Can anybody answer these simple questions ??
-
Salaam all,
OPF,
Can you direct me to the exact post? On page 8 there is a similar but not exact citation and you say "That refers to those who reject".
Sorry, it was not in that thread but in the 597 thread. Here is an example of one thing I wrote there amongst others
As for idle speech, then it is true that someone can bring hadeeth and make idle speech with it. However, any person can do that with or without hadeeth, just as the person who claims that God's order to obey the people of authority is unwise, or that since the messenger is dead you cannot obey him, while his material is still existant.
I would add that since there was no "hadeeth of the prophet" then, then one cannot impose that "hadeeth" is what is talked about. This would be manipulation. Unless you want to retract your statements that hadeeth did not come until 200 years later.
It is not a false statement. It is true by its own virtue - we need to use logic when addressing the Quran. My statement was that we need to use the same technique used already - ijtihad - sans ahadith. Again, logic must be combined with other things. Logic in itself can be used to do ANYTHING (studies show criminals are left handed, polar bears are left handed, hence polar bears are criminals), what keeps it in check are things such as context and taking into account all factors. In this case, people will leave out verse X or Y to justify their understanding of salat/zakat/hajj. So what is present is a combination of all the above (as long as we are human, this will ALWAYS happen, and it happens in every circle, Sunni included - the reason there is no similar effect is due to the sheer number of Sunni scholars).
The part that I boldened is blasphemy. Leaving out a part of the Qur'an in order to justify an understanding based on "all other factors sans hadeeth" is pure nonsense. This is what God called "beleieve in part of the book and reject part". Nothing but bias will push people to ignore or reject part of the book or restrict some of the understandings of it beyond what the language allows.
This is false and you know it. Unless you mean universal consensus. Which simply does not exist in any circle, the difference being that due to Sunni manpower, it is on a higher degree of superficiality, rather than at the fundamentals.
No one asks for universal consensus. One is asking for minimum consensus. If you truly believe that the Qur'an is detailed and is clear, then you have no reason to have several different widely varying meanings for Salat, Zakat, Hajj, SAwm and so on. Or, do you believe in it when you debate me and forget about it when you debate each other? There is a name for this. It is called hypocrisy.
Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthal translate fussilat as "detailed" and "explained".
http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html#006.114
Obviously, others do not share the same meaning. Also, "the book" does not always mean Qur'an and it does not have to mean it in this same Aya. It can be Qur'an and more, including something the messenger received that is not in the Qur'an.
Source any book of Fiqh or tafseer and Lisan Al arab.
Can you explain which messenger? Hint Trick question. Let's not jump from A=>C here, without verifying B, A = Messenger, B = Bukhari, C = Obeying the messenger.
Messenger= Muhammad (pbuh)
Obey the messenger= obey Muhammad.How do you do that?
Obey anything that you beleive he ordered. What do you beleive her ordered? There is some where you are certain and some when you are less certain and some where you are certain he did not say. The formula is not either 100% or 0%, there is a lot in between and you have to deal with it accordingly. You actually cannot 100% prove the Qur'an is authentic to be truthful. So what is the solution? You do your best at trying to authenticate, but you do not summarily reject all hadeeth. Why? because you cannot be 100% sure that it is 100% false. What does that mean? If you are sincere in following the message, then you make an effort. Saying no and relaxing is a lazy and wrong way out. If you do fall in error, then you are solely responsible for your error in front of God.Sorry, wrong word. Allegiance dispute, and property dispute. Disunity.
Not in implementing the Qur'an.
Please tell me that was satire. Last time I checked, Shia disregard the corpus of Sunni thought and rely on "ahlul-bayt". Does it not say in the Quran - do not become "Shia"? Sunnis believe any person with deep knowledge can interpret the book. As long as it does not affect what they found their forefathers doing, i.e. traditions.
The Qur'an says do not divide in groups as the meaning of "Shia", but it inculdes any group that aims to consider itself apart from the rest. Sunnism is about remaining in one group. Sunnism is about accepting the Islam of whoever adheres to the five pillars and that is where Sunnis and all other Muslims have consensus. Anyone who adds more pillars to his or her Islam is not Sunni, but Muslim. Shia are in that group, so are you guys and so is Bin laden and Zarqawi. All of those are not Sunnis, why? because they choose to exclude themselves outside the body of the rest of the Muslims who agreed on the minimum common denominator. Also, because all those groups add more conditions to consider a person Muslim, something that Sunnism did not do. You can read any book of Fiqh, including the writings of Ibn Tiamiyyah and they will explain this simple fact for you.
Here
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 23
Narrated 'Asim bin Sulaiman
I asked Anas bin Malik about Safa and Marwa. Anas replied, "We used to consider (i.e. going around) them a custom of the Pre-islamic period of Ignorance, so when Islam came, we gave up going around them. Then Allah revealed" "Verily, Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca) are among the Symbols of Allah. So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj of the House (of Allah) or perform the Umra to ambulate (Tawaf) between them." (2.158
The Qur'an did mention that the pagans prayed at the "masjd Haram". Does that make the Qur'an a book that asks us to worship in the same place that the pagans did? will you conclude that the Qur'an is asking us to return to paganism because of this shared element?
There are many shared elements between humans believers and otherwise. We do not reject everything that is shared. We reject what God asked us to reject. God did not ask us to reject the hajj that was performed by the premuslim arabs. He asked us to purify it and make it only for God.
Take care and have a great evening
Hussein
-
peace Hussein,
then how come you cannot agree on anything related to the simplest Qur'anic statements of Salat HAJJ and so on.
Your wording is a little strange, but if you are stating "salat" & "hajj" are amongst the simplest topics in al quran, then that is pure nonsense. If you did not mean this, please clarify.
-
Salaam Wakas,
I am saying that if you claim that the Qur'an is clear and detailed and did not leave anything, then understanding some of the more important concepts of the Qur'an as Salat and Zakat and hajj should be simple and straightforward, especially since you are all very intelligent and endowed with " true logic". Your failure to have a coherent united stand on those issues will then have to force you face the question
1- What does the Qur'an being clear mean?
2- What does detailed mean? when we are having such difficulty.
3- Are we just being dishonest with ourselves and others when we claim clarity and detail when we cannot find them.
4- Are we hypocrites when we say all that fancy stuff in our debates with our detractors, yet in truth and deep inside us we do not believe it?
5- Is our logic faulty?Failure to face yourselves with such imortant and probing questions would be detrimental to your movement and it's future. Deluding yourselves with the youth of the movement is not acceptable if you truly beleive the Qur'an, clear, detailed and self explaining.
Take care and have a great eveniing.
Hussein
-
Salaam all,
OPF,Sorry, it was not in that thread but in the 597 thread. Here is an example of one thing I wrote there amongst others
I would add that since there was no "hadeeth of the prophet" then, then one cannot impose that "hadeeth" is what is talked about. This would be manipulation. Unless you want to retract your statements that hadeeth did not come until 200 years later.
The part that I boldened is blasphemy. Leaving out a part of the Qur'an in order to justify an understanding based on "all other factors sans hadeeth" is pure nonsense. This is what God called "beleieve in part of the book and reject part". Nothing but bias will push people to ignore or reject part of the book or restrict some of the understandings of it beyond what the language allows.
No one asks for universal consensus. One is asking for minimum consensus. If you truly believe that the Qur'an is detailed and is clear, then you have no reason to have several different widely varying meanings for Salat, Zakat, Hajj, SAwm and so on. Or, do you believe in it when you debate me and forget about it when you debate each other? There is a name for this. It is called hypocrisy.
Obviously, others do not share the same meaning. Also, "the book" does not always mean Qur'an and it does not have to mean it in this same Aya. It can be Qur'an and more, including something the messenger received that is not in the Qur'an.Source any book of Fiqh or tafseer and Lisan Al arab.
Messenger= Muhammad (pbuh)
Obey the messenger= obey Muhammad.How do you do that?
Obey anything that you beleive he ordered. What do you beleive her ordered? There is some where you are certain and some when you are less certain and some where you are certain he did not say. The formula is not either 100% or 0%, there is a lot in between and you have to deal with it accordingly. You actually cannot 100% prove the Qur'an is authentic to be truthful. So what is the solution? You do your best at trying to authenticate, but you do not summarily reject all hadeeth. Why? because you cannot be 100% sure that it is 100% false. What does that mean? If you are sincere in following the message, then you make an effort. Saying no and relaxing is a lazy and wrong way out. If you do fall in error, then you are solely responsible for your error in front of God.
Not in implementing the Qur'an.
The Qur'an says do not divide in groups as the meaning of "Shia", but it inculdes any group that aims to consider itself apart from the rest. Sunnism is about remaining in one group. Sunnism is about accepting the Islam of whoever adheres to the five pillars and that is where Sunnis and all other Muslims have consensus. Anyone who adds more pillars to his or her Islam is not Sunni, but Muslim. Shia are in that group, so are you guys and so is Bin laden and Zarqawi. All of those are not Sunnis, why? because they choose to exclude themselves outside the body of the rest of the Muslims who agreed on the minimum common denominator. Also, because all those groups add more conditions to consider a person Muslim, something that Sunnism did not do. You can read any book of Fiqh, including the writings of Ibn Tiamiyyah and they will explain this simple fact for you.
The Qur'an did mention that the pagans prayed at the "masjd Haram". Does that make the Qur'an a book that asks us to worship in the same place that the pagans did? will you conclude that the Qur'an is asking us to return to paganism because of this shared element?There are many shared elements between humans believers and otherwise. We do not reject everything that is shared. We reject what God asked us to reject. God did not ask us to reject the hajj that was performed by the premuslim arabs. He asked us to purify it and make it only for God.
Take care and have a great evening
Hussein
Thanks for the reply.
I would add that since there was no "hadeeth of the prophet" then, then one cannot impose that "hadeeth" is what is talked about. This would be manipulation. Unless you want to retract your statements that hadeeth did not come until 200 years later.
I was of the understanding that "lahwa al-hadeeth" encompasses ALL sayings/narrations/expositions/hearsay. You are attempting to argue semantics here, and this cannot be allowed. If you remember, what I stated, or if I did not make it clear then, was that there were no full hadeeth compilations (aside from muwatta) until those given years. There will always have been baseless ahadeeth, some of the messenger (jesus, moses, etc), some simply urban myths, some superstition and so on.
The part that I boldened is blasphemy. Leaving out a part of the Qur'an in order to justify an understanding based on "all other factors sans hadeeth" is pure nonsense. This is what God called "beleieve in part of the book and reject part".
I would like to ask how you managed to associate "ijtihad" with blasphemy. The act I described (leaving out a verse) can only be described as "concealing truth", whether intentional or simply obliviousness (pre-concieved notions will bolster this particular phenomenon). As for "believe in part and reject part", that is a world of argument/debate and mutual. Stoning punishment, please explain how that is not "believing some and rejecting others). Please note that if you want to appeal to the existing texts, this is synonymous with making a distinction between messengers and in turn, making a distinction between messages, hence claiming there is more than one deen to follow.
Nothing but bias will push people to ignore or reject part of the book or restrict some of the understandings of it beyond what the language allows.
You are correct. Also, obliviousness to those verses, either lack of knowledge or simple obliviousness, or blind ignorance. Sometimes it comes from blind lack of logic and common sense. An example would be the person who asks what to wear for prayer and asks why it is not found in the Quran. Other examples can be given in this regard.
No one asks for universal consensus. One is asking for minimum consensus.
I cannot comment here. I believe there is "minimum consensus" between people here, however.
If you truly believe that the Qur'an is detailed and is clear, then you have no reason to have several different widely varying meanings for Salat, Zakat, Hajj, SAwm and so on.
Can you explain about Sawm? Especially as to how there is no consensus on this. Salat - I already said that from what I have observed, it is people advocating ritual prayer from the Quran to be incorrect in their understanding, because of several flaws (unrelated verses used to reverse engineer a "rakat" system for instance). If I remember, the emphasis was also on personal study as opposed to group consensus. Can you explain how the lack of consensus in this group apparently destroys the concept of the Quran by itself, when there is a plethora of verses that show the Quran should be the only source of law, that baseless hadeeth should be rejected, that one should verify all information, etc, ad nauseum? This is an attempt to tie two unrelated concepts together - the Quran itself stating it is the only source of law, and the lack of consensus in a group of individuals. If you want to see consensus, please visit www.submission.org. Or sunniforum.com. Or www.shiachat.com.
Obviously, others do not share the same meaning. Also, "the book" does not always mean Qur'an and it does not have to mean it in this same Aya. It can be Qur'an and more, including something the messenger received that is not in the Qur'an.
2002, 279.
Also
003.081
YUSUFALI Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said "We agree." He said "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."I believe that if the book (indefinite article in the aya) does constitute the things you say, it would be a good explanation as to why all the messengers died of broken backs. Unfortunately, they did not.
Futher, 692, 1101 (indefinite article), 141, 2951 (which is rehearsed, hadeeth or Quran? Please explain. With reference.), 3923 (No redundancy in Quran? Really?), 4215 (Allah reveals the book), 464 (please bring the book D), 1061 (the book is not anything but... a book).
Now I will, by the power of Quran, kill your argument wholesale.
To recap, your logic (the overall Sunni logic, in general) is thus
1.) Al-Kitab is a broad tem
2.) Hadeeth is part of Al-Kitab (something the messenger recieved out of the Quran)
3.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the QuranYet
1037
And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.
Q.E.D. (apologies for the question marks, browser problems)
So now
1.) Al-Kitab is a broad tem
2.) Hadeeth is part of Al-Kitab (something the messenger recieved out of the Quran)
3.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the Quran
4.) The Quran explains Al-Kitab - it is also self-contained (6114 and others, some cited above)
5.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the Quran which explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth
6.) Quran explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth which explain Quran which explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth which explain... ad nauseum. Circular logic indeed.Messenger= Muhammad (pbuh)
Obey the messenger= obey Muhammad.Please provide reference. More to follow. ar-rasool or "the messenger" is an all-encompassing term and cannot signify a single person. May I warn you
The Holy Quran warned us
(446) Among those who have become Jews ,there are some who alter the words from their context,
Also (ref Ahmed Ali, and others)
025.030
YUSUFALI Then the Messenger will say "O my Lord! Truly my people have fettered this Quran!"How do you do that?
Obey anything that you beleive he ordered. What do you beleive her ordered? There is some where you are certain and some when you are less certain and some where you are certain he did not say. The formula is not either 100% or 0%, there is a lot in between and you have to deal with it accordingly.Oh please. If you had not rejected the Quranic guidance (1736 and others), you would see there is NO BELIEF but sound verification. Selectively rejecting the Quran and fettering it results in all sorts of wacky conundrums, not least the circular logic. The formula is 100% - for those who believe. Please note that "believe" is not used in that sentence to bring a perception of "faith" but as "acknowledgement".
Also, please be mindful of 1036, which predicts men will follow conjecture. Also 610 where those who mocked the messengers (through baseless hadeeth I assume) ended up being encompassed and dominated by their mockery (see Christianity and shall I say, Sunni-ism).
You actually cannot 100% prove the Qur'an is authentic to be truthful.
Please provide reference. You cannot prove 100% anything. You can however, prove Quran to be the truth with certainty. I asked you last time and you did not respond, perhaps because it completely negated the aspect of "isnad" - can the Quran be proven using the scientific meanings and understandings only? Hint The answer is yes. 3680, please understand what compound is responsible for the green colour of vegetation and also what compound the process of photosynthesis revolves around, and also the products of the process of photosynthesis, and finally, the key components of fire, particulary the fires made by early man and indeed those in the 7th century, still used now.
http//www.scienceagogo.com/news/20000706041735data_trunc_sys.shtml
http//www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earthorigin.htm
http//ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469(1965)022%3C0225%3AOTOARO%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1Can this book be from anyone else BUT the God? Do I need isnad or anything else but an elementary knowledge of Arabic and my own eyes to see this? Please explain. With reference.
So what is the solution? You do your best at trying to authenticate, but you do not summarily reject all hadeeth. Why? because you cannot be 100% sure that it is 100% false. What does that mean? If you are sincere in following the message, then you make an effort. Saying no and relaxing is a lazy and wrong way out. If you do fall in error, then you are solely responsible for your error in front of God.
You are correct. Which is why some/most here are working towards finding Salat in the Quran as intended.
Not in implementing the Qur'an.
Implementing social justice is part of implementing the Quran. There was no social justice in taking away the property of a daughter of the prophet no matter how "legal" it was self-declared to be.
The Qur'an says do not divide in groups as the meaning of "Shia", but it inculdes any group that aims to consider itself apart from the rest. Sunnism is about remaining in one group. Sunnism is about accepting the Islam of whoever adheres to the five pillars and that is where Sunnis and all other Muslims have consensus. Anyone who adds more pillars to his or her Islam is not Sunni, but Muslim. Shia are in that group, so are you guys and so is Bin laden and Zarqawi. All of those are not Sunnis, why? because they choose to exclude themselves outside the body of the rest of the Muslims who agreed on the minimum common denominator. Also, because all those groups add more conditions to consider a person Muslim, something that Sunnism did not do. You can read any book of Fiqh, including the writings of Ibn Tiamiyyah and they will explain this simple fact for you.
Can the people of the book be considered Muslim? They have submitted to one God as per Abraham. As for Ibn Taymiyahh, I have read one translated essay of his, on the jinnee, and I like to avoid taking the word of a profound schizophrenic/hallucinator as fact without verification.
The Qur'an did mention that the pagans prayed at the "masjd Haram". Does that make the Qur'an a book that asks us to worship in the same place that the pagans did? will you conclude that the Qur'an is asking us to return to paganism because of this shared element?
Please provide reference.
God did not ask us to reject the hajj that was performed by the premuslim arabs. He asked us to purify it and make it only for God.
The hajj as performed by the pre-muslim arabs, yes. Around which cubic structure? There are tonnes of them.
Thanks for the reply, and peace be on you ).
Edit Oh, not so fast! I do not think that question shall be dodged so easily, you are no Agent Smith, the vacancy is taken by a beloved brother of ours.
Did the prophets(P.B.U.T.) say "amen" in their prayers/salat? For instance, after reciting Al-Fateha? What did Abraham say, " "? What did he do after prostration in the second, and fourth rakats of 4-rakat prayers, and in the 2nd and 3rd rakats of 3-rakat prayers?
-
Salaam all, OPF,
I was of the understanding that "lahwa al-hadeeth" encompasses ALL sayings/narrations/expositions/hearsay.
There is an important omission in your meaning. It is sayings that lead to nothing, or at least, nothing in the path of God. So, to accuse all the body of hadeeth as leading to nothing in the path of God, then you have to prove the statement true for every single hadeeth. Conversely, one can point to many of your points as being just that.
I would like to ask how you managed to associate "ijtihad" with blasphemy. The act I described (leaving out a verse) can only be described as "concealing truth", whether intentional or simply obliviousness (pre-concieved notions will bolster this particular phenomenon). As for "believe in part and reject part", that is a world of argument/debate and mutual. Stoning punishment, please explain how that is not "believing some and rejecting others). Please note that if you want to appeal to the existing texts, this is synonymous with making a distinction between messengers and in turn, making a distinction between messages, hence claiming there is more than one deen to follow.
Concealing is suppressing information and something that God clearly condemned. As for the stoning issue. It was discussed in it's area. However, the proponents of that law do not conceal anything nor suppress or forget anything. they make their point without forgettting any aya or suppressing it. Ijtihad is not about concealing. It is about collecting all the relevant statement of the text to arrive at the best solution. A person who works on concealment should not do ijtihad.
Can you explain about Sawm? Especially as to how there is no consensus on this.
As for you guys, Layth believes that it should be the full moon of a month later than Ayman. Others will follow Sunni thought. Others will say it is only abstaining. In palestine, the hottest month in Yaffa on the coast is July, while Jerusalem has the hottest month in August or vice versa. Does that mean that the people of Yaffa have to fast in a different period of time than the people of Jerusalem who live 40 miles away?
Sunnis and shias fast the same month. Sometimes they have a day difference.
Salat - I already said that from what I have observed, it is people advocating ritual prayer from the Quran to be incorrect in their understanding, because of several flaws (unrelated verses used to reverse engineer a "rakat" system for instance). If I remember, the emphasis was also on personal study as opposed to group consensus. Can you explain how the lack of consensus in this group apparently destroys the concept of the Quran by itself, when there is a plethora of verses that show the Quran should be the only source of law, that baseless hadeeth should be rejected, that one should verify all information, etc, ad nauseum? This is an attempt to tie two unrelated concepts together - the Quran itself stating it is the only source of law, and the lack of consensus in a group of individuals. If you want to see consensus, please visit www.submission.org. Or sunniforum.com. Or www.shiachat.com.
The Qur'an talked about congregation Salat on fridays and congregation prayers with the messenger leading. You cannot have a congregation Salat when there is not a minimum of consensus.
Yet
1037
And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.
Q.E.D. (apologies for the question marks, browser problems)
So now
1.) Al-Kitab is a broad tem
2.) Hadeeth is part of Al-Kitab (something the messenger recieved out of the Quran)
3.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the Quran
4.) The Quran explains Al-Kitab - it is also self-contained (6114 and others, some cited above)
5.) Hadeeth are needed to explain the Quran which explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth
6.) Quran explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth which explain Quran which explains Al-Kitab which contains hadeeth which explain... ad nauseum. Circular logic indeed.1- The way tafseel al kitab is translated is not accurate. Tafseel means delineation/ separation and differentiation. It is about outlines and not about explanation and detail.
2- The same Aya tells you that kitab and Qur'an are not one and the same. They are included one in another and the Qur'an is included in the Kitab. Source the rest of the Qur'an tells you that when you look for Qur'an and kitab. Kitab is always wider and more encompassing than the Qur'an. This prevents one from understanding the Qur'an as more encompassing, whether in this Aya or another.
3- So what does Tafseel alkitab mean gives clear outline of the book. The outlines are in the Qur'an, the details are in the book.Please provide reference. More to follow. ar-rasool or "the messenger" is an all-encompassing term and cannot signify a single person.
When you use AL before a word in Arabic, it means that the listener knows what you are talking about. So, when the Qur'an came to the Arabs and mentioned AL RAsool, then they knew what he was talking about. The only Rasool that they knew was Muhammad.
Source books of arabic grammar.
Oh please. If you had not rejected the Quranic guidance (1736 and others), you would see there is NO BELIEF but sound verification. Selectively rejecting the Quran and fettering it results in all sorts of wacky conundrums, not least the circular logic. The formula is 100% - for those who believe. Please note that "believe" is not used in that sentence to bring a perception of "faith" but as "acknowledgement".
I would throw your argument against you. 1736 does not say reject. It says do not follow what you do not know, and then it gives you tools to make you know. It is an order to verify and not an order to reject. You then have to verify every claim that is being attributed to the prophet and not simply reject it without study. As for conjecture, it is conjecture when you all read the same clear and detailed book, but arrive at a widely varying understandings.
Please provide reference. You cannot prove 100% anything. You can however, prove Quran to be the truth with certainty. I asked you last time and you did not respond, perhaps because it completely negated the aspect of "isnad" - can the Quran be proven using the scientific meanings and understandings only? Hint The answer is yes. 3680, please understand what compound is responsible for the green colour of vegetation and also what compound the process of photosynthesis revolves around, and also the products of the process of photosynthesis, and finally, the key components of fire, particulary the fires made by early man and indeed those in the 7th century, still used now.
1- I speak Arabic. I believe that the Qur'an is authentic. I can appreciate it's literary miracle. You do not speak Arabic. You cannot prove that the Qur'an is a literary miracle. You have to depend on others telling you that.
2- As for science, even scientists cannot prove except what is in their field. You will have to trust what scientists tell you in order to conclude a miracle. In addition, many scientists attacked the Qur'an on other grounds and the scientists who claimed a miracle. Who do you believe?
3- In both of the above you are depending on experts. Why do reject the experts of hadeeth? you will say because they accepted nonsense. I will respond by asking have you read their expert opinions on what you deemed as nonsense? especially books that provide commentary on hadeeth?
4- As for the Isnad. The Qur'an came to us, mostly orally from a lot of people. The high number of transmitters makes the need for chain of isnad not necessary. This does not mean that a statement that came from a fewer number of identified people has to be always inauthentic. The clues in the chain of isnad as well as the text of each hadeeth are to be studied for authenticity as ordered in 1736
Can the people of the book be considered Muslim? They have submitted to one God as per Abraham. As for Ibn Taymiyahh, I have read one translated essay of his, on the jinnee, and I like to avoid taking the word of a profound schizophrenic/hallucinator as fact without verification.
A person of the book is a muslim as long as he or she implemented what God asked and expected them to do. A person of the book who never heard of Muhammad is a muslim as long as they do what they needed to do. If however, they knew about Muhammad (pbuh) and understood his message in a way that God deems adequate, then refusing the messengership of the prophet moves them out of Islam. Why? because Islam is doing what God wanted you to do at that time and place and environment that you are in.
The Qur'an did mention that the pagans prayed at the "masjd Haram". Does that make the Qur'an a book that asks us to worship in the same place that the pagans did? will you conclude that the Qur'an is asking us to return to paganism because of this shared element?
Please provide reference.
Read sura number 9
Did the prophets(P.B.U.T.) say "amen" in their prayers/salat? For instance, after reciting Al-Fateha? What did Abraham say, " "? What did he do after prostration in the second, and fourth rakats of 4-rakat prayers, and in the 2nd and 3rd rakats of 3-rakat prayers?
1- Read my definition of Islam.
2- The prophet led prayers. The one who leads prayer does not usually Say Amen. The people who followed him, some of them said Amen and others did not. He approved both.
3- God does not ask us to witness on what does not exist yet. God did not ask Araham to witness on Muhammad. God did ask Abraham to have iman= safety and trust in Ghayb= unperceived. Muhammad at that time would be of the ghayb.
4- The way the last messenger prayed is what matters for those that came after him, not the way the earlier messenger prayed.Wakas, my point still stands. You cannot reconcile all the time that the Qur'an is clear and self explained and detailed, yet you all still stumble badly on the some of the more important Qur'anic concepts. It is something for all of you to ponder.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
-
peace Hussein,
Wakas, my point still stands. You cannot reconcile all the time that the Qur'an is clear and self explained and detailed, yet you all still stumble badly on the some of the more important Qur'anic concepts. It is something for all of you to ponder.
Thanks for the advice. I hope you also ponder upon my advice on incorrect word usage.
-
Your following God alone is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.
Peace Hussein,
Your following the messenger is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.
Use the mirror...
-
Salaam all, OPF,
There is an important omission in your meaning. It is sayings that lead to nothing, or at least, nothing in the path of God. So, to accuse all the body of hadeeth as leading to nothing in the path of God, then you have to prove the statement true for every single hadeeth. Conversely, one can point to many of your points as being just that.
Concealing is suppressing information and something that God clearly condemned. As for the stoning issue. It was discussed in it's area. However, the proponents of that law do not conceal anything nor suppress or forget anything. they make their point without forgettting any aya or suppressing it. Ijtihad is not about concealing. It is about collecting all the relevant statement of the text to arrive at the best solution. A person who works on concealment should not do ijtihad.As for you guys, Layth believes that it should be the full moon of a month later than Ayman. Others will follow Sunni thought. Others will say it is only abstaining. In palestine, the hottest month in Yaffa on the coast is July, while Jerusalem has the hottest month in August or vice versa. Does that mean that the people of Yaffa have to fast in a different period of time than the people of Jerusalem who live 40 miles away?
Sunnis and shias fast the same month. Sometimes they have a day difference.
The Qur'an talked about congregation Salat on fridays and congregation prayers with the messenger leading. You cannot have a congregation Salat when there is not a minimum of consensus.
1- The way tafseel al kitab is translated is not accurate. Tafseel means delineation/ separation and differentiation. It is about outlines and not about explanation and detail.
2- The same Aya tells you that kitab and Qur'an are not one and the same. They are included one in another and the Qur'an is included in the Kitab. Source the rest of the Qur'an tells you that when you look for Qur'an and kitab. Kitab is always wider and more encompassing than the Qur'an. This prevents one from understanding the Qur'an as more encompassing, whether in this Aya or another.
3- So what does Tafseel alkitab mean gives clear outline of the book. The outlines are in the Qur'an, the details are in the book.
When you use AL before a word in Arabic, it means that the listener knows what you are talking about. So, when the Qur'an came to the Arabs and mentioned AL RAsool, then they knew what he was talking about. The only Rasool that they knew was Muhammad.Source books of arabic grammar.
I would throw your argument against you. 1736 does not say reject. It says do not follow what you do not know, and then it gives you tools to make you know. It is an order to verify and not an order to reject. You then have to verify every claim that is being attributed to the prophet and not simply reject it without study. As for conjecture, it is conjecture when you all read the same clear and detailed book, but arrive at a widely varying understandings.
1- I speak Arabic. I believe that the Qur'an is authentic. I can appreciate it's literary miracle. You do not speak Arabic. You cannot prove that the Qur'an is a literary miracle. You have to depend on others telling you that.2- As for science, even scientists cannot prove except what is in their field. You will have to trust what scientists tell you in order to conclude a miracle. In addition, many scientists attacked the Qur'an on other grounds and the scientists who claimed a miracle. Who do you believe?
3- In both of the above you are depending on experts. Why do reject the experts of hadeeth? you will say because they accepted nonsense. I will respond by asking have you read their expert opinions on what you deemed as nonsense? especially books that provide commentary on hadeeth?
4- As for the Isnad. The Qur'an came to us, mostly orally from a lot of people. The high number of transmitters makes the need for chain of isnad not necessary. This does not mean that a statement that came from a fewer number of identified people has to be always inauthentic. The clues in the chain of isnad as well as the text of each hadeeth are to be studied for authenticity as ordered in 1736
A person of the book is a muslim as long as he or she implemented what God asked and expected them to do. A person of the book who never heard of Muhammad is a muslim as long as they do what they needed to do. If however, they knew about Muhammad (pbuh) and understood his message in a way that God deems adequate, then refusing the messengership of the prophet moves them out of Islam. Why? because Islam is doing what God wanted you to do at that time and place and environment that you are in.
Read sura number 9
1- Read my definition of Islam.
2- The prophet led prayers. The one who leads prayer does not usually Say Amen. The people who followed him, some of them said Amen and others did not. He approved both.
3- God does not ask us to witness on what does not exist yet. God did not ask Araham to witness on Muhammad. God did ask Abraham to have iman= safety and trust in Ghayb= unperceived. Muhammad at that time would be of the ghayb.
4- The way the last messenger prayed is what matters for those that came after him, not the way the earlier messenger prayed.Wakas, my point still stands. You cannot reconcile all the time that the Qur'an is clear and self explained and detailed, yet you all still stumble badly on the some of the more important Qur'anic concepts. It is something for all of you to ponder.
Take care and have a great day.
Hussein
Peace, thanks for the reply.
There is an important omission in your meaning. It is sayings that lead to nothing, or at least, nothing in the path of God. So, to accuse all the body of hadeeth as leading to nothing in the path of God, then you have to prove the statement true for every single hadeeth. Conversely, one can point to many of your points as being just that.
Concealing is suppressing information and something that God clearly condemned. As for the stoning issue. It was discussed in it's area. However, the proponents of that law do not conceal anything nor suppress or forget anything. they make their point without forgettting any aya or suppressing it. Ijtihad is not about concealing. It is about collecting all the relevant statement of the text to arrive at the best solution. A person who works on concealment should not do ijtihad.
Firstly, I meant the term "hadeeth", not the entire phrase. Can you deny that "baseless hadeeth" does not encompass ALL hadeeth that are baseless?. If you remember, information is to be verified especially if it can harms people (ref 496). So, each such hadeeth will be taken accordingly (please do not keep perpetuating that strawman, it has already been repeatedly clarified that baseless hadeeth are rejected). Remember that the slightest thing can cause harm to people.
You also failed to understand that I stated you should not associate the personal faults of people with the general concept. If you remember, the entire Western world including media is doing exactly that. Are you taking examples from them, I wonder...
As for the ayat being supressed - 242-245 has the ruling. Please explain where the Quran makes a distinction between adultery and fornication, with reference. More specifically, please explain how the term "zina" does not mean both. There is also a difference in the punishment - 425 shows halving it, 3330 doubled for wives of the prophet. Please explain how you halve and double stoning. Of course, 3330 places the emphasis on God, so you can leave that, but you still must explain how punishment is halved.
Finally, please keep in mind the difference between intention and stupidity/obliviousness. Remember Occam's Razor and in this case, the rule "Without all information, never attribute evil intent to what can be ascribed to as stupidity". Yes, I agree that people intentionally concealing truth should never be in such a position.
As for you guys, Layth believes that it should be the full moon of a month later than Ayman. Others will follow Sunni thought. Others will say it is only abstaining. In palestine, the hottest month in Yaffa on the coast is July, while Jerusalem has the hottest month in August or vice versa. Does that mean that the people of Yaffa have to fast in a different period of time than the people of Jerusalem who live 40 miles away?
Sunnis and shias fast the same month. Sometimes they have a day difference.
Thanks.
The Qur'an talked about congregation Salat on fridays and congregation prayers with the messenger leading. You cannot have a congregation Salat when there is not a minimum of consensus.
Please provide a reference for the underlined and emphasised words. Otherwise correct.
1- The way tafseel al kitab is translated is not accurate. Tafseel means delineation/ separation and differentiation. It is about outlines and not about explanation and detail.
2- The same Aya tells you that kitab and Qur'an are not one and the same. They are included one in another and the Qur'an is included in the Kitab. Source the rest of the Qur'an tells you that when you look for Qur'an and kitab. Kitab is always wider and more encompassing than the Qur'an. This prevents one from understanding the Qur'an as more encompassing, whether in this Aya or another.
3- So what does Tafseel alkitab mean gives clear outline of the book. The outlines are in the Qur'an, the details are in the book.
When you use AL before a word in Arabic, it means that the listener knows what you are talking about. So, when the Qur'an came to the Arabs and mentioned AL RAsool, then they knew what he was talking about. The only Rasool that they knew was Muhammad.Yes it may do. Please explain this
010.037
YUSUFALI This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
PICKTHAL And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be invented in despite of Allah; but it is a confirmation of that which was before it and an exposition of that which is decreed for mankind - Therein is no doubt - from the Lord of the Worlds.
SHAKIR And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.
KHALIFA This Quran could not possibly be authored by other than GOD. It confirms all previous messages, and provides a fully detailed scripture. It is infallible, for it comes from the Lord of the universe.
AHMED ALI This Qur'an is not such (a writ) as could be composed by anyone but God. It confirms what has been revealed before, and is an exposition of (Heaven's) law. Without any doubt it's from the Lord of all the worlds.
MUHAMMAD MUHSIN KHAN And this Qur'?n is not such as could ever be produced by other than All?h (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation)] which was before it , and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alam?n (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).
ASAD Now this Qur'an could not possibly have been devised by anyone save God nay indeed, it confirms the truth of whatever there still remains and clearly spells out the revelation -let there be no doubt about it-from the Sustainer of all the worlds.Please explain why 4 traditionalists and 3 contemporaries translated f-s-l as "exposition" instead of "clarification" and 1 extrapolated the meaning.
When you use AL before a word in Arabic, it means that the listener knows what you are talking about. So, when the Qur'an came to the Arabs and mentioned AL RAsool, then they knew what he was talking about. The only Rasool that they knew was Muhammad.
My book of Arabic grammar simply says the prefix "al" indicated definiteness and nothing else. Please avoid the circular argument. They evidently knew of many rasool before Muhammad, please explain why "obey the messenger" was not taken to mean Jesus even though Jesus died 600 years prior, whereas it suddenly means "Muhammad" when Muhammad died 1400 years prior. The only argument you can put forth is that they had a living messenger amongst them - well, I have news for you - there are no messengers/prophets amongst us now.
I would throw your argument against you. 1736 does not say reject. It says do not follow what you do not know, and then it gives you tools to make you know. It is an order to verify and not an order to reject. You then have to verify every claim that is being attributed to the prophet and not simply reject it without study. As for conjecture, it is conjecture when you all read the same clear and detailed book, but arrive at a widely varying understandings.
1736 coupled with other verses such as 496 and 316 make it clear that baseless information that will cause people to stray from the path of Allah and may cause harm to people should be rejected if authentication fails. Please remember that the state PRIOR to hearing this news is a state of not knowing, which is equivalent to the state of the information not existing, which in turn is equivalent to the information being false. If the information is true, then the equivalent state prior to hearing news is assuming without verification. I simply do not understand how you can miss such simple logic. You also misunderstood my argument. The argument is simple - by not verifying the information according to 1736 and instead using BELIEF to carry on, you are in error. The meaning of 1736 was correctly used, and there was no issue as to whether it meant reject or accept.
As for conjecture, it is conjecture when you all read the same clear and detailed book, but arrive at a widely varying understandings.
Incorrect. It is divergence "when you all read the same clear and detailed book, but arrive at a widely varying understandings". Please understand. It is CONJECTURE BASED ON HEARSAY when you say "X said that Y said that Z said that A said that B said that G said that H said that R was with rasuloolullah who said ABCDEFG" and then take this HEARSAY and find another "B said that I said that L said that D said that N said that E said that H said that R was with rasuloolullah who said ABCDEHG" and create a CONJECTURE that because both X and B said the same initial narrator, then X and B are correct. There is no way to verify this without a time machine. It is HEARSAY, and this is undeniable and will never be otherwise.
1- I speak Arabic. I believe that the Qur'an is authentic. I can appreciate it's literary miracle. You do not speak Arabic. You cannot prove that the Qur'an is a literary miracle. You have to depend on others telling you that.
Thank you for supporting my argument. So there are now two methods - the literary method and the scientific method - to deriving the Quran. As one who only has a brief knowledge of Arabic, far less than the average Arab school kid, I have to resort to method 2. Which still stands out, far and wide. Please tell me, does fire not originate from the green tree? Again, let's clarify The green in a tree comes from clorophyll, which is responsible for photosynthesis, producing oxygen. The bark of the tree and the lignin is hence taken and COMBINED WITH THE OXYGEN FROM THE PROCESS to create... fire. Please tell me how your literary miracle in any way, shape, or form negates this. I would LOVE to hear it. Also, I can learn Arabic. You forgot that slight tidbit.
2- As for science, even scientists cannot prove except what is in their field. You will have to trust what scientists tell you in order to conclude a miracle. In addition, many scientists attacked the Qur'an on other grounds and the scientists who claimed a miracle. Who do you believe?
You are correct. When the evidence mounts up, however, especially in this given case (simple verification can be found by referring to the very simple experiment done by Joseph Priestly - like the "science" of unverifiable hearsay, this is also very very simple, a school child can do it). Please remember 1736, this rules out history in certain ways. As for what they attacked, that can also be refuted wholesale. Where are your sources? Answering Islam and others which depend on dubious translations, out of context verses and other things and partly, the work of Sunnis themselves extrapolating "miracles" from the Quran which have never existed. There is a difference between "miracle" and "sign".
3- In both of the above you are depending on experts. Why do reject the experts of hadeeth? you will say because they accepted nonsense. I will respond by asking have you read their expert opinions on what you deemed as nonsense? especially books that provide commentary on hadeeth?
Joseph Priestly's experiments were hardly "expert" level. The whole "expert level" idea of science only comes into play within the early 1900s and such, mathematics not included. Everything prior can be understood by ANYONE with a good grasp of reality, and this is very common. On the other hand, hadeeth experts have ZERO self-verification. Please show me a hadeeth expert that claims he has full verification and authenticity, and I will show you a complete liar and hypocrite. On the other hand, physics by its very nature can be verified by ANYONE. Please do not discard the work of early Muslims scientists who also indulged in this kuffar habit, even if the science of trimming the beard is indeed better.
4- As for the Isnad. The Qur'an came to us, mostly orally from a lot of people. The high number of transmitters makes the need for chain of isnad not necessary. This does not mean that a statement that came from a fewer number of identified people has to be always inauthentic. The clues in the chain of isnad as well as the text of each hadeeth are to be studied for authenticity as ordered in 1736
Isnad is negated almost wholesale by the simple fact that anyone with a mere grasp of pre-1900 physics and some post-1900 can verify the Quran to be truthful in its claim. The Quran is indeed truthful, it just so happens that some of the truths are difficult to verify - the laws and others, requiring a historical example - whereas other truths are easy to verify - contemporary examples. As you know, the Quran clearly comes out in truth when compared to reality. Unlike many "sahih" hadeeth. Please tell me about these clues, I love hearing about conjecture and hearsay. If I remember correctly, Bukhari travelled to Egypt and avoided recording a hadeeth because the narrator decieved his horse (ref Nun de Plume's post in a previous thread). Again, the clues are mere conjecture and unverifiable hearsay. So now we have conjecture used to verify hearsay, hearsay which mocks the messenger, hearsay which Sunnis are now encompassed by. A difficult truth of the Quran (see previous post), proven by the example of Sunnis, Shia, Christians and Jews, all of whom mock their messengers and ascribe to them (and Allah) things they themselves would not dream of.
A person of the book is a muslim as long as he or she implemented what God asked and expected them to do. A person of the book who never heard of Muhammad is a muslim as long as they do what they needed to do. If however, they knew about Muhammad (pbuh) and understood his message in a way that God deems adequate, then refusing the messengership of the prophet moves them out of Islam. Why? because Islam is doing what God wanted you to do at that time and place and environment that you are in.
Good. Good definition. Unfortunately, those who convert to Judaism and Christianity or simply fall away from Sunni-ism and Shia-ism are called kafir and have prices on their heads.
Read sura number 9
Please provide an exact reference, the least you could do when referring to the book of Allah.
Presently I understand you refer to this
009.107
YUSUFALI And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
PICKTHAL And as for those who chose a place of worship out of opposition and disbelief, and in order to cause dissent among the believers, and as an outpost for those who warred against Allah and His messenger aforetime, they will surely swear We purposed naught save good. Allah beareth witness that they verily are liars.
SHAKIR And those who built a masjid to cause harm and for unbelief and to cause disunion among the believers and an ambush to him who made war against Allah and His Messenger before; and they will certainly swear We did not desire aught but good; and Allah bears witness that they are most surely liars.009.108
YUSUFALI Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.
PICKTHAL Never stand (to pray) there. A place of worship which was found upon duty (to Allah) from the first day is more worthy that thou shouldst stand (to pray) therein, wherein are men who love to purify themselves. Allah loveth the purifiers.
SHAKIR Never stand in it; certainly a masjid founded on piety from the very first day is more deserving that you should stand in it; in it are men who love that they should be purified; and Allah loves those who purify themselves.009.109
YUSUFALI Which then is best? - he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure? - or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong.
PICKTHAL Is he who founded his building upon duty to Allah and His good pleasure better; or he who founded his building on the brink of a crumbling, overhanging precipice so that it toppled with him into the fire of hell? Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR Is he, therefore, better who lays his foundation on fear of Allah and (His) good pleasure, or he who lays his foundation on the edge of a cracking hollowed bank, so it broke down with him into the fire of hell; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.009.110
YUSUFALI The foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
PICKTHAL The building which they built will never cease to be a misgiving in their hearts unless their hearts be torn to pieces. Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR The building which they have built will ever continue to be a source of disquiet in their hearts, except that their hearts get cut into pieces; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.Please read 19108. Please explain what the "first day" means without referring to unverifiable conjecture and hearsay.
1- Read my definition of Islam.
2- The prophet led prayers. The one who leads prayer does not usually Say Amen. The people who followed him, some of them said Amen and others did not. He approved both.
3- God does not ask us to witness on what does not exist yet. God did not ask Araham to witness on Muhammad. God did ask Abraham to have iman= safety and trust in Ghayb= unperceived. Muhammad at that time would be of the ghayb.
4- The way the last messenger prayed is what matters for those that came after him, not the way the earlier messenger prayed.Good to see you acknowledged the existence of that text. I was under the impression it was lost in the matrix, as Agent Smith seems to love dodging.
1.) Please answer the question. This is rather important. Did Abraham say "amen" in his prayers or did he not? The definition of Islam is irrelevant.
2.) Please explain whether or not Muhammad said "amen" in his personal salat or not. All I wish to know is whether they used this word.
3.) Please then explain why Ahl Hadeeth (collective term, not colloquial) feel it is necessary to bear witness on something we have never seen and cannot possibly bear witness except through the Quran itself (631 and others, please notice the context of 631), as the word of Allah (ref circular argument).
4.) So Allah suddenly changes the deen practiced by Abraham and others. I see. Please provide evidence with respect to the Quran if you are indeed truthful.
peace
-
Peace Hussein,
Your following God alone is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.
Your following the messenger is really your following your own bias alone. It is a word of truth used to support falsehood.
Use the mirror...
Too bad for brother Hussein because
-
The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise."
-
The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise even if he commits adultery and even if he steals (i.e. even if he commits great sins)."
-
Adhana fi al-nasi anna man shahida an La ilaha illallah wahdahu la sharika lahu mukhlisan dakhala al-janna. "It was proclaimed among the people that whoever witnesses that there is no god except Allah, alone, without partner, enters Paradise."
8a. Man shahida an La ilaha illallah dakhala al-janna. "Whoever witnesses that there is no god but Allah alone enters Paradise."
And others. Ref http//www.sunnah.org/aqida/forty_hadith_merits_tahlil.htm#_ftn2
Please notice the fork in logic here. The correct logic is that "Whoever believes in Allah Alone", which is the minimum condition since it is spelt by itself in a separate saying, "will go to paradise". Bearing witness is optional, as is "Muhammad is his messenger".
yuck
-
-
Peace Leoxyz,
Peace to all
Did Muhammad (PBUH) exist "
What was his father's name ?
When did he start getting revelation ?
How did he spend his days and nights?
How many wives did he have?
Did Battle of Badar & Uhad take place ?
How did Muhammad (PBUH) used to say Salat ? (How many times /day) and How many Rakaat were there in each Salaat?
Was ther "Adhaan" before each Salaat or not at his time?
If Adhaan was there how were its words compiled ?Please answer these questions ,rest will come forward.
With reference please.I hope you are in the best condition when you read my post. I am not answering your questions directly here. I just want to share a bit which I believe related to your questions.
Just like other sunnis, when I was sunni I was taught about the history of the prophet. Here is the short version of the history
His father's name is Abdullah who died before the prophet was born. At the age of six, his mother died. Then he was raised by his grandfather Abdul Mutallib. At the age of eight, his grandfather passed away. Thereafter his uncle Abu Talib raised him. When the prophet was twenty five years old, Khadijah, a rich merchant widow, proposed marriage. She was forty when they got married. And then at the age of forty, he became the prophet after receiving the revelations for the first time. And ever since the prophet received revelations, he taught it to the people until he died at the age of around sixty.That is from my memory. And if you want references, there are many out there such as
http//www.cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html
(just googling by yourself)That is a very very short history taught to us. Now let us compare a portion of that history with quran. Before we proceed, I just want to remind you that one of the characteristics of the believers is they believe in the ghayb (the unseen) revealed to them from God. For example, the prophet and all believers believe in the ghayb revealed to them in quran even though they were not present.
344 This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger.) by inspiration Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).
Now, let's take a look at one of the ghayb, revealed to us from Our Lord.
1723 Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour.
The ayat above reveals the ghayb to us that at the time the prophet received revelations he still had both father and mother. If we compare the ghayb revealed to us and the narrations collected centuries after the demise of the prophet, we can see clearly they are very different. This difference is not a small difference at all because one is telling us the prophet had no father when he was born and had no mother when he was six while the other is telling us he still had both at the time he received revelations.
Wassalam,
Ade -
Salaam all, OPF,
Firstly, I meant the term "hadeeth", not the entire phrase. Can you deny that "baseless hadeeth" does not encompass ALL hadeeth that are baseless?. If you remember, information is to be verified especially if it can harms people (ref 496). So, each such hadeeth will be taken accordingly (please do not keep perpetuating that strawman, it has already been repeatedly clarified that baseless hadeeth are rejected). Remember that the slightest thing can cause harm to people.
You cannot according to the Arabic language say I take only hadeeth without lahwa when the two are interlinked and inseparable. LAHWA alhadeeth is sayings that lead to nothing. period. I will link to another one of your statements that shows your poor logic
1736 coupled with other verses such as 496 and 316 make it clear that baseless information that will cause people to stray from the path of Allah and may cause harm to people should be rejected if authentication fails. Please remember that the state PRIOR to hearing this news is a state of not knowing, which is equivalent to the state of the information not existing, which in turn is equivalent to the information being false. If the information is true, then the equivalent state prior to hearing news is assuming without verification. I simply do not understand how you can miss such simple logic. You also misunderstood my argument. The argument is simple - by not verifying the information according to 1736 and instead using BELIEF to carry on, you are in error. The meaning of 1736 was correctly used, and there was no issue as to whether it meant reject or accept.
Wow. Unless you believe that you know every thing, then your statement has to be false. What you do not know can be true or false. It is true if it is existant and false if not existant. So, you have to verify everything you hear and not discard it completely. There are Ayat of the Qur'an that talk about people who reject statments of the Qur'an because "it did not make sense to them".
Secondly, statements of people, "hadeeth" are not only two categories as you like to think. They are three
1- Statements that you can prove are true.2- Statements that you prove are false. Those are "baseless hadeeth".
3- Statements that you cannot prove that they are true nor false. Those are not baseless hadeeth until you can prove them false. Those are the ones that God asks you to verify or try to verify and God does not ask you to reject it but to be careful with it as in 1736.
As for the ayat being supressed - 242-245 has the ruling. Please explain where the Quran makes a distinction between adultery and fornication, with reference. More specifically, please explain how the term "zina" does not mean both. There is also a difference in the punishment - 425 shows halving it, 3330 doubled for wives of the prophet. Please explain how you halve and double stoning. Of course, 3330 places the emphasis on God, so you can leave that, but you still must explain how punishment is halved.
The two Aya that you are putting forth are not talking about Zina per se. They are talking about Fahisha. Fahisha is more encompassing and therefore the double and half are about many things. I do not support stoning, but I do not reject hadeeth. I have my own way of doing it but that is not the scope of this discussion. However, the supporters of stoning will say. The rule of general and particular applies here and it can fit nicely. If you want to kick out the hadeeths of stoning, then go for it, you will not make all the hadeeth body baseless.
Finally, please keep in mind the difference between intention and stupidity/obliviousness. Remember Occam's Razor and in this case, the rule "Without all information, never attribute evil intent to what can be ascribed to as stupidity". Yes, I agree that people intentionally concealing truth should never be in such a position.
I will definitely give some of you the benefit of the doubt. Others are different. You all act as intelligent people with great understanding. You bring about an air of arrogance. The Qur'an is a small book and easily researchable, so missing important points in it is often because of bad intent rather than simple stupidity. At least one expects you guys to be a little more humble, which is a rare commodity amongst you.
The Qur'an talked about congregation Salat on fridays and congregation prayers with the messenger leading. You cannot have a congregation Salat when there is not a minimum of consensus.
Please provide a reference for the underlined and emphasised words. Otherwise correct.
Read surat Al Jumaa and the Ayat around 4102
Please explain why 4 traditionalists and 3 contemporaries translated f-s-l as "exposition" instead of "clarification" and 1 extrapolated the meaning.
Ask them. Generally, it is difficult for a translator to translate the concept of a word here "fsl" into another concept that fits perfectly. Their trials fit with part of the concept of fsl but not all and it misses on fine points.
My book of Arabic grammar simply says the prefix "al" indicated definiteness and nothing else. Please avoid the circular argument. They evidently knew of many rasool before Muhammad, please explain why "obey the messenger" was not taken to mean Jesus even though Jesus died 600 years prior, whereas it suddenly means "Muhammad" when Muhammad died 1400 years prior. The only argument you can put forth is that they had a living messenger amongst them - well, I have news for you - there are no messengers/prophets amongst us now.
Well, your book meant by definiteness that it is known to the listener. If your book did not mean that then look at other books of Sibawaeh and Raghib and you will find. The people of the time knew about other messengers, but they knew only one. ALRASOOL can mean other messengers if the context indicated it. The context of "obey the messenger" points only to one that they knew. For us, it still points to the same one. If the Qur'an wanted to say generic, it would have said Atioo rasoola= obey messenger. It DID NOT say that.
Incorrect. It is divergence "when you all read the same clear and detailed book, but arrive at a widely varying understandings". Please understand. It is CONJECTURE BASED ON HEARSAY when you say "X said that Y said that Z said that A said that B said that G said that H said that R was with rasuloolullah who said ABCDEFG" and then take this HEARSAY and find another "B said that I said that L said that D said that N said that E said that H said that R was with rasuloolullah who said ABCDEHG" and create a CONJECTURE that because both X and B said the same initial narrator, then X and B are correct. There is no way to verify this without a time machine. It is HEARSAY, and this is undeniable and will never be otherwise.
Sorry to burst your bubble. It is not divergence when at on one end of the spectrum, some of you pray like me and on the other end, they accuse them of idol worship. Those two ends are mutually exclusive. There are many things that one can get from the isnad system that is different from your rants.
You are correct. When the evidence mounts up, however, especially in this given case (simple verification can be found by referring to the very simple experiment done by Joseph Priestly - like the "science" of unverifiable hearsay, this is also very very simple, a school child can do it). Please remember 1736, this rules out history in certain ways. As for what they attacked, that can also be refuted wholesale. Where are your sources? Answering Islam and others which depend on dubious translations, out of context verses and other things and partly, the work of Sunnis themselves extrapolating "miracles" from the Quran which have never existed. There is a difference between "miracle" and "sign".
I am sorry. Your bring me an Aya that says "We make out of green trees fire" and then you make this into a big scientific theory. Cosmicdancer will have a hey day with that. They knew already that green trees become fire. I do not want to say that the Qur'an does not contain scientific stuff, but I am bringing your stretch out. This case does not cut it. Additionally, the Qur''an says things that some consider unscientific. "putting clay together and making it man" and so on and so forth. Ah wait, I forget, then you will have to forget about them for a while or play with them linguistically to make them fit. All this is a sign of faith built on shaky grounds. I am glad that you have faith. I worry about the shaky grounds or the conditional grounds on which it stands.
Please read 19108. Please explain what the "first day" means without referring to unverifiable conjecture and hearsay.
First day means first day in 9108. I then need to ask you
1- What does masjid mean? in that Aya?
2- When was that first day? or it did not happen untill your time?1.) Please answer the question. This is rather important. Did Abraham say "amen" in his prayers or did he not? The definition of Islam is irrelevant.
An Aya in surat Al baqara says that "you shall not be asked about what they were doing" God is not going to ask me. Why would I then have to answer you? that would be a Qur'anic baseless hadeeth.
2.) Please explain whether or not Muhammad said "amen" in his personal salat or not. All I wish to know is whether they used this word.
According to Bukhari he said but not always and he did not consider it part of the Qur'an.
3.) Please then explain why Ahl Hadeeth (collective term, not colloquial) feel it is necessary to bear witness on something we have never seen and cannot possibly bear witness except through the Quran itself (631 and others, please notice the context of 631), as the word of Allah (ref circular argument).
God does not ask us to witness on things that do not yet exist. As for things that existed, then we have to witness about them if we have enough evidence that they existed. The Qur'an is evidence that Muhammad existed, that he was a messenger and a prophet at the same time and that he was the messenger that was addressed in the Qur'an. If you witness that the Qur'an is the book of God, then you will have to, by default, witness that it came to His messenger Muhammad, (pbuh).
4.) So Allah suddenly changes the deen practiced by Abraham and others. I see. Please provide evidence with respect to the Quran if you are indeed truthful.
See answer number 1 as well as the Aya of abrogation in 2106
-
The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise."
-
The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said "Whoever says there is no god but Allah enters Paradise even if he commits adultery and even if he steals (i.e. even if he commits great sins)."
You say it in your heart and mind and tongue. Saying on the tongue without presence in the heart and mind does not count.
- Adhana fi al-nasi anna man shahida an La ilaha illallah wahdahu la sharika lahu mukhlisan dakhala al-janna. "It was proclaimed among the people that whoever witnesses that there is no god except Allah, alone, without partner, enters Paradise."
8a. Man shahida an La ilaha illallah dakhala al-janna. "Whoever witnesses that there is no god but Allah alone enters Paradise."
Witnessing is based on factual knowledge. The knowledge came to you and you witness accordingly. God provided us with all sorts of knowledge to witness His presence. If you believe the Qur'an and the Qur'an tells you that God witnesses that He is one, then will you not consider this knowledge? or not? Will you reject that God witnessed about himself as being proof, the strongest ever proof of His existance?
Ade cool,
The Aya starts with the single you and then moves to plural you when talking about parents. It was not talking to the prophet alone except at it's beginning. Your conclusion is then too stretched.
Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
-
Peace, thanks for the reply.
You cannot according to the Arabic language say I take only hadeeth without lahwa when the two are interlinked and inseparable. LAHWA alhadeeth is sayings that lead to nothing. period. I will link to another one of your statements that shows your poor logic
Wow. Unless you believe that you know every thing, then your statement has to be false. What you do not know can be true or false. It is true if it is existant and false if not existant. So, you have to verify everything you hear and not discard it completely. There are Ayat of the Qur'an that talk about people who reject statments of the Qur'an because "it did not make sense to them".Again you misunderstood. I am of the understanding "lahwa" restricts "ahadeeth" to the extent that only baseless hadeeth are included. So it makes a distinction - hadeeth with basis and hadeeth without basis. Please show the failed logic there. Judging by a different post of yours, you seem to believe I take "lahwa al-hadeeth" to mean all hadeeth. There is a distinction/delineation there. Please read my response to that. You would love to pin the "munkar e-hadeeth" label on me, a common tactic. You would be somewhat right in that respect, as I do indeed reject baseless hadeeth.
I will link to another one of your statements that shows your poor logic
Wow. Unless you believe that you know every thing, then your statement has to be false. What you do not know can be true or false. It is true if it is existant and false if not existant. So, you have to verify everything you hear and not discard it completely. There are Ayat of the Qur'an that talk about people who reject statments of the Qur'an because "it did not make sense to them".It appears I have to walk you through it. In REALITY, is there any falsehood? In this universe, are there any square circles, or invisible pink unicorns? No. This is self-evident because a circle and square are two distinct things, invisible and pink are also distinct and they are mutually incompatible. So, in reality, there is truth and truth only. 2 + 2 = 4, a simple truth. 2 apples combined with 2 more apples will make 4 apples existing, not 5 and not 4. Thus, it can be said that falsehood is that which does not exist, and truth is that which exists. Which you already said. I don't understand why you had a hiccup here. Now, suppose I place you atop a cliff and you are blindfolded. I tell you that there is a huge bouncy castle at the bottom of this cliff. You also have a parachute in your hand. You MUST jump.
What would you prefer Have faith in me, telling you there is a bouncy castle at the bottom (remember that you are blindfolded and have no method of perception to verify this aside from my own hadeeth), or simply use the parachute and be safe regardless of the truth or falsehood of my statement? Why will you choose the parachute here, but the hadeeth when it comes to the deen? Remember - do not trade God's revelations for cheap words (544). This simple thought experiment shows beyond doubt that the logic is correct, not weak. Please remember that there is no "sahih, hasan, da'if, or mauda when it comes to logic, there is only truth, and falsehood.
Secondly, statements of people, "hadeeth" are not only two categories as you like to think. They are three
1- Statements that you can prove are true.2- Statements that you prove are false. Those are "baseless hadeeth".
3- Statements that you cannot prove that they are true nor false. Those are not baseless hadeeth until you can prove them false. Those are the ones that God asks you to verify or try to verify and God does not ask you to reject it but to be careful with it as in 1736.
Item 3 centers on the fallacious notion that something is true until proven false. Incorrect. False until proven truth, sorry. In case 3, they are indeed baseless. Baselessness does not mean truth or falsehood, baselessness means whether or not the information is of use. Every hadeeth can thus be classified as thus, and false hadeeth are always baseless. Hadeeth with a base are those backed by the Quran and contemporary evidence, including common sense. Baseless hadeeth can be absolute truth yet still baseless. Regardless, you fully agreed with my logic (truth is existant, falsehood isn't) but skirted the issue in any case, without considering the obvious options. May I remind you that we are here not to "win" but to make the truth distinct and as such, objectiveness is a requirement.
The two Aya that you are putting forth are not talking about Zina per se. They are talking about Fahisha. Fahisha is more encompassing and therefore the double and half are about many things. I do not support stoning, but I do not reject hadeeth. I have my own way of doing it but that is not the scope of this discussion. However, the supporters of stoning will say. The rule of general and particular applies here and it can fit nicely. If you want to kick out the hadeeths of stoning, then go for it, you will not make all the hadeeth body baseless.
Fahisha, an even more encompassing term. So there is no distinction but there is even more generalisation. As for the hadeeth of stoning, the Quran itself kicks out these hadeeth as baseless. Is it not funny that when a Quran alone person interprets a verse differently or puts forth exegesis, they are accused of "tahreef", yet this is simply called "abrogation"? Truly ridiculous.
I will definitely give some of you the benefit of the doubt. Others are different. You all act as intelligent people with great understanding. You bring about an air of arrogance. The Qur'an is a small book and easily researchable, so missing important points in it is often because of bad intent rather than simple stupidity. At least one expects you guys to be a little more humble, which is a rare commodity amongst you.
The same can be said for all sides. Please refrain from personal attacks and stay on topic. Arrogance depends on perception. I don't believe I have ever accused someone of acting arrogant even when my blood boiled from their statements and I expect similar courtesy.
Read surat Al Jumaa and the Ayat around 4102Ask them. Generally, it is difficult for a translator to translate the concept of a word here "fsl" into another concept that fits perfectly. Their trials fit with part of the concept of fsl but not all and it misses on fine points.Well, your book meant by definiteness that it is known to the listener. If your book did not mean that then look at other books of Sibawaeh and Raghib and you will find. The people of the time knew about other messengers, but they knew only one. ALRASOOL can mean other messengers if the context indicated it. The context of "obey the messenger" points only to one that they knew. For us, it still points to the same one. If the Qur'an wanted to say generic, it would have said Atioo rasoola= obey messenger. It DID NOT say that.
I sought a reference for the term "Friday". Not the congregation. The specific act of Friday Sabbath, sorry, congregation. By your own admission, you have stated f-s-l does convey the perception of detail, in addition to distinctness. Partially or not.
The people of the time knew about other messengers, but they knew only one.
Argument addressed. Sorry, but I know nobody called "Muhammad" who claims to be a prophet and messenger of Allah. This is, of course, part of the "Muhammad is the messenger to all mankind" doctrine. Even when it is clear he is the seal of the nabis, not rasools, and when Allah states that messengers will come to all people on the verge of destruction (2859). Look again, the destruction of peoples, i.e. genocide has NEVER ceased in human history. One Quranic aya is nearing fulfillment (17104) in the state of Israel, who are indeed a mingled crowd and who even have declared themselves to have the same name as in the Quran. Such fallacious thoughts and idealogy comes from people with an equally fallacious perception of Allah as anthropomorphic, actively judging on people, even when clear signs are shown to them that they memorize.
ALRASOOL can mean other messengers if the context indicated it. The context of "obey the messenger" points only to one that they knew. For us, it still points to the same one. If the Qur'an wanted to say generic, it would have said Atioo rasoola= obey messenger. It DID NOT say that.
Of course, when hadeeth are advocated. So
Hadeeth should be used because Quran says "Obey the messenger", and hadeeth state the messenger is Muhammad.
The Quran on the other hand clarifies this in a far better way - Muhammad practised exactly the same deen as of his predecessors (4213) and exactly the same message (16123), meaning that directly or indirectly, OBEYING THE MESSENGER IS A GENERIC TERM (688-90). Language alone does not convey that. If Arabic is anything like English, using the indefinite article in such a context would also be extremely poor language.
Sorry to burst your bubble. It is not divergence when at on one end of the spectrum, some of you pray like me and on the other end, they accuse them of idol worship. Those two ends are mutually exclusive. There are many things that one can get from the isnad system that is different from your rants.
Free-minds forum is not an organisation as far as I see and people are free to believe what they wish. For instance, there is zero consensus on whether God exists or not on this forum, let alone salat. This tends to happen when multiple individuals come together from various approaches of life and each have their own story to tell. As for accusations of idol worship, if it is backed up, then it is correct, period, otherwise it is slander. This also reminds me, if you would like to explain why I am condemned to hell by hadeeth for not obeying the ritualistic salat even as 443 states that one must understand salat to do it. Also, please explain what benefits the act of sunni flavour ritual salat itself brings forth. Not the act of adhering to a routine 5 times a day, because I could also do sit-ups 5 times a day, but the simple act of those rituals. What benefit does a person derive from uttering foreign incantations 5 times a day, please explain.
Finally, I would like to see evidence for these many things that can be derived from the chinese whispers chain, and if it is not conjecture or baseless hadeeth, then I will accept it as I accept certain hadeeth, even though the Quran itself negates any necessity.
I am sorry. Your bring me an Aya that says "We make out of green trees fire" and then you make this into a big scientific theory. Cosmicdancer will have a hey day with that. They knew already that green trees become fire. I do not want to say that the Qur'an does not contain scientific stuff, but I am bringing your stretch out. This case does not cut it. Additionally, the Qur''an says things that some consider unscientific. "putting clay together and making it man" and so on and so forth. Ah wait, I forget, then you will have to forget about them for a while or play with them linguistically to make them fit. All this is a sign of faith built on shaky grounds. I am glad that you have faith. I worry about the shaky grounds or the conditional grounds on which it stands.
Incorrect. The beauty of Quran is that the understanding comes from the superficial understanding that "if I burn this tree, fire comes out" to the slightly deeper "photosynthesis results in oxygen and the green pigment is associated with this process". So, there is no blame on me if I make it to be a "big scientific theory". Indeed, it is "big scientific FACT". Remember the distinction between truth and falsehood, truth exists, falsehood does not. The simple fact remains that the truth here EXISTS, the Quran puts this truth, and there is NOTHING you can do to negate this in favour of your precious hearsay narrations. I do not give two s***s if "cosmicdancer will have a hey day with that", I care only about reality, what is apparent and the distinction between truth and falsehood. This is indeed made clear, if we go back to the f-s-l root. Please, PLEASE show me where there is stretching. It is pure logical truth there as far as I percieve.
As for putting clay together to make men, please read what theory Richard Dawkins, the greatest contemporary islamophobe, subscribes to in terms of the origin of man. Again, your futile attempt to negate Quranic wisdom with hearsay narrations based on hearsay narrations comes directly back into your face. Clayparticles is a standing theory as of yet. It is only a matter of time. There is zero faith here. I have personally verified that which I can of this, and there are no shaky grounds or conditional grounds as far as I see. So, please explain and put forth your evidence that "the case does not cut it" if you are truthful. But if you cannot, I have only one thing to say to you
Who is more wicked than he who forges a lie against Allah (excerpt 693)
By rejecting science, you reject reality, and by rejecting reality, you consequently reject the Quran, you are simply digging a very deep hole for yourself through this act - if you are indeed rejecting it all - please clarify whether you do not accept
a) All of science
b) The Quran
c) The work of scientists who claim the Quran does not agree with their views, ex. clay man origins.First day means first day in 9108. I then need to ask you
1- What does masjid mean? in that Aya?
2- When was that first day? or it did not happen untill your time?Thank you.
1 - Masjid is defined in the next and preceding ayat. The distinction there is made between physical and conceptual. It is also made distinct which is physical and which is conceptual.
2 - Is this question intended as satire?An Aya in surat Al baqara says that "you shall not be asked about what they were doing" God is not going to ask me. Why would I then have to answer you? that would be a Qur'anic baseless hadeeth.
It is important because deen is all-encompassing and if Muhammad only followed the deen of Nuh and Moses and others including Abraham, then it can only follow he performed the concept of salat in precisely the same way - since this is indeed a fundamental part of the deen for those who believe and are versed. Presumeably you will be asked about whether you followed the deen of Ibrahim and Muhammad, since that is the very deen by that the righteous will be judged and determined as such. We are not talking specifically about the prophets, but by the deen they followed. The deen does not change, salat is an integral part of the deen, simple as that. If Abraham did indeed say "amen" in his prayers, it would shed new meaning on 2134
According to Bukhari he said but not always and he did not consider it part of the Qur'an.
Thank you. It is a good thing 2134 is there, and the prophet was only human.
God does not ask us to witness on things that do not yet exist. As for things that existed, then we have to witness about them if we have enough evidence that they existed. The Qur'an is evidence that Muhammad existed, that he was a messenger and a prophet at the same time and that he was the messenger that was addressed in the Qur'an. If you witness that the Qur'an is the book of God, then you will have to, by default, witness that it came to His messenger Muhammad, (pbuh).
The Quran does not command us to bear witness anything of the two, in this life, period. The only such mention I see places those who bear witness as hypocrites. Please provide a reference for this statement
If you witness that the Qur'an is the book of God, then you will have to, by default, witness that it came to His messenger Muhammad, (pbuh).
I would like a direct link or logic showing Muhammad to be sent the Quran; in the Quran.
See answer number 1 as well as the Aya of abrogation in 2106
Ah yes, the most important ayat of the hearsay followers used to justify their hearsay and inject it into the deen, just as malware writers use buffer overflows to give credence to their code and inject it into the host process. Unfortunately, 2106 is distorted in such a way.
For instance, the same phrase in some verses of the rest of the Quran
And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure. S. 2118
Yet if thou shouldst bring to those that have been given the Book every sign (ayatun), they will not follow thy direction; thou art not a follower of their direction, neither are they followers of one another's direction. If thou followest their caprices, after the knowledge that has come to thee, then thou wilt surely be among the evildoers. S. 2145
They also say, 'Why has no sign (ayatun) been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say 'Surely God is able to send down a sign (ayatan), but most of them know not.' S. 637
They have sworn by God the most earnest oaths if a sign (ayatun) comes to them they will believe in it. Say 'Signs (al-ayatu) are only with God.' What will make you realize that, when it comes, they will not believe? S. 6109
They say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say 'The Unseen belongs only to God. Then watch and wait; I shall be with you watching and waiting.' S. 1020
The unbelievers say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Thou art ONLY a warner, and a guide to every people. S. 137
So, of course, it means "signs" unless it is used to place Allah's digital signature on malware. And amongst them are those who accept baseless ahadeeth to distract from God's revelations...
The deen is never changed, but Allah brings forth different signs each time. Makes far more sense for an omnipotent, omniscient being, one would say.
You say it in your heart and mind and tongue. Saying on the tongue without presence in the heart and mind does not count.
Irrelevant detail. "Qul" in Arabic has very similar connotations to "say" in English and the meaning I intended (as in the quote) fits well within.
Witnessing is based on factual knowledge. The knowledge came to you and you witness accordingly. God provided us with all sorts of knowledge to witness His presence. If you believe the Qur'an and the Qur'an tells you that God witnesses that He is one, then will you not consider this knowledge? or not? Will you reject that God witnessed about himself as being proof, the strongest ever proof of His existance?
So God tells me that he has created the worlds, so I should claim I have created the worlds? Remember, Allah alone is sufficient as a witness (479, 4166; malaika's witness negated). So, when God bears witness that Muhammad is his messenger and God is the lord of the worlds, I bear witness that God has beared witness that Muhammad is his messenger and God is the lord of the words. Significant difference, but something that flies over the heads of people.
Perhaps the most obvious sign thus far that Quran alone is 100% viable is that I have thus far yet to use any external source aside from the Quran and the physical reality to justify it, and I am also rehashing very, very old arguments - which will continue to make sense, regardless of time.
To each their own.
Edit Addendum -
An Aya in surat Al baqara says that "you shall not be asked about what they were doing" God is not going to ask me. Why would I then have to answer you? that would be a Qur'anic baseless hadeeth.
Please note that this logic can be reversed (verse 2134) and negates the primary concept of Sunni-ism wholesale, the idea that sunnah = practices of the messenger because Muhammad followed the deen of Abraham and Muslims are commanded to also follow the deen of Abraham, directly. In addition to that, it follows logically that if Abraham is hailed as the origination point of Islam, or one of the origination points, then the term sunnah must clearly mean "practice of Abraham" not "practice of Muhammad". This either means the "sunna" is ever changing (see tahreed, hearsay, abrogation) or that the sunna does not exist in the form ascribed to by traditionalists.
Well, your book meant by definiteness that it is known to the listener
Just a clarification, definiteness in this context is meant as the idea of adding "the" to a noun, indefiniteness hence signifies adding "a" to a noun. These are very common linguistic terms.
2130 shows Islam described as the deen of Abraham, please show a reference that describes Islam as the deen of Muhammad.
More to follow, possibly. I know there are possibly certain points of the argument I have failed to address, and certain points where I have failed to make further logical exposition.
-
Another tampering
Actual aya is
2130Show me where is this description in this aya "islam described as deen of Ibrahim"
Sorry, my mistake. The word is millat and hence religion, not deen. I was relying on memory and memory failed. Also, translations use deen and millat and religion interchangeably.
Regardless, ad-deen is compared to the millat of Abraham in 2278.
Sorry to disturb your highness, brother Agent Smith. In any case, please direct your questions to Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthal and Muhammad Habeeb Shakir.
In any case, nice try. Shame it did not work this time. Better luck next time. Etc.
-
Sorry, my mistake. The word is millat and hence religion, not deen. I was relying on memory and memory failed. Also, translations use deen and millat and religion interchangeably.
Regardless, ad-deen is compared to millat in 2278.
Sorry to disturb your highness, brother Agent Smith. In any case, please direct your questions to Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickthal and Muhammad Habeeb Shakir.
Dear Brother ;
That is nice to see that you have started realizing your faults.Inshallah one day you will will be on right path.
You saidSorry to disturb your highness, brother Agent Smith.
Regarding it I would like to remind you an aya
4911
-
I would also like to remind you that the point still stands based on 2278. A simple human error is precisely that, a simple human error, and if our brother Hussein wished, he could have easily called that to attention (not that your calling was in vain).
As for the aya, I am well aware of that. Please remember that the reason for such a nickname is self-evident. Your continued criticism is borderline arrogance, again, something self-evident.
Please have a read through of this http//www.islamworld.net/faults.html
-
Please have a read through of this http//www.islamworld.net/faults.html
Dear
Again it is a good sign.
This link is full of Ahadeeth;
Thanks for accepting the importance of Ahadeeth.
Allah has responded to my prayer in my previous thread.
Again I appreciate your courage to accept the Truth. -
Dear
Again it is a good sign.
This link is full of Ahadeeth;
Thanks for accepting the importance of Ahadeeth.
Allah has responded to my prayer in my previous thread.
Again I appreciate your courage to accept the Truth.Actually, please read up on "devil's advocate". Inshallah you will find it. If the seal is broken.
The funny thing is that you need hearsay to tell you a universal truth. But this can be expected from he who enquires about optional details.
-
Actually, please read up on "devil's advocate". Inshallah you will find it. If the seal is broken.
The funny thing is that you need hearsay to tell you a universal truth. But this can be expected from he who enquires about optional details.
Dear
You are taking the shelter of "Ahadeeth" .Why?
Have I ever quoted a single hadeeth ?
This is what I am stating again and again.Quranists have double standards.
If something appeals their wishes ,they get its support.
If something does not appeal their wishes ,they reject it.
This is a fresh example.
Bashing ahadeeths ,then taking their shelter ? Is this not "Licking one's own vomit"??
The Holy Quran says
613
