"Why Pray If I Don't Get Much Out of It?"

SamiribnZafarKhan

Salaam Samir

you stated
c. If so, did Muhammad (s) speak other than the Qur'an? Meaning, were the only words to come out of his mouth from Prophethood till his death were ayaat?
d. If you say yes, then you can even be proven wrong by non-Muslim historians; that's pretty sad dude.
e. If you say no, then you are accepting ahadith; the only reason why you deny ahadith is because you don't take the time to talk to the Scholars or learn from them the ahadith that are in the books.

R u saying that if one accepts that the prophet pronounced other than quran during his lifetime then he has to accept hadith ? If that's the case your argumentation is really weak. If i got you wrong please explain.

LK

Yes, I am saying that because there is something called Wahi al Khafee; that is, revelation from Allah that was not meant to be in the Qur'an. Look at my previous example

For example, how did he conduct war? Did he just quote an ayah from Qur'an on fighting and magically everyone was physically prepared, trained, standing in rows, with a default strategy and an army general? Of course not! It was Wahi al Khafee as well as from the mouth of the Prophet (saw) from the discussions he had with the Sahaba.

Most of what Muhammad (saw) said was recorded by the Sahaba; no joke. So you'll find thousands upon thousands of sayings of Muhammad (saw) by Aisha (ra), Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Abu Huraira and so on. Keep in mind, a hadith does not only deal with the subject of Qur'an. The ahadith cover a wide range of topics such as Bathing, knowledge, Salaat, Hiring, Sales and Trade, Peacemaking, Divorce and so on. This Deen is truly complete because it just covers absolutely everything in life.

This link will give you an idea of how Bukhari categorized the ahadith he collected

http//www.quraan.com/index.aspx?tabindex=9&tabid=24&bid=2

Samir

mquran

Slm Samir

How can you claim to follow the Qur'an and not know the answer to this? Read Ayah al Birr (2177) and you'll understand how we are different.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. A 'muslim' is one who establishes assalaat and renders az-zakaat. Just because you're born into a 'muslim' family, it doesn't mean you're a Muslim in the sight of Allah.

I gave you straight up facts from the Scholars who studied their whole lives; you gave me rhetoric from your desires.

i gave you an ayaat. Is that from my own desires?

Who said that Muhammad (s) said things with his desires. This is the most illogical idea I have seen in a long time. Why? Just look at your baseless argument
a. The Qur'an confirms that Muhammad (s) never judges with his desires.
b. Okay, you argue that there is no such thing as Sunnah; it was all Qur'an, Qur'an, Qur'an (and if you disagree with this point, that means you agree that there is a Sunnah).
c. If so, did Muhammad (s) speak other than the Qur'an? Meaning, were the only words to come out of his mouth from Prophethood till his death were ayaat?
d. If you say yes, then you can even be proven wrong by non-Muslim historians; that's pretty sad dude.
e. If you say no, then you are accepting ahadith; the only reason why you deny ahadith is because you don't take the time to talk to the Scholars or learn from them the ahadith that are in the books.

No, as a MESSENGER, Muhammad only spoke al-quraan (69/40-47). The sunnah was never part of his agenda, if you believe what 10/15 says. He never taught anything else by al-quraan.

Then you might as well change everything else about this Deen. You can start looking at Pornography on the computer. You can start buying haram entertainment. And so on. Why? Because the Qur'an doesn't mention it! Therefore, I don't have to follow it! You have taken a total literalist approach to Islam which is terrible because you'll come up with depressing interpretations.

Why is it depressing? You have a preconcieved idea about what ad-deen should be. Its Allah who should be teaching ad-deen, not humans teaching Allah. Personally, I find my deen liberating, its helped me see stuff I've never seen before.

lol I can see why you didn't quote the entire ayah. You left out the most important part! Take a look at what I have in bold

To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a methodology. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ. (54

The part of the ayah that's in bold uses the words "Shir'ata" and "Minhaaja". The word "Shir'ata" comes from the word "Shari'ah"; you guess right law. And the word "Minhaaja" comes from the word "Manhaj" which means methodology or path. What am I saying here?

The word for 'to each' is 'LIKULLI', there's no 'li kulli nabiya' or 'li kulli rasulan' here. This ayat is explained by
To each is a goal to which God turns him; then strive together (as in a race) Towards all that is good. Wheresoever ye are, God will bring you Together. For God Hath power over all things (2/14

All anbiya recieved the same thing, al-kitaab bil-haqq (2/213). The myth of the 4 books isn't in al-quraan.

Now, what was Muhammad's (saw) manhaj? Qur'an? Not entirely, because we know many incidents in the lifetime of the Prophet (saw) where he did/said things that were not mentioned in the Qur'an. For example, how did he conduct war? Did he just quote an ayah from Qur'an on fighting and magically everyone was physically prepared, trained, standing in rows, with a default strategy and an army general? Of course not! It was Wahi al Khafee as well as from the mouth of the Prophet (saw) from the discussions he had with the Sahaba.

Anything he did or said beyond al-quraan has no universal significance. I've learnt a lot from the corpus but to me, its just Arabic history.

What was the Shari'ah that was prescribed to Muhammad (saw)? It was both Qur'an and Sunnah; Sunnah because it was Wahi al Khafee (which I just proved it to be true in the aforementioned paragraph).

Proved true? You just skipped over 10/15 , there's no wahi outside al-quraan.

TheNabi

Salaam Samir,

Still no answer for me?

Joe

SamiribnZafarKhan

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. A 'muslim' is one who establishes assalaat and renders az-zakaat. Just because you're born into a 'muslim' family, it doesn't mean you're a Muslim in the sight of Allah.

I know that if I'm born Muslim, it doesn't mean much. What does that have to do with anything? A Muslim is one who surrenders to Allah.

i gave you an ayaat. Is that from my own desires?

Yes, because they were YOUR interpretations of the ayaat. What better explainer of Qur'an do you have than the Prophet (saw) himself and the Sahaba who experienced the ayaat of Qur'an? And I have proved that the Sahaba are our role models and we should never question their authority

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56831#56831

NOT ONE PERSON REFUTED ME ON THAT STATEMENT. If nobody can do it, then everyone's argument is baseless since these ayaat I mentioned in that post shakes your foundation.

Who said that Muhammad (s) said things with his desires. This is the most illogical idea I have seen in a long time. Why? Just look at your baseless argument
a. The Qur'an confirms that Muhammad (s) never judges with his desires.
b. Okay, you argue that there is no such thing as Sunnah; it was all Qur'an, Qur'an, Qur'an (and if you disagree with this point, that means you agree that there is a Sunnah).
c. If so, did Muhammad (s) speak other than the Qur'an? Meaning, were the only words to come out of his mouth from Prophethood till his death were ayaat?
d. If you say yes, then you can even be proven wrong by non-Muslim historians; that's pretty sad dude.
e. If you say no, then you are accepting ahadith; the only reason why you deny ahadith is because you don't take the time to talk to the Scholars or learn from them the ahadith that are in the books.

No, as a MESSENGER, Muhammad only spoke al-quraan (69/40-47). The sunnah was never part of his agenda, if you believe what 10/15 says. He never taught anything else by al-quraan.

What kind of conclusion is that? I just destroyed you logically (look at point d). Here, now let me destroy you Qur'anically

The ayaat you refer to (6940-47), you are totally taking them out of context since these ayaat are a response to those who said the Qur'an came from the mouth of a "person just like us". Note, ayah 40 says, "an honorable messenger" to make the point clear to the rejectors of Imaan. Just read the ayaat before it (you have to go back 10 or so ayaat to really understand it).
Let's say you are right in your claim. If you are, then there is a contradiction in those ayaat between these two

6940 Most surely, it is the Word brought by an honored Messenger.

6943 It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.

So where is it from? Is it from Allah or Muhammad (saw)?

That is why you are wrong in your claim.

lol I can see why you didn't quote the entire ayah. You left out the most important part! Take a look at what I have in bold

To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a methodology. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ. (54

The part of the ayah that's in bold uses the words "Shir'ata" and "Minhaaja". The word "Shir'ata" comes from the word "Shari'ah"; you guess right law. And the word "Minhaaja" comes from the word "Manhaj" which means methodology or path. What am I saying here?

The word for 'to each' is 'LIKULLI', there's no 'li kulli nabiya' or 'li kulli rasulan' here. This ayat is explained by
To each is a goal to which God turns him; then strive together (as in a race) Towards all that is good. Wheresoever ye are, God will bring you Together. For God Hath power over all things (2/14

So what? It is still obvious. He says in the next part of the ayah that if He willed, He would of made you all one nation; but we aren't, we are many nations. There was the nation of Musa, and now we have the nation of Muhammad (saw). Again, you are taking the ayaat out of context and ignoring the ahadith.

You are supposed to be trying to refute this claim of mines (here, I'll paste the main argument) which nobody has refuted yet

Muhammad and his Companions are extremely important; without following them, you have no role models of Qur'an. I mean, just look at these two clear ayaat

4828 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.

Does that not tell you something about the Sahaba? Is this a negative rep on the Sahaba? Seriously, contemplate over this ayah. Here's another ayah that's even more clearer

9100 And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajireen and the Ansaar, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them for ever; that is the mighty achievement.

This ayah is mighty clear. First of all, who are the Muhajireen and Ansaar? Historically speaking (and even non-Muslim historians say this), The Muhajireen are the ones who did Hijrah to Medina; the Ansaar are the ones who already lived in Medina and embraced the Muhajireen.

Okay so what about them? They are all Sahaba! Every one of them is a Sahaba. Okay so now what? Look what I have in bold. They are the people of Paradise; The Prophet (saw) even guaranteed Jannah to 10 of the Sahaba as well as those who partook in the Battle of Badr.

Bottom line If the great majority of them are guaranteed Jannah (from all the indisputable proof above, no matter if you reject ahadith or not), then how are they not our role models?

mquran

Slm Samir,

I know that if I'm born Muslim, it doesn't mean much. What does that have to do with anything? A Muslim is one who surrenders to Allah.

Well, ppl SAY you're 'born muslim'. Let Allah be your classifier, that's what works but im glad we agree here.

Yes, because they were YOUR interpretations of the ayaat. What better explainer of Qur'an do you have than the Prophet (saw) himself and the Sahaba who experienced the ayaat of Qur'an? And I have proved that the Sahaba are our role models and we should never question their authority

My interpretation? You mean to tell me when the Quran says all those things it meant something else entirely?

Let me formulate this for you

God's clear ayaat are recited
Those who believe not say
Bring us a quran other than this
or change this one!
Muhammad replied 'I CANT CHANGE IT, I FOLLOW WHATS REVEALED'.

so what's 'revealed' unto Muhammad ?

you tell me...

why don't you tell me how the 'tafseer of the sahaba' changes the meaning.

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=56831#56831

NOT ONE PERSON REFUTED ME ON THAT STATEMENT. If nobody can do it, then everyone's argument is baseless since these ayaat I mentioned in that post shakes your foundation.

i'll answer your thread shortly, insha Allah.

What kind of conclusion is that? I just destroyed you logically (look at point d). Here, now let me destroy you Qur'anically

Point 'd' itself is irrelevant. non-muslim historians ? Im talking solely al-quraan. I dont care what any historian say. To me, Tabari himself if he wrote those things isnt a muslim.

The ayaat you refer to (6940-47), you are totally taking them out of context since these ayaat are a response to those who said the Qur'an came from the mouth of a "person just like us". Note, ayah 40 says, "an honorable messenger" to make the point clear to the rejectors of Imaan. Just read the ayaat before it (you have to go back 10 or so ayaat to really understand it).

So Muhammad wasn't a person just like us? See 18/110, please

Say "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your God is one God whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner (18/110)

So where is it from? Is it from Allah or Muhammad (saw)?
69/40 doesn't have the word 'from'/min. Its simply 'innahu laqaulun rasulun kareem'. This is the speech/saying of the honoured messenger. A messenger brings something from someone. So there's no contradiction.

So what? It is still obvious. He says in the next part of the ayah that if He willed, He would of made you all one nation; but we aren't, we are many nations. There was the nation of Musa, and now we have the nation of Muhammad (saw). Again, you are taking the ayaat out of context and ignoring the ahadith.

False. The ayat told the Prophet to judge with al-kitaab. ALL prophets judged with al-kitaab (once again , see 2/213), so there's no 'nation of musa' , isa and so on. This is all hadith inventions for us to have racist notions like what you're having now. Muhammad was told

Nothing is said to thee that was not said to the apostles before thee that thy lord has at his Command (all) forgiveness as well as a most Grievous Penalty (41/43)

So he brought nothing new. He was simply told to judge with THE BOOK IN TRUTH and NOT FOLLOW HIS DESIRES. Unless you're saying God forgot to add the sunna there, its usually proper for a believer to say 'we hear and we obey'.

SamiribnZafarKhan

My interpretation? You mean to tell me when the Quran says all those things it meant something else entirely?

Understand the Qur'an in its context. If I take Shakespeare out of context, that's doing injustice to his text; I should consider the commentary of those who have more knowledge than me so that I may understand better and my thought process is guided and not all over the place.

why don't you tell me how the 'tafseer of the sahaba' changes the meaning.

It is not really their Tafseer. There was a lot of sayings of Muhammad (saw) in regards to the ayaat of Qur'an; so they incorporated that into their understanding of Qur'an.
The Sahaba have the best understanding of Qur'an since it was revealed in their time, in front of their eyes. In many occurances was the Qur'an revealed as events were unfolding. Take a look at Surah an-Nasr; that Surah was revealed when the Muslims conquered Mecca. Who would understand an ayah better? A person that saw the event happen and saw the relevancy of the ayah or a person that came 1400 years later and puts mere guesswork upon those ayaat? That is why we follow the statements of the Sahaba.

Point 'd' itself is irrelevant. non-muslim historians ? Im talking solely al-quraan. I dont care what any historian say. To me, Tabari himself if he wrote those things isnt a muslim.

It is not irrelevant because if a non-Muslim can prove you wrong, that is pretty sad.

So Muhammad wasn't a person just like us? See 18/110, please

Say "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your God is one God whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner (18/110)

And that was exactly what I was referring to. He is not just another person walking the streets of Mecca. He was the one who has received inspiration from Allah; that's what the ayah confirms. Did you receive any direct divine inspiration? No. The last person that did was Muhammad (saw).

I'm waiting for your response on my challenge.

Samir

mquran

Understand the Qur'an in its context. If I take Shakespeare out of context, that's doing injustice to his text; I should consider the commentary of those who have more knowledge than me so that I may understand better and my thought process is guided and not all over the place.

I have read it, many times over. Why don't you tell me how the context changes things. Show me how my explanation is wrong please.

. It is not really their Tafseer. There was a lot of sayings of Muhammad (saw) in regards to the ayaat of Qur'an; so they incorporated that into their understanding of Qur'an.

Wonderful. Why dont you show it to me? Show me how it contradicts my understanding?

The Sahaba have the best understanding of Qur'an since it was revealed in their time, in front of their eyes. In many occurances was the Qur'an revealed as events were unfolding. Take a look at Surah an-Nasr; that Surah was revealed when the Muslims conquered Mecca. Who would understand an ayah better? A person that saw the event happen and saw the relevancy of the ayah or a person that came 1400 years later and puts mere guesswork upon those ayaat? That is why we follow the statements of the Sahaba

I cannot understand al-quraan through SOMEONE ELSE's experience but through my own.

It is not irrelevant because if a non-Muslim can prove you wrong, that is pretty sad

Huh? Right or wrong doesn't depend on ur family heritage! It depends on your argument. I've read Ignaz Goldziher's 'Muhammadan Studies'. He uttterly unravelled the 'science of hadith' and till now, no 'muslim' has answered him. So what if he's not a sunni?

And that was exactly what I was referring to. He is not just another person walking the streets of Mecca. He was the one who has received inspiration from Allah; that's what the ayah confirms. Did you receive any direct divine inspiration? No. The last person that did was Muhammad (saw).

Wahi is coming down all the time. The problem is, people don't want to listen

It is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with God's permission, what God wills for He is Most High, Most Wise (42/51)

I'm waiting for your response on my challenge.

You can't even handle one verse and ur challenging people? Explain 10/15 first then you can start challenging. If you say its miscontextualised, show me how the context changes things.