ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-
Salaam all,
Siki
kindly ponder over the meaning of Mahjoor? ( deserting, chaining, no account, or immobilising, what ever you think appropriate). But its meaning does not fit in the explanation that you have given.
People at the time of prophet , did not accept Quran. There is a big difference in accepting/rejecting, and deserting or chaining, and considering your intellect , i don't need to explain it for you.
There are several issues here.
1- H-J-R means the opposite of connected according to Lisan Al Arab. So, you do not necessarily need connection and then disconnection to make it HJR.2- The people that refused the message had a connection to the message through the messenger. They moved away from it and that is perfectly consistent with your understanding of HJR.
3- the Aya says "Qawmi ittakhathoo hatha Al Qur'an mahjoora= My people took this Qur'an abandoned"
This does not necessarily have to mean that they took it and then abandoned it. It potentially means several other thingsA) They rejected it as soon as they had exposure to it.
B) They treated it as something abandoned and not worth looking at.
And so on.In short, the way you guys understand this Aya is very narrow, in order to make it agree with your biases. You have no reason to narrow the meaning.
25-27 On the day when the wrong-doer gnaweth his hands, he will say Ah, would that I had chosen a way with the messenger (of Allah)!
Again, , Reflect upon the meaning of , choosing a way with the messenger. It is not way of Messenger, or way of Mohammad. This means the messenger is following/followed the message, And alas, i should have also been right along with him , doing the same , what he was doing. Remember if god can take the name of the book as Quran, he could have also said Mohammad , instead of Messenger, But he did not , and i am quite sure , you know the reason.
Ya laytani ittakhathu maaa Alrasooli Sabeelan= I wish I had taken, with the messenger, a path.
He did not take the path of the messenger. The path of the messenger is the Qur'an and the way the messenger looked at it and understood it. They are not separable. In other places, it will say "followed the messenger". Trying to limit "messenger" to the meaning of "Message only" is nothing short of linguistic manipulation that is uncalled for.
Brother ! Do you not consider yourself Qaum e,,,, ? and if not , then what do you consider yourself?
The word QAWM encompasses me as well as the people to whom he was sent and refused him. It is the context of the passage that declares how narrow or wide the understanding of QAWM= people, is. In here, the context narrows it to only those people to whom he was sent and did not follow. This is how Arabic works. It is a conceptual language and the context brings the specificity of the meaning of the word. It did that here.
Come, My Brother! You belong here, and don't let the Satan lead you away from the message after it has/had reached you,
Thanks for the offer, but I decline. I have been in your path. It has dim lighting. I prefer brighter lighting in my path.
Brother latif ! this is what happens if you provide an opening to man made conjectures. An honest mistake morphs in to a Monster and shackles the society, and then nothing short of a bloody revolution can restore the system back to its original form (Quran)
I have been a member of this forum for a good bit longer than you. This is conjecture central. When one removes one of the restraints against bias,hadeeth, it makes for bias heyday.
A simple misspelled law , of "hadood" created havoc with the innocent rape victims in Pakistan . They rotted in jails for decades with punishment of "stoning to death" staring in their faces, just because they could not provide 4 witnesses, For 20 years this non sense brought shame to the Muslims of the whole word, and when one single brave man went out of his way to improve upon the wording of the law,with an intention to save an honest innocent female rape victim, the so called educated bunch of Mullahs banded together(every single one of them) and threatend to uproot the Govt itself ? what a shame.
If I am not mistaken, Javed Ghamidi played a huge role in fighting this using his own understanding of traditional sources. Even though he may be considered a hadeeth skeptic, he is not a hadeeth rejector.
Samia,
I may add a third tool (which is even more important than language)
C) How God described himself and His system to the reader, through attributes and clear examples. The examples are there to stop the bias in understanding the meaning of justice, peace, charity..etc. Prophets did not know more about God than what He told them, and us, through His books. They did not spend a day out with Him. They are not different from us except that they were chosen by Him to deliver the message.
There is a mix of truth and falsehood put together in a nice package. Here are my points
1- Yes one needs to know the attributes. No, you cannot know the attributes without language nor without messenger, unless you make them up in your own image and then impose them on the language and the message.
2- Messengers knew the message better than everyone else. That is why they were chosen to carry the message. So, their understanding is much more important that yours or mine.
3- The person with the most Iman is the one that gets to know God and His attributes better. The messengers had the better Iman.
Past scholars interpreted the qur'aan, or undertood what they believed to be the sayings/actions of the prophet with their own bias and the bias of their time. We do not need to bring the bias of the past and add it to what we already have. This is also the advice of the qu'aan.
1- Everyone has bias. Just because the past scholars had bias, does not mean that we need to throw them away. One can, through reading, determine what the bias and the truth is.
2- Exchanging the bias of the past with the bias of the present is not really a good deal. This is what happens when one reads something totally divorced from the opinions of the past.
3- Being biased is not necessarily because the hadeeth are wrong. Bias is human. You cannot blame their resources for it.
4- A person that follows hadeeth does not have to follow scholars blindly.
We might differ about what is right and what the truth is. This is quite normal and healthy. But we know, or should know, what is wrong. When I read, for example, "adribuhunna", I know it is wrong to understand it as "smack them", not just because I am a woman and do not want to be smacked (which is an acceptable reason in itself). I don't care what it means, but whatever it means, it should conform to the system of God as He explained it to us in the qur'aan in punishment and justice, and to His attributes.
You have a weak point here
1- Your view of "the attributes of God" is different from another person's view, because of bias.2- No matter how much one plays linguistic acrobatics, Idribuhunna will always have people insist that it means hit, and the argument against that meaning will always be challengeable on linguistic grounds.
3- I have a much easier time than you here. The messenger never hit his wives. His understanding was consistent with not hitting, no matter how he understood it. I will take his understanding and avoid all the linguistic acrobatics that will take away from the credibility of a discussion, because it often gives the feeling of manipulation.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
1- Those are the people he was sent to but rejected.
2- They affirm that the right path is the path of the messenger. So, the path to the Qur'an is through the messenger. It is the people that refused to follow the messenger that ended up abandoning the Qur'an in 2530Peace Brother Latif
After reading your last few posts, i presume , that you are of the opinion that Mahjoor Aya was valid for the people at Mohammad's time only, and hence , has nothing to do with you, me or the next generation. Brother ! Are you serious? Do you think this ayat, after prophet's era has become redundant? Going by the same logic, then what is the criteria for an individual to judge the application of the rest of Quran? you are leaving it to an individual's choice , as to what he selects for himself , and abandons at will what does not suite?
Are you not able to comprehend what the situation is today? Can't you appreciate that we have literally made the quran as of no account? I have grown up in a sunni religious family , and i know very well as to how we treat The Quran.
You guys agree to accept only those hadith, which do not contradict quran, but yet implement what bukhari says , rather than what quran prescribes. Did you have any answer to my last post of , stoning , or the death sentence for an apostate? Sectarians still carry out ablution with 9 steps as told by bukhari, in gross violation to the 4 given in quran ? i am sure if i make a deliberate effort , i can lists so many.
So where do you draw the line? Brother you give them an opening , they are all over you . Don't tell me that you have no lesson to draw from the history.
siki
-
Samia,There is a mix of truth and falsehood put together in a nice package. Here are my points
1- Yes one needs to know the attributes. No, you cannot know the attributes without language nor without messenger, unless you make them up in your own image and then impose them on the language and the message.
So you claim that people who do not know Arabic do not know the attributes of God?
2- Messengers knew the message better than everyone else. That is why they were chosen to carry the message
Circular argument. How did they know the message before it was delivered to them? The qur'aan shows us in many instances that, when asked by people, Muhammad had to wait until God told him what to say. So he did not know and was not supposed to answer even a question as simple as "what should we spend?", or "what are crecsents?".
3- The person with the most Iman is the one that gets to know God and His attributes better. The messengers had the better Iman
I am not disputing this. Him aside, everyone of us (scholars included) can be second best. Our problem is not the messenger, but people living centuries after him and claiming they know him better.
1- Everyone has bias. Just because the past scholars had bias, does not mean that we need to throw them away. One can, through reading, determine what the bias and the truth is.
I did not mention their bias only, but the bias, or say the different mentality, of their time. Of course we can read them and see how they thought, but in no way are we obliged to take what they say and implement it as law. God forbade us from this, even if they were good.
2- Exchanging the bias of the past with the bias of the present is not really a good deal. This is what happens when one reads something totally divorced from the opinions of the past.
I did not speak of exchanging. I spoke of adding.
3- Being biased is not necessarily because the hadeeth are wrong. Bias is human. You cannot blame their resources for it.
4- A person that follows hadeeth does not have to follow scholars blindly.
-
NO,NO, this is an invalid argument. Hadeeth are wrong because they are contradicting each other, portraying the prophet, the sahaba, his household and mainly wives in the most degrading form; and most of all its contradiction and additions to the qur'aan and twisting the main message. Plus they give zero explanation to most of the qur'aan. How many verses were "supposedly" explained in hadeeth?
-
Following hadeeth is following the scholars, just like following the message is following the messenger. They are th ones who came up and collected the hadeeth and delivered it.
You have a weak point here
1- Your view of "the attributes of God" is different from another person's view, because of bias.You quote me and choose what you can criticize, although it is not the main point! I said in the quote "it should conform to the system of God as He explained it to us in the qur'aan in punishment and justice, and to His attributes".
The attribute in this context, as being Juste, is explained in His system of punishment. Really the qur'aan is for people who are able to think and reflect for themslves.3- I have a much easier time than you here. The messenger never hit his wives. His understanding was consistent with not hitting, no matter how he understood it. I will take his understanding and avoid all the linguistic acrobatics that will take away from the credibility of a discussion, because it often gives the feeling of manipulation.
Wishful thinking!
You "The messenger never hit his wives"
Advocator of beating up wife "The Messenger never feared their nushooz"How do you know his understanding was not consistent with hitting? Maybe he did not hit them by his own hands, but hadeeth tells us that his wives "Aisha" and "Hafsa" were beaten up on his behalf by their fathers in fron of him.
Do you have any hadeeth by the prophet saying "do not hit the wife"? I personally believe that most probably there were very important teachings and explanations of qur'aan by practice, but the bias and dishonesty concealed them and brought us teachings and laws that are contradictory to the qur'aan, and then we were told that "hadeeth and practice of the prophet abrogate the qur'aan".
Sorry, maybe it is not just innocent and unintentional human bias we are dealing with, but a very big conspiracy theory by scholars.
-
-
Salaam all,
Siki,
After reading your last few posts, i presume , that you are of the opinion that Mahjoor Aya was valid for the people at Mohammad's time only, and hence , has nothing to do with you, me or the next generation. Brother ! Are you serious? Do you think this ayat, after prophet's era has become redundant? Going by the same logic, then what is the criteria for an individual to judge the application of the rest of Quran? you are leaving it to an individual's choice , as to what he selects for himself , and abandons at will what does not suite?
You presumed wrongly. Here is what I have written in my first post
If you add all this together, then the people talked about in 2530 have to be understood as the people he was sent to but did not follow. If one wants to expand the meaning further, then it will apply to anyone who abandoned the Qur'an and did not follow the path of the messenger as indicated in 2527
Those mentioned in bold can be at any time and they are two kinds
1- People adequately exposed to the message and refuse it.
2- People who are muslims and leave message. This group does not have to be the hadeeth people, as you like to think. Why?A) Because they did not leave the Qur'an in the first place.
B) The Qur'an says You happened to be the best nation. If you insist that this was the early muslims and then they all died out until 1400 years later, then you are also contradicting the Qur'an. God says "Kalimatu Allahi hiya Al olya= the statement of Allah is the upper one". So, instead, you are making God's words the lower one for the last 1400 years. Did God lie? Are you willing to make the Qur'an contradict itself, just to make case for an ideology?Are you not able to comprehend what the situation is today? Can't you appreciate that we have literally made the quran as of no account? I have grown up in a sunni religious family , and i know very well as to how we treat The Quran.
The way most of us grew up is affected by strong strands of Sufism in our backgrounds. This is not necessarily reflective of what the hadeeths actually talked about. Secondly, just because of your family, you cannot pass a sweeping judgement on other families. Thridly, assuming that Islam will not move forward until it leaves hadeeth, is a dream. If this forum is a predictor of how Islam will be if it adopted "Qur'an alone" method, then it is going to be total chaos. Don't throw at me "We need time" please. It is a poor excuse for people who claim knowing and understanding the message and that it is "self explained". How can a self explained message lead to such diversion in understanding of simple Islamic principles as "Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj"?
You guys agree to accept only those hadith, which do not contradict quran, but yet implement what bukhari says , rather than what quran prescribes. Did you have any answer to my last post of , stoning , or the death sentence for an apostate?
Those two issues are big. To discuss them adequately, one may need to open a new thread. However, I can touch on them in broad terms here
1- Within Sunnis, there are groups such as islamicperspectives.com and understanding-islam.org who are actively critiqueing the validity and authenticity of such hadeeths. Those two groups are using hadeeth sources to make their cases. What does that tell you? Hadeeth material can be used effectively by modern and reform minded Sunnis to challenge already accepted controversial hadeeths.
2- There were early Muslims who refused stoning, the khawarej and early Muslims that refused killing the apostate, Abu Hanifa and thawri. Those two groups refused such rulings with knowledge of such hadeeths and without necessarily rejecting them. What does that tell you? That the same hadeeths have a range of understanding that allows for a different ruling than what is used.
3- The ones who will support both, stoning and killing the apostate will insist that they are not contradicting the Qur'an based on this Aya "man Qatala nafsan bighayri nafsin aw fasadin filardhi= whoever killed a self without a self or harm in the land". They consider that both, apostacy within the Islamic state, as rebellion against the law of the state, and adultery in public of a married person as actions of "harm in the land". You can go back and forth about that, but Fasad filArdhi is a vague term, that may apply there.
Samia, thanks for your response
So you claim that people who do not know Arabic do not know the attributes of God?
A person who does not know Arabic will have to depend on what a person who speaks Arabic tells him or her what the Qur'an says regarding the attributes of God. He or she cannot know the Attributes out of thin air, unless you make the Qur'an less important than the mind of the person. This point reminds me. Since the vast majority here do not speak Arabic, then they are not really "Qur'an alone" They are instead, "translation of Qur'an alone" or alternatively, "mind only and then Qur'an".
Circular argument. How did they know the message before it was delivered to them? The qur'aan shows us in many instances that, when asked by people, Muhammad had to wait until God told him what to say. So he did not know and was not supposed to answer even a question as simple as "what should we spend?", or "what are crecsents?".
A messenger becomes a messenger after he received the message not before. The message came to him in his own language and in his heart and mind as the Qur'an says. So, the message came to him not only in word, but it entered his thoughts and emotions. God's knowledge is vast and no one will know everything. The fact that the messenger had to wait for a response, does not make his knowledge lesser than the knowledge of the rest of human beings such as you or me. It is still much greater.
I did not mention their bias only, but the bias, or say the different mentality, of their time. Of course we can read them and see how they thought, but in no way are we obliged to take what they say and implement it as law. God forbade us from this, even if they were good.
No one would say follow scholars blindly.
Hlatif
2- Exchanging the bias of the past with the bias of the present is not really a good deal. This is what happens when one reads something totally divorced from the opinions of the past.Samia
I did not speak of exchanging. I spoke of adding.Here is what you wrote a paragraph later
- Following hadeeth is following the scholars, just like following the message is following the messenger. They are th ones who came up and collected the hadeeth and delivered it.
How do you add another floor to a building when you have compromised a significant portion of it's foundation?!
The statement is wrong as well. The different entities that you mention overlap but are not identical. Those who make them exactly identical are either
1- People with narrow or blurred vision because of ignorance or strong bias.
2- People who know that they are overlapping but insist otherwise, either to protect an indefensible ideology or to mislead others.- NO,NO, this is an invalid argument. Hadeeth are wrong because they are contradicting each other, portraying the prophet, the sahaba, his household and mainly wives in the most degrading form; and most of all its contradiction and additions to the qur'aan and twisting the main message. Plus they give zero explanation to most of the qur'aan. How many verses were "supposedly" explained in hadeeth?
Appeal to emotion. Repeat of cliche that is well worn. Just because you see contradiction does not mean that it is present. There are many hadeeths that explain the Qur'an or expand the way we look at it, but we are discussing what the Qur'an says in this thread and not what the hadeeth says.
You "The messenger never hit his wives"
Advocator of beating up wife "The Messenger never feared their nushooz"How do you know his understanding was not consistent with hitting? Maybe he did not hit them by his own hands, but hadeeth tells us that his wives "Aisha" and "Hafsa" were beaten up on his behalf by their fathers in fron of him.
The second paragraph responds to the objector. That was Nushooz. As for the prophet witnessing the fathers hitting their daughters then bring your proof.
Do you have any hadeeth by the prophet saying "do not hit the wife"?
Yes, and because of that hadeeth, Imam Shafii prohibited hitting wives and considered it Makrooh= hated.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
The way most of us grew up is affected by strong strands of Sufism in our backgrounds. This is not necessarily reflective of what the hadeeths actually talked about. Secondly, just because of your family, you cannot pass a sweeping judgement on other families. Thridly, assuming that Islam will not move forward until it leaves hadeeth, is a dream. If this forum is a predictor of how Islam will be if it adopted "Qur'an alone" method, then it is going to be total chaos. Don't throw at me "We need time" please. It is a poor excuse for people who claim knowing and understanding the message and that it is "self explained". How can a self explained message lead to such diversion in understanding of simple Islamic principles as "Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj"?
Those two issues are big. To discuss them adequately, one may need to open a new thread. However, I can touch on them in broad terms here
1- Within Sunnis, there are groups such as islamicperspectives.com and understanding-islam.org who are actively critiqueing the validity and authenticity of such hadeeths. Those two groups are using hadeeth sources to make their cases. What does that tell you? Hadeeth material can be used effectively by modern and reform minded Sunnis to challenge already accepted controversial hadeeths.
2- There were early Muslims who refused stoning, the khawarej and early Muslims that refused killing the apostate, Abu Hanifa and thawri. Those two groups refused such rulings with knowledge of such hadeeths and without necessarily rejecting them. What does that tell you? That the same hadeeths have a range of understanding that allows for a different ruling than what is used.
3- The ones who will support both, stoning and killing the apostate will insist that they are not contradicting the Qur'an based on this Aya "man Qatala nafsan bighayri nafsin aw fasadin filardhi= whoever killed a self without a self or harm in the land". They consider that both, apostacy within the Islamic state, as rebellion against the law of the state, and adultery in public of a married person as actions of "harm in the land". You can go back and forth about that, but Fasad filArdhi is a vague term, that may apply there.
Samia, thanks for your responseA person who does not know Arabic will have to depend on what a person who speaks Arabic tells him or her what the Qur'an says regarding the attributes of God. He or she cannot know the Attributes out of thin air, unless you make the Qur'an less important than the mind of the person. This point reminds me. Since the vast majority here do not speak Arabic, then they are not really "Qur'an alone" They are instead, "translation of Qur'an alone" or alternatively, "mind only and then Qur'an".
A messenger becomes a messenger after he received the message not before. The message came to him in his own language and in his heart and mind as the Qur'an says. So, the message came to him not only in word, but it entered his thoughts and emotions. God's knowledge is vast and no one will know everything. The fact that the messenger had to wait for a response, does not make his knowledge lesser than the knowledge of the rest of human beings such as you or me. It is still much greater.
No one would say follow scholars blindly.
Here is what you wrote a paragraph laterHow do you add another floor to a building when you have compromised a significant portion of it's foundation?!The statement is wrong as well. The different entities that you mention overlap but are not identical. Those who make them exactly identical are either
1- People with narrow or blurred vision because of ignorance or strong bias.
2- People who know that they are overlapping but insist otherwise, either to protect an indefensible ideology or to mislead others.
Appeal to emotion. Repeat of cliche that is well worn. Just because you see contradiction does not mean that it is present. There are many hadeeths that explain the Qur'an or expand the way we look at it, but we are discussing what the Qur'an says in this thread and not what the hadeeth says.
The second paragraph responds to the objector. That was Nushooz. As for the prophet witnessing the fathers hitting their daughters then bring your proof.Yes, and because of that hadeeth, Imam Shafii prohibited hitting wives and considered it Makrooh= hated.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
Thridly, assuming that Islam will not move forward until it leaves hadeeth, is a dream. If this forum is a predictor of how Islam will be if it adopted "Qur'an alone" method, then it is going to be total chaos. Don't throw at me "We need time" please. It is a poor excuse for people who claim knowing and understanding the message and that it is "self explained". How can a self explained message lead to such diversion in understanding of simple Islamic principles as "Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj"?
The messenger took 23 years to get the full message, did he not? "Assuming Islam will not move forward until it leaves hadith" is a dream, not because of that ridiculous notion, but because idealogies don't "move". Islam is Islam is Islam. The question is, are we actually FOLLOWING Islam? Or are we following what 5 Persian scholars compiled?
"How can a self explained message lead to such diversion in understanding of simple Islamic principles as "Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj"?"
Very easy. It's a funny question, this, because it shows the fundamental illogicalness of the Sunni mindset. What you are trying to do is fit a square into a circle, inventing a problem when there is none. Now, is "Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj" in the Quran as how it is practiced today? NO. There is nothing in the Quran to say "Do 7 circumambulations around a black cube and throw 7 stones rubbed in the dust 7 times at a wall". If it isn't in the Quran, it's "bid'ah", innovation, and innovation is to be discarded. Plain and simple. Zakat, you have your answer in 002.219. Is the Sunni "2.5%" a logical constraint for all mankind? Is a square a circle? No. The fallacy committed here is assuming you are 100% correct then attempting to retrofit. Or, in other words, creating a problem then using the same problem as an argument.
1- Within Sunnis, there are groups such as islamicperspectives.com and understanding-islam.org who are actively critiqueing the validity and authenticity of such hadeeths. Those two groups are using hadeeth sources to make their cases. What does that tell you? Hadeeth material can be used effectively by modern and reform minded Sunnis to challenge already accepted controversial hadeeths.
Very confusing, I imagine. Oh wait, it is. Another case as to why hadith are not so good in this regard. Hadith that make extra-Quranic judgement, that is. One day you're a kaffir bound to hell, and a clear cut enemy of Allah, destined to dwell in the lowest of the 7 hells, eating what you regurgitated the day before, etc, etc, the next day, the hadith is found to not be "sahih" and wow - you're a true mu'min.
2- There were early Muslims who refused stoning, the khawarej and early Muslims that refused killing the apostate, Abu Hanifa and thawri. Those two groups refused such rulings with knowledge of such hadeeths and without necessarily rejecting them. What does that tell you? That the same hadeeths have a range of understanding that allows for a different ruling than what is used.
It tells me that they are being illogical and refusing to accept clear cut evidence in front of their eyes for something that conforms to their fear of other people as opposed to God. If a hadith says 2+2=5 or some other very clear notion, i.e "Stone adulterers regardless of whether it is in the Quran", it would be illogical, completely illogical to not discard it.
3- The ones who will support both, stoning and killing the apostate will insist that they are not contradicting the Qur'an based on this Aya "man Qatala nafsan bighayri nafsin aw fasadin filardhi= whoever killed a self without a self or harm in the land". They consider that both, apostacy within the Islamic state, as rebellion against the law of the state, and adultery in public of a married person as actions of "harm in the land". You can go back and forth about that, but Fasad filArdhi is a vague term, that may apply there.
No. The punishments prescribed by God are CLEAR CUT. It is only when you wish to retrofit your own opinions and ideals, regardless of hadith, that a problem comes up and you resort to vague or allegorical verses to declare a punishment. Case in point, the beating of wives, cutting of hands, and of course, stoning, and even apostasy. If a punishment is not in the Quran, what gives these people the authority to judge for themselves and create extra-brutal punishments? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, aside from their own desires.
Samia, thanks for your responseA person who does not know Arabic will have to depend on what a person who speaks Arabic tells him or her what the Qur'an says regarding the attributes of God. He or she cannot know the Attributes out of thin air, unless you make the Qur'an less important than the mind of the person. This point reminds me. Since the vast majority here do not speak Arabic, then they are not really "Qur'an alone" They are instead, "translation of Qur'an alone" or alternatively, "mind only and then Qur'an".
Then the difference is relative. Following "Translation of Quran - Alone" is better than following "Translation of Quran and Persian Scholarship Studies - Alone". As for "mind only and then Qur'an", it depends on "mind". If someone wishes to follow their desires, then "mind" is bad. Otherwise, "mind" is generally good. Regardless, rationality must always be exercised. Being versed in Arabic is no excuse to start disregarding logic and attempting to fit a square into a circle.
Yes, and because of that hadeeth, Imam Shafii prohibited hitting wives and considered it Makrooh= hated.
I'm curious, what gives Imam Shafi the authority to prohibit a divinely sanctioned punishment for evil, rebellious women? If God the all-knowing advocates the beating of women, who is Imam Shafi, a mere mortal, one who happens to lose his memory by watching the heels of a woman, to dispute this? He is nothing.
Peace hmm
-
Although I have sworn to myself never to debate with sectarians , I sometimes see or read things which tend to get under my skin, and feel I must clarify them. So I will make just ONE post, and then never show my face in this thread again.
Of all the 6 pages of pointless debate regarding the necessity of Hadith to explain the Quran - and they may as well be 600 pages- and you will NEVER reach an agreement- because there is no common ground- something hlatif said caught my attention.
In his ceaseless effort to prove that we need Hadiths to explain the Quran, he wrote the followingOf 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.
and, further down, wrote
Regarding Iaataziloo annisaa filmahidhi= keep away from women in menses. You said this
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.
So basically, you are claiming that the command to "i3tazill" the women, is ambiguous, from a linguistic point of view, and therefore we must resort to Bukhary and Co., in order to understand what it actually means, from the prophetic hadiths / traditions found within.
Isn't this what you meant? OR am I wrong?
Again I will quote you".....The hadeeth provides us with the more lenient understanding and if a person follows hadeeth, then he is at peace with that decision"
This is just another example which proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the sectarians NEVER read the verses of the Quran in context. They isolate each verse, completely ignore the verses that come before and after it, and claim that we need Hadith to explain it, or "Sabab nuzoul" (Reason for its revelation).
What's even worse, they sometimes chop up a single verse into fragments, and interpret each fragment by itself, without seeing the whole context. This is one of the many tools their "marja3s" have been using throughout the centuries to perpetrate their crime of corrupting God's words beyond recognition.
I can provide you with no less than a dozen , enumerated examples of how the sectarians fail to understand the meanings of some verses, because they isolate them from their context. I will soon make a seperate thread which discusses this point exclusively.
But for now, let's stick to the subject at hand.
If hlatif would open his eyes and read the ENTIRE VERSE, and not a fragment of it, then the truth about the alledged "ambiguity" concerning the meaning of "i3tazilu" will be solved. (Note that I have left the word untranslated).
{And they ask you about menstruation? Say "It is harmful, so "i3tazilu" the women during the menstruation, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.}....{2222}
To get a better picture, read the verse which comes directky after it
{Your women are a cultivation for you. So approach your cultivation as you wish towards goodness. And be aware of God and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers}.... {2223}
As you can see, from the phrases outlined in red, the meaning of the verses is clear Instructions pretaining to sexual approach, PERIOD. The context of the verse 222, followed by its continuation in 223, speaks for itself.
I do not need Bukhary and Co, nor the fatwa of Sistany or the Azhar to explain the meaning of "I3tazilu" for me.
When someone makes a claim, then it deserves to be checked to see if the claim is true or not. You have a good criterion to judge it. It is called Qur'an. If one hadeeth is proven wrong, then that does not mean that all are wrong as well. That would be called stereotyping and unwise generalization.
Note the paradox We must resort to the Quran as a criterion to judge the Hadiths (of Bukhary - for example). But wait... The Quran CANNOT be understood in the first place without resorting to Bukhary!!..... brickwall
THis is not a simple matter of selecting your favorite color of jelly beans from a tray, nad leaving the others. This is a matter of salvation!! Thsi is God's "deen" (System) we are talking about here.
If I have, in front of me, a book whose author claims contains the very words of the Prophet, and while reading through it I find hadiths which contradict the Quran, others which contradict each other (sometimes on the same page), others which contradict science and/or common sense, then what does this say about the credibility of the author? Can I trust the source?
The logical thing to do is dismiss the entire thing as word of mouth hearsay, and throw it in the trash can.
Peace, out..
-
Peace Hussein,
Emotion is not the only thing that makes a person biased. Bias is the holding of something as fact when there is nothing to support it as being fact. Emotion can be in and out.
Senses can get biased. We perceive what we look for and miss what we do not look for. The person who is thirsty will more likely perceive the mirage as a lake. This is how bias works. It forces us to perceive what is not present and to miss what is present.
Bias etc is included in "emotions" simply because emotions they cannot exist. Anyway, the thing is that the biases are in your head. Your eyes are just eyes. They just transmit information to the brain. Your mind is what skews that information due to preconceptions, biases, emotions, expectations.
It's not about whether we can trust our senses or not, but whether we can clear all the biases from our heads and see clearly.
In both instances you used words that hold an amotional reaction in people, positive and negative. Define freedom, equality, justice, charity and peace. Those too are slogans that have been used and abused, very much as the term "Qur'an alone". How do you define freedom when unrestrained, it will take away the freedom of others? Equality in the view that we are clearly different? Sure everyone wants to be equal, but what does that mean and in what area? When is difference ok, since we are already different? Justice without wisdom and mercy would be too rigid and harsh at times. Charity in the wrong place is counterproductive. Peace, does it mean that you let people step all over you?
Freedom means you can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone or take away someone else's freedom.
Of course, that doesn't mean we SHOULD do whatever we want. We as individuals should place limits on ourselves.Equality means that everyone is given the same rights to freedom, justice, etc
Justice means that the laws are fair, and that everyone is subject to the same laws as everyone else.
Charity is right anywhere. Everyone should help others. That doesn't mean we force people to give. I don't see how it can be counter productive?
Peace means we don't attack others unless in self defense. we live our lives and let others live theirs.And my response was not laced with emotions. I was just being blunt. Please don't ignore my statements. Unless you feel you don't need to answer them. I won't get into any heated, emotionally charged arguments with you.
And as I said, some hadith contain usable guidance, and that's fine. Most of them don't. Most of them give us rules and we have to follow them because "we do what god says and god said to follow the messenger."
So, God left a two tier system to help us understand the Qur'an. A system that is more secure from error, rather than one which is prone to the bias of the reader.
You can't possibly believe that the hadith are "secure from error." Are you seriously serious?
The fact is that the hadith are orally transmitted rumors, stories, legends. You can find all sorts of pagan, christian, jewish influences in them.
No one knows, and no one can know, whether where they came from is the same source as the quran. That is also a fact.
And even if the sources were authentic, I wouldn't follow the hadith anyway (and hence also the quran) for the reason I mentioned earlier.See, this is what I believe
-
A book is always explained by itself. We don't use other sources to understand that book. You do not use Harry potter to understand what the Da vinci code is about. It doesn't work. You end up taking all the things in Harry potter, and trying to fit them into the Da Vinci code. We see that with the quran all the time. People keep writing salat articles, trying to fit a an odd number (usually 3 or 5) of ritual prayers into the quran. They keep coming up with different concepts of a pilgrimage to mecca which involves circling a black cube.
The reason they keep doing that is that the quran never talks about these two things (along with other islamic concepts). But because the ideas are ingrained in our heads, we keep trying to fit them in the quran, without considering the fact that the quran isn't talking about these things.
You can talk all about what God wanted and what God supposedly did to secure the quran etc, but the simple fact is that you don't know. You can't know what god wanted.
Once again, like people who write salat articles, you are taking a belief you invented, and then trying to fit it into reality.
You have no evidence that god wrote the quran. You have no evidence that the quran is perfectly preserved. You have no evidence that the hadith were written by a great man (even though anyone who reads them should know they weren't). You have no evidence that what the hadith are saying is true, simply because most of them talk about what what will happen after we die.
You have no evidence.
So, to understand a book's message, we stick to that book only. And we only follow what we KNOW is true. -
It doesn't matter where something came from. What's important is what that something says.
I won't let history tell me whether something is true or not. I read it and then decide.
People keep talking about the "authenticity" of the quran and hadith, but to me that means nothing. I don't care whether a piece of writing is "authentic" or not. I don't care who the author is. The message is what matters.
I don't care if the devil wrote the Harry Potter books, they're still a great read. It doesn't matter who invented calculus, because it works.
People go read the hadith and the quran with the ASSUMPTION that they are from god, and so everything in it, regardless of how idiotic it is, must be true.
The source, the author doesn't matter. The message does.
-
-
Salaam Pazuzu and thanks for your response,
The messenger took 23 years to get the full message, did he not? "Assuming Islam will not move forward until it leaves hadith" is a dream, not because of that ridiculous notion, but because idealogies don't "move". Islam is Islam is Islam. The question is, are we actually FOLLOWING Islam? Or are we following what 5 Persian scholars compiled?
Well the message has been complete for 1400 years and the dictionaries are present for a few hundred years, but you guys are a failure. The Qur'an alone movement is a hundred years old at least. Where is it heading? No where. You have a dead messenger or two, several messengers claiming to be ones, another person claiming that the official version to be discussed at his forum should be QXP and so on. Why all of that? Because when one discovers that it is bias that is ruling, one has to claim something special. Free-minds is free for all. Generally speaking, the ones with the louder mouths and who are able to soung more intellectual in argument prevail over others who do not know much to start with, but are sticking to a nice sounding slogan.
"How can a self explained message lead to such diversion in understanding of simple Islamic principles as "Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj"?"
Very easy. It's a funny question, this, because it shows the fundamental illogicalness of the Sunni mindset. What you are trying to do is fit a square into a circle, inventing a problem when there is none. Now, is "Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj" in the Quran as how it is practiced today? NO. There is nothing in the Quran to say "Do 7 circumambulations around a black cube and throw 7 stones rubbed in the dust 7 times at a wall". If it isn't in the Quran, it's "bid'ah", innovation, and innovation is to be discarded. Plain and simple. Zakat, you have your answer in 002.219. Is the Sunni "2.5%" a logical constraint for all mankind? Is a square a circle? No. The fallacy committed here is assuming you are 100% correct then attempting to retrofit. Or, in other words, creating a problem then using the same problem as an argument.
You make a claim that you cannot support. What is the meaning of "Yattawwafu bilbait Al Ateeq= They circumbulate by the old house". The throwing stones is not considered essential in hajj by some scholars. What is the meaning of AFW? Is what is talked about in 2219 Zakat? or something else? Some of you claim Zakat does not involve charity at all.
When the Qur'an says "If called to Salat on the day of Jumaa then leave the selling" What does that mean when you guys do not know what Salat is? How do you congregate? When you ignore that the messenger and his followers did Salat together every Jumaaa, but there is no evidence of that Salat whatsoever (according to you). What kind of God would send a message, but make it completely disappear so that you guys will have to rediscover it? Where is the self explained in that? Where is the protection of the message?
If one believes you then the message was forgotten and lost and beaten for 1400 years. You accuse the Hadeeth with contradiction. Instead, you make the Qur'an contradict itself. Did not God promise to keep the message, support his followers and make the Qur'an explainable? According to you, none of that happened in the last 1400 years. Very interesting.
Very confusing, I imagine. Oh wait, it is. Another case as to why hadith are not so good in this regard. Hadith that make extra-Quranic judgement, that is. One day you're a kaffir bound to hell, and a clear cut enemy of Allah, destined to dwell in the lowest of the 7 hells, eating what you regurgitated the day before, etc, etc, the next day, the hadith is found to not be "sahih" and wow - you're a true mu'min.
If the essentials of that science are well preserved, then it gives the license to other scholars to revise some of the old accepted standings of some hadeeths.
It tells me that they are being illogical and refusing to accept clear cut evidence in front of their eyes for something that conforms to their fear of other people as opposed to God. If a hadith says 2+2=5 or some other very clear notion, i.e "Stone adulterers regardless of whether it is in the Quran", it would be illogical, completely illogical to not discard it.
If one's knowledge of hadeeth is superficial, then he or she may arrive at a superficial conclusion. There are other reasons why people may reach different conclusions from the same hadeeth. This includes the language used and the circumstance and whether the language is binding or not.
No. The punishments prescribed by God are CLEAR CUT. It is only when you wish to retrofit your own opinions and ideals, regardless of hadith, that a problem comes up and you resort to vague or allegorical verses to declare a punishment. Case in point, the beating of wives, cutting of hands, and of course, stoning, and even apostasy. If a punishment is not in the Quran, what gives these people the authority to judge for themselves and create extra-brutal punishments? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, aside from their own desires.
1- You can use all the interesting language you want. You cannot change the fact that Fasad fil Ardh leaves some lee way for a ruler and his community to decide what constitutes it or not.
2- But you bring examples that make it interesting. Iqtaaoo Aydiyahum= cut their hands, becomes do not cut their hands and so forth. Tell me something, when do you understand the Qur'an in concrete and when in abstract? and depending on what criteria? or is it just because you do not like the concrete meaning? In no time, you guys may abstract the Qur'an, in the name of "Qur'an alone" to make it mean nothing. Why? because sooner or later you will find another thing that you do not like. Oh yes, let us abstract it to nothingness.
Then the difference is relative. Following "Translation of Quran - Alone" is better than following "Translation of Quran and Persian Scholarship Studies - Alone". As for "mind only and then Qur'an", it depends on "mind". If someone wishes to follow their desires, then "mind" is bad. Otherwise, "mind" is generally good. Regardless, rationality must always be exercised. Being versed in Arabic is no excuse to start disregarding logic and attempting to fit a square into a circle.
The first part is hogwash. I will say peace. The second part ignores that the bias and the mind are mixed and intertwined. You cannot say, this is my mind speaking and this is my bias. The bias is well entrenched in all of us and cannot be cleansed except through Taqwa= consciousness. Claiming otherwise is ignorance or arrogance.
I'm curious, what gives Imam Shafi the authority to prohibit a divinely sanctioned punishment for evil, rebellious women? If God the all-knowing advocates the beating of women, who is Imam Shafi, a mere mortal, one who happens to lose his memory by watching the heels of a woman, to dispute this? He is nothing.
The structure of the sentence coupled with the hadeeth that he had with him. Not the meaning of the word Idribuhunna.
As for this
{And they ask you about menstruation? Say "It is harmful, so "i3tazilu" the women during the menstruation, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. When they are cleansed, then you may approach them as God has commanded you." God loves the repenters and He loves the cleansed.}....{2222}
To get a better picture, read the verse which comes directky after it
{Your women are a cultivation for you. So approach your cultivation as you wish towards goodness. And be aware of God and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers}.... {2223}
As you can see, from the phrases outlined in red, the meaning of the verses is clear Instructions pretaining to sexual approach, PERIOD. The context of the verse 222, followed by its continuation in 223, speaks for itself.
Not as you wish. Whether you understand IaAtaziloo as not have sex only or be away, you are not having sex with them in both scenarios. So, when the Aya tells you that you can then have sex with them, it will not change the ambiguity of the degree of Iaataziloo= be away. The core, sex, is present, but the degree of staying away is not clarified, no matter how much you try.
hlatif
When someone makes a claim, then it deserves to be checked to see if the claim is true or not. You have a good criterion to judge it. It is called Qur'an. If one hadeeth is proven wrong, then that does not mean that all are wrong as well. That would be called stereotyping and unwise generalization.pazuzu
Note the paradox We must resort to the Quran as a criterion to judge the Hadiths (of Bukhary - for example). But wait... The Quran CANNOT be understood in the first place without resorting to Bukhary!!.....In one of my posts, I did mention language and the messenger as the means to understand the Qur'an. In fact, that was part of my discussion with Samia. It is a two system of verification, but there may be more
When the hadeeth and the language agree, then one can be reassured that his or her understanding is safe. When the two are irreconciliable, then one has to study. Sometimes, it happens because someone is playing manipulations of the language and at times, the hadeeth is incorrect.
If you leave it to language alone, then you are exposing the Qur'an to wild speculations of understanding as is very evident on this site and forum.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Generally speaking, the ones with the louder mouths and who are able to soung more intellectual in argument prevail over others who do not know much to start with, but are sticking to a nice sounding slogan.
That means nothing. Simply because I can say the same thing about the quran. You only follow it because it's "nice sounding." Right?
And it's also wrong. Judging by how much I post (5 a day for a year and a half), you can say I have a loud mouth. I also like to think I at least sound intellectual. But the majority of the forum members think I've lost my head or something. -
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.
I am more of a reader on this site but I had to post here. Couldnt go past the logic stuff on an islamic site. lol...The logic provided in sarahs post isnt that bad actually.
Tanveer... I understand you are a very wise man since you were able to grasp enough of the logical analogy that u so finely claim to be false.
I should remind you there is nothing wrong with such analogies, Allah himself uses analogies in the Quran to help us understand certain statements He makes. And since you are so aware of the Quran that you claim so COMPLETE, I am sure you wont need to be reminded of any single such analogy from it.
I dont know where you came up with the logical cut n paste sarah, but it could certainly be worded more appripriately to account for some of the week spots tanveer is raising. But surely enough the arguements shown in the set theory isnt that bad, I am impressed. we need more muslim mathematicians.
Tanveer, I draw your attention to the point (3) that you state you indeed admit, Quran in the second equation consists of FINITE rules. and taking these rules one by one (not including the red part highlighted), you claim these are the FINITE rules that make the book COMPLETE in this such diverse life (with INFINITE choices and problems) we live in, today, in 21st centory?
I see some great truths in the arguments mentioned in those set theories. I do see some weekness in the wordings, but I think I can mend that. But I am not going to. its not worth it seeing how stupid some ppl here have been.
Your point (2) ... again your claims are quite falacious. Quran by definition (if only BLUE rules are considered) is not complete. Re my above points.
Prophet indeed followed the Quran. Did he also find the way to perform prayer in the Quran? Is that why he did it the way we do it now? I wont even bother mentioning other examples.
I would take heed to what someone wrote here "if sea was the ink, then it would run out before Allahs words could be finished with it". indeed Quran is a cut down, compact for me dos n donts. absolute bare minimum to keep the faith. it is pretty much as the above set described. A collection of FINITE RULES, and with the INCLUSION of one important "property" (u cud say rule) of allowance of "take heed from prophets practices".
Yes you could be right what we call prophets practices, how do we know if they r realy his practices. Well then i cud ask, what you call Quran, how do you know if its realy is EXACTLY what Allah ment to send down?
Talking about sending stuff down, for those who think the prophets job was only to note down the message, I would say, well if that was the case then Quran would have been sent down within 1 min. I am sure you Allah could excercise his 'ability' to do things lightning fast. But NO! it was sent down over years! 23 years is it? correct me perhaps??? why??? so we cud follow it word by word? I dont think so.
A sane explanation would be, to memorise it, understand it, and watch how it was practiced by the prophet. A good analogy I could give is Quran is like a skeleton, and prophets practices would be the meat covering it, giving it an example of "HOW" it could look like in the end product. It is VERY IMPORTANT to stress that prophets practices would NOT be the ONLY way to cover up (Mesh around) the skeleton. Just as there are different looks from one human to another human (resulting from varying formation of meat on the skeleton), there would be surely more than one way of doing things, and not just blind following every single practices the prophet did. Indeed the prophet stressed this very point also.
Having said that... for those who want to be on the 'safe side' or 'i dono he did it this way, so i thought it was the right way', we can take prophets practices as the 'model' and work on it.
The Verse
?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)I think this verse is an enough clue to represent the argument showed in the set theory posted by Sarah. For those seeming wise out here, I would like to ask, why cudnt Allah say "Obay Allah" only??? are you saying Obeying the messenger same as obeying Allah? if so why didnt Allah say Obey Allah and then Obey Allah again! I thought Allah was wise enough to use words very efficiently SPECIALY when Quran claims to be an art of devine poetry. Such imperfect art it would be then ay? sigh
For those who are wise and humble, I am sure they will see Allahs reason for chosing the words correctly. And wait Allah mentions again, hence stressing the point, follow those in authority, but if u r in dispute then follow Allah AND his messenger.
Anyway... I am not able to finish off here as I wanted to because of timing constraint. But I believe there are two issues 1) Believing prophets practices are a good way to understand Quran. 2) SOME hadiths are indeed what was practiced in prophets time.
I would say ppl start with 1) first. then once that is in place he/she should move onto 2). if u cant have a firm ground on 1) then I suggest you make your own religion. and if you cant have a firm ground on 2) then I say you might as well not hav faith in the way Quran was preserved.
-
Ok the Quran states it is complete, all muslims would say yes it is complete. Now I have a friend who believes it is complete and all the sets of rules are in it and also according to the above verse it allows more rules to be followed - following the Messenger from hadiths that don't contradict the Quran and also those in authority like governments.
How would you reply to that?
Hadith are hearsay. The various collections of hadith in use today were not compiled and recorded in writing until 200+ years after the death of The Messenger Muhammad. The content of many Hadith contradict the Qur'an, contradict one another, conflict scientificly proven facts, and insult the character of The Messenger, yet they are included in Sahih/authentic collections. This proves the "science" of Hadith is seriously flawed and unreliable. This means that following hadith does not equate to following The Messenger. It really equates to following the conjecture of men who met neither
• The Messenger, nor
• his companions
• nor, anyone from the generation of The Messenger's/companion's children,
• grandchildren,
• great grandchildren,
• great great grandchildren,
• great great great grandchildren,
• great great great great grandchildren
• nor great great great great great grandchildren.
In short, I'd ask them to prove that any hadith are the actual words of The Messenger Muhammad.
Peace
-
Salaam Pazuzu and thanks for your response,
Well the message has been complete for 1400 years and the dictionaries are present for a few hundred years, but you guys are a failure. The Qur'an alone movement is a hundred years old at least. Where is it heading? No where. You have a dead messenger or two, several messengers claiming to be ones, another person claiming that the official version to be discussed at his forum should be QXP and so on. Why all of that? Because when one discovers that it is bias that is ruling, one has to claim something special. Free-minds is free for all. Generally speaking, the ones with the louder mouths and who are able to soung more intellectual in argument prevail over others who do not know much to start with, but are sticking to a nice sounding slogan.
You make a claim that you cannot support. What is the meaning of "Yattawwafu bilbait Al Ateeq= They circumbulate by the old house". The throwing stones is not considered essential in hajj by some scholars. What is the meaning of AFW? Is what is talked about in 2219 Zakat? or something else? Some of you claim Zakat does not involve charity at all.When the Qur'an says "If called to Salat on the day of Jumaa then leave the selling" What does that mean when you guys do not know what Salat is? How do you congregate? When you ignore that the messenger and his followers did Salat together every Jumaaa, but there is no evidence of that Salat whatsoever (according to you). What kind of God would send a message, but make it completely disappear so that you guys will have to rediscover it? Where is the self explained in that? Where is the protection of the message?
If one believes you then the message was forgotten and lost and beaten for 1400 years. You accuse the Hadeeth with contradiction. Instead, you make the Qur'an contradict itself. Did not God promise to keep the message, support his followers and make the Qur'an explainable? According to you, none of that happened in the last 1400 years. Very interesting.
If the essentials of that science are well preserved, then it gives the license to other scholars to revise some of the old accepted standings of some hadeeths.
If one's knowledge of hadeeth is superficial, then he or she may arrive at a superficial conclusion. There are other reasons why people may reach different conclusions from the same hadeeth. This includes the language used and the circumstance and whether the language is binding or not.
1- You can use all the interesting language you want. You cannot change the fact that Fasad fil Ardh leaves some lee way for a ruler and his community to decide what constitutes it or not.2- But you bring examples that make it interesting. Iqtaaoo Aydiyahum= cut their hands, becomes do not cut their hands and so forth. Tell me something, when do you understand the Qur'an in concrete and when in abstract? and depending on what criteria? or is it just because you do not like the concrete meaning? In no time, you guys may abstract the Qur'an, in the name of "Qur'an alone" to make it mean nothing. Why? because sooner or later you will find another thing that you do not like. Oh yes, let us abstract it to nothingness.
The first part is hogwash. I will say peace. The second part ignores that the bias and the mind are mixed and intertwined. You cannot say, this is my mind speaking and this is my bias. The bias is well entrenched in all of us and cannot be cleansed except through Taqwa= consciousness. Claiming otherwise is ignorance or arrogance.
The structure of the sentence coupled with the hadeeth that he had with him. Not the meaning of the word Idribuhunna.Hussein
Peace,
That was actually me that wrote that )
Well the message has been complete for 1400 years and the dictionaries are present for a few hundred years, but you guys are a failure. The Qur'an alone movement is a hundred years old at least. Where is it heading? No where. You have a dead messenger or two, several messengers claiming to be ones, another person claiming that the official version to be discussed at his forum should be QXP and so on.
Why do you intentionally conceal the fact that "sunni-ism" didn't emerge until after the work of the likes of Shafi, Hanbal, Maliki, et al? Did people in that period stay in complete limbo, waiting for 4 schools of jurisprudence to pop up out of the sand, or did the people in that period rely on the Quran?
Who are these "dead messengers"? And how does a messenger's death affect the message itself? Does Allah die when the messenger dies?
Generally speaking, the ones with the louder mouths and who are able to soung more intellectual in argument prevail over others who do not know much to start with, but are sticking to a nice sounding slogan.
If that was the case, then Sunni thought should have overtaken this forum long ago. After all, there is a complete "science" based on hearsay, disregarding something called "common sense". The foundation of the "hadiths are contradictory in the beholder's eye" is based on a simple logical fallacy - appeal to ignorance. Ignorance indeed. I thought gambling was haram, according to sunni thought? Why take Pascal's wager then?
What is the meaning of "Yattawwafu bilbait Al Ateeq= They circumbulate by the old house". The throwing stones is not considered essential in hajj by some scholars. What is the meaning of AFW? Is what is talked about in 2219 Zakat? or something else? Some of you claim Zakat does not involve charity at all.
You know very well that tawaf has multiple meanings. Why is there no "rotate 7 times" in the Quran? Again, why no "throw stones at this wall to repel evil spirits"? Is God really that incompetent to write an incomplete book? As for zakat http//free-minds.org/articles/quranic/zakat.htm
Now, if I wanted to know about alcohol, who would I go to? One scholar says it's forbidden unless in small quantities, others do not. Subscribing to a Sunni madhhab practically splits Islam into 4 different sects. Those who think a single drop of urine will invalidate the wudu, those who think it must be a gushing fluid, etc (from a compendium of Sunni law, sources cited, if I could remember the name...).
When you go into one of these sects, you are following Islam as defined by Shafi, as defined by Maliki, etc. I'd prefer Islam as defined by God, and leave out unnecessary extra-Quranic judgements. Please read up on 4221, 1015, 6154, 6159, 6148, and so on. There are many Quranic verses that make it very clear that Sunni-ism is not the message of God.
When the Qur'an says "If called to Salat on the day of Jumaa then leave the selling" What does that mean when you guys do not know what Salat is? How do you congregate? When you ignore that the messenger and his followers did Salat together every Jumaaa, but there is no evidence of that Salat whatsoever (according to you). What kind of God would send a message, but make it completely disappear so that you guys will have to rediscover it? Where is the self explained in that? Where is the protection of the message?
See, this is a problem with Sunni thought. You want to leave no stone unturned, you want everything covered and given to you on a plate. Use your logic and reasoning, how do you think people congregate? And no, we don't have to touch our left leg to our right temple 7 times on entering (the mushrikeen do it 6 times and do one spin with one hand in their mouth, astaghfirullah).
"but there is no evidence of that Salat whatsoever (according to you)"
Really? When did I say this? Consider that statement null, if it ever existed as something other than a straw figment in your imagination )
http//free-minds.org/articles/quranic/salat.htm - For jum'ah.
"What kind of God would send a message, but make it completely disappear so that you guys will have to rediscover it?"
What kind of God sends an incomplete message? What kind of merciful God sends people to an eternal hellfire, based on flimsy pretexts such as "failing to clean up his urine from his clothes"? What kind of beneficient God cursed black dogs? Get real. Good diversionary tactics. People obscured the message, not God. For 3000+ years, not just 1400, the message was ALWAYS THERE FOR SOMEONE TO SEE. It was not concealed. People concealed it by adding their own rubbish on top and declaring all others kuffar. The message has never "completely disappeared". However, certain people have sought to "explain" God's message as if the book couldn't do that for itself.
If one believes you then the message was forgotten and lost and beaten for 1400 years. You accuse the Hadeeth with contradiction. Instead, you make the Qur'an contradict itself. Did not God promise to keep the message, support his followers and make the Qur'an explainable? According to you, none of that happened in the last 1400 years. Very interesting.
If the essentials of that science are well preserved, then it gives the license to other scholars to revise some of the old accepted standings of some hadeeths.
If one's knowledge of hadeeth is superficial, then he or she may arrive at a superficial conclusion. There are other reasons why people may reach different conclusions from the same hadeeth. This includes the language used and the circumstance and whether the language is binding or not.I'm sorry, but to be frank, that paragraph was utter nonsense. The hadith are full of contradiction. There are whole projects dedicated to this. In this Bukhari book I have, one of the pages has 2 hadith - one says 25 rakat for a prayer, another says 27 rakat. Same narrator, I believe.
"Instead, you make the Qur'an contradict itself."
No, the Quran alone contradicts itself for those who are not well founded in knowledge. See? I just reversed your argument, quite easily. The difference being, when you apply this argument to the Quran, the standard of knowledge is reduced - one only needs to use their basic logic and reasoning skills to iron out any supposed contradictions. Whereas, with the hadith, the standard of "well founded in knowledge" is infinitely high. No matter how "well founded in knowledge" you are, no matter how blindingly obvious the contradictions get, you are "not well-founded in knowledge enough". Utter tripe. For instance, I just did a quick Google and got
- "The Prophet never urinated in standing position" (Hanbel 6/136,192,213).
- "The prophet urinated in standing position" (Bukhary 4/60,62).
- "A group from the Ureyneh and Uqayleh tribes came to the prophet and the prophet advised them to drink urine of camels. Later on, when they killed the prophet's shepherd, the prophet seized them, gouged out their eyes, cut their hands and legs, and left them thirsty in the desert" (Bukhary 56/152, Hanbel 3/107,163).
- "Moses was scared by the angel of death, thus Moses slapped him and blinded one of his eyes".
- "I am the most honorable messenger, on the day of the judgment only I will think of my people" (Bukhary 97/36).
"Do not make any distinction among the messengers; I am not even better than Jonah" (Bukhary 65/4,5; Hanbel 1/205,242,440). - "Bad luck is in the woman, the horse, and the home" (Bukhary 76/53).
"If a monkey, a black dog or a woman passes in front of a praying person, his prayer is nullified." (Bukhary 8/102; Hanbel 4/86). - "The prophet gave permission to kill children and women in war" (Bukhari, Jihad/146; Ebu Davud 113).
- "The earth is carried on a giant bull; when it shakes its head an earthquake occurs" (Ibni Kathir 2/29; 50/1).
- "Leaders have to be from the Quraish tribe" (Bukhary 3/129,183; 4/121; 86/31).
- "You shall kill all black dogs; because they are devils" (Hanbel 4/85; 5/54).
- "God is the time" (Muwatta 56/3).
- "To prove His identity, God opened his legs and showed the prophet His thigh." (Bukhary 97/24, 10/129 and the comment on the Sura 68.)
- "The parchment that the verse about stoning to death for adultery was written on was eaten and abrogated by a goat." (Ibni Majah 36/1944; Ibni Hanbal 3/61; 5/131,132,183; 6/269).
- "A tribe of monkeys arrested an adulterous monkey and stoned it to death, and I helped them" (Bukhary 63/27).
- "When the prophet died his armor had been pawned to a Jew for several pounds of barley." (Bukhari 34/14,33,88; Hanbal 1/ 300; 6/42,160,230).
- "The punishment for cutting the fingers of a woman is to pay her 10 camels for one finger, 20 camels for two fingers, 30 camels for three fingers, and 20 (twenty) camels for four fingers" (Hanbel 2/182; Muvatta 43/11).
- "The prophet had been bewitched by a Jew, and for several days he did not know what he was doing" (Bukhari 59/11; 76/47; Hanbel 6/57; 4/367).
- "Muhammad possessed sexual power of 30 men" (Bukhary).
- "Do not eat and drink with your left hand, because Satan eats and drinks with the left hand" (Hanbel 2/8,33).
- "The prophet said'Do not write anything from me except the Quran. Whoever wrote, must destroy it" (Muslim, Zuhd 72; Hanbel 3/12,21,39).
- "The prophet ordered Amr Ibn As to write everything that he speaks" (Hanbel 2/162).
- "Omar said Quran is enough for us, do not write anything from the prophet" (Bukhary, Jihad 176, Gizya 6, Ilim 49, Marza 17, Megazi 83, Itisam 26; Muslim, Vasiyya 20,21,22).
How does someone in America pay 10 or 20 or 30 camels per finger? Are you so blind that you can't see that those apply strictly to an 8th century society? Do we trade in camels now? Is the Earth carried by a bull? Does the whole earth shake from an earthquake?
Did not God promise to keep the message, support his followers and make the Qur'an explainable?
Yes, God supported his true followers, Ahle-Hadith such that they are restricted to terrorist cells, Al-Azhar university, and they are being blown into pieces daily by tomahawk missiles, when they are not being swiped by the CIA and sent to prisons in Europe, or even swiped by their own country's secret police.
Where is the protection of the message?
Is the Quran not the same as it has been since it was revealed?
1- You can use all the interesting language you want. You cannot change the fact that Fasad fil Ardh leaves some lee way for a ruler and his community to decide what constitutes it or not.
More hogwash. People are not allowed to make extra-Quranic judgements on things that are clear cut (by the way, 0202). There is a punishment for zina, there is a specific punishment for theft, and so on. There is no punishment for apostasy - contrary to that, there is no compulsion in deen (2256), and Allah guides whom he wills (2779-82, 3051-54, 2446-48, 350. The Quran does not leave any leeway for anything other than the most corrupt and tyrannical of leaders and communities, devoid of any logic, rationality, compassion, and common sense, while adhering to tradition (1078 )).
2- But you bring examples that make it interesting. Iqtaaoo Aydiyahum= cut their hands, becomes do not cut their hands and so forth. Tell me something, when do you understand the Qur'an in concrete and when in abstract? and depending on what criteria? or is it just because you do not like the concrete meaning? In no time, you guys may abstract the Qur'an, in the name of "Qur'an alone" to make it mean nothing. Why? because sooner or later you will find another thing that you do not like. Oh yes, let us abstract it to nothingness.
Do they abstract it? 545. Hand for a hand. When someone steals, do they cut off someone else's physical hand, or their hand that feeds them? This is what I mean when I say Sunni thought is devoid of logic, rationality and common sense.
Why? because sooner or later you will find another thing that you do not like.
Interesting. Very interesting. Because, conveniently, highly conveniently, certain hadith that do not conform to the Sunni worship of Muhammad are re-classified as false. Why? No other reason other than they being contradictory to the emotions of the people deciding. Why should we not tear out the eyes and such of shepherds who refuse our will as per the second hadith cited?
The first part is hogwash. I will say peace. The second part ignores that the bias and the mind are mixed and intertwined. You cannot say, this is my mind speaking and this is my bias. The bias is well entrenched in all of us and cannot be cleansed except through Taqwa= consciousness. Claiming otherwise is ignorance or arrogance.
The bias and mind are intertwined? No. The bias restrains the mind. By "mind" I mean logic, rationality, common sense, the processing of input from your senses in the most obvious way. The bias can be cleaned by unrestricting the senses, and unfettering logic and common sense - to become open-minded. Let's see you claim otherwise.
The structure of the sentence coupled with the hadeeth that he had with him. Not the meaning of the word Idribuhunna.
Ah. But you could simply have said that beating is not consistent with the rest of the Quranic message, and you would not even need to resort to hadith.
peace
-
The quran is not complete in the guidance it gives. However, it is complete in what it is trying to say. It explains all of its concepts. I have never seen a book that doesn't do that (unless there are more volumes) and the quran is no different.
and the quran hasn't been preserved either. If it was "protected," Khalifa would not have been able to make a copy with 2 of the verses missing. Like any other book, it is corruptible, and we must be careful with it.the only reasonable argument for following hadith is that when we encounter a vague statement in the quran, it's better to see what the prophet himself interpreted it as, because obviously his interpretation would be right.
but even this argument has several flaws in it.- we don't know that the hadith came from the same source as the quran.
- and if anyone has read hadith, they are familiar with the ridiculously perverted (and obviously wrong) explanations the prophet gives.
and hlatif, I don't know where you got the idea that the mind is innately biased. Please get rid of it, coz it's not true.
-
The quran is not complete in the guidance it gives. However, it is complete in what it is trying to say. It explains all of its concepts. I have never seen a book that doesn't do that (unless there are more volumes) and the quran is no different.
and the quran hasn't been preserved either. If it was "protected," Khalifa would not have been able to make a copy with 2 of the verses missing. Like any other book, it is corruptible, and we must be careful with it.the only reasonable argument for following hadith is that when we encounter a vague statement in the quran, it's better to see what the prophet himself interpreted it as, because obviously his interpretation would be right.
but even this argument has several flaws in it.- we don't know that the hadith came from the same source as the quran.
- and if anyone has read hadith, they are familiar with the ridiculously perverted (and obviously wrong) explanations the prophet gives.
and hlatif, I don't know where you got the idea that the mind is innately biased. Please get rid of it, coz it's not true.
The Quran is complete in its message. Of course, to be "complete in guidance", I presume you mean it must say "you can either urinate standing up or sitting down" and so on. The Quran is complete in covering "the straight path" as per surah 1, and 6, and that is pretty much the whole purpose of it. When the Quran says "it is complete", we have to judge it by its own standard, not our preconceptions as to what a "complete book" should have. Otherwise, we become Sunnis.
Does anybody other than the 19 code people accept Khalifa's copy? No. Over time, unless the 19 code is actually true, it will be forgotten. As will that book "The True Furqan". On a micro scale, it is definitely corruptible. But the majority do preserve it, there must be thousands of people with it inscribed in memory in Pakistan alone! )
-
The Quran is complete in its message. Of course, to be "complete in guidance", I presume you mean it must say "you can either urinate standing up or sitting down" and so on. The Quran is complete in covering "the straight path" as per surah 1, and 6, and that is pretty much the whole purpose of it. When the Quran says "it is complete", we have to judge it by its own standard, not our preconceptions as to what a "complete book" should have. Otherwise, we become Sunnis.
Does anybody other than the 19 code people accept Khalifa's copy? No. Over time, unless the 19 code is actually true, it will be forgotten. As will that book "The True Furqan". On a micro scale, it is definitely corruptible. But the majority do preserve it, there must be thousands of people with it inscribed in memory in Pakistan alone!
True, the Quran is complete in it's message. If the straight path is what it's about, then I'm sure it explains it to us clearly. What I meant was that the quran doesn't contain all the answers to all of our questions. And not stupid ones like "how do I urinate?"
As for corruptibility, if the words can be changed, even at a "micro scale," then I guess you're saying the message is more important. As long as it gets through...right? But the thing is, the majority have already forgotten the message. It's already lost.
And if Rashad Khalifa could change it, then someone in the future can too, and someone in the past already has. And possibly, his changes were much more popular.
Point being, we can't assume that everything in the quran has remained undamaged for all these years. -
Salaam Lobster,
Thanks for your response,
Bias etc is included in "emotions" simply because emotions they cannot exist. Anyway, the thing is that the biases are in your head. Your eyes are just eyes. They just transmit information to the brain. Your mind is what skews that information due to preconceptions, biases, emotions, expectations.
It's not about whether we can trust our senses or not, but whether we can clear all the biases from our heads and see clearly.
Fair enough. As for your question regarding the mind holding bias and logic all the time. It is well documented in the books of Psychology, Psychiatry and medicine. You and OPF can check them. You also see it in everyday life. It is also considered most dangerous when a person believes that he or she has no bias. There are lots of those, and I detect them on this site as well as others.
Freedom means you can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone or take away someone else's freedom.
Of course, that doesn't mean we SHOULD do whatever we want. We as individuals should place limits on ourselves.So who is best suited at putting those boundaries of freedom? the person, the other person or God?
Equality means that everyone is given the same rights to freedom, justice, etc
Justice means that the laws are fair, and that everyone is subject to the same laws as everyone else.
Those two have to take into consideration, the many variables that make those notions nuanced. This is where God's wisdom enters into the equation of Justice, and in this lies the explanation to what one may not be able to explain using his limited tools of thought and judgement.
Charity is right anywhere. Everyone should help others. That doesn't mean we force people to give. I don't see how it can be counter productive?
What if you gave someone money and then he went and bought alcohol with it?
Peace means we don't attack others unless in self defense. we live our lives and let others live theirs.
What about pre-emptive strikes? can you totally dismiss it?
. A book is always explained by itself. We don't use other sources to understand that book. You do not use Harry potter to understand what the Da vinci code is about. It doesn't work.
You bring something that everyone talks about but may not know what it means. A book explains itself does not mean that the book tells you the meaning of the words. It basically says two things
1- The story is coherent. Therefore, if some understanding was incompatible with the rest of the book, then that understanding is incorrect.
2- That there is a general concept of the word that is used often.
So, you still have to find the answers and you cannot find them by just reading the book. The book though will let you know if you erred, unless you keep putting pressure on it as in, ignoring or disregarding what should not be ignored, or changing the meanings of the words. Eventually a heresy reveals itself, or the book reveals it.
That means nothing. Simply because I can say the same thing about the quran. You only follow it because it's "nice sounding." Right?
And it's also wrong. Judging by how much I post (5 a day for a year and a half), you can say I have a loud mouth. I also like to think I at least sound intellectual. But the majority of the forum members think I've lost my head or something.You are right. I was not thinking about you when I wrote this. I was thinking of the big Imams of this site.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam OPF,
I do apologise that I mixed you up with Pazuzu.
Why do you intentionally conceal the fact that "sunni-ism" didn't emerge until after the work of the likes of Shafi, Hanbal, Maliki, et al? Did people in that period stay in complete limbo, waiting for 4 schools of jurisprudence to pop up out of the sand, or did the people in that period rely on the Quran?
The four schools appeared in the names mentioned above, but they are the collection of opinions and practices of the big cities of Islamic culture at that time. Shafii=Mecca. Malik= Medina. Hanbal= Basra and Hanifa= Kufa. They or their students wrote their writings and that made them schools of thought, but they mainly reflect those centers of Muslim thought.
Who are these "dead messengers"? And how does a messenger's death affect the message itself? Does Allah die when the messenger dies?
The message is preserved and so where some of the deeds and words of the messenger.
You know very well that tawaf has multiple meanings. Why is there no "rotate 7 times" in the Quran? Again, why no "throw stones at this wall to repel evil spirits"? Is God really that incompetent to write an incomplete book? As for zakat http//free-minds.org/articles/quranic/zakat.htm
So, depending on what criteria do you chose a meaning? anything but the Sunni understanding? Of the other meanings, which do you chose? and for what? since you believe that the book is complete and explains itself?
When you go into one of these sects, you are following Islam as defined by Shafi, as defined by Maliki, etc. I'd prefer Islam as defined by God, and leave out unnecessary extra-Quranic judgements. Please read up on 4221, 1015, 6154, 6159, 6148, and so on. There are many Quranic verses that make it very clear that Sunni-ism is not the message of God.
That is an ignorant statement. Salafis do not necessarily stick with one school. The schools of thought do not bind anyone to stick to it's opinion.
See, this is a problem with Sunni thought. You want to leave no stone unturned, you want everything covered and given to you on a plate.
That is interesting. I ask you about Salat, you respond with no stone unturned. Salat being mentioned so often in the Qur'an is not "No stone unturned". If the Salat is not clear to you guys, then nothing is clear. Yes, Imam Layth believes in Salat, but Imam Ayman does not. Do I need to mention the other Imams of this site and their widely varying opinions.
What kind of God sends an incomplete message? What kind of merciful God sends people to an eternal hellfire, based on flimsy pretexts such as "failing to clean up his urine from his clothes"? What kind of beneficient God cursed black dogs? Get real. Good diversionary tactics. People obscured the message, not God. For 3000+ years, not just 1400, the message was ALWAYS THERE FOR SOMEONE TO SEE.
The hadeeth of the black dog is considered weak by most scholars. Your statement about the urine is superficial and there are some questions about those hadeeths as well and their understandings and applications. As for the 3000 years, the Qur'an never claimed that there were no believers when it came. It actually asserted the presence of some. God did not send the Qur'an to be sitting there. He sent it to be applied, but for 1400 years it sad idle according to you. I have news for you, if it was not understood 1400 years ago or it's message was distorted beyond recognition, then you might as well forget it. There is no hope for you or anyone to understand it now. The people to whom it came are long gone and no matter how much you try, you will never understand it as it was intended. God sends his message to the people in their language. If those same people changed the message. There is no hope now. That is why you contradict the Qur'an or make it contradict itself for your ideology.
How does someone in America pay 10 or 20 or 30 camels per finger? Are you so blind that you can't see that those apply strictly to an 8th century society? Do we trade in camels now? Is the Earth carried by a bull? Does the whole earth shake from an earthquake?
No great islamic scholar ever claimed that hadeeth was in order to live in the 8th century. The hadeeth can give you insight into how the prophet thought and if not, how early Muslims thought and reached conclusions, in order for you to make conclusions in a studied matter.
Yes, God supported his true followers, Ahle-Hadith such that they are restricted to terrorist cells, Al-Azhar university, and they are being blown into pieces daily by tomahawk missiles, when they are not being swiped by the CIA and sent to prisons in Europe, or even swiped by their own country's secret police.
Generalization and stereotyping. Does not help anyone. You may want to leave Islam as well for that same issue.
Do they abstract it? 545. Hand for a hand. When someone steals, do they cut off someone else's physical hand, or their hand that feeds them? This is what I mean when I say Sunni thought is devoid of logic, rationality and common sense.
Wow. I am stumped. 545 is for one who was cut without crime. The other one covers a crime. There are rules for general and particular. General rule applies unless there is a particular exception. This is a rule of the Arabic language and of the Fiqh. If one does not understand that rule, then the Qur'an will always be full of contradictions.
The bias and mind are intertwined? No. The bias restrains the mind. By "mind" I mean logic, rationality, common sense, the processing of input from your senses in the most obvious way. The bias can be cleaned by unrestricting the senses, and unfettering logic and common sense - to become open-minded. Let's see you claim otherwise.
You may want to invest in reading some books that deal with the human mind or common sense. It will be money well spent.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Salaam OPF,
I do apologise that I mixed you up with Pazuzu.The four schools appeared in the names mentioned above, but they are the collection of opinions and practices of the big cities of Islamic culture at that time. Shafii=Mecca. Malik= Medina. Hanbal= Basra and Hanifa= Kufa. They or their students wrote their writings and that made them schools of thought, but they mainly reflect those centers of Muslim thought.
The message is preserved and so where some of the deeds and words of the messenger.
So, depending on what criteria do you chose a meaning? anything but the Sunni understanding? Of the other meanings, which do you chose? and for what? since you believe that the book is complete and explains itself?
That is an ignorant statement. Salafis do not necessarily stick with one school. The schools of thought do not bind anyone to stick to it's opinion.That is interesting. I ask you about Salat, you respond with no stone unturned. Salat being mentioned so often in the Qur'an is not "No stone unturned". If the Salat is not clear to you guys, then nothing is clear. Yes, Imam Layth believes in Salat, but Imam Ayman does not. Do I need to mention the other Imams of this site and their widely varying opinions.
The hadeeth of the black dog is considered weak by most scholars. Your statement about the urine is superficial and there are some questions about those hadeeths as well and their understandings and applications. As for the 3000 years, the Qur'an never claimed that there were no believers when it came. It actually asserted the presence of some. God did not send the Qur'an to be sitting there. He sent it to be applied, but for 1400 years it sad idle according to you. I have news for you, if it was not understood 1400 years ago or it's message was distorted beyond recognition, then you might as well forget it. There is no hope for you or anyone to understand it now. The people to whom it came are long gone and no matter how much you try, you will never understand it as it was intended. God sends his message to the people in their language. If those same people changed the message. There is no hope now. That is why you contradict the Qur'an or make it contradict itself for your ideology.
No great islamic scholar ever claimed that hadeeth was in order to live in the 8th century. The hadeeth can give you insight into how the prophet thought and if not, how early Muslims thought and reached conclusions, in order for you to make conclusions in a studied matter.
Generalization and stereotyping. Does not help anyone. You may want to leave Islam as well for that same issue.
Wow. I am stumped. 545 is for one who was cut without crime. The other one covers a crime. There are rules for general and particular. General rule applies unless there is a particular exception. This is a rule of the Arabic language and of the Fiqh. If one does not understand that rule, then the Qur'an will always be full of contradictions.
You may want to invest in reading some books that deal with the human mind or common sense. It will be money well spent.Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
Peace,
Again, what did the people themselves reflect on in the 200 year limbo period? Again If they did not rely on hadith, or hearsay, then what exactly did they rely on? The opinion of scholars is just that - opinion. It can only be "fact" if substantiated by evidence - Quranic, or otherwise. Sunni-ism did not exist as per the form of today, so why do you attack "Quran alone" based on time? Time is irrelevant. You should hopefully see why when I address the rest of your post.
Edit Seems not. The reason time is irrelevant, is because, quite simply, Christians and Jews have not been following the message for a very, very, long time. God sent his message down to them intending for them to apply it. Is it applied? If the majority of Jews and Christians are wrong, some 2.8+ (?) billion people on Earth, then why is it so hard for the remaining 1.5+ billion save a few to also be wrong? Appeal to the majority does not work. Period.
The message is preserved and so where some of the deeds and words of the messenger.
Contrary to that, the messenger's role is to deliver the message, and nothing more. 7519 et al. Regardless, if we accept the hadith of Muhammad, we must accept the hadith of Moses, the hadith of Jesus, and so on. The Quran does not say "follow Allah and the messenger Muhammad", it says "follow Allah and the messenger". Or did I happen to miss that verse?
So, depending on what criteria do you chose a meaning? anything but the Sunni understanding? Of the other meanings, which do you chose? and for what? since you believe that the book is complete and explains itself?
The criteria is context, consistency, the most appropriate meaning, and so on. This criteria does not change with the hadith or not - it just so happens that with hadith, the "most appropriate meaning" becomes "circumambulation".
That is an ignorant statement. Salafis do not necessarily stick with one school. The schools of thought do not bind anyone to stick to it's opinion.
They very much so do. If you follow Hanbal who does not prohibit alcohol except in excess, you will be an accursed kaffir bound to hell and a clear cut enemy of Allah in the other schools. Anyway, let us suppose that is correct - people are free to believe any school of thought they prefer. Now, us? We just choose to not follow the schools of thought of Hanbal, Shafi, Maliki, and Hanifah and so on. Thank you Hussein, we've found a way to go forth with our beliefs without being declared "clear cut enemy of Allah and kaffir bound to hell". It's simple, everyone. Just tell them that you do not subscribe to Shafi, Hanbal, Maliki, or Hanifah. I mean, people are free to choose any school...
Also, according to this, subscribing to the schools of thought of the Quranic scholars is also optional. Thus, we can choose from Laythi, Aymani, Khalifite, Ghulam Ahmad Parvezi, Edip Yukseli, Arnold Yasini, etc... sigh
That is interesting. I ask you about Salat, you respond with no stone unturned. Salat being mentioned so often in the Qur'an is not "No stone unturned". If the Salat is not clear to you guys, then nothing is clear. Yes, Imam Layth believes in Salat, but Imam Ayman does not. Do I need to mention the other Imams of this site and their widely varying opinions.
It is not interesting in the least. The only thing interesting is that your perception seems to be entirely selective, blue text that indicates a hyperlink seems to be invisible to your eyes. I gave you your answer for salat as a link.
Now, as for "no stone unturned", I pointed at at the question "How do you congregate?". Seriously... What's next, are you going to be asking me "What foot should you put forward first when you enter the mosque?"
The hadeeth of the black dog is considered weak by most scholars. Your statement about the urine is superficial and there are some questions about those hadeeths as well and their understandings and applications.
The statement about the urine is not superficial. Astaghfirullah. We have people sent to hell eternally for not taking the correct care in handling urine! The hadeeth of the black dog is considered weak by certain scholars? Good. We will raise the bar and say all hadith are classified as "weak" or "false" by ourselves. After all, God's religion leaves no stone unturned, and God's religion must be strong in its authenticity.
As for the 3000 years, the Qur'an never claimed that there were no believers when it came. It actually asserted the presence of some. God did not send the Qur'an to be sitting there. He sent it to be applied, but for 1400 years it sad idle according to you.
It is good that you recognize that. Perhaps you will take it into practice. The Quran does indeed sit idle.
010.092
YUSUFALI "This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"
PICKTHAL But this day We save thee in thy body that thou mayst be a portent for those after thee. Lo! most of mankind are heedless of Our portents.
SHAKIR But We will this day deliver you with your body that you may be a sign to those after you, and most surely the majority of the people are heedless to Our communications.025.030
YUSUFALI Then the Messenger will say "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Qur'an for just foolish nonsense."
PICKTHAL And the messenger saith O my Lord! Lo! mine own folk make this Qur'an of no account.
SHAKIR And the Messenger cried out O my Lord! surely my people have treated this Quran as a forsaken thing.And here, we witness another logical fallacy from ahl-hadith. God sending a Quran down to be followed DOES NOT EQUAL THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY FOLLOWING IT. There is no logical substance in that assertion.
I have news for you, if it was not understood 1400 years ago or it's message was distorted beyond recognition, then you might as well forget it. There is no hope for you or anyone to understand it now.
Strawman argument. It was very well understood in the 200+ year runup to the Persian uprising.
The people to whom it came are long gone and no matter how much you try, you will never understand it as it was intended.
As-salam wa alaikum. I'm Muslim. I believe the Quran has been preserved by God. Have we met?
The people to whom it came are long gone and no matter how much you try, you will never understand it as it was intended. God sends his message to the people in their language. If those same people changed the message. There is no hope now. That is why you contradict the Qur'an or make it contradict itself for your ideology.
Who intends how the Quran shall be understood? The people, or God and his messengers? I was unaware that God sent down the Quran to Imam-Nabi Bukhari (SAW, PBUH), and Imam-Nabi Muslim (PBUH) and so on. Wow, people changed Persian? I am absolutely shaking in my boots, because that must have had a significant effect on the Classical Arabic of the Quran. Or not, as they say. Contradictions in the Quran? Let's go back to your school of thought. The contradictions are in the eye of the beholder. If you see a contradiction, you are not well founded in knowledge.
That is, of course, if these "contradictions" even exist. I could say there are 500 Oompah Loompas hiding under your bed (Narrated Abu Hurayrah), but it could turn out to be just 400 Oompah Loompahs. See what I mean?
No great islamic scholar ever claimed that hadeeth was in order to live in the 8th century. The hadeeth can give you insight into how the prophet thought and if not, how early Muslims thought and reached conclusions, in order for you to make conclusions in a studied matter.
Good. So if a Muslim woman doesn't wear an 8th century Christian/Jewish head-dress, she will not be stoned to death and labelled a whore (by people who deserve 80 lashes, Quranically, because they have not brought forth 4 witnesses to testify). In Iran, for instance, which is, sorry, was, unarguably ruled by the Great Scholar Ayatollah Khameinei, a woman should be fine without a headdress. She can walk freely not expecting the police to force her to wear one. Got that. Actions speak louder than words.
Generalization and stereotyping. Does not help anyone. You may want to leave Islam as well for that same issue.
Am I really generalising? All the people I mentioned sans innocent civillians subscribe to some form of Sunni idealogy. And boy, are they paying.
Wow. I am stumped. 545 is for one who was cut without crime. The other one covers a crime. There are rules for general and particular. General rule applies unless there is a particular exception. This is a rule of the Arabic language and of the Fiqh. If one does not understand that rule, then the Qur'an will always be full of contradictions.
Wow, I am stumped. The message is clear, no? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, unless specified otherwise? It does involve a crime - someone cuts off the hand of someone else means they forfeit their hand. Likewise, someone cuts off the hand that feeds someone else? They forfeit their hand. The crime committed otherwise is butchery of the Quran. Do you have a Quran to compensate for that? By the way, the "general case unless there is a specific exception" rule applies to human logic, not specifically to the Arabic language.
You may want to invest in reading some books that deal with the human mind or common sense. It will be money well spent.
I already have, the book claims to be from God and his messengers, and also happens to claim that it is fully detailed and explained, and challenges the reader as to which hadith they will believe after it. It is highly compelling in that it puts forward a good case for itself and is consistent within itself without relying on external sources. Money well spent? I would give up my life for it.
Anyway, you have conveniently dodged this question for the last few pages In which hadith after the Quran do you believe?
Peace.
To all "Quran aloners"
No longer must we be declared "Kaffir bound to hell and clear cut enemy of Allah". The solution is simple. We are all Sunnis. The difference is
We have higher standards. God's religion should have no ifs and buts. We thus, classify ALL hadith as "weak". Subscribing to a Sunni madhab is optional. Hence, we do not subscribe to Imam Shafi's school, nor Hanafi, nor Hanbal, nor Maliki. Got that?
Again, peace
-
Salaam OPF, all,
Wakas, you are right, no one here denies Salat, but the way they view it is vastly different.
OPF, thanks for your response.
Again, what did the people themselves reflect on in the 200 year limbo period? Again If they did not rely on hadith, or hearsay, then what exactly did they rely on? The opinion of scholars is just that - opinion. It can only be "fact" if substantiated by evidence - Quranic, or otherwise. Sunni-ism did not exist as per the form of today, so why do you attack "Quran alone" based on time? Time is irrelevant. You should hopefully see why when I address the rest of your post.
1- The four schools of thought appeared before that 200 year number that you quote. Imam Abu Hanifa was born in 80 H and Malik in 90 H. So, the schools started much earlier.
2- What did they do till then? Such a difficult question. The prophet left behind him many companions who lived in those different centers and taught the people of those cities and then their students taught more students and so forth.
3- So, people were following what the friends and friends of friends of the prophet. Shafii simply said that following the prophet is stronger evidence than following his friends and that is how hadeeth came to prominence. Was there hadeeth before that? Of course there was, Imam Malik collected his Muwatta well before your 200 year number and before Shafii came along.
The point is that there was never anything called Qur'an alone.
Edit Seems not. The reason time is irrelevant, is because, quite simply, Christians and Jews have not been following the message for a very, very, long time. God sent his message down to them intending for them to apply it. Is it applied? If the majority of Jews and Christians are wrong, some 2.8+ (?) billion people on Earth, then why is it so hard for the remaining 1.5+ billion save a few to also be wrong? Appeal to the majority does not work. Period.
The Qur'an tells us that there were always good Christians and Jews. According to your theory, there were no good muslims for 1400 years. So, if the bible was so corrupted, but there were always some good Christians and Jews, then what about the totally preserved Qur'an, but no good Muslim for 1400 years? You are not talking about minority. You are talking about total absence for 1400 years, until you guys came. That is simple nonsense.
Contrary to that, the messenger's role is to deliver the message, and nothing more. 7519 et al. Regardless, if we accept the hadith of Muhammad, we must accept the hadith of Moses, the hadith of Jesus, and so on. The Quran does not say "follow Allah and the messenger Muhammad", it says "follow Allah and the messenger". Or did I happen to miss that verse?
So, when the Qur'an says Litubayyina= to make it clear, or Yuaallimahum alkitab walhikamta= Make them know the book and the wisdom, it was really meaning reading it on them like a parrot. Oh, I forgot, the "common sense dictionary of the Qur'an" that you follow says so, therefore those words cannot mean what they actually mean. Change them in the name of whatever.
They very much so do. If you follow Hanbal who does not prohibit alcohol except in excess, you will be an accursed kaffir bound to hell and a clear cut enemy of Allah in the other schools. Anyway, let us suppose that is correct - people are free to believe any school of thought they prefer. Now, us? We just choose to not follow the schools of thought of Hanbal, Shafi, Maliki, and Hanifah and so on. Thank you Hussein, we've found a way to go forth with our beliefs without being declared "clear cut enemy of Allah and kaffir bound to hell". It's simple, everyone. Just tell them that you do not subscribe to Shafi, Hanbal, Maliki, or Hanifah. I mean, people are free to choose any school...
1- You are simply wrong. Any person who adheres to a well studied position of his or her school of thought is accepted as Muslim.
2- Sunnism is about accepting the minimum common denominator for a Muslim. This is the five pillars of Islam. When one adds more, then the person has left Sunnism, but is still a Muslim. This rule applies to people al Qaeda who left Sunnism.
3- Sunnis according the above definition will not consider you non Muslim. However, you will be considered outside of Sunnism because you added another pillar , without which Islam is incomplete. It is called "reject Hadeeth". You guys however, do not hesitate to declare Takfir on me and others.
It is not interesting in the least. The only thing interesting is that your perception seems to be entirely selective, blue text that indicates a hyperlink seems to be invisible to your eyes. I gave you your answer for salat as a link.
Now, as for "no stone unturned", I pointed at at the question "How do you congregate?". Seriously... What's next, are you going to be asking me "What foot should you put forward first when you enter the mosque?"
I was not asking about the congregation. I was asking how you will make Salat in that congregation, as asked in this Aya. I can see some of you facing Mecca, others facing Jerusalem and others facing anywhere, while others are reading a book and accusing the others of "idol worship".
The statement about the urine is not superficial. Astaghfirullah. We have people sent to hell eternally for not taking the correct care in handling urine! The hadeeth of the black dog is considered weak by certain scholars? Good. We will raise the bar and say all hadith are classified as "weak" or "false" by ourselves. After all, God's religion leaves no stone unturned, and God's religion must be strong in its authenticity.
1- The hadeeth did never say go to hell. It said suffering in the grave. This does not mean hell.
2- How do you reconcile the Ayat that says Riba goes to hell, with the Ayat that say God does not forgive the ones who give partners to Allah but forgives whatever less than that to whomever He wills?
The same way you reconcile this Aya, you do with any alleged hadeeth that speaks the same way. It means that the sin can send the person to hell, but it is still possible that God will forgive.3- Just because a person is Sunni, does not mean that they have to accept all hadeeths. Sunni scholars have refused many hadeeths before including some hadeeths that were reported in Bukhari. Infact, accepting all hadeeths in an unquestionable fashion is considered wrong. However, rejecting all hadeeth, or rejecting the authority of the messenger goes against the language of the Qur'an.
And here, we witness another logical fallacy from ahl-hadith. God sending a Quran down to be followed DOES NOT EQUAL THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY FOLLOWING IT. There is no logical substance in that assertion.
So, you have some more ayat to manipulate here. What about when God says "Liyuthhirahu ala Addeene kullihi= To make it more apparent than all other religion"
Or this one "our soldiers are the winners"
How do you understand those Ayat in the face of defeat for 1400 years and inapparence.
Who intends how the Quran shall be understood? The people, or God and his messengers? I was unaware that God sent down the Quran to Imam-Nabi Bukhari (SAW, PBUH), and Imam-Nabi Muslim (PBUH) and so on. Wow, people changed Persian? I am absolutely shaking in my boots, because that must have had a significant effect on the Classical Arabic of the Quran. Or not, as they say. Contradictions in the Quran? Let's go back to your school of thought. The contradictions are in the eye of the beholder. If you see a contradiction, you are not well founded in knowledge.
No matter what one uses, the faulty understanding reveals itself eventually, unless the person holding is holding on to it too dearly, then he remains deaf and blind.
Wow, I am stumped. The message is clear, no? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, unless specified otherwise? It does involve a crime - someone cuts off the hand of someone else means they forfeit their hand. Likewise, someone cuts off the hand that feeds someone else? They forfeit their hand. The crime committed otherwise is butchery of the Quran. Do you have a Quran to compensate for that? By the way, the "general case unless there is a specific exception" rule applies to human logic, not specifically to the Arabic language.
Hence your need to abstract it. Here, it is not the language that is doing the interpretation of the Qur'an. It is your mind which is clearly "free of bias" because you follow "common sense" and "logic".
Anyway, you have conveniently dodged this question for the last few pages In which hadith after the Quran do you believe?
I have addressed it earlier. You may need to look back. The short version is this. The several Ayat were talking about people who rejected the Qur'an. If you reject the Qur'an then you are feeling safe in an alternative and the Ayat were talking about that. The Ayat were not putting limit on those who accept the Qur'an or asking them to refuse any other speech as long as it is consistent with the Qur'an. That is why those Ayat harmoize perfectly with the Ayat that say obey the messenger.
Related to reading a book of human thinking
I already have, the book claims to be from God and his messengers, and also happens to claim that it is fully detailed and explained, and challenges the reader as to which hadith they will believe after it. It is highly compelling in that it puts forward a good case for itself and is consistent within itself without relying on external sources. Money well spent? I would give up my life for it.
One gets the feeling that you are making your mind claim that it is the Qur'an, under the guise of common sense, logic and so forth. If you do not make the book challenge you, then I feel sorry for you.
The same book that you are reading talks about a person who makes his "hawa= desire, air, bias" his God. That is interesting because bias makes itself attractive, but is hot empty air.
Peace
Hussein
