ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-
So basically that verse only relates to people who were living in the time of the prophet, unless you believed Rashad was a messenger then you follow him?? Well I dunno it sounds a bit strange..
i dont know if rashad was a messenger or not (only God knows), i think so, but even he said not to follow anything from him other than the quran itself
-
Peace hlatif,
I see that you have evaded my clear request for you to directly answer the questions asked in 487, 7185, 456, 6837-38 and 7750. Unless you directly answer those questions, it will be useless to continue any further discussion with you, and I will not respond to you any further.
There are many ways to respond to this statement. First it has to be understood that those previous statements have to be understood in a manner that does not lead to them contradicting the other Ayat that say obey the messenger
1- The messenger speaks the words of God or words inspired by God or by the words of God. So, the two are complimentary.
2- The Ayaat here talk about Iman. Definitely, no one can top the word of God in introducing Iman to people. The other Ayat talk about obeying orders. It is two different things and therefore no contradiction.
There is no contradiction because all the 100 % authentic hadeeth of the messenger RELEVANT AND NECESSARY FOR OUR GUIDANCE are in the Qur'aan. There are many signs in the Qur'aan addressed to the messenger, commanding him to "say". The messenger obviously said those things to his people, thereby becoming his hadeeth as well. When one follows the message of those signs, one is obeying The God AND also obeying the messenger.
Actually that is true for the whole Qur'aan, because it came to us only through him, and is thus his "qawl"/speech/saying too. Thus when we follow and obey the message of the Qur'aan, we are obeying The God AND obeying the messenger.
6940 This is the speech/saying/utterance (qawl) of an honorable messenger.
6941 It is not the utterance of a poet; rarely do you believe.
6942 Nor the utterance of a soothsayer; rarely do you take heed.
6943 A revelation from the Lord of the worlds.Remember that the messenger followed only the Qur'aan (1015, 4105, 548-49), and the Qur'aan is fully detailed and complete (6114-115, 12111, 1712), contains every example (1789, 3927) and clear explanation of everything (1689) relevant to our guidance to the straight path and is enough for our guidance (2951).
Prophet Muhammad is not among us any more. The only way we can obey him while obeying The God is to BELIEVE what he actually said, i.e. his authentic hadeeth, and not unverifiable hearsays falsely attributed to him. Therefore obeying the messenger and the questions in 487, 7185, 456, 6837-38 and 7750 are not two different things.
3- No one understands those Ayat as saying "Do not read or listen to anything else". If you undestood this way, then I would not expect you to be at this forum reading "Other than God's speech".
Straw man.
The relevant signs ask which hadeeth will you BELIEVE in, and not "read or listen".
The message of those Ayat is that one has to discard any speech that is inconsistent with God's words. The messenger's words are consistent with God's speech, or otherwise God would not choose him as messenger nor keep him as messenger.
Agreed with your highlighted quote. If the so called "hadeeth" is consistent with the Qur'aan, then it says the same thing as the Qur'aan does, and is REDUNDANT anyway, and we don't really need it because the Qur'aan will be sufficient and enough for our guidance to the straight path while obeying The God AND obeying the messenger.
-
Salaam all,
This is my last post on this subject.
I believe that you presented your case and I presented mine. There is no more point in juicing the Ayat of obeying the messenger anymore.
OPF,
1- The proof that Qur'an alone is faulty methodology is this forum and the opinions expressed in it. There is no way one can prove anything. Even the linguistic argument can be faulty. This is also the main reason why people become Qur'an alone, to play with the words and their meanings as they like. You can also check my previous posts here.2- Hadeeth science is not as subjective as one may think. In any case, hadeeth, no matter the authenticity, reflects the thoughts and opinions of the early muslims in the first two hundred years of Islam. They could be faulty but they probably had better understanding of their own Arabic than me or you. So, one cannot completely discard it unless one is arrogant enough to think that no one could understand the Qur'an but him.
3- As for the urine Hadeeth, I will discuss it with you when you prove that the urine of camels that grazed in the wilderness around Medina have no medicinal value. To your knowledge, Doctors do still extract medicine from the urine of animals. Horses come to mind.
Wakas,
1- Messenger is not an on and off switch. Once you are a messenger, you have the job 24/7. The early muslims understood obey the messenger as obey him. No one can convince me that they said to him it is not in the Qur'an, then we do not obey, because it is not within "the messenger".On the contrary there is clear cut proof there is limitations/exclusions in al quran regarding this. It cites several examples of mistakes made by Muhammad, e.g. 661. al quran itself proves that not everything being said by Muhammad is divine/inspired.
This proves that he made mistakes and the mistakes were announced and corrected. This does not prove that he made other errors that were not announced and corrected. One has to take it this way, whether Qur'an aloner or other, because otherwise, one cannot be assured that the Qur'an is free from error through error of the messenger.
Tanveer, I answered your question. You may not feel that way, but it was an answer. I want to touch on something you mentioned
The relevant signs ask which hadeeth will you BELIEVE in, and not "read or listen".
1- The Qur'an came before hadeeth. So, this Aya is not talking about the hadeeth as we know it.
2- It talks about Iman and Iman is not belief. It is about safety and trust. Yes, no word is more trustworthy than the word of God. The word of God also said
2285
Amana Alrasoolu bima Unzila ilayhi, walmuminoona kullun Aman billahi wamalaikatihi wakutubihi warusulih-----"The messenger trusted in what was sent to him, and the ones who trusted, each trusted in Allah and his angels and his books and his messengers.
I get the impression that you guys want to make the messengers as exactly equal to the message, when they are clearly two entities. If so, then the Aya is repeating exactly the same thing twice, being redundant. So, in order to support your claims, you will have to make the sentences of the Qur'an redundant. You end up undermining the miracle of the Qur'an by making a mediocre piece of literature, just to support your biased view of things.
Sister Sara,
?to be a mujtahid mutlaq you must have ijaza from a mujtahid mutlaq
the last mujtahid mutlaq died several hundred years ago...
thus no mujtahid mutlaqs exist today because none of them have ijazas from past mujtahid mutlaqs
thus all shiyook must make taqleed to one of the four madhahib?
While this is a view that you will read sometimes, mainly by Ashaaris, it is not shared by all scholars and is simply incorrect. Ibn Taimiyyah announced 700 years ago that if a person has enough knowledge about the subject, then he or she must make their own ijtihad, irrespective of Ijaza.
The Ijaza system was a system of hadeeth transmission where the sheikh says to his student, now you can transmit the hadeeth that you learned from me. It was not a system for Ijtihad or no Ijtihad. Later scholars understood it differently and wrongly. Therefore it was never written in stone and was and is and will be challenged easily.
Take care all and Salaam.
Hussein
-
peace Hussein,
1- Messenger is not an on and off switch. Once you are a messenger, you have the job 24/7.
The early muslims understood obey the messenger as obey him.
No one can convince me that they said to him it is not in the Qur'an, then we do not obey, because it is not within "the messenger".I find it absurd thinking that in the daily life of the prophet Muhammad if he were to ask his wife to pass the salt for example, they would have thought of this as divinely inspired.
This proves that he made mistakes and the mistakes were announced and corrected. This does not prove that he made other errors that were not announced and corrected.
Thus, you assume he did not make other errors out with his role as messenger/prophet. Personally, I see al quran citing these examples for a very important reason because people in the future would come along and say Muhammad was perfect and thus everything he said is divine so this is also obligatory to follow. God does not do things for no reason. Imagine, God explicitly gave examples of mistakes by the person delivering al quran! To me, that is huge. It must have been done for an important reason.
One has to take it this way, whether Qur'an aloner or other, because otherwise, one cannot be assured that the Qur'an is free from error through error of the messenger.
No, that is only true for those people who believe Muhammad the imperfect human is inseparable and the same as Muhammad the messenger/prophet.
-
Asalamu alaikum Hussein,
Why would you stop posting? anyway in regards to what you say ok you have a logical argument though I believe hadiths are subjective. One could interpret things in many ways, by having the "scholar" or "sheikh" title this can manipulate people and change ways and can lead to injustice. Even for the sake of "good". Haven't you ever heard people tying to do something for someone?s own good but turns out their wrong..
Anyway you can't be sure a hadith is truly the word of the messenger... yes it's probably how some muslims lived in the early stages but allah alem.. really allahu alem. And believe me all people have weaknesses no one is perfect Quran alone or not. That's a reality.
Though don't the verses make you wonder that maybe God has predicted to us that there will be corrupt hadith.. and if you believe it is in terms of hadiths before the Quran or during the Quran time, what could they be? besides isn't there narrations of hadiths how the prophet tells his companions not to write what he says and they got burnt..????
I do believe they shouldn't be completed rejected because people are just dividing themselves and isolating themselves even more and more and more. Though I believe only the good of it should be followed and linked with the Quran.
One can argue like for example Tanveer that the hadiths of the prophet are told in the Quran right? but maybe to your understanding there needs to be more to obey the prophet? But if we are going to be pedantic... you know I think that is the problem we all want specific black and white clear cut of what to do.
The prophet was the living Quran as people say so wouldn't following the Quran be enough? Or do you believe the above verse indicates its another thing we need to obey..
What makes me wonder about hadiths are such issues that become wajab or considered sunnah muakada so it makes out its a must duty, to me i don't think that is right. I'll give you example if your a guy you must have a beard because its sunnah muakida and if you don't then you're going to get punished for it.. to me personally there is nothing wrong with having a beard or not having one heck some guys can't even grow facial hair what happens to them.. anyway not the best example but an example.
I consider myself doing my own ijtihad, regardless of ?scholars? ruling, because it?s juts wrong to limit people like that. Out of curiosity where does your faith stand what do you consider your practice? Ok I gather a muslim though what are your beliefs...
Salam
-
Peace Sarah,
Here is a short article which I hope will answer your questions.
Obey God and Obey the Messenger
In confronting the Sunni and Shia sectarians who claim to be affiliated with God?s great system of submission ?Islam,? the topic that most comes up is the one about ?obeying God and obeying the messenger.?
While the sects reluctantly acknowledge that the Quran is fully detailed and complete as God has said it is (see 6114-115, 111, 1689), they quickly point to the many verses in the Quran which speak of ?obeying God and obeying the messenger? and point out that such verses clearly mean there are two sources of information to be followed ?Obey God? meaning the Quran, and ?Obey the Messenger? meaning the Hadith.
?O you who believe, obey God and His messenger, and do not turn away from him while you have heard.? (820)
?Say ?Obey God and the messenger.? But if they turn away, then God does not like the rejecters.? (332)
?And obey God and obey the messenger, and be aware. If you turn away then know that it is the duty of the messenger to deliver the clarity.? (592)
?And obey God and His messenger, and do not dispute else you will fail and your momentum will depart, and be patient. God is with the patient ones.? (846)
?Say ?Obey God, and obey the messenger.? But if they turn away, then he is only responsible for his obligation, and you are responsible for your obligations. And if you obey him, you will be guided. The messenger is only required to deliver clearly.? (2454)
?O you who believe, obey God, and obey the messenger. And do not render your work in vain.? (4733)
?Obey God and obey the messenger. And if you turn away, then it is only required of Our messenger to deliver clearly.? (6412)
At first glance, the argument of the sects seems somewhat convincing, for surely if God had meant for us to simply follow the Quran He would have only need said ?obey God? and that would have been sufficient. However, by God adding ?and obey the messenger? the claim seems to have some support.
In verse 459 below we see the case for the sects further strengthened as the believers are told to ?obey God? and ?obey the messenger? and ?obey those in authority? (seems to be 3 separate entities), however, if they dispute in any matter they shall ignore the opinion of ?those in authority? and simply revert back to God and His messenger
?O you who believe, obey God and obey the messenger, and those in authority amongst you. But if you dispute in any matter, then you shall refer it to God and His messenger if you believe in God and the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for knowing.? (459)
What has been presented thus far is the logic of the sects in justifying the opening of their Pandora?s Box where the definition of ?what? the messenger delivered becomes a treasure hunt through the hundreds of thousands of old wives tales and stories all attributed to the messenger doing or saying something.
Is the Quran complete or not?
?Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed?? Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.? (6114)
?And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.? (6115)
This is now the question that is faced by all those who believe in the authority of the Quran alone. How can the Quran claim to be complete and detailed and yet, it refers to a source outside of itself?
Obey God and obey the messenger?
The answer for this entire issue is found once again in the Quran itself
?Whoever obeys the messenger has obeyed God; and whoever turns away, We have not sent you as a guardian over them. ? (480)
While this may come as a shock to the sects, it is a natural answer for students of Quran who know and believe the word of God to be detailed and complete. We are told in no uncertain terms that whoever has ?obeyed the messenger? has automatically met the requirement of ?obeying God? (i.e. the two commands are one in the same).
A little thought by the sects would have led them to the same conclusion, for, after all, the Quran was never revealed to us by God directly, but was done through His inspiration to His messenger (i.e. the messenger, God, and the Quran are inseparable).
There is no external text to be sought; no Hadiths?There is only the words that the messenger delivered while being inspired by God.
What did the messenger deliver?
Now we have narrowed down our search to just one element which was delivered by both God and His messenger.
Is that one element the Quran?
Is that one element the Hadith?
Again, we will look to the words of God and His messenger for the answer
?Say ?Which is the greatest testimony?? Say ?God is witness between me and you, and He has inspired to me this Qur?an that I may warn you with it and whomever it reaches, that you bear witness that along with God are other gods!? Say ?I do not bear witness!? Say ?He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you set up!? (619)
?And when Our clear revelations are recited to them, those who do not wish to meet Us said ?Bring a Qur?an other than this, or change it!? Say ?It is not for me to change it of my own accord, I merely follow what is inspired to me. I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the retribution of a great day!? (1015)
Can it be any clearer than that? The messenger delivered the Quran and nothing but the Quran.
Let us remain true to the commands of God by obeying His messenger in that which he delivered, and not be like those who turned away and will be denied by the messenger himself on the day of days
?And the messenger said ?My Lord, my people have deserted this Qur?an.?? (2530)
-
In the first instance may I request that the discussion may be given a title worthy of intelligent, thought provoking discussion/input by all the participants. The present one only reflects a disquiet/agitated state of mind, one ?a? followed by 18 h.
And the outcome of discussion will perhaps be inconclusive since parameters have not been settled in advance. Unless we decide to remove/minimize the element of subjectivity we can never reach a conclusion.Quran e Majeed introduces itself as ?La Raib?. Anything subjective can?t be called ?La Raib?. Absolute objective meets the meaning and definition of ?La Raib?. Quran Majeed claims about itself ?Al haqqo?, ?Al haqaul yaqeen?. For a book, which is not absolutely objective, it can?t be termed like this.
A book is nothing but a medium of passing to the posterity the knowledge/information/data/news about past events and happenings/behavior/psychology and attitude of past people. And for its conveyance to people the medium is ?hadith? meaning ?saying comprising of recognized words?.
Hadith is converted into Qaul. Until and unless there exists a ?hadith? how can there be a ?qaul?? Quran is ?Ahsan al hadith? of Allah. It existed and was conveyed to Messenger. When he narrated this ?Ahsanal Hadith? it becomes Qauli Rasool, as Quran calls it. The Book is La Raib, void of subjectivity; how can a person assigned the duty of delivering Kitab La raib could talk and say something from his own. If he says something other than the words of the Book, it will certainly be termed as subjective. Rasoul is included in those from whom help can be sought for bringing a similar verse like Quran; even he can?t help anybody since he is not capable of doing so.
When he was assigned the duty of Messenger, were not there hadith of many Messengers before him circulating deep into the veins of those people and accepted as truth passed to them in continuity form the past? Did the Messenger believe in any of the hadith prevalent in his time? His response was only one ?Bring me the Book revealed before this Quran, or show me the evidence from knowledge {ilm} if you are talking the truth?. The Messenger didn?t accept as knowledge (Ilm), the stories narrated by people from generation to generation just with their mouths. He insisted, ?Bring your Burhan, solid, concrete evidence, not just sayings?.
If that was the attitude of the Messenger, why the attitude of his followers should be any different when he is not physically with us?
Did he believe in any thing else than the Book? He is on record to have said, ? I believe what has been revealed in the Book?. If he believes only in the Book, why should his followers believe in others notwithstanding their popularity amongst people? Quran has advised that the popularity of people may not surprise you.
Can it be denied that the people, who were not accepting Quran, kept asking the Messenger to say something to them other than Quran? What were they asking for? Nothing, except his personal hadith. One can narrate hadith only on the basis of data/information/knowledge stored in his memory till that point of time. Did Messenger oblige them? He refused to say anything from his own perception/knowledge/understanding/information/data. He replied he would recite and narrate them only Quran, the La raib, absolute objective thing. That reflects the personality and psyche of the Messenger. He is the Sadiq, a person who utters nothing but the absolute truth void of subjectivity.
We may first ask Quran e Majeed to tell us whether the Messenger did say something to certain people in privacy, was he in the habit of narrating ?hadith? to people in confidence? -
Peace hlatif,
Tanveer, I answered your question. You may not feel that way, but it was an answer.
I never asked any question !! I requested you to directly answer the questions asked by The God in the relevant signs but alas, you have yet again evaded answering The God's questions. -\
1- The Qur'an came before hadeeth. So, this Aya is not talking about the hadeeth as we know it.
Brother Mazhar has answered this very eloquently in his post above. The message of the Qur'aan asking us not to trust in any hadeeth other than The God's words is relevant for all times and for all hadeeth.
2- It talks about Iman and Iman is not belief. It is about safety and trust. Yes, no word is more trustworthy than the word of God.
Ok, in which hadeeth other than The God's words will you trust in ? Just answer The God's questions in 7185, 456, and 7750 according to your understanding of "imaan" being "trust". Your inability to directly answer those questions asked by The God is empirical evidence that you cannot defend your position, and thus refutes it.
The word of God also said
2285
Amana Alrasoolu bima Unzila ilayhi, walmuminoona kullun Aman billahi wamalaikatihi wakutubihi warusulih-----"The messenger trusted in what was sent to him, and the ones who trusted, each trusted in Allah and his angels and his books and his messengers.
I get the impression that you guys want to make the messengers as exactly equal to the message, when they are clearly two entities. If so, then the Aya is repeating exactly the same thing twice, being redundant. So, in order to support your claims, you will have to make the sentences of the Qur'an redundant. You end up undermining the miracle of the Qur'an by making a mediocre piece of literature, just to support your biased view of things.
The phrase "and His messengers" is not redundant because the books came through His messengers; otherwise one would ask which books to trust in. Then anyone can claim any book as having been sent down by The God and then one can justify following ANY BOOK ONE THOUGHT TO BE WORD OF GOD for obeying The God.
-
Asalamu Alaikum
Thank you all for giving me some of your time and providing me with some thought.
Layth thanks for the article, Yes the messenger delivered the Quran and nothing else. Though people will say only the messenger knows the true message only he knows how we are supposed to practice. Hence the hadiths. The hadiths of his practices are there to be ?like him?.
Mazhar the title does address agitation and frustration hence the title emphasis on the letter h, so excuse me if it doesn?t suit your etiquettes.
It?s true the prophet believed in the book, and this is what all Muslims believe in. only with the addition of believing hadiths are the practices of the prophet hence why they feel the importance and because certain hadiths have sayings of the prophet not just actions actual ?quotations? apparently so this is what makes the traditionalist more inclined into believing hadiths is obeying the messenger.
You all bring enough information to suffice the Quran is enough and obeying the messenger is following the Quran. Do any of you have mathematical background of logic, what do you say to this
S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..... N}
Let?s say set S is a set of numbers. One wishes to claim S is COMPLETE over ALL natural numbers.
But if you can always find a number greater than 'N'. for example N+1.So if you claim S is unlimited and complete set of all natural numbers as above, you would be wrong. Cos I could produce a new set with the following
S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..... N, (N+1), (N+2), etc}
Surely this set has higher collections of numbers.
BUT!!!!!
what if now I introduce and new last rule that will place a stop to this coming up with Next numbers in one go?? what if I say "any natural number" to be the last set??what if I say the following set
S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..... N, (N+1), (N+2), .... (any addital numbers u come up with)}
So by introducing a new "property" of "numbers u can come up with" you can define S to be covering a COMPLETE range of nutural numbers now.
Substitute the above with the arguments I said the other day where
Quran = {Rule 1, Rule 2, ....... Rule N, (prophets practices and lessons applicable from them)}
The last rule accounts for the "any useful lessons from prophets practices" that can be extracted that is not there in the initial set of Rules (1 to N) in Quran. Hence if a ruling is not found in Quran then use ur wisdome on the prophets practices and accomodate new laws for the society. etc.
Salam
-
The phrase "and His messengers" is not redundant because the books came through His messengers; otherwise one would ask which books to trust in. Then anyone can claim any book as having been sent down by The God and then one can justify following ANY BOOK ONE THOUGHT TO BE WORD OF GOD for obeying The God.
This isn't the sort of "redundant" as in "useless" but the sort as in safety "My network firewall setup is double redundant", "My hard disks are double redundant to avoid loss of data", etc.
-
Salaam Sarah, all,
The mathematical analogy provided has 3 logical fallacies, and is thus not a valid analogy but a fallacious argument. I will call it the FALLACY OF FALSE ANALOGY !
- First premise is made based on absolute verifiable facts, and then a second premise is made based partly on unverifiable info, and then the two are considered analogous.
For example, in the first equation
S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..... N, (N+1), (N+2), .... (any addital numbers u come up with)}
The set of numbers highlighted in red comprise absolutely verifiable and definable numbers, but in the second equation
Quran = {Rule 1, Rule 2, ....... Rule N, (prophets practices and lessons applicable from them)}
How does one know whether what are termed "prophet's practices" are actually prophet's practices ? Thus the set of practices or rules highlighted in red above are not absolutely verifiable and definable, but based on UNVERIFIABLE HEARSAY AND UNVERIFIABLE DEEDS. The analogy therefore is a FALSE ANALOGY.
- Let us consider the first equation again
S = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..... N, (N+1), (N+2), .... (any addital numbers u come up with)}
The set of numbers in blue is clearly NOT COMPLETE, as it DOES NOT INCLUDE the set of numbers in red; however in the second equation
Quran = {Rule 1, Rule 2, ....... Rule N, (prophets practices and lessons applicable from them)}
Because of the usage of the word "Quran", the set of rules in blue is clearly COMPLETE relevant to our guidance by definition, and thus automatically INCLUDES the set in red. (Quran is fully detailed and complete, includes every example, and is a clear explanation of everything relevant to our guidance, and is enough for our guidance, and the prophet followed only the Quran, AND THUS THE RED PART IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE BLUE PART).
Again, the analogy is a FALSE ANALOGY.
- "S" in the first equation consists of INFINITE numbers, whereas "Quran" in the second equation consists of FINITE rules.
Again, the analogy is a FALSE ANALOGY.
The mathematical analogy indicates faulty/poor logic and/or ignorance of some facts !!
Criticism of my analysis and any mistakes in my reasoning is welcome.
-
Salam Sarah,
Layth thanks for the article, Yes the messenger delivered the Quran and nothing else. Though people will say only the messenger knows the true message only he knows how we are supposed to practice. Hence the hadiths. The hadiths of his practices are there to be ?like him?.
Will you save the whole world?
If people decide not to believe in God alone then that is a choice they have made forthemselves.
Let their scholars and mini-gods whom they have taken besides God save them.
And who is more wicked than one who invents lies about God, or denies His revelations! The wicked will never succeed. And the Day We gather them all, then We say to those who set up partnersWhere are your partners whom you used to claim?Then, their only excuse was to sayBy God, our Lord, we did not set up partners!See how they lied to themselves; and that which they invented deserted them.(621-24) -
-
"BTW what's wrong with blessing the prophet?"
It is rather mandatory. Respects, Salam and peace is alwayas upon the Messenger, every second of day and night. "Quran alone" does not suggest to forget the Messenger. Messenger is but personification of Quran.
-
Salaam all,
Thanks for the kind responses. A personal note from sister Sara convinced me to come back and respond.
Wakas,
I find it absurd thinking that in the daily life of the prophet Muhammad if he were to ask his wife to pass the salt for example, they would have thought of this as divinely inspired.
Of course it is part of the message. The way he asked her, thanked her and lived with her is part of the message. A messenger has to live the message in order to convince others of it's significance. I have a question for you
How do you understand the Aya "WaiAAtaziloo annisaa filmaheedhi= and keep away from women in menses"Linguistically, you will be correct if you moved to another house or just did not have sex with her or even practiced coitus interruptus. So, linguistically, you have no clue how to abide by this ruling.
No, that is only true for those people who believe Muhammad the imperfect human is inseparable and the same as Muhammad the messenger/prophet.
And there is nothing in the Qur'an to negate that.
Mazhar,
I want to touch on two issues in your post
1- Regarding QAWL. The Aya says= "WAinnahu laqawlu Rasoolin ----= And he is speech of a messenger---"
He points to the Qur'an. It means that the Qur'an comes from a messenger. It does not mean that the messenger cannot have any other speech nor that that other speech cannot be part of the message.2- You bring the example that the Qur'an asked proof from the Torah. This is a point that strengthens the hadeeth argument rather than weakens it
A) The Torah and the method of it's collection is closer to hadeeth than the Qur'an. It is even in worse shape because there is no chain of how it came to Medina. nor a way to authenticate it. Yet, God used it, at times, as a point of discussion, saying bring the Torah and read it.
B) The Qur'an clearly says that part of the book was changed, yet still the Qur'an asks and accepts evidence from a book that was partially altered. The Qur'an did not say, as Tanveer would say "It is not 100% authentic" Why? because the Qur'an accepts truth= Ilm= knowledge of facts from wherever it comes.
The article that was posted by Layth
Is the Quran complete or not?
?Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this Scripture fully detailed?? Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.? (6114)
?And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.? (6115)
This is now the question that is faced by all those who believe in the authority of the Quran alone. How can the Quran claim to be complete and detailed and yet, it refers to a source outside of itself?
Deep. There are many issues here
1- It mentions alkitab and Alkitab is something that is wider than just Qur'an. So, it can extend to anything that is coming from the book. This may extend to some of the material related to us from the messenger outside the Qur'an.
2- The Qur'an also says "If the sea was ink, then the sea will dry out before the words of my lord are finished". therefore the Qur'an is a minuscule part of God's words. There is nothing to stop more of God's words from arriving at the messenger and then relating them to us in a different manner.
3- Fussilat means delineated and differentiated. It does not necessarily mean fully detailed.
4- While you guys may bring this as a slogan, you clearly prove it wrong. If the Qur'an is fully detailed then how can you guys have more variance in issues that are essential, such as Salat, Sawm, Zakat, HAJJ than the "deviated sects" of Sunnis, Shias, Ibadhis etc. Their variance in those issues pales when campared to you guys. What does fully detailed mean to you? when you do not live by it nor practice it?
Obey God and obey the messenger?
The answer for this entire issue is found once again in the Quran itself
?Whoever obeys the messenger has obeyed God; and whoever turns away, We have not sent you as a guardian over them. ? (480)
While this may come as a shock to the sects, it is a natural answer for students of Quran who know and believe the word of God to be detailed and complete. We are told in no uncertain terms that whoever has ?obeyed the messenger? has automatically met the requirement of ?obeying God? (i.e. the two commands are one in the same)
When God tells you to obey the messenger, then when you obey the messenger, you are obeying God. Nothing conmplicated about it.
Tanveer,
Ok, in which hadeeth other than The God's words will you trust in ? Just answer The God's questions in 7185, 456, and 7750 according to your understanding of "imaan" being "trust". Your inability to directly answer those questions asked by The God is empirical evidence that you cannot defend your position, and thus refutes it.
I trust and have safety in God's words. That means that I will do that not only in words, but in implementation. So, when they tell me obey the messenger, I obey. When they tell me that I need to trust and have safety in the messengers, then I will have it, including implement what the messenger tells me.
The phrase "and His messengers" is not redundant because the books came through His messengers; otherwise one would ask which books to trust in. Then anyone can claim any book as having been sent down by The God and then one can justify following ANY BOOK ONE THOUGHT TO BE WORD OF GOD for obeying The God.
The Qur'an also mentions that they walked the streets and so on. God could have sent a parrot instead. It will remove the "ambiguity" of the issue, a statement you seem to be fond of. Everyone knows that the parrot's job is to parrot. God sent people as messengers to live their message and to answer questions that need to be asked by their fellow man.
OPF,
This isn't the sort of "redundant" as in "useless" but the sort as in safety "My network firewall setup is double redundant", "My hard disks are double redundant to avoid loss of data", etc.
Your firewalls overlap but are not exactly identical. This is the relationship between message and messenger. If they are totally identical, as you guys suggest, then it adds frustration with no gain.
Sister Sarah,
I sense that you have difficulty accepting hadeeth and difficulty rejecting it all. However, you may be afraid that you will fall into inconsistency if you chose a path in between. I have this to share with you1- It is better to be inconsistent but partly right, than to be consistently wrong.
2- Not all of what you do not like is wrong. Sometimes you are wrong.
3- Hadeeth as a full body has to fit together and to fit with the Qur'an. If pieces of that puzzle are not fitting, then it could be that they should not there, or that our placement of them is wrong.
4- Hadeeth is not the Qur'an. Each hadeeth has to have it's own separate judgement that depends on it's chain of narration as well as the statements used in it and their range of meaning.Layth
And who is more wicked than one who invents lies about God, or denies His revelations! The wicked will never succeed. And the Day We gather them all, then We say to those who set up partnersWhere are your partners whom you used to claim?Then, their only excuse was to sayBy God, our Lord, we did not set up partners!See how they lied to themselves; and that which they invented deserted them.(621-24)1- Obeying the messenger is obeying God's orders. So, there is no setting different Gods here.
2- If one lied on God or his messenger, he will suffer. If one rejected the messenger or part of the messenger, he will suffer too. Here is an Aya for you to contemplate4150 VERILY, those who deny God and His messengers by endeavouring to make a distinction between God and His messengers, and who say, "We believe in the some but we deny some," and want to pursue a path in-between -
4151 it is they, they who are truly denying the truth and for those who deny the truth We have readied shameful suffering.BAAaDH= some, encompasses two meanings
1- accepting some messengers and rejecting others.
2- considering one person a messenger in a situation but rejecting his messengership in another.Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
peace Hussein,
Of course it is part of the message. The way he asked her, thanked her and lived with her is part of the message.
It is not part of The Message, i.e. divine revelation. You may be referring to the mission, one could say it was part of the overall mission but in no way part of the divine message. Dont you see that when you say part of the mssage you do not mean a divine, compulsory part, you mean he was an example of a way, not an example of the ONLY way.
A messenger has to live the message in order to convince others of it's significance.
I agree that it is one element of convincing others, but that does not mean the imperfect human is perfect and everything they say is divine.
How do you understand the Aya "WaiAAtaziloo annisaa filmaheedhi= and keep away from women in menses"
Linguistically, you will be correct if you moved to another house or just did not have sex with her or even practiced coitus interruptus. So, linguistically, you have no clue how to abide by this ruling.That is why God gave us reason, the ability to think etc. al quran asks us to reflect, seek knowledge, consider views and choose the best etc. thus al quran is very clear in giving us scope to think and apply the best understanding within a given framework. If someone felt that they must leave the house that is up to them. There would be no such examples in al quran, and would go against the examples of household life. So if they did move out of the house they would be following the weakest of the possible interpretations.
And there is nothing in the Qur'an to negate that.
That is because you see the mistakes mentioned in al quran by Muhammad as the only ones, without any basis, thus are happy to see Muhammad the imperfect human inseparable and the same as Muhammad the divine messenger/prophet.
Literal Say "Truly I am (a) human equal/alike to you, (it) is being inspired/transmitted to me that your God (is) one God, so who was hoping/expecting his Lord's meeting, so he makes/does (E) correct/righteous deeds deed , and he does not share/make partners with worshipping his Lord anyone."
Literal Say "I was not (a) new invention/unprecedented from the messengers, and I do not know what will be made/done with me, nor with you, that I follow except what is being inspired/transmitted to me, and I am not except a clear/evident warner/giver of notice."
etc.
-
peace all
this is a great thread
BTW what's wrong with blessing the prophet?
because the messenger is dead, one can't gain knowledge or hear anyone's 'prayers' in death, the quran very much reinfoces this
1620 As for those they call on besides God, they do not create anything, but are themselves created!
1621 They are dead, not alive, and they will not know when they are resurrected.2765 Say "None in the heavens or the Earth know the unseen except God. And they do not perceive when they will be resurrected."
3522 Nor equal are the living and the dead; God causes whomever He wills to hear. And you cannot make those who are in the graves hear.
However simply saying 'peace be upon the messengers' ....there's nothing wrong with that, that's straight from the quran itself, but the verses about 'blessing the prophet' are clearly referring to an ALIVE prophet imho
-
Salaam Wakas, and thanks for your response,
It is not part of The Message, i.e. divine revelation. You may be referring to the mission, one could say it was part of the overall mission but in no way part of the divine message. Dont you see that when you say part of the mssage you do not mean a divine, compulsory part, you mean he was an example of a way, not an example of the ONLY way.
The mission and the message are not easily separated nor separable. That is why God says obey the messenger and not obey the message. Why? because obeying the messenger encompasses the message and more or it encompasses the message in it's widest understanding as being Qur'an and other. So, what is the mission of the messenger? The Qur'an tells us to teach Alkitaba Walhikmata= the book and the wisdom. Alhikmata is defined by Lisan Al Arab= the making of the best decision based on the best tools of knowledge, justice and compassion. So, if the book reflects the knowledge, the wisdom reflects how one applies the knowledge and that is often by example. This is part of the message or the mission, but both are part of obey the messenger. One does not learn medicine by reading books of medicine. He/she learns it by the book and wisdom/practice under supervision/observation of how others practice it.
You will turn and say but the messenger is dead, then you do not have his example to learn wisdom. Sure, but the books of hadeeth give examples of situations and decisions made by the prophet or different early muslims in order to give a person some instructions on how to apply the Qur'anic reading. In addition, Islam has many scholars who learnt and applied the Qur'an from other scholars and so forth. The most basic elements of Islam, as Salat, Zakat and so forth have been learnt by generation after generation of regular people. That is the Sunna.
Qur'an alone brings to my memory the Khawarej. They were Arabs who had knowlewdge of Arabic and therefore could understand the Qur'an well. Yet, they did not have amongst them any friends of the prophet to help them with the finer issues of understanding the Qur'an. The propduct is that they had superficial understanding that lead to death and destruction. They were too quick at declaring people Kuffar and then killing them. This is an example of people who received the book, but not the wisdom.
Regarding Iaataziloo annisaa filmahidhi= keep away from women in menses. You said this
That is why God gave us reason, the ability to think etc. al quran asks us to reflect, seek knowledge, consider views and choose the best etc. thus al quran is very clear in giving us scope to think and apply the best understanding within a given framework. If someone felt that they must leave the house that is up to them. There would be no such examples in al quran, and would go against the examples of household life. So if they did move out of the house they would be following the weakest of the possible interpretations.
The word was used in 4421 in the meaning move away from me. So, the one who understands it as move to another place will not be wrong linguistically nor Qur'anically. Logic does not count here, because there are not many examples of this in the Qur'an. If one wants to be conservative and protect from error, he will go to the most conservative understanding. The hadeeth provides us with the more lenient understanding and if a person follows hadeeth, then he is at peace with that decision.
That is because you see the mistakes mentioned in al quran by Muhammad as the only ones, without any basis, thus are happy to see Muhammad the imperfect human inseparable and the same as Muhammad the divine messenger/prophet.
I am limiting myself to what the Qur'an tells us and not assuming beyond it. You give yourself a permit to assume further. There is no point in discussing this further. You are still facing a dilemma. Despite the "messenger's undeclared errors", he was chosen as the messenger and not me nor you and in his own tribal mother tongue. This has to mean that despite his errors, he had a much better understanding than you or I or any other muslim on earth. Therefore, would you follow him? if you arrived at a cetain degree of assurance that he ordered or said something? or would you consider yourself better at understanding?
Literal Say "Truly I am (a) human equal/alike to you, (it) is being inspired/transmitted to me that your God (is) one God, so who was hoping/expecting his Lord's meeting, so he makes/does (E) correct/righteous deeds deed , and he does not share/make partners with worshipping his Lord anyone."
Literal Say "I was not (a) new invention/unprecedented from the messengers, and I do not know what will be made/done with me, nor with you, that I follow except what is being inspired/transmitted to me, and I am not except a clear/evident warner/giver of notice."
Correct and it harmonizes perfectly with this statement from the Qur'an
Qul in kuntum tuhibboona Allaha, faittabiAAooni yuhbibkumu Allah= Say (Muhammad) if you happen to love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you.
He did not say follow the message. He said follow me, the person.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
