Was The Messenger Of The Qur'aan An Orphan?
-
I never said anyone was angry but I definitely think the tone of the conversation, not just on your part was getting a little agressive. It seems like you took my suggestion as if I was picking on you, but I addressed you because you seemed more defensive then the others. I'll make some comments on a few of your points
in fact and logically speaking Allah was with him all the time
But we are not discussing that. And I think that is a bit of a low blow, because logically speaking no-one is alone but we still use this word to mean that we are not supported by anyone. Is it unfathomable to percieve that because of his message he might have been rejected and not support by all of his people at one time?
I accepted that Yatim may indicate lonlyness that was based on the logical point that a yatim may be alone, but we also have many Yatama that are never alone, like Mohammad he was an orphan (Yatim) but was never alone
That's fine. Reject the dictionaries (composed by people who on the most part know better than you because they studied what you studied and more). Also You insist that Muhammad was never alone, but you rely on popularly accepted books and stories based on the hadeeth. So you really are not proving this, are you?
therefore and please understand this carefully, an orphan may be lonely and may not be lonely
Okay, so what is your point. An orphan aslo can be not alone but lonely. Why are you playing with petty word semantics? I agree with what you say above, but no-one is arguing about this.
now what is the benefit of disputing this matter that Yatim means Alone?, what it will add to pour faith?
Firstly it clears up what seems to be a contradiction in the Quran. Because if at one point the book is saying that both of Muhammad's parents were alive in chpt. 17 using the singular form of you (anta and ka) and then it says 'Didn't we find you as a yateem and then housed you' it would seem that that is a contradiction. It also shows that those popular Muslims stories only took into account the later verse and not the earlier one. If you believe in God in the first place, no maybe it has no bearin on your faith in God. But it does have bearing on our faith in the Quran since understanding the second passage as lonely makes us choose between popular stories and books and what the Quran is really saying. So I think especially in your case this issue will add to your faith and the very least. And it will have an affect on many others who think just like you do.
How can we prove it if nothing else in the Quran indicates as such?
Some brought in some explanation to the word from a dictionary, now how they know that this dictionary is right? According to their understanding to 1736, how they confirmed that every word in the dictionary is right?
This is what it usually comes down to, questioning the dictionaries understanding over questioning your own undestanding. I looked up the words in 1736 using the dictionary and it holds. Secondly dictionaries are resources to help us undestand the langauges we speak or our studying. They are there for native speakers and non-native speakers to refer to. They are books made, after studying a langauge in its entirety(as best as the authors can). So they can even supersede your native undersanding which is limited because you have not done an extensive study on the Classical Arabic language and all of the occurences of all of the meanings that all of its words have.
If they managed to trust a translator that much?, why it is wrong for the traditionists to trust the salaf al saleh as they trust their translators?
Other people with worse intentions than you have used the same line of thought. The difference betwen salaf al saleh and translators have to do with their aims and goals. The Hadeeth were made to put in writing the rumor (i&aashah) if Muhammad and then somone decided that if they could verify the reputations of the people who spread these rumors they could verify the rumors. The hadeeth is rumor, the stories based on them are based on rumors. Whereas the Dictionaries are based off of the the usages of words in as many sources as a lexicion writer can find. The goals of translators and compilers of dictionaries is not to record rumor or to interpret rumor. Their goal is to make available in a book all of the meanings of arabic words that occur amongs the arabs, past and present. Depending on of the books wants to make available only modern use, ancient use or both.
See that is what I?m talking about, if anyone including myself will raise an important matter that will conflict with 1400 years of history records then we better provide compelling evidences ?FROM THE QURAN ALONE? otherwise we will be like confused Muslims and indirectly spreading conjectures around that can easily mislead and confuse many young muslims
It's actually quite simple if you look at it. The issue of trying to prove it to people is another issue. Mosts people don't believe facts they believe what feels right and that depends on the opinions of their family and friends, leaders and peers. Quran aloners are already generally looked at my most oof the muslim world as confused Muslims, although that attitude might be changing by the grace of God.
The evidences if you look at the Quran alone, like you say are there. I don't mean to be agressive here but you are the one who keeps pointing to non-quranic sources (not counting dictionaries because they do not claim to interepret the Quran but only make clear the words that the Quran might use based on that words usage by people who speak the Qurans langauge). You continuously point the the biographies and stories based on the hadeeth about Muhammad and to 1400 years of Muslim belief but never to the verse that are being pointed out to you. The only real defense that you have for rejecting this is rejecting the dictionaries. But again they are not there to interpret the Quran they only expose the meanings of the words that Arabs have meant by the words that they use in the Classical Arabic frame, going back to the time of the Quran.
I would only get offended by being called a confused Muslims because I don't consider myself Muslim at all, as a matter of fact.progod wrote
I dont' really mind that you called Nabi a private investigator. We need a little safe humor here and there anyway.bro I was kiddin with him, I like him but I disagree with many of his interpretation that?s all and as I said earlier that is what is between all of us here, believe it or not bro the prophet predicted that Muslims will fight bad on the interpretation of the Quran in one of the history records, so what we actually doing was prophesised by Mohammad hundreds of years ago, it seems that it must happen, LOL
And I know you are only kidding. That is why I put the smiley face there and called it safe humor.
But there you go again quoting sources outside of the Quran based on rumor. You call them history records and maybe that makes you feel better, but they and rumor records. I hope you see what you are doing. You are relying on these non-quranic sources and you are letting them dictate to your heart what you feel is right and wrong. You question the dictionaries only because they show that the Quran does not mean or promote what those "history records" as you call them, promote.
for a man that has almost 2 billions followers after he died makes me positive that this man always had someone with him, at least Allah was all the time with him, his grandpa, his uncle, his cousins, his companions, his wives, and the Arch Angel and Allah, how come he was alone, in fact there is a verse in the Quran that Allah clearly stated that He will protect him from the harm of his enemy who were blood thirsty to kill him, in fact Mohammad is the only human in history that have more than anyone assassination trials and he survived them all, I actually have a book that is dedicated to the assassination attempts on him, too many bro, He must have Allah with him all the time to escape all that danger, yet he died natural death
Does having 2 billion followers validate a religion and its beliefs. Is that why you believe in Muhammad as Gods' messenger, because he has 2 billion followers? If that is your reason why even have this conversation? This shouldn't concern you because you don't need to know anymore than that you believe in him and that he has 2 billion followers.
So God protecting Muhammad from bloodthirsty enemies and assination means that he was never alone? When i say alone I don't mean it in the sense that God abandoned him becuase God never abondons anyone while we live. If God lets someone assasinate us is that a sign that God is not with us? If we fall viction to our enemy in some way, is that a sign that God is not with us? So when is it that the trials that God puts us through and the method in which we die in a life where we are supposed to be tested and where we are supposed to die indicate that God is not with us? So if God would have allowed someone to assinate Muhammad and ifhe didn't have 2 billion followers you wouldn't believe in him or his message? I don't know if that is what you mean but that is what I'm getting from what your saying.
On top of that you keep mentioned books on the autobiography of Muhammad that are based on the rumors of the hadeeth. Why do you automatically think that these books are based on and comply with the Quran in everyway. If you simply want to reject his because it is shaking up your world, just say so and I'll respect that and there wouldln't be any need to discuss this with you.
how the quran will say that bro?, it can only be understood by the native Arabic speakers, I will bring all the verses where the word single or plural mentioned and we will walk though it all and we will see for ourselves, why not it is all about learning the Quran, I need sometime to do this though
Dead wrong. The Quran can be understood by people who understand Arabic. And native speakers of Arabic dialects who were trained an in incomplete modernized version of Arabic does not count as native speakers of Old Classical Arabic, the Arabic of the Quran. Nor does it imply that only these people will understand the Quran. Even the native speakers of old Clalssical Arabic that existed during th Quran, up to a couple hundred years after the Quran weren't the only ones who could understand the Quran. Anyone who learned how to understand and read their language could also understand it. Showing me the verse were yateem is mentioned will not prove that yateem doesn't mean orphan it will only show me that your narrow understanding of the word seems to make sense in most occurences of the word in the Quran.
and taking the word only in its sense of orphan is what makes the Quran seem to contradict itself. Taking the later occurence as orphan automatically erases the seeming contrdiction
taking the words as lonely clears up the fact that the Quran is stating that he was not an orphan in Chapt. 17.
I have answered everything esle you had to say in the above. As for waheed, it is just another way to say alone. Just because it is more popular now doesn't mean that it was more popular then. And even if it was the popular word then that does not take away that fact, like you said, that yateem can also mean waheed.
thanks anwar, I appreciate your effort, but you have to understand that I?m not angry or something, I only get angry with the enemy of islam or anyone who insults me or my family and this does not happen here but on other boards, I may sound angry but THIS IS NEVER THE CASE IF I SAY I?m NOT ANGRY, this is just me and I treat all the same including the closest family members
Like I said, the tone just seemed to me like it changed and got a little more intense and annoyed. Don't get mad at me because I addressed it. Especially when I addressed it calmly and in passing.
Godbless
Anwar -
I didn't mean to post twice and I have alot of spelling errors in some key places. I'm going to post again just because I don't want to cause confusion with what I said. If you don't want to read it that is fine and if the regulator on this forum wants to erase the two previous posts, I give him permissin to do that. Whenever I write alot and I have a time-line I always make a bunch of errors.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I never said anyone was angry but I definitely think the tone of the conversation, not just on your part was getting a little agressive. It seems like you took my suggestion as if I was picking on you, but I addressed you because you seemed more defensive than the others. I'll make some comments on a few of your points
Quote
in fact and logically speaking Allah was with him all the timeBut we are not discussing that. And I think that is a bit of a low blow, because logically speaking no-one is alone but we still use this word to mean that we are not supported by anyone. Is it unfathomable to percieve that because of his message he might have been rejected and not supported by all of his people, at one time?
Quote
I accepted that Yatim may indicate lonlyness that was based on the logical point that a yatim may be alone, but we also have many Yatama that are never alone, like Mohammad he was an orphan (Yatim) but was never aloneThat's fine. Reject the dictionaries (composed by people who on the most part know better than you because they studied what you studied and more). Also you insist that Muhammad was never alone, but you rely on popularly accepted books and stories based on the hadeeth. So you really are not proving this, are you?
Quote
therefore and please understand this carefully, an orphan may be lonely and may not be lonelyOkay, so what is your point. An orphan aslo can be not alone but lonely. Why are you playing with petty word semantics? I agree with what you say above, but no-one is arguing about this.
Quote
now what is the benefit of disputing this matter that Yatim means Alone?, what it will add to pour faith?I know you meant 'your' instead of 'pour' here.
Firstly it clears up what seems to be a contradiction in the Quran. Because if at one point the book is saying that both of Muhammad's parents were alive in chpt. 17 using the singular form of you (anta and ka) and then it says 'Didn't we find you as a yateem and then housed you' it would seem that that is a contradiction.It also shows that those popular Muslims stories only took into account the later verse and not the earlier one. If you believe in God in the first place, then no maybe it has no bearing on your faith in God. But it does have bearing on your faith in the Quran since understanding the second passage as lonely makes us choose between popular stories and books and what the Quran is really saying. So I think especially in your case this issue will add to your faith at the very least. And it will have an affect on many others who think just like you do.
How can we prove it if nothing else in the Quran indicates as such?
Some brought in some explanation to the word from a dictionary, now how they know that this dictionary is right? According to their understanding to 1736, how they confirmed that every word in the dictionary is right?
This is what it usually comes down to, questioning the dictionaries understanding over questioning your own undestanding. I looked up the words in 1736 using the dictionary and it holds. Secondly dictionaries are resources to help us understand the langauges we speak or are studying. They are there for native speakers and non-native speakers to refer to. They are books made, after studying a langauge in its entirety(as best as the authors can). So they can even supersede your native undersanding which is limited because you have not done an extensive study on the Classical Arabic language and all of the occurences of all of the meanings that all of its words have.
Quote
If they managed to trust a translator that much?, why it is wrong for the traditionists to trust the salaf al saleh as they trust their translators?Other people with worse intentions (and I think that yours is good here) than you have used the same line of thought. It is a wrong line of thought. The difference betwen salaf al saleh and translators have to do with their aims and goals. The Hadeeth were made to put in writing the rumor (i&aashah) of Muhammad and then somone decided that if they could verify the reputations of the people who spread these rumors they could verify the rumors. The hadeeth is rumor, the stories based on them are based on rumors. Whereas the Dictionaries are based on the usages of words in as many sources as a lexicion writer can find. The goals of translators and compilers of dictionaries is not to record rumor or to interpret rumor or the Quran for that matter. Their goal is to make available in a book all of the meanings of arabic words that occur among the arabs, past and present. Depending on what the author wants to make available be it only modern use, ancient use or both.
Quote
See that is what I?m talking about, if anyone including myself will raise an important matter that will conflict with 1400 years of history records then we better provide compelling evidences ?FROM THE QURAN ALONE? otherwise we will be like confused Muslims and indirectly spreading conjectures around that can easily mislead and confuse many young muslimsIt's actually quite simple if you look at it. The issue of trying to prove it to people is another issue. Most people don't believe facts, they believe what feels right and that depends on the opinions of their family and friends, leaders and peers. Quran aloners are already generally looked at by most of the muslim world as confused Muslims, although that attitude might be changing by the grace of God.
The evidences if you look at the Quran alone, like you say, are there. I don't mean to be agressive here but you are the one who keeps pointing to non-quranic sources (not counting dictionaries because they do not claim to interepret the Quran but only make clear the words that the Quran might use based on that word's usage by people who speak the Quran's langauge). You continuously point to the the biographies and stories based on the hadeeth about Muhammad and to 1400 years of Muslim belief but never to the verses that are being pointed out to you. The only real defense that you have for rejecting this is rejecting the dictionaries. But again they are not there to interpret the Quran they only expose the meanings of the words that Arabs have meant by the words that they use in the Classical Arabic frame, going back to the time of the Quran.
I would only get offended by being called a confused Muslim because I don't even consider myself a Muslim at all, as a matter of fact. That is not what the Quran promotes either. But I'm sure the other brothers arguing the orphan issue will disagree with me on this point.Quote
progod wrote
I dont' really mind that you called Nabi a private investigator. We need a little safe humor here and there anyway.bro I was kiddin with him, I like him but I disagree with many of his interpretation that?s all and as I said earlier that is what is between all of us here, believe it or not bro the prophet predicted that Muslims will fight bad on the interpretation of the Quran in one of the history records, so what we actually doing was prophesised by Mohammad hundreds of years ago, it seems that it must happen, LOL
And I know you were only kidding. That is why I put the smiley face there and called it safe humor. I still think it was funny and safe humor
But there you go again quoting sources outside of the Quran based on rumor. You call them history records and maybe that makes you feel better, but they are rumor records. I hope you see what you are doing. You are relying on these non-quranic sources and you are letting them dictate to your heart what you feel is right and wrong. You question the dictionaries only because they expose that the Quran (by the language it uses) does not mean or promote what those "history records" as you call them, promote.
Quote
for a man that has almost 2 billions followers after he died makes me positive that this man always had someone with him, at least Allah was all the time with him, his grandpa, his uncle, his cousins, his companions, his wives, and the Arch Angel and Allah, how come he was alone, in fact there is a verse in the Quran that Allah clearly stated that He will protect him from the harm of his enemy who were blood thirsty to kill him, in fact Mohammad is the only human in history that have more than anyone assassination trials and he survived them all, I actually have a book that is dedicated to the assassination attempts on him, too many bro, He must have Allah with him all the time to escape all that danger, yet he died natural deathDoes having 2 billion followers and dying a natural death validate a religion and its beliefs. Is that why you believe in Muhammad as God's messenger, because he has 2 billion followers and died a natural death? If that is your reason why even have this conversation? This shouldn't concern you because you don't need to know anymore than that you believe in him and that he has 2 billion followers.
So God protecting Muhammad from bloodthirsty enemies and assination means that he was never alone? When i say alone I don't mean it in the sense that God abandoned him because God never abondons anyone while we live. If God lets someone assasinate us is that a sign that God is not with us? If we fall victim to our enemy in some way, is that a sign that God is not with us? So when is it that the trials that God puts us through and the method in which we die in a life where we are supposed to be tested and where we are supposed to die one way or another indicate that God is not with us? So if God would have allowed someone to assinate Muhammad and if he didn't have 2 billion followers you mean to say that wouldn't believe in him or his message? I don't know if that is what you mean but that is what I'm getting from what your saying.
On top of that you keep mentioning books on the autobiography of Muhammad that are based on the rumors of the hadeeth. Why do you automatically think that these books are based on and comply with the Quran in every way. If you simply want to reject the fact that the Quran says that Muhammad wasn't an orphan and doesnt say that he is (and that the word yatim can mean waheed) because it is shaking up your world, just say so and I'll respect that and there won't be any need to discuss this with you.
Quote
how the quran will say that bro?, it can only be understood by the native Arabic speakers, I will bring all the verses where the word single or plural mentioned and we will walk though it all and we will see for ourselves, why not it is all about learning the Quran, I need sometime to do this thoughDead wrong. The Quran can be understood by people who understand Old Classical Arabic. And native speakers of Arabic dialects who were trained an in incomplete modernized version of Arabic does not count as native speakers of Old Classical Arabic, the Arabic of the Quran. Nor does it imply that only these people will understand the Quran. Even the native speakers of old Clalssical Arabic that existed during the Quran, up to a couple hundred years after the Quran weren't the only ones who could understand the Quran. Anyone who learned how to understand and read their language could also understand it. I know Arabs who are well trained in Modern Standard Arabic or the modern Fus-haa and who admit that they dont understand the Quran. So I know from experience that your line of thinking is wrong.
Showing me the verses were yateem is mentioned will not prove that yateem doesn't mean orphan it will only show me that your one-sided understanding of the word seems to make sense in most occurences of the word in the Quran.
Quote
and taking the word only in its sense of orphan is what makes the Quran seem to contradict itself. Taking the later occurence as orphan automatically erases the seeming contrdictionTaking the word as lonely were it appears in that later passage clears up the fact that the Quran is stating that he was not an orphan in Chapt. 17.
It clears up the confusion it doesn't cause the confusion.I have answered everything esle you had to say in the above. As for waheed, it is just another way to say alone. Just because it is more popular now doesn't mean that it was more popular then. And even if it was the popular word then that does not take away the fact that, like you admitted, yateem can also mean waheed.
Quote
thanks anwar, I appreciate your effort, but you have to understand that I?m not angry or something, I only get angry with the enemy of islam or anyone who insults me or my family and this does not happen here but on other boards, I may sound angry but THIS IS NEVER THE CASE IF I SAY I?m NOT ANGRY, this is just me and I treat all the same including the closest family membersLike I said, the tone just seemed to me like it changed and got a little more intense and annoyed. It seems like your tone has got even more annoyed with those caps that you put. Are you one of those people that get mad when people say that they are getting mad? If that is the case don't take your issue out on me. Don't get mad at me because I addressed what seemed like a shared annoyed tone by you and the other two brothers and an especially defensive tone on your part. Especially since I addressed it calmly and in passing. I tried not to make a big deal about it and get on with the subject at hand.
Godbless
Anwar -
Salaams and peace ..
Islamic history is a very rich subject containing many well researched and authentic data. It's not at all full of conjectures like Hadeeth. No doubt the beloved Prophet (pbuh) was isolated and banished by his people when he started bringing Allah's message. But the Prophet was also an orphan according to all reliable historical data. His father died before he was born and mother died when he was 5 or 6. This information is very consistent in all books of history.Being far too analytical about any issue invariably makes one's perception erroneous. So, it would be wiser to avoid it.
Allah Bless.
-
It seems you as well don't know that that "well researched data" comes from the hadeeth. Check again. Get some of those books and get their sources. They are well-researched withing the hadeeth. Now I am not a hadeeth-hater like many people here are. i just think that they should be put in their proper place. But you should be clear that those books of history on Muhammad (God bless him) and his life are based on the scores and scores of hadeeth out there. There is no doubt about that. If you don't believe me go do your research and you'll see.
Godbless,
Anwar -
It seems you as well don't know that that "well researched data" comes from the hadeeth. Check again. Get some of those books and get their sources. They are well-researched withing the hadeeth. Now I am not a hadeeth-hater like many people here are. i just think that they should be put in their proper place. But you should be clear that those books of history on Muhammad (God bless him) and his life are based on the scores and scores of hadeeth out there. There is no doubt about that. If you don't believe me go do your research and you'll see.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaams..
Not all brother, not all.
-
Salams,
Just denying it because you can't handle not knowing what you thought you did? Because what I say makes you question what you believed was sure? Believe me I went through the same thing too.
Like I said, you don't have to take my word for it you can do the research yourself. It's a little hard and time consuming because those books don't cite sources very often. But believe me it will lead you back to the Hadeeth. If I remember one guys name right, I think it is something like Ishaaq, like Hishaam ibn Ishaaq. I'm not too sure anymore, I did all this searching and searching a long time ago. You should be able to find his name on understanding-islam. He is one of the earliest writers of the 'seerah' of Muhammad God bless him. Most scholars base their works off of his. When you get down to him, then you will see that his works are based on the hadeeths and any other detail written in by another scholar was taken directly from the hadeeth.
Do the research and you will see. I know it is frightening and very disheartening to come to realize that even what you thought was sure is based on the same falsehoods that you've come to deny. i went through that myself. The Rumor of the Hadeeth have had more of an influence than you think. But even rumor has its place. However, the people on this forum are not ready to confront the actual role that the Hadeeth can and do rightfully play in all this. (for instance the proof of existence of 30 day shahr(months) that haven't been logged in any dictionary that I've seen so far because of traditional Islamic bias) and some other things which hopefully the people on this forum will one day be able to discuss without blind or passionate biases.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salams,
Just denying it because you can't handle not knowing what you thought you did? Because what I say makes you question what you believed was sure? Believe me I went through the same thing too.
Like I said, you don't have to take my word for it you can do the research yourself. It's a little hard and time consuming because those books don't cite sources very often. But believe me it will lead you back to the Hadeeth. If I remember one guys name right, I think it is something like Ishaaq, like Hishaam ibn Ishaaq. I'm not too sure anymore, I did all this searching and searching a long time ago. You should be able to find his name on understanding-islam. He is one of the earliest writers of the 'seerah' of Muhammad God bless him. Most scholars base their works off of his. When you get down to him, then you will see that his works are based on the hadeeths and any other detail written in by another scholar was taken directly from the hadeeth.
Do the research and you will see. I know it is frightening and very disheartening to come to realize that even what you thought was sure is based on the same falsehoods that you've come to deny. i went through that myself. The Rumor of the Hadeeth have had more of an influence than you think. But even rumor has its place. However, the people on this forum are not ready to confront the actual role that the Hadeeth can and do rightfully play in all this. (for instance the proof of existence of 30 day shahr(months) that haven't been logged in any dictionary that I've seen so far because of traditional Islamic bias) and some other things which hopefully the people on this forum will one day be able to discuss without blind or passionate biases.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaams and peace ..
All that stuff about "denying it because you can't handle not knowing what you thought you did" and blah blah is nonsense. I know what I believe and contrary opinions will not change that. If I ever feel someone's knowledge can correct mine, I will gladly seek it. So, please do not pass blind judgements on the thoughts and beliefs of others.
Yes .. I know of Ibn Hisham very well. But he isn't the only Islamic historian. There are many more, consisting of both Muslims and Westerners.
History is a very vast subject based on much hard work and dedication. Recorded history doesn't just consist of the history of Islam, it covers past events of the entire world.
It's history that tells us that Muhammad bin Qasim was the first Muslim Arab who came to the South Asian sub-continent. It's history that tells us that the Ghaznis and Ghouris ruled the sub-continent prior to the Mughuls. It's history that tells us that the Mughuls ruled the sub-continent for over a thousand years. It's history that tells of their defeat and the victory of the Brits. It's history that tells us that King Henry VIII of England had 6 wives. It's history that says Queen Ann Boleyn was beheaded in the tower. It's history that says the French were defeated in the battle of Waterloo and Napoleon Bonaparte died in forced exile in the Island of St. Helena. And one can go on and on ..
We don't have any Hadeeth narrations or its equivalent for the above mentioned events, yet these facts were investigated, found, compiled and preserved, and then passed on to the readers for information. Of course, historians are human beings, therefore they can make mistakes during research. The findings of all historians are liable to falter. But many historians are genuinely dedicated to their task and efforts for finding the truth of the past. They have their own ways of going about their research that has brought numerous facts and details to light. Thus, we have been provided with a wealth of information through history, many of which are accurate while some are based on assumptions. Therefore history cannot be discarded.
While each one of us are very much entitled to do our own individual research in matters that interest us and put our findings on the table, it would be both incorrect and overbearing on our part to only consider our own interpretations of events to be the final one and reject the work of others as unacceptable. That would only mean going to the other extreme, just as the architects of Hadeeth blindly accept only the Hadeeth stories and reject everything else.
Please note, when I mention 'history,' I take it as a completely separate field.
-
I understand everything that you said. But please look at the sources for Islamic history. They are the Hadeeth and the orientalist and the muslim historians have based the majority of Muhammad's history on the Hadeeth, accepting them as a trustworthy body of already scrutinized material. Orientalists in majority have always respected them and only a few have challenged the authenticity of the hadeethic story of Muhammad. History is a science it is also very debatable depending on the sources. You know that well. We have discovered some key things from history and our histories have been based off of eye-witnesses, scripts, artifacts and even "reliable" rumor. The holes have to be filled with logic and that is what makes history very debatable because that logic can be flawed or even just plain old questioned because it is the logic that comes from a person and the holes will always exist without eye-witnesses or hard evidence. Even the interpretation of those articfects and hard-evidence can be questioned (rightfully or wrongfully). That is the nature of every science, it can be manipulated for good or bad.
There are many things that have been recorded as history and have been proven to be erroneous and and there are still more things like that to be discovered. Racism, sexism and many other prejudices come into play with many historical findings or the form that they take when they hit the public. History is important but it must be understood that it is based on the findings and logic of others (sometimes reliable sometimes not). In addition to that many good historians have made mistakes because of trusting a source that wasn't trustable. We were there so history is there to give us the story, but understand that that story is reconstructed sometimes with good material and sometimes with bad material by good construction workers and sometimes bad construction workers. Those histories are based on the Hadeeth. I just hope you can come to recognize that. If not, that is find, leeya deenee wa laki deenuki.
Godbless,
AnwarWhat i said wasn't 'to stereotype you or judge you. My exact presumptions about you are not exactly represented by everything I say. I asked those questions to both ask you and to challenge you alittle. But understand the meat of what I'm saying please. Don't let comments like that incite you. I am often interpreted not as I mean.
-
I understand everything that you said. But please look at the sources for Islamic history. They are the Hadeeth and the orientalist and the muslim historians have based the majority of Muhammad's history on the Hadeeth, accepting them as a trustworthy body of already scrutinized material. Orientalists in majority have always respected them and only a few have challenged the authenticity of the hadeethic story of Muhammad.
I already mentioned that I don't take Hadeeth as a regular source of history because it uses a completely different method for compiling information. What I meant was that every single Islamic historian in the world does not hold on to the coattails of Hadeeth.
History is a science it is also very debatable depending on the sources. You know that well. We have discovered some key things from history and our histories have been based off of eye-witnesses, scripts, artifacts and even "reliable" rumor. The holes have to be filled with logic and that is what makes history very debatable because that logic can be flawed or even just plain old questioned because it is the logic that comes from a person and the holes will always exist without eye-witnesses or hard evidence.
I absolutely agree and these are precisely the points I have mentioned in my post. History isn't infallible, yet this is as far as human efforts can take us. It has provided information as well as misinformation. But something is better than nothing. Therefore, retaining it would be wiser than discarding it altogether.
I am often interpreted not as I mean.
Just try to make your meaning clear by being upfront and you won't be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, InshAllah.
Allah Bless.
-