MESSENGER VIA GIBREEL AND IN TURN WAS REVEALED BY ALLAH.

Proof between His hands (i.e. directly from The God) transmission Gabriel to messenger.

31
32 The God no deity only He The Living The Sustainer of all
33 descended to you the book in the truth confirming to what between His hands and descended the Taurat and The Injeel

12111 truly is in their stories a lesson for those the understanding not is narratives/hadith invented and nonetheless confirmation the one that between His hands and detailed explaination each a thing and guidance and mercy for people they believe

297 say who is an enemy to Gabriel so indeed he descended it over your heart by permission The God confirming to what between His hands and guidance and glad tidings to the believers

Now ask forgiveness and apologize to us and tell the idiots who made this question up never to ask it again.

good_logic

Peace rameez.

Finally, let us apply your argument about the messenger to all GOD s messengers that GOD must have communicated with them and some of that communication is not in Qoran, therefore we must also follow that communication/sayings

-Would you agree that GOD sent other messengers as well as Muhammed?

Would you agree that god commanded that we make no distinction between His messengers.
Would you agree that GOD communicated with all of them.

-Would you agree that there were messengers not mentioned in Qoran.
( " Some We told you about and some We did not&quot

Are you saying we must follow all these sayings also. Even the ones GOD has not mentioned. How are we to do that?
We do not even know who they are?
Because if you do not, according to your argument we should follow the sayings of one of them if it is not in Qoran, we will be making a distinction.

GOD asks us to trust in Him Alone. Therefore everything required for our salvation is in Qoran.

Those who follow other books are undermining GOD s authority and trusting others. GOD calls it " idol worship"

GOD has provided every example for us in Qoran " Whatever argument they come up with, We bring you the truth and a better understanding."

Peace.

rameez

Proof between His hands (i.e. directly from The God) transmission Gabriel to messenger.

31
32 The God no deity only He The Living The Sustainer of all
33 descended to you the book in the truth confirming to what between His hands and descended the Taurat and The Injeel

12111 truly is in their stories a lesson for those the understanding not is narratives/hadith invented and nonetheless confirmation the one that between His hands and detailed explaination each a thing and guidance and mercy for people they believe

297 say who is an enemy to Gabriel so indeed he descended it over your heart by permission The God confirming to what between His hands and guidance and glad tidings to the believers

Now ask forgiveness and apologize to us and tell the idiots who made this question up never to ask it again.

Lol.You are proving Quran from Quran itself. Please prove that these verses were given to Jibraeel and he conveyed to Messenger.

rameez

Peace rameez.
1-Quote Haha, its so funny how you are ignoring my question. People were facing some qiblah before revelation of new qiblah. Who told them about that Qiblah ? If only Quran was revealed to Messenger then it means Earlier Qiblah must be mentioned in Quran. Else how people were facing the Qiblah when it is not mentioned in Quran ?

The verse is using the past tense. Why would the Qoran need to mention it? It does not matter who told them before. It is in the past therefore no need to mention it in Qoran.
All personal communication with a messenger that is not in Qoran is not relevant
" We did not leave anything out of this book". The Qoran is fully detailed.

You are right here contradicting yourself. WE did not leave anything out of this book. But earlier is missing in the book and it is proven that People were facing that Qiblah so it must be in Quran else they were following a conjecture.

2- It says they used to commit sexual intercourse in ramadan but they knew it was prohibited . Who made it prohibited ? How they were following Deen/religion of abraham when they were worshipping multiple gods ? Why Allah said that your sins are forgiven ? It simply means that they were doing it after accepting Messenger of Quran.

Yes, but before the verse was revealed. Remember the Qoran was revealed in stages, They were still under the old rule which some were breaking.

Which old rule ? rule of Polytheism ?

3-Quote I am asking where are those words that "Allah said earlier" ? You guys say that only Quran was revealed to Messenger , so it means these words of Allah which he said earlier must be in Quran . Else you have to agree that there was another type of revelation to Messenger other than Quran.

Qoran is fully detailed. Whatever was said to the messenger is personal and irrelevant to everybody else.( Along with whatever was fabricated to have been said to the messenger).
Tomorrow on the day of judgement the messenger will say" My Lord my people have abandoned the Qoran" not his sayings or anything else.

Said to the messenger ? You said Allah revealed only Quran to Messenger but here you are agreeing that there were other messages given to Messenger.

4-Quote "When WE read it, follow its reading. Then it is on Us to explain it" . The verse clearly saying that after reading we will explain. But as usual being a Quranist , you are expert in ignoring and twisting.
Who is "WE"? It is god and the invisible soldiers of GOD ( Angels).
" We sent down the -dhikr and We will protect it." It is the same We GOD and His Angels .

I am not asking the definition of WE. Bringing another verse instead of answering question is what you are doing .My question is WHERE IS THE EXPLANATION that is promised in the verse after reading of words ?

5- 595 Whatever you have cut down of palm trees or left standing on their trunks - it was by permission of Allah and so He would disgrace the defiantly disobedient.

Can you find any statement in Quran which tell them the leave to "cut down" trees ?
Same as " You did not throw when you threw, it was GOD who threw". It means GOD is in control of everything.
GOD is saying it was " his will" meaning HE knew exactly what they were going to cut down or leave standing.
Peace.

You are again ignoring the question. Who told those believers that Allah has given leave to cut down the trees ? Because the verse says "You cut down the trees and left some" . I cannot find any such leave given in Quran so there was some other source from which they god this leave.

rameez

Peace rameez.

Finally, let us apply your argument about the messenger to all GOD s messengers that GOD must have communicated with them and some of that communication is not in Qoran, therefore we must also follow that communication/sayings

I am not required to follow all Messengers except Muhammad. All Messengers other than Muhammad(SAW) were for the people of their time. Quran says People of Moses were given punishment to kill each other. It doesn't mean I have to follow this verse, it is just for guiding me that how grave the sin of shirk is.

Allah do not say follow All messengers. It says "Obey Allah and Obey the Messenger".

-Would you agree that GOD sent other messengers as well as Muhammed?

Yes obviously . But they were for limited time and period.

Would you agree that god commanded that we make no distinction between His messengers.

No distinction simply means we BELIEVE IN ALL MESSENGERS that were before Muhammad and last and final prophet+messenger Muhammad.

Would you agree that GOD communicated with all of them.

Yes

-Would you agree that there were messengers not mentioned in Qoran.
( " Some We told you about and some We did not&quot

Yes

Are you saying we must follow all these sayings also. Even the ones GOD has not mentioned. How are we to do that?
We do not even know who they are?
Because if you do not, according to your argument we should follow the sayings of one of them if it is not in Qoran, we will be making a distinction.

No it is not distinction. Allah sent Messengers to be obeyed . Every Messenger sent was obeyed. Now last and final Messenger is sent so He mus be obeyed. Basic message of all Messengers were same , but many rules are different for different Messengers. Quran asks me to obey THE MESSENGER. So I have to obey only Muhammad(SAW).

GOD asks us to trust in Him Alone. Therefore everything required for our salvation is in Qoran.

How do you get from trust in Him Alone to everything for salvation in Quran ?

Those who follow other books are undermining GOD s authority and trusting others. GOD calls it " idol worship"

GOD has provided every example for us in Qoran " Whatever argument they come up with, We bring you the truth and a better understanding."

Peace.

Please explain.

Bigmo

Lol.You are proving Quran from Quran itself. Please prove that these verses were given to Jibraeel and he conveyed to Messenger.

I don't know what is your goal here. Anyways Quran is about faith and not proof. Can you prove that God exist to an atheist? I am not sure what your are trying to achieve. As long as you believe in abrogation it won't work. No Quranist is going to accept abrogation.

Quranist are either one of those parties

They only accept the Quran as a religious source.
They accept the Quran and previous scriptures.
They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals but not hadiths.
They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals and hadiths that does not contradict the Quran.
Not necessarily among any but switch according to specific issues. Most Quranist tend to be in this category, at least the ones here are.

None believe in abrogation. None believe in accepting what contradicts an explicit verse from the Quran.

Now there should be another criteria but this is still a work in progress and that is nothing should be made binding that is not supported by an explicit verse from the Quran. Some Quranist still have a problem with this. This usually are the ones who still follow the Islamic rituals and hadiths that do not contradict the Quran. They still do not want to acknowledge Quranist who don't want to follow the Islamic rituals since they are not stated as such in the Quran. They want to make those rituals binding as they are (like the 5 salat). Without an explicit verse from the Quran they will not able to since many Quranist will demand that evidence from the Quran.

If you believe in abrogation and believe that the sunnah can add legislation that is binding, than you will not get far with any Quranist. Even with the ones who accept hadiths since those ones still will not accept what contradicts the Quran. This is what seperates a Quranist from a Sunni/Shia follower. Abrogation and binding authority.

Now lets look at how Sunni Islam understands things

Authority of the Sunnah

The Sunnah can be divided into three parts

Confirming Sunnah. This is the part of the Sunnah that confirms what is in the Qur'an, and reinforces it.

Explanatory Sunnah. This part of the Sunnah explains the holy Qur'an and the various Shariah injunctions that come in the holy Qur'an. It includes four parts expanding on what is mentioned only briefly in the holy Qur'an, explaining difficult verses or issues, putting limits on general statements in the Qur'an and finally specifying generalities in the Qur'an.

Sunnah that brings new legislation. This part of the Sunnah is the one that brings new legislation, and new Shariah that is not in the holy Qur'an

http//www.al-islami.com/islam/authority_of_sunnah.php

So a genral statements like this

Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'r?f and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaq?n .(3113-115)

And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, God is Swift in account. '(3199)'

Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve 2.62

Have been made specific meaning this is concerning the earlier Jews and Christians before Islam etc or something like that. They then will quote the verses about the kufar among them and ignore the verses about the believers among them.

Or a specific statement made general. Jizya is a good example where somthing specif about the Meccans who were fighting the prophet and their duty to pay compensation for their persecutions against the believers and their exiling of them became a general concept concerning all non Muslims living in an Islamic state.

Adding legislation of course means many things like 5 salat, like eating with the right hand, circumcision, slavery of prisoners etc and making that binding on Muslims or accepted pats of Shariah law.

Our Sunni friend here avoided one more thing, abrogation. This is usually a sensitive subject for clerics. Apostasy law is a very good example of abrogation also offensive war where all the freedom verses are abrogated and the defensive war verses were abrogated. But our Sunni freind did not actually say the Sunnah can abrogate the Quran. Many clerics will deny that but the realty is that is what they are doing.

rameez

I don't know what is your goal here. Anyways Quran is about faith and not proof. Can you prove that God exist to an atheist? I am not sure what your are trying to achieve. As long as you believe in abrogation it won't work. No Quranist is going to accept abrogation.

He asked me to prove Hadith that it was said by Muhammad, I asked him to prove that the verses of Quran were revealed by Allah , given to Messenger by Jibraeel. Simple

Quranist are either one of those parties

They only accept the Quran as a religious source.
They accept the Quran and previous scriptures.
They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals but not hadiths.
They accept the Quran and Islamic rituals and hadiths that does not contradict the Quran.
Not necessarily among any but switch according to specific issues. Most Quranist tend to be in this category, at least the ones here are.

Now suddenly many things have changed.

Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?

None believe in abrogation. None believe in accepting what contradicts an explicit verse from the Quran.

Abrogation is right there in Quran , you want to remain blind that is your choice. So you mean "cherrypicking".

Now there should be another criteria but this is still a work in progress and that is nothing should be made binding that is not supported by an explicit verse from the Quran. Some Quranist still have a problem with this

Lol. Book that explains itself and has everything is unable to explain to Quranist for more than 1400 years ago. MashAllah .

Sunnah that brings new legislation. This part of the Sunnah is the one that brings new legislation, and new Shariah that is not in the holy Qur'an

In my questions asked before I have asked a question that "Where is the leave in Quran that allowed believers to cut down trees" ? If it is not in Quran why they followed some new legislation ?

Bigmo

He asked me to prove Hadith that it was said by Muhammad, I asked him to prove that the verses of Quran were revealed by Allah , given to Messenger by Jibraeel. Simple

Quranist are either one of those parties

Now suddenly many things have changed.

Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?

Abrogation is right there in Quran , you want to remain blind that is your choice. So you mean "cherrypicking".

Lol. Book that explains itself and has everything is unable to explain to Quranist for more than 1400 years ago. MashAllah .

In my questions asked before I have asked a question that "Where is the leave in Quran that allowed believers to cut down trees" ? If it is not in Quran why they followed some new legislation ?

"Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?"

I am not sure whther you don't understand or you don't want to understand. There is also a sarcastic tone to this. I see myself as someone who is here to learn. You obviously have prior convinctions you are trying desperately to prove to us its validity. The problem for you is you do not have explicit verses from the Quran to back you.

There is nothing wrong with following rituals of any sort so long as they do not contradict the Quran or goes aginst its commands. Many hadiths do not contradict the Quran but many do. So its a question of covenience for a Quranist. In the end all those three scriptures OT, NT and Quran are self sufficient for salvation but when it comes to practice its about convenience and preference. They are one deen.

Because you believe in abrogation you will not meet eye to eye with any Quranist, even those who accept many hadiths. There is no way around it. No Quranist will accept anyhing that contradict the Quran. They won't be Quranist if they did. This is something that is impossible and I have never seen. I have sen some Quranist who made things binding not in the Quran, but I have yet to meet a single one who believes in something that contradicts an explicit verse in it. Than he will be a Sunni or Shia and not a Quranist. That is why I asked you that question because no matter how many verses we will present to you it won't matter because you can always say those verses were abrogated.

You will run around in circles and get nowhere. That is why abrogation is s ucn a sensitive issues for Sunni clerics because they know that will mean the Quran has been violated. They won't even admit that to themselves, but this is what they ended up doing.

Between sources

Abrogation is applicable to both sources of Islamic law the Qur'n and the Prophetic Sunna. A Qur'nic verse may abrogate another Qur'nic verse, and a Prophetic Sunna may likewise abrogate another Prophetic Sunna. The possibility of abrogation between these two sources, though, was a more contentious issue precipitated by the absence within a source of the appropriate abrogating (nsikh) or abrogated (manskh) material necessary to bring concordance between it and the Fiqh.

In Shfi''s source theory the possibility of abrogation between the Sunna and the Qur'n was vehemently denied

Arguing determinedly that any verbal discrepancies between the Qur'n and the reported sayings or reports of the practices of Muhammed- the Sunna of the Prophet- were merely illusory and could always be removed on the basis of a satisfactory understanding of the mechanism of revelation and the function of the prophet-figure, Shfi' set his face decidedly against any acceptance of the idea then current that in all such cases the Qur'n had abrogated the Sunna, or the Sunna the Qur'n.

This stance was a reaction to larger developments within Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the reformulation of the Fiqh away from early foreign or regional influences and toward more eminently Islamic bases such as the Qur'n. This assertion of Qur'nic primacy was accompanied by calls for an abandonment of the Sunna. Shfi''s insistence upon the impossibility of contradiction between Sunna and Qur'n can thus be seen as one component in this larger effort of rescuing the Sunna

He campaigned tirelessly to justify use of the Sunna as the second primary source alongside the Kur'n against those who would accord the hadth no role in the derivation of the shar'a on the argument that the degree of conflict in the hadth, the inadequacies of the guarantee against corruption, fraud or error afforded by the isnds rendered the hadth unfit for the sacred role of declaring the divine intent underlying the Kur'n's declarations.

Asked point-blank whether the Sunna could ever be abrogated by the Qur'n, Shfi' had bluntly replied that that could never happen. Were the Sunna to be abrogated by the Qur'n, the Prophet would immediately introduce a second sunna to indicate that his first sunna had been abrogated by his second sunna- in order to demonstrate that a thing can be abrogated only by its like (mithlihi) .

Later scholars, writing when the juridicial legitimacy of the Sunna could be taken for granted (thanks largely to Shfi''s efforts!), were less inclined to adopt his inflexible stance. To their minds the reality of this sort of inter-source abrogation was proven by several "indisputable" instances the changing of the qibla towards Mecca and away from Jerusalem, and the introduction of the penalty of stoning for adultery. The following passage from Qurtub (al-Jmi' li ahkm al-Qur'n) is representative in this regard

...the Qur'n may be naskhed by the Qur'n and the Sunna by the Sunna. The Qur'n may, in addition, be naskhed by the Sunna, as has occurred in the case of Q.2180, which was replaced by the Sunna ruling no wasiya in favor of an heir. Mlik admitted this principle, but Shfi' denied it, although the fuqah all admit, in the instance of the penalty for adultery, that the flogging element of Q.242 has been allowed to lapse in the case of those offenders who are condemned to death by stoning. There is no explanation for the abandonment of the flogging element other than that the penalty all now acknowledge is based on the Sunna, i.e. the practice of the Prophet.

In the instance of the change of qibla, a Sunna ruling was set aside in favor of a Qur'n ruling- there is no reference in the Qur'n to the Jerusalem direction of prayer.

Al-Ghazl employs the same three examples in his Mustasf.

One outcome of these disputations was the proposal of a mode of naskh known as naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm ("abrogation of the wording but not ruling&quot in order to provide a Qur'nic nsikh, or abrogator, for Q.242 (see below).

Modes

Three modes of naskh were proposed by the classical exegetes
naskh al-hukm dna al-tilwa abrogation of the ruling but not the wording, or supersession. A regulation- embodied within either a Qur'nic verse or a hadith report- is replaced but its wording remains- in the former case, as text within the mushaf.
naskh al-hukm wa-'l-tilwa abrogation of both ruling and wording, or suppression/erasure. Applicable only to the Qur'n. A ruling is voided and its text omitted from the mushaf. Evidence that the verse ever existed is preserved only within tradition.
naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm abrogation of the wording but not the ruling. Again, applicable only to the Qur'n. The text of a still-functional ruling is omitted from the mushaf. Proof of the verse's existence is preserved within tradition (i.e through a hadith report) as well as in the Fiqh.

Of these three modes of naskh, it was the first ? naskh al-hukm dna al-tilwa ? which received widespread recognition. The second mode, naskh al-hukmwa-'l-tilwa, was also generally acknowledged, in part due to the many alleged instances of revelatory erasure

Of special importance were allegations of actual omissions from the revelation such as those recording the "loss" of a verse in praise of the Bi'r Ma'na martyrs, the Ibn dam "verse" and reports on the alleged originally longer versions of sras IX or XXXIII, said to have once been as long as sra II and to have been the locus of the stoning "verse" . Lists were compiled of revelations verifiably received by Muhammad and publicly recited during his lifetime until subsequently withdrawn (raf&#039, with the result that when the divine revelations were finally brought together into book-form, there was collected into the mushaf only what could still be recovered following the death of the Prophet. The mushaf has from the outset been incomplete relative to the revelation, but complete in that we have all that God intended us to have.

In all, 564 verses were alleged to have been expunged from the mushaf, or 1/11th of its total content.

The third mode, naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm, was accepted by only a minority of scholars. The most prominent alleged instance of this sort of abrogation is the naskh of the so-called yat al-rajm, or stoning verse. Adduced to exist from a tradition derived from the caliph 'Umar, the verse provided Qur'nic sanction for the penalty for adultery found within the Fiqh (i.e. stoning) in contravention to the penalty prescribed by Q.242 ? flogging.

The postulation of this mode stems (indirectly, however) from Shfi''s source theory which rejected abrogation between sources

However strictly Shfi' had approached the question of the feasibility or otherwise of the naskh of the Qur'n by the Sunna, the fact cannot be disguised that he had admitted the stoning penalty for adultery into his Fiqh. It is nowhere mentioned in the Qur'n (Q.242) and has no other source than the Sunna. As Schacht observed, on this point, Shfi''s theoretical structure collapses. Shfi''s failure to explain the presence of stoning in the Fiqh which he had inherited exposed his usl theory to the criticism of follower and opponent alike, leading to its partial abandonment. Ironically, the attempt to ameliorate the usl position by reconciling the explanation of stoning to the obvious- that the stoning penalty had derived from a stoning-'verse'- led, in turn, to the adoption by followers of non-Shfi' usl of the rationalizing tag, naskh al-tilwa dna al-hukm. They needed no such principle, since they sanguinely accepted the feasibility of the naskh of the Qur'n by the Sunna.

Though Shfi' thus never in fact postulated the existence of a "stoning verse", in one particular instance he did acknowledge the probability of "abrogation of wording but not ruling"

Shfi' shows no interest in the type of theoretical question leading to the postulation of the existence of a hypothetical "proto-Qur'n" to account for the presence at one time in the Qur'n of verses no longer surviving. He was none the less forced on one question- the much debated definition of the minimum number of sucklings required to set up a bar to marriage - to posit the revelation to Muhammed of a verse on this topic, which, however, was not to be found in the Qur'n texts of his day.

His normal assiduity to ascertain the Prophet's views on disputed legal matters led him to accept a hadth which, however, comes not from the Prophet, but from his widow. ''isha declared that God had revealed a Kur'n verse stating that the minimum number was ten; subsequently a second verse was revealed, declaring that the minimum was five and that this second verse was still being publicly recited when the Prophet died. Mlik had drily rejected this report as not being in conformity with the "practice". Al-Shfi' embraced it and made it the basis of his Fikh.

Implicit in the latter two modes of naskh is the distinction between the Qur'n as temporally contingent document-i.e. the mushaf- and the Qur'n as the unity of all revelation ever sent down to Muhammed. According to some exegetes this latter conception is not a wholly abstract one, but in fact corresponds to a heavenly reality, with the Qur'n existing as a celestial archetype within the Mother of the Book (umm al-kitb) (Q.434) or upon the Preserved Tablet (Q.8521). Thus those verses omitted from the terrestrial mushaf may yet be said to still endure in Heaven.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

Shafi is a hypocrite and a liar. He did violate the Quran. He is only trying to fool himself.

good_logic

Peace rameez.

I was conversing with you on the false assumption that you believed Qoran was from GOD.

Now it becomes a different debate.

Quote .You are proving Quran from Quran itself. Please prove that these verses were given to Jibraeel and he conveyed to Messenger.

I believe , without a doubt that Qoran is from GOD.

I am not willing to enter into a debate of "believer against disbeliever"." If you show them every kind of miracle they would not believe" as far as I am concerned.
I am out. You have your Deen and I have mine.

Good luck and Peace.

Bigmo

Peace rameez.

I was conversing with you on the false assumption that you believed Qoran was from GOD.

Now it becomes a different debate.

Quote .You are proving Quran from Quran itself. Please prove that these verses were given to Jibraeel and he conveyed to Messenger.

I believe , without a doubt that Qoran is from GOD.

I am not willing to enter into a debate of "believer against disbeliever"." If you show them every kind of miracle they would not believe" as far as I am concerned.
I am out. You have your Deen and I have mine.

Good luck and Peace.

What did you really expect? The minute he saod he believes in abrogation and believes that legislation can be added inspite of the Quran I knew it will go in circles. He should have came here to learn. He is learning but he is giving us a very bad example. Many here will now try to avoid dealing with Sunnis. It is not really his fault as many aspects of Sunni fiqh are not told to the public. Especially that the Sunnah was very controversial and a few people like Al Shafi came with the idea almost two centuries after Muhammad. He probably thought that this is how Muslims always understood their deen. In the end it was the Caliph Mutawakkil who championed the Sunnah and made Sunni islam the official state religion of the Abbasid Empire. The Sunnah was like a gift from the skies to the ruler. Finally they can become tyrants with all the religious cover they can have.

noshirk

Salam Rameez

I will respond to your other questions after .

You are not my first Hadeether. You will not do that

Now let me ask you to quote a verse and PROVE THAT IT WAS REVEALED TO MESSENGER VIA GIBREEL AND IN TURN WAS REVEALED BY ALLAH.

There is no such verse. What is the problem ?
I had never seen or met God. I believe he exists. I can't witness of that. I can't even witness that there is only one GOD.
I find a book called Quran. I have read it. I recognized words of my God. I believe in it all. I can't witness that it is book of GOD
I Had never seen Muhammad. I can't witness he even existed. In the book i believed was from my GOD, it is told to me that he is the rassool to whom was given the book. So i blieved in That.

You can consider All Quran as a Gossip. But it is only one Gossip of 600 pages and i believed in it. Show me one human able to produce a Gossip like that. I put my faith in only one source. Whats the problem ?
Your books of Hadiths are compilation of millions of gossips. Bukhari's book alone came from 600 000 gossips (as he said). You and your scholars admitted that that gossips can be lies produced by humans. You are spending time in a huge garbage of lies hoping to find another Quran there. Books of yours gossips can't even agree for what gossips are true gossips.

Now that i explained what believer mean, i hope that you can also recognize words of your God without "certification" of people of "knowledge and authority".
If you can't do so, then you believe in GOD through other divinities. You would not be a believer of GOD but a believer in "people of knowledge and authority" you have choosen.

I will count now lies in the sentence below

Hadiths are not gossips or conjecture. People of knowledge and authority have studied them extensively and have separated/pointed out fabrications. People have spent their lives in studying this thing.

Lie 1 Hadiths are not Gossips and conjecture. What are they then ? How you get them if not by a gossip process of "authentification of Gossips" by people you heard "by Gossip" that they were truthfull .
Lie 2 People of knowledge. What is their knowledge ?. What did they discovered other than doctrines for dividing muslims? How do you measure their knowledge ?
Lie 3 and authority. Who gave them authority ?. They are not even agree between them. Please give us the names of the people you think are of authority end tell us why you think that they have more authority than the others. How can you choose the good ones if you admit that they have more authority than yourself and have spent more time than you in studying?
Lie 4have studied them extensively and have separated/pointed out fabrications. Well, i can deduce from that that we can find now an update for books of Bukhari and other Hadiths compilors where fabrications have been separated. Where can i find these authentificated books and who are the authentificators ?. You know than such books don't exists but you are believing that the work has been done.
Lie 5People have spent their lives in studying this thing. Please give me names. How can you know that they spent their live in such a study ? Please, give me one Hadith and one example of "scientist" who managed to proove that that a hadith was not fabrication. Show me one demonstration. Only one. The best one.

622 And the Day We gather them all, then We say to the Mushrikins "Where are your partners whom you used to claim?"
623 Then, their only excuse was to say "By God, our Lord, we were not Mushrikins!"
624 See how they lied to themselves; and that which they invented abandoned them.

I sincerely hope that you will discover one day that you were lying to yourself and that yours partners will not be with you in the day of judgment.
I sincerely hope that one day, you will read words of God through words of God and not throught tafassirs and hearsays.
I sincerely hope that one day, you will discover that science and Hikma of your GOD is in his words and in his universe and not in other books.
I sincerely hope that you will not return on your heels after you have met, in this forum, believers in GOD and words of GOD who are humbly triyng to understand what GOD said and asking GOD for his purification. Hope you will not return on your heels as you came, with false books of God between your hands.

Peace

Shirin

Quran with Sunnah (Islamic Rituals) with Hadiths ? Where is Sunnah in Quran , when only Quran was revealed they are following conjecture and claiming that Sunnis are wrong , MashAllah ? Isn't it sunnah(Islamic Rituals) also hearsay and conjecture ?

Salaams,

I consider myself Qur'an-aloner, but I still pray the "oldfashion" way. While I don't consider hadith as a religious authority, I think salat is something that we didn't learn from hadith it's rather tradition which is passed down on us from Muhammad and the Muslims around him. If Bukhari collected hadith two centuries after death of the Prophet, does that mean that Muslims didn't know how to pray in that period?

I learned salat from my mom, my mom learned it form her mom, my grandma learned it from her mom and I'm sure that mother of my grandmother didn't have Sahih Bukhari collection available but still she managed to pray five times a day.
Of course, Qur'an tells us we should stand in prayer, bow and fall prostrate and recite Qur'an and glorify Allah s.w.t., that's exactly what I do praying the "oldfashion" way.

unknownuser

Salaams,

I consider myself Qur'an-aloner, but I still pray the "oldfashion" way. While I don't consider hadith as a religious authority, I think salat is something that we didn't learn from hadith it's rather tradition which is passed down on us from Muhammad and the Muslims around him. If Bukhari collected hadith two centuries after death of the Prophet, does that mean that Muslims didn't know how to pray in that period?

I learned salat from my mom, my mom learned it form her mom, my grandma learned it from her mom and I'm sure that mother of my grandmother didn't have Sahih Bukhari collection available but still she managed to pray five times a day.
Of course, Qur'an tells us we should stand in prayer, bow and fall prostrate and recite Qur'an and glorify Allah s.w.t., that's exactly what I do praying the "oldfashion" way.

Yes, but you are doing it that way because you made a conscientious decision based on teachings from the Qu'ran. I think that is what is important...you are not doing it ritualistically or out of ignorance.

aabdul

www.resurgentislam.com

Indelwyn

Thanks for the link, looks interesting.

I just find it disturbing, one would come here and feel offended because others do not believe in stories and fables, then get defensive and annoyed. Then still calling themselves a Muslim, goes and questions the Holy Quran, the words of God.Which he knows to be true. Are you not scared Allah will question you on this? & But you have no fear in following what those who are far less than Allah tell you.

How can you compare the Qu'ran (protected and persisting unaltered truth throughout time) with hadith (unprotected, man-made fabrications alluded to being the words, actions and sometimes appalling behavior of a man of God)?

noshirk

Salaam Shirin

I think salat is something that we didn't learn from hadith it's rather tradition which is passed down on us from Muhammad and the Muslims around him. If Bukhari collected hadith two centuries after death of the Prophet, does that mean that Muslims didn't know how to pray in that period?

I learned salat from my mom, my mom learned it form her mom, my grandma learned it from her mom and I'm sure that mother of my grandmother didn't have Sahih Bukhari collection available but still she managed to pray five times a day.

I also thought that during a long period.
I hope that following traditionnal practices you don't know from were they came will not divert you from studying Quran.

Peace

Shirin

Yes, but you are doing it that way because you made a conscientious decision based on teachings from the Qu'ran. I think that is what is important...you are not doing it ritualistically or out of ignorance.

Yes, of course.

Salaam ShirinI also thought that during a long period.
I hope that following traditionnal practices you don't know from were they came will not divert you from studying Quran.

Peace

Wa Salaam,

Why would it divert me? I still recite Qur'an, bow to our Creator, and fall on sajjda and pray for guidance.

To all others, I don't think rameez is questioning Qur'an, it's more like he is asking hypothetical questions. So people, don't be too harsh.

God bless you all.

noshirk

Salaam

Why would it divert me? I still recite Qur'an, bow to our Creator, and fall on sajjda and pray for guidance. )

Because reciting while bowing and prostrating in not studying and thinking.

do you know that in this forum, there is strange people who believe that Salat is not prayer, that Soujoud is not prostating , that roukou is not bowing and that salat in only 3 times in the day ?

Peace